Mr Austin, and "his" birds (2 Viewers)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Let's have a quick look at Mr Austin, commemorated in ...

austina and austini as in:
• the debated, invalid alt./or valid, (Yellow) Robin ssp. (according to some) "Eopsaltria australis austina" MATHEWS 1914 (here), in the usual way of Mr Mathews no explanation, nothing ...
• the all invalid (Yellow-eyed) Cuckooshrike "Paragraucalus lineatus austini" MATHEWS 1914 (here); as ditto, as above.

In today's Key explained as:

● Thomas Phillips Austin (1875-1937) Australian grazier, field-ornithologist, oologist (syn. Coracina lineata, syn. Eopsaltria australis chrysorrhos).
● Prof. Oliver Luther Austin, Jr. (1903-1988) US ornithologist, collector, Curator of Birds Florida State Mus. 1957-1984 (syn. Pulsatrix perspicillata saturata).

But ... in Bibliography of the Birds of Australia, by Gregory M. Mathews himself (1925*), he lists this particular Mr Austin, on page 4, as [my blue bold] :

AUSTIN, THOMAS PHILLIPS.—Born January 6th, 1872. Australian Ornithologist who has sent me a complete series of notes which are incorporated in my work, and who also furnished many valuable notes to North, and he has also published in the Emu.

Thus, either "1875", or "1872", only one Birth year can be correct.

Anyone who knows which one?

Björn

---

*Mathews, G. M. 1925. The Birds of Australia / Bibliography of the Birds of Australia: Books used in the Preparation of this Work with a few Biographical details of Authors and collectors. Supplement 5. H. F. & G. Witherby, London. (here)

 

[James Jobling]

Whittell, 1954, The Literature of Australian Birds, p. 29, has, "AUSTIN, Thomas Phillips (1874-1937). Born at Hamilton, Victoria, January 4, 1874." Mathews could be rather slap-dash, so these are the dates that I will use.
P.S. Mathews's 1914 names are not invalid, but they are synonyms.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Ouups. Thanks James! Thereby (instead), apparently "1874" it was!

At times we end up in the proper place, simply by taking the wrong turns.

Cheers

Björn

PS. As I'm pretty certain you've seen before (in various posts), I use, and have been using, the term 'invalid' for/on multiple taxa/names currently not in use. Also see Laurent's comment here.

 

[James Jobling]

Yes, I recall Laurent's previous comment. I have a more conservative view of 'invalid,' i.e. without foundation or force, inconsequential, so beg leave to differ from the ICZN!!

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Ok, James, fair enough, though I hope you will endure the sight of it ... as there are plenty more of 'invalid' taxa/names to come (I have piles of them, as such, in pipeline, for future threads/posts). Bear with me.