But Whittiker in Birds of Tunisia read it and quotes this article about nesting by Parus ledouci.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/49575#page/190/mode/1up .
He lists page 45 of the publication for OD of P. ledouci and I have seen same page number for P. caer
uleanus, OD.
The information about nesting quoted by Whitaker appears to be present in the 1845 paper, though, so it could quite easily have been quoted from there:
Whitaker 1905 (
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14035703):
[...] the only positive information we possess on the subject bemg, apparently, that given by Malherbe, when describing the bird as new (Mem. Soc. His. Nat. Moselle, 1842, p. 45). This was to the effect that M. Ledoux, the French officer after whom the species was named, had taken one of these Tits on a nest placed fifteen centimetres deep in the ground in the Forest of Edough, near Bone.
Malherbe 1845 (
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33792669):
Je dois cette mésange à l'obligeance de M. Ledoux, officier du génie dans la province de Bône, auquel je l'ai dédiée. Cet officier, qui s'occupe d'histoire naturelle avec un grand zèle et avec succès, a pris le 16 avril 1842 cet oiseau dans un nid profond de 15 centimètres pratiqué en terre dans la forêt de Ledoug.
Malherbe's 1845 paper was in
Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle,
3e cahier (title page:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33792701). But this journal started in 1843 as
Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle,
1er cahier (title page:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33692581), hence finding it misquoted as "
Mémoires" doesn't seem unexpectable. In the
1er cahier, we are told that the
Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle was created on 28 Sep 1835 (
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33692557). This
cahier also includes a complete report on the activities of the society in the years 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840 and 1841 -- i.e., since its creation, and as if no such thing had ever been done before. In this context, I don't think it very likely that another, earlier publication, also named
Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle might have existed.
I suspect Whitaker's reference is a corruption of Gadow 1883 (Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. 8:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8308110), who gave:
Parus ledoucii, Malh. Cat. Ois. Alg. in Mém. de la Soc. d'Hist. Nat. de la Moselle, 1842; id. Rev. Zool. 1846, p. 45 ; Bp. C. A. i. p. 229; id. Cat. Parzud., Append. p. 18; Loche, Cat. Mamm. et Ois. Alg. p. 78; id. Expl. de l'Alg., Ois. p. 298; Taczan. J. f. O. 1870, p. 41; Gurney, Ibis, 1871, p. 86, pl. 3; Dress. B. Eur. iii. pi. 107; Dixon, Ibis, 1882, p. 669.
Compare to Whitaker 1905 (
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14035702):
Parus ledoucii, Malherbe, Cat. Ois. Alg. in Mem. de la Soc. d'Hist. Nat. de la Moselle, 1842, p. 45.
Parus ledouci, Gadow, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. viii, p. 44; Malherbe, Cat. Rais. d'Ois. Alg. p. 12 (1846); Loche, Expl. Sci. Alg. Ois. i, p. 298, pl. vii. (1867); Koenig, J. f. O. 1888, p. 175; id. J. f. O. 1892, p. 374.
Parus ater ledouci, Erlanger, J. f. O. 1899, p. 309.
In Gadow, "p. 45" was the page on which the name appeared in 1846 in
Revue Zoologique (
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2362471); Whitaker omitted citing
Revue Zoologique altogether.
(Note that the species names, in
Rev. Zool., although being published under a title meaning "description of some new bird species from Algeria", were given the same dates as in the
Bulletin: 1843 for
Pica mauritanica, 1842 for the two
Parus; and all three names, despite these different dates, came with the same single reference: "Catal. des ois. obs. en Algérie, Bull. de la soc. d'hist. nat. de la Moselle". Obviously, these names cannot have been published in a single paper on two different years -- I would conclude again that the dates attributed to them by Malherbe were not intended to be dates of publication.)