Alfonso Olalla and His Family. the Ornithological Exploration Of

Home , Department of Loreto, Peruvian Amazonia, Yurimaguas

ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY: THE ORNITHOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF AMAZONIAN PERU

R. HAVEN WILEY Department of Biology University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill ([email protected])

BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY Number 343, 68 pp., 7 figures, 2 tables Issued December 8, 2010

Abstract...... 3 Introduction ...... 3 Accusations against ‘‘Native Collectors’’...... 4 Alfonso and RamońOlallainAmazonianPeru...... 8 Chapman Engages the Olallas ...... 8 Expeditions to Sumaco in Eastern Ecuador...... 9 DowntheNapo...... 10 Mouth of the RıóCuraray...... 11 CarlosReturnstoQuito...... 12 Alfonso and RamońLeavetheCuraray...... 13 Puerto Indiana ...... 13 AMoveDownriver...... 16 A Remarkable Decision and a Reversal of Direction ...... 17 Sarayacu:FirstStopontheUcayali...... 20 ThreeLocalitiesalongtheSouthernUcayali...... 23 Another Change of Plans and Departure from Peru...... 26 LabelsontheOlallas’Specimens...... 31 LocalitiesoftheOlallas’CollectionsinPeruandNearby...... 33 Introduction...... 33 Boca RıóCuraray...... 34 BocaLagartoCocha...... 37 Puerto Indiana ...... 38 Orosa...... 39 Apayacu...... 40 Sarayacu...... 41 Boca RıóUrubamba...... 43 Santa Rosa and Lagarto ...... 44 Teffe...... 46 Distributions of Birds in Amazonian Peru ...... 47 Introduction...... 47 Distributions Confirmed by the Olallas’ Collections ...... 47 Accepted Distributions Challenged by the Olallas’ Collections ...... 49 Limits of Distributions along the RıóUcayali...... 53 Specimens in Harvey Bassler’s Collection ...... 54 PrimatesinAmazonianPeru...... 57 BirdsonRiverIslands...... 60 Birds of Andean Foothills ...... 61 MigrantBirds...... 62 Scarce and Interesting Species Collected by the Olallas...... 63 Conclusion...... 65 Acknowledgments...... 65 References...... 66

2 ABSTRACT

In 1922 Frank M. Chapman hired a family of Ecuadorians to collect birds and mammals for the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). In the following two years, Carlos Olalla and his four sons (especially Alfonso and Ramo´n) shipped some 3500 carefully prepared and neatly labeled specimens of Ecuadorian birds to New York. In 1925, under a new contract with the AMNH, the Olallas moved their operations to northeastern Peru, and during the next two and a half years, mostly as a result of efforts by Alfonso and Ramo´n, they sent over 7000 specimens of birds to New York from Amazonian Peru, as well as additional thousands of specimens of mammals. The two brothers shifted their operations to Brazil in 1928. Alfonso went on to ship even larger collections of birds from Brazil to museums in the United States, Sweden, and Brazil. Altogether these collections have provided the documentation for much of what we now know about the distributions of Amazonian birds and mammals.

In 1962 accusations surfaced that the Olallas had falsified much of the information about their specimens. Although based on hearsay, these accusations raised lingering doubts about the Olallas’ collections. Alfonso sent reports of the brothers’ activities to the AMNH with their shipments of specimens. These reports together with their correspondence with Chapman and other curators are still preserved in the archives of the departments of ornithology and mammalogy. Examination of these archives and of most of the Olallas’ specimens of birds and primates from Peru provides a clear view of their activities for the first time.

All of the Olallas’ collecting sites in Amazonian Peru can now be confidently located, and a large majority of their specimens from these localities accord with current understanding of avian distributions in Amazonian Peru. The accusations of general carelessness or systematic duplicity can thus be rejected. Nevertheless, there remains a small number of problematic specimens. Especially suspect are those acquired from the Olallas in Iquitos by Harvey Bassler with labels from the mouth of the Rı´o Urubamba. These specimens eventually came to the AMNH as a part of Bassler’s collection, rather than directly from the Olallas.

Alfonso and Ramoń Olalla’s choice of collecting sites suggests that they became aware of the importance of major rivers in limiting avian distributions in Amazonia, and their correspondence with Chapman suggests that their collections brought this insight to the attention of ornithologists in New York. In addition, their collections suggest patterns of avian distribution that still need further investigation, especially the extension of some species of the Andean foothills into the lowlands of upper Amazonia and the less consistent limitations of avian distributions by the upper Rıó Ucayali in comparison to the Rıó Amazonas. No doubt some of the Olallas’ specimens indicate yet undiscovered features of avian distribution in upper Amazonia, where, despite Alfonso and Ramoń’s pioneering efforts, there is surely more to learn.

INTRODUCTION ers went on to collect thousands of additional birds for the AMNH in Brazil. Later, he During the 1920s the American Museum collected further thousands of specimens for of Natural History (AMNH) engaged a other museums in North America, Europe, family of Ecuadorians, Carlos Olalla and and Brazil. As a result, it is possible that his sons (Alfonso, Ramo´n, Manuel, and members of the Olalla family collected the Rosalino), to collect birds and mammals in majority of all specimens of Amazonian birds Ecuador and Peru. As a result, the museum currently in museums around the world. acquired over 10,000 specimens of neatly They certainly did so in the first half of the prepared and labeled specimens of birds and 20th century. hundreds of specimens of mammals. Many of This entire corpus of work has been cast these specimens were later exchanged with or into shadow by charges of duplicity and sold to other museums. Altogether they carelessness. These accusations arose from a formed the basis for systematic revisions of single source in 1962 and were subsequently many Amazonian birds and primates. In pursued by a single ornithologist. Attempting subsequent decades, one of the Olalla broth- to understand what can and what cannot be

3 4 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 trusted in the Olallas’ enormous body of collector in Ecuador, asserted that he had work is an important enterprise for Neotrop- seen the Olallas falsify their labels: ical ornithology and mammalogy. This re- I know of one important instance in particular view focuses on the Olallas’ collections from [of irregularities by native collectors]— Dr. Amazonian Peru in the interval from 1925 to Chapman of the Am. Museum paid a family 1928, the period on which the accusations of native collectors very handsomely to get also focus. together a collection of birds from the lower After reviewing the accusations and the Putumayo and the Napo rivers.… The collec- controversy they engendered, I examine the tors only covered about half of their assigned documentary evidence for the Olallas’ itiner- territory but the labels on the specimens showed ary in Peru, their procedures for labeling them collected from a dozen collecting stations specimens, and the locations where they that they never visited and in cases where 20 or more specimens were collected in a single day, worked. This evaluation relies heavily on the dates were ‘‘fixed up’’ to show that the Alfonso Olalla’s manuscript journals in the material had been collected over a period of 6 archives of the AMNH departments of mos.! I not only happened along and saw the ornithology and mammalogy. In addition, I collectors, the specimens & the labels, but heard have examined most of the specimens of them talk of how easy it was—that it made no birds and primates collected by the Olallas in real difference—‘‘the gringos would never know Peru, including nearly all those in the anyway! the important thing was to give them a AMNH but also many in other museums. lot of material with diversified labels’’—I’ve In the end, there appears to be no compelling often wondered if the ‘‘bird-men’’ of the Am. reason to doubt the Olallas’ collections or Mus. ever discovered the hoax that had been worked on them, or if they faithfully based their localities. Instead, it is difficult not to suspect geographic & seasonal distributions on the data a dark current of ethnic prejudice underlying of those labels? the accusations. Nevertheless, in light of our current understanding of avian distributions Brodkorb suggested that Eisenmann might in Amazonian Peru, a small number of the want to bring this matter to the attention of Olallas’ specimens are from surprising loca- Dean Amadon, then chairman of the De- tions. Some of these surprises suggest new partment of Ornithology at the AMNH. He lines for further research. Also important is believed that MacIntyre was dead but had a the human story of three years’ labors in the relative in New Jersey. rainforests of Amazonian Peru by two According to Brodkorb’s letter, the quo- brothers in continual financial and medical tation came from a letter by MacIntyre dated extremities. It is a story of persistent explo- 1 June 1941 to Helen T. Gaige, then curator ration, despite repeated setbacks, and of of herpetology at the University of Michigan insightful decisions, despite crossed commu- Museum of Zoology. Presumably Brodkorb nications, in one of the most challenging had seen it while at Michigan in the 1940s. landscapes of the 20th century. It is a story of Gaige’s correspondence is not preserved in extraordinary accomplishments. the UMMZ, according to a message from Greg Schneider in 2004. Schneider consulted ACCUSATIONS AGAINST two active curators emeriti, Robert Storer ‘‘NATIVE COLLECTORS’’ and Reeve Baily, neither of whom had any recollection of this correspondence about the The controversy over the Olallas’ collec- Olallas, although both expressed hesitation in tions began with a letter from Professor accepting information from commercial col- Pierce Brodkorb at the University of Florida lectors at face value. to Eugene Eisenmann at the AMNH on 5 Brodkorb’s papers are stored, although October 1962. Brodkorb had information not cataloged, at the Florida Museum of that ‘‘should be on record in the American Natural History, where after two searches Museum,’’ namely accusations of fraud by Tom Webber located a five-page letter dated the Olallas. A letter written in 1941 by 16 July 1941 to Brodkorb at the University of William Clarke-MacIntyre, a commercial Michigan from MacIntyre in Ecuador. In this 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 5 letter MacIntyre mentions a previous letter to part to purchase the birds from Loja, did Gaige ‘‘by last mail,’’ but provides no hint of not include all the individuals involved in the its contents. MacIntyre instead responded to expedition to Peru and beyond. The father, a request from Brodkorb for specimens from Carlos, might still have been alive, but the Loja, Ecuador. MacIntyre had no plans to Olalla who collected in southern Ecuador in visit Loja in the next year and instead tried to the late 1930s and 1940s would have been interest Brodkorb in specimens from an Rosalino or Ramoń, who had returned to anticipated expedition to the upper rıós Ecuador by then. Carlos, as revealed in his Napo, Putumayo, and Caqueta´ or, alterna- correspondence with Chapman during the tively, in a crate of birds from Loja currently 1920s, had an argumentative streak and in storage. The letter made two references to harbored repeated suspicions that the muse- the Olallas. um underpaid him. Whether this situation First, he mentioned Chapman’s plans for ever led him or his family in Quito to collections from the Putumayo and Caqueta´: shortchange the museum, in retribution, is another story. Whatever we conclude in that I know that the American Mus. was at one time case does not apply to the two Olallas in very anxious to have a large collection of birds (they wanted ‘em in series of 20!) from those Peru, the brothers Alfonso and Ramoń, who regions, & I’m pretty sure they haven’t gotten in fact took steps to dissociate themselves them as yet. I know Dr. Chapman sent the professionally from the rest of the family in Olallas on a trip down the Napo & Amazon, Quito. although he asked them to collect the Putumayo Once the accusation of duplicity by the & Caqueta´, they didn’t do except in the mouths Olallas had reached the AMNH, it took on a of those rivers—but I don’t doubt but that they new life. Brodkorb’s letter to Eisenmann was sent material labeled clear up to the head waters forwarded to Dean Amadon with an undated of those rivers. note from ‘‘COB’’ (Charles O’Brien, then collection manager) that stated, ‘‘I don’t Then, with reference to the birds in believe F.M.C. [Chapman] discovered the storage, he stated, fraud but eventually it became evident to Now as to Loja material—I have some on hand, J.T.Z. [John Zimmer, associate curator of packed up, at Banõs—bought it of [sic] one of ornithology at the AMNH] in respect to the the Olallas when he returned from a trip he Amazonian material.’’ Charles Vaurie, asso- made to get some humming birds for a museum ciate and later curator of ornithology at the in Paris—don’t know, right now, just what I AMNH, however, was the one who pursued have. the matter repeatedly. He wrote to Emmet Blake, then curator of birds at the Field In short, his opinion of the Olallas was not so Museum in Chicago, for any information he low that he demurred at purchasing their or other curators there might have about the specimens and reselling them to northern Olallas’ specimens. Blake replied on 17 museums! February 1965 with information that Henry Before continuing the history of these Boardman Conover had done business both accusations, I should note that a few points with Carlos for Ecuadorian gamebirds and are already clear. Although MacIntyre had with A.M. (Alfonso) Olalla for Brazilian heard of the Olallas’ expedition to Peru, he material. Blake’s impression was that Carlos obviously knew little about it. The Olallas did was suspect but that Alfonso was ‘‘not given not in fact collect on the Putumayo and to actual skullduggery, although generally he Caqueta´ as originally planned but only didn’t bother to indicate which side of a river because Chapman changed the itinerary. his [specimens] came from … He simply The Olallas did not send a single specimen didn’t know any better.’’ with labels from either of those rivers, Blake went on to say that ‘‘[Philip] contrary to MacIntyre’s accusatory assump- Hershkovitz … bears me out on this and tion. has had exactly the same trouble with Furthermore, the Olallas with whom monkeys borrowed from the AMNH that MacIntyre had interacted, presumably in you are having with some of our Olalla birds. 6 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

In fact, Philip [Hershkovitz] admits that in Brodkorb’s letter. In addition, he claimed to his younger collecting days he also was less have found irregularities in the Olallas’ than precise in specifying localities as related collections for the Natural History Museum to the banks of rivers.’’ in Stockholm. In Gyldenstope’s correspon- Blake also responded to two queries about dence, Vaurie claimed to have found a letter specimens. The first case involved two with complaints that the Olallas had sold subspecies ‘‘[Ortalis motmot] motmot and some of their specimens to other buyers, ruficeps on virtually the same dates’’ at Lago instead of sending everything to Stockholm. Cuipeva (or Cuiteûa), Brazil. ‘‘I believe,’’ ‘‘Gyldenstolpe did not enlarge, but the labels Blake concluded, ‘‘the explanation is clear of the skins subtracted must certainly be (carelessness), although the river appears to fraudulent,’’ concluded Vaurie. Furthermore, be damnably broad at that point [on the according to Vaurie, ‘‘Hershkovitz of Chi- lower Amazon].’’ Blake also felt that ‘‘the cago had decided to ignore all the material mixup at Pinhel would have the same collected by the Olallas because of too much explanation.’’ cheating.’’ Vaurie adds that ‘‘the sexing [of Vaurie’s interest in these specimens arose in specimens] of the Olallas is also too often the course of his revisions of the Cracidae in improbable to trust.’’ He concluded, in a American Museum Novitates (10 issues, 1964– stupendous appeal to prejudice, ‘‘no critical 1967), in which he routinely listed the Olallas’ decisions about systematic status, range, and specimens from Ecuador and Peru without dates can be based on Olalla material. If it comment, including those from the subse- ‘fits’, well and good, but if anything is quently contentious mouth of the Rıó Ur- doubtful at all—ignore it’’ (italics for original ubamba. However, Vaurie did question seven underlining). specimens collected by Alfonso Olalla in Not everybody was convinced. Paulo E. Brazil after he had left Peru. One, a specimen Vanzolini, director of the Museu de Zoologia of Mitu tuberosum from the Rıó Negro da Universidade de Saõ Paulo, wrote to C.W. (Vaurie, 1967b: 17), is now known to be Myers, curator of herpetology at the AMNH, within the range of this species (Scheuerman, ‘‘I personally trust Olalla’s localities. There is 1977). The other six have labels indicating the matter of wide apart localities on the they were collected on the same date, 10 June same day, but this is because he employed 1933, at Lago Cuipeva (Vaurie equates this many local collectors. His name on the label with Cuipeua) and Pinhel, Brazilian localities actually means the firm, not always the north and south of the Amazon respectively. person. As we acquired over the years large The contentious specimens are two Ortalis collections from him, I took pains to check motmot ruficeps and one Pipile cujubi at the his field men (in the Tapajo´s), and found first locality, both taxa otherwise known only them reliable, apparently even as to on which from south of the Amazon, and three O. m. side of the river the bird was shot’’ (letter ruficeps at the second locality, on the western dated 1 September 1972 in the archives of the side of the Rıó Tapajo´s, although this taxon is Department of Ornithology). otherwise known only east of that river In a subsequent interchange with Myers on (Vaurie, 1965: 16–17, 1968: 209). The chacha- 11 October 1972, Vaurie reiterated his accu- lacas from Lago Cuipeva and Pinhel are sations: ‘‘I regret that Dr. Vanzolini doesn’t presumably those mentioned in Blake’s letter, seem to be discriminating.’’ He dismissed discussed above. On the other hand, Vaurie’s Vanzolini’s observations: ‘‘For instance on revisions of the Cracidae accepted other the same day, males may be labeled from a specimens obtained by Alfonso Olalla at locality north of the Amazon, and females Lago Cuipeva and twice based substantive from another, about 125 miles south of the decisions on Alfonso’s specimens from north- Amazon, although it is usually not so ern Bolivia reported by Gyldenstolpe (1945b) flagrant’’ (italics for original underlining). (Vaurie, 1965: 9, 1967a: 4–5). Vaurie also reiterated Gyldenstope’s con- On 27 March 1971, Vaurie pursued the cerns. He added that ‘‘coming from Stock- matter with a handwritten letter to unspeci- holm—I found in the Paris Museum some of fied friends in which he referred again to these skins that they acquired innocently— 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 7 not knowing that the Olallas were under followed by the names of collectors provided contract with Gyldenstolpe. If they are in by Zimmer, the department, and the coordi- Paris, some were probably offered else- nates from the American Geographical So- where.’’ No details were presented, however. ciety’s ‘‘Map of Hispanic America,’’ of which By this time, Vaurie’s ornithological gaz- the 12 sheets for Peru were published between etteer of Peru had been published as an issue 1924 and 1939. Vaurie evidently did not use of American Museum Novitates (Vaurie, the revisions of several sheets published after 1972). Vaurie explained that this gazetteer 1945. Vaurie also quoted some of Zimmer’s was based on the index of Peruvian localities comments about a locality and provided that John T. Zimmer had prepared during his some comments of his own. revisions of Peruvian birds primarily in the Vaurie’s treatment of the Olallas’ localities 1930s and 1940s. Zimmer had participated in reflected his conclusions about their authen- an expedition to Peru for the Field Museum ticity. He included neither Boca Lagarto in 1922–1923 and subsequently had pub- Cocha nor Boca Rıó Curaray, presumably lished descriptions of new subspecies (Zim- because the collectors’ labels specified ‘‘Ecua- mer, 1924a, 1924b, 1927) and a monograph dor’’ (a point discussed below). For Puerto on the birds of the expedition (Zimmer, Indiana, Orosa, and Apayacu, Vaurie’s 1930). In 1930, Chapman hired Zimmer as treatment suggested uncertainty about the an associate curator in the Department of exact locations. Vaurie had no reservations Ornithology at the AMNH to prepare a about Sarayacu, a locality visited by many comprehensive study of the birds of Peru Europeans before the Olallas. Vaurie intro- along the lines of Chapman’s studies of the duced minor mistakes about the locations of birds of Colombia and Ecuador. Zimmer Santa Rosa and Lagarto, but for ‘‘URU- arrived in New York two years after the last BAMBA, ‘boca del Urubamba’ (Olallas),’’ of the Olallas’ shipments from Peru. Chap- Vaurie provided no location. Instead, he man no doubt felt that accession of these appended the comment, ‘‘this is a fraudulent large collections from Amazonian Peru, locality, the labels were forged by the combined with the museum’s already large collectors named, according to Zimmer.’’ In holdings from the Andes and the coast, put short, Vaurie had concluded that most of the the AMNH in a unique position to prepare Olallas’ sites could not now be accurately the first overview of the Peruvian avifauna. located and that one of them, the mouth of Zimmer never produced this overview. the Urubamba, had been entirely fabricated. Instead, with meticulous care, he proceeded As discussed below, Vaurie’s conclusions to revise the systematics of the majority of about the Olallas’ locations were subsequent- Peruvian birds in a series of 66 papers in ly adopted with minor modifications by American Museum Novitates, between 1931 Stephens and Traylor (1983). In particular, and 1955, and in a few additional papers they repeated verbatim Vaurie’s allegations elsewhere. During this effort he assembled his about ‘‘boca del Urubamba’’ under the file of Peruvian localities, usually one 3 3 heading ‘‘URUBAMBA, RIO.’’ 5 inch card for each locality, eventually To my knowledge, none of Zimmer’s totaling over 1000 cards, each of which publications expressed any doubt about the included alternative names for the locality, Olallas’ collections or localities. He included the department in which it was located, the their specimens routinely in his lists of names of collectors who had worked there, specimens examined, under the Olallas’ and the coordinates from a map published in localities (although Zimmer often substituted Lima in 1912. This file was in the archives of ‘‘Anayacu’’ or ‘‘Apiyacu’’ for Apayacu). the Department of Ornithology in 2004– There is, however, a comment on the back 2005, when I examined it. It is now perma- of his index card for ‘‘Boca de Urubamba’’ nently located in the Section of Ornithology about a fabricated label: at the Louisiana State University Museum of Certain skins (of Philydor erythrocercus sub- Natural Science (Van Remsen, in litt., 2010). fulvus) [sic] sold by the Olallas to Harvey Vaurie’s (1972) gazetteer included the Bassler, have this locality [Boca Rıó Urubamba] names of localities on Zimmer’s cards, each on the label but they are fraudulently labeled 8 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

and belong to the fauna of e. Ec. [Ecuador] & out the country. Peru had been explored by a Peru north of the Amazon. The label is one not number of intrepid ornithologists, but it had in use by the Olallas at this locality (square never developed native bird collectors. base; printed ‘‘Peru’’) (label actually used has Chapman’s careful work on the zonal basal corners clipped & is printed ‘‘Ecuador’’; distributions of birds in the Andes of this crossed off & Peru stamped on afterwards); according to our collections this label was not Colombia and Ecuador had left him partic- used before Teffe´, Brazil. Probably the skins are ularly sensitive to the limitations of native now collected in eastern Ecuador & mislabeled collectors (Chapman, 1926: 10–11). As orni- for sale as Peruvian birds. thology advanced after the turn of the century, ornithologists could see the impor- In his revisions of Philydor erythrocercum tance of carefully documented specimens for and ruficaudatum, Zimmer (1935) did not distributional analyses. In Ecuador, Ludovic mention a specimen from Boca Rıó Uru- So¨derstrom (the Swedish consul-general in bamba, even in the list of specimens exam- Quito in the 1920s) encouraged native ined. Vaurie’s comprehensive review of the collectors to label their specimens with Furnariidae (Vaurie, 1980) also did not locality and sex. Nevertheless, as Chapman mention this specimen. Otherwise, Zimmer cautioned, each locality was best interpreted routinely listed the Olallas’ specimens from as the base of operations for collectors who Boca Rıó Urubamba (translated as ‘‘mouth worked in areas of undetermined extent. He of Rıó Urubamba’’). A specimen of Philydor did not doubt the sincerity of the native erythrocercum subfulvum, currently in the collectors but only their awareness of the AMNH with this locality on one of the importance of precise information. Native Olallas’ labels, is among a group of six collectors had not been the only ones careless problematic specimens in a collection ac- with labels, however, as Chapman (1926: quired from Harvey Bassler, to be discussed 728) explained in reviewing Clarence Buck- in a separate section below. ley’s collections on the rıós Bobonaza and Subsequent students of Peruvian birds Pastaza near Sarayacu (Ecuador). It was the have tended to follow Zimmer’s practice need for accurate information about bird rather than Vaurie’s accusations (as perpet- distributions that motivated Chapman’s own uated by Stephens and Traylor, 1983) but expeditions to the Andes. with some lingering doubts. In the following Chapman’s encounter with a family of sections, I review the Olallas’ itinerary in native collectors in Quito, however, trans- Peru, describe their labels, review the evi- formed the way the AMNH, and ultimately dence for their locations, and discuss prob- other museums, could obtain large numbers of specimens with the new requirements for lematic specimens in their collections. accuracy. His association with the Olallas, and especially with Alfonso Olalla, was a ´ ALFONSO AND RAMON OLALLA IN departure from the way major museums had AMAZONIAN PERU previously acquired ornithological collec- CHAPMAN ENGAGES THE OLALLAS tions. In this venture, he relied on native collectors but insisted on accurate and precise During the early ornithological documen- information and careful preparation of spec- tation of Andean countries, Colombia was imens, features previously attempted only by the source of the largest number of specimens trained ornithologists. (Chapman, 1926). Prior to the American Chapmen first met the Olallas in 1922 Museum’s expeditions early in the century, during his second trip to Ecuador. From most specimens of Colombian birds had been 1913 onward (with a hiatus from 1917 to obtained by native collectors and exported 1919) Chapman and other collectors for the through Bogota´ without other information American Museum had worked extensively about localities. In contrast, although Ecua- along the western coast and in the south- dor had also developed a market for native western mountains of Ecuador. In August bird collectors, it had also regularly attracted 1922 during his first visit to Quito, with visiting ornithologists to localities through- George Cherrie and Geoffrey O’Connell, 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 9

Chapman made a trip to Mindo accompa- EXPEDITIONS TO SUMACO IN nied by Ramoń Olalla, ‘‘a member of a EASTERN ECUADOR family of professional bird collectors.’’ Chap- man was impressed with how quickly Ramoń As Chapman (1926) wryly observed, ‘‘less- learned the American Museum’s methods of seasoned travelers would have made [these preparing specimens and the ‘‘importance of reports] the basis of tales of hardship and care in sexing and accuracy in locality adventure.’’ For example, on their first labeling’’ (Chapman, 1926: 16–17). This expedition to Sumaco, the return to Archi- experience led Chapman to employ Ramoń, dona on foot with their collections required along with his three brothers (Alfonso, three weeks of travel in the tropical rains Manuel, and Rosalino) and father (Carlos), (April–May 1923) (see fig. 1). A total of to ascend Sumaco, an ‘‘almost mythical’’ 11 days was spent waiting for three torrential rivers to subside enough to ford. Chapman mountain east of the Andes. (1926) notes that the accuracy of Alfonso’s Chapman (1926: 17) noted that in the reports was confirmed by their agreement following two years the father and four with accounts of the British-American ex- brothers, working under the professional plorer George M. Dyot (1926), who ascended name ‘‘Olalla e hijos,’’ delivered a collection Sumaco within two years after the Olallas’ of ‘‘beautifully prepared’’ skins illustrating visits. the life zones of this area. The collection On their second expedition to Sumaco contained several new forms, including one (1923–1924), rising rivers, lack of food, and new genus. Chapman was nevertheless dis- scarcity of porters combined to make a appointed that the temperate zone on Su- journey from Quito to A´ vila on the Rıó maco had an avifauna practically the same as Suno an ordeal lasting two months. On this that along the main range of the Andes. expedition, various combinations of brothers Perhaps he was hoping for differences and father often worked in pairs that traveled comparable to those he had discovered separately. In particular, Alfonso and Ra- between the main ranges of the Andes in moń Olalla routinely worked together, as Colombia. they would throughout their subsequent Chapman was particularly impressed with expeditions in Peru, while Manuel accompa- the meticulous records maintained by the nied their father, Carlos. As a result of a Olallas. Supplied with a thermometer and serious injury to Carlos’ leg while crossing a instructions to record temperatures at sunrise river on Sumaco, the party started back to and sunset, the Olallas had obtained evidence Quito. Eventually they had to abandon their for a correlation between the avifaunas and equipment, and Alfonso had to proceed the temperatures of the different life zones. alone for help, ahead of the rest. After four Alfonso also provided narratives of the days in Quito, he returned to Sumaco where family’s itineraries in the form of reports, he continued collecting alone until finally now in the archives of the AMNH Depart- returning to Quito on 26 June over a month ment of Ornithology. These reports estab- later. By this time, trips back and forth to lished the pattern for subsequent ones about Quito had been shortened by a new trail Alfonso’s own expeditions throughout the opened by the Olallas from Baeza to the Rıó following decade. Each report was apparent- Suno. ly written immediately after the expedition it In 1923–1924, the Olallas collected for covered and was usually sent to New York Chapman at a variety of elevations on the with the shipments of birds and mammals slopes of the Andes east of Quito (Papallacta, collected. Oyacachi, Cerro Guamani [or Huamani], Because the reliability of the Olallas’ Tumbaco, Baeza, Puente del Rıó Quijos, records has been questioned, it is worthwhile Rıó Sardinas; altogether 2019 specimens). summarizing these accounts of their activi- They twice collected on the western slopes of ties, as a basis for evaluating their procedures the Andes near Mindo (189 specimens). In and as a testimony to the daunting challenges addition, on their expeditions to the Rıó they faced in the field. Suno and Sumaco (1 February–26 April 10 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

Fig. 1. Map of some localities visited by the Olallas at the beginning of their expedition down the Rı´o Napo and on their previous expeditions to Sumaco, an outlying peak of the eastern Andes in Ecuador.

