ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 31

Systematic notes on Asian birds. 23.
Types of the Campephagidae
E.C. Dickinson, R.W.R.J. Dekker, S. Eck & S. Somadikarta

With contributions by
M. Kalyakin, H. Morioka, C. Violani, C. Voisin, J-F. Voisin & M. Walters
Dickinson, E.C., R.W.R.J. Dekker, S. Eck & S. Somadikarta. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 23. Typesof the Campephagidae.
Zool. Verh. Leiden 340, 27.xii.2002: 31-74, fig. 1.— ISSN 0024-1652/ISBN 90-73239-84-2.
Edward C. Dickinson, c/o The Trust for Oriental Ornithology, Flat 3, Bolsover Court, 19 Bolsover
Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN20 7JG, U.K. (e-mail: asiaorn@ftech.co.uk).
René W.R.J. Dekker, National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The
Netherlands. (e-mail: dekker@naturalis.nnm.nl).
Siegfried Eck, Staatliche Naturhistorische Sammlungen Dresden, Museum für Tierkunde, A.B. Meyer
Bau, Königsbrücker Landstrasse 159, D-01109 Dresden, Germany. (e-mail: seck@snsd.de).
Soekarja Somadikarta, Dept. of Biology, Faculty of Science and Mathematics, University of Indonesia,
Depok Campus, Depok 16424, Indonesia. (e-mail: soma30@indo.net.id).
Mikhail V. Kalyakin, Zoological Museum, Moscow State University, Bol’shaya Nikitskaya Str. 6,
Moscow, 103009, Russia. (e-mail: kalyakin@rambler.ru).
Hiroyuki Morioka, Curator Emeritus, National Science Museum, Hyakunin-cho 3-23-1, Shinjuku-ku,
Tokyo 100, Japan.
Carlo Violani, Department of Biology, University of Pavia, Piazza Botta 9, 27100 Pavia, Italy. (e-mail:acquint@ipv.36.unipv.it).
Claire & Jean-François Voisin, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Laboratoire de Zoologie, Mammifères et Oiseaux, 55 Rue de Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France (e-mail: jfvoisin@cimrs1.mnhn.fr).
Michael Walters, Bird Group, The Natural History Museum, Akeman Street, Tring, Herts., HP23 6AP,
U.K. (e-mail: mpw@nhm.ac.uk).
Keywords: Campephagidae; cuckoo-shrikes; cicadabirds; trillers; minivets; types; lectotype designations.
A list of nearly 300 names applied to Asian forms of species of cuckoo-shrikes and minivets and their
allies (family Campephagidae) is provided. This list provides information on the whereabouts of a type;where our information does not include reliable data we provide notes to explain the deficit and to stimulate others to offer additional data or sources of information. Lectotypes are designated for the following:
Phoenicornis affinis McClelland, 1840; Muscicapa flammea Forster, 1781; Phoenicornis elegans Horsfield, 1840.

Introduction
In our previous paper ‘Systematic notes on Asian birds. 3. Types of the Eurylaimidae’ (Dekker et al., 2000) we have explained the rationale for this comprehensive set ofarticles on the types of Asian birds. Readers are referred to that paper for a fuller introduction than the abbreviated one given here, and for more details on methodology.
Methodology
Our table shows the names applied to the taxa, with author(s) and date (thesebeing reported in the ‘References’), the acronym of a museum holding a type and,

ZV-340 031-074 | 2332

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 32

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

especially where this is lacking, we give the number of the comment following thetable. The arrangement of the list is by species and within that by subspecies. The
sequence is somewhat modified from that of Peters et al. (1960).
The subspecies recognized here differ from those recognized in Peters’s Check-list
in two particulars. First, we include all subsequent names of which we are aware:
Coracina striata boholensis Rand & Rabor, 1959; Coracina coerulescens deschauenseei
duPont, 1972; Coracina morio lecroyae Parkes, 1971; Coracina morio ripleyi Parkes, 1971;
Coracina melaschistos quyi Dao Van Thien, 1961; Pericrocotus flammeus gonzalesi Ripley &Rabor, 1961; Pericrocotus flammeus nigroluteus, Parkes, 1981 (originally named neglectus
by Parkes, 1974). Second, we apply the decisions made in the accompanying paper on
this family (Dickinson & Dekker, 2002), most already made by previous authors. The
most obvious changes are the separation of Coracina novaehollandiae (J.F. Gmelin, 1789)
sensu lato into several species (macei Lesson, 1831; javensis Horsfield, 1821; novaehollandiae and personata S. Müller, 1843); the association of pollens Salvadori, 1874a, with personata, removal of three subspecies from Coracina tenuirostris (Jardine, 1831) with C.
dispar (Salvadori, 1878) treated as a species and the races talautensis (Meyer &Wiglesworth, 1895) and salvadorii (Sharpe, 1878) assigned to Coracina morio (S. Müller,
1843); the separation of Coracina morio sensu lato into several species (morio, mindanensis Tweeddale, 1879; sula Hartert, 1918; ceramensis Bonaparte, 1850, and extralimitalincerta Meyer, 1874). Also of note is the arrangement of Lalage nigra Forster, 1781. We
also employ the name Tephrodornis virgatus (Temminck, 1824) in place of Tephrodornis
gularis (Raffles, 1822) although the issue here might be taken to the International
Commission for Zoological Nomenclature for determination. This is explained in thereview by Dickinson & Dekker (2002, this issue).
We stress, as before, that these views are preliminary in nature. Additional information and suggestions received before the ‘Synopsis’ may lead to modified treatment therein, see Introduction to ‘Systematic notes on Asian birds’ (Dickinson &Dekker, 2000).
We have again omitted ‘new combinations’ (wherein the generic name changed,
but the specific epithet was maintained). Please advise us if you think we have missed
anything that should appear in the definitive synonymies that will be in the Synopsis.
All names have been checked to the original citations, except for Picnonotus [sic]humeraloides Lesson, 1844, which was checked to the later reprint, and original
spellings are used. In the case of unusual spellings we add the usual adjunction ‘[sic]’.
Exceptions to this rule are made in this particular paper in case of the usage of thegeneric names Ceblephyris (instead of Ceblepyris) and Edoliisoma and Edoliosoma(instead of Edolisoma) as these spellings were used deliberately based on differing
opinions about the “correct” spelling and we do not treat them as errors.
In our reports on Asian types of the Eurylaimidae (Dekker et al., 2000), the Pittidae(Dickinson et al., 2000) and the Alaudidae (Dickinson et al., 2001a), we investigated all
the names that we found in synonymy, and we then went on to list each name in ourtype table. For every such name we explored what was known about the types. Our
work on the Hirundinidae persuaded us, in the context of certain old names, that alesser investigation and a more limited report would suffice. When the literaturereports a type locality far outside our range, the search for type specimens places aburden on us that may not be appropriate to take up. Our tables now therefore some-ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 33

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

33

times include a ¶ in place of a comment number. Like all listed names those with a ¶have a citation in our list of references. The symbol explains that, once we know theterra typica or type locality, and after we have established the validity of the name, wehave not pursued the type information because of the degree of irrelevance of thename to Asian ornithology. We accept that these exclusions marginally reduce thevalue of our survey, but the preparation of the planned Synopsis requires us to deliver the core of our work within a reasonable time span.
Our type-papers are intended to serve as a reference source for all these oldnames, by continuing to include those marked with a ¶ the citations appear in our listof References so that in the rare cases when the original information needs to be examined further it can be. A list of acronyms appears before the list of References.
Published type catalogues and data provided as part of the original description
have remained our main sources, but an increasing community of interested museum
curators and collection managers is providing a growing amount of help that is very
welcome. In our personal searches for types, which one cannot safely describe as
exhaustive, even for the few museums that we have visited, we have been privileged
to be able to access and examine type material, as detailed under Acknowledgements.
It should not be assumed however that we have re-examined any particular type. We
have examined some where we had a particular reason to do so.
As regards the taxonomic treatments that have informed our views, the principal
sources have been White & Bruce (1986) and Schodde & Mason (1999). More information is contained in our preliminary review (Dickinson & Dekker, 2002, this issue).
Coracina macei
C. m. layardi
Graucalus layardi
C. m. macei
Graucalus Macei
C. m. nipalensis[Grauculus] Nipalensis
Coracina javensis lushaiensis
C. m. siamensis
Graucalus macei siamensis
C. m. rexpineti2
Graucalus rexpineti
Graucalus javensis mellianus
C. m. larvivora
Graucalus macei larvivorus
C. m. andamana
Graucalus macei andamanus
Graucalus javensis andamanensis
C. m. larutensis
Artamides larutensis

Blyth

1866

?

Lesson1831

MNHN

Hodgson
Koelz

18361
1954

BMNH
UMMZ

E.C.S. Baker

1918

BMNH

SwinhoeStresemann

1863a
1923

BMNH
ZMB

Hartert

1910

AMNH

Neumann
Whistler

1915
1940

ZMB
BMNH

Sharpe

1887b

BMNH

1.

1 Peters et al. (1960: 170) seemed to date this 1837 (p. 327), but on p. 193 they dated Volvocivora
melaschistos Hodgson (p. 328) of the same paper as 1836. We accept 1837 for Tenthaca pelvica (=Tephrodornis virgatus pelvicus) on p. 447, but we lack firm evidence for this date.
2 Hyphenation is not permitted in this case (Art. 32.5.2., ICZN, 1999).

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

34

08:50

Pagina 34

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Coracina javensis
Ceblephyris Javensis

Horsfield

1821

BMNH

Coracina novaehollandiae
C. n. melanops
C[orvus] melanops
Graucalus Choucari
Graucalus melanotis
Coracina novaehollandiae westralensis
Coracina novaehollandiae connectens
Coracina novæ-hollandiæ didimus
Coracina novaehollandiae kuehni

LathamLaugier
Gould
Mathews
Mathews
Mathews
Hartert

18023
1836
1838
1912a
1912a
1912b
1916

?
?
ANSP ?
AMNH
AMNH
AMNH
AMNH

Sharpe

18784

BMNH

A.B. Meyer

1882

MTD

Hartert

1898

AMNH

S. Müller
A.B. Meyer

1843
1885

RMNH
MTD

Salvadori

1874a

MNSG

P.L. Sclater

1883

BMNH

Salvadori

1878

RMNH

‘Forsten, Mus.
Lugd.’ Bonaparte

18506

RMNH

C. a. atriceps
Cebl[epyris]. (Graucalus) atriceps

S. Müller

1843

RMNH

Coracina schistacea
Artamides schistaceus
Coracina schistacea petersi

Sharpe7
Neumann

1878
1939

BMNH
MTD

Coracina personata
C. p. floris
Artamides floris
C. p. sumbensis
Graucalus sumbensis
C. p. alfrediana
Graucalus floris alfredianus
C. p. personata
Cebl[epyris]. (Graucalus) personata
Graucalus lettiensis
C. p. pollens
Graucalus pollens
C. p. unimoda
Graucalus unimodus5
Coracina fortis
Graucalus fortis
Coracina atriceps
C. a. magnirostrisG[raucalus]. magnirostris

3

2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

5.

Peters et al. (1960: 172) dated this 1801; we follow Browning & Monroe (1991) in dating this from1802. We did not apply this judgement in our earlier lists but will do so henceforth.
4 Peters et al. (1960: 171) listed this as described in Sharpe (1879), Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 4: 9 (in key), 14.
However, Warren & Harrison (1971) noted that it was named earlier by Sharpe (1878), Mitt. K. Zool.
Mus. Dresden 3: 363.
5 Peters et al. (1960: 173) gave the original name as Artamides unimodus; it was in fact named Graucalus
unimodus as used here.
6 Peters et al. (1960: 173) gave the date as 1851, but it is now generally accepted that 1850 is the dateapplicable to pages through to at least 500 (Zimmer, 1926).

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 35

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)
Coracina temminckii
C. t. temminckii
Cebl[epyris]. (Graucalus) Temminckii
C. t. rileyi
Coracina temminckii rileyi
C. t. tonkeana
Graucalus temmincki [sic] tonkeanus
Coracina larvata
C. l. melanocephala
Graucalus melanocephalus
C. l. larvata
Cebl[epyris]. (Graucalus) larvata
C. l. normani
Graucalus normani
Coracina striata
C. s. dobsoni
Graucalus Dobsoni
C. s. sumatrensis
Cebl[epyris]. (Graucalus) sumatrensis
G[raucalus] concretus
Graucalus crissalis
Artamides sumatrensis halistephis
Artamides sumatrensis messeris
Artamides sumatrensis nesiarchus
C. s. bungurensis
Graucalus bungurensis
Artamides sumatrensis calopolius
C. s. simalurensis
Graucalus simalurensis
C. s. babiensis
Graucalus babiensis
C. s. kannegieteri
Artamides Kannegieteri
C. s. enganensis
Graucalus enganensis
C. s. vordermani
Graucalus vordermani
C. s. difficilis
Graucalus sumatrensis difficilis
C. s. striata
Corvus striatus[Corvus] Novae-Guineae

735

S. Müller

1843

RMNH

5.

Meise

1931

MTD

A.B. Meyer

1903

MTD

Salvadori

1879a

MNSG

S. Müller

1843

RMNH

Sharpe

1887a

AMNH

Ball

1872

ZSI ?

8.

S. Müller
Hartlaub
Salvadori
Oberholser
Oberholser
Oberholser

1843
1864
1894
1912
1926
1926

RMNH
RMNH
AMNH
USNM
USNM
USNM

5.

HartertOberholser

1894
1917a

AMNH
USNM

Richmond

1903

USNM

Richmond

1903

USNM

Büttikofer

18968

RMNH

Salvadori

1892

MNSG

Hartert

1901

AMNH

Hartert

1895

AMNH

Boddaert
J.F. Gmelin

1783
1788

Plate
Plate

7.

5.

9.
9.

Peters et al. (1960: 173) listed this as described in Sharpe (1879), Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 4: 9 (in key), 11.
However, Warren & Harrison (1971) showed that it was named earlier by Sharpe (1878), Mitt. K. Zool.
Mus. Dresden 3: 363. Sharpe (1879: 11) listed Graucalus temmincki Wallace as a synonym. Wallace(1863a: 342) did not name a new taxon, but simply applied S. Müller’s name (q.v.) for Sulawesi birds
to birds from the nearby Sula Islands.
8 Peters et al. (1960: 176) gave the date as 1897. However, publication was on 24 December 1896.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

36
Coracina fasciata
Ceblepyr[is] plumb[ea]nomen nudum?9Graucalus lineatus10
Graucalus Dussumieri
Graucalus lagunensis
C. s. mindorensis
Artamides Mindorensis
C. s. panayensis
Artamides Panayensis
C. s. cebuensis
Artamides cebuensis
C. s. kochii
Graucalus Kochii
Artamides Mindanensis
C. s. boholensis
Coracina striata boholensis
C. s. guillemardi
Graucalus guillemardi

08:50

Pagina 36

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)
Vieillot
Wagler

1817a
1827

Plate

9.

LessonLessonBonaparte

1831
1831
1854

Plate
MNHN
MNHN

9.

Steere1890

BMNH

Steere1890

BMNH

Ogilvie-Grant

1896

BMNH

KutterSteere

1882
1890

ZMB
BMNH

Rand & Rabor

1959

FMNH

Salvadori

1886

AMNH

Coracina bicolor
Ceblephyris bicolor

Temminck

1824

RMNH

Coracina leucopygia
G[raucalus]. leucopygius

Bonaparte

185011RMNH

J.F. Gmelin
G.R. Gray

1788
1860

?
BMNH

Gould
A.B. Meyervon Berlepsch
Mathews

1848
1884
1911
1912b

ANSP
MTD
SMF
AMNH

Coracina parvula
Graucalus parvulus

Salvadori

1878

RMNH

Coracina abbotti
Celebesia abbotti

Riley

1918

USNM

Coracina papuensis
C. p. papuensis
Corvus papuensis
Campephaga melanolora
C. p. hypoleuca
Graucalus hypoleucus
Graucalus timorlaoënsis
G[raucalus]. mertoni
Coracina hypoleuca parryi

97.

