alfonso olalla and his family: the ornithological exploration of

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

Copyright E American Museum of Natural History 2010 ISSN 0003-0090

CONTENTS

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Accusations against ‘‘Native Collectors’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Alfonso and Ramon Olalla in Amazonian Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapman Engages the Olallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Expeditions to Sumaco in Eastern Ecuador. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Down the Napo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Mouth of the Rıo Curaray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Carlos Returns to Quito . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Alfonso and Ramon Leave the Curaray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Puerto Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13A Move Downriver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16A Remarkable Decision and a Reversal of Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Sarayacu: First Stop on the Ucayali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Three Localities along the Southern Ucayali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Another Change of Plans and Departure from Peru. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Labels on the Olallas’ Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Localities of the Olallas’ Collections in Peru and Nearby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Boca Rıo Curaray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Boca Lagarto Cocha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Puerto Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Orosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Apayacu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Sarayacu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Boca Rıo Urubamba. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Santa Rosa and Lagarto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Teffe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Distributions of Birds in Amazonian Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Distributions Confirmed by the Olallas’ Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Accepted Distributions Challenged by the Olallas’ Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Limits of Distributions along the Rıo Ucayali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Specimens in Harvey Bassler’s Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Primates in Amazonian Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Birds on River Islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Birds of Andean Foothills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Migrant Birds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Scarce and Interesting Species Collected by the Olallas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2

ABSTRACT

In 1922 Frank M. Chapman hired a family of Ecuadorians to collect birds and mammals forthe American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). In the following two years, Carlos Olallaand his four sons (especially Alfonso and Ramon) shipped some 3500 carefully prepared andneatly labeled specimens of Ecuadorian birds to New York. In 1925, under a new contract withthe AMNH, the Olallas moved their operations to northeastern Peru, and during the next twoand a half years, mostly as a result of efforts by Alfonso and Ramon, they sent over 7000specimens of birds to New York from Amazonian Peru, as well as additional thousands ofspecimens of mammals. The two brothers shifted their operations to Brazil in 1928. Alfonsowent 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 ofwhat 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 theirspecimens. Although based on hearsay, these accusations raised lingering doubts about theOlallas’ collections. Alfonso sent reports of the brothers’ activities to the AMNH with theirshipments of specimens. These reports together with their correspondence with Chapman andother curators are still preserved in the archives of the departments of ornithology andmammalogy. Examination of these archives and of most of the Olallas’ specimens of birds andprimates 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 alarge majority of their specimens from these localities accord with current understanding ofavian distributions in Amazonian Peru. The accusations of general carelessness or systematicduplicity can thus be rejected. Nevertheless, there remains a small number of problematicspecimens. Especially suspect are those acquired from the Olallas in Iquitos by Harvey Basslerwith labels from the mouth of the Rıo Urubamba. These specimens eventually came to theAMNH as a part of Bassler’s collection, rather than directly from the Olallas.

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

INTRODUCTION

During the 1920s the American Museumof Natural History (AMNH) engaged afamily of Ecuadorians, Carlos Olalla andhis sons (Alfonso, Ramon, Manuel, andRosalino), to collect birds and mammals inEcuador and Peru. As a result, the museumacquired over 10,000 specimens of neatlyprepared and labeled specimens of birds andhundreds of specimens of mammals. Many ofthese specimens were later exchanged with orsold to other museums. Altogether theyformed the basis for systematic revisions ofmany Amazonian birds and primates. Insubsequent decades, one of the Olalla broth-

ers went on to collect thousands of additionalbirds for the AMNH in Brazil. Later, hecollected further thousands of specimens forother museums in North America, Europe,and Brazil. As a result, it is possible thatmembers of the Olalla family collected themajority of all specimens of Amazonian birdscurrently in museums around the world.They certainly did so in the first half of the20th century.

This entire corpus of work has been castinto shadow by charges of duplicity andcarelessness. These accusations arose from asingle source in 1962 and were subsequentlypursued by a single ornithologist. Attemptingto understand what can and what cannot be

3

trusted in the Olallas’ enormous body ofwork is an important enterprise for Neotrop-ical ornithology and mammalogy. This re-view focuses on the Olallas’ collections fromAmazonian Peru in the interval from 1925 to1928, the period on which the accusationsalso focus.

After reviewing the accusations and thecontroversy they engendered, I examine thedocumentary evidence for the Olallas’ itiner-ary in Peru, their procedures for labelingspecimens, and the locations where theyworked. This evaluation relies heavily onAlfonso Olalla’s manuscript journals in thearchives of the AMNH departments ofornithology and mammalogy. In addition, Ihave examined most of the specimens ofbirds and primates collected by the Olallas inPeru, including nearly all those in theAMNH but also many in other museums.In the end, there appears to be no compellingreason to doubt the Olallas’ collections orlocalities. Instead, it is difficult not to suspecta dark current of ethnic prejudice underlyingthe accusations. Nevertheless, in light of ourcurrent understanding of avian distributionsin Amazonian Peru, a small number of theOlallas’ specimens are from surprising loca-tions. Some of these surprises suggest newlines for further research. Also important isthe human story of three years’ labors in therainforests of Amazonian Peru by twobrothers in continual financial and medicalextremities. It is a story of persistent explo-ration, despite repeated setbacks, and ofinsightful decisions, despite crossed commu-nications, in one of the most challenginglandscapes of the 20th century. It is a story ofextraordinary accomplishments.

ACCUSATIONS AGAINST‘‘NATIVE COLLECTORS’’

The controversy over the Olallas’ collec-tions began with a letter from ProfessorPierce Brodkorb at the University of Floridato Eugene Eisenmann at the AMNH on 5October 1962. Brodkorb had informationthat ‘‘should be on record in the AmericanMuseum,’’ namely accusations of fraud bythe Olallas. A letter written in 1941 byWilliam Clarke-MacIntyre, a commercial

collector in Ecuador, asserted that he hadseen the Olallas falsify their labels:

I know of one important instance in particular[of irregularities by native collectors]— Dr.

Chapman of the Am. Museum paid a family

of native collectors very handsomely to get

together a collection of birds from the lowerPutumayo and the Napo rivers.… The collec-

tors only covered about half of their assigned

territory but the labels on the specimens showed

them collected from a dozen collecting stationsthat they never visited and in cases where 20 or

more specimens were collected in a single day,

the dates were ‘‘fixed up’’ to show that thematerial had been collected over a period of 6

mos.! I not only happened along and saw the

collectors, the specimens & the labels, but heard

them talk of how easy it was—that it made noreal difference—‘‘the gringos would never know

anyway! the important thing was to give them a

lot of material with diversified labels’’—I’ve

often wondered if the ‘‘bird-men’’ of the Am.Mus. ever discovered the hoax that had been

worked on them, or if they faithfully based their

geographic & seasonal distributions on the data

of those labels?

Brodkorb suggested that Eisenmann mightwant to bring this matter to the attention ofDean Amadon, then chairman of the De-partment of Ornithology at the AMNH. Hebelieved that MacIntyre was dead but had arelative in New Jersey.

According to Brodkorb’s letter, the quo-tation came from a letter by MacIntyre dated1 June 1941 to Helen T. Gaige, then curatorof herpetology at the University of MichiganMuseum of Zoology. Presumably Brodkorbhad seen it while at Michigan in the 1940s.Gaige’s correspondence is not preserved inthe UMMZ, according to a message fromGreg Schneider in 2004. Schneider consultedtwo active curators emeriti, Robert Storerand Reeve Baily, neither of whom had anyrecollection of this correspondence about theOlallas, although both expressed hesitation inaccepting information from commercial col-lectors at face value.

Brodkorb’s papers are stored, althoughnot cataloged, at the Florida Museum ofNatural History, where after two searchesTom Webber located a five-page letter dated16 July 1941 to Brodkorb at the University ofMichigan from MacIntyre in Ecuador. In this

4 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY NO. 343

letter MacIntyre mentions a previous letter toGaige ‘‘by last mail,’’ but provides no hint ofits contents. MacIntyre instead responded toa request from Brodkorb for specimens fromLoja, Ecuador. MacIntyre had no plans tovisit Loja in the next year and instead tried tointerest Brodkorb in specimens from ananticipated expedition to the upper rıosNapo, Putumayo, and Caqueta or, alterna-tively, in a crate of birds from Loja currentlyin storage. The letter made two references tothe Olallas.

First, he mentioned Chapman’s plans forcollections from the Putumayo and Caqueta:

I know that the American Mus. was at one timevery anxious to have a large collection of birds(they wanted ‘em in series of 20!) from thoseregions, & I’m pretty sure they haven’t gotten

them as yet. I know Dr. Chapman sent theOlallas on a trip down the Napo & Amazon,although he asked them to collect the Putumayo& Caqueta, they didn’t do except in the mouthsof those rivers—but I don’t doubt but that theysent material labeled clear up to the head waters

of those rivers.

Then, with reference to the birds instorage, he stated,

Now as to Loja material—I have some on hand,packed up, at Banos—bought it of [sic] one ofthe Olallas when he returned from a trip hemade to get some humming birds for a museumin Paris—don’t know, right now, just what I

have.

In short, his opinion of the Olallas was not solow that he demurred at purchasing theirspecimens and reselling them to northernmuseums!

Before continuing the history of theseaccusations, I should note that a few pointsare already clear. Although MacIntyre hadheard of the Olallas’ expedition to Peru, heobviously knew little about it. The Olallas didnot in fact collect on the Putumayo andCaqueta as originally planned but onlybecause Chapman changed the itinerary.The Olallas did not send a single specimenwith labels from either of those rivers,contrary to MacIntyre’s accusatory assump-tion.

Furthermore, the Olallas with whomMacIntyre had interacted, presumably in

part to purchase the birds from Loja, didnot include all the individuals involved in theexpedition to Peru and beyond. The father,Carlos, might still have been alive, but theOlalla who collected in southern Ecuador inthe late 1930s and 1940s would have beenRosalino or Ramon, who had returned toEcuador by then. Carlos, as revealed in hiscorrespondence with Chapman during the1920s, had an argumentative streak andharbored repeated suspicions that the muse-um underpaid him. Whether this situationever led him or his family in Quito toshortchange the museum, in retribution, isanother story. Whatever we conclude in thatcase does not apply to the two Olallas inPeru, the brothers Alfonso and Ramon, whoin fact took steps to dissociate themselvesprofessionally from the rest of the family inQuito.

Once the accusation of duplicity by theOlallas had reached the AMNH, it took on anew life. Brodkorb’s letter to Eisenmann wasforwarded to Dean Amadon with an undatednote from ‘‘COB’’ (Charles O’Brien, thencollection manager) that stated, ‘‘I don’tbelieve F.M.C. [Chapman] discovered thefraud but eventually it became evident toJ.T.Z. [John Zimmer, associate curator ofornithology at the AMNH] in respect to theAmazonian material.’’ Charles Vaurie, asso-ciate and later curator of ornithology at theAMNH, however, was the one who pursuedthe matter repeatedly. He wrote to EmmetBlake, then curator of birds at the FieldMuseum in Chicago, for any information heor other curators there might have about theOlallas’ specimens. Blake replied on 17February 1965 with information that HenryBoardman Conover had done business bothwith Carlos for Ecuadorian gamebirds andwith A.M. (Alfonso) Olalla for Brazilianmaterial. Blake’s impression was that Carloswas suspect but that Alfonso was ‘‘not givento actual skullduggery, although generally hedidn’t bother to indicate which side of a riverhis [specimens] came from … He simplydidn’t know any better.’’

Blake went on to say that ‘‘[Philip]Hershkovitz … bears me out on this andhas had exactly the same trouble withmonkeys borrowed from the AMNH thatyou are having with some of our Olalla birds.

