taxonID	type	description	language	source
705B333B33611B46FF38A1A6FB03FA08.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1896 f: 189) based this form on “ sehr lichte britische Vögel (“ very pale British birds). As noted by Hartert (1910: 773), British birds are darker than those from continental Europe. This strongly indicates that Pražák did not base A. m. sclateri on actual specimen material. In absence of any evidence that Pražák based this form on existing specimens or on published data, I treat Accentor modularis sclateri Pražák, 1896 f, as a name for a hypothetical form, which has no standing in zoological nomenclature (Art. 11.3.1 of the Code).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33611B47FF38A319FE0FFD99.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1897 e: 290 – 291) said that he based this form on four specimens from northern Japan that he examined personally and on two specimens described by Stejneger (1887: 386) from “ Yesso ” [= Hokkaido] as Aegithalos caudatus. These six specimens are thus the potential syntypes of Pražák’s japonica (see also Morioka et al. 2005: 63). Both Stejneger specimens are deposited in the USNM (USNM 91549, 96147; Morioka et al. 2005: 63), but I found no evidence that Pražák personally examined any specimens of A. caudatus from northern Japan (none were in the NHMW and VTH). It thus seems likely that the type series of A. c. japonica Pražák consisted only of the two USNM specimens, and the remaining four unspecified specimens should be treated as hypothetical. Pražák (1897 e: 290) listed “ Nördliches Japan ” (“ northern Japan ”) as the type locality of his A. c. japonica. Due to the redefinition of the type series of this form, I here restrict its type locality to Sapporo, island of Hokkaido, Japan [43.05 ° N, 141.35 ° E].	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33601B47FF38A78FFC12FA8B.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype (lost). ad. 3, collected by István Chernel von Chernelháza on 29 May 1895 at “ Deliblater Sandwüste, Ungarn ” (Pražák 1895 c: 143) [= Deliblato, Serbia; 44.83 ° N, 21.05 ° E].	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33601B47FF38A78FFC12FA8B.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1895 c: 143) described this species on the basis of a single specimen which he denoted as typus and which is thus the holotype. Almássy (1896: 209) indicated that this specimen was collected by István Chernel von Chernelháza (1867 – 1933), a significant Hungarian ornithologist, and that it was sent by Chernel to Pražák in Hořinĕves for examination. Pražák probably returned the specimen to Chernel (cf. Almássy 1896). Chernel donated his collection of birds to the Hungarian Ornithological Institute (Csőrgey 1922: 31; Vönöczky Schenk 1943: 135), but the current disposition of the holotype is unknown (T. I. Fuisz, in litt. 2009). György Almássy (1867 – 1933; also Germanized as Georg Almasy) accompanied Chernel on his trip to Deliblato in spring 1895, where he collected another specimen of Lullula arborea (Almássy 1896). Although Almássy (1896) criticized Pražák for having described a new taxon on the basis of a single specimen, he supported the validity of cherneli. To confirm this, Almássy (1896) sent his Deliblato specimen to Richard Bowdler Sharpe (1847 – 1909) of the British Museum in London, England, who interpreted it as a typical Lullula arborea in fresh spring plumage (Sharpe 1897: 445; see also Hartert 1900: 33, 1905: 241).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33601B47FF38A09AFBA0F840.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1897 e) did not specify the type series upon which he based his A. s. reichenowi, but listed (p. 328) measurements of 27 adult males and 15 adult females of this form, which would set the minimum size of the type series at 42 syntypes. However, the NHMW had no such specimens when Pražák had access to its collections. The VTH possessed 16 specimens from the Slovak Carpathians (now NHMW 32126 – 32140 and 74575), but they were apparently not available to Pražák for study (Tschusi 1899: 115). I found no relevant references to published sources in Pražák’s (1897 e) paper; neither was I able to locate a paper which could have served Pražák as an inspiration. I thus believe that all 42 or more “ syntypes ” existed only in Pražák’s mind and that A. s. reichenowi is thus a hypothetical concept, which has no standing in zoological nomenclature (Art. 1.3.1. of the Code). This is supported by unrealistically small variability of Pražák’s alleged specimens. For example, all 27 adult males were said by Pražák (1897 e: 328) to have wing length 84 – 85 mm, and tail length invariably 70 mm.