Species names within the genus Agapornis
Part 1 – Agapornis pullarius
By Dirk Van den Abeele
Ornitho-Genetics VZW
Published in Agapornis.info the BVA-International magazine of February 2023
Is it personatus or personata? Is it cana or canus? Pullarius or pullaria? When I was recently asked to revisit this subject I was sent back in time 25 years in my mind, since even back then this was a ‘really hot topic’. The use of scientific names for bird species was at that time disrespected on a daily basis in aviculture.
I personally tried to use the correct scientific names. Together with the late Harrie van der Linden we had then made a study of the scientific names in among other the lovebirds. We therefore tried to introduce these names in aviculture but this was definitely not an easy feat. Most amateurs are fairly conservative and any change was (is) one too many. Were we now talking about personatus and canus while the amateurs had been talking about cana and personata for decades. People regularly confronted us who had a different opinion. Unfortunately their opinion was not based on the current rules in taxonomy. Some even took offense and tried to stop these modifications with all their might. It even went as far as some editorial staff changing the names of lovebird species in my articles behind my back into what they thought was correct. If I (unfortunately this could only happen after the publication of my article) reacted to this I always got the same excuse: “Ha, that must have been the auto corrector”. Yeah, the good old days ?
The Dutch terms such as ‘zwartmasker Agapornis’ (black faced Agapornis) or ‘rozekop Agapornis’ (pink faced Agapornis) were fortunately seldom or never used. Most aviculturists mainly used the terms cana, pullaria, personata or even nigrigenis. In itself not so bad, there is after all such a thing as hobby names and when this is limited to the articles in a hobby magazine it is not a disaster. But the main problem was that these names were also published in articles as if they were scientific names. This caused us to ridicule aviculture with regard to the outside world.
Admittedly, taxonomy, it is not a simple matter, and … not only hobbyists make mistakes. Even when species were described taxonomists sometimes made mistakes against these rules. You should also realize that over time a lot of names had to be modified because taxonomic rules have been added. Also, occasionally, a species was named wrongly (or it had already been described) and the name had to be adjusted accordingly (even numerous times). Also spelling mistakes in taxonomic lists had their influence. As you can see, more than enough reasons for this confusion.
The cause for this chaos is simple. You should imagine that the first people who described these species actually all had their own system. Explorers went to unknown countries and collected as many new animal and plant species as possible. These were then (in the case of birds) shipped to the homeland both alive and as skins. Upon arrival it were mainly the archivists of the national museums who described the species and, if they, according to the sources known to them, which were limited to books, not known yet, they were even allowed to name these species. In the beginning everyone used whatever name since there were little to no guidelines.
The first guidelines were drafted in 1842, when Hugh Strickland (1811 – 1853), an English scientist, together with The British Association for the advancement of Science, – put down the existing rules and agreements on taxonomy on paper [1]–[3] . In 1892 the second International Congress of Zoology was organized in Moscow and there it was decided to acknowledge the tenth edition of Systema Naturae, written by the Swedish scientist Carl van Linné, in 1758 and the accompanying binominal nomenclature as the basis for the Zoological nomenclature and therefore also as the basis for the taxonomy [4]. That set the tone. Afterwards a number of meetings were held which enhanced or modified the rules. Eventually ‘The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (I.C.Z.N.)’ in London became the official organization which maintains the rules and guidelines for scientific names.
For the sake of clarity, I will list the main rules for scientific names of the species. BTW: you can also find a summary of this on my website in the downloads section.
A scientific name for a bird consists of quite a lot of taxonomic parts. But the main parts for us are the name of the genus and the names of the species and the names of any sub species. These names should all be in Latin. Since each species is indicated with a genus name and species name this is called the binominal system. For instance take Agapornis canus ablectaneus. Agapornis is the name of the genus or taxonomic genus, the name of the species is canus and ablectaneus is the name of the sub species. Important rule: only the name of the genus should be written with a capital.
