• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Paridae, Remizidae, Aegithalidae (1 Viewer)

mb1848

Well-known member
I am wondering if there is an earlier work than 1845? The JfO lists 1842.* Malherbe, Alfred, Catalogue des Oiseaux observes en Algerie (Bull, de la Soc. d'hist. nat. de la Moselle, 1842)
[Bureau]. What does Bureau mean in this context? Im thinking a bare bones list of birds not its own article? I cannot find it
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Excellent, thanks! So a synonym of C. t. ultramarinus Bonaparte, 1841; perhaps a leucistic individual lacking the black lores?
It's hard to tell what was used as the base of the painting.
Malherbe's description is not really clear about the lores, but the bird on the plate, if rendered correctly, also lacks entirely the white line which should run all the way around the black cap, and which Malherbe described clearly. (I.e., the plate does not actually match the OD.)
Perhaps the plate was made using a somewhat damaged specimen, which forced the artist into some interpretation ?
 

mb1848

Well-known member
"I am wondering if there is an earlier work than 1845? The JfO lists 1842.* Malherbe, Alfred, Catalogue des Oiseaux observes en Algerie (Bull, de la Soc. d'hist. nat. de la Moselle, 1842)"
I cannot link to a copy of this because I believe it has not been digitized. But Whittiker in Birds of Tunisia read it and quotes this article about nesting by Parus ledouci.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/49575#page/190/mode/1up .
He lists page 45 of the publication for OD of P. ledouci and I have seen same page number for P. caeruleanus, OD.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
But Whittiker in Birds of Tunisia read it and quotes this article about nesting by Parus ledouci.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/49575#page/190/mode/1up .
He lists page 45 of the publication for OD of P. ledouci and I have seen same page number for P. caeruleanus, OD.

The information about nesting quoted by Whitaker appears to be present in the 1845 paper, though, so it could quite easily have been quoted from there:
Whitaker 1905 (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14035703):
[...] the only positive information we possess on the subject bemg, apparently, that given by Malherbe, when describing the bird as new (Mem. Soc. His. Nat. Moselle, 1842, p. 45). This was to the effect that M. Ledoux, the French officer after whom the species was named, had taken one of these Tits on a nest placed fifteen centimetres deep in the ground in the Forest of Edough, near Bone.
Malherbe 1845 (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33792669):
Je dois cette mésange à l'obligeance de M. Ledoux, officier du génie dans la province de Bône, auquel je l'ai dédiée. Cet officier, qui s'occupe d'histoire naturelle avec un grand zèle et avec succès, a pris le 16 avril 1842 cet oiseau dans un nid profond de 15 centimètres pratiqué en terre dans la forêt de Ledoug.


Malherbe's 1845 paper was in Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle, 3e cahier (title page: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33792701). But this journal started in 1843 as Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle, 1er cahier (title page: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33692581), hence finding it misquoted as "Mémoires" doesn't seem unexpectable. In the 1er cahier, we are told that the Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle was created on 28 Sep 1835 (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33692557). This cahier also includes a complete report on the activities of the society in the years 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840 and 1841 -- i.e., since its creation, and as if no such thing had ever been done before. In this context, I don't think it very likely that another, earlier publication, also named Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle might have existed.


I suspect Whitaker's reference is a corruption of Gadow 1883 (Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 8: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8308110), who gave:
Parus ledoucii, Malh. Cat. Ois. Alg. in Mém. de la Soc. d'Hist. Nat. de la Moselle, 1842; id. Rev. Zool. 1846, p. 45 ; Bp. C. A. i. p. 229; id. Cat. Parzud., Append. p. 18; Loche, Cat. Mamm. et Ois. Alg. p. 78; id. Expl. de l'Alg., Ois. p. 298; Taczan. J. f. O. 1870, p. 41; Gurney, Ibis, 1871, p. 86, pl. 3; Dress. B. Eur. iii. pi. 107; Dixon, Ibis, 1882, p. 669.
Compare to Whitaker 1905 (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14035702):
Parus ledoucii, Malherbe, Cat. Ois. Alg. in Mem. de la Soc. d'Hist. Nat. de la Moselle, 1842, p. 45.
Parus ledouci, Gadow, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. viii, p. 44; Malherbe, Cat. Rais. d'Ois. Alg. p. 12 (1846); Loche, Expl. Sci. Alg. Ois. i, p. 298, pl. vii. (1867); Koenig, J. f. O. 1888, p. 175; id. J. f. O. 1892, p. 374.
Parus ater ledouci, Erlanger, J. f. O. 1899, p. 309.
In Gadow, "p. 45" was the page on which the name appeared in 1846 in Revue Zoologique (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2362471); Whitaker omitted citing Revue Zoologique altogether.

