Catalogue |
Steven D. van der Mije‡, Pepijn Kamminga‡, René W. R. J. Dekker‡
|
Corresponding author: Pepijn Kamminga ( pepijn.kamminga@naturalis.nl ) Academic editor: Knud Jønsson
© 2023 Steven D. van der Mije, Pepijn Kamminga, René W. R. J. Dekker.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
van der Mije SD, Kamminga P, Dekker RWRJ (2023) Type specimens of non-passerines in Naturalis Biodiversity Center (Animalia, Aves). ZooKeys 1155: 1-311. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1155.98097
|
 |
Abstract
The non-passerine type specimens in Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden are listed as an update to
Keywords
Aves, birds, Leiden, non-passerines, RMNH, Schlegel, Temminck, types, ZMA
Introduction
In 1997, Van den Hoek Ostende et al. published ‘Type-specimens of birds in the National Museum of Natural History, Leiden, Part 1. Non-Passerines’. Since its publication 26 years ago much has changed, both at an institutional level as well as regarding the collections. The National Museum of Natural History (NNM since 1988), the new name for the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie as it was called since 1820, was renamed Naturalis Biodiversity Center (collection acronym: RMNH) in 2011 after the merger with staff and collections of the Zoological Museum of the University of Amsterdam (ZMA) and the Herbaria and staff from the Leiden, Utrecht, and Wageningen Universities.
The merger of the bird collection of Naturalis with that of the ZMA, discussions with colleagues, publications of type catalogues in other museums such as Paris and Vienna, corrections of publication dates of historic literature and hence original descriptions and corrections, and additions found by Naturalis staff and visitors to the collection all made an update of the RMNH catalogue necessary. This work was facilitated by the rapid digitisation of (historical) books and journals (in particular BHL) which enabled quick access and easy checks of the literature. Furthermore, the merged bird collections of the RMNH and ZMA have been fully digitised, making thorough searching and comparison of specimens and their data possible.
What is new in this catalogue compared with the 1997 version
Much has changed in this update of
What is new in this 2023 version:
- We have re-checked all the original descriptions and related literature in this catalogue. We concentrated our efforts on historic works by former RMNH ornithologists such as Temminck’s ‘Planches Coloriées’ (1820–1839) and Schlegel’s monographs (1862–1874) as well as travellers such as Müller, Von Siebold, and others such as Sharpe who were in close contact with them.
- We added 380 names of taxa described by Temminck, other Leiden curators, and other ornithologists. We also added names with their types in collections other than Leiden or which could not be found despite reference to the type specimens in the RMNH. This is a service to the users of this catalogue to show that we are aware of these names and performed extensive searches in the physical as well as in the digital collection. It will help taxonomists to locate these types in other collections. We have, however, limited this search to published data and have not consulted these collections and/or their curators. We refer to these specimens with their registration numbers as they are listed in published works or (online) databases, we did not check for correctness.
- We removed the type specimens of 13 names which were listed in
Van den Hoek Ostende et al. (1997) as they turned out to be listed erroneously. The 13 names, however, remain in the list and our correction is explained. - We listed specimens of which the type status could not be ascertained with certainty as possible types.
- We included the type specimens formerly in the Zoological Museum of the University of Amsterdam (
Roselaar and Prins 2000 ) which are now part of the collection of Naturalis Biodiversity Center. We also reviewed this catalogue and made corrections and additions where necessary in this update. - We added specimen information between square brackets [...] when this information was neither on the label nor written under the stand but found in the original description or secondary sources. An important source of information on collectors and their travels in South-East Asia was the ‘Cyclopaedia of Malesian Collectors’ compiled by M.J.
van Steenis-Kruseman (1950) , originally published in the Flora Malesiana series, available online 1. For additional information on the history of the RMNH (ornithological) collection and its curators, seeGijzen (1938) ,Holthuis (1995) , and the introduction inVan den Hoek Ostende et al. (1997) . - We corrected, where necessary, years of publication and hence original descriptions of names. This was based, among others, on various works of Edward Dickinson and his co-authors, as e.g., for the ‘Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées’ of Temminck and Laugier (1820–1839) (
Dickinson 2001 ;Dickinson et al. 2022 ). -
Van den Hoek Ostende et al. (1997) gave RMNH ##### as format for the registration number. This has been adapted to RMNH.AVES.##### complying with the international standard now in use for the RMNH collections. The numeric part of the unique identifier has remained unchanged. -
Van den Hoek Ostende et al. (1997) followed the nomenclature in use in the 16 volumes of the ‘Check-List of the Birds of the World’ (Peters 1934–1987). We have updated this to current names as published by the International Ornithological Congress (IOC) starting from v. 10.1. and during the work on this catalogue shifting to the newer v. 11.1. (Gill et al. 2021 ) (www.worldbirdnames.org). - We adjusted the sequence of orders and families as in use by the IOC but listed the types alphabetically under the current IOC names for the genera and within the genera for species.
- During the process we were confronted with information written on the labels that did not always match information under the stand or the identity of the specimen. Labels are in most cases later additions to the specimen, as almost all original labels have been discarded. Information was also regularly added as handwritings from different persons under the stands show. We noticed discrepancies in collecting date, collectors’ name, location, and gender and age of the specimen. See e.g., Alcedo lugubris Temminck. An extreme example we encountered was a woodpecker (RMNH.AVES.203484, Picus leucogaster Temminck) which was mounted on a stand which originally held a cuckoo from South Africa (Centropus senegalensis). In several cases these discrepancies led to doubts about the true information and hence the status of the specimen. Such cases are explained under the taxon involved in which case we added “possible” to the type status of that particular specimen.
- In some cases we encountered taxonomic issues which need to be solved, see e.g., Cuculus fasciolatus Müller, Centropus medius Bonaparte, and Strix Rosenbergii Schlegel. However, this is beyond the scope of this catalogue and requires a taxonomic review. We merely note the issue.
-
Van den Hoek Ostende et al. (1997) gave specimens originating from Cabinet Temminck and listed inTemminck (1807) the acquisition date of 1807. This is not correct as 1807 is the publication date of the Catalogue and Temminck’s Cabinet goes back to much earlier. Temminck’s collection was one of three founding collections of the RMNH in 1820. An important part was collected by Levaillant in South Africa between 1781 and 1784, an expedition financed by Temminck’s father. -
Dickinson et al. (2022) discussed the publication of livraisons 1–20 in the ‘Nouveau recueil de Planches Coloriées d’oiseaux’ byTemminck (1820 –1821 ). The first 120 plates and wrappers with scientific names were published often several years before the text appeared. Hence, the specimen on the plate is the holotype and the text becomes irrelevant regarding type status. All specimens referred to in the text should therefore not be regarded as syntypes. However, the problem we were confronted with when selecting the illustrated specimen is twofold. First, the illustrated specimen is without further information, hence it could be any one of the specimens available to Temminck and second, the illustrated specimen could be a composite of more than one specimen, e.g., when not all the characters due to sex, age, or moult were present in a single specimen or could illustrate some artistic licence.Temminck (1820 : footnote, text to pl. 3) stated that, to avoid useless repetition, specimens used for the plates are always housed in the first collection mentioned. We have compared specimens in the RMNH with the plates, but were unable to do so for specimens from other collections, in particular the MNHN, in cases where Temminck might have used specimens from there. The MNHN, NMW, and other collections, like the RMNH, have listed syntypes for multiple names published in livraisons 1–20, but this should now be considered an error and we encourage curators to check these specimens against the plates if the holotype is not listed for the RMNH or when Temminck referred to these collections in his text, published later. - We have included types for names introduced by B.H. Hodgson. The information linked to the specimens he collected is poor, especially lacking day, month, and year of collecting. As Hodgson stayed in Nepal for a long period (1819–1844), it cannot be ruled out that some of his specimens were collected after the description of the new names.
- We have listed all primary types with full data, secondary types by registration number only.
- In the 1830s, Johann Heinrich Frank was a dealer in natural history specimens and antiquities in Leipzig, Germany. His son, Gustav Adolph, educated as a pharmacist, moved to Amsterdam where he started a career as a natural history dealer as well. In 1833, he contacted Temminck for the first time after which many transactions would follow. Gustav Adolph’s son, Gustaaf Adolf junior, followed the career of his father and grandfather and worked as a natural history dealer in London in 1871. Together G.A. Frank senior and junior became important international suppliers for European natural history museums.
Between 1833 and 1883, the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie (RMNH) bought and sold to third parties a considerable number of specimens through both Frank senior and Frank junior. Additionally, the Zoological Museum Amsterdam, whose collection is part of Naturalis since 2010, dealt with Frank sr and Frank jr.
From the labels on the specimens in the Leiden collection it is often not clear whether the object was obtained through G.A. Frank sr. or G.A. Frank jr. as only G.A. Frank is mentioned. We have not tried to sort this out any further as it would be largely impossible and beyond the scope of this catalogue.
- According to
Stresemann (1953a : 319), Vieillot (1816–1819) used the ‘Catalogue systematique’ (Temminck 1807 ) as a basis for many of the new names in his ‘Nouveau dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle’ by slightly modifying the descriptions given by Temminck and ‘translating’ the French name into a scientific binary name.
Abbreviations
In addition to the above, the following abbreviations have been used in the specimen information:
“Loc:” refers to place, country and, if given on the label, the date the specimen was collected;
“Leg:” refers to the field collector and, if given on the label, the date the specimen was received by the museum.
