ABSTRACT
Many genus-level changes to the classification of Trochilini were enacted in Stiles et al. (2017b). We have since found that two further genera therein emended each require replacement names. The first of these requiring a replacement name is Uranomitra Reichenbach, 1854 [March], which is herewith interpreted as an additional synonym of Saucerottia Bonaparte, 1850, along with its junior synonym Cyanomyia Bonaparte, 1854a [May]. We show that both must have the same type species, as originally designated, Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822 = Ornismya cyanocephala Lesson, 1829. The second case in which a replacement name is required is Leucolia Mulsant E. Verreaux, 1866, herewith interpreted as an additional synonym of Leucippus Bonaparte, 1850, with the same type species, Trochilus fallax Bourcier, 1843. We herein propose replacement names for both Uranomitra and Leucolia.
Subject(s)
Birds , Animals , Birds/classification , Birds/physiology , ClassificationABSTRACT
Based on molecular and morphological analyses, Irestedt et al. (2017) propose various taxonomic revisions for the genera Lophorina and Ptiloris (Paradisaeidae). Concerning Lophorina, which they recommend treating as three species rather than one, they hypothesize that the no longer extant type specimen of L. superba, heretofore believed to come from the Vogelkop in westernmost mainland New Guinea, in fact pertained to a different population (and different species, under their revised taxonomy), and they attempt to consolidate the nomenclatural repercussions of this by proposing a neotype for the name superba. However, the historical and specimen evidence fails to uphold their nomenclatural proposals, and the neotypification contains procedural errors. In particular, our examination of specimen material identifies nine points of conflict between what is clearly the most accurate contemporary illustration of the type and the plumage pattern and structure in the population to which Irestedt et al. assert it should be ascribed; we find not a single point in their favour. The only other relevant depiction of the type from the same period, while less accurate, also differs crucially from the population Irestedt et al. claim that it represents, especially in lacking black spots on the breast-shield. Furthermore, there is a strong historical rationale not only to believe that the type of superba was collected in the Vogelkop, as all contemporary commentators indicated, but also to regard the notion of tribespeople transporting it more than 600 km from its point of collection, as Irestedt et al. effectively suggest, as exceedingly unlikely. Consequently, with all this evidence against the proposed reidentification, the name L. s. superba should be maintained for populations of the Vogelkop, and the neotype designation rejected. The type locality reverts to the Vogelkop, but herein is further restricted to the Tamrau Mountains.
