Catharus ustulatus ȱ (Nuttall 1840
Creators: name: Halley, Matthew R.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Aves
Passeriformes
Turdidae
Catharus
Catharus ustulatus

description: Neotypification of T. ustulatus Nuttall, 1840
The name T. ustulatus ȱNuttall,ȱ1840,ȱisȱnotȱunambiguouslyȱidentifiableȱbecauseȱnoneȱofȱ its syntypes are extant and the morphological diagnosis was probably based on a specimen ofȱaȱdifferentȱspecies,ȱ C. guttatus ȱ(Pallas,ȱ1811).ȱToȱfixȱitsȱtaxonomicȱidentity,ȱanȱadultȱmaleȱ (UWBM 79993) in the collection of the University of Washington Burke Museum of Natural HistoryȱandȱCultureȱ(UWBM),ȱSeattle,ȱWA,ȱisȱherebyȱdesignatedȱasȱitsȱneotypeȱ(Fig.ȱ1).ȱThisȱ action stabilises traditional nomenclature and prevents confusion arising from alternative identifications.ȱItȱfulfillsȱtheȱrequirementsȱforȱneotypeȱdesignationȱinȱtheȱCodeȱ(ICZNȱ1999)ȱ by clarifying the taxonomic application (status) of the name, as explained above (Art. 75.3.1)ȱandȱatȱlengthȱbyȱHalleyȱ(2019),ȱdescribing,ȱillustratingȱandȱreferencingȱtheȱdefiningȱ characters of C. ustulatus ȱ andȱ itsȱ neotypeȱ(Art.ȱ75.3.2),ȱ providingȱ dataȱ sufficientȱ toȱ ensureȱ recognition of the specimen designated (Art. 75.3.3), providing grounds for believing that all original type material has been lost and is untraceable (Art. 75.3.4), showing that traits of the neotype are included in the original description (Art. 75.3.5), choosing a neotype collectedȱduringȱtheȱbreedingȱseasonȱinȱcoastalȱWashington,ȱwhereȱNuttall’sȱ(1840)ȱsyntypesȱ originatedȱ(Art.ȱ75.3.6),ȱandȱrecordingȱthatȱtheȱneotypeȱisȱpreservedȱinȱaȱrecognisedȱscientificȱ institution (Art. 75.3.7). The choice of a specimen from its breeding grounds provides more stability than selecting a migrant individual with an unknown breeding locality.
UWBM 79993 is an adult female (study skin and spread wing) that was killed by a cat andȱsalvagedȱonȱ27ȱJuneȱ2002ȱbyȱstaffȱofȱtheȱIslandȱWildlifeȱShelterȱonȱBainbridgeȱIsland,ȱ Kitsap County, Washington (47°38’34.35”N, 122°32’32.49”W). The study skin and spread wing were prepared by S. M. Vigallon (prep. = 23), who measured the wingspan (291 mm) and wing chord (95 mm) of the fresh (pliable) specimen before removing the skin. The bird weighed 26 g with no fat, enlarged ovaries (7 × 3 mm and smooth) and an oedematous broodȱpatch.ȱTheȱskullȱwasȱ100%ȱpneumatised.ȱNoȱbursaȱwasȱobserved.ȱTwoȱflightȱfeathersȱ were missing (s9 on the right wing and rectrix 4), suggesting moult, although they may have been lost during the altercation with the cat. The stomach contained seeds. The left wing was pinned and dried in an open position with a perpendicular angle relative to the body and a straight leading edge. The outer primaries of the spread wing are worn and the tip of p7 is broken.
UWBM 79993 was examined by the author in 2019 at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, where it was received on loan from UWBM as a candidateȱ forȱ neotypification.ȱ Likeȱ theȱ freshȱ seriesȱ ofȱ C. ustulatus specimens described by Halley (2019), the colour of the dorsal plumage of UWBM 79993 is browner and more rufescent than C. swainsoni, which is more olivaceous (see Pyle 1997: 398), and the specimen does not exhibit an obvious contrast between the back and tail, unlike C. guttatus and the original description of T. ustulatus (‘Above olive-brown … the tail strongly tinged with rufous’ȱ(Nuttallȱ1840:ȱ401,ȱHalleyȱ2019).
Diagnosis.— C. ustulatus is distinguished from other Catharus species by the combination ofȱ aȱ buffyȱ eye-ring,ȱ whichȱ isȱ boldȱ andȱ spectacle-like,ȱ andȱ uniformȱ olive-brownȱ dorsalȱ plumage and tail. In contrast to the similar C. fuscescens salicicola (Ridgway, 1882), which also has olive-brown upperparts and tail, the eye-ring of C. ustulatus is ‘full and distinct,’ the breast spots are ‘larger and less distinct’ and there is a ‘lack of emargination on p6’ (Pyle 1997: 397).
description: Published as part of Halley, Matthew R., 2021, Neotypification of Catharus ustulatus (Nuttall), pp. 109-112 in Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 141 (1) on pages 110-111, DOI: 10.25226/bboc.v141i1.2021.a9, http://zenodo.org/record/12535661