1923, 1–27 December 1923, 20 January–18 contract with Robert Cushman Murphy February, 3 March–24 April, 24 May–15 from the American Museum during his visit June 1924, based on dates in Chapman, 1926: to Quito, and on 20 May 1925 the expedition 21), they amassed an additional 1248 speci- left Quito. Carlos was accompanied by his mens (Chapman, 1926: 21). Nearly 3500 four sons and an employee, T. Mena. specimens resulted from this early work in Alfonso’s subsequent report, apparently Ecuador. sent to the American Museum with the second shipment of specimens the following March, presented a terse but vivid account of DOWN THE NAPO this expedition. On 25 May the Olallas convened with eight porters who were to In 1925 the Olallas’ next expedition into carry their equipment from Papallacta to Amazonia for the AMNH was even more Archidona. After passing Baeza they at- harrowing than those to Sumaco. The tempted to cross a swollen torrent by means destination this time was the mouth of the of a fallen tree. Alfonso and one porter Rıó Curaray, far down the Rıó Napo beyond crossed safely, but the next porter fell into the the present boundary of Ecuador. Letters raging river and disappeared, together with between the Olallas and Chapman (Depart- $397 worth of equipment. Following this ment of Ornithology archives), suggest that tragedy, the party decided to wait, camping the original intention was to collect birds and in constant rain, until the river subsided. mammals along the lower rıós Napo, Putu- Further difficulties in obtaining porters mayo, and Caqueta´, perhaps not fully and serious illnesses of Alfonso and Manuel realizing the enormous distances involved beset the expedition as it made its way (Olalla letter, see below) nor the precarious toward Loreto, the district capital. At this political situation on the Putumayo at that town, on the Rıó Suno, they intended to time. On 5 February, however, they signed a obtain canoes for their trip down the Napo. 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 11

On their way to Loreto, however, a delega- ing the canoes,’’ three days later they tion from the village of Concepcioń con- succeeded in reaching the mouth of the Rıó vinced them to stop there instead. On 30 June Curaray. they finally reached this village, where the Rıó Cotapino joins the Rıó Pucuno (spelled ‘‘Pucano’’ by Alfonso). According to the MOUTH OF THE RÓı CURARAY National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and U.S. Board of Geographic Names, the town Alfonso’s report stipulated that tempera- near the mouth of the Rıó Cotapino is now tures were recorded from 16 October to 21 named Avila´, on the road from Loreto to March 1926 at their camp on Isla Panduro Archidona, and a village about 9 km to the near the mouth of the Curaray (‘‘casi junto a southwest is named Concepcioń (fig. 1). The la Boca del Curaray’’). Specimens were Olallas soon learned that the authorities in collected during daily explorations along the nearby Loreto firmly refused to permit any Curaray and to both shores of the Napo local people to accompany the expedition (‘‘exploraciońes dia´rias a la banda de le down the Napo, despite a special trip by Curaraý o en ambas orillas del Napo’’). Alfonso to plead their case. The expedition Two months later they had amassed enough nevertheless proceeded to construct canoes of a collection to arrange for its shipment to for the anticipated trip. In addition, they New York. On 13 December 1925 Alfonso collected specimens nearby (labeled ‘‘Boca boarded a launch with a shipment of Rio Cotapino’’) and on a side trip to ‘‘Cerro specimens for the AMNH and reached Galeras’’ (now named Cordillera de Galeras), Iquitos on the Rıó Amazonas a week later. until they ran out of arsenic for preserving Iquitos in the 1920s was in dire economic the skins. According to Alfonso’s report, straits. The collapse of the rubber boom in temperatures were recorded daily at the 1914, following two or three decades of wild mouth of the Cotapino 1–31 July 1925 and prosperity, left many people adrift. Much of on Cerro Galeras 12–15 July 1925. the indigenous population of Amazonia had Stymied by the local authorities, the been displaced or enslaved during the boom. expedition sent Rosalino with three local In addition, large numbers of immigrants had men to Quito to obtain the necessary arrived from the highlands and abroad. permissions. With them were sent all but Many of those who had not left after 1914 the largest specimens collected so far, for now settled as subsistence farmers in com- shipment to the AMNH via Guayaquil. munities along the major rivers. The mon- While in Quito, they received a letter from strous overlordship of the rubber baron Ju´lio New York stipulating that they should not Ce´sar Arana on the Putumayo (Hemming, collect specimens other than those specifically 1987: 309–312) was slowly giving way to requested. On 28 September Rosalino re- tension over international boundaries. With- turned with permissions and supplies, and in another decade, armed skirmishes would two days later the expedition embarked at erupt in this area, including the massacre of long last in two canoes. The personnel one Peruvian garrison. In towns like Iquitos included Carlos and three sons (Alfonso, entrepreneurs were desperately seeking some Ramon, Manuel), T. Mena, and seven local alternative product to export, of which skins men as paddlers. Rosalino, not mentioned of cats and crocodilians were the most subsequently, must have returned once again promising (Morey Alejo and Sotil Garcia, to Quito. 2000). Shipping and communications along On 5 October another hurdle arose at the the Amazon must have been depressed. mouth of the Rıó Aguarico, at the frontier Steam launches, introduced in Amazonia in between Ecuador and Peru, where authorities the 1850s, would have remained the principal absolutely refused to allow the local men to means of long-distance transportation along pass. Finally on 11 October, the locals were major rivers. sent back in one of the canoes, while the four Alfonso consigned the Olallas’ specimens Olallas and T. Mena proceeded in the other. to Booth and Company (a British shipping ‘‘Although they knew nothing about manag- firm based in Liverpool) for shipment to New 12 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

York and also telegraphed a request to Another preoccupation in Carlos’ corre- Chapman for additional funds. The expedi- spondence is an effort to interest the tion, according to Alfonso’s report, was now museum in further collections from eastern broke. Eight days later he received $500 Ecuador. This plan to shift the museum’s wired from the museum. On 29 December focus back to Ecuador was perhaps hatched Alfonso embarked for the Rıó Curaray and before or during the return from the mouth arrived a week later. Meanwhile, the rest of of the Curaray. It would explain why the the expedition, in financial difficulties, had returning party, on its way back to Quito up been assisted by a friendly Ecuadorian who the Rıó Napo, made an important side trip. lived about a half day farther up the Napo. A letter from Carlos to Chapman on 29 The expedition then made a decision to March 1926 described a digression up the reduce its size. Expenses were too great for all Rıó Aguarico (‘‘la frontera Ecuatoriana’’) to five people to remain in the field, so Alfonso the mouth of Lagarto Cocha, in response to and Ramoń remained at the mouth of the reports of interesting birds and other ani- Curaray to continue collecting, while the mals there. Carlos’ letter stipulated the others left for the return to Quito. The Olalla localities passed on their journey up the family would never again work in the field Aguarico to Lagarto Cocha including their together. two stops. The trip thus required about three days by canoe. They arrived on 14 January 1926 and collected from the following day until 26 January, at which point they had CARLOS RETURNS TO QUITO exhausted their supplies and continued on The returning members of the expedition their way back to Quito. Carlos’ account arrived in Quito by 11 March 1926, when a provided no further information about letter from Carlos informed a shipping agent where specimens were collected. Morning in Guayaquil of his return and requested and evening temperatures were reported, information about payment for the collection but, unlike his son Alfonso, Carlos did not sent from the mouth of the Curaray through specify the dates. Iquitos (‘‘mandado de la Voca del Rio Carlos’ letter said that the specimens were Curaray por Iquitos al Museo’’). This letter being sent to the museum, presumably in initiated a prolonged correspondence, most conjunction with his letter. Nevertheless, he of it preserved in the archives of the was clearly concerned that Lagarto Cocha Department of Ornithology, between Carlos was not a locality designated in the contract and representatives of the AMNH about for this expedition. He quoted a phrase in the payments. Most of the confusion seems to contract that all specimens collected in the have resulted from complexities of exchange ‘‘Oriente’’ should be sent to the AMNH, but rates among Ecuadorian sucres, Peruvian he failed to make a case that the museum soles and pounds, and American dollars. should pay for specimens not stipulated in Evidently, most of the payments were made the contract. Nevertheless, Chapman agreed to Carlos in Quito, but some of the money to pay for these unsolicited specimens, was sent to Alfonso and Ramoń in Iquitos. although he also emphasized that the muse- To compound difficulties, the value of um expected tthe Olallas to adhere to their Ecuadorian sucres in Iquitos seems to have contract in the future (letter from Chapman been lower than the published value in New on 10 May 1926). In his response on 28 June York. This correspondence reveals some 1926, after complaining about underpayment irritation on both sides, but neither Carlos for large monkeys, Carlos proposed further nor the museum ever threatened to terminate expeditions to the Oriente of Ecuador. By relations or to take legal action. Despite the this time, however, Chapman had no further negotiations over payment, there was no need for Ecuadorian specimens and the suggestion in any of the letters that any museum never accepted Carlos’ proposals. specimens from the Rıó Curaray were carried In a letter of 20 August 1926 Chapman again back to Quito for shipment to New York. All emphasized that he wanted to stick to the were evidently dispatched from Iquitos. original contract. 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 13

ALFONSO AND RAMO´ N LEAVE THE CURARAY arrived four days later at Puerto Indiana (now simply Indiana). In the meantime, back at the mouth of the Rıó Curaray, Alfonso and Ramoń had PUERTO INDIANA assembled another considerable collection by March 1926. At this point, Alfonso The original contract for the Olallas’ wrote a long letter to Chapman dated 22 expedition is not now in the archives of the March from ‘‘Voca Rıó Curaray’’ to ac- Department of Ornithology at the AMNH. company a shipment of specimens. The The essential conditions, however, can be letter summarized a total of 479 specimens reconstructed from the many extant letters packed in a large case. Accompanying the that Alfonso exchanged with Chapman. shipment was his notebook, which he hoped Following the collections at the Rıó Curaray, would meet with as much approval as the contract called for collections on the Rıó previous ones. He would continue taking Amazonas near Iquitos in Peru and then on similar notes. He also explained that four the rıós Putumayo and Caqueta´ in Colombia members of the expedition had returned to (fig. 2). The town of Indiana on the northern Quito but that he and Ramoń could bank of the Amazon, not far above the complete the work. Alfonso was staying at mouth of the Rıó Napo and below Iquitos, the mouth of the Curaray until Ramoń was a convenient base for the next stage of could send enough money from Iquitos to the expedition. In the 1920s, Puerto Indiana settle accounts with their Ecuadorian host was a small village, although today, with the near the Curaray. Afterward, Alfonso pro- simplified name Indiana, it is a district capital posed to join Ramoń on the Rıó Amazonas. and the largest Peruvian town on the He requested 25 pounds of arsenic, an Amazon below Iquitos. essential commodity in those days for The day after their arrival in Indiana, preserving specimens in tropical climates, Alfonso went hunting but returned disap- one that the Olallas appear to have repeat- pointed that the animals were, with a few edly exhausted. A letter of introduction exceptions, the same as those encountered (presumably to local authorities) was also previously. Nevertheless, they continued dai- needed in order to pursue the plans for a ly explorations along the Amazon as far as visit to the Rıó Putumayo. Finally, after a the Napo (‘‘limitada por el Rıó Napo’’). They few more financial details, he asked that planned to cross the Amazon (nearly 2 km copies of all replies be sent both to the wide at Indiana), but apparently did not American legation in Quito and to the because of reports that the land there was offices of Booth and Company in Iquitos, entirely flooded and unsuitable for camping presumably so that he and Ramoń as well as (‘‘terrenos … completamente inundados y his father Carlos would remain informed. imposibles para hacer un campamento’’). Alfonso’s next report began with an May and June often have the highest stages account of Ramoń’s trip to Iquitos by launch of the Peruvian Amazon. Because of a large with the second batch of specimens from the loop of the Napo near its mouth, this river mouth of the Curaray. This was a slow trip, passes only a few kilometers to the north of lasting from 28 March to 14 April, as a result Indiana (fig. 3). ‘‘As far as the Napo’’ is thus of low water in the Napo. Once in Iquitos, no farther than about two hours’ walk. Ramoń had cabled for additional funds from Evidently, the specimens collected at Puerto the museum and then, rather than send Indiana were thus from the northern side of money to Alfonso by a third party, he had the river in the vicinity of the town. returned in person between 27 April and 2 The work at Indiana was hampered by a May. During the month of Ramoń’s absence, lack of supplies. On 28 May Alfonso sent a Alfonso had continued to collect until he had letter from Iquitos to R.C. Murphy at the once again exhausted the expeditions’s sup- American Museum because they had received ply of arsenic. On 15 May, presumably with no reply from Chapman and assumed he was their affairs at the mouth of the Rıó Curaray out of town. Alfonso reiterated his request settled, the brothers embarked together and for a shipment of arsenic, 50 pounds this 14 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

Fig. 2. Map of northwestern Amazonia to show major rivers, modern towns and international boundaries, and locations visited by Alfonso and Ramo´n Olalla from 1925 to 1928. time. They had already bought all the arsenic not continue without additional supplies. He available in Iquitos, and no more could be also suggested that they could collect reptiles got at any price. He explained that they for the museum, in addition to birds and remained committed to the work but could mammals, a proposal the museum did not 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 15

Fig. 3. Map of the vicinity of Indiana (the Olallas’ ‘‘Pto. Indiana’’), departamento Loreto, Peru. The mouth of the Rıó Napo is about 20 km east of Indiana although the river passes within 3 km to the north. South of the Rıó Amazonas seasonally flooded lowlands extend to the arcuate portions of the Rıó Vainilla as indicated. This map and the following ones are based on satellite images from Google Earth (accessed March–December 2008).

pursue. Finally, he requested clarification of museum always responded to these requests the payments he could expect in Peruvian as promptly as possible, in view of the soles, for use in Iquitos, rather than in vagaries of shipping between New York Ecuadorian sucres. It is noteworthy that and Iquitos. In fact, this time the arsenic Alfonso’s letters always requested clarifica- and other supplies had already been dis- tion of payments, in contrast to his father’s patched on 17 May. letters from Quito, which perennially argued On 18 June 1926 Alfonso went back to for supplementary payments. Alfonso’s let- Iquitos, 39 hours upriver by canoe, as he ters instead focused on the need for supplies stipulated. With funds replenished, he re- unavailable in Peru and for funds to cover turned to Indiana on 23 June after canoeing unexpected costs of freight and travel. The downriver through the night, a journey of 16 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 only some 12 hours. Three days later Alfonso um henceforth deal only with the team in returned to Iquitos with two cases of Peru and not with ‘‘Companıá C. Olalla e specimens for shipment by Booth and Com- Hijos’’ in Quito. Alfonso and Ramoń wished pany. After some difficulty, he also managed to be on their own. to obtain from the customs house a shipment Chapman was already aware of the im- of collecting supplies from the museum, practicality of working on the Putumayo, presumably including the essential arsenic. because, in a letter addressed to Booth and The collections at Puerto Indiana were Company on 29 July, he said that he was glad completed by 4 August, when Alfonso sent a to hear that the Olallas were going to collect letter to New York accompanying the last at Pebas (downriver from Iquitos) ‘‘from shipment of specimens from this locality. which locality we wish to secure a complete These collections fulfilled the contract for representation of the birds and mammals.’’ specimens from the Amazon near Iquitos. In Although Alfonso’s letter had mentioned the absence of other orders, the brothers now seeking a place near the Brazilian border, in planned to move downriver on the southern fact they got nowhere near that far, and side (‘‘en la rivera que limita con terrenos indeed not even as far as Pebas. Alfonso’s (Brasilero) [sic]’’). He added, ‘‘We hope to account said that the brothers planned to send in the next shipment something more seek a site on the south bank of the Amazon, interesting.’’ This dispirited comment sug- territory not covered in the collections at gests that the brothers had found little at Indiana, but subsequent events make it Indiana that they had not already encoun- more likely that their choice of location tered at the mouth of the Rıó Curaray and was largely fortuitous. Because they had no during the expeditions to Sumaco. They had spare funds for passage on a steam launch, yet to discover the many different species just they arranged to have a ‘‘casa de balsa’’ a short distance away on the opposite side of constructed, a raft of logs with a thatched the Amazon. hut for protection from sun and rain. They departed with three men as pilots early on 26 August. AMOVE DOWNRIVER Two days later a sudden storm struck the Olallas’ raft just after dark. Although it In his letter of 4 August, Alfonso had lasted only 17 minutes, as stipulated in rejected the original plan in the contract with Alfonso’s subsequent report, its violence blew the museum to visit the Putumayo. As he their hut away and left their equipment and explained in detail, he had discovered that themselves exposed to the downpour. In an access to the Putumayo was monopolized by astonishing coincidence, Che Guevara, also the notorious Senõr Arana, a rapacious short of cash and in nearly the same location, rubber baron, who would control their would make a similar journey over 25 years activities and demand a large sum of money. later and experience a similar storm (Gue- He reassured Chapman that the expedition vara, 1995)! was willing to proceed wherever they were The Olallas’ raft became entangled in a directed and requested detailed instructions. fishing weir in the river. The next morning, The brothers’ plan to move down the however, they managed to continue down- Amazon toward Brazil (in the direction of river, where they soon found a house and the Putumayo, fig. 2) was thus intended to spent the day drying everything in the sun. fill time until the museum could provide The following day they landed at Orosa ‘‘on more specific instructions. Alfonso also the right [southern] margin of the Amazon.’’ proposed another alteration in the contract The storm on the river, rather than foresight, by asking the museum to send a Kodak was probably responsible for this decision. camera. In a missed opportunity, the muse- On 31 August 1926 they set up camp at um ignored this request. Even a few photos Orosa (fig. 4), and began collecting the next of the Olallas’ collecting localities would now day. Here they made daily excursions be priceless. Finally, in this letter of crucial among the islands in the Amazon and the proposals, Alfonso requested that the muse- territory toward the Rıó Yavari (‘‘explor- 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 17

Fig. 4. Map of the lower courses of the rıós Orosa and Apayacu, departamento Loreto, Peru. Seasonally flooded lowlands extend from the Rıó Amazonas northward to the dashed line and southward to the arcuate portions of the Rıó Orosa. The Olallas’ locality ‘‘Orosa’’ was most likely at or near the circle (1, see text). Their ‘‘Apayacu’’ was at the current town of that name (2), on a small island between the mouth of the Rıó Apayacu and the Rıó Amazonas.

aciońes dia´rias a las isles del Amazonas, o because travel by steam launch was not easily ya a los terrenos que se extienden hasta el arranged in their present location), and Rıó Javarı´’’). Toward the Yavarı´ means promised to include the notebook with more or less southward from their camp temperatures and descriptions of the locali- (the Yavarı´ itself, which forms the border ties in the next shipment. He requested between Peru and Brazil, was far beyond prompt payment for the present shipment, their reach). They found the collecting here which would cover the cost of travel to the ‘‘de mucha satisfaccioń,’’ probably because Putumayo or the Caqueta´, the expected next they obtained many species they had not destination. In the meantime, the brothers encountered before. would continue to work at the same place. On 22 October 1926 Ramoń took cases of Alfonso and Ramoń, out of touch with the specimens to Iquitos for shipment to the museum for months now, were unsure where AMNH by Booth and Company. The trip to proceed. upriver, presumably by canoe, lasted four days. His return trip downriver on 1–2 AREMARKABLE DECISION AND A REVERSAL November took only 38 hours. While in OF DIRECTION Iquitos he obtained an advance of 40 Peruvian pounds for supplies. Alfonso’s letter After another month at Orosa, the broth- to accompany the shipment, dated 20 Octo- ers made a momentous decision. On 11 ber, summarized the specimens included, December 1926, they crossed the Amazon explained that shipping the collections to to the northern bank and camped on an Iquitos by canoe cost 50 soles (necessary island ‘‘on which the Apayacu empties’’ (‘‘al 18 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 ma´rgen izquie´rdo … en la´sla ı del Amazońas and subsequently Chapman realized that they en la cual desembocaélRıó Apayacu’’). This were onto something unexpected is thus site is undoubtedly where the village of circumstantial. Apayacu now stands on a slender peninsula The most important indication of this (but an island at high water) between the change was their inattention to the sides of debouching black water of the Apayacu and rivers before reaching Apayacu in contrast to the silty Amazon (fig. 4). As discussed in afterwards. At the mouth of the Curaray, more detail below, they had moved only a neither the Olallas’ specimens nor Alfonso’s couple of kilometers. field notes provide any indication about Alfonso nowhere explained the rationale locations with respect to the Curaray or the for this short move, but the continuing Napo. This information is thus impossible to pattern of the brothers’ activities provides reconstruct. At Indiana the brothers decided some hints. Most important, despite unpre- against crossing the river because camping dictable and infrequent communication with would have been impossible. In contrast, the museum, the brothers never stopped after Apayacu, as explained below, they collecting. When they had no specific infor- carefully selected camps to sample both sides mation about what the museum might of a river. request next, they always took reasonable Scientists at the AMNH showed no steps in anticipation and always kept work- awareness of rivers as limits to distributions ing. In addition, they had a spirit of prior to the arrival of specimens from Orosa exploration. and Apayacu. Thereafter, Chapman’s in- It was this spirit that must have led them structions were insistent that the Olallas to move directly across the river. The Olallas, collect from both sides of a river and label by collecting extensively (despite the muse- their specimens accordingly. Beforehand, um’s warnings in the early stages of the neither the Olallas’ original contract with expedition about too many specimens) and the museum nor any of the correspondence by daily experience in the field, must have from the museum included instructions for realized that Orosa and Indiana differed visiting both sides of a river, nor even for markedly in their avifaunas. There would be noting which side of a river their collections two possible explanations: either any change came from. Instead the museum issued of location would produce novelties, or a explicit instructions only for recording tem- move across a large river would. The first peratures, data relevant to earlier collections must have seemed less likely in view of the in the Andes, but largely irrelevant in similarities between their collections at the Amazonia. Chapman’s treatises on the avi- mouth of the Rıó Curaray and at Indiana. faunas of Colombia and Ecuador focus on The conclusion seems inescapable that the the Andes as determinants of avian distribu- move from Orosa to Apayacu was made to tions, and he himself never undertook test the second possibility. In doing so, the fieldwork in Amazonia. These two treatises Olallas confirmed the importance of rivers in never mention rivers as limits of avian limiting the ranges of birds and primates in distributions. The Olallas’ shipment from Amazonia, and their collections from Orosa Apayacu reached Chapman within a year of and Apayacu appear to have made Chapman the publication of The Distribution of Bird- aware of it too. life in Ecuador in 1926 and seems to have Neither the Olallas’ nor Chapman’s letters been a revelation. Chapman’s sudden interest ever explicitly stated that this discovery had in the sides of rivers is best explained by this been made, perhaps because the letters in fact new awareness. Subsequently, Zimmer’s rou- never discussed anything but business. Noth- tine attention to riverine limits in his series of ing at all about biology was mentioned in papers on the birds of Peru made this their correspondence. Likewise, the Olallas’ biogeographical phenomenon widely appre- reports adhered strictly to lists of daily ciated in the ornithological community. The temperatures, standarized descriptions of conclusion seems inescapable that the Olal- the areas visited, and the stages of travel las’ decision to cross the Amazon to Apayacu along rivers. The evidence that the Olallas started a chain of events that within a decade 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 19 had resulted in a general recognition of this returned downriver to Apayacu on 28 biogeographic pattern in Amazonia.1 December, 27 hours by canoe. On the day following their move across the Alfonso and Ramon continued to work at Amazon, Alfonso returned to Iquitos to get the mouth of the Rıó Apayacu until 29 mail, which he no doubt hoped would include January 1927 and then embarked in two large new instructions from the museum. He took canoes with their equipment and specimens along two additional small boxes of speci- for Iquitos once again. Once there, five days mens. After four and a half days by canoe he later, they found that no funds had arrived reached Iquitos. He shipped the specimens from the museum for this new expedition but had to wait for the monthly boat with the upriver. A cable to New York eventually mail. It arrived on 25 December 1926, with produced the funds, but by then the only payment for the Indiana specimens. Of equal launch had already departed. Nowadays importance were instructions to skip the multiple diesel launches depart every day plans in the original contract for a visit to upriver from Iquitos to Pucallpa and Yur- the Rıó Putumayo and instead to proceed to imaguas, but in 1927 there must have been the Ucayali. With new supplies, Alfonso only one every few weeks. The Olallas, not wanting to waste time, headed upriver for the Ucayali by canoe. Alfonso ends his narrative 1 The Olallas were not the first to notice that various of the brothers’ activities along the Amazon Amazonian species were restricted by rivers. Early examples by summarizing temperatures at dawn and come from Henry Walter Bates and Alfred Russell Wallace, who traveled together during a portion of their expedition to South sunset at Puerto Indiana from 20 May to 25 America. Wallace, in a special section of his Narrative of Travels August 1926, at Orosa from 1 October to 11 on the Amazon and Rio Negro (1853), emphasized that the December 1926, and at the island at the Negro, Madeira, Solimo˜es, and Amazon rivers limited the mouth of the Rıó Apayacu from 12 Decem- distributions of many, but not all, primates. In addition, he noted that several species of birds were limited by major rivers ber 1926 to 29 January 1927. (the species of trumpeters Psophia and several jacamars Galbula). Why Chapman decided on the Ucayali as Bates (1863) was presumably the source of some of Wallace’s the Olallas’ next destination is not explained information, because he had noted the occurrence of the white in his letters. He resumed his correspondence, uakari monkey Cacajao calvus calvus only west of the Rio Japura´ near Tefe´ and the Curl-crested Toucan Pteroglossus beauharnaesii as preserved in the archives of the AMNH only south of the Solimo˜es in Brazil. Subsequent ornithologists Department of Ornithology, with letters to elaborated on these patterns. Hellmayr (1910) briefly summa- Iquitos on 4 and 5 May 1927. One, to the rized species limited to the ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘left’’ banks of the Rıó Olallas, expressed satisfaction that they had Madeira (34 and 9 species, respectively), but his lists indicate accepted the proposal to work at Sarayacu some confusion of the two sides of the river. Snethlage (1913) lists many birds limited by major rivers in lower Amazonia (rıós on the Ucayali but provided no rationale for Amazon, Tocantins, Xingu´, and Tapajo´s) and recognizes three this location. His enthusiasm for this work regions of avian distribution limited by these rivers (Snethlage, seemed qualified as he reminded them not to 1913: 504–516). Nevertheless these limits pertain only to rivers collect more than the stipulated number of of eastern Amazonia and, at any rate, are not the primary focus of this paper. The two major catalogs of Neotropical birds specimens. The other, to Booth and Compa- before the 1920s included little information about distributions ny, transferred credit to the Olallas’ account limited by rivers. The Catalogue of the Birds in the British for the specimens from Orosa and Apayacu Museum by R. Bowdler Sharpe and others (27 volumes, 1874– and for the cost of shipping them upriver by 1895) makes no mention of rivers as limits of Amazonian birds. canoe. Evidently the specimens had arrived R.B. Cory and C.E. Helmayr’s Catalogue of the Birds of the Americas (5 volumes published 1918–1927, others later) safely in New York but had not yet been includes scant information of this sort. The latter, for instance, examined. mentions two forms of Galbula that replace each other across Six weeks later, Chapman was much more the Amazon in Peru but fails to mention conspicuous enthusiastic. His letter to the Olallas on 20 limitations in parrots (Pionites), antbirds (Pithys), or toucans (Pteroglossus, Selenidura). Failure to mention the restriction of June 1927 emphasized for the first time the Pteroglossus beauharnaesii to the south bank of the Amazon/ importance of keeping track of the side of the Solimo˜es, as emphasized by both Bates and Wallace, is river from which specimens came and also particularly remarkable. From 1931 onward, with the publica- proposed an entirely new and ambitious tion of J.T. Zimmer’s studies of Peruvian birds, which relied on itinerary after Sarayacu. First, he requested the Olallas’ collections for information about Amazonia, the frequent limitations of avian distributions by rivers in Amazonia a collection at or near the junction of the rıós became much more widely appreciated. Ucayali and Urubamba and especially re- 20 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 quested collections from both sides of the bank of the river opposite the town of Ucayali. Then he proposed an ascent of the Sarayacu. Alfonso as usual denoted sides of mountains between the rıós Ucayali and the river with reference to his direction of Pichis, then a collection from Tingo Maria, travel rather than direction of flow, so he and finally a collection near Yurimaguas wrote that the camp opposite Sarayacu was (again from both sides of the river)! The on the ‘‘left’’ side of the river. Peruvians on collections from Orosa and Apayacu had the rivers of Amazonia follow this conven- evidently infused Chapman with new enthu- tion to this day. From this first camp, the siasm. The sky was now the limit. He also brothers collected specimens on the eastern assured the two brothers that he had already side of the Ucayali (actually south of the arranged payment for the long trip to the Ucayali at this particular point, fig. 5) from mouth of the Rıó Urubamba. the day after their arrival at Sarayacu (11 The initial decision to substitute the March 1927) until 15 April. Ucayali for the Putumayo is, however, not From April 16 until May 10, according to so easily explained. Earlier ornithologists had Alfonso’s report, they collected on both sides visited neither the Putumayo, nor the upper of the Ucayali. The brothers did not change Ucayali. Apparently, Chapman was formu- the location of their camp, because the river lating a project to treat the birds of Peru in at this point was not wide enough to be the same way that he had previously mono- inconvenient to cross every day. Neverthe- graphed those of Colombia and Ecuador. less, on May 11 they moved across the river The Rıó Ucayali in comparison with the to a second camp opposite (‘‘frente a´ frente’’) more peripheral Putumayo would have pre- the first one. From that date until June 15, sented a larger scope for exploration near the they worked only on the ‘‘right’’ (western or center of Peru. at this point northern) side of the Ucayali. Finally, from July 10 to August 15, they used a third camp at a location two hours by SARAYACU:FIRST STOP ON THE UCAYALI canoe southward from the first camp (‘‘dos horas de sureada,’’ a crucial phrase not Alfonso submitted four separate reports included in the museum’s translation), where on the expedition to the Ucayali, each they once again collected only on the ‘‘left’’ apparently sent with a collection from one (eastern) side of the Ucayali. At intervals of the localities visited: Sarayacu, the mouth throughout this period, one or both of the of the Rıó Urubamba, Santa Rosa, and brothers returned to Iquitos to ship speci- Lagarto. The first locality is about half way mens to New York, as evidenced by a letter along the course of the Ucayali from its accompanying a box of mammals sent to mouth to its origin at the confluence of the Harold Anthony, curator of mammals at the rıós Urubamba and Tambo (fig. 2). The AMNH, on 27 May 1927. latter three localities are at or not far The first two camps, as described in downriver from this confluence. To reach Alfonso’s report, were located on low Sarayacu, the two brothers canoed for five ground, with swamps and lakes. The first days up the Amazon from Iquitos and then, camp was notable for the nearby aguaje at the mouth of the Ucayali, found a launch palms (Mauritia flexuosa). The second, with that conveyed them up that river another six fewer swamps, instead had some land cleared days to Sarayacu. This town had been by the natives for cemeteries. Amazonian founded in 1791 on the west side of the cemeteries are usually located on high Ucayali by Franciscan monks as a mission to ground, above the annual floods, so this the local natives. Despite its significance for locality probably was near a large restinga, a the extension of Spanish culture into Ama- natural levee along a former channel of the zonian Peru, by the late 1800s it had already river, which now supported tall open forest declined to the minor village it is today. where not cleared. In contrast, the third camp Alfonso’s reports describe three camps was on higher ground, with few lakes and no used by the two brothers near Sarayacu swamps. Tall forest on level ground extended (fig. 5). The first was on the ‘‘left’’ (eastern) in all directions. Again in contrast to the 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 21

