identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
038287C3FFD6873BFF0EFD0E3713FA5F.text	038287C3FFD6873BFF0EFD0E3713FA5F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pterodroma mollis subsp. deserta Mathews 1934	<div><p>Type series of Pterodroma mollis deserta Mathews, 1934</p><p>Mathews’ (1934b) introduction of the trinomial Pterodroma mollis deserta was made in such a way that it is not immediately obvious that a new name was being introduced (indeed this point evaded the volume’s indexer), although he did, somewhat tangentially, provide a diagnosis. Warren (1966) claimed that the holotype is an adult male collected on Bugio on 5 September 1932 by one of the brothers, Charles Godfrey Bird (1913‒1942) or Edward G. Bird (dates unknown), held in the Natural History Museum, Tring (NHMUK 1934.5.21.1), apparently based on the fact that its British Museum label is annotated “type” in Mathews’ hand. Bannerman &amp; Bannerman (1965) also referred to it as being the “type”, presumably on the same basis. However, in the original description itself, Mathews (1934b) made no reference to a single type and simultaneously provided a range of measurements (with means) for multiple morphometrics; simple calculations indicate that the means (except that for tail length), if transcribed correctly, must all have been based on three or more specimens. Three additional specimens in the Natural History Museum—NHMUK 1888.5.18.117 (labelled only “Desertas”, originally part of the Salvin and Godman collection), NHMUK 1896.2.6.1 (female collected on 28 September 1895 on the Desertas by Padre Schmitz), and NHMUK 1852.1.31.1 (labelled “Desertas Sp. d.”, but without any collecting data)—were accessioned in time for them to have been available to Mathews in 1934 (HvG and GMK, pers. obs., September 2025), and will henceforth be treated as syntypes, additional to NHMUK 1934.5.21.1. Two additional specimens collected on Bugio on 5 September 1932 (NHMUK 1939.8.5.7 and NHMUK 1953.76.6; see Bannerman &amp; Bannerman 1965) were presented to the British Museum by Ronald Lockley (1903–2000) and E.G. Bird in 1939 and 1953, respectively, so are not part of the type material despite being collected with the male that Mathews regarded as the “type”.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038287C3FFD6873BFF0EFD0E3713FA5F	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Kirwan, Guy M.;Borgo, Enrico;Doria, Giuliano;Field, Daniel J.;Petts, Rachel;Grouw, Hein Van	Kirwan, Guy M., Borgo, Enrico, Doria, Giuliano, Field, Daniel J., Petts, Rachel, Grouw, Hein Van (2026): Fixing the taxonomic identity of Oestrelata feae Salvadori, 1899, through designation of a lectotype, with comments on the type series of Pterodroma mollis deserta Mathews, 1934 (Aves: Procellariiformes: Procellariidae). Zootaxa 5752 (2): 295-300, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.8, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.8
038287C3FFD68739FF0EFA363057FC67.text	038287C3FFD68739FF0EFA363057FC67.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Oestrelata feae Salvadori 1899	<div><p>Type series of Oestrelata feae Salvadori, 1899</p><p>Two syntypes, a female and male collected above 500 m on São Nicolau on 10 December 1898 by Leonardo Fea (1852–1903), are held in the Museo di Storia Naturale di Genova (MSNG 21778 and MSNG 21779, respectively) (Arbocco et al. 1979; Borgo &amp; Doria 2024). In the original description, Salvadori (1899) indicated that he had also examined two other adults sent to him by Alfred Newton (1829–1907), and mentioned by Dalgleish (1890) some years before, that Salvadori attributed to the same species as the material collected by Fea. These specimens, both unsexed and collected somewhere in the Madeiran archipelago (presumably on the Desertas; Dresser 1896; Bannerman &amp; Bannerman 1965; Benson 1999) in 1853 by Robert J. Frere, are held in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, UK (UMZC 9/Pro/11/f/1 and UMZC 9/Pro/11/f/2). Their labels were annotated by Newton as “Sent to Salvadori Nov/99”, and by Salvadori “Compared with the type of Oestrelata Feae Salvadori ” (see Benson 1999).