Zoologische Mededelingen, 80 (December 2006)
Systematic notes on Asian birds. 66. Types of the Sittidae and Certhiidae
E.C. Dickinson, V.M. Loskot, H. Morioka, S. Somadikarta, R. van den Elzen
Keywords: Sittidae; Certhiidae; nuthatches; wallcreeper; treecreepers; types; synonymy.
With contributions by M. Kalyakin, C. Voisin & J-F. Voisin.
A list is presented of 126 names applied to Asian forms of nuthatch and wallcreeper species (family Sittidae) and of treecreeper and spotted creeper species (family Certhiidae). This list provides information on the whereabouts of type specimens. 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. A lectotype is designated for Sitta frontalis Swainson, 1820.
In ‘Systematic notes on Asian birds. 3. Types of the Eurylaimidae’ (Dekker et al., 2000) we explained the rationale for this comprehensive set of articles on the types of Asian birds. Readers are reminded that that paper contains a fuller introduction and more details on methodology. The geographic scope of our series (see map in the Editor’s Foreword to this issue) has the juncture of Russia with China for the bulk of its northern border. However, when we list a taxon that occurs within our limits, such as Sitta europaea asiatica Gould, 1835, we list all its synonyms although we may not provide details of where a type is to be found when a synonym has a type locality that is extralimital.
Our table shows the names applied to the taxa, with author(s) and date (the relevant original descriptions being reported in the ‘References’). Where a type or types have been located the acronym of a museum holding a type is given. A list of these acronyms appears before the References. The final column gives the number of a comment. The numbered comments follow the table. The arrangement of the list is by species and within that by subspecies. The sequence of species is nearly that of Greenway (1967a, b) in Peters’s Check-list, but we have amended it down to subspecies level in some cases. Our treatment of all the Sittinae as being within the genus Sitta should not be taken to imply that we will retain this broad genus in the planned ‘Synopsis’. In keeping with previous papers in this series we use bold type for the names of accepted species and subspecies and plain types for synonyms.
The subspecies recognized here differ from those recognized in Peters’s Check-list in two particulars. First, we include the subsequent names of which we are aware: Sitta frontalis isarog Rand & Rabor, 1967 and Certhia familiaris tianquanensis Li, 1995. Second, we apply the decisions made in the accompanying papers on these families (Dickinson, 2006; Martens & Tietze, 2006), even though the views in these papers remain preliminary in nature. Additional information and suggestions received before the ‘Synopsis’ is prepared may lead to modified treatment therein, see Introduction to ‘Systematic notes on Asian birds’ (Dickinson & Dekker, 2000).
As in our reports on Asian types of the Eurylaimidae (Dekker et al., 2000), Pittidae (Dickinson et al., 2000), Alaudidae (Dickinson et al., 2001) and subsequent papers in this series, we investigated all the names that we found in synonymy. All names have been checked to the original citation and original spellings are used; and in the case of unusual spellings we add the adjunction ‘sic’. We then list each name in our type table and for every such name we have explored what is known about the types.
Published type catalogues and data provided as part of the original description have remained our main sources, but interested museum curators and collection managers have again provided most welcome help. In our personal searches for types, which cannot safely be described 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 given type. We have examined types where we had a particular reason to do so.
This paper, like that on the parids (Dickinson et al., 2006; this issue), demonstrates how much type material was destroyed in World War II. The holotype, or set of syntypes, of 6 names of the families treated here is shown to have been lost in Europe, Japan or the Philippines. In our paper on the parid types (op. cit. supra) we have given some background on the effects of war on Japanese holdings, and have particularly drawn on Morioka et al. (2005). When Morioka et al. were working on this they also gave some attention to the search for types described by Japanese authors, but from outside Japan. We have also applied our growing, but incomplete, understanding of the habits of Hodgson and Blyth and how these affect the discovery and identification of types of their names.
Recent bibliographical history of the family
Understanding of Northern Palaearctic species benefited from the work of Stepanyan (1983, 1990). Eck (1976) examined Chinese populations of Sitta europaea and Martens (1981) used acoustic evidence to examine the relationships of the treecreepers of the Himalayas. Since Greenway (1967a, b), however, only the guide of Harrap (1996) has provided a comprehensive treatment of these two families. Scientific papers relating to the systematics of the Asian nuthatches and treecreepers since 1996 have been rather few. Pasquet (1998) offered a molecular study of one group of nuthatches and, based on morphology and voice, Martens et al. (2002) elevated Certhia tianquanensis Li, 1995, from its proposed subspecific rank.
In the right hand column of the table below the numbers relate to the Comments that follow the table. In column 4 a “-” implies that the name listed was a primary homonym, which is permanently invalid, or a nomen nudum or that it is thought to have been based on a description with no type specified or depicted. The first two of these three kinds of names are placed in square brackets and are not valid names; the third kind relates to valid names where there is no primary evidence available to identify the type if it is still extant. A “?” implies that we do not know where a type, if there was one, may have been deposited and thus do not know whether it is lost or not. The comments that follow this table relate to type material and historical information relevant to that. Corrections to names and dates and other information relating to the names rather than the types are to be found in our notes.
1. The specimen Gould depicted was ‘forwarded’ to him by Temminck with a note stating that “it was from Russia, and would form a portion of the supplement to the third part of his Manuel”. It is possible that this specimen was returned to Temminck, but if so it apparently is no longer in the RMNH, Leiden (C. Quaisser in litt., 4 May 2006).
2. Type destroyed when the museum in Budapest burned down in 1956 (Horváth, 1970).
3. Almost certainly destroyed in World War II (see Morioka et al., 2005: 26).
4. Almost certainly destroyed in World War II (see Morioka et al., 2005: 123).
5. Momiyama provided a small drawing that has to suffice as a description. If the type survives it should be in the YIO with other nuthatches from Momiyama’s collection, but it has not been located.
6. Lectotypification was discussed by Rossolimo et al. (2001: 152).
7. Stejneger (1887: 391) suggested that Bonaparte had probably named roseilia from the drawing that was mentioned by Temminck & Schlegel (1844-1850: 138). This drawing may be in the collections of the RMNH. Should it be found, the image, the subject of which may be considered to be Bonaparte’s type, should be compared with the forms of Sitta europaea known to occur in Japan. If it is evident which Japanese population was depicted, the type locality of roseilia may need to be reconsidered.
8. For the designation of a lectotype, which is necessary because the type series includes two distinct taxa, see Voisin et al. (2002).
9. Voisin et al. (2002) designated MCZ 128308 from Kuatun as the lectotype of sinensis because the series included specimens of montium from Moupin (in Sichuan). Although this action is correct it does not alter the anomaly mapped by Cheng (1987: 908) suggesting that the type locality represents an isolated population while a second, separated by hundreds of miles, occurs in the mountains through which the Mekong and the Yangtse flow from Tibet to Yunnan (Vaurie, 1957, judged these two populations inseparable; but see Dickinson, 2006: this issue).
10. Destroyed in World War II. See Eck & Quaisser (2004: 299).
11. Warren & Harrison (1971: 230) listed a syntype from ‘Bian Khel’. The original description of hariabica ‘Wardlaw Ramsay’ by Whistler (1944: 517) appeared in an account of Sitta cashmirensis and relates to two females from Otipore and the male from ‘Bian Khel’ collected by Griffith. Later in this discussion two of Venning’s male specimens from Zhob (‘over the Afghan border’) are mentioned, but these should not be considered syntypes as they did not accord with the description.