Fig. 5. Map of the vicinity of the village of Sarayacu, departamento Loreto, Peru. A range of hills extends northward within the dashed line east of the Rıó Ucayali. Seasonally flooded lowlands extend west of the Ucayali to the dashed lines and east even farther. The Olallas’ used three camps in this area (1–3, see text), two near the current village and a third farther south most likely across the river from the location of the current town of Orellana. 22 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 former camps, this one was in an almost success depended on the museum’s assistance uninhabited area. in procuring arsenic. Arsenic bought in The hiatus in collecting between June 15 Iquitos had already disintegrated and thus and July 10 is explained by Alfonso’s allusion could not be counted on for good results. He to their troubles with malaria (‘‘paludismo’’ stated that they had just received enough omitted in the museum’s translation) and arsenic for the work so far with little if any unspecified epidemics of the Ucayali and left over. He thus requested that the museum Amazon caused by the ‘‘terrible plagues’’ send another large supply of arsenic, fine (‘‘terribles plagas,’’ a term in Amazonia shot, and other supplies for the work at usually denoting great numbers of mosqui- subsequent localities. tos). In addition, the brothers’ supplies for He reiterated his enthusiasm for the work collecting and preserving specimens were low. on the Urubamba but pointed out that the As a result they made one trip after another fares for travel by river were expensive. For to Iquitos either to recover their health or to example, they expected to spend 28 Peruvian obtain the arsenic that they expected the pounds for the trip from Sarayacu to the museum would send in due course. The Urubamba. He anticipated that work on the reports and letters from Sarayacu included Urubamba would last 5–6 months, at the end Alfonso’s first references to the malaria from of which time one of the brothers would have which Ramoń especially suffered until his to return to Iquitos to collect additional return to Quito a few years later. supplies. Finally, he requested precise infor- In a letter from Iquitos on 1 July 1927, mation about the localities for subsequent Alfonso stated that he and his brother had collections in the mountainous regions indi- completely recovered from malaria and were cated previously by Chapman. returning to Sarayacu to finish their work This letter accompanied the last of the there. He expressed enthusiasm for the work brothers’ collections from Sarayacu. It con- planned at the mouth of the Urubamba, but firmed that Alfonso’s notes accompanied it, he reminded Chapman that they must first although he apologized for their brevity, as a receive a shipment with sufficient arsenic and result of his illness, and promised a fuller fine shot (‘‘municioń fina’’), neither of which account later. Booth and Company in Iquitos was available in Iquitos. He also alluded to must have sent a cable to Chapman two days the great distance from Iquitos to the later, on 9 September 1927, to say that the Urubamba, presumably a reminder that they shipment was on its way. Chapman replied, needed funds for transportation and that in a letter of 13 September, that the first they could not travel back and forth to shipment from Sarayacu had arrived and that Iquitos as they had from Sarayacu. Once the he had authorized payment for it through work at Sarayacu was completed, Alfonso Booth and Company. He alluded to Alfon- stated, one of the brothers would return to so’s letter written in July, which had taken Iquitos to ship the specimens and to collect two months to reach New York via Lima. the supplies. Chapman was sorry to hear of the problems On 7 September 1927, a letter from Iquitos with malaria and hoped that the Urubamba signed ‘‘Alfonso M. Olalla y Hermano’’ would be a healthier locality. There was also addressed complaints in a letter from a reminder that the museum was particularly G.H.H. Tate on 20 June 1927 about the interested in the small birds, which have preparation of specimens. Tate at that time ‘‘greater scientific value’’ (Alfonso later held the position of Field Assistant in the emphasized that the brothers also intended Department of Mammalogy at the AMNH to fulfill the original contract for large (Anthony, 1954). Alfonso emphatically re- specimens, for which they were paid more). jected Tate’s suggestion that they had com- Chapman hoped a previous shipment of promised their procedures. From their first arsenic, fine shot, and other supplies had collections they had used the same methods, arrived, and he promised to send another he stated, without previous complaints from such shipment. the museum. They had avoided all local The problems of communication between substitutes (‘‘sustancio silvestre’’), so their Iquitos and New York, combined with both 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 23

Chapman’s and the Olallas’ wishes to avoid mouth of the Urubamba several days earlier delays, resulted in a pattern of letters crossing is resolved if we suppose that Ramoń took en route and attempts to anticipate requests. passage directly from Sarayacu to the Ur- For instance, Chapman did not respond to ubamba, while Alfonso first returned to Alfonso’s letter of 7 September until 12 Iquitos with the last shipment from Sarayacu December 1927, by which time the Olallas before meeting his brother on the Urubamba. were already halfway through their work in Today the Ucayali above Sarayacu is the the south. Nevertheless, he reassured the location of the important Amazonian port, Olallas that the museum would pay for their Pucallpa, the capital of the department of supplies and for their travel to the Uru- Ucayali (created in 1980 by partitioning the bamba. He conceded that he had no precise original department of Loreto). Pucallpa information about the mountains between only developed into a major port after the Urubamba and the Pichis and allowed 1928, when construction began on the that, if this venture were not possible, the railroad from the highlands. For the preced- brothers should return to Iquitos and then ing six years or so, the small village had been descend the Rıó Amazonas to ‘‘Teffe’’ (now virtually abandoned following the Cervantes Tefe´) in Brazil. Once there collections should rebellion (Ortiz, 1962, 1984), and Alfonso did be made on both sides of the river, with not mention it in his list of the stages on his special emphasis on the obscure small birds return to Iquitos. There is also the district that live on or near the ground. The Olallas capital Atalaya, on the Tambo almost were not to receive these new instructions opposite its confluence with the Urubamba. until months later. Fortunately, the Olallas Atalaya, still without an overland connection needed no reminders to collect from both to the rest of Peru, developed slowly in the sides of rivers and to obtain complete 1930s as traffic on the rivers increased. Before collections of the small and obscure species. then, the upper Ucayali was a remote area, They had themselves discovered the impor- the province of Franciscan missionaries, tance of both of these practices. Chapman rubber barons, and shifting indigenous com- and the two brothers managed to achieve munities (Ortiz, 1974, 1984; Gow, 1991). In such remarkable success only through devel- the rain shadow of the Sierra Divisor on the opment of a mutual trust. Brazilian border, the basin of the upper Ucayali has a drier climate than Amazonia THREE LOCALITIES ALONG THE proper. On the wide floodplain, there are few SOUTHERN UCAYALI locations with high ground suitable for settlements. At the time of the Olallas’ visit, Alfonso’s first report after finally leaving only occasional steam launches would have Sarayacu described two months at the traveled the river for trade with the indige- confluence of the rıós Tambo and Urubamba nous people in scattered villages. from 7 September to 8 November 1927. The In 1927 nothing anticipated the later first specimens from this new locality, how- development of Atalaya near the mouth of ever, were dated 2 September. The archives of the Urubamba. The Olallas used the house of the American Museum do not now contain one Sr. Francisco V. Hernańdez as their base. the original version of this report. The extant Alfonso described this location, between the English translation is in the same format and rıós Tambo and Urubamba, on the western style as Alfonso’s other reports from the side of the mouth of the Urubamba (fig. 6). Ucayali and elsewhere, so there is no reason He mentioned high forest extending south- to doubt the former existence of the Spanish ward for 5 hours of walking from the camp original. The discrepancy between the first (about 15 km by the standards for travel in dates on the labels of specimens and the date Amazonia), sparse populations of natives, in the translated report would be explained if areas of ‘‘wild cane,’’ and one ‘‘white family’’ the translator had taken a ‘‘2’’ in Alfonso’s living on the banks of the Tambo. The report handwritten report for a ‘‘7.’’ The apparent summarized the range of temperatures at contradiction between the letter from Iquitos dawn and sunset between 7 September and 7 on 7 September and the start of work at the November 1927 (again the translator proba- 24 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

Fig. 6. Map of the origin of the Rıó Ucayali, departamento Ucayali, Peru´. The Ucayali begins at the confluence of the Rıó Tambo and the Rıó Urubamba near the current town of Atalya. Foothills of the Andes paralleling the Ucayali, within the dashed line, include a spur that nearly reaches the river. Dots show the locations of several current villages mentioned in the text. The Olallas used three camps in this area (1–3): at the mouth of the Rıó Urubamba (‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba,’’ 1) and nearby downstream to the west (‘‘Santa Rosa,’’ 2) and east (‘‘Lagarto,’’ 3) of the general course of the Ucayali. bly misread the first date, which was prob- San Pablo. With respect to this village, ably 2 September). Alfonso explicitly stated that ‘‘our explora- Alfonso’s next short report is also pre- tions did not take us there.’’ The Ucayali also served in the AMNH Department of Orni- lay east and west of their base, a statement thology archives solely in English translation. that does not accord easily with the more or Once again it follows the style and format of less northward flowing river here, a point his other reports. This report concerns discussed further below. To the west, hills collecting from 12 November 1927 to 6 reached the riverbank. To the south, an January 1928 at a ‘‘place called Santa Rosa’’ hour’s walk away, the land became hilly with a base at ‘‘the house of this name.’’ and difficult to penetrate. Here only ‘‘wild,’’ Unlike at the mouth of the Rıó Urubamba, as opposed to ‘‘civilized,’’ natives lived. there were also houses of some ‘‘civilized’’ Ranges of temperatures at dawn and sunset natives nearby. To the immediate north, lay were provided for the period 12 November to the Ucayali and an island with the village of 7 January. Alfonso’s report stated that the 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 25 rıós Tambo and Urubamba were rising from el Rıó Alto Ucayali (Lagarto) el 8 de Marzo September to November, an observation del anõ de 1928.’’ This note confirmed that expected at the start of the southern rainy the report was written at the end of the season on the slopes of the Andes. period covered, so the temperatures were Alfonso also briefly described the trip from apparently transcribed from a daily record no the confluence of the rıós Tambo and longer preserved. Urubamba to Santa Rosa. An hour of travel The preface to the final report, written in downstream from the confluence, he stated, smaller script and apparently more rapidly, is the river divided to form the island of San sandwiched between the report on Sarayacu Pablo. Santa Rosa was near the downstream and the report on Lagarto through 8 March. end of this island. ‘‘We only explored the left It stated that on 8 January, while Alfonso bank and downwards,’’ he stated. In this remained working at Santa Rosa, Ramoń case, as he was traveling downriver, his use of had embarked for Iquitos, presumably on a ‘‘left’’ bank with respect to direction of passing steam launch. He took two cases of travel, in agreement with European usage specimens and also hoped to recover once with respect to direction of flow, indicates the again from malaria (‘‘para hacerce [sic] curar western side of the river (fig. 6). nuevamente le paludismo que lo ataco´’’). Alfonso’s final report of the brothers’ Alfonso remained at Santa Rosa until 11 Peruvian activities, at a place called Lagarto, January 1928, when he moved to Lagarto on is preserved in the archives of the AMNH the right (eastern) bank of the Ucayali Department of Ornithology. Entitled ‘‘Con- (fig. 6). It took him 2 hours that afternoon tinuation of the report of the trip by the firm by canoe to reach the new site, twice the time Olalla and Sons along the Rio Alto Ucayali required to travel from the mouth of the Rıó Peru,’’ this report is written in the same Urubamba to Santa Rosa. By this time, the notebook (a cheap blank book printed and river had risen and had developed a fast sold in Iquitos) in which Alfonso wrote his current. At Lagarto he began collecting the report on the brothers’ activities at Sarayacu. following day. Two months later, on 5 Alfonso filled in the blank title ‘‘Apunta- March, a launch heading upriver to the mientos y notas Diarias’’ and the owner ‘‘la mouth of the Urubamba provided an oppor- Expedicion Olalla e Hijos sobre la Region de tunity to ship more specimens to Iquitos on Sarayacu, Rio Ucayali (Peru).’’ He presum- its return trip. Alfonso had them packed up ably had run out of space in other notebooks by 8 March and despatched them three days by the time he wrote his final report and thus later, with the notebook containing his appended it to the report on activities at report. He remained at Lagarto to continue Sarayacu almost a year earlier. This report work. on Sarayacu is perhaps the previously prom- It is noteworthy that the three sites chosen ised full report, prepared after the final for work on the upper Rıó Ucayali, although shipment of specimens from Sarayacu. all within 10–20 km of each other, were The report from Lagarto had the same located respectively in the three compart- style and format as the preceding ones, ments of land formed by the confluence of except that it was preceded by a brief the rıós Tambo and Urubamba to form the explanation of the state of the expedition in Ucayali (fig. 6). The Olallas had thus inves- early 1928. In particular, the daily tempera- tigated all three possible ‘‘sides’’ of these tures from 8 January through 7 March 1928 rivers. were written in columns (not just the range of To accompany the shipment from La- temperatures provided by the English trans- garto, Alfonso wrote a letter dated 9 March lation), as they were for the stay at Sarayacu. 1928. He stated that the brothers had now Like each previous extant report, this one received Chapman’s letter of 13 September was signed Alfonso M. Olalla, with a great 1927, presumably forwarded by steam launch flourish underneath the signature. In this up the Ucayali. In response he acknowledged case, though, there was the additional infor- that they had noted the museum’s interest in mation (omitted in the English translation), small birds but averred that they had not ‘‘Descripcioń hecha por Alfonso M. Olalla en neglected large (and hence more costly) ones 26 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

also, as specified in the original contract. He ANOTHER CHANGE OF PLANS AND described how Ramoń had returned to DEPARTURE FROM PERU Iquitos to cure repeated attacks of malaria despite the fine climate in the upper Ucayali. The final documents in the archives of the He proposed a plan for exploring the Department of Ornithology for the Olallas’ openings called the Gran Pajonal on the activities in Peru consist of letters and summits of the mountains to the west. receipts from Iquitos in 1928. On 16 January Finally, he requested that the museum 1928, Ramoń signed a bill of lading from G. authorize Booth and Company to pay them Delgado e Cia for shipment of large boxes of immediately on delivery of their shipments, dried animals (‘‘cajones grandes conteniendo an arrangement that would facilitate their animales disecados’’) from the confluence of continuing work. No mention is made of the rıós Tambo and Urubamba to Iquitos, Tefe´, so Chapman’s December letter had for a cost of eight Peruvian pounds. On 23 presumably not yet made its way upriver. January 1928, he signed a receipt for 100 A translation of Alfonso’s report on the Peruvian pounds forwarded from the remainder of his time at Lagarto is now in the AMNH. There is also a custom agent’s archives of the Department of Mammalogy, itemized list of collecting supplies, including although the original is missing. This account 13 kg of arsenic and 30 kg of ‘‘municion,’’ states that work on the Ucayali continued imported presumably from New York. On 7 until 31 March, when the arsenic for pre- April 1928 Booth American Shipping, 14 serving skins ran out. Ramoń in Iquitos had Battery Place, New York, sent a letter to forwarded supplies from the museum to Chapman with news that their Iquitos office Alfonso at Lagarto, who needed them for had received two cases for shipment and that opening a route to the Gran Pajonal. This Olalla requested funds to pay their passages plan was not fulfilled, however, because on 7 to Tefe according to instructions. Letters April Alfonso received a cablegram relayed crossing in transit were a continuing prob- from Ramoń with the museum’s latest order lem. to descend the Amazon to Tefe´ in Brazil. By this time, Chapman had a new plan in Soon after, by good luck, Alfonso was able to mind for the Olalla brothers. The AMNH travel down the Ucayali with a merchant as was organizing an expedition to explore far as the town of ‘‘Arellana,’’ presumably Mount Duida in southern Venezuela. After the modern town of Orellana near his former convening in Manaus, Brazil, the expedition camp above Sarayacu. He left Lagarto on 11 led by the AMNH mammalogist G.H.H. April and reached Orellana on 23 April. Tate was to ascend the Rıó Negro to reach its Alfonso’s report details his itinerary on his destination. In an effort to coordinate the return to Iquitos from Lagarto (a document Olallas with this expedition, on 5 May 1928 in the archives of the Department of Orni- Chapman requested that Booth American thology duplicates this itinerary). It lists his Shipping in New York send a cable to their daily stages presumably by canoe down the agents in Iquitos: ‘‘Send Olallas to Manaos, Ucayali to ‘‘Arellana.’’ Many of the stages paying passage. Letters there. Cancel Teffe.’’ are still recognizable towns or tributary Two days later Chapman wrote a letter to the rivers: Bolognesi, Sheshea, Contamana, Olallas to explain the change of plans. He Cushabatay, and Orellana. At Orellana he requested that the brothers proceed directly had to await the arrival of a launch headed to Manaus, where the office of Booth and for Iquitos from Puerto Bermudez on 27 Company would act as the museum’s agents, April. He eventually arrived in Iquitos on 30 just as they had in Iquitos. The museum’s April. The report concludes with a summary expedition was not yet certain, but in any of temperatures at Lagarto from 8 through event the Olallas were to continue collecting 31 March. It thus seems clear that Alfonso on both sides of the Rıó Negro and on the continued to work at Lagarto during the south side of the rıós Amazonas or Solimo˜es. month of March. To what extent he ventured Chapman had Alfonso’s letter of 9 March across the Ucayali during this time is not and a cable from Iquitos on 7 April with clear, a point addressed further below. news of two more boxes of specimens, which 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 27 had not yet reached New York. When they ward the fare for this trip, 14 Peruvian did, Chapman promised to settle the ac- pounds, to Manaus. counts for the expedition to the Ucayali (with On 28 June 1928, Chapman acknowledged a reminder that the museum had already the request for changes in the museum’s advanced 100 Peruvian pounds on 23 Janu- contract. He had authorized Tate to draw up ary and again on 30 April). an entirely new contract in Manaus. The In a letter to Chapman dated 24 May, payment for specimens would remain the Alfonso expressed some understandable frus- same, and the museum would continue to tration with the repeated changes of plans. In pay for essential supplies and for long response to Chapman’s letter on 12 Decem- journeys to new localities. His concluding ber 1927, he had gone to some expense in paragraph (which would have been translat- anticipation of opening trails from the ed to Spanish before dispatch) expressed his Ucayali to the Gran Pajonal atop the feeling about the work so far: ‘‘It is a pleasure mountains to the west. He protested that to add that your work has been satisfactory, the changes in plans put them in financial that your specimens have been well made, straits, because the funds they earned from and that your notes have been kept with care; the museum were invested in making their and we trust that you, on your part, subsequent collections (‘‘lo que ganamos, se appreciate the opportunity which this muse- invierte en hacer las colecciones’’). Although um has given you to make large collections he expressed enthusiasm for the work and to add widely to your experiences in the planned in Brazil, he requested that the field. We hope that we may continue to museum make some changes in their con- cooperate to our mutual advantage.’’ tract. He stipulated that (1) the museum Chapman’s list of shipments received would pay for arsenic, ‘‘municioń fina,’’ and through July 1928 and his accounting of cotton for wrapping specimens, (2) the their value and the museum’s advances and museum would have their agents advance payments showed shipments of birds received half the value of their collections on receiving from the Ucayali on September and Novem- them for shipment, and (3) the firm Alfonso ber 1927 and March, June, and July 1928. M. Olalla y hermano (rather than Carlos The average value of a Peruvian pound in Olalla e hijos) would henceforth take respon- this interval was US $3.74. A final account- sibility for the expeditions and should receive ing showed $1003.70 for birds, $604.50 for acknowledgment in the museum’s publica- mammals, $27.75 for boxes, and $76.59 for tions. transportation between Iquitos and Uru- The following day he sent a telegram to bamba, a total of $1712.54. Total payments New York requesting 30 Peruvian pounds for and advances came to $1609.92, including the passage to Manaus. Chapman sent this final advance of 30 Peruvian pounds for money promptly, although in a letter of 28 passages to Manaus. This left $102.62 (about May 1928 he again noted that he was 30 Peruvian pounds) still due to the Olallas. advancing funds before receiving the latest The archives of the Department of Mam- shipment of specimens. He also reiterated malogy include a translation of Alfonso’s that the museum wanted collections near report on the brothers’ activities from June to Manaus while the Olallas awaited the arrival September 1928, as they traveled from of the expedition under the direction of Iquitos to Manaus and eventually joined G.H.H. Tate. Alfonso responded to the Tate. The archives of the Department of advance of a further 30 Peruvian pounds in Ornithology have an itinerary with relevant a brief letter on 30 May 1928. The money had dates apparently extracted from this docu- arrived just after the departure of the ment. Alfonso and Ramoń departed Iquitos steamboat for Manaus. As subsequent letters on 15 June 1928 and reached ‘‘San Pablo from Chapman make clear, the Olallas did Alivence’’ (now Saõ Paulo de Olivençaõ) not claim this advance. Instead, in order not 13 days later, as appropriate for travel by to lose time awaiting another launch, they local boats. Because they were uncertain departed immediately for Manaus by a local where the musuem wanted them to work boat. Alfonso requested that Chapman for- (and furthermore were nearly broke), they 28 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 resolved that Alfonso would take the month- cabled Booth and Company in Manaus to ly steamer to Manaos, while Ramoń and advance the Olallas $150 in gold. He urged their employees would continue as before to Tate, ‘‘Since their services and good-will are Tefe´ to await news from Alfonso. of more value to us than a few sucres … I Ramoń remained at Tefe´ until 25 July, think it would be well to make a settlement when he moved to neighboring Santo Isidoro which is satisfactory to the Olallas.’’ By this to find more birds. He remained there until point, Chapman obviously regarded the 17 August. The archives of the Department Olallas as a valuable asset for the museum. of Ornithology include a translation of Eventually Tate arrived and then, on 20 Alfonso’s report on the stay at Tefe´, in the August, Ramoń reached Manaus. Tate in- standard format, with the limits of collecting, sisted that the Olallas and four assistants the nature of the country and vegetation, and accompanying Ramoń have their health a summary of the temperatures between 10 checked, with the result that Ramoń entered and 25 July 1928. No report is extant on the a hospital for 10 days, evidently for treatment work at Santo Isidro or near Manaus. of his recurring malaria. Alfonso in the When Alfonso arrived in Manaus on 3 meantime managed to collect a pair of July 1928, he received Chapman’s letter of 7 Berlepschia on 1 September, and on the May. In a brief response that day he following day he signed the contract with mentioned that the museum’s payments Tate for the expedition to Mount Duida. through Booth and Company had all been Employees (‘‘empleados,’’ ‘‘comitiva’’) of received. Ramoń was healthy. What they had the Olallas are first mentioned in Alfonso’s earned in the upper Ucayali had paid for his report on the trip from Iquitos to Manaus. cure. He expressed concern that the headwa- The only previous allusion to assistants had ters of the Rıó Negro were reputed to have been Alfonso’s description of local people many diseases. It was necessary to take helping to open trails into the mountains antidotes for malaria. Furthermore, they west of the Ucayali. Most of their time in had no further funds to continue work and Peru was marked by continual financial had thus asked Booth and Company to difficulties, which would have made hiring request an advance from the museum. On 8 assistants problematic. In view of the failure July he received notice that no advance of any previous reports to mention assistants, would be forthcoming, according to Alfon- it seems possible that Alfonso first hired so’s report now in the Department of employees on the Ucayali in preparation for Mammalogy. Furthermore, he could not a move to the Gran Pajonal. Alfonso’s obtain permission to stay at a hacienda reports of subsequent expeditions for the where he hoped to find the unusual furnariid AMNH, not only the Tyler expedition to Berlepschia rikeri, a species of special interest Duida from September 1928 to March 1929, to Chapman. On 15 July he instead left for but also subsequent expeditions to the Hacienda Rıó Negro to resume work. The Orinoco, Casiquiare, Uaupes, Madeira, Ja- museum evidently soon changed its mind and munda´, Tapajo´s, Xingu, and sites along the sent an advance of $150, for which Alfonso Amazon, all mentioned assistants routinely. returned to Manaus. He promptly sent funds In his diary on March 21, 1929, Tate to Ramoń for his passage to Manaus. described one of the Olallas’ assistants, an Alfonso then stayed at the hacienda in adopted 14-year-old boy, Augustin, who had Manaus to recover from an illness. assisted the Olallas for ‘‘a couple of years.’’ Later in July 1928 Chapman wrote to the Tate had previously led AMNH expedi- Olallas to confirm the museum’s support and tions to Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela to request that they put themselves under (Anthony, 1954). He evidently took a dim Tate’s direction when he arrived. He then view of the Olallas at their first meeting. On notified Tate that the final shipment from the 29 August 1928 he wrote to Chapman, ‘‘They Upper Ucayali had arrived in New York on came in the first day to me with a great air of 20 July 1928 and, as a consequence, the assurance, and proved themselves somewhat museum owed them $70.90. Chapman stated unattractive to all of us. I decided that I was that, upon arrival of this shipment, he had going to reduce the attack of swelled head 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 29 from which they were suffering immediate- apreciacioń que el Museo hace de nuestros ly.’’ To this end, he had drawn up a contract trabajos, y teniendo esperanza de continuar with the Olallas ‘‘rather severe in tone … so en la misma forma [remaining gratified for that there should be no doubt whatsoever as the museum’s appreciation of our work and to their status with the Expedition. Ever since hoping to continue in the same fashion].’’ they have been like lambs.’’ After nearly The expedition to Mount Duida had its three years of incessant work, recurrent troubles (Tate, 1931a), but these seem not to illness, crossed communications, unpredict- have affected the Olallas, who once again able finances, and yet unprecedented success, assembled impressive collections. Tate’s diary the two brothers Olalla might have justifiably made it clear that the Olallas always camped projected some confidence in themselves. at a distance from the rest of the expedition. Tate, on the other hand, understandably His photograph (fig. 7) and admiring de- wanted to make it clear who was boss. scription of their well-maintained camp at the The contract, a copy of which is preserved base on Mount Duida are preserved in the in the archives of the Department of Orni- archives of the Department of Mammalogy. thology, is indeed one-sided in stipulating Tate’s diaries mentioned that they had that the Olallas must obey the orders of any constructed their usual two huts, one for a member of the expedition whatever, camp at laboratory and the other for a kitchen. The a distance from the rest, do their own Olallas’ and their assistants slept under a tarp cooking, and maintain cleanliness. The expe- Tate had lent them. Tate described Alfonso dition agreed to provide the essential supplies working under a shawl that exposed only his and costs of transportation up the Rıó Negro eyes and nose, in order to keep the insects at to Mount Duida. Tate, on the other hand, bay. Despite Tate’s initial impression, he could terminate the Olallas services without eventually came to appreciate the brothers’ advance notice. Any member of the Olallas’ and their assistants’ industriousness and their party leaving the expedition without Tate’s orderly camp. They quickly adopted his permission would sacrifice all pay. If the instructions for preparing specimens of Olallas continued work on the upper Rıó mammals, so that eventually Tate marveled Negro, then funds for this work would be at their beautiful specimens. deposited with Booth and Company in While ascending the Rıó Negro on 4 Manaus. No payment for the work would September 1938, the first day of the expedi- be made in advance or during the expedition, tion, Tate described in his diary how the but only on return to Manaus. The Olallas Olallas prepared birds. It is the only eyewit- must pay for their own assistants. ness account of their methods: When they first met, Tate was disappoint- They use practically no cornmeal; they strip the ed with Alfonso’s small collection from the secondaries of the wings, and later push part of Rıó Negro, which he valued at $75. A few the wing back inside the skin. I don’t see how days later, according to Tate’s letter, Ramoń they make the secondaries lie properly after arrived with a ‘‘fine collection’’ from Tefe´, being stripped off the ulna. The cotton bodies valued at $250. After deducting advances they make for their birds are very loose and totaling $120, he paid the Olallas $200 and soft. Their birds’ eyes are put in before turning left it to Chapman to settle the account after the skin back and pulled part way through the the Olallas had shipped further specimens opening in the skin. They sew up their birds from the vicinity of Manaus prior to the with three or four stitches. They dry them in cones and later roll tubes for the skins which departure of the expedition. On 3 September they fasten with paste. They break each leg at 1928, Alfonso wrote to Chapman from the top of the tibiofibula before starting to skin, Manaus to express his acceptance of the and at the head they cut down through the back new contract. He apologized for the collec- of the skull first, and afterwards make the two tions from near Manaus and Tefe´ that were backward cuts along the mandibles with scissors smaller than usual, but he pointed out that he and also the upward cut between the eyes. had successfully obtained Berlepschia rikeri. Despite Tate’s attitude, Alfonso closed his As his diary made clear, Tate obviously letter ‘‘quedando satisfechos por lo favorable enjoyed talking about natural history with 30 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

Fig. 7. Alfonso Olalla at the Tyler-Duida Expedition’s Central Camp on Mount Duida, photographed by G.H.H. Tate on February 16, 1929. Notice the large numbers of prepared specimens, including many mammals, stored in paper sleeves ready for shipment to New York. Tate’s diary on the Tyler-Duida Expedition, now in the Department of Mammalogy at the AMNH, describes his visits with Alfonso, in which they discussed the natural history of birds and mammals. 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 31

Alfonso. Soon after the expedition, he includ- him its Linnaean Medal), the Peabody ed some of Alfonso’s unique observations in a Museum at Yale University, the Los Angeles note on the habits of South American County Museum, and the Museu Paulista in mammals (Tate, 1931b). Alfonso also repeat- Saõ Paulo (Pinto, 1938–1944). His collections edly solicited information about the scientific in Stockholm from the rıós Jurua´ and Purus names of birds and mammals and expressed and from northern Bolivia provided the his desire to learn English and scientific material for detailed monographs by Gylden- aspects of biology. Ramoń, on the other hand, stolpe (1945a, 1945b, 1951), which, like was evidently less memorable. Tate noted only Zimmer’s earlier publications, remain cor- that he always deferred to Alfonso. nerstones of our current knowledge about the Despite his improved opinion of the Olal- distribution and taxonomy of Amazonian las, Tate drove a hard bargain in negotiating a birds (for the mammals from these expedi- contract with the brothers for subsequent tions, see Patterson, 1991). Alfonso himself work for the AMNH on the rıós Negro and published papers in Revista do Museu Pau- Uaupes. The sticking point was food. The lista (Olalla, 1935a, 1935b, 1937). When Olallas held out for an allotment for food, Alfonso died in 1971, Paulo Vanzolini wrote while Tate refused to budge in his insistence his obituary in Arquivos de Zoologia (Museu that the museum would pay only for collecting de Zoologia, Universidade de Saõ Paulo) in supplies, the skins received, and travel by which he acknowledged his valuable contri- river. In the end, he agreed to provide some butions to that museum. Professor Vanzolini, extra guns and an advance to cover expenses who had visited Alfonso Olalla in the field in for food. Tate and the Olallas parted company the 1960s, described the care with which his in Manaus in late March or early April 1929, crews worked and summarized his feelings never to meet again, although they main- about the extraordinary person as follows: tained a sporadic correspondence (preserved The contribution of Alfonso Maria Olalla to the in the AMNH Department of Mammalogy collections of this Museum [Museu de Zoologia, archives) for many years. Universidad de Saõ Paulo] were of the greatest As the Olallas’ collections arrived in New importance, not only in quantity (he was a York, Chapman’s confidence in them grew. major contributor to the collections of birds and His communications progressed over the years mammals) but also in quality. He was a friendly from initial chiding reminders, strict finances, and outgoing person, with an interest in and tight control to eventual enthusiasm, zoological matters that was always fresh. trust, and even chagrin, when he postponed Although a professional collector, he was generous. He understood the value of little the final advance for fares to Manaus, on the things, often giving the Museum specimens that technicality that the brothers’ previous ship- he knew made valuable additions to our ment had not yet reached New York. collections. We have considered him to be more Between expeditions (and sometimes inter- of a colleague than a dealer and deeply feel his rupting them) one or both brothers spent passing (Vanzolini, 1972, translated from the weeks in the hospital in Manaus to recover Portuguese). from illness. Beginning in the last half of 1930, Alfonso led the expeditions in Brazil The American Museum of Natural Histo- without Ramoń, who by then had returned to ry, as well as other museums around the Quito (according to letters in the Department world, might all heartily agree. It is difficult of Mammalogy), presumably to recover from to imagine any other person who explored mounting effects of malaria. the Amazon basin so thoroughly, or who In the 1930s Alfonso took citizenship, contributed so much to documenting its birds married, and settled in Brazil. He and his and mammals, as Alfonso Olalla. crews went on to make large collections for the AMNH, the Museum of Comparative LABELS ON THE OLALLAS’ SPECIMENS Zoology at Harvard University (Griscom and Greenway, 1941), the Royal Museum All specimens from the Olallas include a in Stockholm (in recognition of which the label with penciled information on date, Academy of Science in Stockholm awarded location, sex, and size of the gonads (G for 32 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

