Neositta pileata broomei Mathews

Pachycephalidae, Aegithalidae, Remizidae, Paridae, Sittidae, Neosittidae, Certhiidae, Rhabdornithidae, Climacteridae, Dicaeidae, Pardalotidae, Nectariniidae, And & Lecroy, Mary, 2010, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 8. Passeriformes:, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2010 (333), pp. 1-178 : 90

Neositta pileata broomei Mathews Neositta pileata napieri Mathews

Neositta pileata broomei Mathews , September 1912 d: 95 (Napier, Broome Bay, North-west Australia).

Neositta pileata napieri Mathews, 1913b: 68 .

Now Daphoenositta chrysoptera leucoptera (Gould, 1840) . Mayr, 1950: 288, Schodde and Mason, 1999: 428–430, and Noske, 2007a: 640–641.

HOLOTYPE: AMNH 684332 , adult female, collected at the Pago Mission (5 Mission Station , as on label), 14.10S, 126.42E ( Times Atlas ), Napier Broome Bay, north Kimberley, northern Western Australia, Australia, on 6 March 1910, by Gerald F. Hill (no. 329). From the Mathews Collection (no. 5741) via the Rothschild Collection.

COMMENTS: In the original description, Mathews (1912d: 95) gave his catalog number of the holotype and the range of broomei as ‘‘North-west Australia.’’ The holotype bears both a Mathews type label, with only the name N. p. broomei, and a Rothschild type label, with only the name N. p. napieri, both having the correct Mathews catalog number. Paratypes in AMNH are: Mission Station, Napier Broome Bay, collected by Hill, AMNH 684330 (Mathews no. 5739, Hill no. 151), male, 19 December 1909; AMNH 684331 (5740, 282), male, 24 February 1910; Forrest River, collected by C.P. Conigrave, AMNH 684333 (Mathews no. 10427, Conigrave no. 88), female, 2 September 1911; AMNH 684334 (10426, –), female, 2 September 1911; Salmond River, collected by Conigrave, AMNH 684335 (10428, 89), female, 2 July 1911. A brief report on Conigrave’s expedition was published ( Anonymous, 1912: 267–269). Paratype AMNH 684331 bears a Mathews ‘‘Figured’’ label, indicating that it was illustrated in Mathews (1923b: pl. 497, opp. p. 64, text p. 72).

Mathews (1913b: 68) considered his N. p. broomi and N. p. broomei to be identical spellings and introduced Neositta pileata napieri as a replacement name for N. p. broomei, proposed in September 1912 and presumed preoccupied by his N. p. broomi (Mathews, January 1912 a: 380). Because these two names were based on different localities–Broome Hill, southern Western Australia, in the case of broomi and Napier Broome Bay, northern Western Australia, in the case of broomei —they do not fulfill the requirement that names deemed to be identical are of the same derivation (ICZN, 1999: 60, Art. 58). Nor do I consider broomi an incorrect original spelling, interpreting it instead as an incorrect latinization (ICZN, 1999: 39, Art. 32.5), with correction not necessary. Mathews continued to use broomi, as did Whittell and Serventy (1948: 87) and Mayr (1950: 283). Greenway (1967a: 145, 147) confusingly listed the name N. p. broomei instead of broomi as a synonym of N. chrysoptera pileata and listed N. p. napieri as a synonym of N. chrysoptera leucoptera , omitting N. p. broomei.