Hypsiprymnodon moschatus Ramsay, 1875a, 1876

Parnaby, Harry & Gill, Anthony C., 2021, Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney, Zootaxa 4975 (2), pp. 201-252 : 221-222

Hypsiprymnodon moschatus Ramsay, 1875a

Sydney Morning Herald LXXII, pg. 2. (1st October 1875).

Description read at the 27th September 1875 meeting of the LSNSW.

Current name. Musky Rat-kangaroo Hypsiprymnodon moschatus Ramsay, 1875a .

Taxonomic status. Regarded as a valid species since its original description. Ramsay (1875a) created a new genus Hypsiprymnodon for the species.

Material: Possible syntype. M.458, adult male, skin mount and skull in situ, Rockingham Bay.

Type locality. Rockingham Bay , Queensland .

Comments. This specimen would surely be a syntype if it entered the MAMU Collection prior to publication of the species description in October 1875. We have not established the collector nor when it was obtained by Macleay. Only one specimen of this species is listed in the MAMU 1890s Catalogue, an adult stuffed male from Rockingham Bay, which is assumed to be M.458 .

Several collectors sent natural history specimens to Macleay from the Rockingham Bay region. Ramsay (1876b) noted that Spalding had not obtained any specimens of the species “during a recent visit to the Endeavour River”, presumably a reference to Spalding’s collecting trip throughout the second half of 1874. Spalding returned to Sydney from the Endeavour River in December 1874. Surviving documentation of Macleay’s Collection acquisitions of the 1870s and 1880s are incomplete. Macleay’s private diary entries indicate that “Dubouley” [sic] collected at Rockingham Bay between 1874 and February 1876 but we have not found specific mention of this species in material received by Macleay. Macleay’s private diary entry for 21 May 1874 mentions that Dubouley visited with his Endeavour River collection and an entry for 3rd February 1876 states that natural history material, including a flying fox Pteropus conspicillatus Gould, 1850 , was forwarded to him from a Mr. Debouley from “Rockingham Bay”. Mr. Dubouley presumably refers to the Australian entomologist and natural history artist Francis H. du Boulay (1837–1914) who collected in north Queensland in the 1870s ( Musgrave 1932). Ramsay (1876b) stated that most of his specimens were obtained from Broadbent, who might also have sold M.458 to Macleay in 1874 or 1875. Froggatt collected for Macleay in the Cairns region during 1886, but we have not found evidence that he collected in the Rockingham Bay area. Perhaps J.A. Boyd, based at Ripple Creek, Ingham included this species amongst several shipments of mammals he sent to Macleay during the 1880s. However, localities usually given for his specimens in Macleay’s publications and the MAMU 1890s Catalogue are either Ripple Creek or Herbert River. We suspect that Rockingham Bay is more likely to be a general locality applied by collectors during the 1870s, before settlement had expanded.

Several vernacular names were applied to this species during the late 19th and early 20th century which complicates a search for references to it in historical documents. Although now referred to as a “rat-kangaroo”, Ramsay initially referred to this highly unusual looking little animal as a “musk rat” ( Ramsay 1875b; 1876b) and as a “marsupial rat” in his entry in the AM “A Register” of April 1875. Lucas & Le Souef (1909) used the name Australian Musk Rat. Several other small macropodoid species were also referred to as “kangaroo rats” during the 19th century. It is possible that archival documents including Macleay’s correspondence and personal diary could have used any of these terms for the Musky Rat-kangaroo. It is even possible that Macleay simply referred to it as a “rat”, given that his diary and correspondence can be expected to reflect his personal interests, of which mammals were not necessarily a high priority.

In his original description, Ramsay did not state the number of specimens used in his description but it appears to be at least five. It is clear that there were very few specimens in 19th century collections. Ramsay (1888) stated that he had obtained five specimens in 1874 but only two since then (collected after 1876), despite efforts by several collectors, and he regarded it to be rarely collected. Although Ramsay obtained five specimens, the syntype series could include additional specimens held in other collections. Four syntypes are accounted for and all are adult. Two are in the AM, and a further two specimens were sent from the AM to the British Museum (now Natural History Museum, London) around 1876. Parnaby et al. (2017) suggested that a fifth unlocated syntype might be the halfgrown animal shot by Broadbent and mentioned by Ramsay (1876b), but this assumes that Ramsay had obtained that specimen. In conclusion, either M.458 is the fifth syntype obtained by Ramsay, which found its way into Macleay’s Collection, or Macleay purchased the specimen from an unknown collector (perhaps Broadbent), and the collection date is unknown.

Prior to Parnaby et al. (2017), the publication date of this species has been taken as Ramsay’s description in the Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. ( Ramsay 1876b), which according to Fletcher (1896), was published in February 1876. However, Ramsay (1875a) published essentially the same description in a Sydney daily newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, on 1st October 1875, four days after presenting his paper at the meeting of the LSNSW. Ramsay also published descriptions of several new bird species in the Sydney Morning Herald in July and December 1875 ( McAllan 2006). Perhaps Ramsay had anticipated extensive delays in publication of the Proceedings throughout 1875. Macleay, who was the primary instigator and financier for publication of the Proceedings, was on the Chevert Expedition from May to late October, 1875.