Search

Hylodes augusti Dugès, 1879 a The species was originally described by Dugès (1879 a) based on an abbreviated version of a manuscript he wrote in 1868, the latter being published in its entirely by Brocchi (1881). The original description of 1879 makes reference to only one specimen from Guanajuato, Mexico (Dugès 1879 a: 21–22). Brocchi’s (1881) expanded version of Dugès’ manuscript of August 1868, was based apparently on two specimens, although since there was only one specimen noted in the original description of 1879 a, the second specimen has no status as a type. Additionally, there are measurements for one specimen and illustrations in plate 16 figures 1, 1 a– 1 d of Brocchi (1881). It is important to note that plate 16 was not published until 1883 (Smith & Smith 1973). Smith & Necker (1943: 201) stated that “…The original description was apparently based upon three cotypes…” (Dugès 1879 a). We see no evidence that this was the case. At most, there are two specimens in Dugès’ description in Brocchi (1881): one specimen from Guanajuato, presumably the holotype noted in the original description, and a second from Tupátaro from a hole at the end of a cave called the “Cueva del Padre Torres” in the middle of Cerro San Gregorio Hill (Cueva del Padre Torres, au milieu du Cerro San Gregorio), Guanajuato. According to Smith & Necker (1943), none of the cotypes (= syntypes) were present at the MADUG when they examined the collection. Although they found one specimen that had a tag marked by Dugès as “ type ”, it was collected at a depth of 40 m in the Cedro Mine, Guanajuato; the specimen has no original tag but a typed tag (inside the jar) has the verbatim information reported by Smith & Necker (1943: 201). They designated this female specimen as a neotype and gave a detailed description of it. This specimen is catalogued as HE 324 (Fig. 1 A). Smith & Necker (1943) designated it as a neotype because they were unable to find any of the syntypes. Later, Zweifel (1967) noted that the type was a skeleton following Smith & Taylor (1948); this information was originally reported by Mocquard (1899: 161) who stated “J’avais en outre appris depuis peu que M. Dugès, entre les mains duquel était resté le type de H. Augusti, avait eu la malencontreuse idée de le sacrifier pour préparer le squelette! Je désespérais du pouvoir résoudre la question, lorsque l’envoi tout récent, fait au Muséum par ce naturaliste, d’un jeune spécimen d’ H. Augusti, vint heureusement me tirer d’embarras” (I recently learned that Mr. Dugès, who had in his hands the type of H. Augusti, had the unfortunate idea of sacrificing it to prepare the skeleton! I despaired of ever resolving the matter, when this naturalist recently sent a juvenile specimen of H. Augusti to the Museum, which happily helped me answer the question). There are two skeletons at the MADUG (HE 999, 1000; Fig. 1 B–C). Based on the measurements given in Brocchi (1881) HE 1000 is the specimen that most closely matches those measurements. It is important to mention that the original tag is not found with any of these specimens, only a note, not in Dugès’ handwriting, that says Moroleón, Gto. We believe that HE 1000 is the original type (Fig. 1 C). Therefore, the neotype (HE 324) was wrongly designated by Smith & Necker (1943). Current valid name: Caugastor a. augusti (Dugès in Brocchi, 1879)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on pages 34-35, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Crotalus jimenezii Dugès, 1877 In the original description of this taxon, Dugès (1876–1877) referred to more than one specimen, although he only gave measurements for one individual. There are two surviving specimens at the MADUG (HE 55, 356; Figs 8 D, 9 A). The latter is the same one reported by Smith & Necker (1943). We think these specimens should be considered syntypes together with those from the US National Museum (USNM 24448, 26152 and 46508), designated by Smith & Necker (1943). Both specimens were given to Dugès by Dr. Villalobos and have original tags with Dugès handwriting; HE 55 (Fig. 8 D) is from Guanajuato, and HE 356 (Fig. 9 A), from “S. Ant. el Rico” (San Antonio el Rico, Guanajuato). There are also two additional skulls, HE 1141, 1142 (Fig. 9 B–C) that also should be considered syntypes since Dugès (1876–1877) stated “Los palato-maxilares son de una cuarta parte más largos que la porción del terigoides comprendida entre la extremidad posterior del palato-maxilar y la articulación del terigoides con el hueso timpánico.” (The palato-maxillaries are one quarter longer than the portion of the pterygoid between the rear end of the palato-maxillary and pterygoid articulation with the tympanic bone.) Our measurements