In deciding to provide a complement to Buffon's Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, Temminck, who had not previously published a ‘part work’ on this scale undertook to do so under the name Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d’oiseaux. At the start Temminck did not provide texts; each part included six plates. Of the many problems to solve the three main ones seemed to be: (i) the number of plates per part, (ii) the dates of publication, and (iii) the need to discover the wrappers issued with parts 1–20. The plates carried French names, but for these 20 parts the wrappers provided the new scientific names and attributed authorship. From previous studies we conclude that the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées must be considered as two works, and that the first of these (livraisons 1–20) must be seen as complete with the inclusion of the wrappers. We then examine all names applicable to images in these 120 plates, assessing authorship, date of publication and date precedence. We identified three cases where names long in prevailing usage require application to the ICZN for a ruling on reversal of precedence. We list 15 names that have been in widespread use over the last 60 years that risk changes if the names on the wrappers are judged unacceptable. Our Appendix deals with the 86 names Temminck thought new: (a) 27 of Temminck’s own names with precedence; (b) 19 manuscript names for which Temminck is the author; (c) 27 Temminck names which are junior synonyms; (d) 12 manuscript names from Temminck that are also junior synonyms; (e) one name used for two specimens Temminck thought were of the same species but proved different.
Coenraad Temminck and the creation of the Planches coloriées
Coenraad Jacob Temminck (1778–1858) was the son of Jacob Temminck, the aristocratic treasurer of the Vereenigde Oost-Indische Companie (the Dutch East India Company, established in 1602, and nationalised in 1790). The company welcomed naturalists and other travellers to the East Indies to assist in its exploration, and this continued with the Dutch colonies that were formed by the company's nationalisation. In this context Coenraad inherited and extended these relationships; he was devoted to expanding our knowledge of the world's fauna (especially birds and mammals), and he substantially expanded the private collection started by his father in 1770, publishing a catalogue of the collection in 1807 (Temminck 1807). He was particularly aware that paintings were necessary to expand knowledge at a time when the art of preserving specimens was in its infancy.
Temminck (1815) published his Manuel d'ornithologie dealing mainly with the birds of Europe carefully providing scientific names. This work established him in the eyes of his peers. The Dutch government saw the need for a national museum and agreed that Temminck should become its director in return for donating his collection to it. A decree establishing the Rijks Museum van Natuurlijk Historie was promulgated on 9 August 1820.
In parallel with this, Temminck, with some help from his French colleague Meiffren de Laugier1, began to add significantly to the public interest in birds by complementing the seminal work of the Comte de Buffon—of which Temminck, of course, had a copy—by creating a sister work to illustrate birds not depicted in the ‘Daubenton’ plates included in the Histoire naturelle des oiseaux (Buffon 1771–86). Temminck’s complement, the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d’oiseaux, for which Cuvier (1820) authored a prospectus, was eventually completed in 101 parts in 1836, followed in 1839 by an index, the Tableau méthodique, which also served as a plan for binding the many parts in an appropriate sequence. Although Laugier was listed as a co-author of the work as a whole, Temminck was to be accepted as the author of any newly introduced names (see Cuvier 1820: 9)2.
Each part was supposed to comprise six plates, but after 100 parts only 595 plates had appeared. This anomaly was not explained until Dickinson (2001), following advice from the late Gerlof Mees, solved the mystery with help from Temminck's handwritten list rediscovered in the Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden, archives. Temminck on five occasions needed two printing plates to create his images, typically of birds with long tails, and, in such instances, he counted both halves as plates, so that each of the affected parts was issued with five plates not six.
Throughout the work the plate captions provided only vernacular names, and each part was issued with a wrapper. The wrappers for the first 20 parts seem to have been intended to be bound in, because printed on the back of each wrapper was a list of the plates and the details of them including their scientific names.
However, the character of the work changed dramatically in 1821 when Temminck started to provide texts along with the plates. It is due to this change in character that we view Planches coloriées as two distinct works.
Why two works?
The second work begins with part 21 which included, for the first time, original text pages relevant to each plate. Quoy (1824) suggested that the introduction of texts was in response to decisions by customs officials that plates without texts must be treated as works of art, whereas texts with plates were accepted as scientific works. This view was accepted by Dickinson (2001). Sherborn (1898) reported that with effect from part 21 Temminck's prices increased to cover the texts3.
The practice of publishing in parts began no later than the 17th century and allowed purchasers to spread the cost over time, as well as being advantageous to the printers; see Dickinson et al. (2011: 34–35). Colour printing, which came later and was costly, made this even more attractive.
Temminck recognised the value of being the author of new scientific names and from the start of the Planches coloriées in 1820 credited himself as author when he was, although when using someone's manuscript name he credited that author. Temminck undoubtedly wanted scientific names to be included throughout this work, so the wrappers bearing these names were critical to the value of the work. Writing in 1820, more than 20 years before Strickland (1843) began to promote the need for rules of nomenclature, Temminck could not have anticipated that his names for new taxa might be rejected on legalistic grounds.
In Temminck's eyes the 20 parts issued without texts were sufficient for those of his audience demanding scientific names, because he provided these on the back page (i.e. p. 4) of each wrapper (after these 20 parts, wrappers continued but, as texts accompanied the plates no scientific names, names of authors or geographical source details appeared on the back of these wrappers). Figs. 1–2 show the front page of the wrapper of part 1 and, from another part, of a typical back page.
