identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
B42F87F7FF931534FF7EFABB9B4E881D.text	B42F87F7FF931534FF7EFABB9B4E881D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Antechinus (Podabrus) froggatti Ramsay 1887	<div><p>Antechinus (Podabrus) froggatti Ramsay, 1887</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 2) 2 (3), 552. (30th November 1887).</p> <p>Description read at the 31st August 1887 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Stripe-faced Dunnart Sminthopsis macroura froggatti (Ramsay, 1887) following Jackson &amp; Groves (2015).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. There is convincing genetic evidence that S. macroura froggatti should be re-instated as a species but further research is needed to resolve its status (Jackson &amp; Groves 2015). Currently, usually treated as a subspecies of S. macroura (Gould, 1845), e.g., Baker (2015), but its taxonomic status has remained unsettled, being treated at different times since 1888 as either a synonym, a subspecies or a full species.</p> <p>Holotype. MAMU M.1177, female, body in alc., skull extracted, collected by W.W. Froggatt in 1887, subsequent determination by Troughton (1932). Specimen sent to AM at an unknown date where it was registered as M. 8019 in 1959, and where it remains as a body in alcohol with extracted skull. We have not located documentation of the transfer and do not know whether the specimen was on loan or exchanged. The collection date was not recorded but Froggatt (1934: 78) incorrectly stated that it was in the last few days of August 1887: “While in Derby for a few days …. I collected along the salt marsh and captured a fat-tailed mouse beneath some rubbish. It proved to be a new species… named by Dr Ramsay…. Antechinus froggatti. On September 1st I left Derby …for Yedia Homestead.” Given that Ramsay read the description of this species at the 31st August 1887 meeting of the LSNSW, the specimen could not have been collected in late August but was possibly collected in late April or May. Froggatt (1934) stated that he left Derby in mid-May and collected inland until returning in late August.</p> <p>Type locality. Near the shore at King Sound, near Derby, Western Australia (Troughton 1932; Froggatt 1934).</p> <p>Comments. Troughton (1932) re-instated this taxon to species and provided a detailed re-diagnosis. It is possible that the skull had already been extracted by Ramsay for his original account. Ramsay stated that he based the species on material collected by Froggatt. Although he gave no indication of the number of specimens that he examined, it has been assumed to be a single specimen (e.g., Troughton 1932), as implied by Froggatt (1934). We have no evidence that more than one specimen was collected. Stanbury (1969) cited MAMU M.1177 as the holotype. The MAMU Register entry for M.1177 has a note signed by Stanbury and dated September, 1968, when he assigned an old unallocated number in the absence of the specimen, with the remark “on loan to the Aust Museum since 1956?”. Measurements and photographs of the holotype skull are given by Archer (1981). The holotype is discussed by Parnaby et al. (2017).</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF931534FF7EFABB9B4E881D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF901533FF7EFC979D128EC9.text	B42F87F7FF901533FF7EFC979D128EC9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Perameles auratus , Ramsay 1887	<div><p>Perameles auratus Ramsay, 1887</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 2) 2 (3), 551. (30th November 1887).</p> <p>Description read at the 31st August 1887 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Golden Bandicoot Isoodon auratus (Ramsay, 1887) following Jackson &amp; Groves (2015).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Recognised as either a species or subspecies of I. obesulus (Shaw, 1797) throughout most of the past century, but often accepted as a valid species in recent decades, see Jackson &amp; Groves (2015).</p> <p>Syntype. M.468, adult male, skull extracted, puppet skin with large scrotum and tail stub (Fig. 3). In 2016, an old label, evidently Ramsay’s original, was found attached to skin M.468 and states “type of the species” and is initialed “Ed.P.R.” [= E. P. Ramsay], see Fig. 1c. That tag has subsequently been detached from the skin. A skull and mandibles labeled M.468 currently associated with skin M.468 is a possible mismatch (Fig. 4), see Comments below. The skull marked M.468 has fully erupted and worn dentition and is intact other than missing the right zygomatic arch and is the skull illustrated in figs 62–65 of Lyne &amp; Mort (1981) as being the “type”. Mahoney &amp; Ride (1988) refer to M.468, study skin and skull as “the holotype ”, which could be interpreted as lectotype designation by inference of a holotype (Article 74.6, the Code), given the possibility that syntypes exist. We leave lectotype designation to those undertaking taxonomic research. We do not recognise the skull currently associated with skin M.468 as being the syntype skull. Its association with the skin requires confirmation by a specialist in Isoodon taxonomy or might be resolved using DNA sequencing.</p> <p>Other material. M.469, female, study skin. Skin tag has “skin (). skull () on M368?”, the latter presumably an error for M.468. A skull labelled M.469 (Fig. 4), fourth molars not fully erupted, is thus doubtfully associated with skin M.469. The MAMU Register entry for M.469, done in the 1960s, states, “skin only, skull attached to M.468?”. Since that entry, a second skull has apparently been found in the Collection and doubtfully matched with skin M.469 but the basis of this match, when it was done, and by whom is not recorded in the database.</p> <p>The type status of skin M.469 and associated skull remains undetermined. It might be the female skin from Derby listed in the MAMU 1890s Catalogue but it might be a third, previously overlooked female for which no collector or date are recorded, see Comments below.</p> <p>Type locality. “The neighbourhood of Derby, N.W. Australia ” (Ramsay), Western Australia.</p> <p>Comments. Ramsay’s account focused entirely on a specimen with a tail stub for which he does not indicate the sex. Study skin M.468 (a male) is almost certainly that specimen. Ramsay’s original tag was still attached to skin M. 468 in 2016 but the skull currently associated with that skin is probably mismatched from another individual, as yet unidentified.</p> <p>Two main issues impede identification of type material of I. auratus in the Collection. First, is male skin M.468 a holotype or syntype?; second, which skull currently in the Collection, if any, belongs with type skin M.468? We have not resolved the second issue but identify key aspects for further investigation.</p> <p>The 1890s Catalogue lists only two specimens of I. auratus, adult skins of a male and female from Derby (the collector is not given). The male skin is assumed to be M.468 but the identity of the female skin now in the Collection is less clear. It might be the female listed in the Catalogue or an undocumented third individual, as discussed later. The female skin listed in the Catalogue was either examined by Ramsay or received by Macleay after Ramsay’s presentation of the account at the August 1887 meeting of the LSNSW. It might have arrived in the second consignment of specimens from Derby at an undermined date in 1887, or in 1888 when Froggatt returned to Sydney. We have not found documentation of the number and dates of shipments of natural history material sent from Derby by Froggatt to Macleay. The two references that we have found are both vague and ambiguous. Mammals collected by Froggatt are mentioned at two meetings of the LSNSW held in 1887. Anonymous (1888: 981) records that at the 26th November 1887 meeting, Masters exhibited mammals recently received that Froggatt had sent from Derby, that included “Two specimens of Hapalotis Boweri Ramsay; Perameles auratus, Ramsay; Perameles n. sp. (?); ….”. Crucially, we cannot be certain that Masters exhibited only those mammals obtained from the second shipment, as he might have exhibited a mixture from both shipments. It is also unclear whether “ Perameles auratus ” refers to one or more specimens. Further, whether “ Perameles n. sp. (?)” refers to M.469 or an entirely different specimen of another species, perhaps later deemed not be a new species. In a paper presented at the December 1887 meeting, Macleay (1888) noted that he had so far received two shipments of Froggatt’s Derby material. Although he stated that the first shipment from Froggatt was noted in the June meeting of the LSNSW, the first mention of Froggatt’s Derby material in the Proceedings was at the August meeting. At the December 1887 meeting, Macleay (1888) stated that he had “only just” received the second shipment and that “mammals of this collection were exhibited at our last meeting”, referring to the meeting of 30th November 1887. This might imply, though not necessarily, that additional material of I. auratus arrived after Ramsay’s description was presented at the meeting of 31st August 1887 but it is also possible that Ramsay initially received several specimens of I. auratus.</p> <p>The fact that Ramsay did not provide a description of an intact tail implies that he did not have another specimen with a tail. Alternatively, he might have focused on one specimen and ignored others. Ramsay has a track record of abbreviated mammal descriptions that fixate on describing one specimen and little else, even for species later determined to involve a type series. In any case, the possibility remains that Ramsay also examined an adult female. Doubt about whether Ramsay had a syntype series is resolved by adoption of Recommendation 73F of the Code, i.e. an assumption of syntypes when more than one specimen is suspected. The only practical consequence is whether skin M.468 is recognised as a holotype or lectotype.</p> <p>Locating the skull belonging to type skin M.468 remains a key issue that we have not resolved. The MAMU 1890s Catalogue does not indicate whether the skulls were extracted from the two skins. It is not known if Ramsay extracted a skull for his description but it seems likely that he did. He did not provide a description or measurements of the skull but was able to examine the rear molars. The jaws of bandicoots do not open wide enough for inspection of the rear molars unless the cheeks are cut or the skull extracted (Dr Kenny Trevouillon pers. comm.).</p> <p>Establishing the correct skull match with type skin M.468 and the identity of the second skin is complicated by the prospect, overlooked prior to our study, that a third I. auratus specimen in alcohol was in the Collection prior to the 1920s. The MAMU Donations Book entry for 27th September 1926 lists one I. auratus sent to the AM for skull extraction and identification (skin and skull returned 12th November 1929), along with two I. macrourus. The annotation next to the I. auratus entry in September 1926 states “Parcel from Tank”, suggesting that the specimen was removed from an alcohol storage tank. We interpret “parcel” as a specimen wrapped in cloth, making it more likely to have been overlooked when the Catalogue was prepared in the 1890s. This suggests that either the entry for the female skin in the MAMU 1890s Catalogue had neglected to indicate “spirit”, or that an additional female specimen was in the Collection. If there was a third specimen in alcohol, the collector and locality have not been recorded.</p> <p>Two skins but only one skull of I. auratus were registered in the 1960s and were probably assumed to be the two individuals listed in the 1890s Catalogue. A second unlabeled and unnumbered skull was found in the Collection at an unknown date after registration. If three specimens (a male and two females) were in the Collection prior to the 1920s, then one skin and one skull are now missing. The missing skin and skull could have been from two different individuals, including the skull belonging to male type skin M.468, given that skull morphology of I. auratus is not sexually dimorphic (Lyne &amp; Mort 1981) and skulls cannot be assigned to sex. Skin M. 469 might be the one from Derby listed in the 1890s Catalogue, or the alcoholic female turned into a skin at the AM but for which the locality was not recorded. The specimen might have been collected by Froggatt, but other scenarios, though less likely, cannot be excluded given the poor documentation of specimens to and from the Collection after the early 1880s. The specimen might have entered the Collection at any time from the 1880s to the early 1920s. Froggatt donated mammal specimens that he collected in 1887 from north west Australia to the AM in 1932 and might also have donated material to the MAMU, for which the documentation has not been located. Alternatively, it might have been an exchange from another source for which the documentation has been lost.</p> <p>A further consideration is that the two I. auratus specimens now in the Collection possibly represent different taxa. Travouillon &amp; Phillips (2018) recognised two morphologically distinct forms of I. auratus, a “Kimberley” form and an inland form. Froggatt had collected extensively in both inland and subcoastal areas by early September 1887 (Froggatt 1934) and would have collected within the distribution of both suspected forms of I. auratus. Both specimens of I. auratus in the MAMU were examined by Dr Kenny Travouillon (Western Australian Museum, pers. comm. 2016) as part of ongoing taxonomic research. He suggests, based on skin and skull morphology, that the smaller skull currently labelled M.469 could belong with skin M.468, but this requires further research into morphological variation in populations of I. auratus.</p> <p>Skull measurements of the “typical specimen” (= type specimen) of I. auratus reported by Thomas (1904: 228) were provided by E.R. Waite (then of the Australian Museum) and these dimensions are consistent with skull M.469, see Table 2. Although the measurements given in Table 2 suggest a trivial size difference between the skulls, M.469 is clearly the smaller skull and a good match to those of Waite (Fig. 4). It is clear that Waite measured skull M.469 but whether that skull was from the male or female skin(s) remains unknown. Crucially, this depends on whether Waite encountered one or two skulls. The “typical specimen” cited by Thomas (1904) does not necessarily equate to the tail-less skin M.468 examined by Ramsay. If two skins were present when Waite took the measurements, both could have been treated as “typical” specimens, i.e. “co-types”. It is possible that Ramsay labelled each as “type of the species”, a practice evident from his original labels still attached to mammal syntype skins in the AM.