Type Specimens of Birds in the American Museum of Natural History
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TYPE SPECIMENS OF BIRDS IN THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. PART 5. PASSERIFORMES: ALAUDIDAE, HIRUNDINIDAE, MOTACILLIDAE, CAMPEPHAGIDAE, PYCNONOTIDAE, IRENIDAE, LANIIDAE, VANGIDAE, BOMBYCILLIDAE, DULIDAE, CINCLIDAE, TROGLODYTIDAE, AND MIMIDAE MARY LECROY Research Associate, Division of Vertebrate Zoology (Ornithology) American Museum of Natural History BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10024 Number 278, 156 pp. Issued September 30, 2003 Copyright q American Museum of Natural History 2003 ISSN 0003-0090 2 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 278 ABSTRACT This ®fth part of ``Type Specimens of Birds in the American Museum of Natural History'' corresponds to taxa covered in Volume 9 of Peters' Check-list of Birds of the World. The original description of each taxon has been consulted, coordinates given for type localities when possible, currently accepted names for the taxa included, and comments on taxonomic history are provided. 553 published names are treated. Types of 11 of these are not in AMNH; the type of one is not extant; and three specimens with supposed type status are shown to have no nomenclatural standing. INTRODUCTION erature to be in the ``Tring Museum'', as in the ``Rothschild Collection'', now in AMNH. This, the ®fth part of ``Type Specimens of The bird collection of The Natural History Birds in the American Museum of Natural Museum (formerly The British Museum History'' (AMNH), corresponds to taxa cov- (Natural History), London) is now housed at ered in Volume 9 of Peters' Check-list of Tring on the former Rothschild estate. Birds of the World (see Mayr and Greenway, I have accepted Hartert's (1918b, 1919, 1960). As in the earlier lists (Greenway, 1920, 1922b, 1928) nomination of ``types'' 1973, 1978, 1987; LeCroy and Sloss, 2000), in the Rothschild Collection as designations this one follows the order of Peters' Check- of lectotypes in all cases where original de- list, which is the basis for the arrangement scriptions implied syntypes, following the of the AMNH collection. More recent clas- practice in all of the previous parts of the si®cations (e.g., that of Sibley and Monroe, AMNH type list. Because de®nitions in the 1990) are still subject to frequent modi®ca- Code (International Commission on Zoolog- tion and their use might lead to errors or ical Nomenclature, 1999) seem open to vary- omissions. ing interpretations, I give below a synopsis The format for this list follows that of pre- of interpretations used here, with reference vious parts. The citation of the name and of to Articles in the Code. the type locality in the taxonomic entry ap- HOLOTYPE: Arts. 73.1 and 73.1.3. A holo- pears exactly as it was given in the original type is the single specimen, designated by description, which has been seen unless oth- the original author in the original publication, erwise indicated. In the text portion for each upon which a new nominal species-group taxon, the name of the locality is updated and taxon is based. coordinates are given when possible. The PARATYPES: Art. 72.4.5. If a holotype is Times Atlas (Times of London, 1967) has designated, then the other specimens in the been used whenever possible, but many other type series (Art. 72.4.1) become paratypes. atlases and gazetteers have been used and are SYNTYPE(S): Art. 73.2. If no holotype or cited in the text. lectotype has been ®xed, then in taxa de- Brackets enclosing a taxon name indicate scribed before 2000, all specimens in the that the type might be expected to be in type series are syntypes, or certain of the AMNH, but it either was not found or was specimens in the type series may have been found to be in another collection. designated as syntypes. All of these syntypes The currently recognized name of each have equal status in nomenclature. taxon is given and reference is made to usage Art. 72.4.6. ``If an author when establish- in a recent publication; where possible, that ing a nominal species-group taxon nominates reference is to a recent taxonomic study. For either `syntypes' (by that term, or by use of some taxa, salient points in the taxonomic one of the terms `cotypes' or `types' alone), history of the form are mentioned. Such or `holotype and paratypes' used together (or comments are not intended to be complete by use of the term `type' together with `al- but rather to serve as a guide when the tax- lotype' or `cotypes'), and also lists other onomic history is particularly murky. specimens, the separate mention of the latter To avoid confusion, I have referred to expressly excludes them from the type se- Rothschild specimens, said in the older lit- ries.'' 2003 LECROY: TYPE SPECIMENS OF BIRDS. PART 5 3 I interpret these two Articles to mean that Since