• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

In search of elusive type specimens ... (1 Viewer)

Centropus grillii

Onwards! To the next type specimen, the one of ...

• (African) Black (-breasted/-chested) Coucal Centropus grillii HARTLAUB 1861 (here) as "Centropus Grillii"

To me (who doesn´t understand much German) it looks like Hartlaub did mention where both; the first, No. 1 ("Pseudochelidon eurystomina nob.") and the last, No.3 ("Nectarinia gabonica nob."), were located ... but nothing on the whereabouts of No.2 "our" bird, the bird in question ("Centropus Grillii nob.") ... or?

Grateful for any help/assistance ...

Björn
--
 
Last edited:
Thanks Justin! :t:

Thereby the question is: Where is it today?

Is this possibly, maybe the Type? If so located in Estonia, at TUZ - University of Tartu; Natural History Museum and Botanic Garden; Museum of Zoology, ... ? But doesn´t it look a bit too fresh? And even if so, how did it end up in Estonia?

Or was/is it the one mentioned by Cabanis, kept in Museum Heineanum (here, on p.107) ... ?

Anyone who know their Coucals?
--
 
Last edited:
how did it end up in Estonia?
.
There are two ornithologists related to Tartu U. both seem unlikely sources.
Hermann Eduardovich Johansen (Герман Эдуардович Иоганзен) (1866–1930) was a Russian biologist and ornithologist. He graduated with a degree in zoology from Tartu University in 1889. His bird collections are kept at the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen.
Eerik Kumari (7 March 1912 – 8 January 1984; born as Erik Mathias Sits) was a doctor of biology, the founder of ornithology and nature conservation in Estonia.
Two more with connections to Estonia unlikely sources. Michael Harms, born in Alt-Korola; Estonia 1878-1941. Eschscholtz, Johann Friedrich, born and died in Dorpat, 1793-1831
Possibly we are witnessing Embrik Strand bubbling to the surface again! He was only 250 km away. Dr. von Boetticher’s family was from Livonia (Estonia) and Courland.
I do not think the skin looks too fresh to be the type.
 
I still haven´t been able to find the Type of the (Black/-bellied) Coucal "Centropus Grillii" HARTLAUB 1861. Sigh.

Thereby; and maybe it´s a stupid question, this far in the Game ...

Is there a major Site/source for finding Type specimens, where-ever they are located, World-wide?

A place of reference that I (obviously, apparently) haven't heard of ... ?

If not, there ought to be!

It would make life soooo much easier for whatever Author, Scholar, doctoral candidate, postgraduate student, Amateur, whomever, etc., etc., trying to locate whatever Type (Holo-/Syn-/Para-/Iso-/Lecto-/Epi-, etc., -Type specimen/s).

Björn
 
Does this French text (from 1862) possibly tell us anything, regarding the whereabouts of the Type (or Types) for "Centropus Grillii" HARTLAUB 1861 ... !?

Björn

PS. Does this mean that "Grillii", in 1862, was considered as being included (as a variety, or ssp.) in/of today's Short-toed Coucal Centropus rectunguis STRICKLAND 1847?
--
 
Last edited:
(This text is by Hermann Schlegel.) He indeed recognized a very broad species concept here, encompassing bengalensis, grillii and rectunguis, and which he called Centropus rectunguis based on considerations that departed from priority. (Apparently because he regarded bengalensis as attached to a species concept restricted to the populations of the Indian subcontinent.)
b. Individus de l'Afrique chaude occidentale. --- Centropus Grillii, Hartlaub. --- Aile 5 pouces 9 lignes, queue 6 pouces 3 lignes (dans l'individu de Heine). --- 3. Mâle à-peu-près au plumage parfait, Gabon, par Mr Verreaux, 1863: aile 5 pouces 6 lignes.
Translation:
"b. Individuals from warm West Africa. --- Centropus Grillii, Hartlaub. --- Wing 5 inches 9 lines, tail 6 inches 3 lines (in the Heine individual). --- 3. Male in more-or-less perfect plumage, Gabon, by Mr Verreaux, 1863: wing 5 inches 6 lines."​
The "Heine individual" was a specimen present in the collection of Ferdinand Heine. (The measurements of which he was, I think, quoting from Museum Heineanum 4(1):108 -- [here].) I see nothing indicating that this bird was a type of grillii (but I guess that I cannot exclude it fully either). The wing length given by Hartlaub in the OD was the same; the tail length was very slightly different (one line longer in the OD).
The "Male in more-or-less perfect plumage" was a bird present in the collections of the Musée d'Histoire Naturelle des Pays-Bas (Leiden, Netherlands), and which Schlegel presumably measured himself; but as this one was collected in 1863, it cannot have been part of the type series of a name published in 1861.
 