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33631B44FF38A5ACFE04FD2F.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Carduelis carduelis was a popular cage bird in Bohemia and local bird catchers distinguished several varieties according to minute differences in plumage coloration, body size, song or habitat preferences (e. g. Šír 1890: 109 – 110). Pražák (1894 d: 83 – 84) provided scientific names for three of these varieties, including smallish, plain-colored garden birds (hortensis), largish birds breeding outside of villages (sylvestris), and brightly colored, good singing birds, believed to breed mainly at higher elevations (alpestris). Pražák (1894 d: 83 – 84) provided descriptions for these three forms, which he called “ gute Subspecies ” (“ good subspecies ”) (Pražák 1894 d: 82). In consequence, all these names are available for nomenclatural purposes, although Pražák (1894 d) did not specify their type series. Pražák (1894 d: 84) did not specify the type locality of C. e. alpestris, but listed examples of localities where these birds were common. All of these localities lie within Bohemia and I thus consider Bohemia as the type locality of Carduelis elegans alpestris Pražák. Hartert (1903: 67) incorrectly said that Pražák (1894 d) described this form as Fringilla alpestris.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33631B44FF38A614FEC6FAD3.taxon	discussion	Remarks. See under Carduelis elegans hortensis (above). Pražák (1894 d: 84) did not specify the type locality of C. e. hortensis, but listed " Königsgrätz " [= Hradec Králové, Bohemia; 50.21 ° N, 15.83 ° E], " Prager Umgebung " [= " vicinity of Prague "; Prague has been a capitol of Bohemia and its unspecified " vicinity " covers much of Central Bohemia] and " Süd-Böhmen " [= " South Bohemia "] as examples of localities where these birds were common and stated (p. 84) that he personally collected eight specimens on 7 October 1892 at “ Maslojed ” [= Máslojedy, Bohemia; 50.30 ° N, 15.77 ° E]. Considering that Pražák invented such records in many cases and that he did not limit the description of hortensis to these birds, I prefer to consider the whole of Bohemia as the type locality of Carduelis elegans hortensis Pražák. Hartert (1903: 67) incorrectly said that Pražák (1894 d) described this form as Fringilla hortensis.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33631B44FF38A067FBF6F94B.taxon	discussion	Remarks. See under Carduelis elegans hortensis (above). Pražák (1894 d: 84) did not specify the type locality of C. e. sylvestris, but listed examples of localities where these birds were common. All of these localities lie within Bohemia and I thus consider Bohemia as the type locality of Carduelis elegans sylvestris Pražák. Hartert (1903: 67) incorrectly said that Pražák (1894 d) described this form as Fringilla sylvestris.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33631B45FF38A3DAFEDAFB27.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype. NHMW 11416, Ƥ, collected by an unknown collector on 17 Juli 1891 at “ Zvičin bei Königinhof, NO Böhmen ” [= Zvičina, Czech Republic; 50.45 ° N, 15.68 ° E]. This specimen was donated by Pražák to the NHMW in 1893. Wing length = 67 mm (my measurement).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33631B45FF38A3DAFEDAFB27.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1894 d: 49 – 51) distinguished in north-eastern Bohemia two forms of Erithacus rubecula, including a “ grössere Form ” (“ larger form ”) and a “ kleinere Form ” (“ smaller form ”), which he described in some detail, but which he did not formally name at that time. Later, Pražák (1897 e: 249) stated that he examined in addition to the Bohemian material “ eine ... Reihe von 36 Vögeln beider Geschlechter aus den Karpathen ” (“ a series of 36 birds of both sexes from the Carpathians ”), that his study of this additional material supported his former opinion that two subspecies of Erithacus rubecula existed in Central Europe, and that he considered there