of this character are: HE 1141 (Fig. 9 B) palato-maxillary = 15.7 mm, last portion of pterygoid = 12.7 mm; HE 1142 (Fig. 9 C) palatomaxillary = 14.5 mm, last portion of pterygoid = 11.4 mm. There are four additional specimens from “Guanajuato” that have been considered syntypes; USNM 24448 and USNM 26152, mentioned by Smith & Necker (1943) and MNHN 1883.284 and MNHN 1883.288, mentioned by Thireau (1991). The first two were not mentioned in the type catalogue of the Smithsonian by Cochran (1961) and the other two have a question mark as syntypes by Thireau (1991). All these specimens could be syntypes, although they do not have a more specific locality; Dugès mentioned in his description of this taxon, “He recibido este ofidio de Silao, Colima y Guadalajara…” (I have received this ophidian from Silao, Colima and Guadalajara…). It is clear that Dugès used a series of specimens in his description of this taxon, some of them may have been exchanged with other museums, like the Smithsonian and the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. Finally, regarding the publication date for this name, McDiarmid et al. (1999) discussed the correct date for the publication of this new taxon by Dugès. Since this paper was published over two years in different “entregas”, pages 23–25, were the description of Crotalus jimnezi appeared was part of “entregas” 3 and 4, but the name was published on page 23, belonging to 1877. Current valid name: Crotalus polystictus (Cope, 1865)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 44, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Oreophis boulengeri Dugès, 1897 The holotype is still at the MADUG and was described by Smith & Necker (1943). This specimen has the number HE 103 (Fig. 8 A). Current valid name: Lampropeltis mexicana (Garman, 1884)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 43, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Siredon dumerilii Dugès, 1870 We found only one specimen in MADUG (HE 315; Fig. 4 C). When Smith & Necker (1943) reported on the type collection they did not find this specimen, which was subsequently reported on by Maldonado Koerdell (1948 a, b). Two additional specimens reported by Smith & Necker (1943) had the locality San Juan del Río, Guanajuato (see comment under Bathysiredon dumerilii queretarensis). Maldonado Koerdell (1948 b) corrected the locality to San Juan del Río, Querétaro, and described these two specimens as Bathysiredon dumerilii queretarensis (see below). Dunn (1939), mentioned three additional specimens that are considered cotypes (syntypes): ANSP 13862, presented by Dugès to Cope; and USNM 16201 – 2. None of these was specifically designated by Dugès (1870, 1872) as a type specimen. It is obvious that the description was based on at least one female and one male, but considering the number of specimens now recognized as syntypes, Dugès may have had more than two specimens when he described the species. There is an additional specimen of this taxon incorrectly labeled as coming from Colima, Mexico (HE 546, Fig. 4 D); the tag is not original, so we conclude it may have been erroneously labeled at a later date. In order to avoid any confusion, we do not assign any type status to this particular specimen. Examination of the specimen HE 315, mostly coincides with Maldonado Koerdell’s (1948 a) description, although the measurements are not exactly the same as those he reported. Our measurements, with Maldonado Koerdell’s in parenthesis, are: total length = 264mm (275), length of head and trunk = 135.5 (140), length of left anterior limb = 47 (45), length of left posterior limb = 46 (51). Also, one of us (OFV) counted 13 costal grooves instead of the 14 reported by Maldonado Koerdell (1948 a). Current valid name: Ambystoma dumerilii (Dugès, 1870)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 38, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Hemigenius variabilis Dugès, 1888 d The species and the genus were apparently described on the basis of one specimen. One specimen, with no locality data according to Smith & Necker (1943) was present at MADUG when they reviewed the types of this collection. They redescribed it and presented photographs of the head and neck. Nevertheless, Dugès (1888 d) mentioned “J’ai trouvé ce petit serpent à la Barranca de Portillo (Guadalajara) et aussi à Guanajuato.” (I found this little snake at the Barranca of Portillo (Guadalajara) and also in Guanajuato); this statement leads us to believe that Dugès had more than one specimen at hand when describing the species. We were unable to find the specimen described by Smith & Necker (1943), despite checking all possible candidates in the collection; none coincides with