Spix and Wagler Type Specimens of Reptiles and Amphibians in the Natural History Musea in Munich (Germany) and Leiden (The Netherlands)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SPIXIANA Supplement 9 319-415 München, 15. Dezember 1983 ISSN 0343-5512 Spix and Wagler type specimens of reptiles and amphibians in the Natural History Musea in Munich (Germany) and Leiden (The Netherlands) By Marinus S. Hoogmoed Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden and Ulrich Gruber Zoologische Staatssammlung Miinchen Abstract An evaluation of the existing SPIX/WAGLER type material in the museums in Munich and Leiden is given. It tran- spired that a considerable part of the type material, which was thought to have been destroyed during the second world war, is still extant. The material is described briefly, its present taxonomic status is discussed and, where nec- essary, lectotypes are selected. Arising from this survey a number of nomenclatural changes are necessary. Natrix cinnamomea Wagler is here considered a species incertae sedis, possibly a species of Pseutes, which contrasts with the current opinion that this is a species of Chironius. Bothrops Megaera Wagler and B. leucurus Wagler are consid- ered conspecific and should be known under the name B. leucurus Wagler. Both B. Furia Wagler and B. tessella- tus Wagler are synonyms of B. atrox (L.). B. taeniatus Wagler is identical with B. castelnaudi Dumeril & Bibron, and the species subsequently has to be called B. taeniatus Wagler. Leptotyphlops tenella Klauber is synonymised with L. albifrons Wagler. Emys cayennensis Schweigger is considered a synonym of Podocnemis expansa (Schweigger). E. Tracaxa Spix and E. macrocepbala Spix are conspecific and should be correctly called Peltoce- phalus tracaxa (Spix.). Podocnemis unifilis Troschel and E. dumeriliana Schweigger are identical; in order to pre- serve stability suppression of E. dumeriliana and maintenance of P. unifilis as the valid name for the taxon is suggest- ed (the opinion concerning the complex Podocnemis/Peltocephalus has to be revised again according to a recent te- lephone and letter information of P. C. H. PRITCHARD; see footnote page 342). Ranamystacea Spix contained two species, Leptodactylus mystaceus (recently incorrectly named L. amazonicus Heyer) and L. spixii Heyer, recently described. Rana binotata Spix and Hyla abbreviata Spix are considered conspecific. WAGLER (1830 b), acting as first revisor, used the name Enydrobius abbreviatus for this taxon which is currently known as Eleutherodactylus binotatus. The Commission will be requested to give R. binotata precedence over H. abbreviata. Hyla. cinerascens Spix is identical with H. granosa Boulenger and would have priority. It is suggested that H. cinerascens be suppres- sed. Hyla nebulosa Spix is identical with Ololygon egleri Lutz and has priority, we suggest that this taxon hence- forth be known as O. nebulosa (Spix). The four taxa of the Bufo typhonius group described by Spix (B. naricus Spix, B. nasutus Schneider, B. acutirostris Spix and B.proboscideus Spix) are treated here as separate taxa, awaiting further study of this group. MEDEM'S efforts to reintroduce the specific name sclerops for the species widely known as Caiman crocodilus are refuted on the basis of type material and misinterpretation of the Rules of Nomenclature. The synonymisation of Anolis violaceus Spix with A. punctatus Daudin and that of Gecko (Lophyrus) crucifer Spix with Hemidactylus mabouia (Moreau de Jonnes) are doubted, but because of lack of type material no further action is taken. Brazilian authors are followed in using the name Mabuya bistriata (Spix) for Amazonian skinks, where as Scincus nigropunctatus Spix is considered Mabuya spec. Seps fragilis Raddi has priority over Pygopus striatus Spix, but as this name change would upset a long established name, it is suggested to suppress Seps fragilis. 319 Introduction The books by SPIX (1824, 1825) and WAGLER (1824) on, respectively, turtles and frogs, caimans and lizards and on snakes formed, together with WIED'S (1820, 1821, 1825, 1822-31) books on the natural history of Brazil, the basis for the study of the Brazilian herpetofauna for many years. Although the books purportedly only described new species, they included many species that had been described earlier. In some cases this apparently was known to the authors, because they cite earlier references, in other cases they described as new species individual variations or species already known to science. This was probably due to the fact that SPIX was not a specialist in the study of reptiles and amphibians and was not abreast of the current literature. It also may explain his descriptions of individual variations as new taxa. The fact that SPIX was in bad health and knew he had not much longer to live (TIEFENBA- CHER, 1982) possibly accounts for the hasty and in places careless descriptions. Anyhow, a substantial part of the descriptions (slightly more than 50% for frogs, lizards and snakes, about 25 % for turtles and caimans) were based on new taxa which currently are still recognised (table 1). Table 1 Author Snakes Lizards Amphisbaenians Caiman Turtles Frogs Caec ilians Wagler, 1824 39(35) 3(3) 1(1) Spix, 1824 18{17) 55(51) Spix, 1825 38(34) 4(4) Jan, 1859 28(7) Peters, 1873a 30(15) Peters, 1877 23{10) --- Vanzolini, 1981a 34 { 16 ) 24(14) 3(2) 4(1) 13 { 4 ) 30(18) 1(0) present paper 3 4 +? 1 25(14) 3(2) 4(1) 14(4) 37 + 1 1(0) (18) (22) The material on which SPIX (1824, 1825) and WAGLER (1824) reported was collected by SPIX himself, accompanied by the botanist C.F.P. MARTIUS during a three year collecting trip to Brazil (PAPAVERO, 1971; TIEFENBACHER, 1982; VANZOLINI, 1981a). History After his return from Brazil in 1820, SPIX started to work on the collections of animals, in order to publish the results as soon as possible. Between 1823 and 1825 he published volumes on monkeys and bats (1823), turtles and frogs (1824), birds (1824-25), caimans and lizards (1825), whereas several other volumes were written by others, using his notes: snakes (1824), fresh-water shells (1827), fishes (1829-31) and arthropods (1836). Most of these latter books were published after SPIX'S death in 1826. The material on which these books are based was deposited in the natural history collections of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences. In October 1824 the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden (RMNH) exchanged mammals, at least two birds, lizards, frogs and insects with the Munich museum (ZSMH), as is evidenced by letters in the archives of the RMNH. Most of this material is still in the collections of the RMNH, in good condition. BOIE (1826) commented upon SPEC'S (1825) book on crocodiles and lizards, at the same time indicating which species the Leiden Museum had obtained fromMunich. Most material still could be located in Leiden, but no trace (either in the collections, orin the catalogue) could be found of Tejus ameiva, T. lateristriga and T. ocellifer. They probably have been exchanged, being considered "double", before the system of numbering and cataloguing speci- mens was started in the Leiden Museum (probably after 1872). In 1827 some reorganisations took place in Munich, as a consequence of which the natural history collections were declared "independant", but with the main purpose to serve as a tool in teaching at the University. According to L. MOLLER (letter to STEJNEGER, 1931), in this period "war unser Museum 320 über 30 Jahre lang ein Annex des Zoologischen Instituts und kam unter den Ordinarien desselben ganz herunter". In the same letter MOLLER comments upon the condition of some of the SPIX specimens: "Die beiden Cotypen von Hyla ranoides Spix und der Holotypus von Hyla stercoracea Spix sind in ei- nem so schlechten Zustand, daß ich mir kein Urteil über ihre Artzugehörigkeit erlauben kann... Die Exemplare waren in zu schwachem Alkohol erst stark mazeriert und sind dann offenbar auch in halb ausgetrockneten Gläsern aufbewahrt gewesen. Die Muskulatur ist zum Teil aufgelöst, so daß die Haut in zahlreichen Falten zusammengeschrumpft ist; die Epidermis ist derart mazeriert, daß von einer Hautstruktur nichts mehr zu erkennen ist... Viele Spix'sehe Typen sind in sehr schlechtem Zustande, einige, die noch W. PETERS in Händen hatte, sind nicht mehr vorhanden." From these sad remarks it is clear that the material collected by SPIX and MARTIUS was put to a harsh test during the first 100 years of its stay in Munich, though this is not very clear from the studies by PETERS (1862 a, 1862 b, 1873 a, 1877) and JAN (1859). PETERS (1873 a) described the collection as well preserved, with partly faded colours, af- ter 50 years in preservative, although he stated that several specimens appeared to have been partly dried out and that several had been badly preserved from the start. This would indicate that the events as described by L. MÜLLER took place between 1820 and 1872, whereas part of the material was lost dur- ing the last quarter of the nineteenth century. MOLLER'S remark that "Die Spix'schen Typen waren zum Teil wohl bereits durch SPIX schlecht präpariert" does agree with PETERS' remarks, but certainly is not applicable to the RMNH material, which is in good condition, though faded. Towards the end of the twenties of the present century, the Munich collections of natural history were separated from the University institutions and subsequently formed an independent Museum of Natural History in the centre of Munich. During this period the zoological collections as a whole and particularly the herpetological ones under the care of L. MÜLLER developed and prospered. This period rudely came to an end by the outbreak of World War II, and the worst ordeal for the Spix collection was to come. As a precation against war damage, in early 1944, a large part of the scientific material of the State Zoological Collections in the socalled "Old Academy" had already been moved to places outside Munich.