Yesterday evening I received an e-mail reply from Margus Ots, at the Natural History Museum, University of Tartu, Estonia, a follow-up of post #43 (starting in #41, and onwards to #47) ...

He writes: "Unfortunately we have not more information about this specimen.
This very old stuffed bird is in our exposition and exact data are lost (already 100? years ago)."

So, Mark, you were right. It wasn´t that "fresh" as I thought. ;)

It could possibly, maybe be the lost type, or not. Most likely the latter. Apparently; with no "more information" there´s no way to find out. Too bad.

Either way; many thanks to Margus Ots, and also to Villu Soon, at the same Institution (who forwarded my e-mail, to the "bird expert" Mr Ots) for their help and prompt replies.

Björn

PS. Thanks also to Laurent, for gladly diving into Schlegel's text!
 
Earlier today, this morning, I recieved yet another reply on e-mails sent ...

Thanks to the kindness of Michael Stiller at the Zoological collections for the Übersee-Museum, in Bremen, I have now "located" the Type (Holotypus) of Centropus grillii ... or at least pin-pointed where it once was. He writes: "Sorry, but the Type specimen seems to be lost. ..."

He also added: "Gustav Hartlaub was a medicine and ornithologist in Bremen who was a member of Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein zu Bremen. He never worked for the Übersee-Museum but the collections of the 'Naturwissenschaftlicher Verein zu Bremen' were transfered to our collections."

Stiller as well attached a Paper* that tells us the following:
Cuculidae
Centropus Grillii Hartlaub, 1861
In: Hartlaub, G. 1861. Ueber einige neue Vögel Westafrica‘s. J. Orn. 9: 11– 13.
Status: Holotypus. Keine Katalognummer bekannt. Exemplar nicht auffindbar!
Aktueller Name: Centropus grillii Hartlaub, 1861.
Kommentar: Exemplar aus Gabun verschollen.


[*Carlos Sánchez Osés. 2010 (2008). Vogeltypen der ornithologischen Sammlung im Übersee-Museum Bremen, Übersee-Museum Bremen, Jahrbuch XVI: pp. 21-72 (p.32)]
Unfortunately we will probably have to accept it as; nicht auffindbar (not traceable) and verschollen (missing). Or like Stiller, simply put it; that it "... seems to be lost".

Well, that´s about it. Looks like we´re getting close to the End of the search (on this one as well).

We´ll see ...

Björn

PS. If anyone else is interested in the Paper above, just let me know (if so use the Private Message system, here on BirdForum).
 
Another e-mail just arrived ...

Thanks to Rüdiger Becker, at Museum Heineanum, in Halberstadt, Germany, I think the closest we get to find the type of grillii will be "Heine's" specimen (see post #43 & 47), a specimen that Ferdinand Heine had received from Verreaux, in Paris. This specimen does still exist, however (not close enough); it is not listed as the Type, at least not in the Type-catalog of the birds in the Museum Heineanum, by Christiane Quaisser and Bernd Nicolai (for download, here), published in Abhandlungen und Berichte aus dem Museum Heineanum 7 (Sonderheft 2), 2006.

Mr Becker as well sent me a Photo of the old, blue Original label (that I cannot post here, due to copyright regulations). Either way; on the label [MUSEUM HEINEANUM/ST. BURCHARD b. HALBERSTADT] it is written in black ink: "Centropus Grillii. Hartlaub, [Male symbol], Verreaux. Gabon. West Africa." [This label also has a red ink mark/No. "7341", in line/series with other Centropus birds kept in the same museum]

As I read it (the little I understand of) Hartlaub's OD (in German) the other two birds described at the same time, in the same paper, both came from Verreaux. What says that the "Grillii" one did not? Are we sure that Hartlaub's specimen ever, truly was included in the Bremer Sammlung (the collection in Bremen) ... ?

Could it be that Schlegel (in 1862) simply didn´t know, or missed ... that "Heine's" bird was the same one as the one Hartlaub had studied the year before? Wing and tail measurements wasn´t, and have never been (and still aren´t) an exact way/unit/system of measurement, not down to the very last millimeter (due to different ways of examination alt. measure, simply different ways of handling the specimens; very carefully versus a bit more heavy-handed).

