Faunistic Work of an Ornithological Swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870–1904): an Assessment

Mlíkovský J. / Faunistic work of Josef Prokop Pražák

Faunistic work of an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870–1904): an assessment

Zhodnocení faunistického díla ornitologického podvodníka Josefa Prokopa Pražáka (1870–1904)

Jiří Mlíkovský

Department of Zoology, National Museum, Václavské náměstí 68, CZ-115 79 Praha 1, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected]

Mlíkovský J. 2012: Faunistic work of an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870–1904): an assessment. Sylvia 48: 152–161.

Josef Prokop Pražák (1870–1904) published faunistic data on the birds of Austrian East Galicia, China, Chile and Bohemia. Many of these data are highly improbable or even demonstrably fraudulent. As shown elsewhere (Mlíkovský 2011), Pražák was a deliberate swindler from the beginning of his scientific career to the end of his life. Pražák was a talented ornithologist and some of his faunistic data may be genuine. However, such a large amount of the data he published is demonstrably or probably fraudulent that none can be accepted as valid, because there is no way how to discern between Pražák’s genuine and fraudulent data. In 1893 and 1894, Pražák donated voucher specimens of some of his Bohemian “rarities” to the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Austria. At least one of these specimens had been previously stolen by Pražák from the collections of this Museum. Thus, none of these specimens can be used as evidence for the occurrence of the species in question in Bohemia.

Josef Prokop Pražák (1870–1904) publikoval faunistická data o ptácích rakouské Východní Haliče, Číny, Chile a Čech. Mnohé z těchto údajů jsou vysoce nepravděpodobné či dokon- ce prokazatelně zfalšované. Jak jsem ukázal jinde (Mlíkovský 2011), Pražák byl vědomým podvodníkem od počátku své vědecké kariéry až do konce svého života. Pražák byl dobrým ornitologem, takže některé z jeho faunistických údajů mohou být pravdivé. Z jeho dat je však takové množství prokazatelně či pravděpodobně zfalšovaných, že žádná nelze akceptovat, zejména proto, že nelze odlišit, které z Pražákových údajů jsou pravé a které zfalšované. V le- tech 1893 a 1894 daroval Pražák dokladové exempláře některých ze svých českých “vzácností” Přírodovědeckému muzeu ve Vídni v Rakousku. Alespoň jeden z těchto exemplářů však Pražák předtím z tohoto Muzea ukradl. Žádný z těchto exemplářů nelze tedy použít jako doklad pro výskyt dotyčného druhu v Čechách.

Keywords: avifauna, Austrian Galicia, China, Chile, Bohemia, 19th century, fraud, history, ornithology

152 Sylvia 48 / 2012

INTRODUCTION realistic data contained in Pražák’s work on the birds of Galicia attracted atten- Josef Prokop Pražák (*22 June 1870, tion of ornithologists connected with Hořiněves, eastern Bohemia – †15 July Vienna, who subsequently documented 1904, Hořiněves) was a talented orni- that many of the data in Pražák’s Ornis thologist who published a number of Ost-Galiziens were fraudulent (Tschusi contributions on the faunistics, ecology 1897, 1899, Lorenz-Liburnau 1898a,b,c, and systematics of birds in 1894–1900 Reiser 1899); see also Reichenow (1899), (Mlíkovský 2011). A complete list of Lorenz-Liburnau (1901), Jourdain (1934), Pražák’s ornithological papers is given Schmuck (2010) and Mlíkovský (2011). in the ‘Literature’ section (below). Their detailed analysis of Pražák’s Ornis Pražák spent most of his life in Bohemia, Ost-Galiziens resulted in a quick end of but lived in Vienna, Austria, in 1893– Pražák’s scientific carrier (see Mlíkovský 1895 and in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 2011 for details). Evidently no faunistic 1896– 1898, and was several times garri- (and other) data published by Pražák on soned in Lemberg, Austrian Galicia (now the birds of East Galicia can be used in Lviv, Ukraine) during his army service ornithological studies, except those on (Mlíkovský 2011). His faunistic papers the history of ornithology. deal primarily with the birds of Bohemia (Pražák 1893a,b,c,d,e, 1894a,b,d,e, Birds of China Kněžourek & Pražák 1894, 1895) and Pražák (1897c) said that he had received Galicia (Pražák 1897e, 1898a), but he a collection of birds gathered in the Hunan allegedly worked also on bird collec- Province, China, by Mr. Jaworowski. tions from Chile (Pražák 1896a) and Both the collector and the collection China (Pražák 1897c). His taxonomic probably existed only in Pražák’s mind papers involved specimens from various (Mlíkovský 2011: 62). Pražák (1897c: parts of the world, for which genuine 328) based Trochalopteron hennickei, or fictitious localities were mentioned. an alleged new timalia species, upon For the discussion of these records see three alleged specimens from this collec- Mlíkovský (2011). tion (allegedly collected by Jaworowski Below I summarize Pražák’s faunis- at the outflow of the Yuan River in the tic achievements and discuss their us- Dongting Lake, Hunan Province on 26 ability for the study of local avifaunas of August 1896). These specimens being Austrian East Galicia, China, Chile and fictitious (Mlíkovský 2011: 62), Pražák Bohemia. This is a companion paper to did not contribute to the knowledge of my study of Pražák’s taxonomic work avifauna of the Hunan Province. (Mlíkovský 2011). Birds of Chile Birds of East Galicia Pražák (1896a: 23) described a new Pražák (1897e, 1898a) published a volu- lapwing species, Vanellus grisescens, minous treatise on the avifauna of East upon a single specimen allegedly col- Galicia, then part of Austria-Hungary, now lected by Mr. Richard Materna in “Nord divided between Poland and Ukraine. He Chili” (northern Chile). Both the collec- visited the country several times during tor and the specimen probably existed army trainings, but he did not show any only in Pražák’s mind (Mlíkovský 2011: interest in local birdlife during these 62). Pražák thus did not contribute to the stays (Lorenz-Liburnau 1898c). Many un- knowledge of the avifauna of Chile.

