Hodgson (1845) described 49 ‘new’ taxa. It appears that when he prepared this paper for publication Hodgson was unaware of parallel publications by Blyth. Conflicts of priority are thus a concern and although Blyth’s relevant papers have generally been conceded to have priority the ‘fit’ of the dates has not previously been clearly explained. We apply the dates for Blyth’s papers provided by Dickinson & Pittie (2006) and confirm that these fit with previous understanding, implying that no fresh issues of priority arise. 26 of the 49 ‘new’ taxa prove not to have been new, having been named before. Of 18 Hodgson names 16 are in current use. Another has been replaced by a nomen novum due to preoccupation, and one more has been declared a nomen oblitum. Three of Hodgson’s 1845 novelties seem to be duplicate names, their subjects having been named twice in the same paper. Two others present problems of identification which require that the type material be re-studied; such studies will be carried out after Hodgson’s drawings have been fully studied and the sequence of his drawing numbers presented and explained. Some notes are provided on five of the 49 names. The name Buteo plumipes (Parbattiah = Hodgson, 1836) must be used in place of Buteo burmanicus Hume, 1875. The type locality of Digenea leucomelanura is restricted to the central hills of Nepal.

, , , , , , , ,
Zoologische Mededelingen

Released under the CC-BY 4.0 ("Attribution") License

Naturalis journals & series

Dickinson, E., & Walters, M. (2006). Systematic notes on Asian birds. 54. Comments on the names proposed by Hodgson (1845) and their priority. Zoologische Mededelingen, 80(5), 155–167.