Amphibian Taxa With Type Material In Museo Civico Di Storia Naturale Di Milano

Remarks.—

Scortecci (1932b) described Bufo gardoensis (Fig. 2A,D) based on six specimens (all of which remain) from Gardo Migiurtinia and considered this species to be similar to B. taitanus (now Mertensophryne taitana; Peters 1878). Both Tandy and Keith (1972) and Balletto et al. (1978) considered B. gardoensis a junior synonym of Bufo (now Poyntonophrynus) lughensis, which was followed by Lanza (1981), Frost (1985), and presumably by Lanza (1990); yet Tandy and Keith (1972) expressed uncertainty about this assignment by using “?”. Bufo gardoensis was further discussed by both Cherchi (1958) and Scortecci (1933), the latter providing additional information on the types. Scali (2010) lists a syntype, but Scortecci (1932b) did treat an individual specimen from Gardo as “Tipo ♂ A”, and the SVL for this specimen is given as 31 mm; the SVL of other specimens ranged from 28 to 42 mm SVL. We treat these six specimens as a holotype and five paratypes, though it is unclear which specimen represents Scortecci's type specimen (possibly MSNM Am 347, measured here at 30.8 mm SVL).

Fig. 2.

Bufo gardoensis Scortecci, 1932 (A,D; MSNM AM 347, syntype), Bufo incertus Scortecci, 1933 (B,E; MSNM Am 604, holotype), Bufo sibilai Scortecci, 1929 (C,F; MSNM Am 273, syntype). Scale bars  =  10 mm.

Bufo incertus Scortecci, 1933

Remarks.—

Scortecci (1943) described Hyperolius zavattarii (Fig. 3A,C) based on what he characterized as an adult female specimen from the wells of Gondaraba. Largen (1998; see also Largen, 2001b) recognized this specimen as immature and considered this taxon to be a junior synonym of Hyperolius balfouri. Scortecci (1943) noted that additional specimens (though not type specimens) from Lake Margherita were housed in the mission of the Istituto di Idrobiologia di Roma. The herpetological collections of the Laboratorio Centrale di Idrobiologia were transferred to the Museo Civico di Zoologia di Roma in 2009, but these specimens mentioned by Scortecci (1943) are not detailed in a recent study of the amphibians in that collection (Capula et al., 2011). Scali (2010) did not list this taxon among the MSNM amphibian types.

Fig. 3.

Hyperolius zavattarii Scortecci, 1943 (A,C; MSNM Am 284, holotype), Rappia Rossii Calabresi, 1925 (B,D; MSNM Am 472, syntype). Scale bars  =  5 mm.

Kassina somalica Scortecci, 1932b

Remarks.—

Scortecci (1932b) described Kassina somalica (Fig. 4A,C) based on a single male specimen. Scortecci (1932b) stated that this taxon was similar to “K. senegalensis, deserticola e maculata.” Gans et al. (1965) treated this as a subspecies of K. senegalensis. Subsequently, Schiøtz (1975) recognized this taxon as a junior synonym of Kassina senegalensis and corresponding to his “Form 2” of K. senegalensis; Drewes and Roth (1981) followed this by recognizing it as a subspecies of K. senegalensis. Lanza (1981) treated K. somalica as valid and removed it from synonymy with K. senegalensis; both Lanza (1990) and Largen (2001b) followed this decision. However, Largen (2001b) also pointed out that the distinction of K. somalica from K. senegalensis is still a point requiring further research. Doria et al. (2001–2002) cite additional specimens, including ones from the oasis of Galgalò collected by Scortecci during a later trip to Somalia in 1953.

Fig. 4.

Kassina somalica Scortecci, 1932b (A,C; MSNM AM 8, holotype), Megalixalus parkeri Scortecci, 1932b (B,D; MSNM Am 6, lectotype). Scale bars  =  10 mm.

