SHORT NOTE Fijian Birds Described in Newspapers

254 Notornis, 2006, Vol. 53: 254-257 0029-4470 © The Ornithological Society of New Zealand, Inc. 2006 SHORT NOTE Fijian birds described in newspapers IAN A. W. McALLAN 46 Yeramba Street, Turramurra, NSW 2074, Australia [email protected] It has long been known that the Fijian red- of London. A few days later on 29 Dec 1866, McCoy throated lorikeet Charmosyna amabilis was first published his description of P. xanthopyge in the described by Edward P. Ramsay as Trichoglossus newspaper and then informed Ramsay, who was (Glossopsitta) amabilis in the Sydney Morning Her- obliged to withdraw his description (see Hindwood ald, largely through Ramsay publicising this in a 1950). later paper (Ramsay 1875a; 1876d; see also Mayr Apparently as a consequence of this affair, 1945, and Watling 1982). Watling (1982) consid- Ramsay then made a regular habit of sending ered this description ‘unprecedented’, but this is copies of proposed new taxa either to newspa- clearly not the case, with numerous birds and pers, or journals that published frequently, such mammals being described in newspapers and popu- as Nature. He ceased sending papers to such pub- lar periodicals, for at least the preceding 50 years. lications after the introduction of the Abstracts Many of these names are in common use and for the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South there has been no argument over their validity, Wales which were usually published within a few for example, the whiskered tern genus Chlidonias days of the meetings of the Society (McAllan, Raffinesque 1822, described in The Kentucky Ga- unpubl. data.). zette, and the shoebill stork Balaeniceps rex Gould Most of Ramsay’s publications in newspapers 1850 described in The Athenaeum. Furthermore have previously been noted in the literature, there were many taxa named in Australian news- though one bird article has long been overlooked. papers long before Ramsay’s description of When examining Ramsay’s diaries and notes in Trichoglossus amabilis; the first being Casuarius the Mitchell Library, State Library of New South australis Wall 1854, which was published in The Il- Wales, some years ago, I came across the anno- lustrated Sydney News for 5 Jun 1854. Ramsay’s first tated descriptions of several taxa in a newspa- new taxon, the rufous scrubbird Atrichia rufescens, per cutting (Fig. 1). This cutting was not dated, was also described in a particularly obscure though obviously published shortly after the place; The Clarence and Richmond Examiner and New meeting of the Linnean Society of NSW for 28 England Advertiser, a newspaper issued at Grafton Nov 1875. Examination of microfilmed copies of in country New South Wales on 12 Jun 1866. His the Sydney Morning Herald for subsequent issues publication in such a location was probably unin- revealed that the birds concerned were described tentional, as it appears to be a text that was sent on 8 Dec 1875 (Ramsay 1875b). When compared at the same time to the Zoological Society of Lon- with the microfilm, the cutting is essentially com- don for publication in their Proceedings. plete, though it lacks the words “Description of a Later newspaper writings by Ramsay seem new species of Blackbird (Merula):—”, before the to have been deliberate. This followed the de- description of Merula ruficeps, and where the cut- scription of the yellow-rumped pardalote ting was divided into two to fit on the diary page. Pardalotus xanthopyge in the Melbourne newspa- Three of the names in the newspaper were per The Australasian by Frederick McCoy, the then also described by Ramsay in the Proceedings of Curator of what was to become Museum Victo- the Linnean Society of New South Wales [hereafter = ria. Although McCoy knew Ramsay was soon to Proceedings], which was published in Feb 1876 publish a description of the same taxon, McCoy (Ramsay 1876a; 1876b; 1876c; see Fletcher 1896 sent his own description to the editor of The An- for the date of publication). Of these three names, nals and Magazine of Natural History in London on two, the Fiji bush-warbler Vitia ruficapilla and the 26 Dec 1866. By this stage Ramsay’s description, Kadavu subspecies of island thrush Merula ruficeps, in which he hoped to name the taxon P. leadbeateri, were identical, though the name for the Kadavu had already been sent to the Zoological Society fantail Rhipidura personata, was originally given as Short note 255 Fig. 1 Ramsay’s copy of the descriptions in the Sydney Morning Herald of 8 Dec 1875. Mitchell Library, SLNSW, MLMSS 2278 544, Box 3. 