Andropadus ugandae van Someren

LeCroy, M., 2003, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History. Part 5. Passeriformes: Alaudidae, Hirundinidae, Motacillidae, Campephagidae, Pycnonotidae, Irenidae, Laniidae, Vangidae, Bombycillidae, Dulidae, Cinclidae,, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2003 (278), pp. 1-156 : 82-83

Andropadus ugandae van Someren

Andropadus ugandae van Someren, 1915b: 127 (Mabira

Forest).

Now Andropadus gracilis ugandae van Someren, 1915 .

See Keith et al., 1992: 289.

LECTOTYPE: AMNH 567343 , adult male, collected in the Mabira Forest , 00°30′N, 32°55′E ( R. J. Dowsett, personal commun.), Uganda, on 7 February 1914 (not 20 April 1914), by V. G.L. van Someren (no. 19a). From the van Someren Collection via the Rothschild Collection.

COMMENTS: In the original description, van Someren (1915b: 127) designated male and female syntypes from the Mabira Forest, stating that the types were in the Rothschild Collection, but reversing the collecting dates of the two specimens that are labeled ‘‘ϐ type’’ and ‘‘ ♀ type’’ in van Someren’s hand and that bear Rothschild type labels. When Hartert (1922b: 370) designated the male as lectotype, he mentioned the discrepancy in collecting date and gave the correct date for the male. The number ‘‘19a’’ was not mentioned by either van Someren or Hartert; it was added to the Rothschild type label in Hartert’s hand. The female paralectotype, AMNH 567344, was collect­ ed 20 April 1914 and bears the van Someren no. 19, also not mentioned in the original description. Because both specimens carry a Rothschild type label and because of the date discrepancy, both of these specimens have been retained in the AMNH type collection.

My interpretation of Hartert’s action differs from that of Louette et al. (2002: 88). There seems to be no question that the two specimens bearing the Rothschild type labels are the syntypes selected by van Someren. By listing the male as ‘‘type’’ and correcting the date of collection to that of the male, Hartert (1922b: 370) did unambiguously select one of the syntypes to be the name­bearing specimen, the lectotype in today’s terminology. Mention of the other specimen is unnecessary.