38 
Records of the Australian Museum (2016) Vol. 68 
did not appear in the Proceedings until 12 September 1881. 
Thus the form was still a novelty when Finsch visited, and it 
is likely that Ramsay would have shown Finsch specimens 
of this taxon. 
P[seudorectes] cinnamomeum Ramsay, 1879, Nature 20: 
125. 
[= Pachycephala orioloides cinnamomea (Ramsay, 1879)] 
Australian Museum. Two syntypes: A.3831, A.3832. 
Both these specimens have labels in the hand of Ramsay 
as being “Pachycephala orioloides” and coming from 
“Guadalcanal, A.3831 is labelled as a juvenile male and 
A.3832 as a female. The register notes that both were 
collected by “Capt. Brodie ‘Ariel’ & Cockerell”. Ramsay 
described a bird with female plumage in Nature , but did 
not note the sex of the bird described. He did not describe 
the taxon in his first 1879 Proceedings paper where he gave 
a description of a female Pachycephala from Guadalcanal 
under the name “Pachycephala orioloides”. Longmore 
(1991) listed A.3832 as an adult male, however it is a 
female and thus still a type. The immature male has a similar 
plumage to the female. 
Museum Victoria. One syntype: 45732. 
This specimen is a mount in female plumage. The socle 
on the mount is labelled “ Pachycephala astrolabi Bp. 
Solomon Islds.” The register notes it as having been 
collected by Cockerell in the Solomons with the date 
January 1879, obviously the date of acquisition by the 
Museum. It was registered in May 1884, originally under 
the name “Pachycephala oriolus”. This was crossed out in 
the register and replaced by “orioloides” and again replaced 
by “astrolabi”. There are an additional four male specimens 
sent by Cockerell to Museum Victoria (B.9945-9). Three 
of these are in adult male plumage and cannot be types. 
The other specimen, B.9949 is an immature bird which 
was identified as not being cinnamomea by “I.C.J.G.” (= 
Ian Galbraith, the author of a revision of the Pachycephala 
pectoralis superspecies [Galbraith, 1956]). Yet the locality 
of “Gaudalcana” on the strip wrapping tag alone, as well 
as the fact that Cockerell only collected within the range of 
cinnamomea , suggests that this comment is incorrect. This 
specimen was collected when the bird was in the process of 
acquiring adult plumage and has a yellow wash to the belly 
and vent and so cannot be a type. 
S[auloprocta] cockerellii Ramsay, 1879, Nature 20: 125, 
(5 June 1879) and 
Sauloprocta (?) cockerelli Ramsay, 1879, Proceedings 4: 
81-82,(16 June 1879). 
[= Rhipidura cockeretlii cockerellii (Ramsay, 1879)] 
As with Cinnyris melanocephalus , this species was named 
after Ramsay had already viewed Cockerell’s entire 
collection. Any specimens of this taxon that can be identified 
as collected by Cockerell are thus types. Dickinson & 
Christidis (2014) considered that Ramsay acted as first 
revisor. However, Dickinson & Christidis did not give any 
reference to the paper in which this occurred. It was not in 
the following Proceedings paper where there was no mention 
of the paper in Nature. 
Australian Museum. Three syntypes: 0.18716, A.3848, 
A. 3849. 0.18716, exDobroydecollection,registered 1912. 
This specimen was labelled by Ramsay as a type from the 
Solomons with the sex as “male”. A.3848 and A.3849, 
are labelled in Ramsay’s hand as types of the species from 
“Guadalcanal’. Both are marked as “male?”. 
Museum Victoria. Three syntypes: B. 19549, B. 19550, 
B. 19551. These specimens have the following details on 
the strip wrapping: B. 19549, Solomon Isl., Oct 77 [sic, 
lapsus for 78], female; B. 19550, Solomon Isl., Oct/ 78/ 
male; B. 19551, Solomon Isl., Oct 78, male. All three are 
labelled on additional tags: “Cockerell’s Solomon Isds Coll.; 
Jan.23/79”. 
Macleay Museum. Two syntypes: B.7131, B.7132. 
Both specimens were labelled by Masters “Sauloprocta 
Cockerellii, Ramsay. Solomon Is.” and are of a typical 
Cockerell make. Stanbury (1969) referred to both specimens 
as possible types. 
R[hissidura] rufofronta Ramsay, 1879, Nature 20: 125, (5 
June 1879) and 
Rhipidura (?) rubrofrontata Ramsay, 1879, Proceedings 4: 
82-83,(16 June 1879). 
\— Rhipidura rufifrons rubrofrontata (Ramsay, 1879)] 
Ramsay corrected the spelling to rubrofrontata in 1881 
(Ramsay, 1881b), specifically mentioning his 1879 Nature 
paper (see also Longmore, 1991). Consequently it can 
be considered a valid emendation under the International 
Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999) and stands 
with the corrected spelling ( contra Dickinson, 2003 and 
Dickinson & Christidis, 2014). Note this is different from 
the other changes in names between papers in Nature and 
their immediately analogous Proceedings papers where there 
is no reference to the earlier papers. 
Australian Museum. One syntype: A.3851. 
This specimen is labelled in Ramsay’s hand as a type of 
Rhipidura rubrofrontata from “Guadalcanal’ and a possible 
adult male. 
Museum Victoria. Two syntypes: B.19561, B.19562. 
Both are labelled on the strip wrapping as coming from 
the Solomon Islands and as males. The date “Oct 78” is 
also written on both. They are labelled on additional tags, 
“Cockerell’s Solomon Isds Coll.; Jan.23/79”. 
Macleay Museum. One syntype: B.7090. 
This specimen was labelled by Masters “Rhipidura 
rufofrontata, Ramsay. Solomon Is”. It is of a typical Cockerell 
make and was overlooked as a —type by Stanbury (1969). 
The Natural History Museum. One syntype: 1895.12.21. 
136.Warren & Harrison (1971) claimed this specimen was 
a holotype, however Ramsay did not designate a type, as 
noted by Longmore (1991). Furthermore, as noted above, 
Ramsay saw Cockerell’s full collection before describing 
this taxon in the first paper. Warren & Harrison note that the 
