Chaetura gierrae Oustalet, 1890 (1 Viewer)

[l_raty]

Wasn't his name at birth here p. 41 of 489 not Guillaume Révoil? If the link do not work here Cote 5 E 3793.

I read this as Guillaume Reboul.
The birth of Georges Emmanuel Joseph Révoil was declared on 26 Jan 1852: same register, 43/489, #141 (upper right).

 

[Taphrospilus]

So Wikipedia wrong with 24 Jan 1852? Or is 26. only the date of declaration and birth was earlier?

 

[l_raty]

So Wikipedia wrong with 24 Jan 1852? Or is 26. only the date of declaration and birth was earlier?

The latter.

[...] est comparu en l'hôtel de ville Henri Révoil, architecte, âgé de vingt-six ans, domicilié à Nimes section neuf rue de la Paix et lequel nous a déclaré que Anaïs Baragnon, sans profession, âgée de vingt-deux ans, son épouse, est accouché dans son domicile au dit Nimes, le vingt-quatre du courant, à six heures du soir, d'un enfant mâle qu'il nous a présenté et auquel il a donné les prénoms de George Emmanuel Joseph

(Just in case you didn't notice : you can get a high-definition scan of the page by clicking 'HD' in the toolbar at the bottom of the screen.)

 

[PScofield]

Attached is his death record that I think says death 18th (dezoito) August 1894. The death record says his father was Henri so I assume the birth record is correct.

 

[l_raty]

Attached is his death record that I think says death 18th (dezoito) August 1894.

The left page is not very sharp, but the record is indeed dated to "Aos dezoito dias do mês de Agosto do anno de mil oitocentos e noventa e quatro" (On the eighteenth day of the month of August of the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four), and tells that he died "hoje as doze horas do dia" (today at 12 of the day = midday).

So here Wikipedia seems to be off by one day.


The source for 19 Aug in the Wikipedia page seems to be Polybiblion, 71: 273, of Sep 1894 (Wikipedia incorrectly cites p. 274).
His death was announced in France, without citing a date, in Le Petit Journal of Sunday 19 Aug 1994 (which in itself would probably make a death on that very day rather unlikely -- particularly as days start later in Brazil than in France).
Revue encyclopédique : recueil documentaire universel et illustrée of 15 Sep 1894 said 'vers le 18 Août' (about 18 Aug).
Léonore merely says "Août 1894".

 

[Taphrospilus]

Looks like he died in Recife.

 

[l_raty]

Looks like he died in Recife.

Yes -- "na Caza de Banhos dos Arrecifes", Recife, Estado de Pernambuco.
...which is this:
https://villadigital.fundaj.gov.br/index.php/cartoes-postais/item/4965-jb-001148-casa-dos-banhos

Casa de Banhos – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre

pt.wikipedia.org

(The death record was established based on an attestation "do Doutor Barros Carneiro", presented by [I think] "o Doutor Eduardo Alfredo d'Oliveira" [who may have been a relative of his wife].
He is given as born in France, aged 43 [he was actually 42], Consul of the French Republic in the State of Pernambuco, the legitimate son of Henri Révoil and Anais Révoil, and married to Anna [there's a word I can't read here -- not 'Maria'] d'Oliveira (Madame Révoil), from whom he had three children, Anne Marie Amelie Révoil, aged 5, George Ferdinand Edouard Révoil, aged 3, and Robert Pierre Henri Révoil, aged 4 months.
He was to be buried in the public cemetery of Santo Amaro das Sallinas, parish of Boa Vista, in Recife.)

 

[mb1848]

Laurent mentioned that the one bird named for Revoil is a synonym of Macheiramphus alcinus. Which is listed as authored by Bonaparte in 1850.
Macheiramphus alcinus Bonaparte 1850 Rev.Mag.Zool.(2) 2 p.482.
The last line of a page from a 1861 book says the genus is spelled differently and the author is Westerman in 1849?
Bibliotheca Zoologica . Page 1219.
Richmond says it is not 1848 but 1851?
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/M/m00014a.jpg .
But I would like to see that publication to date it myself.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

...
But I would like to see that publication to date it myself.

Westerman = here.

 

[l_raty]

There is a reasonnably good scan of the first deel of Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde (afleveringen 1-6, 1848-54), with bound-in dated wrappers listing the contents of each aflevering, at Bijdragen tot de dierkunde

The publisher's website suggests -

• Afl. 1: January 1848
• Afl. 2: June 1851
• Afl. 3: June 1851
• Afl. 4: June 1852
• Afl. 5: January 1852
• Afl. 6: June 1854

...which matches the wrappers in terms of years of publication -- but which is a bit odd re. months, as it places aflevering 5 before aflevering 4, without apparent reason. The contents of the afleveringen as per the publisher's website is also not entirely consistent with what the wrappers tell us.

Machaerhamphus alcinus was in afl. 2 as per the wrappers, in afl. 3 as per the website. (I'd rather believe the wrappers... But, anyway, the year is 1851 in either case.)

 

[mb1848]

Thank you Bjorn. For finding Westerman. I really like the drawing. I was wondering if you think this was drawn from life at the Zoo in Amsterdam or a specimen?

