Thurber's Dark-eyed Junco (1 Viewer)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Hmmmm, I´m a bit confused and/or ditto puzzled (on yet another side-track of mine), this time regarding the eponym ...

thurberi as in:
• the subspecies Junco hyemalis thurberi ANTHONY 1890 (here)

Today's HBW Alive Key is a bit hesitating:

thurberi
Eugene Carleton Thurber (1865-1896) US field naturalist, collector (per Palmer 1928) (cf. Dr George Thurber (1821-1890) US botanist (per Beolens et al. 2014)) (subsp. Junco hyemalis).

But the OD is quite out-spoken (!):

Not long since I was shown by Mr. E. C. Thurber of Alhambra, California, two Juncos that differed from any that I had seen on this coast, and ...
[...]
I take pleasure in naming this handsome Junco for the discoverer Mr. E. C. Thurber of Alhambra, Cal.
[...]
... Wilson's Peak, May 24th, 1890: E. C. Thurber, collector

Is there anyone who understand why Beolens et al. [I assume in their, much to often erroneous, Eponym Dictionary of Birds (2014)], would claim it´s commemorating the US botanist Dr George Thurber (1821–1890) versus T. S. Palmer's claim, from back in 1928 (here, p.298, or see attached jpg) that says: Eugene Carleton Thurber (1865–1896) ... !?

The latter is also mentioned on p.264, as: "E. C. Thurber, who came to California in search of health and died at Alhambra, but not until he had discovered the Junco that bears his name" ... who died at the age of 31.

The OD above, repeatedly says; "E. C. ...", "E. C. ...", "E. C. Thurber" ... and the other guy; the American pharmacist, botanist and Plant collector George Thurber* was born in Providence, Rhode Island (New York) in 1821 ... and he died at his home near Passaic, New Jersey, April 2, 1890 ... hard to call "of Alhambra, California". There´s a whole continent between them! In 1890 they were on different sides of the US.

Then; why? (this said, even if the latter was connected to, and most likely visited, the boundries of the Southwesternmost corner of the US and Mexico).

In my mind it´s quite obvious the Junco subspecies does commemorate the unfortunate Eugene Carleton Thurber.

Can anyone explain the contradicting claims or the hesitation?

Björn

_______________________________________________
*commemorated in some Plants. More on him, if of interest; here and here.

 

[Taphrospilus]

Can anyone explain the contradicting claims or the hesitation?

Slipshod research by the authors of The Eponym Dictionary of Birds?

 

[James Jobling]

I was not being hesitant over thurberi - merely including Bo's entry for comparison and completeness. I would certainly not accuse Bo and his excellent team of being slipshod. They have done sterling work. If you compare their Eponym Dictionary (2014) with my first Dictionary (1991) you will see that I also could have been accused of being slipshod (Ortyxelos and dinemelli spring to mind). In the days before the myriad websites now available, there was a general lack of immediate fingertip resources (remember BirdForum and the BHL hadn't been invented!) All enquiries had to be made by either visiting the appropriate libraries (and laboriously writing everything down), indulging in lengthy correspondence and 'phone calls (I remember having long chats with a kind lady at the Japanese Embassy in London), or consulting one's own library. Very time consuming, and sometimes very expensive, when time was of the essence - the publishers always want your manuscript the day before yesterday. All reference works have their weak points (they become outdated the day they are published), but the beauty of the Key is that it can be edited immediately when correspondents like yourselves bring new information to light. Serenity and charity to all.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

James, I strongly doubt than anyone ever would accuse you, and your book of 1991, as well as the one of 2010, of being slipshod. And I agree that Bo Beolens et al to a great extent has done a good job, even if, as in this case, and far too many other, it wouldn´t have been hard to do a better one. Not even in the days of Whose Bird? Common Bird Names and the People They Commemorate (2004).

Checking the OD itself (if at all possible) must always be considered as rule No.1.

Anyone who take on a major task like this kind of books, should keep the publishers at arm's length, until the job is done. At least to a level where the Author/s feel satisfied. If not, there´s always ways of expressing uncertainty. In my experience; serious publishers rarely have the nerve to become awkward. Even if they try to sound that way (most often it's just idle talk). If worth the name, they cannot risk (read afford) to loose their originators/authors.
--

 

[Taphrospilus]

Do not understand me wrong. This is no general critics on the book and I agree the book is more than this entry. But as Björn wrote I think OD (if availble) should be checked as first source. And in above case this would have easily avoided the wrong entry. We have seen several similar cases which showed that OD haven't been checked. I do not talk about really tricky ones or the ones the OD is very hard to get. And in above case there is some evidence that OD was never checked or how can you explain that E. C. Thurber is equal to George Thurber (1821–1890) apart from the fact that last name, the year of death of George and collection of the bird (1890) correspond?

And last but not least I would not have the patience to even write such a book (as I feel it will be a never ending story). Many members of this forum showed often enough my own slipshod research and I do not have any problem with it. Further more I appreciate if someone corrects my imperfection.