Crucirostra minor C.L. Brehm

LeCroy, Mary, 2013, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 11. Passeriformes: Parulidae, Drepanididae, Vireonidae, Icteridae, Fringillinae, Carduelinae, Estrildidae, And Viduinae, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2013 (381), pp. 1-155 : 79-80

[ Crucirostra minor C.L. Brehm ]

The following two specimens in AMNH are marked ‘‘ Crucirostra minor ’’ by Brehm and were thought to be possible syntypes of the name by ‘‘ARP[hillips].’’ The labels bear the following information:

AMNH 457078 : Brehm label: ‘‘ Crucirostra minor Brm. ♀ hieme [Latin, ‘‘in winter’’], 10 Jan. 1833. Nordamerika’ ’; on the reverse: ‘‘Nr. 12. kleiner Körper, schlanker Schnabel.’’ (I much appreciate S. Frahnert’s deciphering Brehm’s annotation.). On the reverse of the Rothschild label: ‘‘minor 5 ‘sitkensis’; a cotype (?) ARP ’71.’’ On the reverse of the AMNH type label: ‘‘A fair match for U. Minn. Bell M.N.H. 16637 & 17651 ARP ’76.’’ This is also initialed ‘‘J.F[arrand].’’

AMNH 457079: Brehm label: ‘‘ Crucirostra minor, Brm. ♀ alt. [abbreviation for ‘‘adultus’’ in Latin] Mai, 1842, Nordamerika. Marked ‘‘5 ‘sitkensis’ ARP ’71.’’ The reverse of this label and of the type label is blank. On the Rothschild label: ‘‘[the tiny dark N.-mid-Continent race] ARP ’75.’’ ‘‘minor 5 ‘sitkensis’ cotype (?) ARP ’71.’’

These two specimens are the only two Brehm specimens labeled minor that came to AMNH with the Rothschild Collection. They were not listed by Hartert (1918) in his list of Brehm types. The AMNH type labels were apparently added at the time of Phillips’ studies, and investigation shows that they are not syntypes of minor .

According to Hellmayr (1938: 302–303), Crucirostra minor was named by Brehm (1846: 532) based on a Lichtenstein manuscript name (so stated by Brehm, 1853: 193). Brehm (1846) reported on his trip to North America, and his description on page 532 is the following: ‘‘Im Januar [1846] schoss ich 2 männliche und 1 weiblichen Kreuzschnabel; die Männchen sind schön roth und scheinen von den deutschen nicht verschieden zu sein. Diese Kreuzschnäbel haben keine weissen Binden.’’ He added in a footnote: ‘‘So urtheilte unser Freund, welcher die deutschen nicht zur Vergleichung hatte, denn die amerikanischen sind viel kleiner als die deutschen und heissen deswegen Crucirostra minor .’’ I think that ‘‘unser Freund’’ refers to Brehm’s host during his stay in North America who was not mentioned by name and that the statement that the North American form did not differ from the European one was the friend’s opinion; the footnote then reflects Brehm’s realization that it did differ. It is apparent that, according to the dates on AMNH 457078 and 457079, neither can be among the three specimens collected by Brehm in North America in 1846 and referred to when he named the form (Brehm, 1846: 532). Furthermore, there is nothing on Brehm’s labels of the two specimens in AMNH to indicate that they came from Lichtenstein. Lacking that connection, they are not considered part of Brehm’s type series. The three specimens collected by Brehm in North America in 1846 and any specimens that may have been considered ’’ minor ’’ by Lichtenstein comprised Brehm’s type series, but none of these is in AMNH.

Stresemann (1922: 41–42), van Rossem (1934: 358–359), and Hellmayr (1938: 302– 303) discussed Loxia pusilla Gloger and C. minor Brehm in relation to the whereabouts of the types and which populations the names represented. Stresemann (1922: 42) determined that the type of L. pusilla is No. 6984 in ZMB, and van Rossem (1934: 358–359) designated ZMB 6982 as the lectotype of C. minor Brehm. Van Rossem was convinced that at least two of the specimens that Lichtenstein had called ‘‘minor’’ were in ZMB, although he does not cite evidence that Lichtenstein had ever used the name on a specimen.

Brehm (1853: 193) discussed minor and illustrated its head as figure 12 on the plate opposite page 182. AMNH 457078 is the specimen figured there, and the number 12 appears on the reverse of Brehm’s label. Others of the Brehm specimens in AMNH also bear numbers that correspond to the numbers of the figures in Brehm (1853: pl. opp. p. 182). This is contra van Rossem (1934: 359, pl. 27), who thought that one might ‘‘infer’’ that Brehm had picked a very small male as a model for his illustration of the head of minor . He surmised that ZMB 6982 matched the specimen figured as no. 12 in Brehm (1853: plate opp. p. 182) and added further: ‘‘The illustration, which accompanies [Brehm’s] revision of the crossbills in ‘Naumannia’ for 1853, so accurately depicts the bill of [ZMB] number 6982 that in all likelihood it was taken from that specimen. Since minor is a Lichtenstein manuscript name the basis must have been Berlin Museum specimens, and since Dr. Stresemann’s action has eliminated the two larger birds from consideration, and since Brehm’s figure matches exactly one of the smaller ones, it seems proper to designate adult male number 6982 as the type. It was collected in ‘Nord-America’ by Schumann, but further data are lacking.’’

ZMB 6982 has been dismounted and now has a label with information added to it later by Stresemann. It was collected on the ‘‘Black River 50 engl. Meilen oberhalb seiner Mündung in Michigan, Jan/ Mar 1834. Franz Schumann & Albert Koch.’’ Schumann collected with Albert Koch and his brother roughly between 1832 and 1835 in North America. There is nothing to connect this specimen with Lichtenstein either on the label or in Lichtenstein’s published catalogs of 1823 or 1854 (S. Frahnert, personal commun.).

The result of the above investigation is that, while it is not the specimen illustrated by Brehm as minor , the Berlin lectotype of Crucirostra minor is old enough to have been seen by Lichtenstein, as is the second Berlin specimen mentioned by van Rossem (1934: 359).

Dickinson (2003: 756) and Clement (2010: 601) recognize Loxia curvirostra minor (C.L. Brehm, 1846) .