We have examined the name herein but can find neither a description nor a valid indication.
This name is preoccupied by Ceblepyris lineata Swainson, 1825 now Coracina lineata (q.v.). It was
attributed to this species by Sharpe (1879: 18) presumably because Lesson (1831: 349) mentioned
Daubenton’s plate 629 and Gmelin’s earlier name, but Lesson also gave “la Nouvelle-Hollande” as theterra typica which has evidently been judged an error. Lesson (1831) described both an adult and ayoung bird and the identity appropriate to this name needs re-evaluation on the basis of the originaldescription. It may not belong here.
11
Peters et al. (1960: 179) gave the date as 1851, but it is now generally accepted that 1850 is the dateapplicable to pages through to at least 500 (Zimmer, 1926).
10

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 37

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)
Coracina coerulescens
C. c. coerulescens
Ceblepyris coerulescens
C. c. deschauenseei
Coracina coerulescens deschauenseei
C. c. altera
Edoliosoma alterum

37

Blyth

1842a

ZSI ?

duPont1972

DMNH

Wardlaw Ramsay

1881

BMNH

Coracina dohertyi
Edoliosoma dohertyi

Hartert

1896b

AMNH

Coracina dispar
Edoliosoma dispar

Salvadori

1878

MNSG

G.R. Gray12
Salvadori

1860
1879b

BMNH
BMNH

Hartlaub

1865

RMNH

Stresemann

1932

ZMB

Hartert191813

AMNH

Meise

1929

ZMB

Sharpe1878

BMNH

Hartert

1896a

AMNH

Salvadori

1878

MNSG

Hartert191814

AMNH

Parkes1971

AMNH

Parkes1971

AMNH

Tweeddale

1879

BMNH

Sharpe1893

BMNH

McGregor

1905

MLA

Coracina tenuirostris
C. t. grayi
Campephaga melanotis
Edoliosoma grayi nom. nov.
C. t. amboinensis
C[ampephaga]. amboinensis
C. t. edithae
Edolisoma tenuirostre edithae
C. t. pererrata
Edolisoma morio pererratum
C. t. kalaotuae
Edolisoma morio kalaotuae
C. t. timoriensis
E[doliisoma]. timoriense
C. t. emancipata
Edoliosoma emancipata
C. t. obiensis
Edoliosoma obiense
C. t. pelingi
Edolisoma obiense pelingi
Coracina mindanensis
C. m. lecroyae
Coracina morio lecroyae
C. m. ripleyi
Coracina morio ripleyi
C. m. mindanensis
Volvocivora mindanensis
C. m. everetti
Edoliisoma everetti
C. m. elusa
Edoliisoma elusum

12

Preoccupied by Graucalus melanotis Gould, 1838, q.v.
Not 1917, see Hartert (1922).
14 Not 1917, see Hartert (1922).
13

10.

11.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

38

08:50

Pagina 38

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Coracina morio
C. m. morio
Cebl[epyris]. (Campephaga) morio
Edoliisoma morio septentrionalis

S. Müller
Meyer &
Wiglesworth

1843
1898

RMNH
MTD

van Oort

1907

RMNH

Meyer &
Wiglesworth

1895

MCZ

12.

C. m. salvadorii
E[doliisoma]. salvadorii

Sharpe

1878

MTD

13.

Coracina sula
Edolisoma mindanense sula

Hartert191815AMNH

Bonaparte
Wallace

1850
1863b

RMNH
BMNH

Jany

1955

MZB

Coracina ostenta
Edoliisoma (Graucalus) panayensis16
Coracina ostenta nom. nov.

SteereRipley

1890
1952a

BMNH
BMNH

Coracina mcgregori
Malindangia mcgregori
Edolisoma mcgregori peterseni

MearnsSalomonsen

1907
1953

USNM
ZMUC

Delacour

1951

BMNH

Kloss

1925

BMNH

Sharpe17

1878

BMNH

C. m. wiglesworthi
Edoliisoma morio wiglesworthi
C. m. talautensis
Edoliisoma talautense

Coracina ceramensis
C. c. ceramensis
G[raucalus]. ceramensis
Campephaga marginata
C. c. hoogerwerfi
Edolisoma morio hoogerwerfi

Coracina polioptera
C. p. jabouillei
Coracina polioptera jabouillei
C. p. indochinensis
Lalage fimbriata indochinensis
C. p. polioptera
C[ampophaga]. polioptera

155.

Not 1917, see Hartert (1922).
Preoccupied by Artamides panayensis Steere, 1890. Peters et al. (1960: 193) employed the name Coracina panayensis (Steere). Mayr provided an editorial footnote stating that Ripley’s substitute name ostenta
was “invalid because of the mandatory provision stated in Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 4 (1950): 265, par 38
and id., 14 (1957): 184, Art. 24, Sect. 14, which states that ‘If homonyms are of identical date, one proposed for a species takes precedence over one proposed for a subspecies’”. Peters et al. (1960: 177) also
employed panayensis, as a trinomial, and both this and the binomial on page 193 are used within thegenus Coracina. It seems to have been clearly Mayr’s intent that the entry on page 177 should be given
a new substitute name. In fact, as shown by Parkes (1971), both Steere’s names were assigned to new
species. Ripley’s new name was thus justified.
17 Peters et al. (1960: 173) listed this as described in Sharpe (1879), Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 4: 59 (in key), 69(and indeed that appears to be the original description). However, Warren & Harrison (1971) showedthat it was named earlier by Sharpe (1878), Mitt. K. Zool. Mus. Dresden 3: 370.
16

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 39

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)
Coracina melaschistos
C. m. melaschistos
Lanius silens[Volvocivora] Melaschistos
Ceblephyris lugubris
Graucalus maculosus
V[olvocivora]. melanura
C. m. avensis
C[ampephaga]. melanoptera
C[ampephaga]. avensis nom. nov.
C. m. intermedia
Volvocivora intermedia
Campophaga innominata
Volvocivora koratensis
Campephaga lugubris asakurai
C. m. saturata
Volvocivora saturata
Coracina melaschistos quyiCoracina fimbriata
C. f. neglecta
Volvocivora neglecta
C. f. culminata
Ceblepyris Culminatus
Campophaga minor
C. f. schierbrandi[Drymonax niger]
Volvocivora schierbrandi
Volvocivora borneensis
C. f. compta
Campephaga compta
C. f. fimbriata
Ceblephyris fimbriatus
Volvocivora vidua
Coracina melanoptera
C. m. melanoptera
Ceblepyris melanoptera
Lalage sykesi eximia
C. m. sykesi
Lalage Sykesi
18

39

Tickell
HodgsonSundevall
McClelland18
Hartlaub

1833
1836
1837
1840
1865

?
BMNH
?
BMNH
RMNH

14.

Blyth
Blyth

1846
1852

ZSI ?
ZSI ?

16.
16.

Hume
Oates
Kloss
Kuroda

1877b
1883
1918
1920

BMNH
BMNH
USNM
Lost

17.

Swinhoe
Dao Van Tien

1870
1961

BMNH
LZUH

18.

Hume

1877b

BMNH

Hay
Davison

1845
1892

?
BMNH

Lesson19
von Pelzeln
Salvadori1839
186520
1868b

?
NMW
MNSG

Richmond

1903

USNM

Temminck
Hartlaub

1824
1865

RMNH
UMB

Rüppellvan Tyne & Koelz

1839
1936

SMF
UMMZ

Strickland

1844

BMNH

15.

19.

20.

This paper appears to be under the sole authorship of Horsfield. The descriptions in English, placedin quotation marks by Horsfield, are McClelland’s, but all Latin diagnoses are Horsfield’s. Horsfield
published for McClelland, intending to credit him with the names of most of the new birds. The
authorship of each name must be judged on its merits. Evidence from Horsfield & Moore (1854) showsthat Horsfield attributed most names to McClelland (e.g. Graucalus maculosus on p. 177).
19 This name was associated with culminatus by Chasen (1935: 184), but he did not apply the name
although it is a prior name to culminatus (and, in the context of recognition of a Sumatran and Bornean
form, to schierbrandi), and this, as evidenced by his footnote, is apparently because he considered it
indeterminate. We concur and list it here only for completeness.
20 Peters et al. (1960: 195) spelled schierbrandi with terminal -ii. The original spelling ends - i.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

40

08:50

Pagina 40

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)[Lalage melanothorax]

Sharpe21

1879

BMNH

Lalage melanoleuca
L. m. melanoleuca
Pseudolalage melanoleuca
L. m. minor
Pseudolalage minor

Blyth

1861

?

Steere

1890

BMNH

Kloss

1926

BMNH

Horsfield
LessonOberholser
E.C.S. Baker

1821
1844
1912
1923

BMNH
?
USNM
BMNH

P.L. Statius Müller
Forster
Boddaert
J.F. Gmelin
Meyen
Neumann22
Bangs

1776
1781
1783
1789
1834
1919
1922

Plate
Plate
Plate
Plate
ZMB
ZMB
MCZ

Walden1872

BMNH

Lalage sueurii
Sylvia leucophæa23
Turdus Suerii [sic]Cebl[epyris]. (Lalage) timorensis24
Lalage Riedelii
Lalage timoriensis var. celebensis
Perissolalage chalepa

Vieillot
Vieillot
S. Müller
A.B. Meyer25
A.B. Meyer
Oberholser

1817
1818a
1843
1885
1885
1917b

MNHN
MNHN
RMNH
MTD
MTD
USNM

Lalage aurea
Ceblephyris aureus

Temminck26

1825

RMNH

Lalage nigra
L. n. davisoni
Lalage nigra davisoni
L. n. striga
Ceblephyris striga
Picnonotus humeraloides
Lalage nigra empheris
Lalage nigra brunnescens
L. n. nigra
Turdus Dominicus
Turdus Niger
Turdus Terat ‘Linn.’[Turdus] orientalis
Ceblepyris chilensis[Lalage nigra schisticeps]
Lalage niger mitifica
L. n. leucopygialis
Lalage leucopygialis

21

21.

22.

23.

24.
24.
24.
24.

25.
25.
5.
7.
7.

This name is also only included for completeness. Although the specimen on which the name wasbased is presumably in the Natural History Museum, Tring, no mention of its appears in Warren &Harrison (1971). This is likely to be due to the fact that the name was apparently applied to a composite specimen or artefact made up of parts of Lalage sykesi and parts of Dicrurus ater (Baker, 1930).
22 This name is also only included for completeness. Kloss (1926) reported that Stresemann (1922) had
found it a composite specimen with the body of a Lalage from Culion and the head of a Pericrocotus
cinereus from China.
23 Name as rendered by Sharpe (1879); examination of the original suggests the œ dipthong may havebeen used.
24 Peters et al. (1960: 198) gave the page number as 90, an error for p. 190.
25 Peters et al. (1960: 198) dated this name and the next 1884 which appears to be the date of the meeting not that of publication of the proceedings.
26 Peters et al. (1960: 199) dated this 1827, but pl. 382 is from Livraison 64 and appeared in Dec. 1825
(Dickinson, 2001).

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 41

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

41

Lalage atrovirens
L. a. moesta
Lalage mœsta

Sclater

1883

BMNH

Lalage leucomela
L. l. keyensis
Lalage karu keyensis

Rothschild & Hartert

1917

AMNH

Pericrocotus cantonensis
Pericrocotus cantonensis
Pericrocotus sordidus27[Pericrocotus] immodestus

Swinhoe
Swinhoe
Hume

1861
1863b
1877a

BMNH
AMNH
BMNH

Pericrocotus roseus
Muscicapa rosea
P[ericrocotus]. intensior

Vieillot
Hume

1818b
1877a

MNHN
—

P. roseus x P. divaricatus
Pericrocotus stanfordi

Hybrid form28
Vaughan & Jones

1913

BMNH

Pericrocotus divaricatus
P. d. divaricatus
Lanius divaricatus
Pericrocotus cinereus
Pericrocotus modestus
Ceblepyris luctuosus
Pericrocotus motacilloides
Pericrocotus japonicus
Pericrocotus cinereus intermedius
P. d. tegimae
Pericrocotus tegimae

Raffles
Lafresnaye
Strickland
de Filippi
Swinhoe29
Stejneger
Clark

1822
1845
1847
1847
1860
1887
1907

?
MCZ
UMZC
MNSM
BMNH
USNM
USNM

Stejneger

1887

USNM

J.F. Gmelin

1789

Plate

30.

Linnaeus
Vieillot
Whistler & Kinnear

1766
1818b
1933

Plate
?
BMNH

31.
32.

Pericrocotus cinnamomeus
P. c. malabaricus[Parus] malabaricus
P. c. cinnamomeus[Motacilla] cinnamomea
Muscicapa subflava30
Pericrocotus peregrinus ceylonensis

27

26.

27.

28.

29.

The type was examined and the following comments supplied to us: “The bill size and shape match
cantonensis, whereas P. cinereus (= P. d. divaricatus, the other taxon Swinhoe compared it to) has abroader and heavier bill”. (M. LeCroy, in litt.).
28 We accept roseus and cantonensis as distinct species, but we believe this requires us to treat stanfordi
as a hybrid population until its range is better understood.
29 The original description here is limited to some comments on how Swinhoe’s females differed from
Lafresnaye’s description of P. cinereus. It seems that the editors of Ibis determined that Swinhoe’s proposed species motacilloides should be placed in synonymy.
30 Muscicapa subflava Vieillot, 1818b, was treated by Gould (1857) a synonym of Pericrocotus flammeus
and by Sharpe (1879) as a synonym of Pericrocotus peregrinus. However the name is based on material
from Ceylon.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

42

08:50

Pagina 42

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Pericrocotus cinnamomeus sidhoutensis
Pericrocotus peregrinus dharmakumari
P. c. pallidus
Pericrocotus peregrinus pallidus
P. c. peregrinus[Parus] peregrinus[Parus] coccineus
Pericrocotus cinnamomeus iredalei
nom. nov.31
Pericrocotus peregrinus galbinus
P. c. vividus
Perecrocotus [sic] peregrinus vividus
Pericrocotus cinnamomeus osmastoni
P. c. thai
Pericrocotus peregrinus thaiP. c. sacerdos
Pericrocotus peregrinus sacerdos
P. c. separatus
Pericrocotus peregrinus separatus
P. c. saturatus
Pericrocotus peregrinus saturatus

Koelz
Koelz

1939
1950

FMNH
AMNH

E.C.S. Baker

1920

BMNH

Linnaeus
J.F. Gmelin

1766
1789

?
Plate

E.C.S. Baker
van Tyne & Koelz

1929
1936

UMMZ

E.C.S. Baker
Roselaar & Prins

1920
2000

BMNH
ZMA

Deignan

194732

USNM

Riley

1940b

USNM

Deignan

1947

USNM

E.C.S. Baker

1920

BMNH

Blyth
Strickland‘Boié’ Bonaparte

1846
1849
1850

ZSI ?
ANSP
RMNH

Oberholser

1912

USNM

Büttikofer

1886

RMNH

Pericrocotus erythropygius
P. e. erythropygius
M[uscicapa]. erythropygia
P. e. albifrons
Pericrocotus albifrons

Jerdon1840?

Jerdon

1862a

BMNH

Pericrocotus solaris
P. s. solaris
P[ericrocotus]. solaris[Phoenicornis affinis]33
P. s. rubrolimbatus
Pericrocotus rubrolimbatus

Blyth
McClelland

1846
1840

ZSI ?
BMNH

Salvadori

1887

MNSG

Pericrocotus igneus
P. i. igneus
P[ericrocotus]. igneus
Pericrocotus minutus[Pericrocotus] [Phaenicornis] flagransP. i. trophis
Pericrocotus igneus trophis
Pericrocotus lansbergei
Pericrocotus Lansbergei

33.
34.

35.

36.

37.
38.

31
Baker (1929) under the misapprehension that the name peregrinus must be seen to be a synonym of
cinnamomeus offered this as a new name for the “continental” (i.e. non Ceylonese) form.
32
Erroneously printed as 1948 in Peters et al. (1960: 210).
33 This name is not a synonym of any subspecies of Pericrocotus solaris. Hume (1876, 1877a) consideredthat McClelland’s female of affinis was in fact a female of P. solaris.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 43

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)
P. s. montpellieri
Pericrocotus montpellieri
P. s. griseogularis
Pericrocotus griseogularis
Pericrocotus solaris mandarinus
P. s. deignani
Pericrocotus solaris deignani
P. s. nassovicus
Pericrocotus solaris nassovicus
P. s. montanus
Pericrocotus montanus
Pericrocotus wrayi
Pericrocotus croceus
P. s. cinereigula
Pericrocotus cinereigula
Pericrocotus ethologus
P. e. favillaceus
Perierocotus [sic] brevirostrisflavillaceus [sic]34
P. e. laetus
Pericrocotus ethologus laetus
P. e. ethologus
Pericrocotus brevirostris ethologus
Pericrocotus brevirostris styani
P. e. yvettae
Pericrocotus yvettae
P. e. mariae
Pericrocotus ethologus mariae
Pericrocotus brevirostris aureus
P. e. ripponi
Pericrocotus solaris ripponi
Pericrocotus ethologus cryptus
P. e. annamensis
Pericrocotus brevirostris annamensis
Pericrocotus brevirostris
P. b. brevirostris
Muscipeta brevirostris
Pericrocotus brevirostris sanguineus
P. b. affinis
Phoenicornis affinis35
P. b. neglectus
Pericrocotus neglectus
Pericrocotus pulcherrimus
P. b. anthoides
Pericrocotus brevirostris anthoïdes
Pericrocotus brevirostris tonkinensis

34

43

La Touche

1922b

BMNH

Gould
Stresemann

1863
1923

USNM
ZMB

Riley

1940a

USNM

Deignan

1938

USNM

Salvadori
SharpeSharpe

1879b
1888
1888

MNSG
BMNH
BMNH

Sharpe1889

AMNH

Bangs & Phillips

1914

MCZ

Mayr

1940

FMNH

Bangs & Phillips
E.C.S. Baker

1914
1920

MCZ
BMNH

Bangs

1921

AMNH

Ripley
Koelz

1952b
1952

YPM
UMMZ

E.C.S. Baker
Mayr

1924
1940

BMNH
ANSP

Robinson & Kloss

1923

BMNH

Vigors
Koelz

1831
1952

Plate ?
UMMZ

40.