153 Mlíkovský J. / Faunistic work of Josef Prokop Pražák

Birds of Bohemia and that Pražák attributed them to the Pražák wrote several papers on the late Vařečka to increase the credibility birds of eastern Bohemia, where he of his (Pražák’s) papers. There is no was born and where he repeatedly re- indication that Vařečka did anything turned during his life, but his work on dishonest in his ornithological studies. Bohemian birds was not limited to this All records of rarities credited by Pražák region (Pražák 1893a,b,c,d,e, 1894b,d,e). to Vařečka thus should be attributed to Also, Pražák (1894a) wrote a check-list Pražák himself and all are deemed to be of birds of Bohemia, a brief history of fictitious. Bohemian ornithology (Pražák 1897b,d) Kněžourek’s and Pražák’s joint paper and a bibliography of the Bohemian ornithological literature (Pražák 1897d). In Karel Kněžourek (1857–1921), an or- addition, Pražák edited and co-authored nithologist of high reputation, was Karel Kněžourek’s paper on the birds of a village teacher (Hudec 1999), who rec- eastern Bohemia (Kněžourek & Pražák ognized Pražák’s talents and esteemed 1894, 1895). his ornithological qualities in the mid- 1890s, as evidenced from his Ptactvo Vařečka’s reports české (The birds of Bohemia), a work Pražák (1893a) listed some records of which was never published, but the Bohemian birds as reported to him by manuscript of which survived in the “his friend” Vařečka. Dalimil Vařečka Moravian Museum, Brno (Kněžourek (1867–1893) was a talented ornitholo- 1885–1886). On a later date, presumably gist interested mainly in the avifau- in 1893 or 1894, Kněžourek amended na of Písek, western Bohemia, and its this work according to Pražák (1893a). surroundings (Hudec 1999). He died It is apparent from these additions at a young age shortly before Pražák that Kněžourek trusted Pražák at that started to publish his own papers. time (although he later changed his Records of birds attributed by Pražák to mind; see Kněžourek in Kleinschmidt Vařečka are not contained in Vařečka’s 1905). When Pražák moved to Vienna Ornis kraje píseckého (Birds of the in January 1893, Kněžourek used this Písek District). This manuscript, pre- occasion and sent him a manuscript on sumably unknown to Pražák, was avail- the birds of eastern Bohemia. Pražák able to Karel Kněžourek (1857–1921), edited this manuscript to an unknown who edited and amended it (Kněžourek degree, added new data and co-au- 1895). No extant copy of Vařečka’s man- thored the manuscript (Kněžourek uscript is known to have survived, but & Pražák 1894, 1895). In this paper, Kněžourek’s manuscript from 1895, additions signed by Pražák are printed deposited in the Moravian Museum, as footnotes, while the main text is Brno, was retyped and published by attributed to Kněžourek. I found no Bureš et al. (1995), who, unfortunately, suspect data in the main (Kněžourek’s) did not distinguish between Vařečka’s text and, to the best of my knowledge, original text and Knežourek’s additions. Kněžourek never objected to this work. The absence of records attributed by It is thus probable that the main text Pražák to Vařečka from this manuscript indeed contains genuine Kněžourek’s indicates that Vařečka never communi- data and that Pražák’s data (whether cated such records to Pražák, that these correct or fictitious) are confined to the records existed only in Pražák’s mind footnotes.