“Ex:” refers to the donator, which is not the field collector but a museum, owner of a private collection, or animal dealer and, if given on the label, the date the specimen was received by the museum.
Please note that in the past the date of collection and the date of accession on the labels and in the old catalogues have sometimes been mixed up.
Acronyms (in alphabetical order)
MLC Musée George Sand et de la Vallée Noire (Collection Baillon), La Châtre, France.
MNSL Naturkundemuseum Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
MTD Museum für Tierkunde, Dresden, Germany.
NAM Amsterdam Zoo ‘Natura Artis Magistra’, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
UZMC Universitets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the following for discussions on a variety of taxa and topics, including literature and archives, listed in alphabetical order: Norbert Bahr, Arnoud van den Berg, Patrick Boussès, Alice Cibois, Wim Dekkers, Edward Dickinson, Robert Dowsett, Angelos Evangelidis, Clem Fisher, Christophe Gouraud, Gradimir Gradev, Hein van Grouw, Justin Jansen, Karien Lahaise, Robert Prÿs-Jones, Christiane Quaisser, Frank Rheindt, Frank Steinheimer, Jan van Tol, Pieter van Wingerden, Konstantinos Vlachopoulos, Ruud Vlek and Claire, and François Voisin.
List of type specimens
CASUARIIFORMES
Casuariidae
Casuarius papuanus Schlegel, 1871b: 54.
= Casuarius bennetti westermanni Sclater, 1874.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Casuarius aruensis Schlegel, 1866f: 347.
= Casuarius casuarius (Linnaeus, 1758).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Casuarius casuarius bistriatus van Oort, 1908c: 205.
= Casuarius casuarius (Linnaeus, 1758).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Van Oort described a single adult male captured on the “north coast of New Guinea, west of Humboldt Bay, very probably from Tarfia near Matterer Bay”, and sent alive to the zoological garden of Rotterdam, where it died in May 1907. According to the accession books, the skeleton of the holotype is also in the
Casuarius Kaupi Von Rosenberg, 1861: 44.
= Casuarius unappendiculatus (Blyth, 1860).
Rosenberg referred to his hunters who collected a single male on Salawati in August 1860. No specimen in the
TINAMIFORMES
Tinamidae
Tinamus erythropus Von Pelzeln, 1863: 1127.
= Crypturellus erythropus erythropus (Pelzeln, 1863).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Other syntypes collected by Natterer at Barra do Rio Negro are in the
Tinamus obsoletus Temminck, 1815a: 588.
= Crypturellus obsoletus obsoletus (Temminck, 1815).
Temminck based this name on 16 specimens described and collected by d’Azara in Paraguay (1781–1801). Temminck specifically referred to two specimens in the
Tinamus strigulosus Temminck, 1815a: 594.
= Crypturellus strigulosus (Temminck, 1815).
Temminck based this name on a single specimen in his own cabinet donated by Hoffmannsegg which is no longer present in the
Tinamus tataupa tataupa Temminck, 1815a: 590.
= Crypturellus tataupa tataupa (Temminck, 1815).
Temminck based this name on the description by
Crypturus Kerberti Büttikofer, 1896a: 1.
= Crypturellus tataupa tataupa (Temminck, 1815).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy.
In the list of types from the
Tinamus adspersus Temminck, 1815a: 585.
= Crypturellus undulatus adspersus (Temminck, 1815).
Temminck based his description on a single specimen in the
Tinamus undulatus Temminck, 1815a: 582.
= Crypturellus undulatus undulatus (Temminck, 1815).
Temminck based this name on a description by
Tinamus vermiculatus Temminck, 1825: livr. 62, pl. 369.
= Crypturellus undulatus vermiculatus (Temminck, 1825).
Two syntypes from Brazil are presumed to be in the
Tinamus maculosus Temminck, 1815a: 557.
= Nothura maculosa maculosa (Temminck, 1815).
Temminck had seen two specimens in the
Tinamus rufescens Temminck, 1815a: 552.
= Rhynchotus rufescens rufescens (Temminck, 1815).
Temminck based his description on a single specimen in the
Tinamus nanus Temminck, 1815a: 600.
= Taoniscus nanus (Temminck, 1815).
Temminck based this name on a description by
Tinamus guttatus Von Pelzeln, 1863: 1126.
= Tinamus guttatus Pelzeln, 1863.
Syntype,
This is one of eight syntypes. Syntypes collected by Natterer are in the
Tinamus tao Temminck, 1815a: 569.
= Tinamus tao tao Temminck, 1815.
Temminck based this name on two specimens, one in a collection in Lisbon, the other in the
GALLIFORMES
Megapodiidae
Talegallus pyrrhopigius Schlegel, 1879f: 159.
= Aepypodius arfakianus arfakianus (Salvadori, 1877).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy.
The spelling of pyrrhopigius in the title is clearly an error as later in the text it is correctly spelled pyrrhopygius.
This specimen was acquired through one of the Frank dealers. The collector must have been missionary Woelders who returned to the Netherlands in February 1879, on leave from Andai, New Guinea, bringing his collection with him (
Macrocephalon maleo Müller, S., 1846: 116.
Megacephalon maleo Gray, 1846: 849.
= Macrocephalon maleo Müller, S., 1846.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype
Sal. Müller based his name on Megachephalon maleo Temm. ms. These are also the syntypes of Megacephalon maleo Gray (1846: 849).
Forsten stayed in Celebes twice between March 1840 and April 1842.
Megapodius Bernsteinii Schlegel, 1866d: 261.
= Megapodius bernsteinii Schlegel, 1866.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
One syntype was sent to the
Megapodius sanghirensis Schlegel, 1880: 91.
= Megapodius cumingii sanghirensis Schlegel, 1880.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Megapodius Forstenii Gray, 1847: pl. CXXIV.
Megapodius Forsteni Gray, 1847: 491 (nomen nudum).
= Megapodius freycinet forsteni Gray, 1847.
Lectotype,
Gray gave no indication of the number of specimens he used for his description: he merely published a manuscript name by Temminck. Therefore, this specimen should be a syntype, but by listing it as holotype
Forsten visited Ceram [= Seram] late 1842, so either he received this specimen from another collector, or the date is an error.
The IOC spelling of forsteni (single “i”) is incorrect, based on a nomen nudum, and should follow the spelling (double “ii”) as on the plate.
Megapodius freycinet oustaleti Roselaar, 1994: 27.
= Megapodius freycinet oustaleti Roselaar, 1994.
Holotype,
Paratypes,
There is also a paratype in the
Megapodius Reinwardt Dumont, 1823: 416.
Megapodius rubripes Temminck, 1826: livr. 69, pl. 411.
= Megapodius reinwardt reinwardt Dumont, 1823.
Holotype for reinwardt, syntype for rubripes,
Holotype by monotypy for M. reinwardt Dumont, 1823 as he referred to a single individual. He erroneously indicated Amboine [= Ambon] as the type locality. The locality Lombok also seems to be erroneous, since Reinwardt never visited the island; the correct locality is most likely Buma, Sumbawa, where he stayed from 20–23 March 1821 (G.F. Mees, pers. comm.).
In his description of M. rubripes, Temminck (1826) indicated that the material was collected by Reinwardt, who collected four specimens.
Megapodius Tumulus Gould, 1842b: 20.
= Megapodius reinwardt tumulus Gould, 1842.
Paralectotype,
This specimen was acquired through Gould and possibly collected by his collector Gilbert.
The lectotype was selected by
Talegalla fuscirostris aruensis Roselaar, 1994: 15.
= Talegalla fuscirostris Salvadori, 1877.
Holotype,
Paratype,
Two paratypes are in the MTD (MTD C7298;
Talegallus jobiensis Meyer, 1874: 74.
= Talegalla jobiensis jobiensis A.B. Meyer, 1874.
Syntype,
The species was described from a series of five specimens. Only two seem to have survived: one in the MTD (MTD C3135;
Cracidae
Crax carunculata Temminck, 1815a: 44.
= Crax globulosa Spix, 1825.
Temminck’s description is based on a single skin in a collection in Lisbon.
Penelope parrakoua Temminck, 1815a: 85 (nomen novum).
= Ortalis motmot (Linnaeus, 1766).
Temminck introduced this name to bring order to the names for this taxon (among others Phasianus motmot Linnaeus, Phasianus parraqua Latham, Phasianus garrulus Humboldt and Phasianus guianensis Brisson). Although Temminck referred to specimens in his cabinet, there are no types involved here.
Penelope obscura “Illiger” Temminck, 1815a: 68.
= Penelope obscura obscura Temminck, 1815.
Temminck based this new species on the description by
Penelope superciliaris “Illiger” Temminck, 1815a: 72.
= Penelope superciliaris superciliaris Temminck, 1815.
Temminck based this new species on one specimen in his own cabinet and two specimens in the
Numididae
Agelastes meleagrides Bonaparte, 1850d: 145.
= Agelastes meleagrides Bonaparte, 1850.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Odontophoridae
Perdix Sonnini Temminck, 1815a: 451.
= Colinus cristatus sonnini (Temminck, 1815).
Syntype,
Temminck based his description on specimens in his own cabinet and in the
Odontophorus cubanensis Gray, 1846: [no pagination].
= Colinus virginianus cubanensis (G.R. Gray, 1846).
Syntype,
This name is listed by G.R. Gray (1846) as a manuscript name by Gould and referring to a description of Colinus virginianus from Cuba by
Perdix borealis Temminck, 1815a: 436 (nomen novum).
= Colinus virginianus subsp.
Temminck introduced this name as a nomen novum for multiple names being in use for this taxon.
Odontophorus Columbianus Gould, 1850: [30].
= Odontophorus columbianus Gould, 1850.
Syntype,
Syntype,
According to the label and information written under the stand these specimens originate from Colombia, as indeed the name suggests. However, the species is restricted to Venezuela. In his description
Perdix dentata Temminck, 1815a: 419 (nomen novum).
= Odontophorus gujanensis gujanensis (Gmelin, 1789).
Temminck introduced this name as a nomen novum for Perdix guianensis [sic] Latham.
Phasianidae
Perdix heyi Temminck, 1825: livr. 55, pl. 328 (male) and 329 (female).
= Ammoperdix heyi heyi (Temminck, 1825).
Syntype,
Syntype,
According to the original description the two syntypes, collected by Hey in the deserts of Aqaba in Jordan, were received from the
Anurophasis monorthonyx van Oort, 1910e: 212.
= Anurophasis monorthonyx van Oort, 1910.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Van Oort based his description on a single male, field number 254.
Arborophila javanica bartelsi Siebers, 1929: 149.
= Arborophila javanica javanica (Gmelin, 1789).
Holotype,
The description was based on ten specimens. The paratypes are in the
Arborophila brunneopectus lawuana Bartels, 1938: 321.
= Arborophila javanica lawuana Bartels, 1938.
Holotype,
Paratypes,
Bartels (1938) based his description on a series of eight specimens. One of the paratypes is in the
Perdix Vethi Snelleman, 1887: 30, pl. III.
= Arborophila rubrirostris (Salvadori, 1879).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy:
Perdix megapodia Temminck, 1828: livr. 78, pl. 462 (male) and 463 (female).
= Arborophila torqueola torqueola (Valenciennes, 1825).
Three syntypes are in the
Argus giganteus Temminck, 1813b: 410.
= Argusianus argus argus (Linnaeus, 1766).
Temminck wrote having seen more than 30 specimens originating from Malacca in his own cabinet and several other collections. No specimens which fit as types are currently present in the
Bambusicola sonorivox Gould, 1863: 285.
= Bambusicola sonorivox Gould, 1863.
Syntype,
Syntype,
These are also the types for the genus name Bambusicola Gould, 1863.
Perdix thoracica Temminck, 1815a: 335.
= Bambusicola thoracicus (Temminck, 1815).
Perdix oculae Temminck, 1815a: 408.
= Caloperdix oculeus oculeus (Temminck, 1815).
Coturnix textilis Temminck, 1815a: 512.
= Coturnix coromandelica (Gmelin, 1789).
Syntype,
According to Temminck this taxon occurred on the Indian subcontinent. He referred specifically to specimens in his collection from Bengal to which no reference is made under the stand. We tentatively list
Coturnix vulgaris africana Temminck & Schlegel, 1849: 103.
= Coturnix coturnix africana Temminck & Schlegel, 1849.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Coturnix vulgaris japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1849: 103, pl. 61.
= Coturnix japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1849.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
In this catalogue we follow
Synoicus cervinus Gould, 1865: 195.
= Coturnix ypsilophora australis (Latham, 1802).
Possible paralectotype,
Perdix Raaltenii Müller, 1842: 158.
= Coturnix ypsilophora raaltenii (Müller, 1842).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Coturnix excalfactoria Temminck, 1815a: 516.
= Excalfactoria chinensis subsp.
Syntype,
Two specimens, also from Timor and collected by Baudin, are reported as syntypes in the
Perdix gularis Temminck, 1815a: 401.
= Francolinus gularis (Temminck, 1815).
Syntype,
Syntype,
The description is based on two specimens, one in Temminck’s cabinet and one in the
Gallus giganteus Temminck, 1813b: 84.
= Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758).
Temminck claimed to describe a wild species from Sumatra and Java. He referred to a foot of this taxon in his cabinet which is, however, no longer present in the
Gallus Morio Temminck, 1813b: 253.
= Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758).
Temminck claimed to be describing a wild bird from India.
Gallus bankiva Temminck, 1813b: 87.
= Gallus gallus bankiva Temminck, 1813.
Temminck based his name on the description of three specimens in the
Gallus lanatus Temminck, 1813b: 256.
= Gallus gallus domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758).
In the catalogue of his cabinet,
Gallus ecaudatus Temminck, 1813b: 267.
= Gallus lafayettii Lesson, 1831.
Syntype,
Syntype,
In the catalogue of his cabinet,
Apart from two specimens in his own collection, Temminck referred to a specimen in the collection of Raye van Breukelerwaert. This specimen was sold at the sale of this collection in 1827 (Van Cleef 1827: 49, no 885) for 4 guilders and 15 cents to the
Gallus sonneratii Temminck, 1813b: 246.
= Gallus sonneratii Temminck, 1813.
Temminck described three males and a female without mentioning where he had seen them. The
Gallus Furcatus Temminck, 1813b: 261.
= Gallus varius (Shaw, 1798).
In the catalogue of his cabinet,
Tetrao Saliceti Temminck, 1815a: 208.
= Lagopus lagopus subsp.
Possible syntype,
Two more specimens in the
Lagopus brachydactylus Gould, 1837: pl. 256 and text.
= Lagopus lagopus subsp.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Gould wrote: “M. Temminck’s specimen, which we believe to be unique”.
Perdix Lerwa Hodgson, 1833: 107.
= Lerwa lerwa (Hodgson, 1833).
Syntype,
The Hodgson collection arrived in Leiden in 1845 consisting of four crates with birds and mammals.
Lophophorus refulgens Temminck, 1813b: 355.
= Lophophorus impejanus (Latham, 1790).
Syntype,
Temminck referred to three specimens: one male in his own cabinet (now part of the
Euplocomus diardi Bonaparte, 1856b: 415.
Diardigallus prelatus Bonaparte, 1856b: 415.
= Lophura diardi (Bonaparte, 1856).
Syntype,
Syntype,
In his description Bonaparte also published the name Euplocomus diardi, a Temminck manuscript name. He intended to substitute this name with his Diardigallus prelatus.
Gallus Macartneyi Temminck, 1813b: 273.
= Lophura ignita macartneyi (Temminck, 1813).
Syntype,
The locality ‘Chine’ as written under the stand is obviously erroneous as this taxon occurs in Sumatra as was known to
Houppifer hoogerwerfi Chasen, 1939: 184.
= Lophura inornata hoogerwerfi (Chasen, 1939).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. The description was based on a single female. See also
Lophophorus cuvieri Temminck, 1820: livr. 1, pl. 1.
= Lophura leucomelanos lathami (J.E. Gray, 1829).
Holotype by monotypy. The specimen collected by Diard and Duvaucel is in the
A recommendation to the ICZN is in preparation to suppress Lophophorus cuvieri Temminck, 1820, in favour of the junior synonym Phasianus Lathami J.E. Gray, 1829 (= Lophura leucomelanos lathami (J.E. Gray, 1829), because of prevailing usage. The holotype (see livr. 1, pl. 1), which was historically considered a hybrid in the literature, is here regarded as a composite specimen as (only) the tail does not fit the (adult) Kalij Pheasant Lophura leucomelanos.
Coturnix perlata Temminck, 1815a: 470.
= Margaroperdix madagarensis (Scopoli, 1786).
Possible syntype,
Temminck based his description on a male in his own cabinet and a similar specimen in the
Pavo cristatus indicus Temminck, 1807: 145 (nomen nudum).
Pavo cristatus primus Temminck, 1813b: 26.
Pavo nigripennis Sclater, 1860a: 221.
= Pavo cristatus Linnaeus, 1758.
Syntype,
Sclater based his name on
Francolinus peli Temminck, 1854: 50.
= Peliperdix lathami lathami (Hartlaub, 1854).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Collected during Pel’s stay in Ghana between 1840 and 1855.
Phasianus Diardi Temminck, 1830: livr. 82, text to pl. 486.
= Phasianus versicolor versicolor Vieillot, 1825.
Temminck published Phasianus Diardi in his resume of P. versicolor Vieillot, 1825, based on a specimen sent by Diard to the
Polyplectron Chinquis Temminck, 1813b: 363.
= Polyplectron bicalcaratum (Linnaeus, 1758).
Temminck had seen birds in several menageries prior to the Napoleonic era. He had two males in his own cabinet and saw an immature male in the
Polyplectron chalcurum scutulatum Chasen, 1941: 17.
= Polyplectron chalcurum scutulatum Chasen, 1941.
Holotype,
Polyplectron emphanum Temminck, 1832: livr. 91, pl. 540.
= Polyplectron napoleonis Lesson, 1831.
The holotype (by monotypy) is in the
Francolinus ahantensis Temminck, 1854: 49.
= Pternistis ahantensis (Temminck, 1854).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Perdix adansonii Temminck, 1815a: 305.
= Pternistis bicalcaratus bicalcaratus (Linnaeus, 1766).
Possible syntype,
Temminck described three specimens: one in the
Perdix clamator Temminck, 1815a: 298.
= Pternistis capensis (Gmelin, 1789).
Possible syntype,
Perdix erckelii Rüppell, 1835: 12, pl. 6.
= Pternistis erckelii (Rüppell, 1835).
Paralectotype,
The lectotype was designated by
Perdix rubricollis Cretzschmar, 1829: 44, pl. 30.
