Ablepharus lindbergi Wettstein, 1960

Gemel, Richard & Vergilov, Vladislav, 2020, Nomenclatural-taxonomic notes on the genus Ablepharus Fitzinger, 1824 (Squamata: Scincidae), Zootaxa 4858 (3), pp. 448-450 : 449

2. Ablepharus lindbergi Wettstein, 1960

Wettstein described Ablepharus bivittatus lindbergi in 1960 using two adult specimens. Both specimens were numbered under “345” from the Lindberg Collection ( Gemel et al. 2019). Wettstein declared the specimen with a length of 46 + 68 mm as holotype and the second specimen with a length of 50 + 50 mm and with a regenerated tail as the paratype. Only the holotype, a male, with the inventory number NMW 15877, is in the inventory of the Natural History Museum Vienna. However, the paratype is lost ( Gemel et al. 2019: 220). The holotype bears the following information: “E Hérat, W-Afghanistan, steppe a few km W Obéh [= Obe, = Owbi], 28.08.1957, Coll. Lindberg, No. 345”.. The same information applies to the paratype. Wettstein mentioned a third specimen (with the collection number “Lindberg 733”) from Masdjed-Tchoubi, Chileh Hammam, at the foot of the Sabzzak pass, 2190 m, which Lindberg handed over to the NMW two years later, in 1959, which was not designated as a type. This specimen also cannot be found in the NMW collection.

Eremchenko & Shcherbak (1980) explained that A. lindbergi differs on species level from A. bivittatus (Menetries, 1832) and made a detailed differential diagnosis. But instead of simply recombining the name and elevating A. lindbergi to the species rank in order to separate this taxon from A. bivittatus , the two authors created another “ paratype ” that is stored in the collection of the St. Petersburg Zoological Institute. This “ paratype ” bears the following information: ZISP 18244, “Western Afghanistan, Kuh-i-Baba Mountain Ridge near the Band-i-Amir Lake, 2800 m a.s.l., 70 km W of Bamyan ”. Leg.: E. Sugonyaev, 16.IX.1966. (see Barabanov & Milto 2017; Uetz et al. 2020).

However, this specimen ( ZIP 18244) did not serve Wettstein as the basis of his description and cannot be considered as a paratype in accordance with the regulations ( ICZN: Art. 61.1.2.). Since Wettstein also named an untraceable paratype in addition to the holotype, this cannot be replaced by a later created “ paratype ”. The situation is as more confusing as the “ paratype ” of Ablepharus lindbergi in the Museum St. Petersburg could be wrongly regarded as the missing Viennese paratype .