154 Sylvia 48 / 2012

Pražák’s manuscript on bird migration back to the NHMW, how many speci- Probably in 1896 Pražák submitted mens he purchased from natural history a lengthy manuscript on bird migra- dealers and how many (if any) specimens tion in eastern Bohemia with records of he collected in Bohemia. However, the spring arrival spanning over 100 years (!) significant piece of evidence provided to the Hungarian journal Aquila. Pražák’s by Bauernfeind is sufficient for a rejec- data from this manuscript were detected tion of the Pražák collection as a support as fraudulent (Herman 1897, Hegyfoky for his (Pražák’s) records of rarities from 1897) and the manuscript thus was never Bohemia. published. A full reevaluation of Pražák specimens in the NHMW will, by necessi- Pražák specimens in the NHMW ty, include an identification of Pražák Pražák donated at least 234 skins of specimens with those missing from the Bohemian birds (plus some other skins NHMW. This task will be possible only and nests) to the Naturhistorisches after the NHMW bird collection is com- Museum Wien (NHMW), including 83 pletely databased. I thus refrained from skins in 1893 and 151 skins in 1894. Most listing here all individual specimens of these skins are still deposited there. from the Pražák collection and limited These skins are correctly identified at myself to indicate in the list of Pražák’s species level, to the best of my knowl- “rarities” (below) which of the speci- edge (I checked some but not all specimens were registered in the catalogue of mens), and are usually accompanied with the NHMW Bird Collection. exact localities and exact dates supplied Selected Pražák’s “rarities” from by Pražák. This collection has been un- Bohemia derstood as hard evidence which prevented some of Pražák’s highly improb- Here I present a selection of Bohemian able faunistic records from being rejected “rarities” published by Pražák. The se- at once, although the high degree of quence and nomenclature of species improbability of some of these records follows Hudec et al. (1995) and Mlíkovský in turn casted doubts on the credibility of (2003). Scientific names in quotation the Pražák collection. The proof that the marks and parentheses are those used Pražák collection is not trustworthy was by Pražák (added if different from those provided in 2007 by Ernst Bauernfeind, in current use). a bird curator at the NHMW, who found Platalea leucorodia: (1) specimen col- that the allegedly Bohemian specimen lected at “Königgrätz” = Hradec of Prunella montanella (NHMW 11423) Králové in 1893 (Pražák 1893b: 138); is identical with a specimen collected (2) specimen collected at “Střebeš by Dybowski at Kultuk, Lake Baikal, (Bezirk Königgrätz)” = Hradec Krá East Siberia, Russia around the 1870s, lové-Třebeš in June 1893 (Pražák which was missing from the NHMW (see 1893b: 138); (3) specimen collected at Mlíkovský 2011: 50). It is evident in this “Račic, Bezirk Jaroměř” = Račice nad case that Pražák had stolen and relabelled Trotinou in July 1893 (Pražák 1893b: a NHMW specimen and then donated 138). the specimen back to the NHMW. It is Tadorna ferruginea (“Tadorna ca unknown at this moment how many of sarca”): specimen collected at “Roth- the specimens from this collection Pražák Kostelec” = Červený Kostelec in 1889 had first stolen from and then donated (Pražák 1893a: 102).

