There seems to be a fair bit of confusion with the scientific name for
Little Kingfisher. Not only do C&B use pusilla on p69 and pusillus on
p169, but they use both pusillus and pusilla on p169. If you google C.
pusillus and C. pusilla, you come up with references to it being
Little Kingfisher. It would appear that a typo has occurred somewhere
along the line and it has lead to this confusion.
The Index of Organism Names http://www.organismnames.com/ uses C.
pusillus and the ION is generally regarded as the the authoritative
source for scientific names. The only problem with that is that
Temmink, when he described the species in 1836, called it Ceyx pusilla
So, there you go. Call it whatever you like, because whichever name
you use, someone will say you are wrong.
On 31/10/2008, at 1:12 PM, Frank O'Connor wrote:
I have just read the review by Stephen Debus of C&B2008 in the latest
Australian Field Ornithology.
He points out that on page 29, Little Kingfisher has the scientific
name Ceyx pusilla, where on page 169 both that and Ceyx pusillus are
used. Which is correct? He states that C. pusillus is correct.
But there are several other species with pusilla as their specific
name. Namely Baillon's Crake, Little Lorikeet and Brown Thornbill.
So I would assume that pusilla is correct for Little Kingfisher?
The IOU list and Clements have Alcedo pusilla. The different genus
might make a difference.
Frank O'Connor Birding WA http://birdingwa.iinet.net.au
Phone : (08) 9386 5694 Email :
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message:
unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)