Scincus cyanurus, Lesson, 1828

Ohler, Annemarie, Lescure, Jean, Massary, Jean-Christophe de & Frétey, Thierry, 2021, The publication date, onomatophore and onymotope of Emoia cyanura (Squamata: Scincidae), Zoosystema 43 (25), pp. 619-625 : 620-623

SCINCUS CYANURUS IN LESSON (1828)

Is the nomen Scincus cyanurus Lesson, 1828 available?

When describing the Voyage and its main stops and observations, Lesson (1828: 388) used the nomen Scincus cyanurus first when listing the fauna of Buru [Bourou] Island and gives the following indications: 1) “le petit Scinque à raies dorées et queue bleue” [the small Skink with golden stripes and blue tail]; 2) footnote 1 which refers to “Seba, tom. II, pl. o [sic!], fig. 5”; 3) a Latin nomen “ Scincus cyanurus ”; and 4) indicates “cette espèce diffère du Scincus vittatus figuré dans Seba sous le nom de “ Lacerta Amboinensis teniolis fimbriata ” (t. 2, pl. 9, fig. 5 et 6)” [this species is distinct from Scincus vittatus figured in Seba under the name “ Lacerta Amboinensis teniolis fimbriata ” (t. 2, pl. 9, fig. 5 et 6)].

Lesson (1828) gave a Latin name in 3) and various elements (1, 2, 4) that could represent indications in the sense of the Code. Lescure (2015) considered that the character states given in 1) satisfy Article 12.2 of the Code ( Anonymous 1999) and make the nomen available in that work. But these characters cannot be considered in isolation as Lesson refers them to the footnote giving a citation of Seba. This citation is not clear as there is no plate o or 0 in Seba (1735) (see also Brygoo 1985). Only two plates in Seba’s work show lizards as figure 5: plate 4, and plate 9. In plate 4, figure 5 represents a European species, very probably in our opinion the Sand Lizard, Lacerta agilis Linnaeus, 1758 . In plate 9, figure 5 is the dorsal view of “ Lacerta Amboiensis teniolis fimbriata ”. In Lesson (1830b), the text of Lesson (1828) is given almost identically but the footnote is indicated as “Seba, tom. II, pl. 9, fig. 5”, which confirms our conclusion that “plate o” is a typographic error for plate 9. The same figure of the lizard is mentioned in 4) as being different from the Scincus cyanurus without specifiying the differences. Thus, there are no character states indicated allowing diagnosis of the taxon to which the nomen “ Scincus cyanurus ” is atttributed. The indication 1) “le petit Scinque à raies dorées et queue bleue” refers to what we might call two ‘taxa’, the skink from Amboine Island and the blue-tailed skink but is not meant to distinguish the two. Hence, we do not consider Scincus cyanurus as published by Lesson (1828, 1830b) to be an available name.

What is the onymotope of “ Scincus cyanurus ” ( Lesson, 1828)? Although we conclude that the nomen Scincus cyanurus ( Lesson, 1828) is not available, we will now allocate the nomen to a population of skinks in order to be able to cite the gymnonym (nomen nudum) in the correct synonymy list ( Dubois & Raffaëlli 2009: 28). For this we need to know the origin of the specimen or the specimens allocated by Lesson (1828) to the taxon to which he attributed the nomen.

Lesson mentions the taxon in this publication under various names from various places ( Table 1 ). Although he gives a Latin name and descriptive elements when speaking of the skink from Buru Island, he considers that this skink is present in most of the islands from the Society Islands to Java. And in fact, he first observed the species from Tahiti when the Coquille arrived on 3 May 1823 on this island, and after visiting a large number of various islands, on 23 September 1823 on Buru Island. The narrative of Lesson (1828, 1830 a, 1831) describes the travel starting from the end. In conclusion, the symprotonymotope (localities as given in the original work) are the islands mentioned in Table 1 . It is important to note, that among these localities, Emoia cyanura as understood in works published in the last decades is present in Polynesia, Caroline Islands and Marshall Islands ( Brown 1991; Klein et al. 2016; Buden et al. 2020). All other places in Table 1 harbour other blue-tailed species of Emoia , E. caeuleocauda and E. impar .

What is the publication date of Scincus cyanurus ?

