Lanius mexicanus Brehm

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 : 103

Lanius mexicanus Brehm

Lanius mexicanus Brehm, 1854 : cols. 145, 148 ( Mexico).

Now Lanius ludovicianus mexicanus Brehm, 1854 . See Harris and Franklin, 2000: 160.

LECTOTYPE: AMNH 504740 , adult male, collected in ‘‘auct.’’ (auctumnus = autumn), in Mexico. From the Brehm Collection via the Rothschild Collection.

COMMENTS: Both male and female were described by Brehm (1854: cols. 145, 148), who did not state how many specimens he had. Hartert (1918b: 29) designated the above male the lectotype. AMNH 504741, a female from Mexico, also from the Brehm Collection, is a paralectotype.

Miller (1931: 65), based on information supplied him by Stresemann, concluded that two specimens (an adult and a juvenal) collected by Deppe and housed in ZMB ‘‘may be considered tentatively as types’’ of L. mexicanus Brehm. Lat­ er, both Hellmayr (1935: 214) and Stresemann (1954a: 89) noted that the type (singular) is in the Berlin Museum, presumably with no knowledge of Hartert’s (1918b: 29) earlier designation of a lectotype. Brehm visited Berlin in 1851 ( Stresemann, 1954a: 89) and could have examined Deppe specimens there. As is usually the case, however, the original label is no longer present on the two Brehm specimens of L. mexicanus in AMNH, and there is nothing to indicate, either in the description or on their labels, that the specimens were collected by Deppe or how Brehm acquired them. If, indeed, his specimens were collected by Deppe, Brehm also could have purchased them at the time of his visit or earlier, incorporating them into his collection and describing them later.

If Brehm had purchased these specimens in Berlin, as is entirely possible, they would probably have been selected from the so­called ‘‘Preis­ Verzeichniss Mexicanischer Vögel etc.’’ This list, published in 1830 (reprinted in ‘‘Journal für Ornithologie’’ for 1863), offered for sale duplicates from Deppe’s collection. Included in this list is Lanius carolinensis (no. 94), the same name as was originally given to the so­called Berlin type (see below). Thus, Brehm could have purchased his specimens from the Deppe collection at any time between 1830 and his description in 1854.

Because Brehm’s description was not published until 1854, three years after his visit to Berlin, it is very unlikely that he would have had before him any of the Deppe specimens remaining in Berlin. Thus, the Berlin specimen labeled as the type would have no standing as a type unless there was some indication that Brehm had indeed studied that specimen. Brehm habitually inscribed his new name on the label of specimens in his type series. Jürgen Haffer has kindly sent me photocopies of the labels on the supposed type in Berlin, and there is no indication that Brehm wrote on these labels. The oldest label is printed with the following: ‘‘ L. carolinensis Lath. ; Mas juv.; Mexico; Deppe’’ and with the catalog number ‘‘1783’’ added in ink. The specific name ‘‘carolinensis’’ has been marked out and ‘‘mexicanus Brehm’’ added in pencil by Cabanis ( Miller, 1931: 65), not in Brehm’s distinctive hand. The second ZMB label bears, in addition to the catalog number, ‘‘ Lanius ludovicianus mexicanus’’ and ‘‘Jantepeque, September 1826 ’’ in Stresemann’s hand. The type label also bears the catalog number and, in Stresemann’s hand, ‘‘ Lanius mexicanus C.L. Brehm’’ with a reference to the original description on the reverse.

The catalog number ‘‘1783’’ is from the first volume of the ZMB general catalog, which was not begun before 1858, because some birds with low catalog numbers were collected during 1857 and 1858. Specimen ‘‘1783’’ was at that time cataloged as Lanius carolinensis , and therefore the name change by Cabanis was made at some time after 1858 (J. Haffer, personal commun.). Nor was Brehm’s name anticipated by Lichtenstein’s (1854) list of birds in ZMB, in which it was also listed as Lanius carolinensis .

It is not the case, as Stresemann appears to have told Miller (1931: 65), that the Berlin collections were the basis of most of Brehm’s studies. Most of Brehm’s studies were based on his own collection, a large part of which was purchased by Rothschild in 1897 ( Hartert, 1901a: 39). Nor is it necessarily true that, by studying the Deppe specimens in Berlin, authors ‘‘by publishing their descriptions of new species have saved the types for the Berlin Museum’’ ( Stresemann, 1954a: 89). Thus, it seems that there is no convincing evidence that any Deppe specimen of this form remaining in Berlin should have any standing as a type, nor should Jantepeque be considered the type locality, as Brehm did not indicate that his specimens were collected by Deppe. Long before Miller (1931: 65), Hellmayr (1935: 214), and Stresemann (1954a: 89) had published, Hartert (1918b: 29) had designated what is now AMNH 504740 the lectotype, thereby conferring paralectotype status on AMNH 504741.