2010 WILEY: ALFONSO OLALLA AND HIS FAMILY 5

In fact, Philip [Hershkovitz] admits that inhis younger collecting days he also was lessthan precise in specifying localities as relatedto the banks of rivers.’’

Blake also responded to two queries aboutspecimens. The first case involved twosubspecies ‘‘[Ortalis motmot] motmot andruficeps on virtually the same dates’’ at LagoCuipeva (or Cuiteua), Brazil. ‘‘I believe,’’Blake concluded, ‘‘the explanation is clear(carelessness), although the river appears tobe damnably broad at that point [on thelower Amazon].’’ Blake also felt that ‘‘themixup at Pinhel would have the sameexplanation.’’

Vaurie’s interest in these specimens arose inthe course of his revisions of the Cracidae inAmerican Museum Novitates (10 issues, 1964–1967), in which he routinely listed the Olallas’specimens from Ecuador and Peru withoutcomment, including those from the subse-quently contentious mouth of the Rıo Ur-ubamba. However, Vaurie did question sevenspecimens collected by Alfonso Olalla inBrazil after he had left Peru. One, a specimenof Mitu tuberosum from the Rıo Negro(Vaurie, 1967b: 17), is now known to bewithin the range of this species (Scheuerman,1977). The other six have labels indicatingthey were collected on the same date, 10 June1933, at Lago Cuipeva (Vaurie equates thiswith Cuipeua) and Pinhel, Brazilian localitiesnorth and south of the Amazon respectively.The contentious specimens are two Ortalismotmot ruficeps and one Pipile cujubi at thefirst locality, both taxa otherwise known onlyfrom south of the Amazon, and three O. m.ruficeps at the second locality, on the westernside of the Rıo Tapajos, although this taxon isotherwise known only east of that river(Vaurie, 1965: 16–17, 1968: 209). The chacha-lacas from Lago Cuipeva and Pinhel arepresumably those mentioned in Blake’s letter,discussed above. On the other hand, Vaurie’srevisions of the Cracidae accepted otherspecimens obtained by Alfonso Olalla atLago Cuipeva and twice based substantivedecisions on Alfonso’s specimens from north-ern Bolivia reported by Gyldenstolpe (1945b)(Vaurie, 1965: 9, 1967a: 4–5).

On 27 March 1971, Vaurie pursued thematter with a handwritten letter to unspeci-fied friends in which he referred again to

Brodkorb’s letter. In addition, he claimed tohave found irregularities in the Olallas’collections for the Natural History Museumin Stockholm. In Gyldenstope’s correspon-dence, Vaurie claimed to have found a letterwith complaints that the Olallas had soldsome of their specimens to other buyers,instead of sending everything to Stockholm.‘‘Gyldenstolpe did not enlarge, but the labelsof the skins subtracted must certainly befraudulent,’’ concluded Vaurie. Furthermore,according to Vaurie, ‘‘Hershkovitz of Chi-cago had decided to ignore all the materialcollected by the Olallas because of too muchcheating.’’ Vaurie adds that ‘‘the sexing [ofspecimens] of the Olallas is also too oftenimprobable to trust.’’ He concluded, in astupendous appeal to prejudice, ‘‘no criticaldecisions about systematic status, range, anddates can be based on Olalla material. If it‘fits’, well and good, but if anything isdoubtful at all—ignore it’’ (italics for originalunderlining).

Not everybody was convinced. Paulo E.Vanzolini, director of the Museu de Zoologiada Universidade de Sao Paulo, wrote to C.W.Myers, curator of herpetology at the AMNH,‘‘I personally trust Olalla’s localities. There isthe matter of wide apart localities on thesame day, but this is because he employedmany local collectors. His name on the labelactually means the firm, not always theperson. As we acquired over the years largecollections from him, I took pains to checkhis field men (in the Tapajos), and foundthem reliable, apparently even as to on whichside of the river the bird was shot’’ (letterdated 1 September 1972 in the archives of theDepartment of Ornithology).

In a subsequent interchange with Myers on11 October 1972, Vaurie reiterated his accu-sations: ‘‘I regret that Dr. Vanzolini doesn’tseem to be discriminating.’’ He dismissedVanzolini’s observations: ‘‘For instance onthe same day, males may be labeled from alocality north of the Amazon, and femalesfrom another, about 125 miles south of theAmazon, although it is usually not soflagrant’’ (italics for original underlining).Vaurie also reiterated Gyldenstope’s con-cerns. He added that ‘‘coming from Stock-holm—I found in the Paris Museum some ofthese skins that they acquired innocently—


not knowing that the Olallas were undercontract with Gyldenstolpe. If they are inParis, some were probably offered else-where.’’ No details were presented, however.

By this time, Vaurie’s ornithological gaz-etteer of Peru had been published as an issueof American Museum Novitates (Vaurie,1972). Vaurie explained that this gazetteerwas based on the index of Peruvian localitiesthat John T. Zimmer had prepared during hisrevisions of Peruvian birds primarily in the1930s and 1940s. Zimmer had participated inan expedition to Peru for the Field Museumin 1922–1923 and subsequently had pub-lished descriptions of new subspecies (Zim-mer, 1924a, 1924b, 1927) and a monographon the birds of the expedition (Zimmer,1930). In 1930, Chapman hired Zimmer asan associate curator in the Department ofOrnithology at the AMNH to prepare acomprehensive study of the birds of Perualong the lines of Chapman’s studies of thebirds of Colombia and Ecuador. Zimmerarrived in New York two years after the lastof the Olallas’ shipments from Peru. Chap-man no doubt felt that accession of theselarge collections from Amazonian Peru,combined with the museum’s already largeholdings from the Andes and the coast, putthe AMNH in a unique position to preparethe first overview of the Peruvian avifauna.

Zimmer never produced this overview.Instead, with meticulous care, he proceededto revise the systematics of the majority ofPeruvian birds in a series of 66 papers inAmerican Museum Novitates, between 1931and 1955, and in a few additional paperselsewhere. During this effort he assembled hisfile of Peruvian localities, usually one 3 3

5 inch card for each locality, eventuallytotaling over 1000 cards, each of whichincluded alternative names for the locality,the department in which it was located, thenames of collectors who had worked there,and the coordinates from a map published inLima in 1912. This file was in the archives ofthe Department of Ornithology in 2004–2005, when I examined it. It is now perma-nently located in the Section of Ornithologyat the Louisiana State University Museum ofNatural Science (Van Remsen, in litt., 2010).

Vaurie’s (1972) gazetteer included thenames of localities on Zimmer’s cards, each

followed by the names of collectors providedby Zimmer, the department, and the coordi-nates from the American Geographical So-ciety’s ‘‘Map of Hispanic America,’’ of whichthe 12 sheets for Peru were published between1924 and 1939. Vaurie evidently did not usethe revisions of several sheets published after1945. Vaurie also quoted some of Zimmer’scomments about a locality and providedsome comments of his own.

Vaurie’s treatment of the Olallas’ localitiesreflected his conclusions about their authen-ticity. He included neither Boca LagartoCocha nor Boca Rıo Curaray, presumablybecause the collectors’ labels specified ‘‘Ecua-dor’’ (a point discussed below). For PuertoIndiana, Orosa, and Apayacu, Vaurie’streatment suggested uncertainty about theexact locations. Vaurie had no reservationsabout Sarayacu, a locality visited by manyEuropeans before the Olallas. Vaurie intro-duced minor mistakes about the locations ofSanta Rosa and Lagarto, but for ‘‘URU-BAMBA, ‘boca del Urubamba’ (Olallas),’’Vaurie provided no location. Instead, heappended the comment, ‘‘this is a fraudulentlocality, the labels were forged by thecollectors named, according to Zimmer.’’ Inshort, Vaurie had concluded that most of theOlallas’ sites could not now be accuratelylocated and that one of them, the mouth ofthe Urubamba, had been entirely fabricated.As discussed below, Vaurie’s conclusionsabout the Olallas’ locations were subsequent-ly adopted with minor modifications byStephens and Traylor (1983). In particular,they repeated verbatim Vaurie’s allegationsabout ‘‘boca del Urubamba’’ under theheading ‘‘URUBAMBA, RIO.’’

To my knowledge, none of Zimmer’spublications expressed any doubt about theOlallas’ collections or localities. He includedtheir specimens routinely in his lists ofspecimens examined, under the Olallas’localities (although Zimmer often substituted‘‘Anayacu’’ or ‘‘Apiyacu’’ for Apayacu).There is, however, a comment on the backof his index card for ‘‘Boca de Urubamba’’about a fabricated label:

Certain skins (of Philydor erythrocercus sub-fulvus) [sic] sold by the Olallas to HarveyBassler, have this locality [Boca Rıo Urubamba]on the label but they are fraudulently labeled


and belong to the fauna of e. Ec. [Ecuador] &Peru north of the Amazon. The label is one notin use by the Olallas at this locality (squarebase; printed ‘‘Peru’’) (label actually used hasbasal corners clipped & is printed ‘‘Ecuador’’;this crossed off & Peru stamped on afterwards);according to our collections this label was not

used before Teffe, Brazil. Probably the skins arenow collected in eastern Ecuador & mislabeledfor sale as Peruvian birds.

In his revisions of Philydor erythrocercumand ruficaudatum, Zimmer (1935) did notmention a specimen from Boca Rıo Uru-bamba, even in the list of specimens exam-ined. Vaurie’s comprehensive review of theFurnariidae (Vaurie, 1980) also did notmention this specimen. Otherwise, Zimmerroutinely listed the Olallas’ specimens fromBoca Rıo Urubamba (translated as ‘‘mouthof Rıo Urubamba’’). A specimen of Philydorerythrocercum subfulvum, currently in theAMNH with this locality on one of theOlallas’ labels, is among a group of sixproblematic specimens in a collection ac-quired from Harvey Bassler, to be discussedin a separate section below.

Subsequent students of Peruvian birdshave tended to follow Zimmer’s practicerather than Vaurie’s accusations (as perpet-uated by Stephens and Traylor, 1983) butwith some lingering doubts. In the followingsections, I review the Olallas’ itinerary inPeru, describe their labels, review the evi-dence for their locations, and discuss prob-lematic specimens in their collections.

ALFONSO AND RAMON OLALLA INAMAZONIAN PERU

CHAPMAN ENGAGES THE OLALLAS

During the early ornithological documen-tation of Andean countries, Colombia wasthe source of the largest number of specimens(Chapman, 1926). Prior to the AmericanMuseum’s expeditions early in the century,most specimens of Colombian birds had beenobtained by native collectors and exportedthrough Bogota without other informationabout localities. In contrast, although Ecua-dor had also developed a market for nativebird collectors, it had also regularly attractedvisiting ornithologists to localities through-

out the country. Peru had been explored by anumber of intrepid ornithologists, but it hadnever developed native bird collectors.

Chapman’s careful work on the zonaldistributions of birds in the Andes ofColombia and Ecuador had left him partic-ularly sensitive to the limitations of nativecollectors (Chapman, 1926: 10–11). As orni-thology advanced after the turn of thecentury, ornithologists could see the impor-tance of carefully documented specimens fordistributional analyses. In Ecuador, LudovicSoderstrom (the Swedish consul-general inQuito in the 1920s) encouraged nativecollectors to label their specimens withlocality and sex. Nevertheless, as Chapmancautioned, each locality was best interpretedas the base of operations for collectors whoworked in areas of undetermined extent. Hedid not doubt the sincerity of the nativecollectors but only their awareness of theimportance of precise information. Nativecollectors had not been the only ones carelesswith labels, however, as Chapman (1926:728) explained in reviewing Clarence Buck-ley’s collections on the rıos Bobonaza andPastaza near Sarayacu (Ecuador). It was theneed for accurate information about birddistributions that motivated Chapman’s ownexpeditions to the Andes.

