Pipilo fuscus carolae McGregor, 1899
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1206/775.1 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5470401 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/430787C0-A835-FFEA-FF5A-FE55FDBC0D9F |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Pipilo fuscus carolae McGregor |
status |
|
Pipilo fuscus carolae McGregor
Pipilo fuscus carolae McGregor, 1899c: 11 (Battle Creek, California).
Now Pipilo crissalis crissalis (Vigors, 1839) . See Hellmayr, 1938: 463, Ridgway, 1901: 435–436, Kunzmann et al., 2002: 3–4, and Dickinson, 2003: 797.
HOLOTYPE: AMNH 368511 About AMNH , male, collected at Battle Creek , California, on 7 November 1898. From the collection of R. McGregor (no. 2200) via the Jonathan Dwight Collection (no. 39652).
COMMENTS: McGregor cited his collection number of the holotype in the original description and had seven specimens from Battle Creek in his collection. The six paratypes are: AMNH 368508–368510, males, and AMNH 368512–368514, females. Dickinson (2003: 797) recognized carolae as a valid subspecies of P. crissalis . For information on McGregor, see Palmer (1928: 287).
There are many places named ‘‘Battle Creek’’ in California; in the original description, McGregor said that his locality was 2 mi from the Sacramento River and that the nearest post office was Ball’s Ferry. Ball’s Ferry is at ca. 40.30N, 122.18W GoogleMaps .
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 |
Pipilo fuscus carolae McGregor
LeCroy, Mary 2012 |
Pipilo crissalis crissalis (Vigors, 1839)
Kunzmann, M. R. & K. Ellison & K. L. Purcell & R. R. Johnson & L. T. Haight 2002: 3 |
Hellmayr, C. E. 1938: 463 |
Ridgway, R. 1901: 435 |
Pipilo fuscus carolae
McGregor, R. C. 1899: 11 |