was justification for a scientific name for the “ larger mountain form ”. In 2007 I found in the NHMW a single E. rubecula labeled in Pražák’s hand as “ grössere Gebirgsform ” (“ larger mountain form ”), but I found no evidence that the name E. r. maior was applied by Pražák to other specimens. I thus consider specimen NHMW 11416 the holotype of maior, believing that all other specimens mentioned by Pražák (1894 d: 49 – 51, 1897 e: 249 – 250) may have existed only in his mind. Pražák (1894 d: 50, 1897 e: 249 – 250) said that he described E. r. maior from Bohemia, [Austrian] Galicia, and the Carpathians, mentioning a number of particular localities (but not restricting the occurrence of E. r. maior to them). They included in the Czech Republic (current administrative divisions are applied throughout this paragraph): “ Jaromeř ” [= Jaromĕř; 50.35 ° N, 15.92 ° E], “ Jičin ” [= Jičín; 50.43 ° N, 15.35 ° E], “ Königinhof ” [= Dvůr Králové; 50.43 ° N, 15.81 ° E] and “ Riesengebirge ” [= Krkonoše Mountains]; in western Ukraine: “ Delatyn ” [= Dylyatyn; 48.53 ° N, 24.63 ° E], Porohy [48.69 ° N, 24.27 ° E], “ Seletin [= Selyatyn; 47.87 ° N, 25.22 ° E], “ Stole [unidentifed; perhaps a misprint for “ Skole = Skol’ye; 49.03 ° N, 23.52 ° E], Stryj [= Stryy; 49.25 ° N, 23.85 ° E], and Turka [49.15 ° N, 23.03 ° E]; and in southeastern Poland: Baligród [49.33 ° N, 22.28 ° E], Dukla [49.57 ° N, 21.68 ° E], “ Koroscienko ” [= KroŠcienko; 49.47 ° N, 22.67 ° E] and Lutowiska [49.25 ° N, 22.70 ° E]. Ripley (1964: 36) listed “ Stryj, East Galicia ” as the type locality of E. r. maior without explanation, but the type locality is Zvičina, Czech Republic, where the holotype was collected according to the label data. However, the specimen was donated by Pražák to the NHMW together with some demonstrably or probably fraudulent (relabeled) specimens (see above). Subsequent research thus might show that the specimen was collected at a locality other than that currently believed. Schalow (1899: 85) and Hartert (1910: 751) spelled the species name incorrectly as major, but maior is the correct original spelling. I found no differences between the holotype of E. r. maior in the wing length (67 mm; my measurement; vs. 67 – 79 mm in 109 adult Czech and Slovak birds of both sexes; Kožená 1983) or morphology of other Central European Erithacus rubecula, which supports previous opinion by Hartert (1901: 317; 1910: 751) and Ripley (1964: 36) that Pražák’s maior is inseparable from the nominotypical Erithacus rubecula rubecula (Linnaeus).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33621B45FF38A01CFF10F92F.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1897 e: 347, footnote) created L. c. brunnescens as a new replacement name for Parus rufescens Brehm (1855: 243), because he found it preoccupied by Parus rufescens Townsend (1837: 190). By definition, P. brunnescens Pražák has the same type series and type locality as P. rufescens Brehm (Art. 72.7 and Art. 76 of the Code). The type series remains undisclosed, because Brehm (1855: 467) created his rufescens without reference to a specimen and Hartert (1918) and LeCroy (2010) found no relevant specimens in the Brehm Collection (now in the AMNH). The type locality was given as “ Mitteldeutschland ” (Central Germany) by Brehm (1855: 243).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33621B42FF38A214FD94FBC9.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1897 e: 347, footnote) said that he based this form on “ die schottischen Exemplare ” (“ the Scottish specimens ”), without explanation. The NHMW and VTH had no Parus cristatus from Scotland when Pražák studied tits there in 1893 – 1895. However, Pražák (1897 e: 347, footnote) added the description of scotica during proofreading of the second part of his forthcoming treatise of the birds of Austrian East Galicia (published in the July issue of Journal für Ornithologie), when he worked in Edinburgh, Scotland. It is thus highly probable that Pražák based his scotica on specimens he examined in NMS, where the five specimens listed above could have been at his disposal (B. McGowan, in litt. 2010). Of these, four specimens were catalogued and Pražák may well have seen them. However, the Rothiemurchus specimen was not catalogued and it is thus uncertain whether Pražák examined it. Thus, I consider the three Gray specimens and