155 Mlíkovský J. / Faunistic work of Josef Prokop Pražák

Tadorna tadorna (“Tadorna damiatica”): Tringa stagnatilis: specimen collected at specimen collected at “Střebeš (Bezirk “Roth-Kostelec” = Červený Kostelec in Königgrätz)” = Hradec Králové-Třebeš 1892 (Pražák 1893a: 101). in 1879 (Pražák 1893a: 102). Syrrhaptes paradoxus: unspecified Buteo buteo vulpinus (“Buteo deserto- number of specimens observed rum”): specimen collected at “Groß- at “Nedělišt (Bez. Königgrätz)” = Petrovic” = Petrovice before mid- Neděliště on 5 May 1888 (Pražák March 1893 (Pražák 1893d: 346). 1893c: 106). Buteo rufinus (“Buteo ferox”): (1) ♂, col- Otus scops (“Pisorhina scops”): (1) a pair lected at “Choteborek” = Chotěborky collected at “Gross-Petrovic (Bezirk on 21 June (year not given) (Pražák Nechanic”) = Petrovice on 2 October 1894e: 214); (2) ♀, collected at 1892 (Pražák 1893a: 99, 1893c: 89); (2) “Choteborek” = Chotěborky on 28 ♂, collected at “Rabic (bei Chlumec June (year not given) (Pražák 1894e: a. Cidl.)” = Babice (?) in August 1889 214); (Pražák 1893a: 99). Pražák (1893c: 89) Aquila heliaca (“Aquila melanaëtus”): said that this owl had bred at “Gross- specimen collected at “Sadova unweit Petrovic” for two years before being Königgrätz” = Sadová in 1864–1866 (?) shot by W. Wolf, the landlord, and that (Pražák 1893a: 99). the nest had been situated in a hollow Hieraaetus fasciatus (“Aquila fasciata”): tree, just 30 steps from the landlord’s (1) ad. ♂ (Pražák 1893a: 99) or ad. house. Princ (1896: 10) contacted the ♀ (Pražák 1893c: 87), collected at landlord, who replied that nothing of «Čistoves unweit Sadova» = Čistěves this was known to him. on 2 June 1889 (Pražák 1893a: 99, Nyctea scandiaca: (1) specimen col 1893c: 87); (2) specimen collected lected at “Reichenberg” = Liberec in at «Belvedere bei Prag» = Belvedere 1882 (Pražák1893a: 99); (2) specimen (Letohrádek královny Anny) at the collected at “Rěpinky” = unidentified Prague Castle in 1891 (Pražák 1893a: locality on an unknown date (Pražák 99). 1893a: 99). Falco rusticolus (“Falco islandicus”): Surnia ulula: (1) specimen collected specimen collected by Hugo Wessely at “Doubravic bei Königinhof” = at “Niemes in Nordböhmen” = Mimoň Doubravice in January 1891 (Pražák in spring 1893 (Pražák 1894b: 104). 1893c: 88); (2) specimen collected at Tschusi (1879) showed that this bird “Sadova” = Sadová in February 1892 was Falco peregrinus. (Pražák 1893c: 88). Cursorius cursor (“Cursorius gallicus”): Calandrella brachydactyla (“Alauda two specimens collected at “Plácek brachydactyla”): listed among unweit Königgrätz” = Hradec Králové- Bohemian birds without any details Plácky in 1878 (Pražák 1893a: 102, (Pražák 1894a: 4). A Pražák speci- 1893c: 106). men of C. brachydactyla in NHMW Charadrius alexandrinus: (1) ♂, col- (NHMW 11092) is said to have been lected at “Hohenbruck (westlich collected at “Böhmisch Trubau” = von Königgrätz)” = Třebechovice Česká Třebová in June 1893. pod Orebem in April 1890 (Pražák Motacilla flava cinereocapilla (“Budytes 1893a: 102); (2) specimen collected at flavus cinereocapillus”): ♂ and ♀ col- “New-Pless” = Nový Ples in June 1892 lected at “Sadowa” = Sadová in July (Pražák 1893a: 179). 1892 (Pražák 1893a: 178, 1894d: 71).

