Hapalotis papuanus Ramsay, 1883

Parnaby, Harry & Gill, Anthony C., 2021, Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney, Zootaxa 4975 (2), pp. 201-252 : 243-244

Hapalotis papuanus Ramsay, 1883 species inquirenda

Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 8 (1), 18, plate 11, figs 1–5. (19th June 1883)

Description read at the 31st January 1883 meeting of the LSNSW.

Current name. None, a giant rat.

Taxonomic status. We depart from previous taxonomic assessments and regard Hapalotis papuanus to be an indeterminate name (a species inquirenda), the nomenclatural status and biological validity of which needs to be assessed by a detailed morphological revision of Uromys species. In the most recent revision of Uromys, Groves & Flannery (1994) tentatively treated it as a subspecies of the Mottled-tailed Rat U. caudimaculatus ( Krefft, 1867) , as did Groves (2005). Throughout the 20th century considered a synonym of various names applied to New Guinean forms of Uromys ( Thomas 1913; Tate 1936; Troughton 1937; Rümmler 1938), all currently treated as synonyms of Uromys caudimaculatus . The latter is known to contain a number of currently unrecognised species ( Helgen et al. 2008).

Holotype. Ramsay described a dried skin and skull but did not indicate the sex or identify the collection in which the specimen resided. The holotype has not been reported since the original description.

Type locality. Unknown, not given in original description. Usually cited as the island of New Guinea as implied by the species name but the collector and locality remain unknown and the specimen could have originated from anywhere in the Australian region.

Comments. Ramsay apparently based his description of this large rodent on a single skin with skull. We have not located any material that could be Ramsay’s original specimen. Although there is no specific indication that the holotype was ever in Macleay’s Collection, this remains a possibility as most mammal specimens have limited associated data.

Thomas (1913) stated that the type had disappeared, perhaps based on correspondence with either the AM or MAMU. Troughton searched the MAMU on at least two occasions but failed to locate the holotype ( Troughton 1937). Groves & Flannery (1994) and Parnaby et al. (2017) were also unable to locate it either in the AM or the MAMU. Although Ramsay did not indicate in which collection he saw the specimen, the introductory comments to his paper, as noted by Parnaby et al. (2017), clearly reveal that it could have belonged to any number of private collectors or traders in natural history specimens who passed through Sydney, in addition to the Macleay Collection and the AM. Had the specimen been in a private collection it could have subsequently been sold or exchanged to other collections locally and abroad. We have not found any reference to this taxon, either in the MAMU documentation or in the AM Registers ( Parnaby et al. 2017), but Ramsay did not assign a registration number to all mammal specimens upon which he based new species descriptions.