</p><p>Benson argued that because Salvadori did “not indicate any particular specimen of the four which he examined as having type status, [...] they may all be regarded as syntypes.” It is unquestionably the case that Salvadori (1899) did not designate a type (despite his comment on the labels, mentioned above), and he clearly indicated that he considered all four specimens, the two in Genoa and those in Cambridge, to be the same species and different from Pterodroma mollis . But, in addition, Salvadori (1899) closed his account by remarking that a specimen from Madeira figured in the final part of vol. 9 of Dresser’s History of the birds of Europe (Dresser 1896: 410) could be clearly equated with his new species, feae, thus emphasizing that he considered there to be no differences between material from Madeira and Cape Verde.</p><p>Dresser’s text mentioned that the specimen concerned was an adult male sent to him by Padre Ernst Johann Schmitz (1845–1922). He also reported the date, 6 August 1891, and seemed to indicate Funchal, Madeira, as the place of collection, but this seems to be a conflation of the fact that Schmitz, who was resident in Funchal, was given a total of six petrels then identified as mollis collected on the Desertas during July 1891, including a male and female mentioned by Hartwig (1893) as having been received in August that year but collected on 22 July. The specimen, mentioned by Dresser, now in the Manchester Museum (MM B.8806), might equally have been one of the other four given to Schmitz on 20 and 21 July 1891 that had been collected in burrows on Deserta Grande (see Hartwig 1891). Obviously, MM B.8806 can also be considered a syntype of Salvadori’s name, but it too does not pertain to P. feae sensu stricto, just like the two UMZC specimens. Subsequently, Salvadori (1900) mentioned that O. feae had “been found only on the small islands round Madeira, and quite recently … in the Cape Verde Islands”, which provides further support for the idea that Frere did not collect his two specimens on the main island of Madeira.</p><p>Mathews (1934a), however, claimed that the original description of Oestrelata feae should not date from 1899, but from 1900, and a separate paper, in English, published in the Ibis (Salvadori 1900) . He claimed that, although the sheet containing the paper in which Salvadori (1899) named feae in the Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova was dated December 1899, the associated wrapper date was 1901. No specimens were specifically mentioned in the Ibis paper and the type locality of feae is listed as either “ Cape Verde Islands” or “Madeira and Cape Verde ” therein. Much later, in a gargantuan effort, Poggi (2010) investigated the history of publication of the first 100 years of the Annali, listing printing dates for every article from 1876 onwards, as well as some prior to this. For the offprints of Salvadori’s (1899) paper, Poggi (2010) reported the printing date of 11 December 1899. It bears mention that if Newton really sent the UMZC specimens to Salvadori only in November that year (see above), this turnaround does seem remarkably swift. Dickinson et al. (2011) summarised that “for vol. IX and subsequent volumes use the printing dates given by Poggi (2010) but with the knowledge that they are “not-before dates” and insufficiently safe to be relied on when priority needs to be proved.”</p><p>Here, we take no view concerning whether the introduction of the name Oestrelata feae should date from 1899 or 1900, but the former continues to enjoy general acceptance (e.g., Dickinson &amp; Remsen 2013; del Hoyo &amp; Collar 2014). Furthermore, even if the description in the Annali was to be supplanted by that in the Ibis, knowledge of the types associated with Salvadori’s name would still depend on the information given in the Annali (ICZN 1999; Art. 72.4.1.1) and in the Ibis there is no unambiguous restriction of the locality associated with the type material. It is clear that Salvadori believed that the paper in the Annali had primacy, by citing the relevant page number from the latter in his Ibis paper. However, he would most likely have had access to separates of his manuscript in the Annali prior to general publication (see Dickinson et al. 2011).