McClelland

1840

BMNH

41.

Hume
Salvadori

1877a
1887

BMNH
MNSG

Stresemann
Delacour

1923
1927

ZMB
BMNH

39.

42.

The corrected spelling favillaceus was offered by Bangs (1921) and this emendation has been generally accepted ever since.
35 Hume (1876, 1877a) considered that McClelland’s “male” was in fact a female of P. brevirostris.

ZV-340 031-074 | 2344

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 44

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Pericrocotus miniatus
Muscicapa miniata
Pericrocotus miniatus dammermani

Temminck
Neumann

Pericrocotus flammeus
P. f. flammeus
Muscicapa flammea
ForsterP. f. siebersi
Pericrocotus speciosus siebersi
RenschP. f. exul
Pericrocotus exul
WallaceP. f. andamanensis
Pericrocotus andamanensis “Tytler”
BeavanP. f. minythomelas
Pericrocotus andamanensis minythomelas
Oberholser
P. f. modiglianii
Pericrocotus modiglianii
SalvadoriP. f. speciosus[Turdus] speciosus
LathamMuscipeta princeps
VigorsPhoenicornis elegans
Horsfield36
P. f. fraterculus
Pericrocotus fraterculus
Swinhoe37
Pericrocotus speciosus bakeri
La Touche
P. f. fohkiensis
Pericrocotus speciosus fohkiensis
Buturlin
Pericrocotus speciosus fohkiensis
E.C.S. Baker38
P. f. semiruber
Pericrocotus speciosus semiruber
Whistler & Kinnear
Pericrocotus flammeus suchitrae
DeignanP. f. flammifer[Pericrocotus] flammifer
Hume
P. f. xanthogaster
Lanius xanthogaster
Raffles[Pericrocotus] [Phaenicornis] ardens ‘Boié’Bonaparte
P. f. insulanus
Pericrocotus subardens
Hume39Pericrocotus flammeus insulanus
DeignanP. f. novus
Pericrocotus novus nomen nudum
Wardlaw Ramsay
Pericrocotus novus “Wardlaw Ramsey” [sic] McGregor

36

1822
1937

RMNH
MCZ

1781

Plate

1928

AMNH

1864

BMNH

1867

?

1912

USNM

1892

MNSG

1790
1831
1840

?
?
BMNH

1870
1922a

BMNH
MCZ

1910
1920

ZMMU
BMNH

1933
1946

BMNH
USNM

1875

BMNH

1822
1850

?
RMNH

48.

1877a
1946

Plate
USNM

49.

1886
1904

Lost

50.

43.

44.

45.
46.
47.

Peters et al. (1960: 216) attributed this name to McClelland, but no English description was supplied
and the diagnosis in Latin was by Horsfield.
37
This name was not given by Peters et al. (1960), but the name was inferentially treated as a synonymof elegans. Ripley (1961, 1982) disagreed and treated elegans as a synonym of speciosus and then used
Swinhoe’s name as the oldest available name for the population, which Deignan had called elegans,stretching from easternmost India south of the Brahmaputra through Burma and Indochina to Hainan.
The details of this disagreement and reasons for choosing to use fraterculus are given in the accompanying “Preliminary Review” (Dickinson & Dekker, 2002, this issue).
38
Baker was apparently unaware of Buturlin’s earlier identical name.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 45

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)
P. f. leytensis
Pericrocotus Leytensis
SteereP. f. johnstoniae
Pericrocotus johnstoniae
Ogilvie Grant
P. f. gonzalesi
Pericrocotus flammeus gonzalesi
Ripley & RaborP. f. nigroluteus
Pericrocotus flammeus neglectus40
ParkesPericrocotus flammeus nigroluteus nom. nov. Parkes
P. f. marchesae
Pericrocotus marchesae
Guillemard
Hemipus picatus
H. p. capitalis
Muscicapa ? capitalis
H[emipus]. picæcolor
H. p. picatus
Muscicapa picata
Muscicapa Tyrannides
Hemipus picatus pileatus
H. p. intermedius
Hemipus intermedius
H. p. leggei
Hemipus picatus leggei
Hemipus picatus insulae
Hemipus hirundinaceus
Muscicapa obscura
Muscicapa hirundinacea ‘Reinw. ‘Tephrodornis virgatus
T. v. sylvicola
T[ephrodornis]. Sylvicola
T. v. pelvicus[Ténthaca] Pelvica
Tentheca petrica ‘Hodgson’ nomen nudum43

45

1890

BMNH

1905

BMNH

1961

YPM

1974
1981

AMNH
AMNH

1885

AMNH

Horsfield41
Hodgson

1840
1845

BMNH
BMNH

Sykes
Tickell
Koelz

1832
1833
1954

BMNH
?
UMMZ

Salvadori

1879a

MNSG

Whistler
Koelz

1939
1939

BMNH
AMNH

Horsfield42
Temminck

1821
1822

BMNH
RMNH

Jerdon1839?

Hodgson
G.R. Gray

1837
1840

BMNH

51.

52.

39 Hume’s text is somewhat confusing but we believe that it is clear that he proposed this name as a
substitute name for ardens Salvadori, 1874b, of Borneo, a name preoccupied by Pericrocotus ardens‘Boié’ Bonaparte, 1850, from Sumatra. So this name, which must be associated with the Bornean birds
depicted in the plate in Salvadori (1874b), antedates Deignan’s name. It has been used incorrectly inthe context of Sumatran birds, especially in synonymy, as in Chasen (1935), and also for Malayan
birds, as in Robinson (1915). We have found no usage of the name for Sumatran birds since 1899 andthus we do not believe the name should be resurrected to replace Deignan’s name.
40 Preoccupied by Pericrocotus neglectus Hume, 1877a.
41 Peters et al. (1960: 218) attributed this name to McClelland but no English description was supplied
and the diagnosis in Latin was by Horsfield.
42 Preoccupied by Muscicapa obscura Gmelin, 1789. Peters et al. (1960: 218) listed “Hemipus obscurus of
Sharpe’s Handlist”; the name we cite here is the source for that listing.
43 Included for completeness only. A lapsus calami and not validly used.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

46

04-01-2007

08:50

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

T. v. jugans
Tephrodornis gularis jugans
T. v. vernayi
Tephrodornis pelvicus verneyi [sic]44
T. v. annectens
Tephrodornis pelvica annectens
T. v. fretensis
Tephrodornis sordida ‘Wallace’45
Tephrodornis sordida ‘Stoliczka’Tephrodornis pelvica fretensis
T. v. virgatus
Lanius gularis46
Lanius virgatus
T. v. frenatus
T[ephrodornis]. frenatus
T. v. mekongensis
Tephrodornis gularis mekongensis
T. v. hainanus
Tephrodornis hainanus
T. v. latouchei
Tephrodornis gularis latouchei
Tephrodornis pondicerianus
T. p. affinis
Tephrodornis affinisT. p. pondicerianus[Muscicapa] pondiceriana
Lanius muscicapoïdes
Lanius griseus
Keroula indica
Lanius sordidus
Tenthaca Leucurus
Tephrodornis superciliosus
Tephrodornis grisola
Tephrodornis pondicerianus thaiTephrodornis pondiceriana warei
T. p. pallidus
Tephrodornis pondicerianus pallidus
Tephrodornis pondiceriana freta
T. p. orientis
Tephrodornis pondiceriana orientis

44

Pagina 46

Deignan

1948

USNM

Kinnear

1924

BMNH

Robinson & Kloss

1918

BMNH

Stoliczka
Robinson & Kloss
Robinson & Kloss

1870
1918
1920

BMNH

RafflesTemminck

1822
1824

BMNH
RMNH

Büttikofer

1887

RMNH

Meyer deSchauensee

1946

ANSP

Ogilvie-Grant

1910

BMNH

Kinnear

1925

BMNH

Blyth

1847

ZSI ?

55.

J.F. GmelinFranklin
Tickell
Gray47
Lesson in Belanger48
HodgsonSwainson
Blyth
Kloss & Chasen
Koelz

1789
1831
1833
1834
1831
1837
1838
1843
1926
1939

?
?
?
Plate
?
?
UMZC
?
BMNH
FMNH

56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.

Ticehurst
van Tyne & Koelz

1920
1936

BMNH
UMMZ

Deignan

1948

USNM

53.
53.
53.
54.

62.

Kinnear corrected the spelling to vernayi early in the next volume of the Bull. B.O.C.: 45 (1925): 28.
Preoccupied by Lanius sordidus Lesson in Belanger, 1831-34, a name in the synonymy of Tephrodornis
pondicerianus.
46
Preoccupied by Lanius gularis Bechstein, 1811.
47
See Wheeler (1998) for part details and dates of issue.
48
Sometimes cited as from Lesson, 1837, Compl. Buff. 2: 422. See also footnote to entry in List of References.
45

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 47

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

47

Comments
1. Blyth described this taxon in his ‘Commentary on Dr. Jerdon’s ‘Birds of India’’ andprovided no details that would suffice to identify a type. This paper appearedsome years after Blyth returned to England. It is known that he examined material
in the British Museum, the India Museum, the Derby Museum of Liverpool, andthe private collections of Mr. Wallace and others. He could also still havedescribed from personal notes specimens that were in Calcutta.
2. The type is considered lost. It was depicted by Thomas Watling and was No. 58 in
his drawings in the Natural History Museum, South Kensington. There is somedoubt as to the identity of the bird illustrated and Schodde & Mason (1999) havedesignated a neotype in the Australian National Wildlife Collection.
3. Baron Laugier’s name was no doubt associated with a specimen in his own collection, which was eventually auctioned. We have not traced this. The reference toLevaillant is to plate 30 in his “Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux de Paradis et des Rolliers
suivie de celle des Toucans et des Barbus” (1806) which justifies this placement in synonymy.
4. ANSP is supposed to hold “nearly all” of Gould’s type material from Australia
in so far as it related to the multi-volume book on the Birds of Australia, whichbegan to appear in 1841. However, birds described in Gould’s earlier Synopsis
are believed to have come from a prior source and types in such instances arerather unlikely to be in the ANSP. Neither Stone (1899) nor Meyer deSchauensee (1957) listed a type for Graucalus melanotis Gould, 1838. A possible
type ANSP 414 (Verreaux No. 1267) has been located but validation is problematic (C. Fisher, L. Joseph & R. Schodde, separately in litt.).
5. Müller (1843) actually gave the subgeneric name in the heading first, so the nameas given here is not quite as he rendered it.
6. The type was not listed by Warren & Harrison (1971), but has been found since.
Details are on the “on-line” version of the Natural History Museum’s type catalogue.
7. Type not now extant; either known or thought to have been destroyed in WorldWar II.
8. Two type specimens were still in Calcutta when Sclater (1892) visited.
9. Name based on the specimen depicted in Daubenton’s Planche Enluminée 629.
10. Blyth described this from a specimen he received from MM. “Liataud” (later
spelled Lieutard) and ‘Reymoneng’ of the French corvette ‘Danaide’. Blyth (1852:
191) indicates that the specimen was received in 1842. Not mentioned by SclaterZV-340 031-074 | 23

48

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 48

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)(1892). Van Steenis-Krusemann (1950) listed Augustin Liautaud and stated that heaccompanied the voyage of the Danaïde (1839-1841). She dated the presence of thevessel in or near Manila as June to July 1841 with a return visit in November; but avisit to Calcutta on the way home is not mentioned, nor a name such as ‘Reymoneng’.
11. The types are thought to have been destroyed in Manila in 1945 during WorldWar II.
12. This taxon was described prior to the publication of “The Birds of the Celebes” inwhich Meyer & Wiglesworth suggested that there were two “co-types”, one maleand one female. Peters (1943), who had a specimen from the type series at the
MCZ, argued that this selection by Meyer & Wiglesworth did not negate the typestatus of other specimens from the type series. In the context of the Code (ICZN,
1999) the views of Peters seem to be those retained today. From a type series one
may later designate a lectotype, but one may not designate co-types (except within
the original publication). Dresden apparently holds six syntypes.
13. The adult type specimen is missing; believed lost in World War II. The one extant
syntype is an immature bird.
14. Tickell’s material from India seems to have been presented to the Zoological Society of London and dispersed when that collection was dispersed in 1854-57(Wheeler, 1997). Tickell presumably used this name believing that he applied it to
the same bird for which it was used earlier by Levaillant, which Blyth (1846) said
was a name applied to a “true Curruca”. That Sharpe (1879) placed it in synonymy
under Campophaga [sic] lugubris Sundev. was no doubt due to Blyth (1846), but in abracket Sharpe clarified that the name was preoccupied by Lanius silens Shaw now employed in the combination Melaenormis silens (Shaw, 1809), see Watson etal. (1986: 307).
15. We believe most of Sundevall’s types are in Stockholm, but this is not listed(Gyldenstolpe, 1926) and we have not yet located it.
16. Sclater (1892), who listed types he found in Calcutta as well as those that he deemed
lost, made no mention of either C[ampephaga]. melanoptera Blyth, 1846, or C[ampephaga]. avensis Blyth, 1852, which was a nom. nov. for the former. From the originaldescription we only know that the collector was Captain Phayre (later Sir. A.
Phayre). Blyth (1852: 191) mentioned two specimens from Phayre (“1844-1847”)
which seems to imply a type and a later specimen (but might relate to two syntypes), still then in Calcutta.
17. The bulk of Kuroda’s collection was destroyed in World War II and the type of
this taxon is thought to have been lost then (Morioka et al., in prep.).
18. As far as we know the type has not been compared with the type of Coracina

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 49

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

49

melaschistos saturata (Swinhoe) and we believe it to need such a comparison, or acomparison with a substantial series of saturata, before the proposed taxon can bevalidated.
19. Logically one would expect the type specimen relevant to this name, and the types
relevant to the 12 other taxa newly named in this paper, to have formed an earlypart of what became the Tweeddale Collection. Such early types, held in a private
collection, may not have been marked type and they may all have reached theBritish Museum as part of that collection as the bequest of Wardlaw Ramsay(Tweeddale’s nephew). Not one of these 13 or more types had been identified
when the British Museum type catalogue (Warren, 1966; Warren & Harrison, 1971)
was published. A fresh search for this material has been carried out and Tweeddale’s original registers located and inspected. No material from this period was
registered by Tweeddale and the types must surely be unlikely to survive unlessperhaps in Calcutta.
20. Hartlaub (1865) believed this to be from the Arakan in Burma. Sharpe (1879: 104)
noted that he had examined the type and placed the name in the synonymy ofnominate fimbriata of which his range statement said “Java”. At this juncture
Sharpe (op. cit.: 68) had no specimens of neglecta Hume from Tenasserim. Had
he had such specimens it seems extremely unlikely he would have placed thelatter in Campophaga and fimbriata in Lalage for the two are now seen as related
subspecies. It is therefore entirely possible that vidua belongs with Hume’s birds,
Arakan being not far from their range. Hartlaub’s is the older name but has
probably not been in use since 1879 and if applicable to the Tenasserim birds
will have to be declared a nomen oblitum. The label of the type bears annotations
that seem to report Sharpe’s views. We hope to arrange to have the Bremen typeproperly compared.
21. The specimens that Blyth described were “to be returned” and should not be
expected to be in Calcutta. Hartlaub (1865) obtained his description of this taxon
from a specimen, or specimens in Leiden, and mentioned Swinhoe’s collection. We
know Blyth to have been in communication with Swinhoe, so it is very possiblethat Swinhoe sent the material that Blyth named. Most of Swinhoe’s later collection was incorporated in Seebohm’s collection, now in Tring, and it seems thatsome Swinhoe specimens lack Swinhoe’s original labels.
22. Kloss did not identify the specimens he described; his text paraphrases thedescription from, and gives the wing lengths from, Baker (1923: 13). He designated no types, but his types must be such specimens as Baker had from the Nicobars, and as Baker in that paper described brunnescens from a British Museum
specimen we can reasonably assume that the Nicobar birds were in the British
Museum (Nat. Hist.) in 1922-23. Based on this several syntypes have been located.
23. We do not know whether Lesson’s type survives, it has not been located in Paris.
It was said to be from Java. For the identification of this name with this species see

