Crucirostra paradoxa

Quick answer

COMMENTS: Hartert questioned whether these specimens were syntypes of paradoxa, presumably because dates on the specimens and dates cited in Brehm (1853: 190 – 191) sometimes varied. However, in other such cases, Hartert accepted the date on the Brehm label and considered the published date a misprint. I think the same applies to these three specimens, all of which are labeled only paradoxa by Brehm. In the original description, Brehm noted that he had only obtained it six times in 42 years, and listed the specimens, two of which were a paired male and female collected on 15 March 1834. There is no discrepancy with this date and the two are tied together with string. However, on page 191, reference is made to the female with a brood patch collected on 15 March 1835. I believe this was a typographical error. AMNH 457059 is marked as an adult male collected on 13 March 1834 at Renthendorf and this date does not appear in Brehm’s list. However, on the reverse of its label, it is marked ‘‘ Nr. 7, ’’ which refers to figure no. 7 in the unnumbered plate in Brehm (1853: opp. p. 182) and assures that the specimen was in Brehm’s hand when paradoxa was described. The female supposedly taken with the male was not found by Hartert or me. These specimens were not cataloged as paradoxa at AMNH. One additional specimen, AMNH 457056, a male collected in October 1827 at Rodathal, was listed by Brehm. It was exchanged to ZFMK and is a syntype if labeled paradoxa by Brehm.