12. Blyth (1842) dealt with a collection from Chyebassa (or Chaibasa) made by Lieutenant Tickell. To an account of Sitta castaneoventris, of which one might suppose Tickell had provided a specimen although no such specimen was in the Calcutta Museum when that collection was catalogued (Blyth, 1852), he appended a description of another nuthatch already in the Calcutta collection which he named Sitta cinnamoventris but gave no collecting locality. Blyth (1852: 189) listed a female in the Society’s ‘Old collection’ which could have been Blyth’s type, and several specimens from Darjeeling that Blyth received later than his description. Baker (1930: 24) listed Darjeeling as the type locality, perhaps misled by Blyth (1852). If, some time between 1842 and 1930, the description was indeed connected with Darjeeling no citation of this type locality designation has been traced.
13. Franklin’s collection was presented to the Zoological Society of London, whose museum collection was later disposed of as discussed by Wheeler (1997. Most of the types of Franklin’s names do not seem to have been transferred to the BMNH and must be considered lost.
14. The specimen considered to be a syntype by Warren & Harrison (1966) was purchased from Gerrard as a part of the Jardine collection, but no mention of its status appears in the BMNH accessions register. That it is or might be a type seems to have been recognised later. A specimen that belonged to Selby was deposited in Cambridge University zoology museum (UMZC) by his trustees and is considered a syntype (Benson, 1999). Warren & Harrison (op. cit.) referred to W. Murray as the collector; but this is not mentioned in the original description. Described from the Himalayas, Baker (1921: 472) restricted its type locality to Kashmir. Meinertzhagen (1927: 410) questioned this, suggesting Simla would have been a better choice, but offered no evidence of where Jardine’s specimens may actually have come from, hence Kashmir should stand.
15. There are three Hodgson specimens in the BMNH collection, but none is demonstrably one that was collected before Hodgson’s description was published.
16. The types were not mentioned by Warren & Harrison (1971). Subsequently, they have been added to the types drawers and database at the BMNH and written into the working copy of the BMNH type catalogue. For details see Hennache & Dickinson (2000: 621).
17. The syntypes are likely to be the pair accessioned in 1863, of which the female could not be found at the MNHN in Paris in 1999 or in 2006. Two other specimens accessioned in 1868 do not seem to qualify.
18. There appears to be no description given with this name. As a nomen nudum it cannot have a type.
19. Gould (1850) referred to examples from the collection of Captain Hay (Lord Arthur Hay, who eventually became Viscount Walden and later the Marquess of Tweeddale) that were by then in Gould’s own collection. Gould presented a specimen to the East India Company Museum in 1853 (Horsfield & Moore, 1858: 721), a date which, according to Warren & Harrison (1966), seems to depend on the note in Horsfield & Moore (1854: v). Horsfield & Moore (1858) did not suggest that this was a type but it seems certain to have been one.
20. The description by Sharpe (1872) implied that the specimen had been examined when Sharpe & Dresser were working on the early parts of Dresser’s History of the Birds of Europe, and the specimen has indeed been located with Dresser’s collection in Manchester.
21. Blyth (1843), in his report to the December 1842 meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, described a specimen apparently from Darjeeling. In Blyth (1852: 189) the only specimen held by the Museum was one presented by a Mrs. Oakes in 1843. Perhaps Blyth described this before it was presented; if so then this was no doubt his type as Sclater (1892) seems to have thought, although it is not possible to be sure (because it was Blyth’s practice to replace poor quality skins with better specimens when he could).
22. There were two syntypes, with original numbers 2226A and 2316, collected in February 1916. Warren & Harrison (1971: 390) listed this taxon as nivriventer not nigriventer, thus their entry is easily missed.
23. Swainson’s original specimen, of which an engraving was made, had been sent to Banks from Ceylon. This specimen, now probably lost, is presumed to have been the basis for the description as well as the plate; and for it Swainson adopted Horsfield’s Javan name, thinking that the latter had been published. Warren & Harrison (1971: 193) stated that “the specimen from Java listed by Gadow (1883: 359) has no type status”. In fact Gadow listed two ‘types’, under Art. 72.4 of The Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) they would be wrong; a specimen can be included in the type series by bibliographic reference to it. It is recommended that the BMNH examine the possibility that the specimens Gadow discussed are types of Swainson’s name. Whether those specimens do or do not qualify, it is apparent that the type series must be held to have included specimens from both Ceylon and Java, and, as these are considered distinct, the designation of a lectotype is necessary. Soon after Horsfield (1821), Javan birds were named velata by Temminck (1821). This seems not to have been interpreted as a restriction of the type locality, probably because that was considered to be Ceylon. However, such a restriction does not resolve the problem of a composite series and so we hereby designate the Ceylon specimen depicted in Plate 2 of Swainson’s Zoological illustrations as the lectotype of Sitta frontalis. Horsfield specimen from Java, if it qualifies, would then be a paralectotype. Meanwhile, Horsfield’s name, a primary homonym the moment it was published, is “permanently invalid” and has no right to a type. Whilst validly proposed, the name would have lost validity by the accident of dual usage, by one author for Ceylon birds and by the other for Javan birds. It is not clear whether Article 57.2 of the Code, which treats primary homonyms, was drafted with an awareness of cases such as this. Surely, permanently ‘unavailable’ would have been sufficient, and better than ‘invalid’ because types employed in such situations have great historical value, even if their names may not be retained in use. For other examples of such dual usage see Pitta gigas Blyth nec Temminck, discussed by Dickinson et al. (2000: 107), and Pericrocotus speciosus fohkiensis Baker nec Buturlin, discussed by Dickinson et al. (2002: 44) – listed as valid by Warren & Harrison (1966: 186) but which must be treated as permanently invalid in the same way as Sitta frontalis Horsfield, 1821. It is to be hoped that the I.C.Z.N. will revisit the wording of this Article. Gadow (op. cit. supra) mentioned two females received at the BMNH from the East India Company and derived from Java. These must be two of the three specimens listed as ‘types’ by Horsfield & Moore (1858: 723). The population of Java is distinct from that of Ceylon. If the I.C.Z.N. were to clarify that the “types” of names rendered permanently invalid were of historical importance then Horsfield’s “types” should attract special attention for preservation in their own right.
24. The ‘syntype’ of Sitta corallina Hodgson listed by Warren & Harrison (1971: 130) may be a syntype, but there is nothing to show whether it was collected before or after the publication of the description.
25. The holotype was a No. 12774 in the Bureau of Science, Manila, but this was destroyed in World War II. Manuel (1957) proposed a neotype, but Parkes (1958) wrote that loss alone was insufficient cause for this action.
26. The holotype of this, No. 5790 in the Bureau of Science, Manila, was also destroyed in World War II.
27. Peters (1943: 89) gave the number of the type as MCZ No. 267097. A recent review of the type material from Delacour’s expeditions to Indochina (Hennache & Dickinson, 2000) corrected that to 265097.
29. Destroyed in World War II, see Morioka et al. (2005: 37).
30. The other syntypes in Dresden were destroyed in World War II, see Eck & Quaisser (2004: 300).
31. Destroyed in World War II, see Eck & Quaisser (2004: 300).
32. Three syntypes were collected by Fedchenko in the upper Zeravshan River valley near Samarkand in winter 1868-69. These are in ZISP; the fourth, a female collected in November near Chimkent, is not.
