Type Specimens of Birds in the American Museum of Natural History
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by American Museum of Natural History Scientific Publications TYPE SPECIMENS OF BIRDS IN THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. PART 3. PASSERIFORMES: EURYLAIMIDAE, DENDROCOLAPTIDAE, FURNARIIDAE, FORMICARIIDAE, CONOPOPHAGIDAE, AND RHINOCRYPTIDAE MARY LECROY Research Associate, Division of Vertebrate Zoology (Ornithology) American Museum of Natural History RICHARD SLOSS Associate, Division of Vertebrate Zoology (Ornithology) American Museum of Natural History BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Number 257, 88 pages Issued October 30, 2000 Price: $7.60 a copy Copyright © American Museum of Natural History 2000 ISSN 0003-0090 ABSTRACT This third part of “Type Specimens of Birds in the American Museum of Natural History” continues the list begun by James C. Greenway, Jr., and corresponds to taxa covered in Volume 7 of Peters’ Check- list of Birds of the World. In taxonomic order (according to Peters’ Check-list), this section precedes Part 4, which was published earlier. Four hundred forty-two published names are discussed herein. For each taxon, the type locality and currently recognized name are given; for many, comments on taxonomic his- tory are also provided. INTRODUCTION Brackets enclosing a taxon name indicate that the type might be expected to be in the AMNH, This, the third part of “Type Specimens of but it either was not found or was found to be in Birds in the American Museum of Natural His- another collection. tory” (AMNH), corresponds to taxa covered in We give the currently recognized name of each Volume 7 of Peters’ Check-list of Birds of the taxon by referring to usage in a recent publica- World (1951). In taxonomic order, this listing tion; where possible, we refer to recent taxonom- precedes Part 4, which was published earlier ic studies. For some taxa, salient points in the tax- (Greenway, 1987). In continuing the list begun onomic history of the form are mentioned. Such by James C. Greenway, Jr. (1973, 1978, 1987), comments are not intended to be complete but we follow the order of Peters’ Check-list, which rather to serve as a guide when the taxonomic his- is the basis for the arrangement of the AMNH tory is particularly murky. As in previous parts, collection. We have not followed more recent Wied and Lawrence types need the most discus- classifications (e.g., that of Sibley and Monroe, sion. Publication dates of Lawrence’s names have 1990) because we wish to avoid errors or omis- been determined from the date of issue printed sions that might arise from following rearrange- on the original publication when possible. We ments (still subject to frequent modification) for have not found Foster (1892) to be reliable in this the remaining types, which correspond to taxa in respect. Volumes 9–15 of Peters. In the section covered Allen (1889b: 210–211) explained how pairs of by this list, the genera Ramphocaenus and Wied (Maximilian Prinz zu Wied-Neuwied) birds Microbates will be treated with the Polioptilinae had been mounted together, one label with both (according to Peters, 1951: 213). male and female symbols usually serving both The format for this list follows that of previ- birds. When these pairs were separated at AMNH, ous parts. The citation of type locality in the tax- one bird was left without a label, and the sex and onomic entry appears exactly as it was given in “Max. Coll.” were written on the new stand. Later, the original description. In the text portion for these birds were dismounted and the original Wied each taxon, the name of the locality is updated label was glued to the back of one of the new and coordinates are given, when possible; these, printed labels. Obviously, there were numerous unless otherwise noted, are taken from the chances for error, and some Wied labels have been invaluable gazetteers drawn up by R. A. Paynter, lost. Thanks to Allen’s careful assessment of these Jr., and his colleagues: Paynter, 1982, 1988, specimens relatively soon after AMNH acquired 1989, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997; Paynter and them, we can be fairly sure that the information Traylor, 1991; and Stephens and Traylor, 1983, we present about them is correct. However, the 1985. Altitudes given are those in the original designation of sex when the birds were separated description or on the field label and may differ must have been fairly arbitrary, and we do not from those in the gazetteers. They are given in know who made these designations. We have feet or meters, as in the original, to avoid intro- reported the sex published by Allen unless we ducing conversion errors. The “Times Atlas” have reason to believe an error was made. (Times of London, 1967) has been used for During the time this manuscript was in prepa- some localities not covered by the gazetteers. ration, the Fourth Edition of the International Many place names have changed