"diagnosis not seen" for genus names in the Key A through S (2 Viewers)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

(A. Lehmann's) Reise nach Buchara und Samarkand in den Jahren 1841 und 1842
● Eupoda J. Brandt in Lehmann 1852; p.323

● Vanellochettusia J. Brandt in Lehmann 1852; p.324

... not the 1852 version itself, but a reprint (from 1969) = here

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

The Philippine Journal of Science

● Bournsia McGregor 1927: 32 (4), p. 525 = here

Same page also incl. "Polisornis subg. nov."

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Bits and pieces ...

● Curzonia SKINNER 1905 ... OD not found, but according to this paper, Generic Names Applied to Birds During the Years 1916 to 1922 (Inclusive, with Additions to Waterhouse's "index Generum Avium"), by Richmond:

Curzonia ...
New Name for Gypsophila Oates, preoccupied "i botany" [Timaliidae.]
Named for "Lord Curzon, then Viceroy of India." (Skinner, MS.)

Foot-note 15:

Emended to Cursonia by Stuart Baker, Journ. Bombay. Nat. Hist. Soc. XXVII, No.3, 1921, p.454.

Also mentionad as Cursonia on page 1 of the same paper ... here.

This Richmond paper could possibly be of value for other "unseen" Generic names, published between 1916 and 1922 ... like Simon's 1818; Chlorostola and Chloropogon (both on p.8) as well as Coeliola (p.9), Buturlin's 1816; Arctositta (p.4), Cyanositta
(p.11), Homositta (p.16), Leptositta (p.17) ...and so on.

Even if a second-hand-source. But Richmond isn´t just any second-hand-source. In my experience he´s more than fairly trustworthy.

If of any help?

Apparently, as proven, there are still more to find "out there", of all those still missing by James (see post #41). And maybe even the elusive ones here?

If anyone gives it a go: Good luck!

I´m done! (... for this week)

Björn

PS. ... and Meise's Stresemannia, here, but no, no ... Close, sooo close.

 

[l_raty]

(A. Lehmann's) Reise nach Buchara und Samarkand in den Jahren 1841 und 1842
● Eupoda J. Brandt in Lehmann 1852; p.323

● Vanellochettusia J. Brandt in Lehmann 1852; p.324

... not the 1852 version itself, but a reprint (from 1969) = here

The 1852 version: [here].

Note, however, that, for Eupoda, Brandt is clear here that he had already introduced the name elsewhere:

Die Abtheilung Eupoda habe ich bereits in Tchitchatscheff Voyage vorgeschlagen.

This leads us to Brandt's Considérations sur les animaux vertébrés de Sibérie occidentale, in Voyage scientifique dans l'Altaï oriental et les parties adjacentes de la frontière de la Chine, authored by Pierre de Tchihatcheff (Пётр Алекса́ндрович Чихачёв) and dated 1845, which can be seen [here].
The name is indeed available from there as Eupoda Brandt 1845 (with 'Eudromias asiaticus Keys. et Blas.' [here] = Charadrius asiaticus Pallas 1773 [OD] as its type by original monotypy).

 

[James Jobling]

Laurent, thanks for Eupoda. I was so blinkered with the Richmond Card Index entry that I forgot to check Peters II, p. 255!

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Tori

● Dicrachibia Hachisuka 1928: V (25), p.23 = here (from p.21 ... onwards)

Enjoy!

/B

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

...
This leads us to Brandt's Considérations sur les animaux vertébrés de Sibérie occidentale, in Voyage scientifique dans l'Altaï oriental et les parties adjacentes de la frontière de la Chine, authored by Pierre de Tchihatcheff (Пётр Алекса́ндрович Чихачёв) and dated 1845, which can be seen [here].
...

Interesting to note is also the eponym for Spec. 198: "Perdix Nigellii, nob. (Megaloperdix Nigellii)" (on p.443).

Is that the same "species" as Gray's "Tetraogallus Nigellii"* of 1832? Or yet another Partridge/Gamebird (Phasianidae/Perdicinae) ... ?