measurements given by Smith & Necker (1943). The type is definitively lost. Current valid name: Storeria storerioides (Cope, 1865)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on pages 47-48, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Adelophis copei Dugès 1879 b The original description for this taxon appeared in Cope (1879); Cope credited the description to Dugès in manuscript. Although Cope did not reproduce a verbatim translation of Dugès’ manuscript, published later by Dugès himself (1887), he did copy all of the measurements and scale counts as they are reported in Dugès (1887). In brief, Dugès’ (1887) description has a little more text than Cope’s translation. Additionally Duges’ justification for publishing the description in “La Naturaleza” was that “El sabio herpetólogo E. D. Cope…ha traducido una nota que le transmití sobre este ofidio, pero sin acompañarla con la debida lámina; por este motivo me ha parecido conveniente publicarla con las figuras necesarias, para poder reconocer á primera vista este reptil, raro…” (The wise herpetologist E. D. Cope…has translated a note that I conveyed him about this ophidian, but he did not accompany it with the proper plate; for this reason it is proper for me to publish it (referring to the description) with the necessary figures, in order that one might to be able to recognize this rare reptile at first sight …). The type locality was stated in both publications as Guadalajara. A caveat to this matter is that Dugès’ (1887) description, was dated as “Guanajuato, Octubre 22 de 1880 ”, and Cope’s (1879) appeared in the June 20 issue of the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. According to the requirements of the ICZN (1999) Article 5.1. 1 regarding availability of the source, it is clear that Cope did not have a specimen available on which to base his description as there are no candidate type specimens of Adelophis at the ANSP (Malnate 1971) nor at the USNM (Cochran 1961); rather, he probably based it on a preliminary draft obtained from Dugès. When Smith & Necker (1943) reviewed the types at MADUG, they found one specimen of this taxon, from “Cupátaro”, probably a typo for Tupátaro, Guanajuato; they decided to designate it a neotype, because Dugès (1887: 20) stated that he did not have the specimen in his custody, and did not mention the whereabouts of the specimen used by him to describe this taxon. In that same publication (Dugès 1887), is also a mention of a well preserved skull of this species, that Dugès had in his possession; this skull is labeled HE 0 963 (Fig. 10 D). This specimen cannot be considered the type since there is no drawing of the skull in the publication, only a mention of its existence in the re-description of the taxon by Dugès (1887) in “La Naturaleza”. Unfortunately, there is no locality information accompanying this skull. Specimen HE 0 963 is of value since it is the only surviving specimen of this rare taxon in the MADUG. The type is the specimen, now lost or destroyed, figured in Plate III fig 1 a-d in Dugès (1887) as this was the specimen used for the description published in Cope (1879) and Dugès (1887), and originating from the type locality of Guadalajara. Current valid name: Adelophis copei Dugès in Cope, 1879, Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 47, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Bathysiredon dumerilii queretarensis Maldonado Koerdell, 1948 Maldonado Koerdell (1948 b) reported two specimens that Smith & Necker (1943) described as Ambystoma larvae. These specimens were labeled from “San Juan del Río, Guanajuato”, according to Smith & Necker (1943). But Maldonado Koerdell (1948 b) stated that they were from “San Juan del Río (Qro.)”, arguing that Smith & Necker (1943) put them in the state of Guanajuato rather than in Queretaro, where a city called San Juan del Río is well known. Although there is a small town named San Juan del Río in the state of Guanajuato, in the municipality of Pénjamo (N 20.314029º, W 101.734933º, INEGI 2015) we do not believe that the specimens could have come from this locality, because there is no a lake there (only a dam, probably recently built) and the population of this town is only 38 (http://www.microrregiones.gob.mx/catloc/contenido.aspx?refnac= 110230632). Maldonado Koerdell referred to these specimens as cotypes (syntypes) and described them; they are catalogued as HE 1184–1185 (Fig. 9 D, 10 A). Brandon (1992) questioned the validity of this taxon and provides ample discussion on the matter. We concur with Brandon (1992) that this taxon should be synonymized with A. dumerilii. However, the specimens shown in Figures 9 D, 10 A do not coincide with Maldonado-Koerdell’s