Pražák, 1894f : 239 Parus major newtoni Pražák, 1894 Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904) Mlíkovský, Jiří Zootaxa 2011 3005 45 68 5K8L5 Prazak Prazak [151,502,547,574] Aves Paridae Parus Animalia Passeriformes 13 58 Chordata subSpecies major newtoni     Parus major newtoni  Pražák, 1894f: 239.  NOW.  Parus major newtoniPražák, 1894. See Hartert (1905: 343, 1907b: 213), Harrison (1945), Vaurie (1959: 511), Gosler (1999), Dickinson (2003: 524)and Dudley et al. (2006: 555).    Holotype. NHMW10664, collected by an unknown collector on an unknown date [= prior to 1892] at an unknown locality in England. Obtained from R. B. Sharpe in 1891.   Remarks. Pražák (1894f: 239–240)called this bird “Britische Kohlmeise” (“British Great Tit”), listed specimen NHMW 10664 as the “ typus” (= holotype), and stated that he examined 19 specimensof this form. All of these specimens, except the holotype, may have existed only in Pražák’s mind. Two specimens of British  Parus majorwere in the VTH in 1906 when the collection was purchased by the NHMW, including NMW 33646 (formerly Tschusi 2595), collected in “ England” in “Winter” of an unknown year, and NMW 33648 (formerly Tschusi 4069), collected “near Brighton, Sussex” on 4 February 1894and supplied to Tschusi by “Brazenor Bros., Naturalists, 39, Lewes Road, Brighton”. Pražák visited Tschusi at Hallein for the first time shortly prior to 15 October 1894according to one of Tschusi’s letters ( Schmuck 2010: 262–263), i.e. too late for considering these specimens (even if they were already present in the VTH at that time, for which no evidence is available) in his paper on  Parus major, which appeared in issue 6 of the Ornithologisches Jahrbuchfor Nov–Dec 1894. Moreover, these specimens were not labeled as newtoni. I thus conclude that Pražák’s  P. m. newtoniwas based on a single specimen.  Pražák (1894f: 239)listed only “ Britain” as the typelocality, but the holotypewas collected in “ England” according to the label data. I thus restrict the typelocality of P. m. n e w t o n ito England. Believing that the holotypewas lost, Clancey (1948: 197)restricted the typelocality of P. m. n e w t o n ito the “Lake District, England”. Since the holotypeis extant, Clancey’s restriction is invalid (Art. 76 of the Code).