Björn

________________________________________________________________________________
*earlier dealt with in thread Some "unseen" descriptions … now seen! (here, in posts #47, 61, 63-64)

 

[James Jobling]

For the time being I am treating Megaloperdix Nigellii Brandt 1845 as a new taxon and as a synonym of Tetraogallus altaicus, since that appears to be the only snowcock occurring within the areas explored by Chikhachef, and as such it currently appears in the Key. I am prepared to be enlightened.

 

[mb1848]

Brandt knew T. altaica and T. causica in 1841:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/152498#page/107/mode/1up .
T. nigellii .
https://archive.org/stream/IllustrationsOfIndianZoology2/Hardwicke2#page/n99/mode/2up .
I think the Perdix nigellii nob. the nob is for a new combination. It was originally Tertaogallus and I've seen Lorphornis but not Perdix.

 

[l_raty]

In a footnote (about distinctive gallinaceous birds found in the region) on [p. 461], Brandt 1845 wrote:

¹ De ce nombre sont : le phasianus mongolicus, qui évidemment constitue une espèce distincte, mais surtout les perdrix gigantesques de l'Altaï (perdix ou megaloperdix altaica) et du Tarabagataï (perdix ou megaloperdix Nigellii).

Thus:
- Brandt clearly treated altaica as distinct from what he called nigellii;.
- the latter appears to have been a bird from the "Tarabagataï", now Tarbagatay/Tarbagatai, a mountain range extending across the current border between easternmost Kazakhstan and Chinese Xinjiang: this is the range of Tetraogallus himalayensis, which is what JE Gray illustrated under the name T. nigellii.


(Incidentally: just to be clear, nobis doesn't actually mean "new" (although, in some cases, it can imply newness), it means "to us" - it's the plural (here presumably a royal plural) of mihi.)

 

[James Jobling]

Laurent, I agree, and had noted that Brandt treated Nigellii and altaica as separate taxa; Vaurie 1965, p. 264, includes the Tarbagatai in the range of Tetraogallus himalayensis sewerzowi Zarudny, 1910. Megaloperdix Nigellii Brandt, 1845 = Tetraogallus Nigellii J. E. Gray, 1832 (preoccupied by Lophophorus Nigelli Jardine & Selby, 1829 = Tetraogallus caspius (S. G. Gmelin, 1784) = Tetraogallus Himalayensis G. R. Gray, 1843.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Regardless of the synonyms; what about the etymology itself of nigelli/nigellii ...

"Macneil's Lophophorus ... lately sent from Persia by Dr Macneil, the enlightened physician to the English Embassy at that court ... It has been named Loph. Nigelli, in remembrance of the individual by whom it was first transmitted to Europe" (Jardine & Selby 1829)

See the following links (again); here, here, here and here, ... which (in my mind) leads us to this guy (here)

= the Scottish Surgeon and Diplomat, (Sir) Dr John McNeill (1795-1883), of Edinburgh, 3rd son of John McNeill, Esq. of Colonsay... "Destined to be the greatest of all the East India Company's doctors who served in Persia ..." , "the most knowledgeable European in Persia", Assistant Resident/Envoy at the court of Persia, in Teheran (1816-1836), ... and so on.

Born 12 August 1795 ... died 17 May 1883.

Earlier pointed out here, in thread Some "unseen" descriptions … now seen! (post 47, 61, 63-64)

Why the hesitation James? What's not to believe? What did I miss?

Björn

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Today's updated HBW Alive Key ... with his years of service somewhat different than in my post #72:

nigelli
[...]
Dr Sir John McNeill (1795-1883) Scottish surgeon and diplomat in India 1816-1819 and Persia 1819-1844, Chairman of the Board of Supervision (Poor Law) 1845-1857, co-founder of the Highland & Island Emigration Society, joint author of the influential McNeill-Tulloch Report (1856) on Army administration in the Crimea (syn. Tetraogallus caspius).

At least I found the proper guy!
--

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

And a quick return to the topic itself of this thread, the "yet unseen" genus names ...

Arcana, or, The Museum of Natural History
● Cassowara Perry 1811: 21, Sign. Rr, pl. 83

Original OD (1811) still not found, nor seen, but ... Perry's Arcana - A Facsimile Edition, by Richard E. Petit (2009) = here alt. here
Type species, by monotopy; "Cassowara eximia Perry, 1811" (i.e. today's Casuarius casuarius LINNAEUS 1758)

If of any help?


