Hypsiscopus wettsteini (David & Vogel, 1929)

David, Patrick & Vogel, Gernot, 2024, On the status of Helicops wettsteini Amaral, 1929, a senior synonym of Hypsiscopus murphyi (SERPENTES: Homalopsidae), Zootaxa 5415 (2), pp. 300-308 : 306-307

Hypsiscopus wettsteini

Helicops wettsteini Amaral, 1929: 40 .— Type locality. “ San Juan de Viñas (1000 ms alt.), base of Volcano Turialba , central Costa Rica”, now Turrialba Volcano , Cartago Province, Costa Rica, in error.— Holotype. NMW 18726 , adult female; collected by Mr. Garlepp, 1911–1912.

Hypsiscopus murphyi Bernstein, Voris, Stuart, Phimmachak, Seateun, Sivongxay, Neang, Karns, Andrews, Osterhage, Phipps & Ruane, 2022: 565 , Figures 1 –4, Supplemental Figures 1 –9.—Type locality. Ban Phak Phoung, 17.581918°N- 105.219978°E, Gnommalath District, Khammouan Province, Laos, 167 m a.s.l. — Holotype. NCSM 85490, adult male; collected by Bryan L. Stuart, Niane Sivongxay, Sengvilay Seateun and Monekham Davanhkham, 11 July 2014.

We take the opportunity of the present paper to discuss the name-bearing type series of Homalopsis plumbea H. Boie in F. Boie, 1827. This species was described from an unknown number of syntypes, but at least two syntypes as can be ascertained from F. Boie’s (1827) text in which he mentioned two values of subcaudal scales. We did not try to trace these original name-bearing types but Gyi’s (1970: 82) statement that specimen RMNH.RENA.1163 should be considered the holotype is erroneous. Furthermore, Murphy & Voris (2014) also overlooked that there were at least two syntypes and followed Gyi (1970) in mentioning a holotype. Wallach et al. (2014: 268) considered that Gyi (1970) designated a lectotype. However, according to Art. 74.5 of the Code (I. C. Z. N. 1999), this statement is also erroneous as the “subsequent use of the term ‘holotype’ does not constitute a valid lectotype designation”. The second part of Art. 74.5 being irrelevant to the present case, Gyi’s use of the term “ holotype ” cannot constitute the designation of a lectotype. Furthermore, following Art. 74.6, as the original description clearly implies that there were at least two specimens, there cannot be here a fixation of lectotype by inference of “ holotype ”. We follow Gyi (1970) in considering specimen RMNH.RENA.1163 as one of the two syntypes.

It remains to be established how two specimens of an Asian species were deposited as coming from Costa Rica. The two types of Helicops wettsteini were collected by “Garlepp”, namely either Gustav Garlepp (1862– 1907) or, much more likely, his brother Otto Garlepp (1864–1959), two noted German naturalist and professional collectors, mainly of insects and birds, in Neotropical America from 1883 ( Beolens et al. 2009). Otto Garlepp, after having collected in South America, returned to Germany in 1911. Then, in 1912–1913, he shipped to Switzerland lepidopterans collected in Panama and Costa Rica during the same expedition. In Costa Rica, O. Garlepp collected on the volcanoes Irazu and Turrialba. Quite interestingly, the types of H. wettsteini were stated to originate from “Volcan Turialba”, another spelling of Turrialba volcano, a large, active stratovolcano culminating at 3,340 meters a.s.l. We could not determine how Asian snakes were included in a collection from Costa Rica but the types of Helicops wettsteini , stated to have been deposited in 1911 or 1912, were seemingly catalogued just prior the shipment of specimens from Costa Rica done by Otto Garlepp in 1912 or 1913. We suggest that the two Asian specimens, left unattended or overlooked in some room of Vienna’s Museum of Natural History, were subsequently erroneously added to this collection by some less than diligent curator or technician. The consequence is that these specimens were invisible to specialists of Asian snakes as it would be highly improbable that anyone would find two Asian specimens deposited in a museum alleged to be from a Costa Rican expedition.

As a conclusion, we here stress two major points relevant to Systematics. The first one is the importance of accessible and careful curation of natural history collections so that authors are able to easily determine what the proper taxonomy of these specimens is. The second point is the importance of establishing the complete synonymy of any taxon of species-level before dividing it into two or more species, and of examining carefully the diagnostic characters of all these synonyms. Such a careful synonymy might reveal available senior synonyms, which would avoid the creation of a new systematic nomen.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Helicops wettsteini, specimen NMW 18726:1, holotype. A. General dorsal view.—B. General ventral view.—C. Dorsal view of the head.—D. Lateral view of the head, right side. Photos by G. Vogel.