Megalixalus parkeri Scortecci, 1932b

Remarks.—

Scortecci (1941) described Fichteria somalica (Fig. 5A,D) based on two specimens, one of which he identified as being in a poor-enough state of preservation to make identification difficult. Only one of these appears to remain in MSNM. Gans et al. (1965) considered this taxon morphologically similar to Phrynomantis bifasciatus but that its unique color pattern warranted recognition as a distinct subspecies (P. bifasciatus somalicus). Without comment, Lanza (1990) recognized Phrynomantis somalicus as distinct from P. bifasciatus. Based on a single specimen (BM 1976.684), Largen (2001b) identified this species as also present in southern Ethiopia. Only one syntype was found in the MSNM collection.

Fig. 5.

Fichteria somalica Scortecci, 1941 (A,D; MSNM Am 1326, syntype), Arthroleptis–Phrynobatrachus sciangallarum Scortecci, 1943 (B,E; MSNM Am 229, holotype), Arthroleptis–Phrynobatrachus zavattarii Scortecci, 1943 (C,F; MSNM Am 1329, syntype). Scale bars  =  5 mm.

Phrynobatrachidae Laurent, 1941

Arthroleptis–Phrynobatrachus sciangallarum Scortecci, 1943

Remarks.—

Scortecci's (1929) description of Rana cornii was based largely on “Esemplare A,” corresponding to MSNM Am 141 (Fig. 6A,C). Though the type series consisted of four specimens, descriptive information was only provided for the two specimens from Adamó. At present, three specimens remain; these include one tadpole that is not mentioned in the species description (and thus we do not consider it a type). Largen (1997) placed Rana cornii in the synonymy of Ptychadena schubotzi (Sternfeld, 1917), a taxon that Largen (2001b) later placed in the synonymy of Ptychadena tellinii (Peracca, 1904). Largen (1997) reported that one syntype specimen from Giarabà (example C from Scortecci, 1929) is located in the Natural History Museum of London (BM 1930.2.1.1). Citing a personal communication from J.-L. Perret, Frost (1985) stated that the type specimens of Rana cornii were “lost in World War II.” Our survey reveals that at least three of the four syntypes still exist (two in MSNM and one in BM).

Fig. 6.

Rana cornii Scortecci, 1929 (A,C; MSNM Am 141, syntype), Rana oxyrhynchus migiurtina Scortecci, 1933 (B,D; MSNM Am 620, syntype). Scale bars  =  10 mm.

Rana oxyrhynchus migiurtina Scortecci, 1933

Remarks.—

Calabresi (1927) described Arthroleptis elegans (Fig. 7A,C) based on four specimens collected from a well at Hongolò in Uadi Hoor. Scortecci (1933) treated Arthroleptis elegans as valid alongside his Rana (Pyxicephalus) delalandei. Lanza (1978) designated the lectotype (listed in Scali, 2010) and paralectotypes and pointed out that these represent “actually very young individuals of Tomopterna (delalandei) cryptotis” (Lanza 1978:239–240). Lanza (1978) also noted that the lectotype and two of the paralectotypes are in the Museo di Storia Naturale La Specola of the Università degli Studi di Firenze; the remaining paralectotype is in MSNM. Zimkus and Larson (2011) resurrected this taxon from synonymy with T. cryptotis. Though morphological comparisons are not presented, the association of type material with specimens used in the phylogenetic analysis of Zimkus and Larson (2011) is based on these coming from the same geographic region.

Fig. 7.

Arthroleptis elegans Calabresi, 1927 (A,C; MSNM Am 1328, paralectotype), Rana (Pyxicephalus) cimmarutai Calabresi, 1927 (B,D; MSNM Am 2, holotype). Scale bars  =  5 mm.