Chapman’s encounter with a family ofnative collectors in Quito, however, trans-formed the way the AMNH, and ultimatelyother museums, could obtain large numbersof specimens with the new requirements foraccuracy. His association with the Olallas,and especially with Alfonso Olalla, was adeparture from the way major museums hadpreviously acquired ornithological collec-tions. In this venture, he relied on nativecollectors but insisted on accurate and preciseinformation and careful preparation of spec-imens, features previously attempted only bytrained ornithologists.

Chapmen first met the Olallas in 1922during his second trip to Ecuador. From1913 onward (with a hiatus from 1917 to1919) Chapman and other collectors for theAmerican Museum had worked extensivelyalong the western coast and in the south-western mountains of Ecuador. In August1922 during his first visit to Quito, withGeorge Cherrie and Geoffrey O’Connell,


Chapman made a trip to Mindo accompa-nied by Ramon Olalla, ‘‘a member of afamily of professional bird collectors.’’ Chap-man was impressed with how quickly Ramonlearned the American Museum’s methods ofpreparing specimens and the ‘‘importance ofcare in sexing and accuracy in localitylabeling’’ (Chapman, 1926: 16–17). Thisexperience led Chapman to employ Ramon,along with his three brothers (Alfonso,Manuel, and Rosalino) and father (Carlos),to ascend Sumaco, an ‘‘almost mythical’’mountain east of the Andes.

Chapman (1926: 17) noted that in thefollowing two years the father and fourbrothers, working under the professionalname ‘‘Olalla e hijos,’’ delivered a collectionof ‘‘beautifully prepared’’ skins illustratingthe life zones of this area. The collectioncontained several new forms, including onenew genus. Chapman was nevertheless dis-appointed that the temperate zone on Su-maco had an avifauna practically the same asthat along the main range of the Andes.Perhaps he was hoping for differencescomparable to those he had discoveredbetween the main ranges of the Andes inColombia.

Chapman was particularly impressed withthe meticulous records maintained by theOlallas. Supplied with a thermometer andinstructions to record temperatures at sunriseand sunset, the Olallas had obtained evidencefor a correlation between the avifaunas andthe temperatures of the different life zones.Alfonso also provided narratives of thefamily’s itineraries in the form of reports,now in the archives of the AMNH Depart-ment of Ornithology. These reports estab-lished the pattern for subsequent ones aboutAlfonso’s own expeditions throughout thefollowing decade. Each report was apparent-ly written immediately after the expedition itcovered and was usually sent to New Yorkwith the shipments of birds and mammalscollected.

Because the reliability of the Olallas’records has been questioned, it is worthwhilesummarizing these accounts of their activi-ties, as a basis for evaluating their proceduresand as a testimony to the daunting challengesthey faced in the field.

EXPEDITIONS TO SUMACO IN

EASTERN ECUADOR

As Chapman (1926) wryly observed, ‘‘less-seasoned travelers would have made [thesereports] the basis of tales of hardship andadventure.’’ For example, on their firstexpedition to Sumaco, the return to Archi-dona on foot with their collections requiredthree weeks of travel in the tropical rains(April–May 1923) (see fig. 1). A total of11 days was spent waiting for three torrentialrivers to subside enough to ford. Chapman(1926) notes that the accuracy of Alfonso’sreports was confirmed by their agreementwith accounts of the British-American ex-plorer George M. Dyot (1926), who ascendedSumaco within two years after the Olallas’visits.

On their second expedition to Sumaco(1923–1924), rising rivers, lack of food, andscarcity of porters combined to make ajourney from Quito to Avila on the RıoSuno an ordeal lasting two months. On thisexpedition, various combinations of brothersand father often worked in pairs that traveledseparately. In particular, Alfonso and Ra-mon Olalla routinely worked together, asthey would throughout their subsequentexpeditions in Peru, while Manuel accompa-nied their father, Carlos. As a result of aserious injury to Carlos’ leg while crossing ariver on Sumaco, the party started back toQuito. Eventually they had to abandon theirequipment, and Alfonso had to proceedalone for help, ahead of the rest. After fourdays in Quito, he returned to Sumaco wherehe continued collecting alone until finallyreturning to Quito on 26 June over a monthlater. By this time, trips back and forth toQuito had been shortened by a new trailopened by the Olallas from Baeza to the RıoSuno.

In 1923–1924, the Olallas collected forChapman at a variety of elevations on theslopes of the Andes east of Quito (Papallacta,Oyacachi, Cerro Guamani [or Huamani],Tumbaco, Baeza, Puente del Rıo Quijos,Rıo Sardinas; altogether 2019 specimens).They twice collected on the western slopes ofthe Andes near Mindo (189 specimens). Inaddition, on their expeditions to the RıoSuno and Sumaco (1 February–26 April


1923, 1–27 December 1923, 20 January–18February, 3 March–24 April, 24 May–15June 1924, based on dates in Chapman, 1926:21), they amassed an additional 1248 speci-mens (Chapman, 1926: 21). Nearly 3500specimens resulted from this early work inEcuador.

DOWN THE NAPO

In 1925 the Olallas’ next expedition intoAmazonia for the AMNH was even moreharrowing than those to Sumaco. Thedestination this time was the mouth of theRıo Curaray, far down the Rıo Napo beyondthe present boundary of Ecuador. Lettersbetween the Olallas and Chapman (Depart-ment of Ornithology archives), suggest thatthe original intention was to collect birds andmammals along the lower rıos Napo, Putu-mayo, and Caqueta, perhaps not fullyrealizing the enormous distances involved(Olalla letter, see below) nor the precariouspolitical situation on the Putumayo at thattime. On 5 February, however, they signed a

contract with Robert Cushman Murphyfrom the American Museum during his visitto Quito, and on 20 May 1925 the expeditionleft Quito. Carlos was accompanied by hisfour sons and an employee, T. Mena.

Alfonso’s subsequent report, apparentlysent to the American Museum with thesecond shipment of specimens the followingMarch, presented a terse but vivid account ofthis expedition. On 25 May the Olallasconvened with eight porters who were tocarry their equipment from Papallacta toArchidona. After passing Baeza they at-tempted to cross a swollen torrent by meansof a fallen tree. Alfonso and one portercrossed safely, but the next porter fell into theraging river and disappeared, together with$397 worth of equipment. Following thistragedy, the party decided to wait, campingin constant rain, until the river subsided.

Further difficulties in obtaining portersand serious illnesses of Alfonso and Manuelbeset the expedition as it made its waytoward Loreto, the district capital. At thistown, on the Rıo Suno, they intended toobtain canoes for their trip down the Napo.

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


On their way to Loreto, however, a delega-tion from the village of Concepcion con-vinced them to stop there instead. On 30 Junethey finally reached this village, where theRıo Cotapino joins the Rıo Pucuno (spelled‘‘Pucano’’ by Alfonso). According to theNational Geospatial-Intelligence Agency andU.S. Board of Geographic Names, the townnear the mouth of the Rıo Cotapino is nownamed Avila, on the road from Loreto toArchidona, and a village about 9 km to thesouthwest is named Concepcion (fig. 1). TheOlallas soon learned that the authorities innearby Loreto firmly refused to permit anylocal people to accompany the expeditiondown the Napo, despite a special trip byAlfonso to plead their case. The expeditionnevertheless proceeded to construct canoesfor the anticipated trip. In addition, theycollected specimens nearby (labeled ‘‘BocaRio Cotapino’’) and on a side trip to ‘‘CerroGaleras’’ (now named Cordillera de Galeras),until they ran out of arsenic for preservingthe skins. According to Alfonso’s report,temperatures were recorded daily at themouth of the Cotapino 1–31 July 1925 andon Cerro Galeras 12–15 July 1925.

Stymied by the local authorities, theexpedition sent Rosalino with three localmen to Quito to obtain the necessarypermissions. With them were sent all butthe largest specimens collected so far, forshipment to the AMNH via Guayaquil.While in Quito, they received a letter fromNew York stipulating that they should notcollect specimens other than those specificallyrequested. On 28 September Rosalino re-turned with permissions and supplies, andtwo days later the expedition embarked atlong last in two canoes. The personnelincluded Carlos and three sons (Alfonso,Ramon, Manuel), T. Mena, and seven localmen as paddlers. Rosalino, not mentionedsubsequently, must have returned once againto Quito.

On 5 October another hurdle arose at themouth of the Rıo Aguarico, at the frontierbetween Ecuador and Peru, where authoritiesabsolutely refused to allow the local men topass. Finally on 11 October, the locals weresent back in one of the canoes, while the fourOlallas and T. Mena proceeded in the other.‘‘Although they knew nothing about manag-

ing the canoes,’’ three days later theysucceeded in reaching the mouth of the RıoCuraray.

MOUTH OF THE RıO CURARAY

Alfonso’s report stipulated that tempera-tures were recorded from 16 October to 21March 1926 at their camp on Isla Panduronear the mouth of the Curaray (‘‘casi junto ala Boca del Curaray’’). Specimens werecollected during daily explorations along theCuraray and to both shores of the Napo(‘‘exploraciones diarias a la banda de leCuraray o en ambas orillas del Napo’’).Two months later they had amassed enoughof a collection to arrange for its shipment toNew York. On 13 December 1925 Alfonsoboarded a launch with a shipment ofspecimens for the AMNH and reachedIquitos on the Rıo Amazonas a week later.

Iquitos in the 1920s was in dire economicstraits. The collapse of the rubber boom in1914, following two or three decades of wildprosperity, left many people adrift. Much ofthe indigenous population of Amazonia hadbeen displaced or enslaved during the boom.In addition, large numbers of immigrants hadarrived from the highlands and abroad.Many of those who had not left after 1914now settled as subsistence farmers in com-munities along the major rivers. The mon-strous overlordship of the rubber baron JulioCesar Arana on the Putumayo (Hemming,1987: 309–312) was slowly giving way totension over international boundaries. With-in another decade, armed skirmishes woulderupt in this area, including the massacre ofone Peruvian garrison. In towns like Iquitosentrepreneurs were desperately seeking somealternative product to export, of which skinsof cats and crocodilians were the mostpromising (Morey Alejo and Sotil Garcia,2000). Shipping and communications alongthe Amazon must have been depressed.Steam launches, introduced in Amazonia inthe 1850s, would have remained the principalmeans of long-distance transportation alongmajor rivers.

Alfonso consigned the Olallas’ specimensto Booth and Company (a British shippingfirm based in Liverpool) for shipment to New


York and also telegraphed a request toChapman for additional funds. The expedi-tion, according to Alfonso’s report, was nowbroke. Eight days later he received $500wired from the museum. On 29 DecemberAlfonso embarked for the Rıo Curaray andarrived a week later. Meanwhile, the rest ofthe expedition, in financial difficulties, hadbeen assisted by a friendly Ecuadorian wholived about a half day farther up the Napo.

The expedition then made a decision toreduce its size. Expenses were too great for allfive people to remain in the field, so Alfonsoand Ramon remained at the mouth of theCuraray to continue collecting, while theothers left for the return to Quito. The Olallafamily would never again work in the fieldtogether.