The nomen Scincus cyanurus is mentioned three times by Lesson. The publication of the Latin name in Lesson (1828) is not accompanied by a diagnosis as we have seen, thus, the nomen is not available from this publication. As a Latin scientific name is clearly linked to a figure of a plate in the Atlas ( Lesson 1830a) and as a detailed description is given in the Zoology part of the Voyage ( Lesson 1831), the nomen could be available from either publication. There were ambiguities concerning the dates of publication of some parts of these works in two recent papers ( Cretella 2010; Lescure 2015), which led us to search again for the dates indicated in the Bibliographie de la France volumes and other sources giving dates of recept of published books and their parts. The summary of our observations is given in Table 2 . The publication date of plate 4 representing Scincus cyanurus in figure 2, has been indicated to be as early as 3 April 1830 by Sherborn & Woodward (1901). The part (livraison) containing page 49 of volume 2 (1) of the Zoology findings of the Voyage (the written description of Scincus cyanurus ) was only published on 13 October 1831 (Guérin-Méneville 1838). Thus, the nomen Scincus cyanurus has been made available according to the Code (Article 12.2.7) in 1830 and should be cited as Scincus cyanurus Lesson, 1830 .

Several authors have considered the nomen available from the publication of the plate but considered that the Atlas was published in 1826, which is the date of its first part, not including plate 4: Brygoo (1985), Ineich (1987, 2011), Brown (1991), Ineich & Zug (1991), Ineich et al. (2009); but Cretella (2010) and Lescure (2015) based on previously published evidence, have shown that the publication date of plate 4, that made the nomen available, was 1830.

The discrepancies between Cretella (2010) and Lescure (2015) come from the fact that two Voyages were published almost simultaneously in Paris at that period: the Voyage autour du Monde of the ships L’Uranie et La Physicienne and the Voyage autour du Monde of the ship La Coquille. The 17th part of the history volume of the Voyage autour du Monde [de L’Uranie et de La Physicienne] of Freycinet is indicated in the Bibliographie de la France, volume 19 at the same time as the 18 th part of the Zoology volume of the Voyage autour du monde [de La Coquille] of Duperrey. The error might arise from the fact that the names of the ships are not indicated, only the authors Freycinet/Duperrey for the publications. It should also be mentioned that nowhere is the publication date of 18th part of the Zoology volume of the Voyage autour du monde [de La Coquille] of Duperrey given in the Bibliographie de la France volumes (see details in Table 2 ).

THE ONOMATOPHORE AND ONYMOTOPE OF SCINCUS CYANURUS LESSON, 1830

As the nomen is based on a figure ( Lesson 1830a, plate 4, figure 2; Fig. 1 ) the onomatophore is the specimen figured (Article 74.4), thus a holophoront (holotype) by monophory. Brown (1991: 66) confirms that it represents the taxon to which the nomen Emoia cyanura has been attributed for almost two centuries now. A holophoront precludes any other designation of onomatophores. The MNHN Reptiles & Amphibiens Collection holds a series of seven specimens collected during the Voyage of the Coquille and only three among them were indeed identified as Emoia cyanura ( Brown 1991) . As the specimen figured on plate 4 in Lesson (1830a) cannot be identified among the three specimens of the collections of the MNHN ( Brown 1991: 66; Ineich & Zug 1991: 1134) and as obviously some among the numerous specimens mentioned ( Lesson 1831) many have been lost (or donated to other collections), the holophoront figured should be considered lost and a neotype designated. Given the difficulty to allocate nomina of blue-tailed Emoia to taxa and as the figure is inadequate to allow the unambiguous recognition of E. cyanura because the illustration does not show the relevant diagnostic features, this neotype designation is necessary to stabilize taxonomy. Such a specimen should be carefully chosen and studied with traditional and modern methods of taxonomy, in particular genetics, in order to keep taxonomic usage of the nomen Scincus cyanurus . The specimen figured most probably comes from Tahiti as the Coquille made a long stop on this island from 3 to 22 May 1823. This allowed extensive exploration of the island. From the headquarters at Pointe de Vénus at the north of the island, Lesson and Jules Louis Lejeune, an artist participating in the Voyage, made an exploration along the Matavai River to the centre of the island (Lesson 1839: 275). Lesson (1839: 283) also mentioned having been to the “pointe de Taoni” for wood cutting. As it was on Tahiti that he first discovered this colorful species, it seems quite evident that he or Jules Louis Lejeune made sketches of a specimen of E. cyanura . Artistic drawings of specimens was part of the work of the naturalists and the artists who participated in the Voyages ( Lescure 2015). The published drawing was prepared later in Paris by Antoine Germain Bévalet according to signature of the plate, most probably on a coloured drawing made in the field while Jules Louis Lejeune was preparing the plates of the history part of the Voyages. The time spent on Tahiti and the details provided by Lesson (1839) on this stay are in favour for considering this place as the origin of the figured specimen. Brown (1991) also argued for Tahiti as onymotope.

