Prince Maximilian zu Wied's great exploration of coastal Brazil in 1815–1817 resulted in important collections of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals, many of which were new species later described by Wied himself. The bulk of his collection was purchased for the American Museum of Natural History in 1869, although many “type specimens” had disappeared earlier. Wied carefully identified his localities but did not designate type specimens or type localities, which are taxonomic concepts that were not yet established.
Information and manuscript names on a fraction (17 species) of his Brazilian reptiles and amphibians were transmitted by Wied to Prof. Heinrich Rudolf Schinz at the University of Zurich. Schinz included these species (credited to their discoverer “Princ. Max.”) in the second volume of Das Thierreich … (1822). Most are junior objective synonyms of names published by Wied.
However, six of the 17 names used by Schinz predate Wied's own publications. Three were manuscript names never published by Wied because he determined the species to be previously known. (1) Lacerta vittata Schinz, 1822 (a nomen oblitum) = Lacerta striata sensu Wied (a misidentification, non Linnaeus nee sensu Merrem) = Kentropyx calcarata Spix, 1825, herein qualified as a nomen protectum. (2) Polychrus virescens Schinz, 1822 = Lacerta marmorata Linnaeus, 1758 (now Polychrus marmoratus). (3) Scincus cyanurus Schinz, 1822 (a nomen oblitum) = Gymnophthalmus quadrilineatus sensu Wied (a misidentification, non Linnaeus nee sensu Merrem) = Micrablepharus maximiliani (Reinhardt and Lütken, “1861” [1862]), herein qualified as a nomen protectum. Qualifying Scincus cyanurus Schinz, 1822, as a nomen oblitum also removes the problem of homonymy with the later-named Pacific skink Scincus cyanurus Lesson (= Emoia cyanura).
The remaining three names used by Schinz are senior objective synonyms that take priority over Wied's names. (4) Bufo cinctus Schinz, 1822, is senior to Bufo cinctus Wied, 1824; both, however, are junior synonyms of Bufo crucifer Wied, 1821 = Chaunus crucifer (Wied). (5) Agama picta Schinz, 1822, is senior to Agama picta Wied, 1824, requiring a change of authorship for this poorly known species, to be known as Enyalius pictus (Schinz). (6) Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822, predates Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822–1831)—both nomina oblita. Wied's illustration and description shows cyanomelas as apparently conspecific with the recently described but already well-known Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997, which is the valid name because of its qualification herein as a nomen protectum.
The preceding specific name cyanomelas (as corrected in an errata section) is misspelled several ways in different copies of Schinz s original description (“cyanomlas,” “cyanom las” and “cyanom”). Loosening, separation, and final loss of the last three letters of movable type in the printing chase probably accounts for the variant misspellings.
INTRODUCTION
In the years 1815–1817, Maximilian Alexander Philipp, Prinz zu Wied-Neuwied,4 traveled extensively along the Atlantic coast of eastern Brazil and assembled important zoological collections. The principal scientific results of his great Brazilian expedition were described in three classic works. The two-volume Reise (Wied, 1820–1821) is a report of his travel and includes some footnote descriptions of new species, but most new taxa date from the following two works. The Abbildungen (Wied, 1822–1831) comprise 90 folio plates of Brazilian animals; these were published in 15 issues (Lieferungen/Livraisons), each with six unnumbered plates accompanied by short texts in German and French. All the species, illustrated or not, were extensively described in the four-volume Beiträge, of which the first volume is devoted to herpetology (Wied, 1825). After finishing his studies of the Brazilian material, Prince Maximilian undertook his famous North American expedition, sailing to Boston in 1832 and exploring along the Missouri River in 1833–1834; another comprehensive set of publications followed (see especially Wied, 1839–1841).
After the princes death, the bulk of his collection was purchased in 1869 for the American Museum of Natural History (Myers, 2000: 7). Some, albeit not all, his “type specimens” were in the material sent to the American Museum. Prince Maximilian carefully associated localities with his specimens, but he did not designate type specimens or type localities—taxonomic concepts not yet established in his day. Vanzolini and Myers (unpublished) collaborated in a survey especially of the Brazilian materials, in an effort to determine retrospective type status of specimens illustrated and described by Prince Maximilian zu Wied, whom we hereafter refer to simply as Wied.