Ornitologiya
● Stepaniania Kashin 1982: 17, p.184

OD also still unseen, but see:
Gregory, S. M. S. & E. C. Dickinson. 2012. An assessment of three little-noticed papers on avian nomenclature by G. N. Kashin during 1978-1982. Zootaxa 3340: 44-58. (here)

If of any use?


FWIW: The Paper/journal/booklet where Riemann's Hemiprocne (1838) is (yet) to be found, seems to have the title: "Zoologisch-technologischer Leitfaden für Realschulen und Gymnasien" ... but even as such, not much help, no useful results turned up ... on the internet. At least not for me.


And on the "not yet ascertained or seen"...

● Poedela (by Deplanche?), maybe this link (here) gives a clue (or an answer)?

However; enjoy!

Björn

PS. That´s it. I´ve tried to find them all, but cannot find more than whats been shown in this thread. End of the road, on my part (in this thread). The remaining ones (as of post #41, minus the subsequent ones) I leave to anybody and everybody else. Enough is enough.
--

 

[l_raty]

Arcana, or, The Museum of Natural History
● Cassowara Perry 1811: 21, Sign. Rr, pl. 83

Original OD (1811) still not found, nor seen, but ... Perry's Arcana - A Facsimile Edition, by Richard E. Petit (2009) = here alt. here

On the relevant page, it says:

Natural Division. - GRALLÆ, or OSTRICH.
CASSOWARA EXIMIA.​

THE Neck bare of feathers, and a leather covering similar to the awttle of a Turkey, investing the neck and face, and of various colours, graduated in their shades from Orange to Red, Sea-green, or Purple. The feathers large, purple and dark brown, resembling, when plucked, and closely examined, three or four dark horse hairs, joined to a hollow quill which is very long, thin, and bushy, tufted and imbricated most extraordinarily, the whole leg very bare and scaly. The head crowned with a sort of cock's-comb of a grey colour; three toes on each foot, armed with claws, one external, another in the middle (both short). But what is curious is, the innermost being much longer than the two others. Bill long and sharply hooked.

This Cassowary or Cassowara has certainly a strong title to the character of beauty and singularity, and is reported to be found in South America, though it is rather uncertain, until more is known of its history, for at present it is very rare. The natives also are said to pronounce it Cassowara; and this is our authority for doing the same, and rejecting the y. We have given it to the class of birds of Emu or Ostrich; to the Turkey and the English Bustard it is distantly similar.

 

[l_raty]

Ostrich

● Saka A. Roberts 1947: 18, pp.59-85

It's actually on p.83:

I venture to suggest therefore that sakalava should be removed to a new genus, SAKA, differing from Ploceus in colour in lacking black on the face and throat in the males in summer plumage, the bill "pearly grey" (Grandidier) instead of black, or light brown in nonbreeding plumage, and the eggs greenish instead of white.

● Eremiphantes A. Roberts 1947: 18, p.78
● Eremiplectes A. Roberts 1947: 18, p.78

Obviously two variants of a single name -- Eremiplectes occurs on p.74 (not 78, thus), in a discussion; Eremiphantes on p.78, in a key; type and included species are the same:

This is in the Chestnut Weaver, for which I propose the new subgeneric name of EREMIPLECTES, genotype Cinnamopterix trothae Reichenow, which is to some extent a migrant in the dry districts it inhabits in Southwest Africa, and with a counterpart in rubiginosus in the dry areas of northern East Africa.

D. Plumage chestnut, head and throat, and stripes on scapulars, black, wings and tail brownish grey, in ♂; ♀ duller coloured and without black; outermost primary shorter than culmen and narrow; wing 80-85, tail 61-65, tarsus 21-22, culmen 18-20; height of bill 12.5, width 9.5 mm.: Melanopteryx (EREMIPHANTES subgenus nov., genotype Ploceus trothae * Reichenow; also rubiginosus Rüppell).