Another rule is that, if the name of the genus is grammatically speaking male, and the accompanying name of the species or sub species is a noun, then this should according to the Latin grammar have the extension ‘us’. If the name of the genus is female then the grammatical extension for the names of the species which are a noun, is ‘a’, and if the name of the genus is however neutral then the name of the species, if it is a noun, should have the grammatical extension ‘um’. In the case of Agapornis the genus name is male and hence the names of the (sub) species have the masculine extension: ‘us’.
But of course there are exceptions to this rule. If the species name refers to a person the rules change. If the species is named after a man the grammatical extension becomes ‘ii’ or ‘i’ (plural has the extension ‘orum’). If the species is named after a woman the name will have the grammatical extension ‘ae’ (plural has the extension ‘arum’). If the name refers to a geographical location then only the (in many cases Latin) name of that location is valid and if the name ends in ‘is’ (adjective) then the previous rules are not applicable.
As you can see: not an easy matter. It is therefore understandable that over time a lot of names for species had to be modified/corrected. Not only within the genus Agapornis, but within each species you find the same typical problems. Add to that the fact that now with the possibility of DNA research, the insights into family ties can regularly change. It also often happens that species have been described within a genus and that they are later on moved to another genus. If the grammatical gender of this genus name is different from the genus within which the species was first classified then of course the grammatical extension of the species name needs to be modified. This can again lead to the necessary confusion. Within the genus Agapornis this also happened.
To understand all this better I will give an overview of the species names within the genus Agapornis. You will see that some names within the genus have come a long way before they met all the taxonomic rules. This way you will better understand why names such as personata surfaced and why it should actually be personatus, etc, etc.
Agapornis
We will first start with the name of the genus: Agapornis. When the first lovebird species were described, the taxonomists at that time placed them within the genus Psittacus. Agapornis pullarius was the first to be mentioned within the genus Psittacus. The name Psittacus stems from Latin and means parakeet/parrot (in ancient Greek they used the terms ???????? /psittakós). Actually at that time most parakeets were grouped under the genus Psittacus. As knowledge was gained and more species were known and described the realization grew that a broader classification was needed.
Prideaux John Selby (1788-1867) classified the lovebird species known back then into a separate genus called Agapornis in 1836 [5]. Agapornis is a concatenation of the Greek words agapein and ornis meaning love bid. Hence the popular English name: lovebirds.
Step by step multiple birds were classified under various new genera (plural for genus). The genus name Psittacus still exists but currently this is limited to the family of the grey red-tailed parrots. The taxonomic world did accept, step by step, the genus name Agapornis for these birds and since then we can see in taxonomic lists as the name for the genus: Agapornis (Selby, 1836), the name Selby refers to the person who gave this genus its current name and in which year this occurred.
Agapornis pullarius
The honour to be the first species within the later genus Agapornis to be described befell Agapornis pullarius. Fun fact, the first know description dates back to 1605. In other words more than 400 years ago these birds were already known in Europe. They were probably only used to show off in a cage for a while since most aviculturists know that it is not easy to keep these birds alive, let alone breed them. After that there were various taxonomic descriptions of this species. These have all contributed to the current name for these birds. I will list the main one chronologically. As mentioned already, we start in 1605.
1605: In the book ‘Exoticorvm libri decem’ by Charles de L’Écluse (1526 – 1609), we find, as far as we know, the first description of Agapornis pullarius. In this book the Frenchman Charles de L’Écluse describes various exotic plants and animals and also mentioned probably the first Agapornis pullarius. At that time he called these birds Psittacus minimus, meaning ‘the smallest parrot’. Charles de L’Écluse was born in France and completed his studies in Belgium and the Netherlands. He is also known under the name Carolus Clusius, since at that time it was common for scientists to latinize their names. He died in Leiden, the Netherlands where he is also buried.
