Zootaxa 3754 (4): 498–500 www.mapress.com /zootaxa / Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press
ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)
Correspondence
ZOOTAXA
ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)
http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3754.4.11 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:EDB1A927-0775-4D22-BAFF-E74AA2AAA80B
Nomenclature, lectotype designation and type locality restriction for Amietophrynus mauritanicus (Schlegel, 1841) (Anura, Bufonidae) WOUTER BEUKEMA1,3 & PIERRE-ANDRÉ CROCHET2 1
CIBIO/InBio, Universidade de Évora, Largo dos Colegiais 2, 7000 Évora, Portugal. E-mail:
[email protected] 2 CNRS-UMR 5175 Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionelle et Evolutive, 1919, Route de Mende, F-34293 Montpellier cedex 5, France. E-mail:
[email protected] 3 Corresponding author
As part of his function as assistant to the director of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie in Leiden, the Netherlands (RMNH, currently Naturalis Biodiversity Center), the German biologist Hermann Schlegel received several herpetological specimens from Algeria for identification purposes during the mid-19th century. These specimens were sent to him by Moritz Wagner, who undertook an expedition to Algeria between 1836 and 1838 (Wagner et al. 2012). As part of the publication describing the specimens collected on this expedition, Schlegel (1841) provided a description and diagnosis of Amietophrynus mauritanicus (Schlegel 1841) mainly based on a single specimen which is still extant in the RMNH. This specimen was treated as holotype by M. S. Hoogmoed in Frost (1985). During a recent appraisal of historical documentation dealing with north-west African amphibians (Beukema et al. 2013) we came across the account of Schlegel (1841) describing A. mauritanicus, and noticed the following issues; (i) Schlegel did not intend to describe A. mauritanicus as a new species; (ii) a single specimen is described in detail, but it is obvious from the description that it was based on multiple observed individuals; (iii) there is confusion on the type locality, which has been described to comprise multiple regions (e.g. Frost 2012) despite the assumed presence of only a single type specimen; (iv) Schlegel is shown as sole author while the account is in the plural (i.e. ‘wir’ – see also Wagner et al. 2012). Herein, we address these issues, provide a lectotype designation and restrict the type locality of A. mauritanicus following the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). Schlegel (1841) explicitly did not intend to describe A. mauritanicus as a new species: he used the adjective mauritanicus merely to indicate the origin of the collected material, but clearly stated he did not think it represented a new species (“Wenn wir der in Algerien vorkommenden grossen Kröte diesen neuen Namen beilegen, so geschieht dies nur, um ihre Herkunft anzudeuten, und wir wollen dieselbe keineswegs schon als neue Art angesehen wissen [While we attribute a new name to this large toad native to Algeria, we only do so to indicate its origin, and do not intend in any way to already describe a new species]”). There is thus little doubt that the nomen Bufo mauritanicus was not used as valid when proposed, hence the requirements of Article 11.5 are not met. Schlegel (1841) was uncertain about the specific allocation of the Algerian specimen(s), being unable to decide if they belonged to Bufo viridis Laurenti or Bufo arabicus Heyden, but he clearly seemed to treat Bufo mauritanicus as a junior synonym of one of these nomina. According to Art. 11.6 of the Code, Bufo mauritanicus is thus not made available by its publication in Schlegel (1841). However, this nomen has been widely adopted as valid for the North African species; it is still applied to today, as well as before 1961 (see for example Doumergue 1901; Pasteur 1959). Therefore, the conditions of Art. 11.6.1 apply and the nomen Bufo mauritanicus is available under the authority of Schlegel (1841). We are of the opinion that Art. 11.5.1 does not apply here: according to the glossary of the Code conditionally means “made with stated reservations”; we interpret the text of Schlegel (1841) as a publication of this nomen as a junior synonym and not as a publication with reservations. However, we can only agree that these various articles of the Code are open to more than one interpretation and that they would need to be clarified in the next edition of the Code. Whatever interpretation is true, the conclusions are the same: Bufo mauritanicus Schlegel, 1841 is an available nomen. It is generally accepted that the description of A. mauritanicus was based on a single specimen now housed in the Naturalis Biodiversity Center (RMNH 2122; Fig. 1A), which was described by Schlegel (1841) in detail (see for ex. Frost 1985; Wagner et al. 2012). Likely due to the fact that Schlegel (1841) did not mention any kind of type specimens in his account, the RMNH specimen was later treated as holotype (Frost 1985). However, the original account makes it
498 Accepted by M. Vences: 24 Dec. 2013; published: 16 Jan. 2014