CARLOS RETURNS TO QUITO

The returning members of the expeditionarrived in Quito by 11 March 1926, when aletter from Carlos informed a shipping agentin Guayaquil of his return and requestedinformation about payment for the collectionsent from the mouth of the Curaray throughIquitos (‘‘mandado de la Voca del RioCuraray por Iquitos al Museo’’). This letterinitiated a prolonged correspondence, mostof it preserved in the archives of theDepartment of Ornithology, between Carlosand representatives of the AMNH aboutpayments. Most of the confusion seems tohave resulted from complexities of exchangerates among Ecuadorian sucres, Peruviansoles and pounds, and American dollars.Evidently, most of the payments were madeto Carlos in Quito, but some of the moneywas sent to Alfonso and Ramon in Iquitos.To compound difficulties, the value ofEcuadorian sucres in Iquitos seems to havebeen lower than the published value in NewYork. This correspondence reveals someirritation on both sides, but neither Carlosnor the museum ever threatened to terminaterelations or to take legal action. Despite thenegotiations over payment, there was nosuggestion in any of the letters that anyspecimens from the Rıo Curaray were carriedback to Quito for shipment to New York. Allwere evidently dispatched from Iquitos.

Another preoccupation in Carlos’ corre-spondence is an effort to interest themuseum in further collections from easternEcuador. This plan to shift the museum’sfocus back to Ecuador was perhaps hatchedbefore or during the return from the mouthof the Curaray. It would explain why thereturning party, on its way back to Quito upthe Rıo Napo, made an important side trip.A letter from Carlos to Chapman on 29March 1926 described a digression up theRıo Aguarico (‘‘la frontera Ecuatoriana’’) tothe mouth of Lagarto Cocha, in response toreports of interesting birds and other ani-mals there. Carlos’ letter stipulated thelocalities passed on their journey up theAguarico to Lagarto Cocha including theirtwo stops. The trip thus required about threedays by canoe. They arrived on 14 January1926 and collected from the following dayuntil 26 January, at which point they hadexhausted their supplies and continued ontheir way back to Quito. Carlos’ accountprovided no further information aboutwhere specimens were collected. Morningand evening temperatures were reported,but, unlike his son Alfonso, Carlos did notspecify the dates.

Carlos’ letter said that the specimens werebeing sent to the museum, presumably inconjunction with his letter. Nevertheless, hewas clearly concerned that Lagarto Cochawas not a locality designated in the contractfor this expedition. He quoted a phrase in thecontract that all specimens collected in the‘‘Oriente’’ should be sent to the AMNH, buthe failed to make a case that the museumshould pay for specimens not stipulated inthe contract. Nevertheless, Chapman agreedto pay for these unsolicited specimens,although he also emphasized that the muse-um expected tthe Olallas to adhere to theircontract in the future (letter from Chapmanon 10 May 1926). In his response on 28 June1926, after complaining about underpaymentfor large monkeys, Carlos proposed furtherexpeditions to the Oriente of Ecuador. Bythis time, however, Chapman had no furtherneed for Ecuadorian specimens and themuseum never accepted Carlos’ proposals.In a letter of 20 August 1926 Chapman againemphasized that he wanted to stick to theoriginal contract.


ALFONSO AND RAMON LEAVE THE CURARAY

In the meantime, back at the mouth ofthe Rıo Curaray, Alfonso and Ramon hadassembled another considerable collectionby March 1926. At this point, Alfonsowrote a long letter to Chapman dated 22March from ‘‘Voca Rıo Curaray’’ to ac-company a shipment of specimens. Theletter summarized a total of 479 specimenspacked in a large case. Accompanying theshipment was his notebook, which he hopedwould meet with as much approval asprevious ones. He would continue takingsimilar notes. He also explained that fourmembers of the expedition had returned toQuito but that he and Ramon couldcomplete the work. Alfonso was staying atthe mouth of the Curaray until Ramoncould send enough money from Iquitos tosettle accounts with their Ecuadorian hostnear the Curaray. Afterward, Alfonso pro-posed to join Ramon on the Rıo Amazonas.He requested 25 pounds of arsenic, anessential commodity in those days forpreserving specimens in tropical climates,one that the Olallas appear to have repeat-edly exhausted. A letter of introduction(presumably to local authorities) was alsoneeded in order to pursue the plans for avisit to the Rıo Putumayo. Finally, after afew more financial details, he asked thatcopies of all replies be sent both to theAmerican legation in Quito and to theoffices of Booth and Company in Iquitos,presumably so that he and Ramon as well ashis father Carlos would remain informed.

Alfonso’s next report began with anaccount of Ramon’s trip to Iquitos by launchwith the second batch of specimens from themouth of the Curaray. This was a slow trip,lasting from 28 March to 14 April, as a resultof low water in the Napo. Once in Iquitos,Ramon had cabled for additional funds fromthe museum and then, rather than sendmoney to Alfonso by a third party, he hadreturned in person between 27 April and 2May. During the month of Ramon’s absence,Alfonso had continued to collect until he hadonce again exhausted the expeditions’s sup-ply of arsenic. On 15 May, presumably withtheir affairs at the mouth of the Rıo Curaraysettled, the brothers embarked together and

arrived four days later at Puerto Indiana(now simply Indiana).

PUERTO INDIANA

The original contract for the Olallas’expedition is not now in the archives of theDepartment of Ornithology at the AMNH.The essential conditions, however, can bereconstructed from the many extant lettersthat Alfonso exchanged with Chapman.Following the collections at the Rıo Curaray,the contract called for collections on the RıoAmazonas near Iquitos in Peru and then onthe rıos Putumayo and Caqueta in Colombia(fig. 2). The town of Indiana on the northernbank of the Amazon, not far above themouth of the Rıo Napo and below Iquitos,was a convenient base for the next stage ofthe expedition. In the 1920s, Puerto Indianawas a small village, although today, with thesimplified name Indiana, it is a district capitaland the largest Peruvian town on theAmazon below Iquitos.

The day after their arrival in Indiana,Alfonso went hunting but returned disap-pointed that the animals were, with a fewexceptions, the same as those encounteredpreviously. Nevertheless, they continued dai-ly explorations along the Amazon as far asthe Napo (‘‘limitada por el Rıo Napo’’). Theyplanned to cross the Amazon (nearly 2 kmwide at Indiana), but apparently did notbecause of reports that the land there wasentirely flooded and unsuitable for camping(‘‘terrenos … completamente inundados yimposibles para hacer un campamento’’).May and June often have the highest stagesof the Peruvian Amazon. Because of a largeloop of the Napo near its mouth, this riverpasses only a few kilometers to the north ofIndiana (fig. 3). ‘‘As far as the Napo’’ is thusno farther than about two hours’ walk.Evidently, the specimens collected at PuertoIndiana were thus from the northern side ofthe river in the vicinity of the town.

The work at Indiana was hampered by alack of supplies. On 28 May Alfonso sent aletter from Iquitos to R.C. Murphy at theAmerican Museum because they had receivedno reply from Chapman and assumed he wasout of town. Alfonso reiterated his requestfor a shipment of arsenic, 50 pounds this


time. They had already bought all the arsenicavailable in Iquitos, and no more could begot at any price. He explained that theyremained committed to the work but could

not continue without additional supplies. Healso suggested that they could collect reptilesfor the museum, in addition to birds andmammals, a proposal the museum did not

Fig. 2. Map of northwestern Amazonia to show major rivers, modern towns and internationalboundaries, and locations visited by Alfonso and Ramon Olalla from 1925 to 1928.


pursue. Finally, he requested clarification ofthe payments he could expect in Peruviansoles, for use in Iquitos, rather than inEcuadorian sucres. It is noteworthy thatAlfonso’s letters always requested clarifica-tion of payments, in contrast to his father’sletters from Quito, which perennially arguedfor supplementary payments. Alfonso’s let-ters instead focused on the need for suppliesunavailable in Peru and for funds to coverunexpected costs of freight and travel. The

museum always responded to these requestsas promptly as possible, in view of thevagaries of shipping between New Yorkand Iquitos. In fact, this time the arsenicand other supplies had already been dis-patched on 17 May.

On 18 June 1926 Alfonso went back toIquitos, 39 hours upriver by canoe, as hestipulated. With funds replenished, he re-turned to Indiana on 23 June after canoeingdownriver through the night, a journey of

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


only some 12 hours. Three days later Alfonsoreturned to Iquitos with two cases ofspecimens for shipment by Booth and Com-pany. After some difficulty, he also managedto obtain from the customs house a shipmentof collecting supplies from the museum,presumably including the essential arsenic.

The collections at Puerto Indiana werecompleted by 4 August, when Alfonso sent aletter to New York accompanying the lastshipment of specimens from this locality.These collections fulfilled the contract forspecimens from the Amazon near Iquitos. Inthe absence of other orders, the brothers nowplanned to move downriver on the southernside (‘‘en la rivera que limita con terrenos(Brasilero) [sic]’’). He added, ‘‘We hope tosend in the next shipment something moreinteresting.’’ This dispirited comment sug-gests that the brothers had found little atIndiana that they had not already encoun-tered at the mouth of the Rıo Curaray andduring the expeditions to Sumaco. They hadyet to discover the many different species justa short distance away on the opposite side ofthe Amazon.

A MOVE DOWNRIVER

In his letter of 4 August, Alfonso hadrejected the original plan in the contract withthe museum to visit the Putumayo. As heexplained in detail, he had discovered thataccess to the Putumayo was monopolized bythe notorious Senor Arana, a rapaciousrubber baron, who would control theiractivities and demand a large sum of money.He reassured Chapman that the expeditionwas willing to proceed wherever they weredirected and requested detailed instructions.The brothers’ plan to move down theAmazon toward Brazil (in the direction ofthe Putumayo, fig. 2) was thus intended tofill time until the museum could providemore specific instructions. Alfonso alsoproposed another alteration in the contractby asking the museum to send a Kodakcamera. In a missed opportunity, the muse-um ignored this request. Even a few photosof the Olallas’ collecting localities would nowbe priceless. Finally, in this letter of crucialproposals, Alfonso requested that the muse-

um henceforth deal only with the team inPeru and not with ‘‘Companıa C. Olalla eHijos’’ in Quito. Alfonso and Ramon wishedto be on their own.

Chapman was already aware of the im-practicality of working on the Putumayo,because, in a letter addressed to Booth andCompany on 29 July, he said that he was gladto hear that the Olallas were going to collectat Pebas (downriver from Iquitos) ‘‘fromwhich locality we wish to secure a completerepresentation of the birds and mammals.’’

Although Alfonso’s letter had mentionedseeking a place near the Brazilian border, infact they got nowhere near that far, andindeed not even as far as Pebas. Alfonso’saccount said that the brothers planned toseek a site on the south bank of the Amazon,territory not covered in the collections atIndiana, but subsequent events make itmore likely that their choice of locationwas largely fortuitous. Because they had nospare funds for passage on a steam launch,they arranged to have a ‘‘casa de balsa’’constructed, a raft of logs with a thatchedhut for protection from sun and rain. Theydeparted with three men as pilots early on26 August.

Two days later a sudden storm struck theOlallas’ raft just after dark. Although itlasted only 17 minutes, as stipulated inAlfonso’s subsequent report, its violence blewtheir hut away and left their equipment andthemselves exposed to the downpour. In anastonishing coincidence, Che Guevara, alsoshort of cash and in nearly the same location,would make a similar journey over 25 yearslater and experience a similar storm (Gue-vara, 1995)!

The Olallas’ raft became entangled in afishing weir in the river. The next morning,however, they managed to continue down-river, where they soon found a house andspent the day drying everything in the sun.The following day they landed at Orosa ‘‘onthe right [southern] margin of the Amazon.’’The storm on the river, rather than foresight,was probably responsible for this decision.