● Sitagroides A. Roberts 1947: 18, p.81

c. Plumage olive yellowish above and yellow with some chestnut below, head black in both sexes; bill black, long and slender as in Hyphanturgus; size small, wing 70, tail 55, tarsus 21-23, culmen 19-20 mm.: SITAGROIDES, gen. nov., genotype Sitagra aliena Sharpe; also includes subpersonata).

● Bensonhyphantes A. Roberts 1947: 18, p.82

e. Upper parts dull coloured. without black in plumage, wings and tail dusky olive ashy, from crown to tail olive yellowish, below dull yellow. but throat olive greyish. bordered below with light chestnut, ♂ rather brighter than ♀ and with forehead light yellow; bill black, slender and pointed as in Phormoplectes; wing 80, tail 43, tarsus 20, culmen 16, height of bill 7.5, width 7 mm.: BENSONHYPHANTES, subgenus nov., genotype Symplectes oliveiceps * Reichenow, subgenus of Phormoplectes.

(It may be worth to note that, on p.60 of the same paper, Roberts acknowledged the generous donation of a specimen of Parus parvirostris from Katumbi's, Nzimba district, Nyasaland, by Mr. C.W. Benson. He offered no explicit link between this and the new subgeneric name, however.)


● Pseudalethe Beresford 2003: 74, p.58

There is a paragraph on p.69 that is explicitly titled 'Diagnosis' and that reads:

Medium sized ground-dwelling thrushes distributed in forested habitats in sub-Saharan Africa. All species have dorsally unpatterned, sexually monomorphic plumage with white or off-white underparts. Dorsal plumages are chestnut-brown or gray-brown.

But this, at the end of p.68, may be more relevant:

Alethe castanea is the type of the genus, so the poliocephala group (all of which were originally described as Alethe) must be given a different generic name; the name Pseudalethe is proposed (Table 4).

 

[l_raty]

Proceedings of the New England Zoölogical Club

All retrieved from Google Books:

● Ferminia Barbour 1926: IX, p.74

Ferminia cerverai gen. et sp. nov.​

Generic characters: A medium-sized Troglodytid, with a small rounded wing, a long broad tail, and plumage of back and tail curiously soft and degenerate (somewhat recalling that of Bowdleria, but the tail less decomposed). Bill medium in length, compressed, almost straight; slightly shorter than head; rictal bristles obvious; the anterior feathers of the forehead acuminate, with heavy stiffened rachides and ill-developed webs (somewhat recalling other birds of palustrine association, as some rails, or Phacelodomus, etc.). Wing very short, weak, rounded; first and second primaries very short, third primary slightly shorter than the others, which are about equal in length. Tail long and broad , the rectrices all distinctly broadened; distinctly longer than wing. Tarsis one-and-one-third times as long as exposed culmen; the feet rather weak, the toes rather long and slender and the claws but little arched. Back, brown, wings and tail heavily barred above, belly pale and unbarred and tail beneath somewhat recalling that of Thryomanes.
Type: Museum of Comparative Zoology, no. 235,226, an adult male from Santo Tomas, Peninsula de Zapata, Cuba, collected by Fermin Z. Cervera, in whose honor the genus and species are named.

● Cyanolimnas Barbour & J. Peters 1927: IX, p.95

These two new birds were secured by the senior author while recently on Cuba. They were taken by the collector, Mr. Fermin Z. Cervera, to whom all credit for their discovery is due. A full discussion of their relationships will follow in a later paper.

Cyanolimnas cerverai gen. et sp. nov.​

Generic characters. — A medium-sized ralline with short rounded wing; very short tail, the barbs of the rectrices very sparse; tarsus stout and short, not exceeding middle toe with claw. Bill moderate, somewhat longer than head, swollen basally. Nostril situated about midway in nasal groove, which is only about half as long as bill. Culmen ending in a point in the frontal feathering. Wing rounded: third, fourth and fifth primaries longest; second about equal to seventh. Tail very short, about two fifths as long as wing, the feathers sparsely barbed. Tarsus short, less than half the length of the wing and about as long as the bill; toes fairly stout, the middle one about the length of the tarsus.
Coloration: Above, olive brown; sides of head and under parts plumbeous; throat white. The coloring resembles closely that of Pardirallus rytirhynchus Vieillot. The combination of short wing and stout tarsus suggests relationship with Nesotrochis Wetmore (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., vol. 54, 1918. p. 516, type Nesotrochis debooyi Wetmore), but the latter has a tarsus more than twice as long as that of the bird with which we are dealing.

