Artamus phoeus

Quick answer

COMMENTS: This is another case in which Ingram’s types were exchanged to the Rothschild Collection while the remainder of the collection was deposited in the Mathews Collection. In the original description of phoeus, Ingram (1906: 115) neither designat- ed a type nor enumerated his specimens. Both male and female are mentioned and one set of measurements is given. In his later paper, Ingram (1907: 410) listed as Stalker’s no. 28, two males and a female, dated May 1905. All three of these specimens are in AMNH. Hartert (1920: 455) listed as the type of Artamus phoeus a male specimen collected on 28 May 1905 by Stalker at Alexandria and bearing ‘‘ no. 626. ’’ The number ‘‘ 626 ’’ given by Hartert appears on all three labels and is the number of this species in Mathews’ (1908) ‘‘ Handlist. ’’ Of the three specimens, only AMNH 665203 bears Stalker’s number ‘‘ 28, ’’ which Hartert correctly read as ‘‘ 28 May. ’’ The number ‘‘ 28 ’’ is unique to this specimen and by listing it as the type, Hartert designated it the lectotype. In addition to Stalker’s label it bears a Rothschild type label filled in by Hartert. The other two specimens were in the Mathews Collection (nos. 2417 and 2418), cataloged as Artamus superciliosus with ‘‘ A. phaeus ’’ added in the margin and the Rothschild label on both is printed ‘‘ Ex. Coll. G. M. Mathews. ’’ Someone has labeled the male, AMNH 665203 (Mathews no. 2417), as a paralectotype and this is correct. Someone whose handwriting I don’t recognize has added an AMNH type label to the female, AMNH 665204 (Mathews no. 2418), presumably because someone (Mathews?) had written ‘‘ TYPE ♀ ’’ on Stalker’s small tag. This is not correct and I have removed the type label and marked its Rothschild label as ‘‘ paralectotype. ’’ [Cambellornis superciliosus pallida Mathews] The entire description of this form in Mathews (1916 a: 61) reads: ‘‘ Differs from C. s. superciliosus (Gould) in being paler. Type, South-west Australia. ’’ There is no evidence that any specimen of Artamus superciliosus in AMNH might have served as Mathews’ type.