On 31 August 1926 they set up camp atOrosa (fig. 4), and began collecting the nextday. Here they made daily excursionsamong the islands in the Amazon and theterritory toward the Rıo Yavari (‘‘explor-


aciones diarias a las isles del Amazonas, oya a los terrenos que se extienden hasta elRıo Javarı’’). Toward the Yavarı meansmore or less southward from their camp(the Yavarı itself, which forms the borderbetween Peru and Brazil, was far beyondtheir reach). They found the collecting here‘‘de mucha satisfaccion,’’ probably becausethey obtained many species they had notencountered before.

On 22 October 1926 Ramon took cases ofspecimens to Iquitos for shipment to theAMNH by Booth and Company. The tripupriver, presumably by canoe, lasted fourdays. His return trip downriver on 1–2November took only 38 hours. While inIquitos he obtained an advance of 40Peruvian pounds for supplies. Alfonso’s letterto accompany the shipment, dated 20 Octo-ber, summarized the specimens included,explained that shipping the collections toIquitos by canoe cost 50 soles (necessary

because travel by steam launch was not easilyarranged in their present location), andpromised to include the notebook withtemperatures and descriptions of the locali-ties in the next shipment. He requestedprompt payment for the present shipment,which would cover the cost of travel to thePutumayo or the Caqueta, the expected nextdestination. In the meantime, the brotherswould continue to work at the same place.Alfonso and Ramon, out of touch with themuseum for months now, were unsure whereto proceed.

A REMARKABLE DECISION AND A REVERSAL

OF DIRECTION

After another month at Orosa, the broth-ers made a momentous decision. On 11December 1926, they crossed the Amazonto the northern bank and camped on anisland ‘‘on which the Apayacu empties’’ (‘‘al

Fig. 4. Map of the lower courses of the rıos Orosa and Apayacu, departamento Loreto, Peru.Seasonally flooded lowlands extend from the Rıo Amazonas northward to the dashed line and southwardto the arcuate portions of the Rıo 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 themouth of the Rıo Apayacu and the Rıo Amazonas.


margen izquierdo … en la ısla del Amazonasen la cual desemboca el Rıo Apayacu’’). Thissite is undoubtedly where the village ofApayacu now stands on a slender peninsula(but an island at high water) between thedebouching black water of the Apayacu andthe silty Amazon (fig. 4). As discussed inmore detail below, they had moved only acouple of kilometers.

Alfonso nowhere explained the rationalefor this short move, but the continuingpattern of the brothers’ activities providessome hints. Most important, despite unpre-dictable and infrequent communication withthe museum, the brothers never stoppedcollecting. When they had no specific infor-mation about what the museum mightrequest next, they always took reasonablesteps in anticipation and always kept work-ing. In addition, they had a spirit ofexploration.

It was this spirit that must have led themto move directly across the river. The Olallas,by collecting extensively (despite the muse-um’s warnings in the early stages of theexpedition about too many specimens) andby daily experience in the field, must haverealized that Orosa and Indiana differedmarkedly in their avifaunas. There would betwo possible explanations: either any changeof location would produce novelties, or amove across a large river would. The firstmust have seemed less likely in view of thesimilarities between their collections at themouth of the Rıo Curaray and at Indiana.The conclusion seems inescapable that themove from Orosa to Apayacu was made totest the second possibility. In doing so, theOlallas confirmed the importance of rivers inlimiting the ranges of birds and primates inAmazonia, and their collections from Orosaand Apayacu appear to have made Chapmanaware of it too.

Neither the Olallas’ nor Chapman’s lettersever explicitly stated that this discovery hadbeen made, perhaps because the letters in factnever discussed anything but business. Noth-ing at all about biology was mentioned intheir correspondence. Likewise, the Olallas’reports adhered strictly to lists of dailytemperatures, standarized descriptions ofthe areas visited, and the stages of travelalong rivers. The evidence that the Olallas

and subsequently Chapman realized that theywere onto something unexpected is thuscircumstantial.

The most important indication of thischange was their inattention to the sides ofrivers before reaching Apayacu in contrast toafterwards. At the mouth of the Curaray,neither the Olallas’ specimens nor Alfonso’sfield notes provide any indication aboutlocations with respect to the Curaray or theNapo. This information is thus impossible toreconstruct. At Indiana the brothers decidedagainst crossing the river because campingwould have been impossible. In contrast,after Apayacu, as explained below, theycarefully selected camps to sample both sidesof a river.

Scientists at the AMNH showed noawareness of rivers as limits to distributionsprior to the arrival of specimens from Orosaand Apayacu. Thereafter, Chapman’s in-structions were insistent that the Olallascollect from both sides of a river and labeltheir specimens accordingly. Beforehand,neither the Olallas’ original contract withthe museum nor any of the correspondencefrom the museum included instructions forvisiting both sides of a river, nor even fornoting which side of a river their collectionscame from. Instead the museum issuedexplicit instructions only for recording tem-peratures, data relevant to earlier collectionsin the Andes, but largely irrelevant inAmazonia. Chapman’s treatises on the avi-faunas of Colombia and Ecuador focus onthe Andes as determinants of avian distribu-tions, and he himself never undertookfieldwork in Amazonia. These two treatisesnever mention rivers as limits of aviandistributions. The Olallas’ shipment fromApayacu reached Chapman within a year ofthe publication of The Distribution of Bird-life in Ecuador in 1926 and seems to havebeen a revelation. Chapman’s sudden interestin the sides of rivers is best explained by thisnew awareness. Subsequently, Zimmer’s rou-tine attention to riverine limits in his series ofpapers on the birds of Peru made thisbiogeographical phenomenon widely appre-ciated in the ornithological community. Theconclusion seems inescapable that the Olal-las’ decision to cross the Amazon to Apayacustarted a chain of events that within a decade


had resulted in a general recognition of thisbiogeographic pattern in Amazonia.1

On the day following their move across theAmazon, Alfonso returned to Iquitos to getmail, which he no doubt hoped would includenew instructions from the museum. He tookalong two additional small boxes of speci-mens. After four and a half days by canoe hereached Iquitos. He shipped the specimensbut had to wait for the monthly boat with themail. It arrived on 25 December 1926, withpayment for the Indiana specimens. Of equalimportance were instructions to skip theplans in the original contract for a visit tothe Rıo Putumayo and instead to proceed tothe Ucayali. With new supplies, Alfonso

returned downriver to Apayacu on 28December, 27 hours by canoe.

Alfonso and Ramon continued to work atthe mouth of the Rıo Apayacu until 29January 1927 and then embarked in two largecanoes with their equipment and specimensfor Iquitos once again. Once there, five dayslater, they found that no funds had arrivedfrom the museum for this new expeditionupriver. A cable to New York eventuallyproduced the funds, but by then the onlylaunch had already departed. Nowadaysmultiple diesel launches depart every dayupriver from Iquitos to Pucallpa and Yur-imaguas, but in 1927 there must have beenonly one every few weeks. The Olallas, notwanting to waste time, headed upriver for theUcayali by canoe. Alfonso ends his narrativeof the brothers’ activities along the Amazonby summarizing temperatures at dawn andsunset at Puerto Indiana from 20 May to 25August 1926, at Orosa from 1 October to 11December 1926, and at the island at themouth of the Rıo Apayacu from 12 Decem-ber 1926 to 29 January 1927.

Why Chapman decided on the Ucayali asthe Olallas’ next destination is not explainedin his letters. He resumed his correspondence,as preserved in the archives of the AMNHDepartment of Ornithology, with letters toIquitos on 4 and 5 May 1927. One, to theOlallas, expressed satisfaction that they hadaccepted the proposal to work at Sarayacuon the Ucayali but provided no rationale forthis location. His enthusiasm for this workseemed qualified as he reminded them not tocollect more than the stipulated number ofspecimens. The other, to Booth and Compa-ny, transferred credit to the Olallas’ accountfor the specimens from Orosa and Apayacuand for the cost of shipping them upriver bycanoe. Evidently the specimens had arrivedsafely in New York but had not yet beenexamined.

Six weeks later, Chapman was much moreenthusiastic. His letter to the Olallas on 20June 1927 emphasized for the first time theimportance of keeping track of the side of theriver from which specimens came and alsoproposed an entirely new and ambitiousitinerary after Sarayacu. First, he requesteda collection at or near the junction of the rıosUcayali and Urubamba and especially re-

1 The Olallas were not the first to notice that variousAmazonian species were restricted by rivers. Early examplescome from Henry Walter Bates and Alfred Russell Wallace, whotraveled together during a portion of their expedition to SouthAmerica. Wallace, in a special section of his Narrative of Travelson the Amazon and Rio Negro (1853), emphasized that theNegro, Madeira, Solimoes, and Amazon rivers limited thedistributions of many, but not all, primates. In addition, henoted that several species of birds were limited by major rivers(the species of trumpeters Psophia and several jacamars Galbula).Bates (1863) was presumably the source of some of Wallace’sinformation, because he had noted the occurrence of the whiteuakari monkey Cacajao calvus calvus only west of the Rio Japuranear Tefe and the Curl-crested Toucan Pteroglossus beauharnaesiionly south of the Solimoes in Brazil. Subsequent ornithologistselaborated on these patterns. Hellmayr (1910) briefly summa-rized species limited to the ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘left’’ banks of the RıoMadeira (34 and 9 species, respectively), but his lists indicatesome confusion of the two sides of the river. Snethlage (1913)lists many birds limited by major rivers in lower Amazonia (rıosAmazon, Tocantins, Xingu, and Tapajos) and recognizes threeregions of avian distribution limited by these rivers (Snethlage,1913: 504–516). Nevertheless these limits pertain only to riversof eastern Amazonia and, at any rate, are not the primary focusof this paper. The two major catalogs of Neotropical birdsbefore the 1920s included little information about distributionslimited by rivers. The Catalogue of the Birds in the BritishMuseum by R. Bowdler Sharpe and others (27 volumes, 1874–1895) makes no mention of rivers as limits of Amazonian birds.R.B. Cory and C.E. Helmayr’s Catalogue of the Birds of theAmericas (5 volumes published 1918–1927, others later)includes scant information of this sort. The latter, for instance,mentions two forms of Galbula that replace each other acrossthe Amazon in Peru but fails to mention conspicuouslimitations in parrots (Pionites), antbirds (Pithys), or toucans(Pteroglossus, Selenidura). Failure to mention the restriction ofPteroglossus beauharnaesii to the south bank of the Amazon/Solimoes, as emphasized by both Bates and Wallace, isparticularly remarkable. From 1931 onward, with the publica-tion of J.T. Zimmer’s studies of Peruvian birds, which relied onthe Olallas’ collections for information about Amazonia, thefrequent limitations of avian distributions by rivers in Amazoniabecame much more widely appreciated.


quested collections from both sides of theUcayali. Then he proposed an ascent of themountains between the rıos Ucayali andPichis, then a collection from Tingo Maria,and finally a collection near Yurimaguas(again from both sides of the river)! Thecollections from Orosa and Apayacu hadevidently infused Chapman with new enthu-siasm. The sky was now the limit. He alsoassured the two brothers that he had alreadyarranged payment for the long trip to themouth of the Rıo Urubamba.

The initial decision to substitute theUcayali for the Putumayo is, however, notso easily explained. Earlier ornithologists hadvisited neither the Putumayo, nor the upperUcayali. Apparently, Chapman was formu-lating a project to treat the birds of Peru inthe same way that he had previously mono-graphed those of Colombia and Ecuador.The Rıo Ucayali in comparison with themore peripheral Putumayo would have pre-sented a larger scope for exploration near thecenter of Peru.

