Links to digitized versions of original sources of bird names (7 Viewers)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, from Vol.1 (of March/April 1841) until Vol. 165 (2016), accessible on JSTOR = here.

All (up until Vol. 165) readable on-line (that is, if you're having an account, of course), the ones up until Vol. 77, (1925), free for download.

Enjoy!

/B

 

[mb1848]

The thousands of original description links provided by Zoonomen which Calalp described as
It's an impressive collection, and a massive amount of work put into it. Alan Peterson truly deserve a storm of applause.
Quite a Treasure for all of us! Occasionally there is a missing link to the OD. Usually there is some controversy about which publication is the original Or/and no link to a clear copy like those provided by BHL. Here is one.

• Apteryx owenii Gould 1847 Lit.Gaz. no.1586 p.433 Citation
• • Apteryx owenii Gould 1847 PZS Pt15 no.175 p.94

pt.12-15 (1844-1847) - Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London - Biodiversity Heritage Library . Name first used on p. 93 but the description is on p. 94.

No link to OD but has note:

• Note that the page number is given as "93" by Peters Checklist, and Sherborn, and as "94" by The Richmond Index, and Salvadori's Catalogue of Birds of the British Museum, vol. 27.
• However McAllen IAW. 2004 "Corrections to the original citations and type localities of some birds described by John Gould and recorded from New Zealand." Notornis 51:125 notes that the PZS publication was preceeded by both the Athenaeum and the Literary Gazette, and that McAllen and Bruce, acting as first revisers, selected the Lit.Gaz. as the original publication of the name.

BZN: owenii. Apteryx, Gould, 12 June 1847, The Athenaeum, no. 1024: 647
and The Literary Gazette, no. 1586: 433;
(32) owenii, Apteryx, Gould, [20 July] 1 847, Proceedings of the Zoological
Society of London, 1847: 93;
The Athenaeum uses the name first on page 627 not 647 but on the same date as the Literary Gazette.

The Athenaeum .

Literary Gazette:

The Literary Gazette .

This situation is discussed in Some corrections to information provided in “Priority! The Dating of Scientific Names in Ornithology” Edward C. Dickinson & Colin Jones. Here is the BZN Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature" .

An interesting article about Frederick Strange the contributor of the owenii skin.

v.11 (1945-1951) - The Australian zoologist - Biodiversity Heritage Library . Not the Admiral Strange of strangei in the Key.

April 15 1847 letter to Gould from F. Strange in the PZS, pt.12-15 (1844-1847) - Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks to a request by James (Jobling) the very rare Catalogue de la magnifique collection d’Oiseaux de M. le Prince d’Essling, duc de Rivoli, ... (1846), a k a "Catalogue of the Rivoli collection" (in the US), have now been scanned and digitized, by the Stadsarchief Amsterdam, and now it is, at last (as of 26th of September, 2021) easily accessible, in full, free for everyone to read (here, but be patient, it takes a while/moment to upload).

It incl. for example; [Strix] jougou, and [ditto] migera (both on page/pagina 3), even if all nomina nuda [with only the Habitat (geographical origin) explained].

The very reason why this (Sales) Catalogue ... is so rare (and why it wasn't distributed in any major way) was/is explained by/in Dickinson et al. (2019), in; A study of d’Orbigny’s “Voyage dans l’Amerique Meridionale” VI. Type specimens based on plate captions: bibliographic evidence applied, Zoological Bibliography 5 (6), here (see pp.375, and 386).

Either way; there it is!

Enjoy

Björn

 

[Mike Earp]

Thanks to a request by James (Jobling) the very rare Catalogue de la magnifique collection d’Oiseaux de M. le Prince d’Essling, duc de Rivoli, ... (1846), a k a "Catalogue of the Rivoli collection" (in the US), have now been scanned and digitized, by the Stadsarchief Amsterdam, and now it is, at last (as of 26th of September, 2021) easily accessible, in full, free for everyone to read (here, but be patient, it takes a while/moment to upload).

I may have missed the option to download the whole work as a single PDF file. If it's not there then the attached one might help others. If I've broken any rule by doing this, I will remove it immediately!

 

[l_raty]

We have been looking for this to no avail in the past:

The Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Sciences, Volume 1, 1829-1830

Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Sciences : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

With, i.a.:
Curruca heineken Jardine 1830 Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Sciences : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Cygnus bewickii Yarrell 1830 Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Sciences : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

(Supposedly also "available with additional data at Biodiversity Heritage Library", but this link is broken.)

