Turtur ermanni Bonaparte

Mlíkovský, Jiří & Frahnert, Sylke, 2009, Type specimens and type localities of birds (Aves) collected by Eduard Eversmann and Christian Pander during the Negri Expedition to Bukhara in 1820 – 1821, Zootaxa 2297, pp. 15-26 : 17-18

Turtur ermanni Bonaparte

Turtur ermanni Bonaparte, 1856b: 942 .

Now: Streptopelia senegalensis ermanni (Bonaparte, 1856) (e.g. Dickinson 2003, based on a revision by Hartert 1916; see also Hartert 1920: 1495) or Streptopelia senegalensis cambayensis (Gmelin, 1789) ( Gibbs et al. 2001) .

Type series: Bonaparte (1856b: 942) described this species on the basis of “les exemplaires de Turtur cambayensis , qui proviennent de Boukharie, au Musée de Berlin”, i.e. “specimens of Turtur cambayensis , that originated from Bukhara [region], in the Berlin Museum [= ZMB].” Subsequent authors interpreted this to mean that the type series was comprised of more than one specimen deposited in the ZMB (e.g. Hartert 1916: 83; Richmond s.d.). However, Bonaparte's statement is confusing for two reasons. First, there is no evidence that the ZMB possessed more than one senegalensis or similar species prior to 1856. The single specimen known from the ZMB was collected by Eversmann on 10 March [= 22 March 1821] at “Buchara” [= Buxoro, Uzbekistan], and it was listed among the birds received from Eversmann and published as Columba aegyptiaca ( Lichtenstein 1822; 1823a). Second, Eversmann's Boxoro specimen was not listed by Lichtenstein (1854: 82), nor was it registered in the ZMB Accession Catalogue (SF & JM, pers. obs. in 2008). The only indication that it was present in the ZMB in 1856, when Bonaparte visited the Museum ( Bonaparte 1856c, d), is a notice in Bonaparte’s (1856b) paper. However, the specimen may have survived in the ZMB uncatalogued, perhaps as a mounted specimen (see below).

If Bonaparte (1856b) erred in writing of the types of Turtur ermanni in plural, the Eversmann Buxoro specimen would be the holotype of this form. Bonaparte (1856b) may have confounded one or more ZMB specimens from elsewhere with that from Buxoro, or he may have erred in stating that all the specimens were in the ZMB; in either of these cases Turtur ermanni may be a composite series of multiple taxa. Prior to the description of Turtur ermanni, Bonaparte had made a two-month trip through European ornithological collections ( Bonaparte 1856c) and he may have mixed up notes from different collections. Hartert (1903–1922) repeatedly criticized Bonaparte for making mistakes of this sort.

Type (?): ZMB 2000.11128. This specimen lacks data on its origin. E. Stresemann (label data, probably from the 1950s–1960s) assumed that this could be Eversmann's Buxoro specimen received in 1822 ( Lichtenstein 1822) and described in 1823 ( Lichtenstein 1823a). The specimen indeed looks aged, has been reworked from a mount to a skin, and morphologically agrees better with Middle Asian birds than other forms. Although there is no proof that it was in the ZMB in 1856, or that it is Eversmann's specimen, there is no evidence against Stresemann's assumption and thus this specimen could be a syntype or the holotype of Turtur ermanni Bonaparte. Eversmann's specimen was a female, collected by him on 10 March [= 22 March 1821] at “Buchara” [= Buxoro, Uzbekistan] ( Lichtenstein 1822, Nr. 53, sub Columba aegyptiaca ; Lichtenstein 1823a: 133 sub Columba aegyptiaca ).

Type locality: “Boukharie” ( Bonaparte 1856d: 942). If the species was based solely on the Eversmann specimen, then the holotype originated directly from “Buchara”, i.e. Buxoro, Buxoro Province, Uzbekistan [39.80°N, 64.42°E], which would thus restrict the type locality of this form. However, given the uncertainties with the definition of the type series upon which Bonaparte (1856a) based this species, and with the identity of type specimen(s), the original type locality may have been broader than indicated by Bonaparte (1856a). Remarks: Hartert (1916) revised the subspecies of senegalensis , concluding that Middle Asian ermanni is similar to but larger than Indian cambayensis . He recognized both subspecies, and this has been accepted by most subsequent authors. However, Gibbs et al. (2001: 248) considered ermanni as inseparable from Streptopelia senegalensis cambayensis (Gmelin, 1789) , and did not recognize it. The type series upon which Bonaparte (1856b) based his Turtur ermanni might have included specimens from different forms of senegalensis . If proven, designation of a lectotype or a neotype would be necessary to settle the taxonomic meaning of Turtur ermanni . Although Bonaparte (1856b) based this name at least in part on Eversmann's Buxoro specimen, and the application of ermanni to Middle Asian populations has never been doubted, no specimens have been unequivocally identified as belonging to the type series of Turtur ermanni , so we refrain from any nomenclatural act.