Type specimens: Incorrect types

[JelleZijlstra]

I started going over species where the MDD has a type specimen but Hesperomys does not. In many cases the MDD was correct, but I encountered some that seem incorrect:

• AMNHM-33876 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1000575; Cercopithecus mona; original citation: Schreber (1774); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • I assume this means the AMNH, but AMNH 33876 is actually the type of Pithecia milleri (also listed as such in MDD). It's unlikely that there is a preserved type specimen for Cercopithecus mona.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Cercopithecus mona
• ANCW CM15216 [holotype], ANWC CM15216 [paratype], ANWC CM15217 [paratype], ANWC CM15237 [paratype], ANWC CM15219 [paratype], ANWC CM15243 [paratype] (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1000304; Petrogale persephone; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • I haven't seen the original description, but based on Google Books snippets it looks as if ANWC CM15216 is a paratype and the holotype is QM JM2548. It's listed as such on the QM's website: https://collections.qm.qld.gov.au/objects/VE110272/petrogale-persephone
  • Recommendation: change type of Petrogale persephone to QM JM2548.
• BM 329 [holotype] (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1000157; Neophascogale lorentzii; original citation: Jentink (1911); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • In the original description, 329 appears to be a field number; it's not a valid British Museum specimen number. The BMNH holds the types of two synonyms of this species, but I would expect Jentink's type to be in the RMNH. Haven't yet checked the RMNH database.
  • Edit: I found the type in the RMNH database, it's RMNH.MAM.36163
  • Recommendation: remove type for Neophascogale lorentzii (or figure out the right number in the RMNH database)
• BM ZD 1999.360 [neotype] (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1006432; Sousa chinensis; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This one is arguable. Wang et al. (2015) rejected this neotype designation on technical grounds, and Jefferson and Rosenbaum (2014) previously pointed out some problems. Therefore, I chose to reject the neotype designation, but we could go the other way.
  • Jefferson, T.A. and Rosenbaum, H.C. 2014-10. Taxonomic revision of the humpback dolphins (Sousa s.), and description of a new species from Australia. Marine Mammal Science 30(4):1494-1541. doi:10.1111/mms.12152
  • Wang, J.Y., Yang, S.C. and Hung, S.K. 2015-12. Diagnosability and description of a new subspecies of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765), from the Taiwan Strait. Zoological Studies 54(36):1-15. doi:10.1186/s40555-015-0115-x
  • Recommendation: remove type for Sousa chinensis
• CHAS:Mamm:713 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1001858; Geomys bursarius; original citation: Shaw (1800); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is actually the type of a subspecies, Geomys bursarius illinoensis. According to my data there is no well-documented type for bursarius, but a specimen in the RMNH may be the type. Relatedly, CHAS is missing from the type specimen metadata file that comes with the MDD; it should be mapped to Chicago Academy of Sciences.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Geomys bursarius
• FMNH112348 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1001964; Orientallactaga sibirica; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is the type of Allactaga firouzi, which I currently have as a subspecies of Scarturus hotsoni. The name sibirica is from 1778 and it's somewhat unlikely that there is an extant type.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Orientallactaga sibirica
• FMNH17062 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1003033; Aethomys chrysophilus; original citation: de Winton (1897); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is the type of Mus voi Osgood, 1910, a synonym of Aethomys chrysophilus. I haven't located the type of chrysophilus but presumably it is in the BMNH.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Aethomys chrysophilus
• FMNH53956 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1002686; Calomys callosus; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This specimen was collected in 1944 and cannot be the holotype of Mus callosus Rengger, 1830. Hershkovitz wrote about the type of callosus "Not known to be in existence. The bulk of Rengger's Paraguayan collection was lost before it could be sent to Europe. It is possible, however, that a few specimens reached the natural history museum of Aarau, Switzerland."
  • Recommendation: remove type for Calomys callosus
• FMNH93856 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1005952; Lupulella adusta; original citation: Sundevall (1847); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is the type of Canis adustus namrui, a subspecies. I have no data about the type of adusta, but some of Sundevall's other types ended up in the BMNH.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Lupulella adustus
• IBUNAM (CNMA) 7383 [neotype] (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1004912; Glossophaga morenoi; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • Discussed by Urbano Vidales & Sánchez-Herrera (1983:2). It's not clear who designated the neotype (possibly it was just marked as such in the collection?) and apparently the specimen is a Glossophaga soricina.
  • Urbano, G. and Sánchez-Herrera, O. 1983. Type specimens of mammals in the collection of the Institute of Biology, National University of Mexico. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 87:1-7. URL: http://www.realitat.com/websites/zoologia/zoo_08/cnma/archivos/mamiferos18.pdf
  • Recommendation: remove type for Glossophaga morenoi
• IBUNAM (CNMA) 9216 [neotype] (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1004916; Leptonycteris yerbabuenae; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • According to Urbano Vidales & Sánchez-Herrera (1983:3) this is a paratype; they cite and reject a previous paper that designated this specimen as the lectotype. I am not aware of a published reference that designates this specimen as the neotype.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Leptonycteris yerbabuenae