ZV-340 031-074 | 2350

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 50

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Kloss (1927); Kloss identified it with nominate nigra, but Stresemann (1952) has
transferred that name to the Philippine population.
24. Based on the bird depicted as figure 2 in Daubenton’s plate 273. In the context of
Forster’s name, this is sometimes given as figure 3 but this plate has no third figure. Gmelin (1789) listed figure 1, but this appears to have been an error.
25. Hellmayr (1916) discussed the situation as regards Timor. Two types obtained
there by Maugé on the Baudin Expedition were mistakenly said to be from New
Holland and were given different names. The first named was Sylvia leucophaea
Vieillot, 1817b, the female. Sharpe (1879) thought that as this was said to be grey
above it could not be referred to Lalage terat or L. timoriensis. The second named
was sueurii Vieillot, 1818a, a young male. The lead ornithologist Maugé died on
the expedition and Lesueur (apparently also known, at least to Vieillot, as Le
Sueur) then became responsible for collecting birds (Stresemann, 1951). Vieillot’s
earlier name is preoccupied by Sylvia leucophaea Latham, 1802.
26. The name Pericrocotus sordidus was employed by Hodgson (1844) in his catalogueof Nipalese birds, but was a nomen nudum. Swinhoe (1863b) did not use the namein this connection, he was describing a bird from Amoy that he believed to be an
immature male. Gould (1874) wrote, under P. cantonensis “Swinhoe now considers[this] the young bird”. Hume (1877a) agreed and Sharpe (1879) listed it in thatsynonymy.
27. Hume (1877a) introduced the name intensior together with the description “richer
coloured” in relation to “eastern” birds, by which he meant the Tennasserim birds
he had discussed the previous year (Hume, in Armstrong, 1876), and yet said “I
personally would certainly not separate it”. In these circumstances this namewould seem to be covered by Art. 1.3 of the Code (ICZN, 1999) and to be invalid.
28. Kinnear & Robinson (1927) reported on the collections made by Raffles and statethat his drawings “together with a collection of birds and mammals” were forwarded to Europe about June 1820. It is important to understand that by Europe
they meant to East India House. The bulk of this first collection was sent later andwent down with the Indiaman49 “Fame” off the coast of Sumatra. This first collection must have been largely made by Diard and Duvaucel, who Raffles effectively
discharged. In the case of this name there seems to have been no more than adrawing, at least by the time the East India Museum Catalogue was prepared(Horsfield & Moore, 1854). Warren & Harrison (1971) argued that this drawing,
once drawing No. 598 in the collection in the India Office, and now presumably in
the British Library, may be “accepted as the type”. Kinnear & Robinson (1927) had
made this point in general terms about the drawings. Our understanding is thatthey would be correct only if the drawing had been referred to in the original

49

The term ‘Indiaman’ was used for the strongly armed merchant vessels of the Hon. East India Co.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 51

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

51

description or had been published therewith, and on this ground we do notbelieve it qualifies, but it is obviously germane and of almost equivalent historic
importance. A subsequent collection brought to London was presented to the Zoological Society of London in 1827 by Lady Raffles, but this can have held no types
relevant to the 1822 paper.
29. The type was in Milan (Salvadori, 1868a). The museum in Milan was burned
down in 1943 and this type will have perished.
30. Doubtless no type survives; the name was given to a bird depicted by Sonnerat(1782) in plate 114. All plates in Sonnerat’s book were in black and white.
31. Linnaeus described this on the basis of a drawing associated with Claud Loten,
Governor of Ceylon (Hume, 1877a). Linnaeus wrote “D. Lothen”. This drawing is
now in the collection of The Natural History Museum, South Kensington.
32. Vieillot’s description is based upon plate 155 in Levaillant (1805). This Levaillant
called “Le Gobe Mouche Oranor” and the origin he gave was Ceylon not Africa.
Hume (1877a) thought this name might be a synonym of Pericrocotus flammeus.
Our examination of his plate suggests this name is a synonym of P. cinnamomeus.
33. Linnaeus gave no source for this. Hume (1877a) thought that the name was basedon the description of the female of the species.
34. Gmelin’s name is said to be based on the two birds depicted in plates 48 and 49 by
Sparrman (1787). And, apparently due to confusion, the bird depicted in Sparrman’splate 50 labelled Parus indicus has been associated with Pericrocotus peregrinus by
Horsfield & Moore (1854). But this is a depiction of Parus bicolor Linnaeus, 1766, assuggested by Hume (1877a), with whom, having examined the plate, we agree.
Sharpe (1879) did not list this. Hume felt that plates 48 and 49, named Parus coccineus by Gmelin (1789), probably related to Pericrocotus peregrinus (“the northernrace”). Plate 48 is a male minivet with a grey head, throat and back. The rump,breast and wing patches are reddish-pink. Plate 49 is a pinkish-red rumped female
minivet that is yellow below and on the wing patch. Both birds have some red on
the outer tail feathers (a pair of feathers in the male and two pairs in the female).
We are inclined to agree with Hume that the plates depict the northern form peregrinus. If there were ever any types in NRM, Stockholm these cannot now be
traced (P. Ericson in litt. 14 Feb. 2000).
35. Blyth (1846) had no females and said that this was described from Malaccan material. Blyth (1852: 193) listed just one specimen, but this was received from “C.
Huffnagle” in 1849, which is three years too late for it to have been type material
unless the decription was based on material lent in 1846 and donated three years
later which seems improbable. At least one of the types of this was said to be stillin Calcutta at the time of Sclater (1892).

ZV-340 031-074 | 2352

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 52

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

36. Kinnear (1952) reported that what was probably Jerdon’s first material was sentfrom Jalna to Sir William Jardine and that after the long voyage it was destroyed
due to a serious infestation. Kinnear wrote that, after that, “Jardine decided to
publish the account of his collections and rely on his own identifications”. The
description of erythropygia may therefore have been drawn from memory or basedon notes and perhaps a drawing. Blyth (1852) listed a specimen received from Jerdon in 1843, which therefore may or may not have been in front of Jerdon when hedescribed this. Jerdon sent much of his later material to Blyth in Calcutta, whousually identified such specimens and passed them on to the Hon. East India Co.,but the species was not listed by Horsfield & Moore (1854) and in 1840, when Jerdon described this, Blyth had not yet arrived in Calcutta. Jerdon also sent material
directly to the British Museum, but the Jerdon accessions are from later years.
Gould (1850) and Blyth (1852: 193) both related this species to the Cawnpore Flycatcher of Latham (1823), and Latham’s plate tends to support this identification,but Sharpe (1879: 85) did not list this and perhaps did not agree. Jerdon (1840)
made no mention of Latham or the Cawnpore Flycatcher, but he mentioned it in
1845. He later wrote that he “first procured it at Ajunteh, near Jalna” (Jerdon,
1862b). Gould (1850) did say that prior to his own plate the species was known
only from Jerdon’s description and the figure in Latham (1823), and inferred thathe thought Jerdon had not collected a specimen.
37. Blyth described both the male and the female. Two types of this taxon were still in
Calcutta at the time of Sclater (1892) and were no doubt amongst those listed by
Blyth (1852: 193).
38. Although we list this name here, the name belongs, as confirmed later in thispaper, in the synonymy of Pericrocotus brevirostris. McClelland’s species was acomposite species: his “male” specimen was a female of Pericrocotus brevirostrisand his female specimen, according to Hume (1877a) was a female of Pericrocotus
solaris although other views existed earlier. However Mayr (1940) seems to imply
that it could have been a specimen of P. ethologus.
39. Warren & Harrison (1971) selected a male for segregation in the type collection. As
will be seen from the original description, the subspecific characteristics in thisspecies are better seen in females. We understand that it is hoped that the female
syntype will also be segregated soon.
40. The paper by Vigors describing this taxon was published in six parts, relating to
six meetings of the Zoological Society of London at which Vigors exhibited andnamed new birds being depicted in Gould’s “Century of birds from theHimalayan mountains”. At the outset of this process Vigors was dealing withbirds that were part of a collection apparently belonging to Gould, and nothing in
the text of parts two to four suggests that names therein were bestowed on specimens not belonging to Gould. The same cannot be said of the fifth and sixth parts.
At the end of the sixth part, however, Vigors stated that Mr. Gould had presented
all the birds to the Society. Bangs (1930) thought the type of this taxon to be lost.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 53

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

53

The collection of the Zoological Society of London was disposed of between 1854
and 1857, and of the birds that Vigors described in this paper it would appear thatthe type of Cinnyris gouldiae at least is in now in Melbourne (Wheeler, 1997). There
has been considerable discussion of the precise geographic origin of the birds Vigors described. Baker (1920) restricted the type locality of this taxon to Mussoorie.
Ticehurst & Whistler (1924) reviewed the situation and suggested that the wholecollection obtained by Gould must have come from between Simla and Almora,
and in this instance they accepted Mussoorie. Bangs (1930) disagreed pointing outthat Gould’s plate did not fit the birds from the western Himalayas. It fell to Mayr
(1940) to establish that P. brevirostris had an unrecognised sibling species P. ethologus. He compared the two species with Gould’s plate and his research convinced
him that in fact P. brevirostris did not appear to occur west of the Sikkim foothills,
and that not all of Vigors’s specimens could have come from the western
Himalayas. We consider that Mayr (1940) corrected the type locality to the Sikkim
foothills.
41. This name was given to two yellow and grey minivets of differing sizes, and thusof different species. Aware of the possibility that one or other of the forms
described might be the species ethologus (see previous note) we obtained assistanceto arrange that the drawings from McClelland’s Assam collection be brought
together with the purported types. A report on the findings forms Appendix 1.
42. Mayr (1940) restricted the name tonkinensis to the male specimen. We consider that
this action must be construed as the designation of the male (BMNH 1927.6.5.7) asa lectotype.
43. Whistler & Kinnear (1933) wrote that Forster (1781) had based his description on a
drawing from Governor Loten of Ceylon and that the original of this drawing wasstill extant. They confirmed on this evidence that Ceylon should be taken as theterra typica. In fact Forster included a colour plate (plate xv), which depicts two
birds. Both are largely red and black, the livery of male minivets, yet Forster
thought the smaller, pendant, dead bird a female. Examination of the plate (Seecolour plate 1) shows that it is, in fact, a depiction of the male of Pericrocotus cinnamomeus. This implies that Forster’s name was given to a composite description
and we hereby designate the upper, male specimen that he depicted, presumed
lost, as the lectotype of Muscicapa flammea Forster, 1781. Interestingly Forster’splate is quite evidently a combination of two plates by Pieter de Bevere done forGovernor Loten of Ceylon, which we have examined in South Kensington. Of the“live” bird handwriting on the back of the plate reports that the writer, apparently
Loten, knew the bird, but could not recall it’s name; for the dead bird the same
hand-writing provided a local name for the species. Both P. flammeus and P. cinnamomeus occur in Ceylon.
44. Of the 14 taxa described by Beavan (1867) based on Tytler’s material the only
reported extant type of which we are aware is that of Eulabes andamanensis; this isin the Natural History Museum and had previously been in the Tweeddale Collec

ZV-340 031-074 | 2354

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 54

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

tion. Most of Tytler’s specimens went to the Lahore Central Museum (Whistler,
1918) and it is suprising that the specimen of Eulabes andamanensis reached Tweeddale. We shall investigate the claim of this to type status in due course.
45. Latham mentioned that the bird he described had been received by Lady Impey.
She was the wife of Sir Elijah Impey, sometime Chief Justice of Bengal, and is
known for her collection of Indian drawings of birds. We have not found otherevidence that she also received specimens. It seems improbable that the specimen
survives.
46. Another bird described by Vigors from Gould’s collection and depicted in Gould’s“Century of birds from the Himalayan mountains”. The circumstances affecting thetype of this parallel those of the type of Muscipeta brevirostris (see note 40 above).
47. Historical evidence shows that at different periods in time each of two rather different McClelland specimens has been considered to be “typical”. This has clouded the issue of the applicability of the name elegans to the population of southern
Assam. Details of a careful review appear in Appendix 1.
48. Warren & Harrison (1971) did not list type material for this name, and it is likely
they were lost aboard the “Fame” (see note 28). Horsfield & Moore (1854) reported
that the Museum of the Hon. East India Co. held male and female specimens said
to be this, but these were actually from Java and from Horsfield’s collection andthus not relevant. The Museum of the Hon. East India Co. also held two drawings
from the Raffles Collection, one apparently relating to the female and presumably
therefore of the type, since the description is of a yellow and black bird. However,as the drawing was not published as part of Raffles’s paper, nor referred to, it
seems that the female depicted cannot be considered a lectotype. However thedrawing has significant, if less formal, historical value.
49. It is possible that Salvadori’s specimens from Borneo can be found and that a specimen depicted in his colour plate (Pl. II.) can be designated as a lectotype.
50. Wardlaw Ramsay (1886) introduced the name novus but gave no description andthe specimen collected by F. Maitland Heriot was lost in the post. McGregor (1904)
reintroduced the name and listed four specimens. All four syntypes are thought tohave been lost in World War II, but it is possible that McGregor had exchanged
one or more earlier with a museum in the United States. As long as the originallabels have been retained these will shows McGregor’s numbers and can bechecked to his original description.
51. Tickell’s material from India seems to have been presented to the Zoological Society of London and dispersed when that collection was dispersed in 1854-57(Wheeler, 1997). The type must be presumed lost.
52. No trace of a type for this has been found.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 55

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

55

53. This holotype (BMNH 1936.4.12.139) proposed as the type of fretensis with a collection date given as Nov. 1907, was first erroneously proposed as a neotype forTephrodornis sordida Stoliczka, with date of collection of Nov. 1901 (Robinson &Kloss, 1918, 1920). Although Stoliczka designated no type and used a preoccupied,and thus unavailable, name he did describe the same Malayan form, which Robinson & Kloss needed to name afresh. In Warren & Harrison (1971) the collection
date is given, without comment, as Nov. 1904. The label does seem to read 1907;
this is consistent with the idea that the FMS numbering [No. 821/07] probably
included the year of collecting. The 1904 date appears on a later label.
54. In two of the above notes we have discussed the collections of Raffles. In thisinstance it would appear that a type survived in the East India Museum and was
duly absorbed by the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) after the East India Company
was wound up.
55. Sclater (1892) apparently did not look for types of this when in Calcutta. Blyth(1847) did not mention specimens. Blyth (1852) reported that the Museum of the
Asiatic Society had two specimens that Layard presented in 1848; these may havebeen lent to Blyth first for identification and presented after being named, butthere is no evidence to support this.
56. Gmelin based his description on the account of the ‘Gobe-mouche de Pondichery’of Sonnerat, who did not depict this. It is most improbable that a type is extant.
57. Major James Franklin’s collection was presented to the Zoological Society of London
by the Physical Committee of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta50 (Franklin, 1831), at atime when the Asiatic Society was having financial difficulties and before it had acurator for its specimens (Sclater, 1892). The birds, perhaps only single specimens ofeach, were exhibited and a list attributed to Franklin appeared with 28 new taxa
named in it. Of Franklin’s type specimens, once in the hands of the Zoological Society, whose collection was dispersed in 1854-57, the part of the collection that was
acquired by the British Museum seems to have included only one, the holotype ofCerthia spilonota Franklin, 1831 (Warren & Harrison, 1971). No records exist to showwhat happened to the balance of the Zoological Society’s collection (Wheeler, 1997).
58. Tickell’s material from India seems to have been presented to the Zoological Society of London and dispersed when that collection was dispersed in 1854-57(Wheeler, 1997). The type is presumably lost beyond trace.
59. In Gray (1834) the birds depicted were named on the plate and in a list of theplates. Although text was planned it seems not to have been published, so there
was no description and no type details were given. In the circumstances the plate

50

Later the Asiatic Society of Bengal.

