Chelydridae Gray, 1831next section
Chelonura Temminckii Troost in Harlan, 1835
*Chelonura Temminckii Troost in Harlan, 1835: 157-158.
Macroclemys temminckii; King & Burke, 1989: 26.
Holotype: possibly RMNH.RENA 6166, 1 mounted ex. Loc.: ‘Tennessee’. Leg.: G. Troost. Received in 1839.
Current name: Macrochelys temminckii (Troost in Harlan, 1835).
Remarks.― The name Chelonura Temminckii was taken from a manuscript by Troost written in 1835 (Harlan, 1835: 158; Holbrook, 1842: 151). According to Bour (1987: 340) and Pritchard (1989: 11) Chelonura Temminckii was described by Harlan (1835) on the basis of a specimen collected by Petival in 1835 and several drawings, also by Petival. If indeed Harlan only used the name provided by Troost then MNHN-AC 4540 in the Paris museum may be the holotype (Bour, 1987: 343). However, if Harlan used the name coined by Troost as well as the species description from Troost’s manuscript, then RMNH.RENA 6166 in the Leiden museum should be regarded as the holotype. RMNH.RENA 6166 is a specimen sent by Troost to C.J. Temminck, director of the Leiden museum at that time. King & Burke (1989) also report MNHN-AC A.4540 as the holotype, but mention that Hoogmoed is of the opinion that RMNH.RENA 6166 is the holotype. RMNH records and the original label of the mounted specimen indicate that RMNH.RENA 6166 is the ‘type’ of ‘Macroclemys Temminckii Troost’. The author of the nominal species Chelonura Temminckii therefore is Troost in Harlan, 1835 (fide Hoogmoed, quoted in King & Burke, 1989). The type locality is ‘a tributary stream of the Mississippi, which enters that river above Memphis, in West Tennessee’ [U.S.A.] (Troost in Harlan, 1835: 158). In the RMNH archives there also is a drawing of the head of this species in lateral view in life. Harlan mentions that ‘More than one specimen has been observed’, which might lead to the conclusion that more than one specimen served as the basis for the description, and in that case there would have been several syntypes. It is not clear whether the observations were based on preserved material only, or also included live specimens. However, the fact that this specimen was sent by Troost and the fact that Harlan specifically mentions Troost’s manuscript have convinced us that the RMNH specimen most likely is the holotype of Chelonura Temminckii, and that the specimen in the Paris museum does not have type status. Duméril & Duméril (1851) described a single specimen, apparently complete, of this species, but its data are not mentioned. Bour (1987) describes a skull in the Paris museum (MNHN-AC A.4540) as the type, but his argumentation is not very convincing and it remains doubtful whether this indeed is a type (see above). According to Fritz & Havaš (2007) the name Chelonura temminckii is a nomen conservandum, see Opinion 660, ICZN 1963. Bour (1987) restricted the type locality to Wolf River, Shelby County, Tennessee, U.S.A.
Pictures.― Drawing of side of head in RMNH archives.
Emydidae Lydekker, 1889
Emys orbicularis occidentalis Fritz, 1993
*Emys orbicularis occidentalis Fritz, 1993: 136, fig. 8, 10, 12-15.
Paratypes: RMNH.RENA 11371 A-B, 2 juvs. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Tunesia’. Don.: E.C. Stol; RMNH.RENA 15003, 1 ♀ (alc.). Loc.: ‘Ifrane (1650 m), Middle Atlas, Morocco’. Leg.: M.S. Hoogmoed, 23-vi-1967.
Pictures.― Fritz, 1993: 143, pl. 10c (RMNH.RENA 15003).
Geoemydidae Theobald, 1868
Cyclemys enigmatica Fritz, Guicking, Auer, Sommer, Wink & Hundsdörfer, 2008
Emys dentata Gray, 1831: errata (part).
Emys dhor; Lidth de Jeude, 1898: 6 (part, only Cat. ost. a).
Cyclemys oldhamii; Fritz et al., 1997: 198 (part).
*Cyclemys enigmatica Fritz et al., 2008: 381.
Paratypes: RMNH.RENA 3838, 1 juv. (alc.) Loc.: ‘Padang, Sumatra’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: [L.] Horner; RMNH.RENA 6066, 6068, two stuffed adult females. Loc.: ‘Sumatra’ [Indonesia], Leg.: [S.] Müller; RMNH.RENA 27828 (Cat. ost. a) skeleton of adult female, Loc.: ‘Java’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: [H.] Kuhl & [J.C.] van Hasselt.
Remarks.― Fritz et al. (2008) incorrectly mention ‘Hoiner’ as collector of RMNH.RENA 3838, this should be Horner (= L. Horner, a member of the Dutch Natuurkundige Commissie). They also incorrectly refer to RMNH.RENA 6088 as a paratype, but this should be corrected to RMNH.RENA 6068. In table 4 on p. 382 the correct number RMNH.RENA 6068 is used. RMNH.RENA 6088 is a Trachemys scripta (Schoepff, 1792) collected by G. Troost in Tennessee. Fritz et al. (1997) identified the above four specimens, together with more RMNH material as C. oldhamii Fritz et al. (2008) when describing C. enigmaticus from Sumatra, Borneo, Java and the Malay Peninsula, only considered the above four specimens as paratypes. Fritz et al (1997) considered these four specimens as C. oldhamii Gray, 1863, together with six other RMNH specimens (RMNH.RENA 5003, 6062-65 and 27829) also from Sumatra, Borneo and Java. There is no reference to these last six RMNH specimens mentioned in Fritz et al. (1997) in the Fritz et al. (2008) publication, and thus they cannot be considered type material, although presumably they are C. enigmatica as well, as Fritz et al., 1997) did not consider them as C. dentata, the only other species of Cyclemys occurring sympatrically with C. enigmaticus in Sumatra, Borneo, Java and the Malay Peninsula (Fritz et al., 2008).
Cyclemys giebelii Hubrecht, 1881
*Cyclemys giebelii Hubrecht, 1881: 45.
