Macropus jukesii Miklouho-Maclay 1885
Creators: name: Parnaby, Harry
name: Gill, Anthony C.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Diprotodontia
Macropodidae
Macropus
Macropus jukesii

description: Macropus jukesii Miklouho-Maclay, 1885b
Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. (ser. 1) 9 (4), 891, plate 39, figs 1–6. (4th March 1885).
Description read at the 24th September 1884 meeting of the LSNSW.
Current name. Dusky Pademelon Thylogale brunii (Schreber, 1778) following Flannery (1992: 12).
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.
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.
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.
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].
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).
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.
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)”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
description: Published as part of Parnaby, Harry & Gill, Anthony C., 2021, Mammal type specimens in the Macleay Collections, University of Sydney, pp. 201-252 in Zootaxa 4975 (2) on pages 232-234, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4975.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4806677