33. The birds described by Vigors in conjunction with Gould’s A Century of birds from the Himalayan mountains were presented by Gould to the Zoological Society of London. Immediately after Vigors (1832) described the last of the birds from Gould’s collection that were intended for that work he dealt with four new birds collected some years earlier by Dr Struthers and sent to him by Dr John Scouler of Glasgow University. It seemed possible that the types of these four taxa, of which this treecreeper was one, had been returned to Scouler, rather than being included in Gould’s donation but, if so, they are not now in this Glasgow collection (M. Reilly, pers. comm., 04 May 2006).
34. The holotype is preserved in Sichuan Agricultural University (J. Martens pers. comm.). The number given in the original description appears to be a field number and it is not known what museum registration number has been given to the specimen.
35. Blyth (1845: 581) began by describing Certhia discolor and mentioned that he also had five specimens (by implication from Darjeeling and probably Nepal) with the underparts “uniform dingy brown” whereas “in three Nepal specimens of the other the white is alike pure”. The brown birds Blyth considered to be “C. nipalensis, Hodgson” and by “of the other” he meant C. himalayana Vigors. Blyth (1852: 188) listed two specimens in bad order received from Hodgson in 1843, early enough to have been two of his three types. It is to be hoped that these may have survived in Calcutta, and now be at the ZSI. However, despite their condition they were not mentioned by Sclater (1892) either in his list of types present or in that of those missing. As Blyth’s third type was not in Calcutta in 1852 there is some potential for this to have reached the BMNH. Warren & Harrison (1971: 386) listed a syntype (BMNH 1818.104.22.168) with a query, but offered no specifics on when this transfer had occurred nor why such a specimen could have been accessioned two years before the taxon was described. Gadow (1883: 329) listed six specimens from Nepal of which two came from Gould’s collection. The first three of these came from Hodgson and, presumably, were accessioned in 1843-45. The last came from the East India Museum, and such a specimen was listed by Horsfield & Moore (1858: 718) as having been donated by Hodgson, not by the Asiatic Society of Bengal (which one would expect to see credited if the specimen had come from Blyth in Calcutta). Thus there is no clear trail for these although one may be demonstrable for another of the BMNH specimens associated with Hodgson. Gadow’s list of specimens hides a further problem. Kinnear (1935) observed that birds to which Hodgson assigned his MS name Certhia nipalensis were not what Blyth actually named nipalensis. However, judging by his descriptions, Gadow (1883) probably did group the correct specimens under the name discolor, although the name stoliczkae was wrongly listed as a synonym. Brooks’s specimens of the latter, now in the Hume collection, had not yet reached London, so that no specimen before Gadow could have been certainly identified as stoliczkae. The same caution is needed as regards Gadow’s placement of mandelli in the synonymy of nipalensis as, again, Brooks’s specimens had not reached London.
36. It was Kinnear (1935) who placed stolickzae in the synonymy of C. nipalensis Blyth, referring to Blyth’s rather confusing description of the latter, mentioned in Comment 35, and also to the notation by Blyth “on a skin sent to him by Gould” (i.e., a skin that Blyth had marked as nipalensis which was thought to be stoliczkae).
37. Blyth (1852: 188) listed two specimens from Darjeeling presented by Webb; however his description seems to suggest that he actually had Hodgson specimens from Nepal in hand at the time. Whether he had received Webb’s specimens by then is unclear but it can be reasonably assumed that he had. Both were noted by Sclater (1892) and are presumably still in Calcutta, at the ZSI.
38. This was one of the few types acquired by the British Museum when the collection of the Zoological Society was dispersed (Wheeler, 1997).
Two names once suggested for treecreepers have been found to be preoccupied, one by Certhia intermedia Statius Müller, 1776, and the other by Certhia fulginosa Shaw, 1811 . We have made efforts to discover to what Statius Muller’s name relates, i.e., where it now lies in synonymy, but have failed to find an answer in time for this paper. Of the name Dendrophila gymnophrys ‘Kuhl’ listed by Bonaparte (1850: 226) no description was found by Reichenbach (1853) and so, rightly, the name did not appear in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum (Gadow, 1883).
Attention is also drawn to the name Sitta longirostris Latham, 1790. Greenway (1967: 142) considered this unidentified. Fisher & Warr (2003: 159) showed reason to believe that Latham described this from one or two paintings from the collection of Lady Impey. They reproduced two paintings, one of which was labelled ‘Syam Chakar’, and suggested that the origin of the specimen depicted (either a syntype of a holotype of Latham’s name) was Thailand. However, the coloration of the underparts is much more like that of Iranian birds than it is any form known from Thailand. This is further discussed by Dickinson (2006) in the preliminary review that is associated with this paper.
Summary of types of unknown whereabouts
Sitta asiatica Gould, 1837; Sitta castaneoventris Franklin, 1831; Sitta frontalis Swainson, 1820; Certhia muraria Linnaeus, 1766; Metacilla longirostra S.G. Gmelin, 1774; Certhia Himalayana Vigors, 1832.
The above list presumes that the specimens thought to be at the ZSI in Calcutta are indeed there. It excludes all names for which the types are believed definitely lost, but includes those whose types we consider may yet be rediscovered.
Particular thanks go to Norbert Bahr, Steven Gregory, Alison Harding, James Jobling, and Marek Kuzmienko for help with bibliographic issues, and to Mark Adams, Takashi Hiraoka, Jochen Martens, Henry McGhie, Christiane Quaisser, Maggie Reilly and Michael Walters for help in locating types. In previous years we were able to examine some of the types of the taxa here listed when visiting different museums and we now extend our grateful thanks to all the curatorial staff concerned at those institutions. As in the case of previous papers in this series this one was read in draft by Mary LeCroy and by Michael Walters, and for their comments and those of two referees we are most grateful.
We are also always pleased to acknowledge the value of the published type catalogues that we have been able to consult, including the draft of the relevant pages of part 3 of that of the RMNH.
AMNH American Museum of Natural History, New York.
BMNH The Natural History Museum, Tring - formerly the British Museum (Natural History).
DMNH Delaware Museum of Natural History, Greenville.
FMNH Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.
IZAS Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
MCZ Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard.
MMUM The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester.
MNHN Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris.
MPHN Polish Museum of Natural History, Warsaw.
MTD Staatliche Naturhistorische Sammlungen Dresden, Museum für Tierkunde, Dresden.
NMW Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna
RMNH National Museum of Natural History, Leiden - formerly Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie.
SAU Sichuan Agricultural University, Ya’an, Sichuan, China.
TPM Tokushima Prefectural Museum, Tokushima, Japan.
UMMZ University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor.
UMZC University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, U.K.
USNM National Museum of Natural History (formerly the United States National Museum), Washington D.C.
YIO Yamashina Institute for Ornithology, Abiko City.
ZISP Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg.
ZMB Museum für Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin - formerly Zoologisches Museum Berlin.
ZMMU Zoological Museum, Moscow University.
ZSI Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.
ZSM Zoologische Staatssammlung München, Munich.
