Coracina hypoleuca stalkeri Mathews

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 : 64-65

Coracina hypoleuca stalkeri Mathews

Coracina hypoleuca stalkeri Mathews, 1912a: 327 (Cooktown, Queensland).

Now considered intermediate between Coracina papuensis oriomo Mayr and Rand, 1936 and C. p. artamoides Schodde and Mason, 1999. See Schodde and Mason, 1999: 584.

HOLOTYPE: AMNH 561470 , adult female, collected at Cooktown , 15°29′S, 145°15′E (Times Atlas), Queensland, Australia, on 3 June 1899. From the Mathews Collection (no. 5824) via the Rothschild Collection.

COMMENTS: The Mathews catalog number of the holotype is cited in the original description, but there is no mention of how many specimens were in the type series. The range was given as ‘‘North Queensland’’. Specimens cataloged by Mathews at the same time as or prior to the holotype would certainly be paratypes: AMNH 561473, 561475, 561477, 561478, 561480, 561482, 561483, and 561724.

There is some confusion as to the sex of the holotype. On the field label, the sex symbol is an upside­down male symbol. Mathews at first cataloged it as a female and then changed it to male, but did not list the sex in the original description. The Mathews type label does not record the sex. The Rothschild type label records it as male. Hartert did not cover this part of the Mathews Collection in his lists of types in the Rothschild Collection. Schodde and Mason (1999: 584) questioned its being sexed as a male and mentioned that its measurements and lore color are consistent with its being a female or immature male, but they did not mention the confusing sex symbol on the field label.

Mathews obtained the specimens of this taxon from Herbert C. Robinson, and Robinson and Laverock (1900) had earlier published on this collection made by E. Olive. Using their report and spot­checking listed specimens, I found that Olive had made female symbols in both the correct way and as an upside­down male symbol, but he apparently always made male symbols the correct way. Therefore, I believe that this specimen was correctly sexed as a female by the collector, and that any published reference to it as a male must have been copied incorrectly from the Rothschild type label.

Whittell (1954: 621) noted that the collection reported on by Robinson and Laverock (1900) was later presented to Mathews. However, it appears from labels now on these specimens that part of the collection went directly to Rothschild and only part to Mathews (Mathews catalog numbers 5800–5926). At least some specimens also went to the Liverpool Museum (see Wagstaffe, 1978: 9, 13).