SARAYACU: FIRST STOP ON THE UCAYALI

Alfonso submitted four separate reportson the expedition to the Ucayali, eachapparently sent with a collection from oneof the localities visited: Sarayacu, the mouthof the Rıo Urubamba, Santa Rosa, andLagarto. The first locality is about half wayalong the course of the Ucayali from itsmouth to its origin at the confluence of therıos Urubamba and Tambo (fig. 2). Thelatter three localities are at or not fardownriver from this confluence. To reachSarayacu, the two brothers canoed for fivedays up the Amazon from Iquitos and then,at the mouth of the Ucayali, found a launchthat conveyed them up that river another sixdays to Sarayacu. This town had beenfounded in 1791 on the west side of theUcayali by Franciscan monks as a mission tothe local natives. Despite its significance forthe extension of Spanish culture into Ama-zonian Peru, by the late 1800s it had alreadydeclined to the minor village it is today.

Alfonso’s reports describe three campsused by the two brothers near Sarayacu(fig. 5). The first was on the ‘‘left’’ (eastern)

bank of the river opposite the town ofSarayacu. Alfonso as usual denoted sides ofthe river with reference to his direction oftravel rather than direction of flow, so hewrote that the camp opposite Sarayacu wason the ‘‘left’’ side of the river. Peruvians onthe rivers of Amazonia follow this conven-tion to this day. From this first camp, thebrothers collected specimens on the easternside of the Ucayali (actually south of theUcayali at this particular point, fig. 5) fromthe day after their arrival at Sarayacu (11March 1927) until 15 April.

From April 16 until May 10, according toAlfonso’s report, they collected on both sidesof the Ucayali. The brothers did not changethe location of their camp, because the riverat this point was not wide enough to beinconvenient to cross every day. Neverthe-less, on May 11 they moved across the riverto a second camp opposite (‘‘frente a frente’’)the first one. From that date until June 15,they worked only on the ‘‘right’’ (western orat this point northern) side of the Ucayali.Finally, from July 10 to August 15, they useda third camp at a location two hours bycanoe southward from the first camp (‘‘doshoras de sureada,’’ a crucial phrase notincluded in the museum’s translation), wherethey once again collected only on the ‘‘left’’(eastern) side of the Ucayali. At intervalsthroughout this period, one or both of thebrothers returned to Iquitos to ship speci-mens to New York, as evidenced by a letteraccompanying a box of mammals sent toHarold Anthony, curator of mammals at theAMNH, on 27 May 1927.

The first two camps, as described inAlfonso’s report, were located on lowground, with swamps and lakes. The firstcamp was notable for the nearby aguajepalms (Mauritia flexuosa). The second, withfewer swamps, instead had some land clearedby the natives for cemeteries. Amazoniancemeteries are usually located on highground, above the annual floods, so thislocality probably was near a large restinga, anatural levee along a former channel of theriver, which now supported tall open forestwhere not cleared. In contrast, the third campwas on higher ground, with few lakes and noswamps. Tall forest on level ground extendedin all directions. Again in contrast to the


Fig. 5. Map of the vicinity of the village of Sarayacu, departamento Loreto, Peru. A range of hillsextends northward within the dashed line east of the Rıo Ucayali. Seasonally flooded lowlands extend westof the Ucayali to the dashed lines and east even farther. The Olallas’ used three camps in this area (1–3, seetext), two near the current village and a third farther south most likely across the river from the location ofthe current town of Orellana.


former camps, this one was in an almostuninhabited area.

The hiatus in collecting between June 15and July 10 is explained by Alfonso’s allusionto their troubles with malaria (‘‘paludismo’’omitted in the museum’s translation) andunspecified epidemics of the Ucayali andAmazon caused by the ‘‘terrible plagues’’(‘‘terribles plagas,’’ a term in Amazoniausually denoting great numbers of mosqui-tos). In addition, the brothers’ supplies forcollecting and preserving specimens were low.As a result they made one trip after anotherto Iquitos either to recover their health or toobtain the arsenic that they expected themuseum would send in due course. Thereports and letters from Sarayacu includedAlfonso’s first references to the malaria fromwhich Ramon especially suffered until hisreturn to Quito a few years later.

In a letter from Iquitos on 1 July 1927,Alfonso stated that he and his brother hadcompletely recovered from malaria and werereturning to Sarayacu to finish their workthere. He expressed enthusiasm for the workplanned at the mouth of the Urubamba, buthe reminded Chapman that they must firstreceive a shipment with sufficient arsenic andfine shot (‘‘municion fina’’), neither of whichwas available in Iquitos. He also alluded tothe great distance from Iquitos to theUrubamba, presumably a reminder that theyneeded funds for transportation and thatthey could not travel back and forth toIquitos as they had from Sarayacu. Once thework at Sarayacu was completed, Alfonsostated, one of the brothers would return toIquitos to ship the specimens and to collectthe supplies.

On 7 September 1927, a letter from Iquitossigned ‘‘Alfonso M. Olalla y Hermano’’addressed complaints in a letter fromG.H.H. Tate on 20 June 1927 about thepreparation of specimens. Tate at that timeheld the position of Field Assistant in theDepartment of Mammalogy at the AMNH(Anthony, 1954). Alfonso emphatically re-jected Tate’s suggestion that they had com-promised their procedures. From their firstcollections they had used the same methods,he stated, without previous complaints fromthe museum. They had avoided all localsubstitutes (‘‘sustancio silvestre’’), so their

success depended on the museum’s assistancein procuring arsenic. Arsenic bought inIquitos had already disintegrated and thuscould not be counted on for good results. Hestated that they had just received enougharsenic for the work so far with little if anyleft over. He thus requested that the museumsend another large supply of arsenic, fineshot, and other supplies for the work atsubsequent localities.

He reiterated his enthusiasm for the workon the Urubamba but pointed out that thefares for travel by river were expensive. Forexample, they expected to spend 28 Peruvianpounds for the trip from Sarayacu to theUrubamba. He anticipated that work on theUrubamba would last 5–6 months, at the endof which time one of the brothers would haveto return to Iquitos to collect additionalsupplies. Finally, he requested precise infor-mation about the localities for subsequentcollections in the mountainous regions indi-cated previously by Chapman.

This letter accompanied the last of thebrothers’ collections from Sarayacu. It con-firmed that Alfonso’s notes accompanied it,although he apologized for their brevity, as aresult of his illness, and promised a fulleraccount later. Booth and Company in Iquitosmust have sent a cable to Chapman two dayslater, on 9 September 1927, to say that theshipment was on its way. Chapman replied,in a letter of 13 September, that the firstshipment from Sarayacu had arrived and thathe had authorized payment for it throughBooth and Company. He alluded to Alfon-so’s letter written in July, which had takentwo months to reach New York via Lima.Chapman was sorry to hear of the problemswith malaria and hoped that the Urubambawould be a healthier locality. There was alsoa reminder that the museum was particularlyinterested in the small birds, which have‘‘greater scientific value’’ (Alfonso lateremphasized that the brothers also intendedto fulfill the original contract for largespecimens, for which they were paid more).Chapman hoped a previous shipment ofarsenic, fine shot, and other supplies hadarrived, and he promised to send anothersuch shipment.

The problems of communication betweenIquitos and New York, combined with both


Chapman’s and the Olallas’ wishes to avoiddelays, resulted in a pattern of letters crossingen route and attempts to anticipate requests.For instance, Chapman did not respond toAlfonso’s letter of 7 September until 12December 1927, by which time the Olallaswere already halfway through their work inthe south. Nevertheless, he reassured theOlallas that the museum would pay for theirsupplies and for their travel to the Uru-bamba. He conceded that he had no preciseinformation about the mountains betweenthe Urubamba and the Pichis and allowedthat, if this venture were not possible, thebrothers should return to Iquitos and thendescend the Rıo Amazonas to ‘‘Teffe’’ (nowTefe) in Brazil. Once there collections shouldbe made on both sides of the river, withspecial emphasis on the obscure small birdsthat live on or near the ground. The Olallaswere not to receive these new instructionsuntil months later. Fortunately, the Olallasneeded no reminders to collect from bothsides of rivers and to obtain completecollections of the small and obscure species.They had themselves discovered the impor-tance of both of these practices. Chapmanand the two brothers managed to achievesuch remarkable success only through devel-opment of a mutual trust.

THREE LOCALITIES ALONG THE

SOUTHERN UCAYALI

Alfonso’s first report after finally leavingSarayacu described two months at theconfluence of the rıos Tambo and Urubambafrom 7 September to 8 November 1927. Thefirst specimens from this new locality, how-ever, were dated 2 September. The archives ofthe American Museum do not now containthe original version of this report. The extantEnglish translation is in the same format andstyle as Alfonso’s other reports from theUcayali and elsewhere, so there is no reasonto doubt the former existence of the Spanishoriginal. The discrepancy between the firstdates on the labels of specimens and the datein the translated report would be explained ifthe translator had taken a ‘‘2’’ in Alfonso’shandwritten report for a ‘‘7.’’ The apparentcontradiction between the letter from Iquitoson 7 September and the start of work at the

mouth of the Urubamba several days earlieris resolved if we suppose that Ramon tookpassage directly from Sarayacu to the Ur-ubamba, while Alfonso first returned toIquitos with the last shipment from Sarayacubefore meeting his brother on the Urubamba.

Today the Ucayali above Sarayacu is thelocation of the important Amazonian port,Pucallpa, the capital of the department ofUcayali (created in 1980 by partitioning theoriginal department of Loreto). Pucallpaonly developed into a major port after1928, when construction began on therailroad from the highlands. For the preced-ing six years or so, the small village had beenvirtually abandoned following the Cervantesrebellion (Ortiz, 1962, 1984), and Alfonso didnot mention it in his list of the stages on hisreturn to Iquitos. There is also the districtcapital Atalaya, on the Tambo almostopposite its confluence with the Urubamba.Atalaya, still without an overland connectionto the rest of Peru, developed slowly in the1930s as traffic on the rivers increased. Beforethen, the upper Ucayali was a remote area,the province of Franciscan missionaries,rubber barons, and shifting indigenous com-munities (Ortiz, 1974, 1984; Gow, 1991). Inthe rain shadow of the Sierra Divisor on theBrazilian border, the basin of the upperUcayali has a drier climate than Amazoniaproper. On the wide floodplain, there are fewlocations with high ground suitable forsettlements. At the time of the Olallas’ visit,only occasional steam launches would havetraveled the river for trade with the indige-nous people in scattered villages.

In 1927 nothing anticipated the laterdevelopment of Atalaya near the mouth ofthe Urubamba. The Olallas used the house ofone Sr. Francisco V. Hernandez as their base.Alfonso described this location, between therıos Tambo and Urubamba, on the westernside of the mouth of the Urubamba (fig. 6).He mentioned high forest extending south-ward for 5 hours of walking from the camp(about 15 km by the standards for travel inAmazonia), sparse populations of natives,areas of ‘‘wild cane,’’ and one ‘‘white family’’living on the banks of the Tambo. The reportsummarized the range of temperatures atdawn and sunset between 7 September and 7November 1927 (again the translator proba-


bly misread the first date, which was prob-ably 2 September).

