A catalogue of the non-fossil amphibian and reptile type specimens in the collection of the Australian Museum: Types currently, previously and purportedly present

Abstract

Full registration data for all identifiable non-fossil primary and secondary type specimens of reptiles and amphibians currently or previously in the Australian Museum are presented, and the current status and registration history of these specimens described, together with any discrepancies between these data and those published in original descriptions. The current identity of the taxa represented by these types is given, together with reference to the original proposer of synonymies and new combinations. Some new synonymies, particularly involving species described by R.W. Wells and C.R. Wellington, are proposed. SHEA, GLENN M., & ROSS A. SADLIER, 1999. A catalogue of the non-fossil amphibian and reptile type specimens in the collection of the Australian Museum: types currently, previously and purportedly present. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum 15: 1–91. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum (1999) No. 15. ISSN 1031-8062, ISBN 0-7313-8873-9 Several changes to the herpetological collections of the Australian Museum have prompted us to prepare this second, updated catalogue of the amphibian and reptile type specimens, though following only 20 years after the first herpetological type catalogue for the collection (Cogger, 1979). Firstly, a large number of species have been described since 1979, with a correspondingly large number of primary and secondary types deposited in the collection. Amongst these have been the numerous holotypes and lectotypes resulting from two contentious works by Wells & Wellington (1984, 1985). These two works have been the subject of much criticism (Gans, 1985; Grigg and Shine, 1985; King & Miller, 1985; Tyler, 1985; Cogger, 1986; Shea, 1987a; King, 1988; Ingram & Covacevich, 1989; Underwood & Stimson, 1990; Hutchinson & Donnellan, 1992), culminating in an application to the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature to suppress both works for the purposes of nomenclature (President, Australian Society of Herpetologists, 1987). The Commission recently declined to suppress either work (Anon., 1991) on the basis that the arguments opposing suppression were strong, that the problems arising from the work were mostly taxonomic rather than nomenclatural, that confusion would not be eliminated by suppression of the works, and that stability of 2 Technical Reports of the Australian Museum (1999) No. 15 nomenclature would best be served by subsequent usage, and the new taxa erected by Wells and Wellington must now be considered nomenclaturally available. However, many of the taxa described in these two works are of dubious status, with a number apparently omina nuda (Shea, 1987a), and many of the nominated types were identified by field numbers only. Consequently, we use this catalogue to present the full data for these specimens, and to reconsider the nomenclatural availability and taxonomic status of those new species erected by Wells and Wellington that were based on material previously held in or recently presented to the Australian Museum. Because of the large number and diverse taxonomic representation of these species, we treat the Wells and Wellington types in a separate list at the end of this catalogue. Secondly, there has been a continuing policy of reregistering material originally in the three earliest registers (Palmer register, undated, but c. 1877–1888, numbers lacking p refixes; A register, Jan 1875–Oct 1883, numbers prefixed with A; B register, Sept 1883–Dec 1886, numbers prefixed with B), into the single current computerbased registration system. Thus, new registration numbers, prefixed with R, have been created for a number of early type specimens cited by Cogger (1979). Thirdly, we have undertaken a detailed comparison of the herpetological taxonomic literature and collection data in early registers. This has resulted in the identification of a number of early type specimens not identified by Cogger (1979), as well as correction of a number of errors made by Cogger and other workers. Fourthly, as part of general collection maintenance, all identifiable type specimens have recently been extracted from the general collection, rebottled and housed separately. This catalogue includes all species and subspecies described up to the end of 1998. TYPE CATEGORIES LISTED IN THIS CATALOGUE This catalogue includes the following categories of primary and secondary types, as recognised by the third edition of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1985): holotypes, syntypes, lectotypes, neotypes, paratypes and paralectotypes. Many authors either did not nominate a particular specimen as holotype when describing taxa, or if they did, did not specifically indicate the extent of any paratype series. In the earliest cases, this is partially a reflection of the absence of registers. In identifying a specimen as a type or possible type, we have utilised original