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038287C3FFD68739FF0EFA363057FC67	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Kirwan, Guy M.;Borgo, Enrico;Doria, Giuliano;Field, Daniel J.;Petts, Rachel;Grouw, Hein Van	Kirwan, Guy M., Borgo, Enrico, Doria, Giuliano, Field, Daniel J., Petts, Rachel, Grouw, Hein Van (2026): Fixing the taxonomic identity of Oestrelata feae Salvadori, 1899, through designation of a lectotype, with comments on the type series of Pterodroma mollis deserta Mathews, 1934 (Aves: Procellariiformes: Procellariidae). Zootaxa 5752 (2): 295-300, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.8, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.8
038287C3FFD48739FF0EFC2E31F7F857.text	038287C3FFD48739FF0EFC2E31F7F857.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Oestrelata feae Salvadori	<div><p>Lectotype designation for Oestrelata feae Salvadori</p><p>Bannerman &amp; Bannerman (1965) and Benson (1999) already provided measurements of the two UMZC specimens which, by comparison with published biometric data for the complex (Mathews 1934b; Bourne 1957; Vaurie 1965; Jouanin et al. 1969), they suggested must have come from the Desertas. Benson also mentioned that the seabird expert W.R.P. Bourne had identified the specimens as ‘ feae ’ in October 1966, although this was at a time when deserta was still generally considered a synonym of feae (see Introduction) and, in any case, around the same time that the Bannermans confidently ascribed the UMZC material to deserta . Compared to the biometric data presented by Jesus et al. (2009) and Shirihai et al. (2010), the published wing and bill lengths for the Cambridge specimens (Bannerman &amp; Bannerman 1965; Benson 1999) do not confidently eliminate the possibility of them being feae sensu stricto, but bill length to skull is definitely more suggestive of deserta . In any case, because both UMZC specimens and MM B.8806 were much more likely to have been collected on land, rather than at sea (in common with most seabird specimens from this era), the likelihood that all three are really feae must be very low.</p><p>In order to resolve the fact that Salvadori’s type series comprises specimens almost certainly belonging to two taxa, both currently treated as species by, e.g., AviList Core Team (2025), a lectotype is needed to fix the taxonomic identity of Oestrelata feae on the concept universally understood for this taxon. We designate the male (MSNG 21779) collected on São Nicolau on 10 December 1898 by Leonardo Fea, held in the Museo di Storia Naturale di Genova as the lectotype of Oestrelata feae Salvadori. This designation satisfies Arts. 74.7.1, 74.7.2 and 74.7.3 (both original and amended versions; ICZN 1999, 2003), as well as being in accord with Recommendations 74A, 74C, 74D and 74E. It results in MSNG 21778, UMZC 9/Pro/11/f/1, UMZC 9/Pro/11/f/2 and MM B.8806 becoming paralectotypes of Oestrelata feae, irrespective of their taxonomic identity.</p><p>Although the type locality of Oestrelata feae was reported as “San Nicolas Island, Cape Verdes” in both Peters (1931) and Jouanin and Mougin (1979), their citation pre-dates appropriate investigation of the type material associated with this name. With hindsight, and mindful of Art. 76.1, the original type locality would actually more correctly have been listed as “Cape Verdes and Madeira”, but following the lectotype designation herein becomes “São Nicolau, Cape Verde Islands” (Art. 76.2).</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/038287C3FFD48739FF0EFC2E31F7F857	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Kirwan, Guy M.;Borgo, Enrico;Doria, Giuliano;Field, Daniel J.;Petts, Rachel;Grouw, Hein Van	Kirwan, Guy M., Borgo, Enrico, Doria, Giuliano, Field, Daniel J., Petts, Rachel, Grouw, Hein Van (2026): Fixing the taxonomic identity of Oestrelata feae Salvadori, 1899, through designation of a lectotype, with comments on the type series of Pterodroma mollis deserta Mathews, 1934 (Aves: Procellariiformes: Procellariidae). Zootaxa 5752 (2): 295-300, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.8, URL: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5752.2.8
