The Dutch Mr. Forsten (2 Viewers)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Regardless of vigilance, or not, the OD of Bonaparte's name (of 1854) is pretty obvious, as neither one of the two Forsters (both predated) had any individual/personal, contemporary connection to the (later) Natuurkundige Commissie voor Nederlandsch-Indië (1820-1850) ...

Note that today's HBW Alive Key also have "Ducula" in the list for forsteni/forstenii, of birds commemorating E. A. Forsten.

For what it is worth, in my MS (of Swedish Common names) I have vitbukig kejsarduva [in line with its English name] White-bellied Imperial-Pigeon Ducula forsteni BONAPARTE 1854 (OD in Comptes rendus ... 39.1077 = Laurent's latter link, in post #19), as "Hemiphaga forsteni", though in my MS this bird is only mentioned (briefy) in the windup, among others, as one of some other species (on top of the two in my post #1), which in its scientific name (as well) is commemorating E. A. Forsten [i.e. Eltjo Allegondus Forsten (1811–1843)]

... which, to me, if I understand it all correctly, also would cover the misspelt "Columba Forsterii", by Temminck (alt./and/or Prévost, in Knip, 1838-1843), as it apparently is/was the same bird they were talking about.

Why Bonaparte is credited as the Author of this taxon is however beyond my grasp. Presumably due to the "erreur" by "Temminck" (alt./and/or Prévost).

The only bird commemorating any Forster that I've got (in my MS, which is far, far less extensive in numbers of taxa, in comparison to the multitude of names in James's Key) is the less questionable, even more obvious; Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri (earlier a k a "forstertärna” or ”Forsters tärna”, in Swedish, in line with its English name), named after Johann Reinhold Forster (1729–1798).

Either way, don't hesitate to remark on anything of the above (in this post) if it's erroneous (even in the tiniest detail) ... as this is what I will publish, in some far-away (hopefully not too far-away) future.

Björn

PS. Laurent (even if beyond my horizon), what about the "C. [Carpophaga] Forsteri (Wagl.)", listed by G. R. Gray (here, below No. 469), ex Wagler 1829 (here, on p.739, thus not on p.729, as Gray claimed). Equal of which of today's Doves/Pigeons?

Also listed here (1844) and here (1859) ... ?!? Maybe those texts would cover/explain the presence of some of the (all in all three) synonym/s in Ducula, listed in today's Key (under forsteri/forsterii/forsterorum)?

However, sorting out the latter (seemingly messy) case/s is even further away from my grasp (and time-frame).

If anyone feel like giving them a go; Good luck!
--

 

[l_raty]

Why Bonaparte is credited as the Author of this taxon is however beyond my grasp. Presumably due to the "erreur" by "Temminck" (alt./and/or Prévost).

Prévost's (alt./and/or Temminck's) Columba forsterii is an obvious error, but is not correctible because Forsten is ostensibly called "Forster" in the OD, thus there is no *internal* evidence of a problem. But it cannot be used either, because it is a junior primary homonym. Bonaparte deliberately changed this name to forsteni, which created a new name which is deemed authored by him -- and is not preoccupied, thus can be used.

PS. Laurent (even if beyond my horizon), what about the "C. [Carpophaga] Forsteri (Wagl.)", listed by G. R. Gray (here, below No. 469), ex Wagler 1829 (here, on p.739, thus not on p.729, as Gray claimed). Equal of which of today's Doves/Pigeons?

If (?) the type locality indicated by Wagler is correct, this should be a senior synonym of Ducula aurorae wilkesii (Peale 1848)... (But the description doesn't seem to match that taxon well.)
But this name (unless you decide to expand the 'R.' in Wagler's original 'C. R. Forsteri', at least) is another junior primary homonym, because there is a still earlier Columba forsteri Desmarest 1826 [here], which is a syn. of Ptilinopus porphyraceus (Temminck 1821) -- and which I don't see in the Key at all.

 

[ptvanwingerden]

I just published an academic article on Eltio Alegondus Forsten (1811-1843) in open acces, so if you're interested in his biography, see here:
https://doi.org/10.1111/1600-0498.12346

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks Pieter!

And: Welcome to BirdForum, and the Bird Name Etymology sub-forum.

That's quite an entrance! Downloaded and saved.

I might return, after having read it, if any questions appear. We'll se ...

Cheers

Björn

 

[ptvanwingerden]

Thanks Pieter!

And: Welcome to BirdForum, and the Bird Name Etymology sub-forum.

That's quite an entrance! Downloaded and saved.

I might return, after having read it, if any questions appear. We'll se ...

Cheers

Björn

Sure, happy to respond to any further queries. This article is written from a viewpoint that did not allow me to include all the biographical data on Forsten and his family, or focus on what he actually collected very much. Forsten was very much inspired by Temminck's Planches Coloriées in his fieldwork. In archives of the Natural History Committee are several lists of specimens collected by Forsten that are identified according to a key to the Planches Coloriées that Forsten wrote for his personal use. Forsten never published anything himself. From what I've seen his specimens do turn up in works by Salomon Müller, Hermann Schlegel and of course Charles Lucien Bonaparte.