ZV-340 031-074 | 2356

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 56

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

must serve as the reference point for the identity of the name. This name is sometimes, wrongly, rendered as Lanius keroula.
60. We have not traced the type.
61. This name antedates the arrival of Blyth in Calcutta and, we believe, the period
when Hodgson gave skins to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. We do not knowwhether Hodgson sent any type material to London before returning to Englandin 1843, but Warren & Harrison (1971) did not list any. Sharpe (1877) listed Tenthaca leucurus Hodgson as a synonym of pondicerianus and included three Hodgson skins from Nepal in his list, but he did not suggest that these were types ofleucurus. These have Hodgson’s No. 236 on their labels. Although there is somelikelihood that these are syntypes the problem is that no material from Hodgson
bears a collection date and some, or perhaps all, of these potential types could
have been collected between 1837 and 1843. These specimens are of historicalimportance and differ only in a minor degree from types whose status can beproven beyond dispute. The fact that such specimens cannot be confirmed as
types should not prevent at least one of them being provided with the extra
degree of protection that would accrue from segregation with the type collection. They should be regarded as types but with an appropriate cautionary notein the type catalogue.
62. Blyth (1843) provided this name for a “supposed variety of Tephrodornis superciliosus, having no whitish line over the eye, nor white on the exterior tail-feathers”
that he had previously discussed (Blyth, 1842b: 799).
Summary of types of unknown whereabouts
This summary excludes types reported as present in Calcutta in 1892 that may
not still survive, and excludes types that were almost certainly lost in the Second
World War: Graucalus layardi Blyth, 1866; C[orvus]. melanops Latham, 1802; Graucalus
Choucari Laugier, 1836; Graucalus melanotis Gould, 1838; Corvus papuensis Gmelin,
1788; Ceblepyris coerulescens Blyth, 1842; Lanius silens Tickell, 1833; Ceblephyris lugubris
Sundevall, 1837; C[ampephaga]. melanoptera, Blyth, 1846; C[ampephaga]. avensis Blyth,1852; Ceblepyris Culminatus Hay, 1845; Volvocivora vidua Hartlaub, 1865; Pseudolalage
melanoleuca Blyth, 1861; Picnonotus humeraloides Lesson, 1844; Lanius divaricatus Raffles, 1822; [Parus] peregrinus Linnaeus, 1766; Muscicapa subflava Vieillot, 1818b; M[uscicapa]. erythropygia Jerdon, 1840; Muscipeta brevirostris Vigors, 1831; Pericrocotus
andamanensis “Tytler” Beavan, 1867; [Turdus] speciosus Latham, 1790; Muscipeta princeps Vigors, 1831; Lanius xanthogaster Raffles, 1822; Muscicapa Tyrannides Tickell, 1833;
T[ephrodornis]. Sylvicola Jerdon, 1839; Tephrodornis affinis Blyth, 1847; [Muscicapa]
pondiceriana Gmelin, 1789; Lanius muscicapoides Franklin, 1831; Lanius griseus Tickell,
1833; Lanius sordidus Lesson, 1831; Tenthaca Leucurus Hodgson, 1837; Tephrodornis
grisola Blyth, 1843.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 57

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

57

Acknowledgements
As in our previous work on Asian types (Dekker et al., 2000; Dickinson et al., 2000;
Dickinson et al., 2001a & b) we acknowledge a considerable debt to those who havepublished relevant type catalogues (Arbocco et al., 1978; Bangs, 1930; Benson, 1999;
Deignan, 1961; Gyldenstolpe, 1926; Meyer de Schauensee, 1957; Roselaar & Prins,
2000; Storer, 1988, and Warren & Harrison, 1971, 1973) and to those working on current drafts for type catalogues that have been shown to us.
In preparing this work, mainly based at our own institutions or at The Natural
History Museum, Tring, UK (ECD), one or more of us has visited the following additional museums: Abiko City (ECD 2000), Berlin (SS 1997), Moscow (ECD 2000), NewYork (ECD 1999), Oxford (ECD 2002), Paris (SS 1998, ECD & RD 1999, ECD 2002) and
St. Petersburg (ECD & RD 2000).
At these museums we have been welcomed and assisted with work relevant tothis paper by: Robert Prys-Jones and Michael Walters and some of their predecessors at Tring, by Burkhard Stephan, Sylke Frahnert and the late Gottfried Mauersberger in Berlin, by George Barrowclough, Mary LeCroy and Paul Sweet, and someof their predecessors in New York, and by Sammy Degrave and Victoria Kitchenerat Oxford. ECD would also like to thank Pavel Tomkovich for his kindness in
Moscow, and we all thank our friends and contributors. We have been further
assisted with relevant material or information, on earlier visits, by: Alain Hennache
and Eric Pasquet in Paris, M. Robbins in Philadelphia and Helen Shapoval in St.
Petersburg.
In addition we have been helped by information from Peter-Rene Becker andHorst Braun (UMB), Dhirendra Devarshi, Per Ericson (NRM), Anita Gamauf (NMW),
Takashi Hiraoka (YIO), Gerald Mayr (SMF) and Aasheesh Pittie.
ECD is most grateful to the Frank M. Chapman Fund of the American Museum of
Natural History for a collection study grant in early 1999, and SS is pleased toacknowledge financial assistance from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (1996), the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (1997)
and the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs through the Office for Co-operation andCultural Affairs, French Embassy in Jakarta (1998).
We are most grateful for the help and patience of Mrs F.E. Warr and Alison Harding of The Natural History Museum, Tring with our library work there and also to
Mrs Ann Datta and her colleagues at the Zoology Library, The Natural History Museum, London. Dr. Jerry Losty, of the British Library, most kindly arranged for the loan
to The Natural History Museum of the McClelland Assam Collection of drawings,
which informed the text of our appendix, and we are extremely grateful for this cooperation. Murray Bruce reviewed our list of references and offered helpful suggestions for some of these and for the text. We are extremely grateful to Mary LeCroy
who refereed this paper and examined the type of Pericrocotus sordidus.
Acronyms
AMNH
ANSP

American Museum of Natural History, New York.
Academy of National Sciences, Philadelphia.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

58

BMNH
DMNH
FMNH
LZUH
MCZ
MLA
MNHN
MNSG
MNSM
MTD
MZB
NMW
NRM
RMNH
SMF
UMB
UMMZ
UMZC
USNM
YPM
ZMA
ZMB
ZMMU
ZMUC
ZSI

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 58

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

The Natural History Museum, Tring - formerly the British Museum(Natural History).
Delaware Museum of Natural History, Greenville, Delaware.
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.
Laboratory of Zoology, University of Hanoi.
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass.
Bureau of Science, Manila (destroyed 1945); precursor of the Philippine
National Museum.
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova.
Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano.
Staatliche Naturhistorische Sammlungen, Dresden. Museum fürTierkunde.
Museum Zoologicum Bogoriense, Cibinong, Nr. Bogor.
Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna.
Swedish Natural History Museum, Stockholm.
National Museum of Natural History, Leiden - formerly Rijksmuseum van
Natuurlijke Historie.
Senckenberg Museum, Frankfurt.
Überseemuseum, Bremen.
University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor.
University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge.
United States National Museum, Washington DC.
Yale Peabody Museum, New Haven.
Zoological Museum of the University of Amsterdam.
Zoologisches Museum, Berlin.
Zoological Museum, Moscow University.
Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen.
Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
References

Arbocco, G., L. Capocacchia & C. Violani, 1978. Catalogo dei tipi di uccelli del Museo Civico di Storia
Naturale di Genova.— Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova 82: 184-265.
Baker, E.C.S., 1918. On the species Graucalus macei.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 38: 66-70.
Baker, E.C.S., 1920. [Remarks on some Oriental species.].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 40: 112-117.
Baker, E.C.S., 1923. [New races of Flycatchers and Shrikes and remarks on these two families.].— Bull.
Brit. Orn. Cl. 44: 7-14.
Baker, E.C.S., 1924. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Birds (2nd edition). 2: ixxiii, 1-561.— London.
Baker, E.C.S., 1929. [Note on Pericrocotus peregrinus.].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 49: 63-64.
Baker, E.C.S., 1930. The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Birds (2nd edition). 7: iviii, 1-484.— London.
Ball, V., 1872. Notes on a collection of birds made in the Andamans by Asst. Surgeon G.E. Dobson
M.B. during the months of April and May.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 41: 273-290.
Bangs, O.C., 1921. The birds of the American Museum of Natural History’s Asiatic Zoological Expedition of 1916-1917.— Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 44: 575-612.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 59

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

59

Bangs, O.C., 1922. Notes on Philippine birds collected by Governor W. Cameron Forbes.— Bull. Mus.
Comp. Zool. 65: 77-84.
Bangs, O.C., 1930. Types of birds now in the Museum of Comparative Zoology.— Bull. Mus. Comp.
Zool. 70: 145-426.
Bangs, O.C. & J.C. Phillips, 1914. Notes on a collection of birds from Yunnan.— Bull. Mus. Comp.
Zool. 58: 267-302.
Beavan, R.C., 1867. The avifauna of the Andaman islands.— Ibis (2)3: 314-334.
Bechstein, J.M., 1811. Kurze Uebersicht aller bekannten Vögel oder ihre kennzeichen der Art nach
Latham’s General Synopsis of Birds und seinem Index ornithologicus: i-iv, 1-576.— Nürnberg.
Benson, C.W., 1999. Type specimens of bird skins in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge,
United Kingdom.— Brit. Orn. Club Occ. Publ. 4: i-xiv, 1-221.
Blyth, E., 1842a. Curator’s Report for April.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 11(125): 444-470.
Blyth, E., 1842b. Report from the Curator.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 11(128): 788-809.
Blyth, E., 1843. Curator’s Report for January.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 12(134): 166-182, 177*-182*.51
Blyth, E., 1846. Notices and descriptions of various new or little known species of birds.— J. AsiaticSoc. Bengal 15(172): 280-315.
Blyth, E., 1847. Notices and descriptions of various new or little known species of birds.— J. AsiaticSoc. Bengal 16 (185): 428-476.
Blyth, E., 1852. Catalogue of the Birds in the Museum [of the] Asiatic Society: i-xxxiv, 1-403 (1849).—
Calcutta.
Blyth, E., 1861. Report of the Curator Zoology Dept., for May and June.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 30: 9098.
Blyth, E., 1866. The Ornithology of India - A Commentary on Dr. Jerdon’s ‘Birds of India’.— Ibis (2)2:
336-376.
Boddaert, P., 1783. Table des Planches Enluminéez d’Histoire naturelle, de M. d’Aubenton: i-xvi, 1-58
+ 9.— Utrecht.
Bonaparte, C.L., 1850. Conspectus generum avium. 1: 1-543.— Lugduni Batavorum.
Bonaparte, C.L., 1854. Notes sur les collections rapportées en 1853 par M.A. Delattre de son voyage en
Californie et dans le Nicaragua. VIII. Chanteurs dentirostres.— Compt. Rendus l’Acad. Sci., Paris
38: 533-542.
Browning, M.R. & B.L. Monroe, Jr, 1991. Clarifications and corrections of the dates of issue of somepublications containing descriptions of North American birds.— Arch. Nat. Hist. 18(3): 381-405.
Buffon, G-L.L., 1771-1786. Histoire Naturelles des Oiseaux. 10 vols.— Paris.
Büttikofer, J., 1886. On a new species of Pericrocotus from Sumbawa.— Notes Leyden Mus. 8: 155-156.
Büttikofer, J., 1887. On a collection of birds made by Dr. C. Klaesi in the Highlands of Padang (W.
Sumatra) during the winter 1884-85.— Notes Leyden Mus. 9(1): 1-96.
Büttikofer, J., 1896. On a collection of birds from Nias.— Notes Leyden Mus. 18 (21): 161-198.
Buturlin, S.A., 1910. Pericrocotus speciosus fohkiensis subsp. nov.— Messager Ornith. 1: 263 [In Russian].
Chasen, F.N., 1935. A Handlist of Malaysian Birds.— Bull. Raffles Mus. 11: i-xx, 1-389.
Clark, A.H., 1907. Eighteen new species and one new genus of birds from eastern Asia and the Aleutian islands.— Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 32(1539): 467-475.
Dao Van Tien, 1961. Recherches zoologiques dans la région de Thai-Nguyen (Nord Vietnam).— Zool.
Anz. 166: 298-308.
Daubenton, E.L. 1765-1780. “Planches Enluminées”. 1008 pls.52
Davison, W.R., 1892. Descriptions of some new species of birds from the eastern coast of the Malayan
peninsula.— Ibis (6)4: 99-103.

51

This unusual pagination is due to the fact that the last page numbers were reused and when thiswas noticed an asterisk was added to each. It is easy to miss names in these pages by looking in thewrong set.
52 Of these plates 973 were of birds and these were embodied in the Histoire naturelle des Oiseaux by
Buffon (1771-1786); see Zimmer (1926).

ZV-340 031-074 | 2360

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 60

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)de Filippi, Ph., 1847. Animalia Vertebrata. Classis II. Aves. 1-32.— Museum Mediolanense, Milano.
Deignan, H.G., 1938. Two new birds from the Kingdom of Siam.— Auk 55: 509-510.
Deignan, H.G., 1946. The races of the Scarlet Minivet (Pericrocotus flammeus) (Forster).— Auk 63: 511-533.
Deignan, H.G., 1947. The races of the minivet Pericrocotus peregrinus (Linnaeus) in southeastern Asia.—
J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 37(7): 254-256.
Deignan, H.G., 1948. A miscellany of new birds from Eastern Asia.— Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 61: 13-16.
Deignan, H.G., 1961. Type specimens of birds in the United States National Museum.— U.S. Nat. Mus.
Bull. 221: i-x, 1-718.
Dekker, R.W.R.J., E.C. Dickinson, S. Eck & S. Somadikarta, 2000. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 3.
Types of the Eurylaimidae.— Zool.Verh. Leiden 331: 77-88.
Delacour, J., 1927. [40 new taxa from French Indochina].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 47: 151-170.
Delacour, J., 1951. The Lesser Graybirds of Asia and Malaysia.— Am. Mus. Novit. 1497: 1-15.
Dickinson, E.C., 2001. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The “Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées”
of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839).— Zool. Verh. Leiden 335: 7-53.
Dickinson, E.C. & R.W.R.J. Dekker, 2000. Introduction to Systematic notes on Asian birds.— Zool.
Verh. Leiden 331: 5-9.
Dickinson, E.C. & R.W.R.J. Dekker, 2002. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 22. A preliminary review of
the Campephagidae.— Zool. Verh. Leiden 340: 7-30.
Dickinson, E.C., R.W.R.J. Dekker, S. Eck & S. Somadikarta, 2000. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 5.
Types of the Pittidae.— Zool. Verh. Leiden 331: 101-119.
Dickinson, E.C., R.W.R.J. Dekker, S. Eck & S. Somadikarta, 2001a. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 12.
Types of the Alaudidae.— Zool. Verh. Leiden 335: 85-126.
Dickinson, E.C., R.W.R.J. Dekker, S. Eck & S. Somadikarta, 2001b. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 14.
Types of the Hirundinidae.— Zool. Verh. Leiden 335: 145-166.
duPont, J.E., 1972. Notes on Philippine Birds (no. 3). Birds of Marinduque.— Nemouria 7: 1-14.
Forster, J.R., 1781. Indische Zoologie oder systematische Beschreibungen seltener und unbekannter
Thiere aus Indien, mit 15 illuminirten Kupfertafeln erlaütert: i-iv, 1-42.— Halle.
Franklin, J., 1831. Catalogue of Birds (systematically arranged) which were collected on the Ganges
between Calcutta and Benares, and in the Vindhyian hills between the latter place and Gurrah
Mundela, on the Nerbudda.— Proc. Commit. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1831): 114-125.
Gmelin, J-F., 1788. Systema Naturae, per regna tria Natura: secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera,
Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. 13th edition. Tome 1, pars I: 1-500.—
Lyon (and Leipzig).
Gmelin, J-F., 1789. Systema Naturae, per regna tria Natura: secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera,
Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. 13th edition. Tome 1, pars II: 5011032.— Lyon (and Leipzig).
Gould, J., 1830-1833.53 A Century of birds from the Himalayan mountains. Pl. 1-80.— London.
Gould, J. 1838. A Synopsis of the Birds of Australia and its adjacent islands. Part. 4, p. l, pl. 54, fig. 2.—
London.
Gould, J., 1848. On seven new species of Australian Birds.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 16: 38-40.
Gould, J., 1850. Birds of Asia. Part 1.— London.
Gould, J., 1857. Birds of Asia. Part 9.— London.
Gould, J., 1863. Descriptions of sixteen new species of birds from the island of Formosa, collected byRobert Swinhoe, Her Majesty’s Vice-Consul at Formosa.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1862): 280-286.
Gould, J., 1874. Birds of Asia. Part 26.— London.
Gray, G.R., 184054. A list of the genera of birds with an indication of the typical species of each genus
compiled from various sources. i-viii, 1-80. — London.