descriptions, subsequent taxonomic literature, original register entries indicating types, correspondence between register entries/dates and data in the type description, and in a few cases, congruence between the specimen and the type description (Recommendation 72(b) of the Code). Where no single specimen was nominated as holotype, or “type” in the original description of a taxon, we have considered all identifiable members of a type series consisting of two or more specimens as syntypes in the absence of a lectotype designation (Articles 73[a–b]). We have followed this principle even in a few cases where original register entries, contemporaneous with the type description, have identified one specimen in a type series as type or holotype. In some early cases, when it was not clearly stated by an original author whether the description was based on a single specimen (holotype) or a series (syntypes), we have adopted the principle that any variation presented in the description signifies a syntype series, even when only a single type specimen can be identified in the Australian Museum collection (Recommendation 73(f)). Where an author in a subsequent publication (whether the original author, or some other worker) has assumed that one specimen bore holotype status, whether based on original register entries or oversight, we have followed the Code (Article 74(b)) in recognising this as the nomination of a lectotype from the syntype series. We have refrained from designating lectotypes from syntype series ourselves, even when it is clear that the syntype series is composite. We believe that such nomenclaturally binding actions are best undertaken as part of a formal taxonomic revision. In recognising paratypes, we have used the following principles: in the absence of formal paratype nominations, we have listed all specimens of a species or subspecies that were used by an author additional to the holotype, whether contributing to morphological description or simply distribution, main text or footnote. This includes specimens nominated as cotypes and allotypes. However, where an author specifically nominates paratypes, we have not considered other specimens mentioned in the type description as paratypes, even if they do contribute to the definition of a taxon (Article 72(b)(vi)). Only one exception to this rule has been made. In two papers, Copland (1946a, 1949) used the category auxillotype. While the third edition of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not recognise the auxillotype category, we believe that the status of these nominated specimens is equivocal. Using the Code’s definition of a paratype (remaining specimens of a type series from which a holotype has been designated; Article 72(a)(iii)), auxillotypes are paratypes. However, in that they were specifically excluded from the paratype series (but not the type series in toto) they are not (Article 72(b)(i): “The type series of a nominal species-group t xon consists of all the specimens eligible to be namebearing types ... included by the author in the new nominal taxon, except any that the author expressly excluded from the type series, or refers to as distinct variants, or doubtfully attributes to the taxon”). Copland’s recognition of the auxillotype category (not used in his other taxonomic publications) stemmed from his then belief, not supported by the Code of Zoological Nomenclature, that paratypes must be from the same locality as the holotype, or a nearby locality. Hence, he used the auxillotype category to indicate a specimen that was not from the type locality, despite regarding such specimens, which contributed to the definition of his taxa, as part of the type series. We have avoided making any judgement on the status of auxillotypes by listing them separately from the nominated Copland paratypes. Shea & Sadlier: Herp catalogue 3 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS CATALOGUE Collection acronyms used follow Cogger t al. (1983) with the addition of DSL (D.S. Liem personal collection) and SJC (S.J. Copland personal collection), and have been used on all occasions except when presenting registration data, where the full title of the institution is given, as in the registers. We have used the following abbreviations in listing data: ACT Australian Capital Territory Capt. Captain Dr Doctor E east ENE east-northeast ESE east-southeast ft feet HS homestead hwy highway I./Is. Island/Islands km kilometres m metres mi. miles Mt/Mts Mount/Mountains N north NE northeast NNE north-northeast NNW north-northwest NW northwest nr near NSW New South Wales, Australia (except in citing journal titles, when N.S.W. used) NT Northern Territory, Australia (except in citing journal titles, when N. Terr. is sometimes used) P.O. Post Office PNG Papua New Guinea Prof. Professor Pt Point/Port Qld Queensland, Australia Rev. Reverend rd/Rd road/Road S south SE southeast SSE south-southeast SW southwest SSW south-southwest SA South Australia Stn Station Tas Tasmania, Australia Vic Victoria, Australia W west WNW west-northwest WSW west-southwest WA Western Australia Herpetolo