Craspedophora magnifica yorki Mathews,

Lecroy, Mary, 2014, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 12. Passeriformes: Ploceidae, Sturnidae, Buphagidae, Oriolidae, Dicruridae, Callaeidae, Grallinidae, Corcoracidae, Artamidae, Cracticidae, Ptilonorhynchidae, Cnemophilidae, Paradisaeidae, And Corvidae, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2014 (393), pp. 1-165: 97

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.1206/885.1

DOI

http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4612441

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/0398542A-195E-FFB2-6AED-91CE1C48FDB7

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Craspedophora magnifica yorki Mathews
status

 

[ Craspedophora magnifica yorki Mathews  ]

COMMENTS: Despite the fact that Mathews (1922: 8) called yorki  a new subspecies, this name was supplied in 1922 as a replacement name for Ptiloris alberti Elliot  , which Mathews considered to be preoccupied by ‘‘ Ptilornis alberti Gray, 1869  (1870) ’’; Mathews did not indicate a type. However, as noted by Mayr (1962d: 188) the manuscript name supplied by Gray (1870: 105) was a nomen nudum there. Elliot (1871: 580–581) explained that, while he did not generally approve of applying a manuscript name to a new form, in this case he was making an exception and applying Gray’s manuscript name to the smaller Cape York bird collected by Macgillivray; Elliot was validating Gray’s name by providing a description, the type being the ‘‘smaller Cape York bird collected by Macgillivray,’’ presumably the specimen in BMNH annotated as ‘‘ alberti  ’’ by Gray.

In 1926, Mathews (1926: 382) summarized his current thinking, noting that the Cape York form had been considered identical to the New Guinea form until Elliot had separated it under Gray’s name ‘‘in preference to giving it a new name.’’ Mathews continued: ‘‘Gray replied that he did not figure it as it already had been figured by Gould and, moreover, he did not agree with the publication of the name, as he did not think the differences he had first observed were valid and therefore he had sank [sic] his unpublished MS. name as a synonym of the typical form. Consequently the name alberti  was invalid from its introduction by Elliot, but the error was only corrected in 1922.’’ This date of 1922 refers to Mathews’ introduction of the name yorki  as a replacement name, sharing the same type as Elliot’s alberti  .

By 1926 Mathews (1926: 378–382), under Mathewsiella magnifica  , had apparently decided that because he considered the name alberti  to be an invalid introduction, his own description of yorki  was a valid introduction of a new name and needed a type. AMNH 677640, adult male, collected at Cape York, North Queensland, 5 September 1911, is said by Mathews (1926: pl. 592, upper fig., opp. p. 378; text p. 379) to be the type of yorki  . But as explained above, the type of yorki  is the same specimen that is the type of Ptiloris alberti Elliot  (ICZN, 1999: 78, Art. 72.7), therefore AMNH 677640 has no nomenclatural standing.