the Evans specimen as syntypes of Lophophanes cristatus scotica Pražák. The type status of the Rothiemurchus specimen is uncertain. Pražák (1898 a: 347, footnote) spoke about “ Scottish ” specimens, which makes Scotland the type locality. Clancey (1948: 108) restricted the type locality to “ Strath Spey, Scotland ”. None of the four syntypes bears an exact locality. However, Lophophanes cristatus scoticus (Pražák) is a range-restricted subspecies whose range includes the region of Strathspey, Scotland ”. Nevertheless, there is nothing in Pražák’s writings and nothing in NMS files (B. McGowan, in litt. 2010) that would allow restriction of the type locality of this form to Strathspey. Clancey’s (1948) restriction is thus invalid and the type locality of Lophophanes cristatus scotica Pražák continues to be the whole range of the subspecies.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33651B42FF38A15FFBD0FA7F.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype (lost): “ ad. 3 ” [= juv.], collected by Gustav Radde (1831 – 1903) on 22 April 1886 (NS) at “ Astara ” [= Astara, Azerbaijan; 38.46 ° N, 48.88 ° E]. See Radde (1887: 477).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33651B42FF38A15FFBD0FA7F.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1897 e: 288) based this form on a specimen erroneously described by Radde (1887: 477 – 478) as an adult male, although the plumage agrees with that of a juvenile bird (see also Hartert 1907 a: 405). The specimen was in the Radde Collection, but its current whereabouts is unknown.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33651B43FF38A336FD89FE09.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1894 f: 246) stated that he studied “ eine Reihe englischer Exemplare ” (“ a series of English specimens ”), without designating the holotype. Only two relevant specimens were available to Pražák prior to 1895, which thus represent the syntypes of P. c. obscurus. All other specimens may have existed only in Pražák’s mind. Pražák (1894 f: 246) did not specify the type locality of P. c. obscurus, but both syntypes were collected at Avington, England. R. Prÿs-Jones (in litt. 2010) observed that here are two villages of this name in England, one in Berkshire [51.40 ° N, 01.47 ° W] and the other in Hampshire [51.09 ° N, 01.24 ° W]. The Hampshire Avington was the seat of the English ornithologist George Ernest Shelley (1840 – 1910) and the place where Shelley and R. B. Sharpe collected many birds during 1871 – 1886 (Sharpe 1906: 477; R. Prÿs-Jones, in litt. 2010). I agree with Prÿs-Jones (in litt. 2010) that it is thus “ quite certain that the specimens came from Avington, Hampshire ”. I thus restrict the type locality to the latter place. Clancey (1948: 108) erroneously believed that Pražák’s types did not survive and restricted the type locality to the “ Lake District, England ” (see also Vaurie 1959: 502; Snow 1967: 114), which is an invalid action (Art. 76 of the Code).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33641B43FF38A09AFB20F840.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype. NHMW 33625 (formerly NHMW 1888. VI. 16, not IV as given by Pražák 1894 f: 240), 3, collected by Enrico Andreini (1828 – 1894), an Italian army officer, who worked in Iran in 1857 – 1894 (Piemontese 1969, Cronin 2008), on an unknown date [= 1857 – 1888, possibly in the mid 1880 s] at “ Teheran [= Tehran, Iran; 35.67 ° N, 51.42 ° E].	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33641B43FF38A09AFB20F840.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1894 f: 240) said that he based his P. m. blanfordi on a NHMW specimen (listed above) and on a specimen in his private collection (reportedly a male, catalogued as JPPH 1955). There is no evidence that Pražák possessed any tit from Persia or elsewhere from Asia. I thus believe that the specimen JPPH 1955 may have existed only in Pražák’s mind and I consider the NHMW specimen as the holotype of this species.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33641B43FF38A71FFC79FA8B.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype. NHMW 10664, collected by an unknown collector on an unknown date [= prior to 1892] at an unknown locality in England. Obtained from R. B. Sharpe in 1891.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33641B43FF38A71FFC79FA8B.