Content area
Full text
Abstract.-Key foundational elements of taxonomic description were omitted in the original naming of species-group taxa now recognized in the Malagasy genus Nesomys: N. rufus Peters, 1870, N. audeberti (Jentink, 1879), and N. lambertoni G. Grandidier, 1928. Based on our review of the material available to the authors, we identified the holotype by monotypy of N. rufus, designated lectotypes of N. audeberti and N. lambertoni, restricted the type localities of N. audeberti and N. lambertoni, and localized the probable geographic source of the holotype of N. rufus. Refinement of the geographic source of N. lambertoni and N. rufus illuminates the incorrect placement of their type localities as currently interpreted and brings them within the presently understood distributions of those species. Extensive discussion is devoted to the travels of J. Audebert and A. Crossley, collectors not only of the types of N. audeberti and N. rufus, respectively, but also of important series of lemurs that remain relevant to understanding the taxonomy and distribution of these endangered mammals.
Keywords: J. Audebert, A. Crossley, Madagascar, Nesomys audeberti, Nesomys lambertoni, Nesomys rufus, nomenclature
The genus Nesomys Peters, 1870, in- cludes three living species of muroid rodents (Nesomyidae: Nesomyinae) that are endemic to Madagascar (Ryan 2003): N. rufus Peters, 1870; N. audeberti (Jen- tink, 1879); and N. lambertoni G. Gran- didier, 1928. Although these species-group taxa were once viewed as subspecies of the first-named N. rufus (Petter 1972, 1975), each is today understood to represent a valid biological species (Musser & Carle- ton 2005, Soarimalala & Goodman 2011).
For the era of biological discovery, the original descriptions of the three species- group taxa of Nesomys were understand- ably incomplete and uneven compared with modern standards of taxonomic validation. No holotype or unique regis- tration number was explicitly identified as a name-bearing specimen for any of the new names. The description of N. lamber- toni omitted a type locality, and geograph- ic origin of the other two species was ambiguous or obscure; in fact, the type locality as conventionally interpreted for two species, N. lambertoni and N. rufus,is extralimital to their specific distributions as presently defined based on recently collected specimens. No collector, collec- tion date, or illustration of type material accompanied the description of N. rufus (Peters, 1870); no date...