Wied carried on extensive correspondence during his career and kept colleagues informed of his work. He not only sent complimentary copies of the Beiträge volumes and issues of the Abbildungen, but also transmitted not yet published descriptions of new species; he even gave specimens to Blasius Merrem. This procedure and generosity led to the preemption of some of Wieds specific names by colleagues (Vanzolini, 1996: 211). Although the rule of strict nomenclatural priority had yet to be established, Wied's new species seem usually to have been credited to him, but not, unfortunately, in ways that would establish his first authorship of names under modern rules of zoological nomenclature.
SCHINZ'S THIERREICH
We are here concerned with Heinrich Rudolf Schinz (1777–1861 or 1862), with whom Wied conducted a long friendly correspondence from 1806 until 1860 (Bosch, 1991: 39). Schinz, a Swiss naturalist, was one of the first professors in the University of Zurich (Adler, 2007: 51), where his students included Louis Agassiz and J.J. von Tschudi. Among his publications was the four-volume Das Thierreich eingetheilt nach dem Bau der Thiere als Grundlage ihrer Naturgeschichte und der vergleichenden Anatomie von dem Herrn Ritter von Cuvier… aus dem Französischen frey [frei] übersetzt und mit vielen Zusätzen versehen von H.R. Schinz. Volume 2 is the one most important to herpetology (Schinz, 1822) and was cited in various places by Wied.
Schinz's Thierreich is rare and seldom mentioned nowadays, in part because few libraries own it. Authorship usually is attributed to Georges Cuvier; Wood (1931: 307), for example, does not list it with Schinz's works in the Literature of Vertebrate Zoology, but under Cuvier he notes that it is “A faithful German translation, with additions, of Baron Cuvier“s Règne animal.” It contains too many novelties and other additions to be called a simple translation, and authorship is usually credited to Schinz for taxonomic purposes. Wied referred to the work as “Schinz, das Thierreich” and “Schinz, Règne Animal” on same-page German and French letterpress texts in the Abbildungen. Vanzolini (1977a: 29) pointed out that “Although this is one of the most frequently cited suites to Cuvier, its importance to Brasilian herpetology seems to have escaped general notice.”
Another German “translation” of Cuvier was published in 1832, by Friedrich Siegmund Voigt. By this time, most of Wied's Brazilian publications had become available, but neither Schinz's Thierreich nor Voigt's Thierreich attempted to discuss all the species treated by Wied. Voigt (1832) referenced the prince some 40 times, although Wied's 1825 Beiträge contained accounts for nearly 90 species, including 60 named by himself. Voigt apparently was following after Cuvier, who “was not much concerned with completeness [and] only included well known species, capable of documenting his generic concepts” (Vanzolini, 1977: 22). So far as we can see, no reference is made to Schinz's (1822) Thierreich in Voigt's (1832) volume 2; Voigt's source for Wied's unpublished Polychrus virescens appears to have been Wagler (1828), not Schinz (1822) as might be expected (discussion below).
Schinz (1822) credited 17 species listed below to his friend “Princ. Max,” who discovered them in Brazil (“In Brasilien, neu von Neuwied entdeckt”). We interpret most of Schinz's names as objective junior synonyms (rather than simple subsequent usages) of names first published by Wied; they are objective synonyms because they were based on information provided by Wied and therefore were based on the same specimens.5
However, the six names in boldface (above and below) predate names used by Wied for the same species.6 Wied supplied all 17 names to Schinz and considered them as his own. In the Abbildungen and Beiträge, for example, he referenced Schinz by page number but omitted his names first published by Schinz. Wied did, however, explain his abandoned manuscript names used by Schinz (Lacerta vittata, Polychrus virescens, and Scincus cyanurus; see below).
Lacerta vittata: Wied transmitted this name to Schinz, but its identity has been generally overlooked. Peters and Donoso-Barros (1970: 152) wrote that “Stejneger, in a handwritten note in an interleaved copy of Boulenger, 1885, has noted that Boulenger did not include Lacerta vittata Schinz … as a species of Kentropyx. It is unclear to us what its relationship is, although Stejneger placed it opposite calcaratus Spix, suggesting a possible synonymy.” Overlooked was Wied's own explanation in the Beiträge (Wied, 1825: 186) and in letterpress Abbildungen text for Lacerta striata Dau[din] (Wied, 1829: Lief. 13). Wied originally had intended his manuscript name “vittata” for an undescribed species, but, after comparing it with Merrem's (1809) “Borckischen Eidechse” (fig. 1), Wied followed Merrem's later work (1820: 65) and mistakenly used the name Lacerta striata Daudin, 1802.7
As it turns out, however, Stejneger's handwritten note in Boulenger's Catalogue was prescient. The species that Wied had intended to name “vittata” had indeed been undescribed prior to Schinz's publication! Hoogmoed (1973: 301) compared descriptions and concluded that Lacerta vittata Schinz, 1822, is a senior synonym of Kentropyx calcarata Spix, 1825. The senior name remains unused, however, and we agree with Hoogmoed that Spix's well-known name should be conserved (see below under Protection of Three Junior Synonyms).