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1894 f: 239 – 240) called this bird “ Britische Kohlmeise ” (“ British Great Tit ”), listed specimen NHMW 10664 as the “ typus ” (= holotype), and stated that he examined 19 specimens of this form. All of these specimens, except the holotype, may have existed only in Pražák’s mind. Two specimens of British Parus major were in the VTH in 1906 when the collection was purchased by the NHMW, including NMW 33646 (formerly Tschusi 2595), collected in “ England ” in “ Winter ” of an unknown year, and NMW 33648 (formerly Tschusi 4069), collected “ near Brighton, Sussex ” on 4 February 1894 and supplied to Tschusi by “ Brazenor Bros., Naturalists, 39, Lewes Road, Brighton ”. Pražák visited Tschusi at Hallein for the first time shortly prior to 15 October 1894 according to one of Tschusi’s letters (Schmuck 2010: 262 – 263), i. e. too late for considering these specimens (even if they were already present in the VTH at that time, for which no evidence is available) in his paper on Parus major, which appeared in issue 6 of the Ornithologisches Jahrbuch for Nov – Dec 1894. Moreover, these specimens were not labeled as newtoni. I thus conclude that Pražák’s P. m. newtoni was based on a single specimen. Pražák (1894 f: 239) listed only “ Britain ” as the type locality, but the holotype was collected in “ England ” according to the label data. I thus restrict the type locality of P. m. n e w t o n i to England. Believing that the holotype was lost, Clancey (1948: 197) restricted the type locality of P. m. n e w t o n i to the “ Lake District, England ”. Since the holotype is extant, Clancey’s restriction is invalid (Art. 76 of the Code).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33671B40FF38A5ACFCA4F8AF.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1895 b: 92) described this form as a “ var. nova ”, stating on p. 93 that “ Ich wage es mit diesem geringen Materiale nicht, eine neue Subspecies aufzustellen, glaube aber, dass die von Ochotsk und Kamtschatka angeführten P. rufescens eigentlich die hier erwähnten Vögel sein dürften ”. (“ I hesitate to create a new subspecies on the basis of such a meager material, but I believe that specimens from Ohotsk and Kamchatka listed as P. rufescens may represent the form mentioned here. ”) Herewith Pražák explicitly stated that he created alascensis as an infrasubspecific name, which has no standing in zoological nomenclature (Art. 10.2 of the Code; see also Dickinson et al. 2006: 73, footnote). However, Grinnell (1900: 59) used Pražák’s infrasubspecific name for a tit subspecies, being followed e. g. by Ridgway (1904: 411), AOU Committee (1910: 351) and Hellmayr (1911: 37, 1934: 77). Due to Grinnell’s (1900) action, and following the provisions of Art. 45.6.4.1 of the Code, alascensis is available from Pražák (1895 b). Hellmayr (1934: 77, footnote) believed that Pražák “ probably never examined a specimen himself ” and that he based his account solely on the figure in Turner (1886, pl. 10). Pražák (1895 b: 92) indeed referred to a figure in Turner’s Contributions [= Turner 1886, pl. 10], but also presented measurements of a specimen from “ Alaska ” and a specimen from “ Ochotsk ”, adding (p. 93) that also a bird or birds from “ Kamtschatka ” listed as P. rufescens belong in his alascensis. I was not able to find any specimens or references mentioning Parus cinctus and / or Parus rufescens from Kamchatka (see also Hellmayr 1934: 77, footnote), but in reporting that P. c. alascensis occurs at Ohotsk Pražák (1895 b: 92 – 93) may have been inspired by Lundahl (1848: 5 – 6), who described Parus ferrugineus on the basis of some 30 specimens collected by Reinhold Ferdinand Sahlberg (1811 – 1874) at Ohotsk and Sitka in 1839 – 41 (see Renvall 1869: 175 – 176). Their current deposition is unknown. Pražák (1895 b: 88 – 89) cited Lundahl's (1848) paper in connection with Parus lapponicus Lundahl, 1848, but omitted (intentionally?) any reference to Lundahl (1848) when he described his Poecile cincta alascensis (Pražák 1895 b: 92 – 93). The absence of a reference prevents Lundahl’s specimens from being parts of the type series upon which Pražák (1895 b) based his P. c. alascensis. Nevertheless, the NHMW possessed a specimen of Parus rufescens from Alaska at the time when Pražák studied its tit collections (NHMW 65141) and it is likely that he examined it. Pražák’s Poecile cincta alascensis was thus based on two syntypes listed above. Hellmayr’s (1934: 77, footnote) opinion that Pražák (1895 b) based P. c. alascensis solely on the figure in Turner (1886) has the power of designating the bird figured by Turner (1886) as the lectotype (Art. 74.6 of the Code). Herewith, the specimen NHMW 65141 became a paralectotype. Hellmayr’s (1934: 77, footnote) lectotypification of the Turner bird solved the taxonomic identity of P. c. alascensis and automatically restricted its type locality to “ St. Michael, Norton Sound, Alaska ” (Art. 76.2 of the Code). Kittlitz (1836: 268, 1858: 200) named the chickadee of Sitka Parus sitchensis, but this is a nomen nudum in both cases (no description or indication). Accordingly, the specimen NHMW 65141, although collected by Kittlitz, has no name-bearing function with respect to Kittlitz’s sitkensis.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33661B41FF38A606FCEEF808.taxon	materials_examined	Type series. Specimens with faint and short superciliar band identified by Pleske (1894: 170) as Remiz pendulinus pendulinus Linnaeus (see below for explanation).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33661B41FF38A606FCEEF808.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1897 g: 242) said that “ In Süd-Europa (Süd-Russland, Ost-Galizien) lebt eine grössere, mitten zwischen castaneus Sew. und pendulinus stehende Form, welche vielleicht Raddei heissen sollte. ”, i. e. “ Southern Europe (southern Russia and [Austrian] East Galicia) is inhabited by a larger form, intermediate between castaneus Sew. and [nominotypical] pendulinus, which perhaps should be named Raddei ”. In a footnote on the same page, Pražák (1897 g: 242) replaced “ castaneus Sew. ” with “ caspius Poelzam ”, referring there to Pražák (1897 e: 347). Indeed, castaneus Sĕvercov ", 1873, is preoccupied by caspius Pèl'cam, 1870. Pražák (1897 g: 242, footnote) presented a morphological diagnosis of raddei in a key to the forms of Palearctic penduline tits of the Remiz pendulinus complex. This key was adopted from Pleske (1894: 170 – 171), but raddei was added in the following way. Pleske (1894: 170) distinguished castaneus Sĕvercov " from the nominotypical pendulinus Linnaeus (and two other forms, which are irrelevant here) by their chestnut eye-stripe, stating that this band is present and long (reaching ears) in castaneus, while it is either absent or faint (and if so, then short, reaching only eye) in nominotypical pendulinus. Pražák (1897 g: 242) made two forms from the latter, limiting pendulinus to the birds lacking a superciliar band, and creating his raddei for birds with faint, short superciliar bands. Pražák (1897 g: 242) did not mention any specimens as belonging to his raddei. He could have examined, in the early 1890 s, specimen NHMW 3787 (Ƥ?, collected by an unknown person in April (year not given) at “ Astrachan ” [= Astrahan, Russia; 46.45 ° N, 48.05 ° E]), but there is no evidence for this and I do not consider this specimen a syntype. The type series of raddei thus consists of specimens with faint and short supraciliar stripes, which Pleske (1894: 170) included in the nominotypical pendulinus. This is an undefined set. There is no doubt that Pleske (1894) examined such specimens, but it is doubtful whether one or more specimens can be unequivocally recognized as those identified by Pleske as proper pendulinus with faint and short supraciliar bands. In spite of this, R. p. raddei Pražák was based – by indication – on a genuine specimen or specimens and is thus available for nomenclatural purposes. Following the taxonomy of Pleske (1894), I synonymize here Remizus pendulinus raddei Pražák, 1897, with Remiz pendulinus pendulinus (Linnaeus, 1758). Type specimens being unknown, the type locality remains “ Süd-Europa (Süd-Russland, Ost-Galizien) ” following Pražák (1897 g: 242). Considering the current administrative division of Europe, this type locality can be redefined as Ukraine and the southern part of European Russia.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33661B41FF38A5ACFB96FD2F.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype. NMW 33353 (Tschusi 5502), 3, collected by “ Zarudny ” [= Nikolaj Alekseevič Zarudnyj (1859 – 1919)] on “ 26. XII. 93 ” [= 7 January 1894 NS] at “ Isarchun ” [= Sarkhun, Iran; 31.75 ° N, 50.55 ° E].	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33661B41FF38A5ACFB96FD2F.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1895 b: 81) said that he studied 14 specimens of Parus lugubris from ‘ Palestina’, ‘ Syria’ and ‘ Persia’, but based P. l. persica on specimens from ‘ Persia’ alone (Pražák 1895 b: 81 – 82). Only a single relevant tit was available to Pražák in the VTH in the early 1890 s, which I consider the holotype of P. l. persica (no such tits were in the NHMW). The remaining specimens apparently existed only in Pražák’s mind. Vaurie (1950: 2) stated, without evidence, that Pražák (1895 b) based his persica on “ Parus lugubris? ” of Blanford (1876: 229), but I found nothing in Pražák (1895 b) in support of this claim.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33791B5EFF38A5ACFB84FE0F.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1897 e: 442) stated that he described this form in his previous book (Pražák 1891: 19), which, however, had never been published. Pražák (1897 e: 442) withdrew his S. s. taczanowskii, explaining that the separation of the form “ mir aber jetzt zu kühn erscheint ” (“ seems too daring to me now ”). Scops scops taczanowskii Pražák, 1891, is thus a manuscript name without standing in zoological nomenclature. Pražák’s (1897 e: 442) reference to Taczanowski (1882: 149) is irrelevant from the nomenclatural point of view.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33791B5EFF38A726FF36F86C.taxon	materials_examined	Type series. Pražák (1895 c: 143 – 144) created his intermedius “ an Hand eines reichen Materials ” ... “ für unseren mittel-europäischen, in der Mitte zwischen vulgaris und menzbieri stehenden Star ” (“ on the basis of rich material ... “ for our Central European Starlings, which are intermediate between [Sturnus vulgaris] vulgaris [Linnaeus, 1758] and [Sturnus vulgaris] menzbieri [Sharpe, 1888] ”). The NHMW possesses eight specimens of Sturnus vulgaris received from the VTH, all collected during 1883 – 1893 at Hallein, Austria, which are labeled as Sturnus vulgaris intermedius on Tschusi’s old labels. I consider them as syntypes of S. v. intermedius. The NHMW contains also three juvenile starlings (in unspotted brown spring-summer plumage) collected during 1885 – 1893 at Hallein (NHMW 63687, 63692 and 63693). They were originally labeled only as Sturnus vulgaris, while the subspecies name intermedius was added only later (in red ink). These specimens were probably available to Pražák, but I do not consider them syntypes of S. v. intermedius, because Pražák made no mention of juvenile birds in their springsummer plumage in the description of the species (Pražák 1895 c) and the original lack of intermedius on their labels indicates that he did not identify them as S. v. intermedius. There is no evidence that Pražák (1895 c) identified as S. v. intermedius more specimens than those listed above as syntypes. Pražák (1895 c: 144) described the occurrence of his S. v. intermedius as follows: “ Diese Form [....] ist die einzige, die in Böhmen vorkommt; ähnliche Vögel sah ich auch aus Mähren, Oest. - Schlesien, Nieder-Österreich und Galizien. ” (“ This form [...] is the only one which occurs in Bohemia; I saw similar birds also in Moravia, Austrian Silesia, Lower Austria and [Austrian] Galicia. ”). However, all known syntypes of S. v. intermedius were collected at Hallein, Salzburg State, Austria [47.68 ° N, 13.10 ° E]. I thus restrict here the type locality of this form to the latter place. Pateff (1947: 496) incorrectly said that S. v. intermedius was described from Bohemia. Härms (1897: 166) argued that S. v. intermedius Pražák, 1896, represents a valid taxon and synonymized S. v. sophiae Bianki, 1896, with it. Also Buturlin (1904: 207) accepted Pražák’s intermedius as valid. Hartert (1903: 42) and Pateff (1947) synonymized Sturnus vulgaris intermedius Pražák with the nominotypical Sturnus vulgaris vulgaris Linnaeus, 1758 (see also Folk et al. 1965). My re-examination of the NHMW syntypes supports their opinion.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33781B5FFF38A5ACFD19FD03.