Cuscus chrysorrhous var. goldiei Ramsay, 1877b

Parnaby, Harry & Gill, Anthony C., 2021, Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney, Zootaxa 4975 (2), pp. 201-252 : 242-243

Cuscus chrysorrhous var. goldiei Ramsay, 1877b

Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 1 (4), 395. (March 1877).

Description read at the 27th December 1876 meeting of the LSNSW.

Current name. Common Spotted Cuscus Spilocuscus maculatus goldiei (Ramsay, 1877) , following Helgen & Jackson (2015).

Taxonomic status. Recognised as a subspecies of S. maculatus ( Geoffroy, 1803) since Tate (1945), who treated chrysorrhous Temminck, 1824 and goldiei as subspecies of maculatus . Although occasionally recognised as a valid species in the early 20th century, most authors prior to Tate (1945) did not recognise the validity of goldiei, even as a subspecies. Helgen & Flannery (2004) suggested that goldiei could be a distinct species but refrained from elevating it to species rank pending further research. The taxonomy of Spilocuscus maculatus remains problematic and several species might be involved ( Helgen & Jackson 2015). Until recently the generic name Phalanger was used for many cuscus species including maculatus .

Type locality. “ Port Moresby district ” ( Ramsay ), Central Province, Papua New Guinea .

Comments. Ramsay stated that his description was based on two females only, obtained by Goldie “in the previous year”. One syntype is in the AM but the remaining syntype has not been reported in the literature and was not listed in the unpublished checklist of mammal types by Troughton (1956). In the introductory remarks of his paper, which mainly dealt with bird specimens, Ramsay (1877b) stated that he examined material brought to Sydney by Goldie. We have not determined whether he purchased all of the material or whether Goldie subsequently dispersed the collection to several buyers, which could have included Macleay. An adult female skin without a skull (PA.543) in the AM could be one of the syntypes and is distinctly smaller than the body dimensions of the one specimen given by Ramsay (see Parnaby et al. 2017). The remaining syntype might remain unrecognised in the AM Collection as a specimen without data or was exchanged to another institution without adequate documentation. While it is possible that Ramsay’s second specimen might be in the MAMU, to date we have not found any evidence. The MAMU 1890s Catalogue does not mention “ goldiei ” and the only adult female specimens listed under “ Phalanger maculatus ” from Port Moresby are three skins in “brine”. A re-appraisal of species identification of MAMU cuscus specimens by a taxonomic specialist remains an important step in the search for the missing syntype.