Lacerta cyanomelas: Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822, is a senior objective synonym of Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822–1831), but the situation is unusual because the correct spelling “cyanomelas” does not appear on Schinz's page 46, which contains the description (the corrected name is given in the errata). Known copies of Schinz's Thierreich all have a spelling mistake on page 46. We are aware of the following three misspelled versions of the specific name: (1) “cyanomlas” is the most common version, appearing in copies of Das Thierreich in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and the Museum of Comparative Zoology, and in private copies owned by Kraig Adler and Rodrigues. (2) “cyanom las”—with a variably sized blank space—is seen in copies in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (small space) and in the National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution (large space). The blank space varies in size from about one to three letter spaces. (3) “cyanom” is a version known only in a copy of Schinz in the Natural History Museum in London. It was cited as a name “not mentioned elsewhere” by Vanzolini (1977a: 29), who has a xerographic copy of the British Museum book. The total of this variation can be explained by the supposition that the last three letters of “cyanomlas” had become loosened in the printing chase, gradually separating from “cyanom” and finally being lost altogether during printing. In support of this hypothesis, it is noted that species names in Schinz terminate with a full stop (period), which is lacking in the truncated Lacerta “cyanom” version of the name.
FIG. 1.
“Die Borckische Eidechse,” a lizard described in 1809 by Blasius Merrem and much later given the Latin name Centropyx borckiana by Wilhelm Peters. Hoogmoed (1973: 292–293) cleared up confusion associated with the name of this species, which currently is known as the Guayanan Kentropyx borckiana (Peters, 1869). The dorsal surfaces probably were partially green in life, the blue color resulting from preservation in spirits. (Hand-painted plate reproduced x0.90 from Merrem, 1809, courtesy of Harvard University Botany Libraries.)
The first misspelling is corrected on an unnumbered errata page (= p. 828) of the Thierreich: “Seite 46 Zeile 8 lies cyanomelas statt cyanomlas.” The same correction appears in the British Museum copy, which has the spelling “cyanom” on page 46. Schinz's correction to cyanomelas clearly determines the correct name, but, to be safe, as first revisers to have cited several multiple spellings we naturally also select cyanomelas as correct (ICZN, 1999: art. 24.2.3).
The name Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822, clearly has priority over Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822–1831). The identity of this lizard, however, is best determined from the illustration and information published by Wied (see below under Identity and Rediscovery of Teius cyanomelas Wied).
As an aside, it is not generally realized that Wied had unpublished manuscript names that he abandoned before publication (see under Lacerta vittata above, and Polychrus virescens and Scincus cyanurus below). Wied's original name for cyanomelas was “Lacerta 5-lineata” based on a specimen taken at Mucuri, April 20, 1816. Wied's pen-and-watercolor field sketch, with name and data added by his hand, is reproduced in Bosch (1991: 237). It clearly is the sketch copied by Wied's artist for publication in the Abbildungen as Teius cyanomelas (Wied, 1824 [1822–1831]: Lief. 5).
Agama picta: Agama picta Schinz, 1822, is the senior objective synonym of Agama picta Wied, 1824: Lief. 3 (not “1825” auct). Wied referenced Schinz by page number (without using the name) in his subsequent accounts of A. picta in Abbildungen letterpress and in the Beiträge. The taxon has been treated both as a species of Enyalius and as a subspecies of E. catenatus (Wied, 1821). Currently, Enyalius pictus is recognized as a full species living in the forests of coastal Brazil between the Jequitinhonha and Doce rivers (Rodrigues et al., 2006). The senior authorship of picta changes to Schinz, but the original concept of the taxon is that of Wied (1823, Lief. 3; 1825: 125, 604).