156 Sylvia 48 / 2012

Motacilla citreola (“Budytes campes- 1894d: 60). This was the first record tris”): unspecified number of speci- for Bohemia according to Pražák mens collected at “Dobrovic unweit (1894d: 60). Jungbunzlau” = Dobrovice on an Phylloscopus inornatus (“Phylloscopus unspecified date (Pražák 1894a: 4). superciliosus”): specimen caught in A Pražák specimen in NHMW (NHMW NE Bohemia in 1893 (Pražák 1894d: 11422) is said to have been collected 57). at “Dobrovic” on 24 April 1893. Phylloscopus bonelli: (1) specimen col- Prunella montanella (“Accentor monta- lected at “Smiřic” = Smiřice in 1892 nellus”): Pražák did not mention this (Pražák 1893a: 68); (2) two specimens species in any of his faunistic papers. collected at “Jičin” = Jičín in June 1892 Nevertheless, the NHMW possesses (?; said “in this year”) (Pražák 1894d: a Pražák specimen of this species 58); (3) specimen collected at “Nastig (NHMW 11423), allegedly collected unweit Königinhof” = Mostek on an at “Wildenschwert” = Ústí nad Orlicí unspecified date (Pražák 1894d: 58); on 7 September 1891. This might (4) a clutch of three eggs collected have been the reason why this record at “Nastig” = Mostek on 3 June 1893 entered literature (Hudec 1983: 412, (?; said “in the past year”) (Pražák Šťastný & Hudec 2011: 223), although 1894d: 58); (5) specimen collected at the reference to “Pražák 1894” given “Doubravic” = Doubravice on 25 July there is fictitious. Bauernfeind (in 1888 (Pražák specimen NHMW 11893; Mlíkovský 2011: 50) showed that this not mentioned in Pražák’s papers); is a Siberian specimen previously (6) specimen collected at “Zvičín b. stolen from the NHMW collections. Königinhof” = Zvičina in June 1893 Prunella collaris (“Accentor collaris”): (Pražák specimen NHMW11415; not (1) recorded at “Dubenec (Bez. mentioned in Pražák’s papers). Königinhof)” = Dubenec in February Parus cyanus: (1) specimen collected at 1889 (Pražák 1893c: 94); (2) re- “Horineves” = Hořiněves in December corded at “Hustiřan” = Velichovky- 1892 (Pražák 1893a: 69, 1894d: 67); (2) Hustířany in late January 1891 (Pražák specimen collected at “Maslojed (Bez. 1893c: 94); (3) specimen collected at Jaroměř)” = Máslojedy in winter 1889 “Wostroměř (bei Hořic)” = Ostroměř (Pražák 1893c: 95; Pražák specimen in 1888 (Pražák 1893c: 94); (4) some in NHMW); (3) specimen collected at specimens collected in NE Bohemia “Ilustižan” = Hustířany (?) on 4 January “im letzten Winter” (in last winter) 1893 (Pražák 1894d: 67); (4) specimen (Pražák 1894d: 64). collected at “Vilantic” = Vilantice on Zoothera sibirica (“Turdus sibiricus”): ad. 6 February 1893 (Pražák 1894d: 67; ♂, caught at “Cerekvic” = Cerekvice Pražák specimen NHMW 11998); (5) nad Bystřicí on 19 October 1893 two specimens collected at “Prausnitz (Pražák 1894d: 54; specimen NHMW (unweit Trautenau )” = Brusnice near 12002). Trutnov (I found three localities of Turdus obscurus: specimen collected this name; it remains unclear which at “Přim unweit Königgrätz” = Dolní of them Pražák had in mind) in 1879 Přím in autumn 1892 (Pražák 1893a: (Pražák 1894d: 67). 68); see Mlíkovský (2010: 151). Tichodroma muraria: specimen collect- Locustella luscinioides: ♂, collected at ed at “Bohánka” = Boháňka in June “Libřic” = Libřice in June 1892 (Pražák 1881 (Pražák 1894d: 69).

157 Mlíkovský J. / Faunistic work of Josef Prokop Pražák

Sturnus roseus: (1) several specimens col- 1893a: 69). A Pražák specimen NHMW lected at “Všestar (Bez. Königgrätz)” = 11098 is a juv. ♀, perhaps in summer Všestary on 7 May 1875 (Pražák 1893c: plumage (K. Bauer & H. Schifter in 91); (2) three specimens shot in 1889 Hudec 1983: 1135 and in Šťastný & and 1891, no locality given (Pražák Hudec 2011: 1116). 1893c: 91); (3) unspecified numbers of individuals observed at “Hořiňoves” Assessment = Hořiněves, “Cerekvic” = Cerekvice Previously, several of Pražák’s records nad Bystřicí, “Nedělišt” = Neděliště of birds from Bohemia were shown and “Velichovek” = Velichovky; no to be faulty, including those of Falco dates given (Pražák 1893c: 91). rusticolus (Tschusi 1897), Otus scops Serinus citrinella (“Chrysomitris citrinel- (Princ 1896) and Prunella montanella la”): specimen collected at “Salnai” = (Bauernfeind in Mlíkovský 2011). The Zaloňov in June 1893 (Pražák 1894d: very high number of rarities recorded 85). by Pražák within a few years mostly in Loxia pityopsittacus: common in NE NE Bohemia is clearly suspicious and Bohemia in autumn and winter resembles the well-known Hastings (Pražák 1893c: 105). Rarities scandal (Nelder 1962, Nicholson Carpodacus erythrinus (“Pinicola & Ferguson-Lees 1962, Nicholson et al. erythrina”): specimen collected at 1969, Harrop et al. 2012). It is also suspi- “Cerekvic” = Cerekvice nad Bystřicí cious that Pražák donated to the NHMW in May ca. 1887 (Pražák 1893a: 69). specimens which he did not mention Pražák (1894d: 83) said that this speci among the rarities in his papers. Pražák’s men was collected “vor mehreren faunistic data were generally treated as Jahren” (a number of years ago) and not trustworthy or even possibly fraudu- that a more exact date is unknown. lent in standard monographs on the Pinicola enucleator: specimen collected Czech avifauna (Hudec & Černý 1972, at “Rovinka bei Königinhof” = Dvůr 1977, Hudec 1983, 1994, Hudec et al. Králové nad Labem-Rovinky on 16 1995, Hudec & Šťastný 2005, Šťastný & January 1891 (Pražák 1893a: 118, Hudec 2011) without explanation but 1893c: 105; specimen NHMW 11420). presumably because his data on the Emberiza leucocephalos (“Emberiza leu- birds of East Galicia were known to be cocephala”): specimen collected at largely fictitious (see above). The analy- “Čibuz unweit Smiřic” = Skalice-Číbuz sis presented in this paper lends support in early September 1886 (Pražák to this treatment. 1893a: 69, 1893c: 104). Emberiza cia: (1) three specimens caught DISCUSSION at “Skala b. Hořic” = Skála in April 1890 (Pražák 1893a: 69, 1893c: 103; speci- As I have shown for Pražák’s taxo- men NHMW 11096); (2) nest collected nomic work (Mlíkovský 2011), some at “Hořinoves” = Hořiněves on 5 July of Pražák’s data and specimens were 1893 (Pražák specimen NHMW 11041; genuine, while others were fictitious. not mentioned in Pražák’s papers). The same may be true for his faunistic Emberiza aureola: three specimens, work. Unfortunately, there is no way including an ad. ♂, all collected at how to distinguish his genuine from his “Hořiček unweit Böhm. Skalic” = fictitious records. Inevitably, all Pražák’s Hořičky on 7 February 1889 (Pražák faunistic records should be rejected.

