Rediscovery of lost syntypes of the Crimean shemaya Alburnus mentoides Kessler, 1859 (Teleostei, Leuciscidae) and designation of a lectotype

Rediscovery of lost syntypes of the Crimean shemaya Alburnus mentoides Kessler, 1859 (Teleostei, Leuciscidae) and designation of a lectotype Harald Ahnelt1,2, Simon Engelberger2, Nina Bogutskaya1,3 1 Natural History Museum Vienna, First Zoological Department, Burgring 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria 2 University of Vienna, Department of Evolutionary Biology, Djerassiplatz 1, 1030 Vienna, Austria 3 BIOTA J d.o.o, Dolga Gora 2, 3232 Ponikva, Slovenia https://zoobank.org/1865EB5D-0086-4977-BD32-FEACE93AE56D Corresponding author: Harald Ahnelt ([email protected], [email protected]) Academic editor: Nesrine Akkari ♦ Received 18 March 2025 ♦ Accepted 27 August 2025 ♦ Published 10 November 2025 Abstract The current knowledge of the Black Sea species complex of Alburnus Rafinesque, 1820 is insufficient. This resulted in recognition of Alburnus mentoides Kessler, 1859 as a valid species or as a synonym of Alburnus chalcoides (Güldenstädt, 1772) or Alburnus mento (Heckel, 1836). Therefore, the rediscovery of the syntypes of A. mentoides, which were considered to be lost, will be helpful for a future revision of the Alburnus species complex in the Black Sea basin. A lectotype of A. mentoides is designated. Key Words Alburnus, Azov Sea, Black Sea, endangered species, endemic species, Ukraine Introduction Karl Fedorovich Kessler (1815–1881), born as Karl Friedrich Kessler in Damrau, East Prussia, present-day Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia, was a zoologist in the Russian Empire who became Chair of Zoology at the University of Kyiv in 1842. Kessler started his ichthyological research in the administrative district of Kyiv and established a Cabinet of Zoology at the St. Vladimir University (today the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv) (Banina 1958). In the year 1858 Kessler, accompanied by his student Konstantin Jelski (Konstanty Roman Jelski, 1837–1896), went on what he called “eine Reise” (a voyage) to the north-western coasts of the Black Sea and the western part of the Crimea (Kessler 1860; Banina 1962). He returned with a large number of collected fish specimens, of which, he described four new species in the following year (Kessler 1859). One of these species was the Crimean shemaya Alburnus mentoides Kessler, 1859, a small cyprinoid fish endemic to Crimea and formerly abundant in the Salhir (in Russian Salgir or Salhyr) River, the largest river of the Crimean Peninsula (Kessler 1859, 1860). In the original description of A. mentoides, Kessler mentioned two rivers in which this species occurred, the Salhyr and the Alma (Kessler 1859) and, he also assumed that it can be found in other rivers of the Crimean Peninsula as well. Today A. mentoides is considered to be rare and endangered (Boltachev 2009; Boltachev et al. 2015; Dyldin et al. 2023). Dyldin et al. (2023) mentioned that this species is probably extinct in many rivers of Crimea and explicitly name the river Salhyr where A. mentoides was formerly abundant and regularly offered on the fish market of Simferopol (Kessler 1859, 1860). In IUCN (2024) this species is listed as “endangered”. Ford and Freyhof (2024) assume A. mentoides as extinct in the Salhir and confine the recent distribution of this species to three rivers in the southern-most part of Crimea (Al’ma, Bel’bek and Chorna). These rivers originate Annals of the Natural History Museum Vienna 126 2025, 27–40 DOI 10.3897/anhmw.170125 Copyright Harald Ahnelt et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. anhmw.pensoft.net Harald Ahnelt et al.: The lost syntypes of the Crimean shemaya Alburnus mentoides28 in the Crimean Mountains and belong to different hydrological zones, which are not interconnected to each other (Ovarchuk