= Pternistis leucoscepus leucoscepus (Gray, 1867).
Possible syntype,
Possible syntype,
Perdix Longirostris Temminck, 1815a: 323.
= Rhizothera longirostris (Temminck, 1815).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Temminck wrote having received three males and two females and that a male and female were in the collection of Raye van Breukelerwaert. No other specimens in the
Francolinus jugularis Büttikofer, 1889b: 76.
= Scleroptila gutturalis jugularis (Büttikofer, 1889).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Perdix Le Vaillantii Temminck, 1823: livr. 7–10, text to pl. 1.
Perdix vaillantii Temminck, 1829: livr. 80, pl. 477.
= Scleroptila levaillantii levaillantii (Valenciennes, 1825).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Temminck first mentioned the name Perdix Le Vaillantii in a footnote to the text for pl. 1 (1823; see
According to the description with pl. 477 other possible syntypes are in the
Phasianus veneratus Temminck, 1830: livr. 82, pl. 485.
= Syrmaticus reevesii (Gray, 1829).
Possible syntype,
Temminck based his description on two males in his collection of which
Phasianus sœmmerringii Temminck, 1830: livr. 82, pl. 487 (male) and pl. 488 (female).
= Syrmaticus soemmerringii soemmerringii (Temminck, 1830).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Temminck mentioned that he had received several specimens from Von Siebold. There are no mounted specimens in the
ANSERIFORMES
Anatidae
Anas (Mareca) gibberifrons Müller, 1842: 159.
= Anas gibberifrons Müller, 1842.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
The year 1844 for
Anas Salvadorii Büttikofer, 1896b: 59.
= Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758.
Holotype,
Holoype by monotypy. Büttikofer described how he “found a Duck from the Island of Sumba”. Büttikofer’s description is based on a domestic duck.
Anser brachyrhynchus Baillon, 1834: 74.
= Anser brachyrhynchus Baillon, 1834.
Syntype,
The MLC houses a possible syntype (MLC.2011.0.560).
Anser cygnoides ferus Temminck & Schlegel, 1850: 140.
= Anser cygnoides (Linnaeus, 1758).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Temminck and Schlegel (1850) wrote that they received a single specimen.
The name A. ferus was neither mentioned on pl. 81 published in 1849 (
Anser medius Temminck, 1840: 519.
= Anser erythropus (Linnaeus, 1758).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Temminck described a single bird shot by him.
Anas scutulata Müller, 1842: 159.
= Asarcornis scutulata (Müller, 1842).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Since Müller explicitly mentioned a lake at the foot of Mt. Salak, Java as the only collecting locality of this new species, a fourth specimen from “Buitenzorg” is probably not part of the type series even though it was also collected by Müller.
Nyroca australis lebeboeri Bartels Jr & Franck, 1938: 337.
= Aythya australis (Eyton, 1838).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. The name lebeboeri is clearly a lapsus, since the species was named after A.J.M. Ledeboer.
Dendrocygna guttata “Forsten” Schlegel, 1866e: 85.
= Dendrocygna guttata Schlegel, 1866.
Lectotype,
Paralectotypes,
Forsten visited Celebes twice between March 1840 and April 1842.
Nettapus pulchellus Gould, 1842a: 89.
= Nettapus pulchellus Gould, 1842.
Paralectotypes,
The lectotype was selected by
In the original description, Gould made no reference to specimens. However later Gould (1842c: text to pl. 4) wrote that his description was based on four specimens: two collected by Gilbert, one by Bynoe and one by an unknown collector. The two
Anas cyanoptera Hartlaub, 1855: 357.
Querquedula Hartlaubii Cassin, 1859: 175 (nomen novum).
Anas cuprea Schlegel, 1866e: 62 (nomen novum).
= Pteronetta hartlaubii (Cassin, 1859).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Hartlaub referred to a single male collected at Rio Boutry, Ghana. According to Schlegel and later labels, this specimen is a female collected at Dabocrom, Ghana.
Quercedula hartlaubii Cassin, 1859 and Anas cuprea Schlegel, 1866 were both introduced as nomen novum for Anas cyanoptera Hartlaub, 1855, which is preoccupied by Anas cyanoptera Vieillot, 1816.
Anas (Querquedula) humeralis Müller, 1842: 159.
= Spatula querquedula (Linnaeus, 1758).
Syntype,
Syntype,
CAPRIMULGIFORMES
Podargidae
Batrachostomus parvulus Bonaparte, 1850a: 57.
= Batrachostomus affinis affinis Blyth, 1847.
Lectotype,
Paralectotypes,
There are two species represented in the type series. The male from Borneo (
Podargus cornutus Temminck, 1822: livr. 27, pl. 157 (nomen novum).
= Batrachostomus cornutus cornutus (Temminck, 1822).
Nomen novum for Podargus Javensis Horsfield, 1822. Temminck based this name on the description by Horsfield and a single specimen from Sumatra in the
Batrachostomus javensis longicaudatus Hoogerwerf, 1962: 195.
= Batrachostomus cornutus longicaudatus Hoogerwerf, 1962.
Paratype,
The holotype is in the
Batrachostomus poliolophus “Temminck” Hartert, 1892a: 63.
= Batrachostomus poliolophus Hartert, 1892.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Hartert based his description on a single specimen in the
Podargus intermedius Hartert, 1895: x.
= Podargus ocellatus intermedius Hartert, 1895.
Paralectotype,
Hartert nominated specimens from Kiriwina as type. This excludes
Caprimulgidae
Caprimulgus aegyptius Lichtenstein, 1823: 59.
Caprimulgus isabellinus Temminck, 1825: livr. 64, pl. 379 (nomen novum).
= Caprimulgus aegyptius aegyptius Lichtenstein, 1823.
Syntype,
Temminck introduced C. isabellinus as an unnecessary nomen novum for C. aegyptius Lichtenstein, 1823. He considered the reference to Egypt in the scientific name incorrect as this species also occurs outside Egypt as well as the fact that other species occur in Egypt.
The
Caprimulgus concretus Bonaparte, 1850a: 60.
= Caprimulgus concretus Bonaparte, 1850.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Caprimulgus smithi Bonaparte, 1850a: 59.
= Caprimulgus europaeus europaeus Linnaeus, 1758.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Caprimulgus eximius “Rüppell” Temminck, 1826: livr. 67, pl. 398.
= Caprimulgus eximius eximius Temminck, 1826.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy.
Originally ‘Nubie’ was written under the stand, later changed into ‘Sennaar’.
Caprimulgus jotaka Temminck & Schlegel, 1844: pl. 12 and 13, p. 37.
= Caprimulgus jotaka jotaka Temminck & Schlegel, 1845.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Plates 12 and 13 appeared in 1844, the description on p. 37 one year later (
In this catalogue we follow
Caprimulgus inornatus Heuglin, 1869: 129.
= Caprimulgus inornatus Heuglin, 1869.
Syntype,
The remaining two syntypes are in the
Caprimulgus ritae
= not yet included in IOC 12.2.
Holotype,
Paratype,
According to G. Sangster (pers. comm., June 2022), this new taxon was considered to belong to Caprimulgus macrurus schlegelii A.B. Meyer, 1874. Other paratypes are in the
Caprimulgus meesi Sangster & Rozendaal, 2004: 30.
= Caprimulgus meesi Sangster & Rozendaal, 2004.
Holotype,
The paratype, an adult male collected by G. Stein at Mao Marru, Sumba, is in the
Caprimulgus nubicus Lichtenstein, 1823: 59.
= Caprimulgus nubicus nubicus Lichtenstein, 1823.
Syntype,
According to acquisition lists in the
Antrostomus dominicus Bonaparte, 1850a: 61.
= Caprimulgus pectoralis pectoralis Cuvier, 1816.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Haiti is an error since C. pectoralis only occurs in Africa. Later ‘South Africa’ was added to the label.
Caprimulgus Bartelsi Finsch, 1902: 148.
= Caprimulgus pulchellus bartelsi Finsch, 1902.
Holotype,
Caprimulgus ruficollis Temminck, 1820: 438.
= Caprimulgus ruficollis ruficollis Temminck, 1820.
Temminck based his description on two specimens in the collection of the
Caprimulgus diurnus Wied, 1821: 174.
= Chordeiles nacunda nacunda (Vieillot, 1817).
Syntype,
According to Wied he found this species between Vareda (= Inhobim) and Ressaque (= Resacca), 8 February 1817 (
Eurostopus [sic] argus Hartert, 1892b: 608.
= Eurostopodus argus Hartert, 1892.
Paralectotypes,
Hartert based his name on a nomen nudum by
Caprimulgus mystacalis Temminck, 1826: livr. 69, pl. 410.
= Eurostopodus mystacalis (Temminck, 1826).
Lectotype,
Listed as Eurostopodus albogularis albogularis (Vigors & Horsfield, 1826) in Peters (1940; Vol. IV: 190), which name was published in 1827, one year after Temminck’s publication (
Caprimulgus papuensis Schlegel, 1866f: 340.
= Eurostopodus papuensis (Schlegel, 1866).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Hydropsalis trifurcatus Von Tschudi, 1846: 129.
= Hydropsalis climacocerca climacocerca (Tschudi, 1844).
Syntype,
Caprimulgus psalurus Temminck, 1822: livr. 27, pl. 157 and 158.
