© Copyright Australian Museum, 1999 Technical Reports of the Australian Museum (1999) No. 15. ISSN 1031-8062, ISBN 0-7313-8873-9 A Catalogue of the Non-fossil Amphibian and Reptile Type Specimens in the Collection of the Australian Museum: Types Currently, Previously and Purportedly Present GLENN M. SHEA 1 & ROSS A. SADLIER 2 1 Department of Veterinary Anatomy and Pathology, University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia [email protected] 2 The Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia [email protected] ABSTRACT. Full registration data for all identifiable non-fossil primary and secondary type specimens of reptiles and amphibians currently or previously in the Australian Museum are presented, and the current status and registration history of these specimens described, together with any discrepancies between these data and those published in original descriptions. The current identity of the taxa represented by these types is given, together with reference to the original proposer of synonymies and new combinations. Some new synonymies, particularly involving species described by R.W. Wells and C.R. Wellington, are proposed. SHEA, GLENN M., & ROSS A. SADLIER, 1999. A catalogue of the non-fossil amphibian and reptile type specimens in the collection of the Australian Museum: types currently, previously and purportedly present. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum 15: 1–91. Several changes to the herpetological collections of the Shine, 1985; King & Miller, 1985; Tyler, 1985; Cogger, Australian Museum have prompted us to prepare this 1986; Shea, 1987a; King, 1988; Ingram & Covacevich, second, updated catalogue of the amphibian and reptile 1989; Underwood & Stimson, 1990; Hutchinson & type specimens, though following only 20 years after the Donnellan, 1992), culminating in an application to the first herpetological type catalogue for the collection International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature (Cogger, 1979). to suppress both works for the purposes of nomenclature Firstly, a large number of species have been described (President, Australian Society of Herpetologists, 1987). since 1979, with a correspondingly large number of The Commission recently declined to suppress either primary and secondary types deposited in the collection. work (Anon., 1991) on the basis that the arguments Amongst these have been the numerous holotypes and opposing suppression were strong, that the problems lectotypes resulting from two contentious works by Wells arising from the work were mostly taxonomic rather than & Wellington (1984, 1985). These two works have been nomenclatural, that confusion would not be eliminated the subject of much criticism (Gans, 1985; Grigg and by suppression of the works, and that stability of 2 Technical Reports of the Australian Museum (1999) No. 15 nomenclature would best be served by subsequent usage, absence of a lectotype designation (Articles 73[a–b]). We and the new taxa erected by Wells and Wellington must have followed this principle even in a few cases where now be considered nomenclaturally available. However, original register entries, contemporaneous with the type many of the taxa described in these two works are of description, have identified one specimen in a type series dubious status, with a number apparently nomina nuda as type or holotype. (Shea, 1987a), and many of the nominated types were In some early cases, when it was not clearly stated by identified by field numbers only. Consequently, we use an original author whether the description was based on this catalogue to present the full data for these specimens, a single specimen (holotype) or a series (syntypes), we and to reconsider the nomenclatural availability and have adopted the principle that any variation presented taxonomic status of those new species erected by Wells in the description signifies a syntype series, even when and Wellington that were based on material previously only a single type specimen can be identified in the held in or recently presented to the Australian Museum. Australian Museum collection (Recommendation 73(f)). Because of the large number and diverse taxonomic Where an author in a subsequent publication (whether representation of these species, we treat the Wells and the original author, or some other worker) has assumed Wellington types in a separate list at the end of this that one specimen bore holotype status, whether based catalogue. on original register entries or oversight, we have followed Secondly, there has been a continuing policy of the Code (Article 74(b)) in recognising this as the reregistering material originally in the three earliest nomination of a lectotype from the syntype series. registers (Palmer register, undated, but c. 1877–1888, We have refrained from designating lectotypes from numbers lacking prefixes; A register, Jan 1875–Oct 1883, syntype series ourselves, even when it is clear that the numbers prefixed with A; B register, Sept 1883–Dec 1886, syntype series is composite. We believe that such numbers prefixed with B), into the single current computer- nomenclaturally binding actions are best undertaken as based registration system. Thus, new registration numbers, part of a formal taxonomic revision. prefixed with R, have been created for a number of early In recognising paratypes, we have used the following type specimens cited by Cogger (1979). principles: in the absence of formal paratype nominations, Thirdly, we have undertaken a detailed comparison we have listed all specimens of a species or subspecies of the herpetological taxonomic literature and collection that were used by an author additional to the holotype, data in early registers. This has resulted in the whether contributing to morphological description or identification of a number of early type specimens not simply distribution, main text or footnote. This includes identified by Cogger (1979), as well as correction of a specimens nominated as cotypes and allotypes. However, number of errors made by Cogger and other workers. where an author specifically nominates paratypes, we Fourthly, as part of general collection maintenance, have not considered other specimens mentioned in the all identifiable type specimens have recently been type description as paratypes, even if they do contribute extracted from the general collection, rebottled and to the definition of a taxon (Article 72(b)(vi)). housed separately. Only one exception to this rule has been made. In two This catalogue includes all species and subspecies papers, Copland (1946a, 1949) used the category described up to the end of 1998. auxillotype. While the third edition of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not recognise the auxillotype category, we believe that the status of these TYPE CATEGORIES nominated specimens is equivocal. Using the Code’s LISTED IN THIS CATALOGUE definition of a paratype (remaining specimens of a type series from which a holotype has been designated; Article This catalogue includes the following categories of 72(a)(iii)), auxillotypes are paratypes. However, in that primary and secondary types, as recognised by the third they were specifically excluded from the paratype series edition of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1985): (but not the type series in toto) they are not (Article holotypes, syntypes, lectotypes, neotypes, paratypes and 72(b)(i): “The type series of a nominal species-group paralectotypes. Many authors either did not nominate a taxon consists of all the specimens eligible to be name- particular specimen as holotype when describing taxa, bearing types … included by the author in the new or if they did, did not specifically indicate the extent of nominal taxon, except any that the author expressly any paratype series. In the earliest cases, this is partially excluded from the type series, or refers to as distinct a reflection of the absence of registers. In identifying a variants, or doubtfully attributes to the taxon”). Copland’s specimen as a type or possible type, we have utilised recognition of the auxillotype category (not used in his original descriptions, subsequent taxonomic literature, other taxonomic publications) stemmed from his then original register entries indicating types, correspondence belief, not supported by the Code of Zoological between register entries/dates and data in the type Nomenclature, that paratypes must be from the same description, and in a few cases, congruence between the locality as the holotype, or a nearby locality. Hence, he specimen and the type description (Recommendation used the auxillotype category to indicate a specimen that 72(b) of the Code). was not from the type locality, despite regarding such Where no single specimen was nominated as holotype, specimens, which contributed to the definition of his taxa, or “type” in the original description of a taxon, we have as part of the type series. We have avoided making any considered all identifiable members of a type series judgement on the status of auxillotypes by listing them consisting of two or more specimens as syntypes in the separately from the nominated Copland paratypes. Shea & Sadlier: Herp catalogue 3 ABBREVIATIONS CONVENTIONS USED IN THIS CATALOGUE USED IN THIS CATALOGUE Collection acronyms used follow Cogger et al. (1983) Data are presented in the following form: with the addition of DSL (D.S. Liem personal collection) and SJC (S.J. Copland personal collection), and have been used on all occasions except when presenting registration Original binomen Author, Date data,