description; one of us (OFV, personal notes) checked the holotypes in 1985 and his recollection is that they looked like A. dumerilii. We do not believe that specimens HE 1184–1185 (Fig. 9 D, 10 A) correspond to the taxon in question. Our conclusion is that both syntypes are lost. Current valid name: Ambystoma dumerilii (Dugès, 1870)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 45, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Liophis janii Dugès, 1865 The type specimen had apparently been lost by the time Smith & Necker visited the collection, and they designated a topotype from some material that they had previously examined in the US National Museum (USNM 9889) as the neotype (Smith & Necker 1943). They did not describe the neotype, but rather transcribed the original description in French by Dugès. Tanner (1946: 49) also commented that two specimens in the USNM (9889 and 11369) had been collected by Dugès from Guanajuato, Mexico and “ … may represent type material ”, thereby independently reaching the same conclusion as did Smith and Necker. There is no indication in Dugès description (1865) that he had sent any other specimen to the USNM or ANSP (Cochran 1961; Malnate 1971). According to Dugès (1865: 32), the specimen was from Guanajuato, and a comment at the end of the paper “Quelquefois la tache du cou est séparée en trois, deux latérals et la languette médiane” (Sometimes the neck spot is separated in three parts, two at the sides and the stripe in the middle) suggests that he had more than one specimen when describing this taxon. We found a specimen at MADUG (HE 102, Fig. 7 C) from Guanajuato that has more or less the same dimensions as those given by Dugès in the original description (head width: 10.2 mm, head length: 14.5mm, SVL: 300mm, body width: 14mm, tail: 53mm); this specimen also has the characteristic neck marks as described by Dugès (1865: 32). The original tag bears the locality Guanajuato, as in the original description. We consider this specimen to be the holotype and the one that Dugès originally described. Therefore, the designation of a neotype by Smith and Necker was incorrect. Current valid name: Hypsiglena janii (Dugès, 1865)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 42, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Amblystoma altamirani Dugès, 1895 This is one of the taxa described by Dugès from more than one specimen. The original work was published as part of a report for the “Secretaría de Fomento” (Ministry of Development) by Dr. Fernando Altamirano (1895). The original description was first published in French (pp. 5–9) and later translated into Spanish (pp. 9–13). Altamirano indicated in the French description that he had about 20 specimens, but in the Spanish section he mentioned more than 20. In the Introduction to Zoology section of the report, Altamirano stated that he had sent about 25 specimens to Dugès. Smith & Necker (1943) found six specimens preserved in alcohol; the same number that can be found today at the MADUG (HE 314, 316–319, 322; Figs 1 D, 2 A–D, 3 C). Besides these specimens, there are two others (Fig. 3 A–B), a skull and appendages (HE 964) and a skull (HE 965). These specimens were not reported by Smith & Necker (1943) but represent part of the figures in the original description. Therefore, specimens HE 964 and HE 965 should be considered members of the syntype series. Smith & Necker (1943) also redescribed a specimen they considered to be most similar to the illustration in the original description, this can be either HE 316 or HE 319, both are very similar and are completely metamorphosed as is that illustrated by Dugès. Current valid name: Ambystoma altamirani Dugès, 1895., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on pages 36-37, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Amblystoma velasci Dugès, 1888 c There are three syntypes in the MADUG (HE 579–581, Figs 3 D, 4 A–B); two are metamorphosed and one (HE 581) is a larva. Smith & Necker (1943) did not find any specimens of this salamander; therefore they referred to the original description in “La Naturaleza” by Velasco (1879: 216), who called it Siredon Tigrina. Since that name had already been used for another species (Smith & Necker 1943), Dugès (1888 c) gave it a new name honoring J. M. Velasco, who had described it in detail based on several specimens from Lago de Santa Isabel, near Villa de Guadalupe Hidalgo, Valley of Mexico (Ciudad de Mexico). The type locality no longer exists as it has been completely urbanized by the growth of Mexico City (Ezcurra et al. 2006). The specimens in the MADUG were apparently sent by Manuel M. Villada, who was the sole editor of “La Naturaleza” from 1870 to 1914 (Cuevas