Thamnophilus leucopygus Lawrence

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 : 95

Thamnophilus leucopygus Lawrence

Thamnophilus leucopygus Lawrence, 1866: 401 (‘‘ New

Granada, line of the Panama R.R., Lion Hill station’’). Now Dryoscopus cubla ssp?. See Salvin, 1874: 316.

HOLOTYPE: AMNH 47139 , adult male of uncertain origin. From the G.N. Lawrence Collection.

COMMENTS: Lawrence (1866: 401) described this specimen as part of a collection he received from James McLeannan from the Isthmus of Panama ( LeCroy and Sloss, 2000: 37). There is no original label on the specimen. There is a label in Lawrence’s hand giving the supposed collecting information, with ‘‘Type’’ written on the reverse, and another similar label, also in Lawrence’s hand: ‘‘Salvin says is from Africa’’. The third and fourth labels are AMNH collection and type labels, the latter of which has a reference to Salvin’s (1874) paper.

Salvin (1874: 316) wrote: ‘‘On examining the type of [ Thamnophilus leucopygus ] in Mr. Lawrence’s collection, I felt convinced that an error had been made in assigning the Isthmus of Panama as the origin of the skin. I now find that the bird really belongs to the common African species, Dryoscopus cubla (Lath.) , Sharpe’s Cat. Afr. Birds, p. 47. In some exchanges I made with McLeannan, I sent him a number of African skins; doubtless this one was included by mistake in a collection forwarded to Mr. Lawrence from Panama, and thus misled the latter gentleman as to the origin of the specimen.’’

This does appear to be a male specimen and can be matched by male specimens of Dryoscopus cubla hamatus Hartlaub, 1863 . Given the uncertainty of the geographic origin of the specimen and the individual variation within the currently recognized subspecies, definite determination of synonymy may not be possible.