● Torreornis Barbour & J. Peters 1927: IX, p.96

Torreornis inexpectata gen. et spec. nov.​

Generic characters. — A medium-sized fringillid with short rounded wing; rounded, almost graduated, tail; plumage long and lax. Bill moderately stout; culmen convex; rictal bristles indistinct. Wing very short, three times the length of the tarsus, much rounded; third and fourth primaries longest, only very slightly exceeding the second, fifth and sixth, which are subequal; outermost not longer than ninth; tip of longest secondaries reaching to the end of the eighth primary. Tail somewhat longer than wing, slightly graduated; middle pair of rectrices exceeding the outer pair by about one half the length of the tarsus. Tarsus longer than middle toe with claw; lateral toes about equal, their claws falling short of base of middle claw; hind claw decidedly shorter than its digit, the two together not longer (usually shorter) than middle toe without claw.
Coloration. — Back more or less streaked, or else plain purplish grayish brown; under parts without streaks in adults, except sometimes on sides and flanks; otherwise extremely variable (see “Key,” pages 233 to 235).

(Searching the volume for 'Torre' produced two hits, one on p.75 (thus outside the paper introducing Torreornis), the other in the index and pointing to p.75.)

● Latoucheornis Bangs 1931: XII, p.91

Hartert in 'Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna' (p. 2018) correctly says that the bird is not a Junco, but he calls it an Emberiza related to E. variabilis. La Touche, though he continues to call it an Emberiza, declares that it differs widely from variabilis, and should have a genus or subgenus made for its reception. This is my opinion also. Variabilis is not an Emberiza at all, but the sole representative of the genus Tisa, and is not at all like the little delicate siemsseni, its heavy bill, long, pointed wing, and long tail, unmarked with white, at once distinguishing it. Tisa also differs from Emberiza in some structural characters. I am sorry to say I do not know just what they are, but I well remember one day in 1925 when Professor Sushkin sat beside me, working at the long table in the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy, and I mentioned Tisa, whereupon he exclaimed with emphasis, "I do not like that bird." When I asked him why, he told me that he had found an excellent character that separated the Old World Emberizinae from those of the New World, and which had held good for all species he had dissected until he worked on the anatomy of Tisa, and, lo and behold, Tisa stood exactly connecting the two groups. He then added that, from its distribution and general appearance, it was perhaps what one might expect of Tisa. I dislike to see genera broken up more than can be helped, but Emberiza, as it stands in Hartert's 'paläarktischen Fauna,' is certainly a most heterogeneous assemblage, and the tendency since has been to subdivide it. By removing from it a few peculiar, sometimes monotypic, forms, there is left surely a much more natural group. One such form, that bears no near relationship to any other species, is Junco siemsseni which, it seems to me, is much better placed in a genus by itself and may well be named for the great authority on Chinese birds, J. D. D. La Touche:

LATOUCHEORNIS gen. nov. (monotypic)​

Type, Junco siemsseni Martens
Characters. — Latoucheornis siemsseni differs from Emberiza, as represented by the type species E. citrinella and many related forms, in the following characters: It has a very small, weak, slender bill; the cutting edge of the maxilla is less fluted and the mandible straighter, less upturned. The first primary is short; the wing is much rounded, the first primary being equal to the sixth, the second equal to the fifth, the third and fourth subequal and longest. The tail is short with wide rectrices, the middle pair similar to the others, not noticeably narrowed and pointed toward the tip. The coloration is peculiar : the male is slate-color, except the belly, under tail-coverts, wing lining, axillars and mark across outer tail feathers, which are pure white; the female is reddish brown where the male is slate-color, becoming more olivaceous on the rump and lower sides, but it has the same white areas.