Syntype: RMNH.RENA 3348, 1 ex. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Borneo’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: C.A.L.M. Schwaner, 1844.
Current name: Notochelys platynota (Gray, 1834).
Remarks.― This is the specimen which is fully described by Hubrecht (1881). In his description he also refers to four juvenile specimens from the island Banka, described by Giebel (1866: 15). These also form part of the type series, but their present whereabouts could not be ascertained. They certainly do not form part of the RMNH collection.
Pictures.― Giebel (1866: pl. 3) provides drawings of the syntypes that are not part of the RMNH collection and of which the present whereabouts are not known.
Cyclemys pulchristriata Fritz, Gaulke & Lehr, 1997
*Cyclemys pulchristriata Fritz, Gaulke & Lehr, 1997: 203.
Paratype: RMNH.RENA 4751, 1 juv. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Annam’ [Vietnam]. Leg.: H. Fruhstorfer.
Remarks.― Fritz et al. (1997) based their description of C. pulchristiata on material which mostly came from the pet trade. Only material collected by H. Fruhstorfer in Annam was provided with a reliable locality. Material collected by Fruhstorfer is present in museums in Vienna, Leiden, Frankfurt, Stuttgart and Hamburg. In most museums its locality is indicated as ‘Annam’, but the material in Vienna is provided with a more detailed locality: Phuc Son (Annam, Vietnam), and possibly the material in other museums which was provided by Fruhstorfer comes from this locality as well.
Emys borneoensis Schlegel & Müller, 1845
Fig. 2. Batagur borneoensis, RMNH.RENA 3296, alcohol preserved juvenile, syntype of Emys borneoensis.
Fig. 3. Batagur borneoensis, RMNH.RENA 6210, stuffed syntype of Emys borneoensis, with original label with information added later in pencil.
*Emys borneoensis Schlegel & Müller, 1845: 30.
Clemmys borneoensis; Strauch, 1865: 87.
Batagur borneensis; Hubrecht, 1881: 47.
Callagur borneoensis; King & Burke, 1989: 31; Fritz & Havaš, 2007: 213.
Batagur borneoensis; Fritz & Havaš, 2007: 367 (Appendix).
Syntypes: RMNH.RENA 3296, 1 ex. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Borneo’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: S. Müller; RMNH.RENA 6210, 1 mounted ex. Loc.: ‘Borneo’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: S. Müller, 1837.
Current name: Batagur borneoensis (Schlegel & Müller, 1845).
Remarks.― Schlegel & Müller (1845: 30) mentioned to have seen three specimens of this species deposited in the National Museum of Natural History in Leiden, but only two of them could be located. The third specimen probably was exchanged with one of the large European museums. King & Burke (1989) mention RMNH.RENA 6210 as ‘holotype’. Apparently they were not aware of the existence of RMNH.RENA 3296, and neither of the fact that Schlegel & Müller (1845) based their description on three specimens (clearly stating so), without indicating a holotype among them and those three specimens thus are syntypes. King & Burke’s (1989) action cannot be considered a fixation of lectotype as mentioned in article 74.6 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999), because it was clear from the beginning that three specimens were the basis of the description.
Temminck’s ‘Verhandelingen over de Natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Overzeesche bezittingen, 1839-1844. Zoologie’ was published in parts over a period of 6 years. Husson & Holthuis (1955) provide details on the publication dates of the parts containing reptiles. We here are concerned only with pages 1-36, of which pages 1-28 deal with crocodilians (see below), and pages 29-36 with turtles and tortoises. Plate 4, showing Testudo emys was published on April 24, 1840, pages 29-36, dealing with turtles and tortoises, were published on June 26, 1845. Thus, turtle and tortoise names coined by Schlegel & Müller in Temminck ‘1839-1844’ (Emys borneoensis, Emys subtrijuga, Testudo emys and Testudo forstenii) should be considered having as year of publication 1840 (Testudo emys), or 1845 (Emys borneoensis, Emys subtrijuga and Testudo forstenii). This has no nomenclatural consequences.
The accepted name for this species for a long time was Callagur borneoensis (e.g. Fritz & Havaš, 2007), but recent molecular research (Praschag et al., 2007) showed Callagur to be a junior synonym of Batagur. Thus, Fritz & Havaš (2007: 367) had to make a change of the genus name in an Appendix to their checklist.
Pictures.― none known.
Emys dentata Gray, 1831
Emys Hasseltii Boie (nomen nudum) in Fitzinger, 1826:45.
Emys Dhor Gray, 1831:20.
Emys Hasselti; Gray, 1831:20 (part) (nomen nudum).
*Emys dentata Gray, 1831: page errata.
Emys dhor; Lidth de Jeude: 1898: 6 (part, only Cat. ost. b, c, d).
Emys hasseltii; Lidth de Jeude: 1898: 6.
Cyclemys dentate; Fritz et al., 1997: 188 (part).
Emys hasselti; Fritz et al., 1997: 192 (part).
Cyclemys oldhamii; Fritz et al., 1997: 198 (part).
Paralectotypes: RMNH.RENA 6062, 1 mounted ex., Loc.: ‘Java’ [Indonesia], Leg.: [H.] Kuhl & [J.C.] van Hasselt; RMNH.RENA 6063, 1 mounted ex., Loc.: ‘Java’ [Indonesia], Leg.: [H.] Kuhl & [J.C.] van Hasselt; RMNH.RENA 6067, 1 mounted ex., Loc.: ‘Malacca’ [Malaysia] Leg. P. Diard, 1829; RMNH.RENA 40474 (Cat. ost. d), skull, no locality or collector.
Current name: RMNH.RENA 6063, 6067, 40474 Cyclemys dentata (Gray, 1831).
RMNH.RENA 6062 Cyclemys enigmatica Fritz, Guicking, Auer, Sommer, Wink & Hundsdörfer, 2008.