Dickinson (2001) reported that the only wrappers then known to be extant were two examined by Sherborn (1898), found in Newton's copy in the library of the Dept. of Zoology of the University of Cambridge. Since then, the remaining 18 have been found and images of all 20 have been published. Lebossé & Bour (2011) provided images of parts 7, 10–14, 16, 18, 19 and 20—two of these from Cambridge and the other eight newly discovered. Subsequently, Lebossé obtained specimens of the rest (parts 1–6, 8, 9, 15 and 17) and these were published by Dickinson (2012).
TABLE 1
Dates of availability of the delayed texts compared with the dates of publication of wrappers and plates.
Temminck's decision to provide texts inevitably led to demands from his original customers to furnish texts in respect of plates 1–120. Concerning the first of the two differing works that we identify we strongly believe that the combined evidence from the plate and the wrapper substantiates valid publication. The delayed texts, wherein the descriptions are sometimes based in part, and perhaps sometimes entirely, on specimens not available when the plate was published, complicate things. Treating the wrapper as part of the original work is not only recommended practice (J. van Tol pers. comm.), but is also in the interest of nomenclatural and thus taxonomic stability. A contrary view would unevenly affect stability. However, in our Appendix, we provide evidence of when these names and any competing names were introduced and, in so doing, we demonstrate the value of accepting wrapper-derived date precedence4.
Figure 1.
Part 1 front of wrapper of livraison 1 (apart from part number and date, the same for all 20 parts).
Figure 2.
Part 2 back of wrapper of livraison 16 (showing list of included plates with scientific names and an important footnote).
The dates given by Sherborn (1898) had little influence on the dating he used in the Index animalium. The principal reason for this is revealed by Sherborn (1922: viii–ix):
‘In the case of plates which appeared before the text, the date of each is given if ascertainable; but in no case is the date of a plate accepted in preference to the date of text for the reasons which follow: –
The figure depicted on the plate may, or may not, be the drawing intended by the author: it is the work of the artist, who is responsible also for the descriptive legend. In numerous instances the descriptive legend on a plate is quite erroneous and has been repudiated by the author in his text. Therefore, until the text descriptive of a plate appears, the names on the plate must be considered as nomina nuda, and it is open to anyone to describe and rename such nomina nuda.'
At the foot of p. ix is the following footnote: ‘This paragraph is reprinted from vol. 1 [1902]. The practice now obtains, that names combined with recognisable figures must be accepted as valid.’
Nor was Sherborn entirely consistent in using information on the dates of publication of the delayed texts: he often reported ‘Ap. 1822’ (which suggests that he may have understood that all the delayed texts appeared in April 1822 simultaneously with the publication of livr. 21). However, there are cases where he used a date that is evidently earlier, and in two such cases he identified his informants (once R. B. Sharpe and once P. L. Sclater).
The Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum—mostly completed before Sherborn (1898)—took dates that appear to be from library records made available to Sherborn by R. B. Sharpe or P. L. Sclater. The 15-volume Check-list of birds of the world initiated by J. L. Peters, completed by multiple successors over its long period of compilation (1931–87), and which has been very influential, clearly used the dates of publication of the plates more consistently than earlier seminal checklists. This was because there was broad acceptance of the view footnoted by Sherborn (1922: ix) who wrote, on the subject of recognition of plates as published before a descriptive text: ‘The practice now obtains that names combined with recognisable figures must be accepted as valid’.
New names and their authorship
Despite the publications referred to above there remains a requirement to justify, and provide support for, a global decision that the new names in the wrappers are validly published. Those familiar with the International code of zoological nomenclature (ICZN 1999) are aware that the criteria of publication set out in Art. 8.1 must be met. Wrappers, like those used for ‘part works’, are usually, and rightly, seen as valuable for the information on them, especially dates of issue. However, such wrappers were very often discarded when the work was bound, and in many cases Art. 8.1.1 can logically be applied to reach a judgement that they were not ‘issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record’.
However, we consider Temminck was deliberately providing such a record. As an experienced and published naturalist, Temminck knew, at a time when even the French had largely accepted that Linnaeus had provided a baseline for zoological nomenclature, that scientific names should be provided. So, we believe that these wrappers must be seen as part of this work, i.e. in its first form, where the content of the wrappers completed the publication as Temminck then saw it. Given how widely these names have been accepted, to argue otherwise would be a serious failure to optimise recognition of prevailing usage. However, acceptance, in any case where another author published at about the same time, must come from clear supporting detail, firmly establishing the authorship and the precedence.
Temminck was seeking to depict taxa that had not been figured in Daubenton's plates; the species might therefore be new, or they might have been overlooked by Buffon or already named after 1786. Looking at this today, it is apparent that news of novelties was slow to spread: Temminck created 38 synonyms presumably because he had not seen the evidence of prior description, or because, faced with a description but no depiction and no access to source material, he believed that his material differed.
TABLE 2
The distribution of Temminck's plates (a) according to whether the subjects were newly described, were given synonyms, or depicted birds described by earlier authors.