● Aenigmatolimnas J. Peters 1932: XIII, p.64

Porzana marginalis has been placed sometimes in Corethrura Reichenbach, which genus was subsequently replaced by Limnobaenus Sundevall, but even when Limnobaenus and Porzana are united, as has been done by Hartert and others, quite correctly in my opinion, the bird does not fit. I believe that in such cases aberrant species are best segregated in monotypic genera, if they cannot be removed to some genus where their characters entitle them to admission. In this case no such course is open, nor has a genus ever been created for Porzana marginalis. Under these circumstances I propose

AENIGMATOLIMNAS gen. nov.​

Type (and only known species), Porzana marginalis Hartlaub.1
Characters. — Small Rallidae, superficially similar to Porzana but with more compressed bill and oilmen more arched; nasal sulcus shallow and poorly defined; nostril elliptical, situated along the lower margin and dose to the anterior end of the sulcus; tail about two fifths as long as wing; tarsus one third as long as wing; middle toe without claw longer than tarsus; hind toe without claw equal to basal phalanx of middle toe.

 

[l_raty]

Publicaciones de Museo de Historia Natural 'Javier Prado,' (ser. A. Zoologia)
● Zaratornis Koepcke 1954: 16, p.2

From Google Books again:

Con ocasión de los estudios ecológicos y zoogeográficos en las vertientes occidentales andinas del Perú central, efectuados junto con mi esposo, Dr. Hans-Wilhelm Koepcke, hemos encontrado, además de una serie de aves que no eran hasta ahora conocidas de esta región, un Cotingido que debe ser considerado como una nueva especie. Esta última se diferencia de manera tan marcada de las formas más cercanas, que me parece haber fundamento para el establecimiento de un género nuevo, con relaciones más próximas con Doliornis TACZANOWSKI y Heliochera FILIPPI. Han sido colectadas hasta ahora dos ♀♀ en Zárate y una ♀ en Yánac, ambas localidades (la última fué colectada por Carriker); el ♂ es hasta ahora desconocido. Agradezco mucho al señor Prof. Dr. E. Stresemann, Zoologisches Museum der Universitát Berlin, quien recibió el paratipo y me ha favorecido con sus consejos. El fué el primero en reconocer esta ave como perteneciente a un género nuevo.

After an introduction in Spanish, she suddenly turned to German:

Zaratornis nov. gen.​

DIAGNOSE.
Eine Cotingidengattung mit der Flügelformel : 3. = oder wenig>4.>5.>2.>6.>7.>1. Schnabel etwas geschwollen und an der Basis deutlich schmäler als bei Heliochera. Zumindest das ♀ ohne Haube oder deutliches Farbabzeichen auf dem Scheitel. Die beiden äusseren Handschwingen sind nicht zugespitzt.
GENOTYPUS: Zaratornis stresemanni nov. spec.

 

[l_raty]

Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines
● Schoutedenapus De Roo 1968: 77 (3/4), p.413

Google Books again:

An analysis of the foot structure of the African Scarce Swift, Apus myoptilus (Salvadori), reveals that this species cannot longer stand in the genus Apus and, in the absence of any other suitable generic name, should be named:

SCHOUTEDENAPUS, gen. nov.​

Diagnosis : superficially close to Apus with which it was formerly confused, but with an anisodactyl instead of a pamprodactyl foot; number of phalangi not reduced in the third and fourth toes; tarsometatarsus feathered.
Type species: Schoutedenapus myoptilus (Salvadori),
--------------- Cypselus myoptilus Salvadori, Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, Ser. 2a, Vol. VI: 228-229. 1885.

On the next page (p.414), he adds:

Schoutedenapus is a composite word including the formerly used genus name of myoptilus, preceded by the name of Dr. H. Schouteden, my master in african ornithology and Honorary Director of the Tervuren Museum.