Polychrus virescens: This is similar to the situation with Lacerta vittata above, except that Wied did not mention Schinz (1822) in the Abbildungen or Beiträge synonymies. Wied instead explained in his Beiträge species account of Polychrus marmoratus that Schinz had used Polychrus virescens based on a short note from him, but that P. virescens could no longer be kept (Wied, 1825: 124). Unaware of these comments, Wagler (1828: pl. 12, text) illustrated a specimen of Polychrus marmoratus under the name “Polychrus virescens Prinz von Neuwied in Schinz.” Voigt (1832: 67) referenced P. virescens to Wagler (ibid.) rather than Schinz (1822). Schinz later (1833–1835: 88–89, pl. 28) reproduced Wagler's color plate in reverse image and noted that “Sie ist nach Wied kaum verschieden von P. marmoratus und warscheinlich das Männchen [According to Wied it scarcely differs from P. marmoratus and is probably the male].”
In letterpress accompanying the Abbildungen plate Wied noted that “Diese bekannte Eidechse ist nirgends in ihren leibliche Farben abgebildet [The living color of this well-known lizard has been nowhere described]” (Wied, 1829: Lief. 13). He said in the Beiträge (Wied, 1825: 123) that he had obtained only a single specimen alive, a female from Villa Viçoza. The prince's pen-and-watercolor field sketch of this specimen and a copy of it (by the artist Beckers) for publication in the Abbildungen are reproduced in Bosch (1991: 243–244).
Polychrus virescens Schinz is correctly shown in Peters and Donoso-Barros (1970: 234) as a synonym of Polychrus marmoratus (Linnaeus), but it had been Wied's manuscript name for a new species that he subsequently re-identified as “Polychrus marmoratus, [sensu] Merrem.”
Scincus cyanurus: This was Wied's manuscript name for a lizard that he later misidentified as “S[cinus]. quadrilineatus” (Wied, 1824: 664) and treated in detail as “Gymnophthalmus quadrilineatus Merr[em]” (Wied, 1825: 198; 1829: Lief. 13). Lacerta quadrilineata is a Linnaean name recognized as the nominal type species of Merrem's (1820: 74) genus Gymnophthalmus. Wied, however, had a lizard not previously described. Wied's description is clear and calls attention to the bright blue tail of the species (not shown in the Abbildungen plate because the sky-blue color disappears completely in preservative fide Wied, 1825: 203, 204). It is the only blue-tailed lizard living in an area traveled by Wied.
Reinhardt and Lütken (“1861” [1862]: 211) honored the prince by naming Gymnophthalmus maximiliani based on new material and the unavailable name “Gymnophthalmus quadrilineatus Wied.” Boulenger (1885: 426) referred both these names to the then recently erected genus Micrablepharus Boettger, 1885;8 Boulenger also placed the nominal type species of Micrablepharus (M. glaucurus Boettger) as a synonym of M. maximiliani.
Scincus cyanurus Schinz, 1822, is an overlooked senior synonym of Micrablepharus maximiliani (Reinhardt and Lütken “1861” [1862]), which is a well-known name worthy of saving (see under Protection of Three Junior Synonyms). It is fortunate that Scincus cyanurus Schinz, 1822, can be qualified below as a nomen oblitum, inasmuch as it also is a senior homonym of a well-known Pacific skink (Scincus cyanurus Lesson, 1826 = Emoia cyanura; see Ineich and Zug, 1991, for literature).
Buf[o] cinctus: Bufo cinctus Schinz, 1822, is the senior synonym of Bufo cinctus Wied, 1824. Wied gave the page reference to Schinz (1822: 177) in the Abbildungen letterpress text accompanying his Bufo cinctus plate (Wied, 1824: Lief. 3) and in his species account in the Beiträge (Wied, 1825: 564). The name Bufo cinctus has long been in the synonymy of Bufo crucifer Wied, 1821 (= Chaunus crucifer fide Frost et al., 2006: 364).