Judging precedence
While Art. 23 of the Code (ICZN 1999) provides strong backing for prevailing usage, we are aware of considerable support for prevailing usage for names that have been in use for decades. We have discussed this with Commissioners, and we have felt it appropriate to detail the policy we adopt here.
In the belief that the community (a) has already accepted almost all the new names that we discuss and, in such cases, has applied dates based on the plates and the relevant wrappers, and (b) has appropriately ignored the lists of Froriep (1821, 1822) giving the names Temminck used in the wrappers, we seek: (1) to recognise the wrappers as valid publications and to accept the new names thus introduced, unless there is a strong reason to differ; and (2) to suppress three senior names and to make appropriate applications to the Commission under Art. 23.9 (ICZN 1999: 28).
In the Appendix, we provide details relevant to all names Temminck used in the wrappers, including the MS names of others which he introduced. We first give the appropriate date for the name in the wrapper. We close each comment with the date of publication of the eventual text. For the benefit of future students of Temminck's work we also separate those of his new names that immediately fell into synonymy.
Although we are convinced that precedence belongs to many of the new names introduced in the wrappers, it is clear that those that fell directly into synonymy must remain there. It should be no surprise that there are cases where another author introduced a name for a taxon named in a wrapper—either using an identical name to that of Temminck or a different name5—and that this occurred before Temminck provided the delayed texts. Below each such case is examined and these names are traced to their origins and dates of publication.
Based on the above, we briefly set out here the consequences that would follow a decision to reject all of the names Temminck provided in the wrappers. In the interests of brevity, the references are not included here, they can be found in our Appendix:
Sylvia conspicillata (Pl. 6, fig. 1) [August 1820]: this name would remain unchanged except that it would need to be cited from Temminck's Manuel d'ornithologie in October 1820.
Sylvia subalpina (Pl. 6, fig. 2) [August 1820]: this name would remain unchanged except that it would need to be cited from Temminck's Manuel d'ornithologie in October 1820.
Sylvia cisticola (Pl. 6, fig. 3) [August 1820]: this name would remain unchanged except that it would need to be cited from Temminck's Manuel d'ornithologie in October 1820.
Pyrrhula cinereola (Pl. 11, fig. 1) [September 1820]: this name would fall into the synonymy of Fringilla hypoleuca M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823.
Platyrhynchos olivaceus (Pl. 12, fig. 1) [September 1820]: would fall into the synonymy of Todus olivaceus M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823.
Platyrhynchos cancromus (Pl. 12, fig. 2) [September 1820]: would fall into the synonymy of Platyrhynchus cancromus Swainson, 1822.
Muscicapa caesia (Pl. 17, figs. 1–2) [October 1820]: would fall into the synonymy of Lanius caesius M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823.
Trochilus bilophus (Pl. 18, fig. 3) [October 1820]: would fall into the synonymy of Trochilus cornutus zu Wied-Neuwied, 1821.
Picus aurulentus (Pl. 59, fig. 1) [May 1821]: was given the same name by M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823, and his name would take precedence.
Trochilus langsdorffi (Pl. 66, fig. 1) [June 1821]: was given the same name by Vieillot, 1822, and his name would take precedence.
Trochilus chalybeus (Pl. 66, fig. 2) [June 1821]: was given the same name again by Vieillot (1822). The earlier name Trochilus chalybeus Bechstein, 1811, is regarded as unidentifiable and was ignored by Salvin (1892) and Cory (1918). So Vieillot's name would take precedence.
Dendrocolaptes sylviellus (Pl. 72, fig. 1) [July 1821]: would fall into the synonymy of Dendrocolaptes erithacus M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1822, and his name would take precedence.
Xenops rutilus (Pl. 72, fig. 2) [July 1821]: is not preoccupied by the nomen nudum introduced by Lichtenstein (1819) and Temminck's text antedates Lichtenstein (1823).
Falco riocouri (Pl. 85) [October 1821]: would fall into the synonymy of Elanoides riocourii Vieillot, 1822, and his name would take precedence. Note the spelling difference.
Criniger barbatus (Pl. 88) [November 1821]: would date from Temminck's text and use the binomen Trichophorus barbatus.
Special comments
Temminck introduced the name Enicurus on the wrapper of livr. 19. This was dated 1824 by Sharpe (1883: 312), who cited Enicurus as the original spelling but ‘corrected’ that to Henicurus for his usage6, but it was dated ‘Ap. 1822’7 by Sherborn (1926: 2156), and Ripley (1964: 85) used Enicurus and dated it 1822. We date it from February 1822, based on Table 1, column 4.
Type specimens.—When a name is dated from a plate the specimens depicted limit the type series, and where just one subject of the taxon concerned was depicted then that specimen is a holotype. If it were to be considered that the names introduced in the wrappers are not validly introduced the specimens depicted would no longer restrict the type series. It would then sometimes be necessary to bring all the potentially eligible specimens together to determine which specimens are correctly identified and which are not truly representative types.
The case of Dendrocolaptes procurvus (see note in the Appendix) demonstrates the potential problems of accepting names from later texts: the specimens may not be the same. In this context it should also be remembered that plates were painted by artists employed by the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle in Paris to whom Temminck supplied specimens (although he may not have done so if he believed there was a good specimen in Paris); see Dickinson (2001: 12). Clearly there was also the potential for Temminck to write his delayed descriptions based on specimens he had received since the plate was painted.