‘‘grande’’ or enlarged, P for ‘‘pequenõ’’ or where a slash indicates a new line, dots a not enlarged). Evidence presented below blank line, and square brackets enclose my suggests that these labels were written at the own notes about format or about informa- time the specimens were prepared. No doubt tion entered on the labels later. For their Chapman’s early instruction included this second expedition to Sumaco the following basic procedure. In contrast, collectors in the year, they must have had a new batch of preceding century often first attached a small labels printed: label with a number for cross-reference with Fecha…[date] Sexo… [sex then gonad, each their notebook and only later added a label followed by a period] /Loc… [location] / with information about the specimen. The OLALLA Y HIJOS-ECUADOR (verso) Am. Olallas’ had blank labels printed in advance, Mus. Nat. Hist. No. following the practice of the AMNH expeditions in the preceding decades, with all Perhaps these were printed in Quito information in common for the expedition, without Chapman’s supervision. Note that so that only the particulars about each the American Museum’s name is abbreviated specimen had to be added. and placed on the verso and that the name of The handwriting on all the Olallas’ labels the Olalla firm is printed in capital letters, from collections in Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil entirely in Spanish, prominently on the front. from 1923 through 1930 resembles the Labels identical to the last were used for all handwriting in Alfonso’s handwritten reports specimens from the mouth of the Curaray sent to the American Museum with ship- and the mouth of Lagarto Cocha. Indeed, ments of specimens. There is some variation specimens from all subsequent localities in in the formation of letters and numerals, but Peru, with the exception of Sarayacu, also I have not detected any pattern to these had identical labels, except that each label differences. It is possible that Alfonso himself has a neat stamp in ink, ‘‘PERU,’’ added prepared most of these labels, but it is also after ‘‘ECUADOR.’’ All of these labels had a possible that Alfonso, his father Carlos, and vertical black line to mark the left margin, his brother Ramoń all intentionally stan- and all had the proximal corners trimmed. dardized the letters used on the labels. For The brothers used different labels at instance, the specimens from Lagarto Cocha Sarayacu. These lacked the vertical line (where Carlos worked without his two sons) (although the corners were trimmed) and and from the last months at the mouth of the had been printed, Rıó Curaray (where Alfonso and Ramoń Fecha … Sexo … / Loc… / Carlos Olalla e hijos worked without their father) all have labels / QUITO-ECUADOR [‘‘PERU’’ stamped neat- with handwriting similar to that during the ly to right of ‘‘ECUADOR’’] (verso) [space] first months at the Curaray (where they all Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. / No. worked together). As Alfonso’s collecting continued in Brazil, his writing on labels A small number of specimens from the slowly evolved but remained recognizably mouth of the Rıó Urubamba also have these similar to that on earlier labels. alternative labels, which also reappear in The blank labels used by the Olallas were Brazil later, as we shall see. Alfonso never evidently printed in batches, at least some of mentioned a shortage of labels in his letters which can be differentiated by slight varia- to Chapman, which often urgently requested tions in format. Each batch was used other supplies, so the labels presumably consistently for a block of dates, often more came from elsewhere. The incorrect country or less corresponding to an expedition. For on the labels suggests that they came from their first expedition to Sumaco in 1923, for Quito, sent by Carlos to his sons for use in instance, they had standard AMNH labels Peru. printed thus: After leaving Peru, the brothers still had American Museum of [extra space] Natural some of these labels remaining. Although History / … [location] [date] / Olalla & Sons. / E. they continued to use them, they introduced Ecuador. Tropical Zone. (verso) [blank] progressively more corrections. On the Rıó 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 33

Negro in 1929 and Rıó Madeira in March dates, and the corrections to the labels, on 1930, they used labels of the second type, the one hand, and Alfonso’s reports, on the above, with ‘‘Y HIJOS-PERU’’ lined out and other, tends to confirm the contemporane- ‘‘Bros’’ and ‘‘Brasil’’ added in the same ousness of the labels and the specimens. handwriting as the date, location, sex, and gonad. On the other hand, on the Madeira in LOCALITIES OF THE OLALLAS’ February 1930, they used labels of the third COLLECTIONS IN PERU AND NEARBY type, like those at Sarayacu, except with ‘‘Carlos,’’ ‘‘e hijos,’’ and ‘‘QUITO-ECUA- INTRODUCTION DOR’’ lined out and ‘‘Bros’’ and ‘‘Brasil’’ Each of the Olallas’ collecting localities has added, again all in the same handwriting. The raised problems in the ornithological litera- changes in the name of the firm correspond ture. At least one of the Olallas’ locations, with Alfonso’s requests beginning in 1928 according to Vaurie, was an outright fabri- that Chapman deal directly with the two cation. Less serious problems include the brothers (and eventually just Alfonso) without including their father, who was by now country in which the location is now located, far from the scene of operations. the side of the river on which the brothers worked, and in some cases the approximate The close resemblance of the handwriting on all labels from Ecuador and Peru suggest location of the camp. that Carlos, Alfonso, and Ramoń worked The Olallas’ labels in Peru indicate only together closely to standardize their proce- the locations of their camps and never dures, even the formation of the letters and include additional information about the numerals in their writing. Presumably they habitat or circumstances in which a speci- also attempted to standardize their proce- men was collected. As we have seen, dures for determining the sex and the state Alfonso’s reports included brief descriptions of the gonad for each specimen. There are of the scope of their operations at each only a few specimens for which the sex is camp and the corresponding terrain and indicated‘‘?’’. On all other specimens the vegetation. As the Peruvian expeditions state of the gonad is recorded. Nearly all continued, these remarks became more dates on the labels, as explained below, specific, but they never were as detailed as correspond to those on which the two those in Alfonso’s subsequent reports from brothers worked at each locality according Brazil. On the expeditions to the Orinoco to Alfonso’s reports. The exceptions are and the Rıó Negro in 1929 and 1930, for plausibly explained by a common human instance, Alfonso added small maps of each error: a few specimens prepared in the first collecting locality to indicate the scope of week of a new year have the preceding year operations and the extent of important erroneously written on the label (for in- habitats. These maps usually encompassed stance, ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba, 2 January an area about 5–6 km around the camp, 1927’’ instead of ‘‘… 1928’’). Note that these about the distance that a field worker on occasional errors in dates in early January foot might cover in a morning’s work. are compelling evidence that the labels were Native hunters can cover greater distances, actually written as the specimens were but intensive collecting would restrict activ- prepared, rather than at some later time. ities to a smaller area. The localities on the labels from Peru all The following sections review evidence stipulate only the locality of the camp and from various sources, including Alfonso’s never provide more specific locations or reports, about the Olallas’ collecting localities habitats within each general area, a point in Peru. I have visited a number of these sites discussed in more detail below. in person. Satellite imagery now available on In summary, the Olallas’ labels fit all the Internet provides further information. expectations for labels prepared at the same Google Earth in particular provides latitude time as the specimens to which they were and longitude based on WGS84 datum (all attached. The close correspondence between coordinates provided below were obtained in the kinds of printed labels, the localities, the March 2008). GPS coordinates from the field 34 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

were obtained with a Garmin 12-satellite unit BOCA RÓı CURARAY (WGS84 version current in 2000). I have also consulted the American Geographical So- The Rıó Curaray, a well-known river ciety’s ‘‘Map of Hispanic America,’’ includ- (fig. 2), is navigable by cargo vessels from ing the supplement, as well as other sources its mouth on the Rıó Napo upstream beyond of Peruvian place names. the current international boundary with I have examined almost all of the Olallas’ Ecuador. In Peru the Curaray is not more specimens in the AMNH, as well as many than 250 m wide, has no islands, and others (including almost all the Tyranni) in meanders densely (in some stretches with a the ANSP, MCZ, FMNH, and BM. The period of 2.0 6 0.5 km and an amplitude of numbers of specimens examined in the 3.8 6 0.2 km) within a floodplain 7–9 km AMNH are included in the accounts below. wide. The mouth of the river is thus unlikely The Olallas’ specimens from Peru in other to have changed location by more than a museums were all obtained by exchange or kilometer or two in the past century. Google purchase from the AMNH. The catalogs in Earth provides coordinates of 2u219480S, the Department of Ornithology indicate these 74u59260W, within 200 m of a GPS reading exchanges, and their numbers and localities in 2001. correspond well with the holdings in other One source of confusion about this locality museums. In particular, the AMNH catalogs in the ornithological literature stems from the and the holdings of other museums show that Olallas’ labels that state ‘‘Ecuador’’ rather many specimens from the mouth of the Rıó than Peru. The international boundary be- Curaray, Puerto Indiana, Orosa, and tween these countries, fixed by an interna- Apayacu were exchanged, but none from tional commission in the Protocol of Rio de localities on the Rıó Ucayali. As explained Janeiro in 1941, was finally accepted by both below, a small number of the Olallas’ nations with minor modifications in 1998. specimens from Peru reached the AMNH in Nevertheless, Alfonso’s account of their the Bassler Collection, rather than in their journey down the Rıó Napo in 1925 made own shipments. Otherwise, so far as I have it clear that the boundary was in its current ascertained, the Olallas shipped all of their position at Rocafuerte even then. Perhaps the other material from Peru directly to the Olallas, like other Ecuadorians, had not yet AMNH. accepted the de facto boundary. At any rate, The specimens sent to ANSP resulted in a while at the mouth of the Curaray, they did minor misunderstanding about the Olallas’ not correct their preprinted labels stating localities inadvertently propagated by Ste- ‘‘Ecuador.’’ Consequently, for decades orni- phens and Traylor (1983). When Bond thologists recorded these specimens in the (1945–1956) published his series of notes on avifauna of Ecuador, not Peru. For instance, Peruvian birds in the collections of the Zimmer first listed these specimens from Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadel- Ecuador. Beginning with his 43rd installment phia, he listed all specimens from Peru in this of Studies of Peruvian Birds, which appeared collection, most of which had been obtained soon after the protocol of 1941, he correctly by M.A. Carriker, Jr. (Bond, 1956). He also listed ‘‘mouth of Rıó Curaray’’ under Peru listed the Olallas’ specimens purchased from (Zimmer, 1942). In his revisions of the the AMNH on 29 June 1928, but (as Tom Cracidae, Vaurie (1964–1967) also correctly Schulenberg pointed out to me) Bond failed listed these specimens in Peru. Nevertheless, to indicate who had collected these specimens not long afterwards, Vaurie (1972) failed to and thus left the impression that it had been include this location in his gazetteer of Carriker. As a consequence, Stephens and Peruvian ornithological localities. Stephens Traylor (1983) subsequently listed Carriker and Traylor (1983) corrected this omission, as a collector at the relevant Ollalas’ loca- and subsequently all ornithologists have tions (mouth of the Rıó Curaray, Puerto recognized that this locality is well within Indiana, Orosa, and Apayacu). In fact, only the boundaries of modern Peru. the Olallas collected at these localities and Recent satellite images show two major not Carriker. islands in the middle of the Rıó Napo 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 35 opposite the mouth of the Curaray, both The catalogs of the Department of Orni- about 0.5 km from each bank. Alfonso’s thology at the AMNH do not list the Olallas’ account of the camp on Isla Panduro almost specimens in the order collected. Charles next to the mouth of the Curaray (‘‘el O’Brien, who cataloged most specimens campamento general estaba situado en la´sla ı between the 1920s and 1950s, often had a Panduro, casi junto a la Boca del Curaraý’’ backlog of work (Mary LeCroy, personal or ‘‘entre la conflueńcia del Napo y el commun.). Sometimes he left space in a Curaraý’’) suggests an island more closely catalog for an earlier acquisition while he associated with the mouth of the Curaray cataloged a later one, and sometimes he never than any current island. If so, the arrange- returned to the first. When Mary LeCroy ment of islands in this part of the Napo has began cataloging specimens in the 1950s, she changed in the past 75 years, not an unlikely often filled in blank spaces in earlier catalogs. possibility considering the rate at which In some cases, O’Brien noted when an islands in large Amazonian rivers change in acquisition had been received and when he size and location. At any rate, Alfonso’s began and finished cataloging it, but in other description does not allow us to specify the cases he did not. The Olallas’ specimens from exact island on which the Olallas camped. the Ucayali (Sarayacu, Boca Rıó Urubamba, His use of the term ‘‘campamento general’’ Santa Rosa, Lagarto) were entered in the suggests that there might also have been catalog in three batches. Those from Puerto temporary camps nearby. They had a large Indiana, Orosa, and Apayacu were all team working here, so it is possible that some cataloged in one batch, with annotations individuals ranged widely. Alfonso’s notes about the dates of arrival and cataloging. describe the scope of their trips, which This latter batch included some specimens extended to both sides of the Napo and from Boca Rıó Curaray and Boca Lagarto along the Curaray (‘‘exploraciońes dia´rias a Cocha, but most of the material from these la banda de le Curaraý o en ambas orillas del two locations is cataloged in a batch along Napo’’). With some effort a person could with specimens from several locations in travel 10 km upriver by canoe in 2 or 3 hours, Ecuador in March and July 1925. There are spend a morning collecting, and return no notations in this latter case of when the downriver in 1 hour. On the densely mean- specimens were received or when the cata- dering Curaray, such an excursion would loging took place. reach only half that distance in a straight line The catalogs include approximately 7625 from the mouth of the river. Nothing in specimens of birds from the Olallas’ collec- Alfonso Olalla’s reports allows us to deter- tions in Peru (table 1), many subsequently mine exactly where any of the specimens were exchanged with or sold to other museums, collected with respect to the Curaray or the especially the MCZ and ANSP. I have Napo. It is not until later that they made a examined 6329 of these specimens (table 2), point of locating nearby camps on opposite all that were available in the AMNH sides of a river. Furthermore, as discussed collections during several visits from 2004 below, the Olallas’ collections do not suggest to 2008 (presumably all that were cataloged that much of their effort was spent on except those on loan and those exchanged islands. permanently). Of this total, 1261 came from Recent satellite images suggest that imme- Boca Rıó Curaray. diately east of the Napo, in a major bend of Of these 1261 specimens, all had dates on the river, is a large aguajal, a backswamp the Olallas’ labels between 15 October 1925 dominated by aguaje palms Mauritia flex- and 15 May 1926, although there were uosa. On the other hand, ridges oriented relatively few after January (table 2). Alfon- NW-SE within 3–5 km to the south of the so’s first report stated that work began on 15 confluence of the Curaray and the Napo October. On 9 January most of the expedi- reach 30–35 m above the rivers, which here tion left to return to Quito, as described are about 125 m above sea level. The area earlier. On 21 March Alfonso and Ramoń thus provides an unusual breadth of habitats prepared to leave for Iquitos. In his next for lowland Loreto. report, however, Alfonso made it clear that 6BLEI MRCNMSU FNTRLHSOYN.343 NO. HISTORY NATURAL OF MUSEUM AMERICAN BULLETIN 36

TABLE 1 Catalog numbers of the Department of Ornithology (AMNH) for birds in the Ol allas’ collections

Catalog numbers Dates cataloged Received Localities First LastN Start End Date N Notes

Pto. Indiana, Orosa, and Apayacu 230443 233076 2633 Aug 1927 Sept 1927 ? ? In cluding some specimens from Boca Rıó Curaray and Lagarto Cocha; many specimens exchanged with ANSP and MCZ Sarayacu 237431 238707 1276 10 Oct 1928 19 Nov 1928 Nov 1927 1256 Lagarto 238757 239595 838 21 Nov 1928 10 Jan 1929 Jun 1928 838 Boca Rıó Urubamba and Sta. Rosa 239596 240885 1276 17 Jan 1929 6 Feb 1929 ? ? Except 2 39864–876 Boca Rıó Curaray and Lagarto Cocha 254760 257126 2366 ? ? ? ? About 1600 specimens f rom Boca Rıó Curaray and Lagarto Cocha with the remainder collected by Olallas in March and July 1925 at four localities in Ecuador TOTAL (Peru, including Lagarto Cocha) 7623 (approximately) 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 37

TABLE 2 Numbers of specimens of birds collected by the Olallas in Peru and examined in the Department of Ornithology (AMNH)

Passeriformes Dates Locality Passeri TyranniOther Totals Earliest Latest

Boca Rı´o Curaray 269 544 448 1261 15 Oct 1925 15 May 1926 Lagarto Cocha 17 53 41 111 15 Jan 1926 26 Jan 1926 Pto. Indiana 170 375 272 817 19 May 1926 23 Aug 1926 Orosa 88 234 369 691 1 Sept 1926 7 Dec 1926 Apayacu 146 147 144 437 9 Jan 1927 29 Jan 1927 Sarayacu 153 404 567 1124 11 Mar 1927 14 Aug 1927 Boca Rı´o Urubamba 52 132 236 420 2 Sept 1927 5 Nov 1927 Sta. Rosa 77 431 226 734 12 Nov 1927* 10 Jan 1928 Lagarto 65 441 228 734 11 Jan 1928 31 Mar 1928 TOTALS 1037 2761 2531 6329

*One Pipra coronata exquisita has the date ‘‘2 Nov. 1927,’’ probably a slip of the hand for ‘‘2 Dic. 1927.’’ he left for Iquitos alone and that Ramoń Cocha is a small tributary of the Rıó stayed behind at the Curaray although most Aguarico, itself a tributary of the Napo. of his supplies had been exhausted. Only The current international boundary between after Alfonso’s second return from Iquitos Ecuador and Peru follows the lower Agarico did the two brothers finally leave the Curaray and the Lagarto Cocha. As mentioned above, on 15 May 1926. The dates on their Carlos Olalla’s letter stated that it took three specimens thus correspond exactly to the days to canoe up the Rıó Aguarico to reach dates of their residence at the Curaray the Lagarto Cocha. It also referred to the according to Alfonso’s reports. Alfonso’s Lagarto Cocha as the route to the Putumayo, second report, covering the final departure so there is no doubt this locality is the from the Curaray, was sent to New York currently recognized Rıó Lagarto Cocha on after the brothers’ subsequent trips to the the border of Ecuador and Peru. Orosa and Apayacu, much later than the last Carlos had nothing to say about where his shipment of specimens from the Curaray. party camped or collected at the mouth of the The small number of specimens after river. Lagarto Cocha, despite its name January 1926 is partly explained by the (‘‘cocha’’ means lake in Quechua), is a small smaller crew in the field but mostly by the blackwater river, less than 50 m wide, that lack of supplies, especially arsenic for pre- meanders southward through hilly terrain. serving skins. Evidently the brothers cur- Recent satellite photos show the mouth of tailed collecting when they could not follow the river at 0u399180S, 75u159410W, but it the AMNH procedures for preparing speci- appears that this mouth is recent, formerly mens. A letter from Tate at the American having been about 2 km SW. Like many Museum on 20 June 1927 cautioned the similar cases in Amazonia, the lower course brothers about using local substitutes for of the tributary lies within the floodplain of arsenic, a possibility that Alfonso emphati- the larger river and parallels it for some cally denied in his response on 7 September, distance, often following old channels of the when he pleaded for additional shipments of larger river. On some occasion, the tributary arsenic from New York. cut through the narrow separation to form a new mouth upstream. The most remarkable BOCA LAGARTO COCHA feature of Lagarto Cocha is the extensive complex of blackwater lakes and swamps This locality, where the returning Olallas straddling the international boundary for stopped on a detour during their trip upriver, some 30 km beginning about 5 km upstream is also easily located today. The Rıó Lagarto from the current mouth. This area is prob- 38 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 ably the source of the name Lagarto Cocha and paved in 1989, according to local (‘‘lagarto’’ is caiman in Amazonian Spanish) residents, no doubt contributed to the town’s and also of the local reports received by growth. Indiana is on the left (northern) bank Carlos that the area had interesting birds and of the Rıó Amazonas on the narrow neck of animals. high ground that separates this river from the The major uncertainty about this locality large southern loop of the Napo some 40 km is whether the specimens, including the type above its mouth (fig. 3). No doubt for of Thamnophilus praecox (Zimmer, 1937), centuries there has been a trail across this should be included in the avifauna of neck to permit people and cargo to portage Ecuador or Peru. Because Carlos gave no from the Napo to the Amazonas on the way hint of the scope of collecting around the to and from Iquitos. The alternative name, mouth of the river, the specimens could have Puerto Indiana, used by the Olallas, is thus come from either country. Although officials appropriate. Google Earth has coordinates monitored movements on the Napo at 3u309100S, 73u29400W. Rocafuerte at the mouth of the Aguarico, it The isthmus between the Amazonas and seems unlikely that any officials constrained the Napo is 3.5 km wide at Indiana. At its the Olallas’ movements along the Rıó La- narrowest, about 3 km SW of Indiana, it is garto Cocha in 1926. Specimens from La- only 3.0 km wide. To the east of Indiana it garto Cocha all have the Olallas’ usual labels rapidly widens. Nowadays some 10 km of the with ‘‘Ecuador’’ preprinted on them, but, as isthmus, including the area around Indiana, we have already seen, the Olallas used these is deforested except for about 150 ha on labels for all specimens from the Curaray property owned by Explorama Tours. The also, which they knew full well was far stretch of the Amazonas opposite Indiana is beyond the de facto international border at as narrow as anywhere in Peru, about 1.0– Rocafuerte. The labels thus provide no 1.1 km wide, and the river is about 98 m justification for assigning the specimens to above sea level at this point. The isthmus in one country or the other. In view of the the narrowest section reaches elevations narrow width of the Lagarto Cocha, it seems about 10 m above the river, but not far unlikely that any bird or mammal, or human ENE or WSW, elevations exceed 20 m above explorer, would be limited to one side or the the river. No varzea (seasonally flooded other. A reasonable approach, thus, would be forest) occurs along the northern bank of to include the specimens from Lagarto Cocha the Amazonas near Indiana (the closest is in the avifaunas of both countries. over 25 km ENE). On the Napo side of the The specimens of birds from Boca Lagarto isthmus, however, large tracts of varzea begin Cocha, of which we examined 111 in the about 7.5 km NNE of Indiana. Directly Department of Ornithology, have dates from southward across the Amazonas from In- 15 January through 26 January 1926, in diana is a complex of large islands within a agreement with Carlos’ report in the letter he looping channel of the river. On this southern posted from Quito on their return. side of the Amazonas for a long way both up- and downstream, varzea extends at least PUERTO INDIANA 10 km from the main channel. There is no indication that the Amazonas This town, now named simply ‘‘Indiana,’’ has altered its course in this area in the past with several thousand inhabitants, must have century, so the situation at the time of the had only a few houses in the 1920s. The Map Olallas’ visit was presumably similar to the of Hispanic America (sheet SA-18, 1938, present one, except that the town was much 1949) does not include any such locality. smaller and the surrounding area less exten- Even decades later, a detailed description of sively deforested. As Alfonso’s report speci- the Peruvian Amazon (Faura Gaig, 1962) fied, the brothers began daily exploration described only a small village with a Fran- along the bank of the Amazonas on 20 May ciscan school. At that time there were plans 1926 as far as the Rıó Napo (‘‘recorrieńdo en to connect the town with nearby Mazan on exploraciońes dia´rias la ribera del Rıó the Rıó Napo. This road, finished in 1975 Amazonas, limitada por el Rıó Napo’’). 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 39