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Note that on top of the OD itself of "Cygnus Bewickii", on p.477, we (also) find the following phrase (on p.381): "It is intended to be named Anas Cygneus Bewickii, after our distinguished townsman".

That's as close to a dedication that we're given in this particular case (in the very first, Original Journal, that is).

Was Thomas Bewick (1753–1828) "a distinguished townsman" of Edinburgh ... ?

 

[l_raty]

Was Thomas Bewick (1753–1828) "a distinguished townsman" of Edinburgh ... ?

Wouldn't it rather be "a distinguished townsman" of Newcastle ?
(I'm not sure where Capt. Thomas Brown -- the apparent author of this text -- resided at this time, but the Hancock brothers and R R Wingate, who are cited, like Thomas Bewick, were from Newcastle.)

Shouldn't the name be available from p. 381 (Feb 1830 issue), rather than from p. 477 (March issue) ?

 

[Mike Earp]

Shouldn't the name be available from p. 381 (Feb 1830 issue), rather than from p. 477 (March issue) ?

Who is the author of the name? Anonymous?

 

[l_raty]

Who is the author of the name? Anonymous?

Why not Brown ?
I assume he is the one who worded the 'diagnosis'.

 

[mb1848]

Thanks for finding this Laurent! A quote from Björn "After yet another attempt to find No.1 of the Edinburgh Journal ... (but no luck,"

An old thread: Yarrell 1830 [Cygnus bewickii] .
The author is supposed to be Yarrell right?
If the binders put the volume together right the page 381 comes first. It is an excerpt of a letter to Brown not from and it is in quotes. It gives things about the bird that distinguish it but in English. The Yarrell report on p. 47 uses a Latin OD?? I do not know who wrote the letter. No one mentioned in the letter from the language. The editor of the journal? Guesses?

 

[l_raty]

An old thread: Yarrell 1830 [Cygnus bewickii] .
The author is supposed to be Yarrell right?

Page 477 is a report about a communication read by Yarrell at a meeting, hence if the name is taken from there, the author is Yarrell as per ICZN 50.2.
Page 381 suggests a communication is being prepared by Selby, and doesn't mention Yarrell at all: Yarrell can certainly not be the author if the name is deemed available here.

Some discussion by AP Peterson (who had apparently not seen this volume either): Zoological Citation Notes -- B

 

[Mike Earp]

Page 477 is a report about a communication read by Yarrell at a meeting, hence if the name is taken from there, the author is Yarrell as per ICZN 50.2.
Page 381 suggests a communication is being prepared by Selby, and doesn't mention Yarrell at all: Yarrell can certainly not be the author if the name is deemed available here.

Some discussion by AP Peterson (who had apparently not seen this volume either): Zoological Citation Notes -- B

The index on page 483 includes this entry:
* Cygnus Bewickii, a new species of wild swan, 381.
The asterisk denotes an original paper or communication.
I think the authors of the letter an extract of which is given on page 381 are pretty clearly John and Albany Hancock.

 

[l_raty]

I think the authors of the letter an extract of which is given on page 381 are pretty clearly John and Albany Hancock.

Yes, you're completely right, I misread it as "from" Brown yesterday.

 

[Mike Earp]

Note that on top of the OD itself of "Cygnus Bewickii", on p.477, we (also) find the following phrase (on p.381): "It is intended to be named Anas Cygneus Bewickii, after our distinguished townsman".

That's as close to a dedication that we're given in this particular case (in the very first, Original Journal, that is).

Why do you refer to the OD in connection with this journal. Isn't the OD on page 146 of the February 1830 issue of The Philosophical Magazine and Annals of Philosophy (New Series volume 7 number 38)? That number must have been published on or before 6 February 1830 judging by the date of Yarrell's letter on page 194 of the March issue which fits with its "Published the First Day of every Month" claim . Do you think the February 1830 issue of The Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Science was published before 6 February 1830?

 

[l_raty]

Why do you refer to the OD in connection with this journal. Isn't the OD on page 146 of the February 1830 issue of The Philosophical Magazine and Annals of Philosophy (New Series volume 7 number 38)? That number must have been published on or before 6 February 1830 judging by the date of Yarrell's letter on page 194 of the March issue which fits with its "Published the First Day of every Month" claim . Do you think the February 1830 issue of The Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Science was published before 6 February 1830?

