Bull. not. Hist. Mus. Land. (Zool.) 65(1): 31-50 



Issued 24 June 1999 



On the hybrid status of Rothschild's Parakeet 

 Psittacula intermedia (Aves, Psittacidae) 



PAMELA C. RASMJJSSEN XX f Sl^b^fe , \) 



NHB 336 MRC 114, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. 20560-0131, USA 



NIGEL J. COLLAR 



Bird Life International, Wei I brook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 ONA, UK 



SYNOPSIS. The name Psittacula intermedia was attached to seven dataless specimens sent from India to England between 1 895 

 and 1907, six of which are now at the American Museum of Natural History, the other being at The Natural History Museum, 

 Tring, U. K. Their origins and taxonomic standing have long puzzled authorities, since they look intermediate between male Plum- 

 headed Parakeet P. cyanocephala and Slaty-headed Parakeet P. himalayana, and no definite field records exist. Although a hybrid 

 origin has been suggested, intermedia has recently been considered a valid species on the bases of: (a) uniformity of characters; 

 (b) a single origin; (c) a non-captive origin; (d) an old description of hybrid cyanocephala x himalayana which does not match 

 intermedia; (e) reports of captive intermedia in the 1990s; and (f) biochemical analysis of captive birds. 



For this study, we examined all published intermedia specimens. For hybrid diagnoses we compared morphology of adult 

 males qualitatively and mensurally with the putative parental species, including also Grey-headed Parakeet P. finschii and 

 Blossom-headed Parakeet P. roseata. We examined six live adult hybrid cyanocephala x himalayana bred by two different 

 aviculturists, as well as one live bird in India claimed to be intermedia, and we considered published avicultural evidence. 



Our analyses showed all the defences of the specific status of intermedia to be wanting, as follows: (a) considerable variation 

 exists in the original material; (b) the specimens could not all have had a single origin; (c) six of the seven specimens showed signs 

 of captivity; (d) the 65-year-old account of cyanocephala x himalayana only furnishes passing descriptions of juveniles, and is 

 therefore not comparable with the adult intermedia specimens; (e) all the specimens examined in Bombay are hybrid 

 cyanocephala xkrameri, while other captive intermedia in Austria and India are of uncertain provenance (but the former appear 

 to be cyanocephala xjinschii); and (f) the biochemical analysis was seriously flawed, most importantly in that the specimens used 

 were not intermedia but hybrid cyanocephala x krameri. 



Neither cyanocephala nor himalayana shows any morphological characters incompatible with being parent to intermedia, and 

 all features of the latter are explained by a combination of the two former species. Moreover, mensurally the AMNH intermedia 

 fall midway between cyanocephala and himalayana. All known male cyanocephala x himalayana possess plumage features and 

 measurements matching AMNH 's five adult male intermedia, while the previously undescribed female hybrid has the head paler 

 than himalayana and drabber than female cyanocephala. This evidence leaves no doubt that intermedia is a hybrid of 

 cyanocephala and himalayana. 



INTRODUCTION 



Rothschild's or the Intermediate Parakeet Psittacula intermedia was 

 described from a single dataless specimen (Rothschild 1 895) backed 

 up by a later series which also lacked data but had been exported 

 from Bombay (Rothschild 1907,Hartert 1924). However, apart from 

 being listed in Peters (1937), this parakeet was overlooked until 

 mentioned by Ripley (1953) as a species of Indian origin. Of 

 subsequent authors who have considered the status of intermedia 

 and treated it as taxonomically valid, only Biswas (1959) had 

 examined Rothschild's entire series. Walters (1985) had access only 

 to a single specimen in the bird collections of The Natural History 

 Museum, Tring, U.K. (BMNH); in Bombay, Sane (1975, 1977, Sane 

 et al. 1987) had only his own captive birds; while Inskipp and 

 Inskipp (1995) simply reviewed the literature on intermedia; and 

 Bhargava (1998) had only his own specimens in India. Psittacula 

 intermedia has been accepted uncritically as a species by several 

 authors (e.g. Howard and Moore 1991, Monroe and Sibley 1993). 

 However, Salvadori (1907), in reference to the type, had stated that 

 intermedia was '. . . not improbably established on a hybrid!'. 

 Immediately after Salvadori's comment, Rothschild (1907) men- 

 tioned having obtained six more specimens, which he maintained 

 '. . . should certainly dispose of any doubt regarding the distinctness 

 of intermedia' . Conversely, Husain (1959), on the basis of the single 



skin at the BMNH, considered that intermedia was a hybrid between 

 Plum-headed Parakeet Psittacula cyanocephala and Slaty-headed 

 Parakeet P. himalayana, while Forshaw (1973) concluded the same 

 after examination of the series at the American Museum of Natural 

 History, New York (AMNH); Wolters (1975) also treated it as a 

 probable hybrid. Still other authors have remained undecided as to 

 its status (Peters 1937, Ali and Ripley 1969, 1981, Wirth 1990); 

 Juniper and Parr (1998) and Collar (1997) tentatively gave it a 

 species account pending publication of the present study. Psittacula 

 intermedia is currently listed as a globally threatened species with 

 IUCN status Vulnerable, but for which no specific threats have been 

 identified (Collar et al. 1 994), although its possible extermination by 

 collectors has been suggested (Walters 1985). 



The fact that the phenotype of Psittacula intermedia places it 

 midway between cyanocephala and himalayana was acknowledged 

 in both the original description and in the specific epithet chosen 

 (Rothschild 1895). Since then, no characters of intermedia have 

 been identified that either differ from those of cyanocephala or 

 himalayana or are not manifestly intermediate between these two 

 (contra Inskipp et al. 1996, whose cited references nowhere 

 demonstrate non-intermediacy). Moreover, the area of origin of 

 intermedia has never been accurately pinpointed, despite fairly 

 extensive subsequent ornithological work in many presumably likely 

 areas; even Rothschild (1907) admitted that 'speculations as to its 

 exact locality were useless, as these collections contained forms 



) The Natural History Museum, 1999 



