A Global Catalog of Primary Reptile Type Specimens
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Title A global catalog of primary reptile type specimens Authors Campbell, P; Uetz, P; CHERIKH, SAMI; Shea, G; Ineich, I; Doronin, I; ROSADO, J; WYNN, A; TIGHE, KA; MCDIARMID, R; Lee, JL; KÖHLER, G; Ellis, R; Doughty, P; RAXWORTHY, CJ; SCHEINBERG, L; RESETAR, A; SABAJ, M; SCHNEIDER, G; Franzen, M; Glaw, F; BÖHME, W; SCHWEIGER, S; GEMEL, R; COUPER, P; AMEY, A; DONDORP, E; OFER, G; MEIRI, S; WALLACH, V Date Submitted 2019-12 See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337197148 A global catalog of primary reptile type specimens Article in Zootaxa · November 2019 DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4695.5.2 CITATIONS READS 0 100 30 authors, including: Peter Uetz Glenn Shea Virginia Commonwealth University The University of Sydney 244 PUBLICATIONS 11,003 CITATIONS 95 PUBLICATIONS 1,050 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Patrick Campbell Justin L. Lee Natural History Museum, London University of Maryland, College Park 57 PUBLICATIONS 177 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Systematics and Ecology of Guibemantis tree frogs from Madagascar View project Amphibians and reptiles of La Gamba, Costa Rica View project All content following this page was uploaded by Justin L. Lee on 15 November 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Zootaxa 4695 (5): 438–450 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4695.5.2 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:63068E23-DA14-418F-A9C3-B25AEA3DEF9D A global catalog of primary reptile type specimens PETER UETZ1,22, SAMI CHERIKH1, GLENN SHEA2, IVAN INEICH3, PATRICK D. CAMPBELL4, IGOR V. DORONIN5, JOSÉ ROSADO6, ADDISON WYNN7, KENNETH A. TIGHE7, ROY MCDIARMID7, JUSTIN L. LEE7, GUNTHER KÖHLER8, RYAN ELLIS9, PAUL DOUGHTY9, CHRISTOPHER J. RAXWORTHY10, LAUREN SCHEINBERG11, ALAN RESETAR12, MARK SABAJ13, GREG SCHNEIDER14, MICHAEL FRANZEN15, FRANK GLAW15, WOLFGANG BÖHME16, SILKE SCHWEIGER17, RICHARD GEMEL17, PATRICK COUPER18, ANDREW AMEY18, ESTHER DONDORP19, GALI OFER20, SHAI MEIRI20 & VAN WALLACH21 1Center for Biological Data Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, 1 William St, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia, and Sydney School of Veteri- nary Science B01, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] 3Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN), CNRS, Sorbonne Université, ISYEB (UMR 7205 MNHN/CNRS/UPMC/EPHE), Insti- tut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (Reptiles), 57 rue Cuvier, CP 30, 75251 Paris, France. E-mail: [email protected] 4The Natural History Museum (NHMUK), London SW7 5BD, UK. E-mail: [email protected] 5Department of Herpetology, Zoological Institute (ZISP), Russian Academy of Sciences, St.Petersburg 199034 Universitetskaya nab. 1, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 6Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ), 26 Oxford St., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 7Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History (USNM), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013- 7012, USA. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 8Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg (SMF), Senckenberganlage 25, 60325 Frankfurt a.M., Germany. E-mail: [email protected] 9Department of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum (WAM), 49 Kew Street, Welshpool, Western Australia, 6016, Australia. E-mail:[email protected], [email protected] 10American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024-5192, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 11California Academy of Sciences (CAS), 55 Music Concourse Drive, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 12Field Museum (FMNH), 1400 S. Lake Shore Dr., Chicago, IL 60605, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 13The Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University (ANSP), 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 14Research Museum Center, University of Michigan (UMMZ), 3600 Varsity Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 15Zoologische Staatssammlung München (ZSM-SNSB), Münchhausenstraße 21, 81247 München, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 16Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum A. Koenig (ZFMK), Section of Herpetology, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] 17Naturhistorisches Museum Wien (NMW), Burgring 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 18Biodiversity, Queensland Museum (QM), PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Australia. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 19Naturalis Biodiversity Center (RMNH), Darwinweg 2, 2333 CR Leiden, Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] 20School of Zoology and Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel-Aviv University (TAU), Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel. E-mail: [email protected] 214 Potter Park, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. 22Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract We present information on primary type specimens for 13,282 species and subspecies of reptiles compiled in the Reptile Database, that is, holotypes, neotypes, lectotypes, and syntypes. These represent 99.4% of all 13,361 currently recognized taxa (11,050 species and 2311 subspecies). Type specimens of 653 taxa (4.9%) are either lost or not located, were never designated, or we did not find any information about them. 51 species are based on iconotypes. To map all types to physical 438 Accepted by S. Carranza: 23 Aug. 2019; published: 12 Nov. 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 collections we have consolidated all synonymous and ambiguous collection acronyms into an unambiguous list of 364 collections holding these primary types. The 10 largest collections possess more than 50% of all (primary) reptile types, the 36 largest collections possess more than 10,000 types and the largest 73 collections possess over 90% of all types. Of the 364 collections, 107 hold type specimens of only 1 species or subspecies. Dozens of types are still in private collections. In order to increase their utility, we recommend that the description of type specimens be supplemented with data from high-resolution images and CT-scans, and clear links to tissue samples and DNA sequence data (when available). We request members of the herpetological community provide us with any missing type information to complete the list. Key words: syntype, holotype, neotype, lectotype, herpetological collections, squamata, serpentes, sauria, testudines Introduction Over the past 260+ years at least 22,000 reptile species and subspecies have been described. Of these, 13,361 taxa are considered valid today (11,050 species and 2,311 subspecies, not counting nominate subspecies) (Uetz et al. 2019; Uetz & Stylianou 2018). Under the rules of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature, for a new species to be considered valid it must have at least one type specimen (ICZN Articles 71–75, see also Du- bois 2017), even though other kinds of specific documentation such as illustrations (“iconotypes”), photographs or DNA-based information have been used and are extensively discussed in the literature (Chaladze 2017; Donegan 2008; Faundez 2017; Grandcolas 2017; Shatalkin & Galinskaya 2017; Zhang 2017). Nevertheless, physical type specimens remain a cornerstone and the gold standard of systematic biology, even as the type concept evolves with the addition of genome-sequence (Giribet 2016) or CT-microscan data (Broeckhoven et al. 2016). Early species descriptions often did not clearly identify a primary type specimen, a problem that continues to produce taxonomic confusion to the present day. Later, especially at the end of the 19th century, several type speci- mens of equal status (“syntypes”) were commonly used. This latter practice is now rarely used, due to the confu- sion arising when a series of syntypes was a composite of multiple species (a surprisingly common occurrence e.g. Böhme 2005). Currently, best taxonomic practice requires that a single specimen be designated as a holotype (typi- cally a voucher specimen, ideally with a tissue sample for DNA analysis), that is deposited in a public institution to guarantee easy scientific access. Ideally, additional specimens (paratypes) are nominated to represent ontogenetic, sexual, and intraspecific variation within a species, but paratypes are not considered here. Even when holotypes were designated and are still extant, older descriptions were often brief and insufficient by today’s standards, especially when species are later added to the same genus. Consequently, the original types must be revisited and often require redescription. While a type specimen provides a physical representation of the morphology of a species, an increasing num- ber of new species are described primarily based on DNA sequences and molecular phylogenetic methods, with a physical description being provided but not necessarily allowing distinction in the field or even in a collection. An evolutionary species concept may delineate separate populations that are morphologically diagnosable, but it says little