Temminck's new bird names (1 Viewer)

[Peter Kovalik]

Edward C. Dickinson, Pepijn Kamminga, and Steven van der Mije (2022) Temminck's new bird names introduced in the early parts of the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux in 1820–22. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 142: 75-91.
Temminck's new bird names introduced in the early parts of the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux in 1820–22

Abstract
In deciding to provide a complement to Buffon's Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, Temminck, who had not previously published a ‘part work’ on this scale undertook to do so under the name Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d’oiseaux. At the start Temminck did not provide texts; each part included six plates. Of the many problems to solve the three main ones seemed to be: (i) the number of plates per part, (ii) the dates of publication, and (iii) the need to discover the wrappers issued with parts 1–20. The plates carried French names, but for these 20 parts the wrappers provided the new scientific names and attributed authorship. From previous studies we conclude that the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées must be considered as two works, and that the first of these (livraisons 1–20) must be seen as complete with the inclusion of the wrappers. We then examine all names applicable to images in these 120 plates, assessing authorship, date of publication and date precedence. We identified three cases where names long in prevailing usage require application to the ICZN for a ruling on reversal of precedence. We list 15 names that have been in widespread use over the last 60 years that risk changes if the names on the wrappers are judged unacceptable. Our Appendix deals with the 86 names Temminck thought new: (a) 27 of Temminck’s own names with precedence; (b) 19 manuscript names for which Temminck is the author; (c) 27 Temminck names which are junior synonyms; (d) 12 manuscript names from Temminck that are also junior synonyms; (e) one name used for two specimens Temminck thought were of the same species but proved different.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Edward C. Dickinson, Pepijn Kamminga, and Steven van der Mije (2022) Temminck's new bird names introduced in the early parts of the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux in 1820–22. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 142: 75-91.
Temminck's new bird names introduced in the early parts of the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux in 1820–22

Abstract
In deciding to provide a complement to Buffon's Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, Temminck, who had not previously published a ‘part work’ on this scale undertook to do so under the name Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d’oiseaux. At the start Temminck did not provide texts; each part included six plates. Of the many problems to solve the three main ones seemed to be: (i) the number of plates per part, (ii) the dates of publication, and (iii) the need to discover the wrappers issued with parts 1–20. The plates carried French names, but for these 20 parts the wrappers provided the new scientific names and attributed authorship. From previous studies we conclude that the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées must be considered as two works, and that the first of these (livraisons 1–20) must be seen as complete with the inclusion of the wrappers. We then examine all names applicable to images in these 120 plates, assessing authorship, date of publication and date precedence. We identified three cases where names long in prevailing usage require application to the ICZN for a ruling on reversal of precedence. We list 15 names that have been in widespread use over the last 60 years that risk changes if the names on the wrappers are judged unacceptable. Our Appendix deals with the 86 names Temminck thought new: (a) 27 of Temminck’s own names with precedence; (b) 19 manuscript names for which Temminck is the author; (c) 27 Temminck names which are junior synonyms; (d) 12 manuscript names from Temminck that are also junior synonyms; (e) one name used for two specimens Temminck thought were of the same species but proved different.

1. Sylvia conspicillata (Pl. 6, fig. 1) [August 1820]: this name would remain unchanged except that it would need to be cited from Temminck’s Manuel d’ornithologie in October 1820.
2. Sylvia subalpina (Pl. 6, fig. 2) [August 1820]: this name would remain unchanged except that it would need to be cited from Temminck’s Manuel d’ornithologie in October 1820.
3. Sylvia cisticola (Pl. 6, fig. 3) [August 1820]: this name would remain unchanged except that it would need to be cited from Temminck’s Manuel d’ornithologie in October 1820.
4. Pyrrhula cinereola (Pl. 11, fig. 1) [September 1820]: this name would fall into the synonymy of Fringilla hypoleuca M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823.
5. Platyrhynchos olivaceus (Pl. 12, fig. 1) [September 1820]: would fall into the synonymy of Todus olivaceus M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823.
6. Platyrhynchos cancromus (Pl. 12, fig. 2) [September 1820]: would fall into the synonymy of Platyrhynchus cancromus Swainson, 1822.
7. Muscicapa caesia (Pl. 17, figs. 1‒2) [October 1820]: would fall into the synonymy of Lanius caesius M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823.
8. Trochilus bilophus (Pl. 18, fig. 3) [October 1820]: would fall into the synonymy of Trochilus cornutus zu Wied-Neuwied, 1821.
9. Picus aurulentus (Pl. 59, fig. 1) [May 1821]: was given the same name by M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823, and his name would take precedence.
10. Trochilus langsdorffi (Pl. 66, fig. 1) [June 1821]: was given the same name by Vieillot, 1822, and his name would take precedence.
11. Trochilus chalybeus (Pl. 66, fig. 2) [June 1821]: was given the same name again by Vieillot (1822). The earlier name Trochilus chalybeus Bechstein, 1811, is regarded as unidentifiable and was ignored by Salvin (1892) and Cory (1918). So Vieillot’s name would take precedence.
12. Dendrocolaptes sylviellus (Pl. 72, fig. 1) [July 1821]: would fall into the synonymy of Dendrocolaptes erithacus M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1822, and his name would take precedence.
13. Xenops rutilus (Pl. 72, fig. 2) [July 1821]: is not preoccupied by the nomen nudum introduced by Lichtenstein (1819) and Temminck’s text antedates Lichtenstein (1823).
14. Falco riocouri (Pl. 85) [October 1821]: would fall into the synonymy of Elanoides riocourii Vieillot, 1822, and his name would take precedence. Note the spelling difference.
15. Criniger barbatus (Pl. 88) [November 1821]: would date from Temminck’s text and use the binomen Trichophorus barbatus.

