ADDENDA and CORRIGENDA to Mary Lecroy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SUPPLEMENT TO BULLETIN 150 (3):207–346 (1973) doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5531/sd.sp.26 published online April 19, 2017 ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO TYPE SPECIMENS OF BIRDS IN THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, PART 1 (by James C. Green way, Jr. 1973. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 150 (3): 207–346) Mary LeCroy INTRODUCTION occasion, this differs slightly from the order in Greenway In the more than 40 years that have elapsed since Greenway (1973). I have not routinely tried to find paratypes or paralec- (1973) began listing American Museum of Natural History totypes of names covered by Greenway (1973), but have (AMNH) types of birds, the classification of birds has under- checked them and commented on them when such specimens gone profound changes with the advent of studies of avian were included by Greenway. DNA. In an attempt to update the nomenclature and taxonomy In some cases, I have either not found types or found that of the type specimens he mentioned in Part 1, I have added types are in other collections when they might have been more recent references to current classification, particularly expected in AMNH. Those names are in the text in brackets Checklist Committee (2010), Dickinson and Remsen (2013), and are not in bold type. The place of deposit is indicated if and Beehler and Pratt (2016), all of which include references known. Roth schild retained specimens of special interest to to recent relevant literature. I have chosen to retain the “Peters him when he sold his collection to AMNH, and on his death order,” which has been followed in all of the AMNH type lists, they were bequeathed to BMNH, comprising over 4100 speci- because this is the order in which specimens are stored in the mens and known as the “Rothschild Bequest.” Pre-1932, the Department of Ornithology, and to depart from it at this late Roth schild Collection was housed at Tring, Rothschild’s date would introduce unacceptable opportunities for error and estate. Now the BMNH bird collection is housed at Tring, and omissions. I have not attempted to evaluate Greenway’s taxo- this can be a source of confusion when referring to the older nomic comments because of our changed knowledge of avian literature. I have not used “Tring” with respect to the Roth- relationships and because of my belief that type lists should be schild Collection, now in AMNH, and have continued to use primarily about nomenclature rather than taxonomy. This list BMNH as the acronym for the British Museum (Natural His- has not had the benefit of comments by referees, and errors and tory) collection now housed at Tring instead of the more omissions are my responsibility. recent acronym, NHM. In this update, unless otherwise noted, I have read the The sheer number of Procellariiform names introduced by original descriptions of all names covered by Greenway Mathews, the introduction by him of a myriad of generic (1973; addenda in 1978: 8–10; 1987: 2–3), added information names, and the fact that he used the same specific or subspe- about the types, listed types I found that were not included by cific name in many different genera made following them Green way, updated nomenclature, and corrected errors, par- very difficult. It is indeed fortunate that Hartert had begun ticularly in AMNH numbers that were miscited. I have also listing the Mathews types and had traced the type specimen checked the AMNH collection for possible types of Mathews while he could question Mathews. There are a few notes in names introduced before 1932, the year in which AMNH pur- the Ornithology Department archives from Hartert to Mathews chased the Roth schild Collection, which included the Mathews inquiring about which specimen he had considered the type Collection. In a few cases, Mathews introduced names later of one of his names. Mathews replied in a very offhand way, that may have types in AMNH. I may not have caught all of such that Hartert must have been repeatedly frustrated in his those. Particularly useful for this part of the type list has been attempt to fix Mathews types. Fortunately, he was successful the first edition of Volume one of Peters’ Check-list of birds in finding types of many of Mathews’ names of the Procel- of the world (1931), where Peters has included Mathews’ syn- lariidae, and was able to get Mathews to tie one of his type onyms; Condon (1975); and Checklist Committee (2010). labels on the specimen if he had not already done so. These The order of treatment of names follows that in Peters (1931, queries are written on unnumbered and undated pages as lists vol. 1, and 1934, vol. 2) Check-list of Birds of