Conilurus pedunculatus Waite, 1896

Parnaby, Harry E., Ingleby, Sandy & Divljan, Anja, 2017, Type Specimens of Non-fossil Mammals in the Australian Museum, Sydney, Records of the Australian Museum 69 (5), pp. 277-420 : 349

Conilurus pedunculatus Waite, 1896

Report of the Horn Scientific Expedition to Central Australia, Zoology Part 2, 395, plate 25, fig. 1, a–f. (February 1896).

Common name. Central Rock-rat.

Current name. Zyzomys pedunculatus ( Waite, 1896) , following Jackson & Groves (2015).

Lectotype. M.1064, lectotype designation by Kitchener (1989). Sex indeterminate, skin mount with skull in situ, collected by J. Field. Specimen “A” of Waite’s description: marked “Spec. A of paper. TYPE” by Waite in the register. Presented by Baldwin Spencer, registered on 11 April 1896. Waite (1896) indicates that specimen A is a male.

Condition. Skin mount: missing both ears, transverse tear on chest area, missing fur from distal third of tail, tail tip is almost detached, skin otherwise intact and in reasonable condition.

Type locality. Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia.

Paralectotype. M.1158, sex not determined, skin mount, skull in situ, “ Central Australia ”, received from W. Horn, registered 12 November 1896 .

?Topotype. M.1298, sex not recorded, skull, study skin, Alice Springs, received from B. Spencer, registered 8 July 1898.

Comments. Waite based his description on five specimens: four males which he designated A–D, and a female E, but the location of four of these specimens has remained confused. Dixon (1970) cited an adult male syntype in the MV, noting a possible mix up of syntype labels, and cited AM M.1158 and M.1298 as possible syntypes. Aitken (1976) listed several male skulls (without bodies) and a female along with other potential syntypes in the SAM. Spencer’s contacts in Central Australia sent him an unknown number of additional specimens of this taxon after the Horn Expedition and after the preparation of the Horn Expedition report.

It is very likely that M.1158 is one of Waite’s syntypes. This specimen was registered in November 1896, soon after receipt of a letter from Spencer to the AM dated 28 October 1896 ( AM Archives AMS9 Letters Received, S. 93/96) advising that accompanying specimens donated to the AM were from the Horn Expedition, with an attached inventory listing “1 Conilurus pedunculatus ” .

Waite (1898a) reports a female and three males of this species that were sent fromAlice Springs after the expedition and forwarded to Spencer. Waite’s paper was read on 21 October 1897 and M.1298 was the next specimen of this species from Spencer to be registered, on 15 July 1898. This specimen might be a syntype as suggested by Dixon (1970) but it might also be one of those collected after the Horn Expedition.

Kitchener (1989) discussed the confused provenance of specimens suspected to belong to Waite’s type series and recognized that M.1064 is unambiguously Waite’s specimen A, marked as “type”. We concur—this specimen is without doubt, Waite’s type. Correspondence from Spencer dated 25 March 1896 to Waite (AM Archives letter S.26/96), states that Spencer was sending rodent specimens of new taxa named by Waite in the Horn Expedition report, requesting that Waite select and retain type specimens, and return the remainder. In his original description, Waite states that the specimens of his description were all supplied by Spencer, who did not collect any of them. As noted by Troughton, Waite wrote in the remarks column of the register, opposite registered specimens of a range of rodent taxa presented by Spencer, that “the balance of the specimens were returned to Prof Spencer, one of each species, (the type) being retained.” Although Waite does not refer to specimen A as the holotype, this is implicit by him writing “TYPE” in the remarks column against M.1064, along with his reference to the return of other specimens to Spencer, which in this context implies that the returned specimens were not the type.

The lectotype (M.1064) is the only one of the five syntypes with a certain provenance, contrary to the view of Aitken (1976). Dixon (1970) and Aitken (1976) discuss the uncertainty of locating and identifying syntypes of pedunculatus and pedunculatus var. brachyotis , and suggest a possible mix up of specimen labels. This is further compounded by disassociation of skulls from bodies, the dispersal of specimens to at least three institutions, and the problems of distinguishing syntypes from additional specimens sent to Spencer in the years following the Horn Expedition. Kitchener (1989) considered the type locality of Alice Springs as suspect on the grounds that Spencer did not collect the specimens himself. However, the specimen was obtained by J. Field, who was based in Alice Springs and forwarded the material to Spencer ( Calaby, 1996).

[ Conilurus pedunculatus ] var. brachyotis Waite, 1896

Report of the Horn Scientific Expedition to Central Australia, Zoology Part 2: 397. (February 1896) .

Common name. Central Rock-rat.

Current name. Zyzomys pedunculatus ( Waite, 1896) , following Jackson & Groves (2015), no subspecies recognized.

Syntype. M.1065 by subsequent determination. Skin mount, skull in situ, sex not determined from mount, marked in the M Register (probably by Troughton) as collected by Cowle. Presented by Baldwin Spencer, registered on 11 April 1896. This specimen is unambiguously marked in the M Register as the type of brachyotis by Waite, in his hand, and is unambiguously Waite’s specimen G, a female.

Condition. Skin mount: missing left ear tip, missing three toes from left manus, vertical tear in left midrift, tail tip almost detached.

Type localities. Alice Springs, and Illamurta, James Range, Northern Territory ( Waite, 1896). The M Register locality entry of “Illamurta” is written in Waite’s handwriting for M.1065.

Comments. This taxon is based on two specimens, a male “F” and a female “G” in Waite’s description. M.1065 is marked as “ var. brachyotis ” and “TYPE” and as specimen “G” of Waite’s description, all in Waite’s writing (signed ERW) in the M Register. Under Article 72.4.7, the annotation “Type” on specimen G in the Museum register does not validate it as a holotype; the two specimens represent syntypes. Specimen F was perhaps returned to Spencer by Waite, but its current whereabouts is uncertain. Finlayson (1941) believed that he had examined the skull of Waite’s specimen F and Aitken (1976) lists specimen F as SAM M.2412, male, skull only. However, Kitchener (1989) expressed doubt, noting discrepancies in cranial measurements with those of F provided in the original description. Kitchener (1989) examined both putative syntypes in the AM and SAM and concluded that brachyotis was not a valid taxon on the grounds that the specimens fall within the range of intraspecific variation of pedunculatus . He also considered both to be either subadult or young adults, and noted that Finlayson (1941) had determined that SAM M.2412 (a skull) was “definitely young”. Kitchener (1989) did not designate a lectotype for brachyotis, citing possible confusion over syntype recognition; he was evidently unaware of Waite’s unambiguous entry for this taxon in the M Register.