The report emphasized that they did not difficult to determine the exact location. cross the Amazon because the terrain on the Although their itinerary did not include opposite was flooded and unsuitable for enough time to travel a substantial way up camping. The Amazonas reaches its maxi- a tributary before camping, they would have mum stage in May and June (some 10 m learned from local people that the Rıó Orosa above the minimum in November), so during provides a route to the Rıó Javari. From the the Olallas’ visit nearly all of the land headwaters, many days by canoe upriver, it is opposite Indiana would have been inundated. possible to cross overland to the Rıó Javarı´- None of the brothers’ specimens from Mirim and then to descend to the Javarı´. Indiana is a species now known to occur Recently this route has been used by logging only on the southern side of the Amazonas. crews (personal obs.). Even with motors, it Their collection thus presumably came from takes a number of days to reach the Rıó the area now mostly deforested on the Javarı´, so it is unlikely that the Olallas isthmus between the Amazonas and the traveled that far while collecting. The absence Napo within 5–10 km of the modern town of any mention of a river in Alfonso’s report of Indiana. tends to confirm that canoeing upriver was The catalog of the Department of Orni- not a major part of their activities. ‘‘Hasta el thology at the AMNH shows that the Rıó Javarı´’’ is best interpreted to mean ‘‘in specimens from Indiana were cataloged along the direction of the Javari,’’ in other words with those from the Olallas’ next two generally southward from their camp. localities, Orosa and Apayacu, in August The brothers often camped near the mouth and September 1927 (table 1). We examined of a river, so their locality ‘‘Orosa’’ was 817 specimens of birds from ‘‘Pto. Indiana’’ presumably near the mouth of that river. in the AMNH, all dated between 19 May and Even if we accept this possibility, it is difficult 23 August 1926 (table 2), in agreement with to determine where this site might have been Alfonso’s report of when they worked there. in 1926. The Orosa is an extreme example of They embarked for their trip downriver on 26 a frequent pattern of tributary rivers in the August. Peruvian Amazon. Its lower course parallels the Amazonas for about 40 km, never more OROSA than 8 km away, before reaching its mouth (fig. 2). The river appears to have incorpo- The Rıó Orosa is the largest southern rated one old channel of the main river after tributary of the Amazonas between the another into its lower course. Its current mouth of the Napo and the historic town of mouth in a narrow channel behind a large Pebas on the northern side of the river (figs. 2 island suggests that this process is continuing. and 4). Presumably the brothers chose this Consequently, it is likely that the mouth was location largely because of the storm that considerably farther west nearly 80 years ago wrecked their raft. After spending a day when the Olallas visited. The village at the drying out at a house on the bank of the current mouth of the Orosa is Huanana Amazonas, they traveled only a few hours (INEI, 2008, locally called Huanta). Another farther to reach Orosa (‘‘el lugar de Orosa’’). village named San Jose´ de Orosa about 14 km Beginning on 1 September 1926, they ex- WSW of the current mouth of the river is plored islands of the Amazonas and the area directly opposite the mouth of the Rıó that extends southward toward the Rıó Apayacu (GOREL, 2005; INEI, 2008, how- Javarı´ (also spelled Yavarı´) (‘‘hacieńdo ex- ever, shows this town farther south on the ploraciońes dia´rias a las isles del Amazońas, current course of the river, a location to o ya a los terrenos que se extieńden hasta el which the town perhaps moved after the river Rıó Javarı´’’). No mention is made of a river changed its course). Because towns at the nearby, nor of the town of Pebas. mouths of rivers in Amazonian Peru often It seems almost certain that the brothers take their name from the river, San Jose´de made their camp in the general vicinity of the Orosa might have formerly been at the Rıó Orosa near the southern (left) bank of mouth of the river. Indeed the Map of the Amazonas, but their description makes it Hispanic America (sheet SA-18, 1949) shows 40 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 a town named Orosa at this location somewhat west of the current mouth of the embraced by two mouths of the river. Rıó Orosa. The vestiges of this former mouth of the Orosa still exist. Just upriver from San Jose´ APAYACU de Orosa a secondary channel of the Orosa empties into the Amazonas (about 15 km This locality is also associated with the WSW of the current principal mouth; fig. 2). mouth of a well-known river, the Rıó This secondary mouth faces a cluster of Apayacu, a major northern tributary of the islands near the southern bank of the Amazonas between the Napo and the town Amazonas, just as Alfonso’s description of Pebas (figs. 2 and 4). Local people are states. There are no other islands in the main careful to avoid confusion between the Rıó river until well below the current mouth. In Ampiyacu, with its mouth at Pebas, and the addition, this site is directly opposite the Rıó Apayacu, with its mouth considerably mouth of the Rıó Apayacu, the next locality farther upriver. Vaurie (1972) was confused visited by the two brothers, who reached it by about this locality. His gazetteer included crossing the Amazonas one afternoon. two entries. One (APAYACU RIVER, The current mouth of the Orosa, on the ‘‘mouth of river, near Pebas’’) he places at satellite images of Google Earth, is at 03u219S, 72u089W. The other (APAYACU 3u299070S, 72u039020W, where it empties into ‘‘[Ampiyacu, or Auayacu]’’) he equates with a long channel behind a large island. The the Islas Apayacu in the Amazonas, which he probable location of the Olallas’ camp, near places at 03u239S, 72u089W. These two sets of the current (or former) village of San Jose´de coordinates are about 3 km apart about Orosa, is near 3u319310S, 72u119220W (fig. 2). 14 km NNE of the mouth of the Rıó The land along the southern side of the Apayacu. Local people today might well call Amazonas for a long way in either direction the island just upstream from the mouth of from the mouth of the Orosa (either current the river ‘‘isla Apayacu,’’ but the island is not or previous) is on the floodplain of the large enough to have had much permanence Amazonas, which is some 15 km wide at this over the course of decades. Vaurie’s account point. The forest within 6–8 km of the thus conflates two adjacent but distinct Amazonas is seasonally flooded varzea. At rivers. the time of the Olallas’ visit, however, the Although the Map of Hispanic America river would have been at or near its lowest (sheet SA-18), on which Vaurie relied, was stage for the year, so this forest would have extensively revised between the editions of been easy to traverse on foot. The current 1938 and 1949, both versions clearly distin- course of the Orosa now skirts the edge of guish the Ampiyacu and Apayacu rivers and high ground along the edge of the floodplain. indicate ‘‘Isla (or Islas) Apayacu.’’ On the Wherever the mouth was in the Olallas’ day, much-improved later edition, these islands lie a trip of 5 km or so upriver would have well below the mouth of the Apayacu provided access to terra firme forest. approximately opposite the current mouth We examined 691 specimens of birds from of the Orosa where a cluster of large islands ‘‘Orosa,’’ all dated between 1 September and still exists. 7 December 1926 (table 2). None of these Alfonso’s report stated that the brothers specimens is a species now known to occur worked at Orosa until 11 December 1926. On only on the northern side of the Amazonas. that date they crossed the Amazonas to camp None is a species now known to be restricted on the island in which the Rıó Apayacu to islands in major rivers (see below). debouches (‘‘se campa´ron en la´sla ı del Alfonso’s mention of visits to islands might Amazońas en la cual desemboca el Rıó instead explain the large series of migrating Apayacu’’). This reference to an island shorebirds from Orosa, presumably collected puzzled Vaurie, who assumed it referred to on mud banks exposed by the falling river in islands named ‘‘Isla (or Islas) Apayacu’’ in the months of their visit. The Olallas the middle of the Amazonas on the Map of collections are thus in agreement with Alfon- Hispanic America (sheet SA-18, which in- so’s reports and most likely from a location cludes these islands in somewhat different 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 41 locations in its 1938 and 1949 editions). between March and August 1927. During the These islands, however, do not correspond first period they used two different camps to the Olallas’ locality. Instead, the arrange- across the Rıó Ucayali from each other, ment of the mouth of the river matches although Alfonso’s report stated that during Alfonso’s description exactly. part of the time at the first camp, the brothers The Apayacu, like other Amazonian collected on both sides of the river. During tributaries previously discussed, parallels the the second period of work near Sarayacu, main river, in this case only for 7–8 km, and they camped at a third location some incorporates part of a former loop of the distance upriver. Sarayacu is thus actually Amazonas (fig. 4). It then meets another three localities in the same general vicinity. more recent loop of the Amazonas, which Alfonso’s notes together with recent satellite has become the current mouth. Until recently images allow us to reach some conclusions the town of Apayacu, with about 20 houses, about where they camped and collected was located on the narrow spit of land during these six months. between the final course of the Apayacu Sarayacu was originally a mission founded and the Amazonas. During periods of high by Franciscans who descended the Ucayali in water the town was surrounded by flooded 1791. In the first half of the 1800s, it was the forest for many kilometers in all directions. most important port of call for travelers on As a result of extreme erosion during high the Ucayali and was visited by a number of water in 2008 and 2009, the town was Europeans and Americans, including several relocated upriver. By 2010, the narrow spit ornithologists (see Stephens and Traylor, of land had almost disappeared. No doubt 1983). There is another Sarayacu, on the the Olallas camped on this spot, where it is Rıó Bobonaza in southern Ecuador, which likely that a small village already existed in Clarence Buckley used as a base for assem- the 1920s. On Google Earth’s satellite images bling a large collection of birds in the 1890s the location is 3u299200S, 72u109550W. (Sclater and Salvin, 1880; Jenkinson and Alfonso’s report made no mention of the Tuttle, 1976) and where a later Olalla extent of their explorations around Apayacu. collected for the Museum of Comparative With the exception of restingas (former Zoology in the 1960s. Alfonso and Ramoń’s natural levees of the main river), no high labels, however, are not ambiguous, because ground exists near Apayacu. The floodplain by the time they visited Sarayacu on the of the Amazonas, unusually wide at this Ucayali the brothers had begun to correct point, extends about 12 km northward. There their printed labels by stamping ‘‘Peru’’ on is a small island in the Amazonas that would each one. have been easily accessible, but, unless Sarayacu is now a village (with Google substantially larger in the 1920s, it would Earth coordinates 06u479280S, 75u069510W) not have taken long to explore. along the edge of high ground, slightly over We examined 437 specimens of birds from 2 km from the left (overall western) bank of Apayacu, all dated between 11 December the Ucayali, which at this point flows nearly 1926 and 29 January 1927 (table 2). The eastward in one of its large loops (fig. 5). The collection includes all of the expected species surrounding administrative district is still now known to occur only on the north side named Sarayacu, although the village is no of the Amazonas and none of the species now longer its capital. The Map of Hispanic known to occur only on the south side. No America (sheet SB-18, 1938) shows Sarayacu species restricted to islands, nor shorebirds, some 15 km west of the Ucayali and 20 km are represented. The composition of the NNW of Orellana. The orientation of the collection is thus consistent with Alfonso’s river at Orellana and the location of the report. Contamana hills (‘‘Cerros de Canchyuaya’’) is approximately correct, but the location of SARAYACU Sarayacu on this map is misleading. According to Alfonso, the brothers’ first The Olallas, as described above, worked camp was on the ‘‘left’’ bank of the river near Sarayacu during two distinct periods opposite the town and their second camp was 42 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 on the ‘‘right’’ bank opposite the first. We cleared areas around the village. The small have already noted that, by local custom, meandering Rıó Sarayaquillo enters the ‘‘left’’ referred to the general direction of Ucayali from the west just above the travel. For the Olallas ascending the Ucayali presumed locations of their first two camps. and thus traveling generally southward, the Alfonso makes no mention of this tributary, village of Sarayacu would have been on their so apparently it was not used by the two right (the side to the west of the general brothers. To the east of these camps they course of the river). With reference to the would have had to traverse 6–9 km of direction of flow, the first camp was on the flooded varzea to reach high ground. right bank and the second camp on the left. Alfonso’s report stipulated that specimens Alfonso’s descriptions of their first two collected from 11 March through 15 April camps correspond closely with the terrain on 1927 came from the ‘‘left’’ bank ‘‘opposite the two sides of the river immediately in front the old village of Sarayacu’’ (on the generally (south) of the village. The high ground eastern side of the river), those collected from occupied by the town forms the edge of the 16 April to 10 May came from both sides of floodplain. To the south for some 2 km the river, although they remained at the first before reaching the current bank of the river, camp. Subsequently, specimens obtained the terrain consists of densely spaced rest- from 11 May to 16 June came from the ingas (natural former levees) with tall forest ‘‘right’’ bank while they were at their second and a few small lakes and clearings. On the camp. opposite side of the Ucayali, low-lying land After a hiatus in Iquitos to replenish extends 6 km from the river with numerous supplies and to recover from malaria, the lakes derived from former channels of the brothers returned to Sarayacu where they river. Alfonso stated that the terrain near used a third camp from 10 July to 15 August. both of the first two camps was low-lying During this time, specimens were collected on with wet soil. the ‘‘left’’ bank again, so presumably they Near the first camp, according to Alfonso, camped on that bank also. According to there were many swamps with aguaje palms Alfonso’s report, this third location was two (aguajales). The forest was flooded to a depth hours by canoe south of the earlier camps (‘‘a´ of 4–5 m (‘‘Esta´ anegado hasta una distancia dos horas de sureada en canoa desde los de 4 o´ 5 metros sobre el nivel de la montanã, primeros campamentos’’). Two hours upriver o´ sea el agua penetra en la selva’’). This depth in a loaded canoe would take them about 8– would represent a high stage of the river, 12 km almost due southward to a point usually reached in May, coinciding with the approximately opposite the current town of Olallas’ visit. Only at lower stages would Orellana (with Google Earth coordinates lakes become apparent. During rising water, 6u549440S, 75u099220W), the capital of the mosquitoes are often abundant, as the Olallas district Vargas Guerra. Once again the noted repeatedly. terrain opposite Orellana fits Alfonso’s de- Near the second camp, according to scriptions of the area around the brothers’ Alfonso, there were fewer aguajales but the camp. ground was nevertheless wet. In places the Just above (south of) Orellana the Ucayali forest had been cleared for cemeteries, an makes a right-angled bend, which embraces a indication of land above the level of annual large triangular area with terrain much like flooding (see above). High restingas are still that around the first two camps (with used for cemeteries by riverside communities numerous former channels and restingas) in Amazonian Peru. (fig. 5). Behind this low-lying area is a zone Neither of these camps offered easy access about 3 km wide that lacks these indications to terra firma. The town sits on an eastward- of flooded varzea. This northwesterly trend- projecting peninsula of high ground. To the ing zone is a continuation of the Contamana west the land slopes upward gradually for hills (Cerros de Canchahuaya), an outlier some 30 km to the outlying foothills of the from the more rugged hills toward the Andes. To reach terra firma, the brothers Brazilian border. On recent satellite images could have walked westward beyond the this zone supports many agricultural plots 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 43

(chacras). Lying behind the triangular block approach within 9 km of the western bank. of flooded varzea, this zone reaches the bank These two ranges of hills are only 25 km of the Ucayali in two places, one opposite apart at their ends. The floodplain between Orellana and another 10 km upriver, around them narrows to 6 km wide and the river the right-angled bend, at the northwestern itself to 0.3 km, by far the narrowest between end of the Contamana hills (fig. 5). Later, in the origin of the Ucayali at the confluence of his final report from Lagarto, Alfonso the Urubamba and the Tambo and its mouth mentioned that the Contamana hills are the at its confluence with the Maranõn. This gap only place on the eastern side of the Ucayali divides the lower Ucayali from the drier where the river adjoins high ground. Because upper Ucayali, which lies in the slight rain they lie a little farther upriver from the shadow of the rugged hills along the Brazi- brothers’ third camp at Sarayacu, where they lian border (Sierra Divisor). Throughout its had not yet explored, Alfonso does not course the upper Ucayali meanders through a mention these hills in his reports from floodplain 20–30 km wide. Sarayacu. According to Alfonso, the third camp BOCA RÓı URUBAMBA occupied land that flooded only in excep- tionally high water. There were few lakes and This locality, between the confluence of the no swamps. The land was flat, and from the rıós Tambo and Urubamba according to banks of the river the forest was high and Alfonso’s report, is readily located on satel- easy to move through (‘‘faćil de hacer lite images at coordinates 10u429250S, correrio’’). At that time, there were almost 73u459000W (fig. 6). Today the small city no inhabitants. This description seems likely Atalaya, a provincial capital, occupies the to have applied to the zone, now thoroughly western side of the Tambo just above the cultivated, that extends northwestward from confluence and no more than a few kilome- the Contamana hills to a point opposite ters from the Olallas’ old campsite. Like Orellana. The area opposite present-day Pucallpa, Atalaya became a population Orellana is the most likely location of the center and capital only in the 1930s and third camp. 1940s (Ortiz, 1974, 1984). If these interpretations of the Olallas’ three Alfonso’s report accurately described the camps near Sarayacu are correct, then their orientation of the two rivers at the confluence coordinates from Google Earth are approx- (the Urubamba flowing from the east, the imately 6u499040S, 75u069220W (first camp), Tambo from the south). He mentioned a 6u489360S, 75u069370W (second camp), and small canal of the Tambo that flowed into the 6u549280S, 75u89350W (third camp) (fig. 5). Urubamba just above the principal conflu- We examined 1124 specimens of birds ence. Today this canal has evidently become collected by the Olallas and labeled Sarayacu the main channel of the Tambo, and a (table 2): 261 from 11 March–15 April, 304 secondary channel (presumably the main from 16 April–10 May; 122 from 11 May–16 channel in the Olallas’ day) now joins the June; and 417 from 10 July–14 August. All Ucayali just below the confluence. Alfonso fell within the dates stipulated by Alfonso’s mentioned Campos and ‘‘Peios’’ (Piros), both report, except one ‘‘Egretta alba’’ (Ardea of which are described as ‘‘civilized Indians,’’ alba) dated ‘‘17 June 1927.’’ Of the total, 678 which occupy essentially the same areas came from the ‘‘left’’ bank (east of the today (the Piro east of the Campo) (Gow, Ucayali), 122 from the ‘‘right bank’’ (west 1991). Alfonso described high forest extend- of the Ucayali), and 304 from the period ing to the south on low terrain for ‘‘up to when collections were made on both banks. 5 hours walking from the camp,’’ beyond The third camp was close to the narrowest which the surface became stony. Recent section of floodplain along the entire course satellite imagery shows the land between the of the Ucayali. At their northern end, the Tambo and Urubamba rising gently to the Contamana hills approach within 1 km of the south. About 10 km south of the confluence, eastern bank of the river. On the other side, ranges of low hills first appear and clearings SW of Orellana, outlying hills of the Andes for cultivation disappear. The detailed corre- 44 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 spondence between Alfonso’s account and sumably far) end of this island. A house on the conditions at the mouth of the Rıó the riverbank served as a base of operations. Urubamba leaves no doubt that the brothers To the east of camp the land was flat, but to actually camped here, despite Vaurie’s widely the west hills rose from the bank of the river. circulated conclusion that this locality was The locatity called Lagarto (Alfonso’s fabricated by them. report always stipulated ‘‘denominado La- The Tambo and Urubamba are each about garto,’’ as if the name were unusual or not 300–500 m wide near their confluence. well-known) lay between two small streams Alfonso’s report is unclear about whether (‘‘pequenõ riachuelo’’) where Alfonso the brothers’ explorations extended across camped at the house of one Senõr Rios. these rivers. Nevertheless, it seems likely that Alfonso described the limits of his collecting they limited their activities to the peninsula as the Rıó Ucayali itself to the north, the between the rivers, because their next two Riachuelo Lagarto to the east, and the camps seem to have been chosen expressly to Riachuelo Apenihua to the west. To the explore the nearby western and eastern sides south, east, and west the ground was low, of the Ucayali. Alfonso’ report stipulates that with a few small swamps as a result of temperatures were recorded here from 7 flooding by the river and torrential rains. To September to 7 November 1927. the south there was high forest, much like in In the AMNH Department of Ornitholo- lowlands along the lower Ucayali and Ama- gy, we examined a total of 420 specimens zonas. Aside from Sr. Rios’ house, the area labeled ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba’’ with dates was uninhabited. Between Santa Rosa and between 9 September and 5 November 1927 Lagarto were many islands, and two islands (table 2). An immature Tigrisoma lineatum were east and west of Lagarto respectively, from this locality has a discolored label with apparently just bars that disappeared at times a date now illegible. of high water. He noted that the ‘‘left’’ (eastern) side of the Ucayali was flat from SANTA ROSA AND LAGARTO its origin to its mouth, except below Con- tamana, where, as noted above, hills come These two localities are the last collecting close to the river. sites visited by the Olallas before they shifted Recent satellite images reveal candidates their operations to Brazil. The two are not far for both of these locations (fig. 4). A range of apart, as Alfonso’s report stipulated that he low hills reaches the western bank of the traveled from Santa Rosa to Lagarto in two Ucayali about 10 km northwest of the hours by canoe. Such a trip would cover a confluence of the Tambo and Urubamba, distance of about 15–20 km by river. and two small creeks enter the Ucayali from Furthermore, Santa Rosa was only one hour the east about 15–20 km northwest of these by canoe from the mouth of the Rıó hills. Based on these geographic features, it is Urubamba. Alfonso stipulated that Santa reasonable to place Santa Rosa near Rosa was on the ‘‘left’’ bank and Lagarto on 10u409550S, 73u499100W and Lagarto near the ‘‘right’’ bank. As he was now traveling 10u359500S, 73u529400W. downriver, ‘‘left’’ would correspond to the Current place names confirm these loca- west side and ‘‘right’’ to the east side of the tions. INEI (2008) lists two small communi- general course of the river. ties about 20 km northwest of Atalaya named From Alfonso’s description, Santa Rosa Lagarto and Apinihua. There is also a town was in a large loop of the Ucayali with the named Santa Rosa between Atalaya and ‘‘left’’ bank of the river lying both east and Lagarto. Coriat names eastern tributaries of west of the brothers’ camp. Furthermore, the the Rıó Ucayali named Apinihua and La- river included a large island to the north on garto in approximately the locations identi- which was located a village named San fied above (Coriat, 1942: 196) and presents a Pablo. He stated that this island began about map with towns named Santa Rosa and one hour downriver (perhaps 8–10 km) from Lagarto roughly 10 and 20 km northwest of the confluence of the Tambo and Urubamba. the mouth of the Rıó Urubamba, respectively Santa Rosa was located opposite the (pre- on the west and east banks of the Ucayali 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 45

(ibid.: 192–193). Faura Gaig (1962) also both east and west of the camp and an island includes Santa Rosa in his description of to the north. Currently, at the presumed the upper Ucayali in a location not far below location of Santa Rosa, just above the hills Atalaya and on the same side of the river, that reach the river, the Ucayali flows more and Ortiz (1984) includes maps that show or less northwestward through a cluster of Santa Rosa and Rı´o Lagarto in this area. The large islands. The channel through these Instituto de Bien Comun, which assists na- islands might well have changed since the tive communities to acquire title to sur- 1920s, but it is not clear how the river could rounding land, lists ‘‘comunidades nativas have been west of camp as well as east at this titulados’’ named Lagarto Millar (10u379260S, location. At the presumed location of La- 73u489490W), Santa Rosa de Laulate (10 40 garto between the two eastern tributaries, the 54 S, 73 49 28 W), Apinihua (10 33 55 S, 73 Ucayali again flows approximately north- 55 53 W), and Apinihua Centro (10 35 30 S, westward, so it is not clear how the river 73 54 40 W), each readily located on Google could lie north of camp. Earth. The first is associated with a river There are two possible explanations for called ‘‘Quebrada Lagarto’’ and the third Alfonso’s problematic descriptions of the with ‘‘Quebrada Apinihua.’’ Santa Rosa de course of the Ucayali: either the locations Laulate lies close to the position deduced of Santa Rosa and Lagarto deduced above above for Santa Rosa based on Alfonso’s are wrong or Alfonso was confused about the report of its topography. Quebradas Lagarto orientation of the river. Satellite images show and Apinihua enter the Ucayali from the no alternatives to the proposed locations for east about the right distance downriver. The these two sites. The nearest loop of the current mouth of Quebrada Lagarto is at Ucayali flowing eastward, which would the position deduced above for the Olallas’ provide a location on the eastern bank with camp. The Apinihua is farther downriver, the Ucayali to the north, is at least twice as rather than a short distance upriver, as in far downriver, well beyond any reasonable Alfonso’s description. The location of Api- distance for three or four hours’ travel by nahua Centro suggests that the Apinihua canoe and well beyond the current place might have changed its mouth in the past names. As Alfonso noted, there are no hills decades, so it is possible that the two east of the Ucayali until far downriver ‘‘creeks’’ were closer in the Olallas’ time. beyond Contamana. Even west of the The reversed locations of the two creeks in Ucayali the only hills approaching the bank Alfonso’s description are perhaps related to of the river are the ones noted above. a problem with the location of the Ucayali Because there are no plausible alternatives itself (see below). for Santa Rosa and Lagarto, it seems more The Map of Hispanic America (sheet SC- likely that Alfonso confused the directions to 18, 1938) shows a village named Santa Rosa the river in his reports. If he inadvertently about 5 km north of the mouth of the switched ‘‘north’’ and ‘‘south’’ in his descrip- Urubamba, close to the presumed location tion of Lagarto, the directions to the two identified above. This map shows the Ucayali creeks would probably also have been flowing almost due west at this point, an switched. If so, the reversed locations of unlikely possibility. There is no locality Lagarto and Apinihua creeks would be named Lagarto along the upper Ucayali on explained. Even today local people make no this map. There seems to be no trace of the use of compasses and refer to the cardinal town of San Pablo, mentioned by Alfonso on directions in a general sense only. Adding to the island opposite his camp at Lagarto. the difficulty of distinguishing north and Perhaps it has disappeared entirely, a fate not south, at the season when Alfonso worked at improbable for a small town on an island in these sites, the sun would have been nearly Amazonia. overhead at noon. The descriptions of the course of the Alfonso’s reports stated that temperatures Ucayali in Alfonso’s reports do not corre- were recorded at Santa Rosa from 12 spond to the river’s likely course during his November 1927 through 7 January 1928 visits. At Santa Rosa he described the river and at Lagarto from 8 January through 7 46 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

March and again from 8 March through 31 25 July to 14 August from ‘‘Santo Isidoro March 1928. We examined 734 specimens Teffe.’’ These dates agree with those in from Santa Rosa and the same number from Alfonso’s report in the Department of Lagarto in the AMNH Department of Mammalogy, discussed above. Ornithology (table 2). The specimens from Alfonso’s description of activities for the Santa Rosa had dates between 12 November first period stated that the base for collecting 1927 and 10 January 1928, except one activities was the town of ‘‘Teffe.’’ The Lepidothrix coronata exquisitor on 2 Novem- terrain he described corresponds with the ber 1927 (perhaps an error for 2 December). current location of the town, just inside the The specimens we examined from Lagarto mouth of the channel connecting the lake to had dates between 11 January and 31 March the Solimo˜es on the southern bank of the 1928. Alfonso’s report indicated that he had lake with high ground to the south. No taken advantage of a passing launch to ship mention is made of Santa Isidoro, the specimens to Iquitos on 11 March. His location on labels from the second period. notebook in the archives of the Department Alfonso’s report of his activities from June of Ornithology includes temperatures to that through August in the Department of Mam- date, and his translated report in the Depart- malogy, however, describes Santo Isidoro as ment of Mammalogy summarizes the tem- a neighboring community (‘‘colindando con peratures for the remainder of March. el mismo Teffe´’’). Alfonso’s report covering the final weeks In their gazetteer for Brazil, Paynter and at Lagarto leaves it uncertain whether he ever Traylor cited Zimmer (1931: 9) for the began work on the route to the Gran Pajonal. locality Santo Isidoro, but stated that the It states that he awaited supplies to continue collector and date were unknown and the this work (‘‘para seguir viaje al Pajonal’’). locality ‘‘not located.’’ They suggested that His letter to Chapman after his return to Zimmer might have misspelled the name. In Iquitos indicated that the brothers had gone fact, Zimmer had spelled the locality correct- to some expense (‘‘los pagos que hicimos’’) in ly and Ramoń Olalla collected many speci- anticipation of opening trails (‘‘nos anticipa- mens there. mos en hacerlos [caminos]’’) into the moun- The Map of Hispanic America (sheet SA- tains to the west, as Chapman had earlier 20 dated 1930) shows a village named ‘‘Sitio requested. It is thus not clear that the trail to Isidoro’’ about 8 km east of ‘‘Teffe´,’’ on the the Gran Pajonal was actually begun, al- southern bank of the Solimo˜es just outside though the brothers had apparently incurred the mouth of the channel leading to the lake. expenses in anticipation of this work. It Searches on the Internet revealed that there is remains possible that Alfonso spent some currently a ‘‘comunidade San Isidoro’’ in the time on the western side of the Ucayali municipality of Tefe´, although there is no during this time, but the tenor of his reports information available about its exact loca- does not suggest that he made collections tion. The channels and islands in the there. Solimo˜es at the mouth of the Rıó Tefe´ might have changed since the 1920s, so the town of Santo Isidoro might also have moved. TEFFE Nevertheless, it is almost certain that at the time of the Olallas’ visit Santo Isidoro was on Alfonso submitted a report on the work at the southern side of the Solimo˜es adjoining Teffe (now Tefe´), currently present in trans- Tefe´ itself. lation in the archives of the Department of Google Earth has 03u209450S, 64u429300W Ornithology. As discussed earlier, Alfonso for Tefe´. Santo Isidoro was probably within never visited Tefe´ and must have prepared 10 km to the east or southeast. The this report from Ramoń’s notes. The report coordinates provided by Paynter and Traylor only summarized temperatures for the dates in their listing for Santo Isidoro are presum- 10–25 July 1928. According to dates on ably intended to be for Tefe´ itself, as they specimens, collecting took place from 10 to could not locate Santo Isidoro, and are close 23 July at ‘‘Boca Lago Teffe’’ and then from to Google Earth’s coordinates for Tefe´. 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 47

Santo Isidoro was possibly about 12 km SE letter codes and listed from north to south at 03u249080S, 64u369420W. and east to west in Peru: LC, Boca Lagarto Cocha; DISTRIBUTIONS OF BIRDS IN CU, Boca Rıó Curaray; AMAZONIAN PERU IN, Puerto Indiana; INTRODUCTION AP, Apayacu; One reason that ornithologists have on OR, Orosa; occasion doubted the Olallas’ localities is the unexpected distributions indicated by some SAA, SAB, SAC, and SAD, the four stages of of their specimens. The information present- investigation near Sarayacu; ed so far has suggested that the Olallas LA, Lagarto; themselves were aware of the faunal differences encountered on opposite sides of major SR, Santa Rosa; rivers and indeed might be credited with UR, Boca Rıó Urubamba; bringing this phenomenon to Chapman’s LT, Boca Lago Tefe´; attention. Nevertheless, some of their specimens do not conform to our current notions SI, Santo Isidoro Tefe´. of bird and mammal distributions in eastern Peru. Furthermore, some specimens are Recall that these localities lie along the Rıó labeled from sites hundreds of kilometers Napo (LC, CU), on the northern side of the from the nearest locations at which the Rıó Amazonas (IN, AP), on the southern species are otherwise known to occur. The side of the Amazonas (OR), on the eastern following sections discuss the limitations of side of the overall course of the Rıó Ucayali species and subspecies by major rivers in (SAA, SAD, LA), on the western side of the relation to the Olallas’ collections. Ucayali (SAC), on both sides of the Ucayali Before proceeding, however, it is well to (SAB), between the rıós Tambo and Uru- emphasize that we are still a way from bamba at the origin of the Ucayali (UR), and understanding the details of the distributions on the southern side of the Solimo˜es (con- of birds and mammals in Amazonia. There is tinuation of the Amazonas in Brazil) (LT, SI). For each locality, I list the numbers of always the possibility that new information - U can change expectations. A striking example male ( ), female ( ), and unsexed or is the recent confirmation that Leucopternis unknown (?) specimens collected by the melanops occurs on the Rıó Tapajo´s, close to Olallas. the location at which Alfonso Olalla collected a specimen in 1936 on the ‘‘wrong’’ side of DISTRIBUTIONS CONFIRMED BY THE the Amazon (Barlow et al., 2001, Raposo de OLALLAS’COLLECTIONS Amaral et al., 2007). It is also now known that Mitu tuberosum occurs north of the The following systematic list includes Amazon near the location at which the species whose ranges (or whose subspecies’ Olallas collected a specimen on the Rıó ranges) are now thought to reach limits in Negro (Scheuerman, 1977). It is also well to northeastern Peru (or to vary geographically remember that few, if any, modern ornithol- there) and for which all the Olallas’ speci- ogists have spent as much time in Amazonia mens are in agreement with current under- as Alfonso Olalla and that nobody has ever standing of their distributions. Subsequent collected so many Amazonian specimens. lists include those species for which some of Encounters with a few vagrants or outlying the Olallas specimens do not match current populations, even a few dozen, constitute no understanding or for which their specimens more than a tiny proportion of his collec- raise interesting questions about distributions. tions. The present list shows that a large In this list and the following ones, the proportion of the Olallas’ specimens confirm Olallas’ locations are abbreviated with two- current understanding of distributions. 48 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

