The colour (color) χλωρος khlōros chloros … (1 Viewer)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Being an illustrator I feel I simply have to ask … hence, as I understand it, khlōros, chloros is a yellowish green colour … a green tinged in yellow, a fresh golden green, "spring green" alt. the green of new growth.

From today's HBW Alive Key (for example, there are several, a multitude of chloro-what-ever's):

CHLOROPHONIA
(Fringillidae; Ϯ Blue-naped Chlorophonia C. cyanea) Gr. χλωρος khlōros green; genus Euphonia Desmarest, 1806, euphonia; "Le nom de CHLOROPHONIA pourra s'appliquer aux Euphones vertes, si remarquables par leurs formes de Procnias" (Bonaparte 1851). Var. Chloreuphonia

CHLOROPETA
(Acrocephalidae; Ϯ African Yellow Warbler C. natalensis) Gr. χλωρος khlōros yellow; πετης petēs flier < πετομαι petomai to fly. Var. Chloropeda, Chloropetes.

Well, is it green or yellow?

--

 

[l_raty]

χλωρός , ά, όν,

A.greenish-yellow, pale green, “χλωραὶ ῥῶπες” Od.16.47; “ὄρος . . χλωρόν” h.Ap.223; “χλωραὶ ἐλάται” Pi.Fr.167, E.Ba.38; “χλωραῖς ὑπὸ βάσσαις” S.OC673 (lyr.); “χλωρὰν ἀν᾽ ὕλην” E.Hipp.17; “δόνακι χλωρὸν Εὐρώταν” Id.Hel.349 (lyr.), cf. S.Ant.1132 (lyr.); also in Prose, “σίτου ἔτι χ. ὄντος” Th.4.6; “τὰ φυόμενα χ. τὸ πρῶτον εἶναι” Thphr.Sens. 78; ἡ χ. the green plaster, Androm. ap. Gal.13.470; χλωρὸς λίθος, = σμάραγδος, PHolm.5.10; of sea-water, Poet. ap. Plu.2.767f(cf. E.Fr. 1084); of other water, AP9.669.3 (Marian.): χλωρά, ἡ, green paint, as a stage-property to represent a river in scenery, Pap. in Eos. 32.30 (v/vi A. D.).

2. yellow, “μέλι χ.” Il.11.631, Od.10.234; ἀμφὶ χλωρὰν ψάμαθον on the yellow sand, S.Aj.1064; ᾠοῦ τὸ χ. yolk of egg, Zopyr. ap. Orib.14.61.1.​

II. generally, pale, pallid, “χλωρὸς ἀδάμας” Hes.Sc.231: most freq.,

2. of persons, pale, “χλωρὸς ὑπαὶ δείους” Il.10.376, 15.4; χ. Ἀχλύς (personified) Hes.Sc.265; “χλωροτέρα . . ποίας ἔμμι” Sapph.2.14; hence as an epith. of fear, “χλωρὸν δέος” Il.7.479, Od.11.43, etc.; “χλωρῷ δείματι” A.Supp.566 (lyr.), cf. E.Supp.599 (lyr.): in Medic. writers, yellow, biliouslooking, ὀφθαλμοὶ -ότεροι v. l. in Hp.VM10; “χρῶμα χ. ἴσχειν” Id.Prog. 24; “σῶμα . . οὔτε χ. ἀλλ᾽ ὑπέρυθρον” Th.2.49; also χ. πτύελος, οὖρον, Hp.Prog.14, VM10 (Comp.).​

III. without regard to colour, green, i. e. fresh, opp. dry, esp. of wood, ῥόπαλον . . χλωρὸν ἐλαΐνεον of green olive-wood, Od.9.320, cf. 379; opp. αὖος, Hes.Op.743; “τὰ σφόδρα χ. ἄκαυστα” Arist.Mete.387a22; χ. ξύλα ib.374a5, al.; of various things, “χλωραὶ ἐέρσαι” Pi.N.8.40; τυρὸς χ. fresh cheese, Ar.Ra.559, Lys.23.6; of fish, fresh, not salted, Ath.7.309b; of fruit, fresh picked, IG22.1013.23, Dsc.1.113.

