Eurillas virens holochlorus van Someren

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 : 82

Eurillas virens holochlorus van Someren

Eurillas virens holochlorus van Someren, 1922: 189 (Sezibwa River, Uganda).

Now Andropadus virens virens Cassin, 1858 . See Keith et al., 1992: 287.

LECTOTYPE: AMNH 567403 , adult male, collected at the Sezibwa River , 01°20′N, 32°45′E ( R. J. Dowsett, personal commun.), Uganda, in November 1914. From the van Someren Collection (no. 115) via the Rothschild Collection.

COMMENTS: In his original description, van Someren (1922: 189) stated that the type (singular), in the Rothschild Collection, was a male from the Sezibwa River, collected in November 1914. There are three Rothschild Collection specimens in AMNH fitting those data. Even though van Someren’s use of ‘‘type’’ implied that he had a single specimen in mind, it is impossible to know from the published data which of the three specimens was intended, and all three would have to be considered syntypes. Hartert (1928: 223) did not further restrict the type, but AMNH 567403 bears the Rothschild type label and was the specimen marked by van Someren as ‘‘Type sbsp. nov. holochlorus ’’. Since that time, it has been so considered, and to avoid any possible confusion in interpreting the older literature, I hereby designate it the lectotype. Paralectotypes are AMNH 567404 (van Someren no. 112) and AMNH 567405 (van Someren no. 129).

Contra Louette et al. (2002: 33), I think that designating a lectotype is relevant in this case. The Code (ICZN, 1999, Art. 72.4.7) is quite specific in stating that merely having ‘‘type’’ written on a label is not sufficient evidence that a specimen is a type. But it is important to make sure that the specimen intended as the type by the author of a name is in fact the specimen bearing the type label. This is particularly true for van Someren specimens because there were often a number of specimens bearing the same data, and the collection has been widely scattered. In some cases, the type has not even gone to the collection listed in the original description and the type label may have been tied on the wrong specimen (see, for example, Mirafra longonotensis ). AMNH 567403 is undoubtedly the specimen van Someren chose as his type of E. v. holochlorus ; designating it the lectotype makes its status unambiguous.

See Pasquet et al. (2001) for the results of recent DNA studies.