Alfonso’s next short report is also pre-served in the AMNH Department of Orni-thology archives solely in English translation.Once again it follows the style and format ofhis other reports. This report concernscollecting from 12 November 1927 to 6January 1928 at a ‘‘place called Santa Rosa’’with a base at ‘‘the house of this name.’’Unlike at the mouth of the Rıo Urubamba,there were also houses of some ‘‘civilized’’natives nearby. To the immediate north, laythe Ucayali and an island with the village of

San Pablo. With respect to this village,Alfonso explicitly stated that ‘‘our explora-tions did not take us there.’’ The Ucayali alsolay east and west of their base, a statementthat does not accord easily with the more orless northward flowing river here, a pointdiscussed further below. To the west, hillsreached the riverbank. To the south, anhour’s walk away, the land became hillyand difficult to penetrate. Here only ‘‘wild,’’as opposed to ‘‘civilized,’’ natives lived.Ranges of temperatures at dawn and sunsetwere provided for the period 12 November to7 January. Alfonso’s report stated that the

Fig. 6. Map of the origin of the Rıo Ucayali, departamento Ucayali, Peru. The Ucayali begins at theconfluence of the Rıo Tambo and the Rıo Urubamba near the current town of Atalya. Foothills of theAndes paralleling the Ucayali, within the dashed line, include a spur that nearly reaches the river. Dotsshow the locations of several current villages mentioned in the text. The Olallas used three camps in thisarea (1–3): at the mouth of the Rıo Urubamba (‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba,’’ 1) and nearby downstream to thewest (‘‘Santa Rosa,’’ 2) and east (‘‘Lagarto,’’ 3) of the general course of the Ucayali.


rıos Tambo and Urubamba were rising fromSeptember to November, an observationexpected at the start of the southern rainyseason on the slopes of the Andes.

Alfonso also briefly described the trip fromthe confluence of the rıos Tambo andUrubamba to Santa Rosa. An hour of traveldownstream from the confluence, he stated,the river divided to form the island of SanPablo. Santa Rosa was near the downstreamend of this island. ‘‘We only explored the leftbank and downwards,’’ he stated. In thiscase, as he was traveling downriver, his use of‘‘left’’ bank with respect to direction oftravel, in agreement with European usagewith respect to direction of flow, indicates thewestern side of the river (fig. 6).

Alfonso’s final report of the brothers’Peruvian activities, at a place called Lagarto,is preserved in the archives of the AMNHDepartment of Ornithology. Entitled ‘‘Con-tinuation of the report of the trip by the firmOlalla and Sons along the Rio Alto UcayaliPeru,’’ this report is written in the samenotebook (a cheap blank book printed andsold in Iquitos) in which Alfonso wrote hisreport on the brothers’ activities at Sarayacu.Alfonso filled in the blank title ‘‘Apunta-mientos y notas Diarias’’ and the owner ‘‘laExpedicion Olalla e Hijos sobre la Region deSarayacu, Rio Ucayali (Peru).’’ He presum-ably had run out of space in other notebooksby the time he wrote his final report and thusappended it to the report on activities atSarayacu almost a year earlier. This reporton Sarayacu is perhaps the previously prom-ised full report, prepared after the finalshipment of specimens from Sarayacu.

The report from Lagarto had the samestyle and format as the preceding ones,except that it was preceded by a briefexplanation of the state of the expedition inearly 1928. In particular, the daily tempera-tures from 8 January through 7 March 1928were written in columns (not just the range oftemperatures provided by the English trans-lation), as they were for the stay at Sarayacu.Like each previous extant report, this onewas signed Alfonso M. Olalla, with a greatflourish underneath the signature. In thiscase, though, there was the additional infor-mation (omitted in the English translation),‘‘Descripcion hecha por Alfonso M. Olalla en

el Rıo Alto Ucayali (Lagarto) el 8 de Marzodel ano de 1928.’’ This note confirmed thatthe report was written at the end of theperiod covered, so the temperatures wereapparently transcribed from a daily record nolonger preserved.

The preface to the final report, written insmaller script and apparently more rapidly, issandwiched between the report on Sarayacuand the report on Lagarto through 8 March.It stated that on 8 January, while Alfonsoremained working at Santa Rosa, Ramonhad embarked for Iquitos, presumably on apassing steam launch. He took two cases ofspecimens and also hoped to recover onceagain from malaria (‘‘para hacerce [sic] curarnuevamente le paludismo que lo ataco’’).

Alfonso remained at Santa Rosa until 11January 1928, when he moved to Lagarto onthe right (eastern) bank of the Ucayali(fig. 6). It took him 2 hours that afternoonby canoe to reach the new site, twice the timerequired to travel from the mouth of the RıoUrubamba to Santa Rosa. By this time, theriver had risen and had developed a fastcurrent. At Lagarto he began collecting thefollowing day. Two months later, on 5March, a launch heading upriver to themouth of the Urubamba provided an oppor-tunity to ship more specimens to Iquitos onits return trip. Alfonso had them packed upby 8 March and despatched them three dayslater, with the notebook containing hisreport. He remained at Lagarto to continuework.

It is noteworthy that the three sites chosenfor work on the upper Rıo Ucayali, althoughall within 10–20 km of each other, werelocated respectively in the three compart-ments of land formed by the confluence ofthe rıos Tambo and Urubamba to form theUcayali (fig. 6). The Olallas had thus inves-tigated all three possible ‘‘sides’’ of theserivers.

To accompany the shipment from La-garto, Alfonso wrote a letter dated 9 March1928. He stated that the brothers had nowreceived Chapman’s letter of 13 September1927, presumably forwarded by steam launchup the Ucayali. In response he acknowledgedthat they had noted the museum’s interest insmall birds but averred that they had notneglected large (and hence more costly) ones


also, as specified in the original contract. Hedescribed how Ramon had returned toIquitos to cure repeated attacks of malariadespite the fine climate in the upper Ucayali.He proposed a plan for exploring theopenings called the Gran Pajonal on thesummits of the mountains to the west.Finally, he requested that the museumauthorize Booth and Company to pay themimmediately on delivery of their shipments,an arrangement that would facilitate theircontinuing work. No mention is made ofTefe, so Chapman’s December letter hadpresumably not yet made its way upriver.

A translation of Alfonso’s report on theremainder of his time at Lagarto is now in thearchives of the Department of Mammalogy,although the original is missing. This accountstates that work on the Ucayali continueduntil 31 March, when the arsenic for pre-serving skins ran out. Ramon in Iquitos hadforwarded supplies from the museum toAlfonso at Lagarto, who needed them foropening a route to the Gran Pajonal. Thisplan was not fulfilled, however, because on 7April Alfonso received a cablegram relayedfrom Ramon with the museum’s latest orderto descend the Amazon to Tefe in Brazil.Soon after, by good luck, Alfonso was able totravel down the Ucayali with a merchant asfar as the town of ‘‘Arellana,’’ presumablythe modern town of Orellana near his formercamp above Sarayacu. He left Lagarto on 11April and reached Orellana on 23 April.

Alfonso’s report details his itinerary on hisreturn to Iquitos from Lagarto (a documentin the archives of the Department of Orni-thology duplicates this itinerary). It lists hisdaily stages presumably by canoe down theUcayali to ‘‘Arellana.’’ Many of the stagesare still recognizable towns or tributaryrivers: Bolognesi, Sheshea, Contamana,Cushabatay, and Orellana. At Orellana hehad to await the arrival of a launch headedfor Iquitos from Puerto Bermudez on 27April. He eventually arrived in Iquitos on 30April. The report concludes with a summaryof temperatures at Lagarto from 8 through31 March. It thus seems clear that Alfonsocontinued to work at Lagarto during themonth of March. To what extent he venturedacross the Ucayali during this time is notclear, a point addressed further below.

ANOTHER CHANGE OF PLANS AND

DEPARTURE FROM PERU

The final documents in the archives of theDepartment of Ornithology for the Olallas’activities in Peru consist of letters andreceipts from Iquitos in 1928. On 16 January1928, Ramon signed a bill of lading from G.Delgado e Cia for shipment of large boxes ofdried animals (‘‘cajones grandes conteniendoanimales disecados’’) from the confluence ofthe rıos Tambo and Urubamba to Iquitos,for a cost of eight Peruvian pounds. On 23January 1928, he signed a receipt for 100Peruvian pounds forwarded from theAMNH. There is also a custom agent’sitemized list of collecting supplies, including13 kg of arsenic and 30 kg of ‘‘municion,’’imported presumably from New York. On 7April 1928 Booth American Shipping, 14Battery Place, New York, sent a letter toChapman with news that their Iquitos officehad received two cases for shipment and thatOlalla requested funds to pay their passagesto Tefe according to instructions. Letterscrossing in transit were a continuing prob-lem.

By this time, Chapman had a new plan inmind for the Olalla brothers. The AMNHwas organizing an expedition to exploreMount Duida in southern Venezuela. Afterconvening in Manaus, Brazil, the expeditionled by the AMNH mammalogist G.H.H.Tate was to ascend the Rıo Negro to reach itsdestination. In an effort to coordinate theOlallas with this expedition, on 5 May 1928Chapman requested that Booth AmericanShipping in New York send a cable to theiragents in Iquitos: ‘‘Send Olallas to Manaos,paying passage. Letters there. Cancel Teffe.’’Two days later Chapman wrote a letter to theOlallas to explain the change of plans. Herequested that the brothers proceed directlyto Manaus, where the office of Booth andCompany would act as the museum’s agents,just as they had in Iquitos. The museum’sexpedition was not yet certain, but in anyevent the Olallas were to continue collectingon both sides of the Rıo Negro and on thesouth side of the rıos Amazonas or Solimoes.Chapman had Alfonso’s letter of 9 Marchand a cable from Iquitos on 7 April withnews of two more boxes of specimens, which


had not yet reached New York. When theydid, Chapman promised to settle the ac-counts for the expedition to the Ucayali (witha reminder that the museum had alreadyadvanced 100 Peruvian pounds on 23 Janu-ary and again on 30 April).

In a letter to Chapman dated 24 May,Alfonso expressed some understandable frus-tration with the repeated changes of plans. Inresponse to Chapman’s letter on 12 Decem-ber 1927, he had gone to some expense inanticipation of opening trails from theUcayali to the Gran Pajonal atop themountains to the west. He protested thatthe changes in plans put them in financialstraits, because the funds they earned fromthe museum were invested in making theirsubsequent collections (‘‘lo que ganamos, seinvierte en hacer las colecciones’’). Althoughhe expressed enthusiasm for the workplanned in Brazil, he requested that themuseum make some changes in their con-tract. He stipulated that (1) the museumwould pay for arsenic, ‘‘municion fina,’’ andcotton for wrapping specimens, (2) themuseum would have their agents advancehalf the value of their collections on receivingthem for shipment, and (3) the firm AlfonsoM. Olalla y hermano (rather than CarlosOlalla e hijos) would henceforth take respon-sibility for the expeditions and should receiveacknowledgment in the museum’s publica-tions.

The following day he sent a telegram toNew York requesting 30 Peruvian pounds forpassage to Manaus. Chapman sent thismoney promptly, although in a letter of 28May 1928 he again noted that he wasadvancing funds before receiving the latestshipment of specimens. He also reiteratedthat the museum wanted collections nearManaus while the Olallas awaited the arrivalof the expedition under the direction ofG.H.H. Tate. Alfonso responded to theadvance of a further 30 Peruvian pounds ina brief letter on 30 May 1928. The money hadarrived just after the departure of thesteamboat for Manaus. As subsequent lettersfrom Chapman make clear, the Olallas didnot claim this advance. Instead, in order notto lose time awaiting another launch, theydeparted immediately for Manaus by a localboat. Alfonso requested that Chapman for-

ward the fare for this trip, 14 Peruvianpounds, to Manaus.

On 28 June 1928, Chapman acknowledgedthe request for changes in the museum’scontract. He had authorized Tate to draw upan entirely new contract in Manaus. Thepayment for specimens would remain thesame, and the museum would continue topay for essential supplies and for longjourneys to new localities. His concludingparagraph (which would have been translat-ed to Spanish before dispatch) expressed hisfeeling about the work so far: ‘‘It is a pleasureto add that your work has been satisfactory,that your specimens have been well made,and that your notes have been kept with care;and we trust that you, on your part,appreciate the opportunity which this muse-um has given you to make large collectionsand to add widely to your experiences in thefield. We hope that we may continue tocooperate to our mutual advantage.’’