= Hydropsalis torquata torquata (Gmelin, 1789).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Although not mentioned in
According to Natterer’s handwritten register cards in the
Caprimulgus Nattererii Temminck, 1822: livr. 18, pl. 107.
= Lurocalis semitorquatus nattererii (Temminck, 1822).
Holotype,
Following
Lyncornis macrotis jacobsoni Junge, 1936: 39.
= Lyncornis macrotis jacobsoni Junge, 1936.
Holotype,
Paratypes,
Lyncornis macropterus “Temminck” Bonaparte, 1850a: 62.
= Lyncornis macrotis macropterus Bonaparte, 1850.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Forsten visited the Tondano area between 15 April 1840 and 19 June 1841.
Lyncornis Temminckii Gould, 1838b: pl. XVI and text.
Lyncornis imberbis “Temminck” Gould, 1838b: pl. XVI and text.
= Lyncornis temminckii Gould, 1838.
Syntype,
Gould based his description on several specimens in his own collection and on a bird sent by Temminck under the manuscript name L. imberbis. A name Gould published in synonymy of L. temminckii. Müller visited Borneo between 28 July and 17 December 1836.
Hydropsalis creagra Bonaparte, 1850a: 58.
= Macropsalis forcipata (Nitsch, 1840).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Nyctidromus grallarius “Wied” Bonaparte, 1850a: 62.
= Nyctidromus albicollis albicollis (Gmelin, 1789).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Caprimulgus minutus “Natterer” Bonaparte, 1850a: 63.
= Nyctiprogne leucopyga (Spix, 1825).
Possible holotype,
Bonaparte based his description on a manuscript name by Natterer and a specimen in the
Originally this specimen was sexed as female, later changed into male on the label.
Caprimulgus binotatus “Temminck” Bonaparte, 1850a: 60.
= Veles binotatus (Bonaparte, 1850).
Lectotype,
Bonaparte erroneously gave “Borneo” as collecting locality and gave no indication of the number of specimens available to him. The listing in
APODIFORMES
Aegothelidae
Batrachostomus crinifrons “Temminck” Bonaparte, 1850a: 57.
= Aegotheles crinifrons (Bonaparte, 1850).
Lectotype,
Bonaparte gave no indication of the number of specimens available to him. The listing in
During a forced stay due to illness on Ternate from 19 June 1841 until mid- September 1841, Forsten sent his hunters to Halmahera to collect skins.
Caprimulgus brachyurus Von Rosenberg, 1866: 143.
= Aegotheles wallacii G.R. Gray, 1859.
Holotype,
Hemiprocnidae
Cypselus comatus Temminck, 1824: livr. 45, pl. 268.
= Hemiprocne comata comata (Temminck, 1824).
Dendrochelidon schisticolor Bonaparte, 1850a: 66.
= Hemiprocne coronata (Tickell, 1833).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Cypselus longipennis Temminck, 1821: livr. 14, pl. 83.
= Hemiprocne longipennis longipennis (Rafinesque, 1802).
Temminck’s name is considered here to be a younger homonym of longipennis Rafinesque as Temminck made no reference to Rafinesque.
Following
Apodidae
Collocalia ceramensis van Oort, 1911c: 64.
= Aerodramus ceramensis (van Oort, 1911).
Holotype,
Collocalia francica bartelsi Stresemann, 1927: 46.
= Aerodramus fuciphagus fuciphagus (Thunberg, 1812).
Holotype,
The data listed above have been taken from
Collocalia francica sororum Stresemann, 1931: 12.
= Aerodramus sororum (Stresemann, 1931).
Paratypes,
The holotype is in the
Collocalia brevirostris vulcanorum Stresemann, 1926: 352.
= Aerodramus vulcanorum (Stresemann, 1926).
Holotype,
The data listed above have been taken from
Cypselus barbatus Sclater, 1866: 599.
= Apus barbatus barbatus (Sclater, 1866).
Syntype,
Sclater based this name on two specimens labelled “Cypselus barbatus” in the
Cypselus pygargus Temminck, 1828: livr. 77, pl. 460, fig. 1.
= Apus caffer (Lichtenstein, 1823).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Although not mentioned in the original description,
Apus affinis furcatus Brooke, 1971: 101.
= Apus nipalensis furcatus Brooke, 1971.
Holotype,
Paratypes,
There are also four paratypes in the
Cypselus leucorrhous “Müller” Sclater, 1866: 603.
= Apus nipalensis furcatus Brooke, 1971.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Sclater published this manuscript name by Müller in the synonymy of Cypselus subfurcatus Blyth, 1849. We have found no subsequent use to validate this name which therefore does not seem to be available.
Cypselus nipalensis Hodgson, 1837a: 780.
= Apus nipalensis nipalensis Hodgson, 1837.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Cypselus poliourus Temminck, 1839: 78.
= Chaetura brachyura brachyura (Jardine, 1846).
Lectotype,
Temminck based his description on pl. 726, fig. 2 in Daubenton and gave no indication of the number of specimens available to him. The listing in
Cypselus senex Temminck, 1826: livr. 67, pl. 397.
= Cypseloides senex (Temminck, 1826).
Syntype,
The data listed here come from a relatively new label. The old label, which is still attached to the specimen, gives no sex. According to this old label the specimen originates from the collection of Auguste de Saint Hilaire.
According to the original description other syntypes are in the
Cypsiurus batasiensis [sic] bartelsorum Brooke, 1972: 221.
= Cypsiurus balasiensis bartelsorum Brooke, 1972.
Holotype,
Paratypes,
There are also four paratypes in the
Tachornis parvus brachypterus Reichenow, 1903: 386.
= Cypsiurus parvus brachypterus (Reichenow, 1903).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Another syntype is in the
Cypselus ambrosiacus Temminck, 1828: livr. 77, pl. 460, fig. 2.
= Cypsiurus parvus parvus (Lichtenstein, 1823).
Lectotype,
Temminck based his description on Seba and Brisson and gave no indication of the number of specimens available to him. The listing in
The origin of Cap de Bonne-Esperance as given by Temminck and on the label is considered to be erroneous as C. parvus does not occur in that part of South Africa. On the backside of the label it was later changed into “Nubia” as is also indicated by
Cypselus (Chætura) Nudipes Hodgson, 1837a: 779.
= Hirundapus caudacutus nudipes (Hodgson, 1837).
Syntype,
Hodgson did not give much or any information on the specimen labels such as collecting date. Hence it is in most cases uncertain whether specimens collected and described by him are indeed types. This is also the type species for Hirundapus Hodgson, 1837.
Chaetura gigantea var. celebensis Sclater, 1866: 608.
= Hirundapus celebensis (Sclater, 1866).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Forsten visited the Tondano area between 15 April 1840 and 19 June 1841.
Hirundinapus Klaesii Büttikofer, 1887: 40.
= Hirundapus cochinchinensis (Oustalet, 1878).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Chaetura ernsti M. Bartels jr, 1931: 54.
= Hirundapus cochinchinensis (Oustalet, 1878).
Holotype,
Cypselus giganteus “van Hasselt” Temminck, 1825: livr. 61, pl. 364.
= Hirundapus giganteus giganteus (Temminck, 1825).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Van Hasselt visited Java between 1820 and 1823.
Acanthylis coracina “Müller” Boie, 1844: 167.
= Rhaphidura leucopygialis (Blyth, 1849).
Syntype,
Usually referred to as A. coracinus Bonaparte, 1850. However, the first valid description was given in a letter of Müller, which was published by
Müller visited West Sumatra from June 1833 until late 1835.
Cypselus collaris Temminck, 1823: livr. 33, pl. 195.
= Streptoprocne zonaris zonaris (Shaw, 1796).
Cypselus alpinus africanus Temminck, 1815b: 270.
= Tachymarptis melba africanus (Temminck, 1815).
Syntype,
Cypselus alpinus Temminck, 1815b: 270.
= Tachymarptis melba melba (Linnaeus, 1758).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Collocalia Coquerelii Schlegel & Pollen, 1868: 65.
= Zoonavena grandidieri grandidieri (Verreaux, 1867).
Lectotype,
Schlegel and Pollen gave no indication of the number of specimens available to them. The listing in
Trochilidae
Aglæactis aliciæ Salvin, 1896: 24.
= Aglaeactis aliciae Salvin, 1896.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Other syntypes are in the
Uranomitra whitelyi Boucard, 1893: 8.
= Amazilia brevirostris brevirostris (Lesson, 1829).
Syntype,
Other syntypes are in the
Uranomitra Derneddei Simon, 1911: 129.
= Amazilia violiceps violiceps (Gould, 1859).
Possible paralectotype,
Since the date of collecting is missing there is no unequivocal evidence that
Amazilia cupreicauda Salvin & Godman, 1884: 452.
= Amazilia viridigaster cupreicauda Salvin & Godman, 1884.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Trochilus scutatus “Natterer” Temminck, 1824: livr. 50, pl. 299, fig. 3.
= Augastes scutatus scutatus (Temminck, 1824).
According to the original description, syntypes are in the
Trochilus Langsdorffi Temminck, 1821: livr. 11, pl. 66.
= Discosura langsdorffi langsdorffi (Temminck, 1821).
According to the original description the depicted specimen was in the collection of Langsdorff and another in the collection of Leadbeater.
Eriocnemis catharina Salvin, 1897: xxx.
= Eriocnemis luciani catharina Salvin, 1897.
Syntype,
According to
Trochilus bilophus Temminck, 1820: livr. 3, pl. 18, fig. 3.