I am going over these alphabetically by collection number, so the MNHN is next; that'll probably keep me busy for a while.

[JelleZijlstra]

Two more that caught my eye:

• ROM20068 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1006285; Alces alces; original citation: Linnaeus (1758); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is the type of the putative subspecies Alces americana andersoni. Alces alces was named by Linnaeus and I am not aware of any designated type specimen; presumably Linnaeus had seen many individuals in Sweden.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Alces alces
• UMNH:Mamm:13084 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1002099; Microtus richardsoni; original citation: De Kay (1842); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is the type of the subspecies Microtus richardsoni myllodontus. Apparently the type of richardsoni was collected during Richardson's expedition in Canada; if the type still exists it's most likely in London or in another European collection, but I have no precise information.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Microtus richardsoni

I'm still looking at types in the MNHN so I may have a few more discrepancies to report after that.

[JelleZijlstra]

And a few more:

• MNHN 1869-343 [syntype] (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1006425; Pseudorca crassidens; original citation: Owen (1846); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/zm/item/ac-1869-343, collected by Reinhardt in Denmark in 1862 and indeed marked as a syntype of Pseudorca crassidens. However, this cannot be correct. Pseudorca crassidens was based on a single specimen, a subfossil discovered in a marsh in England in 1843. According to Hershkovitz and Jefferson (extracts in https://hesperomys.com/n/Phocaena_crassidens), this specimen was lost by the 1880s. I don't know what the history of the MNHN specimen is (maybe it's a type of some synonym?), but it cannot be part of the type material of the species.
  • Recommendation: set type of Pseudorca crassidens to the lost skull from Lincolnshire Fens. (Not sure if you have a convention for marking a type specimen as lost. My practice is to leave the "type_specimen" field blank and set the "collection" field to the special value "lost", https://hesperomys.com/c/lost)
• MTD137785, MTD137753 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1000582; Cercopithecus wolfi; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is probably correct but I can't verify it. I looked up the original description of this species, and it was based on a single specimen then living in the Dresden zoo. It's certainly plausible that after it died, the animal ended up in the collection of the MTD in Dresden, but I can't find any confirmation so far: a Google Books search for the specimen numbers finds nothing; the museum doesn't seem to have an online collection database; and as far as I know there is no published type catalogue for its mammals. The museum's website says they have 26.000 mammals, so the specimen numbers in MDD might be too high, unless they have some unusual numbering scheme. The highest number in my database is MTD 23389 for the type of Crocidura kegoensis.
  • Recommendation: tell me where you got this type specimen from.
• NHMUKPVOR16820a (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1006313; Cervus elaphus; original citation: Linnaeus (1758); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • BMNH catalog here: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/object/892cf5d0-1a9d-4c65-ba35-59916f09e24d. This is an antler from some Pleistocene site in England, so it doesn't make sense for it to be Linnaeus's type of Cervus elaphus. The BMNH catalog lists the name strongyloceros Owen, which isn't in my database but might refer to a fossil synonym of the species; I'll have to track down that name.
  • Edit: It's the type of http://hesperomys.com/n/71500 Strongyloceros spelaeus Owen, 1846, a fossil synonym of Cervus elaphus. As far as I can tell Owen did not use strongyloceros as a species-group name.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Cervus elaphus

Next I'll have to go through the RMNH types, which should keep me busy for a while.