The Plot thickens! Could Heine's specimen possibly be the lost Type!? Bremen and Halberstadt isn´t that far apart ...

However; note that one of other two birds/taxa described in Hartlaubs Paper of 1861; the "Pseudochelidon eurystomina" is equally "verschollen" and "nicht auffindbar". The "Nectarinia gabonica" (today's Anthreptes gabonicus) is not listed at all, by Carlos Sánchez Osés. This could of course have its explanation in the fact that the UMB (Übersee-Museum Bremen) were badly damaged in the WWII bombings (in 1943) ...

Also note that Museum Heineanum does include other types (syntypes) in Cuculidae, originating from Gabon, collected by/recieved from the same (E. & J.) Verreaux, like; "Lamprococcyx resplendens" HEINE, 1863 (today's Chrysococcyx klaas STEPHENS 1815) as well as "Lamprococcyx chrysites" HEINE 1863 (today's Chrysococcyx caprius BODDAERT 1783).

Either way, as Rüdiger Becker informs me that there is no additional information regarding the grillii specimen, nothing further of its provenance, none, ... thereby it´s tricky to figure out where to go next ...

To me, if we can´t find out if Heine's specimen is the Type itself, it could at best be considered a (sort of) "para-syn-type"; same species, same location, (same sex) same supplier, most likely caught at the same time. Possibly from the same batch? Even if not ever a true syntype, nor a paratype (as Hartlaub only mentioned a single bird), at best it could, maybe (in my mind), be a possible candidate for a future lectotype?

If there´s a need for any such one, of course ...

Björn

PS. And; there is no specimen of Centropus grillii kept in the Type collection of NRM (here), in Stockholm, Sweden (where Mr Grill's own bird collection ended up).
 
Even if not ever a true syntype, nor a paratype (as Hartlaub only mentioned a single bird), at best it could, maybe (in my mind), be a possible candidate for a future lectotype?
If not a true syntype, there is no way it could become a lectotype. At best it might be made a neotype, if the nomenclature of the species really needed fixing. (One can NOT designate a neotype unless there are very special needs to do it. Just "because we want to have an extant type specimen" is insufficient.)
That said, Hartlaub actually mentioned two birds, not just one. His Latin diagnosis was based on a single specimen; but in the German text that follows he compared this bird to what he described as a younger exemplar, which he evidently regarded as conspecific.
 
Conclusion on Mr Grill's Coucal ...

Fair enough Laurent, I stand corrected, twice(!); Heine's bird will not (apparently it can´t) be made into a lectotype, and most likely not even a neotype, as there doesn´t seem to be any need for it (I guess it´s only me who desperately hoped to find a/the Type of grillii) ... and Hartlaub had studied two specimens, not one, ... I sure need to learn German (as well as French, and Latin, and Dutch, Spanish, etc., etc. Sigh. It seems like I cannot even read English, at least not about different holo-para-syn-lecto-neo-types ;)).

Well, that´s is. I think we are at the end of this search for the type/s of grillii.

Simply; to repeat the words of Carlos Sánchez Osés: "Exemplar nicht auffindbar".

Either way: Thanks guys, for trying to help me find "Grill's Coucal"!

grillii ... over and out!
--
 
Last edited:
Lindroth's (Ural) Owl

And what about the "Type" of ...

• the invalid "Strix Lindrothii" SPARRMAN 1806 [= a pale/leucistic specimen of Strix uralensis PALLAS 1771]

Is the Plate (attached, below) from Sparrman's Svensk Ornithologie* considered as the Type?

Björn

___________________________________________________________
*Sparrman, A. 1806. Svensk Ornithologie Med Efter naturen colorerade Tekningar [sic.]. Utgifven af av Anders Sparrman, M. D. Professor, Kongl. Collegii Medici Assesor, Ledamot af Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Academien och Intendent af Des Naturalie-Cabinett, samt Medlem af åtskilliga Inrikes och Utrikes Lärda Societeter. Stockholm, Tryckt i Kongl. Tryckeriet. MDCCCVI.

... meaning "Swedish Ornithology, With coloured Drawings [made] After Nature. Published by ..." ... and so on.
 

