LeCroy Scientific Publications of the American Museum of Natural History American Museum Novitates TyPe SPeCIMeNS oF BIrDS IN THe Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History : T y Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History P AMERICAN MUSeUM oF NATUrAL HISTORY e SP Publications Committee e CIM Robert S. Voss, Chair PArT 9. PASS ERIFORMeS: e Board of Editors NS ZoSTEROPIDAe AND MeLIPHAGIDAe o Jin Meng, Paleontology F BI Lorenzo Prendini, Invertebrate Zoology r DS: 9. PASS 9. DS: Robert S. Voss, Vertebrate Zoology M Ary L eCroy Peter M. Whiteley, Anthropology Managing Editor ER Mary Knight IF OR M Submission procedures can be found at http://research.amnh.org/scipubs e S Complete lists of all issues of Novitates and Bulletin are available on the web (http:// digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace). Inquire about ordering printed copies via e-mail from [email protected] or via standard mail from: American Museum of Natural History—Scientific Publications, Central Park West at 79th St., New York, NY 10024. This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper). AMNH BULL e On the cover: Type specimens of Bishop’s ’O’o, Acrulocer- TIN 348 cus bishopi Rothschild, 1893, from a lithograph by J.G. Keule- mans (plate 74 in Rothschild’s Avifauna of Laysan and the neighbouring islands). The species, now in the genus Moho, was first collected by Henry Palmer on Molokai Island, Ha- waii, and named by Rothschild for C.R. Bishop, founder of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum in Honolulu. Bishop’s ’O’o, last seen 2011 on Molokai in 1904, is now considered extinct. BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY TYPE SPECIMENS OF BIRDS IN THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY PART 9. PASSERIFORMES: ZOSTEROPIDAE AND MELIPHAGIDAE MARY LeCROY Division of Vertebrate Zoology (Ornithology) American Museum of Natural History BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Number 348, 193 pp. Issued April 29, 2011 Copyright E American Museum of Natural History 2011 ISSN 0003-0090 ABSTRACT This ninth part of ‘‘Type Specimens of Birds in the American Museum of Natural History’’ includes taxa in the families Zosteropidae and Meliphagidae in Volume 12 of the Check-list of birds of the world, by James L. Peters and subsequent authors. The original description of each taxon has been consulted unless otherwise noted, modern names and coordinates are given for type localities when possible, currently accepted names for the taxa are included, and comments on taxonomic history are provided. In Part 9, 445 names are treated; types of 22 of these are not in AMNH or were not found. This part of the type list, as well as all previous parts, are searchable and available for download from the AMNH Library website: http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/. INTRODUCTION indicated. In the text for each taxon, the name of the type locality is updated when This ninth part of ‘‘Type Specimens of necessary and coordinates are given when Birds in the American Museum of Natural found. Where there have been changes in History’’ (AMNH) deals with taxa in the place names, the older name is placed in families Zosteropidae and Meliphagidae in parentheses. Degrees and minutes of latitude Volume 12 of Peters’ Check-list of birds of the and longitude are separated by a period, as is world (Paynter, 1967). The other families done in the Times atlas of the world (Times of treated in that volume are covered in Part 8 London, 1967), from which many of them are (LeCroy, 2010). As did earlier parts (Green- taken. Other atlases and gazetteers have been way, 1973, 1978, 1987; LeCroy and Sloss, used as well and are cited in the text. 2000; and LeCroy, 2003, 2005, 2008, and The currently recognized name of each 2010), this part follows the order of species in taxon is given and reference is made to its the Check-list series, which is the basis for the usage in recent publications, preferably re- arrangement of the AMNH avian collection. gional works or works treating the family as More recent classifications are still subject to a whole. Once again, I have referred to frequent modification, and their use might Dickinson’s (2003) treatment of each taxon lead to errors or omissions, particularly covered in Part 9 but have not always cited it. because many family relationships among Complete taxonomic and nomenclatural his- birds are currently undergoing active reas- tory is not given for each of the forms, but sessment by molecular studies. salient points are added when they might The format for Part 9 follows that for the prove useful. Occasionally, the AMNH previous parts. Brackets enclosing a taxon catalog number of a specimen is followed name indicate that, although its type might by ‘‘bis.’’ This indicates that a specimen has be expected to be in AMNH, the type either been entered into the catalog between two was not found or was discovered in another numbers, as when an uncataloged specimen is collection. Paratypes of taxa for which the found and is added to the catalog adjacent to primary type or types are not in AMNH another specimen of the same form from the usually are not listed, but for primary types same collection. shown to have been destroyed in museums I have referred to Rothschild specimens, that were damaged in World War II (e.g., said in the older literature to be in the ‘‘Tring Morioka et al., 2005, Eck and Quaisser, Museum,’’ as in the ‘‘Rothschild Collection,’’ 2004), it is informative to list their paratypes now in AMNH. The Rothschild Collection in found to be in AMNH. These are also AMNH is not to be confused with the bird enclosed in brackets. collection of the Natural History Museum For primary types (holotypes, syntypes, (formerly the British Museum (Natural and lectotypes) in AMNH, the citation of the History), London), now housed at Tring on name and of the type locality is first given the former Rothschild estate. exactly as it appeared in the original descrip- Many of the collectors from whom Roth- tion, which has been seen unless otherwise schild purchased specimens put broad local- 2 2011 LECROY: AMNH TYPE SPECIMENS ZOSTEROPIDAE AND MELIPHAGIDAE 3 ities and inclusive dates on specimens and type list have been especially troublesome. In also sold specimens widely through dealers; that year, Mathews published a flurry of new Rothschild himself frequently only selected names in his journal, The Austral Avian part of the specimens offered to him by a Record, so that they would be available for collector. Unless the type is said to be his large work, The Birds of Australia,and elsewhere, Rothschild’s and/or Hartert’s not be preempted by prior publication of types were in the Rothschild Collection, other authors. Mathews was not consistent in often the entire type series coming to AMNH remembering to add his 1923 names to the with the collection. Hartert tied Rothschild larger work and was increasingly careless type labels on these specimens and published about type designation. lists of the types in order to ‘‘fix’’ them. But It has not been possible to establish exactly because the Rothschild specimens were never when the Mathews Collection went to Roth- cataloged before they came to AMNH, the schild. Some brief notes in AMNH indicate lists are sometimes ambiguous and the type that perhaps some of it went to Rothschild as label is not sufficient, in and of itself, to early as 1919 and the rest was sent as later identify the type (ICZN, 1999: 77, Art. volumes of The Birds of Australia were 72.4.7). Following the practice in all previous completed. If this is correct, then Mathews parts of the AMNH type list, I have accepted may not have had his collection close at hand Hartert’s (1918, 1919a, 1920, and 1928) when the descriptions published in 1923 were nomination of ‘‘types’’ in the Rothschild written. However, he did have access to his Collection as designations of lectotypes in collection in the Rothschild Collection until cases where original descriptions implied that collection came to AMNH in 1932 syntypes. For a fuller discussion, see LeCroy (Mathews, 1942: 54–55). Often the 1923 (2005: 2–3, 2008: 2–3, and 2010: 3–4). In this names appeared to be based on statements part, see discussion under Zosterops super- made by others in their own publications, or ciliaris. Because it is important to remove all were based on fieldnotes sent to Mathews by ambiguity surrounding a type specimen, I his correspondents and quoted in the text of have accepted the presence of a Rothschild The Birds of Australia. Therefore it is type label as an indication that the specimen sometimes impossible to select a type; each bearing it is the intended type and have in of these cases is discussed in the following some cases designated it the lectotype when accounts. For further information on the all of the data match those cited in the Mathews Collection, see LeCroy (2005: 72, original description. In this part of the type 2008: 5–6, 2010: 4). list, I have designated lectotypes for the Where no clues were found for identifying following Rothschild and/or Hartert names: a Mathews primary type, all specimens of Tephra ruki, Chlorocharis squamiceps, Zos- that form in Mathews’ collection at the time terops superciliaris, and Prosthemadera no- of description are considered syntypes. How- vaeseelandiae chathamensis. ever, the presence of his type label or the The Mathews Collection, purchased by word ‘‘Type’’ in Mathews’ characteristic Rothschild, contains numerous types of hand on a specimen in such series is accepted names that are in many cases now considered as an indication that this was his intended synonyms.