53 For some notes on the dating of names and their attribution to authors see McAllan & Bruce (2002,
this issue).
54 Sharpe (1879) referred to this as dating from 1841. The title page is certainly 1840; we may havemissed evidence that publication was in parts or was delayed.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 61

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

61

Gray, G.R., 1860. List of birds collected by Mr. Wallace at the Molucca Islands, with descriptions of
new species, etc.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 28: 341-366.
Gray, J.E., 1830-32, 1833-34. Illustrations of Indian zoology chiefly selected from the collections ofMajor-General Hardwicke, FRS.— London.
Guillemard, F.H.H., 1885. Report on collections of birds made during the voyage of the yacht Marchesa. I. A Provisional List of the Birds inhabiting the Sulu Archipelago.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.
(1885): 247-275.
Gyldenstolpe, N., 1926. Types of birds in the Royal Natural History Museum in Stockholm.— Arkiv f.
Zool. 19A(1): 1-116.
Hall, B.P., 1953. Notes on some minivets in the British Museum.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 73(6): 63-65.
Hartert, E., 1894. List of the first collection of birds from the Natuna islands.— Novit. Zool. 1: 469-483.
Hartert, E., 1895. List of a second collection of birds from the Natuna islands.— Novit. Zool. 2: 466-478.
Hartert, E., 1896a. On ornithological collections made by Mr. Alfred Everett in the Celebes and on theislands south of it.— Novit. Zool. 3: 148-181.
Hartert, E., 1896b. An account of the collections of birds made by Mr. William Doherty in the easternarchipelago.— Novit. Zool. 3: 537-590.
Hartert, E., 1898. On the birds of Lomblen, Pantar and Alor.— Novit. Zool. 5: 455-465.
Hartert, E., 1901. [Descriptions of four new birds].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 12: 32-33.
Hartert, E., 1910. The birds of Hainan.— Novit. Zool. 17: 189-254.
Hartert, E., 1916. [A new form of Coracina.].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 36: 65.
Hartert, E., 1918. [Notes on Edolisoma.].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 38: 27-29 (1917).
Hartert, E., 1922. Types of birds in the Tring Museum. B. Types in the General Collection. Cont.—
Novit. Zool. 29: 365-412.
Hartlaub, G., 1864. Monographische Studien über die Gruppe der Campephaginen.— J. f. Orn. 12:
435-446.
Hartlaub, G., 1865. Monographische Studien über die Gruppe der Campephaginen.— J. f. Orn. 13(75):153-173.
Hay, A., Lord, 1844 [=1845]. Descriptions of some supposed new, or imperfectly described, species ofbirds.— Madras J. Lit. Sci. 13(2): 145-164.
Hellmayr, C.E., 1916. Weiteres zur Avifauna von Timor.— Novit. Zool. 23: 96-111.
Hodgson, B.H., 1836. On some new species of the Edolian and Ceblepyrine subfamilies of the Laniidae
of Nepal.— Indian Rev. 1: 324-329.
Hodgson, B.H., 1837. On some new species of the more typical Laniidae of Nepal.— Indian Rev. 1:
445-447.
Hodgson, B.H. 1844. Catalogue of Nipalese birds, collected between 1824 and 1844.— [Gray’s] Zool.
Misc. (pt. 6): 81-86.
Hodgson, B.H., 1845. [On Nepalese birds.].— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 13: 22-37.
Horsfield, T., 1821. A systematic arrangement and description of birds from the island of Java.—
Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 13: 133-200.
Horsfield, T., 1840. List of Mammalia and Birds collected in Assam by John McClelland, Esq., Assistant-Surgeon in the service of the East India Company, Bengal Establishment, Member of the late
Deputation which was sent into that country for the purpose of investigating the nature of the Tea
Plant.55 — Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 7 (1839): 146-167.
Horsfield, T. & F. Moore, 1854. A catalogue of the birds in the Museum of the Hon. East India Company. 1: i-xxx, 1-451.— London.
Hume, A.O., 1875. A second list of the birds of Tenasserim.— Stray Feathers 3(4): 317-326.
Hume, A.O., 1876. In: J. Armstrong, 1876. Notes on some birds collected in the eastern or Rangoon
District of the Irrawaddy delta.— Stray Feathers 4(4-6): 295-351.

55

Where McClelland provided an English description we believe the new names herein must be attributed to him. The Latin diagnoses are by Horsfield and when no McClelland description is given this
implies that Horsfield is the describer and the relevant new name is his.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

6204-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 62

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Hume, A.O., 1877a. Remarks on the Genus Pericrocotus.— Stray Feathers 5(3/4): 171-198.
Hume, A.O., 1877b. Some remarks on the Indian species of the Genus Volvocivora.— Stray Feathers5(3/4): 203-207.
ICZN, 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th edition): i-xxix, 1-306.— London.
Jany, E., 1955. Neue Vogel-Formen von den Nord-Molukken.— J. f. Orn. 96(1): 102-106.
Jardine, W., 1831. Descriptions of new or little known species of birds.— Edinburgh J. Nat. Geog. Sci.,
N.S. 3: 209-212.
Jerdon, T.C., 1839. Catalogue of the birds of Peninsular India. 2.— Madras J. Lit. Sci. 10(25): 234-269.
Jerdon, T.C., 1840. Catalogue of the birds of Peninsular India. 3.— Madras J. Lit. Sci. 11(26): 1-38.
Jerdon, T.C., 1845. Second Supplement to the Catalogue of the birds of Peninsular India. — Madras J.
Lit. Sci., 13 (1844) (31): 116-144.
Jerdon, T.C., 1862a. Notice of some new species of birds from Upper Burmah.— Ibis (4)1: 19-23.
Jerdon, T.C., 1862b. The Birds of India: being a Natural History of all the Birds Known to Inhabit Continental India; with Descriptions of the Species, Genera, Families, Tribes, and Orders, and a Brief
Notice of such Families as are not found in India, making it a Manual of Ornithology SpeciallyAdapted for India: 1. i-xlv, 1-535.— Calcutta.
Kinnear, N.B., 1924. [A new southern race of Tephrodornis pelvicus].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 44: 101-102.
Kinnear, N.B., 1925. [Descriptions of three new birds].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 45: 105-106.
Kinnear, N.B., 1952. The history of Indian mammalogy and ornithology. Part II. Birds.— J. Bombay
Nat. Hist. Soc. 51: 104-110.
Kinnear, N.B. & H.C. Robinson, 1927. [Raffles’s natural history drawings from Sumatra.].— Bull. Brit.
Orn. Cl. 47: 127-130.
Kloss, C.B., 1918. On birds recently collected in Siam.— Ibis (10)6: 76-114, 189-234.
Kloss, C.B., 1925. [Two new subspecies from Indochina].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 46: 7-8.
Kloss, C.B., 1926. The Pied Cuckoo-shrike.— J. Malay. Br. Roy. Asiat. Soc. 4: 158-160.
Kloss, C.B., 1927. The Pied Cuckoo-shrikes.— J. Malay. Br. Roy. Asiat. Soc. 5: 351.
Kloss, C.B. & F.N. Chasen, 1926. [Two new races of Oriental birds.].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 46: 57-58.
Koelz, W.N., 1939. New birds from Asia, chiefly from India.— Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 52: 61-82.
Koelz, W.N., 1950. New subspecies of birds from southwestern Asia.— Am. Mus. Novit. 1452: 1-10.
Koelz, W.N., 1952. New races of Indian birds.— J. Zool. Soc. India 4(1): 37-46.
Koelz, W.N., 1954. Ornithological studies. I. New birds from Iran, Afghanistan and India.— Contr.
Inst. Reg. Expl., Ann Arbor 1: 1-32.
Kooiman, W.J., 1950. Philippus Ludovicus Statius Muller: 74-130.— In: Earebondel ta de tachtichstejierdei fan Dr. G.A. Wumkes op 4 septimber 1949. Oanbean Troch de Fryske Akademy. Boalsert.
Kuroda, N., 1920. Descriptions of three new forms of birds from Japan and Formosa.— Dobutsu
Zasshi 32: 243-248.
Kutter, J.F., 1882. [Einen neuen Graucalus in Nachrichten und Neuigkeiten. Allgemeinen Deutschen
Ornithologischen Gesellschaft Sitzung vom 6 Nov. 1882].— Orn. Centralblatt 7 (23/24): 182-183.
Lafresnaye, N.F.A.A., Baron de, 1845. Oiseaux nouveaux rapportés par M. Leclancher, chirurgien del’expédition de la corvette La Favorite.— Rev. Zool. 8: 93-94.
Latham, J., 1790. Index ornithologicus, sive systema ornithologiæ; complectens avium divisionem inclasses, ordines, genera, species, ipsarumque varietates: adjectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus&c. 1. i-xviii, 1-466.— London.
Latham, J., 1802. Supplementum Indicis ornithologici sive Systematis ornithologiae: i-lxxiv (1801). —London.
Latham, J., 1823. A general history of birds. 6. 1-336; pl. 93-10456.— Winchester.
La Touche, J.D.D., 1922a. [New birds from S.E. Yunnan.] — Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 42: 51-55.
La Touche, J.D.D., 1922b. [Description of a new species of Minivet.].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 42: 125.

56

We do not usually give details of plates; in this case we discuss a plate and as this work is notalways bound in the same volume arrangement we give the plate numbers.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 63

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

63

Laugier de Chartrouse, M., Baron, 1836. Catalogue des Oiseaux de M. le Baron Laugier de Chartrouse.
1-84.— Arles.
Lesson, R.P., 1830-31. Traité d’Ornithologie ou Tableaux Méthodique: i-xxxii, 1-659.— Paris.
Lesson, R.P., 1831.57 Oiseaux pp. 161-288. In: Belanger, C., 1831-34. Voyage aux Indes-Orientales, par leNord de l’Europe, les Provinces du Caucase, la Géorgie, l’Arménie et la Perse, suivi de Détails
topographiques, statistiques et autres sur le Pégou, les Iles de Java, de Maurice et de Bourbon, surle Cap de Bonne-Espérance et Sainte-Hélène, pendant les Années 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828 et 1829: ixxxix, 1-535.— Paris.
Lesson, R.P., 1837. Histoire Naturelle générale et particulière des Mammifères et des oiseaux découverts depuis la mort de Buffon (Complement des oevres de Buffon) 8: 1-511.— Paris.
Lesson, R.P., 1839. Liste d’oiseaux nouveaux de la collection du docteur Abeillé de Bordeaux.— Rev.
Zool. 2: 167.
Lesson, R.P., 1844. Catalog descriptif des oiseaux nouveau, rares et peu connus, de la collection Abeillé.— Les Echos du Monde Savant 11(10): 231-235.58
Levaillant, F., 1805. Histoire naturelle des Oiseaux d’Afrique. 4: 1-104 (Pls. 151-199). – Paris.
Linnaeus, C., 1766. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera,
Species cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. 12th Edition. Tome 1:1-532.— Stockholm.
Mathews, G.M., 1912a. A Reference-list to the Birds of Australia.— Novit. Zool. 18(3): 171-446.
Mathews, G.M., 1912b. Additions and corrections to my Reference List to the Birds of Australia.—
Austral. Av. Rec. 1(2): 25-52.
Mayr, E., 1940. Pericrocotus brevirostris and its double.— Ibis (14)4: 712-722.
McAllan, I.A.W. & M.D. Bruce, 2002. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 27. On the dates of publicationof John Gould’s “A Century of Birds from the Himalaya Mountains”.— Zool. Verh. Leiden 340:
161-177.
McClelland, 1840, see Horsfield, 1840.
McGregor, R.C., 1904. Birds from Benguet province, Luzon and from the islands of Lubang, Mindoro,
Cuyo and Cagayancillo.— Bull. Phil. Mus. 3: 3-16.
McGregor, R.C., 1905. I. Birds from Mindoro and small adjacent islands.— Bull. Bur. Gov. Labs., Dep.
Interior 34: 1-27.
Mearns, E.A., 1907. Descriptions of a new genus and nine new species of Philippine birds.— Phil. J.
Sci. 2: 355-360.
Meise, W., 1929. Die Vögel von Djampea und benachbarten Inseln nach einer Sammlung Baron
Plessens.— J. f. Orn. 77: 431-480.
Meise, W., 1931. Neue Subspezies aus Zentral-Celebes.— Orn. Monatsber. 39(2): 47-48.
Meyen, F.J.F., 1834. Beiträge zur Zoologie gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde. 4. Vögel.— Ver. K.
Leop. Carol. Akad. Naturf. 16: 59-109.
Meyer, A.B., 1874. Ueber neue und ungenügend bekannte Vögel von Neu-Guinea und den Inseln derGeelvinksbai.— Sitzungsb. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.-Naturwiss. Cl. 69: 386-402.
Meyer, A.B., 1882. Ueber Vögel von einigen der sudostlichen Inseln des Malayischen Archipels insbesondere ueber diejenigen Sumba’s.— Verhandl. der k.k. zool.-bot. Ges. im Wien 31 (1881): 759-774.
Meyer, A.B., 1884. Ueber neue und ungenügend bekannte Vögel im Königl. Zoologischen Museum zu
Dresden.— Z. ges. Ornithol. 1: 193-219.
Meyer, A.B., 1885. Ueber neue und ungenügend bekannte Vögel, Nester und Eier aus dem Ostindischen Archipel im Königl. Zoologischen Museum zu Dresden.— Sitzungsber. Abh. Naturwiss.
Ges. Isis, Abh. 1 (1884): 3-58.

57

The birds comprised Livr. 3 (pp. 161-224) and 4 (pp. 225-288) appearing respectively 21 May 1831
and 4 Aug. 1832 (see Sherborn & Woodward, 1901). Browning & Monroe (1991) observed that thesource cited by Sherborn & Woodward appeared in September 1831 and that Livr. 4 must haveappeared in 1831.
58 Pagination as indicated in bold type in the Menegaux reprint of 1913. Original not seen.

ZV-340 031-074 | 2364

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 64

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Meyer, A.B., 1903. Neue Vögel von Celebes.— Notes Leyden Mus. 23(26): 185-189.
Meyer, A.B. & L.W. Wiglesworth, 1895. Eine zweite Sammlung von Vögeln von den Talaut Inseln.—Abh. Ber. König. Zool. Mus. Dresden 5(9): 1-9.
Meyer, A.B. & L.W. Wiglesworth, 1898. The Birds of Celebes and the Neighbouring Islands. 2 vols. (I.
i-xxxii, 1-130; i-ii, 1-392; II. i-ii, 393-962).— Berlin.
Meyer de Schauensee, R., 1946. On Siamese birds.— Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 98: 1-82.
Meyer de Schauensee, R., 1957. On some avian types, principally Gould’s, in the collection of the
Academy.— Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 109: 123-246.
Morioka, H., E.C. Dickinson, T. Hiraoka, D. Allen, (in prep.). Type specimens of birds described fromJapan.
Müller, S., 1843. Bijdragen tot de kennis van Timor en eenige andere naburige eilanden: Eerste afdeeling. Aardrijks- en geschiedkundig gedeelte. III. Togt naar het binnenland, door de Vorstendommen Sonabay, Ambenoe en Amfoang. 180-240.— In: C.J. Temminck, 1840-1847. Land- en
Volkenkunde. Verhandelingen over de Natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche overzeesche
bezittingen, door de Leden der Natuurkundige commissie in Indië en andere Schrijvers. 6. Leiden.
Neumann, O., 1915. Neue tropische Vogelformen.— Orn. Monatsber. 23: 178-182.
Neumann, O., 1919 In: O. Heinroth. [Bericht über die Mai-Sitzung 1919].— J. f. Orn. 67: 332-335.
Neumann, O., 1937. Four new races from Sumatra and the Mentawi Archipelago.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl.
57: 151-154.
Neumann, O., 1939. A new species and eight new races from Peleng and Taliaboe.— Bull. Brit. Orn.
Cl. 59: 89-94.
Oates, E.W., 1883. Handbook of the Birds of British Burmah, including those from the adjoining stateof Karennee. 1: 1-431.— London.
Oberholser, H.C., 1912. Descriptions of one hundred and four new species and subspecies of birds
from the Barussan islands and Sumatra.— Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 60(7): 1-22.
Oberholser, H.C., 1917a. The birds of the Anamba Islands.— Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 98: i-vi, 1-75.
Oberholser, H.C., 1917b. Birds collected by Dr. W.L. Abbott on various islands in the Java Sea.— Proc.
U.S. Nat. Mus. 54: 177-200.
Oberholser, H.C., 1926. Descriptions of nineteen new East Indian Passerine birds.— J. Wash. Acad. Sci.
16: 515-522.
Ogilvie-Grant, W.R., 1896. On the birds of the Philippine Islands. Part 8. The highlands of Negros.—Ibis (7)2: 525-565.
Ogilvie-Grant, W.R., 1905. [six new species .. procured by Mr. Walter Goodfellow in south-east Mindanao.]— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 16: 16-19.
Ogilvie-Grant, W.R., 1910. [in Abstract of the Proceedings of March 15th. 1890.]— Proc. Zool. Soc.
Lond. (1910): 17-19.
Parkes, K.C., 1971. Taxonomic and distributional notes on Philippine birds.— Nemouria 4: 1-67.
Parkes, K.C., 1974. Geographic variation in the Flame Minivet (Pericrocotus flammeus) on the island of
Mindanao.— Ann. Carnegie Mus. 45(3): 35-41.
Parkes, K.C., 1981. A substitute name for a Philippine minivet (Pericrocotus).— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl.
101(4): 370.
Peters, J.L., 1943. First supplement to the list of types of birds now in the Museum of Comparative
Zoology.— Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 92(2): 53-104.
Peters, J.L., E. Mayr & H.G. Deignan, 1960. Family Campephagidae: 167-221.— In: E. Mayr & J.C.
Greenway jr. (eds). 1960 Check-list of Birds of the World. IX. Cambridge, Mass.
Raffles, T.S., 1822. Second part of the descriptive catalogue of a zoological collection made in theisland of Sumatra and its vicinity.— Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 13: 277-331.
Rand, A.L. & D.S. Rabor, 1959. Three new birds from the Philippine Islands.— Fieldiana, Zool. 39(26):275-277.
Rensch, B., 1928. Neue Vogelrassen von den Kleinen Sunda-Inseln II.— Orn. Monatsber. 36(2): 47-49.
Richmond, C.W., 1903. Birds collected by Dr. W.L. Abbott on the coast and islands of northwest Sumatra.— Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 26(1318): 485-524.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 65

