Common name

Irestedt, Martin, Batalha-Filho, Henrique, Ericson Fls, Per G. P., Christidis, Les & Schodde, Richard, 2017, Phylogeny, biogeography and taxonomic consequences in a bird-of-paradise species complex, Lophorina-Ptiloris (Aves: Paradisaeidae), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 181, pp. 439-470 : 463-464

Common name : Superb Bird-of-Paradise.

Range: western cordillera, between the Kobowre Mountains , West Papua and Sepik – Strickland River Divide , far West PNG, c. 1200–2200 m a.s.l., evidently intergrading with addenda eastwards through the Lagaip-upper Kikori River drainages .

Remarks: Since Sharpe (1891 –1898), the species name superba has been applied at regional level to populations of the Vogelkop (Arfak Mountains) on the assumption that its late 18th century-type material came from the sector of New Guinea which had been most frequently visited by Moluccan and other traders. Its adult male type was brought to Europe in 1772 by Pierre Sonnerat and received into the Cabinet du Roi, Paris ( Sonnerat, 1776: 157; Stresemann, 1975: 82). Sonnerat had obtained it as a trade skin from potentates in the Moluccas, New Guinean, origin unknown. He described and figured his ‘le Superbe’ as he called it [Sonnerat, (1776: pl. 96)], as did Montbeillard in Buffon’s Histoire des Oiseaux ( Montbeillard, 1774: 176–177, accompanying pl.) and later Buffon himself (1775: 231); Montbeillard’s figure, by Martinet, was reproduced as well on pl. 632 in Daubenton’s (1765 – 1781) Planches Enluminées that had been intended to illustrate Buffon’s work. No Linnaean binomina were applied to these descriptions or plates until Pennant in Forster’s Indische Zoologie (1781). There Pennant listed the species as Paradisea Superba and referred it to pl. 632 in Daubenton (1765 –1781), thus making the name available (Article 12.2.7 of the Code) and identifying the figure in pl. 632 as representing its holotype (Article 73.1.2 of the Code).

By the turn of 19th century, however, Sonnerat’s type had disintegrated, destroyed by sulphur fumigation intended to rid the Cabinet du Roi of dermestid infestation ( Levaillant, 1806: 46–47; Stresemann, 1975: 87). Subsequent descriptions and figures of ‘le Superbe’ by the French ornithologists Audebert & Vieillot (1802: 25–25, pl. 7) and Levaillant (1806: 46–50, pls 14–15) are of fresh material brought to Europe through the burgeoning spice trade. Both are of the Vogelkop form, showing long out-curving and acuminately tipped outer cape plumes that extend to or beyond the wing tips in repose. Levaillant’s beautifully accurate figures, with central rectrices longest and central feather scales of the breast shield clearly lacking black centre spots, formed the basis for figured traits of the male Superb Bird-of-Paradise for decades to come ( Shaw & Nodder, 1812; Gould & Sharpe, 1875 –1888; Sharpe, 1891 –1898). Together with associated black-headed females ( Elliot, 1873; Gould & Sharpe, 1875 –1888; Sharpe, 1877; Sharpe, 1891 –1898) and Sonnerat’s similarly early specimen of the Vogelkop endemic, Parotia sefilata , they contributed to the 20th century presumption that the type locality of L. superba was restricted to the mountains of the Doberai Peninsula, Vogelkop ( Mayr, 1930, 1941, 1962).

The figures and descriptions of Sonnerat’s type, however, match males of the central cordillera–Papuan Peninsula populations instead. Not only are the longest (mid-outer) cape plumes rather straight and distinctly shorter than the square-tipped tail in repose ( Sonnerat, 1776: pl. 96), but the tips of the plumes are also squared-off, tending to spathulate ( Daubenton, 1765 –1781: pl. 632). There are discrepancies however. Although technical delineation is poor, the central breast shield feather scales show no sign of black centre spots. Thus, notwithstanding that cape and tail traits overtly identify Daubenton’s plate 632 with central cordillera–Papuan Peninsula forms, this minor discrepancy and the possibility that longer, out-curving and narrowly rounded outer cape feathers could have been in moult at the time introduce elements of doubt and grounds for dispute.

In these circumstances, where the type is demonstrably lost ( Levaillant, 1806: 46–47) and taxonomic identity is potentially controversial, we resolve uncertainty by choosing a neotype to fix application of superba Pennant to the population of Lophorina that Daubenton’s (1765 –1781) plate 632 most closely and most likely depicts: the western cordillera form. Accordingly, we designate as neotype AMNH 302387, ♂ adult, collected on 29 September 1931, by the Expedition Stein no. 2628 – type locality: Mt. Kunupi, Kobowre Mountains, West Papua, 1400–1700 m a.s.l. This action complies with the qualifying conditions for neotypification required by Article 75.3 of the Code by:

(1) objectively establishing the taxonomic application of the species name superba Pennant , for reasons stated above (Article 75.3.1);

(2) defining, in Table 2, the morphological characters by which the taxon superba Pennant is distinguished from nominal taxa in the Vogelkop ; the neotype has those traits (Article 75.3.2);

(3) providing, in the above neotypification, data and description sufficient to identify the specimen designated (Article 75.3.3);

(4) giving reference to sources demonstrating that prior type material has perished (Article 75.3.4);

(5) providing evidence, in the discussion above and in Table 2, that the neotype is consistent with the former name-bearing type in sex, life-stage and appearance (Article 75.3.5);

(6) selecting the neotype from the mountain system ( Kobowre Mountains ) nearest to 18th century trade routes to the Moluccas and Europe where spathulate feather-caped taxa of Lophorina are found (Article 75.3.6) and

(7) recording the deposition of the neotype in a recognized scientific research institution, the American Museum of Natural History , New York (Article 75.3.7) .

In considering the nomenclatural impact of a shift in application of superba Pennant , we submit, given the splitting of species advocated here, that transferring superba to the most widespread and familiar segregate species serves stability better than keeping it for a localised endemic in the Vogelkop .

Authorship of superba Pennant , together with the numerous other new specific names in Pennant’s ‘ Specimen Faunulae Indicae ’ (in Forster, 1781) that Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and Dickinson & Christidis (2014) transferred to J.R. Forster, must be corrected back to Pennant, as is conventional. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and Dickinson & Christidis (2014) relied on Allen (1908) for the shift, but evidently misread Allen’s careful analysis of Forster’s (1781) work. That analysis was concerned with the authority for names of taxa described in the body of the work, mostly associated with figures, and not those in a separate name list of mammals and birds at the end of the work. The name list – Pennant’s ‘ Specimen ’ – is published under the stated authorship of Pennant. Allen dealt with the ‘ Specimen ’ in a separate paragraph, where he himself referred to it as Pennant’s. Because Pennant is published as the author of the ‘ Specimen ’ within Forster’s work, he must be accorded authority under Article 50.1.1 of the Code ( ICZN, 1999) until indisputable proof to the contrary is forthcoming.