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1897 c: 328) said that he based this form on the holotype (JPPH 18720) and two paratypes (both in JPPH, no accession or inventory numbers given), all adult males collected by Mr. W. Jaworowski on 26 August 1896 at the outflow of the “ Yuen ” [= Yuan] River in the “ Tungting See ” [= Dongting Lake], Hunan Province, China. There is no evidence that Pražák received these specimens from W. Jaworowski (who existed probably only in Pražák’s mind) or from anybody else, and there is no evidence that the holotype and paratypes of T. hennickei Pražák existed. I thus consider Trochalopteron hennickei Pražák a hypothetical form (see also Hartert 1909: 629, footnote), whose name has no standing in zoological nomenclature (Art. 1.3.1 of the Code). In inventing this species, Pražák (1897 c) might have been inspired by descriptions and / or illustrations of Trochalopteron cinereiceps Styan (1887: 166, pl. 6) [= Garrulax cineraceus cinereiceps (Styan)] and Trochalopteron sukatschewi Berezovskǐj & Bianki (1891: 59, pl. 1, fig. 1; Deditius 1897: 67) [= Garrulax sukatschewi (Berezovskĭj & Bianki)], which he cited. Oustalet (1898: 254) believed that T. hennickei is a valid species, but remarked that specimens agreeing with Pražák’s (1897 c) description were unknown to him.	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
705B333B33781B5FFF38A622FE8AF840.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Pražák (1896 a: 23) said that he based this species on the holotype deposited in JJPH (no accession or inventory number given), which was collected by Mr. Richard Materna on an unspecified date in “ Nord Chili ” (“ northern Chile ”). There is no evidence that Pražák received this specimen from Richard Materna (who existed probably only in Pražák’s mind) or from anybody else, and there is no evidence that the holotype of V. g r i s e s c e n s Pražák existed. I thus consider Vanellus grisescens Pražák a hypothetical form, whose name has no standing in zoological nomenclature (Art. 1.3.1 of the Code). In inventing this species, Pražák (1896 a) might have been inspired by the description of Vanellus occidentalis Harting (1874: 450), which he cited. Grant (1911: 274) accepted Vanellus grisescens as valid with Pražák as its author, provided a diagnosis for the form, and listed specimens he included in the species. Pražák’s (1896 a) Vanellus grisescens being not available for nomenclatural purposes, Grant (1911) unwittingly became the author of V. grisescens according to the Code (ICZN 1999). The syntypes include one ZMB specimen from Paraguay (Grant 1912: 274; inventory number unknown, because ZMB collections are closed in the long-term – S. Frahnert and P. Eckhoff, in litt. 2010), and 15 BMNH specimens collected by Grant at Los Ynglases, Aj Province, Argentina (Grant 1911: 464, 1912: 274). Of the latter, 14 syntypes are still deposited in the BMNH and one was forwarded to the NMS. The list of BMNH syntypes is as follows (R. Prÿs-Jones, in litt. 2010): BMNH 1910.12.22.676 (ad. Ƥ; 11 September 1908), 677 (ad. Ƥ; 23 September 1908), 678 (ad. Ƥ; 24 September 1908), 679 (ad. 3; 25 September 1908), 680 (ad. Ƥ, 30 September 1908), 681 (nestling 3, 1 November 1908), 682 (nestling 3; 1 November 1908), 683 (nestling Ƥ; 1 November 1908), 684 (juv. 3; 11 January 1909), 685 (ad. 3; 11 January 1909; incorrectly listed as Ƥ by Grant 1911: 464), 686 (juv. Ƥ; 12 January 1909; incorrectly listed as 3 by Grant 1911: 464), 687 (juv. 3; 13 January 1909), 688 (nestling Ƥ; 20 January 1909), 689 (imm. Ƥ; 15 February 1909). The NMS syntype is a juv. 3 collected on 19 January 1910 and listed by Grant (1911: 464) (NMS. Z 1916.41.33; B. McGowan, in litt. 2010). Accepting the taxonomic arrangement of Dickinson (2003), I synonymize here Vanellus grisescens Grant, 1912, with Vanellus chilensis lampronotus (Wagler, 1827) (see also Hellmayr & Conover 1948: 33). Erroneously believing that V. grisescens Pražák is available for nomenclatural purposes, Hellmayr (1932: 367) and Hellmayr & Conover (1948: 36) listed this name in the synonymy of Belonopterus cayennensis occidentalis (Harting, 1874), while Peters (1934: 236) and Brodkorb (1935: 6) listed it in the synonymy of Belonopterus chilensis chilensis (Molina, 1782). Their actions have no bearing on the nomenclatural status of Vanellus grisescens of Pražák (1896 a).	en	Mlíkovský, Jiří (2011): Nomenclatural and taxonomic status of bird taxa (Aves) described by an ornithological swindler, Josef Prokop Pražák (1870 – 1904). Zootaxa 3005: 45-68, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.202788