What should be the valid names and valid authorities of these different taxa today?

 

[mb1848]

What should be the valid names and valid authorities of these different taxa today? Probably needs to be addressed case by case by authorities. SACC rejected X. rutilus change???
Change the specific epithet of Xenops rutilans to rutilus .

 

[Brian J Small]

In beginning to sound like a stuck record, I still find it hard to accept Sylvia subalpina for Moltoni’s Warbler.

Temminck’s plate is depicted here: File:Sylvia subalpina 1820.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Svensson (Bull. B.O.C. 2013 133(3) – see http://boc-online.org/bulletins/downloads/BBOC1333-Svensson.pdf ) writes, ‘That the type locality ‘near Turin’ could fit not only Moltoni’s Warbler but theoretically also Eastern Subalpine Warbler is of subordinate importance given the existence of Temminck’s plate and Temminck’s (1820b) statement that the plate depicted the unique specimen. Furthermore, it clearly shows the characteristic tail pattern of Moltoni’s Warbler, with the square white tips to the penultimate feathers excluding Eastern Subalpine Warbler.’

Firstly, the type location of Turin is at the boundary of Moltoni’s and Western Subalpine Warbler, which has a tail pattern similar to Moltoni’s. I am unsure why Svensson mentions Eastern Subalpine Warbler as being ‘theoretically’ at Turin.

Secondly, we are to believe that the plate accurately depicts a male Moltoni’s (Temminck actually wrote it was a female, but Svensson corrects this). The colour of the underparts, described as ‘vinaceous’, and the tail pattern, with white tips, are used to confirm that it as Moltoni’s. However, the tail pattern is depicted as having white tips to five outer rectrices, which is outside the norm for Moltoni’s. Likewise, the bird on Temminck’s plate shows very rich edges to all the remiges, greater coverts and greater primary coverts: such a pattern is not at all typical of Moltoni’s Warbler – see Daniele Occhiato’s superb series of photos of Moltoni’s Warbler (Moltoni's Warbler (Sterpazzolina di Moltoni) by Daniele Occhiato from throughout the summer) and note that Moltoni’s typically lacks any such colour on the fringes of the remiges. In fact such colour on the fringes of the remiges is more a character of Western Subalpine, though I recognise that the colour of the underparts contradicts this.

In my opinion that the plate by Temminck should be used as the holotype is open to question: it fails to accurately show a bird that typifies Moltoni’s (Subalpine) Warbler.

 

[l_raty]

Just ran into this, which is relevant to the explanation of the change from a plate-only work to a work with texts:

Temminck CJ, Laugier de Chartrouse GMJM. 1822. Nouvel avis. In: Cuvier G. Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux, pour servir de suite et de complément aux planches enluminées de Buffon; par MM. C. J. Temminck, d'Amsterdam, et Meiffren Laugier, Baron de Chartrouse, de Paris. Prospectus. G Dufour & E d'Ocagne, Paris.

Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux, ... Prospectus par M. le baron Cuvier

books.google.com

The Prospectus itself, by Cuvier, was a re-edition; it had already been published in 1820 (noted in Bibliogr. France on 7 Oct 1820).
The Nouvel avis is a first-hand explanation (by Temminck & Laugier themselves; thus better than Quoy 1824, which is cited in Dickinson et al 2022), which indicates that the authors had initially believed that the plates would not need any text beyond what appeared on the couvertures (this is the word they use for the wrappers; in French it may also mean a cover) of the livraisons, but then changed their mind due to subscribers' requests for explanations and, indeed, issues with foreign customs which were inclined to treat a plate-only work as art rather than as science.

 

[mb1848]

Brian thanks for flagging this. Interesting but beyond my ken.
Laurent. On the republished Prospectus of Cuvier from 1822 on the title page it says:
Nons invitons les lectuers de faire attentions au nouvel avis qui se trouve a la page 15.

We invite readers to pay attention to the new notice on page 15.
Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux, ... Prospectus par M. le baron Cuvier .
Is the new notice evidence of two works or a continuation with a change?

 

[l_raty]

Secondly, we are to believe that the plate accurately depicts a male Moltoni’s (Temminck actually wrote it was a female, but Svensson corrects this).

The chronology of publication of Temminck's material for this species was :

• [31] Aug 1820
  • Planches coloriées, livr. 1, pl. 6 : here; wrapper : here.
• 21 Oct 1820
  • Manuel d'ornithologie : here.
• 25 Jun 1823
  • Planches coloriées, livr. 1, subsequently added text : here.
• [31] Jan 1824
  • Planches coloriées, livr. 42, pl. 251 : here; text : here.

The specimen illustrated and described in 1820 (pl. 6 of Planches coloriées + Manuel d'ornithologie) had been obtained near Turin; Temminck (who had received it from Scopoli) explicitly indicated that he believed it to be unique. (This makes this specimen the holotype of Sylvia subalpina Temminck 1820 by monotypy.)
The two specimens shown on pl. 251 were said to have been obtained in Silesia; they had been sent to Temminck from Vienna, labelled as Sylvia leucopogon Meyer, but he had re-identified them as belonging to his own Sylvia subalpina.

Svensson wrote that "The type was described (Temminck 1820b) as a female, but based on Temminck’s plate (see below), its lead-grey upperparts and prominent pink underparts, I conclude that the specimen was a male."
It should be noted, however, that, in the 1824 text accompanying pl. 251, Temminck indicated explicitly that the ash-blue colour of the head and back of the bird shown on pl. 6 was too dark, and should have been duller and paler. In the same text, he also wrote that he had reached the conclusion that the birds on pl. 251 were the same species as that on his pl. 6 through comparisons that involved 'other birds' than the male on pl. 251 (which, he thought, had turned much deeper-coloured and dark-throated as a result of wear) : this suggests he regarded the bird on pl. 6 as similar to the female shown on pl. 251 (which looks nothing like a male).
Although Temminck described the underparts of the birds of pl. 6 as having "une belle couleur vineuse" (a beautiful vinaceous colour), he used this adjective elsewhere in a sense encompassing tones that would arguably be paler than what might be expected on the underparts of any male "subalpine" warbler, be it a Moltoni's -- e.g., here, for the underparts of Lanius meridionalis.
Temminck always presented the bird on pl. 6 as a female.

How confident can we really be that this bird was a male ?

 

[l_raty]

Is the new notice evidence of two works or a continuation with a change?

I see no evidence for "two works".

But the main barrier to wrappers being regarded as published is that they may be seen as a discardable (rather than permanent) part of the work.
If, when the first livraisons were produced, there was no intent to subsequently produce a text (the addition of which might have made the info on the wrappers redundant, which would in turn justify discarding them), it becomes significantly harder to disregard them.

 

[mb1848]

A new article that quotes this work "Temminck's new bird names introduced in the early parts of the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux in 1820–22. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club" for the "two works" concept.
Gouraud, Lebossé, Boinet & Hue. The first twenty livraisons of “Les Planches Coloriées d’Oiseaux” of Temminck & Laugier (1820–1839): V. Discovery of a new complete set of the wrappers.
https://www.avespress.com/uploads/texteditor/ZB_8_8_PDFA.pdf .

 

[mb1848]

Laurent wrote "I see no evidence for "two works".
In an undated but after 1822 first livraison of this work on page 248 says:
"The Subscribers who possess the first twenty Deliveries, and who wish to acquire the texts which are printed at this moment, will receive them separately successively at the rate of 1 fr. 50 c. quarto delivery"
Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux, pour servird de suite et de complément aux planches enluminées de Buffon - GDZ .
Evidence of two works or not?