Rana (Pyxicephalus) cimmarutai Scortecci, 1932a

Remarks.—

Loveridge (1936a) recognized Rana fiechteri (Fig. 8A,C), Rana magretti Scortecci, 1929, and Rana somalica Scortecci, 1930, as junior synonyms of Rana (now Hylarana) galamensis bravanus (Peters, 1882). However, Loveridge (1936a) pointed out that examination of the type specimen of Rana fiechteri was “worth checking before acceptance of [his] conclusion.” Perret (1977) followed Loveridge (1936a), as did Lanza (1990). Largen (1997) mentions only Rana magretti as a junior synonym of Hylarana galamensis, and Largen (1997, 2001b) did not comment on either Rana fiechteri or Rana somalica.

Fig. 8.

Rana fiechteri Scortecci, 1929 (A,C; MSNM Am 1327, holotype), Rana zavattarii Scortecci, 1936 (B,D; MSNM Am 50, syntype). Scale bars  =  10 mm.

Rana somalica Scortecci, 1933

Remarks.—

Bruno and Bologna (1973) differentiated Hydromantes italicus bonzanoi (Fig. 9) from other related subspecies by relative differences in the lengths of the hind foot and head. Bruno (1973) followed Bruno and Bologna (1973) by recognizing H. italicus bonzanoi as one of seven subspecies of H. italicus (strinatii, bonzanoi, argentatus, ligusticus, ambrosii, gormani, italicus). Nascetti et al. (1996) refined the taxonomy related to H. italicus and H. ambrosii and recognized H. strinatii as distinct from H. ambrosii. Because that analysis included samples from type localities of ligusticus, argentatus, bonzanoi, and strinatii, the authors argued that these all represented a single species, H. strinatii; this was followed by Lanza et al. (2005, 2007) and Forti et al. (1997). Raffaëlli (2007) did not recognize subspecies of Hydromantes (Speleomantes) strinatii (i.e., Hydromantes italicus argentatus, Hydromantes italicus ligusticus, or Hydromantes italicus bonzanoi) but did retain italicus as a “type” of H. strinatii. Carranza et al. (2008) included specimens from the region of the type locality of H. italicus bonzanoi (ca. Imperia, Liguria) but did not comment on previously proposed subspecific taxonomy related to H. strinatii.

Fig. 9.

Hydromantes italicus bonzanoi (A,B; MSNM Am 1325, holotype). Scale bar  =  10 mm.

Amphibian Taxa for Which All Type Specimens May Be Lost

The type specimens of three taxa described by Giuseppe Scortecci are absent from the MSNM collections: Rana demarchii Scortecci, 1929, Rana magretti Scortecci, 1929, and Hyperolius destefanii Scortecci, 1943. Types of other taxa described in these same publications are present in MSNM. Other specimens collected by Dr. P. Magretti and cited in Scortecci (1929) are still in the MSNM collections, but the type specimens of Rana magretti or other amphibian specimens from Ghinda from the 1920s or before could not be located. The original publication data for Rana demarchii list one male and one female from Eritrea collected by Dr. G. Ferri, though no amphibian specimens from Eritrea collected by Ferri are currently known to reside in MSNM; see Largen (1997) and Largen and Spawls (2010) for further discussion of this enigmatic taxon. Hyperolius destefanii was described based on a single male specimen from Nargi (Scortecci, 1943), but neither this specimen nor any other amphibian from this locality can be located at MSNM. Further, neither these three taxa nor specimens with similar collection data are included in the list of specimens present in the collections in Genoa by Doria et al. (2001–2002), nor are they obviously in other Italian collections (Mazzotti, 2010). At present, we consider these specimens lost.