Cardona 2002) (notes taken from Notebook No. 2 in the MADUG, fide GEMC). The type locality referred to by Dugès (1888 c) in his description is given as: “Laguna de Santa Isabel, en la Villa de Guadalupe y en los pueblos de Santa Isabel y Zacatengo” (the last town now called Zacatenco, Ciudad de Mexico). Current valid name: Ambystoma velasci (Dugès, 1888)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 37, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Hemichirotes tridactylus Dugès, 1894 a The original description of this species appeared in Cope (1894) in the May issue of “The American Naturalist”. Cope credited the description to Dugès’ manuscript describing a new amphisbaenian from Guerrero, Mexico. Cope published an abbreviated version of the description that Dugès published in “La Naturaleza” (Dugès 1894 b). Copes’paper reproduces five of the eight figures as they were published by Dugès (Pl. XX 1 ’ and 1–7). To satisfy the criterion of availability, according to Article 5.1. 1 of the ICZN (1999), the name should be credited to Dugès, since Cope had no specimen, at ANSP or USNM, upon which to base his description (Cochran 1961; Malnate 1971), the figures reproduced in Cope (1894) are the same as those made by Dugès except for a drawing of a scale (Figure 6 g in Cope 1894) and published later the same year. When Smith & Taylor (1950), published the checklist of Mexican reptiles; they reported that the only specimen known at the time, was the type at the MADUG (Smith & Taylor 1950: 38). The holotype for this species is still at the MADUG (HE 127; Fig. 5 B). A detailed description of this specimen is given by Smith & Necker (1943). Current valid name: Bipes tridactylus (Dugès in Cope, 1894)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on pages 39-40, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Eumeces rovirosae Dugès, 1893 The specimen at the MADUG is not in good condition, but is as Dugès reported in his original description: the specimen was “muy maltratado del vientre, cuello y ano” (very damaged on the belly, neck and anus). The holotype was described in detail by Smith & Necker (1943), and bears the number HE 189 (Fig. 6 C). Current valid name: Plestiodon sumichrasti (Cope, 1867)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 40, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Tapaya orbicularis longicaudatus Dugès, 1888 b Dugès’ original description (Dugès 1888 b) apparently was based on a single specimen. Smith & Necker (1943) reported that they found the type and gave a detailed description and measurements. In the series of Phrynosoma orbicularis specimens in the MADUG, one bears the locality “ Mexico ” and is labeled as Tapaya orbicularis and it broadly coincides with Smith & Necker’s (1943) description and measurements (HE 422, Fig. 6 A). This specimen should be considered the holotype. Current valid name: Phrynosoma o. orbiculare (Linnaeus, 1758)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 40, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Rhinocheilus antonii Dugès, 1886 This specimen is still at the MADUG, and was fully described and photographed in Smith & Necker (1943). Regarding the type locality, Dugès (1886) originally stated “…vient des environs de Mazatlán, côte du Pacifique.” (…it comes from the surroundings of Mazatlán, Pacific coast.); although Smith & Necker (1943: 210) noted that Dugès in a later description (Dugès 1888 a) mentioned “San-Blas, Mexique ”. We concur with Smith & Necker (1943) that the type locality should be San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico (see Discussion in Smith & Necker 1943: 210). The type (HE 1223, Fig. 8 B) does not have the original tag mentioned by them; it now bears a field tag from Walter L. Necker 1401. The specimen was completely dry and almost unrecognizable, recently it has been rehydrated. Current valid name: Rhinocheilus lecontei antonii Dugès, 1886., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on pages 43-44, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E., Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L. (2016): Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited. Zootaxa 4092 (1), DOI: http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2