(Note that the species names, in Rev. Zool., although being published under a title meaning "description of some new bird species from Algeria", were given the same dates as in the Bulletin: 1843 for Pica mauritanica, 1842 for the two Parus; and all three names, despite these different dates, came with the same single reference: "Catal. des ois. obs. en Algérie, Bull. de la soc. d'hist. nat. de la Moselle". Obviously, these names cannot have been published in a single paper on two different years -- I would conclude again that the dates attributed to them by Malherbe were not intended to be dates of publication.)
 

Björn Bergenholtz

... earlier a k a "Calalp"
Re. Malherbe's Parus cæruleanus ...

In Faune Ornithologie de la Sicilie*, by Alfred Malherbe, first published in Mémoire de l'Académie Royale de Metz XXIV (1842–1843, Second Partie) we find the following short line of thought, at the end of the entry for the Blue Tit itself:

MÉSANGE BLEU
[...]
... Les individus que j'ai reçus de l'Algérie ont la tête d'un bleu noirâtre et diffèrent de notre espèce d'Europe. Je crois qu'on en peut former une espèce nouvelle.

[here]​

If nothing else, at least we now know that he was thinking, pondering over it, in those certain years.

Could this be the very reason for "1842" ?

Or did he simply made up his mind, the very same year, and presented it (in person), as in a lecture, to the (close-by) Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle ... ?

Björn
_____________________________________________________________________________________
*The same piece/text, was also published as a separate offprint,
reprinted (with a far longer sub-title), in 1843 (here or here).
 
Last edited:

Björn Bergenholtz

... earlier a k a "Calalp"
Re. the alleged journal (Bulletin/Mémoires ... Moselle) itself, if it existed, or not.
[...]
... This cahier also includes a complete report on the activities of the society in the years 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840 and 1841 -- i.e., since its creation, and as if no such thing had ever been done before. In this context, I don't think it very likely that another, earlier publication, also named Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle might have existed.
[...]
Laurent, your reasoning make perfect sense, but see the Liste des Ouvrages, in the same Mémoires de l'Académie nationale de Metz (dated 1842–1943, on the Cover, alt. Sept., 1842, by BnF/Gallica) and the following listed Work (and Works), on p.416 (here);
Mémoire de la Société d'histoire naturelle du département de la Moselle, depuis sa fondation (1835) jusqu'à 1842.
Doesn't this indicate that such a journal (i.e. the Mémoires ...) actually did exist, in those certain years?

/B
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
Laurent, your reasoning make perfect sense, but see the Liste des Ouvrages, in the same Mémoires de l'Académie nationale de Metz (dated 1842–1943, on the Cover, alt. Sept., 1842, by BnF/Gallica) and the following listed Work (and Works), on p.416 (here);
This volume covers the 'academic year' 1842-1843 (dates on the centre of the title page), and was printed in 1843 (date at the bottom of the title page). The Académie worked with years starting and ending on 1 May; in May, they typically had a public meeting of closure of the past academic year; then, they published the Mémoires for this past year. In most years these came as a single volume, which started with an address, pronounced by the president at the closure meeting. Here, it's a bit more complex, though, because the Mémoires were published in two volumes, and these might have appeared on different dates. (The address, pronounced on 14 May 1843, is in the first volume: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k332225/f4.item .) I'm not aware that these volumes were ever published in subparts, however. In the second volume, a decision taken at a meeting on 27 Aug 1843 is cited (on p. 332: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k33223h/f335.item ); publication must have been later than this.

(The Faune ornithologique de la Sicile was initially in the same volume, hence I would not date it to 1842, but rather to [late in] 1843. The separate version of this work was noted as published on 16 Dec 1843 in Bibliographie de la France -- #5782 in: https://books.google.com/books?id=OhxbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA635 .)