1713. That year the book Joannis Raii Synopsis methodica avium et piscium; opus posthumum, quod vivus recensuit et perfecit ipse was published. It contains descriptions of species which the Englishman John Ray (1627-1705) made during his lifetime. John Ray had already passed away 8 years prior to the publication of this book. It also contains a description which John made of Agapornis pullarius. He actually called this species Psittacus pusillus viridis aethiopicus, meaning ‘small green parrot from Ethiopia’. John Ray was what the English refer to as a parson-naturalist, a clerical naturalist, or a country priest who in addition to his task as a clergy man also studied natural sciences. Something which was fairly common at that time. Why he did not adopt the name Psittacus minimus which was already used by Charles de L’écluse will remain a mystery. The most likely explanation is that he was not aware of it, although we should also not exclude the possibility that he wanted to put his own mark on the species. One should not forget that in addition to a species name, in scientific publications, also the name of the person who first described the bird, is mentioned. But anyway, who can tell.
1733 – 1763. Johann Leonhard Frisch (1666 – 1743) a German ornithologist published in 1733 a book called : Vorstellung der vogel in Teutschland,und beyläuffig auch einiger fremden, mit ihren natürlichen farben with in it mainly drawings of various bird species. It is actually a collection of different separate works by the author. In part 4 we find one of the first drawings in colour of Agapornis pullarius and a brief description of the bird. Of course not under the current name, but as Psittacus minimus viridis (small green parrot). He also mentioned a French translation of the name: petit perroquet vert. He actually combined the two previous names. His ornithological studies actually resulted in an extensive publication with illustrations of birds in 12 parts. This book was completed in 1763, twenty years after his death, by three of his sons and a grandson [6].
1734. At that time the Dutch pharmacist, researcher Albertus Seba (1665 – 1736) published Locupletissimi Catalogus musei Leersiani. This is an overview of various animals and plants, known at that time. As was usually the case back then this consisted of a number of volumes. In volume 12 he mentions Agapornis pullarius under the name Psittacus minor versicolor (small multi-coloured parrot).
1738. Taxonomists mention volume 3 of A Natural History of Birds written by the English researcher Eleazar Albin (1690 – 1742). In it he mentions Agapornis pullarius under the name Psittacus parvus minimus. For completeness sake I should also add that years ago I went to have a look at this copy in an archive and I indeed found the drawing of Agapornis pullarius with the accompanying text containing a description of a male and a female of this species, only he called this species in the text (as far as I have found it back) ‘The small green paroqueet from East India’. He might have referred to this species in later works under the name Psittacus parvus minimus, but I was not able to find this back.
1758. George Edwards (1694-1773) was an English natural scientist and ornithologist. His work A Natural History of Birds was at that time considered the leading work in England. It was written in English and French and in the first part he mentioned Agapornis pullarius under the name Little red-headed Parrakeet or Guiney Sparrow. In French this sounds like La Petite perruche à tête rouge or le moineau de Guinée. Although he actually did not really use scientific names in his book it is said that A Natural History of Birds is one of the books on which Linnaeus based his Systema naturae in 1758. He is sometimes referred to as ‘the father of British ornithology’.
1758. Carl van Linné (1707 – 1778), also known as Carl Linnaeus (latinized as Carolus Linnaeus) published the tenth edition of Systema Naturae. In it he introduces his binominal system and all species have a genus name and a species name. Agapornis pullarius is also described in it, albeit under the name Psittacus pullarius, which indicates that he classified these birds, like nearly all other parakeets, under the genus Psittacus. The description however is fairly limited and he also refers to earlier descriptions by other authors. Fun fact: he mentions ‘Habitat in Asia, Aethiopia’ or habitat in Asia – Ethiopia. We now know that the presence of Agapornis pullarius in Ethiopia was rather limited to the border region with Uganda and that on the other hand these birds were actually spread across the entire equatorial area in Africa. Something which was clearly not know back then.