Specimens of three taxa described in the 19th Century have been previously stated as having originally been at MSNM but are now lost (Frost, 1985, 2013). Based on Conci (1967), Frost (1985) cited the type specimens of Phryniscus ignescens Cornalia 1849 (now Atelopus ignescens) as lost; see also Lötters (1996) and Coloma et al. (2000). The English summary provided at the end of Conci's (1967) work on Jan's life and work states “Nearly all the collections that belonged to the Milan Museum in the period covered by this work were completely destroyed in 1943 as a result of fire caused by air bombardment.” In the account of Atelopus ignescens (Cornalia, 1849) in the first edition of Amphibian Species of the World, Frost (1985) states “Formerly MSNM, but now lost, according to Conci, 1967.” In later versions of Amphibian Species of the World, this extrapolation from Conci's English summary was extended to other taxa for which type specimens were believed to be in Milan (e.g., Frost, 2013). In fact, of the Milan herpetological collections, Conci (1967) only references “Jan's collection of snakes” as lost, and no other specific details were provided. Examination of the 1853 handwritten catalog in the MSNM archives reveals the presence of two specimens of “Phryniscus ignescens” numbered 231 and 232. These specimens were presumably the type specimens and there is no evidence of them today in the MSNM collections; we assume them lost. Similarly, Pelobates insubricus Cornalia, 1873 (now Pelobates fuscus; Laurenti, 1768), is stated by Frost (2013) to have been “presumably originally in MSNM.” The MSNM catalogs indicate that in 1873 several specimens (including one male and one female) from “Mirasole” (a town near Milan) were catalogued as Pelobates fuscus. These specimens may represent the types, but because we could not locate them during our study we assume that they too are lost. Finally, Frost (2013) states that types of Hyla phrynoderma Boulenger, 1889 (now Scinax acuminatus; Cope, 1862) are at MSNM. However, neither Boulenger (1889) nor Condit's (1964) later work on hylid frogs in the British Museum, nor the MSNM catalog, provide any support that these specimens were ever deposited at MSNM, the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale “G. Doria” di Genova (Doria et al. 2001–2002), or the Museo di Storia Naturale dell'Università di Firenze (La Specola; Nistri, 2010).

The 19th Century Collections and Jan's Nomina Nuda

Previous workers have suggested that the entirety of the herpetological collections of Giorgio Jan used in publications such as Jan's (1857) Cenni sul Museo Civico di Milano ed Indice sistematico dei rettili ed anfibi esposti nel medesimo or Jan and Sordelli's (1860–1866) Iconographie Générale des Ophidiens was destroyed or lost. Also presumed lost are specimens used by other 19th Century authors, especially Cornalia (1849, 1873; see above). The principal reason for this loss is the destruction of large portions of the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale during Allied bombings in August 1943 (Parisi, 1944; Conci, 1967; Frost, 1985; Barbagli, 2010; Scali, 2010). Parisi (1944) figured the destroyed hall of reptiles where most of the Jan collections are believed to have resided and noted that most of the herpetological collections were relatively recent (i.e., early–mid 20th Century). These remaining collections, including the important Italian colonial collections made by Scortecci, Cipriani, Moltoni, Zavattari, Patrizi, Puccioni, and others were left largely, if not entirely, intact.

During the course of our survey of the amphibian collection, several specimens from Jan's 19th Century collection were discovered. In most cases, these specimen jars contained a numeric code either on the jar or on paper within the jar. We were able to match these numbers to those added to the handwritten 1853 catalog in the MSNM archives, presumably in the late 19th Century. All of these names appear on the left-hand side of the catalog rather than the right side, which contains the bulk of the names featured in Jan (1857). Curiously, these names appear alongside others that the second, undated catalog demonstrates only entered the MSNM collection after Jan's (1857) publication in the later 19th Century, and both the names that are nomina nuda in Jan's (1857) catalog and those added to the collection later appear to be written by the same person and possibly at the same time (Fig. 10). This indicates that these nomina nuda were likely added to the 1853 catalog after Jan's (1857) catalog and suggests that their original inclusion in that publication might not have been originally intended. Because several of these taxa are nomina nuda, including one genus, we provide details and figure the relevant specimens. These nomina nuda were likely based on “shelf names” using names sent from workers at other institutions. For further details on Jan's nomina nuda, see Frost (2013).

Fig. 10.