Storeria dekayi anomala Dugès, 1888 e The type from “Orizaba (Mexique)” (Dugès, 1888 e) was redescribed and photographed by Smith & Necker (1943: 210, plate 6, fig. 10). They also reassigned the type locality to Orizaba, Veracruz. Unfortunately, the type has apparently been lost; we were unable to find it after checking all specimens belonging to the genus Storeria at the MADUG. Current valid name: Storeria dekayi anomala Dugès, 1888., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 48, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Sceloporus intermedius Dugès, 1877 In his original description, Dugès wrote that he used several specimens, at least one male that is described, a female, and an uncertain number of juvenile females based on his mention of “En las jóvenes los tintes generales…” (In juvenile females the general colors…). As usual, Dugès described a male in detail, and gave measurements for only one specimen. It is worth noting that Dugès’ SVL measurements are inconsistent since he reported “0,m04” (= 40 mm). Smith & Necker (1943) did not notice this inconsistency, but gave the measurements for two cotypes (according to them), a male and a female. Smith & Necker’s measurements do not match those given by Dugès (1877). They also stated that both specimens have incomplete tails. There are two specimens at MADUG (HE 369–370, Fig. 10 B–C), both males. The measurements for these are not the same as those given by Dugès (1877) or those given by Smith & Necker (1943) (HE 369; head 16.8 mm, body 75.9 mm, tail 99.7 mm, forelimb 28.0 mm, hind leg 41.9 mm, foot 18.9 mm). Also the specimens now at the MADUG have complete tails; that of HE 370 is broken, but complete. One of the MADUG specimens was collected at La Noria, Michoacán, the type locality given by Dugès (1877). So, specimen HE 369 can only be considered a topotype. Our search leads us to the conclusion that the specimens that Smith & Necker (1943) described are lost from the herpetological collection at MADUG. Current valid name: Sceloporus dugesii Bocourt, 1873., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 46, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Geophis tecpanecus Dugès, 1896 b The only specimen that Dugès used for this description was partially destroyed, i.e., the body in four pieces (Smith & Necker 1943). According to Dugès (1896 b) the head was smashed and almost all of the teeth and the mandibular articulation were destroyed. Dugès (1896 b) illustrated a reconstructed specimen and the portion of the skull that remained undamaged. The type specimen was still at the MADUG when Smith & Necker (1943) were there, and they presented a close up of the head. Soft parts of the type are apparently lost, and we were unable to find any indication of their existence despite checking all possible candidates. There is a skull, seven dorsal vertebra and three ribs in the collection (HE 1139, Fig. 7 B), and we assume these remains are part of the type. Dugès (1896 b) drew the skull and the specimen at the MADUG coincides with plate XXVIII and the proportions depicted on this plate. Therefore, we consider these bones to be all that remains of the holotype. There is additional information on this taxon. In 1898, Dugès described the genus Geatractus based on the same specimen arguing that the specimen presented characteristics of the genera Geophis and Atractus. He based part of his argument on the similarity of the remaining part of the skull saying it looked more similar to that of Atractus. However, he noted that the vertebrae were more similar to those of a Geophis (Dugès 1898). Current valid name: Tropidodipsas annulifera (Boulenger, 1894)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 41, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Elaps diastema michoacanensis Dugès, 1891 b As stated by Smith & Necker (1943), the original specimen that was described and illustrated in color (Dugès 1891 b: 487 – 88 + plate 32) has not been found. However, the neotype (HE 1) they designated still is at the MADUG (Fig. 8 C). A detailed description of this specimen is given in Smith & Necker (1943), and the specimen remains in good condition. It is worth pointing out that the neotype was the same specimen Dugès used in latter publications (1896 a, 1901) to elevate this taxon to the species category. Current valid name: Micrurus distans michoacanensis (Dugès, 1891)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 44, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Phrynosoma taurus Bocourt 1870 This taxon was originally mentioned by Dugès (1869), in a list of vertebrates observed in the Republic of Mexico. Then it was illustrated and described in the “Mission Scientifique” (Bocourt, (1870), Pl. 12, figs. 8 a– 8g; (1874), pp. 234-235) with credit for the name given to Dugès (1869) and a manuscript by Dugès dated 1868. A redescription of the species was published by Dugès (1873) in “La Naturaleza”, although the published version bears the date November 23, 1870 as correctly stated by Smith & Taylor (1950). See also Smith (1942) for publication dates of “La Naturaleza”. Bocourt (1874: 234–235), published a description of this