1760. The French researcher Mathurin-Jacques Brisson (1723 – 1806) published volume 4 of Ornithologia sive synopsis methodice sistens Avium divisiones in ordine. In it we not only find beautiful engravings of birds by François Nicolas Martinet (1731 – 1800), but also an extensive description of Agapornis pullarius in Latin and in French. He mentions that these birds originated in Guinea and therefore calls them Psittacula guineensis or parrot from Guinea. In French he uses the name La petite perruche de Guinéé.
Since the previous authors indicated Ethiopia as the habitat of Agapornis pullarius and the rather limited descriptions of these birds in these books, it is not surprising that Brisson might have thought that this was probably a different species. The birds he described all came from Guinea. He is probably also the first to classify then in the genus Psittacula.
1770 – 1783. During this period the French researcher Louis Jean-Marie D’Aubenton (1716 – 1799) published the ten part book series Planches Enluminées d’Histoire Naturelle and with the birds he describes Agapornis pullarius under the name Petite Perruche mâle de Guinée.
1776. The German theologist/researcher Philipp Ludwig Statius Müller (1725 – 1776) published a German translation of Linnaeus’ Systema naturae under the name Des Ritters C.von Linné…vollständige Natursystem nach dem zwölften Latinischen Aufgabe. A number of new species and modifications are included in this. We also find Agapornis pullarius back under the name Psittacus guineensis. As you can see the species name guineensis which Brisson used was retained, but the author classified the species within the genus Psittacus.
1779. Georges-Louis Leclerc, Count of Buffon (1707 – 1788) published the 24-part Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière between 1749 and 1783. In part 6, Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, he mentions Agapornis pullarius under the French name: Perruche à tête rouge ou Moineau de Guinée. He apparently used the same names as George Edwards in 1758.
1781. John Latham (1740 –1837), an English naturalist published A General Synopsis of Birds, an overview of the birds known at that time in three volumes. In it he mentions Agapornis pullarius as Red-headed Guinea Parrakeet.
1826. In England James Francis Stephens (1792 – 1852) created an extensive index of 14 volumes containing the animals known at that time with the title General Zoology, or systematic natural history, or systematic natural History. In the second part of volume 14 we find Agapornis pullarius under the name Psittacula pullaria. He used the species name which Linneaeus had proposed in 1758, he only classified it under the genus Psittacula. Since the grammatical gender of Psittacula is female, he correctly changed, for the sake of clarity for this genus name, the species name from pullarius to pullaria.
1836. The genus Agapornis was born. Prideaux John Selby introduced the name Agapornis for the members of the family of little parrots from Africa in his book The naturalist’s Library Parrots.
1838. Alexandre Bourjot Saint-Hilaire, (1801-1886), mentions Agapornis pullarius in Histoire Naturelle des Perroquets under the name Psittacula rubricollis vel pullaria guineensis. As you can see this author does not take into account yet the proposal by Selby to use the genus Agapornis for these birds. The fact that Selby had written his book in English and that the knowledge of the English language in France was rather limited at that time will probably have been a contributing factor.
1842. As a member of a specially created committee Hugh Edwin Strickland (1811 – 1853) published a document containing the basic rules for the zoological nomenclature. These rules, the Strickland code as they are called now, states among other that when multiple names are used for the same taxon, only the name published first should be accepted as the valid name. This means that from then on all members of the genus Agapornis should be classified within this genus. It is after all the first and only name given to this genus. The references to Psittacus and Psittacula are obsolete, since these names were used for all parakeets/parrots at that time.
1854. In Revue et Magasin de Zoologie pure et appliquée Charles Lucien Bonaparte (1803 – 1857) – a cousin of Napoleon Bonaparte -, describes Agapornis pullarius under the name Agapornis pullaria. He uses the genus name correctly but he made a mistake with the species name. Since grammatically the genus Agapornis is male, it should be pullarius.