Remarks.― The name Emys Hasseltii Boie was mentioned by Fitzinger (1826) as a nomen nudum (Fritz & Havaš, 2007) and as Emys Hasselti by Gray (1831) in the synonymy of Emys dhor (= dentata) and indicated to be a Boie manuscript name in the Leiden Museum. The name E. Hasseltii was coined by H. Boie (first curator of Herpetology of the RMNH) in his ‘Erpétologie de Java’, which unfortunately was never published. H. Boie prepared a description (with coloured plates) of the material indicated as Emys Hasseltii for publication in his ‘Erpétologie de Java’, which was intended to be published posthumously, but due to the Belgian insurrection in 1830, the work at the Brussels printers was stopped and never started again (Holthuis, 1995; Hoogmoed, 1982). The manuscript and the coloured plates are still in the archives of the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum in Leiden as a tragic reminder of the collections made by the first explorers of the RMNH that all died too early to be able to see the fruits of their pioneer work in print.
Lidth de Jeude (1898), under Emys dhor lists four specimens (three skeletons and a skull), and in the data for Cat. Ost. b and d, he specifically mentions the name Emys hasseltii Boie. Fritz et al. (1997: 192/193) state: ‘Die eindeutige Beschränkung auf nur drei Stücke ist insofern bemerkenswert, als von Gray (1831) angegeben wird, das mit seiner Emys dentata die von ihm im Leidener Museum untersuchte ‘Emys hasselti Boie’ (nomen nudum) identisch sei. Wie wir uns selbst überzeugen konnten, sind im Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Leiden eine ganze Reihe von Cyclemys mit diesem Namen etikettiert. Davon lag Gray aber ganz offensichtlich bei der Beschreibung von Emys dentata nur ein einziges Exemplar aus Java vor, welches in den Bestand des Londoner Museums überging und heute die Inventarnummer BMNH 1918.104.22.168 trägt.’ [= The clear restriction to only three specimens is rather remarkable, because Gray (1831) indicates that the ‘Emys hasselti Boie’ (nomen nudum) which he studied in the Leiden museum were identical with his Emys dentata. Like we ourselves could see, in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum in Leiden there is quite a number of specimens of Cyclemys that are labeled with this name. Of these Gray only had before him for the description of Emys dentata a single specimen from Java, which was transferred to the collection of the London museum and now has the number BMNH 1922.214.171.124].
BMNH 19126.96.36.199 (ex 18188.8.131.52, chosen as lectotype of Emys dhor = E. dentata Gray 1831 by Fritz et al. 1997), was obtained from the Leiden Museum in 1828 and formed part of the series indicated with the name E. Hasselti Boie (Fritz et al., 1997). As Gray (1831: vi-vii) visited the Leiden museum, we may assume that he saw the material indicated as E. Hasseltii collected by members of the Natuurkundige Commissie, and used those specimens to form his idea of Emys dentata. We therefore consider all specimens in the Leiden museum belonging to either Cyclemys dentata (RMNH.RENA 6063, 6067, 40474) or C. enigmatica (RMNH.RENA 6062), present at the time of Gray’s visit to Leiden and having the name Emys Hasseltii on their original labels, as part of Gray’s type series of E. dentata (which of course also includes the BMNH 19184.108.40.206 lectotype). This is in accordance with the rules of nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) for that period (72.1.1, 72.4.1 and 220.127.116.11), and consequently all four specimens can be considered as paralectotypes. We thus disagree with Fritz et al.’s (1997) opinion that Gray’s (1831) description of Emys dentata only would be based on three specimens. The RMNH has more material of C. dentata that was collected by members of the Natuurkundige Commissie and was present at the time of Gray’s visit to the Leiden museum, but as these lack any indication of the name E. Hasseltii on the original labels, we have not considered them as paralectotypes of E. dentata Gray 1831.
Pictures.― colour plates of Emys Hasseltii in archive RMNH (Erpétologie de Java manuscript of Boie), which at the moment (hopefully temporarily) cannot be found.
Emys subtrijuga Schlegel & Müller, 1845
Fig. 4. Malayemys subtrijuga, RMNH.RENA 6682, stuffed lectotype Emys subtrijuga. Note the indication K&vH in the lower left corner of the label, indicating the collectors H. Kuhl and J.C. van Hasselt.
Emys trijuga; Temminck & Schlegel, 1834: 64.
*Emys subtrijuga Schlegel & Müller, 1845: 30; Hubrecht, 1881: 48.
Malayemys subtrijuga; Brophy, 2004: 73.
Lectotype: RMNH.RENA 6082, mounted ex. Loc.: ‘waarschijnlijk in het landschap Bantam’ [= probably in the Bantam region] ‘Java’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: [H.] Kuhl and [J.C.] van Hasselt.
Paralectotypes: RMNH.RENA 6084, 6085, two mounted ex. Loc.: ‘waarschijnlijk in het landschap Bantam’ [= probably in the Bantam region.] ‘Java’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: [H.] Kuhl and [J.C.] van Hasselt.
Current name: Malayemys subtrijuga (Schlegel & Müller, 1845).
Remarks.― Hubrecht (1881) discussed the confusion that reigned about this species in the early years after its description and categorically stated that the three type specimens were in Leiden and that a specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) received from the Utrecht museum in Holland could not have been one of the types. Brophy (2004) studied the three syntypes and indicated RMNH.RENA 6082 as lectotype. He further discussed the confused nomenclatural history and agreed with Hubrecht (1881) that BMNH 1918.104.22.168 could not be the holotype of Malayemys subtrijuga as had formerly been assumed.
Pictures.― colour plates in archive RMNH (Erpétologie de Java manuscript of Boie), which at the moment (hopefully temporarily) cannot be found.
Emys vulgaris Gray, 1831
Fig. 5. Mauremys rivulata, RMNH.RENA 3327, alcohol preserved syntype Emys vulgaris. Note 19th century glass-bulb attached to keep specimen floating upright in bottle.
Emys vulgaris Gray, 1831: 24 (part).