THE REDISCOVERY AND IDENTITY OF TEIUS CYANOMELAS WIED, 1824
HISTORY OF THE NAME: Among the many new animals discovered and described by Wied was Teius cyanomelas, which was illustrated in a color plate in the fifth issue of the Abbildungen (Wied, 1824 [1822–1831]: Lief. 5, fig. 2 of composite pl.). This lizard was accurately figured and had a precise type locality (open areas around the mouth of Rio Mucuri in state of Bahia, Brazil), and was given a detailed description in the Beiträge (Wied, 1825: 180–185). Nonetheless, it was never properly recognized. Bocourt (1874: 251, footnote 1), without justification, referenced it as Ameiva cyanomelas, but considered Wied's illustration and description both inadequate for a proper allocation of the species, suggesting that it was close to Ameiva festiva, A. edracantha, and A. septemlineata, or possibly a synonym of Cnemidophorus lemniscatus. Boulenger (1885: 363) placed Teius cyanomelas with a question mark in the synonymy of Cnemidophorus lemniscatus, an allocation followed by most subsequent authors. Burt (1931: 32), in a major revision of Cnemidophorus, thought that Bocourt's suggestion that cyanomelas might be a synonym of C. lemniscatus “rather far fetched, since the photograph [sic] shows only two distinct light lines on each side, and a single middorsal line,” but Burt considered Ameiva to be probably the right genus. Peters and Donoso-Barros' (1970: 94) influential catalog followed Boulenger in keeping T. cyanomelas with a question mark in the synonymy of Cnemidophorus lemniscatus, although cyanomelas was erroneously dated from the 1825 Beiträge.
It is understandable that cyanomelas was attributed to Cnemidophorus by most authors from Boulenger on, but its continued association with C. lemniscatus was unwarranted because lemniscatus sensu lato occurs from Central America to Amazonia where Wied, a fine zoologist who precisely identified his localities, never collected.
Vanzolini (1996: 214), however, recognized the problem and considered cyanomelas to be an unrecognized species of Cnemidophorus. Except for Amazonian forms, Cnemidophori from tropical South America have been attributed to the ocellifer group—a multispecies complex (Rodrigues, 1987: 224), including new species recently described (Dias et al., 2002; Feltrim and Lema, 2000; Rocha et al., 1997, 2000; Dias et al., 2002; Colli et al., 2003a, 2003b). A thorough taxonomic revision of the group is needed.
REDISCOVERY AND TAXONOMIC CONCLUSION: Recently, during a field trip to obtain specimens of Cnemidophorus along the Atlantic coast of Brazil for an ongoing molecular and karyotypic study, Rodrigues' group collected several specimens of Cnemidophorus nativo. This is a parthenogenetic species of the ocellifer group recently described from Reserva Florestal da Companhia Vale do Rio Doce, municipality of Linhares, state of Espirito Santo (Rocha et al., 1997). The specific name (nativo) was given in reference to its habitat, the open shrubby areas near the coast (“campo nativo”) where it occurs. The species is fairly abundant in open habitats near the eastern coast of Brazil from Regência in the state of Espirito Santo (our records), to Camamú in the state of Bahia (Vrcibradic et al., 2002). It is the only species of Cnemidophorus present in this long stretch of approximately 700 km (Rocha, 2000); it is considered “vulnerable” in the list of endangered Brazilian species (IBAMA, 2008; Rodrigues, 2005). The striking color pattern of living specimens and the apparent absence of other Cnemidophorus in the range of C. nativo caused us to revisit Wied's figure and description of Teius cyanomelas. The type localities of T. cyanomelas and C. nativo are only about 100 km apart and our comparisons of fresh material of nativo with Wied's figure and detailed description correspond so closely that we conclude that a single species is involved (see fig. 2).
FIG. 2.
Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997, a Brazilian lizard discovered in 1818 by Prince Maximilian zu Wied. The earlier names Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822, and Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822–1831) are qualified herein as forgotten names (nomina oblita), whereas Cnemidophorus nativo is qualified as a protected name (nomen protectum). Top: The original Abbildungen illustration of Teius cyanomelas Wied, reproduced x1.38 from a composite plate (Wied, 1824 [1822–1831], Lief. 5). The plate was prepared from an artist's copy of Wied's pen-and-watercolor field sketch, in which the background was a horizontal line. The accompanying letterpress text includes “Rücken schwarz, mit einem breiten bläulichen Längsstreif in der Mitte, und zwei wei
bläulichen schmäleren an der Seite [Back black, with a wide bluish median stripe, and two narrower bluish white lateral stripes].” Bottom: A specimen of Cnemidophorus nativo from Restinga do Barra Seca, Linhares, state of Espirito Santo, Brazil. The extent of color variation is unknown, but Rocha et al. (1997: 378) wrote that the median “light salmon stripe … continues mostly as light grey and/or light blue [emphasis added] along the dorsal region of tail” and “vivid white” lateral stripes.