158 Sylvia 48 / 2012

Voucher specimens in the NHMW are Hudec K. & Černý W. (eds) 1977: Fauna ČSSR. of no help here, because their origin is Ptáci 2. Academia, Praha. dubious (see above). Hudec K. & Šťastný K. (eds) 2005: Fauna ČR. Like other sciences, ornithology is not Ptáci 2. 2. vydání. Academia, Praha. Hudec K., Chytil J., Šťastný K. & Bejček V. free of swindlers (e.g. Schmuck 2010, 1995: Ptáci České republiky. Sylvia 31: Harrop et al. 2012). Josef Prokop Pražák 97–149. was one of them. Fortunately for or- Jourdain F. R. C. 1934: Faulty information on nithology, his dishonest behavior was the birds of Galicia. Condor 36: 89. detected soon after he started to publish Kleinschmidt O. 1905: J. P. Pražák. Falco 1: ornithological papers, which prevented 103–106. him from making more harm than he Kleinschmidt O. 1909: Ein nachträglich auf- managed to do. gedeckter Schwindel Pražáks. Falco 5: 23–24. Kněžourek K., 1885–1886: Ptactvo české. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Unpublished manuscript, deposited in the Moravian Museum, Brno. I thank Ernst Bauernfeind and Hans- Kněžourek K. 1895: Ornis kraje píseckého Martin Berg (Naturhistorisches Museum z pozůstalosti Dal. Vařečky. Manuscript, Wien) for permission to work in the deposited in the Moravian Museum, Brno. ornithological collections under their [Published by Bureš et al. 1995.] care. Preparation of this paper was sup- Kněžourek K. & Pražák J. P. 1894: Ornithol. ported by the grant 10/300/PM/2012 Beobachtungen aus der Umgebung von from the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Czaslau und dem Eisengebirge in Ost- Republic. Böhmen. Schwalbe 18: 137–139, 153–156, 169–174, 185–188. Kněžourek, K. & Pražák J. P. 1895: Ornithol. Beobachtungen aus der Umgebung von LITERATURE Czaslau und dem Eisengebirge in Ost- Bureš J., Hlásek L., Pecl K., Šálek M. & Všetečka Böhmen. Schwalbe 19: 3–6, 20–22, 39–40, R. 1995: Ptactvo Písecka – Ornis kraje 51–56, 74–78, 87–90. píseckého. ZO ČSOP 18/08, Písek. Lorenz-Liburnau L. von 1898a: [Review of Harrop A. H. J., Collinson J. M. & Melling T. Pražák 1897e]. Verhandlungen der K. K. 2012: What the eye doesn’t see: the preva- Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in lence of fraud in ornithology. British Birds Wien 48: 160–165. 105: 236–257. Lorenz-Liburnau L. von 1898b: [Review of Hegyfoky K. 1897: A csehországi madárvonu- Pražák 1897e]. Vesmír 27: 178–179. [In lásról – Ueber den Vogelzug in Böhmen. Czech; extract from Lorenz-Liburnau Aquila 4: 198–213. [Text parallel in 1898a.] Hungarian and German.] Lorenz-Liburnau L. von 1898c: Falsche Daten. Herman O. 1897: Csehország vonulási adata- Schwalbe (2)1: 129–137. inak bírálata – Recension der Zugsdaten Lorenz-Liburnau L. von 1901: Vögel. In: aus Böhmen. Aquila 4: 193–197. [Text Handlirsch A. & Wettstein R. von (eds): parallel in Hungarian and German.] Botanik und Zoologie in Österreich in den Hudec K. (ed) 1983: Fauna ČSSR. Ptáci 3. Jahren 1850 bis 1900. Alfred Hölder, Wien: Academia, Praha. 463–487. Hudec K. (ed) 1994: Fauna ČR a SR. Ptáci 1. 2. Mlíkovský J. 2003: Ornitologické tabulky. vydání. Academia, Praha. ČSOP, Vlašim. Hudec K. 1999: Ornitologové České repub- Mlíkovský J. 2010: On historical records of liky. Muzeum Komenského, Přerov. Turdus pallidus and Turdus obscurus Hudec K. & Černý W. (eds) 1972: Fauna ČSSR. (Aves: Turdidae) from the Czech Republic. Ptáci 1. Academia, Praha. Sylvia 46:149–156.