1 Greenway (1967: 127) dated this 1837, but see Dickinson (2006; this issue).
1 Greenway (1967: 127) dated this 1837, but see Dickinson (2006; this issue).
2 This, in some cases, is used as shorthand for ‘destroyed’. Unless used with a ? it implies permanent loss.
3 Greenway (1967: 127) dated this 1886, but see Editorial Division (1947: 63). He also cited p. 392 for the description of clara, but this name also appears in a key on p. 390.
4 Greenway (1967: 127) erred in spelling this takatsukasae.
5 Placed here following Eck (1976).
6 Greenway (1967: 131) thought that Verreaux’s article appeared in 1871 but the volume title page is dated 1870 and Verreaux (1871: 28) referred to his description as having been in 1870.
7 Not kiukiangenensis as given by Greenway (1967: 131). Proposed as a replacement name for sinensis Verreaux, 1871, which Buturlin (1915) thought preoccupied by Sitta chinensis‘Latham’; he may however have meant that the preoccupation was by Sitta chinensis Vieillot (1819: 332). Despite Recommendation 58A in the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) suggesting that no second name with the same root be created, Verreaux’s name sinensis, although unfortunate, is not a homonym of chinensis and is not retrospectively banned by Art. 58. Vieillot’s name was listed in the synonymy of Sitta caesia Wolf, 1810, by Gadow (1883: 347) but is here considered a nomen oblitum.
8 A new name for formosana Buturlin, 1911, thought to be too easily confused with formosa Blyth, 1843, but formosaof Blyth’s usage meant ‘beautiful’. There is anyway no homonymy and the original name must stand (Recommendation 58A in The Code comes closest to matching this case but this is purely recommendatory).
9 Preoccupied by Sitta tephronota obscura Zarudny & Loudon, 1905.
10 New name for Sitta europaea obscura La Touche, 1921.
11 Recognized by Eck & Quaisser (2004: 299) but reasons behind this not given.
12 Original spelling konyboensis but corrected to kongboensis later in the same volume (Kinnear, 1940b).
13 Spelled cinnamomeoventris by Gadow (1883: 351).
14 Has also been spelled castaneiventris(see Gadow, 1883: 351).
15 Greenway (1967: 133) erroneously dated this 1936.
16 The original name is all in capital letters in the text page, but on the plate a capital H is used.
17 Momiyama (1931: 24) apparently provided an indication to Ingram (1909: 433) but on the page cited there is no reference to Sitta villosa(nec Verreaux); instead there is a list of specimens of Sitta amurensis from Manchuria, but these are not described. Momiyama’s name is thus a nomen nudum.
18 The name was proposed spelled in capital letters.
19 This, under the name flavipes, is the type species of genus Dendrophila Swainson (1837) and is a very distinct species.
20 Benson (1999: 136) reported that the holotype did not match nominate azurea but matched nigriventer and remarked that Swainson’s name had probably not been used since 1838, implying that he considered it a nomen oblitum.
21 In Swainson, 1820-21.
22 Greenway (1967: 142) dated this 1836, however the issue was delayed until 1837. That can be seen from p. 828 of this volume (same issue) where the minutes appear of a meeting of the Society held on 4th January 1837.
23 Wells (in press) is expected to accept this name for the population of the south part of the Malay peninsula, but we are not clear whether Sumatran birds will be discussed there or in a later separate paper.
24 Dated 1908 by Greenway (1967: 142), but at the back of the article is “Angegeben am 6 November 1907” and a date stamp shows this issue was received in the library of the Natural History Museum, London on 26 November, 1907.
25 A primary homonym. See Comment.
26 Greenway (1967) omitted this name from his synonymy. It was revived by Mees (1986) and applied to Javan birds. See Quaisser & Dekker (2006, this issue).
27 The registered number of the holotype was mistakenly cited as 866,562 in the original publication; it should have been 266562 (Dickinson et al., 1991: 301).
28 Greenway (1967: 142) placed this in the synonymy of nominate Sitta frontalis despite its yellow bill.
29 Greenway (1967: 152) dated this from volume 41 of the Journal of the Asiatic Soc. Bengal but a description first appeared a year or so earlier in the Proceedings of this society.
30 Greenway (1967: 157) mentioned two dates for Severtzov’s publication. The title page is dated 1873. Severtzov sometimes claimed that this appeared in December 1872 but may have ignored the difference between the Gregorian and Julian calendars; late December 1872 in Russia would have been early January 1873 in most of the western world!
31 Preoccupied by Certhia intermedia Statius Müller, 1776 (not identified).
32 This was Kinnear’s replacement name for Certhia himalayana intermedia Kinnear, 1921.
33 Three different spellings of this name appeared in the original description; for a First Reviser see Martens & Tietze (2006; this issue).
34 Preoccupied byCerthia fuliginosa Shaw, 1811, in use for a nectariniid (see Dickinson, 2003: 706). Greenway (1967: 159) referred to Certhia fuliginosa Bechstein, 1811. Baker (1930: 90) listed Bechstein’s name as well as Shaw’s (nowNectarinia fuliginosa Shaw, ‘1811-12’) as employed by Rand, 1967: 232). Both authors, each actually dating from 1811, based this name on an earlier work of Vieillot in which there is only a French vernacular name. For the purposes of this list it is enough to know that fuliginosa Baker, 1922, is preoccupied by the sunbird given the name Certhia fuliginosa (it will be either Bechstein or Shaw, but the priority needs to be clarified).
35 For Certhia discolor fuliginosa Baker, 1922.
36 Greenway (1967: 160) erred in citing this from “Meinertzhagen”; it was jointly described by Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen and his wife.
37 The 1961 Code was less clear.
38 See also Dickinson et al. (2006; this issue) for a discussion on new parid names used by both Gould and Moore where, on present evidence, we cannot be 100% certain which author has priority.
39 Blyth (1852: 188) listed two specimens both from Darjeeling and presented in 1845.
40 Blyth (1852: 188) listed no early specimens of C. himalayana.
41 Which was once mounted and has not been relaxed.
42 This name is in use in the genus Cinnyris (see Dickinson, 2003: 706). See also the footnote to the name fuliginosa in our table.
43 Readers are reminded that we use standardised spellings of the names for authors, e.g., Sarudny becomes Zarudny. This is to ensure their overall output is perceptible. We also give the initials of all authors even when these were not mentioned in the original work.
44 These appended names with page numbers refer to original descriptions of taxa mentioned herein; they are intended to help readers locate these descriptions.
45 For an evaluation of the real date of publication see Dickinson (2004a).
46 This issue is dated 26 May 1864. The date follows the list of contributors to the volume.
47 Sauer (1982) established that the first 27 parts had 20 plates each. There is no reason why these would not have been numbered consecutively; therefore Pt. 12 would have contained pls. 221-240. Dated 1837 by Greenway (1967: 127).
48 Herein Gould cited the November 1849 meeting of the Zool. Soc. London at which he read the description of this. His plate in Birds of Asia appeared in January of 1850 but the publication of the description in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London can only be roughly dated between Jan. and June 1850 (see Duncan, 1937).
49 But later than Swainson (1820) below.
50 For reasons to use the date 1858 see Dickinson (2004b).
51 The Japanese part, titled in Japanese and English, is entitled “Some new and unrecorded birds from Japanese territories. I.” Page 80 is a Notice for foreigners. The content of the English version of the text is non-identical with the Japanese.
