Rhinomyias insignis Ogilvie-Grant, 1895
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1206/313.1 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12777418 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C087C0-9E4F-1056-FD36-4D190AB3F9DD |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Rhinomyias insignis Ogilvie-Grant |
status |
|
Rhinomyias insignis Ogilvie-Grant View in CoL
Rhinomyias insignis Ogilvie-Grant, 1895b: 40 View in CoL (mountains of Lepanto in Northern Luzon).
Now Rhinomyias insignis Ogilvie-Grant, 1895 View in CoL . See Dickinson et al., 1991: 343.
SYNTYPES: AMNH 652772 About AMNH (Whitehead no. A.61), adult male, 27 January 1895 ; AMNH 652773 About AMNH (A.65), adult male, 28 January 1895 (now CMNH no. 35695) ; AMNH 652774 About AMNH (A.26), adult female, 24 January 1895 ; and AMNH 652775 About AMNH (A.27), adult female, 29 January 1895, all collected on Mount Data , 16.51N, 120.52E ( Dickinson et al., 1991: 418), Mountain Province, northern Luzon Island , Philippines, by John Whitehead. From the Rothschild Collection GoogleMaps .
COMMENTS: In the original description, Ogilvie-Grant described both male and female but did not say how many specimens he examined or designate a type, nor did he ( Ogilvie-Grant, 1895d: 442) add additional information. However, Whitehead (1899: 85) noted that he collected on Mt. Data for 30 days from 14 January 1895, and ( Whitehead, 1899: 109) that he obtained six specimens of Rhinomyias insignis at nearly 8000 ft.
Hachisuka (1935: 331) noted that a male type collected on 29 January 1895 was in BMNH and a ‘‘co-type’’ was in AMNH, from the Rothschild Collection. Then on p. 332 he said: ‘‘ Four specimens, including the type, are in the Lord Rothschild collection’’. These conflicting statements do not constitute lectotype designation, and Warren and Harrison (1971: 260) listed two syntypes in BMNH. The four specimens that came to AMNH with the Rothschild Collection are the other four syntypes.
Vaurie (1952: 29) listed a male and a female specimen from Mt. Data as ‘‘the cotypes of insignis ’’, apparently basing this statement on the notation ‘‘ Co-type’ ’ on labels of AMNH 652772 About AMNH and 652774 ; at some later time Vaurie marked these labels ‘‘ paratype is meant’’. These two specimens retain Whitehead’s original field label. The other two specimens have had the field label replaced by a printed Whitehead label that is not so marked. However , assuming that the entire Mt. Data collection was shipped to Ogilvie-Grant from Vigan ( Whitehead, 1899: 85), Ogilvie-Grant would have had all six specimens of insignis when the description was written ; thus, they are all syntypes.
In 1994, I made the mistaken assumption that the type series comprised only the two syntypes in BMNH because Ogilvie-Grant had not indicated in his original description that there was more than one male and one female, and only two specimens were listed by Warren and Harrison (1971: 260). This led me to conclude that the four AMNH specimens were topotypes. As a topotype, syntype AMNH 652773 was exchanged with CMNH in 1996 (see M. LeCroy correspondence with Robert Kennedy, 1994–1995) for a specimen of Rhinomyias goodfellowi , a species lacking at AMNH.
CMNH |
The Cleveland Museum of Natural History |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Rhinomyias insignis Ogilvie-Grant
LeCroy, M. 2008 |
Rhinomyias insignis
Dickinson, E. C. & R. S. Kennedy & K. C. Parkes 1991: 343 |
Rhinomyias insignis
Ogilvie-Grant, W. R. 1895: 40 |