Sporophila morelleti sharpei Lawrence, 1889

LeCroy, Mary, 2012, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 10. Passeriformes: Emberizidae: Emberizinae, Catamblyrhynchinae, Cardinalinae, Thraupinae, And Tersininae, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2012 (368), pp. 1-125 : 30

Sporophila morelleti sharpei Lawrence

Sporophila morelleti sharpei Lawrence, 1889: 53 (Lomita, Texas).

Now Sporophila torqueola sharpei Lawrence, 1889 . See Hellmayr, 1938: 188–189, Eitniear, 1997, and Dickinson, 2003: 792.

SYNTYPES: AMNH 84610, adult male, 21 July 1880, and AMNH 84611, female, 19 March 1880, both collected at Lomita, Texas. From the George B. Sennett Collection (nos. 2160 and 2154, respectively).

COMMENTS: In the original description, Lawrence said that he had been loaned specimens of this new form by Sennett and that the types were in AMNH. Both of the above Sennett specimens bear an added label, written by Lawrence and marked ‘‘Type’’ by him. In his description, Lawrence detailed the history of the nomenclature of this form from Texas: In 1851, he ( Lawrence, 1851c: 124 ) had attributed an immature male specimen, collected at Brownsville, Texas, by J.P. McCown, to Spermophila albigularis (Spix) . Various subsequent authors had decided it should be included in S. morelleti or in S. parva ; but Lawrence (1889: 53) , being dissatisfied with any of these identifications, provided the name S. m. sharpei . In the description, he did not mention the immature male plumage of the original McCown specimen, considering only adult males and females.

The Sennett Collection was deposited in AMNH in 1884 (but not purchased until 1903 or 1904), so Lawrence knew that his types were housed at AMNH. Because Lawrence designated syntypes in the original description of sharpei , other Lomita specimens in Sennett’s Collection have no nomenclatural standing.

Also in the AMNH type collection is McCown’s Brownsville specimen, AMNH 41296, bearing a type label. However, someone has marked through ‘‘Type’’ and replaced it with ‘‘Original.’’ This is correct, as Lawrence had no intention of providing a new name in 1851, and the specimen is not part of Lawrence’s type series of sharpei and has no nomenclatural standing. It remains in the type collection with an added label to explain its presence.