</p> <p>In conclusion, three likely scenarios emerge from the quagmire of uncertainty, depending on whether Waite encountered one or two dry skins. First, a simple situation emerges if the 1890s Catalogue entry had simply neglected to add “skin in spirit” against the female skin. In that case, Waite could only have encountered one dry skin and one skull, those of the tail-less male described by Ramsay (assuming no other undocumented specimens were in the Collection at that time). This would support the preliminary conclusion of Travouillon that the skull currently marked M.469 belongs to skin M.468. Second, Waite encountered two dry skins, which generates many uncertainties. Under this scenario, a female skin and skull have been lost or exchanged from the Collection. Waite might have assumed that both skins were co-types but if only one skull had been extracted, from which skin? If both skulls had been extracted, their correct association with the skins might have been muddled before Waite’s visit in c. 1903, or subsequently. It seems that neither of the skulls would have been marked with names or numbers and Ramsay did not publish skull or dental measurements to enable comparisons. Third, Waite encountered two dry skins, one now lost, and a third specimen, a female in alcohol, was converted to a skin and skull in the 1920s but the locality and collector remain unknown.</p> <p>A simple path through such uncertainty for a taxonomic specialist would be to assume that Ramsay had a syntype series; designate the male skin as lectotype; and designate one of the two skulls in the Collection as the lectotype skull once the taxonomic status of the two suspected forms of I. auratus is resolved.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF901533FF7EFC979D128EC9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF94152EFF7EFF139CEF8841.text	B42F87F7FF94152EFF7EFF139CEF8841.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Perameles macroura var. torosus Ramsay 1877	<div><p>Perameles macroura var. torosus Ramsay, 1877a</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 2 (1), 12. (July 1877).</p> <p>Description read at the 29th January 1877 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Northern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon macrourus torosus (Ramsay, 1877), following Jackson &amp; Groves (2015).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Considered to be a valid species by some taxonomists of the late 19th and early 20th century while others doubted its validity, even as a subspecies. Currently, usually recognised as a subspecies of I. macrourus (Gould, 1842a), but further research is needed and the biological reality of I. macrourus torosus has been questioned by some recent authors (see Jackson &amp; Groves 2015). Ramsay published the name Perameles macroura var. torosus, amended to Perameles macroura torosa by Mahoney &amp; Ride (1988).</p> <p>Syntype. M.471, adult male, skin mount from Endeavour River (Fig. 5). Registered sometime between 1963 to 1965 and listed in the MAMU Mammal Register as a male skin mount, with associated number M1 (Fig. 6), but no mention of a skull. A skull and mandibles subsequently matched to skin M.471 were registered as M.1153 (Fig. 7), probably during 1965. Skull M.1153 is probably correctly matched with skin M.471, but this requires confirmation. Although “M1” is written in pencil on the skull, it is not known if this was done at the AM during original skull extraction, or subsequently. It is clear from entries and annotations during the 1960s registration of the bandicoot collection that the association of skulls with skins was problematic.</p> <p>Skin mount M.471 is currently the only candidate for lectotype designation but that decision should be made by a specialist in Isoodon taxonomy.</p> <p>Type locality. Usually assumed to be near Cooktown, Queensland (e.g., Troughton 1941). In his original description, Ramsay mentioned a specimen from Endeavour River (= Cooktown) but gave the distribution as Rockingham Bay to the Endeavour River, implying syntypes.</p> <p>Comments. The type series has not been identified in the literature until now. Ramsay described an adult female skin. He does not describe a skull and there is no indication that he examined an extracted skull. The few dental measurements given could have been taken from a skull in situ. Although Ramsay’s description focused on a female from Endeavour River, it is likely that it was based on several specimens, although his description is ambiguous. He stated that specimens that he regarded to be P. m. torosus were from Rockingham Bay north to the Endeavour River. Consequently, syntypes are assumed here although previous literature references imply that Ramsay based the description on one specimen. For example, Mahoney &amp; Ride (1988) concluded that the type series of I. m. torosus consisted of one specimen (the holotype), whereabouts unknown.</p> <p>Although this taxon was described in his paper reporting mammals obtained on the Chevert Expedition, the specimens were probably not obtained during the expedition. The Chevert party did not collect on the mainland in the region of Endeavour River en route to Papua New Guinea (Macleay 1875a; see Chevert itinerary of Fulton (2016a)). On the return trip, during which Brazier appeared to be the only zoologist remaining on board, the Chevert crew remained offshore at Endeavour River for a few hours while detained by Customs for cargo inspection (MacMillan 1957: 153).</p> <p>The syntypes originally in Macleay’s Collection probably included several specimens collected by Edward Spalding in July 1874 from the Endeavour River region. An entry by Macleay in his private diary dated 31st July 1874 states that he received a shipment of specimens from Endeavour River sent by Spalding, that included “skins of a new Bandicoot” (Horning 1994). The only specimen from Endeavour River listed in the MAMU 1890s Catalogue does not use the name P. m. torosus. Instead, the Catalogue lists Queensland specimens from three localities under “ Perameles macrura [sic] Gould the North-Australian Bandicoot” (Fig. 2). The author of the 1890s Catalogue, who we assume to be Masters, evidently followed the mammal nomenclature of Thomas (1888) and Ogilby (1892), neither of whom recognised torosus as a valid race of P. macroura. The Catalogue lists only two dry skins from Queensland: an adult male stuffed skin from Endeavour River and a female skin from “ Queensland ”. Perhaps the female skin from Queensland is the one from Endeavour River described by Ramsay but we have not compared its measurements against those of the description. The Catalogue also lists a series of adult and subadult P. macroura in alcohol from a third Queensland locality of Herbert River but the collectors are not specified. Macleay could have obtained material from a range of collectors in addition to Spalding but after publication of P. m. torosus. One possibility is John Archibald Boyd, who sent Macleay several shipments of mammals in alcohol during the 1880s from his home at Ripple Creek, Ingham, on the Herbert River (e.g., Macleay 1885). Although Cardwell is not mentioned in the original description, reference to Rockingham Bay probably included Cardwell, a well-known collecting locality from which Ramsay and Macleay obtained mammal specimens from collectors in the first half of the 1870s. For example, Kendall Broadbent collected around Cardwell in 1873 (Whittell 1954) and sent mammals to Ramsay. Ramsay also made several collecting trips to the Rockingham Bay district before publication of his description of P. m. torosus. It is therefore possible that additional syntypes might originally have been in Ramsay’s private collection (the Dobroyde Museum) or the AM but we have not located any supporting documentation.</p> <p>Male skin mount M.471 is a likely syntype, and it appears that Troughton had also reached that conclusion. Troughton, then Curator of Mammals at the AM, examined the taxonomy of I. macrourus during 1926 and 1927. Having extracted and examined the skulls of two specimens in the MAMU, which we believe were one I. macrourus from Endeavour River, and another from Port Darwin, he expressed the opinion (Anonymous 1927) that the Endeavour River specimen was Ramsay’s type and that torosus was probably not a valid race, a view that he maintained over ensuring decades (e.g., Troughton 1941).</p> <p>We are confident that skin mount M.471 is the specimen considered to be the “ type ” by Troughton. Although unregistered at that time, we believe that M.471 (associated tag M1) was one of two “ Perameles macrourus ” skins sent to the AM in 1926 for skull extraction and identification, the other likely to be male skin mount M.470 (associated tag M2) from Port Darwin. The MAMU Donations Book entry for 27th September 1926 lists “ one P. auratus and 2 P. macrourus” being sent to the AM. The Donations Book entry for 12th November 1929 indicates that these specimens were returned and “restuffed after removal of skulls for sp. identification”. The metal tags and hand-written watch tags marked M1 and M2 now associated with these skins are characteristic of similar hand-writing on tags attached to AM specimens from that period. Tags M1 and M2 were presumably attached by Troughton to distinguish each I. macrourus skin when skulls were extracted at the AM. A third skin (P. auratus, presumably M.469) sent for skull extraction at the same time does not have an associated M tag.</p> <p>There appear to be no previously published images or skull measurements of type material of P. m. torosus.</p> <p>Measurements (mm) of M.1153. Cranium: GL, 85.2; CONL, -; GL from nasals, -; ZYG, 35.9; POC, 11.4; Anterior palatal vacuity length, 7.2; Nasal Length, 34.1; Maximum breadth across both nasals, 5.4; Rostral width at infraorbital foramina, 15.7; Skull breadth at lachrymals, 20.7; Brain case height, 21.1; Basisphenoid bone length, 13.2; Alisphenoid bulla width, 8.8; Maximum breadth across bullae, 28.1; I 1–4 (at base of enamel), 6.35; I 1–5 (at base of enamel), 9.1; I 1 –M 4 (cingl.), 46.6; M 1 –M 3 (crowns), 14.0; M 1 –M 4 (crowns), 17.15; C 1 –C 1 breadth (alveoli), 11.8; M 3 –M 3 breadth (crowns), 24.6. Mandible: Dentary length (from condyl.), 65.2; P 1 –P 3 (cingl.), 11.5; M 1 –M 4 (crowns), 18.3.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF94152EFF7EFF139CEF8841	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF8A152DFF7EFA7A9A968B3D.text	B42F87F7FF8A152DFF7EFA7A9A968B3D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Perameles moresbyensis Ramsay. Individual 1877	<div><p>Perameles moresbyensis Ramsay, 1877a</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 2 (1), 14. (July 1877).</p> <p>Description read at the 29th January 1877 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Papuan Brown Bandicoot Isoodon macrourus moresbyensis (Ramsay, 1877), following Jackson &amp; Groves (2015).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Often viewed as a subspecies of Isoodon macrourus but further research is necessary to resolve the status of the subspecies of I. macrourus (Jackson &amp; Groves 2015). The validity of this entity has remained in doubt since its publication. Although accepted as a full species in the decades immediately following publication of the description, since the early 20th century taxonomists have remained divided as to whether it is a subspecies or not a valid form.</p> <p>Type locality. No locality given in the original account. Cited in the taxonomic literature as the Port Moresby district, probably because Ramsay used the vernacular “ Port Moresby Bandicoot” in his original account and specific epithet.</p> <p>Material. M.474, (possible syntype) male, skin mount on stand, skull in situ. An old loose paper tag states: “ Perameles moresbyensis, Rams. Port Moresby ♂ ”. A subadult skull with associated label of “temp M.474” has been mistakenly matched with the skin, given that the skull is in situ. That skull is possibly male based on large canines, and is I. macrourus, but the subspecies has not been determined (Dr Kenny Travouillon, Western Australian Museum, pers. comm. 2016), i.e. it is not yet clear if the skull was from Papua New Guinea or Australia. M.475, (likely syntype) adult female, skull with study skin missing tail tip, associated Masters label reads “ Perameles Moresbyensis Ramsay Port Moresby”.</p> <p>Comments. A holotype has usually been assumed in the taxonomic literature and the prospect of a type series has not been discussed. An adult male in the AM (M.2554) is usually cited as Ramsay’s “type” (e.g., Thomas 1888; Lyne &amp; Mort 1981) but is considered a syntype by Parnaby et al. (2017).</p> <p>Ramsay very likely based his description on several specimens, although his account does not reveal the number, sex, or the collections in which they were lodged. Three considerations imply a type series. First, his description of ear colour states “... the ears brown (in one yellow)” [his emphasis]. This implies that he examined several specimens, or less likely, that one ear was brown, the other yellow. Second, his statement “The animal examined is full grown, but young...” contrasts with AM M.2554, which is an old animal (see Parnaby et al. 2017). His statement “the animal examined” is not necessarily inconsistent with a type series if he had selected one specimen for detailed description. Third, the skull of AM M.2554 was not extracted until the 1980s, yet Ramsay appears to have examined a skull. Although he did not describe the skull and his dental measurements could have been made with the skull in situ, his remark that the fourth molars are fully erupted could not have been made without an extracted skull.</p> <p>Possible type material of this taxon in the MAMU has been overlooked, probably because collector and collection date have not been recorded for any of the relevant specimens. The MAMU 1890s Catalogue lists only three specimens under “ Perameles moresbyensis ”: an adult male and female listed as “stuffed” and an adult female “skin”, the latter perhaps a flat skin. Skulls are not listed nor are alcohol specimens. Skulls were usually not listed separately in the Catalogue unless the specimen consisted of a skull only. Currently there are two dry skins in the Collection, along with four specimens in alcohol (M.896–M.899). Although all four alcoholic skins are marked “Port Moresby” in the original entries to the 1960s Mammal Register, locality attribution of associated skulls requires verification due to possible incorrect association of I. macrourus skulls from northern Australian. Reliable diagnostic cranial or dental characters that discriminate I. macrourus from Australia and Papua New Guinea have not yet been defined (Dr Kenny Travouillon, pers. comm. 2016). While it is possible that the 1890s Catalogue had overlooked the four alcohol specimens, the data and skulls might be mis-match to all four, and two of the specimens were registered twice.</p> <p>The one specimen for which Ramsay gave external measurements is a close approximation with skin MAMU M.475. We were able to measure eight of the 14 measurements given by Ramsay, five of which are comparable to his, see Table 3. The main discrepancy is “tip of nose to anterior margin of the eye”, which is c. 1.6 inches (40.6 mm) vs. Ramsay’s measurement of 1.7 inches (43.2 mm), a distance that falls nearly to the centre of the eye in M.475. Distortion or subsequent shrinkage of the skin might account for this discrepancy. Body length was not given by Ramsay but can be derived from other measurements in Table 3, which indicates that linear body length of M.475 (c. 11.5 inches) also approximates the specimen measured by Ramsay (11.5 inches). Consequently there are no major inconsistencies in the measurements that would exclude this skin as possibly being the one examined by Ramsay. Measurements of male skin mount M.474 are larger than Ramsay’s, e.g., nose tip to tail tip measured in inches is c. 18 (45.7 cm) vs. 16.5 (41.9 cm); tail length is c. 6 (15.2 cm) vs. 5 (12.7 cm), and hindfoot length c. 3 (76.2 mm) vs. 2.5 (63.5 mm).