52 Wrongly cited as vol. 15 by Greenway (1967: 134).
53 Revised edition published in 2003.
54 Both Wardlaw and Ramsay are surnames. They relate to two different sides of the family; after the marriage which brought them together, some branches of the family used Wardlaw-Ramsay with a hyphen while others omitted the hyphen. Often just cited as Ramsay.
Baker, E.C.S., 1921. Birds of the Indian Empire. Hand-list of the “Birds of India”. Pt. 2.— J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 27 (3): 448-491.
Baker, E.C.S., 1922. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. 1: i-xxiii, 1-479.— London. (fuliginosa p. 438)
Baker, E.C.S., 1930. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. 7: i-viii, 1-484.— London. (shanensis p. 90, nom. nov.)
Bechstein, 1811. Johann Latham’s allgemeine Uebersicht der Vögel. 4: i-iv, 1-536. (Certhiafuliginosa – now in Cinnyris – p. 192)
Benson, C.W., 1999. Type specimens of bird skins in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, United Kingdom. British Ornithologists’ Club Occ. Publ. No. 4. i-xiv, 1-221.— Tring, Herts.
Berezovski, M. & V.L. Bianchi, 1891. Aves expeditionis Potanini per provinciam Gan-su et confinia 1884-1887. i-xl, 1-155.— St. Petersburg. (przewalskii p. 119)
Bianchi, V.L., 1903. [Description of Certhia khamensis] p. 360. In: Sharpe, R.B., 1905. A Hand-list of the genera and species of birds (Nomeclator avium tum fossilium tum viventum.). 4: i-xx, 1-360.— Trustees of the British Museum, London. (khamensis p. 360)
Biswas, B., 1955. Zoological Results of the ‘Daily Mail’ Himalayan Expedition 1954. Two new birds from Khumbu, eastern Nepal.— Bull. Brit. Ornb. Cl., 75: 87-88. (izzardi p. 88)
Blyth, E., 1842. Curator’s Report for April.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 11 (125): 444-470. (cinnamoventris p. 459)
Blyth, E., 1843. Mr Blyth’s monthly Report for December Meeting 1842, with addenda subsequently appended.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 12 (143): 925-1011. (formosa p. 938)
Blyth, E., 1845. Notices and descriptions of various new or little known species of birds.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 14 (164): 546-602. (discolor p. 580; nipalensis p. 581)
Blyth, E., [‘1849’ = 1852]. Catalogue of the Birds in the Museum Asiatic Society. i-xxxiv, 1-403.— Calcutta.
Bonaparte, C.L., 1850. Conspectus generum avium. 1: 1-543.— Lugduni Batavorum. (T. nepalensis p. 225; S.roseilia p. 227)
Brooks, W.E., 1871. Notes on the ornithology of Cashmir.— Proc. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 209-210. (Cashmirensis p. 209; Hodgsoni p. 209)
Brooks, W.E., 1874. Notes on the Certhiinae of India.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 42 (4): 255-257 (1873). (Mandellii p. 256; Stoliczkae p. 256)
Buturlin, S.A., 1911. Interershiya nahodki (Interesting records).— Nasha Okhota (Our hunting), 8: 51. (In Russian.) (formosana p. 51)
Buturlin, S.A., 1915.Sitta europaea taivana nom. emend.— Orn. Vestnik, 6 (4): 311-312. (taivana p. 311, kiukiangensis p. 312)
Buturlin, S.A., 1916. A short review of Nuthatches (Fam. Sittidae).— Trav. Soc. Imp. Natur. Petrograd, 44 (2): 145-173. (In Russian, with long English summary.) (sakhalinensis pp. 158, 170; iranica p. 165; hondoenis pp. 160, 171)
Cheng Tso-hsin, 1987. A synopsis of the Avifauna of China. i-xvi, 1-1223.— Beijing.
Cheng, Tso-hsin, Wen-ning Ting & Tze-yu Wang, 1964. A new subspecies of the Velvet-fronted Nuthatch from Hainan - Sitta frontalis chienfengensis.— Acta Zootaxon. Sinica, 1 (1): 1-5. (In Chinese, with English summary.) (chienfengensis p. 1)
Deignan, H.G., 1938a. A new subspecies of the European nuthatch from North Siam.— J. Wash. Acad. Sci., 28 (8): 371-372. (delacouri p. 371)
Deignan, H.G., 1938b. A new nuthatch from Yunnan.— Smithsonian Misc. Coll., 97 (9): 1-2. (ligea p. 1)
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., 1932. Description de deux oiseaux d’Indochine.— L’Oiseau et la Revue Française d’Ornithologie, 2 (4): 616-618. (whistleri p. 618)
Delacour, J., 1951. Commentaires, modifications et additions à la liste des oiseaux de l’Indochine Française. II.— L’Oiseau et la Revue Française d’Ornithologie, 21: 1-32, 81-119. (laotiana p. 112)
Delacour, J. & J.C. Greenway, Jr., 1939. Seven new races from Indochina.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 59: 130-134. (fortior p. 133)
Delacour, J. & P. Jabouille, 1930. Description de trente oiseaux de l’Indochine Francaise.— L’Oiseau et la Revue Française d’Ornithologie, 11 (7): 393-408. (solangiae p. 395)
Dickinson, E.C. (Ed.), 2003. The Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. 1-1039.— London.
Dickinson, E.C., 2004a. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 47. Blyth’s ‘Catalogue of the Birds in the Museum Asiatic Society’.— Zool. Verh. Leiden, 350: 167-181.
Dickinson, E.C., 2004b. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 46. ‘A Catalogue of the birds in the Museum of the Hon. East-India Company’ by Horsfield & Moore.— Zool. Verh. Leiden, 350: 149-165.
Dickinson, E.C. 2006. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 62. A preliminary review of the Sittidae.— Zool. Med. Leiden, 80-5 (14): 225-240.
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, 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, 2001. 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, 2002. Systematic notes on Asian Birds. 23. Types of the Campephagidae.— Zool. Verh. Leiden, 340: 31-74.
Dickinson, E.C., R.S. Kennedy & K.C. Parkes, 1991. The Birds of the Philippines. An annotated Check-list.— BOU Check-list Ser., 12: 1-507.
Dickinson, E.C., V.M. Loskot, Hiroyuki Morioka, S. Somadikarta & R. van den Elzen, 2006. Systematic notes on Asian Birds. 50. Types of the Aegithalidae, Remizidae and Paridae.— Zool. Med. Leiden 80-5 (2): 65-111.
Domaniewski, J., 1922. Notes critique sur les représentants paléarctiques du genre Certhia Linn.— Arch. Soc. Sci. Varsaviensis, Discipl. Biol., 1 (10): 1-6. (daurica p. 4; orientalis p. 5)
Duncan, F.M., 1937. On the dates of publication of the Society’s “Proceedings”, 1859-1926.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.: 71-83.
Eck, S., 1976. Aspekte zur Taxonomie chinesischer Kleiber (Sitta europaea).— Orn. Jahrb. Mus. Hein., 1: 25-31.
Eck, S. & C. Quaisser, 2004.Verzeichnis der Typen der Vogelsammlung des Museums für Tierkunde in den Staatlichen Naturhistorischen Sammlungen Dresden.— Zool. Abhandl. (Dresden), 54: 233-316.
Editorial Division, 1947 [True, W.P. & P.H. Oehser (Eds.)]. A list and index of the publications of the United States National Museum (1875-1946). Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 193: 1-306.— Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Fisher, C.T. & F.E. Warr, 2003. Museums on paper: library and manuscript resources.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 123A: 136-164.