taxon, with a footnote (page 234) mentioning a manuscript written by Dugès in 1868; Dugès (1869) listing the name; and making reference, in an endnote, to a monograph of the group being published by Aug. Duméril. Bocourt’s (1874) description mentioned nine specimens (syntypes), two adults and the rest juveniles, obtained by Boucard from “…sur le plateau de Puebla au bien à Matamoros Izucar (Mexique).” (on the plateau of Puebla or in Matamoros Izucar (Mexico), at the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN 1270, 1915, 1915 A, 1915 B, 1916, 1310, 1310 A, 1310 B, 1310 C, fide Brygoo, 1989). Bocourt (1874) also noted that Dr. Dugès had another adult specimen from Coscatlan (Coxcatlán, Puebla, Mexico). It seems pertinent to report the accidental history of the authorship and publication date for this species. After the publications mentioning, illustrating and describing this taxon; the first review of the genus Phrynosoma was published by Gentry (1885); this author cited in the following order the publications bearing the name of this species: “ Phrynosoma taurus Dugès MSS., 1868; Dugès, Cat. Vert. Mex., 1869; Dumeril (sic) & Bocourt, Miss. Sci. au Mex. et Am. Cent. Rept., 1870, p. 234, pl. xii, fig. 8; Dugès, La Naturaleza, ii, 1871 – 73, p. 302, fig.” Reeve (1952) cited the following works: “ Phrynosoma taurus, Dugès, Desc. Manuscript (fide Duméril and Bocourt loc. cit., p. 234), 1869 (sic); and La Naturaleza, 1869, p. 143 (nomen nudum); Aug. Duméril and Bocourt, Mission Scientifique au Mexique et dans l’Amerique Centrale, Études sur les Reptiles livr. 1, 1870, pl. 12, figs. 8, 8 a–g; Bocourt, idem, livr. 4, 1874, pp. 234–235, pls. 1, 2, (sic) figs. 8 a–g; Dugès, La Naturaleza, 1873, pp. 302– 305, figs. 1–4; Boulenger, Catalogue of Lizards in the British Museum of Natural History, vol. 2, 1885, p. 249;…” Smith & Taylor (1950) cited the following: “ Phrynosoma taurus Dugès, MS. 1868, fide Duméril and Bocourt loc. cit., p. 234; and La Naturaleza, 1869, p. 143 (nomen nudum).—Aug. Duméril and Bocourt Mission scientifique au Mexique …, Études sur les reptiles, livr. 1870, pl. 12, figs. 8, 8 a–g.—Dugès, La Naturaleza, 1873, pp. 302–305, figs. 1–4 (this description bears the date Nov. 23, 1870, but was not published until 1873; there were two specimens, one from " Cozcatlán," the other from Estado de Puebla).—Bocourt, Mission scientifique au Mexique … Études sur les reptiles, livr. 4, 1874, pp. 234–235.—Boulenger, Catalogue of lizards in the British Museum, vol. 2, 1885, p. 249.—Smith and Necker Anal. Esc. Nac. Cienc. Biol., vol. 3, 1943, pp. 208–210, pl. 3, figs. 1–2.” Other sources and checklists: Guibé (1954): Phrynosoma taurus Dugès, 1874; Brygoo (1989): Phrynosoma taurus Bocourt, 1870; Flores-Villela (1993): Phrynosoma taurus Dugès, 1868 (sic); Liner & Casas-Andreu (2008): Phrynosoma taurus Dugès 1874 (1873) (sic); Uetz & Hošek, (2015) (the Reptile Database): Phrynosoma taurus Dugès, 1873; Flores-Villela et al. (2010): Phrynosoma taurus Dugès 1870. Owing to the inconsistencies related to the authorship and publication dates of this taxon, it is pertinent to point out that among the list of publications cited above, the only correct one was Brygoo (1989). He correctly credited Bocourt for the authorship of the name Phrynosoma taurus, since Bocourt had to be responsible for the publication of the text and plates, due to the premature death of Auguste Duméril on November 12, 1870, who only wrote the introduction of the book (pages 1–7). Based on Article 12.2. 7 of the ICZN (1999), the publication of plate 12 Fig. 8 a –g, in 1870 by Bocourt in Duméril and Bocourt makes the name available and credited to Bocourt, despite the fact that in the explanation of the plate, the name was credited to Dugès. The use by Bocourt of one of the nine specimens that were already housed at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, not provided by Dugès, to be illustrated on plate 12, makes Bocourt the person to satisfy the criterion of availability, according to Article 5.1. 