</p> <p>As previously indicated, the main obstacle to identifying syntypes in the MAMU is that collector and collection date are not recorded for any of the New Guinea specimens of this taxon. Some of these could have been purchased from Goldie or his associated collectors during 1877–1882, after publication of the account. However, it is likely that several specimens were collected by Petterd and Broadbent and sold to Macleay in 1876, prior to the 29th January 1877 meeting of the LSNSW at which Ramsay read his description. In his paper on mammals of the Chevert Expedition, Ramsay named several species using material from Macleay’s Collection that were almost certainly obtained after the Chevert Expedition, given that the Expedition did not reach Port Moresby (Macleay 1875a; Fulton 2016a). Several members of the Expedition (including Petterd and Broadbent) left the Chevert in August 1875 and joined Andrew Goldie to collect in the region of Port Moresby (see Fulton 2017; 2018). Petterd and Broadbent returned to Australia in 1876 and Macleay noted in his private journal for 7th March 1876 “Pettard and Broadbent visited this morning……Stone purchased all of their birds, I purchased all the mammals they had” (Horning 1994). This would surely be the origin of some of the type specimens of Perameles moresbyensis.</p> <p>The collecting localities of the specimens examined by Ramsay remain unclear. One possibility is that only specimens from the Port Moresby district were used in the description, on the assumption that Ramsay would have listed Hall Sound and Yule Island because he recognised them as separate localities. The absence of basic information in the description suggests that it is equally likely that Ramsay applied the term “ Port Moresby bandicoot” but simply neglected to list the localities of any type specimens. If so, type material could have included Hall Sound. It is not known if bandicoots were collected during the Chevert Expedition. In his ad lib account of the Expedition written before the return of the collections to Sydney on the Chevert, Macleay (1875b) mentioned that a species of Perameles was encountered but whether any were collected is unclear. Given that Perameles was the only genus of New Guinean bandicoots then recognised, his statement could apply to any of the four bandicoot genera that are now recognised from the lowlands of southern Papua New Guinea (Flannery 1995).</p> <p>It appears that the type series included at least one specimen collected by Andrew Goldie that made its way into the AM, probably via Ramsay’s private collection. Parnaby et al. (2017) did not justify their recognition of the AM specimen as a syntype and the AM material is discussed further in the interests of defining the syntype series of this taxon. A mature male skin mount with extracted skull in the AM (M.2554) believed to be a syntype is an old animal with worn teeth and thus not the specimen that was the primary focus of Ramsay’ description, which he states was a young animal (see Parnaby et al. 2017). The collector of M.2554 was not recorded in the original M register entry made in 1915, which states: “ Perameles moresbyensis, Ramsay. Type. from old collection.” An old pencil annotation indicates skin with skull inside. It is possible that AM M.2554 is the one obtained from Andrew Goldie. In a paper read at the 27 December 1876 meeting of the LSNSW, Ramsay (1877b) described a collection of birds and mammals recently obtained from the Port Moresby area by Goldie. In that paper, Ramsay has a line entry “ Perameles sp. ? Perameles Novae-Guineae ”, without further comment and without indicating the number of specimens. This most likely refers to material that he later described as P. moresbyensis at the January 1877 meeting of the LSNSW, his account of Chevert mammals. The only other bandicoot that he named from the New Guinea mainland (Perameles broadbenti Ramsay, 1879) was based on a specimen obtained after that meeting. Ramsay (1877b) stated that he examined Goldie’s entire New Guinea collection. We have not established whether he purchased material of P. moresbyensis for the AM or his private collection. A purchase slip might exist in AM Archives but in case one is not found, the provenance of M.2554 is discussed further. Three new mammals described by Ramsay in 1876 are listed under their published names as “ sp. nov. ” in the AM annual report for the year ending 31st December 1876 (Ramsay 1877c) but P. moresbyensis is not listed in the AM annual reports for 1876 or 1877. This might have been an oversight but the annual reports often did not detail purchased specimens. Regardless of whether Ramsay had purchased material of P. moresbyensis for his private collection, a specimen was in the AM Collection after Ramsay retired. AM M.2554 was registered in March 1915 and listed as being from the “old collection”. Birds purchased from the Ramsay family Dobroyde Collection in 1898 were registered at the AM in 1912 and it is not clear whether the unregistered bandicoot found in the Mammal Collection was incorrectly assumed to be an unregistered specimen from the old collection, but instead arrived with the Dobroyde purchase.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF8A152DFF7EFA7A9A968B3D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF89152AFF7EFE7A998E8FE1.text	B42F87F7FF89152AFF7EFE7A998E8FE1.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Phalangista pinnata Ramsay 1877	<div><p>Phalangista pinnata Ramsay, 1877a</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 2 (1), 12. (July 1877).</p> <p>Description read at the 29th January 1877 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Feather-tailed Possum Distoechurus pennatus (Peters, 1874) following Tate &amp; Archbold (1937).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Not accepted as a valid species or subspecies since Peters &amp; Doria (1881), who treated it as a synonym of D. pennatus (Peters, 1874). Currently only one species of Distoechurus is recognised, but a taxonomic revision of the genus is needed (Helgen et al. 2011) and D. “ pennatus ” could consist of three or more species (Aplin 2015).</p> <p>The nomenclatural status of the name P. pinnata Ramsay is open to interpretation. Over the past seven decades the name usually does not appear in synonymies (e.g., Laurie &amp; Hill 1954; Van der Feen 1962; Flannery 1995; Groves 2005; Aplin 2015) but it is unclear whether this was an oversight or reflects a decision that the name is a nomen nudum. Parnaby et al. (2017) treated P. pinnata as a spelling error of P. pennata Peters but the issue is reexamined here.</p> <p>In the decades immediately following publication, P. pinnata Ramsay was widely accepted as a newly proposed name but a synonym of Phalangista (Distoechurus) pennata Peters, 1874. Peters &amp; Doria (1881) and Lydekker (1896) thought P. pinnata was a misspelling of P. pennata Peters. Peters &amp; Doria (1881) further state their belief that in any case, the Ethel River specimens were probably only a synonym of P. pennata Peters. Thomas (1888) elevated Distoechurus to generic rank with one species, D. pennatus Peters, and Phalangista pinnata Ramsay as a synonym. The nomenclature proposed by Thomas (1888) was adopted by Ogilby (1892) and the MAMU 1890s Catalogue, neither of which mention P. pinnata Ramsay.</p> <p>During the first half of the 20th century, Phalangista pinnata Ramsay was often listed in the synonymy of D. pennatus Peters (e.g., Jentink 1907; Cabrera 1919; Tate &amp; Archbold 1937). Although Thomas (1888) initially recognised P. pinnata Ramsay as a synonym, he changed his mind (Thomas 1920), believing that pinnata was a spelling error when he proposed Distoechurus pennatus dryas, stating that Ramsay’s material was probably the same subspecies as dryas. Otherwise, he might have to admit that dryas could be a junior synonym of pinnata Ramsay.</p> <p>Syntypes. M.928, female, body in alc., skull in situ; M.929, juvenile, in alc., skull in situ, both from Ethel River, Papua New Guinea. They are almost certainly the ones listed in the MAMU 1890s Catalogue, which lists two specimens only under “ Distocherus [sic] pennatus Peters ”, an adult female and a young, both in alcohol, from Ethel River. Fulton (2016a) established that the Chevert party collected at Ethel River on 25th to 26th August 1875. It appears that only two specimens were collected on the Chevert Expedition.</p> <p>Locality. Ethel River, Hall Sound, Central Province, Papua New Guinea.</p> <p>Comments. The two specimens M.928 and M.929 are most likely those examined by Ramsay (1877a) but their type status depends on whether P. pinnata Ramsay is considered to be an available name as defined by the Code.</p> <p>In his paper on mammals of the Chevert, Ramsay (1877a) gave a brief and ambiguous account without illustrations, reproduced here in its entirety:</p> <p>“ PHALANGISTA PINNATA</p> <p>Adults and young of this pretty species were obtained on the Ethel River, New Guinea; the young resemble the adults; the white stripe down the forehead, however, is proportionately broader.”</p> <p>Was Ramsay referring to the name proposed by Peters but had inadvertently misspelt pinnata for pennata (pinnatus and pennatus, respectively, when combined with Distoechurus)? A further ambiguity stems from Ramsay’s passing remark that adults and young were alike except for a wider dorsal head stripe of the latter. Did he intend to erect a new species P. pinnata, diagnosing it on an implied wider dorsal stripe than P. pennata Peters, or did he simply note that the dorsal stripe of the young was wider than the adult? Although the account by Peters did not include illustrations or measurements of the head stripe, this information could have been conveyed in correspondence with Ramsay.</p> <p>Further confusion arose because Ramsay did not indicate an intention to propose a new name. Although the description of a new species or subspecies by convention includes indication of such intent, usually by sp. nov. or similar, this omission alone does not invalidate the description according to the Code. In his paper on Chevert mammals, Ramsay presented accounts for eleven other species in addition to P. pinnata, but his citation of species authorship was inconsistent. He provides authorship for eight species and literature citation for all but one of these. His intention to propose a further three new names is clearly indicated. One of these, Perameles macroura var. torosus, which appears on the same page as his account of P. pinnata, also failed to include subsp. nov. after the name. However, it is clear from the text that Ramsay was proposing a new race torosus.</p> <p>Perhaps Ramsay and Peters independently coined similar species names, both alluding to the diagnostic tail morphology. We do not know whether Ramsay was aware of the description by Peters (1874), but the journal would surely have reached Ramsay during the intervening years before his paper was read at the January 1877 meeting of the LSNSW. If he was, the Chevert specimens of Distoechurus might have confronted him with a dilemma that he resolved by calculated ambiguity. It is likely that he did not have sufficient information or time to resolve the taxonomic status of his specimens even though they could reasonably be expected to be a new species: Peters’s description was based on a specimen from the Vogelkop, geographically distant from Ethel River. The ambiguity in Ramsay’s account would buy time for him to claim a new species if he subsequently determined that it was distinct from the species described by Peters, and save face if it wasn’t.</p> <p>We have not found any indication of Ramsay’s opinion about the status of P. pinnata Ramsay subsequent to publication of the name. The species was very rare in world collections and it appears that there were no specimens in the AM Collection during Ramsay’s lifetime from which we could check the original nomenclature applied to specimen labels.</p> <p>There seem to be three interpretations of how the Code could be applied to this name. First, P. pinnata is a misspelling of P. pennata Peters and Ramsay had neglected to cite Peters as the author. Second, irrespective of his intent, Ramsay introduced a new name to the taxonomic literature: Phalangista pinnata Ramsay is not a nomen nudum because a description, though poor, was provided. Ramsay did not state which species he was comparing in his diagnosis, but this would have been implicit, given that P. pennata Peters was the only other species named at that time. Third, the name is a nomen nudum, i.e. a name invalided by having no diagnosis, Ramsay merely noting that the young have a proportionately broader face stripe than adults. Ultimately, the status of this name is best resolved as part of taxonomic revisionary work. Our intent is to draw attention to the material and the nomenclatural issues involved. Our interpretation is that Ramsay introduced a valid name, even if unintentionally and by a comedy of errors.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF89152AFF7EFE7A998E8FE1	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF8E152BFF7EF9DE9BED8DB5.text	B42F87F7FF8E152BFF7EF9DE9BED8DB5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hypsiprymnodon moschatus Ramsay 1876	<div><p>Hypsiprymnodon moschatus Ramsay, 1875a</p> <p>Sydney Morning Herald LXXII, pg. 2. (1st October 1875).</p> <p>Description read at the 27th September 1875 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Musky Rat-kangaroo Hypsiprymnodon moschatus Ramsay, 1875a.</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Regarded as a valid species since its original description. Ramsay (1875a) created a new genus Hypsiprymnodon for the species.</p> <p>Material: Possible syntype. M.458, adult male, skin mount and skull in situ, Rockingham Bay.</p> <p>Type locality. Rockingham Bay, Queensland.</p> <p>Comments. This specimen would surely be a syntype if it entered the MAMU Collection prior to publication of the species description in October 1875. We have not established the collector nor when it was obtained by Macleay. Only one specimen of this species is listed in the MAMU 1890s Catalogue, an adult stuffed male from Rockingham Bay, which is assumed to be M.458.