On the type selection and re-typification of two monitor lizard taxa (Squamata: Varanidae): Monitor bivittatus celebensis Schlegel, 1844 and Monitor kordensis Meyer, 1874; with some comments and corrections on other name-bearing type specimens Author Böhme, Wolfgang Author Koch, André text Zootaxa 2010 2440 60 68 journal article 10.5281/zenodo.294103 fb1c6659-538b-4a8b-821f-44d50b91af9f 1175-5326 294103 1. Monitor bivittatus celebensis Schlegel, 1844 This taxon described from Northern Celebes (= Sulawesi) was meanwhile considered to be a synonym of Varanus salvator salvator (Laurenti, 1768) (see Mertens 1942 , 1963 ; Böhme 1997 , 2003 ) implying that the likewise Sulawesian taxon Monitor ( Hydrosaurus ) togianus Peters, 1872 (at present V. togianus ) would be restricted to its type locality, the off-coast Togian Islands of Central Sulawesi. But already since the end of the 19th century, there were hints that togianus -like, melanistic phenotypes would occur also on Sulawesi itself ( Weber 1891 ; Boulenger 1897 ; Iskandar & Nio 1996 ; Auliya 2006 ; Koch et al. 2007 ) implying the sympatric existence of melanistic ( togianus ) and patterned ( celebensis ) phenotypes, thus, in case of two distinct taxa, even the coexistence of two distinct species. Under these auspices, De Lisle (2009) felt obliged ("it seems wise to recognize a type .....") to identify a lectotype from, as he thought, only two RMNH specimens from Sulawesi because Schlegel ( 1837-44 ) did not fix a name-bearing type , neither by original designation nor by implication. According to Art. 74 (ICZN 1999) this action is possible although unnecessary in a checklist without a revisionary taxonomic approach which, however, is in progress by one of us (AK). Of the supposed two historical RMNH specimens from Sulawesi available to Herrmann Schlegel during the time of his curatorship at the Leiden museum, De Lisle (2009) selected the specimen RMNH 3179 (an adult, collected by E. A. Forsten, 1841) because it had a specific locality (“Menado” = Manado, North Sulawesi) while the second (RMNH 3176, collected by v[an]. Delden, without date) was labelled just as "Celebes". Here, it should be mentioned that collection number RMNH 3176 represents not one female as De Lisle (2009) stated, but actually comprises two juvenile specimens (see Brandenburg 1983 : 59; Koch et al. 2007 : 152). De Lisle’s (2009) conclusion that specimens RMNH 3176a, b were already present in the Leiden museum in the early 1840s, probably due to the low accession number, is also incorrect because the RMNH collection numbers were not allocated chronologically (E. Gassó-Miracle, pers. comm.). According to a note in the catalogue by the former curator of herpetology at the Leiden Museum, Rinus Hoogmoed, “numbers up to ca. RMNH 3760 are classified systematically, higher numbers irregular. Up to that it concerns animals received up to ca. 1866. From RMNH 3760 irregular with older specimens (1837) and newer (1872, 1877). I think that from the end of the 1860's, beginning 1870's (RMNH 3881 and further) it seems that specimens were classified on receiving date” (R. de Ruiter, pers. comm.). The date of collecting for RMNH 3176a, b was given as “1872?” by Koch et al. (2007) . Van Steenis-Kruseman (1950) , in her compendium about Malaysian (plant) collectors, did mention a person “van Delden”, however, without providing any dates of birth and death or collecting trips. In sum, it is very likely that RMNH 3179 was the only Sulawesian specimen available to Schlegel for the description of his Monitor bivittatus celebensis , and therefore represents the holotype of this taxon by implication. Consequently, De Lisle's (2009) lectotype designation becomes inappropriate. He merely mentioned the unknown holotype specimen as had earlier been indicated by Koch et al. (2007) . If designating a lectotype for Schlegel's taxon was warranted, De Lisle (2009) correctly followed Recommendation 74B to select a specimen figured before in the literature (see Fig. 13 in Koch et al. 2007 ) but he did not mention this previously published figure. Moreover, he ignored Recommendation 74C, because he did not publish the data described in Recommendation 73C ("Data on the holotype ") which are likewise requested for lectotype designations. Due to the minor quality of the photograph of Schlegel’s type of V. s. celebensis in De Lisle (2009 : 10, which shows only half of the specimen’s body) and because the publication by Koch et al. (2007) may be difficult to access, we here provide a better photograph of the holotype (see Fig. 1 ).