Leucopternis melanops (CU 1U). from Santa Rosa resembles two from San Leucopternis kuhli (UR 2U). Replaces melanops Martıń and others from Junıń southward. south of the Amazonas in Peru. Thamnophilus aethiops (kapouni,OR1U,UR1U). Nothocrax urumutum (LC 1- 1U,AP1-). Only The female from OR resembles the female from north of the Amazonas. the Urubamba and others from southeastern Crax [Mitu] salvini (CU 3- 1U). Peru. Crax [Mitu]mitu [tuberosum] (OR 1- 1U,SAB Myrmotherula axillaris (melaena,CU3U,IN11- 1U,SR1-,UR2- 2U). Replaces salvini south 9U,LT2- 2U,OR1- 1U,SAA1-,SAD3- of the Amazonas in most of Loreto and north of 4U; heterozyga,SR8- 5U,UR3-). Females the Amazonas in easternmost Loreto near the from all localities are similar. Males from CU, Rıó Putumayo (Scheuerman, 1977). IN, OR, and Sarayacu are all similar, almost Odontophorus gujanensis (buckleyi,LC1-,CU5- blackish below and thus lacking contrast 3U,IN1- 1U). between the sides and the black bib. Those Odontophorus stellatus (OR 5- 7U,SAD1U,LA from LT are slightly paler on the back and sides 3- 2U,UR3- 1U). Replaces gujanensis south of the breast, so they approach heterozyga of the Amazonas and Maranõn. males, which are slate gray with a long Psophia crepitans (napensis,LC1- 1U,CU2- contrasting bib. 3U,IN1-). Myrmotherula erythrura (erythrura CU 1- 4U,AP Psophia leucoptera (LT 1-,OR2- 4U,SAA1- 2U,IN1U; septentrionalis,LT3U,SR9- 6U). 2U,SAB1-,UR1- 5U). Replaces crepitans Specimens from LT, all females, resemble those south of the Amazonas. from SR, except one with an extensive chestnut Phaethornis bourcieri (bourcieri,CU1-,AP1-, patch like nominate males. IN 1-). Myrmotherula menetriesii (pallida,LC1- 2U,CU Phaethornis philippii (SI 2- 5U,LT1U,OR3-, 5- 1U,AP1- 1U,IN2- 1U; menetriesii, SAD LA 1U). Replaces bourcieri south of the 2- 5U,LA1- 4U,SR10- 7U,UR3- 3U). Amazonas (although the situation is more Females from all locations are similar, but male complicated along the Ucayali). menetriesii have a narrow black bib that varies Galbalcyrhynchus leucotis (CU 1- 4U,AP3U,OR in extent without relation to locality. 2- 2U, SAA 1-, SAD 1- 1U). Myrmotherula ornata (saturata,CU8- 2U 2?; Galbalcyrhynchus purusianus (LA 1U). Replaces atrogularis,SR1-). The male from Santa Rosa leucotis on the upper Ucayali. resembles those from Curaray. There are no Eubucco richardsoni (richardsoni,CU10- 8U,IN female atrogularis in this series. 1U; nigriceps,AP7- 2U; aurantiicollis,OR2- Microrhopias quixensis (quixensis,CU6- 2U,IN 1U,SAD3- 5U,LA3- 2U,SR2- 1U). In this 1- 1U; intercedens,LC1-,OR1- 1U, SAD series there are distinct differences across the 1- 3U). Males of the two subspecies are Amazonas and less consistent differences across indistinguishable, so the intercedens at LC was the lower Napo. North of the Amazonas males assigned to the wrong subspecies. Females of the have gray-blue napes, those to the south two subspecies differ distinctly. yellowish. Males from AP have the sides of the Cercomacra cinerascens (cinerascens,CU1- 1U; head entirely black, those south of the Amazo- sclateri,LA3- 5U,SR3- 2U,UR1-). nas have feathers in this area tipped with dark Nominate males have plain wings (no spots on red, and those from CU vary between these wing-coverts), and nominate females have extremes. Males from AP also have more smaller spots on wing-coverts than do female extensive dark red on the lower breast than do sclateri. those from CU. Cercomacra nigrescens (fuscicauda,IN1-,OR2- Pteroglossus beauharnaesii (SI 1-,OR5- 4U, 1U,LA4- 5U,UR1-). The type of SAA 2- 3U,SAD3-,LA1- 2U,UR2-). aequatorialis, a female from Sumaco Abajo, Restricted to the southern side of the Amazonas Ecuador, is slightly more orangish above and and the eastern side of the Ucayali. has a larger white patch on its back than the Philydor erythrocercum (lyra,OR1U,LA1-; females from OR and LA. subfulvum,LC1- 1U,CU3U,AP2-). This Myrmoborus myotherinus (napensis,CU1- 4U, series shows a well-defined difference across the AP 1U,IN4- 1U; myotherinus, SAD 1-,LA Amazonas, but there are too few specimens to 10- 5U,SR5- 1U). Nominate females have document distributions in western Loreto (the brighter cinnamon breast and abdomen. Spec- AMNH includes one specimen of subfulvum imens from Pomara (dept. Amazonas) resemble from the mouth of the Rıó Santiago). those from SR and LA. Automolus ochrolaemus (turdinus,CU2- 1U,AP Myrmeciza atrothorax (tenebrosa,IN2-; obscur- 1U,IN1-; ochrolaemus,SR1-). The specimen ata,SAA1-,LA2-,3U). The males from IN 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 49

are slightly darker than those from Sarayacu or Pipra erythrocephala (berlepschi,LC1-,CU14- LA. 5U,AP7- 3U,IN7- 3U). Four of the males Myrmeciza hemimelaena (hemimelaena,OR1U, have femalelike plumage, including one with LA 7- 5U,SR2-,UR1- 1U). Males and enlarged testes. females in this series have more white below Pipra rubrocapilla (LT 6- 1U,SI7- 1U,OR11- than do specimens from farther south. 4U,SAA1U,SAD2-,LA1-). Four of the Pithys albifrons (peruviana,CU1-,SR2-). These males have femalelike plumage, including two specimens resemble males from Ecuador and with red feathers on the head. Replaces ery- Brazil (including the type of brevibarba). throcephala south of the Amazonas. Crown and throat plumes vary in length Pipra filicauda (filicauda,CU4- 5U,PI7-,SAD regardless of location (although 4 of 5 males 4U). Sarayacu females are like those from from San Martıń have longer plumes than any Curaray. This species extends south of the others). In Loreto this species only occurs north Amazonas but not as far as the upper Ucayali. of the Amazonas. Pipra fasciicauda (purusiana,LA10- 1U,SR6- Gymnopithys leucaspis (castanea,CU2- 1U). No 1U,UR2-). Males from the upper Ucayali lack specimens of peruana collected by the Olallas, the more extensive red below and other features although the American Museum has specimens of saturata from San Martıń. The two specimens from Chamicuros, Chyavitas, and Jeberos (also from the mouth of the Urubamba are errone- spelled Xeberos) in western Loreto. ously identified as filicauda in the AMNH Formicarius analis (zamorae,CU3- 2U,AP3-, catalog. For more about them, see the discus- IN 1- 1U; analis, OR 1- 1U,LA2- 3U,SR sion of Bassler’s collection below. 1U,UR2- 1U). Specimens from south of the Leptopogon superciliaris (superciliaris,CU1-). Amazonas have some whitish on the abdomen; Leptopogon amaurocephalus (peruvianus,SR1U, those from the north have abdomens all gray. UR 2U). These two species are similar except One specimen from CU has a pale gray lower the top of the head is dark gray in superciliaris, abdomen, intermediate between the two sub- dark brown in amaurocephalus. This species species. U - U occurs at higher elevations and thus closer to the Chamaeza nobilis (rubida,LC1 ,CU3 2 ,AP Andes than superciliaris. 1U,SI1-; nobilis,OR4- 3U,SAD1-,UR - U - - Lanio fulvus (peruvianus,CU1 1 ,AP1 ). 2 ). The southern subspecies is slightly less Lanio versicolor (versicolor,OR1- 1U,LA1-). reddish above and has slightly more white on Replaces fulvus south of the Amazonas. the abdomen. Psarocolius angustifrons (angustifrons,LC1- 1U, Phoenicircus nigricollis (LC 2-,CU6- 1U,AP CU 2- 3U,IN2- 1U,SAA3- 1U; alfredi,LT 1-,IN2-). Only north of the Amazonas. 2- 2U,UR2- 4U). All specimens of alfredi Machaeropterus regulus (CU 1U). The Olallas’ have yellowish faces and entirely yellowish bills. only specimen of this widespread species. - U Nominate examples have dull olive faces and Machaeropterus pyrocephalus (SR 3 2 ). One of bills entirely black. the males is in femalelike plumage, evidently an immature. Chiroxiphia pareola (napensis,CU1-; regina,SI ACCEPTED DISTRIBUTIONS CHALLENGED BY 1U,OR5- 1U,SAD1- 1U). Females are all alike, but males north and south of the THE OLALLAS’COLLECTIONS Amazonas differ in color of the crown. The following list includes species for Lepidothrix coronata (coronata,CU14- 6U 1?, IN 7- 1U 1?, OR 10- 3U,SAA1- 1U,SAD1U which one or more specimens in the Olallas’ 1?, LA 3- 2U,UR1- 1U). Eight of the males collections do not match (or extend) our have femalelike plumage (one with a few black current understanding of the distributions of feathers below). One bird labeled female with populations in northeastern Peru. For each enlarged ovaries has male plumage. Specimens species I provide comments on the divergence from all of these localities are similar in size and from current understanding or suggestions coloration, although a few males (about 1 in 20) for future attention. have the crown slightly darker blue. Six specimens with labels from the mouth Lepidothrix coronata hoffmannsi (LT 1U,SI2-). of the Rıó Urubamba are particularly prob- Another distinctive subspecies occurring not far U east of Loreto. Males are black with yellowish lematic (Pyrrhura melanura [2 ]andMomo- abdomen and darker blue on the crown in tus momota microstephanus [1U], Philydor comparison with nominate males from Orosa. erythrocercum subflavum [1-], and Thamno- Females are duller green than nominate females. manes caesius glauca [1- 1U]). All were 50 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 acquired by the AMNH from Harvey Bass- south, without a clear difference across the ler. For completeness, these specimens are Amazonas. included in the following list, but discussion Thalurania furcata (viridipectus,CU5- 3U,IN8- U - - - of them is deferred to the subsequent section 6 ; boliviana,LA1 ,SR5 ,UR2 ). This on Bassler’s collection. series provides no evidence for geographic variation. Specimens from north of the Amazo- Jacana jacana (peruviana,CU3- 2U,AP1U,IN nas are indistinguishable from those farther 2-,OR3- 1U,SA5- 8U). This series shows a south. cline in coloration from populations in eastern Momotus momota (microstephanus,LC1-,CU Ecuador (scapularis) where the upperparts are 2- 3U,AP1U,IN1-,UR1U; ignobilis,SAA bright cinnamon brown southward to Sarayacu 3- 3U,SAB4- 1U,SAC2- 1U,LA4- 3U, where the upperparts are dark chestnut. There SR 2U,UR3-). All microstephanus are dull seems to be no discontinuity at the Amazonas. green below, whereas those of ignobilis have Geotrygon saphirina (rothschildi,CU2U,OR5- dull cinnamon underparts tinged to varying 6U). Specimens from OR resemble those from degrees with greenish on throat and flanks. Over CU and Ecuador. half of the specimens from Sarayacu are Geotrygon montana (OR 1-, SAB 1- 1U,LA3- intermediate in coloration, with breast and 2U,UR2- 1U). There are also two specimens abdomen tinged green also, a suggestion of from CU in the Academy of Natural Sciences in intergradation between the two forms. For the Philadelphia purchased from the AMNH in specimen of microstephanus from UR, see the 1928. Although elsewhere saphirina replaces discussion of Bassler’s collection. montana at higher elevations, these two species Galbula albirostris (chalcocephala,CU1-,AP1U, evidently overlap widely on both sides of the IN 3- 1U,LA2-). The males from LA Amazonas in northeastern Peru. resemble those from IN. Pyrrhura melanura (CU 2- 1U,AP5-,IN1U, Galbula cyanicollis (OR 7-, SAD 5- 2U). LT 2U,UR2U). All birds in this series are Replaces albirostris south of the Amazonas similar, except that specimens from the CU have and east of the lower Ucayali, but albirostris wider and paler scalloping on the throat and apparently crosses the upper Ucayali at LA. breast (resembling 5 specimens from Ecuador). Galbula tombacea (CU 5- 1U,AP1- 2U,IN4- For the two specimens from UR, see the 6U, SAB 1-,LA2- 1U). All three specimens discussion of Bassler’s collection. from LA resemble those from farther north. Pyrrhura picta (SI 1-,OR7- 2U,SAD1U). They have dates before 10 March, when Alfonso Joseph (2002) describes complex variation in sent many of his specimens to Iquitos. this species and close relatives south of the Galbula cyanescens (OR 1U, SAA 1-,SAB1-, Amazonas-Maranõn from Yurimaguas to the LA 5- 1U,SR4- 4U,UR1-m1U). Replaces Rıó Jurua. In this series the amount of scarlet tombacea south of the Amazonas, but these two on the forecrown varies without clear relation to similar species evidently have more complex locality. In addition, the extent of buff or brown distributions on the upper Ucayali, with both on the auriculars varies in a similarly chaotic present at LA. Five specimens of cyanescens fashion. Replaces melanura south of the Ama- from LA have dates after 11 March; the sixth is zonas in Loreto (but notice the overlap in Brazil dated 7 March. All resemble those from the near Tefe´). other localities in this series. Pionites melanocephala (CU 2- 1U,AP7- 3U, Capito niger [auratus](punctatus,CU8- 5U,IN SAB 1U,SAD1U,UR1- 1U). All alike. The 5- 3U,LA3- 4U,UR1-; amazonicus,LT1- specimen from SAD (on the eastern side of the 1U,SI1- 1U,OR4- 1U; auratus,AP2- 3U, Ucayali) indicates that this species is not limited SAA 4- 2U,SAD4- 3U). In this large series, by the Ucayali in this area. males and females from north of the Amazonas Pionites leucogaster (OR 8- 2U). In this series, six and west of the Napo and from the upper specimens have black flecks scattered on the Ucayali lack red on throat and forecrown, in crown, evidently young birds. There are no contrast with those from east of the Napo and specimens in the AMNH from the Ucayali. south of the Amazonas, as described by Replaces melanocephala south of the Amazonas Armenta et al. (2005). The examples from and east of the Ucayali. Sarayacu (all specimens come from dates on Phaethornis superciliosus (moorei,CU8- 2U,AP which the Olallas collected on the eastern side of 1- 1U; ucayali,LA5-,SR1- 3U,UR1-). the general course of the Ucayali) vary in the Males from the CU, like specimens from eastern amount of red on throat and forecrown, and the Ecuador, have the breast and abdomen consis- specimen from UR is intermediate in this tently less buffy than do specimens from farther feature. 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 51

Pteroglossus flavirostris (flavirostris,CU2- 2U, Synallaxis rutilans (amazonica, OR; caquetensis, AP 2U, SAA 1- 2U; mariae,SI1-,OR4- 5U, LC 1U,IN2- 1U). The specimens from IN are SAD 1-,LA1-). Specimens from CU and AP intermediate in size between those from south of have a long brown band on the lower bill, the rıós Amazonas and Maranõn (including darker than this area on specimens from specimens in the AMNH from Tefe´, Chami- Ecuador. Those from Sarayacu and OR vary. curos, Chyavetas) and those farther north Some have the lower bill mostly dark brown and (including eastern Ecuador and the Rıó Negro), others mostly pale brown. Immatures have an indication that the Amazonas does not extensive dusky at the base of the bill. Speci- produce a distinct separation between the two mens from south of the Amazonas are thus forms. variable, some resembling birds north of the Philydor erythrocercum (subflavum,UR1-). See Amazonas and others birds farther south. the discussion of Bassler’s collection. Selenidura reinwardtii (LC 1- 2U,CU4- 2U,IN Automolus infuscatus (infuscatus,LC1U,CU2U, 2- 1U, SAA 2- 4U,LA1-). These six AP 1-,OR2- 1U,LA1- 1U,SR3- 2U,UR specimens from Sarayacu (238005, 238006– 1- 1U). There is no variation with location in 238010) and one from LA (238947) have bills this series. In addition, this series is indistin- that closely match those from CU, with more guishable from two specimens of purusianus than half pinkish brown (although these Sar- from the Rıó Purus, Brazil. ayacu birds have duskier brown and more Thamnophilus schistaceus (capitalis,CU3,AP1, extensive black). IN 8, SAB 2, SAD 7; dubius, LA 10, SR 5). All Selenidera langsdorffii (SI 1-,LT2- 1U,OR5- specimens from Sarayacu resemble those from 3U, SAA 2-,SAD1- 1U,LA1-,SR1- 2U, north of the Amazonas and differ distinctly UR 1- 1U). These specimens from Sarayacu from the specimens from Lagarto and Santa (238002–238003, 238006, 238011), LA (238948), Rosa. and UR have bills that resemble those from OR, Thamnomanes ardesiacus (ardesiacus,LC1-,CU with varying amounts of greenish gray near the 1- 2U,IN1U, SAA 1U,LA2U,SR2- 1U). middle of the lower bill (varying from none to The specimen from SAA resembles those from over half the length of the bill) and no pinkish or LA and SR and differs from saturninus from brown. This form replaces reinwardtii south of Sarayacu in having a shorter tail and bill and the Amazonas, but the situation along the lacking white on the back. Ucayali is more complicated. The two forms Thamnomanes saturninus (huallagae,OR7- 3U, are identical except for coloration of the bill. SAA 1-,SAD3U). Replaces ardesiacus south They are often considered conspecific on the of the Amazonas but not along the foothills of basis of an unusual specimen from Rıó Negro, Andes, on the upper Ucayali, or in southeastern west of Moyobamba, San Martıń (AMNH Peru. One female from Sarayacu (238169, 12 234528) (Meyer de Schauensee, 1966; Haffer, July 1927, small ovaries) has a short bill and tail 1974), its upper bill about 60% dusky brown and lacks white on the back but differs from and its lower bill about 60% grayish horn. A ardesiacus in having its breast rich brown specimen from nearby (Rıó Seco, AMNH instead of gray brown. It thus combines 234529) has a bill much like those from Curaray characters of both this species and the preced- except the lower bill is paler than usual. Neither ing. of these two specimens from San Martıń is Thamnomanes caesius (glaucus,CU3- 4U,IN2- clearly an intermediate nor a mixture of the 8U,UR1- 1U; persimilis,LT1- 2U,SI2- colorations of the bills of the two widespread 2U). The specimens from LT and SI, both males forms. The occurrence of typical examples of and females, are indistinguishable from the both forms at Sarayacu and at Lagarto suggests series from IN or from specimens in the AMNH that overlap without hybridization might occur from the rıós Madeira (9U) or Tapajo´s (4U). In along the eastern side of the Ucayali. Peru, however, the species does not occur south Xiphorhynchus elegans (ornatus,CU1U,IN1-; of the Amazonas. For the specimens from UR, juruanus,LT1- 1U,SI2- 2U,OR3U 1-, see the discussion of Bassler’s collection. SAD 4U 1-,LA6- 4U,SR1- 4U). The series Thamnomanes schistogynus (schistogynus, SAD from SR and LA indicate that the upper Ucayali 1U,LA6U,SR1U,UR1U). The Olallas’ is not a limitation for juruanus, as Aleixo (2004) collections from Peru include no males. There also noted. are no caesius or schistogynus from OR. Xiphorhynchus ocellatus (napensis,LC1-,CU4-, Myrmotherula hauxwelli (suffusa,CU3- 2U,AP IN 2- 1U,AP2- 1U,LA3- 1U; perplexus,SI 1U,IN2- 1U; hauxwelli,SI1U,SAD1-,LA 1-, SAD 3-). In this series the two subspecies 6- 6U,SR3-). There are no clear distinctions are indistinguishable. among localities in this series. Females from CU 52 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

and IN average slightly darker below (in Myrmothera campanisona (signata,CU1- 1U; approximately half of random pairwise com- minor,OR2U,LA4-,SR2-,UR1U). The parisons). two subspecies are alike in coloration in this Myrmotherula longipennis (zimmeri,CU2- 1U, series; minor possibly averages larger (larger in 3 IN 1-; garbei,AP2U,IN2-,LT2U,SI1-, of 4 random comparisons). SR 2-,UR2- 1U). In this series males vary in Pipra [Dixiphia] pipra (discolor,CU8-,IN3- the extent of the black bib (only the throat at 1U,LA2- 4U; microlopha,OR18- 4U, SAD one extreme to throat and breast with spots on 1U,UR1- 1U). Eight of the males have the abdomen at the other) but without relation femalelike plumage including two with scattered to locality. Females from CU and Ecuador black feathers below. The type of discolor is a differ from females from LT, SI, and UR in male from IN. The females in this series are all having a slightly grayer (less olive) dorsum and similar. Males from LA tend to have longer slightly darker cinnamon-buff underparts, but white caps than those from north of the otherwise the intensity of cinnamon varies Amazonas (5 of 9 random comparisons), those greatly without relation to locality. from OR less so (4 of 15 comparisons). Other Cercomacra serva (serva,CU3- 1U; hypomelania, than this possible cline in the size of the cap, the OR 1-,SR3-,1U). In this series the two males in this series are similar. subspecies are indistinguishable in coloration Mionectes oleagineus (hauxwelli,LC1U,CU12- and size. Males vary, without relation to 4U,AP4- 1U,IN1- 1U; maynana,OR1U, location, in darkness of plumage and in size of LA 1-,SR2-). In this series the two the tips on wing-coverts. subspecies are indistinguishable in coloration Hypocnemis cantator (peruviana,OR1- 3U,SAA or size. 1-,SAB1U, SAD 11- 9U,LA9- 5U,UR1- Corythopis torquata (torquata,CU1-,IN1U; 1U; saturata,LC1U,CU7- 3U,AP1- 1U,IN sarayacuensis,OR1- 2U,UR1-). In this 9- 5U). These large series from north and south small series the two subspecies are indistinguish- of the Amazonas are indistinguishable by size or able. coloration. Lophotriccus vitiosus (affinis,IN1- 3U,AP1-; Hypocnemoides maculicauda (maculicauda, SAD vitiosus,LA7- 3U,SR10- 3U). In this series 2U). the subspecies are indistinguishable in colora- Hypocnemoides melanopogon (occidentalis,IN6U tion or size. The length of the males’ crests 2-,LA1U,UR2-). Specimens from LA and varies regardless of location. UR (the latter in Bassler’s collection) match Terenotriccus erythrurus (signatus,CU1- 1U,IN maculicauda from SAD. Identification at the 4-; brunneifrons,OR1- 2U,SAD1- 1U,LA AMNH erroneously assigned them to melanopo- 4- 2U,SR1U,UR1U). Specimens of signatus gon. The two species differ in coloration of have crown and nape slightly grayer on average females and in the width of white tips on the (in 3 of 5 random comparisons) but are rectrices. otherwise inseparable from brunneifrons. Gymnopithys lunulatus (LA 1U). This specimen is Rhytipterna simplex (frederici,CU1U,AP1-,IN dated 24 March, after shipment of most of 1U; intermedia,SI1U,OR1U,SAD1U). The Alfonso’s specimens from Lagarto to Iquitos. specimen from SAD is slightly browner on the In the absence of indications that he collected breast, like specimens from SI, south of the on the other (western) side of the Ucayali Solimo˜es (continuation of the Amazonas) in during this period (see above), this specimen Brazil. The specimen from OR, however, suggests that the species might cross the upper resembles those from north of the Amazonas. Ucayali. This series thus suggests that the division Gymnopithys salvini (maculata,LT2U,SI5- 1U, between the two subspecies lies south of the OR 1-, SAD 3-,LA1- 2U,SR1- 1U). The Amazonas in Peru but coincides with it in specimens from SR indicate that this species Brazil. extends across the upper Ucayali. The Olallas’ Thryothorus coraya (LC 1U,CU4- 3U,IN6-, collections thus indicate that this species and the SAC 1-, SAD 1-). The specimen from SAC preceding one might overlap on both sides of has a malar with incomplete streaks, intermedi- the upper Ucayali. ate between coraya and genibarbis. Rhegmatorhina melanostricta (melanosticta,LC Thryothorus genibarbis (LA 2- 2U,SR1- 7U). 1U; purusiana,LT1-,SI1U,UR1U). In this All these specimens were assigned to coraya at small sample, the female from LT resembles the the AMNH. Unlike the specimens of coraya one from LC, and both are slightly paler on the from CU, they have the center of the abdomen crown and underparts than the female from buff (instead of gray like the breast) and the UR. malar stripe with a white streak over a narrow 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 53

black one (instead of solid black). Specimens upper Ucayali provide exceptions. For two of from IN have the center of the abdomen either the species (Hypocnemoides melanopogon and gray or buff (3 of 6) and thus are intermediate in Thryothorus coraya), the exceptional speci- their coloration below. On the upperparts, all mens were misidentified at the AMNH, so these specimens have a dark brown crown they are not actually exceptions. For another grading into a chestnut back. It is now known (Xiphorhynchus ocellatus napensis), the spec- that these two forms replace each other across the Amazonas in Peru. Had the Olallas collected imens from the Ucayali cannot be reliably these species at Orosa and Apayacu, where they assigned to subspecies, so again they are not occur commonly, this point would have become actually exceptions. The remaining 11 species clear earlier. include five collected in the same locality with Turdus albicollis (berlepschi,CU1- 2U,IN1U; the closely related congener thought to saturatus,AP2-,OR1U). Geographic varia- replace it across the Ucayali (Galbula tomba- tion in this small series is unclear. The specimens cea, Selenidera reinwardtii reinwardtii, Tham- from CU, IN, and OR are similar; those from nomanes ardesiacus, Gymnopithys lunulatus, AP have the abdomen slightly buffier. and Tachyphonus cristatus). Ramphocaenus melanurus (badius,LC1-; duidae, U - - U These specimens do not match our current CU 1 ; amazonum,LT2,LA1 1 ; understanding of avian distributions along obscurus,SR2- 1U). The specimens from LC the Ucayali. Several considerations, however, and CU are slightly rufous on the sides of the neck. Otherwise, all of these specimens are suggest that the Olallas’ specimens might similar in coloration and size. justify some revisions in our understanding. Tachyphonus cristatus (fallax,LC1- 1U,CU4- Along the Amazonas in Loreto, recent 1U,LT1U,SI2- 1U,SAD1-). The male from ornithological collections agree completely SAD resembles those from CU, LT, and SI. with the Olallas’ collections at Puerto In- Despite this specimen, this species is currently diana, Orosa, and Apayacu. In contrast, believed to occur only north of the Amazonas there have been no recent ornithological and Maranõn in Peru, although it extends south investigations on both sides of the Ucayali of the Solimo˜es (continuation of the Amazonas) to compare with the Olallas’ collections. in Brazil. Furthermore, all the exceptional species in Tachyphonus rufiventer (SAC 1-,SAD2- 1U, - U U the Olallas’ collections along the Ucayali LA 2 2 ,UR1). This species replaces occur commonly in varzea forest. Through- cristatus south of the Amazonas in Loreto (with the exception of the specimen of cristatus from out its entire course the Ucayali meanders SAD). through a wide and complex floodplain, Tachyphonus surinamus (napensis,CU3- 1U,IN although the river itself is not as wide as the 1-,OR11- 5U,LA2- 1U,SR4-). This Amazonas. It is possible that avian distribu- species is included here for comparison with its tions are not limited as clearly by the Ucayali congeners with distributions limited by the as they are by the larger Amazonas, as Amazonas. Specimens from all locations are suggested earlier by Aleixo (2006). similar. A case in point is the relationship of the Icterus [cayanensis] chrysocephalus (AP 3- 1U, two forms of Selenidera along the Ucayali U SAD 1 ). The specimen from SAD suggests and nearby. The two forms langsdorfii and that this species might cross the Ucayali. - U reinwardtii have long been considered con- Icterus cayanensis (cayanensis,SI2 ,OR1 ). specific on the basis of two putative hybrids With the exception of the previous specimen, in the AMNH from the department of San this species replaces chrysocephalus south of the Amazonas and east of the Ucayali. Martıń (Meyer de Schauensee, 1966; Haffer, 1974). A reexamination of these specimens, together with the Olallas’ from the Ucayali, LIMITS OF DISTRIBUTIONS ALONG THE provides little evidence of hybridization. The RÓı UCAYALI San Martıń specimens do not have bills intermediate between the parental forms The following 14 species or subspecies are (although one has an unusual bill), whereas currently believed to have distributions lim- those from Sarayacu and southward on the ited by the Amazonas or Ucayali, although Ucayali show no signs of intergradation (one specimens in the Olallas’ collections from the has a slightly unusual bill). In plumage and 54 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 vocalizations the two forms are indistinguish- 500 specimens of birds (catalog nos. 406812– able. Only the coloration of the bill separates 407313) along with some 10,000 specimens in them. Although dried specimens lose some of the Department of Herpetology and ethno- the intensity of this coloration, they retain the graphic material in the Department of pattern and hue accurately. The relationship Anthropology. of these forms where they meet along the Bassler was a petroleum geologist em- Ucayali and in the valleys of San Martıń ployed by Standard Oil of New Jersey during needs more work. A number of other pairs of 1921–1931 to explore Amazonian Peru species have similar patterns of geographical (Bradford, 1966). Based in Iquitos, he trav- replacement. eled widely along the Rıó Maranõn as far as the department of Amazonas, along the Pionites melanocephala (SAD). Two additional specimens of melanocephala labeled UR are in Rıó Huallaga and its tributaries into the the Bassler collection. There are no P. leucogas- department of San Martıń, along the entire ter in the Olallas collections from the Ucayali. course of the Ucayali and many of its Galbula albirostris (LA). tributaries, including the Rıó Tapiche, and Galbula tombacea with G. cyanescens (LA). up the Rıó Urubamba and its tributary the Selenidura [reinwardtii] reinwardtii and S. [re- Rıó Inuya. inwardtii] langsdorfii (SAA and LA). See above. In 1933–1934, shortly after his return to Xiphorhynchus [elegans] juruanus (SR and LA). the United States, he transferred most of his Xiphorhynchus ocellatus napensis (LA). The sub- large collection to the AMNH in exchange species napensis and perplexus are indistinguish- for the cost of packing and shipping it from able in the Olallas’ series. Peru and for access to the collections for Thamnomanes ardesiacus (SAA with T. saturninus and LA). study. According to an unpublished obituary Thamnomanes schistogynus (SR). There is a written by Charles Bogert, curator of reptiles specimen of T. caesius from UR in the Bassler and amphibians, Bassler was appointed a collection. Otherwise, the Olallas collected no T. Research Associate in that department. He caesius on the Ucayali. died in an automobile accident in Pennsylva- Hypocnemoides melanopogon occidentalis (LA, nia in 1950. In his will, he conveyed his large UR). These specimens, misidentified in the library on South America and a large AMNH, match H. maculicauda maculicauda collection of fossils to his alma mater, Lehigh from Sarayacu rather than H. melanopogon University. The archives of the AMNH from Indiana (also see the Bassler collection Department of Ornithology has a copy of below). In his discussion of Hypocnemoides the obituary, but, aside from entries in the melanopogon, Zimmer (1932a) noted the disjunct location of these specimens from LA and catalog, has no other documentation about UR, but he had no further comment on them. Bassler’s collection of birds. At this early stage in his treatment of Amazo- Bassler acquired material from a diversity nian forms, he failed to notice that these of collectors, both during his own extensive specimens had been misidentified. travels and also while in Iquitos. At least Gymnopithys lunulatus with G. salvini (LA). eight collectors are named on the labels of his Gymnopithys salvini (SR). birds. Many specimens came from Jose´ Thryothorus coraya (SR, LA). These specimens, Schunke, including most of the amphibians misidentified at the AMNH, match T. genibarbis. and reptiles. One of Alfonso Olalla’s letters Tachyphonus cristatus fallax with T. rufiventer to Chapman had recommended Schunke as a (SAD). collector of amphibians and reptiles, a Icterus [cayenensis] chrysocephalus (SAD). proposal that Chapman seems to have ignored. Nevertheless, no more than a decade SPECIMENS IN HARVEY BASSLER’S later, Schunke’s specimens came to the COLLECTION museum through Bassler’s efforts. Other collectors that provided birds to Bassler The collections of the AMNH Department included G. Tessmann, evidently in Peru to of Ornithology include 82 specimens with the collect information for his pioneering work Olallas’ labels but acquired from Harvey on the indigenous populations of northeast- Bassler. Bassler’s collection included some ern Peru. Another notable collector was B. 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 55