Attachments

  • Strix Lindrothii.jpg
    Strix Lindrothii.jpg
    208 KB · Views: 14
Is the Plate (attached, below) from Sparrman's Svensk Ornithologie* considered as the Type?
If this is where Sparrman introduced the name, it would be an illustration of the type. (A plate as such cannot be a type.)
Can we really exclude this being a pale illustration of a rather normal specimen of S. uralensis ?

(As it is a quite rare book, I believe: a scanned version of Sparrman's Svensk Ornithologie can now be seen / downloaded [here]. (I presume this is really a complete exemplar of the book ? The text does not cover many of the birds that are on the plates (incl. his Lindroths Ugglan) but, in the "Notes" on the web page, they say: "Enligt företalet hade planscherna börjat utges före texten. Avbrutet arbete, texten slutar mitt i en mening." -- so this may just be how it is...?))
 
Last edited:
If this is where Sparrman introduced the name, it would be an illustration of the type. (A plate as such cannot be a type.) ...
Thanks Laurent, even I can tell it´s an illustration, a Plate, and not the type/bird itself ... ;)

My question was simply if an illustration can be regarded as the Type, as The point of reference, for a taxon or any taxa, if the specimen/s itself is nowhere to be found, or established as Lost (as far as ascertainable)?

So English Wikipedia (here) is wrong?
Type specimen
According to a precise set of rules laid down in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), the scientific name of every taxon is almost always based on one particular specimen, or in some cases specimens. Types are of great significance to biologists, especially to taxonomists. Types are usually physical specimens that are kept in a museum or herbarium research collection, but failing that, an image of an individual of that taxon has sometimes been designated as a type.[3] Describing species and appointing type specimens is part of scientific nomenclature and alpha taxonomy.
Also see the quote below, from Marshall & Evenhuis (2015), about a new species of Bee fly (in Bombyliidae), here:
As explained by Wakeham-Dawson et al. (2002) and Polaszek et al. (2005), although Article 16.4 of the ICZN Code (ICZN 1999) requires all holotypes that are “extant” to be deposited in a collection, Article 73.1.4 allows for the description of new taxa without preserving a collected specimen by the following statement: “Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated; the fact that the specimen no longer exists or can be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation”. Additionally, we interpret the wording of Article 16.4 to allow for description of a new species on the basis of a lost or escaped holotype, where the term “extant” means a physically “existing” specimen. Thus a lost, escaped, or purposefully released specimen is not “extant”.
I guess the same ICZN rules would apply for Birds ...

Or do you simply mean that such a designation never has been done? And that if it hasn´t been done; it´s simply an illustration (of course) ... of the bird in question. In this case of; "Lindroths Ugglan" ("The Lindroth's Owl").

I guess such a designation must be done in a formal way, that it will not happen by itself, not automatically, as soon as the Type itself is fully established as "Lost". Simply, as the "second-best-thing" we´ve got. If not there must be quite a lot of taxa with no types? At least without holotypes.

... Can we really exclude this being a pale illustration of a rather normal specimen of S. uralensis ?
The (in Sweden fairly well-known) claim of it being a pale (or leucistic) individual allegedly origins in Sven Nilsson's Skandinavisk Fauna ... Foglarna (which means "Scandinavian Fauna ... The Birds", in English), from 1824 (here):
Anm: Strix Lindrothii SPARRM. Svensk. Orn. fig. synes mig vara en urblekt varietet af denna Art.
Note: Strix Lindrothii SPARRM. Svensk. Orn. fig. seems to me being a faded [pale/washed-out] variety of this Species [of "Strix liturata", i.e. today's Ural Owl Strix uralensis].
If Nilsson was correct in this his opinion is, of course, another thing to worry about. I don´t know if he´d seen the Owl himself. If he meant faded in Nature, when it was alive, or that it´s a faded specimen (possibly exhibited in bright day-light) is yet another thing to consider.

However, I strongly doubt the illustration itself has faded much. Brown pigments are among the most light-fast there is. As they are made out of Clay/Earth pigments most brown colours (like raw/burnt ochre/ocher and ditto umber) fade very slowly. All other illustrations in the same work are in good condition, all coloured in a lifelike way.

I will try to find out if Sven Nilsson had seen it, in person ...