Doesn't this indicate that such a journal (i.e. the Mémoires ...) actually did exist, in those certain years?/B
Well, the 1er cahier was published in 1843, under this title, and included materials covering a period starting in 1835...
So, why is this not simply an acknowledgement of the reception of the 1er cahier ?
 
Last edited:

Björn Bergenholtz

... earlier a k a "Calalp"
...
Well, the 1er cahier was published in 1843, under this title, and included materials covering a period starting in 1835...
So, why is this not simply an acknowledgement of the reception of the 1er cahier ?
Doesn't that single French phrase; "Mémoire de la Société d'histoire naturelle du département de la Moselle, depuis sa fondation (1835) jusqu'à 1842" ... tell us that a publication/journal by the name; Mémoire de la Société d'histoire naturelle du département de la Moselle was published from the foundation of the Society itself, in (1835) and onwards, until 1842 ... ?

If not, I'll certainly try to keep my mouth shut (and myself as far from any French texts as ever possible) ...

However; I do find it somewhat odd that BnF/Gallica dates the Metz publication; Sept., 1842, compare; here, here, here, and here (look for the red dot/circle, to the left), when "1843" is repeatedly present/typed on quite a few of those pages. Just a thought, for whatever it's worth.

And, in any case; the key/main thing that I tried to say, was that Malherbe (pre-1845), in his Sicilian piece, was considering the possibility that the Algerian (Blue) Tit could/might be "une espèce nouvelle".

Stay safe!

😷

Björn
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
Doesn't that single French phrase; "Mémoire de la Société d'histoire naturelle du département de la Moselle, depuis sa fondation (1835) jusqu'à 1842" ... tell us that a publication/journal by the name; Mémoire de la Société d'histoire naturelle du département de la Moselle was published from the foundation of the Society itself, in (1835) and onwards, until 1842 ... ?
Strictly speaking, it means a set of works ("memoirs") produced by/within the society between its foundation and 1842.
It doesn't really say anything about how these "memoirs" would have been published -- the phrase might be consistent with a periodical publication that started in 1835 and continued up to 1842; but there is nothing in it that excludes the possibility of unpublished works, which had remained within the society until that point and were being issued as a single volume, called Mémoires de la Société d'histoire naturelle du département de la Moselle.
Thus I don't really see why it could not be this: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33692581

However; I do find it somewhat odd that BnF/Gallica dates the Metz publication; Sept., 1842, compare; here, here, here, and here (look for the red dot/circle, to the left), when "1843" is repeatedly present/typed on quite a few of those pages. Just a thought, for whatever it's worth.
The 'new' Gallica is not really an improvement in terms of clarity, IMO...
I started reading it as "1 Sep 1842", just like you. But what they're trying to tell us is actually "1 Jan 1842" -- "1" in a red circle, "Jan" (on the far left) in bold, "1842" in red; the "1" being right below "Sept." is just coincidental.
"1 Jan" is what they use when they don't know.
 

Björn Bergenholtz

... earlier a k a "Calalp"
Fair enough, Laurent, I'll take your word for it. French isn't, and has never been, my home turf.

I rest my case. Off to other (easier) ones ...

/B
 

albertonykus

Well-known member
Kenyon, H.L. and P.R. Martin (2021)
Experimental tests of selection against heterospecific aggression as a driver of avian color pattern divergence
Journal of Evolutionary Biology (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1111/jeb.13798
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.13798

Signal divergence is thought to reduce the costs of co‐occurrence for closely related species and may thereby be important in the generation and maintenance of new biodiversity. In birds, closely related, sympatric species are more divergent in their color patterns than those that live apart, but the selective pressures driving sympatric divergence in color pattern are not well understood. Here, we conducted field experiments on naïve birds using spectrometer‐matched, painted 3D‐printed models to test whether selection against heterospecific aggression might drive color pattern divergence in the genus Poecile. We found that territorial male black‐capped chickadees (P. atricapillus) are equally likely to attack sympatric and allopatric congeners, and wintering flocks are equally likely to visit feeders occupied by sympatric and allopatric congeners, despite sympatric congeners being more divergent in color pattern. These results suggest that either the concerted evolution of additional traits (e.g., discrimination), or interactions in sympatry that promote learning, are required if color pattern divergence among sympatric species is to reduce heterospecific aggression. Alternatively, color pattern divergence among sympatric species may be caused by other selective pressures, such as selection against hybridization or habitat partitioning and secondary signal adaptation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top