Parus major newtoni Pražák

Mlíkovský, Jiří, 2011, Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904), Zootaxa 3005, pp. 45-68 : 58

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.202788
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6184165
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/705B333B-3364-1B43-FF38-A71FFC79FA8B
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Parus major newtoni Pražák
status

Treatment

Parus major newtoni Pražák View in CoL

Parus major newtoni Pražák, 1894f: 239 View in CoL .

NOW. Parus major newtoni Pražák, 1894 View in CoL . See Hartert (1905: 343, 1907b: 213), Harrison (1945), Vaurie (1959: 511), Gosler (1999), Dickinson (2003: 524) and Dudley et al. (2006: 555).

Holotype. NHMW 10664, collected by an unknown collector on an unknown date [= prior to 1892] at an unknown locality in England. Obtained from R. B. Sharpe in 1891.

Remarks. Pražák (1894f: 239–240) called this bird “Britische Kohlmeise” (“British Great Tit”), listed specimen NHMW 10664 as the “ typus ” (= holotype), and stated that he examined 19 specimens of this form. All of these specimens, except the holotype, may have existed only in Pražák’s mind. Two specimens of British Parus major were in the VTH in 1906 when the collection was purchased by the NHMW, including NMW 33646 (formerly Tschusi 2595), collected in “ England ” in “Winter” of an unknown year, and NMW 33648 (formerly Tschusi 4069), collected “near Brighton, Sussex” on 4 February 1894 and supplied to Tschusi by “Brazenor Bros., Naturalists, 39, Lewes Road, Brighton”. Pražák visited Tschusi at Hallein for the first time shortly prior to 15 October 1894 according to one of Tschusi’s letters ( Schmuck 2010: 262–263), i.e. too late for considering these specimens (even if they were already present in the VTH at that time, for which no evidence is available) in his paper on Parus major , which appeared in issue 6 of the Ornithologisches Jahrbuch for Nov–Dec 1894. Moreover, these specimens were not labeled as newtoni. I thus conclude that Pražák’s P. m. newtoni was based on a single specimen.

Pražák (1894f: 239) listed only “ Britain ” as the type locality, but the holotype was collected in “ England ” according to the label data. I thus restrict the type locality of P. m. n e w t o n i to England. Believing that the holotype was lost, Clancey (1948: 197) restricted the type locality of P. m. n e w t o n i to the “Lake District, England ”. Since the holotype is extant, Clancey’s restriction is invalid (Art. 76 of the Code).