Hapalotis arboricola Krefft

Parnaby, Harry E., Ingleby, Sandy & Divljan, Anja, 2017, Type Specimens of Non-fossil Mammals in the Australian Museum, Sydney, Records of the Australian Museum 69 (5), pp. 277-420 : 402-403

Hapalotis arboricola Krefft in Gould, 1863a

The Mammals of Australia, part 13, xxxv. (1 May 1863) .

Common name. House Rat.

Current name. Rattus rattus ( Linnaeus, 1758) , following Jackson & Groves (2015).

Holotype. The holotype is specimen “a” of Krefft (1864a: 66), as determined by Mahoney & Richardson (1988), presumably a skin mount, and was donated to the AM. An adult female presented by W. S. Macleay was the only known specimen at that time, according to Krefft (1864a). The specimen was apparently on public display in the AM in 1868 (Anonymous, 1868). We have not found an entry in the early registers for this specimen, which might not have been registered.

Type locality. Elizabeth Bay House, Elizabeth Bay, Sydney, NSW.

Comments. It seems that the holotype of arboricola had been misplaced by the 1890s. No authority who assigned this taxon to R. rattus , the first being Waite (1898b), was able to examine Macleay’s original specimen but have relied instead, on Krefft’s description in Gould (1863a) and material in the BMNH sent by Waite. Tate (1951b) cited the “type” of arboricola as B.M. No. 97.11.23.1., the same specimen examined by Taylor & Horner (1973: 39). There are two specimens listed in the BMNH Register, BM1897.11.23.1–2, both are female and listed as Mus , skins and skulls, collected 22 November 1897 from Sydney, presented by Edgar R. Waite, Australian Museum, Sydney. The associated note in the register reads: “Specimens of ‘ Mus arboricola ’ referred to in P.Z.S. 1897. Sent alive to Zool. Gardens, killed on arrival.” (Paula Jenkins, BMNH, pers. comm. 18 February 2014). These specimens were examined by Thomas and discussed in P.Z.S. by Waite (1898b).

Numerous specimens identified as Hapalotis arboricola were received by the AM during the 1860s, e.g., six Hapalotis arboricola are listed as a donation from W. Macleay in the AM annual report for 1868. Poor specimen documentation in the original entries made by Palmer in the P Register obfuscate attempts to establish which, if any, of these specimens is Krefft’s original specimen. Although often attributed to Gould, authorship of Hapalotis arboricola rests with Krefft. Gould (1863a) stated that he had not seen specimens of this entity and that he relied on two colour drawings provided by Krefft along with a description of the specimen provided by Krefft, which Gould reproduced verbatim.