Emys Sigritzii Gray, 1831: 24.
Cl. Sigritzii Temminck & Schlegel, 1834: 53.
Emys Siegritzii; Fritz & Wischuf, 1997: 248, 249.
Mauremys rivulata; Fritz & Wischuf, 1997: 256
Paralectotype: RMNH.RENA 3327 (alc.). Loc. ‘Dalmatia’ [former Yugoslavia]. Leg.: Michahelles.
Current name: RMNH.RENA 3327 Mauremys rivulata (Valenciennes, 1833).
Remarks.― The nomenclatural history of RMNH.RENA 3327 is rather confused and complicated. In his description of Emys vulgaris, Gray (1831) mentioned that he had seen a specimen in Leiden [‘Emys Sigritzii: Michaux, MSS (v.Mus. Leyd. Mus.Brit)’], which he considered as belonging to his E. vulgaris (note that Gray on the errata page rectifies Michaux to Michahelles), thus making it a syntype of that name. Gray’s E. vulgaris generally has been considered a synonym of Mauremys leprosa (Schweigger, 1812), but Fritz & Wischuf (1997) pointed out that it was based on a mixture of Mauremys leprosa, M. rivulata and a species of Rhinoclemmys, either R. areolata (Duméril & Bibron, 1851) or R. pulcherrima (Gray, 1856). The name E. vulgaris could constitute a threat to the stability of the last three species names mentioned. In order to avoid nomenclatural upheaval, Fritz & Wischuf (1997) selected the drawing of a juvenile M. leprosa published by Gray (1831 pl. 4, upper drawing) as lectotype of E. vulgaris, thus removing possible problems for the other species names mentioned. They also considered the possibility of RMNH.RENA 3327 being a syntype of Clemmys Sigriz, but discarded this possibility on the basis of Michahelles’ (1829) clear statement about the provenance (Spain) of the specimens of C. Sigriz, which he said were different from specimens from Dalmatia.
RMNH.RENA 3327 on the old label on the outside of the bottle in which it is preserved (still readable in the 1990s, but now illegible) was indicated as being the possible type of Clemmys Siegritzii (sic!, misspelling on label) (Fritz & Wischuf, 1997: 248, 249; MSH pers. obs.). This is strengthened by a remark of Temminck & Schlegel (1834: 53) about this name: ‘Mr. Michahelles l’avait déjà décrit d’après les individues, rapports de Dalmatie, et qu’il a bien voulu céder à notre Musée.’ [= Mr. Michahelles already described it after specimens reported from Dalmatia, and has been so kind to present it to our museum]. In footnote 3 referring to Michahelles’ (1829) publication they use the name Cl. Sigritzii, a name never used by Michahelles, who used C. Sigriz in honour of the collector. However, this taxon has as its type locality ‘Hispaniae meridionalis, venditur in urbibus Hispaniae’ (p. 1300) and not Dalmatia, as suggested by Temminck & Schlegel (1834). Although on the old label a more recent identification as Clemmys leprosa is written in pencil, the specimen in RMNH.RENA 3327 actually is a halfgrown Mauremys rivulata, a species that occurs near Ragusa (= Dubrovnik) in former Yugoslavia (Fritz & Wischuf, 1997), which is a locality mentioned by Michahelles (1829), being a place where Clemmys caspica [= Mauremys rivulata] had been collected. In the original registerbook RMNH.RENA 3327 is registered as: ‘Emys caspica, Dalmatie, Michah.’. Thus there does not seem to be any doubt about the locality and the collector. In Spain the species of Mauremys occurring there is M. leprosa, and most authors have correctly considered Clemmys Sigriz Michahelles, 1829 a synonym of M. leprosa. The indication ‘type’ on the old label of RMNH.RENA 3327 probably was due to the misunderstanding of Temminck & Schlegel about the correct identification and allocation of RMNH.RENA 3327.
Emys vulgaris japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1834
Fig. 7. Mauremys japonica, RMNH.RENA 3333, alcohol preserved syntypes of Emys vulgaris japonicus in their original storage bottle.
[Emys vulgaris] variété japonaise Temminck & Schlegel, 1834: 54.
Emys vulgaris, variété du Japon Temminck & Schlegel, 1834: 77.
* Emys vulgaris japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1834: 139.
Emys palustris var. Japon Temminck & Schlegel, 1834: pl. 8 figs 1-4; pl. 9.
Emys vulgaris japonica; Schlegel, 1844: 126, pl. 41.
Emys Japonica; Gray, 1844:19; Gray, 1873: 34.
Mauremys japonica; King & Burke, 1989: 42.
Syntypes: RMNH.RENA 3331, 1 ex. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Japan’. Leg.: Ph.F. von Siebold; RMNH.RENA 3332, 1 ex. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Japan’. Leg.: Ph.F. von Siebold; RMNH.RENA 3333, 2 hatchlings (alc.). Loc.: ‘Japan’ Leg.: Ph.F. von Siebold; RMNH.RENA 3334, 1 juv. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Japan’. Leg.: Ph.F. von Siebold; RMNH.RENA 6142, 1 mounted ex. Loc.: ‘Japan’. Leg. Ph.F. von Siebold.
Current name: Mauremys japonica (Temminck & Schlegel, 1834).
Remarks.― There is some confusion about the exact year of publication of the part Chelonia of the Fauna Japonica. Wermuth & Mertens (1961) mention 1833, Fritz & Havaš (2007) mention 1835. According to Stejneger (1907: 542-543), the volume Reptilia from the Fauna Japonica was issued in different parts. Chelonii (pp. 1-80, pls. 1-9) according to him appeared in 1835. Sherborn & Jentink (1895: 149) and Holthuis & Sakai (1970:75, based on Dutch government archives), however, give 1834 as publication date for this section. We here accept 1834 as publication date for the chelonian part of the Fauna Japonica.