Acknowledgements
We are particularly grateful to Jan van Tol and René Dekker for their help and advice, to Alain Lebossé for again allowing us to use photographs taken from his set of original wrappers and to Paul Smith for help with information regarding the Pereyra reference. Thanks also go to two current Commissioners of the ICZN who helped us to develop our arguments in favour of accepting the wrappers as part of the work and to our anonymous referees including a third ICZN Commissioner.
References:
Appendix
Throughout we provide taxon names in current use (i.e. in Dickinson & Remsen 2013, or Dickinson & Christidis 2014) preceded by ‘Now’; if such a phrase is lacking it implies that the original specific epithet and authorship is that used in those volumes.
A. Details of names proposed by Temminck and not potentially in synonymy
Livr. 1, Pl. 1: Lophophorus cuvieri Temminck, 1820 (August). Treated as a hybrid (see Ogilvie-Grant, 1893: 303) and not in use for a valid taxon.9 Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 1, Pl. 4: Strix lactea Temminck, 1820 (August). Now: Bubo lacteus. Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 1, Pl. 6, fig. 3: Sylvia cisticola Temminck, 1820 (August). Now Cisticola juncidis cisticola. Competing names This name reappears in Temminck's Manuel d'ornithologie in October 1820 (see Sherborn 1925a: 1330), well before 25 December 1824 when Temminck's text appeared (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 2, Pl. 7: Coccyzus Geoffroyi Temminck, 1820 (September). Now Neomorphus geoffroyi. Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 2, Pl. 11, fig. 1: Pyrrhula cinereola Temminck, 1820 (September). Now Sporophila leucoptera cinereola. Competing names Fringilla hypoleuca M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823, published in his Verzeichniss der Doubletten which has a preface dated September 1823 and is generally accepted as published by end 1823 (see Steinheimer 2009). Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47) and is later.
Livr. 2, Pl. 11, fig. 2: Pyrrhula falcirostris Temminck, 1820 (September). Now Sporophila falcirostris. Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 2, pl. 12, fig. 1: Platyrynchos olivaceus Temminck, 1820 (September). Now Rhynchocyclus olivaceus olivaceus. Competing names Todus olivaceus M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823, published in his Verzeichniss der Doubletten which has a preface dated September 1823 and is generally accepted as published by end 1823 (see Steinheimer 2009). Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 2, Pl. 12, fig. 2: Platyrynchos cancromus Temminck, 1820 (September). Now Platyrinchus mystaceus cancromus. Competing names Swainson (1822) in his Zoological illustrations (ser. 1) provided a plate [115] of a female of Platyrhynchus [sic] cancromus, which dates from about August. Hellmayr (1927: 266) accepted that this depiction is of the female of the species; he also placed cancromus Temminck in the synonymy of nominate mystaceus, but Traylor (1979: 110) restored it to recognition. Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 3, Pl. 16: Strix leucotis Temminck, 1820 (October). Now Ptilopsis leucotis. Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 3, Pl. 18, fig. 3: Trochilus bilophus Temminck, 1820 (October). Now Heliactin bilophus Temminck, 1820. Competing names The name Trochilus cornutus zu Wied, 1821, was used by Peters (1945: 128) contra use of Trochilus bilophum (sic) by Cory (1918: 288); this is from pt. 2 (‘Zweiter Band”); pt. 1 is believed to have appeared before 18 June 1821 (A. Kourgli in litt. November 2019) and the second part is accepted as being published in 1821. Temminck’s text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 4, Pl. 20: Strix Leschenaulti Temminck, 1820 (November). Now Ketupa zeylonensis leschenault.10 Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 5, Pl. 28: Dendrocolaptes procurvus Temminck, 1820 (December). Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47). Currently, and for nearly a century, treated as a synonym of Campylorhamphus falcularius (Vieillot, 1822). This situation arose when Hellmayr (1925: 339–340) noted that in the context of the new name procurvus Temminck provided a plate that depicted a black-billed species, and later a text that described a very similar but red-billed species. Acting as First Reviser, Hellmayr fixed the name procurvus on the species depicted in the plate (making the specimen a holotype). He dated the name from 1820, but he placed it in the synonymy of Campylorhamphus falcularius, 1822, unconvinced that it deserved precedence. In a footnote he added ‘The text to livr. 1 to 20 of Temminck’s work is supposed to have been issued with livr. 21 in April 1822, or even later…; but if Sherborn (1898: 487) is correct in assuming that the scientific (Latin) names of the birds figured in these early parts were printed in the back of the wrappers, Dendrocolaptes procurvus Temminck will have to be accepted as the oldest title for D. falcularius Vieillot.’ The similar red-billed species is Campylorhamphus trochilirostris described by Lichtenstein (1820).
Competing names Dendrocopus falcularius (now Campylorhamphus falcularius) Vieillot, 1822. We believe that despite this being a name junior to the name procurvus, and Hellmayr's belief that procurvus ‘would have to be accepted’, the case for avoiding such a belated change and accepting prevailing usage is stronger; and we will submit an application to the Commission under Art. 23.9.3 of the Code (ICZN 1999: 28) to supress the name Dendrocolaptes procurvus and thus protect use of the name falcularius.
