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
Author
Lecroy, Mary
Department of Vertebrate Zoology (Ornithology) American Museum of Natural History
text
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History
2014
2014-12-30
2014
393
1
165
journal article
7639
10.1206/885.1
48769858-fe3b-415b-9ac8-3feeb42a9bae
0003-0090
4629954
Hyphantica cardinalis
Hartlaub
Hyphantica cardinalis
Hartlaub, 1880: 325
(Ladó)
. Now
Quelea cardinalis
(
Hartlaub, 1880
)
. See
Hartlaub, 1881
;
Moreau and Greenway, 1962:
61;
Dickinson, 2003: 724
;
Fry and Keith, 2004: 204–205
; and
Craig, 2010: 140
.
SYNTYPE
:
AMNH 725957
, adult male, collected at Lado,
05.10N
,
31.32E
(Times
Atlas
),
Sudan
, on
7 August 1879
, by Emin Pasha (no. 412). From the Rothschild Collection.
COMMENTS: The above specimen is the only Lado specimen that came to AMNH with the Rothschild Collection; it had not previously been recognized as a type. Hartlaub did not designate a type in the original description, saying only that Emin had collected numerous specimens of both sexes at Lado. The type series of
Hyphantica cardinalis
would include those Emin specimens collected at Lado in 1879. His specimens were widely dispersed and now are found in many collections.
Schubotz (1921: 164–165)
provided information from Emin’s ‘‘Daybook’’ on this species and listed there eight specimens of
cardinalis
collected at Lado in 1879. A male specimen collected on
7 August 1879
with a wing measurement of
61 mm
is listed by
Schubotz (1921: 165)
. I measure the wing of AMNH 725957 as
60.5 mm
and consider it a
syntype
of
cardinalis
. It retains its original Emin label.
Sánchez-Osés (2010: 66)
noted that there had been nine specimens at UMB, with only three there now, the other six having been destroyed by insects. Only two of these
syntypes
are dated 1879, with no information as to date of collection included for the destroyed specimens. He now thinks that all specimens collected by Emin in
July and August 1879
should be considered
syntypes
, and to his knowledge no
lectotype
has been designated (Sánchez-Osés, in litt.,
11 May 1013
). I am very grateful to him for his help in unraveling some of the problems associat- ed with this name.
For BMNH,
Sharpe (1890: 257)
listed one specimen collected at Lado on
17 July 1879
and five others from Lado without date. The
17 July 1879
specimen is listed by
Schubotz (1921: 165)
and should be considered a
syntype
, although it is not so listed by
Warren and Harrison (1971)
.
Pelzeln (1881: 141
, 156) mentioned Hartlaub’s description, but apparently did not receive additional specimens in
Vienna
.
This new species was illustrated in
Journal für Ornithologie
(1881: 29, pl. 1), without further comment.