TAXONOMIC STATUS OF PSITTACULA INTERMEDIA 



45 



Uttar Pradesh and described in literature as Psittacula intermedia 

 do not probably belong to this species'. It has been noted else- 

 where (Inskipp and Inskipp 1995) that the insufficient descriptions 

 and the lack of photos in Sane et al. (1987) prevent independent 

 evaluation both of their putative intermedia and their statement 

 that 'each year between 1979 and 1984, one or two live specimens 

 of this species were available in the Indian bird market most of 

 which could not however be acquired by us. . . .' The following 

 facts, however, show their true identity: (a) all Sane's birds share 

 characters of krameri and cyanocephala, but not himalayana; (b) 

 Sane (1975, 1977) himself described his immature bird as looking 

 like a hybrid krameri x cyanocephala, with 'some reddish colour 

 resembling somewhat that on the nape of the Rose-ring Parra- 

 keet'; (c) trappers informed Sane that his birds were caught with, 

 and were natural hybrids between, krameri and cyanocephala 

 (Sane 1975, 1977); and (d) Sane et al. (1987) were confused 

 about soft part coloration, post-mortem changes, and sexual di- 

 morphism in their birds (see below, also Inskipp and Inskipp 

 1995). Sane (1977) also stated that 'the call of my bird is more 

 like a Ringneck than a Blossom-head' [here meaning 

 cyanocephala]. This evidence, coupled with our new data on 

 Sane's three birds, demonstrates that all the intermedia reported 

 by Sane (1975, 1977) and Sane et al. (1987) are krameri x 

 cyanocephala rather than intermedia. Sane (1977) identified his 

 birds as intermedia from the description in Biswas (1959), and 

 related that when Biswas saw Sane's first bird, he indicated that it 

 appeared to be intermedia but that measurements were needed for 

 confirmation. Sane later took measurements which he said 'con- 

 firmed [sic] with the original' (Sane et al. 1987). 



The lack of red shoulder patches in two of Sane's birds virtually 

 rules out the possibility of eupatria (in which both sexes have 

 shoulder patches) as a parental species, but it is consistent with 

 krameri. In addition, the great size difference between eupatria and 

 cyanocephala makes their hybridization unlikely, and the bill shapes 

 of the Bombay specimens and live bird do not resemble that of 

 eupatria. The only other possible combination that could result in 

 such a phenotype would be krameri x roseata. However, all Sane's 

 birds have a slight bluish tinge to the nape and wing coverts, so 

 roseata could hardly be a parent, since this colour is lacking on both 

 krameri and roseata. 



The assumption by Sane et al. (1987) of reversed sexual dimor- 

 phism in intermedia based on the presumed sex of two of their living 

 captives has already been called into question by Biswas (1990), and 

 Inskipp and Inskipp (1995) also queried this as well as their state- 

 ments on post-mortem changes in bill coloration. Now that we know 

 that these birds are krameri x cyanocephala (explaining why two of 

 them lack shoulder patches), the only remaining published corrobo- 

 ration for Sane et a/.'s (1987) hypothesis of reversed sexual 

 dimorphism is, by their own account, 'another male in the collec- 

 tion, which . . . had mated with a female Roseringed parakeet. 

 However, the eggs laid were infertile.' Their 'subadult female' 

 intermedia must presumably have been sexed by inference on the 

 basis of its shoulder patches after Sane et al. (1987) had concluded 

 that those lacking this feature were males. Its measurements were 

 then compared with those published for AMNH intermedia, which 

 Sane et al. (1987) termed 'female', but which surely must be males. 

 However, even though male krameri lack shoulder patches, male 

 cyanocephala possess them, so some male krameri x cyanocephala 

 could have patches as well, and thus Sane et al.'s (1987) sexing of 

 their subadult bird as a female on this basis is not upheld. In addition, 

 the unaccessioned stuffed specimen (presumably the 'female') 

 showed only a hint of a shoulder patch. Thus, even if Sane's birds 

 really were intermedia and even if intermedia was a valid species, it 



is untenable to presume that it would exhibit reversed sexual dimor- 

 phism with respect to other Psittacula species. 