As already noted, the name Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822, has priority over Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822–1831). Even Schinz's (1822: 46) second-hand 10-line description permits a fairly good identification of this species of Cnemidophorus. The smooth ventral scales, disposed in six longitudinal rows, granular dorsals, color pattern (especially the undulating borders of the middorsal stripe) and size referred to by Schinz are sufficient to identify the species. Although Wied's only specimen had a broken tail (see fig. 2), both Schinz (1822: 46) and Wied (1825: 180) diagnosed the species as having a long tail, but that was an accurate extrapolation; Wied (ibid.: 181), with his usual attention to detail, explained that the broken tail was “scheinbar viel länger als der Körper [seemingly much longer than the body].”
Wied's unique specimen of Teius cyanomelas was not in the collection purchased by the American Museum. Nevertheless, it seems evident that Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822, and Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822–1831) are senior names for Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997. The last name has become well-enough known to receive protected status under ICZN criteria.
PROTECTION OF THREE JUNIOR SYNONYMS
The Principle of Priority is a cornerstone of zoological nomenclature. Some taxonomists may advocate rather strict adherence to this principle, believing that the oldest available name of a taxon should be nearly always the one used. Nonetheless, it seems a disservice to other biologists and the public when old, unused names are dredged up to replace names currently applied to well-known animals. Precedence of a younger name over an older one sometimes can be gained by the cumbersome route of petitioning the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. If the taxa are rarely mentioned, this strategy is likely to be unsuccessful and therefore not worth the effort; it almost certainly will fail if only the authorship of a rarely used name is changed, as in the case of Enyalius pictus (Wied, 1824)—now Enyalius pictus (Schinz, 1822).
Article 23.9 of the latest Code (ICZN, 1999), however, provides a procedure for saving well-known junior names without formal petition. We use that method to qualify the names of the following three species as protected names (nomina protecta).
Kentropyx calcarata Spix, 1825
As explained above, the description of Lacerta vittata Schinz, 1822, was based on a manuscript name transmitted by Wied to Schinz, who validated the name. Hoogmoed (1973: 301) pointed out that Lacerta vittata Schinz, 1822, was a senior synonym of Kentropyx calcarata and indicated intent to propose suppression by the ICZN. Although the proposal was not submitted, other authors (especially Gallagher and Dixon, 1992: 141–142, and Ávila-Pires, 1995: 524) accepted the synonymy but followed Hoogmoed's lead in continuing use of the junior name.
To our knowledge, the name Lacerta vittata Schinz has not been used as a valid name since its publication and specifically “has not been used as a valid name after 1899” (ICZN, 1999: art. 23.9.1.1). The junior name Kentropyx calcarata Spix, 1825, has been used as a “presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years” (ICZN, 1999: art. 23.9.1.2).
The following 25 references (among many available) meet the criteria quoted above: Ávila and Silva, 2009; Ávila-Pires, 1995, 2005; Ávila-Pires et al., 2009; Castoe et al., 2004; Cole et al, 1995; Cosson et al., 1999; Gallagher and Dixon, 1980, 1992; Gallagher et al., 1986; Gasnier et al., 1994; Hoogmoed, 1973, 1979; Hoogmoed and Lescure, 1975; Lima et al., 2001; MacCulloch and Lathrop, 2007; Pellegrino et al., 2001; Perry, 1999; Peters and Donoso-Barros, 1970; Reeder et al., 2002; Ribeiro-Júnior et al., 2006; Smith and Ballinger, 2001; Telford and Telford, 2003; Werneck et al., 2009; Vitt, 1991a.
Kentropyx calcarata Spix, 1825, the younger but valid name for the species, is here designated as a nomen protectum. It has precedence over the senior name Lacerta vittata Schinz, 1822, which is here qualified as a nomen oblitum, and over the unavailable name Lacerta striata sensu Wied, 1825 (non Daudin nec sensu Merrem), which was a misidentification in the sense of the Code (ICZN 1999: art. 49).
Micrablepharus maximiliani (Reinhardt and Lütken, “1861” [1862])
As explained above, Scincus cyanurus Schinz, 1822, is the senior name (Wied's “Gymnophthalmus quadrilineatus” was a misidentification). To our knowledge, Scincus cyanurus Schinz “has not been used as a valid name after 1899” (ICZN, 1999: art. 23.9.1.1). The junior name Gymnophthalmus maximiliani Reinhardt and Lütken, “1861” [1862]—known since 1885 as Micrablepharus maximiliani (Reinhardt and Lütken, “1861” [1862])—has been used as a “presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years” (ICZN, 1999: art. 23.9.1.2).