</p> <p>Several collectors sent natural history specimens to Macleay from the Rockingham Bay region. Ramsay (1876b) noted that Spalding had not obtained any specimens of the species “during a recent visit to the Endeavour River”, presumably a reference to Spalding’s collecting trip throughout the second half of 1874. Spalding returned to Sydney from the Endeavour River in December 1874. Surviving documentation of Macleay’s Collection acquisitions of the 1870s and 1880s are incomplete. Macleay’s private diary entries indicate that “Dubouley” [sic] collected at Rockingham Bay between 1874 and February 1876 but we have not found specific mention of this species in material received by Macleay. Macleay’s private diary entry for 21 May 1874 mentions that Dubouley visited with his Endeavour River collection and an entry for 3rd February 1876 states that natural history material, including a flying fox Pteropus conspicillatus Gould, 1850, was forwarded to him from a Mr. Debouley from “Rockingham Bay”. Mr. Dubouley presumably refers to the Australian entomologist and natural history artist Francis H. du Boulay (1837–1914) who collected in north Queensland in the 1870s (Musgrave 1932). Ramsay (1876b) stated that most of his specimens were obtained from Broadbent, who might also have sold M.458 to Macleay in 1874 or 1875. Froggatt collected for Macleay in the Cairns region during 1886, but we have not found evidence that he collected in the Rockingham Bay area. Perhaps J.A. Boyd, based at Ripple Creek, Ingham included this species amongst several shipments of mammals he sent to Macleay during the 1880s. However, localities usually given for his specimens in Macleay’s publications and the MAMU 1890s Catalogue are either Ripple Creek or Herbert River. We suspect that Rockingham Bay is more likely to be a general locality applied by collectors during the 1870s, before settlement had expanded.</p> <p>Several vernacular names were applied to this species during the late 19th and early 20th century which complicates a search for references to it in historical documents. Although now referred to as a “rat-kangaroo”, Ramsay initially referred to this highly unusual looking little animal as a “musk rat” (Ramsay 1875b; 1876b) and as a “marsupial rat” in his entry in the AM “A Register” of April 1875. Lucas &amp; Le Souef (1909) used the name Australian Musk Rat. Several other small macropodoid species were also referred to as “kangaroo rats” during the 19th century. It is possible that archival documents including Macleay’s correspondence and personal diary could have used any of these terms for the Musky Rat-kangaroo. It is even possible that Macleay simply referred to it as a “rat”, given that his diary and correspondence can be expected to reflect his personal interests, of which mammals were not necessarily a high priority.</p> <p>In his original description, Ramsay did not state the number of specimens used in his description but it appears to be at least five. It is clear that there were very few specimens in 19th century collections. Ramsay (1888) stated that he had obtained five specimens in 1874 but only two since then (collected after 1876), despite efforts by several collectors, and he regarded it to be rarely collected. Although Ramsay obtained five specimens, the syntype series could include additional specimens held in other collections. Four syntypes are accounted for and all are adult. Two are in the AM, and a further two specimens were sent from the AM to the British Museum (now Natural History Museum, London) around 1876. Parnaby et al. (2017) suggested that a fifth unlocated syntype might be the halfgrown animal shot by Broadbent and mentioned by Ramsay (1876b), but this assumes that Ramsay had obtained that specimen. In conclusion, either M.458 is the fifth syntype obtained by Ramsay, which found its way into Macleay’s Collection, or Macleay purchased the specimen from an unknown collector (perhaps Broadbent), and the collection date is unknown.</p> <p>Prior to Parnaby et al. (2017), the publication date of this species has been taken as Ramsay’s description in the Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (Ramsay 1876b), which according to Fletcher (1896), was published in February 1876. However, Ramsay (1875a) published essentially the same description in a Sydney daily newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, on 1st October 1875, four days after presenting his paper at the meeting of the LSNSW. Ramsay also published descriptions of several new bird species in the Sydney Morning Herald in July and December 1875 (McAllan 2006). Perhaps Ramsay had anticipated extensive delays in publication of the Proceedings throughout 1875. Macleay, who was the primary instigator and financier for publication of the Proceedings, was on the Chevert Expedition from May to late October, 1875.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF8E152BFF7EF9DE9BED8DB5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF8C1529FF7EFF5B9BD68839.text	B42F87F7FF8C1529FF7EFF5B9BD68839.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dendrolagus dorianus Ramsay 1883	<div><p>Dendrolagus dorianus Ramsay, 1883</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 8 (1), 17. (19th June 1883).</p> <p>Description read at the 31st January 1883 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Doria’s Tree-kangaroo Dendrolagus dorianus Ramsay, 1883 following Groves (1982).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Recognised as a valid species since publication of the original description.</p> <p>Syntypes. M.376, adult female (Fig. 8); M.377, adult male (Fig. 8); M.378, subadult male; all skin mounts with skulls, or remnants of skulls in situ; by subsequent determination of Groves (1982), as cotypes. An X-ray image of M.378 taken in 2012 revealed a largely intact skull augmented with plaster (Dr Jude Philp, MAMU pers. comm. 2016).</p> <p>Type locality. The Astrolabe Range district, near Port Moresby, Central Province, Papua New Guinea.</p> <p>Comments. There are only three specimens of this species in the MAMU and all are syntypes. The first 20th century authority to document the type series was Groves (1982), who confirmed the species identification of M.376–378. Ramsay indicated neither the number of specimens in his type series, nor in which collections they resided, other than a remark that local hunters gave three specimens to Goldie when he was collecting near the Astrolabe Range. The first indication that the types were in Macleay’s private collection was Miklouho-Maclay (1885d), who provided body measurements for three individuals and an illustration of the adult male skin mount. He believed that the three specimens in Macleay’s Collection were the only ones examined by Ramsay, and the only ones in world collections. The passing remark by Ramsay and the emphatic statements by Miklouho-Maclay have led to a perception that there were only three syntypes. However, it is quite possible that Ramsay also based his description on unregistered specimens in the AM Collection that he received from Goldie, one of which might have formed the basis of Ramsay’s brief description of the skull. Miklouho-Maclay (1885d) expressed regret that a skull was not available to enable a more adequate description. Ramsay noted that the skull used in his description was fragile and badly corroded and the skull either represents a fourth syntype, or was examined before the skin mount was prepared.</p> <p>Although Ramsay stated that Goldie obtained three specimens from a hunter, this does not exclude the possibility that his description was based on additional specimens. If so, the specimens can no longer be found in the AM. This issue is discussed by Parnaby et al. (2017), who suggested that Ramsay might have examined additional specimens in Goldie’s collection that did not reach the AM until a decade after Ramsay published the description. Although Miklouho-Maclay (1885d) believed that the three specimens in Macleay’s Collection were the only material yet obtained, he might not have been aware of the contents of Goldie’s collections. There are also discrepancies between the measurements of Ramsay’s description and those given by Miklouho-Maclay (1885d). The tail length of 24 inches (60.9 cm) given in the original description for a specimen of unspecified sex is 2 inches (50 mm) longer than tail lengths of the two MAMU adults of 22.1 inches (56.1 cm) and 21.7 inches (55.1 cm) given by Miklouho-Maclay (1885d). Thomas (1888) believed that Ramsay’s measurements were of a different adult than the two adults in the MAMU, i.e. the type series consisted of three adults and one young.</p> <p>Ramsay is known to have exchanged a significant number of mammal specimens to European museums during the 1880s and 1890s. The possibility that unrecognised syntypes exist is relevant if specimens of the species sent by Ramsay are rediscovered in European museums.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF8C1529FF7EFF5B9BD68839	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF8D1529FF7EFDE498BC8C8D.text	B42F87F7FF8D1529FF7EFDE498BC8C8D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorcopsis beccarii Miklouho-Maclay 1885	<div><p>Dorcopsis beccarii Miklouho-Maclay, 1885c</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 10 (2), 146, plate 20, figs 1–4. (31st July 1885).</p> <p>Description read at the 29th April 1885 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Grey Forest Wallaby Dorcopsis luctuosa (D’Albertis, 1873) following Groves &amp; Flannery (1989).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Not considered a valid species by most authors, who followed Thomas (1888). He believed that diagnostic features proposed by Miklouho-Maclay were age-related differences and synonymised the name with Dorcopsis luctuosa.</p> <p>Holotype. M.383, female, by subsequent determination by Stanbury (1969). Stuffed study skin, originally with an extracted skull, now lost. Purchased from Andrew Goldie (Miklouho-Maclay 1885c). Old associated label states “ Dorcopsis luctuosa, d’ Albertis, D. Beccarii Mikl-Macl., Port Moresby, New Guinea ” which adopts the nomenclature of Thomas (1888) and is clearly not Miklouho-Maclay’s original label.</p> <p>Type locality. Hills in the vicinity of Hanuabada [village] (Miklouho-Maclay), Port Moresby, Central Province, Papua New Guinea.</p> <p>Comments. Miklouho-Maclay stated that his description was based on one specimen, an adult female skin in Macleay’s Collection, which in 1885 would have been housed at Macleay’s residence at Elizabeth Bay, Sydney. Plate 20 of the original account illustrates an intact skull, and plate and text clearly indicate that the permanent premolars and last (fourth) molars were fully erupted. The illustrated skull must have been extracted from the female skin, although it is unclear if the skull has been extracted from the skin now labelled M.383. Miklouho-Maclay stated that the skull and teeth were badly corroded by poor preservation, a characteristic of material obtained from Andrew Goldie, who often stored specimens in corrosive brine. The fate of the skull remains undetermined and Groves &amp; Flannery (1989) listed M.383 as a skin only. It is unclear whether the skull was still in the Collection by the 1960s. The Mammal Register entry for M.383, entered about 1964–1965, lists “skin &amp; skull” but at an unknown date, “skull” has been crossed out and “ ♀ ” added in pencil. The specimen card index has an orange card for M.383 which lists a skin and skull. This implies that a skull had been sighted. Alternatively, it was inferred from the original description.</p> <p>Cranial measurements were not provided by Miklouho-Maclay other than premolar length, and a vague measurement of molar length. Skull dimensions measured from his plate 20 from an original, unbound copy of the journal are given in Table 4.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF8D1529FF7EFDE498BC8C8D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF8D1524FF7EF9709B908889.text	B42F87F7FF8D1524FF7EF9709B908889.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorcopsis chalmersii Miklouho-Maclay 1884	<div><p>Dorcopsis chalmersii Miklouho-Maclay, 1884a</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 9 (3), 570, plate 19. (29th November 1884).</p> <p>Description read at the 30th July 1884 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Grey Forest Wallaby Dorcopsis luctuosa luctuosa (D’Albertis, 1873) following Groves &amp; Flannery (1989).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Not considered to be a valid species since Thomas (1888), who synonymised it with Dorcopsis luctuosa.</p> <p>Holotype. M.1029, unsexed skull and mandibles (Fig. 9), determined here. Stated in the original account to be a young adult male preserved in alcohol, obtained by Miklouho-Maclay from locals in December 1880. The fate of the body is unknown.</p> <p>Type locality. Papua New Guinea mainland, “opposite Dinner Island” [= Samarai Island], Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea.</p> <p>Comments. The original account states that the description was based on one animal, a young adult male. We are not aware of any published or unpublished reference to the type material of Dorcopsis chalmersii since Miklouho-Maclay’s original account. Nor have we found documentation indicating that it was in Macleay’s Collection. Neither the MAMU 1890s Catalogue nor MAMU Mammal Register list this species and the three Dorcopsis specimens listed in both documents are all accounted for and remain in the Collection. These are the presumed types of D. macleayi and D. beccarii, along with a young male mounted skin listed as Dorcopsis luctuosa. The last-mentioned specimen is probably M.379, a skin mount with skull inside. The rear molars of the two former specimens were fully erupted, unlike those illustrated for the holotype of D. chalmersii. Miklouho-Maclay (1885d) illustrated a stuffed specimen that he cited as Dorcopsis luctuosa from Port Moresby, which is consistent with the mounted skin M.379. That specimen is a young male with the skull in situ, and the corroded teeth are consistent with the effect of storage in brine observed in other specimens from New Guinea obtained from Goldie.</p> <p>A skull that we are confident is that of the holotype was discovered in the Collection during this study in 2016. The cranium and both dentaries (M.1029) were labelled “ Dorcopsis ?sp.” but without further data. The unnumbered skull and mandible were registered as M. 1029 in the 1960s and listed as “macropod skull” without further data in the MAMU Register. A tag subsequently attached to the skull at an unknown date identified it as “ Dorcopsis ?sp.”. The registration date is not recorded for most specimens in the Register, but M.1029 would have been registered in 1965 or 1966, given that M.1166–M.1176 were assigned to specimens in 1966 as indicated in the Register.</p> <p>Several lines of evidence strongly support our conclusion that M.1029 is the missing holotype skull. First, the skull closely resembles the one illustrated in Miklouho-Maclay’s plate 19, as exemplified by the ventral view (Fig. 10). In particular, the close match in size and shape of the outline of the remnants of the two posterior palatal vacuities of M.1029 with those of plate 19 is significant because these are thought to be highly individualistic in macropods (Dr Ken Aplin pers. comm. 2015). Second, skull measurements closely match those given by Miklouho-Maclay in the original description and additional measurements we took from his skull illustrations (Table 5). The three measurements showing the greatest discrepancy are within 2 mm of Miklouho-Maclay’s (see Table 5) and were taken from his fig. 5. Differences between the left and right side of the skull and jaw in his figs 5 and 6 are consistent with optical distortion. It is likely that Miklouho-Maclay prepared the skull illustrations either from camera lucida or perhaps by tracing photographs.