Mus (Hapalotis?) tompsoni Ramsay, 1882

Parnaby, Harry & Gill, Anthony C., 2021, Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney, Zootaxa 4975 (2), pp. 201-252 : 240

Mus (Hapalotis?) tompsoni Ramsay, 1882

Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 6 (4), 763, figs 1–3. (20th March 1882).

Description read at the 26th October 1881 meeting of the LSNSW.

Current name. Black Rat Rattus rattus ( Linnaeus, 1758) following Mahoney & Richardson (1988: 186).

Taxonomic status. Considered a valid species prior to McCulloch (1907), who recognised that Mus tompsoni was the introduced rat Rattus rattus .

Holotype. MAMU M.787, male body in alcohol, skull in situ; obtained from F.A. Thompson. Subsequent determination by Mahoney & Richardson (1988: 186) who correctly stated that the type is male, although Ramsay indicated a female. A tag (possibly paper) tied around the neck of M.787 has written in ink: “Type of the species Mus (Hapalotis) tompsoni . (Ramsay). Hab. N.S.W.” String tied around the hind leg indicates that a tag had been tied there, and it is not clear if the latter tag had been re-attached to the neck.

Type locality. Waterview, a homestead at Wagga Wagga, NSW ( Ramsay 1882). The original account states that Waterview was “near” Wagga Wagga, perhaps implying a rural context, but the homestead was built within the township.

Comments. Ramsay implied that his description was based on a single specimen, noting that dental characters could not be described until further specimens were obtained. He stated that several body measurements given in his description were taken “in the flesh”.

It is very likely that M.787 is the original specimen examined by Ramsay. Selected measurements taken on M.787 are consistent with those given in the original description (see Table 9 ). The illustration of the left pes (fig. 3 of Ramsay) depicts the orientation of toes and claws in a position that closely match the fixed position in M.787, e.g., the manner in which digit 5 is bent outward and the claws on digits 4 and 5 are bent back. However, the same cannot be said of Ramsay’s illustration of the manus (his fig. 2), which does not closely resemble the specimen.

The testes of M.787 are obscured and it is easy to appreciate why Ramsay mistook the specimen as a female.