1 of the ICZN (1999). Therefore Phrynosoma taurus Bocourt, 1870, is the correct form of citation of this species, the corrected type locality should be: Izúcar de Matamoros, Puebla Mexico. The specimen cited by Smith & Necker (1943) as a lectotype for this taxon (HE 446, Fig. 11 C) was erroneously given this status. Current valid name: Phrynosoma taurus Bocourt 1870., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on pages 48-50, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Morenoa orizabensis Dugès, 1905 This species was described by Dugès (1905) based on two specimens from Orizaba, Veracruz. When Smith & Necker (1943) were at the MADUG, only one of the two cotypes (syntypes) was present. The only surviving specimen, HE 126 (Fig. 7 D), was designated lectotype by Smith & Necker (1943). This specimen has the following measurements: TL: 477mm, tail: 84 mm, SVL: 393 mm. The genus that was described by Dugès with this species was dedicated to Prof. Aniceto Moreno from Orizaba, who sent the specimens to Dugès; it now is treated as a synonym of Drymarchon. Current valid name: Drymarchon melanurus orizabenis (Dugès, 1905)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 43, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Contia michoacanensis Dugès, 1885 Dugès’ (1885) description is based on one specimen from Michoacán that was not present at the MADUG when Smith & Necker (1943) published their account of the types. However, they described and illustrated a specimen from Guerrero present in the collection when they visited it, but decided not to designate it as a neotype, since there were discrepancies in scale counts; today the specimen described by Smith & Necker is no longer at the MADUG either. The type is definitively lost. To satisfy the criterion of availability, according to article 5.1. 1 of the ICZN (1999), the name should be credited to Dugès, since Cope gives the explicit credit at the beginning and at the end to Dugès manuscript, also it is important to mention that Cope had no specimens upon which to base his description, since the ANSP neither the USNM do not have in their holdings a specimen of this taxon (Cochran 1961; Malnate 1971). Current valid name: Sonora michoacanensis (Dugès in Cope, 1885)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 47, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Hylodes alfredi Boulenger, 1898 Two specimens (HE 1038, 1039, Fig. 11 A–B) in the MADUG are labeled as types. We cannot assign these specimens to the category of types since there is no indication in the original description by Boulenger that he used more than the two specimens sent to the British Museum by Dugès and these are catalogued as BMNH 1947.2.15.54 (formerly 98.2.19.1) and 1947.2.14.55 (formerly 98.4.7.1) (see Frost 2015 for more details). The specimens at the MADUG and those used by Boulenger all are from Atoyac, Vera Cruz (Veracruz). It is possible that Dugès had a large series of specimens of which a subset were sent to the Natural History Museum, London, and after Boulenger’s description Dugès labeled as types the specimens he had retained. Although they may be topotypes they have no status as primary types. Current valid name: Caugastor alfredi (Boulenger, 1898)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 48, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Erythrolamprus grammophrys Dugès, 1888 d Smith & Necker (1943) reported one specimen and gave a detailed description of it. This specimen, HE 112 (Fig. 6 D), agrees with all of the characters given by Smith & Necker (1943). The original tag appears to be missing, so in the MADUG catalogue there is no information on locality. Our measurements, in mm, are (Smith & Necker’s in parenthesis): total length = 348 + (366 +), tail length = 58 + (60 +), head length = 10.2 (11.2). In the original description Dugès (1888 d) refers to one specimen, but gives coloration as “luisant comme huileux” (shiny like oil). The specimen at the MADUG was about to shed, and Dugès may have kept it in captivity for a while after describing it. In addition to the preserved holotype, its mandible is still present as a separate dry specimen (HE 1094; Fig. 7 A). Smith & Necker (1943) did not mention the dissected dentary in their description of the type; they only mentioned the lack of the tail tip. However, Dugès (1888 d) describes the maxilla and tooth lengths in some detail. In the original description Dugès also listed the type locality as “Tengohecho, Etat de Michoacán”; this is probably a mistake for a town called Tengüecho (N 19.838180, W 102.344938º, INEGI 2015) which is located south of Zamora, Michoacán, in the municipality of Tangancícuaro. Current valid name: Rhadinaea laureata (Günther, 1868)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on pages 40-41, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210

Eumeces altamirani Dugès, 1891 a A single specimen, the holotype (HE 397, Fig. 6 B), coincides with Smith & Necker’s (1943) description and measurements. Current valid name: Mesoscincus altamirani (Dugès, 1891)., Published as part of Flores-Villela, Oscar, Ríos-Muñoz, César A., Magaña-Cota, Gloria E. & Quezadas-Tapia, Néstor L., 2016, Alfredo Dugès' type specimens of amphibians and reptiles revisited in Zootaxa 4092 (1) on page 40, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4092.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/269210