Saxicola rostrata Hemprich & Ehrenberg

Mlíkovský, Jiří & Frahnert, Sylke, 2011, Type specimens and type localities of birds collected during the Hemprich and Ehrenberg expedition to Lebanon in 1824, Zootaxa 2990, pp. 1-29 : 10-11

Saxicola rostrata Hemprich & Ehrenberg

Saxicola rostrata Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1833: 52 .

Now. Oenanthe oenanthe rostrata ( Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1833) . See Hartert (1910: 681) and “Remarks” below.

Type series. Hemprich and Ehrenberg (1833: 52) stated “Specimina 7 adsunt eaque in Aegypto superiore, Arabia septentrionali et Syria accisa sunt” (“Seven specimens were collected in Upper Egypt, northern Arabia [= Sinai] and Syria ”). At least four of these specimens were juveniles in “autumnal” plumage ( Hemprich & Ehrenberg 1833: 52). These seven specimens thus form the type series of Saxicola rostrata Hemprich & Ehrenberg. The identification of these syntypes is difficult, however, because no specimens were listed as rostrata by Lichtenstein (1825, 1854) or in the Inventory Catalogue of the ZMB, and the description of rostrata fits well also Hemprich and Ehrenberg’s (1833: 54) description of libanotica . Dresser and Blanford (1874: 339) found no types of rostrata in ZMB in 1873 (see also Blanford & Dresser 1874: 241). Stresemann (1962: 387) included in rostrata all syntypes of libanotica (see above), because he incorrectly believed that rostrata was composed from libanotica (adults) and picta (juveniles), as well as—apparently in error—also several syntypes of Sylvia semirufa Hemprich & Ehrenberg (Lichtenstein’s 1825 specimens Nr. 109–115), but this does not mean that he considered these specimens to be types of rostrata in the sense of the ICZN (1999). We found no specimen from “ Syria ” in ZMB that would qualify as a syntype of rostrata (see “Remarks” for further data). On the other hand, we found two juvenile specimens from Egypt that could be syntypes of rostrata , although we were unable to obtain proof for this. They are listed below.

Syntype (?): ZMB 22083, skin, 3 [= juv.], collected in September [1821] at “Benisuef” (label) [= Banī Suwayf, Egypt; 29.06°N, 31.09°E]. This species was labeled as a “ Typus ” of rostrata .

Syntype (?): ZMB 4733, skin, 3 [= juv.], collected in September (year not given) in “ Aegypten ” (label) [= Egypt]. This specimen is morphologically very similar to the specimen ZMB 22083. It was labeled as a “Typ” of longirostris Ehrb., which is either an unpublished Ehrenberg name or an error.

Type locality. The syntypes of S. rostrata were collected “in Aegypto superiore, Arabia septentrionali et Syria ” ( Hemprich & Ehrenberg 1833: 52), i.e. in the Upper Egypt, Sinai Peninsula and northern Lebanon.

Remarks. In 2007, in ZMB we found the skin of an adult male from “ Syria ” (ZMB 14871) labeled as the type of rostrata . This specimen differs from other Mediterranean Oenanthe oenanthe (Linn, 1758) in having the bill shorter (!), while rostrata was described as having the bill longer. We thus do not include this specimen among the syntypes of rostrata .

The fate of the species-group name rostrata of Hemprich and Ehrenberg (1833) depends on the taxonomic treatment of Oenanthe oenanthe . No nomenclatural problems arise when Mediterranean populations are united with the birds from continental Europe in a single (nominotypical) subspecies (e.g. Vaurie 1959b, Loskot 1973, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Panov 2005; see also Ripley 1964). However, several authors recently separated Mediterranean birds at the subspecies level, applying the name libanotica of Hemprich and Ehrenberg (1833) to them (e.g. Mackworth-Praed and Grant 1951, C. S. Roselaar in Cramp 1988, Dickinson 2003, Collar 2005). Eastern Mediterranean birds have longer bills than western Mediterranean birds of the same subspecies and also than European Oenanthe oenanthe of the nominotypical subspecies (C. S. Roselaar in Cramp 1988; see also Zedlitz 1912, Meinertzhagen 1920, Ticehurst et al. 1926, Stresemann 1943), which suggests that both libanotica and rostrata of Hemprich and Ehrenberg (1833) were based on locally breeding birds, not on northern migrants. Kleinschmidt (1905a: 166) separated these birds taxonomically, applying the name rostrata to them and placing libanotica in its synonymy (see also Kleinschmidt 1905b: 6; Hartert 1910: 681); his choice of one of two simultaneously published names can thus be interpreted as a first reviser action ( ICZN 1999, Art. 24.2). If eastern Mediterranean or all Mediterranean populations are taxonomically separated from the nominotypical subspecies, then the name Oenanthe oenanthe rostrata ( Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1833) should be used, based on Saxicola rostrata Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1833 . The name rostrata was applied to these birds already by a variety of earlier authors (e.g. Zedlitz 1911: 591, 1912: 556, Weigold 1912: 404, Le Roi 1923: 198, Ticehurst et al. 1926: 103, Friedmann & Loveridge 1937: 245, Portenko 1938, 1954: 161, Stresemann 1943: 489, 1962: 387, Gladkov 1954: 494–495). The preference for libanotica may have been caused by Erlanger’s (1905: 747) and Meinertzhagen’s (1930: 263, 1954: 241) unsupported assurances that rostrata is synonymous with the nominotypical O. oenanthe (see also Vaurie 1949), while libanotica represents a valid form.