Trochilus cornutus Zu Wied-Neuwied, 1821: 190.
= Heliactin bilophus (Temminck, 1820).
Holotype for bilophus, syntype for cornutus,
Temminck’s plate of October 1820 has priority over Wied’s (Zu Wied-Neu
-*which name was commonly used in the 20th century based on
Following
Trochilus squamosus Temminck, 1823: livr. 34, pl. 203, fig. 1.
= Heliomaster squamosus (Temminck, 1823).
Syntype,
Trochilus mesoleucus Temminck, 1824: livr. 53, pl. 317, fig. 1–3.
= Heliomaster squamosus (Temminck, 1823).
According to Temminck three syntypes are in the
Leucippus Baeri Simon, 1901: 202.
= Leucippus baeri Simon, 1901.
Syntype,
This is one of two syntypes. The whereabouts of the other type are unknown.
Trochilus chalybeus Temminck, 1821: livr. 11, pl. 66, fig. 2.
= Lophornis chalybeus (Temminck, 1821).
Following
Trochilus squalidus Temminck, 1822: livr. 20, pl. 120, fig. 1.
= Phaethornis squalidus (Temminck, 1822).
Possible holotype,
Following
MUSOPHAGIFORMES
Musophagidae
Chizärhis leucogaster Rüppell, 1842: 127.
= Corythaixoides leucogaster (Rüppell, 1842).
Paralectotype,
The lectotype was selected by
Chizaerhis zonurus Rüppell, 1835: 9, pl. 4.
= Crinifer zonurus (Rüppell, 1835).
Paralectotype,
The lectotype was designated by
Musophaga paulina Temminck, 1820: livr. 4, pl. 23.
= Tauraco erythrolophus (Vieillot, 1819).
The holotype (by monotypy) is in the
Corythaix leucotis Rüppell, 1835: 8, pl. 3.
= Tauraco leucotis leucotis (Rüppell, 1835).
Paralectotype,
The lectotype was selected by
Musophaga Verreauxii Schlegel, 1854a: 462.
= Tauraco macrorhynchus verreauxii (Schlegel, 1854).
Syntype,
Corythaix schalowi Reichenow, 1891: 148.
Turacus schalowi var. marungensis Reichenow, 1902: 52.
= Tauraco schalowi (Reichenow, 1891).
Syntype,
Turacus emini Reichenow, 1893: 30.
= Tauraco schuettii emini Reichenow, 1893.
Syntype,
Turacus finschi Reichenow, 1899: 190.
= Tauraco schuettii emini Reichenow, 1893.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy.
OTIDIFORMES
Otididae
Otis cærulescens Vieillot, 1821: 334.
= Eupodotis caerulescens (Vieillot, 1821).
Holotype,
Vieillot based his name on the description in Levaillant’s Voyage (1790: 226). Levaillant wrote that his dogs caught a bustard, later listed by
Otis scolopacea Temminck, 1836: livr. 97, pl. 576.
= Eupodotis vigorsii vigorsii (Smith, 1831).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
The year of publication of livraison 97, usually given as 1835 following
Otis melanogaster Rüppell, 1835: 16, pl. 7.
= Lissotis melanogaster melanogaster (Rüppell, 1835).
According to the correspondence in the
Otis Ludwigii
= Neotis ludwigii (Rüppell 1837).
In his description of Otis scolopacea, Temminck (1836) referred to a specimen collected by Ecklon which he identified as O. Denhamii (Pl. Col. 97).
CUCULIFORMES
Cuculidae
Cacomantis aeruginosus Salvadori, 1878b: 456.
= Cacomantis aeruginosus aeruginosus Salvadori, 1878.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
The remaining syntypes are in the
Cacomantis arfakianus Salvadori, 1889: 177.
= Cacomantis castaneiventris (Gould, 1867).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Cuculus leucolophus Müller, 1840: 22.
= Cacomantis leucolophus (Müller, 1840).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Cuculus lanceolatus Müller, 1843: 178.
= Cacomantis merulinus lanceolatus (Müller, 1843).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Cuculus poliogaster Müller, 1845: 236.
= Cacomantis pallidus (Latham, 1801).
Lectotype,
Müller gave no indication of the number of specimens.
Forsten was forced to stay on Ternate due to illness between 19 June 1841 and mid-September 1841.
Cuculus sepulcralis Müller, 1843: 177.
= Cacomantis sepulcralis sepulcralis (Müller, 1843).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Müller described this species as originating from Java and Sumatra, and
Cuculus fasciolatus Müller, 1843: 177.
Penthoceryx sonneratii schlegeli Junge, 1948: 322.
= Cacomantis sonneratii fasciolatus (Müller, 1843).
Syntype for fasciolatus, holotype for schlegeli,
Syntype for fasciolatus,
Syntype for fasciolatus,
The type series also includes specimens from Java, which are Cacomantis sonneratii musicus (Ljungh, 1804).
Müller visited Sumatra between 1833 and 1835.
Cuculus tymbonomus Müller, 1843: 177.
= Cacomantis variolosus tymbonomus (Müller, 1843).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy: Müller collected a single male.
Cuculus dumetorum Gould, 1845b: text to pl. 87.
= Cacomantis variolosus variolosus (Vigors & Horsfield, 1827).
Possible paralectotype,
Calobates radiceus Temminck, 1832: livr. 91, pl. 538.
= Carpococcyx radiceus (Temminck, 1832).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Temminck wrote that this species is known from a single female.
The name C. radiceus is considered a lapsus for radiatus (
Centropus medius “Müller” Bonaparte, 1850a: 108.
= Centropus bengalensis medius Bonaparte, 1850.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
According to Bonaparte this species originated from Ambon and Java, a fact overlooked by
Kuhl and Van Hasselt visited Java between December 1820 and September 1821. Blume stayed in Java from 1818 until 1826.
Centropus bengalensis philippinensis Mees, 1971a: 190.
= Centropus bengalensis philippinensis Mees, 1971.
Holotype,
Paratype,
There are also eight paratypes in the UZMC.
The year of collecting given on the original labels is 1887, but should be 1888 (G.F. Mees, in litt.).
Centropus Bernsteini Schlegel, 1866c: 251.
= Centropus bernsteini Schlegel, 1866.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Schlegel wrote he had only seen a female. Salawati is probably incorrect (
Centropus celebensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1832: 230.
= Centropus celebensis celebensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1832.
Paralectotypes,
The lectotype was selected by
Centropus goliath Bonaparte, 1850a: 108.
= Centropus goliath Bonaparte, 1850.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
During a forced stay on Ternate from 19 June 1841 until mid-September 1841 due to illness, Forsten sent his hunters to Halmahera to collect skins.
Centropus francisci Bonaparte, 1850a: 107.
= Centropus leucogaster leucogaster (Leach, 1814).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Centropus monachus Rüppell, 1837a: 57, pl. 21, fig. 2.
= Centropus monachus monachus Rüppell, 1837.
Paralectotypes,
The lectotype was designated by
Polophilus Gigas Stephens, 1815: 45.
Corydonix giganteus Vieillot, 1819c: 295.
= Centropus phasianinus phasianinus (Latham, 1801).
Holotype,
Both Stephens and Vieillot based their description on a plate by Levaillant.
Centropus epomidis Bonaparte, 1850a: 107.
= Centropus senegalensis senegalensis (Linnaeus, 1766).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Centropus kangeangensis Vorderman, 1893: 190.
= Centropus sinensis kangeangensis Vorderman, 1893.
Syntype,
Vorderman mentioned that he collected two specimens of this taxon together with three specimens of C. sinensis sinensis Stephens, 1815. The
Centropus madagascariensis Schlegel, 1864b: 65.
= Centropus toulou toulou (P.L.S. Müller, 1776).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Schlegel listed only
Centropus molkenboeri Bonaparte, 1850a: 108.
= Centropus viridis viridis (Scopoli, 1786).
Lectotype,
Bonaparte gave no indication of the number of specimens available to him.
Cuculus Klaas Stephens, 1815: 128.
Cuculus klaasii Vieillot, 1817b: 230.
= Chrysococcyx klaas (Stephens, 1815).
Lectotype,
Both Stephens and Vieillot based their description on Levaillant’s ‘Le Coucou de Klaas’ (1806–1807: 53, pl. 212). Levaillant based his description on a specimen in his own collection and a specimen in the
Cuculus chalcites “Illiger” Temminck, 1821: livr. 17, pl. 102, fig. 2.
= Chrysococcyx lucidus plagosus (Latham, 1801).
Following
Cuculus neglectus Schlegel, 1864b: 35.
= Chrysococcyx minutillus aheneus (Junge, 1938).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Müller visited Borneo between 28 July 1836 and 17 December 1836.
Chalcites malayanus aheneus Junge, 1938: 238.
= Chrysococcyx minutillus aheneus (Junge, 1938).
Holotype,
Paratypes,
Chalcites malayanus albifrons Junge, 1938: 237.
= Chrysococcyx minutillus albifrons (Junge, 1938).
Holotype,
Paratypes,
Lamprococcyx crassirostris Salvadori, 1878b: 456.
= Chrysococcyx minutillus crassirostris (Salvadori, 1878).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Müller visited Ambon between 29 March and 20 April 1828.
Chalcites malayanus jungei Stresemann, 1938: 148.
= Chrysococcyx minutillus jungei (Stresemann, 1938).
Paratype,
The holotype is in the
Chalcococcyx innominatus Finsch, 1900: 94.