The following 25 references meet the criteria quoted above: Ávila-Pires, 1995; Castoe et al., 2004; Cunha, 1961; Freire, 1996; Mesquita et al., 2006; Moreira et al., 2009; Nogueira et al., 2009; Pellegrino et al., 2001; Peters and Donoso-Barros, 1970; Presch, 1980; Rodrigues, 1996, 2003; Rodrigues et al., 2005, 2007; Shepard, 2007; Teixeira et al., 1999; Vanzolini, 1977b, 1981, 2003; Vanzolini and Carvalho, 1991; Vanzolini et al., 1980; Vitt, 1991b; Werneck and Colli, 2006; Williams and Vanzolini, 1980; Yonenaga-Yassuda and Rodrigues, 1999.
Micrablepharus maximiliani (Reinhardt and Lütken, “1861” [1862]), the younger but valid name for the species, is here designated as a nomen protectum. It has precedence over the senior name Scincus cyanurus Schinz, 1822, which is here qualified as a nomen oblitum, and over the unavailable name Gymnophthalmus quadrilineatus sensu Wied, 1825 (non Linnaeus nec sensu Merrem), which was a misidentification in the sense of the Code (ICZN 1999: art. 49).
Qualifying Scincus cyanurus Schinz, 1822, as a nomen oblitum also solves the problem of homonymy with the later-named Scincus cyanurus Lesson, 1826—a wide-spread Pacific skink currently known as Emoia cyanura (Lesson) (see p. 8).
Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997
As noted above, Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822, and Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822–1831) are senior names. To our knowledge, neither has “been used as a valid name after 1899” (ICZN, 1999: art. 23.9.1.1). The junior name Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997, has been used as a “presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years” (ICZN, 1999: art. 23.9.1.2).
The following 25 references meet the criteria quoted above: Adeoye and Ogunbanwo, 2007; Cabrera, 2004; Colli et al., 2003a, 2003b, 2009; Dias and Rocha, 2004; Dias et al., 2002; Feltrim and Lema, 2000; Giugliano et al., 2006; Menezes et al., 2000, 2004a, 2004b; Mesquita and Colli, 2003; Peccinini-Seale et al., 2004; Peloso et al., 2008; Reeder et al., 2002; Ribeiro et al., 2007; Rocha et al. 1997, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2009; Rodrigues, 2005; Vrcibradic et al., 2002.
Cnemidophorus nativo Rocha et al., 1997, the younger but valid name for the species is here designated as a nomen protectum. It has precedence over the senior names Lacerta cyanomelas Schinz, 1822, and Teius cyanomelas Wied, 1824 (1822–1831), which are here qualified as nomina oblita.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Schinz's Thierreich is rare and, for bibliographic help in checking copies for variable spellings of a new species name, we are very grateful to Kraig Adler (personal library), Antoine Fouquet (the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris), Colin McCarthy (the Natural History Museum, London), Jay M. Savage (at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution), and Mary Sears (Harvard University). John E. Cadle had helped search for holding libraries.
A photocopy and electronic scans of Merrem's rare 1809 article (Amphibiologische Beiträge) were kindly provided by Lisa DeCesare, Head of Archives, Botany Libraries, at Harvard University. Figure 1 is reprinted from that source by permission of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
For continued support of his research, Myers thanks Robert G. Goelet, former president and Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees of the American Museum of Natural History.
Rodrigues thanks Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for support. For other help in facilitating his work, he thanks D. Pavan, E. Schlenz, F. Curcio, J. Cassimiro, J.M. Guellere, R.C. Amaro-Gillardi, R. Santos, and R. Villela. Important help in the field was provided by Renato Moraes de Jesus, from Companhia Vale do Rio Doce.
For reading and critically commenting on the manuscript, we thank Kraig Adler, Aaron M. Bauer, Barrel Frost, Sven Mecke, and Grace M. Tilger.