2. metaph., fresh, blooming, χλωρόν τε καὶ βλέποντα Trag. ap. Hsch. (perh. to be read in A.Ag.677 for καὶ ζῶντα καὶ β.）; λειμὼν ἄνθεσι (sed fort. ἔρνεσι）“ θάλλων χλωροῖς” E.IA1297 (lyr.); “χλωρὸν γόνυ” Theoc.14.70; “χ. αἷαμα” fresh, living, S.Tr.1055, E.Hec.127 (anap.); χ. δάκρυ fresh, bursting tear, E.Med.906, cf. 922, Hel.1189; “χλωρὰ δακρύων ἄχνα” S.Tr.847 (lyr.); “οἴνου χλωραὶ σταγόνες” sparkling, E.Cyc.67 (lyr.).
3. metaph., unripe, “χ. καὶ ἄναιμα πράγματα” Gorg.Fr.16. (Not contr. fr. χλοερός but cogn. with it and χλόη.）​

(Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940. On Perseus.)

So, basically: it can be both, depending on context...
If meaning green, it will be a pale, yellowish, "tender" green. If meaning yellow, it will generally be a pallid tone as well (honey ["μέλι"], sand -- "ᾠοῦ τὸ χλωρόν" for egg yolk seems to contradict this, though [but I don't know the origin of the phrase, and it might derive from the colour of cooked yolk, which is already much paler than raw yolk]).

 

[njlarsen]

If meaning yellow, it will generally be a pallid tone as well (honey ["μέλι"], sand -- "ᾠοῦ τὸ χλωρόν" for egg yolk seems to contradict this, though [but I don't know the origin of the phrase, and it might derive from the colour of cooked yolk, which is already much paler than raw yolk]).

The color of Yolk also depends a lot on what the chicken has been fed. Today, commercial chicken all get supplemented year round with beta-carotene, so you rarely see the pale yellow yolk of winter that that I remember from our home-raised chickens when I was a child.

Niels

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks guys!

This is really far beyond my grasp … but I have to give it a try.

The main reason for post #1 is that I´ve started to look into the Common name Chlorophonia [in Swedish klorofonia], obviously based on the same Scientific Generic name Chlorophonia BONAPARTE 1851 (here), in its turn, (as I understand it) based on "Chlorophonia viridis, Bp. (Tanagra viridis, Vieill.— Procnias viridis, Caban. - Euphonia viridis, Gr.) …" [this time clearly green ] and onwards.

But what puzzles me is: What "Tanagra viridis" by Vieillot is that? The One species apparently being the foundation for the Generic name. Is it this one, here? From 1819?

And if so: is that "viridis" somehow considered invalid?

What has today's Blue-naped Chlorophonia Chlorophonia cyanea THUNBERG 1822 (1817-1818, here, and Plate here, fig. 2) to do with the whole thing (as it apparently have, see the HBW Alive Key explanation post #1)?

Anyone know?
--

 

[l_raty]

Tanagra viridis Vieillot is the bird described in 1819 in the Deterville dictionary [here] as you suggest. Vieillot's description translates into: "To the exception of a boad blue collar on the upper side of the neck, this bird's entire plumage is green; this colour tends towards yellow on the breast and on the rear parts; it assumes a dark shade on the wings and tail. Its size is about that of the tangara organiste." (The tangara organiste is Tanagra musica Vieillot 1819 [OD], now Euphonia musica, Antillean Euphonia.) This description indicates Blue-naped Chlorophonia.

But the name is forever invalid, because it is a junior primary homonym of Tanagra viridis Statius Müller 1776 [OD]. Statius Müller 1776 cites Buffon as a source, and his Tanagra viridis is evidently based on Martinet's Planche enluminée #7 [here], which is a Paradise Tanager (now Tangara chilensis (Vigors 1832)), not belonging to the nominate subspecies (see the yellow upper-tail), and with a very odd tail coloration. This odd coloration is reflected in Statius Müller's text ("die Ruderfedern sind grün, die vier äussern aber rosenroth, und mit einen blauen Rand eingefaßt": "the tail feathers are green, but the four outer ones are rosy-red, and bordered by a blue edge"; in fact, the tail is black) -- maybe this is in part why we are not using this name for the species. (I'm not clear about this.)

