Motacilla flava iberiae Hartert, 1921

LeCROY, M. A. R. Y., 2003, TYPE SPECIMENS OF BIRDS IN THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. PART 5. PASSERIFORMES: ALAUDIDAE, HIRUNDINIDAE, MOTACILLIDAE, CAMPEPHAGIDAE, PYCNONOTIDAE, IRENIDAE, LANIIDAE, VANGIDAE, BOMBYCILLIDAE, DULIDAE, CINCLIDAE, TROGLODYTIDAE, AND MIMIDAE, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 278 (278), pp. 1-156 : 41

[ Motacilla flava iberiae Hartert ]

COMMENTS: Zander (1851: 19) used the name Budytes fasciatus and credited it to Brehm. In this 1851 paper, Zander seemed quite careful to give references to published names, and that he did not do so in the case of B. fasciatus indicates that it was a Brehm manuscript name. Therefore, Budytes fasciatus (ex Brehm ms) Zander, 1851, is a valid description. Although Zander (1851: 19) did not say how many specimens he had nor designate a type, the description is of a male in spring plumage, with ‘‘Südfrankreich’’ the type locality and the only locality mentioned. The whereabouts of his type (s) is not known to me.

As noted under the previous taxon, Brehm (1855: 141) described Budytes fasciatus based on specimens from Hungary and Poland, but no earlier published description by Brehm has been found, and the lectotype and paralectotypes were collected in 1852, too late to have been seen by Zander.

Hartert (1905a: 287–296), when discussing Motacilla flava did not mention Budytes fasciatus , but later (1921c: 2097) listed Budytes fasciatus Zander, 1851 . Noting that the name was preoccupied by Motacilla fasciata Bechstein, 1795 , Hartert provided Motacilla flava iberiae as a nomen novum, the type locality of which he correctly listed as ‘‘Sudfrankreich’’. He gave the breeding range as Spain, Portugal, the Balearic Islands, southern France, and northern Algeria.

Hartert (1928: 202) gave reference to his M. f. iberiae without indicating that it was a nomen novum and he listed as the type an adult male that he collected at Miranda de Ebro, northern Spain, on 18 June 1919 (now AMNH 570591, the specimen on which Hartert tied the Rothschild label, although there is a second specimen with the same data, now AMNH 570592). Vaurie (1957: 3) not­ ed Hartert’s selection of a type without comment, but emphasized that the type locality of southern France must stand. Then, Vaurie (1959: 77) inexplicably reversed himself, accepted the type from Miranda de Ebro, and selected that locality as the type locality of M. f. iberiae. It was only by Vaurie et al. (1960: 131) that the error was discovered and in a footnote pointed out that Hartert (1928: 202) had improperly designated a neotype. Hartert’s specimen has no standing as a type.