[JelleZijlstra]

Here are the RMNH type specimens that appear to be incorrect. Most of these are actually types of synonyms.

• RMNH 5828 [neotype] (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1006461; Physeter macrocephalus; original citation: Linnaeus (1758); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • See Husson and Holthuis (1974). This is the neotype of Physeter catodon, not of Physeter macrocephalus. The holotype of Physeter macrocephalus is a lost specimen that was stranded near Katwijk in 1598.
  • Husson, A.M. and Holthuis, L.B. 1974. Physeter macrocephalus Linnaeus, 1758, the valid name for the sperm whale. Zoologische Mededelingen 48(19):205-217.
  • Recommendation: set type of Physeter macrocephalus to the lost stranded specimen from 1598.
• RMNH MAM.10053.a, 10053.b, 9829.a, 9830.a, 9828.a, 9831.a, 9831.b, 9830.b, 9829.b, 9828.b (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1001543; Callosciurus nigrovittatus; original citation: Horsfield (1824); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • 10053 is the type of Callosciurus nigrovittatus madsoedi, 9829 is the type of Callosciurus nigrovittatus salakensis, 9828 is the type of Callosciurus nigrovittatus tenggerensis, 9831 is the type of Callosciurus nigrovittatus phoenicurus, 9830 is the type of Callosciurus nigrovittatus bantamensis. All of these are synonyms of Callosciurus nigrovittatus nigrovittatus. The type of nigrovittatus was said to be in the "Museum of the East India Company" by Horsfield (1824). If it still exists, I would expect it to be in the BMNH, but if so it is not marked as a type in the online catalog.
  • Recommendation: remove type of Callosciurus nigrovittatus
• RMNH MAM.13373.a/b, RMNH MAM.9838.a/b, RMNH MAM.9837.a/b (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1001547; Callosciurus prevostii; original citation: Desmarest (1822); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • These are all types of synonyms: 13378 for Sciurus erythomelas, 9838 for Callosciurus prevostii coomansi, 9837 for Callosciurus prevostii waringensis. Desmarest wrote that he saw the type of prevostii in a collection in Brest in 1820. Maybe it's still there, but I have no data.
  • Recommendation: remove type of Callosciurus prevostii
• RMNH MAM.24076.b (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1001612; Aeromys tephromelas; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is again the type of a synonym, Petaurista bartelsi Sody, 1936. I don't have data about the type of Aeromys tephromelas but I would expect it to be in the BMNH.
  • Recommendation: remove type of Aeromys tephromelas
• RMNH MAM.33855.b (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1005840; Lutra cinerea; original citation: Illiger (1815); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • Also the type of a synonym, Amblonyx cinereus wurmbi Sody, 1933. The type of cinerea might well be in Leiden, but it's not this specimen which was collected in 1929.
  • Recommendation: remove type of Lutra cinerea
• RMNH MAM.39095 / ZSM187832 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1000756; Alouatta belzebul; original citation: Linnaeus (1766); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • RMNH 39095 appears to be the type of Mycetes rufimanus Kuhl, 1820, a synonym. I haven't yet tried to track down the ZSM specimen, but according to Gregorin (2006) there is no known type material for belzebul; it was named on the basis of the description by Marcgrave (1648).
  • Gregorin, R. 2006. Taxonomia e variação geográfica das espécies do gênero Alouatta Lacépède (Primates, Atelidae) no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 23(1):64-144. doi:10.1590/S0101-81752006000100005
  • Recommendation: remove type for Alouatta belzebul
• RMNH MAM.39124.a/b, RMNH MAM.39125.a/b (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1000577; Cercopithecus nictitans; original citation: Linnaeus (1766); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • Both of these are types of synonyms, 39124 for Cercopithecus signatus Jentink, 1886 and 39125 for Cercopithecus stampflii Jentink, 1888. nictitans was named by Linnaeus and it's unlikely that a type specimen still exists.
  • Recommendation: remove type of Cercopithecus nictitans
• RMNH MAM.9836.a/b, RMNH MAM.9833.a/b, RMNH MAM.9832.a/b (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1001544; Callosciurus notatus; original citation: Boddaert (1785); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • 9836 is the type of Callosciurus notatus kalianda, 9833 is the type of Callosciurus notatus vinocastaneus, 9832 is the type of Callosciurus notatus magnificus. I have no data about the type of notatus, but as it's from 1785 it's likely that there is no preserved type specimen.
  • Recommendation: remove type of Callosciurusnotatus
• RMNH.MAM.12721.a/b (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1003858; Crocidura beccarii; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is probably the type of the synonym Crocidura weberi Jentink, 1890. I haven't looked at the original description of beccarii but the type should be either in the MSNG (Genoa) or the BMNH.
  • Recommendation: remove type of Crocidura beccarii

