Révision critique d’un catalogue des types de poissons du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle – Familles des Triacanthidae, Balistidae et Monacanthidae
Critical revision of catalogue of types of fishes in Museum national d’Histoire naturelle. Family Triacanthidae, Balistidae and Monacanthidae.
This catalogue is dedicated to three families of the order Tetraodontiforms: the Triacanthidae, the Balistidae and the Monacanthidae. These families are mainly present in tropical seas. The MNHN type specimens for these groups were published by Y. Le Danois in 1961. The latter work bears many errors and was not completely respectful of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Consequently, while managing the collections, it appears that a revision of this Catalogue was needed. The present work is a critical reassessment of Le Danois’s catalogue. With old labels missing on many specimens and many specimens being not registered and properly defined, this revision has not been as easy as expected. The present work is divided in three parts. In the first part, the specimens reported to type specimens deposited in the collections of Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle are studied. They are 75 types specimens (holotypes, paratypes, syn-types and lectotypes) of 56 species described by 18 French and foreigner authors. For each species, actual status and family are indicated. In the second part, the species described by the French authors, without type specimen deposited, are presented. These species are described from a manuscript or from a drawing. As, according to the International Code of Zoo-logical Nomenclature (1999), drawings can be considered as figured holotypes of this species, 53 species are presented in this part. In the third part, previously described species and redescribed species by French authors are presented. These specimens have a high historical interest. In this last part, non-typical specimens (25 species) but described as types by Le Danois (1961) are presented. For each nominal species considered as type specimens by Y. Le Danois and currently present in the collection, we examined all available documents, published studies, inscriptions in old registers or in the stand of dried specimens. Sever-al times, Le Danois’s assertions about these specimens were erroneous. Some errors are identified are minor (for example designate a syntype as a holotype), but others errors are more important, as quoting a type specimen for a never described species. Nominal species are quoted alphabetically under the generic and specific names used in the original description. The original orthography is respected. For each nominal species, the following items are specified: 1) name of the author, date, reference and page of the original description; 2) register number in the collections; 3) typical status (holotype, lectotype, paratype or syntype); 4) locality as mentioned in the original description; 5) name of the collector or the donator; 6) number of specimens and the way of preservation; 7) standard length and total length; 8) actual status if modified from the original status.