The type locality and the identity of the holotype of the southeast Brazilian endemic Scytalopus speluncae (Ménétriés,1835) have attracted considerable recent scrutiny and controversy, based in large part on doubts expressed in theornithological literature concerning some of the same author’s other Brazilian type localities. Most recently, Maurício etal. (2010) recommended substituting a new type locality, the Serra dos Órgãos, for S. speluncae, based almost entirely onan analysis of photographs of the holotype. Separately, some of the same authors (Whitney et al. 2010) described a newspecies, Scytalopus petrophilus, including, as a paratype, a specimen from Ménétriés’ original type locality. Our ownknowledge of S. speluncae is based on a thorough examination of the holotype and a comprehensive review of all availablehistorical data concerning its collection. Because the holotype itself is partially damaged and the identification of somesoutheast Brazilian Scytalopus is unquestionably difficult using plumage alone (due to intraspecific variation), and furtherbecause all authors agree that only one species of Scytalopus occurs in the environs of São João del Rei, correctlyidentifying the type locality is of overriding importance to ensure the correct nomenclature of the entire species-group ofwhich S. speluncae is the senior synonym. All contemporaneous data (three expedition diaries, the original specimen label,and the original description) clearly demonstrate that Ménétriés collected S. speluncae close to a well-known limestonecave in the region of São João del Rei, in the state of Minas Gerais, on 7 June 1824. Even the bird’s name, speluncae(pertaining to “the cave”) witnesses the validity of these facts. The available historical evidence was dismissed byMaurício et al. (2010) in clear contravention of the recommendations of Article 76A.1 of the ICZN (1999), which governssuch cases. It is also relevant that all available first-hand information concerning the holotype’s morphology, as well asthe evidence from its topotypes, supports the proposition that S. speluncae was collected where Ménétriés claimed. Wefurther demonstrate that: (1) S. speluncae is the name applicable to the paler gray species with buff-fringed blackishfeathers on the flanks, thighs, vent and upper tail coverts; (2) S. petrophilus must be a junior synonym of S. speluncae; (3)the only historical argument presented by Maurício et al. (2010) contra the type locality is based on an unrepresentativetranslation; and (4) their morphological analysis uses incomplete, contradictory or misleading data, and focuses onsearching for specimens similar to the paler gray S. speluncae within the variation of the dark gray S. notorius, in order tojustify emending the type locality. Crucially, none of these specimens of S. notorius is apparently similar to the holotype and topotypes of S. speluncae in respect to all of the latter’s distinguishing characters.
Resolving the synonymy and polyphyly of the ‘Drosophila bakoue species complex’ (Diptera: Drosophilidae: ‘D. montium species group’) with descriptions of two new species from Madagascar