Thryophilus rufalbus cumanensis Chapman, 1897

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 : 116

Thryophilus rufalbus cumanensis Chapman

Thryophilus rufalbus cumanensis Chapman (in Phelps) 1897: 367 (southern form of Thryophilus rufalbus ).

Now Thryothorus rufalbus cumanensis ( Cabanis, 1860) . See Chapman, 1917: 512, Hellmayr, 1934: 174, and Paynter and Vaurie, 1960: 411.

LECTOTYPE: AMNH 73284 , adult male, collect­ ed at Cumanacoa , 10°15′N, 63°55′W ( Paynter, 1982: 50), Sucre, Venezuela, on 5 July 1896, by W.H. Phelps (no. 1203).

COMMENTS: Chapman (in Phelps, 1897: 367), when discussing four specimens from Cumanacoa, Venezuela, decided that Lichtenstein’s (1854) name, Troglodytes cumanensis , was applicable and listed them as Thryophilus rufalbus cumanensis (Licht.) . Later, he ( Chapman, 1917: 512) decided that Lichtenstein’s name was a nomen nudum, mentioned but not described by Cabanis (1860: 408, who listed Lichtenstein’s specimen from Cartagena, Colombia in the synonymy of Thryothorus rufalbus Lafresnaye, 1845 ). Thus, Chapman thought that he had inadvertently named the Cumanacoa form collected by Phelps as Thryophilus rufalbus cumanensis (ex Lichtenstein ms) and selected a ‘‘type’’ (= lectotype) from among the four original specimens, AMNH 73284, with data as given above. He included his more recently collected specimens from Villavicencio, Colombia, in the range.

Still later, Hellmayr (1934: 174) reported: ‘‘On once more investigating the much­disputed nomenclature of this race, I came to the conclusion that we cannot well avoid dating the name cumanensis from Cabanis. While it is true that Cabanis did not intend to use Lichtenstein’s MS. term for the Cartagena bird, since a certain passage, ‘subtus totus niveus,’ in Lafresnaye’s description [of Thryothorus rufalbus ] led him to assume its identity with T. rufalbus , he nevertheless characterized it in the most exact manner, and tells us at the bottom of the page that it is the Troglodytes cumanensis Lichtenstein MS. Dr. Stresemann having kindly forwarded the specimen in question, an adult bird collected by Haeberlin at Cartagena, I was enabled to ascertain its absolute identity with specimens from the Santa Marta region.’’ Thus, Lichtenstein’s specimen is the type of Cabanis’ name.

Both Troglodytes cumanensis Cabanis, 1860 , and Thryophilus rufalbus cumanensis Chapman, 1897 , were based on Lichtenstein’s manuscript name but were originally established in combination with different generic names and have different type specimens. According to the Code (ICZN, 1999, Art. 53.3) these are secondary homonyms and Chapman’s name is invalid now that both are in the genus Thryothorus . At some point in the checkered history of this name, more than half of the type label of AMNH 73284 was cut off (presumably indicating that it was not a type); nevertheless, the specimen was kept with the type specimens. It is, however, the lectotype of Chapman’s name, and a new type label has been supplied.