that time they have been accepted as if the data cited for the ``type'' in the original types by various workers who have consulted description apply to several specimens in the them at AMNH. Because of the long accep- original series, then these specimens are eli- tance of these specimens as types, I have des- gible as name-bearing types and are by def- ignated the specimen bearing the Rothschild inition the syntypes; they then form the type type label the lectotype, citing the AMNH series and other specimens in the original se- number to remove any ambiguity. This will ries are excluded from the type series. avoid possible confusion in interpreting the LECTOTYPES: The following Articles apply older literature. to lectotype designations made before the In a few cases, Hartert, in his publications year 2000: 74.1, 74.1.1, 74.1.2, 74.1.3, 74.2, on the types in the Rothschild Collection, 74.3, 74.5, 74.6, and 72.4.7. In accordance listed two specimens of an original type se- with these Articles, I have not assumed that, ries as types. According to the Code, there because a specimen has a type label, it is can be only a single lectotype; therefore this necessarily the holotype, syntype, or lecto- is not an acceptable lectotypi®cation. I have type of any taxon. After referring to the orig- usually listed these specimens, along with inal description, I have tried to determine if any other AMNH specimens from the type the description unambiguously designated a series, as syntypes. Hartert was careful to re- holotype or syntypes. For taxa from the fer to syntypes in the Rothschild Collection Rothschild Collection, I have then referred to as ``co-types'' when he knew there were oth- Hartert's published type lists. Hartert distin- er syntypes of a particular taxon in other col- guished between what he called ``types'' and lections. I have, of course, retained them as ``co-types''. His ``co-types'' are equivalent to syntypes. There are a very few cases where syntypes and were listed as such when there Hartert apparently made an error. I discuss were other syntypes in other collections. each of these in the text. When the ``type'' was stated to be in the The following is a list of the lectotypes Rothschild Museum or when the entire type that I have designated in this part of the type series was held there, then Hartert used the list: Mirafra africana dohertyi Hartert, Mir- term ``type'' to apply either to the holotype afra africana transvaalensis Hartert, Melan- or to the specimen he was designating the ocorypha calandra hebraica Meinertzhagen, ``type'' (5 lectotype). Frequently he added Galerida cristata festae Hartert, Galerida data from the label that made his designation cristata deltae Hartert, Alauda arvensis hai- unambiguous. nana Hartert, Alauda arvensis herberti Har- In a few cases, the data given by Hartert tert, Cotile pembertoni Hartert, Petrocheli- have not applied to only one specimen from don nigricans socialis Stresemann, Psalido- the type series, even though only a single procne nitens centralis Neumann, Anthus specimen bears the Rothschild type label. spinoletta kleinschmidti Hartert, Paragrau- According to the Code, the presence of a calus lineatus austini Mathews, Coracina ro- type label is not evidence in and of itself that busta victoriae Mathews, Edoliosoma do- a particular specimen is a type. However, hertyi Hartert, Pycnonotus prillwitzi Hartert, these specimens bearing Rothschild type la- Eurillas virens holochlorus van Someren, bels were considered the types by Rothschild Criniger af®nis harterti Stresemann, Nilaus and Hartert and by others working in the afer hilgerti Neumann, Telophonus senegal- Rothschild Collection over the years. The us pallidus Neumann, Harpolestes senegalus Rothschild Collection was never cataloged mozambicus van Someren, Telophonus aus- until after it came to AMNH, so that the tralis dohertyi Neumann, and Troglodytes presence of the type label assured that the troglodytes juniperi Hartert. same specimen was considered the type by Names published by V.G.L. van Someren all of these workers. When the Rothschild have presented particularly thorny problems. Collection was cataloged at AMNH, the Because van Someren often had large series specimens with Rothschild type labels were of specimens of a given taxon bearing similar cataloged as types and segregated with the data and did not always designate types un- other types in the AMNH type collection. ambiguously, and because the van Someren 4 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 278 Collection has been dispersed among many shortened his title to Prince of Wied, as is different museums, it is often dif®cult to be frequently done. Bibliographic references are certain which specimens are types and how also to Wied, although his writings are some- many museums now hold syntypes. In doubt- times listed as Wied-Neuwied.