 

[l_raty]

Senckenbergiana
● Heuglinornis Boetticher 1935: 17, p.150

Google Books:

Während alle diese bisher aufgeführten Arten und Rassen sich zwar in der Bildung der Haube und anderen kleinen Merkmalen mehr oder minder deutlich von einander unterscheiden, stimmen sie im Allgemeinen doch in Körperbau und Färbung recht stark überein, sodaß man sie doch wohl am besten in einer und derselben Gattung zusammenfassen muß. Dagegen steht m. Е. der weißhaubige Turako, Turacus leucolophus (HEUGL.) allen anderen Formen der Gattung sehr deutlich gegenüber und bildet eine ganz eigene und scharf gesonderte Gruppe für sich.
Schon der allgemeine Färbungscharakter des Gefieders ist ein anderer als der der übrigen Formen. Die weiße Färbung von Hals, Nacken, Kehle und Hinterkopf weicht stark und auffallend von der sonst in der Gattung allgemein üblichen Gefiederfärbungsart ab.
Die Gestalt der Haube ist ebenfalls eine ganz andere als bei den vorbesprochenen Arten und Rassen. Die Haubenfedern sind seidenartig weich, fein zerschlissen und haarartig dünn. Die Haube selbst, die ebenfalls von weißer Farbe ist, setzt erst ungefähr dicht hinter der Mitte des Scheitels an. ist in einer ganz eigenartigen Weise ganz platt gedrückt und umgibt die Seiten des Hinterkopfes und den Nacken wie ein aufgespannter Schirm. Wir können sie geradezu als "Schirmhaube" bezeichnen. Die die Nasenlöcher bedeckenden F ederchen sind seidenartig weich und wenden sich aus der ursprünglichen Vorwärtsrichtung bald in eine deutliche Aufwärtsrichtung, während sie bei den anderen Arten ziemlich hart und starr sind und zum Teil in den vorderen Partien nur nach vorn, in den basaleren Teilen nur schräg nach oben gerichtet sind.
Ganz besonders abweichend ist aber bei dieser Art die Gestalt des Schnabels! Während für die Angehörigen der Gattung Turacus ganz allgemein als ein durchaus kennzeichnencles Merkmal den anderen Familienangehörigen gegenüber ein seitlich stark zusammengedrückter, mit einer sehr schmalen und ziemlich scharfkantigen Firste versehener Schnabel geradezu charakteristisch ist, ist der Schnabel der HEUGLIN'schen Art im Gegenteil seitlich garnicht zusammengedrückt, überhaupt kaum etwas eingeengt, und der mittelhohe Oberschnabel ist an der Firste deutlich stumpf abgerundet. Diese verläuft ohne Einsenkung in die Stirn und ist an dieser Stelle auch nicht wie bei den anderen Arten durch die Stirnbefiederung verdeckt. Auch die Nasenlöcher sind anders gestaltet als bei den anderen Arten, stehen mehr aufrecht uud sind weiter rückwärts und tiefer an die Schnabelbasis hingerückt als bei den rückwärts und tiefer an die Schnabelbasis hingerückt als bei den typischen Arten. In der Gestalt ähnelt der Schnabel abgesehen von seiner geringeren Größe und der Lage der Nasenlöcher noch am meisten dem der Lärmvögel. Jedenfalls unterscheidet sich der weillhaubige Turako gerade in dem für die Gattung Turacus Cuv. besonders kennzeichnenden Punkt, nämlich in der Schnabelform, ungemein stark und auffällig von den anderen Arten. Es ist daher m. E. durchaus erforderlich, die HEUGLIN'sche Art aus der Gattung Turacus Cuv. herauszuziehen und eie in eine eigene selbständige Gattung zu stellen. Obwohl HEUGLIN selbst auf diese bemerkenswerten Unterschiede seiner neuen Art deutlich und eindringlich, hingewiesen hat, und obwohl auch andere spätere Bearbeiter dieser Vogelfamilie, wie u. a. SCHALOW (1886), dies keineswegs übersehen haben, sondern es ebenfalls ausdrücklich betonen, ist merkwürdigerweise bisher niemand darauf gekommen, für diese aberrante Art eine neue selbständige Gattung aufzustellen. Dieses sei daher hiermit nachgeholt! Ich benenne die Gattung, der Turacus leucolophus (HEUGLIN) zunächst als alleinige Art zugehört, zu Ehren des verdienten und hervorragenden Vogelforschers, der uns zuerst mit dieser Art eingehend bekannt gemacht hat, mit dem Namen:

Heuglinornis gen. nov.​

Der roeißhaubige Schirmhauben-Turako heißt also demnach nach meiner Ansicht nunmehr: Heuglinornis leucolophus (HEUGLIN).