The Fossil Birds of Peter Lund (1 Viewer)

[RSN]

This is my first published article. I once again thank all the forum friends who helped me!

---

Rafael Nascimento & Luís Fábio Silveira

The Fossil Birds of Peter Lund

Zootaxa 4743 (4): 480–510
https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4743.4.2

Abstract:

The Danish naturalist Peter Wilhelm Lund (1801–1880), regarded as the father of Brazilian palaeontology and archaeology, is known mainly for his work with fossil mammals of Quaternary age from the limestone caves of the Lagoa Santa region in the state of Minas Gerais, southeastern Brazil. However, during one decade of fieldwork (1835–1844), he also collected a large number of remains of other animal groups from these caves. Birds were well represented and, following assessment by the Danish ornithologist Oluf Winge (1855–1889), most of the specimens collected by Lund belong to species still living in the area. Here we present an overview of the bird remains (fossil and recent), found by Lund and others in the region, we update their taxonomic attributions, and comment on the history of the material, making information previously published only in Danish available in English.

https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4743.4.2

 

[Melanie]

Congratulations Rafael. It is possible to send me a copy of this paper?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

GG Rafael. I also have published for this journal one year ago, I understand you're excited

 

[Fred Ruhe]

Also my congratulations to Rafael, quite an achiefment!

But I have a question: in the caption of figure 3 you write: "Figure 3. Neochen pugil (Winge). Holotype: a—left tarsometatarsus (ZMUC 12084), b—right carpometacarpus (ZMUC 12044), c—proximal end of the left humerus (ZMUC 12017), d—right coracoid (ZMUC 12115), e—left tibiotarsus lacking the proximal end (ZMUC 12122) (courtesy of K.L. Hansen); f—life restoration (not to scale)."

I was wondering is the left tarsometatarsus the holotype or do all the bones belong to the holotype and if the last is the case, why do they have different collection numbers?

Fred

 

[Melanie]

If I understand the OD by Oluf Winge correctly there must be a type series of several bones. But for me it is interesting to know whether Neochen pugil survived into the Holocene.

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/47882#page/25/mode/1up

 

[RSN]

Congratulations Rafael. It is possible to send me a copy of this paper?

Thank you Melanie! Of course it is! I've emailed you a copy. If anyone else is also interested, please tell me.

GG Rafael. I also have published for this journal one year ago, I understand you're excited

Thank you LeNomenclatoriste! It is very good to see a project of years finally published!

Also my congratulations to Rafael, quite an achiefment!

But I have a question: in the caption of figure 3 you write: "Figure 3. Neochen pugil (Winge). Holotype: a—left tarsometatarsus (ZMUC 12084), b—right carpometacarpus (ZMUC 12044), c—proximal end of the left humerus (ZMUC 12017), d—right coracoid (ZMUC 12115), e—left tibiotarsus lacking the proximal end (ZMUC 12122) (courtesy of K.L. Hansen); f—life restoration (not to scale)."

I was wondering is the left tarsometatarsus the holotype or do all the bones belong to the holotype and if the last is the case, why do they have different collection numbers?

Fred

Thank you very much Fred! All bones belong to the holotype. When the species was described by Winge, he did not designed a type, but figured these elements. Later, this material was defined as type by Pierce Brodkorb (1964) and Kasper Lykke Hansen (2012). The different collection numbers were given, by the aspect of the tags, back in Winge's days.

If I understand the OD by Oluf Winge correctly there must be a type series of several bones. But for me it is interesting to know whether Neochen pugil survived into the Holocene.

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/47882#page/25/mode/1up

Unfortunately, as the bones were collected in the 1840s, no thorough taphonomic was made. Lund did sent geological samples to Denmark, but as far I know, no accurate dating was made for the material he collected.

 

[RSN]

Full text:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339538433_The_Fossil_Birds_of_Peter_Lund

 

[Fred Ruhe]

It s nice to see the following:

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Piter Kehoma Boll (Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos), for his great help with bibliography, translations, discussions and text review; Carlos Augusto Chamarelli, for his help with translations and text review; Kasper Lykke Hansen (Statens Naturhistoriske Museum, Københavns Universitet), for photographs of fossils, translations and further requests for the study; Sandra Chapman (Natural History Museum, London) and Federico Agnolín (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales Bernardino Rivadavia), for photographs of fossils; Alex Hubbe (Universidade Federal da Bahia), for providing information about the material of Gruta Cuvieri; Dione Seripierri (Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo), the library teams of the Instituto de Geociências and the Instituto de Biociências of Universidade de São Paulo, Melanie Nayyal (The Sixth Extinction Forum/Bird-Forum), Fred Ruhe, Björn Bergenholtz, Martin Schneider and Laurent Raty (BirdForum), Hans Meltofte (Dansk Ornitologisk Forening), Mariane Pereira Ferreira (Museu de Arqueologia da Universidade de São Paulo/Scientia Consultoria Científica), Hélio Rosa de Miranda and the library team of Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia da Universidade de São Paulo, for their help with bibliography; and Glaudson Albuquerque (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte), Eliza Sevghenian (Faculdades Metropolitanas Unidas) and two anonymous reviewers, for review and suggestions on the text. We also thank Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and LFS is supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnológico research productivity fellowship (process #302291/2015-6).

Fred