The name on the original plates is erroneously ‘Emys palustris Var. Japon.’. Temminck & Schlegel (1834) acknowledge the mistake in footnote 7 (p. 52): ‘Cette espèce portée par méprise sur notre planche sous le nom d’Emys palustris’ [= Due to a mistake, on our plate this species is mentioned under the name Emys palustris].
Schlegel (1844) mentions the type specimens and says that between 1833 and the moment of writing the RMNH had received from Mr. Bürger drawings of an adult and juvenile specimen made after life in Japan [by the Japanese artist Kawahara Keiga (also called Tojosk by Von Siebold and Bürger)]. Thus it is clear that the specimens depicted on pl. 41 (Schlegel, 1844) are not drawings of any type specimens, and indeed they do not agree with any of the RMNH types listed above.
RMNH.RENA 3331 has the hand of the right forelimb mutilated into a clubfoot with three low pyramids of muscular tissue covered by skin. One of the pyramids has a stump of nail, the others not.
RMNH.RENA 3333 contains two hatchlings, of which the lower one in the bottle (the one without a floating glass bulb) has been depicted on pl. 8 fig. 1 (Temminck & Schlegel, 1834).
Gray (1844; 1873) reports an adult and a half-grown specimen in the collection of the British Museum (Natural History) that were received from the Leiden museum. These specimens might have formed part of the type series.
King & Burke (1989) mention RMNH.RENA 3330 and MNHNP 1954 as syntypes of Emys vulgaris japonica, but this is incorrect, as these three specimens are syntypes of Emys vulgaris picta = Chinemys reevesii (see below).
Emys vulgaris picta Schlegel, 1844
Fig. 8. Mauremys reevesii, RMNH.RENA 3030 A-B, alcohol preserved syntypes of Emys vulgaris picta. Note the wooden sticks used to keep the specimens in position, apparently commonly used in the early 19th century to pose specimens.
*Emys vulgaris picta Schlegel, 1844: 127; pl. 42.
Emys Japonica; Duméril & Duméril, 1851: 8.
Syntypes: RMNH.RENA 3330 A-B, 2 ex. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Japan’. Leg.: H. Bürger.
Current name: Mauremys reevesii (Gray, 1831).
Remarks.― The publication date on the first page of Schlegel’s Abbildungen is 1837-1844, and the work was issued in parts. See Stejneger’s Herpetology of Japan (1907: 540) for the exact dates of publication.
Schlegel (1844) affirmed that three specimens of this species were deposited in the National Museum of Natural History in Leiden by Bürger, but only two of them have been located in the RMNH collections. Duméril & Duméril (1851) mention that the Paris museum has one specimen of this species, received from the Leiden museum. This might very well be the ‘missing’ third specimen mentioned by Schlegel (1844) and thus can be regarded as one of the syntypes (MNHNP 1954). At the time there was a lively contact between the Paris and Leiden museums, with many specimens being exchanged, and G. Bibron spending time in the Leiden collection. Despite using the name Emys Japonica for their specimen, Duméril & Duméril (1851) further in the text clearly refer to ‘E. vulgaris japonica picta Schlegel, Abbildung. Neuer Amphib., p. 127, pl. 42’. It should be noted that Schlegel (1844) never used the name Emys vulgaris japonica picta, as mentioned by Duméril & Duméril (1851) for this taxon, just Emys vulgaris picta
The drawing on pl. 42 (Schlegel, 1844) sent by Bürger is of an adult specimen in life, [made in Japan by Kawahara Keiga] and does not agree with the adult specimen in RMNH.RENA 3330 (the pattern of lines on the neck and side of the head is clearly different).
Pictures.― Schlegel (1844): pl. 42.
Geoemyda spengleri sinensis Fan, 1931
*Geoemyda spengleri sinensis Fan, 1931: 146.
Paratype: RMNH.RENA 5887, 1ex. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Loshiang’ [Yao-shan, Kwangsi, South China]. Leg.: S.S. Sin. Don.: Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Current name: Geoemyda spengleri (Gmelin, 1789).
Pictures.― None known.
† Hardella isoclina Dubois, 1908
*Hardella isoclina Dubois, 1908:1270.
Clemmys ? isoclina; Williams, 1957: 235.
Holotype: RMNH Dub. 2722 (carapace and plastron): Pleistocene, Trinil Beds, Kedoeng Panas, Java, Indonesia.
Current name: † Mauremys? isoclina (Dubois, 1908). As Fritz & Havaš (2007) do not include fossil species, the present identification is based on ‘circumstantial evidence’ as provided by Williams (1957) who considered this species most closely related to Clemmys mutica (see below).
Remarks.― Dubois (1908) only briefly diagnosed this taxon. Williams (1957) studied the type and referred material from the RMNH Dubois collection and came to the conclusion that ‘The Trinil form appears to resemble most closely the living species mutica from southern China, Formosa, Hainan, and Japan, and since mutica is currently though questionably assigned to the genus Clemmys it will be convenient for the present to refer the Dubois species to Clemmys with a query’. Williams (1957) provided an extensive description and several photographs and drawings of the holotype.
Chelonian systematics recently has been in turmoil, especially concerning Southeast Asian species. Clemmys nowadays only contains a single, small species and its distribution is restricted to eastern North America. Clemmys mutica now is considered a member of Mauremys (Fritz & Havaš, 2007), and became Mauremys mutica. Mauremys is a genus occurring in southern Europe, northern Africa, the Middle East, Southeast and East Asia (China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan). The presence of a fossil Mauremys on Java would constitute a considerable extension of its distribution area, but would not be too farfetched. However, the present identification is only based on the nomenclatorial changes involving Mauremys mutica, and new study of the holotype would be very desirable to come to a definite conclusion. Jaekel (1911) describing fossil remains from the Trinil beds does not mention Dubois’s Hardella isoclina, but only mentions two species of Batagur, which also belong to the family Geoemydae.
Pictures.― Williams (1957).
Testudinidae Gray, 1825
Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831
*Test. Dussumieri; Gray, 1831a:3 (nomen nudum); Gray, 1831b: 9; Temminck & Schlegel, 1834: 75.
