Poecile cincta subsp. alascensis Prazak

• Main Author: Mlíkovský, Jiří
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: Zenodo 2011
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Taxonomy; Animalia; Chordata; Aves; Passeriformes; Paridae; Poecile; Poecile cincta; Poecile cincta alascensis pražák; Kamchatka; Kamtschatka; Alaska
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6184169; http://treatment.plazi.org/id/705B333B33671B40FF38A5ACFCA4F8AF

Poecile cincta alascensis Pražák Poecile cincta alascensis Pražák, 1895b: 92. NOW. Parus cintus lathami Stephens, 1817. See Stresemann (1949: 252), AOU Committee (1952: 311), Dickinson (2003: 528). Lectotype (designated by Hellmayr 1934: 77, footnote): specimen collected by Lucien M. Turner (1848–1909) in February 1876 (Turner 1886: 182) at “St. Michael’s, Norton Sound, Alaska” [= St. Michael, Alaska, USA; 63.48°N, 162.04°W] and figured by Turner (1886, pl. 10). This specimen was not mentioned among specimens USNM received from Turner (Ridgway 1878: 37). Paralectotype. NHMW 65141 (formerly NHMW 1839.XIV.23), unsexed, collected by an unknown person [= Friedrich Heinrich von Kittlitz (1799–1874) – see Brandt 1891: 255] on an unknown date [= 24 June–31 July 1827 – see Kittlitz 1836: 266] on “Sitcha” [= Sitka, Baranof Island, Alaska, USA; 57.05°N, 135.32°W]. The NHMW received this specimen from the ZIN in 1839. This specimen was originally identified as Parus Sibiricus ? var. (ZIN label), being later re-identified as Parus rufescens Towns., and still later as Parus rufescens rufescens Towns. (NHMW label data). Remarks. Pražák (1895b: 92) described this form as a “ var. nova ”, stating on p. 93 that “Ich wage es mit diesem geringen Materiale nicht, eine neue Subspecies aufzustellen, glaube aber, dass die von Ochotsk und Kamtschatka angeführten P. rufescens eigentlich die hier erwähnten Vögel sein dürften”. (“I hesitate to create a new subspecies on the basis of such a meager material, but I believe that specimens from Ohotsk and Kamchatka listed as P. rufescens may represent the form mentioned here.”) Herewith Pražák explicitly stated that he created alascensis as an infrasubspecific name, which has no standing in zoological nomenclature (Art. 10.2 of the Code; see also Dickinson et al . 2006: 73, footnote). However, Grinnell (1900: 59) used Pražák’s infrasubspecific name for a tit subspecies, being followed e.g. by Ridgway (1904: 411), AOU Committee (1910: 351) and Hellmayr (1911: 37, 1934: 77). Due to Grinnell’s ...