Scops obsoleta Cabanis

Mlíkovský, Jiří & Frahnert, Sylke, 2009, Type specimens and type localities of birds (Aves) collected by Eduard Eversmann and Christian Pander during the Negri Expedition to Bukhara in 1820 – 1821, Zootaxa 2297, pp. 15-26 : 18-21

Scops obsoleta Cabanis

Scops obsoleta Cabanis, 1875: 126 .

Now: Otus brucei obsoletus ( Cabanis, 1875) according to Dickinson (2003), but see below. Type series: Cabanis (1875: 126) explicitly based this form on two syntypes, “ein Exemplar von Eversmann aus Buchara und ein anderes Exemplar von Ehrenberg aus Syrien ”, i.e. “a specimen from Eversmann from Buxoro and another specimen from Ehrenberg from Syria.” Ehrenberg’s syntype (actually from Sinai, not Syria; see below) was listed by Lichtenstein (1825, Nr. 525) as “ Strix scops ” and is now lost, while Eversmann’s syntype from Buxoro is still deposited in the ZMB.

We know that Eversmann was in Buxoro on 19 December 1820 – 20 March 1821 [= 31 December 1820 – 1 April 1821], and because the Pallid Scops Owl Otus brucei is migratory in Middle Asia, returning to Uzbekistan in late March or early April (Dement’ev 1951), Eversmann’s specimen was probably collected between late March and 1 April 1821 (NS).

As we show below, each of Cabanis’s (1875) syntypes of S. obsoleta belongs to a different form; therefore, in accordance with ICZN (1999, Art. 74) we here fix the taxonomic meaning of S. obsoleta by designating a lectotype.

Lectotype (here designated): ZMB 1178, skin, unsexed, collected by Eversmann on an unknown date (probably late March to 1 April 1821) at “Buchara” [= Buxoro, Uzbekistan].

Paralectotype (lost): ZMB 1177, unsexed, collected by Ehrenberg in November 1823 at El Tor, Egypt. Cabanis (1875: 126) erroneously believed that the specimen was collected in " Syrien ". However, Lichtenstein’s (1825) list shows that it originated from El Tor (see also E. Stresemann in Le Roi 1923: 64, Stresemann 1954: 101, Stresemann 1962: 388, footnote, and Mlíkovský & Frahnert Ms).

Type locality: The original type locality included El Tor, Sinai Peninsula, Egypt [28.24°N, 33.62°E], and Buxoro, Uzbekistan. The type locality is restricted here via lectotypification to Buxoro, Uzbekistan (cf. ICZN 1999, Art. 76.2).

Remarks: The Pallid Scops Owl was traditionally treated as a monotypic species (e.g. Peters 1940: 89; Dement’ev 1951: 371; Vaurie 1960: 5, 1965: 601; Stepanân 2003: 303), if populations from southern Arabia (pamelae) and Socotra Island (socotranus) are moved to Scops senegalensis (Swainson, 1837) (e.g. König et al. 1999, Dickinson 2003). However, Hekstra and Roselaar (in Cramp 1985) recognised four subspecies of the Pallid Scops Owl ( brucei , obsoletus, exiguus and semenowi ), the treatment followed by several recent authors ( Marks et al. 1999; Dickinson 2003: 221; Peterson 2009). König et al. (1999: 230) recognized only three subspecies, merging semenowi with the nominotypic brucei without explanation.

Nomenclature and taxonomy of Otus brucei is rather confused as is shown below, where relevant nominal species are discussed in chronological order of description:

(1) The species was first described as Ephialtes brucei by Hume (1872) on the basis of a wintering individual (BMNH 1886.2.1.216) collected on 20 January 1870 at “Rahuri” [= Rahur, Maharashtra State, India; 19.38°N, 74.65°E]. Exact application of this name to a breeding population is thus unknown. See Pittie (2006) for the dating of Hume’s (1872) paper.

(2) Cabanis (1875) described Scops obsoleta on the basis of two specimens from different areas, which we show below belong to different taxa. Designation of ZMB 1178 as lectotype of obsoleta links this name with the populations from the Middle Asian lowlands, to which it has been applied by some recent authors (e.g. Hekstra & Roselaar in Cramp 1985).

The syntype from the Negri expedition was collected at Buxoro, Uzbekistan, in spring prior to 2 April. It may therefore have been a migrating individual still underway to its breeding grounds, or it may have already reached its breeding grounds. Exact application of this name to a breeding population is thus unknown.

The syntype from Ehrenberg's expedition was collected at El Tor, Sinai, Egypt, in November 1823. It is lost, and its subspecific identity remains unknown. However, Pallid Scops Owls are vagrants to the Sinai, with only the two historical specimen records from 1823 and 1891 discussed herein ( Goodman & Meininger 1989: 323), and two recent sightings ( Moldovan 2009). Subspecific identity is unknown for most Sinai records (although exiguus was suggested for the recent sight records; Moldovan 2009), but the specimen collected in 1891 belongs to the small southern form (see below).