Excerpts from unpublished 1853 catalog showing records for Physodes albiventris (top), several species of Rana including Rana Savignyi (middle), and Eupomplyx marmoratus (bottom).

Remarks

Jan (1857) attributes both Eupomplyx and E. marmoratus (Fig. 11A,D) to “Fitz. Tsch.” and listed this taxon as occurring in “Brasile.” In the 1853 notebook, this taxon name (Fig. 10) is annotated with “Fi[?]”; a later catalog indicates the locality of this specimen as “Brasile.” Steindachner (1864) listed “Eupemphix marmoratus Fitz. Tschudi, Mus. Vindob. Milan” as a synonym of Eupemphix nattereri, which he had described the previous year. Given that the likely authority noted in the 1853 catalog represents Leopold Fitzinger of the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, it is plausible that the “shelf name” of a specimen sent to Jan by Fitzinger was later published by Jan as a nomen nudum in 1857, but then described in 1863 by Steindachner (who worked with the same collection in Wien) using the name Eupemphix nattereri. The type material of Eupemphix naterreri (as well as Pleurodema elegans Steindachner 1863; see below) was collected by Natterer in Brazil and arrived in Wien in 1836. While correspondence documenting exchanges between Wien and Milan is not available in either institution, the number of individuals received from Natterer is clearly larger than the number of specimens later used by Steindachner in his species descriptions and, thus, suggests that some material may have been sent to other institutions (H. Grillitsch, personal communication).

Fig. 11.

Specimens corresponding to nomina nuda from Jan's (1857) catalog. Eupomplyx marmoratus Jan, 1857 (A,D; MSNM Am 858), Physodes albiventris Jan, 1857 (B,E; MSNM Am 859), Rana Savignyi Jan, 1857 (C,F; one of four specimens in lot MSNM Am 739). Scale bars  =  10 mm.

Physodes albiventris Jan, 1857

Other 19th Century Specimens of Interest

During our survey, we located three additional taxa mentioned by Jan (1857). Based on identification, locality information, and specimen numbers we believe the specimens at MSNM to be the same as those used by Jan. As MSNM specimens for two of these species appear to have been sent by Duméril to Jan (see Jan, 1857), it is plausible that these specimens are from among the type series of those species. These taxa—Rana Delalandii Duméril and Bibron, 1841, Rana fuscigula Duméril and Bibron, 1841, and Rana fasciata Smith, 1849—were indicated by Jan (1857) as coming from “Capo” (i.e., the Cape of Good Hope of South Africa). The specimens still extant in MSNM referred to these three taxa are as follows: Rana Delalandii (MSNM Am 785; ex. 53; male, SVL  =  50.1 mm; female, SVL  =  60.7 mm); Rana fuscigula (MSNM Am 676; ex. 52; ?female, SVL  =  76.5 mm); Rana fasciata (MSNM Am 688; ex. 54; ?female, SVL  =  48.7 mm). Frost (2013) lists Rana Delalandii as “presumed lost as not mentioned in MNHNP type list,” but Guibé (1950) cites both this species and associated type specimens (MNHNP 4473 and 4474). However, the type specimens of both Rana Delalandii and Rana fuscigula are still in the MNHNP collections (A. Ohler, personal communication). The taxonomy of Rana fasciata Smith, 1849, now Strongylopus fasciatus, is complicated (for summary, see Frost, 1985). Both the 1853 and 1857 catalogs give the authority as Boie. As discussed by Dubois (1997), Boie (1832) referred to Rana fasciata Burchell (1824), but in fact Boie's usage refers to what is now recognized as Strongylopus grayii (Smith, 1849). Jan (1857) and the unpublished late-19th Century catalog lists the locality for Rana fasciata Boie as from “Capo” or “Capo B. Sp,” which corresponds to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, the region from which the types of Rana grayii Smith, 1849, were collected. While the specimens of Rana Delalandii and Rana fuscigula likely were sent by Duméril, the origin of the specimen of Rana fasciata remains unclear.