Thank you Laurent for the book showing the title page to Tweede part dated 1851. The Brill website is not right I think. Deignan in 1963 Checklist to the birds of Thailand dates Bonaparte’s name for this bird as not earlier than September 1850. I feel that political or economic troubles caused Westerman’s article from getting published? He states he is describing the bird. (for the first time?) Another book says the first volume of the Dutch journal had eight parts ?

https://books.google.com/books?id=Do0DAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=Brinkman%27s+Catalogus++%221850%22+alcinus&source=bl&ots=m0VgRmeVOQ&sig=ACfU3U26C_k7-hIB7TNb4bR4-c37mq2vcg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmic70l6f4AhX4H0QIHafhCpYQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=Brinkman's%20Catalogus%20%20%221850%22%20alcinus&f=false . Pages 180-181.

Both Bonaparte and Westerman call the habitat of the bird is Malaccas. Why could not Revoil’s bird from Somaliland not be a subspecies?

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

... I was wondering if you think this was drawn from life at the Zoo in Amsterdam or a specimen?
...

Hard to tell, Mark (I have no Field experience of this species, at least not sitting down), by the look of the Plate (alone), it could have been drawn from life, or not, but the crouched position doesn't seem to be the most typical posture, however not impossible (see here, and even more likely if/when kept in a cramped zoo/cage), though I'm pretty sure he had at least one (dead) specimen, or parts of it, as he was able to make those detailed sketches; of the foot, wing/feathers, and head/beak/bill (surrounding the full/coloured Bird/version on the Plate). The beak/bill, in an angle straight from above, would be extremely hard to do IRL.

 

[l_raty]

I was wondering if you think this was drawn from life at the Zoo in Amsterdam or a specimen?

Westerman's text says:

"Het voorwerp, waaraan onze beschrijving en afbeelding ontleend zijn, bevond zich onder eene aanzienlijke bezending vogels, onlangs van het schiereiland Malacca aangebragt. De Heer Temminck, die het voor s'rijks museum te Leiden heeft aangekocht, had de goedheid het aan ons ter beschrijving af te staan. Wij betuigen hem onzen opregten dank voor dit nieuwe blijk zijner welwillendheid ten aanzien van het genootschap Natura Artis Magistra."​

(= "The object, from which our description and illustration are taken, was among a considerable shipment of birds recently brought in from the Malacca Peninsula. Mr. Temminck, who bought it for the royal museum in Leiden, had the kindness to hand it over to us for description. We express our sincere thanks to him for this new expression of his goodwill towards the society Natura Artis Magistra.")​

"voorwerp" does not suggest a living animal.

Another book says the first volume of the Dutch journal had eight parts ?

You can seen afleveringen 7-13 bound together at Bijdragen tot de dierkunde
The "Eerste Deel" is dated to 1848-1854 on the title page of the Google copy I linked above, which matches the adtes of afleveringen 1-6. (Aflevering 7 and 8 were published in 1858 and 1859.) That said, I have seen no evidence that the publisher continued to define multi-aflevering "delen" after 1854. On the current Brill website, each individual aflevering is called a "volume".

Both Bonaparte and Westerman call the habitat of the bird is Malaccas. Why could not Revoil’s bird from Somaliland not be a subspecies?

Yes, indeed -- at subspecies rank, Machaeramphus revoili Oustalet 1886 is a junior subjective synonym of Stringonyx anderssoni Gurney 1866 (now Macheiramphus alcinus anderssoni), OD here, type locality "Objimbinque, Damaraland" (= Otjimbingwe, Namibia ?).

 

[mb1848]

Thank you Bjorn and Laurent. I found the drawing very life like although from a dead skin. This reminds me of the work of Joseph Wolf, “Wolf depicted animals accurately in lifelike postures.” Wolf was working for Kaup in Darmstadt and “Kaup was impressed by his abilities and took one of Wolf's sketchbooks to a meeting in Leyden to show to Hermann Schlegel at the Natural History Museum, Leiden. Schlegel immediately commissioned Wolf to work on some plates for Traité de Fauconnerie.”

plates - Traité de fauconnerie - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

Wolf went to London in 1848. Because of the break in publishing the journal Wolf could have drawn the Bat hawk before he left. This is not really nomenclature.

Also not nomenclature, although described as Swedish Karl Johan Andersson’s father was Lloyd Llewellyn a personage of Cymru. (look at all those double l’s)

Slightly nomenclature I wonder if Westerman’s genus spelling Machaeramphus is more proper Latin than Bonaparte’s Macheiramphus? Not that it matters but I like the synonym spelling. I blame Bonaparte’s teachers in America. I know Bonaparte was having things published by Brill in the early 1850’s and he may have seen Westerman’s article before it was published.

One year after publication of anderssoni by Gurney at a June 12, 1866 meeting Mr. Bartlett said that anderssoni was M. alcinus.

The Gentleman's Magazine, and Historical Chronicle, for the Year ... . Page 60.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

... although described as Swedish Karl Johan Andersson’s father was Lloyd Llewellyn a personage of Cymru. (look at all those double l’s)
...

Mark, not only "described as Swedish", Carl (Karl/Charles) Johan (John) Andersson was indeed Swedish, born (in either 1827 or 1828) in Norra Råda, Värmland, Sweden, (illegitimate) Son of the fairly famous British Big Game hunter Llewellyn Lloyd (1792–1876)*, and Brita Cajsa Andersdotter (1804–1892), a mere peasant's/crofter's Daughter.

Note that his first given name was/is written Carl in the Records of Baptism. No Birth record found (this far).

/B

---

*Andersson's Father was called "Björnjägaren" (the Bear Hunter), here in Sweden. Born in London; 27 July 1792, settled down in Sweden in 1823. Died in Vänersborg, Sweden; 7 February 1876. A colourful figure, also known as; Angler, zoologist and 'anthropologist' (Author of several Books about hunting, fishing and other Scandinavian 'habits/customs')