Testudo gigantean; Hubrecht, 1881: 43.
Testudo dussumieri Bour, 1984: 171; Bour, 2006: 20-22; Pritchard, 1986: 532; Frazier, 2009: 39.
Dipsochelys dussumieri; Gerlach, 2004: 67; Bour, 2006: 21, 22; Grünewald, 2009b: 136.
[Testudo] dussumieri; Cheke, 2009: 175.
Lectotype: RMNH.RENA 3231, 1 juv. (alc.) Loc.: ‘Île Aldabra près de Madagascar’ [Aldabra Islands, Seychelles]. Leg.: J.-J. Dussumier.
Current name: Dipsochelys dussumieri (Gray, 1831)
Remarks.― Hoogmoed & Crumly (1984) did not mention this specimen because at the time it had not yet been recognised as a type specimen. Bour (1984) was the first to report it as ‘le type’ after Temminck & Schlegel (1834) and Hubrecht (1881) had mentioned this specimen without reference to its status. According to Temminck & Schlegel (1834) this specimen from ‘Aldebra’ (sic!) was received under the name T. Dussumieri from the Paris museum, thus not directly from Dussumier, but as a donation or an exchange from the Paris Museum. This is the only reference about the acquisition of this specimen, as neither in Paris, nor in the Leiden archives any documentation about the way it was obtained could be found (Bour, 2006: 22).
Gray (1831b) provided a short description of a juvenile specimen, which he saw in the Leiden museum. He attributed the name to Schlegel (but see statement above by Temminck & Schlegel (1834) from which it is clear that the name was already provided by the Paris museum), but as Schlegel (or anybody else) never published this name, Gray becomes the author. Gray (1831a) described Testudo dussumieri in the synonymy of Testudo indica as a nomen nudum, but Gray (1831b) provided a short description . Bour (2006) designated the specimen as the lectotype, as Gray (1831b) also referred to a figure of another specimen and thus based himself on a series of two specimens. However, the statement by Temminck & Schlegel (1834) mentioned above shows that references in the literature to Testudo dussumieri Schlegel (in Gray) (e.g. Gray, 1831a, 1831b: 9; Fitzinger, 1835: 122; Fritz & Havaš, 2007: 265) are not correct. Schlegel did not coin the name, neither in a manuscript, nor as a label name, apparently somebody in Paris coined the name. Gray (1831b: vii) following the agreement with Temminck, mentioned that he saw a specimen with this name on its label in the Leiden museum, but erroneously assumed that this label name had been given by Schlegel, which according to Schlegel’s own words (see above) was not true.
After Bour (1984) and Pritchard (1986) published their papers doubting the identity of the holotype of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (at that time considered lost) there has been a vivid discussion concerning the correct name, both generic and specific for the Aldabra tortoise. Frazier (2006), just for nomenclatural, not for taxonomic reasons, designated a neotype, with the intention to stabilise the name. However, Bour (2006) reported the rediscovery of Schweigger’s holotype, which clearly is a specimen of Geochelone denticulata (Linnaeus, 1766) (as already hypothesized by Pritchard (1986)). This re-discovery of the holotype clearly shows that T. gigantea Scheigger, 1812 is a junior synonym of T. denticulata and makes the designation of the neotype void. Bour (1984: 171, footnote 1) mentioned the existence of RMNH.RENA 3231 and provisionally considered it a ‘nomen oblitum’. Bour (2006) designated this specimen as lectotype of Testudo dussumieri and considered it available. Frazier (2009) appealed to the International Commisision of Zoological Nomenclature (Case 3463) to maintain the specific name gigantea, recognise the neotype he designated and suppress T. dussumieri. Bour & Pritchard (2009) made a very clear defence for disregarding the neotype of T. gigantea and accepting the name Dipsochely dussumieri, which has been in regular use since the 1990’s for the Aladabra tortoise. Although the ICZN has not yet given its opinion on which scientific name should be used for the Aldabra tortoise, we here follow Bour & Pritchard (2009) in recognising that, due to the new situation with the holotype surfacing, the neotype designation is no longer valid and that the name T. dussumieri becomes available, based on the perfect juvenile specimen RMNH.RENA 3231, completely preserved in alcohol, that without any doubt belongs to the Aldabra tortoise and has a good locality. The specimen was reported to come from ‘Aldebra’ (sic!) by Temminck & Schlegel (1834), and this same locality (Île Aldabra prés de Madagascar) [= Aldabra island, near Madagascar] also appears in the old handwritten register of the RMNH and on the original handwritten label of RMNH.RENA 3231. Matyot (2009) doubts whether Dussumier ever visited Aldabra, but Bour et al. (2010) and Cheke (2010) showed that Dussumier, even if he would not have visited Aldabra, easily could have obtained material from there. However, this all remains speculative, the data on the label of RMNH.RENA 3231 are the only firm data that exist and have to be accepted as correct. It should be noted (Dubois et al, 2010) that despite all the vehement discussions on this issue, only three professional herpetologists (R. Bour, M.S. Hoogmoed, P.C.H. Pritchard) have ever studied RMNH.RENA 3231 and all three came to the conclusion that RMNH.RENA 3231 is a juvenile Aldabra tortoise.
Pictures.― Gerlach, 2004: 68 (dorsal, lateral and ventral view); Bour, 2006: 21, fig. 3 (lateral, dorsal and ventral view); Grünewald 2009b: 137 (dorsal and ventral view), 138 Lateral view and detail head), 139-141 (labels).
Testudo emys Schlegel & Müller, 1840
*Testudo emys Schlegel & Müller, 1840: pl. 4; Schlegel & Müller, 1845: 34; Lidth de Jeude, 1896: 197, pls. 5, 6; Lidth de Jeude, 1898: 4.
Testudo emydoides Duméril & Duméril, 1851: 4.
Manouria emys; Hoogmoed & Crumly, 1984: 251; King & Burke, 1989: 92.