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

65

Riley, J.H., 1918. Two new genera and eight new birds from Celebes.— Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 31: 155160.
Riley, J.H., 1940a. Five new forms of birds from southern Annam.— Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 53: 47-49.
Riley, J.H., 1940b. Six new forms of birds from Indochina.— Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 53: 131-134.
Ripley, S.D., 1952a. Additional comments on Philippine birds and a new record from the Archipelago.— Condor 54(6): 362.
Ripley, S.D., 1952b. A collection of birds from the Naga Hills.— J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 50(3): 475-514.
Ripley, S.D., 1961. A synopsis of the birds of India and Pakistan together with those of Nepal, Sikkim,
Bhutan and Ceylon: i-xxxvi, 1-703.— Bombay.
Ripley, S.D., 1982. A synopsis of the birds of India and Pakistan together with those of Nepal, Bhutan,
Bangladesh and Sri Lanka: i-xxvi, 1-653. (2nd. Edition).— Bombay.
Ripley, S.D. & D.S. Rabor, 1961. The avifauna of Mt. Katanglad.— Postilla 50: 1-20.
Robinson, H.C., 1915. On the species of minivets (Pericrocotus) occurring in the Malay Peninsula.— J.
Fed. Malay St. Mus. 6: 31-37.
Robinson, H.C. & C.B. Kloss, 1918. Results of an Expedition to Korinchi Peak, Sumatra.— J. Fed.
Malay. St. Mus. 8: 81-284.
Robinson, H.C. & C.B. Kloss, 1920. On a collection of birds from north east Sumatra. II.— J. Straits Br.
Roy. Asiatic Soc. 81: 79-115.
Robinson, H.C. & C.B. Kloss, 1923. [A new race of Minivet from Annam].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 43: 119120.
Roselaar, C.S. & T.G. Prins, 2000. List of type specimens of birds in the Zoological Museum of the University of Amsterdam (ZMA), including taxa described by ZMA staff but without types in the
ZMA. — Beaufortia, 50 (5): 95-126.
Rothschild, W. & E. Hartert, 1917. [A short review of the forms of Lalage karu inhabiting the Papuan
subregion.].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 37: 15-17.
Rüppell, E., 1839. Monographie der Vogelgattung deren Typus Levaillant unter dem namen “les Echenilleurs” zuerst bekannt gemacht hat, und welche in neuerer Zeit unter den verschiedenen Gattungsnamen Ceblepyris, Campephaga, Graucalus oder als Coracina, Galgulus, Lanius, Corvus undanderen Bezeichnungen beschrieben wurden; nebst beschreibung von zwei neuen Arten,
Ceblepyris melanoptera (Rüpp.) und C. maxima (Rüpp.).— Mus. Senckenbergianum 3: 17-39.
Salomonsen, F., 1953. Miscellaneous notes on Philippine birds.— Vidensk. Medd. Dansk. naturh. For.
115: 205-281.
Salvadori, T., 1868a. Studio Intorno ai Lavori Ornitologici del professore Filippo de Filippi.— Atti R.
Accad. Sci. Torino 3(4): 257-296.
Salvadori, T., 1868b. Nuove specie di uccelli di Borneo.— Atti R. Accad. Sci. Torino 3(6): 524-533.
Salvadori, T., 1874a. Nuove specie di uccelli delle isole Aru e Kei.— Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova
6: 73-80.
Salvadori, T., 1874b Catalogo sistematico degli uccelli di Borneo.— Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova
5: 1-429.
Salvadori, T., 1878. Descrizione di trentuna specie nuove di uccelli della sottoregione Papuana, e note
intorno ad altre poco conosciute.— Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova 12: 317-347.
Salvadori, T., 1879a. Catalogo di una collezione di uccelli fatta nella parte occidentale di Sumatra dal
Prof. Odoardo Beccari.— Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova 14: 169-253.
Salvadori, T., 1879b. Prodromus ornithologiae Papuasiae et Moluccarum. VIII. Campophagidae,
Artamidae, Dicruridae, Laniidae.— Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova 15: 32-48.
Salvadori, T., 1886. On some Papuan, Moluccan and Sulu birds.— Ibis (5)4: 151-155.
Salvadori, T., 1887. Diagnosi di nuove specie di uccelli del Tenasserim, raccolte dal Sig. Leonardo
Fea.— Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova. Ser. 2(5): 514-516.
Salvadori, T., 1892. Uccelli di Engano raccolti dal Dott. E. Modigliani.— Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova. Ser. 2(12): 123-142
Salvadori, T., 1894. Viaggio del Dr. Elio Modigliani nelle isole Mentawei; catalogo di una collezione diuccelli di Si-pora.— Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova. Ser. 2(14): 588-601.

ZV-340 031-074 | 2366

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 66

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Schodde, R. & I. Mason, 1999. The Directory of Australian Birds. Passerines: i-x, 1-851.— Collingwood,Vic., Australia.
Sclater, P.L., 1883. On birds collected in the Timor-laut or Tenimber Group of islands by Mr. Henry O.
Forbes.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1883): 48-57.
Sclater, W.L., 1892. On the Indian Museum and its collection of birds.— Ibis (6)4: 65-87.
Sharpe, R.B., 1877. A Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. III: i-xiii, 1-343.— London.
Sharpe, R.B., 1878. On the collections of birds made by Dr. Meyer during his expedition to New Guinea
and some neighbouring islands.— Mitt. K. Zool. Mus. Dresden 1(3): 349-372, pl. xxviii-xxx.
Sharpe, R.B., 1879. A Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. IV: i-xvi, 1-494.— London.
Sharpe, R.B., 1887a. Notes on a collection of birds made by Mr. John Whitehead on the Mountain of
Kina Balu, in Northern Borneo, with descriptions of new species.— Ibis (5)5: 435-454.
Sharpe, R.B., 1887b. On a second collection of birds formed by Mr. L. Wray in the mountains of Perak,
Malay Peninsula.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1887): 431-443.
Sharpe, R.B., 1888. List of a collection of birds made by Mr. L. Wray in the main range of mountains of
the Malay Peninsula, Perak.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1888): 268-281.
Sharpe, R.B., 1889. On the ornithology of northern Borneo. With notes by John Whitehead.— Ibis (6)1:63-85, 185-205, 265-283, 409-443.
Sharpe, R.B., 1893. [On a collection of birds found by Mr. A.H. Everett in the western islands of the
Sulu Archipelago.].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. (1893): ix-x.
Shaw, G., 1809. General Zoology or Systematic Natural History: 7 Pt. 2. i-x, 281-504.— London.
Sherborn, C.D. & B.B. Woodward, 1901. Notes on the dates of publication of the natural history portions of some French voyages. Part 1. ‘Amerique méridionale’; ‘Indes orientales’; ‘Pôle Sud’(‘Astrolable’ and ‘Zélée’); ‘La Bonite’; ‘La Coquille’ and ‘L’Uranie et Physicienne’.— Ann. Mag.
Nat. Hist. (7) 7: 388-392.
Sonnerat, P., 1782. Voyage aux Indes Orientales et à la Chine, fait par ordre du Roi, depuis 1774
jusqu’en 1781: dans lequel on traite des Mœurs, de la Religion, des Sciences et des Arts des Indiens, des Chinois, des Pégouins et des Madégasses; suivi d’Observations sur le Cap de BonneEspérance, les Isles de France et de Bourbon. les Maldives, Ceylan, Malacca, les Philippines et les
Moloques et des Recherches sur l’Histoire Naturelle de ces Pays: 2. i-viii, 1-298. — Paris.
Sparrman, A., 1787. Museum Carlsonianum in quo novas et selectas aves, coloribus ad vivum breviquedescriptione illustratas suasa et sumtibus generosisimi possessoris. Fasc. 2. 26-50.— Stockholm.
Stanford, J.K. & C.B. Ticehurst, 1931. The birds of the Prome District, Lower Burma. II.— J. Bombay
Nat. Hist. Soc. 34(4): 901-915.
Statius Müller59, P.L., 1776. Linne’s Natursystems: Supplements und register band: 1-536.— Nürnberg.
Steere, J.B., 1890. A list of the birds and mammals collected by the Steere Expedition to the Philippines:
1-30.— Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Stejneger, L., 1887. On a collection of birds made by Mr. M. Namiye in the Liu Kiu Islands, Japan, withdescriptions of new species.— Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 9 (1886): 634-651.
Stoliczka, F., 1870. A contribution to Malayan ornithology.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 39(2): 277-344.
Stone, W., 1899. A study of the type specimens of birds in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, with a brief history of the collection.— Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 51: 5-62.
Storer, R.W., 1988. Type specimens of birds in the collections of the University of Michigan Museum of
Zoology.— Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool., Univ. Michigan (174): i-iv, 1-69.
Stresemann, E., 1922. Zur Ornithologie der Philippinen.— Orn. Monatsber. 30(4): 88.
Stresemann, E., 1923. Neue Formen aus Süd-China.— J. f. Orn. 71(2/3): 362-365.
Stresemann, E., 1932. Vorläufiges über die Ornithologischen Ergebnisse der Expedition Heinrich 19301932. VII. Zur ornithologie von Südost Celebes.— Orn. Monatsber. 40(4): 104-115.

59

In Zool. Verh. Leiden 331, pp. 98, 103, 105, 106, 117 we referred to P.L.S. Müller. This has been the
traditional rendering of the name. See however Kooiman (1950). We use Müller as he published inGerman and used the umlaut.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 67

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

67

Stresemann, E., 1951. Type localities of Australian birds collected by the Expedition Baudin, 18011803.— Emu 51: 65-70.
Stresemann, E., 1952. On the birds collected by Pierre Poivre in Canton, Manila, India and Madagascar(1751-1756).— Ibis 94(3): 499-523.
Strickland, H.E., 1844. Notes on Mr. Blyth’s List of Birds from the vicinity of Calcutta.— Ann. Mag.
Nat. Hist., Ser. 1, 13: 32-40.
Strickland, H.E., 1847. Notes on certain species of birds from Malacca.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 14: 99105.
Strickland, H.E., 1849. [Description of Pericrocotus minutus.] — Contributions to Ornithology. Wm. Jardine (Ed.) [pagination sequence unclear; see p. 94-22].
Sundevall, C.J., 1837. Foglar från Calcutta, samlade och beskrifne.— Physiogr. Sallskapets Tidskr. 1:
54-96, 161-192.
Swainson, W., 1825. On the characters and natural affinities of several new birds from Australasia;
including some observations on the Columbidae.— Zool. J. 1: 463-484.
Swainson, W., 1838. Animals in Menageries: i-viii, 1-373.— London.
Swinhoe, R., 1860. The Ornithology of Amoy (China).— Ibis (1)2: 45-68.
Swinhoe, R., 1861. Notes on the ornithology of Hongkong, Macao, and Canton made during the latterend of February, March, April and the beginning of May, 1860.— Ibis (1)3: 23-57.
Swinhoe, R., 1863a. The ornithology of Formosa or Taiwan. 2.— Ibis (1)5: 250-311.
Swinhoe, R., 1863b. Catalogue of the Birds of China, with remarks principally on their geographicaldistribution.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1863): 259-331.
Swinhoe, R., 1870. On the ornithology of Hainan.— Ibis (2)6: 77-97, 230-256, 342-367.
Sykes, W.H., 1832. Catalogue of Birds of the Raptorial and Incessorial Orders (systematicallyarranged), observed in the Dukhun.— Proc. Commit. Zool. Soc. Lond. 2: 77-99.
Temminck, C.J. & M. Laugier de Chartrouse, 1820-1839. Nouveau recueil de planches coloriéesd’oiseaux, pour servir de suite et de complement aux planches enluminées de Buffon. 102 livr.,
600 pls.— Paris.
Ticehurst, C.B., 1920. [Four new races of Indian birds].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 41: 55-56.
Ticehurst, C.B. & H. Whistler, 1924. On the type locality of certain birds described by Vigors.— Ibis
(11)6: 468-473.
Tickell, S.R., 1833. List of birds collected in the jungles of Borabhum and Dholbhum.— J. Asiatic Soc.
Bengal: 2: 569-583.
Tweeddale, A., Marquis of, 1879. Contributions to the ornithology of the Philippines, No. XI. On thecollection made by Mr. A.H. Everett at Zamboanga, in the island of Mindanao.— Proc. Zool. Soc.
London (1878): 936-954.
van Oort, E.D., 1907. On Edoliisoma morio (S. Müller).— Notes Leyden Mus. 29(8): 77-78.
van Steenis-Kruseman, M.J., 1950. Malaysian plant collectors and collections being a cyclopaedia of
botanical exploration in Malaysia and a guide to the concerned literature up to the year 1950.
Flora Malesiana (1)1: i-clii, 1-639.— Jakarta.
van Tyne, J. & W.N. Koelz, 1936. Seven new birds from the Punjab.— Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool., Univ.
Mich. 334: 1-6.
Vaughan, R.E. & K.H. Jones, 1913. A further note on certain species of Pericrocotus which occur inSouth-eastern China, with a description of a new species of the genus.— Ibis (10)1: 383-384.
Vieillot, L.P., 1817a. Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire Naturelle 8: 1-602.— Paris.
Vieillot, L.P., 1817b. Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire Naturelle 11: 1-602.— Paris.
Vieillot, L.P., 1818a. Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire Naturelle 20: 1-586.— Paris.
Vieillot, L.P., 1818b. Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire Naturelle 21: 1-612.— Paris.
Vigors, N.A., 1831. [Observations on a collection of birds from the Himalayan Mountains, with characters of new genera and species.]— Proc. Commit. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1: 7-9, 22-23, 35, 41-44, 54-56.
von Berlepsch, H.G., 1911. Die Vögel der Aru Inseln.— Abh. Senckenb. Nat. Ges. 34(1): 51-98.
von Pelzeln, A., 1865. Reise der Österreichischen Fregatte ‘Novara’ um die Erde in den Jahren 1857,
1858 und 1859. Zool. Theil. 1. Vögel: i-iv, 3-176.
Wagler, J. 1827. Systema Avium. Part 1.— Stuttgart. Unpaginated.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

68

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 68

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Walden, A., Viscount, 1872. A list of the birds known to inhabit the island of Celebes.— Trans. Zool.
Soc. Lond. 8(2): 23-118.
Wallace, A.R., 1863a. List of birds from the Sula Islands (east of Celebes), with descriptions of the new
species.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1862): 333-346.
Wallace, A.R., 1863b. List of birds collected in the island of Bouru (one of the Moluccas), with descriptions of the new species.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1863): 18-36.
Wallace, A.R., 1864. A list of the birds inhabiting the islands of Timor, Flores, and Lombock, withdescriptions of the new species.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1863): 480-497.
Wardlaw-Ramsay, R.G., 1881. Descriptions of two new species of birds.— Ibis (4)5: 32-34.
Wardlaw-Ramsay, R.G., 1886. Contributions to the ornithology of the Philippines. 2. On additional
collections of birds.— Ibis (5)4: 155-162.
Warren, R.L.M., 1966. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History). 1. Nonpasserines: i-x, 1-320.— London.
Warren, R.L.M. & C.J.O. Harrison, 1971. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History). 2. Passerines: i-vi, 1-628.— London.
Watson, G.E., M.A. Traylor & E. Mayr, 1986. Family Muscicapidae (sensu stricto): 295-375.— In: E.
Mayr & G.W. Cottrell, 1986. (eds.). Check-list of Birds of the World. XI. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, Mass.
Wheeler, A., 1997. Zoological collections in the early British Museum: the Zoological Society’s Museum.— Arch. Nat. Hist. 24(1): 89-126.
Wheeler, A., 1998. Dates of publication of J.E. Gray’s Illustrations of Indian Zoology (1830-1835).—
Arch. Nat. Hist. 25(3): 345-354.
Whistler, H., 1918. Letter to the Editor: Colonel Tytler’s collection of birds.— Ibis (10)6: 737-739.
Whistler, H., 1939. A new race of the Pied Shrike in India.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 59: 101-102.
Whistler, H., 1940. The Andaman Large Cuckoo-Shrike.— Ibis (14)4: 731.
Whistler, H. & N.B. Kinnear, 1933. The Vernay Scientific Survey of the Eastern Ghats. IV.— J. Bombay
Nat. Hist. Soc. 36(2): 334-352.
White, C.M.N. & M.D. Bruce, 1986. The birds of Wallacea.— BOU Check-list Ser. 7: 1-524. Tring, Herts.
Zimmer, J.T., 1926. Catalogue of the Edward E. Ayer Ornithological Library.— Field Mus. Nat. Hist.
Zool. 16(1): i-x, 1-364.