and Todorova 2016). As a result, the Al’ma, Bel’bek and Chorna rivers flow westwards and discharge into the Black Sea basin, the Salhir flows to the northeast and discharges in the Sea of Azov basin (Fig. 1). Currently it is not known to which extant this differentiation in the waterflow of the western and eastern Crimea rivers influenced the diversification of their ichthyofauna. It is worth mentioning, that, historically, any native Alburnus has been never reported from Kacha River located between Al’ma and Bel’bek and we are aware of no reliable records of this fish from Kacha. However, Kacha was mentioned two times in literature as a part of historical range of Crimean Shemaya (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007; Movchan 2011) without any reference. In a later summary, Ford and Freyhof (2024) do not mention Kacha River in the range of Crimean Shemaya. In the literature, the whereabout of the type specimens of A. mentoides has been considered unknown for decades (Eschmeyer 1989; Fricke et al. 2024), and it is assumed that they have been lost (Sideleva 2017). We discuss eleven specimens that are stored in four different institutions (Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia; Museum of Nature, London, Great Britain; Natural History Museum Vienna, Vienna, Austria; University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria) with the aim to clarify which ones are syntypes of A. mentoides. Because the current knowledge of the Black Sea species complex of Alburnus spp. (Black Sea shemayas) is insufficient (Parin et al. 2014; Bogutskaya et al. 2017), and the phylogenetic relationships of the species of the genus Alburnus are still not well understood (Bogutskaya and Naseka 2004), a lectotype for A. mentoides is designated. Possibly two taxa of native shemaya occur on Crimea, A. mentoides in northeastern Crieman rivers and an undescribed species (Alburnus sp.) in the southwestern Crimean rivers. In our opinion, this justifies the designation of a lectotype of A. mentoides. Because the two specimens registered in the University of Vienna give Kessler as collector/donator, we select the larger of these two specimens as lectotype. Materials and methods Materials examined Eleven specimens of Alburnus mentoides are registered as syntypes in four institutions, namely the Natural History Museum in London, the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, the Natural History Museum Vienna, and the University of Vienna. Figure 1. Distribution of the endemic Crimean shemaya Alburnus mentoides. Rivers from where A. mentoides was documented are shown in blue. This species has been reported as extinct in the river Salhir (in red). Alburnus mentoides was not recorded from the Kacha (light blue), but only mentioned (see text for details). The North Crimean Canal (dark grey), separating Salhir and Biyuk-Karasu since its construction; former lower course of the Salhir is shown as dashed blue line. The course of the rivers and of the canal are stylized. Red star: type locality, river Salhir, Simferopol. The inset shows where the region is located (encircled in black). The map is from https://de.wikiedia.org/wiki/Datei:Relief_map_of_Crimea, modified; accessed 28 April 2025. Annals of the Natural History Museum Vienna 126 2025, 27–40 anhmw.pensoft.net 29 GEORGIA • 4 specimens, 43.6 mm – 46.4 mm SL; Sokhumi; 43°0'12"N, 41°0'55"E; 5–140 m a.s.l.; 14 Nov. 1879. St. Petersburg Museum don.; Ichthyological Collection of the Natural History Museum, London; BMNH 1879.11.14.144-147. UKRAINE • 4 specimens; Crimea, Salhir River; 1860. Brandt and Radde leg; Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg; ZIN 3030. UKRAINE • 1 specimen, 118.1 mm SL; Crimea, Salhir River; Acquisition 1874. I. 1911; Ichthyological Collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna; NMW 55510. UKRAINE • 2 specimens, 97.5 mm – 128.4 mm SL; Crimea, Salhir River at Simferopol; 44°57'7"N, 34°6'8"E; 350 m a.s.l.; 1860. Kessler leg.; Zoological Collection of the University of Vienna; UVZC VZ6366 (97.5 mm SL) and UVZC VZ6367 (128.4 mm SL). Methods All measurements were made point-to-point with a dial caliper to the nearest of 0.1 mm. Counting fin-rays, lateral-line scales and scales along the scaleless part of the ventral keel, and most measurements follow Kottelat and Freyhof (2007). Additional measurements of the cranium, jaws, and operculum (Tables 1, 2) were made point to point from the anteriormost extremity to the posteriormost extremity (lengths), from the uppermost extremity to the lowermost extremity (depths), and between the lateralmost extremities (widths). Length of the cranial roof was measured from the anterior margin of the supraethmoid to the base of the supraoccipital crest. Vertebral counts follow Naseka (1996). Standard length (SL) was measured from the tip of the upper jaw to the posterior margin of the hypurals. Head length was measured from the anteriormost extremity of the head (tip of symphysis of lower jaw) to the posterior opercular margin that includes the skin fold. In total, 48 morphometric and 15 meristic indices were used (Tables 1, 2). Abbreviations SL Standard length; measured from the tip of the upper jaw to the posterior margins of hypurals. Acronyms NHMUK Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom (formerly British Museum of Natural History). NHMW Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria. NMW NMW is a traditional acronym used for the Ichthyological collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna (NHMW) UVZC University of Vienna, Zoological Collection, Vienna, Austria. ZIN Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia. Results The type locality of Alburnus mentoides Kessler, 1859 Kessler noted: “This fish is one of the most common in the Salhir, the Al’ma and probably also in the other rivers of the Crimea. It was a common sight at the market in Simferopol …” (Kessler 1859: 533). Therefore, the rivers Salhir, Al’ma and possibly other rivers on the Crimean Peninsula and the market of Simferopol (Ukraine) are considered the type localities for A. mentoides by Fricke et al. (2024). However, obviously Kessler did not collect all the 17 freshwater fish species he described (Kessler 1859, 1860). He noted, that the market of Simferopol was of exceptional importance for his studies, and that it granted “… quite sufficient information about the ichthyological conditions of the Crimea” (Kessler 1859: 521–522). Kessler obtained some of the species on the market of Simferopol like e.g., Vimba vimba (Linnaeus, 1758) (as Abramis melanops (Heckel, 1837)) “… only one specimen at the Simferopol market” (Kessler 1859: 529); Squalius cephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) × Alburnus chalcoides (Güldenstädt, 1772) (Berg 1914: 133) (as Alburnus tauricus Kessler, 1859) “… only two specimens at the market in Simferopol” (Kessler 1859: 535); Phoxinus chrysoprasius (Pallas, 1814) (as Phoxinus laevis Fitzinger, 1832) “… I found at the market in Simferopol” (Kessler 1859: 540) (Kessler 1859). Kessler was obviously dependent on information from the people of the market as to where the respective fishes were fished and seemingly was not always convinced. For V. vimba (as Abramis melanops) he noted “… allegedly from the Salgir” (Kessler 1859: 529) and for the hybrid of S. cephalus × A. chalcoides (as A. tauricus) “These allegedly came from the Salgir” (Kessler 1859: 535) (Kessler 1859). According to Kessler (1859), A. mentoides was abundant in the rivers Salhir and Al’ma, but also that he has only seen this species on the market of Simferopol. There is no indication that the description of this species was also based on specimens from the Al’ma. Additionally, he mentioned “werchowod” as trivial name for A. mentoides, the local name for this species from the Salhir (Kessler 1859: 533–534). Therefore, it seems doubtful that specimens from the Al’ma or other rivers of the Crimea belong to the syntype series of A. mentoides. Obviously, Kessler’s types were all from the Salhir. This is also suggested by our survey of museum material. All of the potential type specimens that we found during this study came from the Salhir, none came from the Al’ma (see “The whereabouts of the type material of Alburnus mentoides Kessler, 1859”). anhmw.pensoft.net Harald Ahnelt et al.: The lost syntypes of the Crimean shemaya Alburnus mentoides30 Table 1. Morphometric data of three specimens of Alburnus mentoides from the type series of Kessler (1859). Values for “lectotype and paralectotypes” (last column) are mean and, in parentheses, standard deviation. Alburnus mentoides UVZC VZ6366 lectotype UVZC VZ6367 paralectotype NMW 55510 paralectotype lectotype and paralectotypes Standard length (SL), mm 128.38 118.12 97.48 114.7 (15.7) Body depth at dorsal-fin origin (% SL) 23.9 22.0 21.6 22.5 (1.2) Depth of caudal peduncle (% SL) 10.1 8.9 8.5 9.2 (0.8) Depth of caudal peduncle (% length of caudal peduncle) 56.4 47.2 46.8 50.1 (5.4) Body width at dorsal-fin origin (% SL) 9.2 8.5 6.9 8.2 (1.2) Caudal peduncle width (% SL) 6.9 6.2 5.7 6.3 (0.6) Predorsal length (% SL) 55.6 55.1 57.1 55.9 (1.0) Postdorsal length (% SL) 35.0 35.8 35.7 35.5 (0.4) Prepelvic length (% SL) 48.1 48.4 46.6 47.7 (1.0) Preanal length (% SL) 69.8 70.8 67.5 69.4 (1.7) Pectoral – pelvic-fin origin length (% SL) 24.5 26.1 23.9 24.8 (1.1) Pelvic – anal-fin origin length (% SL) 21.5 22.6 21.9 22.0 (0.6) Caudal peduncle length (% SL) 17.9 19.0 18.2 18.4 (0.5) Dorsal-fin base length (% SL) 11.2 9.7 10.8 10.6 (0.8) Dorsal fin depth (% SL) 16.6 14.7 16.6 16.0 (1.1) Anal-fin base length (% SL) 14.4 14.8 14.2 14.5 (0.3) Anal fin depth (% SL) 12.2 10.9 11.7 11.6 (0.7) Pectoral fin length (% SL) 19.3 18.0 18.0 18.4 (0.7) Pelvic fin length (% SL) 14.8 13.5 13.9 14.1 (0.7) Head length (% SL) 24.1 22.6 22.9 23.2 (0.8) Head length (% body depth) 100.9 102.7 106.2 103.3 (2.7) Head depth at nape (% SL) 15.0 14.8 15.0 14.9 (0.1) Head depth at nape (% HL) 62.2 65.5 65.3 64.3 (1.9) Head depth through eye (% HL) 43.1 49.3 43.9 45.4 (3.4) Maximum head width (% SL) 11.4 9.7 10.7 10.6 (0.8) Maximum head width (% HL) 47.2 42.8 46.5 45.5 (2.3) Snout length (% SL) 7.1 6.0 6.1 6.4 (0.6) Snout length (% HL) 29.4 26.4 26.5 27.4 (1.7) Eye horizontal diameter (% SL) 6.1 6.3 6.1 6.1 (0.1) Eye horizontal diameter (% HL) 25.2 27.9 26.5 26.5 (1.4) Eye horizontal diameter (% interorbital width) 83.7 96.6 91.9 90.7 (6.6) Postorbital distance (% HL) 48.0 48.4 45.9 47.4 (1.4) Interorbital width (% SL) 7.2 6.5 6.6 6.8 (0.4) Interorbital width (% HL) 30.1 28.9 28.8 29.3 (0.7) Length of upper jaw (% HL) 27.6 30.1 28.5 28.8 (1.3) Length of upper jaw (% SL) 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.7 (01.) Length of lower jaw (% SL) 9.8 9.3 9.4 9.5 (0.3) Length of lower jaw (% HL) 40.8 41.1 41.1 41.0 (0.2) Length of lower jaw (% interorbital width) 135.7 142.3 142.7 140.2 (3.9) Length of lower jaw (% depth of operculum) 104.6 110.4 104.9 106.6 (3.2) Length of lower jaw (% cranium roof length) 70.7 70.1 66.6 69.1 (2.2) Cranium (=neurocranium) roof length (% SL) 13.9 13.2 14.2 13.8 (0.5) Cranium width between margin of pterotics (% cranium roof length) 71.6 69.3 68.9 69.9 (1.5) Cranium width between margin of sphenotics (% cranium roof length) 63.5 57.3 58.0 59.6 (3.4) Cranium width between margin of lateral ethmoids (% cranium roof length) 21.6 19.4 19.4 20.1 (1.29 Cranium width between margin of lateral ethmoids (% cranium width between margin of pterotics) 30.1 28.0 28.2 28.8 (1.2) Length of lower jaw (% cranium width between margin of pterotics) 98.7 101.2 96.6 98.8 (2.3) Depth of operculum (% HL) 39.0 37.2 39.2 38.5 (1.1) Ratios Interorbital width/eye horizontal diameter 1.20 1.03 1.09 1.1 (0.19 Snout length/eye horizontal diameter 1.17 0.95 1.00 1.0 (0.1) Head depth at nape/eye horizontal diameter 2.47 2.35 2.46 2.4 (0.1) Head length/caudal peduncle depth 2.38 2.53 2.69 2.5 (0.2) Length of caudal peduncle/caudal peduncle depth 1.77 2.12 2.13 2.0 (0.2) Length of lower jaw/caudal peduncle depth 0.97 1.04 1.10 1.0 (0.1) Pectoral fin length/pectoral – pelvic-fin origin distance 0.79 0.69 0.75 0.7 (0.0) Predorsal length/head length 2.31 2.44 2.49 2.4 (0.1) Annals of the Natural History Museum Vienna 126 2025, 27–40 anhmw.pensoft.net 31 The whereabouts of the type material of Alburnus mentoides Kessler, 1859 Kessler took meristic and morphometric data from a subsample (17 specimens) of a large collection of A. mentoides (Kessler 1859). In the following year he published a book, in which he described the voyage to the Black Sea and the Crimean Peninsula in detail, but no additional information was given about A. mentoides, except that a large number of specimens were available to him (Kessler 1860). Kessler deposited his collections at the St. Vladimir Imperial University of Kyiv (today the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv). Important to note, that in May 1860, Kessler went abroad, and the purpose of the trip was to visit museums, personally meet scientists and naturalists-sellers for the exchange of duplicates of the zoological cabinet of the Kyiv University (Bogdanov 1882; Banina 1962). He wrote in his report to the authorities of the Kyiv University that “he had carried out all the assignments entrusted to him, namely, he had made a purchase of objects for the zoological cabinet and had established exchange relations with zoological museums in Vienna, Prague, Munich, Wiesbaden, Bonn, Berlin, Wrocław and Warsaw” (Banina 1962: 36). This leaves almost no doubt that the mentioned exchange of fish specimens was the way of acquisition of his materials in the NHMW (e.g., acquisition 1862.VII. “von H[errn] Prof. Kessler im Tausch erhalten” [received from Prof. Kessler in exchange]), though the NMW 55510 syntype belongs to a later acquisition, 1874.I. This acquisition included about 2000 entries by Franz Steindachner (1834–1919), at this time curator of fishes and head of the I. Zoological Department (Vertebrates) at the k.k. naturhistorisches Hof-Museum, present-day Natural History Museum Vienna, who registered at once most samples unregistered earlier. The whereabouts of syntypes of Alburnus mentoides at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg Kessler donated his collections to the University of St. Petersburg. Today, they are stored in the Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg (ZIN) (Sideleva 2017). According to Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes, no syntypes of A. mentoides were found at ZIN (Fricke et al. 2024). This note “no types found at ZIN” was already mentioned in the first edition of Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes (as “Catalog of Fishes”) (Eschmeyer 1998). However, in the meantime, four specimens were found, which are labelled possible syntypes of A. mentoides (Z. Zhidkov pers. comm. 2024) (Fig. 2). These four specimens from the Salhir River were presented to the ZIN by the two scientists Johann Friedrich von Brandt (1802–1879) and Gustav Ferdinand Richard von Radde (1831–1903) in 1860 (Fig. 2B) after their travel to the area in 1860 (Brandt 1861). Brandt mentioned that he had spent three days in Simferopol and acquired several species of fishes found in the Salhir River (Brandt 1861: 75). Radde also visited the Crimea for three years from spring 1852 till the beginning of 1855 (Kropotkin and Freshfield 1903; Bakkal 2019). However, Kessler did not mention in the original description of A. mentoides that he had used specimens other than those collected by himself for his studies. We found no concluding evidence that these specimens belong to Kessler’s type series. Table 2. Meristic data of three specimens of Alburnus mentoides from the type series of Kessler (1859). Values for “lectotype and paralectotypes” (last column) are mean and, in parentheses, standard deviation. Alburnus mentoides UVZC VZ6366 lectotype UVZC VZ6367 paralectotype NMW 55510 paralectotype lectotype and paralectotypes Number of branched dorsal-fin rays (without 1/2) 8 8 8 8 (0.0) Number of branched anal-fin rays (without 1/2) 15 14 15 14.7 (0.6) Number of branched pectoral-fin rays 15 15 15 15.0 (0.0) Number of branched pelvic-fin rays 9 9 9 9.0 (0.0) Number of predorsal vertebrae 16 15 16 15.7 (0.6) Number of abdominal vertebrae 24 23 24 23.7 (0.6) Number of caudal vertebrae 20 21 20 20.3 (0.6) Total vertebrae 44 44 44 44.0 (0.0) Difference between abdominal and caudal numbers 4 2 4 3.3 (1.2) Scales in lateral row 66 65 66 65.7 (0.6) Lateral-line scales (total) 66 66 66.0 (0.0) Lateral-line scales (to posterior margin of hypurals) 63 62 63 62.7 (0.6) Scales above lateral line 11 11 10 10.7 (0.6) Scales below lateral line 4 4 4 4.0 (0.0) Gill rakers 22 24 22 22.7 (1.2) anhmw.pensoft.net Harald Ahnelt et al.: The lost syntypes of the Crimean shemaya Alburnus mentoides32 The whereabouts of syntypes of Alburnus mentoides at the Natural History Museum London At the Natural History Museum London are four specimens designated as syntypes of “Alburnus mentoides Kessler, 1859” and registered with the number 1879.11.14.144-147 (https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/collection-specimens/resource/05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b6574ccb55ab2feb/record/3108350, accessed 23. 11. 2024). These specimens have been acquired by the BMNH in 1879 on the basis of an exchange with the ZIN together with a large number of specimens from various localities of the former Russian Empire, from the Kamchatka Peninsula to the Black Sea (Fig. 3). However, the entry gives as locality for A. mentoides (as Alburnus chalcoides var. mentoides) “Suchum-Kalé”, now Sokhumi, a city on the northeast coast of the Black Sea in Georgia. Therefore, these specimens were not part of Kessler’s syntypes and seemingly represent another shemaya species, the Georgian shemaya Alburnus derjugini Berg, 1923, restricted to the eastern Black Sea basin (Freyhof 2014). The whereabouts of syntypes of Alburnus mentoides at the Natural History Museum Vienna One specimen of a Black Sea shemaya from the Salhir River is deposited at the Ichthyological Collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna (NMW) and registered with the number NMW 55510 (Figs 4A, 5A, B). It was labeled “Alburnus clupeoides Kessl. (typ.)” and synonymized with A. mento Heckel, 1837 (“Alb. mento Heck[el]”) (Fig. 4B), a junior synonym of A. chalcoides (Güldenstädt, 1772) (Fricke et al. 2024) and was identified as A. mentoides by Nina Bogutskaya. The label is typical for the era of F. Steindachner. He included all specimens in the systematic collection, regardless if types or not. Additionally, he did not label specimens of his descriptions of new species as types. Sometimes he noted at the end of the fish name “(typ.)”, as in the present case (Fig. 4B). The number on the label, “1874. I. 1911.” is an acquisition number and corresponds to the year when the sample was received. However, the locality, the Salhir on the Crimean Peninsula, corresponds with the type locality of A. mentoides. In 1874, Steindachner visited the museum in St. Petersburg (Russia) (Kähsbauer 1959) and likely also met Kessler, who was head of the Zoological Department at the University of St. Petersburg (Sideleva 2017). Possibly Steindachner received the above-mentioned specimen from Kessler’s large type series of A. mentoides. Unfortunately, the corresponding acquisition sheets of the year 1874 at the museum in Vienna are incomplete and the whereabout of the missing sheets which refer to the sample “1911” are unknown (lost?). However, the specimen of the Natural History Museum Vienna is likely a syntype of A. mentoides. The following should be noted. Brandt and Radde’s expedition ended in Odessa at the beginning of September 1860. From there, they traveled by ship up the Danube. Before continuing on to Berlin and finally home to St. Petersburg, they visited the Hof-Naturalienkabinett in Vienna, the predecessor of the k.k. naturhistorisches Hof-Museum and today’s Natural History Museum Vienna. It could therefore be argued that the specimens of A. mentoides deposited at the NHMW and at the UVZC were part of Brandt and Radde’s collections and not specimens collected by Kessler. Brandt (1861) mentioned meetings in Vienna with several renown scientists from the Hof-Naturalienkabinett but not from the university. He noted “In Vienna … exchange connections were established that will hopefully be of great benefit to our collections” (Brandt 1860: 83). However, there are no entries in the acquisition books of the Hof-Naturalienkabinett for the year 1860 and the subsequent years acknowledging the receipt of fish specimens from Brandt and Radde’s expedition. Seemingly Brandt and Radde travelled without their samples back home to St. Petersburg, because Brandt (1861) mentioned “… we embarked on the steamship Metternich after our collections had been handed over to one of the land transportation companies [in Odessa] …” (Brandt 1860: 82). Therefore, and in view of the above, it can be assumed that no fish specimens from Brandt and Radde’s expedition were donated/exchanged to the Hof-Naturalienkabinett or to the university during their stay in Vienna. The whereabouts of syntypes of Alburnus mentoides at the University of Vienna, Zoological Collection Two specimens labeled A. mentoides are deposited at the Zoological Collection of the University of Vienna, registration number UVZC VZ6366, UVZC VZ6367 (Figs 6A, B, 7A, B). Two labels are on the specimen jar. The older (original?) label lists “Alburnus mentoides Kessler”, the year “1860” the collector/donator “Kessler” and the locality “Fluss [river] Saurgir bei [at] Sim[feropol]” [the right part of the original label is missing] (Fig. 6C), and a second label, entitled „Zool[ogisch] Vergl[eichend] Anat[omische] Sammlung / Universitaet Wien” [Zoological Comparative Anatomical Collection of the University of Vienna]. On the latter label the species name was revised in “Alburnus mento Ag[assiz]” and as location “Fluss Saurgir bei Simferopol” [Salhir river at Simferopol] is mentioned. During this time, Rudolf Kner (1810–1869) was head of the Zoological Institute and head of the “Naturhistorisches Museum” of the University of Vienna (Fritsch 1901; Salwini-Plawen and Mizzaro 1999). He was one of the most renown ichthyologists of his time and maintained contacts to many ichthyologists and museums, also in St. Petersburg (Salwini-Plawen and Svojtka 2008). There is clear evidence that some material was given by Kessler to the Vienna University, i.e. to Kner, e.g., the A. mentiodes Annals of the Natural History Museum Vienna 126 2025, 27–40 anhmw.pensoft.net 33 Figure 2. Alburnus mentoides at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg (ZIN) labeled as syntypes with a question mark. A. The lot with four specimens, registration number ZIN 3030; on top the original label, below the label with the revised name of the fishes. B. The page of the registration book indicating (encased in red) from the left to the right, the registration number, the name of the species plus author, the name of the river where the fish were collected, the names of the persons who delivered the specimens (red arrow), the year (red arrow), the number of specimens and, encircled in black, the revised name of the fishes. Photos by Z. V. Zhidkov. Figure 3. A. Entry 144–147 of the registration book (NHMUK) from 1879 that says “Alburnus chalcoides Güld. var. mentoides, Suchum-Kalé”. https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/collection-specimens/resource/05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b657-4ccb55ab2feb/ record/3108350, accessed 23. 11. 2024. B. The four specimens of Alburnus mentoides, BMNH 1879.11.14.144-147, labeled “syntypes”. Photo by R. Collins. anhmw.pensoft.net Harald Ahnelt et al.: The lost syntypes of the Crimean shemaya Alburnus mentoides34 Figure 4. Syntype of Alburnus mentoides at the Ichthyological Collection (NHMW). A. Lot with the specimen, register number NMW 55510. B. Original label with the acquisition number 1874. I. 1911, the first entry (“I.”) with the sample number (“1911.”) of the year 1874. For further explanation see text. Photos by H. Ahnelt. Figure 5. A. Syntype of Alburnus mentoides at the Ichthyological Collection, register number NMW 55510. B. Radiograph of the same specimen. Scale bars: 20 mm. Photo and radiograph by A. Naseka. Annals of the Natural History Museum Vienna 126 2025, 27–40 anhmw.pensoft.net 35 specimens discussed in this paper. Some others were later transferred by Kner to NHMW as an exchange, e.g., syntypes of Gobius trautvetteri Kessler, 1859 (acquisition 1861.VIII. “von Herrn Professor Kner im Tausch” [received from Professor Kner in exchange]). The older label (Fig. 6C) clearly indicates that these two specimens are part of the syntype series of A. mentoides Kessler, 1859. Two register sheets of the UVZC refer to these two types of A. mentoides (Fig. 8). Their exact date is unknown, but the register with the sheet Fig. 8A has been compiled most likely around 1870 as it contains entries relating to the Schmarda-collection (Ludwig Karl Schmarda, 1819–1908), which was acquired for the university in 1869. Entries to this register were continuously added until 1882. The register with the sheet Fig. 8B is younger as it contains entries relating to e.g., the Brühland Hyrtl-collections (Carl Bernhard Brühl, 1820–1899; Joseph Hyrtl, 1810–1894) and was probably compiled during or after the transfer of the zoological collections to the new university building starting in 1883. This would match the end-date (1882) of the previous inventory. Both registers mention that these specimens were part of the “Alte Sammlung” [old collection] of the university, i.e. the collection before the acquisition of Schmarda’s private collection in 1869/1870 (Salwini-Plawen and Mizzaro 1999). The two sheets give no information about the collector and in both the locality is shortened to “Simferopol” (see Fig. 6C, D). Out of the eleven specimens nine are in natural history museums, distributed in London (4 spec.), St. Petersburg (4 spec.) and Vienna (1 spec.) and from the University of Vienna (2 spec.). The specimens of the Natural History Museum Vienna and the University of Vienna are considered as syntypes. Because the two specimens registered in the University of Vienna give Kessler as collector/donator, (Fig. 6C), we select the larger of these two specimens as lectotype. Description of the lectotype of Alburnus mentoides Kessler, 1859 According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 74.1, 74.7 and amendment of Art. 74.7.3) (Anonymous 1999), a lectotype is herein designated to Figure 6. Syntypes of Alburnus mentoides at the Zoological Collection of the University of Vienna. A. Lectotype UVZC VZ6366; B. Paralectotype UVZC VZ6367 (right side reversed); C. Original label that says “Alburnus mentoides Kessler”; D. Label of the „Zool[ogisch] Vergl[eichend] Anat[omische] Sammlung [der] Universitaet Wien” (Zoological Comparative Anatomical Collection of the University of Vienna) with the revised species name Alburnus mento. Scale bars: 30 mm. Photos A, B by S. Engelberger and C, D by H. Ahnelt.