Lectotype: RMNH.RENA 3808, 1 ex. (alc.). Loc.: ‘Sumatra’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: S. Müller.
Paralectotypes: RMNH.RENA 6005, 1 mounted ex., RMNH.RENA 6030, 1 mounted ex., both: ‘Batang Singalang, Sumatra’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: S. Müller. RMNH.RENA 17967 (Cat. ost. a, 41 cm), 1 skeleton. Loc.: ‘Batang-Singalang’ [Indonesia]. Leg.: S. Müller.
Current name: Manouria emys emys (Schlegel & Müller, 1840).
Remarks.― Due to the complicated publication history of Temminck’s ‘Verhandelingen over de Natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Overzeesche bezittingen, 1839-1844. Zoologie’ (see under Emys borneoensis), with plates and parts appearing in different fascicules in different years, the publication date of Testudo emys must be considered to be (April 24) 1840, the year in which plate 4, on which the species is pictured with its name, appeared (Husson & Holthuis, 1955). Only on June 26, 1845 the complete description of Testudo emys appeared (Husson & Holthuis, 1955). Schlegel & Müller (1840, 1845) based their description on a series of six specimens, which consequently were the syntypes. Four of these are still present in Leiden. One was exchanged with the Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN 9422) (Duméril & Duméril, 1851; Hoogmoed & Crumly, 1984). This Paris specimen is another paralectotype of Testudo emys, received from the Leiden Museum, collected by S. Müller at the river Aneh, Sumatra and it also is the holotype of Testudo emydoides Duméril & Duméril, 1851.
Schlegel & Müller (1845: 36) give as locality for ‘three or four’ of the specimens: ‘Sumatra (…) aan de zuiderzijde van den Goenong Singalang (…) rivier Aneh’ [Sumatra, south side of Gunung Singalang, (…) Aneh river]. They also received some other (‘eenigen’) specimens from ‘de voorbergen beoosten Padang’ [low mountains east of Padang, Sumatra].
Hoogmoed & Crumly (1984: 251) designated RMNH.RENA 3808 as lectotype. The lectotype RMNH.RENA 3808 is the specimen depicted by Müller & Schlegel (1840, pl. 4). Lidth de Jeude (1896) discussed the Leiden specimens of Manouria emys (indicating specimens with letters that have no relation to the letters used in his ‘Catalogue Ostéologique’), among which four syntypes, extensively and provided pictures of plastra and a skull of RMNH.RENA 40186 (cat. ost b (not a syntype)). It seems useful to provide additional data on the material mentioned by him. His specimen ‘a’ is RMNH.RENA 3808, ‘b’ is RMNH.RENA 6005, ‘c’ is RMNH.RENA 6030, ‘d’ is RMNH.RENA 17967 (cat. ost. a), ‘e’ was a recently acquired specimen (January 1896, Padang, Zool. Garden Rotterdam) RMNH.RENA 40186 (cat. ost. b), and ‘f’ was a specimen at the time still alive in the Zoological Garden Rotterdam. Thus, Lidth de Jeude’s (1896) ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’ and ‘d’ were the syntypes of the species. RMNH.RENA 17967 is a skeleton that still has the horny scales attached to the carapace. The skull and lower jaw, the cervical vertebrae and the bones of the right forelimb have become detached from the skeleton and are stored in a separate cardboard box.
Pictures.― Schlegel & Müller, 1840: pl. 4, figs 1-5 (RMNH.RENA 3808); Lidth de Jeude, 1896: pls. 5 fig. 1 (RMNH.RENA 17967), fig. 3 (RMNH.RENA 6030); Hoogmoed & Crumly, 1984: 252 (fig. 5), 253 (fig. 6 = RMNH.RENA 3808).
Testudo Forstenii Schlegel & Müller, 1845
*Testudo Forstenii Schlegel & Müller, 1845: 30.
Indotestudo forstenii; Vervoort, 1981: 246; Hoogmoed & Crumly, 1984: 243; King & Burke, 1989: 89.
Holotype: RMNH.RENA 3811, 1 ex. (alc.)(carapace 25 cm). Loc.: ‘Gilolo’ [Halmahera, Indonesia]. Leg.: E.A. Forsten.
Current name: Indotestudo forstenii (Schlegel & Müller, 1845).
Remarks.― As can be seen in the pictures provided by Vervoort (1981) and by Hoogmoed & Crumly (1984) (actually the dorsal and ventral views are the same photos) a number of marginal scutes had already become detached from the bony carapace at that time. At the moment of writing more scutes (including costals) have become detached and parts of them are still in the container with the specimen. For further comments on this specimen see Hoogmoed & Crumly (1984) who also provide measurements.
Testudo Strauchi Lidth de Jeude, 1893
*Testudo Strauchi Lidth de Jeude, 1893: 312, pl. 9.
Psammobates geometricus; Hoogmoed & Crumly, 1984: 257.
Holotype: RMNH.RENA 6011, 1 mounted ex. Loc.: ‘Cape of Good Hope’ [South Africa]. Leg.: [H.] Kuhl and [J.C.] van Hasselt.
Current name: Psammobates geometricus (Linnaeus, 1758).
Remarks.― The specimen was complete in 1893 (see Lidth de Jeude, 1893: pl. 9). The left hind leg of this specimen is now missing, as already shown in Hoogmoed & Crumly (1984: fig. 8), and the right front leg now is detached from the body, but still kept in the cardboard box in which the specimen is kept. The specimen also shows some paint marks on the plastron, probably caused by former mounting on a freshly painted wooden pedestal.
Testudo indica Vosmaeri Suckow, 1798
Testudo indica. Vosmaeri - Schoepff, 1792: 103 and pl. 22 middle and lower figures; Schoepff, 1801: 120 and pl. 22 (middle and lower figure).
*Testudo indica Vosmaeri Suckow, 1798: 57.
Testudo Vosmaeri; Fitzinger, 1826: 44; Günther, 1877: 53; Hubrecht, 1881: 41; Vaillant, 1893: 18.