Appendix 1
McClelland’s drawings and the minivets of Assam
E.C. Dickinson & M.P. Walters
John McClelland was a member of a deputation that was sent to Assam by the
Honourable East India Company in 1836 to investigate the nature of the tea plant.
Horsfield (1840) wrote that “On the return of the deputation to Calcutta Mr. McClelland delivered his collection of Mammalia and Birds, accompanied by a descriptive
catalogue and drawings of many subjects, to the Bengal Government, to be forwarded
to the Court of Directors.”
Horsfield made no mention of a second set of drawings, but one existed. The
British Library, Oriental & India Office Collections, now holds a consolidated collection of McClelland’s work (NHD6; drawings 811-996).
Although a final appraisal awaits completion a preliminary report can be given
here. There are 186 drawings, of which all but a dozen or so are of birds. Most bird
subjects appear in two near-identical drawings; this may prove to apply in the case of
all the depictions from the trip to Assam. Others are not duplicated. The duplicatesZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 69

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

69

evidently formed a set retained by McClelland. An analysis of drawings 811 to 843
showed how the two sets could be distinguished.
The original text in Indian ink included a scientific name: often one proposed as
new and, as was then usual, this is signalled by the addition of “mihi”. Some of thesenames were adopted by Horsfield (1840), but others were not as Horsfield was able toestablish to his satisfaction that the taxa concerned had been named before. Separately, in the left hand bottom corner is to be found “McClelland Assam Collection” and adate, usually in August or September 1836, but at least once in 1837. We suspect these
are the dates the drawings were done. This text block may also include an English
name, but often none was suggested. A number in Indian ink in the bottom right handcorner is a “plate number” that is the same in both sets.
McClelland’s retained set seems to have been comprised of the first attempts, perhaps made during the trip, by artists of varying skills. This has the Indian ink text in
McClelland’s hand. Some drawings record in blacker ink that they were presented to
the Hon. East India Company by McClelland in 1856. McClelland’s set has pencil notes
in it made by Blyth, the longer notes being initialled and dated May 1846. Other pencil
notes in this set may be by McClelland himself. In this copy there are many changes tothe original names given in Indian ink, some changes in ink, but most in the forms ofadditions in pencil, usually just Latin names suggested as synonyms or corrected identities. There have been deletions and erasures to ink names and to later pencil names.
The set despatched to the Court of Directors has McClelland’s signature on each
picture, which appears to be a fair copy. Some are rather more finished than the firstdrawing, and generally undamaged in cases where the colour in the first drawing has
suffered from some chemical reaction, perhaps due a longer exposure to the Indian
climate, although this damage may be more recent. The Indian ink text is usually inthe ‘copperplate’ writing of a copyist, and the identical date for each drawing iscopied over (with occasional errors). This set has a few pencil annotations too, but far
fewer and none is signed by Blyth.
As Horsfield & Moore (1854) reported McClelland drawings to be then already in
the East India Company’s Museum these were the drawings first sent to the Court of
Directors. It is unclear when the whole collection was assembled and bound. In theirpresent bound form the pairs of near-identical drawings mounted on large uniform
sheets of paper appear face to face. Red ink numbers are those used when the drawings were assembled and arranged for binding; it is these, not the original numbers,
which we cite below.
Horsfield (1840) referred generically to the existence of the drawings and we consider this “indication” enough to qualify them as depictions of the type material. Had
he not done so we should be obliged to make our deductions about type specimens
solely from the text. There Horsfield wrote that “the entire collection has been carefully compared with subjects from India contained in the British Museum and in theMuseums of the Zoological Society and the East India Company, as well as with thedrawings and descriptions to which Mr. McClelland had no access”. One must presume that the term “the entire collection” includes the set of drawings sent to the
Court of Directors; however nowhere does Horsfield explicitly refer individually to
any one of these drawings (except, rather elliptically, on p. 157 where he wrote ‘Mr.
McClelland has given on one sheet a comparative view ….’).

ZV-340 031-074 | 2370

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 70

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

The British Library (Dr Jerry Losty) most kindly lent the drawings to The Natural
History Museum, so that we could make comparisons. Our conclusions below inrespect of the minivets could not have been reached without bringing together specimens thought to be the types, comparative specimens of related taxa, a copy of
Gould’s “Century of birds from the Himalayan mountains” and the McClelland drawings.
The process was greatly facilitated by Ann Datta (South Kensington) and Alison
Harding (Tring) of The Natural History Museum.
It seems desirable here to explain the attribution of new names found in thepaper attributed to Horsfield (1840). Horsfield was conveying McClelland’s report,
which Horsfield had improved at McClelland’s request. It seems probable that
Horsfield intended that the only names that should be accredited to him were thosewhere he gave his name as the author (see Sciurus McClellandii, p. 152; and Hypsipetes McClellandii, p. 159). Horsfield placed all McClelland’s original text in inverted commas and supplied all the Latin diagnoses (none was supplied for Ixos monticola). In most of these cases McClelland’s English description is given, and in suchcases, as well as in the case of Ixos monticola, we believe it is correct to sustain
McClelland’s authorship. In other cases Horsfield included no description by
McClelland, and in these cases, as well as in those of the two taxa named for
McClelland, we believe the names must be credited to Horsfield (although in someof these cases McClelland did supply the name in MS form on his drawings).60 The
case of Phoenicornis elegans (see below) is such a case.
Phoenicornis affinis McClelland, 1840
(Drawings 825 and 826)
The original description in English by McClelland is extremely brief and reports
two yellow and black minivets that differed in size. It is preceded by a description in
Latin by Horsfield. In the description in English McClelland presumed he had a malelarger than the female and said the male differed by having a yellow band on the forehead between the eyes. Horsfield’s Latin diagnosis referred to no such distinction.
Horsfield did not mention yellow on the head. Following McClelland’s brief text
Horsfield (1840) wrote “Gould has figured this bird as the female of Phoen. Brevirostris
but by annexing a mark of interrogation to the specific character, has indicated his
doubt regarding the correctness of his determination, or its being really a distinct
species. This doubt has now been explained by the researches of Mr. McClelland in its
native country.” On the drawing McClelland wrote “The male of this species is figured in Gould as the female of Phonicornis [sic] brevirostris. See Century of birds. Tab.
VIII”. As this is in ink on both drawings this must have been written before thedespatch of drawings to the Court of Directors. Horsfield therefore paraphrased acomment by McClelland. From the remarks of previous writers we briefly formed thefalse impression that Elizabeth Gould had actually depicted McClelland’s specimen;
but Gould’s “Century” appeared in 1830-32 and as McClelland discovered affinis in1836 it is evident that Gould could have had no such specimen.

60

See Art. 50 of the Code (ICZN, 1999).

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 71

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)71

Horsfield listed affinis as a species, but his words quoted above show that hethought that Gould had used the name brevirostris incorrectly for his yellow “female”
and that McClelland had solved the problem: affinis was indeed, in Horsfield’s view, aspecies in which both sexes were yellow. And, accepting this, and presumably believing that Elizabeth Gould’s plate of the “male”61 was so good that no re-description
was required, provided, we conclude, a description that is solely of McClelland’s“female”. McClelland’s drawing shows that his female does not have yellow on theforehead. By contrast McClelland’s male is depicted not with the sharply contrastingyellow forehead that one might expect from his text, but with more of a yellow suffusion of the face, reaching as far back as the eye.
When it was realised, from as early as 1846, that these two yellow minivets
could not both belong to the same species attempts were made to clarify their identities. Blyth (1846, 1852) considered affinis McClelland a synonym of P. roseus, which
Blyth said he had “identified from the unpublished figures”. What is probably
Blyth’s annotation in pencil appears on drawing 826, where the name roseus is given
at the foot of the page seeming to suggest that both images relate to the bird of thatname.
Horsfield & Moore (1854) considered the “male” (the upper image) was a femaleof Pericrocotus brevirostris. This flowed logically from what Horsfield himself had written 14 years earlier. But they considered that the “female” was a specimen of P. roseus
probably based on the views of Blyth (1846). So, giving the East India Museum holdings, they listed two specimens and a drawing of brevirostris and under roseus just adrawing from McClelland (which must be the other image in drawing 825, as there isno other drawing that could be considered). This arrangement, however, does notaccord with the statement by McClelland in Horsfield (1840) that his “male” was larger, for P. roseus is a slightly larger bird than P. brevirostris. We therefore examined
Assamese specimens of P. roseus in the BMNH, both females and young, and they all
have too little yellow on the rump and lower back to give substance to this view. And
if two McClelland specimens agreed with the upper figure and there was no specimenthat agreed with the lower then, admitting that three might have been sent back from
Assam, where now was the bird that matched the lower figure?
Another species of minivet, Pericrocotus solaris, was described by Blyth (1846). As
we know that Blyth examined McClelland’s drawings in 1846 it is possible that
Blyth wished to be sure then that the drawings did not depict his new form. In factdrawing 825 (the London one, not 826 that Blyth saw in 1846) has been annotated inpencil “P. solaris” female. It is unclear when. Hume (1877a) rejected Blyth’s identification with roseus and reported that McClelland’s “male” specimen was a female of
Pericrocotus brevirostris and his “female” specimen was a female of Pericrocotus
solaris. This had the logic of relating the smaller “female” to a slightly smaller
species. The annotation on drawing 825 is presumably based on Hume (1877a), but
this is not certain. We have examined the BMNH material of solaris from Assam andwe consider that the lower image in the drawing might depict the female of solaris,but it can be put no stronger than that.

61

Now depicted less well in the McClelland drawings, and briefly described in McClelland’s text.

ZV-340 031-074 | 2372

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 72

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

The true identity of the name-bearing type, or types, was necessarily questioned
again by Mayr (1940) when he revealed that a sibling species, hitherto confused with
brevirostris (and, it later appeared, with solaris), needed separation under the name P.
ethologus. Mayr wrote “it seems a distinct possibility that the name affinis was basedon females of both species”, i.e. brevirostris and ethologus.
After defining these two species he restricted the name affinis to what he consideredbrevirostris. Mayr’s decision was based on Gould’s illustration, in the “Century” (pl.
VIII), and predicated upon the fact that Horsfield said that the name brevirostris
applied to the female figured by Gould (which was believed by Horsfield to be thesame as McClelland’s “male”). We have compared BMNH specimens of P. ethologus
with the McClelland drawings and the yellow wing patch in the upper image in thedrawings is consistent with brevirostris, but not with the differently shaped patch in
the wing of ethologus.
Having established the background we now turn to the question of surviving
specimens and the type status that we believe that they have.
Two specimens of yellow minivet from McClelland’s collection are in Tring(BMNH 1880.1.1.2756 and 2757). We located specimen 2756, still labelled as
brevirostris, in the general collection. The smaller specimen (2757), which Kinnear
selected and had segregated as a type, is in poor condition and lacks most of its tailfeathers. Both are labelled brevirostris and both have some yellow on the front of theforehead so that each might relate to the supposed “male”. The former is larger, andhas the yellow on the forehead more restricted to a narrow band, as in the text but not
the drawing. The latter, smaller bird has the yellow in the form of a suffusion of theforehead like the drawing. These would seem to be the two listed by Horsfield &Moore (1854). Neither of these matches the drawing of the supposed “female” with its
all grey head, but no such specimen was listed in 1854 either. We consider that thelower figure is best treated as indeterminate.
We conclude from comparison that the drawing and the description of the “male”
do relate to P. brevirostris although not depicted as beautifully as in Gould’s Plate VIII
for the “Century”. We also conclude that BMNH 1880.1.1.2757 is the better match forthe drawing. The larger bird (2756), which is perhaps more in line with the descriptive
text, poses problems. However, taking both text and drawings into account we feelthat 2756 is best rejected as a type because it matches neither drawing. When we
found 2756 in the general collection we found it placed, as seemed appropriate fromits size, among specimens of Pericrocotus flammeus from Assam, with which it was afair, but not outstandingly good, match (indeed we are not 100% sure of its identity).
We accept it nonetheless as an adult female of P. f. speciosus.
Warren & Harrison (1971) mentioned two syntypes, but Warren also noted on her
cards that Kinnear had substituted the smaller specimen (2757) for the larger one(2756) which had originally been selected. Our views accord with Kinnear’s selection,although no notes have been found explaining his action. We therefore designate
BMNH 1880.1.1.2757 as the lectotype of Phoenicornis affinis McClelland. Although
Warren & Harrison (1971) apparently thought 2756 to be another syntype we do notconsider that to be proven and, as we feel it matches neither drawing, we do not consider it a paralectotype.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

08:50

Pagina 73

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

73

Phoenicornis elegans Horsfield, 1840
(Drawings 823 and 824)
We examined the specimen in Tring that had been segregated as a type of P. elegans Horsfield, 1840. We found it to be numbered BMNH 1880.1.1.2935 as mentioned by Warren & Harrison (1971). This is black and scarlet, not black and orangered as was the specimen described by Horsfield. Further investigation showed thatthe accession register recorded BMNH 1880.1.1.2755 as “Type” (this word appearing
to have been entered on accession as the handwriting seems to be that in which thespecific name was entered) and this bird is orange-red below. This specimen has“Type” on the label, consistent with the register, but Kinnear has written on it “No”.
A rather similar orange-red colour, but even paler, is found in BMNH 1886.4.1.337
collected in February 1881 in Cachar, apparently by or for A.O. Hume. Both these
specimens seem to be in the “first nuptial dress” referred to by Deignan (1946). We
also found, in 2755, a wing length of 98 mm, which relates well to the 97 mm reported by Stanford & Ticehurst (1931) and noted by Deignan (1946). By contrast thewing length of 2935 was over 100 mm.
Drawing Nos. 823 and 824 differ only in the paint now apparent in them. They
contain three figures of which only the centre one is coloured, and our initial comments relate to this. The paint in 824 has suffered chemical damage and cannot be
used for identification. By contrast 823 has retained the colouring that we presume
was present when it was done for the Court of Directors and this rather scarlet bird isa better match for BMNH 1880.1.1.2935. It bears a red type label, which says “presented by John McClelland to the Museum of the HEIC, 1837, vide MSS62 card [?] on List ofIndian Museum Collection [or Collectors]”. It would appear that Kinnear selected thisas a type for segregation based on this MS. This is in contradiction to the entry in theregister in respect of 2755. The wing measurement suggests that Ticehurst, about 1930,
measured 2755 and that Kinnear’s selection was made after that. We do not know
when the red type label was written and attached.
In selecting a lectotype the choice is between a specimen entered in the registeras the type, measured by Ticehurst and presumed by Deignan (1946) to be the type,
and the specimen Kinnear selected, based on a manuscript that we have not found,and better matching the McClelland water-colour drawing. It is conceivable thatthese two specimens were collected in different parts of Assam. Horsfield & Moore(1854) reported that the museum held the drawing of elegans, a male, but no specimen and held a male specimen from Assam and a drawing which they considered
was speciosus (this is what Horsfield, 1840, called Phoenicornis princeps). There is noother drawing of male minivets and the reference in Horsfield & Moore to a drawing of speciosus can only refer to the uncoloured right hand figure in drawings 823
and 824 which are labelled as “princeps” and marked with a reference to Gould’splate VII in the Century.

62

We believe that this manuscript was developed at some time after the agreement that the East India
Museum collection be transferred to the British Museum and that Kinnear found this (or that he muchlater on wrote such a document), but we have not traced it.

ZV-340 031-074 | 23

04-01-2007

74

08:50

Pagina 74

Dickinson et al. Types of the Campephagidae. Zool. Verh. Leiden 340 (2002)

Because the drawings are uncoloured the Gould plate must give evidence as tothe distinction. Horsfield (1840) considered that McClelland sought to ‘illustrate theform of the head in each species, and the depression of the sinciput in Phœn. Elegans,in which its essential difference consists’. Perhaps this is so, but the preparation of
the specimens could have caused such an apparent distinction. There does appear to
be a markedly larger bill in princeps and a further difference may be deduced
despite the lack of colour. This lies in the number of red outer tail feathers; in elegans
two are shown and in Gould’s plate of princeps, to which McClelland referred, fiveare shown. On the sum of this evidence we believe that 2935 was considered to be
princeps and that Kinnear was wrong to consider this the type of elegans. So too wereWarren & Harrison.
It is puzzling that the East India Museum catalogue did not record the existenceof a specimen of elegans, but it seems certain that 2755 came from that Museum; thishas two pairs of red outer tail feathers. We believe that Ticehurst in Stanford & Ticehurst (1931) was correct in considering this to be representative of elegans. Nonetheless, as the East India Museum did not list the specimen it is impossible to state withcertainty that this specimen is that which was depicted in McClelland’s drawing
and described by Horsfield. As a separate matter we believe that 2935 is the adultmale and 2755 is the first year male of the same taxon. We consider BMNH
1880.1.1.2755 reasonably representative of the drawing in so far as the tail feathers
are concerned, but not the colour.
Because of all this confusion, and because of the dispute relating to where McClelland found elegans, there is a need to designate a lectotype. However we can do no
more than designate the specimen painted for drawing 823, and we must add that wecannot be sure that the specimen depicted was preserved.
To restate the facts we consider: 1) that Horsfield (1840) treated the specimen now
numbered 2935 as Phaenicornis princeps (= speciosus in Horsfield & Moore, 1854), aname drawn from plate VII in Gould’s “Century”, 2) that Horsfield may havedescribed the more orange red bird (2755) although this would appear not to be theadult depicted in the drawing, and 3) that this was the specimen apparently absent
from the 1854 catalogue. We believe the lectotype must be the specimen depicted in
the McClelland drawing, which is untraceable, and that the case can be made that
BMNH 1880.1.1.2755 is a paralectotype of elegans.
The matter of the application of the name elegans is further discussed in Dickinson& Dekker (2002, this issue).

Received: 16.vii.2002
Accepted: 5.x.2002
Edited: C. van Achterberg