(3) Zarudnyj and Härms (1902) described Scops semenowi on the basis of nine syntypes, eight from the Sistan va Baluchestan Province, Iran (collected between 10 May–7 July NS in 1898 and 1901), and one from “Umm Heschim” = Umm Kheizina, northeastern Sinai Peninsula, Egypt (collected in December 1891). The Iranian series included three recently fledged juveniles with not fully developed primaries and rectrices, all collected on “ 11 May 1901 ” [= 24 May 1901 NS]. The form was thus based largely on birds from a breeding area in southeastern Iran. The syntype from Sinai is of unknown breeding grounds, but agrees morphologically with breeding birds from southeastern Iran ( Zarudnyj & Härms 1902). The name semenowi is therefore referable to the southern form (see below for its definition). However, Hekstra and Roselaar (in Cramp 1985) erroneously applied this name to the population from the Tarim Basin in northwestern China, and were followed in this by e.g. Marks et al. (1999) and Dickinson (2003: 221). All syntypes of S. semenowi are short-winged (149–160 mm in 6 adults, measured when fresh; Zarudnyj & Härms 1902), in contrast to the wing length 160–169 mm (n = 12) in birds from the Tarim Basin (Hekstra & Roselaar in Cramp 1985, presumably measured on museum specimens, in which wings are shorter than in fresh specimens due to shrinkage; Vepsäläinen 1968, Greenwood 1979, Bjordal 1983, Eastham et al. 2000, Kuczyński et al. 2002).

(4) Mukherjee (1958) described Otus brucei exiguus on the basis of a single specimen (BNHS 11947), collected in July 1921 at Baghdad, Iraq. This name is thus referable to the local breeding population.

The intraspecific structure and both the breeding and wintering distribution of the Pallid Scops Owl were poorly known until Marks et al. (1999) distinguished two metapopulations differing in their distribution and migratory pattern as follows: (a) “northern” populations breeding in Middle Asia and the Tarim Basin, which migrate to Pakistan and northern India for winter, and (b) “southern” non-migratory, though nomadic populations, which breed around the Persian Gulf (in the broad sense). Birds from the southern populations differ from the Middle Asian ones in being shorter-winged, in having different striations on underparts, and different plumage color (Hekstra & Roselaar in Cramp 1985, König et al. 1999; see also Zarudnyj & Härms 1902 and Mukherjee 1958). If this classification of the Pallid Scops Owl is accepted, and this seems to us to be the most plausible solution, then the Middle Asian form should be known as Otus brucei brucei ( Hume, 1872) , while the southern form should be known as Otus brucei semenowi Zarudnyj & Härms, 1902 . Of the remaining two names, Scops obsoleta Cabanis, 1875 falls into the synonymy of Otus brucei brucei ( Hume, 1872) due to the lectotypification herein, and Otus brucei exiguus Mukherjee, 1958 falls into the synonymy of Otus brucei semenowi ( Zarudnyj & Härms, 1902) .

If three or four different forms are recognized within Pallid Scops Owls of Middle Asia, as suggested by Hekstra and Roselaar (in Cramp 1985), König et al. (1999) and Peterson (2009), respectively, then their nomenclature remains unresolved, because both brucei and obsoletus were based on migrating individuals from unknown breeding populations, and semenowi does not apply to the birds from the Tarim Basin (see above).

Motacillidae

Motacilla melanocephala Lichtenstein

Motacilla melanocephala Lichtenstein, 1823a: 129 .

Now: Motacilla flava feldegg ( Michahelles, 1830) . See Hartert (1905: 295, 1921: 2098).

Type series: Lichtenstein (1823a: 129) based this form on a single male (see also Lichtenstein 1822), which is thus its holotype. Giebel (1875: 625) and Hartert (1905: 295) attributed this species to Lichtenstein (1823b: 36), not mentioning Lichtenstein 1823a. Both these papers appeared in 1823, but we conclude that Reise nach Buchara was published earlier than Verzeichniss der Doubletten based on the following: (1) the preface to the Reise nach Buchara was signed already in November 1822 ( Lichtenstein 1823a: vi), while the preface to the Verzeichniss der Doubletten was signed only in September 1823 ( Lichtenstein 1823b: x), and (2) Lichtenstein (1823b: 37) referred to Lichtenstein (1823a), incl. page and line. Lichtenstein (1823b: 36) also included in his M. melanocephala 34 specimens sent from “ Nubia ” by “Hemprich”. These specimens, collected by German naturalists Wilhelm Friedrich Hemprich (1796–1825) and Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg (1795–1876) in 1821–1822, arrived in Berlin in a shipment on 19 March 1823 (cf. Stresemann 1954: 171), i.e. after the manuscript for the Reise nach Bukhara was finished. The latter specimens thus are not part of the type series upon which Motacilla melanocephala Lichtenstein, 1823 a was based.