</p> <p>Two additional considerations provide circumstantial support that M.1029 is the holotype. The skull is unusual in that a neat, empty cavity has been excavated in the bone where the upper and lower left permanent premolars and first molars would have been embedded (Fig. 9). This feature is not unique to the holotype and other macropod skulls in the MAMU have cavities from which permanent premolars have been extracted. However, M.1029 is consistent with Miklouho-Maclay’s description of how he employed a dentist who neatly extracted teeth embedded in the skull and jaw from the same side of the skull as the cavities in M.1029. Although he does not indicate from which side the teeth were extracted, the permanent premolar and first molars illustrated in his plate 19 are clearly from the right side. A faint ink inscription of “M. M.” is visible on the rear, outer surface of the right zygomatic arch. This might stand for “Macleay Museum”, or “Miklouho-Maclay” but we are not able to resolve this. The bone surface is rough and pitted, and if Miklouho-Maclay had initialed the specimen, perhaps it was necessary to use solid straight lines, rather than the more graceful artistic flourish of other material with his initials in the Macleay Collection.</p> <p>A distinctive hole in the distal ear margin of the holotype is evident in fig. 1 of the original account and is a potentially useful feature for recognising the type skin, though it might not have survived. It is not clear from his account whether Miklouho-Maclay preserved an entire body in alcohol, a skinned body, or only the head. We suspect that he did preserve the skin, given the level of detail provided for the dorsal fur patterns in D. chalmersii in a subsequent paper that discussed the distinctive, circular hair whirls of macropods (Miklouho-Maclay 1885d).</p> <p>A search of Miklouho-Maclay’s archival documents might reveal when the holotype reached the Macleay Museum. Miklouho-Maclay typically indicated in which collection specimens of his new species were housed but as he did not do so in his account of Dorcopsis chalmersii, the holotype was possibly in his private collection at the time the description was published. Either he gave the holotype to Macleay, or it might have been included in a donation of some of his specimens from Lady Miklouho-Maclay in 1889. A list of material from that donation in the MAMU Donations Book for 1889 is too general to resolve this.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF8D1524FF7EF9709B908889	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF811522FF7EFC419D7B8B3E.text	B42F87F7FF811522FF7EFC419D7B8B3E.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Dorcopsis macleayi Miklouho-Maclay 1885	<div><p>Dorcopsis macleayi Miklouho-Maclay, 1885c</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 10 (2), 149, plate 20, figs 5–9. (31st July 1885).</p> <p>Description read at the 29th April 1885 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Macleay’s Forest Wallaby Dorcopsulus macleayi (Miklouho-Maclay, 1885) following Groves (2005).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Recognised as a valid species since its description. This species was often placed in the genus Dorcopsis throughout the 20th century.</p> <p>Holotype. M.381, male, stuffed skin, originally with an extracted skull in poor condition, considered the holotype by Stanbury (1969) and this study. The skull is currently unlocated and from the Mammal Register entry does not appear to have been present when the skin was registered in the 1960s. The original account states that the specimen was purchased from Mr. Goldie and was in the “Macleay-Museum” (= Macleay’s private collection, then at Elizabeth Bay, Sydney). The MAMU 1890s Catalogue listed a single specimen of this species, with a line entry of “male, adult, stuffed Port Moresby” without listing a skull. We suspect that extracted skulls were not listed separately in the Catalogue unless the specimen consisted only of a skull. The fate of the holotype skull remains unknown. The original label states: “ Dorcopsis macleayi (Mikl-Macl.) Macleays Dorcopsis, New Guinea, male”. The MAMU Mammal Register lists the specimen as “Skin &amp;? skull” with the? crossed out. The specimen index card does not record whether the specimen is a skin or skull.</p> <p>Type locality. “south coast of New Guinea, inland from Hanuabada” (Miklouho-Maclay), Port Moresby, Central Province, Papua New Guinea.</p> <p>Comments. The description is based on a single specimen, a stuffed skin with skull extracted. An X-ray image of M.381 taken in 2012 indicates that the skull has been removed from that specimen (Philp 2016). Skull or dental measurements are not provided in the original description, but an intact skull is illustrated. Selected skull measurements taken from the original hard copy of the illustration are given in Table 6.</p> <p>In the introductory paragraphs of his account, Miklouho-Maclay (1885c) noted that the skull was badly affected by preservation in brine. The fate of the skull has not been determined and it is not clear if it arrived in the transfer of specimens from Macleay’s premises to Sydney University during 1889 to 1890. We have not found any indication in the taxonomic literature that the skull had been sighted by any workers since the original account. Thomas (1888) tabulated selected cranial measurements, which he stated were measured directly from plate 20 of the original account, and he noted that fig. 8 seems to be incorrectly reproduced at a different scale to figs 5 to 7, said to be of life size. It seems that fig. 8 of the original account was mistakenly printed slightly larger than life size, as reflected by discrepancies between several measurements taken from figs. 6 and 8 (Table 6).</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF811522FF7EFC419D7B8B3E	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF861523FF7EFB5F9D558F2D.text	B42F87F7FF861523FF7EFB5F9D558F2D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Halmaturus crassipes Ramsay 1876	<div><p>Halmaturus crassipes Ramsay, 1876a</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 1 (2), 162. (July 1876).</p> <p>Description read at the 29th May 1876 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Agile Wallaby Notamacropus agilis papuanus (Peters and Doria, 1875), following Jackson &amp; Groves (2015), who elevated Notamacropus, displacing the prior generic name Macropus.</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Treated as a synonym of the Australian species N. agilis (Gould, 1842b) by Thomas (1888) and adopted by most subsequent taxonomists. Although Thomas (1888) did not recognise subspecies within N. agilis, he noted differences between Australian and Papuan specimens. Recognised as a species, Macropus crassipes, by several taxonomists in the late 19th century, prior to its synonymy with N. agilis papuanus by Schwarz (1910). Although N. agilis papuanus is often recognised, the validity of all subspecies of N. agilis requires further study (Eldridge &amp; Coulson 2015).</p> <p>Possible syntypes. M.386, subadult female, study skin (Fig. 11), skull possibly in skin. M.387, subadult female, study skin, skull possibly in skin. Both skins have been prepared in such a way that it is not possible to examine incisors, if they are present. Palpation of the head of both skins indicates that both have either a skull or a cast in situ. Each specimen has a Masters-style tag stating “ Macropus agilis, Gould, Port Moresby New Guinea ”, a species name that post-dates Thomas (1888). Both specimens were listed as skins and skulls when registered in the 1960s. White tags recently attached to each specimen speculate “Petterd &amp; Broadbent? 1876?”. The collector or year of collection are not recorded for either, but they are evidently early specimens. Both specimens were confirmed as N. agilis in December 2016 by Dr Mark Eldridge.</p> <p>Type locality. Port Moresby district (Ramsay), Central Province, Papua New Guinea. Parnaby et al. (2017) gave the type locality as “southern New Guinea” but Port Moresby is indicated in Ramsay’s account.</p> <p>Comments. The location of Ramsay’s type material of this taxon remained undocumented for much of the 20th century prior to Calaby &amp; Richardson (1988), who listed AM PA.1067 from “ southern New Guinea ” as a possible holotype. The English language taxonomic literature had overlooked Matschie (1917). His interpretation of Ramsay’s ambiguous account was that the type series consisted of a young female from Port Moresby collected by Broadbent and Petterd and an adult male collected by Goldie. We reached a similar conclusion, except that the type series consisted of at least three animals. The two female MAMU specimens M.386–87 are likely syntypes for reasons set out below, but is difficult to verify. Ramsay did not include measurements for females and neither skin has original collector’s tags (which have been replaced by Masters). The limited associated data means that we cannot exclude the possibility that specimens of this commonly collected species in the Collection were obtained by Macleay after presentation of Ramsay’s paper at the May 1876 meeting of the LSNSW. However, we believe that circumstantial and contextual evidence supports their status as potential syntypes.</p> <p>Although Ramsay did not state the number of specimens that he examined, his type series included at least two females. Under his description of the young female, Ramsay noted that “some specimens have a whitish mark across the thighs”. Ramsay described an adult male for which he gave external and skull measurements. In the concluding paragraphs of his paper, he acknowledged Andrew Goldie as the source of the adult male, which had been shipped to Ramsay while Goldie remained in New Guinea. It appears that only one specimen was received at the AM at the time. This is probably AM PA.1067, a flat skin now without a skull (see Parnaby et al. 2017) and is the specimen entered in May 1876 in the early AM Catalogue (the “ A Register ”) as “1 Halmaturus new sp. ” from Andrew Goldie. Ramsay did not specify the collecting locality(s) of Goldie’s material, other than commenting that Goldie was collecting in southern New Guinea.</p> <p>Ramsay stated that several young animals collected by Petterd and Broadbent from the Port Moresby area were the first specimens to reach Sydney, and implied that those specimens were not in the AM Collection. The specimens were presumably amongst the material Petterd and Broadbent sold to Macleay in March 1876, as revealed in Macleay’s diary entry for 7th March 1876 (Horning 1994). Although Ramsay did not mention Macleay in his paper, it therefore seems likely that the female specimens upon which he based his description were in Macleay’s Collection. We do not know whether Petterd and Broadbent sold material to Ramsay before their visit to Macleay.</p> <p>Five skins of this species from New Guinea are listed in the MAMU 1890s Catalogue, some or all of which could be syntypes. These are a young “stuffed” male from Hall Sound; three female “skins” from Port Moresby (an adult, a half grown and a young), and an adult “stuffed” male, also from Port Moresby. Only two of these had been located and registered in the 1960s, along with several N. agilis skins without locality data.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF861523FF7EFB5F9D558F2D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF841520FF7EFF139A848EC9.text	B42F87F7FF841520FF7EFF139A848EC9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Halmaturus mastersii Krefft 1871	<div><p>Halmaturus mastersii Krefft, 1871</p> <p>Mammals of Australia, footnote to text on unnumbered page, accompanying unnumbered plate of Black-striped Wallaby. (November or December 1871).</p> <p>Current name. Swamp Wallaby Wallabia bicolor mastersii (Krefft, 1871) following Jackson &amp; Groves (2015).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Species status accepted by many authors prior to Iredale &amp; Troughton (1934) who relegated it to a northern subspecies of W. bicolor (Desmarest, 1804), a decision subsequently adopted by many taxonomists. Current status unresolved, but recognised as a subspecies by some authors. Jackson &amp; Groves (2015) tentatively recognised this subspecies but remarked that the validity of all subspecies of W. bicolor remain unclear.</p> <p>Material.? syntype. M.398, sex not recorded, probably female from the skin, mounted skin with skull in situ. The original Masters tag is not attached to the specimen. The MAMU 1960s Mammal Register indicates the original tag stated: “ Macropus ualabatus, var. mastersi, Gayndah Queensland ” but the original tag has not been sighted. The juvenile skin currently labelled M.398 has slightly bleached fur and is most likely W. bicolor. Although the skin is not inconsistent with being the northern form of W. bicolor, this cannot be conclusively determined (Dr Mark Eldridge, pers. comm. 2020). It appears that the tags of skin mounts M.398 and M.397 have become muddled. The original Masters tags have been removed from both mounts. M.397 was listed as W. bicolor from Port Hacking (NSW) when assigned a registration number during the 1960s but a species assignment of the skin currently labelled M.397 is difficult as it could be the juvenile of several macropodid species (Dr Mark Eldridge, pers. comm. 2020).</p> <p>Type locality. “ Queensland districts at Burnett and other rivers” (Krefft 1871).</p> <p>Comments. Circumstantial evidence implicates this specimen as a possible syntype but this remains uncertain because neither the collector nor collection date are known. It might have been collected after publication of Krefft’s book. The only specimen of “ var. mastersii ” listed in the MAMU 1890s Catalogue is a young female stuffed skin. Krefft (1871) stated that Masters had “lately” obtained a series of specimens of this entity (including young animals) from the Burnett River. Perhaps this refers to Masters’s third trip to that region during August and September 1870, during which he stayed at Gayndah (on the Burnett River), but he also collected in the region during 1865 and 1867 and was employed by the AM on all three trips (Whitley 1971). Krefft established this taxon in a brief footnote and, although he had a syntype series, his type specimens have remained undefined. Parnaby et al. (2017) identified several likely syntypes in the AM. Although the collector of M.398 is unknown, Masters is an obvious possibility given that he collected the taxon at Gayndah. Further, Masters collected for his private collection and sold mammal specimens to Macleay while employed by Krefft at the AM (Whitley 1971).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF841520FF7EFF139A848EC9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF841521FF7EFABF9D31897D.text	B42F87F7FF841521FF7EFABF9D31897D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Macropus gracilis Miklouho-Maclay 1885	<div><p>Macropus gracilis Miklouho-Maclay, 1885b</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 9 (4), 894, plate 39, fig. 7–8. (4th March 1885).