Dendrolagus dorianus Ramsay 1883

Autor: Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C.
Rok vydání: 2021
Předmět:
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4806720
Popis: Dendrolagus dorianus Ramsay, 1883 Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 8 (1), 17. (19th June 1883). Description read at the 31st January 1883 meeting of the LSNSW. Current name. Doria’s Tree-kangaroo Dendrolagus dorianus Ramsay, 1883 following Groves (1982). Taxonomic status. Recognised as a valid species since publication of the original description. Syntypes. M.376, adult female (Fig. 8); M.377, adult male (Fig. 8); M.378, subadult male; all skin mounts with skulls, or remnants of skulls in situ; by subsequent determination of Groves (1982), as cotypes. An X-ray image of M.378 taken in 2012 revealed a largely intact skull augmented with plaster (Dr Jude Philp, MAMU pers. comm. 2016). Type locality. The Astrolabe Range district, near Port Moresby, Central Province, Papua New Guinea. Comments. There are only three specimens of this species in the MAMU and all are syntypes. The first 20th century authority to document the type series was Groves (1982), who confirmed the species identification of M.376–378. Ramsay indicated neither the number of specimens in his type series, nor in which collections they resided, other than a remark that local hunters gave three specimens to Goldie when he was collecting near the Astrolabe Range. The first indication that the types were in Macleay’s private collection was Miklouho-Maclay (1885d), who provided body measurements for three individuals and an illustration of the adult male skin mount. He believed that the three specimens in Macleay’s Collection were the only ones examined by Ramsay, and the only ones in world collections. The passing remark by Ramsay and the emphatic statements by Miklouho-Maclay have led to a perception that there were only three syntypes. However, it is quite possible that Ramsay also based his description on unregistered specimens in the AM Collection that he received from Goldie, one of which might have formed the basis of Ramsay’s brief description of the skull. Miklouho-Maclay (1885d) expressed regret that a skull was not available to enable a more adequate description. Ramsay noted that the skull used in his description was fragile and badly corroded and the skull either represents a fourth syntype, or was examined before the skin mount was prepared. Although Ramsay stated that Goldie obtained three specimens from a hunter, this does not exclude the possibility that his description was based on additional specimens. If so, the specimens can no longer be found in the AM. This issue is discussed by Parnaby et al. (2017), who suggested that Ramsay might have examined additional specimens in Goldie’s collection that did not reach the AM until a decade after Ramsay published the description. Although Miklouho-Maclay (1885d) believed that the three specimens in Macleay’s Collection were the only material yet obtained, he might not have been aware of the contents of Goldie’s collections. There are also discrepancies between the measurements of Ramsay’s description and those given by Miklouho-Maclay (1885d). The tail length of 24 inches (60.9 cm) given in the original description for a specimen of unspecified sex is 2 inches (50 mm) longer than tail lengths of the two MAMU adults of 22.1 inches (56.1 cm) and 21.7 inches (55.1 cm) given by Miklouho-Maclay (1885d). Thomas (1888) believed that Ramsay’s measurements were of a different adult than the two adults in the MAMU, i.e. the type series consisted of three adults and one young. Ramsay is known to have exchanged a significant number of mammal specimens to European museums during the 1880s and 1890s. The possibility that unrecognised syntypes exist is relevant if specimens of the species sent by Ramsay are rediscovered in European museums.
Published as part of Parnaby, Harry & Gill, Anthony C., 2021, Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney, pp. 201-252 in Zootaxa 4975 (2) on pages 223-224, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4806677
{"references":["Ramsay, E. P. (1883) Contributions to the zoology of New Guinea, Part VII. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, Series 1, 8 (1), 15 - 29, pl. 11. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. part. 28637","Groves, C. P. (1982) The systematics of tree kangaroos (Dendrolagus: Marsupialia, Macropodidae). Australian Mammalogy, 5 (3), 157 - 186.","Miklouho-Maclay, N. (1885 d) Notes on the direction of the hair on the back of some kangaroos. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, Series 1, 9 (4), 1151 - 1158, pl. 71.","Parnaby, H., Ingleby, S. & Divljan, A. (2017) Type specimens of non-fossil mammals in the Australian Museum, Sydney. Records of the Australian Museum, 69 (5), 277 - 420. https: // doi. org / 10.3853 / j. 2201 - 4349.69.2017.1653","Thomas, O. (1888) Catalogue of the Marsupialia and Monotremata in the Collection of the British Museum (Natural History). British Museum (Natural History), London, xii + 401 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 56181"]}
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: