36 
Records of the Australian Museum (2016) Vol. 68 
(Ramsay, 1879b, 1882c). Ramsay (1882d) later restricted 
the type locality of the taxon as “Florida and Malayta”, two 
islands that Cockerell did not visit. Ramsay’s diaries list 
the specimens brought back from the Solomon Islands in 
mid-1881 by the Australian Museum collector, Alex Morton 
(Mitchell Library ML.MSS 2278 Add on 544). Included 
in this listing are specimens of “Ptilopus sp nov (viridis) 
Florida & Malatta”. These specimens were evidently some 
of those used to describe Ptilopus lewisii , and the source of 
the locality given in Ramsay’s paper. As there were at least 
two specimens collected by Morton there is evidently a type 
specimen missing. 
Macleay Museum. One syntype: B.2094. 
Labelled as “Ptilinopus lewisi, Rams. Male. Solomon Is.” by 
Masters. This specimen is of a typical Cockerell make and 
was overlooked as a type by Stanbury (1969). 
Two specimens from Alex Morton’s series of “Ptilinopus 
eugeniae ” from Ugi were sent to Salvadori in 1883. One of 
these specimens is now in the Museo Regionale di Scienze 
Naturali, Torino. The specimen, A. 11549 (now = 6221) has 
a white head and is thus definitely a Ptilinopus eugeniae 
and is not a type (pers. obs., 1 September 1994; confirmed 
by C. Pulcher in litt., 1 July 2003). Salvadori sent the other 
specimen to Doria in Genova. Specimen A. 11552 (now = 
CE 22541) is still in the collections of the Museo Civico di 
Storia Naturale “Giacomo Doria”, but is also not a type of 
P. lewisi (pers. obs., 30 August 1994; confirmed by E. Borgo 
in litt., 18 September 2003). 
Baza gurney i Ramsay, 1882, Journal of the Linnean Society 
(London) 16: 130. 
[= Aviceda subcristata gurneyi (Ramsay, 1882)] 
Australian Museum. Lectotype: A. 10962. 
The specimen lacks an original label. The register lists the 
specimen as coming from Ugi and being bought from “J. 
Stephens party”. Longmore (1991) selected this specimen 
as the lectotype. This taxon was described by Ramsay from 
specimens collected at Ugi by Reverend George Brown, and 
at Cape Pitt by Cockerell (Ramsay, 1882b). On this basis 
there could be some doubt as the selection of the lectotype. 
Nevertheless, it appears Ramsay made an error with the 
collector of the Ugi specimens. His diary records a small 
collection received from Brown in mid-1881 (Ramsay 
diaries, Mitchell Library ML.MSS 2278 Add on 544). This 
collection includes specimens from Ugi, but there are no 
birds of prey amongst them and so it appears the specimen 
from Ugi came from another source. Although it seems 
that Longmore’s selection of the lectotype was correct, the 
specimens he considered paralectotypes cannot have that 
status. Five of those in the Australian Museum; A. 11486, 
A. 11487, A. 11489, A. 11490, and A. 11491, lack original 
tags. The register notes that these specimens were collected 
by Alex Morton at Ugi and were registered in December 
1881. It is clear from the paper in which Baza gurneyi was 
named that Alex Morton was still collecting for Ramsay in 
the Solomon Islands at the time the paper was sent to London, 
so none of these specimens can be types (Ramsay, 1882b). 
This also is the case for Queensland Museum specimen 
0.17872, previously A. 11488 in the Australian Museum 
collection, which was exchanged with the Queensland 
Museum in June 1883 (H. Janetzki, in litt.). This specimen 
was referred to by Longmore (1991) though no details were 
given. In addition Australian Museum specimen 0.22343, 
collected by Cockerell, was claimed by Longmore (1991) 
to be a type, but it is from New Britain and is not part of the 
type series (see also below). 
Macleay Museum. One paralectotype: B.2937. 
Labelled as “Baza? Reinwardti, Solomon Islands” in 
Masters’ hand, this specimen is of a typical Cockerell make. 
Ramsay (1879b) noted that there was a single specimen 
in Cockerell’s collection from the Solomon Islands from 
“Cape Pitt”, in the New Georgia group, which at the time 
he considered indistinguishable from specimens from Port 
Moresby in New Guinea. Mayr (1945b) pointed out that birds 
from New Georgia were similar to an undescribed taxon from 
the Bougainville and Shortland groups, which he named 
proximo. Mayr considered that Ramsay had been in error in 
associating Cape Pitt birds with gurneyi as Mayr considered 
they were found from Guadalcanal eastwards (a view still 
held in Mayr & Diamond, 2001). Nevertheless, Schodde 
(1977) disagreed with Mayr’s assessment and considered 
there was only one subspecies found in the Solomon Islands, 
Aviceda subcristata gurneyi. In Schodde’s view then, 
although the type locality was restricted to Ugi by Mayr 
(1945b), the bird collected by Cockerell at Cape Pitt was the 
subspecies gurneyi. Ferguson-Lees et al. (2001) followed 
Mayr in recognition of proximo , though Dickinson (2003), 
Dutson (2011) and Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed 
Schodde (1977). Longmore (1991) solved the problem 
of the type locality by selecting the lectotype from Ugi. 
He identified a specimen of Aviceda subcristata collected 
by Cockerell on New Britain as being the specimen from 
Cape Pitt. However, Ramsay does not state that Cockerell’s 
Cape Pitt specimen was actually in his possession when he 
described the taxon. Given that B.2937 was collected by 
Cockerell in the Solomons, and that only one specimen was 
said by Ramsay (1879b) to be in Cockerell’s collection from 
these islands, the Australian Museum specimen from New 
Britain cannot have any type status. The Macleay Museum 
specimen was overlooked as a type by Stanbury (1969) and 
Longmore (1991). 
Astur pulchellus Ramsay, 1882, Journal of the Linnean 
Society (London) 16: 131. 
[= Accipiter hiogasterpulchellus (Ramsay, 1882)] 
Australian Museum. Holotype: A.3813. 
This specimen lacks an original label and was originally 
registered under the name “Astur soloensis” though this 
entry was replaced with “A. pulchellus” in the register. The 
register lists it as the type specimen and as a male from 
“Guadalcanal’, bought from “Capt Brodie & Cockerell”. 
Salvadori (1880) suggested that Ramsay’s use of Astur 
soloensis in his first 1879 Proceedings paper was incorrect. 
This may have prompted Ramsay to re-examine the 
specimen. Note that Schodde (1977) and Ferguson-Lees et 
al. (2001) considered pulchellus to be part of the Accipiter 
hiogaster species complex. 
