GBIF Taxonomic Backbone & Wikipedia Registry Profile
Wettstein described Ablepharus bivittatus lindbergi in 1960 using two adult specimens. Both specimens were numbered under “ 345 ” from the Lindberg Collection (Gemel et al. 2019). Wettstein declared the specimen with a length of 46 + 68 mm as holotype and the second specimen with a length of 50 + 50 mm and with a regenerated tail as the paratype. Only the holotype, a male, with the inventory number NMW 15877, is in the inventory of the Natural History Museum Vienna. However, the paratype is lost (Gemel et al. 2019: 220). The holotype bears the following information: “ E Hérat, W-Afghanistan, steppe a few km W Obéh [= Obe, = Owbi], 28.08.1957, Coll. Lindberg, No. 345 ” .. The same information applies to the paratype. Wettstein mentioned a third specimen (with the collection number “ Lindberg 733 ”) from Masdjed-Tchoubi, Chileh Hammam, at the foot of the Sabzzak pass, 2190 m, which Lindberg handed over to the NMW two years later, in 1959, which was not designated as a type. This specimen also cannot be found in the NMW collection. Eremchenko & Shcherbak (1980) explained that A. lindbergi differs on species level from A. bivittatus (Menetries, 1832) and made a detailed differential diagnosis. But instead of simply recombining the name and elevating A. lindbergi to the species rank in order to separate this taxon from A. bivittatus, the two authors created another “ paratype ” that is stored in the collection of the St. Petersburg Zoological Institute. This “ paratype ” bears the following information: ZISP 18244, “ Western Afghanistan, Kuh-i-Baba Mountain Ridge near the Band-i-Amir Lake, 2800 m a. s. l., 70 km W of Bamyan ”. Leg.: E. Sugonyaev, 16. IX. 1966. (see Barabanov & Milto 2017; Uetz et al. 2020). However, this specimen (ZIP 18244) did not serve Wettstein as the basis of his description and cannot be considered as a paratype in accordance with the regulations (ICZN: Art. 61.1.2.). Since Wettstein also named an untraceable paratype in addition to the holotype, this cannot be replaced by a later created “ paratype ”. The situation is as more confusing as the “ paratype ” of Ablepharus lindbergi in the Museum St. Petersburg could be wrongly regarded as the missing Viennese paratype.
