Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis Meyer, AB, 1884

Johannessen, Lars Erik & Lifjeld, Jan T., 2022, Type specimens of birds in the Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway, Zootaxa 5150 (4), pp. 451-486 : 464-465

Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis Meyer, AB, 1884

Sitzungsberichte und Abhandlungen der Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft Isis in Dresden, Abhandlungen 1884: 15–16.

Current name: Geoffroyus geoffroyi timorlaoensis Meyer, AB, 1884

Syntype NHMO-BI-64130 [I022716]; Mounted; Ad. M; Johann Gerard Friedrich Riedel, 1881–1883; Indonesia: Timorlaut [ Tanimbar Islands ]; 7.500° S 131.500° E ; 11a.

Syntype NHMO-BI-64228 [I022813]; Study skin; Ad. F; Johann Gerard Friedrich Riedel, 1881–1883; Indonesia: Timorlaut [ Tanimbar Islands ]; 7.500° S 131.500° E ; 11b.

Remarks: These two parrots were indicated in the accompanying letter as ‘Typen’, and also have ‘Typus’ written on their labels ( Figure 3e and 3f ; on the female with the addition of ‘fem’). The label of the female is similar in style to that of Ptilopus flavovirescens mentioned above ( Figure 3a ), while that of the male is in the same style as the labels for Eclectus and Artamus ( Figure 3c, 3d and 3g ); both are assumed to be original and from before the specimens arrived in Oslo. In contrast to the Eclectus labels, ‘Typus’ and ‘fem’ seems to be in the same handwriting as the main text in the label for the female, while ‘Typus’ in the label for the male, and ‘Mus. Dresd. 86’ in both, are in a different handwriting. For reasoning behind the provided collecting date interval, see discussion under Ptilopus flavovirescens above.

Meyer (1884) based his description on a series of 11 specimens, and at least 10 of these seem to be well accounted for ( Table 4 ). Seven are still present in SNSD, and three syntypes are each documented in the MTD (now SNSD) catalogues (Martin Päckert, pers. comm.) to have been exchanged to MNHN, ZSM (now SNSB) and USNM; the continued existence of these in their current collections has also been verified ( Table 4 ) .

According to Eck & Quaisser (2004), another specimen that was part of the 1930 exchange to USNM, C7596, was also a syntype (USNM 317784; Eck & Quaisser 2004). There are, however, no indications in either the MTD/ SNSD or USNM catalogues, or on the labels currently on the specimen in the USNM collection, of it being a type (in the USNM catalogue ‘cotype’ is noted for 317785, while for 317784 only ‘new to mus.’ is noted; Christopher Milensky, pers. comm.). Further, only 317785 is mentioned in the USNM type catalogue by Deignan (1961).

On the other hand, a specimen in the AMNH should probably be added to the type series. Greenway (1978) listed specimen AMNH 620706, originating from the Rothschild collection at Tring, as a lectotype, stating that Hartert (1924) had designated this type. As also pointed out by Eck & Quaisser (2004), this was a misinterpretation of Hartert’s (1924) wording, as he referred to it as a ‘cotype’, but mentioned that Meyer had written ‘Typus’ on the label. While there is no evidence supporting that Meyer designated any holotype among the syntypes, the status of AMNH 620706 as a ‘cotype’, i.e. syntype, as stated by Hartert (1924), seems to be warranted.

So far, it therefore seems plausible that AMNH 620706 represents an 11 th syntype of this taxon, rather than USNM 317784. The situation is, however, more complex, as there are in addition to the aforementioned specimens, also two specimens each in NHMW and NHMO that apparently are syntypes of this taxon. The two in NHMW are both included in type catalogues from the collection ( Pelzeln & Lorenz 1888; Schifter et al. 2007), and although they are described as ‘authentische Exemplare’ by Pelzeln & Lorenz (1888), they are noted as ‘type’ in the acquisition catalogue (Hans-Martin Berg, pers. comm.; see Schifter (1990) and Schifter et al. (2007) for a discussion of the term ‘authentische Exemplare’ in NHMW). Regarding the two in NHMO, all available evidence in the NHMO, including original catalogue entries, the accompanying letter from Meyer and the labels, they both appear as valid, undebatable syntypes. The letter, in Meyer’s original handwriting, clearly states that four of the specimens listed as included in the shipment (this pair of Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis plus single specimens of Artamus Musschenbroeki and Ptilopus flavovirescens ) are types ( Figure 1 ). As shown in the entries for the two other taxa, there seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the type status of those. It is also worth noting that the pair of Eclectus riedeli included in the shipment (see above) are not indicated as types, lending credibility to the reliability of the information provided in the letter. No documentation of this exchange has, however, been found in the MTD/SNSD catalogues.

In conclusion, the number of alleged type specimens of this taxon exceed the 11 specimens on which Meyer based his description. As there seem to be reliable information supporting the type status of most or all of these (perhaps except C7596), we recommend more detailed investigations of all specimens allegedly included in the type series before any solid conclusions are made. We therefore maintain the two NHMO specimens as syntypes of this taxon .

Figures

FIGURE 1. Facsimile of parts of the letter from A. B. Meyer to R. Collett 11 July 1886, including the section about the content of the shipment sent to Oslo the same day, plus the header and signature parts.

FIGURE 3. Labels of type specimens (maintained and refuted) in the NHMO Bird Collection described by A.B. Meyer. a) Ptilopus flavovirescens NHMO-BI-59271 (original Dresden label); b) Ptilopus flavovirescens NHMO-BI-59271 (NHMO label); c) Eclectus riedeli NHMO-BI-64131 (original Dresden label); d) Eclectus riedeli NHMO-BI-64132 (original Dresden label); e) Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis NHMO-BI-64130 (original Dresden label); f) Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis NHMO-BI-64228 (original Dresden label); g) Artamus Musschenbroeki NHMO-BI-68621 (original Dresden label).