= Chrysococcyx minutillus rufomerus Hartert, 1900.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Finsch described C. innominatus based on a single male.
Cuculus edolio Temminck, 1807: 60.
= Clamator jacobinus subsp.
Possible syntype,
Temminck based his description on a male and female in his own collection.
Temminck referred to
Van Horstok is not mentioned under the stand in Temminck’s handwriting but was added later to the label and should be considered an error as he was not in South Africa as early as 1807.
Coccyzus lansbergi Bonaparte, 1850a: 112.
= Coccyzus lansbergi Bonaparte, 1850.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Coccycus Delalandei Temminck, 1827: livr. 74, pl. 440.
= Coua delalandei (Temminck, 1827).
The holotype is in the
Cuculus lepidus Müller, 1845: 236.
= Cuculus lepidus Müller, 1845.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Müller collected a single specimen during his stay in the area of Lelogama from 7 to 9 October 1829 (
Cuculus tenuirostris Müller, 1845: 235.
= Cuculus lepidus Müller, 1845.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Birds arrived in the
Cuculus canoroïdes Müller, 1845: 235.
= Cuculus lepidus Müller, 1845.
Lectotype,
Paralectotypes,
= Mt.] Doesoen, Poeloe Maja” as collecting locality. This specimen was collected, however, on the Dusun [= Barito] River (
Cuculus concretus Müller, 1845: 236.
= Cuculus micropterus concretus Müller, 1845.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Eudynamis melanorhynchus Müller, 1843: 176.
= Eudynamys melanorhynchus Müller, 1843.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Forsten stayed in the Tondano area between 22 March 1840 and 19 June 1841.
Eudynamis ransomi Bonaparte, 1850a: 101.
Cuculus punctatus var. ceramensis “Forsten” Bonaparte, 1850a: 101.
= Eudynamys orientalis orientalis (Linnaeus, 1766).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Bonaparte published Forsten’s manuscript name C. p. ceramensis in the synonymy of E. ransomi.
Forsten visited Seram late 1842.
Eudynamis picatus Müller, 1843: 176.
= Eudynamys orientalis picatus Müller, 1843.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Müller based his description on a single male in moult.
Eudynamis minima van Oort, 1911b: 54.
= Eudynamys orientalis rufiventer (Lesson, 1830).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Eudynamis scolopacea simalurensis Junge, 1936: 43.
= Eudynamys scolopaceus malayanus Cabanis & Heine, 1863.
Holotype,
Paratypes,
Cuculus vagans Müller, 1845: 233.
= Hierococcyx vagans (Müller, 1845).
Holotype,
Müller described this specimen as an adult male.
Kuhl and Van Hasselt visited Java between December 1820 and September 1821.
Coccyzus Geoffroyi Temminck, 1820: livr. 2, pl. 7.
= Neomorphus geoffroyi geoffroyi (Temminck, 1820).
Following
Cuculus Audeberti Schlegel, 1879b: 99.
= Pachycoccyx audeberti audeberti (Schlegel, 1879).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Schlegel referred to
Cuculus curvirostris Shaw, 1810: text to pl. 905.
Phænicophæus tricolor Stephens, 1815: 61, pl. 14.
Phænicophaus [sic] viridis Vieillot, 1817d: 462.
= Phaenicophaeus curvirostris curvirostris (Shaw, 1810).
The above names are based on “Le malkoha rouverdin” by
Phœnicophaeus viridirufus “Levaillant” Müller, 1845: 234.
Phaenicophaeus erythrognathus Bonaparte, 1850a: 98.
= Phaenicophaeus curvirostris subsp.
Syntype (viridirufus and erythrognathus),
Syntype (viridirufus and erythrognathus),
Syntype (viridirufus and erythrognathus),
Syntype (viridirufus and erythrognathus),
Syntype (viridirufus),
Syntype (viridirufus),
Possible syntype (viridirufus),
Possible syntype (viridirufus),
Possible syntype (viridirufus),
Müller applied the name P. viridirufus to birds from Java, Sumatra, and Borneo. Hence three subspecies of Phaenicophaeus curvirostris (Shaw, 1810) are involved: nominate P. c. curvirostris Shaw, 1810, from Java, P. c. singularis Parrot, 1907, from Sumatra and P. c. microrhinus von Berlepsch, 1895, from Borneo. Bonaparte applied the name P. erythrognathus to birds from Sumatra only.
Phoenicophaus elongatus Müller, 1836: 342, pl. IV, fig. 5.
= Phaenicophaeus tristis tristis (Lesson, 1830).
Syntype,
Syntype,
The 1835 volume of the Tijdschrift voor Natuurlijke Geschiedenis en Physiologie 2: 315–355 was published in 1836 (
Müller, who visited West Sumatra from June 1833 until late 1835, described how he collected an adult and a juvenile male.
Piaya circe Bonaparte, 1850a: 110.
= Piaya cayana circe Bonaparte, 1850.
Lectotype,
Piaya mehleri Bonaparte, 1850a: 110.
= Piaya cayana mehleri Bonaparte, 1850.
Lectotype,
Cuculus melanogaster Vieillot, 1817b: 236.
= Piaya melanogaster (Vieillot, 1817).
Lectotype,
The locality “Java” is erroneous.
Phænicophæus calyorhynchus Temminck, 1825: livr. 59, pl. 349.
= Rhamphococcyx calyorhynchus calyorhynchus (Temminck, 1825).
Syntype,
Syntype,
A third syntype is in the
Reinwardt visited North Sulawesi between September and December 1820.
Scythrops novaehollandiae fordi Mason & Forrester, 1996: 225.
= Scythrops novaehollandiae fordi Mason & Forrester, 1996.
Paratype,
The holotype is in the
Scythrops novaehollandiae schoddei Mason & Forrester, 1996: 226.
= Scythrops novaehollandiae schoddei Mason & Forrester, 1996.
Paratype,
The holotype is in the
Pseudornis Dicruroïdes Hodgson, 1839: 136.
= Surniculus dicruroides dicruroides (Hodgson, 1839).
Possible paralectotype,
PTEROCLIFORMES
Pteroclidae
Pterocles setarius Temminck, 1815a: 256.
= Pterocles alchata alchata (Linnaeus, 1766).
Pterocles bicinctus Temminck, 1815a: 247.
= Pterocles bicinctus bicinctus Temminck, 1815.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Pterocles coronatus Lichtenstein, 1823: 65.
= Pterocles coronatus coronatus Lichtenstein, 1823.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Three syntypes collected by Hemprich and Ehrenberg in Nubie are in the
Pterocles exustus Temminck, 1825: livr. 60, pl. 354 (male) and livr. 61, pl. 360 (female).
= Pterocles exustus exustus Temminck, 1825.
Lectotype,
Paralectotype,
During the preparation of this catalogue the authors were in doubt about the type status of the above listed specimens based on the possibility that Temminck’s exustus could be interpreted as a nomen novum for senegalensis Lichtenstein, 1823, which is preoccupied by Tetrao senegalensis Shaw, 1810, a junior synonym of Tetrao senegallus Linnaeus, 1771. After discussions with C. Gouraud and consultation of, among others, F. Rheindt, F. Steinheimer, and J. van Tol, it was concluded that this was not a clear case of a new name and ICZN art.72.7 does not apply. Hence, we follow
Pterocles lichtensteinii Temminck, 1825: livr. 60, pl. 355 (male, not pl. 335 as mentioned in the text).
= Pterocles lichtensteinii lichtensteinii Temminck, 1825.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
According to the original description other syntypes are in the
Pterocles tachypetes Temminck, 1815a: 274.
= Pterocles namaqua (Gmelin, 1789).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype, RNMH.AVES.90762, adult male, mounted skin. Loc.: “Cap”, [South Africa]. Leg.: -.
Syntype,
Pterocles quadricinctus Temminck, 1815a: 252.
= Pterocles quadricinctus Temminck, 1815.
Temminck based his description on a male and female in the collection of Raye van Breukelerwaert. Although some of this collection was bought for the
Pterocles guttatus Lichtenstein, 1823: 64.
= Pterocles senegallus (Linnaeus, 1771).
Syntype,
Four syntypes collected by Hemprich and Ehrenberg in Nubie are in the
Syrrhaptes Pallasii Temminck, 1815a: 282.
= Syrrhaptes paradoxus (Pallas, 1773).
Temminck based his name on a drawing and description by prof. Fischer (Moscow) and reports of specimens collected by Pallas and Ireskin. Types are presumed to be in the
COLUMBIFORMES
Columbidae
Chalcophaps timorensis Bonaparte, 1856d: 948.
Chalcophaps javanicoides “Temminck” Bonaparte, 1856d: 948.
= Chalcophaps indica indica (Linnaeus, 1758).
Lectotype for timorensis, syntype for javanicoides,
According to
Peristera bornensis “Müller” Bonaparte, 1857: 91.
= Chalcophaps indica indica (Linnaeus, 1758).
Lectotype,
Müller visited Borneo from 28 July 1836 to 17 December 1836.
Peristera albifrons Bonaparte, 1857: 92.
= Chalcophaps stephani wallacei Brüggemann, 1877.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Forsten visited the area near Gorontalo from September 1841 until April 1842.
Columba Godefrida Temminck, 1811: livr. 14/15, p. 125, pl. 57.
= Claravis geoffroyi (Temminck, 1811).
For dating of this name and those of other pigeons and doves by Temminck in the years 1808–1811, see
Peristera lansbergii Schlegel, 1873b: 139.