Mendo, evidently a local person, who col- thought Chapman would find less interesting. lected along the Rıó Mazan near Iquitos. Nevertheless, transferring specimens to Bass- The specimens in Bassler’s collections ler would have violated the stipulation in the usually have the collectors’ own labels, Olallas’ contract to send all material to the sometimes with annotations or additions on AMNH. On the other hand, the difficulties of the same or additional labels. A few have no communication between Iquitos and New collector indicated and some have no data at York, the brothers’ recurrent shortages of all. Schunke’s labels written in ink in small funds, and their unexpected expenses for German script provide standard information medical care and for transportation back and about location, sex, age, and coloration of forth from the upper Ucayali would mitigate soft parts. Mendo’s labels have less informa- any accusations of misbehavior. tion. Most of the specimens in Bassler’s The specimens in Bassler’s collection from collection have a number in ink on the back, ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba’’ present additional presumably added by Bassler. Many also problems. Most obvious is the inclusion of have the name of the collector added by representatives of populations not known to Bassler. They are all stamped ‘‘Bassler coll.’’ occur as far south as the upper Ucayali: on the back, presumably when acquired by Pyrrhura melanura (1- 1U), Pionites melano- the AMNH. cephalus (1- 1U), Momotus momota micro- The specimens with the Olallas’ labels are stephanus (1U), Philydor erythrocercum sub- all neatly prepared like the ones sent directly flavum (1-), Thamnomanes caesius glaucus to the AMNH from Peru. Nine have the (1- 1U), and Hypocnemoides melanopogon location ‘‘Rio Napo?’’; eight, ‘‘Rio Tapiche’’; (2-). It is possible that Pionites melanoce- 16, ‘‘Upper Amazon’’; and the remaining 49, phalus occurs west of the Ucayali as far south ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba.’’ These localities are as the Urubamba as well as at Sarayacu (see associated with different notations by Bassler above). The two specimens of Hypocnemoides about the collector. Those from the first two from the upper Ucayali, as noted above, localities are usually annotated simply actually represent maculicauda, the species ‘‘Olalla’’ (once ‘‘Alfonso Olalla’’ and once south of the Amazonas. The remaining six ‘‘Olalla Brothers’’), those from ‘‘Upper Am- specimens of three species present more azon’’ have ‘‘Alfonso Olalla’’ (once simply serious problems. ‘‘Olalla’’), and those from the Urubamba Almost all of the species and subspecies have ‘‘Olalla Brothers’’ (except three ‘‘Al- acquired by Bassler from the Olallas are fonso Olalla’’). Because of their similar numerous around Iquitos, including the three annotations, specimens from each locality problematic species. Perhaps those labeled were probably acquired by Bassler in a single ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba’’ actually came from batch. Those from the first three localities near Iquitos. The brothers made repeated trips have labels prepared presumably by Bassler, to Iquitos to replenish supplies, to recover with locality, collector’s name, and a number. their health, and to await funds from the The specimens labeled by Bassler ‘‘Rio AMNH. It seems likely that Bassler might Tapiche,’’ all widespread species, could easily have proposed to buy some of their specimens have been obtained by one of the Olallas to tide them over until funds arrived from New during a stop at the mouth of this river on York. On the other hand, not all specimens one of their trips between Sarayacu and acquired from the Olallas and labeled ‘‘Boca Iquitos. Only the speciemens from the Rıó Urubamba’’ could have come from Urubamba carry the Olallas’ usual labels, Iquitos. These include the two Hypocnemoides with a number and the collector added on the identified at the AMNH as melanopogon (a back presumably by Bassler. northern form) that are actually maculicauda Probably the two brothers sold several (the southern form). Other southern forms batches of specimens to Bassler at times when include two male Pipra fasciicauda purusiana they had run short of funds from Chapman. typical of populations on the upper Ucayali Because most of the specimens represent (also discussed above), two male Myrmother- widespread common species, the Olallas ula axillaris suffusa, and male and female evidently sold Bassler specimens that they Myrmoborus myotherinus myotherinus. 56 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

Because some of Bassler’s specimens la- of the Urubamba. Perhaps he collected them beled ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba’’ are southern near Iquitos at this time and left them with forms, it is possible that the problematic Bassler with the labels incomplete. Subse- specimens are not actually out of place but quently, Ramoń after his early return from instead represent northern populations that the upper Ucayali to cure his recurrent extend southward along the Ucayali. Such a malaria might have finished the labels at distribution is known for Thamnomanes Bassler’s request. Previously unaware of ardesiacus, which occurs with and apparently these specimens, he might well have been hybridizes with T. saturninus near Sarayacu confused about their provenance, even with- and also occurs at Lagarto (see above) and in out the complication of his illness, and thus southeastern Peru (Schulenberg et al., 2007). assumed an incorrect locality. Perhaps he Thamnomanes caesius glaucus occurs south of brought the specimens of the southern forms the Maranõn to the west of the Rıó Huallaga with him to Iquitos or collected them en and from there to the vicinity of Sarayacu but route. Even if the erroneous location can be is not known from farther south (Schulen- explained this way, the varied dates on the berg et al., 2007). Specimens of Momotus labels with the erroneous location must have momota from Sarayacu appear to be inter- been fabricated. mediate between the northern and southern Zimmer evidently recognized the errors on subspecies (microstephanus and ignobilis) (see these labels. As discussed in the list below, he above), but the Olallas’ collections sent ignored the specimens of Philydor erythro- directly to the AMNH from the mouth of cercum subflavum and Thamnomanes caesius the Urubamba, unlike those in Bassler’s glaucus from ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba.’’ He collection, include only Momotus momota noticed but did not correct the discrepancy ignobilis, the expected southern form. No produced by the incorrect identification of populations of Pyrrhura melanura or Phily- two Hypocnemoides melanopogon (see the dor erythrocercum subflava are known any- preceding list). Zimmer never got around to where south of the Amazonas and Maranõn reviewing Pionites, Pyrrhura,orMomotus,so in Peru. Apparently the birds in Bassler’s we do not know his position on the collection from the mouth of the Urubamba problematic specimens in these genera. are a mix of unexpected and nearly impossi- In summary, the following six specimens ble specimens. almost certainly have incorrect information A clue to a solution for these problems on their labels. Probably others in Bassler’s comes from the two specimens of Thamno- collection from ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba’’ were manes caesius glaucus (1-,1U) that have also mislabeled. labels with incomplete data. The labels are Pyrrhura melanura (UR 2U). like others from ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba,’’ U except the proximal corners have not been Momotus momota (microstephanus,UR1 ). The Olallas also sent specimens of typical Momotus trimmed and the only information other than - momota ignobilis from UR directly to the the locality is ‘‘ G.’’ The Olallas otherwise AMNH. always wrote ‘‘M.G.’’ to indicate a male with Philydor erythrocercum (subflavum,UR1-). This enlarged testes. The accession numbers specimen is a close match to specimens of this (432431–432432), on separate labels, are later subspecies obtained by the Olallas at CU (3U), than the rest of Bassler’s collection, but LC (1-,1U), and AP (2-). There are specimens ‘‘OLALLA BROS.’’ is written on the back of the distinctive southern subspecies lyra from of the original label as on other specimens in OR (1U) and LA (1-). This is the specimen on his collection labeled ‘‘Boca Rıó Urubamba.’’ which accusations of fraud were based (see This set of irregularities strongly suggests above). It is not mentioned by Zimmer (1935), nor by Vaurie (1980). that at least some of the specimens in Thamnomanes caesius (glaucus,UR1- 1U). There Bassler’s collection were not part of the is also one typical female T. schistogynus Olallas’ regular collections. schistogynus from UR (listed earlier) sent Possibly some of these skins were sold to directly to the AMNH by the Olallas. Zimmer Bassler by Alfonso during his interlude at (1932b), in a detailed discussion of the distribu- Iquitos before joining Ramoń at the mouth tions T. glaucus and T. schistogynus in Peru, 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 57

recognized the correct pattern of replacement name of a local collector on the label. The across the Amazon, despite several old speci- others appear to have been acquired by mens from questionable localities. No doubt Bassler on his geological explorations on Chapman had mentioned the Olallas’ evidence the rıós Napo, Amazonas (Pevas, Marupa), for limitations of avian distributions by large Tapiche, and Ucayali (Pampahermosa, Con- rivers in Amazonian Peru. Zimmer studiously tamana) as far as the Rıó Inuya (a tributary doubted the provenance of an old specimen of T. glaucus from Sarayacu, but he indicated that of the Rıó Urubamba not far above its some T. schistogynus from Sarayacu showed confluence with the Tambo). None of Bass- signs of intergradation with T. glaucus (compare ler’s primates has one of the Olallas’ original with Momotus momota above). He nowhere labels. The specimens labeled ‘‘Iquitos’’ mentions the specimens labeled ‘‘Boca Rıó include some that cannot have come from Urubamba.’’ As in the case of Philydor ery- there (Saguinus fuscicollis illigeri, S. f. leuco- throcercum subflavum, he ignored these prob- genys, S. mystax, n 5 6, 1, 1 respectively). lematic specimens. Schunke might have found them in the large market in Iquitos, or he might have brought them from elsewhere himself. In contrast, the PRIMATES IN AMAZONIAN PERU specimens from localities visited on Bassler’s own travels all accord with our current The Olallas collected mammals as well as understanding of distributions. Hershkovitz birds during their work for the AMNH. (see references above) also questioned some Their specimens in the Department of specimens in Bassler’s collection from the Rıó Mammalogy consist of prepared skins and Tapiche and Rıó Inuya. Although Hershko- associated skulls. I have not examined all of vitz attributed specimens from these localities this material, but the primates in particular to the Olallas, they actually came from have relevance to the Olallas’ collections of Bassler’s own expeditions. birds. The following list shows that nearly all of Primates have distributions in Amazonia the Olallas’ and Bassler’s specimens conform with many parallels to the distributions of with current understanding of primate distri- birds. In particular, distributions of primates butions. The Olallas’ specimens from Sar- are often limited by large rivers, and sets of ayacu and the upper Ucayali are particularly congeners or subspecies often have distribu- informative in confirming Alfonso’s reports tions that are congruent with those of some about their activities there. The series of birds. Northeastern Peru provides many Saguinus imperator and S. fuscicollis weddelli examples, and the Olallas’ specimens provid- from the upper Ucayali confirm that the two ed the basis for Hershkovitz’s pioneering brothers actually worked at these places, revisions of Amazonian primates that first despite Vaurie’s accusations of duplicity. The made some of these patterns apparent. series of S. f. illigeri and S. f. nigrifrons from Contrary to Vaurie’s statements in 1971 and Sarayacu fit expectations for populations east 1972 (see above), Hershkovitz (1977) listed and west of the Ucayali, respectively, except the Olallas’ specimens without comment in for the two specimens of illigeri labelled 15 his monograph of the Callitrichidae. Al- April, the day before collecting began on the though his subsequent generic revisions west (see above). Perhaps Alfonso was off by (Hershkovitz, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1990) a day. On the other hand, observations by questioned the localities of certain specimens Tom Struhsaker and myself in 1997 along the collected by the Olallas in Peru, he listed Rıó Tapiche suggest that the distributions of most of them without comment. these forms in the complex floodplain of the The Bassler collection also includes many Ucayali are not yet fully understood (Struh- primates collected in eastern Peru at about saker et al., 1997). the same time the Olallas were active. These Some series of primates collected by the specimens fall into two categories. Those Olallas were questioned by Hershkovitz (see labeled ‘‘Iquitos’’ have labels prepared by references below), particularly Pithecia from Schunke in German or lack an original label Indiana and Callicebus and Saimiri along the altogether. Schunke sometimes included the Ucayali. Before doubting the localities on the 58 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 labels of these specimens, we need more study reports of tripartitus north of the Napo. of variation in these populations. Distribu- One is a specimen labeled ‘‘Coca’’ collected tions might be particularly complex along the by Hershkovitz (1977) on his first expedition upper Ucayali, with some overlapping or to Ecuador. Hershkovitz later mentioned intergradation of different forms, as we have that he had failed to recognize the impor- seen among birds. The specimens with tance of the sides of rivers in his early days locations questioned by Hershkovitz are (Blake’s letter to Vaurie in 1965, discussed noted in the list below. earlier), so perhaps the label on this specimen One series of the Olallas’ primates conflicts should not imply a location on the northern squarely with current understanding: the side of the Napo. In his monograph of the seven specimens of Saguinus fuscicollis tri- Callitrichidae, he nevertheless mistakenly partitus from Indiana. Each of these speci- shows the range of tripartitus restricted to mens has a different date between 31 May the northern side of the Napo. An additional and 11 July 1926 (one specimen is missing its report of tripartitus north of the Napo is an original label but has a catalog number in observation of two groups on the Rıó sequence with the others). At present this Yuvineto in northern Loreto in 1978 (Aquino subspecies occurs primarily between the rıós and Encarnacioń, 1996; Heymann et al., Napo and Curaray in Ecuador and Peru. The 2002; F. Encarnacioń, personal commun.). replacement of S. f. tripartitus by S. f. Perhaps the Olallas discovered another pop- lagonotus on the southern side of the Curaray ulation (possibly disjunct) of tripartitus sym- is well known to local residents and con- patric with lagonotus near Indiana. firmed by recent expeditions (Aquino and A disjunct population in the area of Encarnacioń, 1996, Heymann et al., 2002, Indiana could conceivably have been started Aquino et al. 2005, Devon Graham and by people who brought animals down the myself, personal obs.). The Olallas also Napo. Saguinus fuscicollis are often pur- collected lagonotus at Indiana (Thorington, chased as pets by travelers in Amazonia. 1988), a form that still occurs in the area, in Perhaps several animals escaped during the addition to the seven specimens of tripartitus. portage from the Napo to the Amazonas on The specimens of tripartitus from Indiana the way to Iquitos. The resulting population might have been brought down the Napo might never have been large. Even if it once from the Curaray by Alfonso and Ramoń did exist, it is certainly extinct now, perhaps themselves. An indictment of duplicity would partly as a result of the Olallas’ collecting. not be straightforward, however. Notice that One notable aspect of the Olallas’ collec- none of the Ollalas’ other specimens of tions of primates is their documentation of primates from Indiana diverge from current many large species in areas from which they understanding. Their collections from Indi- have long ago disappeared, in particular ana included no Saguinus nigricollis or S. Lagothrix lagotricha, Ateles paniscus, and mystax, although it is more likely that these Cacajao calvus. It is unlikely that the Olallas would have been offered for sale there precipitated these losses, but documentation because they occur close to Indiana across of the former presence of these species the Napo and the Amazonas respectively. indicates how easily they can be extirpated. Furthermore, if duplicity were motivated by The following list includes all specimens in a plan to augment the diversity of their the AMNH from the departments of Loreto offerings to the AMNH, nigrocollis and and Ucayali. The Olallas’ series are listed mystax would have been new additions to first, with the same abbreviations for local- their collections. They had already collected a ities used in the lists of their birds. Bassler’s series of tripartitus at the Curaray. specimens are listed last. The few remaining Dismissal of these problematic specimens specimens are in the middle. Nomenclature is complicated because the distribution of follows Rylands and Mittermeier (2009). This tripartitus and its relationships with other list reveals that the distributional problems forms of Saguinus fuscicollis might not yet be raised by the Olallas’ specimens of primates completely understood. Contrary to most of often parallel similar problems among birds. our current information, there are two In particular, distributions along the Ucayali 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 59 are more problematic than those along the Saguinus imperator subgrisescens (no subspecies on Amazonas, perhaps because overlap and the labels) (UR 6- 9U;Rıó Inuya 1- 2U, intergradation are more frequent there. Bassler). Saimiri boliviensis peruviensis. Cebuella pygmaea (CU 5- 2U,AP7- 5U; SAA Saimiri sciureus macrodon. Both species identified 2- 1U;SAC1-;OR4U; lower Napo (N side) among specimens from Puerto Punga, Rıó 2?, Bassler). In coloration these specimens are Tapiche, and from SA. Distribution of these all similar. Hershkovitz (1977) identifies speci- two forms along the Rıó Tapiche is complex mens from north of the Amazonas and Mar- (Struhsaker et al., 1997). anõn as subspecies pygmaea and those to the Cebus albifrons albifrons/cuscinus (albifrons uni- south as subspecies niveiventris. color on the labels) (LC 2-;CU5- 3U;IN3- Callimico goeldi (IQ 1U 1?, Bassler; Contayo 1U;SAA1- 1U;SAB1- 1U;UR5-;Rıó Tapiche 1U, Bassler). Inuya 1- 1U, Bassler; Samiria 1) The specimens Saguinus nigricollis nigricollis (LC 1U,CU8- 7U; from SAB, one from LA, UR, and one from Rıó AP 5- 8U; Pevas 1- 1U, Bassler). Inuya have hindparts with cinnamon tinge (like Saguinus fuscicollis avilapiresi (LT 2-). one specimen from LC and CU each). Saguinus fuscicollis leucogenys (SR 2- 1U; Sa- Cebus macrocephalus (apella apella on the labels) miria, 6?, 1912; IQ 1?, Bassler). Specimens from (CU 3-;IN2U;OR2-;SAA2U; SAB 2-; Samiria resemble illigeri from SAB below. SAC 1-;UR2- 2U 1?; lower Napo (N side) 1, Saguinus fuscicollis lagonotus (CU 7- 7U 1?; IN Bassler; IQ 2, Bassler; Samiria 4; Rıó Tapiche 2, 9- 7U;Rıó Mazan 1U, Bassler; IQ 1- Bassler). Bassler; Contamana 1-, Bassler; Rıó Inuya 1- Saguinus fuscicollis illigeri (SAA 2- 1U;SAB7- 1U, Bassler). 7U;IQ2- 1U 3?, Bassler). The specimens Aotus vociferans (LC 1U;CU5- 7U;AP1U;IN from SAA are dated 15 April, the day before 1- 3U; IQ 3, Bassler). Hershkovitz (1983) collecting began on both sides of the river, as identifies one specimen from IN as nancymaae explained above. Otherwise the illigeri from and suggests the locality is erroneous. SAB could come from west of the Ucayali, Aotus nancymaae (OR 1- 2U;SAB1- 1U;SAC and the nigrifrons (below) from SAA and SAC 1- 2U; Samiria 2; Marupa 1- 1U, Bassler). would come from east of the river. The Aotus nigriceps (UR 3- 4U; Pucallpa, 5; Pampa- distribution of these subspecies along the lower hermosa 2U, Bassler); Rıó Ucayali is complex. Recent fieldwork Callicebus cupreus/discolor (cupreus discolor on the found illigeri east of the Ucayali as far as labels) (LC 2-;CU4- 1U;IN6-;LA3-;IQ the Rıó Tapiche above the Rıó Blanco 5, Bassler; lower Napo (N side) 1, Bassler; Rıó (Struhsaker et al., 1997) and nigrifrons con- Tapiche 1, Bassler; Rıó Inuya, 1- 1U, Bassler). fined to the lower Tapiche below the Blanco According to Hershkovitz (1990), C. cupreus (Hodun et al., 1981). discolor and C. cupreus cupreus occur west and Saguinus fuscicollis nigrifrons (OR 8- 16U; SAA east of the Ucayali respectively. He doubts 7- 5U;SAC2- 2?; Marupa 2- 2U, Bassler). specimens of discolor identified among those Saguinus fuscicollis weddelli (simply weddelli on the from LA and Rıó Inuya, both east of the labels) (LA 8- 4U;UR4- 2U). Ucayali and Urubamba. He also identifies Saguinus tripartitus (CU 9- 7U;IN5- 1U 1?; IQ specimens of C. calligatus from LA but doubts 1- 1U, Bassler). See comments above on the the locality (otherwise east of the Rıó Tapiche specimens from IN. The specimens from CU and the Peruvian border). He also doubts the could have come from either side of the Napo or locality of specimens he identifies as C. brunneus Curaray. If they came from west of the Napo from UR and Rıó Inuya, although these and north of the Curaray, they would agree with localities are not far from the distribution of current understanding of the distribution of this this form in southeastern Peru. The localities of species (see discussion above). these problematic specimens (Rıó Inuya, UR, Saguinus mystax mystax (OR 8- 5U; SAA 6- 7U; LA) are no more than 60 km apart. Further LA 5- 3U; Samiria 6; IQ 1U, Bassler). The study of variation in these specimens is needed specimens from LA extend the range of this to clarify the identifications. Hershkovitz (1990) species on the eastern side of the Ucayali also questions the locaties of specimens identi- somewhat farther south than the Rıó Sheshea, fied as C. cupreus from SA and UR. the southern limit of this species reported by Callicebus lucifer (torquatus lucifer on the labels) Aquino and Encarnacioń (1994). The specimens (LC 2-;CU2- 2U;AP3- 2U; lower Napo (N from Samiria and Iquitos are not within the side) 1, Bassler; Pevas 1- 1U, Bassler). The currently recognized range of this form. specimens from CU could have come from Saguinus mystax pileatus (LT 2- 1U). either side of the Napo or Curaray. 60 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

Pithecia monachus monachus (LC 2-;CU7- 2U; BIRDS ON RIVER ISLANDS IN 1- 2U, male possibly immature; OR 1- 2U; SAA 4- 2U; SAB 1-;SAC1U;LA1- 1U; In Amazonia, some birds are now known UR 2- 1U;Rıó Inuya 2-, Bassler; Rıó to be confined mostly to large islands in Tapiche, 2?, Bassler; Rıó Pisqui, 1-, Bassler; major rivers (Remsen and Parker, 1983; IQ 1 juvenile, Bassler). Specimens from CU Rosenberg, 1990), despite the occurrence of could have come from either side of the Napo or similar habitats on the banks of these rivers. Curaray. Alfonso’s report on activities at Orosa Pithecia aequitorialis (monachus aequitorialis on the labels) (IN 1-;OR1U;IQ2U, Bassler, explicitly mentioned visits to islands. He both with extensive cinnamon below). The mentioned camps on islands at the mouths female from OR lacks cinnamon below. It thus of the rıós Curaray and Apayacu. At other resembles female monachus, the form expected locations islands were not mentioned in the south of the Amazonas. The four specimens of descriptions of the areas for collecting, and Pithecia from IN need further study. Hersh- the report on Lagarto stated that the nearby kovitz (1990) doubts the locality of these island was not visited. specimens. He identifies the immature male The following list of species believed to be as a female aequitorialis. The two females are identifed as monachus, the form otherwise restricted to islands includes the numbers of restricted to the southern side of the Amazo- specimens in the Olallas’ collections from nas. The adult male is clearly aequatorialis. Peru. With a few exceptions there is little Variation in the amount of cinnamon colora- evidence that the brothers spent much time tion on the ventral surface and resemblence of on islands, in general agreement with Alfon- immature males and females require further so’s reports. The collections from the Cur- study before these specimens can be properly aray include the most island species. Those identfied. from Oroza and Apayacu include none. Cacajao calvus ucayalii (no subspecies on the When Alfonso mentioned visiting the islands labels) (OR 3- 2U;SAA2- 1U;LA3- 2U; near Orosa, he must have had in mind the IQ 1- 1 juvenile, Bassler; Rıó Tapiche 1-, Bassler; Rıó Inuya 1- 1U, Bassler). Specimens migrating shorebirds, particularly well repre- from Sarayacu and Orosa are similar (evenly sented from September and October at dark cinnamon); those from Rıó Inuya have Orosa. These birds visit mud banks exposed paler upperparts; those from LA are intermedi- by the falling river in late summer, often at ate. As Hershkovitz (1987) notes, all localities the downstream ends of islands. are east of the general course of the rıós Some of these species are scarce, even on Urubamba and Ucayali. islands, but Thamnophilus cryptoleucus and Alouatta seniculus. Does not extend southward to Myrmochanes hemileucus occur reliably in the the upper Ucayali. A. puruensis occurs south of understory of forests on all major islands in the Rıó Inuya perhaps (IUCN). A. seniculus is perhaps a junior synonym of A. juara (mapped the lower Napo and Amazonas. The absence together by IUCN). of these species in their collections suggests Ateles chamek (paniscus chamek on the labels) (OR that the brothers did not visit the interiors of 2- 3U;UR2- 3U;SAA1U;Rıó Inuya 1- 1U, large islands, at least along the Amazonas. Bassler). On the other hand, their collections include Ateles belzebuth (paniscus belzebuth on the labels) many specimens of Synallaxis propinqua and (CU 3- 5U;IN2- 3U;IQ1- 1U 1?, Bassler; Myrmoborus lugubris. If the brothers did visit - Maralio, Rıó Napo 1 , Bassler). islands, they must have collected selectively. Lagothrix lagotricha (lagotricha lagotricha on the Alternatively, the latter species might occur labels) (CU 2- 4U;AP3- 3U). These along river margins, in addition to their specimens are tan with darker extremities (unlike the following, which are dark brown occurrence on islands, more often than now with blackish extremities). realized. Picumnus castelnau, collected by the Lagothrix peoppiggii (lagotricha peoppiggii on the Olallas only on the Ucayali, possibly occurs labels) (LC 1U;CU4- 2U;IN2- 3U;SAA there along river margins. 1- 5U;UR3-;IQ1-, Bassler; lower Napo (N side) 2, Bassler; Rıó Pisqui 2, Bassler). Picumnus castelnau (SAA 2- 1U,SR1- 2U,UR Specimens from Curaray are darker than 1-). others. Xiphorhynchus kienerii. None. 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 61

Synallaxis propinqua (LC 2-,1U,CU7- 4U,IN range of hills extending from the easternmost 5- 1U,SR1U,UR1- 2U). Andes to the bank of the Ucayali, as Cranioleuca vulpecula. None. described in Alfonso’s report. Perhaps this Thamnophilus cryptoleucus. None. distinctive subspecies occurs on or close to Myrmotherula assimilis (IN 1- 2U,LT4- 2U). these hills. Myrmoborus lugubris (CU 2- 3U,IN1- 1U, SAA 1-, SAB 2-). The remaining species pose problems. In Myrmochanes hemileucus. None. particular, the specimens of Andean species Elaenia pelzelni (CU 1- 1U). from the Curaray provide one of the primary Serpophaga hypoleuca. None. sources of doubt about the Olallas’ proce- Stigmatura napensis napensis (CU 1-,2U). dures. The Olallas had descended the Napo Knipolegus orinocensis. None. from the Andes to reach the Curaray, and Attila bolivianus (SAB 1-). most of the party accompanied Carlos back Celeus spectabilis. None. U upriver to the Andes after three months at Conirostrum bicolor (minor,CU2 ). the Curaray. Specimens from the Andes Conirostrum margaritae. None. might have been transferred to the collections from the Curaray on either occasion. The number of specimens of foothills species in BIRDS OF ANDEAN FOOTHILLS the Curaray collections is large enough that The Olallas’ collections include a number we have to suppose either confusion by the of species whose ranges are, according to Ollalas’ on a large scale or systematic current understanding, restricted to the deception. The original accusations about foothills of the Andes and thus are unexpect- the Olallas’ collections clearly raised the ed at locations in Amazonia such as the latter possibility. The motive for such decep- Olallas’ locations in northeastern Peru. Nev- tion would presumably be to provide a more ertheless, all these specimens come from the varied collection from any one place, by three localities closest to the Andes, mostly mixing specimens from different places. from the Rıó Curaray and also from the The specimens listed below have labels mouth of the Rıó Urubamba and Santa with dates scattered throughout October, Rosa. November, and December 1925. Although In some cases we have recent evidence that they might have been added to Carlos’ these species actually occur in the hilly areas shipments after his return from Quito, there of northern Loreto far from the Andes: is no mention of such specimens in any of his Heliodoxa schreibersii, Thamnophilus aethiops correspondence or in the catalogs of the aethiops, Poecilotriccus capitalis, Colonia Department of Ornithology. Instead Alfon- colonus, Henicorhina leucosticta (Vriesden- so’s accounts state that the specimens from dorp et al., 2007). We now know that the Curaray were shipped from Iquitos in Heliodoxa schreibersii and Poecilotriccus ca- January just before most of the party pitalis also occur even farther south along the departed upriver. Because of the shortage of Napo (Cardiff, 1983). critical supplies, relatively few specimens In two cases the foothills forms identified were collected by the two brothers in the at the AMNH are indistinguishable from following months before they moved to Amazonian forms, so the apparent discrep- Indiana. The specimens collected in Ecuador ancy in distribution is best removed by while preparing for the descent of the Napo reassignment to the Amazonian form (Perc- were sent back to Quito with Rosalino who nostola [Schistochlamys] leucostigma intensa, returned there when the others headed Sporophila luctuosa). downriver. In other words, Alfonso’s ac- One particularly interesting case is the counts, the correspondence from Quito, and series of Lepidothrix coronata exquisitor in the AMNH catalogs provide a coherent the Olallas’ collection from Santa Rosa. This account of the provenance of the specimens subspecies from the slopes of the Andes is from the Curaray. replaced by coronata in the Amazonian There is another point that goes against lowlands. As already noted, however, the accusations of systematic deception. Most of presumed location of Santa Rosa lies near a the species involved are rare even in the 62 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 foothills of Ecuador. As noted below, they with a few black feathers above. The species is include species that the Olallas never collect- now known to occur sparsely in northern ed in Ecuador. Augmenting the collection Loreto (Vriesendorp et al., 2007) and south to from the Curaray by subtracting from their the Rıó Sucusari (Cardiff, 1983, also personal observations and recordings). collections in Ecuador does not constitute a Myiobius villosus (clarus,CU1U). gain in the diversity of their shipments to Myiophobus cryptoxanthus (CU 1U). 18 November New York. 1925. This specimen resembles others from In the Olallas’ large collection from the Ecuador. mouth of the Curaray, each of the species Colonia colonus (fuscicapilla,CU2- 3U). This below is represented by only one or a few series resembles birds from eastern Ecuador. specimens. Further information from north- Now confirmed in northern Loreto (Vriesen- ern Loreto would clarify their status there. dorp et al., 2007). Henicorhina leucosticta (hauxwelli,LC1-,CU1- Tinamus tao (UR, 1-). 4U). Occurs sparsely in northern Loreto (Vrie- Megascops guatemalae (napensis,CU1-). 15 sendorp et al., 2007). October 1925, enlarged testes. Microcerculus bambla (CU 2-). Eutoxeres aquila (CU 1U). 23 October 1925. Sporophila luctuosa (CU 1U,LA1- 1U,UR1U). Eutoxeres condamini (CU 1-). 30 October 1925. The female from the mouth of the Curaray is Testes enlarged. similar to female bouvronides, to which it is best Heliodoxa schreibersii (CU 1U). 16 November assigned. 1925. Recently reported from elsewhere in Arremon aurantiirostris (spectabilis,CU5- 3U). northern Loreto (Rıó Arabela, Vriesendorp et Tangara cyanicollis (caeruleocephala,CU4-). al., 2007) as well as farther down the Napo Like specimens from Ecuador and San Martıń. (south of the Napo at 3u009 and south of the Rıó Mazań at 3u339S) (Cardiff, 1983, and personal A few additional specimens collected by recordings). Colibri delphinae (CU 1-). the Olallas are from localities beyond the Taphrospilus hypostictus (hypostictus,CU3- 1U). species’ currently known ranges, although Synallaxis moesta brunneicaudalis (CU 2U). they are not specifically associated with the Anabazenops dorsalis (CU 1-). Enlarged testes. Andean foothills: Xenops rutilans (peruvianus,UR1U). - Megastictus margaritatus (LC1,CU2,PI2,LA Thamnophilus aethiops (aethiops,CU2 ). Both 15). Otherwise unknown from the upper with enlarged testes. Recently reported from Ucayali, this species has a patchy distribution northern Loreto (Rıó Arabela, Vriesendorp et in Loreto, evidently associated with nutrient- al., 2007). - poor soils. Myrmotherula sunensis (CU 2 ). 27 and 30 Conopophaga aurita (australis,CU2- 1U,SI2-, October. - - UR 1 ). The specimen from UR resembles Herpsilochmus rufimarginatus (frater,CU1 ). 6 those from CU except black extends from the December. throat to the upper breast and the cinnamon Drymophila devillei (devillei,CU1-, LA 1). The band across the breast is narrower. Recently specimen from CU is dated 6 December. confirmed to occur south to the mouth of the Percnostola [Schistoclamys] leucostigma (intensa, Urubamba (T. Schulenberg, personal com- SR 2U). Females of the subspecies intensa and mun.). subplumbea are indistinguishable. Because of the Heterocercus linteatus (IN 1U). This specimen is proximity of foothills to Santa Rosa, these darker than most linteatus and thus resembles specimens might come either from populations female aurantiivertex, to which it is best along the foothills (intensa) or from the low- assigned. lands (subplumbea). Lepidothrix coronata (exquisitor,SR3- 3U). This distinctive subspecies of the Andean slopes MIGRANT BIRDS evidently occurs in the hills that nearly reach the Ucayali near Santa Rosa. Boreal migrants Chloropipo holochlora (CU 3U). Two dated 27 October and one 2 November 1925. Pandion haliaetus (CU 1-,LA1U). Both in Poecilotriccus capitalis (CU 4- 2U). Dated 26 January. October through 27 November. Three of the Actitis macularia (LC 1-,CU4U,SR3U 1-). 28 males have femalelike plumage, including two October through 1 January. 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 63