REFERENCES
des Prinzen Maximilian zu Wied-Neuwied, in 2 parts. Part 1: 1988, Illustration zur Reise 1815 bis 1817 in Brasilien (edited by
R. Löschner
and
B. Kirschstein-Kamber
),
217 pp. Part 2: 1991, Briefwechsel und Zeichnungen zu den naturhistorischen Werken (edited by
B. Kirschstein Kamber
,
S. Koppel
, and
R. Löschner
), 366 pp. Google Scholar
Notes
[1] 4 Prince Maximilians given names sometimes are arranged incorrectly as “Alexander Philipp Maximilian.” More importantly, there are permutations of his family name and much confusion as to how it should be cited. Briefly the family Wied-Neuwied inherited the estate of Wied-Runkel in 1824 and geographic modifiers of the Wied name were officially dropped that year. Long before that, the prince's normal signature in correspondence was “Max P z Wied.” He did not publish under the compound name Wied-Neuwied after 1824 except (for editorial continuity) on the title pages of the Abbildungen, which had begun publication in 1822. All his species names can properly be referenced simply as “Wied,” following the prince's own preference and the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (1998, rule 22.2C1) that mandate use of the latest form of a changed name. (NB: In the notable case of Linnaeus vs. the late-in-life ennobled “von Linné,” this rule is followed in modern library catalogs but long ignored in most taxonomic literature.) The noble preposition von sometimes replaces the zu in Wied's name in library catalogs, rarely on the printed page (see footnote 12).
[2] 5 Although Wied gave some specimens to Blasius Merrem, there is no published evidence that he ever sent specimens to Schinz. In any case, the majority of specimens on which these particular descriptions were based seem to be no longer extant, although some may yet show up in European collections. Many of Wied's specimens evidently disappeared prior to the 1860 preparation of his handwritten “catalogue” at AMNH (a list not of specimens but of genera and species that were still represented in his collection).
[3] 6 It would seem only fair that such names should be attributed to “Wied in Schinz,” as was done for example by Wagler (1828: text for “Polychrus virescens Prinz von Neuwied in Schinz.”). But it is not explicitly demonstrated within Schinz's work itself that Wied supplied both the names and the descriptions as mandated in the authorship section of the Code (ICZN, 1999, art. 50.1).
[4] 7 On facing pages of German and Latin texts, Merrem (1820: 65) misidentified and misspelled his “Eidechse borkische [sic]” as Lacerta striata. Merrem's (1809: 2) “Die Borckische Eidechse” currently is known as the Guayanan Kentropyx borckiana (Peters), because W. Peters (1869: 62) was the first to provide a Latin binomen for the species (Hoogmoed, 1973: 292–293).
[5] After citing Merrem's original description, Gallagher and Dixon (1992: 137) said that “The meaning of ‘Borckische’ has not been determined.” As made clear in the first paragraph of Merrem's description, however, the name honors Grafen (Count) von Borcke, whose collection supplied the specimen that was illustrated and described in detail (Merrem, 1809: 2–9, pl. 1 [reproduced herein as fig. 1]).
[6] 8 Authorship of Boettger's Micrablepharus is mistakenly attributed to “Dunn, 1932” in recent gymnophthalmid classifications (Pellegrino et al, 2001: 330; Castoe et al, 2004: 465).
[7] 9 See Vanzolini (1977: 115–116) for commentary and attribution of authorship and dates for the 17 livraisons of this monumental but bibliographically difficult work. It was reprinted in 1978 by Arno Press (New York), from the copy in the American Museum of Natural History.
[8] 10 This paper is variously cited as published either in “1861” (as dated on the individual parts of “Aaret 1861” [= vol. 3]) or “1862” (as dated at the bottom of the volume title page). The 1862 date seems correct. Reinhardt and Lütken's paper was presented (“Meddeelt i Mödet [imparted with courage]”) on December 4, 1861; the next article in vol. 3 was presented in 1862 (June 20, 1862, as confirmed in vol. 4 for year 1862, p. 337).
[9] 11 Original part covers not seen. This citation is prepared from an AMNH copy printed in Leipzig and compared with a Museum of Comparative Zoology copy printed in Schaffhausen. The texts seem to come off the same or identical printing plates, but the MCZ copy has two title pages that were printed in type faces that differ from one another and differ also from type face on the AMNH title page. The subtitle material differs slightly in content among all three title pages.
[10] 12 Excluding Wied's 1824 title provided by Oken (next page), this is Wied's only publication in which the noble preposition von replaces zu, which was his family's choice for centuries. Also, as already noted (footnote 4), this is Wied's only work in which the compound family name Wied-Neuwied was used after 1824. These may have been editorial choices, not Wied's.