Livr. 5, Pl. 29, fig. 2: Meliphaga reticulata Temminck, 1820 (December). Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 5, Pl. 30: Muscicapa hyacinthina Temminck, 1820 (December). Now Cyornis hyacinthinus hyacinthinus. Temminck's text dates from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 8, Pl. 44: Falco ptilorhynchus Temminck, 1821 (March). Now Pernis ptilorhynchus. Competing names Voisin & Voisin (2001: 175–176) suggested that this taxon was named Buteo cristatus by Vieillot (1823: 1225).11 Temminck's text dates from 26 July 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47). This is based on the Bibliographie de la France and implies that it had been received in the preceding week or earlier, which makes Temminck's name the earliest available.
Livr. 8, Pl. 47, fig 2: Charadrius ruficapillus Temminck, 1821 (March). Temminck's text dates from 26 July 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 9, Pl. 50: Strix africana Temminck, 1821 (April). Now Bubo africanus. Competing names Investigation of a possible preoccupation by Shaw (1809)—see Sherborn (1923: 137) led us to the determination by Sharpe (1875: 27) that this was unidentifiable; but Sharpe then placed Temminck's name in the synonymy of Strix maculosa Vieillot, 1817b, which Peters (1940: 118, footnote), referring to Neumann (1914), stated was unidentifiable. Temminck's text dates from 26 July 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 12, Pl. 68: Strix brama Temminck, 1821 (July). Now Athene brama. Temminck's text dates from 27 September 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 12, Pl. 72, fig. 1: Dendrocolaptes sylviellus Temminck, 1821 (July). Now Sittasomus griseicapillus sylviellus. Competing names Lichtenstein (1822)12 described this as Dendrocolaptes erithacus. Temminck's text dates from 27 September 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 12, Pl. 72, fig. 3: Sitta velata Temminck, 1821 (July). Now Sitta frontalis velata. Temminck's text dates from 27 September 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 13, Pl. 76: Pitta [sic] thoracica Temminck, 1821 (August). Now Stachyris thoracica. Temminck's text dates from 25 October 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 15, Pl. 88: Criniger barbatus Temminck, 1821 (October). Now Criniger barbatus barbatus. Note that Temminck used Criniger in the wrapper, but introduced Trichophorus in the text as a new genus-group name. Temminck's text dates from 28 February 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 15, pl. 89, fig. 1: Bucco armillaris Temminck, 1821 (October). Now Psilopogon armillaris. Temminck's text dates from 28 February 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 16, Pl. 91: Falco gracilis Temminck, 1821 (November). Now Geranospiza caerulescens gracilis. Temminck's text dates from 27 March 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 18, Pl. 107: Caprimulgus nattererii Temminck, 1822 (January). Now Lurocalis semitorquatus nattererii. Hartert (1892: 621) treated this as a synonym of nominate semitorquatus; Cory (1918: 123) as a subspecies based on size. Temminck's text dates from 22 May 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 18, Pl. 108, fig. 1: Nectarinia phoenicotis Temminck, 1822 (January). Now Chalcoparia singalensis phoenicotis. Temminck's text dates from 22 May 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 19, Pl. 114, fig. 1: Emberizoides melanotis Temminck, 1822 (February). Now Coryphaspiza melanotis. Temminck's text dates from 26 June 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
B. Manuscript names and authors thereof given by Temminck but of which he became the author
Livr. 1, Pl. 6, fig. 1: Sylvia conspicillata ‘Marmora’ [= Temminck], 1820 (August). Now Curruca conspicillata conspicillata. Competing names: This name also appears in Temminck’s Manuel, which dates from October 1820 (see Sherborn 1925b: 1487)13.
Livr. 1, Pl. 6, fig. 2: Sylvia subalpina ‘Bonelli’ [= Temminck], 1820 (August). Now Curruca subalpina. Long treated as a junior synonym of Sylvia cantillans, but see Svensson (2013) and Dickinson & Christidis (2014: 511). Competing names This name also appears in Temminck’s Manuel in October 1820.
Livr. 3, Pl. 17: Muscicapa caesia ‘Max.’ (Prince Maximilian) [= Temminck], 1820 (October). Now Thamnomanes caesius. Competing names Named Lanius caesius by Lichtenstein (1823), which according to Sclater (1890: 227) preceded Temminck’s text dating from 25 December 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 7, Pl. 39: Strix pumila ‘Illiger’ [= Temminck], 1821 (February).14 Now Glaucidium pumilum. Competing names This taxon was named Strix pumila by Lichtenstein, in September or later in 1823, and thus later than Temminck’s delayed text, which dates from 26 July 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47). This name has precedence over Glaucidium minutissimum zu Wied, 1830, contra van der Hoek Ostende et al. (1997: 153) who mistakenly dated minutissimum from 1821. We consider that proposing to submerge the name minutissimum is a threat to stability and that the younger name should be maintained; an application to the Commission will be submitted in the next few months under Art. 23.9.3 of the Code (ICZN 1999: 28) to suppress the names Strix pumila Temminck, 1821, and Strix pumila M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823, and thereby protect the name Strix minutissima zu Wied, 1830.