Clearly, the specimens (number not stated) whose blood was used 

 in the electrophoretic analyses reported in Sane et al. (1987) must 

 have been krameri x cyanocephala, rendering the results inapplica- 

 ble to the question of the taxonomic status of intermedia. In addition, 

 the four loci examined do not form an acceptable sample, the 

 methods of analysis and interpretation of results are problematic (R. 

 Fleischer, pers. comm. 1997), and the major differences claimed 

 between intermedia and other Psittacula species are improbable, 

 especially given the apparent parentage of the individuals sampled. 



BMNH SPECIMEN 



One of the original Rothschild Collection intermedia specimens, 

 BMNH 1980.3.1, was the one on which Husain's (1959) analysis of 

 the hybrid origin of intermedia was primarily drawn. It is, moreover, 

 more like the illustration of male intermedia in Inskipp and Inskipp 

 (1995) than are any of the AMNH intermedia. However - and 

 despite Hartert's (1924) assertion that specimens in the Rothschild 

 Collection are alike - BMNH 1980.3.1 differs in several respects 

 from the remaining five adults (Table 1). It is closer in overall 

 appearance to adult maieroseata than are the others, and is mensurally 

 similar to both roseata and cyanocephala: except for the pale lower 

 mandible and lack of shoulder patches it could be a hybrid 

 cyanocephala x roseata. It could also be an F2 hybrid, or if bred in 

 captivity, a trigen. Its tail tips are broader than in either roseata or 

 finschii, while the turquoise upper tail surface and tail tip coloration, 

 shape, and length are as in roseata. The slightly brighter red on the 

 front of its face than in roseata cannot be explained as roseata x 

 himalayana or finschii. However, its complete lack of reddish shoul- 

 der patches is unique among the intermedia series, is not due to 

 feather loss, moult, or immaturity, and defies ready explanation. On 

 present evidence we cannot resolve its parentage, but it does not 

 appear to be an Fl offspring of a cyanocephala x himalayana cross. 



Evidence from the AMNH specimens 



As far as we can determine, all characters of aduhAMNHintermedia 

 are either (a) shared with the himalayana/finschii species pair or the 

 roseata/cyanocephala pair, or (b) intermediate between one or both 

 members of these two species groups. If for the moment we accept 

 intermedia as a hybrid (to be further substantiated below), then we 

 must assume (as did Husain 1959) that one member of each of the 

 above species pairs was the parental species. Psittacula roseata 

 cannot have been involved, as its facial coloration is not bright or 

 deep enough to result in an intermedia phenotype, and its P3 is much 

 too narrow (Table 4). In addition roseata lacks bluish on its hindneck, 

 wing coverts, and rump, while most AMNH intermedia have the 

 blue tint in these areas stronger than on the himalayana/finschii pair, 

 and the upper tail surface of roseata is a paler, greener blue than in 

 the other species and in AMNH intermedia. 



However, hybridization of cyanocephala with either himalayana 

 or finschii would involve none of the problematic characters of 

 roseata. Nevertheless, finschii has narrow central rectrices that make 

 it unlikely to be a parental species, whether mated withcyanocephala 

 or roseata, since the mean distal width of the central rectrices is 

 greater in intermedia than for any of those three species (Appendix; 

 see also Husain 1959). In addition, a finschii x cyanocephala or 

 roseata cross could hardly result in the bright yellow tail tips of 

 AMNH intermedia (as already noted by Husain 1959). Finally, 

 unlike intermedia, finschii has a bright yellow-green band above the 

 mantle and pale shafts on the upper tail surface. Incidentally, the tail 

 tips of the individual illustrated as himalayana in Inskipp and 

 Inskipp (1995) are actually those of finschii. 



Mensural and statistical analyses show the intermediacy of AMNH 