This is the source accepted on Zoonomen.
I agree that the Philos. Mag. report seems to be a very strong contender.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Why do you refer to the OD in connection with this journal. ... ?

Mike, I just trusted/followed what's told on the six Richmond cards (here, here, here, here, here, and here), as well as Zoonomen's "Cygnus columbianus bewickii Citation" notes (also mentioned by Laurent in post #271, latter link).

If I misread, or misinterpreted, this case all together ... I'm sorry. My bad.

The only thing I can say, regarding the dating of the "Bewickii", in text, on page 381, is that it's included in the "February 1930" Issue of The Edinburg Journal ... which starts on p. 321 (Title Page), and goes on until p.400.

But when, on what exact date/day, it was published, in February 1930 ... I cannot tell.

That question I (somewhat gladly) leave in more capable hands ...

Stay safe!

 

[l_raty]

But when, on what exact date/day, it was published, in February 1930 ... I cannot tell.

As Mike noted, The Philosophical Magazine and Annals of Philosophyre claimed to be "Published the First Day of every Month" on the top of the wrapper of each issue.
On p. 146 of the February 1830 issue (i.e., in principle, 1 Feb 1830), there is a report covering the 19 Jan 1830 meeting of the Linnean Society where Yarrell read the description of the Bewick's Swan, in which the name is introduced and the bird is described.
On p. 194 of the March issue, we can find a letter by Yarrell, dated to "February 6, 1830", aiming to add details to the "obliging notice of Bewick's swan, in the Philosophical Magazine of last month", which is evidently a reference to the report on p. 146. This is indeed very strong evidence that Yarrell had seen this report, published, on or before 6 Feb 1830.

For the The Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Science note to have priority, we should thus find evidence that it was published, in any case before 6 Feb, or, if we accept the statement on the wrappers as a stated date of publication (which is probably defensible), before 1 Feb 1830.

 

[Mike Earp]

For the The Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Science note to have priority, we should thus find evidence that it was published, in any case before 6 Feb, or, if we accept the statement on the wrappers as a stated date of publication (which is probably defensible), before 1 Feb 1830.

On page 393 of the February 1830 number of The Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Science is an entry which suggests it was intended to be published before 4 February 1830:

The following lectures, for example, still remain to be given.
Feb. 4. Rev. J. Punnett. Society—Its Claims on the higher Classes of the community.

Even if page 381 of the February 1830 number of The Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Science was published before 6 February 1830, does the following amount to the valid introduction of a new name, given the use of the phrase "It is intended to be named" and the minimal distinguishing features noted?

New Species of Wild Swan. Extract from a letter to Capt. Thomas Brown, F.R.S.E. &c.—“By the dissection of a Swan in our museum, (Messrs. John and Albany Hancock’s,) and of another now in the museum of this town, Mr. R. R. Wingate has been enabled to point out sufficient distinctive characters to establish an entire new species of Wild Swan. Mr. Selby of Twizel House is going to write a paper upon the subject, which will be shortly read at the Natural History Society of Newcastle.
“The chief distinctions consist in the formation of the trachea, having a slight difference in the external appearance, and being of a smaller size. It is intended to be named Anas Cygneus Bewickii, after our distinguished townsman.”

 

[l_raty]

Even if page 381 of the February 1830 number of The Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Science was published before 6 February 1830, does the following amount to the valid introduction of a new name, given the use of the phrase "It is intended to be named" and the minimal distinguishing features noted?

I would have no problem with this for a name dating from this period.

A statement that the new species is similar to the Whooper Swan but smaller, is enough to make the name available.
The proposal is extremely positive, actually : no actual doubt involved. (It was not rare back then to have names proposed with a statement of the type "should it prove to be new, it might be named [whatever]" -- which amounts more or less to "it is intended to be named" [whatever], if it happens to be distinct, which in my opinion is much worse. Such names area available if proposed before 1961. There are even names, that we are using, but that were actually "introduced" with an explicit statement that the taxon would not have to bear them at all -- see, e.g., Mesitornis Bonaparte 1855.)

 

[Mike Earp]

I agree that the Philos. Mag. report seems to be a very strong contender.

How to decide priority between the two February 1830 publications? Which of them is the OD? It would be neat if it was Yarrell (1830) even if the description was in an earlier publication than the one traditionally cited.