Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904)
Author
Mlíkovský, Jiří
text
Zootaxa
2011
3005
45
68
journal article
46961
10.5281/zenodo.202788
37c1b93e-9c92-45e1-a140-5fe4810c5b16
1175-5326
202788
Lophophanes cristatus scotica
Pražák
[
Lophophanes cristatus
]
scotica
Pražák, 1897e
: 347
, footnote.
NOW.
Parus cristatus scoticus
Pražák, 1898
. See
Hartert (1905
: 365, 1907b: 215),
Dudley
et al.
(2006
: 555) and
Forrester
et al.
(2007)
.
Syntypes
(NMS.Z.1888.84.46): Three specimens from Robert Gray Collection; collected on unknown date and at unknown locality. Two of them (both labeled
scoticus
) are still deposited at NMS, while one was donated to another museum in 1916 (B. McGowan, in litt. 2010).
Syntype
(NMS.Z.1891.89.2): Specimen from William Evans, collected on
21 August 1891
at “Speyside [= Strathspey,
Scotland
, an area along the River Spey, centered at Grantown-on-Spey;
57.32°N
,
03.62°W
]. Not found in 2010; already not listed in a ledger book compiled around 1910 (B. McGowan, in litt. 2010).
Syntype
(?): Specimen collected in
January
1897
in Rothiemurchus,
Scotland
[
57.13°N
,
03.85°W
]. Not catalogued, exchanged to MRSN (B. McGowan, in litt. 2010), where it was not found in the 1980s (
Elter 1986
).
Remarks.
Pražák (1897e: 347, footnote)
said that he based this form on “die schottischen Exemplare” (“the Scottish specimens”), without explanation. The NHMW and VTH had no
Parus cristatus
from
Scotland
when Pražák studied tits there in
1893–1895
. However,
Pražák (1897e: 347, footnote)
added the description of
scotica
during proofreading of the second part of his forthcoming treatise of the birds of Austrian East Galicia (published in the July issue of
Journal für Ornithologie
), when he worked in Edinburgh,
Scotland
. It is thus highly probable that Pražák based his
scotica
on specimens he examined in NMS, where the five specimens listed above could have been at his disposal (B. McGowan, in litt. 2010). Of these, four specimens were catalogued and Pražák may well have seen them. However, the Rothiemurchus specimen was not catalogued and it is thus uncertain whether Pražák examined it. Thus, I consider the three Gray specimens and the Evans specimen as
syntypes
of
Lophophanes cristatus scotica
Pražák. The
type
status of the Rothiemurchus specimen is uncertain.
Pražák (1898a: 347, footnote)
spoke about “Scottish” specimens, which makes
Scotland
the
type
locality.
Clancey (1948: 108)
restricted the
type
locality to “Strath Spey,
Scotland
”. None of the four
syntypes
bears an exact locality. However,
Lophophanes cristatus scoticus
(Pražák)
is a range-restricted subspecies whose range includes the region of Strathspey,
Scotland
”. Nevertheless, there is nothing in Pražák’s writings and nothing in NMS files (B. McGowan, in litt. 2010) that would allow restriction of the
type
locality of this form to Strathspey. Clancey’s (1948) restriction is thus invalid and the
type
locality of
Lophophanes cristatus scotica
Pražák
continues to be the whole range of the subspecies.