Testudo indica; Temminck & Schlegel, 1834: 74.
Testudo vosmaeri; Lidth de Jeude, 1898: 4.
Geochelone vosmaeri; Hoogmoed & Crumly, 1984: 242; Hoogmoed, 1999: 57.
Cylindraspis vosmaeri; Gerlach, 2004: 103.
Holotype: RMNH.RENA 6001 (Cat. ost. a), 1 ♂, shell. Loc.: ‘Africa, Promontorio bonae spei’ [Cape of Good Hope, South Africa]. Ex.: Collection Prince d’Orange [= collection of Stadtholder].
Current name: Cylindraspis vosmaeri (Suckow, 1798).
Remarks.― Temminck & Schlegel (1834) indicated that the species did not occur in the Cape of Good Hope, and Günther (1877) specified that this specimen probably came from the island Rodriguez, which according to Fritz & Havaš (2007) constituted a type locality designation. The history of this specimen was discussed by Temminck & Schlegel (1834: 74-75), Hubrecht (1881) and Hoogmoed & Crumly (1984), who also provided measurements of the specimen. RMNH.RENA 6001 is a complete carapace and plastron joined, with the horny scutes still attached. The plastron is concave, so this was a male. Based on a remark by Temminck & Schlegel (1834: 75), Hoogmoed & Crumly (1984) noted that this specimen also would be a syntype of Chersine retusa Merrem, 1820, but reconsidering Merrem’s (1820) text, we now are of the opinion that this was not the case and that Merrem’s name seems just a replacement name for Testudo indica Schneider, 1783 (Fritz & Havaš, 2007). Vaillant (1893) also discussed this specimen and correctly noted ‘Le plus intéressant comme étant le type de l’espèce est la carapace que décrivait Schoepff en 1792…’ [= The most interesting for being the type of the species is the carapace which Schoepff described in 1792.]. Gerlach (2004: 103) apparently considers this a lectotype indication and mentions MNHNP 1883-558 as paralectotype. However, this is erroneous, as Schoepff (1792) and Suckow (1798) only based themselves on one specimen, viz. RMNH.RENA 6001, which by definition thus is the holotype. MNHNP 1883-558 at the time of describing Testudo vosmaeri was not taken into account and just is another specimen of this taxon, but not a type.
Note that the original description and figure by Schoepff (1792) mention the name ‘.Vosmaeri’ preceded by a dot, which in this case means Testudo indica sensu Vosmaer. Thus, Schoepff (1792) did not propose the specific or subspecific name ‘vosmaeri’ for this taxon, he was just relaying Vosmaer´s information on the specimen (Hoogmoed & Crumly 1984). The first one to officially coin the name Testudo indica Vosmaeri was Suckow (1798), who thus becomes the author of the taxon.
The species is considered extinct since about 1795 (Fritz & Havaš, 2007), apparently shortly after the RMNH specimen reached the Netherlands. However, Pritchard (1986) citing Bour mentions around 1804 as the date of disappearance of this species.
As indicated by the text on the label, this specimen originally formed part of the Cabinet of the Stadtholder, which was donated to the collection of Leiden University, which in 1820 formed one of the constituent parts of the collections of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie. It is not clear whether this specimen was stolen by the French in 1795 and transported to Paris and returned to the Netherlands in 1815 by the efforts of Prof. Dr. S.J. Brugmans (Holthuis, 1995), or whether it formed part of the collection of the Stadtholder that was overlooked by the French and stayed in Holland throughout the French occupation (Boeseman, 1970).
Pictures.― Schoepff, 1792: pl. 22 middle and lower figures; Schoepff, 1801: pl. 22 middle and lower figure; Hoogmoed & Crumly, 1984: 246 (fig. 2): Hoek Ostende et al., 1999: 57 (picture Purcell of carapace in right lateral view, and detail of last vertebral scale).
Trionychidae Fitzinger, 1826
Trionyx stellatus var. japonicus Temminck & Schlegel, 1834
*Trionyx stellatus var. japonicus Temminck & Schlegel, 1834: 32; pl. 5 fig. 7; pl. 7, figs 1, 2; Schlegel, 1844: 108, pl. 31.
Syntypes: RMNH.RENA 3259, RMNH.RENA 3264, 2 ex. (alc.). ‘Japon’. Leg.: Ph.F. von Siebold.
Current name: Pelodiscus sinensis (Wiegmann, 1834).
Remarks.― Several years of publication have been associated with the volume Reptilia of the Fauna Japonica. See the remarks section under Emys vulgaris japonica for our decision to accept 1834 as publication date for the chelonian part of the Fauna Japonica.
Temminck & Schlegel (1834: 34) stated to have received six specimens from Von Siebold, all of them preserved in alcohol (‘les six sujets envoyés du Japon par Mr. Von Siebold et conservés à l’esprit de vin.’) [= the six specimens sent from Japan by Mr. Von Siebold and preserved in alcohol.]. Only two syntypes have been located in the National Museum of Natural History in Leiden. Schlegel (1844: 109) states that since describing this taxon the Leiden museum had received a drawing and ‘eine vollständige Reihe in Weingeist aufbewahrter Individuen’ [= a complete series of specimens preserved in alcohol]. Based on these additional specimens he provides a detailed addition to the original description.
The drawing on pl. 31 (Schlegel, 1844) sent by Bürger apparently is of an adult specimen in life [made in Japan by Kawahara Keiga], and as expected does not agree with any of the specimens in the RMNH collection.
We have provisionally identified this taxon as P. sinensis, being aware of the recent publication by Fritz et al. (2010) from which it seems to be clear that this is a species complex that in future may need further subdivision. The Japanese population does not seem to be natural but is derived from introduced specimens (Fritz et al., 2010) of which the provenance apparently is not (yet) known. For the time being it seems best to associate Trionyx stellatus var. japonicus with P. sinensis and hope that in the future a more precise synonymization will be possible.