BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fred Ruhe" data-source="post: 4063002" data-attributes="member: 83329">Justin J. F. J. Jansen & Anthony S. Cheke, 2020Martinet’s engravings in Buffon (1770–83): variation in their hand-colouring and its implications for defining Echo Parakeet Psittacula eques (Boddaert, 1783)Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 140(3): 299-308Summary. —As explained in the Code (ICZN 1999), an illustration cannot be considered a type, which remains the physical specimen depicted in the photograph or depiction. Complexity arises if the illustrated specimen was unique and is no longer extant, meaning that the illustration is the only available visual representation of the lost type. In such cases how should we treat the illustration? As part of a wider study of the taxonomy and history of the Echo Parakeet Psittacula eques, we attempt to answer two questions pertaining to the specific case of Boddaert’s (1783) naming of a new species, P. eques from Réunion, which is now extinct there, namely: (1) were the published hand-coloured engravings by François-Nicolas Martinet on which Boddaert based his name illuminated by one hand?, and (2) how reliably do they represent the type? We conclude that the published illustrations were hand-coloured by different persons, and they vary too much to use them to ascertain the true appearance of the lost type. We suggest that only original drawings or the coloured original artwork (preparatory drawings) for the engravings or lithographs can used to establish the appearance of a type, if the specimen itself is missing.Fred</blockquote>

Verification