Elliott Andy, Collar Nigel J, Bruce Murray D, Kirwan Guy M
c/o Lynx Edicions, Montseny 8, E-08193 Bellaterra, Catalunya, Spain..
Zootaxa. 2020 Feb 11;4732(1):zootaxa.4732.1.2. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4732.1.2.
Based on molecular and morphological analyses, Irestedt et al. (2017) propose various taxonomic revisions for the genera Lophorina and Ptiloris (Paradisaeidae). Concerning Lophorina, which they recommend treating as three species rather than one, they hypothesize that the no longer extant type specimen of L. superba, heretofore believed to come from the Vogelkop in westernmost mainland New Guinea, in fact pertained to a different population (and different species, under their revised taxonomy), and they attempt to consolidate the nomenclatural repercussions of this by proposing a neotype for the name superba. However, the historical and specimen evidence fails to uphold their nomenclatural proposals, and the neotypification contains procedural errors. In particular, our examination of specimen material identifies nine points of conflict between what is clearly the most accurate contemporary illustration of the type and the plumage pattern and structure in the population to which Irestedt et al. assert it should be ascribed; we find not a single point in their favour. The only other relevant depiction of the type from the same period, while less accurate, also differs crucially from the population Irestedt et al. claim that it represents, especially in lacking black spots on the breast-shield. Furthermore, there is a strong historical rationale not only to believe that the type of superba was collected in the Vogelkop, as all contemporary commentators indicated, but also to regard the notion of tribespeople transporting it more than 600 km from its point of collection, as Irestedt et al. effectively suggest, as exceedingly unlikely. Consequently, with all this evidence against the proposed reidentification, the name L. s. superba should be maintained for populations of the Vogelkop, and the neotype designation rejected. The type locality reverts to the Vogelkop, but herein is further restricted to the Tamrau Mountains.
基于分子和形态学分析，伊雷斯泰特等人（2017年）对丽色风鸟属（Lophorina）和幡羽极乐鸟属（Ptiloris，极乐鸟科）提出了各种分类修订。关于丽色风鸟属，他们建议将其视为三个物种而非一个物种，他们推测，此前被认为来自最西端的新几内亚大陆鸟头半岛的已不复存在的丽色风鸟（L. superba）模式标本，实际上属于一个不同的种群（按照他们修订后的分类法，属于不同的物种），并且他们试图通过为“superba”这个名称提议一个新模式标本，来巩固这一分类修订在命名上的影响。然而，历史和标本证据无法支持他们的命名提议，并且新模式标本指定存在程序错误。特别是，我们对标本材料的检查发现，在显然是该模式标本最准确的当代插图与伊雷斯泰特等人声称它应归属的种群的羽毛图案和结构之间，存在九个冲突点；我们没有发现任何对他们有利的点。同一时期对该模式标本的唯一其他相关描绘虽然不太准确，但也与伊雷斯泰特等人声称它所代表的种群有很大差异，特别是在胸盾上没有黑点。此外，有一个强有力的历史依据，不仅相信如所有当代评论者所指出的，“superba”的模式标本是在鸟头半岛采集的，而且认为伊雷斯泰特等人实际上所暗示的部落居民将其从采集点运送600多公里的说法极不可能。因此，鉴于所有这些证据都反对提议的重新鉴定，“L. s. superba”这个名称应保留用于鸟头半岛的种群，新模式标本指定应被拒绝。模式产地恢复为鸟头半岛，但在此进一步限定为塔姆劳山脉。