[JelleZijlstra]

And the last batch of suspicious entries:

• SMF785 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1003046; Arvicanthis niloticus; original citation: Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This is the type of Meriones lacernatus, which is a composite (skin of Arvicanthis and skull of Meriones). If there is a type for Arvicanthis niloticus, it should be in the MNHN.
  • Recommendation: remove type for Arvicanthis niloticus
• SMNS187149 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1005939; Canis aureus; original citation: Linnaeus (1758); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • I can't verify this and if this refers to the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, I suspect it is incorrect. There is a type catalog for the SMNS (Dieterlen et al., 2013) and it doesn't list a type for Canis aureus (there is a type for Canis mengesi lamperti, a synonym of Canis aureus at the time and now of Canis lupaster, SMNS 2394). The SMNS's mammal collection doesn't appear to be searchable online. This is a Linnaeus name, so I'd expect that most likely there is no preserved type, and if there is one it should be in Sweden, not Germany.
  • Dieterlen, F., Turni, H. and Marquart, K. 2013. Type specimens of mammals in the collection of the Museum of Natural History Stuttgart. Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde (A) (n.s.)6:291-303.
  • Recommendation: tell me where you got this specimen number from
• ZMB137677 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1003989; Crocidura poensis; original citation: Fraser (1843); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • Similar situation: Turni et al. (2007) do not list this type, though there is a type of a synonym, ZMB 5421 for Crocidura schweitzeri. If the type of poensis still exists I would expect it at the BMNH.
  • Turni, H., Hutterer, R. and Asher, R.J. 2007. Type specimens of "insectivoran" mammals at the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin. Zootaxa 1470:1-33.
  • Recommendation: tell me where you got this specimen number from
• ZMB137684 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1004010; Crocidura suaveolens; original citation: Pallas (1811); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • Again similar in that Turni et al. (2007) do not list a type for this name, though the ZMB holds syntypes for two synonyms of suaveolens. There are very few preserved types for Pallas names.
  • Recommendation: tell me where you got this specimen number from
• ZMB137717 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1003805; Atelerix algirus; type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • Another similar case: the ZMB holds the type of a synonym (ZMB 5157, Erinaceus krugi Peters, 1877). I don't have information about the type of algirus, but maybe it is in Strasbourg.
  • Recommendation: tell me where you got this specimen number from
• ZSM187835 / AMNHM-51006 / AMNHM-51000 / FMNH67047 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1003804; Atelerix albiventris; original citation: Wagner (1841); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • FMNH 67047 is the type of Erinaceus pruneri oweni Setzer, 1953; AMNH 51000 is the type of Atelerix langi Allen, 1922; AMNH 51006 is the type of Atelerix faradjius Allen, 1922, all synonyms of this species. ZSM 187835 might be correct as I would indeed expect the type of albiventris to be at the ZSM, but I'd like to see more verification. The ZSM doesn't seem to have an online catalog.
  • Recommendation: remove the AMNH and FMNH types, and tell me where the ZSM number comes from.
• ZSM187941 (MDD) vs. (none) (Hesperomys) (MDD#1000411; Chaetophractus villosus; original citation: Desmarest (1804); type_specimen_missing_hesp)
  • This name was based on work by Azara and I wouldn't expect a type to be present at the ZSM. I can't find verification for this specimen number online.
  • Recommendation: tell me where you got this specimen number from