Livr. 8, Pl. 45: Falco punctatus ‘Cuvier’ [= Temminck], 1821 (March). Temminck’s text dates from 26 July 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 9, Pl. 54, fig. 3: Pipra rubro-capilla ‘Brisson’15 [= Temminck], 1821 (April). Now Ceratopipra rubrocapilla. The taxon had been mistakenly called Pipra erythrocephala by zu Wied-Neuwied (1820: 187 [184]) and later by Lichtenstein (1823: 29), but that name, derived from Linnaeus (1766: 339), applies to a related species. Temminck’s text dates from 26 July 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 10, Pl. 59, fig. 1: Picus aurulentus ‘Illiger’ [= Temminck], 1821 (April). Now Piculus aurulentus. Competing names Described by Lichtenstein (1823: 10) in or after September, but Temminck’s text dating from 26 July 1823 appeared earlier.
Livr. 11, Pl. 61: Falco hamatus ‘Illiger’ [= Temminck], 1821 (May). Now Helicolestes hamatus. Long considered a junior synonym of Rostrhamus sociabilis (Vieillot, 1817f)—see Hellmayr & Conover (1949: 41, footnote). Temminck’s text dates from 30 August 1823 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 11, Pl. 66, fig. 1: Trochilus Langsdorffi ‘Vieillot’ [= Temminck], 1821 (May). Now Discosura langsdorffi (Temminck, 1821). Competing names Vieillot (1822: 574) published using the same name in the Encylopédie méthodique which dates from 6 July 1821 (see Evenhuis 2003: 38).
Livr. 11, Pl. 66, fig. 2: Trochilus chalybeus ‘Vieillot’ [= Temminck], 1821 (May). Now Lophornis chalybeus. Temminck used Vieillot’s MS name. Competing names Vieillot (1822: 574) named chalybeus in the Encylopédie méthodique and Vieillot was treated as the first author by Peters (1945: 32). However, Zimmer (1950: 18) discussed precedence of Vieillot and Temminck’s names, and wrote, of Temminck, ‘It is known that, while the plates themselves carried no Latin names, and no text was issued until April 1822, the covers of some, and probably all, of the early parts bore the scientific names of the species included in them.’ He added ‘At the moment…we are obliged to accept chalybeus, 1822, as the name and date, and since Sherborn (Index animalium) has given priority of Vieillot in this instance, Vieillot may be considered as author despite the fact that Temminck rather certainly antedated him in the reference now lost.’ The cover has of course now come to light. Sherborn (1925a: 1208) listed Trochilus chalybeus Bechstein, 1811, from p. 222 of Bechstein’s Johann Lathams allgemeine Uebersicht der Vögel where there is a very brief description which appears to have been treated by all previous authors as a nomen dubium.
Livr. 12, Pl. 72, fig. 2: Xenops rutilus ‘Lichtenstein’ [= Temminck], 1821 (June). Competing names According to Sherborn (1930: 5701) this name appeared in the first of Lichtenstein’s list of duplicates for sale, and Sherborn cites 1819, p. 37. This is a list of names and prices, with no descriptions, so this was a nomen nudum until used by Temminck. Using the name rutilus, Lichtenstein (1823: 17) published a description in a work dated September 1823, which should be dated no earlier than 30 September. Temminck’s text—reported in the Bibliographie de la France on 27 September 1823 and dated from there—used the spelling rutilans which is listed by Sherborn (1930: 5699).
Livr. 15, Pl. 85: Falco riocourii ‘Vieillot’ [= Temminck], 1821 (October). Now Chelictinia riocouri. Competing name: Elanoides riocourii Vieillot, 1822, in La galerie des oiseaux in April (see Lebossé & Dickinson 2014: 54).
Livr. 15, Pl. 90, figs. 1–2. Picus concretus ‘Reinwardt’ = [Temminck], 1821 (October). Now Hemicercus concretus. Temminck’s text dates from 28 February 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 18, Pl. 103–104: Falco uncinatus ‘Illiger’ [= Temminck], 1822 (January). Now Chondrohierax uncinatus. Temminck’s text dates from 22 May 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 18, Pl. 106: Columba porphyria ‘Reinwardt’[= Temminck], 1822 (January). Now Ptilinopus porphyreus. Temminck’s text dates from 22 May 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 19, Pl. 109: Falco virgatus ‘Reinwardt’ [= Temminck], 1822 (February). Now Accipter virgatus. Temminck’s text dates from 26 June 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 20, Pl. 117: Falco malaiensis ‘Reinwardt’ [= Temminck] (Pl. 117), 1822 (March). Now Ictinaetus malaiensis. Temminck’s text dates from 26 June 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 20, Pl. 119 figs, 1–2: Muscicapa hirundinacea ‘Reinwardt’ [= Temminck], 1822 (March). Now Hemipus hirundinaceus. Temminck’s text dates from 26 June 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
Livr. 20, Pl. 120, fig. 1: Trochilus squalidus Natterer [= Temminck], 1822 (March), Now Phaethornis squalidus. Temminck's text dates from 26 June 1824 (see Dickinson 2012: 47).
C. Names proposed by Temminck which were junior synonyms
Livr. 1, Pl. 3: Falco hemidactylus Temminck, 1820 (August). A junior synonym of Geranospiza caerulescens cærulescens (Vieillot, 1817c).
Livr. 3, Pl. 15: Psittacus setarius Temminck, 1820 (October). A junior synonym of Prioniturus platurus (Vieillot, 1818c).