= Claravis mondetoura (Bonaparte, 1856).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Collected between 1842 and 1855 when van Lansberge was governor in Caracas.
Columba cinerea Temminck, 1811: 126, pl. 58 (nec Scopoli, 1786).
Peristera pretiosa Ferrari-Perez, 1886: 175 (nomen novum).
= Claravis pretiosa (Ferrari-Perez, 1886).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy.
Columba albitorques Rüppell, 1837: 63, pl. 22, fig. 1.
= Columba albitorques Rüppell, 1837.
Paralectotypes,
The lectotype was designated by
Myristicivora grisea “Gray” Bonaparte, 1854b: 1078.
[Myristicivora] argentea “Temminck” Bonaparte, 1854b: 1078
Columba argentina “Temminck” Bonaparte, 1857: 36.
= Columba argentina Bonaparte, 1855 [error for 1857].
Lectotype for argentina, syntype for grisea and argentea,
Gray (1844: 5) published Columba grisea as a nomen nudum. Bonaparte formerly described Myristicivora grisea in 1854 with [Myristicivora] argentea, a manuscript name by Temminck, in synonymy. In 1857, Bonaparte published the name Columba argentina? “Temm.” in synonymy of Myristicivora grisea. However, Myristicivora grisea Bonaparte, 1854, is preoccupied by Columba grisea Bonnaterre, 1790, making argentea Bonaparte, 1854, the first available name, not argentina Bonaparte, 1857.
By erroneously listing
Colomba Arquatrix Temminck, 1808: livr. 3, p. 11, pl. 5.
= Columba arquatrix Temminck, 1808.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy.
Stictoenas arquatricula Bonaparte, 1854c: 1105.
= Columba arquatrix Temminck, 1808.
Possible syntype,
According to the original label this specimen was collected in South Africa (“Cap”), while
Columba janthina Temminck, 1830: livr. 86 [85], pl. 503.
= Columba janthina janthina Temminck, 1830.
Lectotype,
Paralectotype,
No livraison number is given under the text. According to
The word “Usinato” written under the stand of
Columba Larvata Temminck, 1809: livr. 7, p. 71, pl. 31.
= Columba larvata Temminck, 1809.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Temminck wrote that Levaillant donated him a male of this species.
Columba Erythrotorax Temminck, 1809: livr. 7, p. 15, pl. 7.
= Columba larvata Temminck, 1809.
Temminck (1809) referred to two specimens in the
Junior synonym of Columba Larvata Temminck, 1809 which was published in the same work, though slightly later. For dating of this name and those of other pigeons and doves by Temminck in the years 1808–1811, see
Columba leucomela Temminck, 1821: 126.
= Columba leucomela Temminck, 1821.
Holotype by monotypy. Collected by Westall in “New Holland” [= Australia]. Formerly in the collection of the Linnean Society, now in the
Palumbus casiotis Bonaparte, 1854c: 1103.
Columba palumbus himalayana Schlegel, 1873b: 66.
= Columba palumbus casiotis (Bonaparte, 1854).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Columba pollenii Schlegel, 1865c: 87.
= Columba pollenii Schlegel, 1865.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Schlegel wrote that Pollen and Van Dam collected a single specimen.
Pages 1–180 of Vol. 3, ‘Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde’ were published in 1865 (
Columba kitlitzii Temminck, 1836: livr. 98, no plate.
= Columba versicolor Kittlitz, 1832.
Extinct. According to the original description, syntypes from Bonin and Japan are in St. Petersburg and in the
Janthoenas luzoniensis Schlegel, 1873b: 75.
= Columba vitiensis griseogularis (Walden & Layard, 1872).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Schlegel listed only a single specimen.
Janthœnas albigularis “Temminck” Bonaparte, 1854: 1105.
Janthaenas halmaheira Bonaparte, 1857: 44.
= Columba vitiensis halmaheira (Bonaparte, 1857).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Janthoenas albigularis Bonaparte, 1854 is a nomen nudum and replaced by halmaheira Bonaparte, 1857 (not 1855 as in IOC 11.1).
During a forced stay due to illness on Ternate from 19 June 1841 until mid September 1841, Forsten sent his hunters to Halmahera to collect skins. Forsten visited Seram late 1842.
Columba metallica Temminck, 1835: livr. 95, pl. 562.
= Columba vitiensis metallica Temminck, 1835.
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy.
Columba Cruziana Prevost, 1842: 89, pl. 48.
= Columbina cruziana (Prevost, 1842).
Syntype,
Syntype,
According to
Columba Picui Temminck, 1813a: 435.
= Columbina picui picui (Temminck, 1813).
In Temminck (1810: 29) the vernacular name used by
Columba squammata Lesson, 1831: 474.
Columba Squamosa Temminck, 1811: 127, pl. 59 (nec Bonnaterre, 1790).
= Columbina squammata squammata (Lesson, 1831).
Lectotype,
Columba Squamosa is also the type of the genus name Scardafella Bonaparte, 1855.
Columba Talpacoti Temminck, 1810: livr. 12/13, p. 22, pl. 12.
= Columbina talpacoti talpacoti (Temminck, 1810).
Temminck (1810) based his description on a specimen in his own cabinet and in several other collections, including the
For dating of this name and those of other pigeons and doves by Temminck in the years 1808–1811, see
Columba Holosericea Temminck, 1809: livr. 8, p. 73, pl. 32.
= Drepanoptila holosericea (Temminck, 1809).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy. Temminck (1809) wrote that he only knew the specimen which was used as a model here.
Temminck described the species as originating from the Sandwich Islands [= Hawaii] which is clearly erroneous, since it does not occur there. According to
Carpophaga Vandepolli Büttikofer, 1896c: 190.
= Ducula aenea consobrina (Salvadori, 1887).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy.
Carpophaga nuchalis Cabanis, 1882: 126.
= Ducula aenea nuchalis (Cabanis, 1882).
Syntype,
The other syntype is in the
Ducula paulina Bonaparte, 1854b: 1076.
= Ducula aenea paulina Bonaparte, 1854.
Syntype,
Syntype,
Forsten visited the Tondano area from 22 March 1840 to 19 June 1841.
Ducula aenea sulana Siebers, 1929: 152.
= Ducula aenea paulina Bonaparte, 1854.
Holotype,
There are seven paratypes in the
Columba muscadivora “Temminck” Bonaparte, 1850a: 32.
= Ducula aenea polia (Oberholser, 1917).
Possible syntype,
Ducula problematica Rensch, 1931: 372.
= Ducula aenea polia (Oberholser, 1917).
Holotype,
Columba capistrata Temminck: 1822: livr. 28, pl. 165.
= Ducula badia badia (Raffles, 1822).
Ducula basilica Bonaparte, 1854b: 1076.
= Ducula basilica basilica Bonaparte, 1854.
Syntype,
Syntype,
During a forced stay due to illness on Ternate from 19 June 1841 until mid-September 1841, Forsten sent his hunters to Halmahera to collect skins.
Columba Littoralis Temminck, 1808: 15, pl.7.
= Ducula bicolor (Scopoli, 1786).
Temminck based his description primarily on reports by Leschenault. Specimens in the
Ducula melanura siebersi van Bemmel, 1940: 335.
= Ducula bicolor (Scopoli, 1786).
Holotype,
There are three paratypes in the
Columba cineracea Temminck, 1835: livr. 95, pl. 563.
= Ducula cineracea (Temminck, 1835).
Lectotype,
Paralectotype,
Müller visited Timor from October 1828 until December 1829, the area of Mount Miomaffo between 7 and 30 September 1829.
Carpophaga concinna Wallace, 1865: 383.
= Ducula concinna (Wallace, 1865).
Syntype,
According to Peters (1937: 45) the type locality Matabello is based on an error and should be Watubela (Moluccas).
Columba Forsterii “Temminck” Prévost, 1843: 87, pl. 47.
Hemiphaga forsteni Bonaparte, 1854b (nomen novum).
= Ducula forsteni (Bonaparte, 1854).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Prévost (1842) dedicated this species to Forster, clearly a lapsus for E.A. Forsten. This was corrected by Bonaparte, who introduced Hemiphaga forsteni as a nomen novum.
According to field notes and collection lists by Forsten in the Naturalis archives, he collected eight specimens on 16 May 1840 near and between Tondano and Tomohon (P. van Wingerden, June 2022, pers. comm.). Three listed here as syntype are still in Leiden, the whereabouts of the remaining five specimens is not known to us. None are in the
Columba lacernulata Temminck, 1822: livr. 28, pl. 164.
= Ducula lacernulata lacernulata (Temminck, 1822).
Lectotype,
Reinwardt visited Java several times between April 1816 and March 1822.
Columba luctuosa Temminck, 1824: livr. 42, pl. 247.
= Ducula luctuosa (Temminck, 1824).
Syntype,
Syntype,
According to the original description other type specimens are in the
Reinwardt visited North Sulawesi between September and December 1821.
Columba mullerii Temminck, 1835: livr. 96, pl. 566.
= Ducula mullerii (Temminck, 1835).
Holotype,
Holotype by monotypy.
The label indicates that the skin was collected in May 1829. This must be an error as Müller visited the Dourga River between 21 and 27 May 1828.
Carpophaga geelvinkiana Schlegel, 1873b: 86.
= Ducula myristicivora geelvinkiana (Schlegel, 1873).
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,
Syntype,