Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Zoology Publications from Victoria University of Wellington—Nos. 54 to 57

Type Specimens of Heptranchias dakini

Type Specimens of Heptranchias dakini

The annotations regarding holotypes of H. dakini in the list of material above stem from conflicting data in Whitley (1931, 1957) regarding type material of this species. In the original account of H. dakini, Whitley (1931, p. 310) stated that "The holotype of H. dakini is the specimen from sixty miles south of Cape Everard, Victoria, figured by McCulloch." McCulloch's illustration (1911, pl. 1, fig. 1) is undoubtedly of a female, although it is not labelled as such, and the illustration is stated to be two-sevenths natural size. The total length in the illustration is 200 mm, which means the specimen was about 700 mm long. Subsequently, Whitley (1957, p. 1) listed as "Types" of H. dakini two specimens in the Australian Museum, a male of 845 mm (AMS I.10794) and a female of 822 mm (AMS I.10795). The male cannot be the holotype, because Whitley (1931) nominated McCulloch's figured female as such. The female is thus the supposed holotype—and this supposition is supported by data from the file-card catalogue in the Fish Department of the Australian Museum. However, this female, 822 mm long, appears to be much too long—unless McCulloch's statement of "two-sevenths page 4natural size" was a very general approximation. If neither of these two specimens is the holotype, the possibility remains that a third specimen in the Australian Museum (AMS I.10825), a female of 695 mm labelled "Victorian Coast. 1910. Commonwealth Fish Bureau. Endeavour," was one of the seven specimens, all from the same haul, on which McCulloch based his account, but we are not able to establish this. The size of this female closely accords with our calculated size for the shark figured by McCulloch. Consequently we treat this specimen as the "possible holotype" in our list of material examined and in Tables 1 and 2. We do not know the fate of the remainder of McCulloch's specimens.