Livr. 4, Pl. 21: Strix sonneratii Temminck, 1820 (November). A junior synonym of Athene superciliaris (Vieillot, 1817a).
Livr. 5, Pl. 29, fig. 1: Meliphaga maculata Temminck, 1820 (December). A junior synonym of Lichmera flavicans (Vieillot, 1817e).
Livr. 6, Pl. 34: Strix occipitalis Temminck, 1821 (January). A junior synonym of Glaucidium perlatum (Vieillot, 1817a).
Livr. 6, Pl. 36, fig. 1: Tanagra speculifera Temminck, 1821 (January). A junior synonym of Hemithraupis flavicollis (Vieillot, 1818b).
Livr. 7, Pl. 37: Falco aterrimus Temminck, 1821 (February). A junior synonym of Daptrius ater (Vieillot, 1816).
Livr. 7, Pl. 41, fig. 2: Tringa albescens Temminck, 1821 (February). A junior synonym of Calidris ruficollis (Pallas, 1776).
Livr. 7, Pl. 42, fig. 1: Tanagra thoracica Temminck, 1821 (February). A junior synonym of Tangara desmarestii (Vieillot, 1819a).
Livr. 7, Pl. 42, fig. 2: Tanagra citronella Temminck, 1821 (February). A junior synonym of Tangara cyanoventris (Vieillot, 1819a).
Livr. 8, Pl. 46: Strix maugei Temminck, 1821 (March). A junior synonym of Ninox boobook fusca (Vieillot, 1817a).
Livr. 8, Pl. 47, fig. 1: Charadrius nigrifrons ‘Cuvier’ [= Temminck], 1821 (March). A junior synonym of Elseyornis melanops (Vieillot, 1818d).
Livr. 8, Pl. 48, figs. 1–2: Tanagra vittata Temminck, 1821 (March). A junior synonym of Pipraeidea melanonota (Vieillot, 1819a).
Livr. 9, Pl. 54, figs. 1–2: Pipra strigilata ‘Pr. de Neuwied’ [= Temminck], 1821 (April). A junior synonym of Machaeropterus regulus Hahn, 1819.
Livr. 10, Pl. 56: Falco pterocles Temminck, 1821 (May). A junior synonym of Geranoaetus albicaudatus Vieillot, 1816c.
Livr, 11, pl. 62: Strix macrorhynchus Temminck, 1821 (June). A junior synonym of Bubo virginianus (J. F. Gmelin, 1788).
Livr. 12, Pl. 69: Buceros sulcatus Temminck, 1821 (July). A junior synonym of Rhyticeros leucocephalus (Vieillot, 1816c).
Livr. 14, Pl. 84, fig. 2: Nectarinia inornata Temminck, 1821 (September). A junior synonym of Arachnothera affinis (Horsfield, 1821). Raphael (1970) dated Horsfield's work from May 1821.
Livr. 15, Pl. 87: Falco striolatus Temminck, 1821 (October). A junior synonym of Falco nitidus Latham, 1790. This taxon was until recently called Asturina nitida nitida (see Stresemann & Amadon 1979: 355), but is now in genus Buteo (see Dickinson & Remsen 2013: 253).
Livr. 16, Pl. 92: Falco xanthothorax Temminck, 1821 (November). A junior synonym of Micrastur ruficollis (Vieillot, 1817c).
Livr. 16, Pl. 94: Capito melanotis Temminck, 1821 (November). A junior synonym of Nystalus chacuru (Vieillot, 1816b).
Livr. 16, Pl. 96, figs, 1–3: Fringilla sphecura Temminck, 1821 (November). A junior synonym of Erythrura prasina (Sparrman, 1788).
Livr. 18, Pl. 108, figs. 2–3: Nectarinia rubro cana Temminck, 1822 (January). A junior synonym of Dicaeum trochileum (Sparrman, 1789).
Livr. 19, Pl. 110: Falco cuculoides Temminck, 1822 (February). A junior synonym of Accipiter soloensis (Horsfield, 1821).
Livr. 19, Pl. 113: Enicurus coronatus Temminck, 1822 (February). A junior synonym of Enicurus leschenaulti (Vieillot, 1818a).
Livr. 19, Pl. 114: Emberizoides marginalis Temminck, 1822 (February). A junior synonym of Emberizoides herbicola (Vieillot, 1817d).
Livr. 20, Pl. 116: Falco brachypterus Temminck, 1822 (March). A junior synonym of Micrastur semitorquatus (Vieillot, 1817c).
Note: all names from Vieillot listed in C were introduced in the volumes of the Nouveau dictionnaire d'Histoire naturelle between 1816 and 1819.
D. Manuscript names given by Temminck but where he becomes the author (all are junior synonyms)
Livr. 1, Pl. 5: Procnias ventralis ‘Illiger’ [= Temminck], 1820 (August). A junior synonym of Procnias averano carnobarba (Cuvier, 1817); see Hellmayr (1929: 240).
Livr. 2, Pl. 8: Falco Macei ‘Cuvier’ [= Temminck], 1820 (September). A junior synonym of Haliaetus leucoryphus (Pallas, 1771).
Livr. 2, Pl. 9: Falco poecilonotus ‘Cuvier’ [= Temminck], 1820 (September). A junior synonym of Pseudastur albicollis (Latham, 1790).
