Barbatula affinis Reichenow, 1879b: 114
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5334.1.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5CA866F3-0375-4E09-89FC-DBB259BAE535 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8269937 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DC9465-E231-FFCF-AFF1-F99F18B417CA |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Barbatula affinis Reichenow, 1879b: 114 |
status |
|
Barbatula affinis Reichenow, 1879b: 114 .
Now: Pogoniulus pusillus affinis ( Reichenow, 1879b) . See Peters (1948: 47).
Holotype (missing): ZMB 24268 View Materials (B 15740, Fischer no. 260), mount, male, collected at Kipini, [26.07.1878].
Type locality: “ Kipini (Ostafrica)” [ Kipini , Tana River County, Kenya], from the original description and the locality of the holotype .
Remarks: In the original description no type was chosen, and there were no inventory numbers for specimens provided, but measurements for one and the locality Kipini were given. Therefore no. 260 is regarded as the holotype (see also Fischer & Reichenow 1879). In the catalogue it is noted that the specimen was not found following World War II. There is however a Fischer specimen in the Berlin collection ZMB 2000.32549, but with locality only of “Ostafrika”. As Fischer collected at least two further females of this species at Malindi and “Gross Aruscha” ( Fischer & Reichenow 1879; Fischer 1884), it is unclear which of those specimens it is, but it cannot be the male type specimen, which appears to have been destroyed during World War II.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Barbatula affinis Reichenow, 1879b: 114
Frahnert, Sylke, Turner, Donald A. & Bracker, Cordula 2023 |
Barbatula affinis
Reichenow, A. 1879: 114 |