1863. In volume 10 of Journal für Ornithologie the German Martin Theodor von Heuglin (1824 – 1876) describes a new species, namely Agapornis xanthops (xanth = yellow, ops = face, mask, eye). In the description he mentions that these birds are similar to and I quote ‘ pullariae’, but that this species had a paler beak. Of course they soon noticed that these were Agapornis pullarius and definitely not a new species. But yes, just like some aviculturists hope to be the first to have a new colour mutation if their birds have a deviating appearance, some taxonomists like to believe that they are dealing with a new species if they detect even the smallest variation. Of as Inte Onsman always says: ‘The wish is the father of the thought’.
1892. The second ‘International Congress of Zoology’, decided to recognize the tenth edition of Systema Naturae, from 1758 and the accompanying binominal nomenclature as the basis for the Zoological nomenclature. The result is that all names which do not meet these requirements are not valid. Since Linneaus described Agapornis pullarius in this edition as Psittacus pullarius, this meant that only the name pullarius is valid for this species. In combination with the correct genus name this is therefore Agapornis pullarius.
1908. The German professor Oscar Neumann (1867-1946) determined in 1908 the sub species pullarius ugandae. Oscar Rudolph Neumann was a German ornithologist who travelled throughout Africa multiple times between 1892 and 1901 and described there different new species. From 1908 on he worked for a long period in the Walter Rothschild Zoological Museum in Tring (UK). There he collaborated on the publications of Novitates Zoologicae. Novitates Zoologicae. This was an edition by the Walter Rothschild Zoological Museum and was published for the first time in 1894. In these books (new) species from the collection were described. In the fifteenth edition from 1908 we find the first description of Agapornis pullarius ugandae (pullarius from Uganda). Unfortunately he wrongly mentioned Agapornis pullaria ugandae instead of Agapornis pullarius ugandae. According to Neumann the difference between the nominal form and the sub species is down to the rump colour. Something which I strongly doubt [7, p. 51].
1924. After Neumann described the sub species Agapornis pullarius ugandae, William Lutley Sclater (1863 –1944) mentions in Systema Avium Ethiopicarum, the nominal type of pullarius as Agapornis pullaria pullaria. It is clear that he continued on from the existing name in Neumann’s book and because of this the mistake was not discovered.
1997. del Hoyo, Elliott & Sargatal noticed the unwarranted use of Agapornis pullaria and corrected this in their Handbook of the Birds of the World. They correctly mentioned Agapornis pullarius pullarius and as a sub species Agapornis pullarius ugandae.
As you can see, this is not an easy subject matter, and without criticising the contribution of the various taxonomists in their attempt to create a clear classifications of the species, it is easy for mistakes to happen. Currently this is a lot simpler since most sources are available on the internet, but this was not always the case. These people had to make do with the sources at their disposal and sometimes it took years for the new information to appear in the correct places. Once you understand this you can only respect the work of these taxonomists.
Sources
[1] H. E. Strickland en B. A. for the A. of Science, Rules for zoological nomenclature. J. Murray, 1878.
[2] Strickland, Strickland Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 1840. Consulted: 30 September 2013. [Online]. Available on: http://archive.org/details/cbarchive_41401_stricklandcodeofzoologicalnome1840
[3] L. C. Rookmaaker, ‘The early endeavours by Hugh Edwin Strickland to establish a code for zoological nomenclature in 1842-1843.’, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., vol. 68, nr. 1, p. 29, 2011.
[4] B. Dayrat, ‘17 Celebrating 250 Dynamic Years of Nomenclatural Debates’, Syst. Naturae 250 Linnaean Ark, p. 185, 2009.
[5] J. S. Prideaux, ‘Agapornis swindernianus’, in The naturalis library, 1836, pp. 138–140.
[6] A. Kraft, ‘“NOTITIA CŒRULEI BEROLINENSIS NUPER INVENTI” ON THE 300th ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST PUBLICATION ON PRUSSIAN BLUE’, Bull Hist Chem, vol. 36, nr. 1, p. 7, 2011.
[7] D. Van den Abeele, Lovebirds Compendium, 1ste dr. Warffum- The Netherlands: About Pets, 2016.