Tringa flavipes (OR 2U,UR1-). All 19 Septem- Crypturellus strigilosus (LA 5-). ber. Zebrilus undulatus (CU 1- 1U,OR1-, SAA 1U). Tringa melanoleuca (CU 2U). 26 October, 22 Cochlearius cochlearius (CU 3, AP 1 SA 4, LA 2). November. Nycticorax nycticorax (CU 1, SA 3). Tringa solitaria (CU 3- 1U, IN, 1U,SI1U,SR1-, Hydranassa caerulea (CU 1). UR, 2U). 3 August through 8 April. Jabiru mycteria (SA 1U). May 1927. Calidris melanotos (OR 2- 11U,UR5-). 4 Dendrocygna autumnalis (OR 4, SA 5). No other September through 1 October. Dendrocygna. Calidris minutilla (CU 2U). 7–9 January. Neochen jubata (LA 1-). Tryngites subruficollis (OR 5- 5U). 1–14 Septem- Cairina moschata (CU 1-). ber. Accipiter bicolor (CU 5, SA 1, SR 1). No other Coccyzus americanus (UR 1U). 8 October 1927. Accipiter. Contopus virens (CU 1-,OR1-,SR1-). 19 Morphnus guianensis (LC 1U,CU1U). October through 19 November. Harpia harpyja (CU 1-,LA1-). Empidonax traillii (CU 3-,LA1U,SR5- 4U). 6 Spizaetus tyrannus (CU 1-). November through 19 March. Spizaetus ornatus (LC 1-,CU1-,OR1-). Tyrannus tyrannus (CU 1-, SAA 1-,SR13- 5U, Micrastur buckleyi (OR 1U). UR 3- 2U). 13 October through 24 March. Micrastur ruficollis (SAA 1-,LA1U). Catharus. None. Micrastur semitorquatus (SAC 1-). Dendroica striata (LC 1U,CU3- 3U,IN1U). 9 Micrastur gilvicollis (CU 1- 2U,OR3- 2U,SAA November through 26 January. 1-,LA1-). Seiurus noveboracensis (CU 1U 1?). 10 November Micrastur mirandollei. None. and 10 December 1925. Falco rufigularis (AP 1-). No other Falco. Vireo olivaceus (olivaceus,CU4-). 8 November Crax globulosa (CU 2U,AP1- 1U). through 4 December. Aramides calopterus (CU 1U,UR1-). Vireo flavoviridis (IN 1U,SR1- 3U). 11 Anurolimnas castaneiceps (CU 3- 1U). November through 3 December (SR), 27 May Laterallus exilis (exilis,CU1- 1U). (IN). Laterallus fasciatus (hauxwelli,CU1- 1U,SAA 1U,LA1U). Austral migrants Laterallus melanophaius (oenops,SAA1- 1U). - U - U Coccyzus melacoryphus (SAB 1-,SR1-,LT1-). Himantopus melanurus (OR 1 1 ,UR1 2 ). April, July, November. These specimens include immatures with white Elaenia gigas (SR 1-,UR3-). Dated between 18 or gray crowns, mottled with black in some. The September and 21 December 1927, all are in collar across the back also varies in the degree of worn plumage with no signs of molt. black mottling. - Ara couloni (SR 1U). Elaenia spectabilis (SAB 1 ). 26 April 1927. U - - Elaenia strepera (SR 1U). 13 November 1927. Brotogeris sanctithomae (AP 1 ,IN2 ,LT2 1U,SI3- 2U,OR2- 1U,SA7- 6U,SR4- Tyrannus albogularis (LT 2- 2U,SAA1- 1U, 2U,UR2- 1U). This species evidently does not SAB 3-). From 18 March through 19 July. extend far north of the Amazonas. Tyrannus savanna (LT 1-,OR1-, SAA 2U). 20– Touit. None. 22 March, 20 July, 21 November. Dromococcyx. None. Vireo chivi (CU 2- 1U). From 27 October through Neomorphus geoffroyi (aequatorialis,LC1U). 19 November. Enlarged ovary. Sporophila caerulescens (SR 1-). Testes small. The Neomorphus pucheranii (OR 3- 3U). Including AMNH also has two specimens from west of one immature. Pucallpa collected in 1971. Megascops. Olallas collected no watsonii and only two choliba. Ciccaba huhula (UR 1U). SCARCE AND INTERESTING SPECIES Ciccaba virgata (CU 2U,OR1U,LA2-,SR2U, COLLECTED BY THE OLALLAS UR 1- 2U). Rhinoptynx clamator (OR 1- 2U). The following list includes specimens of Nyctibius aethereus (longicaudatus,LA1U). species now scarce or absent in lowlands of Nyctibius bracteatus (AP 1-). the departments of Loreto or Ucayali. Other Nyctiphrynus ocellatus (LA 1U). species are included to illustrate distributions Threnetes leucurus (rufigastra,LA1- 1U). No in this area or the scope of the Olallas’ others collected by the Olallas. collections. Phaethornis longuemareus (atrimentalis,IN1U). 64 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

Popelairia langsdorfii (melanosternon,CU2- 1U, Hemitriccus zosterops [griseipectus](griseipectus,SI AP 1-). 2-). None from Peru. Hylocharis cyanus (rostrata,IN1-). Todirostrum calopterum (calopterum,CU1- 2U). Hylocharis sapphirina (CU 1U,IN1-). Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum (chrysocrotaphum, Leucippus chlorocercus (CU 2U,AP2U, SAA 1-). SI 1- 1U). Notharchus macrorhynchos (hyperrhynchus,IN1- Ramphotrigon fuscicauda (LA 1U). 1U). Rhynchocyclus olivaceus (aequinoctialis,AP1- Nystalus striolatus (striolatus,LT1- 1U,SI1-). 1U). None from Peru. Tolmomyias sulphurescens (insignis, SAD 1U). Malacoptila fusca (CU 2- 1U,IN1U,LA3- 2U). Platyrinchus coronatus (coronatus,CU1-,SR All similar. 2-). Malacoptila rufa (CU 2-,OR4U,SAB2-, SAD Platyrinchus platyrhynchos (senex,LA1- 1U,UR 1U). All similar. 1U). Micromonacha lanceolata (CU 1-,AP1U,OR Platyrinchus saturatus (IN 1U). 1-). Myiobius atricaudus (adjacens,IN1- 1U, SAD 1- Nonnula ruficapilla (rufipectus (IN 3U, SAD 1U). 2U). Nonnula brunnea (CU 2U). Myiobius barbatus (amazonicus,OR1- 1U, SAD Nonnula sclateri (LA 3-,SR2-). 1?, SR 2- 4U). Monasa flavirostris (CU 3- 2U). Neopipo cinnamonea (cinnamonea,SR1-). Brachygalba lugubris (CU 1- 2U). Muscisaxicola fluviatilis (SR 4- 2U,UR1U). Galbula leucogaster (chalcothorax,CU4- 2U,IN Knipolegus poecilocercus (SAD 1U). 1U). Myiarchus tuberculifer (tuberculifer,CU2-,IN Galbula dea. None. 1- 1U,LA1- 1U). Between 2 January and 16 Piculus chrysochloros (laemostictus,OR1-,LA July. 1-,SR1-). Tyrannopsis sulphurea (AP 1U). Piculus flavigula (flavigula,AP1-,SAA1U). Pachyramphus castaneus (saturatus,SI2-,AP Piculus rubiginosus and leucolaemus. None. 1-). Hylexetastes stresemanni undulatus (SI 3- 1U,LA Pachyramphus rufus (LT 1U,SI2U,SAB1-). 1-). Male from Lagarto is in juvenal plumage. Microcerculus marginatus (CU 2- 1U,AP1U,IN Philydor rufus (LA 1-). 1U,LA1- 1U). Automolus melanopezus (LC 2U,CU3- 1U). Turdus lawrencii (AP 1-). The only specimen in Automolus rubiginosus (brunnescens,CU1U). the Olallas’ collections. Resembles 6 specimens from Ecuador. Microbates cinereiventris (hormotus,CU2U). Xenops tenuirostris (tenuirostris,LA1U). Oryzoborus crassirostris (CU 1-). Testes small, Xenops ruficaudus. None. bill mostly dusky. Xenops rutilans (peruvianus, UR 1-). Caryothraustes [Parkerthraustes] humeralis. None. Simoxenops ucayalae (LA 1-). The type specimen. Passerina cyanoides (CU 1U,AP1-,OR1U,LA Thamnophilus praecox (LC 1U). The type speci- 1-). men. Lamprospiza melanoleuca. None. Neoctantes niger (CU 1- 1U,IN1U). Hemithraupis guira (SR 1-). Myrmotherula fjeldsaai (CU 1-). Tachyphonus luctuosus (luctuosus,CU3-,SR2U, Myrmoborus leucophrys (LA 1- 2U,SR5- 3U). UR 1- 1U). Myrmoborus melanurus (OR 1U,SAA1U, SAD Euphonia chlorotica (taczanowskii,LT1-). No 2- 1U). others. Percnostola lophotes (LA 1U). Euphonia chrysopasta, laniirostris, minuta, rufiven- Phlegopsis erythroptera (LA 1-). tris, xanthogaster. All well represented from the Myrmornis torquata (nobilis,CU1-). Napo to the Ucayali. Grallaria dignissima (LC 1-,CU1U). Cyanerpes cyaneus (dispar). None. Bassler collec- Hylopezus belepschi (yessupi,LA1-,SR3U). tion includes 2 females from Rı´o Mazan. Hylopezus fulviventris (fulviventris,CU1-). Coereba flaveola (dispar,LA3- 1U,SR2-). Hylopezus macularius (diversa,IN1-). Cyclarhis gujanensis. None. Conopophaga peruviana (IN 1-,LA7- 4U). The Vireolanius leucotis. None. male from IN resembles those from LA. The Vireo olivaceus (solimoensis,LT3- 1U,SI3- 1U, amount of chestnut-brown on the crown varies. AP 1-). Schiffornis turdinus (amazonus,LC1U,LA1-). Hylophilus thoracicus. None. The only specimens of this widespread species in Hylophlus hypoxanthus (AP 1-,SR1-). the Olallas’ collections. Psarocolius yuracares (CU 1-,IN1U,OR2- 1U, Hemitriccus iohannis (AP 1-, SAD 1-). SAA 1U, SAD 2- 1U,SR1-,UR4- 2U). 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 65

Now scarce or absent near Indiana and the butions suggested by the Ollalas’ specimens mouth of the Orosa. have been confirmed by recent fieldwork. Psarocolius viridis (flavescens,CU1- 1U,OR2- Furthermore, many of the exceptional spec- U U U - U 1 ,SAC1 , SAD 1 ,UR1 5 ). imens fall into patterns that suggest new Agelaius icterocephalus (AP 3- 2U). - U insights into the distribution of birds in Molothrus bonariensis (riparius,AP10 4 ,LA northeastern Amazonia. For instance, the 1-). The series from Apayacu was taken along with the series of their well-known host Agelaius upper Ucayali appears to be a less consistent icterocephalus. limitation for the distributions of birds than the Amazon itself. In addition, some birds characteristic of the Andean foothills appear CONCLUSION to occur sparsely in hilly terrain hundreds of kilometers from the Andes. Overall, the The evidence reviewed above provides Ollalas’ collection of over 7000 specimens of convincing documentation that Alfonso birds from 10 localities in Amazonian Peru and Ramoń Olalla did indeed work at the has provided the basis for understanding one localities recorded on their specimen labels. of the world’s most diverse avifaunas. It also Alfonso kept careful notes, provided de- poses some questions for the future. tailed descriptions of their journeys and camps, and carried on an extensive corre- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS spondence with Chapman and other staff at the AMNH, nearly all of which is preserved This study could not have been finished in the archives of the departments of without the assistance of my wife, Minna ornithology and mammalogy. Their speci- Wiley, in examining the large collections in mens, labels, reports, and correspondence the AMNH and other museums and in provide a coherent picture of their activities. conducting fieldwork. Aleta Wiley also con- Furthermore, it is now possible, with some tributed to the work at the AMNH. Mary recent fieldwork and satellite imagery, to LeCroy provided essential help with the identify the location of each of their camps. archives of the Department of Ornithology The overwhelming majority of the speci- and explained much of the history and mens agree with our current understanding procedures of that department, and Robert of the distributions of birds and mammals Voss provided similar assistance in the in Amazonian Peru. Their collections docu- Department of Mammalogy. Matt Shanley mented for the first time the limitations of (AMNH Photography Studio) prepared the many birds’ distributions by major rivers expertly retouched digital image of Alfonso and thus made Chapman and Zimmer on Duida (fig. 7). Thomas Webber at the aware of the pervasiveness of this distribu- Florida State Museum of Natural History tional pattern in Amazonia. provided an enormous favor by searching Nevertheless, there remain a substantial unsorted correspondence of Pierce Brodkorb. number of specimens that do not agree with Greg Schneider helped by making inquiries our current understanding of bird and about the correspondence of Helen Gaige at mammal distributions in Amazonian Peru. the University of Michigan Museum of In some cases, errors have resulted from Zoology. Van Remsen, Steve Cardiff, and incorrect identification of specimens in New Dan Lane helped at the Louisiana State York. Other errors occur among the few University Museum of Natural Science. specimens acquired from the Olallas by Many others on the staffs of the American Harvey Bassler in Iquitos and only later Museum of Natural History, the Museum of transferred to the AMNH. There are also a Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, few recognizably human errors, such as the Field Museum of Natural History, the writing the previous year’s date in the first Philadelphia Academy of Science, and the week of a new year. British Museum (Bird Department) helped On the other hand, some specimens once generously during examinations of Peruvian thought to be problematic have turned out specimens in their care. Scott Edwards, not to be. In some cases, unexpected distri- Jeremiah Trimble, and Alison Pirie provided 66 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343 stimulating company at the Museum of Bates, W.H. 1863. The naturalist on the river Comparative Zoology, where most of this Amazons. London: John Murray, 2 vols. report was drafted. Filomeno Encarnacioń Reprinted 1864, 1 vol. Cajanãupa, JoseÁ´ lvarez Alonso, Pablo E. Bond, J. 1956. Additional notes on Peruvian birds II. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Puertas, and Juan Diaz Alvan, IVITA and Sciences of Philadelphia 108: 227–247. IIAP, Iquitos, provided hospitality in Iquitos Bradford, W. 1966. The Harvey Bassler collection and crucial assistance in understanding the of Peruvian fossils. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh distributions of birds and primates in Loreto. University. Jungle Expeditions, Project Amazonas, Ex- Cardiff, S.W. 1983. Three new bird species for plorama Tours, Paseos Amazonicos, Pacaya- Peru, with other distributional records from Samiria Amazon Lodge, Wildlife Conserva- northern Departamento de Loreto. Gerfaut 73: tion Society–Peru, and the Durrell Institute 185–192. of Conservation and Ecology supported Chapman, F.M. 1926. The distribution of bird-life fieldwork in Loreto. Substantial improve- in Ecuador: a contribution to a study of the origin of Andean bird-life. Bulletin of the ments in the manuscript resulted from American Museum of Natural History 55: suggestions by Thomas Schulenberg, Van 1–784. Remsen, Filomeno Encarnacioń, Robert Coriat, G., and J.E. 1942. El hombre del Voss, and Devon Graham, for which I am Amazonas y ensayo monografico del Loreto. extremely grateful. Lima: Coriat. Dyot, G.M. 1926. On the trail of the unkown. New York: Putnam’s Sons. REFERENCES Faura Gaig, G.S. 1962. Los rıós de la Amazonıá Peruana. Lima: published by the author. Aleixo, A. 2006. Historical diversification of GOREL (Gobierno Regional de Loreto). 2005. floodplain forest specialist species in the Ama- Mapa politico del Departamento de Loreto. zon: a case study with two species of the avian 1:600,000. Agosto 2005. Iquitos: Oficina Acon- genus Xiphorhynchus (Aves: Dendrocolaptidae). dicionamiento Territorial. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 89: Gow, P. 1991. Of mixed blood: kinship and history 383–395. in Peruvian Amazonia. Cary, NC: Oxford Anthony, H.E. 1954. George H.H. Tate (1894– University Press. 1953). Journal of Mammalogy 35: 281–282. Griscom, L., and J.C. Greenway, Jr. 1941. Birds of Aquino, R., and F. Encarnacioń. 1994. Primates of lower Amazonia. Bulletin of the Museum of Peru / Los Primates del Peru´. Primate Report Comparative Zoology 88: 83–344. (Deutsches Primatenzentrum, Gottingen) 40: Guevara, E. 1995. Motorcycle diaries: a journey 1–127, (available at http://www.congreso.gob. around South America. New York: Verso. pe/comisiones/1999/ciencia/cd/unmsm/unmsm-i2/ Gyldenstolpe, N. 1945a. The bird fauna of Rio unmsm-i2-10.htm). Jurua´ in western Brazil. Kungliga Svenska Aquino, R., and F. Encarnacioń. 1996. Distribu- Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, Series 3, cioń geogra´fica de Saguinus tripartitus en la 22 (3): 1–338. Amazonıá del Peru´. Neotropical Primates 4: Gyldenstolpe, N. 1945b. A contribution to the 1–4. ornithology of northern Bolivia. Kungliga Aquino, R., C. Ique, and H. Ga´lvez. 2005. Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, Reconocimiento preliminar de la densidad y Series 3, 23 (1): 1–300. estructura poblacional de Saguinus tripartitus Gyldenstolpe, N. 1951. The ornithology of the Rio Milne-Eduards en la Amazonıá peruana. Re- Puru´s region in western Brazil. Arkiv fo¨r vista Peruana de Biologıá 12: 435–440. Zoologi, Series 2, ha¨fte 1–3: 1–320. Armenta, J.K., J.D. Weckstein, and D.F. Lane. Haffer, J. 1974. Avian speciation in tropical South 2005. Geographic variation in mitochondrial America. Publications of the Nuttall Ornitho- DNA sequences of an Amazonian nonpasserine: logical Club 14. the Black-spotted Barbet complex. Condor 107: Hellmayr, C.E. 1910. The birds of the Rio 527–536. Madeira. Novitates Zoologicae 17: 257–428. Barlow, J., T. Haugaasen, and C.A. Peres. 2001. Hemming, J. 1987. Amazon frontier. London: Sympatry of Black-faced Leucopternis melanops Macmillan. and White-browed Hawks L. kuhli along the Hershkovitz, P. 1977. Living New World monkeys lower rio Tapajo´s, Para´, Brazil. Cotinga 18: (Platyrrhini) with an introduction to primates. 77–79. Vol. 1. Part III. Systematics, evolution, and 2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 67

biology of the families Callitrichidae and Olalla, A.M. 1937. I. Um viaje a pesquizas Callimiconidae. Chicago: University of Chicago zoo´logicas hacia el rio Juruá [sic], Estado del Press. Amazonas, Brasil—1936. II. Notas de campo: Hershkovitz, P. 1983. Two new species of night observaciones biolo´gicas. Revista do Museu monkeys, genus Aotus (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): A Paulista 23: 233–279, 281–297. preliminary report on Aotus taxonomy. Amer- O’Neill, J.P., D.F. Lane, A.W. Kratter, A.P. ican Journal of Primatology 4: 209–243. Capparella, and C.F. Joo. 2000. A striking Hershkovitz, P. 1984. Taxonomy of squirrel new species of barbet (Capitoninae: Capito) monkeys genus Saimiri (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): from the eastern Andes of Peru. Auk 117: a preliminary report with description of a 569–577. hitherto unnamed form. American Journal of Ortiz, D. 1962. Los forjadores de Pucallpa. Lima: Primatology 7: 155–210. Imprenta Editorial San Antonio. Hershkovitz, P. 1987. Uacaries, New World Ortiz, D. 1974. Alto Ucayali y Pachitea: visioń monkeys of the genus Cacajao (Cebidae, Platyr- historica de dos importantes regions de la selva rhini): a preliminary taxonomic review with a Peruana. Lima: San Antonio, 2 vols. description of a new subspecies. American Ortiz, D. 1984. Pucallpa y el Ucayali: ayer y hoy. Journal of Primatology 12: 1–53. Tomo I (1557–1943). Lima: Editorial Aposto- Hershkovitz, P. 1988. Origin, speciation, and lado de la Prensa. distribution of South American titi monkeys, Pinto, O.M.de O. 1938, 1944. Cata´logo das aves genus Callicebus (family Cebidae, Platyrrhini). do Brasil e lista dos exemplares que as Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Science representam no Museu Paulista. Revista do of Philadelphia 140: 240–72. Museu Paulista 22: 1–566 (2 vols.). Hershkovitz, P. 1990. Titis, new world monkeys of Patterson, B.D. 1991. Mammals in the Royal the genus Callicebus (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): a Natural History Museum, Stockholm, collected preliminary taxonomic review. Fieldiana Zool- in Brazil and Bolivia by A.M. Olalla during ogy 55: 1–109. 1934–1938. Fieldiana Zoology 66: 1–42. Heymann, E.W., C.F. Encarnacioń, and Y.J.E. Raposo do Amaral, F.S., L.F. Silveira, and B.M. Canaquin. 2002. Primates of the Rıó Curaray, Whitney. 2007. New localities for the Black- northern Peruvian Amazon. International Jour- faced Hawk (Leucopternis melanops) south of nal of Primatology 23: 191–201. the Amazon River and description of the Hodun, A., C.T. Snowdon, and P. Soini. 1981. immature plumage of the White-browed Hawk Subspecific variation in the long calls of the (Leucopternis kuhli). Wilson Journal of Orni- tamarin, Saguinus fuscicollis. Zeitschrift fu¨r thology 119: 450–454. Tierpsychologie 57: 97–110. Remsen, J.V., Jr, and T.A. Parker, III. 1983. INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Infor- Contribution of river-created habitats to bird matica), Internet resource (http://desa.inei.gob. species richness in Amazonia. Biotropica 15: pe/mapas/bid/), accessed March and December 223–231. 2008. Ribas, C.C., L. Joseph, and C.Y. Miyaki. 2006. Jenkinson, M.A., and M.D. Tuttle. 1976. Accipiter Molecular systematics and patterns of diversifi- poliogaster from Peru, and remarks on two cation in Pyrrhura (Psittacidae), with special collecting localities named ‘‘Sarayacu.’’ Auk 95: reference to the picta-leucotis complex. Auk 123: 187–189. 660–680. Joseph, L. 2002. Geographical variation, taxonomy Rosenberg, G.H. 1990. Habitat specialization and and distribution of some Amazonian Pyrrhura foraging behavior by birds of Amazonian river parakeets. Ornitologia Neotropica 13: 337–363. islands in northeastern Peru. Condor 92: Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1966. The species of 427–443. birds of South America and their distribution. Rylands, A.B., and R.A. Mittermeier. 2009. The Narberth, PA: Livingston Publishing Co. diversity of the New World primates (Platyr- Morey Alejo, H., and G.D. Sotil Garcıá. 2000. rhini): an annotated taxonomy. In P.A. Garber, Panorama histo´rico de la Amazonıá Peruana. A. Estrada, J.C. Bicca-Marques, E.W. Hey- Iquitos, Peru: Municipalidad Provincial de mann, and K.B. Strier (editors), South Ameri- Maynas. can primates: comparative perspectives in the Olalla, A.M. 1935a. El Berlepschia rikeri ysu study of behavior, ecology, and conservation, biologia. Revista do Museu Paulista 19: 419–423. 23–54. New York: Springer. Olalla, A.M. 1935b. El genero Sciurillus represen- Scheuerman, R.G. 1977. Hallazgos del paujil Crax tado en la amazonia y algunas observaciones mitu (Aves: Cracidae) al norte del Rıó Amazo- sobre el mismo. Revista do Museu Paulista 19: nas y notas sobre su distribucioń. Lozania 22: 425–430. 1–8. 68 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

Schulenberg, T.S., D.F. Stotz, D.F. Lane, and J.P. Vaurie, C. 1971. Classification of the ovenbirds O’Neill. 2007. Birds of Peru. Princeton, NJ: (Furnariidae). London: Witherby. Princeton University Press. Vaurie, C. 1972. An ornithological gazetteer of Sclater, P.L., and O. Salvin. 1880. On new birds Peru (based on information compiled by J.T. collected by Mr. C. Buckley in eastern Ecuador. Zimmer). American Museum Novitates 2491: Proceedings of the Zoological Society of Lon- 1–36. don 1880: 155–161. Vaurie, C. 1980. Taxonomy and geographical Snethlage, E. 1913. U¨ ber die Verbreitung der distribution of the Furnariidae (Aves, Passer- Vogelarten in Unteramazonien. Journal fu¨r iformes). Bulletin of the American Museum of Ornithologie 61: 469–539. Natural History 166 (1): 1–357. Stephens, L., and M.A. Traylor, Jr. 1983. Orni- Vriesendorp, C., J.A. A´ lvarez, N. Barbagelata, thological gazetteer of Peru. Cambridge, MA: W.S. Alverson, and D.K. Moskovits (editors), Bird Department, Museum of Comparative Peru´: Nanay, Maza´n, Arabela. Field Museum, Zoology, Harvard University. Chicago: Rapid Biological Inventories Report Struhsaker, T., H. Wiley, and J. Bishop. 1997. 18. Conservation survey of the Rio Tapiche, Lor- Wallace, A.R. 1853. A narrative of travels on the eto, Peru, 1 Feb–8 Mar 1997. West Chester, PA: Amazon and Rio Negro. London: Reeve, Amazon Center for Environment, Education, Reissued London: Macmillan, 1870; 2nd edi- and Research (ACEER). tion, London: Ward, Lock & Co., 1889. Tate, G.H.H. 1931a. Narrative of the expedition. Zimmer, J.T. 1924a. New birds from central Peru. In H.A. Gleason (editor), Botanical results of Field Museum of Natural History Zoology the Tyler-Duida Expedition, 279–284. Bulletin Series 12: 48–67. of the Torrey Botanical Club 58: 277–344. Zimmer, J.T. 1924b. Two new birds from Peru. Tate, G.H.H. 1931b. Random observations on Field Museum of Natural History Zoology habits of South American mammals. Journal of Series 12: 101–109. Mammalogy 12: 248–256. Zimmer, J.T. 1927. A new race of Myrmeciza Thorington, R.W., Jr. 1988. Taxonomic status of schistacea from central Peru. Proceedings of the Saguinus tripartitus (Milne-Edwards, 1878). Biological Society of Washington 40: 207–210. American Journal of Primatology 15: 367–371. Zimmer, J.T. 1930. Birds of the Marshall Field Vanzolini, P.E. 1972. Alfonso Maria Olalla: Peruvian Expedition, 1922–1923. Field Museum 1.VII.1899, 13.XII.1971. Arquivos de Zoologia, of Natural History Zoology Series 17: 233–480. 22, [two pages without numbers]. Zimmer, J.T. 1931. Studies of Peruvian birds. I. Vaurie, C. 1965. Systematic notes on the bird American Museum Novitates 500: 1–23. family Cracidae. No. 3. Ortalis guttata, Ortalis Zimmer, J.T. 1932a. Studies of Peruvian birds. V. superciliaris,andOrtalis motmot. American American Museum Novitates 538: 1–27. Museum Novitates 2232: 1–21. Zimmer, J.T. 1932b. Studies of Peruvian birds. Vaurie, C. 1967a. Systematic notes on the bird VII. American Museum Novitates 558: 1–25. family Cracidae. No. 9. The genus Crax. Zimmer, J.T. 1935. Studies of Peruvian birds. American Museum Novitates 2305: 1–20. XVII. American Museum Novitates 785: 1–24. Vaurie, C. 1967b. Systematic notes on the bird Zimmer, J.T. 1937. Studies of Peruvian birds. family Cracidae. No. 10. The genera Mitu and XXV. American Museum Novitates 917: 1–16. Pauxi and the generic relationships of the Zimmer, J.T. 1942. Studies of Peruvian birds. Cracini. American Museum Novitates 2307: LXIII. American Museum Novitates 1193: 1–20. 1–16. Vaurie, C. 1968. Taxonomy of the Cracidae Zimmer, J.T. 1955. Studies of Peruvian birds. (Aves). Bulletin of the American Museum of LXVI. American Museum Novitates 1723: Natural History 138 (4): 131–260. 1–16.