clear that Schlegel based his description on more than one specimen (“Die Farbenvertheilung ist, wie wir schon gesagt haben, ganz wie bei B. viridis; aber die Grundfarbe ist dunkler und, nach den Individuen, ins Graue, Grünliche oder Gelbliche ziehend [The colour pattern is, as previously noted, similar to B. viridis; however, the primary colour is darker and appears, depending on the individual, greyish, greenish or yellowish]”). Indeed, at least one specimen simultaneously collected by Wagner could be traced in the Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Germany (ZFMK 27979, see Wagner et al. 2012). Other specimens were certainly included by Schlegel (1841) in his Bufo mauritanicus, as he states that the species is common in the marshes of the Mitidja plain and can also be found near “Bona” (now Annaba), based on information given to him by Wagner. According to the Code (Art. 72.4.1) all these specimens are syntypes, whether they are still extant or not. The mere listing of specimen RMNH 2122 as holotype in Frost (1985) does not constitute a valid lectotype designation: Hoogmoed in Frost (1985) did not explicitly indicate that he selected that particular specimen from the type series (hence Art. 74.5 does not apply), and the original description implies that there were syntypes (hence Art. 74.6 does not apply). The type locality thus currently stands as the surroundings of Algiers, the Mitidja Plain and Annaba. Accordingly, we hereby designate the A. mauritanicus specimen located in the Naturalis Biodiversity Center (RMNH 2122, adult female, collected by M. F. Wagner) as lectotype of Bufo mauritanicus Schlegel, 1841. All other syntypes, including the only one currently known to be extant (ZFMK 27979) become paralectotypes. The label of the lectotype designated herein has faded (Fig. 1B) while the replacement label only states ‘Algeria’ (Fig. 1C). Fortunately, the complete paragraph of in Schlegel (1841) offers a solution; “Das vorliegende Exemplar wurde in den Umgebungen der Stadt Algier gefunden”. The type locality thus becomes “the surroundings of Algiers, Algeria”. The entire description of A. mauritanicus is written in the plural, giving the impression of the presence of more than one author. Wagner et al. (2012) also detected this issue, but noted that this writing style was common as part of formal writing in the mid-19th century among single authors, although the intention of the usage in the account of Schlegel (1841) account cannot be fully resolved. As clearly indicated on the title page of Schlegel (1841), the latter author is displayed solely. Therefore, we consider Schlegel to be the only author and therefore sole authority of A. mauritanicus. We would like to stress that the problems discussed here can potentially affect many other nomina: a large proportion of restrictions of original type locality or name-bearing type widely accepted in zoological literature have been made implicitly. In similar cases, we recommend that (i) corrections (designations of lectotypes and hence restrictions of type locality) should only be done (as recommended in the Code) when commanded by necessity to clarify or stabilize nomenclature and (ii) whenever possible, the newly designated lectotype should be those specimens that currently are already treated as “holotype” or “lectotype” unless these specimens are themselves creating nomenclatural problems. It is unfortunate, in our opinion, that the recent amendment of the Art. 74.7.3 of the Code removed the need to include a statement of the taxonomic purpose of a lectotype designation (see Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60: 263). We believe that recommendation 74G should be reworded and reinstalled as part of the code so that lectotype designation can only be valid if they are necessary to clarify or stabilize the nomenclatural status of an available nomen.
FIGURE 1. A: The lectotype of Amietophrynus mauritanicus (RMNH 2122); B: the original label; B: replacement label of the lectotype. TAXONOMY OF AMIETOPHRYNUS MAURITANICUS
Zootaxa 3754 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press ·
499
Acknowledgements Ronald de Ruiter (RMNH) provided the photographs.
References Beukema, W., De Pous, P., Donaire-Barroso, D., Bogaerts, S., Garcia-Porta, J., Escoriza, D., Arribas, O.J., El Mouden, E.H. & Carranza, S. (2013) Review of the systematics, distribution, biogeography and natural history of Moroccan amphibians. Zootaxa, 3661, 1–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3661.1.1 Doumergue, F. (1901) Essai sur la faune erpétologique de l’Oranie. Imprimerie Typographique et Lithographique L. Fouque, Oran, Algeria, 404 pp. Frost, D.R. (1985) Amphibian Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographical Reference. Association of Systematics Collections and Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas, USA, 732 pp. Frost, D.R. (2012) Amphibian Species of the World: an online reference. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA. Available from: http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/ (accessed 10 January 2014) International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth edition. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, 306 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.50608 Pasteur, G. (1959) Les Batraciens du Maroc. Institut scientifique Chérifien, Rabat, Morocco, 240 pp. Schlegel, H. (1841) Bemerkungen über die in der Regentschaft Algier gesammelten Amphibien. In: Wagner, M.F. (Ed.), Reisen in der Regentschaft Algier in den Jahren 1836-1838. Vol. 3. Leopold Voss, Leipzig, pp. 106–139. Wagner, P., Bauer, A.M. & Böhme, W. (2012) Amphibians and reptiles collected by Moritz Wagner, with a focus on the ZFMK collection. Bonn Zoological Bulletin, 61, 216–240.
500
· Zootaxa 3754 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
BEUKEMA & CROCHET