159 Mlíkovský J. / Faunistic work of Josef Prokop Pražák

Mlíkovský J. 2011: Nomenclatural and taxo- Pražák J. P. 1894f: Einige Notizen über nomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described die Kohl-, Hauben- und Blaumeisen. by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Ornithologisches Jahrbuch 5: 233–253. Pražák (1870–1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45–68. Pražák J. P. 1895a: Beiträge zur Ornithologie Nelder J. A. 1962: A statistical examination der paläarktischen Region. Schwalbe 19: of the ‘Hastings Rarities’. British Birds 55: 104–108. 283–298. Pražák J. P. 1895b: Versuch einer Monographie Nicholson E. M. & Ferguson-Lees I. J. 1962: der paläarktischen Sumpfmeisen (Poecile The Hastings Rarities. British Birds 55: Kaup). Ornithologisches Jahrbuch 6: 8–59, 299–384. 65–99. Nicholson E. M., Ferguson-Lees I. J. & Nelder Pražák J. P. 1895c: Ornithologische Notizen. J. A. 1969: The Hastings Rarities again. I. (Systematisches). Ornithologische British Birds 62: 364–381. Monatsberichte 3: 143–144. Pražák, J. P. 1891: Příspěvky k ornithologii Pražák J. P. 1896a: Ueber einen wahrschein- Rakousko-Uherska [Contributions to the or- lich neuen Kiebitz aus Süd-Amerika. nithology of Austria-Hungary]. [Pražák], Ornithologische Monatsberichte 4: 23. Nový Bydžov, 186 pp. [In Czech.] [Pražák Pražák J. P. 1896b: Ornithologische Notizen. II. sometimes cited this alleged publication (Ueber einige Varietäten von Carduelis car- as “Příspěvek” = “A contribution”. This was duelis). Ornithologische Monatsberichte 4: apparently an unpublished manuscript; 36–40. see Mlíkovský 2011: 66.] Pražák J. P. 1896c: Ornithologische Notizen. Pražák J. P. 1893a: Beiträge zur Ornithologie III. (Biologisches). Ornithologische Mo Böhmens. Schwalbe 17: 68–70, 99–103, natsberichte 4: 105–108. 118–121, 145–147, 177–180. Pražák J. P. 1896d: Az Acrocephalus palus- Pražák J. P. 1893b: Grus cinerea, Platalea tris horticolus Naum.-ról. – Ueber leucorodia und Falco cenchris in Böhmen. Acrocephalus palustris horticolus Naum. Schwalbe 17: 138. Aquila 3: 187–196. [Parallel Hungarian Pražák J. P. 1893c: Ornithologische and German text.] Beobachtungen aus Nord-Ost-Böhmen. Pražák J. P. 1896e: Was ist Cyanecula ori- (1887–1892). Ornithologisches Jahrbuch entalis Chr. L. Brehm? Ornithologische 4: 85–113. Monatsschrift 21: 163–164. Pražák J. P. 1893d: Ein Steppenbusard in Pražák J.P. 1896f: Einiges über die sogen- Böhmen erlegt. A. Hugo’s Jagd-Zeitung annten „Fremdkleider“ unserer Vögel. 36: 346–347. Ornithologische Monatsschrift 21: 184– Pražák J. P. 1893e: Ornithologisches aus 197. Böhmen. A. Hugo’s Jagdzeitung 36: 667. Pražák J. P. 1896g: Spielnester der auf den Pražák J. P. 1894a: Kritische Uebersicht aller Bäumen brütenden Hausspatzen. Ornitho bisher in Böhmen nachgewiesenen Vögel. logische Monatsschrift 21: 262. Schwalbe 18: 3–4, 20–22, 36–38, 52–53. Pražák J. P. 1897a: Ornithologische Notizen. Pražák J. P. 1894b: Ornithologische Seltenheit. IV. (Lanius collurio). Ornithologische Mo Schwalbe 18: 104. natsberichte 5: 37–43, 53–58. Pražák J. P. 1894c: Einige Bemerkungen über Pražák J. P. 1897b: Über die Vergangenheit die Tannenmeise (Parus ater L.) und ihr und Gegenwart der Ornithologie in nahestehende Formen. Schwalbe 18: 105– Böhmen. Ornithologische Monatsschrift 107, 121–124, 141–143, 158–159, 174– des Deutschen Vereins zum Schutze der 176, 188–190. Vogelwelt 22: 202–210, 226–233, 268– Pražák J. P. 1894d: Zur Ornis Nord-Ost- 274, 289–298. Böhmens. Ornithologisches Jahrbuch 5: Pražák J. P. 1897c: Über einen neuen Vogel 41–77, 81–108. vom oberen Yang-tse Kiang und Tungting Pražák J. P. 1894e: Buteo ferox (Gmel.) in See. Ornithologische Monatsschrift des Böhmen. Ornithologisches Jahrbuch 5: Deutschen Vereins zum Schutze der 214. Vogelwelt 22: 327–328.