</p> <p>Description read at the 24th September 1884 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Dusky Pademelon Thylogale brunii (Schreber, 1778) following Flannery (1992).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Not considered to be a valid species or subspecies since Laurie &amp; Hill (1954), prior to which it was treated as a species by most taxonomists. With very few specimens at his disposal, Miklouho-Maclay differentiated this entity entirely from the shape of the upper incisors, which Thomas (1888) considered to reflect age-related differences, presumably arising from the extent of tooth wear.</p> <p>Holotype. M.382 by subsequent determination (Stanbury 1969; Flannery 1992: 12), adult male, poorly preserved mount, skull separate; skull and both dentaries badly decalcified and distorted (Fig. 12), teeth corroded. Miklouho-Maclay stated that the specimen was purchased by Macleay from Mr. Goldie. Stanbury (1969) cited M.382 as the holotype but did not indicate if the skull was in situ.</p> <p>Type locality. Port Moresby area, Central Province, Papua New Guinea. Given as “hills near Anuabada (Port Moresby)” (Miklouho-Maclay, 1885b) [= Hanuabada village, now a suburb of Port Moresby].</p> <p>Comments. In his description, Miklouho-Maclay lamented not having a skull to examine, but he provided an illustration of the lateral incisors visible from the skin mount and it is clear that he had a single stuffed skin with skull in situ. The skull was still in the skin when examined by Tate in the late 1930’s (Tate 1940). The specimen was listed as a skin mount, with no listing of a skull when registered in the mid-1960s. We have not established when the skull was removed from the skin. The skull was examined by Flannery (1992) and thus had been extracted from the skin sometime in the previous 25 years.</p> <p>Two of the eight skin mount measurements given by Miklouho-Maclay can be measured with reasonable confidence on M.382 and both are a close match to his. Our measurements are: “tip of nose to base of tail”, measured as c. 29 inches (= 736 mm) taken along the spine following the body contours vs. his 29.3 inches, and“tail tip to base of tail”, measured as c. 38.5 cm vs. his c. 385 mm. The shape of the upper incisors illustrated in the original description, particularly I 3, are consistent with the skull now labelled M.382. The length of I 1–3 on the left side measured from a hardcopy of plate 39 is 10.5 mm, compared to 10.17 mm on M.382.</p> <p>Measurements (mm) of M.382. Cranial measurements could not be restricted to one side of the cranium due to corrosion and damage. As the dentaries are disassociated, measurements are given for both. Cranium: GL, 103.6; CONL, 93.25; ZYG, 53.0; POC, 12.90; Palatal length, -; Mastoid breadth, 35.4; Diastema (right side), 16.95; Nasal length, -; Maximum breadth across both nasals, 12.9; Outside breadth across tooth rows (at second last M, cingula), 29.65; Outside breadth across both P (enamel), 21.15; I 1–3 left side, maximum length (enamel), 10.17; I 1 left side maximum length of enamel, 4.54; Left P length (enamel), 5.97; Left P maximum breadth (enamel), 3.12; Right P to last erupted M (cingula), 31.75. Right dentary: Dentary length (to posterior margin of angular process), 73.05; P length (cingula), 5.75; P to last erupted M (cingula), 30.45; Molar row (cingula), 25.2; Masseteric fossa breadth, 19.4; Left dentary: dentary length (to posterior margin of angular process), 73.5; P length (cingula), 5.78; P to last erupted M (cingula), 30.95; Molar row (cingula), 25.5; Masseteric fossa breadth, 19.9.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF841521FF7EFABF9D31897D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FF85151FFF7EFAE29BFF8DA6.text	B42F87F7FF85151FFF7EFAE29BFF8DA6.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Macropus jukesii Miklouho-Maclay 1885	<div><p>Macropus jukesii Miklouho-Maclay, 1885b</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 9 (4), 891, plate 39, figs 1–6. (4th March 1885).</p> <p>Description read at the 24th September 1884 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Dusky Pademelon Thylogale brunii (Schreber, 1778) following Flannery (1992: 12).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. First relegated to synonymy by Thomas (1888), who tentatively concluded, without being able to examine the types, that it was a young example of Macropus browni (Ramsay, 1877d) (now Thylogale browni). Not usually recognised as a species by subsequent taxonomists. Prior to Flannery (1992), jukesii was variously synonymised with T. brunii brunii or T. brunii browni.</p> <p>Syntypes. M.380, female, skin mount without stand, by subsequent determination by Stanbury (1969) and Flannery (1992). The skin mount equates to Macropus jukesii adult stuffed female specimen (a) of the MAMU 1890s Catalogue. M.380.1, a broken cranium, in three main pieces (Fig. 13), and two dentaries. The MAMU Mammal Register indicates that the skull was removed from skin M. 380 in 1960 and given the same number as the skin. In 2016 there were no numbers or writing on the skull or mandibles but two associated numbers on unattached labels are “temp 141” and IRN 121934 (internal record number from EMu database). This specimen is also marked M.380 on a note inside the skull box, in handwriting that appears to be Jenny Anderson’s, possibly prior to assignment of temporary numbers. The skull and mandible are badly corroded, and salt crystals adhering to the dentition are clearly evident, along with bone scratch marks consistent with those made by a scalpel blade. This skull is presumably the one extracted from the skin marked M. 380 in 1960, and its association with the skin had been lost prior to our examination in 2016.</p> <p>M.380.2, by subsequent determination here; cranium and two dentaries (Fig. 14), unsexed, equates to Macropus jukesii “(b) skull” of MAMU 1890s Catalogue. An ink inscription of “ Macropus jukesii ” across the braincase appears to have been written by Miklouho-Maclay (Fig. 14). The skull was removed from a body preserved in “brine” received from Andrew Goldie (Miklouho-Maclay 1885b). The body, which could subsequently have been turned into a skin, has not been located but is possibly AM M.2033, an adult female study skin, received as a body in alcohol without a skull, from MAMU in 1907 (see Parnaby et. al. 2017). A loose paper label in the box with skull M.380.02 (Fig. 14) is likely to have been written by Miklouho-Maclay and states “ Macropus Jukesly [sic] Maclay from the South Coast of N. Guinea near Annabada (P. Mpzesly)”. A more recent label (a disused NSW Railways parcel office freight tag) has “The Curator, Museum of Geology, University of Sydney ” printed on one side, and “ Macropus Jukesii TYPE ♀ Macleay Museum” scrawled in pen on the other side.</p> <p>Type locality. Port Moresby area, Central Province, Papua New Guinea. Given as “hills near Anuabada (Port Moresby)” (Miklouho-Maclay, 1885b) [= Hanuabada village, now a suburb of Port Moresby].</p> <p>Comments. The skull that we believe to be the one illustrated by Miklouho-Maclay was mistakenly associated with skin M.380 when registered in c. 1964. The broken skull extracted from skin M. 380 in 1960 had been overlooked during registration and in subsequent decades was assigned temporary numbers as a skull without data. We are confident that we have correctly associated the damaged skull (now M.380.1) with the skin and that this is the skull extracted in 1960. Holes drilled in the jaw show green copper residue which match holes in appropriate places in the skin, indicating that the skull and skin were wired together. A second intact skull and dentaries now registered as M.380.2, is most likely the skull illustrated in his account. It resembles the one illustrated by Miklouho-Maclay and our measurements of the skull closely match those taken from his illustration (Table 7).</p> <p>Miklouho-Maclay did not explicitly state the number of specimens used in his description of Macropus jukesii and it is unclear from his ambiguous introductory text and subsequent remarks whether he had one or two specimens.</p> <p>We have established that Miklouho-Maclay examined two specimens, both in Macleay’s Collection. Our interpretation of his account is that he initially examined a female skin mount, without access to a skull, which was in the skin. He subsequently became aware of a consignment of spirit-preserved wallaby skins obtained by Macleay from Andrew Goldie, one of which Miklouho-Maclay believed belonged to his proposed species M. jukesii. The latter specimen contained a skull, which Miklouho-Maclay remarked had greatly facilitated his descriptive account. Miklouho-Maclay’s alternate use of the terms “stuffed specimen” and a spirit specimen implies two specimens. We reject an alternative interpretation that a single spirit specimen was turned into a dried skin and skull. His statement on page 891 implies that he was already aware of the existence of his new species (the stuffed skin) when he located the spirit preserved specimen: “Having been informed by Mr Masters...that a few skins....were preserved in spirits, I examined them at the first opportunity and had the good chance of finding amongst them a skin, with the skull, of one of the new species, which discovery put me in the position of examining the dentition and making the description of this species more complete. [our emphasis]”. A subsequent statement on page 894, in which he discussed the visibility of a lateral fold of enamel on the upper third incisor, implies that he had two specimens: “(Examining the incisors of the stuffed specimen, I was not at all sure about the existence of the fold and convinced myself of it only after having examined the skull)”.</p> <p>The MAMU 1890s Catalogue has only two entries under “ Macropus Jukesi ”: “a, female. adult, stuffed.” and on a separate line: “b, skull.”, with both entered as “ Port Moresby ”. Our interpretation of the procedure adopted in the Catalogue is that a separate alphabetical letter was assigned to each specimen of a species, where “specimen” equates to an individual animal. Consequently, a skin would be assigned a letter but without indication of whether the skull was extracted, but a specimen consisting of a skull only (without skin or skeleton), would be assigned a separate alphabetical designation. If our interpretation is correct, then two individuals are listed under Macropus jukesii in the Catalogue. It is possible that a skin in alcohol associated with the second skull was overlooked when the 1890s Catalogue was compiled, particularly if its association with the skull had been lost. This is likely, as there were at least half a dozen alcohol skins of Thylogale and Dorcopsis at that time, none of which had registration numbers.</p> <p>It seems that extracting skulls from mounted specimens in Macleay’s Collection was not an option because it would degrade the presentation of the specimen. This provides further support for our interpretation of the original account. Miklouho-Maclay (1885b) described Macropus gracilis in the same paper in which he named Macropus jukesii. He lamented on page 894 that, as he did not have a skull, he was unable to describe the skull and dentition of Macropus gracilis. His illustration of the lateral view of the incisors must have been drawn with the skull in situ. This suggests that skull extraction from mounted skins was not an option available to Miklouho-Maclay. Further support for the preference of not damaging Macleay’s important skin mounts by skull removal comes from Ramsay. In his description of what he thought at the time was a single specimen of Petrogale assimilis in the Macleay Collection, Ramsay (1877e: 360) stated that he could not properly describe skull and dentition because this “cannot easily be examined without risk of deterioration [to the skin].” If so, this supports the view that Miklouho-Maclay’s description and illustrations of the skull of Macropus jukesii were not based on the skull removed from the stuffed female specimen, but that he examined a second specimen. Considering his unresolved conundrum about whether the differences in incisor morphology between the male M. gracilis and the female M. jukesii were due to sex or species differences, a second skull of M. jukesii had to be either a female, or an incomplete skin of indeterminable sex. The skin (AM M.2033) thought to belong with this skull is a female.</p> <p>We are confident that skin mount M.380 is the specimen examined by Miklouho-Maclay. The sex of skin M.380 is not indicated in the MAMU Mammal Register but it has a conspicuously enlarged pouch. Miklouho-Maclay did not illustrate the stuffed skin. We took two measurements of the skin and both are a close approximation to those given by Miklouho-Maclay: his measurement of 635 mm for “tip of nose to base of tail” versus our measurement of c. 630 mm taken along the spine following the body contours, and his “tail tip to base of tail” of 370 mm versus our measurement of c. 368 mm.</p> <p>The inadequately defined type material of this taxon has generated considerable confusion prior to our study. Tate (1940: 5) examined the material during a visit to MAMU in 1937, which at that time consisted of a skin mount and one skull. We concur with his conclusion that the skull (now M.380.2) was the “type”, and that it was dubiously associated with the skin mount. Tate probably recognised that the skin mount had a skull in situ but he was unsure of the type status of the skin mount. Skull M.380.2 would also have been incorrectly associated with the holotype skin when examined by Flannery (1992), but his conclusion that the holotype is a young animal stands because both skulls have incompletely erupted last molars.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FF85151FFF7EFAE29BFF8DA6	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FFB9151BFF7EFA319B528935.text	B42F87F7FFB9151BFF7EFA319B528935.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Petrogale assimilis Ramsay 1877	<div><p>Petrogale assimilis Ramsay, 1877e</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 1 (4), 360. (March 1877).</p> <p>Description read at the 25th November 1876 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Allied Rock-wallaby Petrogale assimilis Ramsay, 1877 following Jackson &amp; Groves (2015).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Considered a valid species until Thomas (1888), who thought it was a synonym of P. penicillata (Gray, 1827). Regarded as a synonym for the ensuring century, either of P. inornata Gould, 1842c or P. penicillata, sometimes as a subspecies. Re-instated as a valid species by Calaby &amp; Richardson (1988) and confirmed by subsequent studies, see review by Eldridge (1997).</p> <p>Holotype. M.422, by subsequent determination. Skin mount, skull apparently in situ, adult female, collected early June 1875 by Chevert party. Several collecting parties operated concurrently on the island from 1st to 3rd June, as indicated in Macleay’s diary (Horning 1994), and the collector of the holotype is not recorded.</p> <p>Topotype.?M.423, subadult (near adult) male, skin mount.</p> <p>Type locality. Palm Islands (Ramsay 1877e) = Great Palm Island, Queensland.