Abstract
In autumn 1869, Edward Blyth (1810–1875) visited the bird collection of the Rijks Museum van Natuurlijke Historie in Leiden (RMNH, now: Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity Naturalis, NCB, Leiden) to check its holdings of birds from India, and he then published his findings accompanied by taxonomic notes in the journal Ibis (Blyth 1870: 157–176). One of the taxa mentioned was a muscicapid flycatcher of which he had examined specimens collected on Sumatra, Java and Borneo. The reason Blyth listed them in this publication was that, to his eye, they appeared similar to birds he already knew and had described under the name Cyornis unicolor Blyth, 1843, from Sikkim. However, instead of applying this name in his discussion of these birds in the Leiden collection, presumably because of some uncertainty he retained MS names mentioned on their museum labels, listing them as “Cyornis cyanopolia (Boie)” and “Muscicapa infuscata (Müller)” (Blyth 1870). In doing so he laid the ground for a long-sustained dispute over name availability, redoubled by the discovery of Finsch (1901) that more than one taxon was involved. Aspects of this situation have been summarized recently by Dickinson et al. (2002), Mees (2004) and LeCroy (2008).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.