Björn
-
 
Last edited:
So English Wikipedia (here) is wrong?
An illustration can be a type in botany, never in zoology; general statements attempting to cover both fields at the same time are usually a bit problematic.
(The reference to Marshall & Evenhuis 2015 (i.e., a zoological paper) just after the blue sentence in your quote is certainly odd.)
Also see the quote below, from Marshall & Evenhuis (2015), about a new species of Bee fly (in Bombyliidae), here:

I guess the same ICZN rules would apply for Birds ...

Or do you simply mean that such a designation never has been done? And that if it hasn´t been done; it´s simply an illustration (of course) ... of the bird in question. In this case of; "Lindroths Ugglan" ("The Lindroth's Owl").

I guess such a designation must be done in a formal way, that it will not happen by itself, not automatically, as soon as the Type itself is fully established as "Lost". Simply, as the "second-best-thing" we´ve got. If not there must be quite a lot of taxa with no types? At least without holotypes.
The same rules apply to birds. But, under the ICZN, the type is, and remains, the specimen -- even if destroyed, lost, or whatever. The illustration is but a man-made representation of this type; epistemologically not very different from a written description.
The ICZN actually makes it wholly impossible to designate the illustration, because any such designation, even if made in the most formal way, even if the illustrated specimen is demonstrably gone, must be read as a designation of the specimen and not of the illustration (as per Article 73.1.4 -- in blue in your Marshall & Evenhuis quote).

(And, yes, indeed, quite a number of names, particularly among those that were established early, have no extant type specimens. In such cases, where an illustration exists, it can be used as (indirect) source of information about the lost type(s). But the illustration "is" not the type. In particular, what can be seen on such an illustration would not necessarily have any precedence over information obtained from other possible sources (e.g., a written description) that might contradict it. Data obtained first-hand from an actual type would have logical precedence over second-hand information, in case of conflict.)


The (in Sweden fairly well-known) claim of it being a pale (or leucistic) individual allegedly origins in Sven Nilsson's Skandinavisk Fauna: Foglarna, vol. 1 (which means "Scandinavian Fauna: The Birds", in English), from 1824 (here):

If Nilsson was correct in this his opinion is, of course, another thing to worry about. I don´t know if he´d seen the Owl himself. If he meant faded in Nature, when it was alive, or that it´s a faded specimen (possibly exhibited in bright day-light) is yet another thing to consider.

However, I strongly doubt the illustration itself has faded much. Brown pigments are among the most light-fast there is. As they are made out of Clay/Earth pigments most brown colours (like raw/burnt ochre/ocher and ditto umber) fade very slowly. All other illustrations in the same work are in good condition, all coloured in a lifelike way.

I will try to find out if Sven Nilsson had seen it, in person ...
I doubt the illustration might have faded to such an extent as well.
But illustrations in books sometimes just end up being too pale (or too dark, or...) accidentally. From what I have seen and without any additional information or comment from the author, it's just hard to be fully sure that it was not the case here. But maybe I'm overlooking information from the book itself ?
Alternatively: Did Sparrman ever use a 'more normal' name (such as Strix liturata) for a 'more normal' Ural Owl elsewhere ?
 
Last edited:
... Did Sparrman ever use a 'more normal' name (such as Strix liturata) for a 'more normal' Ural Owl elsewhere ?
I don´t know if Sparrman ever used another name for this bird, but in Museum naturalium Grillianum Soederforssiense 1788 Lindroth himself called this species "Strix Liturata — Stora Skogs-Ugglan"* ("... — The Great Forest Owl"), with a short description (in foot-note): "Capite lævi, corpore albicante maculis longitudinalibus seu lituris fuscis. Magnitud. Galli Domestici paulo major; habitat in Svecia prope Elfkarleby."

From this short Latin description (as far as I can tell); " ... whitish with elongated dark spots. Size, somewhat larger than a Domesticated Hen. Habitat near Älvkarleby, in Sweden."

Also see Tengmalm's text (from 1793), here.

If any of those Latin texts awakes any interest I can translate the Swedish dittos.

Björn

________________________________________________
*According to the Richmond Card this is the OD for the name "Strix Liturata".
According to Sven Nilsson (1824) this name was coined by Carl Peter Thunberg,
but if the latter only did so orally (i.e. never published it), or not, is unknown to me.
 
Last edited:
"Capite lævi, corpore albicante maculis longitudinalibus seu lituris fuscis. Magnitud. Galli Domestici paulo major; habitat in Svecia propre Elfkarleby."
https://books.google.com/books?id=VHA_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA5
= With a smooth [i.e., for an owl: not eared] head, with the body whitish with dark longitudinal spots or stripes. Slightly larger than the size of a domestic fowl; lives in Sweden near Elfkarleby.
(The penultimate word is 'prope', not 'propre'.)