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. Sci. Corresp. Zool. Soc. Lond.: 114-125. (castaneoventris p. 121; spilonota p. 121)
Gadow, H., 1883. A Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. VIII: Catalogue of the Passeriformes or perching birds, in the collection of the British Museum. Cichlomorphae: Part V. containing the families Paridae and Laniidae (Titmice and Shrikes) and Certhiomorphae (Creepers and Nuthatches). i-xiii, 1-386.— London.
Gmelin, S.G., 1774. Reise durch Russland zur Untersuchung der drey Natur-Reiche. 3: 1-503.— St. Petersburg. (longirostra p. 100, pl.19, fig. 2)
Godwin-Austen, H.H., 1874. Descriptions of ten new birds from the Naga Hills and Munipur Valley, N.E. frontier of Bengal.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.: 43-48. (nagaensis p. 44)
Gould, J., 1835 (Mar.) (‘1837’). The Birds of Europe, pl. 236 and text (issued in Part 12; bound in vol. 3).— London. (asiatica Pl. 236)
Gould, J., 1850 (Jan.). The Birds of Asia, pl. 46 and text (issued in Part 1; bound in vol. 2).— London. (leucopsis pl. 46)
Greenway, J.C., Jr., 1967a. Family Sittidae. Pp. 125-149. In: R.A. Paynter, Jr. (ed.). Check-list of Birds of the World. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters. XII.— Cambridge, Mass.
Greenway, J.C., Jr., 1967b. Family Certhiidae. Pp. 150-160. In: R.A. Paynter, Jr. (ed.). Check-list of Birds of the World. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters. XII.— Cambridge, Mass.
Hachisuka, M., 1930. Contributions to the birds of the Philippines. No. 2.— Orn. Soc. Japan, Suppl. Publ., 14: 137-222. (insignis p. 202; cebuensis p. 203; apo p. 203)
Harrap, S., 1996. Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers. 1-464.— London.
Hartert, E., 1897. Notes on Palaearctic birds and allied forms.— Novit. Zool., 4: 131-147. (japonica p. 138)
Hartert, E., 1902. On birds from Pahang, eastern Malay Peninsula.— Novit. Zool., 9: 537-580. (saturatior p. 573)
Hartert, E., 1905a. [On some new subspecies of birds].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 16: 11-13. (palawana p. 11)
Hartert, E., 1905b. Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna. 1 (3) 241-384.— Berlin. (tianschanica p. 321; bianchii p. 321)
Hartert, E., 1914. [A new Blue Nuthatch from the Malay Peninsula].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 35: 34. (expectata p. 34)
Hartert, E. & F. Steinbacher, 1933. Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna. Ergänzungsband. Heft 2. 97-192.— Berlin. (kleinschmidti p. 167)
Hennache, A. & E.C. Dickinson, 2000. Les types d’oiseaux rapportés du Vietnam, du Laos et du Cambodge par Jean Delacour entre 1923 et 1939.— Zoosystema, 22 (3): 601-629.
Hodgson, B.H., 1837. Additions to the ornithology of Nepal.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, 5 (2): 770-781 (1836). (corallina p. 779; nepalensis p. 779)
Horsfield, T., 1821 (not later than June 21). A systematic arrangement and description of birds from the island of Java.— Trans. Linn. Soc., London, 13: 133-200. (frontalis p. 162)
Horsfield, T. & F. Moore, [‘1856-58’ =] 1858. A catalogue of the birds in the Museum of the Hon. East-India Company, 2: 453-752, i-v, i-iv, i-ix.— London.
Horváth, L., 1970. The destroyed bird types of the Hungarian Natural History Museum.— Ann. Hist.nat. Mus. nat. Hung., 62: 363-372.
Hume, A.O., 1881 (Dec). Novelties?— Stray Feathers, 10 (1-3): 150-155. (manipurensis p. 151)
Ingram, C., 1909. The birds of Manchuria.— Ibis, (9) 3: 422-469.
I.C.Z.N., 1910. Opinion 37. Shall the genera of Brisson’s “Ornithologia” 1760 be accepted?— Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions 30-37. Pp. 69-88. (Smithsonian Publ. no. 2013).
I.C.Z.N., 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. i-xxix, 1-306.— London.
Jardine, W. & P.J. Selby, 1835. Illustrations of Ornithology. pt. 10. Comprising pls. 136-151.— Edinburgh. (himalayensis pl. 144)
Kinnear, N.B., 1920. [A new form of Nuthatch from Burma].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 40: 142. (grisiventris p. 142)
Kinnear, N.B., 1921. [Descriptions of new races].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 41: 139-140. (intermedia p. 139)
Kinnear, N.B., 1929. [Certhia familiaris intermedia Kinnear, 1921, is preoccupied].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 49: 109. (ripponi p. 109. nom. nov.)
Kinnear, N.B., 1935. Correct names for the Indian Tree-creepers.— Ibis, (13) 5: 664-665.
Kinnear, N.B., 1936. [A new race of Nuthatch].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 56: 70-71. (tonkinensis p. 71)
Kinnear, N.B., 1940a. New races of Rose-Finch, Suthora and Nuthatch collected by Messrs. Ludlow and Sherriff in South-east Tibet.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 60: 56-57. (konyboensis p. 57)
Kinnear, N.B., 1940b. New races of Rose Finch, Suthora, and Nuthatch from South-east Tibet.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 60: 74. (correction to kongboensis)
Kinnear, N.B. & H. Whistler, 1930. [Description of a new subspecies of Nuthatch].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 51: 27. (almorae p. 27)
Kleinschmidt, O., 1928. Die Realgattung Kleiber Sitta Auto-Sitta (Kl.). i-ii, 1-22. In: Berajah, Zoographia infinita.— Halle. (siamensis p. 14)
Kleinschmidt, O. & H. Weigold, 1922. Zoologische Ergebnisse der Walter Stötznerschen Expeditionen nach Szetschwan, Osttibet und Tschili auf Grund der Sammlungen und Beobachtungen Dr Hugo Weigolds. 3 Teil. Aves. 1. Corvidae, Certhidae, Sittidae, Paridae, Cinclidae.— Abh. Ber. Zool. Anthr.-Ethn. Mus. Dresden, 15 (3): 1-18. (kwanhsienensis p. 7; waschanensis p. 8; itschangensis p. 9; tibetosinensis p. 10)
Koelz, W.N., 1939. New birds from Asia, chiefly from India.— Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 52: 61-82. (simplex p. 63; cedricola p. 65)
Koelz, W.N., 1951. New birds from India.— J. Zool. Soc. India, 3 (1): 27-30. (australis p. 29)
Koelz, W.N., 1952. New races of Indian birds.— J. Zool. Soc. India, 4 (1): 37-46. (lushaiensis p. 37)
Kuroda, Nagamichi, 1924. [Descriptions of three races of birds from the Kurile Islands, Hokkaido, and Formosa].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 45: 15-17. (ernsti p. 17)
Latham, J., 1790. Index ornithologicus, sive systema ornithologiæ; complectens avium divisionem in classes, ordines, genera, species, ipsarumque varietates: adjectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, & c. 1: i-xviii, 1-500.— London.