</p> <p>Comments. The type series consists of the holotype only, a female suspected to be adult by Ramsay. In his original description, Ramsay (1877e; published March) twice stated his belief that the species was known from a unique specimen but later stated (Ramsay 1877a: 11; published July) that two specimens were obtained from Palm Island during the Chevert Expedition, the other being a young animal for which he did not indicate the sex. The second specimen has no type status and is a topotype. Its identity amongst specimens now in the Collection remains unclear.</p> <p>It is evident from the pencil annotations made to the MAMU 1890s Catalogue, and dated 1965, that attempts at that time to assign registration numbers against the original list of specimens in the 1890s Catalogue was problematic and unresolved. Given the confusion, we examine this in further detail. Species of eastern Queensland Petrogale can be difficult to distinguish on external features. Identification would have been more challenging during registration in the 1960s because P. assimilis was not recognised as a distinct species but as a synonym of P. inornata. The 1890s Catalogue listed two skins as P. assimilis (both female, one not fully adult) and eight as P. penicillata but confused species identifications during the 1960s registration resulted in three specimens being assigned M numbers against the two Palm Island P. assimilis. The MAMU Mammal Register marked two of these (M.422 and M.423) as “types” and as alternatives against the single adult female listed in the 1890s Catalogue, along with M.424 against the young adult female. Crucially, the sex was not recorded for the three specimens when assigned M numbers, otherwise it would have been evident that male skin M.423 could not be the holotype, a female. The other skin mount, an adult female M.424, labelled Palm Island and as having been collected on the Chevert Expedition, was identified as P. penicillata by Dr Tim Flannery. Incorrect locality data has evidently been assigned to that specimen, given that the species does not occur on Palm Island. Therefore M.423 is the only skin of P. assimilis from Palm Island now in the Collection other than M.422. That specimen remains problematic. Whereas the second specimen in the 1890s Catalogue is listed as a young female skin, M.423 is a young, near adult male. Either the incorrect sex was entered during compilation of the 1890s Catalogue; M.423 is not the topotype from Palm Island, or perhaps more than two individuals were collected from Palm Island.</p> <p>Stanbury (1969) listed female M.422 as the holotype and we are confident that specimen is the original one examined by Ramsay. Stanbury (1969) noted that M.423 (male) from Palm Island was overlooked in Ramsay’s original account but Stanbury overlooked the subsequent statement by Ramsay (1877a), that there were two specimens only. Macleay’s ambiguous Chevert diary entry for the evening of 1st June 1875 offers no clarity on the number captured at Palm Island on that day: “..total captures of the day consisted of about 2 wallabys (a new species)...” (Horning 1994).</p> <p>Ramsay stated that his description was based on a well-prepared skin. His 15 external measurements were therefore taken on a skin already prepared as a mount and not a flat skin. Six of the 11 measurements that we assessed of skin M.422 are consistent with those given by Ramsay for the holotype (Table 8). Some of his measurements, such as head length, are difficult to corroborate as they are poorly delineated on the skin. M.422 cannot be a match for three of his measurements. Length of toe does not equate to 2.1 inches (53.3 mm), irrespective of how it is measured nor can it be a misprint for 1.1 inches (27.9 mm). The intact right ear length and “snout to base of ear” are both about 0.2 inch (5.0 mm) short of Ramsay’s measurements. Perhaps the skin has shrunk. The MAMU vertebrate collection was stored for decades throughout the 20th century in temperature extremes in the Macleay Museum roof space (Stanbury 1988; Fulton 2012).</p> <p>The taxonomic literature has not cited the conclusion of Stanbury (1969) that the holotype is M.422. The type was considered to be unlocated by Calaby &amp; Richardson (1988) and Eldridge &amp; Close (1992). While this might seem to have been an oversight, it is likely that Calaby and Richardson were aware of the confused attempt to match Petrogale specimens during the 1960s registration of unnumbered specimens, and this could be the basis for their conclusion that the holotype had not been reliably identified. This confusion appears to have mislead Fulton (2016b), who relied on the Australian Faunal Directory database (apparently incorporating the conclusions of Calaby &amp; Richardson (1988)). He mistakenly believed that the holotype was missing, although the specimen and the Register entry of its type status have remained unchanged in the Collection since Stanbury (1969). Reliable species identification by a specialist in Petrogale taxonomy has been a critical step in resolving the identity of Ramsay’s holotype amongst over a dozen specimens now in the MAMU. We were fortunate that such a specialist, Dr Mark Eldridge (Australian Museum) examined the Petrogale collection in December 2016 and corroborated the likely species identity of M.422 and M.423.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FFB9151BFF7EFA319B528935	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FFBF1519FF7EFC739CFD8B61.text	B42F87F7FFBF1519FF7EFC739CFD8B61.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Pteropus (Epomops?) epularius Ramsay 1877	<div><p>Pteropus (Epomops?) epularius Ramsay, 1877a</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 2 (1), 8. (July 1877).</p> <p>Description read at the 29th January 1877 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Large-eared Flying Fox Pteropus macrotis epularius (Ramsay, 1877) following Simmons (2005).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Recognised as a subspecies of P.macrotis Peters, 1867 by all recent authors.Most taxonomists treated epularius as a species prior to Laurie &amp; Hill (1954), who listed it as a subspecies of P. macrotis. However, the taxonomic distinction between epularius and macrotis has not been examined in detail since the authoritative treatment by Andersen (1912). Andersen’s conviction that epularius was a species distinct from macrotis, known only from the Aru Islands, should be tested using genetic criteria.</p> <p>Syntypes. Four study skins. M.233, male, skin, skull in situ, “Katow”. M. 234, indeterminate sex, skin with skull apparently in situ (unless a plaster cast), “Katow”. M.235, male, skin (Fig. 15) with skull in situ, “Katow”, Chevert expedition. Original tag written by Ramsay states “ Pteropus epomopoides Type of ♂ Katow” with initials EPR (= E.P. Ramsay). M.236, female skin, “Katow”, either the canines are missing, or the skull is not in situ.</p> <p>Type locality. Katow (Ramsay) = Katau, Western Province, Papua New Guinea.</p> <p>Comments. Ramsay did not indicate the number of specimens used in his description, nor provide any indication that one specimen in particular was “the type”. He gave a detailed description and measurements for an adult male and adult female. It is clear that he examined at least one skull, for which he provided measurements and remarked that the base of the skull was cut away, as often done in 19th century skull preparation. Skull(s) examined by Ramsay have not been located in the Collection. At least two of the syntypes listed above have the skull inside the skin. The only separate skull associated with any of these, a cranium with no mandible found mis-matched with M.234, is likely to be a sub-adult Pteropus poliocephalus Temminck, 1825. The unattached tag associated with this skull appears to have been written by Masters and has the symbol “ø”, probably signifying unsexed, and the species name “ Pteropus epomopoides ” written on the tag in old writing by an unidentified author. The tag might have been attached to skin M.234 but as it is a loose tag, its original association is lost.</p> <p>Andersen (1912) concluded that the type series consisted of four specimens collected by George Masters from Katow, which Andersen mistakenly thought were in the AM. Andersen probably inferred the number of type specimens from Ramsay’s statement that all four of the specimens examined had eye orbits that were not enclosed by bone. Ramsay’s ambiguous statement could mean that he had examined only four skulls, but he could have examined additional specimens with the skull in situ. At least two of the syntypes listed above have the skull inside the skin. The only other documentation of the type series that we have found is Stanbury (1969), who mentioned only one specimen (M.235), as a “? paratype ”. It seems that the taxonomic literature has drawn from Ramsay’s account without examining the syntypes. One of the few Northern Hemisphere taxonomists to visit the MAMU, G.H.H. Tate, presumably did not examine the type series, which are not mentioned in his paper on poorly known type specimens (Tate 1940) or pteropodids (Tate 1942).</p> <p>External measurements of M.236 are consistent with those provided for the only female mentioned in Ramsay’s description, i.e. the measurements do not differ sufficiently to enable a definite exclusion of that specimen. Forearm length is difficult to measure on the syntypes because the wing membrane has been wrapped around the proximal end of the forearm during taxidermy preparation. Consequently, forearm lengths for three that can be accurately measured are slight overestimates: M.233, right forearm 132.2 mm; M.234, right forearm 133.1 and M.236, left forearm 141.0 mm.</p> <p>The name Pteropus epomopoides is written in ink on old paper tags associated with several syntypes. Perhaps this name was initially considered before Ramsay settled for epularius. We have not located epomopoides in the taxonomic literature nor have we encountered that name in unpublished documentation or archival documents other than these specimen tags. In publishing this name, apparently for the first time, we are not introducing a new synonym because a name cannot be established solely from a binomial written on a label (Article 12.3, the Code).</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FFBF1519FF7EFC739CFD8B61	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FFBD1519FF7EFD979CE28FE5.text	B42F87F7FFBD1519FF7EFD979CE28FE5.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Mus tompsoni Ramsay 1882	<div><p>Mus (Hapalotis?) tompsoni Ramsay, 1882</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 6 (4), 763, figs 1–3. (20th March 1882).</p> <p>Description read at the 26th October 1881 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Black Rat Rattus rattus (Linnaeus, 1758) following Mahoney &amp; Richardson (1988: 186).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Considered a valid species prior to McCulloch (1907), who recognised that Mus tompsoni was the introduced rat Rattus rattus.</p> <p>Holotype. MAMU M.787, male body in alcohol, skull in situ; obtained from F.A. Thompson. Subsequent determination by Mahoney &amp; Richardson (1988: 186) who correctly stated that the type is male, although Ramsay indicated a female. A tag (possibly paper) tied around the neck of M.787 has written in ink: “Type of the species Mus (Hapalotis) tompsoni. (Ramsay). Hab. N.S.W.” String tied around the hind leg indicates that a tag had been tied there, and it is not clear if the latter tag had been re-attached to the neck.</p> <p>Type locality. Waterview, a homestead at Wagga Wagga, NSW (Ramsay 1882). The original account states that Waterview was “near” Wagga Wagga, perhaps implying a rural context, but the homestead was built within the township.</p> <p>Comments. Ramsay implied that his description was based on a single specimen, noting that dental characters could not be described until further specimens were obtained. He stated that several body measurements given in his description were taken “in the flesh”.</p> <p>It is very likely that M.787 is the original specimen examined by Ramsay. Selected measurements taken on M.787 are consistent with those given in the original description (see Table 9). The illustration of the left pes (fig. 3 of Ramsay) depicts the orientation of toes and claws in a position that closely match the fixed position in M.787, e.g., the manner in which digit 5 is bent outward and the claws on digits 4 and 5 are bent back. However, the same cannot be said of Ramsay’s illustration of the manus (his fig. 2), which does not closely resemble the specimen.</p> <p>The testes of M.787 are obscured and it is easy to appreciate why Ramsay mistook the specimen as a female.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FFBD1519FF7EFD979CE28FE5	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FFB21517FF7EF9C89DD18C29.text	B42F87F7FFB21517FF7EF9C89DD18C29.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Brachymelis garagassi Miklouho-Maclay 1884	<div><p>Brachymelis garagassi Miklouho-Maclay, 1884b</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 9 (3), 715, plate 38, figs 1–6. (29th November 1884).</p> <p>Description read at the 27th August 1884 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Common Echymipera Echymipera kalubu kalubu (Lesson, 1828) following Flannery (1995).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Treated as a synonym of E. kalubu kalubu by most taxonomists since Laurie &amp; Hill (1954), before which it was considered either a valid species, or a synonym of several other species.</p> <p>Syntypes. Whereabouts unknown. Not known to Tate (1948b), who visited the MAMU, and not located in earlier taxonomic literature. Probably three syntypes, all originally in alcohol, including a male and female considered by Miklouho-Maclay to be adult. Details are not recorded for the third specimen, which is of unspecified gender, and it is not clear whether it is the pouched young discussed by Miklouho-Maclay, or another individual. At least one specimen was prepared as a skin mount by Miklouho-Maclay in Sydney.</p> <p>Type locality. Maclay Coast, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea.</p> <p>Comments. There are no specimens of this taxon listed in the MAMU 1890s Catalogue, nor are there any listed under alternative names that might have been applied at that time. In his original account, Miklouho-Maclay noted that he had three specimens, all of which were in his private collection. We are not aware of any of these specimens having been transferred to Macleay’s Collection or the AM, although this remains a possibility.</p> <p>Miklouho-Maclay implied that his three specimens were originally preserved in spirit and gave body measurements for an adult male and female, but no cranial measurements. At least one syntype was in Sydney in 1884. In a footnote on page 719 of his original account, Miklouho-Maclay stated that he exhibited a stuffed mount when he presented his paper to the LSNSW in Sydney, read at the August meeting in 1884. Miklouho-Maclay is not mentioned in the Notes and Exhibits for that meeting in the Society’s Proceedings (Anonymous 1884a), presumably an oversight. A more detailed account of the meeting published in the Sydney Morning Herald (Anonymous 1884b) reports that Miklouho-Maclay exhibited “a stuffed specimen” of the species.