Cyornis vanheysti Robinson and Kloss

LeCroy, M., 2008, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History. Part 7. Passeriformes: Sylviidae, Muscicapidae, Platysteiridae, Maluridae, Acanthizidae, Monarchidae, Rhipiduridae, And Petroicidae, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 313 (1), pp. 1-287 : 94

Cyornis vanheysti Robinson and Kloss

Cyornis vanheysti Robinson and Kloss, 1919: 104 (Toentoengan, Deli, N.E. Sumatra).

Now Cyornis ruecki ( Oustalet, 1881) . See Watson et al., 1986b: 361, Van Marle and Voous, 1988: 189, and del Hoyo et al., 2006: 149–150.

HOLOTYPE: AMNH 450702 , adult male, collected at Tuntungan (5 Toentoengan), 03.22N, 98.34E ( van Marle and Voous, 1988: 217), Deli, Sumatra Island, Indonesia, on 10 February 1918, by A.F.C.A. van Heyst (no. 986). From the Rothschild Collection.

COMMENTS: Robinson and Kloss had a type series of two specimens, with the holotype being the adult male from Tuntungan. The paratype is AMNH 450701 (van Heyst no. 229), an immature male, collected at Deli Toewa, Deli, northeast Sumatra, on 4 April 1917. In their original description, Robinson and Kloss suspected that C. vanheysti might be a synonym of C. ruecki , at that time known only from types in MNHP.

Originally, the current name of this form was spelled Siphia ruckii , without an umlaut ( Oustalet, 1881: 78), although Rück’s name was spelled with an umlaut. Watson et al. (1986b: 361), who included Cyornis in Niltava , spelled the specific name ruecki , noting an emendation by Sharpe. Most, if not all, authors publishing prior to Sibley and Monroe (1990) accepted Sharpe’s emendation as justified, and the spelling ruecki was certainly in prevailing usage. Sibley and Monroe (1990: 530) considered Sharpe’s emendation unjustified, and reverted to the original spelling. Since then, most authors have followed Sibley and Monroe: for example, Dickinson (corrigenda 2.1 for 2003: 696) and del Hoyo (2006: 149). I have not found any information on Rück’s nationality, and in accordance with the Code (ICZN, 1999: 40, Art. 32.5.2.1) have retained the umlaut.

This holotype was not listed in Hartert’s lists of types in the Rothschild Collection, but it bears a Rothschild type label.