la Touche, J.D.D., 1899. Notes on the birds of northwest Fohkien.— Ibis, (7) 5: 400-431. (montium p. 404)
la Touche, J.D.D., 1921. [Descriptions of new birds from S.E. Yunnan].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 42: 29-32. (obscura p. 31)
la Touche, J.D.D., 1922. Sitta europæa nebulosa nom. nov.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 42: 55. (nebulosa p. 55)
Lesson, R.P., 1830. Traité d’Ornithologie ou Tableaux Méthodique des ordres, sous-ordres, familles, tribus, genres, sous-genres et races d’oiseaux. 1 (part 4: 241-320).— Paris. (castanea p. 316; azurea p. 316)
Li Gui-yuan, 1995. A new subspecies of Certhia familiaris (Passeriformes: Certhiidae).— Acta Zootax. Sinica, 20 (3): 373-377. (In Chinese with English abstract.) (tianquanensis p. 373, tianouanensis p. 374 map caption; tianguanensis p. 376 in English abstract)
Linnaeus, C., 1766. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. 1: 1-532.— Stockholm. (muraria p. 184)
Manuel, C.G., 1957. Neotypes of some Philippine birds.— Phil. J. Sci., 85 (3): 315-321 (1956).
Martens, J., 1981. Lautäusserungen der Baumläufer des Himalaya und zur akutischen Evolution in der Gattung Certhia.— Behaviour, 77 (4): 287-318.
Martens, J., S. Eck & Sun Yue-hua, 2002. Certhia tianquanensis Li, a treecreeper with relict distribution in Sichuan, China.— J. Orn., 143: 440-456.
Martens, J. & D.T. Tietze, 2006. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 65. A preliminary review of the Certhiidae.— Zool. Med. Leiden, 80-5 (17): 273-286.
Mees, G.F., 1986. A list of the birds recorded from Bangka Island, Indonesia.— Zool. Verh. Leiden, 232: 1-176.
Meinertzhagen, R., 1922. [Remarks on the races of Certhia himalayana].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 42: 140-141. (limes p. 141)
Meinertzhagen, R., 1927. Systematic Results of Birds collected at high altitudes in Ladak and Sikkim. Pt. I.— Ibis, (12) 3: 363-422.
Meinertzhagen, R., 1938. [Descriptions of four new races].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 58: 94-96. (subcaeruleus p. 96)
Meinertzhagen, R. & A. Meinertzhagen, 1926. [Descriptions of six new races of birds from India and the Himalayas].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 46: 83-86. (rajputanae p. 83)
Mishima, T., 1955. A description of a new subspecies of the Tree-creeper from Shikoku.— Tori, 13 (65): 22-23. (shikokiana p. 22)
Momiyama, T.T., 1927. Descriptions of twenty-five new birds and three additions from Japanese territories.— Annot. Orn. Orient., 1 (1): 1-80 (Jap.), 81-101 (Eng.). (kurilensis p. 21, kawamurai p. 22)
Momiyama, T.T., 1928. In: Kumagai, S. & T.T. Momiyama. A list of the birds from Prefecture Miyagi.— Annot. Orn. Orient., 1 (3): 241-282. (kumagaii p. 274)
Momiyama, T.T., 1931. The Sittidae or Family of Nuthatches.— Kaidori, 2 (8): 1-24. (In Japanese.) (takatsukasai p. 20, figs. A & B; bergmani p. 20, fig. C; buturlini, p. 22, fig. I.; harterti p. 23, fig. K; nakaokae p. 23, fig. L., yamashinai p. 24 nomen nudum).
Morioka, H., E.C. Dickinson, T. Hiraoka, D. Allen & T. Yamasaki, 2005. Types of Japanese birds.— Nat. Sci. Mus. Monographs (Tokyo), 28: 1-154.
Ogilvie-Grant, W.R., 1894. [New species of Philippine birds].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 3: 49-51. (mesoleuca p. 49)
Ogilvie-Grant, W.R., 1900. [New species from southern China collected by Capt. A.M.S. Wingate].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 10: xxxvii-xxxviii. (yunnanensis p. 37)
Ogilvie-Grant, W.R., 1906. [A new species of Nuthatch from Corea].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 16: 87-88. (corea)
Ogilvie-Grant, W.R., 1909. [A new species of Nuthatch procured in the Island of Quelpart].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 23: 59. (bedfordi p. 59)
Parkes, K.C., 1958. A revision of the Philippine Elegant Titmouse (Parus elegans).— Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 71: 95-106.
Parrot, C., 1907. Beiträge zur Ornithologie Sumatras und der Insel Banka.— Abh. Akad. Wiss. München, Math. Phys., 24 (1): 149-286. (hageni p. 244)
Pasquet, E., 1998. Phylogeny of the nuthatches of the Sitta canadensis group and its evolutionary and biogeographic implications.— Ibis, 140: 150-156.
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.
Portenko, L.A., 1954. Birds of the USSR. 3. Songbirds 1. 1-255. In: Survey of the fauna of the U.S.S.R. (In Russian).— Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk, BSSR vyp, Moscow. (partiaria p. 125; ognewi p. 130)
Portenko, L.A., 1955. [Detailed descriptions of new passerine birds].— Trudy Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk, SSSR, 18: 493-507. (seorsa p. 497)
Rand, A.L., 1967. Family Nectariniidae. Pp. 208-289. In: R.A. Paynter, Jr. Check-list of Birds of the World. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters. XII.— Cambridge, Mass.
Rand, A.L. & D.S. Rabor, 1957. New birds from the Philippines.— Fieldiana, Zool., 42 (2): 13-18. (zamboanga p. 16)
Rand, A.L. & D.S. Rabor, 1967. New birds from Luzon, Philippine Islands.— Fieldiana, Zool., 51 (6): 85-89. (isarog p. 89)
Reichenow, A., 1907. [Sitta biedermanni n. sp. und S. caesia var. sordida n. var.] p. 312. In: Heinroth, O. Bericht über die Februarsitzung 1907.— J. Orn., 55: 311-312. (biedermanni p. 312)
Reichenbach, H.G.L., 1853. Scansoriae A. pp. 145-218. In: Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie. [pp. 1-434].— Leipzig & Dresden.
Ripley, S.D., 1950. New birds from Nepal and the Indian region.— Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 63: 101-106. (infima p. 106)
Rippon, G., 1904. [New species of birds from the Southern Chin Hills].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 14: 83-84. (Sittavictoriae p. 84)
Rippon, G., 1906. Some new species of birds from Mt. Victoria, S. Chin Hills.— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 16: 87. (Certhiavictoriae p. 87)
Robinson, H.C. & C.B. Kloss, 1919a. [new subspecies of Malay birds].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 40: 11-18. (nigriventer p. 17)
Robinson, H.C. & C.B. Kloss, 1919b. On birds from South Annam and Cochin China. Pt. II. Pycnonotidæ – Dicæidæ.— Ibis, (11) 1: 392-453, 565-625. (meridionalis p. 609)
Rossolimo, O.L., I.Y. Pavlinov & A.V. Borissenko (Eds.), 2001. Types of vertebrates in the Zoological Museum of Moscow University. 1-251.— Moscow.
Sauer, G.C., 1982. John Gould The Bird Man. A chronology and bibliography. i-xxiv, 1-416.— London.
Sclater, W.L., 1892. On the Indian Museum and its collection of birds.— Ibis, (6) 4: 65-87.
