Eclectus riedeli Meyer, AB, 1882

Johannessen, Lars Erik & Lifjeld, Jan T., 2022, Type specimens of birds in the Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, Norway, Zootaxa 5150 (4), pp. 451-486 : 462-463

Eclectus riedeli Meyer, AB, 1882

Proceedings of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society of London, 1881 (4): 917–919 [printed April 1882].

Current name: Eclectus roratus riedeli Meyer, AB, 1882

Refuted NHMO-BI-64131 [I022717]; Mounted ; F; Johann Gerard Friedrich Riedel, 1881–1886; Indonesia: Timorlaut [Tanimbar Islands]; 7.500° S 131.500° E; 10b, lower specimen .

Refuted NHMO-BI-64132 [I022718]; Mounted ; M; Johann Gerard Friedrich Riedel, 1881–1886; Indonesia: Timorlaut [Tanimbar Islands]; 7.500° S 131.500° E; 10b, upper specimen .

Remarks: This mounted pair, a male and a female, have ‘(Typus)’ written on their labels (with parentheses; Figure 3c and 3d ), but this is not mentioned in the letter that accompanied the specimens when they arrived at the museum ( Figure 1 ). While these labels are in a different style than the labels of Ptilopus flavovirescens ( Figure 3a ) and the Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis female ( Figure 3f ), they are very similar to those of the Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis male ( Figure 3e ) and Artamus Musschenbroeki ( Figure 3g ), and to labels written by Meyer and found on other specimens currently in the SNSD collection. They, hence, apparently represent a ‘ prettier’ version of Meyer’s handwriting, and also these labels are therefore considered to be original. ‘Typus’ and ‘Mus. Dresd. 86’, however, seem to have been added after the main text, probably by two different persons, and may likely have been added at NHMO.

The original description of this species ( Meyer 1882) was, however, based on a single female specimen, which consequently should be regarded as the holotype. This was at the MTD (now SNSD) but was lost during WW2 (C6051; Eck & Quaisser 2004). Consequently, neither of the specimens in the NHMO collection can be the true holotype of this taxon. Most likely these specimens represent a similar case to the E. roratus riedeli (NMW 50.145) in NHMW, which was included in the type catalogue by Pelzeln & Lorenz (1888) and there described as a ‘typical specimen’ (‘typisches Exemplar’) but later dismissed as a type by Schifter (1990).

While no neotype, to our knowledge, has been assigned for this taxon, we refrain from doing so with reference to article 75.2 of the Code ( International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999).

No collecting date was provided for these specimens, but the same reasoning as explained for Ptilopus flavovirescens above has been applied. However, as the shipment containing these specimens was sent from Dresden in July 1886, and they are not part of the type series, they may have been collected as late as 1886.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Facsimile of parts of the letter from A. B. Meyer to R. Collett 11 July 1886, including the section about the content of the shipment sent to Oslo the same day, plus the header and signature parts.

FIGURE 3. Labels of type specimens (maintained and refuted) in the NHMO Bird Collection described by A.B. Meyer. a) Ptilopus flavovirescens NHMO-BI-59271 (original Dresden label); b) Ptilopus flavovirescens NHMO-BI-59271 (NHMO label); c) Eclectus riedeli NHMO-BI-64131 (original Dresden label); d) Eclectus riedeli NHMO-BI-64132 (original Dresden label); e) Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis NHMO-BI-64130 (original Dresden label); f) Geoffroyus timorlaoënsis NHMO-BI-64228 (original Dresden label); g) Artamus Musschenbroeki NHMO-BI-68621 (original Dresden label).