Zukowsky, L., 1965. Die Systematik der Gattung Diceros Gray, 1821. Zoologische Garten 30: 1-178, figs. 1-8
|
|
|
|
| |
| Location: |
Africa |
| Subject: |
Taxonomy |
| Species: |
Black Rhino |
 |
|
On account of the obsolete and neglected systematique of the genus Diceros, the systematic characteristics of the black rhinoceros are fixed and described for all regions of its actual and former habitats, based upon an ample material.
In spite of the great individual differences of the black rhinos with regard to their outer shapes and the structure of their skulls, it is possible to recognize specific characteristics and, consequently, well differentiated subspecies. Considering the fact that the extermination of the black rhino is progressing in an alarming way, it appeared necessary to compile and to investigate any material that is available.
This material is composed as follows: 1. Examination and measuring of 95 skulls of the museums in Berlin, Frankfort, London, Paris, Stockholm, and Vienna; and other collections; 2. Examination of a considerable number of black rhinos living in the zoos; 3. Evaluation of 180 pictures of living or newly shot animals; 4.Evaluation of about 360 bibliographic references and reports from explorers, travellers, and hunters.
There are quoted authentic informations on the black rhino from the time before the description by Linnaeus, 1758, and there are made remarks on the first description of Rhinoceros bicornis Linne.
Size, appearance, osseous structure, and geographical distribution of the original form. Camper’s classical description of a skull of D. bicornis (1777) from the Cape which was kept at the museum of Groningen, but which then was destroyed by fire in 1913. Other proofs given by Sparrman’s historic material (1775) from the Cape.
Since, up to now, no other skulls of the original form have been mentioned or described in literature, the following skulls, immediately from the Cape of Good Hopev could be ascertained, fixed, examined, and determined as types: 1. Skull (and skeleton) ad., Museum of Leiden, coll. Boie and Mackloy, 3rd VI.1826, holotype; 2. Skull, ad., Senckenberg-Museum Frankfort, No. 699, imported from the Cape by Ruppell, paratypoid; 3. Skull junad., Museum of Stockholm, No. 1572, coll. Sparrman, probably that from Quammadakka on the Great Fish-River (1775); 4. Skull ad., South African Museum Capetown, No. 21383, place of finding unknown, but certainly from the Cape to judge from the characteristics; 5. Skull (and skeleton) ad., Musee d'Histoire Naturelle Paris, No. 7969, coll. Delalande, type of Rhinoceros africanus Desmarest, 1822, “Cape”.
By means of the available material it could be proved for the first time that the original form of Diceros bioornis has been an animal of enormous dimensions so that it represents by far the greatest race of D. bicornis.
There is afforded proof of the existence of “great and small” rhinoceroses in South Africa, and their importance to systematique is explained. D. b. keitloa A. Smith, 1836, is acknowledged and described as a great and D. b, minor Drummond 1876 as a small subspecies for South Africa north of the zone of distribution of the original form, and the types are fixed.
The rhinoceros living in the central regions of Southwest Africa is ascertained as being D.b.niger Schinz, 1845, and proved as such by material from the museum of Luderitz. This also proves that D. b. occidentalis Zukowsky, 1922, is justly acknowledged as the subspecies which is known from the northern regions of Southwest Africa. The holotype and the paratypoid of D. b. occidentalis are fixed.
North of the zone of distribution of D. b. occidentalis follows a race which distinguishes itself by its remarkable size of the body, D. b. angolensis subspec. nov., types of which being two skulls at the Museum of Stockholm. Another surprisingly large race, D. b. chobiensis subspec. nov., lives in the Linjanti Basin and in the lower Chobe valley. Types at the Museum of Berlin.
Very little is known about the black rhinoceroses in Rhodesia and the lower Zam-bese Basin considering also the fact that only a few specimens from those regions could be examined. A special subspecies, D. b. nyasae subspec. nov., is supposed to exist in the regions of the northern part of the Lake Nyasa. The strange shape of a skull from the hinterland of Mikindani gives rise to the establishment of a special Rowuma race, D. b. rowumae subspec. nov. Holotype at the Museum of Berlin.
D. b. holmwoodi Sclater, 1893, was founded upon two horns from Udulia, 50 British miles south of the Speke Gulf, purchased in Zanzibar. But the two horns represent very questionable and even useless originals since they don't exhibit any characteristics that might be considered as typic of the species, and since they have been subjected to an artificial treatment. hopwood fixed the subspecies by extending the diagnosis, and he portrayed a skull (as far as can be ascertained, No. 33.5.5.1 of the British Museum). The two horns of the original description must be considered as syntypes. This race is confirmed by an ample material. It lives in the regions of the affluents of the Lake Victoria. From the districts of North Tanganyika and South Kenya, there is described the “Massai race” properly speaking, based upon an abundant material. Types at the Museum in Berlin.
A race of small stature, D. b. rendilis subspec. nov., is described from the region of the Northern Guasso Nyiro, and as types there are determined two skulls made over to the Museum of Stockholm by einab lonnbebg. The intricate matter in dispute concerning the nomenclature of D. b. somaliensis Lydekker, 1911, is cleared up after it had .
already been thoroughly treated by hopwood who fixed the types. It is a small race from Somaliland. This region has procreated some dwarfish species of mammals and birds.
D.b.brucii Lesson, 1842, is recognized as the typic race of Abyssinia, and a skull No. 21 392 at the Museum of Berlin, from the region of the Bahr Homran, is fixed as a holotype.
With regard to D. b. cucullatus Wagner, 1843, it can be proved that the author who -was the first to describe it, fell a victim to an error, since the preparation at the Museum of Munich upon which this first description was based, has proved to be an artifact. It is supposed to have been a rhinoceros without wrinkles, the skin of which had been dressed with large armour panels like that of an Indian armour rhinoceros. The place of origin of the preparation which no longer exists, is unknown.
The “armour rhinoceros” at the Museum in Vienna is also considered to be an artifact. It is probably an African rhinoceros the skin of which has been prepared and bunched up in such a way as to form armour panels so that the head and the limbs appear extremely large and heavy in proportion to the body.
Taking account of the fact that the extinct race from Upper Nubia exhibits extremely characteristic features, it is introduced to science under the name of D. b. atbarensis subspec. nov. A holotype of it is the skull No. 69.10.24.48 of the British Museum from the Anseba Valley in Erythraea.
The existence of the remarkably long-legged and smooth-skinned Shari-Tchad race, D. b. longipes Zukowsky, 1949, is further proved and substantiated by supplementary material, bibliographic references and reports of authorities. The types at the Senckenberg Museum in Frankfort-on-the-Main have already been determined in the original description
|
|
|
Die Systematik der Gattung Diceros Gray, 1821
File available
details
Original text on this topic: