Thryophilus rufalbus castanonotus Ridgway, 1888

LeCROY, M. A. R. Y., 2003, TYPE SPECIMENS OF BIRDS IN THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY. PART 5. PASSERIFORMES: ALAUDIDAE, HIRUNDINIDAE, MOTACILLIDAE, CAMPEPHAGIDAE, PYCNONOTIDAE, IRENIDAE, LANIIDAE, VANGIDAE, BOMBYCILLIDAE, DULIDAE, CINCLIDAE, TROGLODYTIDAE, AND MIMIDAE, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 278 (278), pp. 1-156 : 115-116

Thryophilus rufalbus castanonotus Ridgway

Thryophilus rufalbus castanonotus Ridgway, 1888a: 386

( Panama and Côte Ferme).

Now Thryothorus rufalbus castanonotus (Ridgway,

March 1888). See Deignan, 1961: 393, and Brewer,

2001: 155.

SYNTYPES: AMNH 39477, female, and 39478, male, collected along the old Panama Railroad, Panama, by James McLeannan in 1862 and James McLeannan and John Galbraith, respectively, both marked no. 93. From the George N. Lawrence Collection.

COMMENTS: Storrs Olson (personal commun.), who is currently studying these wrens, has pointed out to me these two syntypes. They had not prevously been included in the AMNH type collection.

According to Deignan (1961: 393) Ridgway twice named castanonotus. The earlier name, published in March 1888, was provided as a substitute name for Thryothorus rufalbus var. rufalbus as used by Baird (1864 –1866: 128), not T [hriothorus] rufalbus Lafresnaye, 1845 . Its syntypes would therefore be Baird’s original series which included the above two specimens from the Lawrence Collection. A third syntype, from ‘‘Côte Ferme’’, is in USNM ( Deignan, 1961: 393). These syntypes do not refer to Thryophilus rufalbus castanonotus Ridgway , August 1888 ( Ridgway, 1888b: 508), which Deignan considered an ‘‘entirely new name, which only accidentally happens to apply to the same race as its earlier homonym’’. In the latter case, Ridgway designated USNM 81783 from Angostura, Costa Rica, the holotype.

Phillips (1986: 164) apparently did not consider that T. r. castanonotus was ever validly described by Ridgway and supplied a new name, Thryothorus rufalbus skutchi , for Baird’s T. r. var. rufalbus . He listed two syntypes from Quebrada Laja, San Félix, Chiriquı´, having dispensed to his satisfaction with specimens listed by Ridgway (1888b: 508), but without mentioning the above two Lawrence specimens that had been in Baird’s hands and were mentioned by Ridgway (1888a: 386). Phillips’ syntypes of skutchi are in USNM ( Dickerman and Parkes, 1997: 218).

Parkes (in Dickerman and Parkes, 1997: 218) has provided yet another interpretation of the sequence of events in the history of the nomenclature of this form. Parkes did not consider Phillips’ nomen novum justified, rather he thought that Ridgway (1888a: 386) validly supplied a name for Baird’s population listed under T. r. var. rufalbus , but that there was no reason for Ridgway to be confined to Baird’s original specimens. Furthermore, Parkes considered Ridgway’s (1888b: 508) treatment to be a redescription, not a new name, and that he validly designated as type the Angostura specimen.

Both of the Lawrence specimens listed above had been labeled Thryothorus longirostris by Lawrence, under which name he published them in his catalog as number 190 ( Lawrence, 1861b: 320), which also appears on Lawrence’s label. It has been crossed out and number 93 substituted by him. I have not traced the source of this number. The identification as longirostris has also been changed to rufalbus by Lawrence.

On the AMNH labels, both of these specimens have been labeled as ‘‘ Thryophilus rufalbus castanonotus Ridgw. ’’ and annotated ‘‘= T. r. cumanensis Licht., F [rank] M. C[hapman]’’. On the reverse of one of the labels is the note: ‘‘much larger than T. r. cumanensis R[obert] R[idgway]’’.

The specimen collected jointly by McLeannan and Galbraith would have been obtained in the winter of 1860–1861 ( Lawrence, 1861b: 315).