 

[l_raty]

This odd coloration is reflected in Statius Müller's text ("die Ruderfedern sind grün, die vier äussern aber rosenroth, und mit einen blauen Rand eingefaßt": "the tail feathers are green, but the four outer ones are rosy-red, and bordered by a blue edge"; in fact, the tail is black) -- maybe this is in part why we are not using this name for the species. (I'm not clear about this.)

See the footnote in [Berlepsch 1908:115].

Buffon [here] wrote indeed that this plate was based on a composite specimen: "Le premier que l'on a repréſenté, pl. 7, fig. 1, ſous le nom de tangara, étoit un oiſeau ſéché au four, qui venoit du cabinet de M. de Réaumur; les gens qui avoient ſoin de ce cabinet, lui avoient ajouté une queue étrangère, & c'eſt ce qui a trompé nos peintres." -- "The first one that was pictured, plate 7, figure 1, under the name of tangara, was an oven-dried bird, that came from M. de Réaumur's cabinet; those who had this cabinet into care, had added an alien tail to it, & this is what misled our artists."

(Does a bird species with this tail colour actually exist?)

 

[mb1848]

(Does a bird species with this tail colour actually exist?)
Black Redstart? Great mystery found by Bjorn and great answer by Laurent.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

... and great answer by Laurent.

I agree.

Ok, this far (in short); the Generic name Chlorophonia BONAPARTE 1851 was created based on his own "Chlorophonia viridis" BONAPARTE 1851 (in this case, making the Chloro-part meaning green), the latter, in its turn, based on "Tanagra viridis" VIEILLOT 1810 that turned out to be preoccupied by "Tanagra viridis" STATIUS MULLER 1776 (a completely different bird), instead replaced (post-1851) by Chlorophonia cyanea THUNBERG 1822 (i.e. being the same bird as Vieillot's and Bonaparte's "viridis").

Is this correctly understood?

 

[l_raty]

Is this correctly understood?

Yes.

Attributing a "Chlorophonia viridis" to Bonaparte is a bit atypical nowadays, however. As others in his times, Bonaparte often cited the authors of the combination after a binomen, rather than the author of the species-group name as we do now. In this type of situation, no author would now write "Chlorophonia viridis Bp.", what would be used is: "Chlorophonia viridis (Vieillot)". Chlorophonia viridis "Bp." is Tanagra viridis Vieillot 1819, moved by Bonaparte into his new genus Chlorophonia.

(Ditto for Procnias viridis "Caban." and Euphonia viridis "Gr.": these are also both Tanagra viridis Vieillot 1819, moved by Cabanis and Gray into another genus.)

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks Laurent, and no worries regarding the various attributions, I will rephrase it all into running (out-spoken) Swedish text, I simply tried to understand how it all went down.

Thereby, this far we´ve solved the apparently easy Chloro-part in Chlorophonia. Great!

But how come the ending -phonia is suddenly meant to refer directly to the Generic name Euphonia DESMAREST 1806 and not (as earlier have been claimed) to φωνος phōnos (voice, with a clear alt. loud voice)?

And how is the Swedish ornithologist Sundevall involved, and the "Euphonia xanthogastra" (?) 1833, mentioned by Bonaparte, first link in post 4, on p.138 ( i.e. Sundevall's "E. [Euphone] xanthogaster", here) …?

 

[l_raty]

There is a sentence in Bonaparte's work ([same link] again) that introduces the genus:

Le nom de CHLOROPHONIA pourra s'appliquer aux Euphones vertes, si remarquables par leurs formes de Procnias.

= "The name of Chlorophonia can be applied to the green Euphonias, so remarkable for their shapes of Procnias."[*]
It certainly seems reasonable (to me) to assume that Bonaparte intended the name as meaning "Euphone verte"/"Green Euphonia", and formed it via a contraction of Chloro- (green) + Euphonia. Of course, "Euphonia" refers to the bird's nice voice, which makes sense; "Chlorophonia", if taken literally, would suggest a "green voice", which would mean nothing.

(Note also, a bit higher on the same page:

Les Euphones à bec de Bouvreuil constituent un genre PYRRUPHONIA, mais auquel je ne rapporte plus que deux espèces, les E. laniirostris et aenea ne pouvant être séparées des vrais Euphones.