There might be some doubts about the existence of specimens collected in the first part of the Voyage as Garnot took at least part of them from Sidney to Paris and lost most during a shipwreck at the Cape of Good Hope ( Garnot 1825). Nevertheless this did not concern all the specimens. In the “Annexe “ published in the part 2 of volume 2 of the Zoology part, Lesson (1838b) reported numerous specimens donated to the MNHN from localities between Brazil and Sidney and, although some may have been donated or lost meanwhile, others are still in the MNHN collections ( Lescure 2015). The Emoia specimens have been catalogised with “Taiti” as origin and cited as such by Duméril & Bibron (1835).

If we consider that this indication –Tahiti being the onymotope– is too poorly justified, we have to consider that the region including all the places from which Lesson (1828, 1831) observed the species he called Scincus cyanurus , “Scinque à cinq raies ayant la queue azurée”, “Scinque à queue d’azur”, “Scinque queue-bleue”, “Le petit scinque queue-bleue” or “Petit Scinque à raies dorées et à queue azurée” ( Table 1 ) form the protonymotope (original type-locality) ( Frétey et al. 2018). Then Tahiti would be the best choice for a neophoront (neotype) designation for nomenclatural stability as this population is indeed part of the genetically defined “widespread” E. cyanura of Klein et al. (2016).

Did Brygoo (1985) make a lectotype designation?

Brygoo (1985) presented each nomen listed in his type catalog with the reference to its original publication and by its onomatophores with information of onymotopes and collectors. Then a historical presentation and discussion of nomenclatural and taxonomic aspects was given.

For Scincus cyanurus, Brygoo cited two sources: Lesson “1826”, the plate published in the Atlas and Lesson “1830” the second volume of presentation of the zoological results where the reptiles are presented. We now know that the publication dates of the plate where Scincus cyanurus was published is 1830 and that volume 2 was published only in 1831. Brygoo did not consider Lesson (1828) as a possible original publication for this nomen.

In the discussion of the nomenclature of the nomen Scincus cyanurus, Brygoo (1985) cited an unpublished annotation of Brown on an index card in the Reptiles & Amphibiens collections identifying one of the specimens MNHN 0.7069A as “ lectotype ”. Brown (1991) and Ineich & Zug (1991) consider that Brygoo citing the notes of Brown on the index card made a lectotype designation. But Brygoo (1985) expressly stated “sur fiches” [on index cards] thus indicating an unpublished fact. Brygoo (1985) does list “ syntypes ” for the nomen, thus he did not consider Brown’s nomenclatural act as valid. In conclusion, Brygoo did not formally designate a lectophoront (lectotype) for Scincus cyanurus under the provisions of Article 74.5 of the Code.

Brown (1991) and Ineich & Zug (1991), however, considered this to constitute a valid designation. These researchers also agreed that the species nomen was made available by the published figure, thus on a single specimen, and that there is no specimen currently stored in the MNHN collection that could be the specimen figured on plate 4, figure 2 of Lesson (1830a; Fig. 1 ). As there can be no lectotype designated from a single holophoront, the published designations would be null anyhow.

Figures

FIG. 1. — Emoia cyanura (Lesson, 1830). Holophoront of Scincus cyanurus Lesson, 1830, Gongylus (Eumeces) lessonii Duméril & Bibron, 1839, Tiliqua lessonii Duméril & Bibron, 1839 and Tiliqua kienerii Duméril & Bibron, 1839 as presented on figure 2 of plate 4 in Lesson (1830). Source: https://www.archive.org/down- load/Voyageautourdum5Dupe/page/n14_w10048