Holotype: ZMB 5177 ( Lichtenstein 1822, Nr. 19), skin, ♂, collected by Eversmann on 18 March 1821 [= 30 March 1821] at “Buchara” [= Buxoro, Uzbekistan].

Type locality: Lichtenstein (1823a: 129–130) did not specify the locality at which the holotype was collected, but both Lichtenstein (1822) and label data show that it was collected at “Buchara”, i.e. at Buxoro, Uzbekistan.

Remarks: Motacilla melanocephala Lichtenstein, 1823 a is a junior primary homonym of Motacilla melanocephala J.F. Gmelin, 1789 = Sylvia melanocephala (J.F. Gmelin, 1789) , and is thus not available as the valid name for the Yellow Wagtail subspecies inhabiting eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia ( Alström & Mild 2003). Instead, the junior synonym feldegg, introduced by Michahelles (1830), has to be used ( Hartert 1921: 2098).

Sylviidae

Sylvia caligata Lichtenstein

Sylvia caligata Lichtenstein, 1823a: 128 .

Now: Iduna caligata ( Lichtenstein, 1823) . See Hartert (1921: 2147).

Type series: Lichtenstein (1823a: 128–129) explicitly based this species on a single specimen (see also Lichtenstein 1822), which is thus its holotype.

Holotype: ZMB 4122 ( Lichtenstein 1822, Nr. 15), unsexed, collected by Eversmann on 2 May 1821 [= 14 May 1821] at the Ilek ( Lichtenstein 1823a: 129). The entries in the Old Register of the ZMB (“Sibirien”, later struck out and replaced with “Orenburg”) are incorrect.

Type locality: “In den Gebüschen am Ilek” ( Lichtenstein 1823a: 129), i.e. “in shrubs at the Ilek”. The Ilek River is ca. 200 km long in Kazakhstan. The specimen in question was collected on 2 May [= 14 May] 1821, while a jerboa Stylodipus telum ( Lichtenstein, 1823) was collected just one day prior to this date in the Mugodzhary Hills (see Lichtenstein 1822, Stresemann 1958: 243), i.e. at ca. 48.59°N, 58.46°E. Although the exact locality cannot be identified, it is therefore probable that the bird was collected within the limits of the modern-day Aqtöbe Province, Kazakhstan.

Remarks: For comments on the holotype see also Eversmann (1848, 1853), Blanford (1876: 190), Hesse (1916), Hartert (1921: 2147), and Stresemann (1928).

Paridae

Parus bokharensis Lichtenstein

Parus bokharensis Lichtenstein, 1823a: 131 .

Now: Parus bokharensis Lichtenstein, 1823 . See Hartert (1905: 344, 1921: 2109).

Nomenclature: The original spelling of the species name is bokharensis ( Lichtenstein 1823a: 131) . Several variant spellings of this name have occurred in the literature, incl. bocharensis, bochariensis, bockhariensis, bokarensis, and bucharensis (see Hellmayr 1903: 102), but all can be understood as incorrect subsequent spellings (sensu ICZN 1999, Art. 33) and are thus not available for nomenclatural purposes. Type series: The original type series consisted of two males and one female ( Lichtenstein 1823a: 131). Syntype: ZMB 4974 ( Lichtenstein 1822, Nr. 41 or 43), skin, ♂, collected by Eversmann on 11 March 1821 [= 23 March 1821] at “Buchara” [= Buxoru, Uzbekistan].

Syntype (lost): ZMB 4975 ( Lichtenstein 1822, Nr. 43 or 41), ♂, collected by Eversmann on 11 March 1821 ( Lichtenstein 1822) [= 23 March 1821] at “Bokhara” [= Buxoro, Uzbekistan].

Syntype (lost): ZMB 4976 ( Lichtenstein 1822, Nr. 42), Ƥ, collected by Eversmann on 12 March 1821 ( Lichtenstein 1822) [= 24 March 1821] at “Bokhara” [= Buxoro, Uzbekistan].

Type locality: “Bokhara” ( Lichtenstein 1823a: 131), i.e. Buxoro, Uzbekistan.

Remarks: Nomenclature and taxonomy of the Turkestan Tit Parus bokharensis were confused in the early 20th century (e.g. Zarudnyj & Loudon 1905, Zarudnyj & Bil’kevič 1912, Buturlin 1913, Laubmann 1913, Zarudnyj & Härms 1913), but bokharensis of Lichtenstein (1823a) is the oldest among all relevant names and its application to the populations living at Buxoro has never been doubted.