Severtsov, N.A., 1873. Vertical and horizontal distribution of Turkestan animals.— Izdanie obshchestva. Izvestiya imperatorskago osshch. lyibitdei estestvoznaniya, Antropologii i Etnografii, Moskva, 8 (2): 1-157. (In Russian.) (taeniura p. 138)
Sharpe, R.B., 1872. Description of some new species in the National Collection.— Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (4) 10 (60): 450-451. (tephronota p. 450)
Sharpe, R.B., 1877. On the birds collected by Professor J.B. Steere in the Philippine Archipelago.— Trans. Linn. Soc., London, (2) 1, (6): 307-355. (oenochlamys p. 338, pl. 53, fig. 3)
Sharpe, R.B., 1888. Diagnoses of some new species of birds obtained on the Mountain of Kina Balu by Mr John Whitehead.— Ibis, (5) 6: 478-479. (corallipes p. 479)
Sharpe, R.B., 1902. [Some interesting species of birds from Yunnan, collected by Colonel G. Rippon].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 13: 11-12. (yunnanensis p. 11)
Shaw, G. 1811. General Zoology or Systematic Natural History. 8 (1): i-x, 1-357.— London.
Statius Müller, P.L., 1776. Linne’s Natursystems: Supplements und Register Band. 1-536.— Nurnberg.
Stejneger, L., 1887. Review of Japanese Birds. II. Tits and Nuthatches.— Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 9: 374-394 (1886). (clara p. 392)
Stepanyan, L.S., 1983. Nadvidy i vidy-dvoyniki v avifaune SSSR. (Superspecies and sibling species in the avifauna of the USSR). 1-296.— Moscow. (In Russian.)
Stepanyan, L.S., 1990. Kospekt ornitologicheskoy fauny SSSR. (Conspectus of the ornithological fauna of the USSR). 1-727.— Moscow. (In Russian.)
Stepanyan, L.S. & V.M. Loskot, 1998. Name bearing types of species group taxa in the collection of birds made by M. M. Berezovsky during the Gansu Expedition of G.N. Potanin in 1884-1887.— Zool. zhurnal, 77 (8): 947-951. (In Russian, with English abstract.)
Stresemann, E., 1929. Neue Formen aus Nord-Kansu. III.— Orn. Monatsber., 37 (3): 74-75. (bangsi p. 74)
Sushkin, P.P., 1925. List and distribution of birds of the Russian Altai and nearest parts of N.W. Mongolia, with a description of new or imperfectly known forms. 1-78.— Leningrad. (canescens p. 69; altaica p. 70)
Swainson, W., 1820-21. Zoological Illustrations, or original figures and descriptions of new, rare, or interesting animals, selected chiefly from the classes of ornithology, entomology, and conchology, and arranged on the principles of Cuvier and other modern zoologists. 1: i-ix, (1-66), pll. 1-66.— London. (frontalis pl. 2)
Swainson, W., 1837. On the Natural History and Classification of Birds. 2: i-vii, 1-398.— London.
Swainson, W., 1838. Animals in Menageries. i-viii, 1-373.— London. (flavipes p. 323)
Swinhoe, R., 1871. A revised catalogue of the birds of China and its islands.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.: 337-423. (amurensis p. 350)
Taczanowski, L., 1882. Liste des oiseaux recueillis par le Dr Dybowski au Kamschatka et dans les Iles Comandores.— Bull. Soc. Zool., France, 7: 384-398. (baicalensis p. 386)
Temminck, C.J., 1821. Livr. 12, pl. 72, fig. 3. In: Temminck, C.J. & M. Laugier de Chartrouse, Baron, Nouveau Recueil de Planches coloriées d’Oiseaux, pour servir de suite et de complément aux planches enluminées de Buffon.— Paris. (velata pl. 72, fig. 3)
Temminck, C.J. & H. Schlegel, 1844-1850. Fauna Japonica - Aves. 1-141.— Lugduni Batavorum.
Vaurie, C., 1950. Notes on some Asiatic Nuthatches and Creepers.— Amer. Mus. Novit., 1472: 1-39. (koelzi p. 5)
Vaurie, C., 1957. Systematic Notes on Palearctic Birds. No. 29. The Subfamilies Tichodromadinae and Sittinae.— Amer. Mus. Novit., 1854: 1-26.
Verreaux, J.P. In: E. Milne Edwards, 1865. Rapport sur quelques acquisitions nouvelles faites par la Galerie Ornithologique du Muséum.— Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. (Paris), Bull., 1: 75-78. (villosa p. 78, Bull., pl. 5, fig. 1)
Verreaux, J.P., 1870. Note sur les espèces nouvelles d’oiseaux recueillis par M. l’Abbé Armand David dans les montagnes du Thibet Chinois.— Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, 6, Bull., 33-40. (sinensis p. 34)
Verreaux, J.P., 1871. Description des oiseaux nouveaux ou incomplétement connus, collectés par M. l’Abbé Armand David pendant son voyage dans le Thibet oriental et la partie adjacente de la Chine.— Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, 7, Bull., 25-66.
Vieillot, L.P., 1819. Sittelle. Pp. 328-337. In: Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire Naturelle. 31. SEO-SPE. 1-577.— Paris. (chinensis p. 332)
Vigors, N.A., 1832. Observations on a collection of birds from the Himalayan Mountains, with characters of new genera and species.— Proc. Commit. Sci. Corresp. Zool. Soc. Lond.: 170-176. (Himalayana p. 174)
Voisin, C., J.-F. Voisin, D. Causey & E.C. Dickinson, 2002. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 29. On the types of Sitta sinensis J. Verreaux, 1871, and Sitta montium la Touche, 1899.— Zool. Verh. Leiden, 340: 191-196.
von Madarász, J., 1904. Sitta bifasciata n. sp.— Orn. Monatsb., 12 (11): 183-184. (bifasciata p. 183)
Walden, A., Viscount, 1870. Descriptions of some new species of birds from Southern Asia.— Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (4) 5: 416-418. (neglecta p. 218)
Wardlaw Ramsay, R.G., 1876. On an undescribed species of nuthatch and another bird from Karen-nee.— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.: 677. (magna p. 677)
Warren, R.L.M., 1966. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History). 1: 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: i-vi, 1-628.— London.
Wells, D.R., in press. The Birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsula. 2.— London.
Wheeler, A., 1997. Zoological collections in the early British Museum: the Zoological Society’s Museum.— Arch. Nat. Hist., 24 (1): 89-126.
Whistler, H., 1944. Materials for the ornithology of Afghanistan.— J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 44 (4): 505-519. (hariabica p. 517, ex Wardlaw Ramsay MS.)
Whistler, H. & N.B. Kinnear, 1932. The Vernay Scientific Survey of the Eastern Ghats I.— J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., 35 (3): 505-524. (prateri p. 522)
Whitehead, J. 1897. [A series of specimens of the genus Dendrophila from the Philippine Islands].— Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl., 6: xlix. (lilacea p. 49)
Wolf, J., 1810. In: Meyer, B. & J. Wolf, 1810. Taschenbuch der deutschen Vogelkunde, oder kurze Beschreibung aller Vögel Deutschlands. 1: i-xvii, 1-310.— Frankfurt.
Zarudny, N.A. & H.B. Loudon, 1905. Vorläufige Beschreibung zweier ornithologischen Neuheiten aus West-Persien.— Orn. Monastber, 13 (5): 76.