= "The bullfinch-billed Euphonias make up a genus Pyrruphonia, but to which I don't refer more than two species, as the E. laniirostris et aenea cannot be separated from the true Euphonias."
This name is a similar contraction, of Pyrrhula (bullfinch) + Euphonia. In other words, the formation of Chlorophonia apparently followed a pathway homologous to that of the generic name that precedes it in the work.)

Sundevall is not really involved. Bonaparte just cites his species, saying he doesn't know it -- which suggests he thought it possible that it might be related to his Chlorophonia viridis. The citation -- "Tanagra xanthogaster, Sundev. (Euphonia xanthogastra, Gr.)" -- is imperfect: as you note, Sundevall called this species Euphone xanthogaster (misspelled "Euphone xanthogastes" on the plate that is expressly cited by Bonaparte). Also, Sundevall's description is very clear that this is a typical purple and yellow species ("violaceo niger jugulo concolore, subtus pileoque saturate flavofulvus": purplish-black with the throat of the same colour, with underparts and crown deep fulvous-yellow), which would have had no place in a genus said to include only green birds. I think it likely that Bonaparte had not seen this work at all, and was citing it from secondary sources only; if he had seen it, I'm at loss as to why he quoted it there.

----

[*] Note: "Procnias" = Procnias Illiger 1811 [OD] sensu Temminck 1820 [here]. This name was used back then for the Swallow Tanager. It is now used in a completely different sense (for South American bellbirds), on account of a type designation by Gray 1840 [here] . (Which I have never understood, actually. Temminck states clearly that the type is his "Tersine", and cites Hirundo viridis -- which is an originally included nominal species of Procnias -- as a name applying to it. This was 20 years before Gray: this should stand as the earliest type designation. If anyone has an explanation to this oddity, I'd be really interested...)

 

[mb1848]

oddity:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/32324#page/912/mode/1up .
footnote b.
http://www.gepog.org/sites/default/files/fichiers/educ_env/etymo/divinites.pdf .
http://www.oiseaux.net/buffon/tome4/tersine.html .

 

[l_raty]

oddity:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/32324#page/912/mode/1up .
footnote b.

fixation by elimination:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article=69&nfv=#1
Art. 69.4.

(The question mark that follows the two first species cited by Illiger ("Ampelis variegata, carunculata? LinGmel.") is ambiguous and has led to divergent interpretations. Here, Ridgway reads it as applying to carunculata only; but various workers, including Temminck, Cabanis, etc., have assumed that it applied to both. A species which was originally "doubtfully or conditionally included" in a genus, "or was cited as a species inquirenda, or as a species incertae sedis", is deemed not to be originally included (Art. 67.2.5.), hence is in no case eligible to become its type: if the question mark applies to the two first species, the type species is fixed originally as Hirundo viridis Temminck by monotypy. Whether or not one accepts fixations by elimination.)

Hellmayr 1929 did not maintain a fixation by elimination, which by then was not seen as acceptable any more: "type by subs. desig. (GRAY, List Gen. Birds, p. 34, 1840) "P. variegatus (L.) ILL." = Ampelis variegata GMELIN = Ampelis averano HERMANN." This is also the type fixation given in H&M4(2):16: "Ampelis variegata J.F. Gmelin, 1789; type by subsequent designation (G.R. Gray, 1840, A List of the Genera of Birds, p. 34). = Ampelis averano Hermann, 1783." But this is later than Temminck 1820...

Strickland's comments (1842), after Gray, who designated variegata in 1840, had changed his mind on the subject in 1841 (it didn't last long!): http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/18685225

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks Laurent! Also to Mark (for the interesting detour of Laurent's "oddity") …

Well, that´s all (and more than) I need

Almost good that the Swedish ornithologist Sundevall wasn´t involved (more than this). For us Swedes it´s quite sufficient with Thunberg.

Chlorophonia … (at least on my behalf) over and out!

 

[mb1848]

"This is also the type fixation given in H&M4, But this is later than Temminck 1820." says Laurent. Then does this apply? 70.2. Type fixation overlooked. If it is found that an earlier type species fixation has been overlooked, the overlooked fixation is to be accepted and any later fixations are invalid. If this is considered to cause instability or confusion the case is to be referred to the Commission for a ruling.

 

[l_raty]

Then does this apply? 70.2. Type fixation overlooked.

Unless there was a good reason to discard Temminck's action (but I don't see what it would be), I'd say that it does.