since these Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International types were collected, and the 1967 edition of the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999) Times Atlas has proven to be more useful to us was published. We have taken into account this than later editions. new publication, especially with regard to Chapter 4 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 257 16: Types in the Species Group, articles 71–76, EURYLAIMIDAE pp. 75–86. Under the new rules, as well as those Smithornis capensis albigularis Hartert of the Third Edition, we have accepted Hartert’s (1922, 1928) lists of “types” in the Rothschild Smithornis capensis albigularis Hartert, 1904a: 73 (Can- Collection as a designation of lectotypes when hoca, North Angola). Smithornis capensis albigularis there were syntypes in the original description. It Now Hartert, 1904. See Keith et al., 1992: 8, and Lambert and Woodcock, 1996: seems especially relevant to us that in cases 187. where one of the original syntypes was in the HOLOTYPE: AMNH 553302, male, collected at Rothschild Collection and another elsewhere Њ Ј Њ Ј (see, for example, Pseudocolaptes boissonneautii Canhoca, 09 15 S, 14 35 E (Chapin, 1954: 653), Angola, on 23 November 1903, by Dr. William J. flavescens), Hartert referred to the Rothschild Ansorge (no. 1232). From the Rothschild Collec- specimen as a “cotype” (= syntype in modern ter- tion. minology), thus not conferring lectotype status on the Rothschild specimen. This contrasts with Har- Smithornis capensis meinertzhageni tert’s practice when all of the syntypes were pres- van Someren ent in the Rothschild Collection. Smithornis capensis meinertzhageni van Someren, 1919: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 24 (Nyarondo). We appreciate the assistance we have received Now Smithornis capensis meinertzhageni van Someren, 1919. See Keith et al., 1992: 8, and Lambert and Wood- from many individuals, impossible to mention cock, 1996: 187. here individually, who have responded to our HOLOTYPE: AMNH 553272, sex not noted, col- queries. We are especially grateful to those col- Њ Ј Њ Ј leagues who have read parts or all of our manu- lected at Nyarondo (= Lerundo), 00 09 N, 34 51 E script, corrected errors, made important sugges- (Chapin, 1954: 686), Kavirondo District, Kenya, on 11 March 1917, by H. J. Allen Turner. From the tions, and occasionally disagreed with us: Walter Meinertzhagen Collection via the Rothschild Col- Bock, Edward Dickinson, Morton Isler, Storrs lection. Olson, Fernando Pacheco, Thomas Schulenberg, COMMENTS: Nyarondo is the type locality given in David Wells, and Bret Whitney. We have taken all the original description; Lerundo is the collecting of their comments into account and tried to make locality given on the label. Hartert (1928: 224) gave informed decisions, but as J. A. Allen advised his the type locality as “Lerundo, Nyarondo.” R. Dow- 1908 AOU Checklist Committee: “The human sett (in litt.) has pointed out to us that van Someren mind is so constituted that persons of equal intel- (1920: 95) equated the two localities in his descrip- ligence and of normal mental condition will ever tion of Dicrurus elgonensis and that the coordinates be found to differ on even fundamental questions. cited above and given by Chapin for Lerundo are the correct ones. Dowsett (in litt.) also pointed out that It is, therefore, not to be expected that all natural- Chapin (1954: 715) may have misread Nyando for ists will ever agree on what may be looked upon Nyarondo, because the coordinates he gave for as some of the important principles of nomencla- Nyarondo, 00Њ07ЈS, 35Њ08ЈE, are too far south and ture.” lie on the Nyando River. We especially acknowledge the benefits we In the original description the sex was given as have received from the many years of careful adult male. The sex is not noted on the original field curation of types by Department of Ornithology label, although the specimen is in adult male staff, particularly the late Charles O’Brien. We plumage. have also made extensive use of the archival material in the Department in an attempt to make Smithornis capensis medianus the information about the specimens as complete Hartert and van Someren and informative as possible. The organization of Smithornis capensis medianus Hartert and van Someren, this material by the late Lois Heilbrun made our 1916: 59 (Kyambu Forest). task infinitely easier. The staff of the Library of Now Smithornis capensis medianus Hartert and van AMNH have always been helpful in locating Someren, 1916. See Keith et al., 1992: 8, and Lambert even the most elusive reference we wished to and Woodcock, 1996: 187. consult; and Maria Dickson, Emanuel Levine, HOLOTYPE: AMNH 553273, breeding male, col- and Keith Barker, in the Department of Ornithol- lected in Kyambu (= Kiambu) Forest, Kenya, ogy, have helped us in many ways. 01Њ08ЈS, 36Њ50ЈE (Chapin, 1954: 685), on 10 Octo- 2000 LECROY AND SLOSS: TYPE SPECIMENS OF BIRDS.