TAXONOMIC STATUS OF PSITTACULA INTERMEDIA 



47 



presumably in the spring or summer of 1933, they could scarcely 

 have moulted into diagnostic adult rectrices before Tavistock's 

 article went to press. These inconsistencies indicate that little weight 

 should be given to Tavistock's rather off-hand description. 



Although not in connection with intermedia. Low (1992: 118) 

 mentioned hybrids bred by the Duke of Bedford (then the Marquess 

 of Tavistock), stating that the Duke had paired a malefinschii with a 

 female Blossom-headed Parakeet. However, Tavistock (1932) spe- 

 cifically stated he used a male 'Hodgson's Slaty-headed Parakeet' 

 andfemale Plumheads (Tavistock 1932-1938). Whilecyanocephala 

 has often gone by the common name of Blossom-headed Parakeet, 

 to our knowledge roseata (earlier known as rosa) has not been called 

 Plum-headed Parakeet, so he probably used cyanocephala. 

 'Hodgson's Slaty-headed' can refer only to nominate himalayana, 

 not finschii. However, whether or not Tavistock had used true 

 himalayana, some progeny of a cross between yellow-tipped and 

 white-tipped parents might well show white tail tips, and in any case 

 the tail tips of finschii are glaucous yellow, not white. 



Geographic provenance 



Biswas (1959) indicated that the Rothschild Museum label of the 

 type specimen of intermedia states 'India Nat. Skim' and considered 

 it uncertain whether 'native skin' or 'Native Sikkim' (= then-autono- 

 mous Sikkim) was meant. This was then taken by Ripley (1961) and 

 Ali and Ripley ( 1 969) as indicating that the type probably originated 

 in Sikkim. However, the type's original label (the only one borne by 

 the specimen, in Hartert's handwriting) clearly reads 'Nat. Skin', by 

 which was meant the Bombay preparation of these trade skins, and 

 thus there is no evidence pointing to Sikkim as the region of origin. 

 On the basis of Rothschild (1895) and Hartert (1924), it has 

 also been assumed that intermedia is from the Western Himalayas 

 (Forshaw 1973, Sibley and Monroe 1990), an idea reinforced by 

 Sane et a/.'s (1987) birds that we now know are krameri x 

 cyanocephala, although the latter were reputedly from the plains 

 just to the south (Sane 1977, Sane et at. 1987, Knox and Walters 

 1994). However, there is no basis for this assumption regarding 

 either lot of Rothschild Collection skins that contained inter- 

 media specimens. In the description, Rothschild (1895) stated that 

 the type came to him with two skins of Palaeornis schisticeps 

 and, because it was shipped from Bombay, it most likely came 

 from the 'Western Provinces'. However, later Rothschild (1907) 

 stated that speculation was useless, as the same shipment con- 

 tained birds from various parts of the Himalayas; still later, Hartert 

 (1924) stated that the birds evidently came from some part of the 

 Himalayas. Subsequently it has been assumed without comment 

 (Biswas 1959, Ali and Ripley 1969, Walters 1985) that by 

 schisticeps Rothschild meant Psittacula himalayana of the west- 

 ern and central Himalayas. However, Rothschild did not 

 differentiate between himalayana and the eastern form, finschii, 

 both of which were then known as schisticeps, in his description 

 of intermedia. Since at least two native skins of finschii of the 

 'Bombay preparation' (AMNH 621550, 621557) are present in 

 the Rothschild Collection, but were not identified as such until 

 later in a different hand (the former specimen is listed in the 

 AMNH register as himalayana ssp., the latter erroneously as 

 P. h. himalayana), it is by no means certain which form was meant 

 by Rothschild, and the lack of a register for his collection prior 

 to its accession at AMNH makes it impossible to determine this 

 now. 



Captive intermedia of unknown provenance 

 The male 'intermedia' located in Austria are probably both hybrids 

 between cyanocephala and finschii, as indicated by the uniformly 

 narrow central rectrices with very long pale yellow tips and pale 



shafts midway up the feathers, the yellow-olive band between the 

 bluish nape collar and olive-green mantle, and the bright yellowish- 

 green underparts. None of these features is consistent with 

 himalayana as a parental species. Also, R. Low (/'/; lift. 1997) 

 thought the Turnersee bird was the same size as the female 

 cyanocephala with which it was kept, which further supportsfinschii 

 rather than himalayana as a parental species, as does this individu- 

 al's small bill. Both of the Austrian 'intermedia' have the front of the 

 face bright rose-red, a feature incompatible with roseata being one 

 of the parental species. 



Known cyanocephala x himalayana 



Sedgmore's captive hybrids of known parentage are virtually iden- 

 tical in both plumage and measurements to AMNH intermedia. The 

 slight mensural differences shown in Figure 3 are almost certainly 

 due to measurement error, as the live birds had to be measured with 

 great care to avoid injuring them, and thus they are probably slightly 

 too large. Also, slight shrinkage of museum specimens is well- 

 known. The identity of these hybrids with the type and only known 

 series of intermedia cannot be ascribed to coincidence. 



CONCLUSIONS 



There is no evidence that intermedia is a valid species, and there is 

 abundant circumstantial and unambiguous direct evidence that the 

 AMNH series is comprised of hybrid himalayana x cyanocephala 

 specimens. The discovery in the 1990s of more birds matching the 

 phenotype of AMNH intermedia does not negate the above, particu- 

 larly as they may well originate in captivity. In addition, Rothschild's 

 original series not only contained a juvenile himalayana, but also 

 another hybrid of uncertain parentage; Sane's ' intermedia' are from 

 a third hybrid combination (krameri x cyanocephala), and the two 

 cage birds in Austria are probably from a fourth (finschii x 

 cyanocephala). Thus the literature refers entirely to birds putatively 

 of four different hybrid combinations, and the supposed species 

 Psittacula intermedia has no taxonomic standing. 



Acknowledgements. Special thanks go to Mr M. Sedgemore of 

 Codsall. near Wolverhampton, U.K., for sending photos of his captive 

 hybrids, allowing us personally to examine the birds, and sharing his notes 

 with us. In addition we owe thanks to T. Arndt, R. Wirth, F. Pfeffer. R. Low; 

 to R. P. Prys-Jones, M. P. Walters, and M. Adams, The Natural History 

 Museum, Tring, U.K. (BMNH); C. Blake, M. LeCroy, P. Sweet, and M. N. 

 Feinberg, American Museum of Natural History (AMNH); L. Bevier, Acad- 

 emy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP); D. E. Willard, Field 

 Museum of Natural History (FMNH); R. A. Paynter, Jr., Museum of Com- 

 parative Zoology, Harvard University (MCZ); R. B. Payne and J. Hinshaw, 

 University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ); G. R. Graves and S. 

 L. Olson, National Museum of Natural History (USNM); A. Rahmani, S. 

 Unnithan, S. R. Sane, and A Aktar, Bombay Natural History Society 

 (BNHS); R. Bhargava and H. S. A. Yahya, Aligarh Muslim University; T. P. 

 and C. Inskipp, K. Kazmierczak. L. Critchley, Cumbria, U.K.; and P. J. K. 

 McGowan. Funding for PCR's travel to Bombay on two occasions was 

 provided by the Research Opportunities Fund, National Museum of Natural 

 History, and by British Airways, through M. Sitnik and T. Shille, Office of 

 Biodiversity Programs/NOAHS, Smithsonian Institution. The manuscript 

 was substantially improved by comments from G. R. Graves, R. P. Prys- 

 Jones and M.D. Gottfried. 