Livr. 4, Pl. 22: Falco gularis ‘Cuvier’ [= Temminck], 1820 (November). A junior synonym of Circus buffoni (J. F. Gmelin, 1788).
Livr. 4, Pl. 23: Musophaga paulina ‘Vieillot’ [= Temminck], 1820 (November). A junior synonym of Tauraco erythrolophus (Vieillot, 1819b).
Livr. 6, Pl. 32: Falco fucosa ‘Cuvier’ [= Temminck], 1821 (January). A junior synonym of Aquila audax (Latham, 1801).
Livr. 8, Pl. 43: Falco torquatus Cuvier [= Temminck], 1821 (March). A junior homonym, preoccupied by Falco torquatus Brünnich, 1764. Also preoccupied in genus Accipiter where eventually given the new name Accipiter fasciatus hellmayri by Stresemann (1922b).
Livr. 11, Pl. 65, fig. 2: Malurus marginalis ‘Reinwardt’ [= Temminck], 1821 (June). A junior synonym of Megalurus palustris Horsfield, (1821 June = May, see Raphael 1970).
Livr. 15, Pl. 89, fig. 2: Bucco gularis ‘Reinwardt’ [= Temminck], 1821 (October). A junior synonym of Psilopogon australis australis (Horsfield, 1821) dating from May 1821 (see Raphael 1970).
Livr. 17, Pl. 98: Strix spadicea ‘Reinwardt’ [= Temminck], 1821 (December). A junior synonym of Glaucidium castanopterum Horsfield, 1821 (May).
Livr. 17, Pl. 99: Strix noctula ‘Reinwardt [= Temminck], 1821 (December). A junior synonym of Otus bakkamoena lempiji Horsfield, 1821 (May).
Livr. 17, pl. 102, fig. 2: Cuculus chalcites ‘Illiger’ [= Temminck], 1821 (December). A junior synonym of Chalcites lucidus plagosus (Latham, 1801). See Shelley (1891: 297).
E. Names resolved many years later and then properly named
Livr. 16, Pl. 98: Falco torquatus (hornotinus) [no author cited on wrapper = Temminck], 1821 (November). Unavailable and anyway preoccupied, see Pl. 43 above. No name was provided for this until Stresemann (1922b) gave it the name Accipiter fasciatus hellmayri.
Notes
[2] 2 Zimmer (1926: 628) mentioned the prospectus and the explanation in that of Temminck's role as the sole author of new names.
[3] 3 In the quarto edition the original price of Frs. 9 increased to Frs. 10.50 on account of the texts, and in the ‘folio’ edition it increased from Frs. 12 to 15 (Dickinson 2001: 12).
[4] 4 Although in two complex cases we advocate acceptance of a junior name which has been consistently used for many years.
[6] 6 Those accustomed to studying the volumes of the Catalogue of birds of the British Museum should be aware that during his work Sharpe, a strong supporter of correct Latin, ‘corrected’ numerous spellings (even sometimes when listing the original usage and doing so incorrectly).
[8] 8 All dates of publications for these livraisons based on the Bibliographie de la France (see Dickinson 2012).
[9] 9 For a discussion of this see Hume (1875: 166, footnote) who was undecided as to whether male and female specimens from the Pegu hills, which were compared with Temminck's plate and which he considered ‘unquestionably’ a good match, were hybrids or not. Currently available photographs of wild birds demonstrate that Temminck’s plate is a good likeness for Kalij Pheasant Lophura leucomelanos with subspecies lathami as the most probable subject (R. Dekker in litt. June 2021, J. Corder in litt. July 2021). This subspecific name was provided by J. E. Gray in 1829 and the name cuvieri might be seen as a senior synonym. However, while most of the type specimen is almost certainly that species the tail is definitely not, i.e. the specimen is a composite. An application will soon be made to the ICZN to reverse precedence under Art. 23.9.3 of the Code (ICZN 1999) and suppress the name Lophophorus cuvieri.
[11] 11 Published 26 July 1823 (see Evenhuis, 2003: 38). Sherborn (1925b: 1638) added ‘Pernis’ to his entry for this. However, Sharpe (1874: 352) listed it as a synonym of Baza lophotes and pointed out that Pucheran (1850: 84) had also considered it to belong to that very distinct species. On p. 358 Sharpe discussed the 1816 name mentioning Strickland’s suggestion that this might be Baza subcristata but did not confirm this.
[12] 12 In a volume that suggests it was published in October but inclusion of meteorological data for the entire month proves publication must have been after 31 October.
[13] 13 In the Index animalium Sherborn generally did not accept names associated with plates that appeared ahead of the descriptive text, but, as mentioned earlier, he acknowledged in 1922 that this policy was not now in line with general practice.
[14] 14 The wrapper refers to ‘Paraguay, Brésil’; Illiger’s specimens all came from Brazil. Mention of Paraguay refers to the writings of Azara whose description is now considered to have been of Glaucidium brasilianum rather than pumilum (see Pereyra 1945).
[15] 15 This name in Brisson (1760) is unavailable as the multi-volume work Ornithologia sive synopsis methodical has been declared non-binomial (although correctly formulated genus-group names in it are acceptable). This then, unlike other names grouped in this section, is not exactly a MS name.