256 Short note Table 1 Measurements of descriptions and specimens of Clytorhynchus specimens. Measurements in inches. *, bill measured from forehead; **, bill measured from gape, F&L (1995), Fisher & Longmore (1995). Total length Wing Tail Tarsus Bill Ramsay: description of brunneus 6 3.3 2.75 0.9 *0.9, **1 Layard: description of compressirostris 6.5 3.33 3 0.83 1 Layard: compressirostris as reported by F&L (1995) 6.5 3.25 3 0.88 1 B.7166: F&L (1995) 6.62 3.19 3 0.81 0.81 B.7166: IMcA 6.7 3.25 3 0.83 *0.9, **1 B.7167: F&L (1995) 6.62 3.19 3.25 0.88 0.81 B.7167: IMcA 6.6 3.35 3 0.85 *0.9, **1 Rhypidura personatus in the Sydney Morning Herald Fisher & Longmore (1995) relied heavily on and was changed to Rhypidura personata in the Pro- the published measurements to identify the types ceedings. Given the annotation by Ramsay of the of all the taxa concerned in the Macleay Museum, cutting, this can be considered a justified emen- though they noted that the holotype of M. dation by the author. Apart from the spelling of compressirostris Layard is probably in The Natural this Rhipidura, the accounts for these names are History Museum at Tring, UK. Given the flaws in also word for word, and thus the three names both the Proceedings and newspaper accounts, this date from the newspaper account rather than the reliance on the published measurements for iden- journal. tification of the type specimens may be problem- A problem arises with the last name, Myiolestes atic. Ramsay’s description gave measurements brunneus. This name is no longer in use and from for the type of M. brunneus that differ appreciably the newspaper cutting in Ramsay’s diary, there is from Layard’s measurements. These in turn dif- no doubt that Ramsay decided it referred to the fer from the measurements reported by Fisher lesser shrikebill Myiolestes [= Clytorhynchus] vitiensis & Longmore (1995) to have been made in Layard’s and withdrew the name before the publication of paper, though the errors made by Fisher & the Proceedings in Feb 1876. The cutting has the Longmore are minor. As noted by these authors remains of blue pencil scrawled across the there are two specimens of Clytorhynchus vitiensis Myiolestes section, apparently of the word ‘can- in the Macleay Museum; B.7166 and B.7167. celled’. On this basis it is likely the cutting was The measurements for these specimens initially sent to the editors of the Proceedings to be were checked by IMcA and measurements given used as the text for publication. There is no doubt by Fisher & Longmore (1995) were found to be in from the context that the Myiolestes concerned is general agreement (see Table 1). All measure- the lesser shrikebill population from Kadavu, usu- ments for the specimens are similar to those in ally referred to by the name Clytorhynchus vitiensis Ramsay’s newspaper account, though the total compressirostris (Layard 1876). length and tail are much shorter. However, if the The type specimens of these taxa that were tails are measured by placing a rule between the described at the meeting of the Linnean Society central tail feathers rather than measuring the of NSW for 28 Nov 1875, were reviewed by Fisher exposed feather tracts, the measurements be- & Longmore (1995), though these authors were come 2.85 inches for B.7166 and 2.9 inches for not aware of Ramsay’s Myiolestes brunneus. They B.7167 (as measured by IMcA & S. Norrington) noted that in the Proceedings the tarsus measure- and are closer to the measurements given by ment for Rhipidura personata was too short and Ramsay. was probably an error by either Ramsay or the The anomaly with the total length would seem printer. However, as the measurement is identi- a mystery as these specimens are the only can- cal in the newspaper account, the error was un- didates as syntypes for M. brunneus. It may be doubtedly either made by Ramsay or the printer that this difference is another printer’s error; the of the newspaper and not the printer of the Pro- fraction being omitted. ceedings. The Proceedings gave all the corrections Even with the anomalies in the description, as found in Ramsay’s newspaper cutting, but as the name Myiolestes brunneus is valid, though there at least two of the errors were not changed (the remains the question as to its availability. Under spelling of Rhypidura and the tarsus measurement) the current edition of the International Code of it is evident that in this instance Ramsay’s proof- Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999) the rel- reading was not thorough. evant section concerned is Article 23.9.1. In this Short note 257 Article it notes ‘prevailing usage must be main- Fletcher, J.J. 1896. On the dates of publication of the tained when the following conditions are both early volumes of the Society’s Proceedings. Proceed- met: ings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales (2) 10: 533–566.

Load more