</p> <p>Plate 38 of the original account illustrates the manus and pes of a male and the head of a female, all drawn soon after death. It is not clear whether the latter two specimens are amongst the three that he retained in his collection, given that he stated that he saw many specimens of this taxon but lack of alcohol prevented him from retaining more than three. His plate 38 illustrates only the rostrum and lower mandible and it would be tempting to speculate that Miklouho-Maclay did not have a complete skull. However, he presented similarly restricted views of the skull and mandible in the drawings he prepared for the description of “ Perameles broadbenti ” published by Ramsay (1879), drawn from a complete skull and mandible.</p> <p>Miklouho-Maclay’s skull illustrations of this species appear to be freehand drawings, unlike many of the skull illustrations accompanying his other new species accounts. The skull of this species is much smaller than his wallaby species and drawing individual teeth in a tooth row only 4 cm long could have been more difficult.</p> <p>To date we have not found documentation or indication in the English language taxonomic literature that syntypes have been sighted in the Collection since the original description. A search of the disassociated bandicoot skull and dentary fragments by a specialist in bandicoot taxonomy would be a valuable step in the search for missing type material. Perhaps some of the missing types were shipped to Russia when Miklouho-Maclay left Australia in 1886. A compilation of the works of Miklouho-Maclay (1950 –54: vol. 3, part 2: 363) contains a list of vertebrate specimens given by him to the Zoological Museum of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This lists skulls and skeletons, and stuffed specimens of “kangaroos”, which in this context would also include wallabies. The list appears to have been prepared by museum staff in 1950, suggesting that original documentation was not available (Dr Elena Govor, Australian National University pers. comm. 2017). Also listed are skulls, skeletons and stuffed specimens of “marsupial badgers” (an exact translation). Scientific names are not listed and the vernacular name “marsupial badgers” could apply to a range of marsupials including the Tasmanian Devil and possibly bandicoots, but in this case does not apply to wombats, which are listed separately. Text accompanying the list indicates that most of the vertebrate material was from New Guinea. Establishing the identity of these specimens would assist the search for Miklouho-Maclay’s unlocated type specimens.</p> <p>Skull and dental measurements taken from the hard copy illustration are given in Table 10.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FFB21517FF7EF9C89DD18C29	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FFB31514FF7EF9DF9C6F8C44.text	B42F87F7FFB31514FF7EF9DF9C6F8C44.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Cuscus chrysorrhous var. goldiei Ramsay 1877	<div><p>Cuscus chrysorrhous var. goldiei Ramsay, 1877b</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 1 (4), 395. (March 1877).</p> <p>Description read at the 27th December 1876 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. Common Spotted Cuscus Spilocuscus maculatus goldiei (Ramsay, 1877), following Helgen &amp; Jackson (2015).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Recognised as a subspecies of S. maculatus (Geoffroy, 1803) since Tate (1945), who treated chrysorrhous Temminck, 1824 and goldiei as subspecies of maculatus. Although occasionally recognised as a valid species in the early 20th century, most authors prior to Tate (1945) did not recognise the validity of goldiei, even as a subspecies. Helgen &amp; Flannery (2004) suggested that goldiei could be a distinct species but refrained from elevating it to species rank pending further research. The taxonomy of Spilocuscus maculatus remains problematic and several species might be involved (Helgen &amp; Jackson 2015). Until recently the generic name Phalanger was used for many cuscus species including maculatus.</p> <p>Type locality. “ Port Moresby district ” (Ramsay), Central Province, Papua New Guinea.</p> <p>Comments. Ramsay stated that his description was based on two females only, obtained by Goldie “in the previous year”. One syntype is in the AM but the remaining syntype has not been reported in the literature and was not listed in the unpublished checklist of mammal types by Troughton (1956). In the introductory remarks of his paper, which mainly dealt with bird specimens, Ramsay (1877b) stated that he examined material brought to Sydney by Goldie. We have not determined whether he purchased all of the material or whether Goldie subsequently dispersed the collection to several buyers, which could have included Macleay. An adult female skin without a skull (PA.543) in the AM could be one of the syntypes and is distinctly smaller than the body dimensions of the one specimen given by Ramsay (see Parnaby et al. 2017). The remaining syntype might remain unrecognised in the AM Collection as a specimen without data or was exchanged to another institution without adequate documentation. While it is possible that Ramsay’s second specimen might be in the MAMU, to date we have not found any evidence. The MAMU 1890s Catalogue does not mention “ goldiei ” and the only adult female specimens listed under “ Phalanger maculatus ” from Port Moresby are three skins in “brine”. A re-appraisal of species identification of MAMU cuscus specimens by a taxonomic specialist remains an important step in the search for the missing syntype.</p> </div>	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FFB31514FF7EF9DF9C6F8C44	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FFB01515FF7EF9319B098E31.text	B42F87F7FFB01515FF7EF9319B098E31.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hapalotis papuanus Ramsay. The 1883	<div><p>Hapalotis papuanus Ramsay, 1883 species inquirenda</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 8 (1), 18, plate 11, figs 1–5. (19th June 1883)</p> <p>Description read at the 31st January 1883 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. None, a giant rat.</p> <p>Taxonomic status. We depart from previous taxonomic assessments and regard Hapalotis papuanus to be an indeterminate name (a species inquirenda), the nomenclatural status and biological validity of which needs to be assessed by a detailed morphological revision of Uromys species. In the most recent revision of Uromys, Groves &amp; Flannery (1994) tentatively treated it as a subspecies of the Mottled-tailed Rat U. caudimaculatus (Krefft, 1867), as did Groves (2005). Throughout the 20th century considered a synonym of various names applied to New Guinean forms of Uromys (Thomas 1913; Tate 1936; Troughton 1937; Rümmler 1938), all currently treated as synonyms of Uromys caudimaculatus. The latter is known to contain a number of currently unrecognised species (Helgen et al. 2008).</p> <p>Holotype. Ramsay described a dried skin and skull but did not indicate the sex or identify the collection in which the specimen resided. The holotype has not been reported since the original description.</p> <p>Type locality. Unknown, not given in original description. Usually cited as the island of New Guinea as implied by the species name but the collector and locality remain unknown and the specimen could have originated from anywhere in the Australian region.</p> <p>Comments. Ramsay apparently based his description of this large rodent on a single skin with skull. We have not located any material that could be Ramsay’s original specimen. Although there is no specific indication that the holotype was ever in Macleay’s Collection, this remains a possibility as most mammal specimens have limited associated data.</p> <p>Thomas (1913) stated that the type had disappeared, perhaps based on correspondence with either the AM or MAMU. Troughton searched the MAMU on at least two occasions but failed to locate the holotype (Troughton 1937). Groves &amp; Flannery (1994) and Parnaby et al. (2017) were also unable to locate it either in the AM or the MAMU. Although Ramsay did not indicate in which collection he saw the specimen, the introductory comments to his paper, as noted by Parnaby et al. (2017), clearly reveal that it could have belonged to any number of private collectors or traders in natural history specimens who passed through Sydney, in addition to the Macleay Collection and the AM. Had the specimen been in a private collection it could have subsequently been sold or exchanged to other collections locally and abroad. We have not found any reference to this taxon, either in the MAMU documentation or in the AM Registers (Parnaby et al. 2017), but Ramsay did not assign a registration number to all mammal specimens upon which he based new species descriptions.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FFB01515FF7EF9319B098E31	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
B42F87F7FFB11512FF7EFBE79D8B8F11.text	B42F87F7FFB11512FF7EFBE79D8B8F11.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Macropus tibol Miklouho-Maclay 1885	<div><p>Macropus tibol Miklouho-Maclay, 1885a</p> <p>Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 10 (2), 141, plate 19. (31st July 1885).</p> <p>Description read at the 29th April 1885 meeting of the LSNSW.</p> <p>Current name. New Guinea Pademelon Thylogale browni browni (Ramsay, 1877) following Flannery (1992).</p> <p>Taxonomic status. Thomas (1888) synonymised Macropus tibol with Macropus browni Ramsay, believing that Miklouho-Maclay’s specimens were subadults of the latter species. The prevailing view that Macropus tibol is not a distinct species needs to be re-examined. Recent genetic studies of New Guinean Thylogale have revealed an unresolved mismatch between distinct lineages and all three currently recognised species (Eldridge &amp; Coulson 2015).</p> <p>Possible syntypes. Whereabouts unknown. The original account implies that the material included two young males represented by at least one skin and two skulls.</p> <p>Type locality. “Maclay Coast” (Miklouho-Maclay), Madang Province, Papua New Guinea.</p> <p>Comments. Miklouho-Maclay stated that the description is based on two males, one of which was a stuffed skin mount, as indicated in the caption to his fig. 1. The material has not been reported since the original account. Miklouho-Maclay stated that his description is based partly from a freshly deceased male killed by a dog in 1876, and the only body measurements provided were taken from that individual soon after death. He stated that he shot the other male in 1872, which is also noted in his diary entry for 15th August (Sentinella 1975: 210). In his journal entry for 25th October 1872, Miklouho-Maclay noted that, while visiting the village of Male on his first visit to the Maclay Coast, locals gave him two skulls of M. tibol but without jaws (Sentinella 1975: 226). We do not know if the two skulls reached Sydney with Miklouho-Maclay.</p> <p>Miklouho-Maclay does not specify the collection in which his material of tibol was held but it might have been his own, given that he typically acknowledged access to material in Macleay’s Collection in his other mammal papers. An account of the LSNSW meeting at which Miklouho-Maclay presented his paper does not mention him in a detailed description of exhibits (Anonymous 1885). However, it is not known whether either of his specimens made it to Sydney on his return from the Maclay Coast and we have not found documentation that either specimen was in Macleay’s Collection. The MAMU 1890s Catalogue does not mention Macropus tibol, and there are no candidates listed under “ Macropus browni ” (now Thylogale browni). All Thylogale dry skins listed in that Catalogue under various names are now accounted for.</p> <p>Both syntypes were collected more than a decade before publication of the account and might have been mislaid, destroyed or were inaccessible in storage. We have not found any evidence that Miklouho-Maclay had material of M. tibol in Sydney at the time he prepared his species account but we have not examined all of his correspondence and notes. It is possible that Miklouho-Maclay did not have access to a stuffed skin when preparing his description. It would have been possible to prepare the description entirely from measurements, notes, drawings and photographs taken during his time at the Maclay Coast. The caption to fig. 1 in his paper, a drawing of a whole animal, is intriguing. It states that the drawing was taken partly from life and partly from a photograph of a stuffed specimen. Notably, the claws on the feet are drawn at a sharp angle which is consistent with rigor mortis. This is a very unnatural position for a properly prepared skin mount but is consistent with a drawing prepared from a recently deceased wallaby.</p> <p>Parnaby et al. (2017) explored the possibility that AM M.2031, an unsexed skin with an extracted skull sent from MAMU in 1907, might be one of the male syntypes. They concluded that it probably was not a syntype and further support for that conclusion arises from the context of that shipment of specimens from MAMU. First, the entire shipment of vertebrates were fluid-preserved and the skull of AM M.2031 was almost certainly extracted at the AM. Second, as discussed in the Introduction, an associated letter from the Macleay Museum Committee, considered the donated specimens to be worthless and a waste of space. It seems unlikely that individual skulls would also have been sent from the MAMU dry Collection under these circumstances.</p> <p>Miklouho-Maclay’s description of the age of the two males mentioned in his account is ambiguous, initially describing both as adult, and later mentioning that the animal figured and described was a young male. It is obvious from his skull illustrations that the specimen(s) illustrated is a subadult, based on the rounded cranial vault and the un-erupted molars, as noted by Thomas (1888). Although not stated in the text, skulls of two individuals are illustrated in plate 19 of the original account. The skull in fig. 6 has a tooth row with fully erupted rear molars and three other erupted teeth, in contrast to the partially erupted rear molars and two fully erupted teeth seen in fig. 9. The asymmetry and lack of detail of the skull illustrated in fig. 6 suggests either a free-hand sketch or else shows considerable optical distortion, while figs 7–11 are more detailed and most likely prepared using a camera lucida.</p> <p>Several external measurements are given in the original description but no cranial or dental measurements. Selected skull and dental measurements (Table 11) are taken from plate 19 of the original account.</p></div> 	http://treatment.plazi.org/id/B42F87F7FFB11512FF7EFBE79D8B8F11	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Parnaby, Harry;Gill, Anthony C.	Parnaby, Harry, Gill, Anthony C. (2021): Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney. Zootaxa 4975 (2): 201-252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1
