Testudo subrufa Lacepede 1788

Testudo subrufa Lacepède, 1788 = Testudo subrufa Bonnaterre, 1789

Only when Mertens (1937: p. 139) and Loveridge (1941: p. 470) reinstated the scientific name Pelomedusa subrufa (Lacepède, 1788) for helmeted terrapins, this name combination found wide acceptance. Previously, Pelomedusa galeata (Schoepff, 1792) was used by most authors (see below under Testudo galeata Schoepff, 1792), even though John Edward Gray in his influential works consistently applied the species name subrufa (as Hydraspis subrufa, Gray 1831: p. 39 or Pelomedusa subrufa, e.g., Gray 1856: p. 53; 1863: pp. 99–100).

The name Testudo subrufa was originally coined by Lacepède (1788) in his “ Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupèdes Ovipares ”, where a specimen from the Royal Cabinet Paris was described under the name “ La Roussâtre ” (p. 173). In the “ Synopsis methodica Quadrupedum oviparorum ” of the same work, a folded table in which binominals were applied to the individual species, Lacepède named this terrapin Testudo subrufa. According to Lacepède (1788: p. 173) the terrapin on which he based his description was obtained from Pierre Sonnerat (1745–1814) and came allegedly from “ Inde ”.

This specimen, which has to be identified with the holotype of Testudo subrufa Lacepède, 1788, is still present in the collection of the Muséum National d’Histoire naturelle (Bour 1982) and was examined by us; tissue for genetic examination was extracted. The type (MNHN 7970) is a shell of an adult terrapin (straight carapacial length 13.67 cm) with most epidermal scutes missing. Its plastron is broken (Fig. 2).

Since the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 2005: Opinion 2104, Case 3226) has ruled that Lacepède’s (1788) “ Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupèdes Ovipares ” is an unavailable non-binominal work, Bonnaterre (1789) became author of Testudo subrufa (and of other names) by re-publishing Lacepède’s descriptions using consistently binominal scientific names. The type status of the terrapin described by Lacepède (1788) and re-described by Bonnaterre (1789: p. 28) remains unaffected by this transfer of formal authorship.

It is obvious that the original type locality (“ Inde ”) of Testudo subrufa is in error. In accordance with the information provided by Lacepède (1788), Mertens (1937: p. 139) and Loveridge (1941: p. 470) believed that the type specimen of Testudo subrufa originates from Sonnerat, who is known to have collected at the Cape of Good Hope. Therefore, they identified the type locality with the Cape. However, based on an extensive discussion of historical details, Bour (1982) concluded that the holotype of Testudo subrufa was most probably not collected by Sonnerat, but by Philibert Commerson (1727–1773), who stayed on Madagascar in 1770. Some drawings of Commerson’s Malagasy specimens are still present in the Central Library of the Paris Museum. Bour (1982) identified one of these drawings with the holotype and designated “Taolañaro (Fort-Dauphin), République Malagasy [Madagascar]” (p. 535) as type locality of Testudo subrufa. However, probably due to oversight, Bour (1985: p. 56) endorsed later the Cape of Good Hope as type locality of Testudo subrufa again.

All of our efforts to generate mtDNA sequences from the holotype resulted only in contaminant fungal sequences. Therefore, in the absence of other evidence, we accept the type locality Taolañaro (Madagascar), as suggested by Bour (1982). Consequently, the name Testudo subrufa Bonnaterre, 1789 refers to lineage VIII of Vargas-Ramírez et al. (2010), which is known to occur in Madagascar, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi and Namibia (Fig. 1). The Malagasy populations are thought to be introduced from continental Africa (Vargas-Ramírez et al. 2010; Wong et al. 2010). If lineage VIII is deemed to be taxonomically distinct, the name Pelomedusa subrufa (Bonnaterre, 1789) will have to be restricted to this taxon.