Tengmalm's Latin description is rather strange, as in many aspects it seems to be a Great Grey, rather than Ural Owl:

"Strix Liturata corpore supra griseo, albo maculato, subtus albo, striis longitudinalibus nigris; iridibus flavis.
Descr. Magnitudo Strigis Nycteae capite vero fere majori. Circulus oculorum sordide albus, exterius vero ad marginem cinctus plumis ex albo, cinereo & nigro pulchre variegatis. Caput ex albo & fusco-griseo varium, linea fusca a basi mandibulae superioris descendente. Dorsum & tectrices alarum griseae, maculis albis, fabarum & quod excurrit magnitudine, notatae. Alae griseo & albo tessellatae: singula remix albo et fusco-griseo quasi fasciata. Subtus alba, maculis oblongis (Lituris Lindroth) nigris. Tibiae, anus & crisum alba. Cauda alis longior, griseo & albo fasciata: singula rectrix albo & griseo tessellata."

= Strix Liturata with the body grey above, spotted with white, white below, with black longitudinal stripes; yellow irides.
Descr. With the size of Strix Nyctea, but with the head almost bigger. Eye ring dirty white, but encircled externally on the rim with feathers beautifully variegated of white, grey and black. Head varied of white and grey-brown, with a dark line running down from the base of the upper mandible. Back and wing coverts grey, marked with white spots of a size that exceeds that of beans. Wings tessellated with grey and white: each flight feather almost barred with white and grey-brown. White below, with black elongated patches ('liturae' Lindroth). Tibiae, anus and crissum white. Tail longer than the wings, barred with grey and white: each tail feather tessellated with white and grey.

(Note in particular yellow eyes, big head, dark line running down from the bill...)
 
Tengmalm's Swedish text (from 1793) tells us:
Strix Liturata är en nyligen uptäckt Svensk Uggla, först omtald af Ass. Lindroth uti Catalogo Musæi Grilliani. Flere exemplar äro sedan fundne, af en Uggla som snart genom en Hög Herres omsorg af en skicklig hand blifver tecknad och väl beskrifven. Den Ugglan jag nu vill omtala förvaras i Grilliska samlingen på Söderfors, är olik, fast ej väsendteligen, den i Carlsonska, monne de endast differa i ålder? Likväl vid närmare jämförelse tyckas de utgöra särskildta Species. Denna Uggla träffar til storlek och gråa färgen tämeligen in med Strix Nebulosa; med den skilnad likväl, at stjerten på den senare tyckes vara kortare än på denna.
Which means something like:
Strix Liturata is a newly discovered Swedish Owl, first mentioned by assessor Lindroth within the Musæi Grilliani Catalogue. Several specimens have since been found, of an Owl, soon, by the care of a Noble gentleman being drawn by a skilled hand and well described. The Owl I now will discuss, kept in Grill's collection at Söderfors, is different, but not substantially, to the one in Carlson's [collection*], maybe they only differ in age? Nevertheless, by closer comparison, they seem to constitute different Species. This Owl corresponds in size and its grey Colour rather well with Strix Nebulosa, though with the difference that the tail seems to be shorter than this one.

Clearly Tengmalm is writing of another specimen than "Lindroths Ugglan" ("Strix Lindrothii").

Sorry for the detour into Liturata and Tengmalm's text. The main thing was to understand if a plate itself could be regarded as the type for "Lindrothii," when the specimen itself appears to be lost.

Which it apparently can´t.

Björn
_______________________________________________
*Noteworthy is that the only Owl in Sparrman's Museum Carlsonianum (at least the only one depicted in the publication) is "Strix Arctica" (attached), as I see it equal of today's short-eared owl Asio flammeus. The "Strix Arctica" was as well listed by Lindroth in Museum naturalium Grillianum Søderforssiense.To me it seems like Tengmalm simply got a little bit lost among the different Owls ... which was easily done in those days. Or maybe Adolph Ulric Grill had even more owls kept in his vast collection (that Sparrman didn´t find as intersting)... who knows?
 

Attachments

  • Strix arctica.jpg
    Strix arctica.jpg
    104.4 KB · Views: 13
  • S. arctica - text.jpg
    S. arctica - text.jpg
    146.2 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top