the World. On of Mathews types about which there is a question. Some are LECROY ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA 2 in Hartert’s hand and some were apparently written by Arthur birds of New Zealand (Buller, 1882) that was essentially a Goodson, who assisted Hartert in the Roth schild Collection. numbered list of species he had included in his first edition When I have included information found on these notes I refer (Buller, 1873). It is interleaved with blank pages on which to them as “MS queries.” he had written the number of the species from his first edi- Another difficulty, especially when Mathews was writing tion, with specimens he sent Rothschild indicated by “a,” the early volumes of the Birds of Australia, was that he was “b,” “c,” etc. When a species appeared in his second edition working not only in his own collection but also in the Roth- that had not been included in the Manual, this was written schild Collection and in the collection that was then in in by Buller, its number being the number of the preceding BMNH, now at Tring. Types may be in either or both of these species in his first edition followed by “A.” This “code” collections. I have referred to Warren (1966) to try to deter- was cracked by J.T. (Sandy) Bartle when he visited AMNH mine where the type specimens may be and have, on occa- in 1982, and he realized that Roth schild also noted other sion, requested information from Robert Prŷs-Jones and Mark subsequent purchases. For a fascinating account of the his- Adams at Tring. tory of the Buller collections, see Bartle and Tennyson In examining some correspondence found in a specimen (2009). As they did, I shall also refer to this annotated book tray, I was amazed by a letter of 16 January 1952 from H.M. as the Buller and Rothschild MS (1888). Whittell to D. Amadon containing the astounding fact, of One of Mathews’ particularly unpleasant habits was his which I had been unaware: “that after GMM[athews] started wont, particularly when dealing with the Procellariiformes, of in on his B[irds] of A[ustralia] he got the Director of the publishing in full the manuscript names and the descriptive W[estern A[ustralian] Museum to send him to England the notes written by Solander, thereby validating them with whole collection of bird-skins then in the museum. I know Mathews as the author. As Hartert (1931a: 186) said, Mathews that takes some swallowing, but it is a fact! When the col- then cited names “without saying that these names were not lection was returned, some were retained by GMM, who his names, but that he found them in Solander’s MS. This sent along some extra-limital skins by way of exchange.” must be mentioned, as one would otherwise expect the types This explains how Mathews obtained so many specimens to be in [the Roth schild Collection], while, of course, there from WAM that are listed in all of the AMNH type lists. See are no types of these … names.” Peters (1931) cited many of Part 7 of the AMNH type list (LeCroy, 2008: 3–5) for a these names, indicating that they were Solander MS names. I discussion of additional complications posed by the Mathews have listed only a few of these names that I found to have Collection and some of the problems related to determining relevance to AMNH specimens. his type specimens. I have provided an index of all of the names I have treated The George Edward Lodge paintings: In 1911, the New in these addenda and corrigenda, including taxa not included Zealand Government commissioned Lodge through its agent by Green way, taxa described since Greenway’s publication, James Drummond to make paintings of New Zealand birds and lectotype or neotype designations based on AMNH for a book Drummond was to write. Drummond never wrote specimens. the book, and the 89 paintings still extant were not published until 1982, with text by C.A. Fleming. Many of the speci- ACRONYMS mens used for the Lodge paintings were selected from Greg- ory Mathews’ collection and usually bear a Mathews AM Australian Museum, Sydney “Figured” label annotated by Lodge as the specimen used AMNH American Museum of Natural History, New York for Birds of New Zealand. Greenway (1973) occasionally AOU American Ornithologists’ Union mentioned these annotations, but he thought they referred to BAMZ Bermuda Aquarium, Museum and Zoo, Flatts some edition of Buller’s A history of the Birds of New Zea- BBM Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu land. The existence of the Lodge paintings was known to BMNH Natural History Museum, Tring, England few until Fleming published them. Reference to Fleming CM Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1982) is added when a Mathews type was used by Lodge ICZN International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for his painting.