160 Sylvia 48 / 2012

Pražák J. P. 1897d: Über die Vergangenheit Mitteleuropas. Vol. 2. Fr. Eugen Köhler, und Gegenwart der Ornithologie in Gera-Untermhaus: 221–222. Böhmen, nebst einer „Bibliographia or- Princ V. 1896: Sovy české [Bohemian owls]. nithologica bohemica“. [Pražák], Gera- In: Devátá výroční zpráva cís. král. vyššího Untermhaus, 86 pp. [Reprint of Pražák gymnasia v Žitné ulici v Praze. C. k. gymna- 1897b, with Bibliographia added.] sium Žitná ulice, Praha: 1–10. Pražák J. P. 1897e: Materialien zu einer Ornis Reichenow A. 1899: Erklärung. Journal für Ost-Galiziens. Journal für Ornithologie 45: Ornithologie 47: 535. 225–348, 365–479. Reiser O. 1899: [Review of the oological data Pražák J. P. 1897f: I. Unterfamilie. in Pražák 1897e]. Schwalbe (2)1: 142–143. Goldhähnchen, Regulinae. In: Hennicke [In German.] C. R. (ed): [Naumann’s] Naturgeschichte Schmuck T. 2010: Between scientific truth, der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Vol. 2. Fr. Eugen fraud and theft – the Austrian ornitholo- Köhler, Gera-Untermhaus: 222–233. gist Viktor von Tschusi in conflict with Pražák J. P. 1897g: II. Unterfamilie: Eigentliche scientific swindle. In: Bauernfeind E., Meisen, Parinae. In: Hennicke C. R. (ed): Gamauf A., Berg H.-M. & Muraoka Y. (eds): [Naumann’s] Naturgeschichte der Vögel Collections in context (Proceedings of the Mitteleuropas. Vol. 2. Fr. Eugen Köhler, 5th International Meeting of European Gera-Untermhaus: 233–298. Bird Curators). Natural History Museum Pražák J. P. 1898a: Materialien zu einer Ornis Vienna, Wien: 257–272. Ost-Galiziens [Fortsetzung]. Journal für Šťastný K. & Hudec K. (eds) 2011: Fauna ČR. Ornithologie 46: 149–226, 317–376. Ptáci 3. 2. vydání. Academia, Praha. Pražák J. P. 1900a: 2. Gattung: Bachstelze, Tschusi zu Schmidhoffen V. von 1897: Falco Motacilla L. In: Hennicke C. R. (ed): peregrinus, nicht Falco islandicus in [Naumann’s] Naturgeschichte der Vögel Niemes (Böhmen) erlegt. Schwalbe 21: Mitteleuropas. Vol. 3. Fr. Eugen Köhler, 94–95. Gera-Untermhaus: 97–123. [See Schlenker Tschusi zu Schmidhoffen V. von [“T.”]. 1899: 2004: 142 for the date of publication of this [Review of Pražák 1897e]. Ornithologisches volume.] Jahrbuch 10: 113–116. [In German.] Pražák J. P. 1900b: 3. Gattung: Schafstelze, Budytes Cuv. In: Hennicke C. R. (ed): [Naumann’s] Naturgeschichte der Vögel Mitteleuropas. Vol. 3. Fr. Eugen Köhler, Gera-Untermhaus: 124–145. Došlo 28. srpna 2012, přijato 3. září 2012. Pražák J. P. & Buri R. 1897: III. Familie. Received 28 August 2012; accepted Meisen, Paridae. In: Hennicke C. R. (ed): 3 September 2012. [Naumann’s] Naturgeschichte der Vögel Editor: P. Adamík

161