Lophyrus kuhlii Schlegel, 1851: 5

Dondorp, Esther & Denzer, Wolfgang, 2024, Annotated catalogue of acrodont lizard types in the collection of the Naturalis Biodiverstity Center (Squamata: Agamidae, Chamaeleonidae), Zootaxa 5403 (1), pp. 65-79 : 74

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5403.1.4
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:7458460D-2367-48C5-9ACE-D28457C27463
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10572640
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/0387E341-7C37-FFC4-74C8-CB25CB57ED13
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Lophyrus kuhlii Schlegel, 1851: 5
status

Treatment

Lophyrus kuhlii Schlegel, 1851: 5 View in CoL

= Gonocephalus kuhlii ( Schlegel, 1851)

Syntypes: RMNH. RENA.3045, male, Java, coll. Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1821 ; RMNH. RENA.3047a, male, Java, coll. Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1821 ; RMNH. RENA.3047b, female, Java, coll. Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1821 ; RMNH. RENA.3046, possibly male (not dissected), Sumatra, 1848; all specimens originally registered in the handwritten catalogue as Lophyrus minor .

Type locality: Java and Sumatra, Indonesia

Remarks: Schlegel (1851) noted that the two specimens collected by Kuhl & van Hasselt were in a state that ”would not allow a rigorous examination“ [our translation]. When we retrieved the specimens we were surprised that they were actually in an acceptable state of preservation. While their colours are faded, morphological traits necessary for species identification are well preserved. The total length (10 pouces, 1 pouce approx. 25 mm in 1851) given in Schlegel (1851) agrees well with the size of RMNH.RENA.3046 (260 mm) from Sumatra. The syntypes RMNH.RENA 3047a, b are probably the specimens illustrated in Schlegel (1851).

Several publications (e.g. de Rooij 1915, Manthey & Denzer 1993) gave 1848 as the publication date, but according to the publisher Brill the third volume of the Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde was published on 14th June 1851. We would like to note that while the authorship of this taxon is typically assigned to Schlegel, who provided a detailed description and illustrations of two specimens taken in life, already Gray (1831) gave a very short description of “ Lophyrus kuhlii, Boie, MS “. The manuscript Gray (1831) referred to was most probably Boie’s unpublished Erpetologie de Java. If Gray’s description is accepted as the original publication RMNH.RENA.3046 does no longer constitute a syntype owing to its late collection date, and only specimens that were available to Boie prior to his finishing the manuscript in 1825 would have type status.