Chapman’s list of shipments receivedthrough July 1928 and his accounting oftheir value and the museum’s advances andpayments showed shipments of birds receivedfrom the Ucayali on September and Novem-ber 1927 and March, June, and July 1928.The average value of a Peruvian pound inthis interval was US $3.74. A final account-ing showed $1003.70 for birds, $604.50 formammals, $27.75 for boxes, and $76.59 fortransportation between Iquitos and Uru-bamba, a total of $1712.54. Total paymentsand advances came to $1609.92, including thefinal advance of 30 Peruvian pounds forpassages to Manaus. This left $102.62 (about30 Peruvian pounds) still due to the Olallas.

The archives of the Department of Mam-malogy include a translation of Alfonso’sreport on the brothers’ activities from June toSeptember 1928, as they traveled fromIquitos to Manaus and eventually joinedTate. The archives of the Department ofOrnithology have an itinerary with relevantdates apparently extracted from this docu-ment. Alfonso and Ramon departed Iquitoson 15 June 1928 and reached ‘‘San PabloAlivence’’ (now Sao Paulo de Olivencao)13 days later, as appropriate for travel bylocal boats. Because they were uncertainwhere the musuem wanted them to work(and furthermore were nearly broke), they


resolved that Alfonso would take the month-ly steamer to Manaos, while Ramon andtheir employees would continue as before toTefe to await news from Alfonso.

Ramon remained at Tefe until 25 July,when he moved to neighboring Santo Isidoroto find more birds. He remained there until17 August. The archives of the Departmentof Ornithology include a translation ofAlfonso’s report on the stay at Tefe, in thestandard format, with the limits of collecting,the nature of the country and vegetation, anda summary of the temperatures between 10and 25 July 1928. No report is extant on thework at Santo Isidro or near Manaus.

When Alfonso arrived in Manaus on 3July 1928, he received Chapman’s letter of 7May. In a brief response that day hementioned that the museum’s paymentsthrough Booth and Company had all beenreceived. Ramon was healthy. What they hadearned in the upper Ucayali had paid for hiscure. He expressed concern that the headwa-ters of the Rıo Negro were reputed to havemany diseases. It was necessary to takeantidotes for malaria. Furthermore, theyhad no further funds to continue work andhad thus asked Booth and Company torequest an advance from the museum. On 8July he received notice that no advancewould be forthcoming, according to Alfon-so’s report now in the Department ofMammalogy. Furthermore, he could notobtain permission to stay at a haciendawhere he hoped to find the unusual furnariidBerlepschia rikeri, a species of special interestto Chapman. On 15 July he instead left forHacienda Rıo Negro to resume work. Themuseum evidently soon changed its mind andsent an advance of $150, for which Alfonsoreturned to Manaus. He promptly sent fundsto Ramon for his passage to Manaus.Alfonso then stayed at the hacienda inManaus to recover from an illness.

Later in July 1928 Chapman wrote to theOlallas to confirm the museum’s support andto request that they put themselves underTate’s direction when he arrived. He thennotified Tate that the final shipment from theUpper Ucayali had arrived in New York on20 July 1928 and, as a consequence, themuseum owed them $70.90. Chapman statedthat, upon arrival of this shipment, he had

cabled Booth and Company in Manaus toadvance the Olallas $150 in gold. He urgedTate, ‘‘Since their services and good-will areof more value to us than a few sucres … Ithink it would be well to make a settlementwhich is satisfactory to the Olallas.’’ By thispoint, Chapman obviously regarded theOlallas as a valuable asset for the museum.

Eventually Tate arrived and then, on 20August, Ramon reached Manaus. Tate in-sisted that the Olallas and four assistantsaccompanying Ramon have their healthchecked, with the result that Ramon entereda hospital for 10 days, evidently for treatmentof his recurring malaria. Alfonso in themeantime managed to collect a pair ofBerlepschia on 1 September, and on thefollowing day he signed the contract withTate for the expedition to Mount Duida.

Employees (‘‘empleados,’’ ‘‘comitiva’’) ofthe Olallas are first mentioned in Alfonso’sreport on the trip from Iquitos to Manaus.The only previous allusion to assistants hadbeen Alfonso’s description of local peoplehelping to open trails into the mountainswest of the Ucayali. Most of their time inPeru was marked by continual financialdifficulties, which would have made hiringassistants problematic. In view of the failureof any previous reports to mention assistants,it seems possible that Alfonso first hiredemployees on the Ucayali in preparation fora move to the Gran Pajonal. Alfonso’sreports of subsequent expeditions for theAMNH, not only the Tyler expedition toDuida from September 1928 to March 1929,but also subsequent expeditions to theOrinoco, Casiquiare, Uaupes, Madeira, Ja-munda, Tapajos, Xingu, and sites along theAmazon, all mentioned assistants routinely.In his diary on March 21, 1929, Tatedescribed one of the Olallas’ assistants, anadopted 14-year-old boy, Augustin, who hadassisted the Olallas for ‘‘a couple of years.’’

Tate had previously led AMNH expedi-tions to Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela(Anthony, 1954). He evidently took a dimview of the Olallas at their first meeting. On29 August 1928 he wrote to Chapman, ‘‘Theycame in the first day to me with a great air ofassurance, and proved themselves somewhatunattractive to all of us. I decided that I wasgoing to reduce the attack of swelled head


from which they were suffering immediate-ly.’’ To this end, he had drawn up a contractwith the Olallas ‘‘rather severe in tone … sothat there should be no doubt whatsoever asto their status with the Expedition. Ever sincethey have been like lambs.’’ After nearlythree years of incessant work, recurrentillness, crossed communications, unpredict-able finances, and yet unprecedented success,the two brothers Olalla might have justifiablyprojected some confidence in themselves.Tate, on the other hand, understandablywanted to make it clear who was boss.

The contract, a copy of which is preservedin the archives of the Department of Orni-thology, is indeed one-sided in stipulatingthat the Olallas must obey the orders of anymember of the expedition whatever, camp ata distance from the rest, do their owncooking, and maintain cleanliness. The expe-dition agreed to provide the essential suppliesand costs of transportation up the Rıo Negroto Mount Duida. Tate, on the other hand,could terminate the Olallas services withoutadvance notice. Any member of the Olallas’party leaving the expedition without Tate’spermission would sacrifice all pay. If theOlallas continued work on the upper RıoNegro, then funds for this work would bedeposited with Booth and Company inManaus. No payment for the work wouldbe made in advance or during the expedition,but only on return to Manaus. The Olallasmust pay for their own assistants.

When they first met, Tate was disappoint-ed with Alfonso’s small collection from theRıo Negro, which he valued at $75. A fewdays later, according to Tate’s letter, Ramonarrived with a ‘‘fine collection’’ from Tefe,valued at $250. After deducting advancestotaling $120, he paid the Olallas $200 andleft it to Chapman to settle the account afterthe Olallas had shipped further specimensfrom the vicinity of Manaus prior to thedeparture of the expedition. On 3 September1928, Alfonso wrote to Chapman fromManaus to express his acceptance of thenew contract. He apologized for the collec-tions from near Manaus and Tefe that weresmaller than usual, but he pointed out that hehad successfully obtained Berlepschia rikeri.Despite Tate’s attitude, Alfonso closed hisletter ‘‘quedando satisfechos por lo favorable

apreciacion que el Museo hace de nuestrostrabajos, y teniendo esperanza de continuaren la misma forma [remaining gratified forthe museum’s appreciation of our work andhoping to continue in the same fashion].’’

The expedition to Mount Duida had itstroubles (Tate, 1931a), but these seem not tohave affected the Olallas, who once againassembled impressive collections. Tate’s diarymade it clear that the Olallas always campedat a distance from the rest of the expedition.His photograph (fig. 7) and admiring de-scription of their well-maintained camp at thebase on Mount Duida are preserved in thearchives of the Department of Mammalogy.Tate’s diaries mentioned that they hadconstructed their usual two huts, one for alaboratory and the other for a kitchen. TheOlallas’ and their assistants slept under a tarpTate had lent them. Tate described Alfonsoworking under a shawl that exposed only hiseyes and nose, in order to keep the insects atbay. Despite Tate’s initial impression, heeventually came to appreciate the brothers’and their assistants’ industriousness and theirorderly camp. They quickly adopted hisinstructions for preparing specimens ofmammals, so that eventually Tate marveledat their beautiful specimens.

While ascending the Rıo Negro on 4September 1938, the first day of the expedi-tion, Tate described in his diary how theOlallas prepared birds. It is the only eyewit-ness account of their methods:

They use practically no cornmeal; they strip thesecondaries of the wings, and later push part ofthe wing back inside the skin. I don’t see howthey make the secondaries lie properly afterbeing stripped off the ulna. The cotton bodiesthey make for their birds are very loose andsoft. Their birds’ eyes are put in before turningthe skin back and pulled part way through theopening in the skin. They sew up their birdswith three or four stitches. They dry them incones and later roll tubes for the skins whichthey fasten with paste. They break each leg atthe top of the tibiofibula before starting to skin,and at the head they cut down through the backof the skull first, and afterwards make the twobackward cuts along the mandibles with scissorsand also the upward cut between the eyes.

As his diary made clear, Tate obviouslyenjoyed talking about natural history with


Fig. 7. Alfonso Olalla at the Tyler-Duida Expedition’s Central Camp on Mount Duida, photographedby G.H.H. Tate on February 16, 1929. Notice the large numbers of prepared specimens, including manymammals, stored in paper sleeves ready for shipment to New York. Tate’s diary on the Tyler-DuidaExpedition, now in the Department of Mammalogy at the AMNH, describes his visits with Alfonso, inwhich they discussed the natural history of birds and mammals.


Alfonso. Soon after the expedition, he includ-ed some of Alfonso’s unique observations in anote on the habits of South Americanmammals (Tate, 1931b). Alfonso also repeat-edly solicited information about the scientificnames of birds and mammals and expressedhis desire to learn English and scientificaspects of biology. Ramon, on the other hand,was evidently less memorable. Tate noted onlythat he always deferred to Alfonso.

Despite his improved opinion of the Olal-las, Tate drove a hard bargain in negotiating acontract with the brothers for subsequentwork for the AMNH on the rıos Negro andUaupes. The sticking point was food. TheOlallas held out for an allotment for food,while Tate refused to budge in his insistencethat the museum would pay only for collectingsupplies, the skins received, and travel byriver. In the end, he agreed to provide someextra guns and an advance to cover expensesfor food. Tate and the Olallas parted companyin Manaus in late March or early April 1929,never to meet again, although they main-tained a sporadic correspondence (preservedin the AMNH Department of Mammalogyarchives) for many years.

As the Olallas’ collections arrived in NewYork, Chapman’s confidence in them grew.His communications progressed over the yearsfrom initial chiding reminders, strict finances,and tight control to eventual enthusiasm,trust, and even chagrin, when he postponedthe final advance for fares to Manaus, on thetechnicality that the brothers’ previous ship-ment had not yet reached New York.

Between expeditions (and sometimes inter-rupting them) one or both brothers spentweeks in the hospital in Manaus to recoverfrom illness. Beginning in the last half of1930, Alfonso led the expeditions in Brazilwithout Ramon, who by then had returned toQuito (according to letters in the Departmentof Mammalogy), presumably to recover frommounting effects of malaria.

In the 1930s Alfonso took citizenship,married, and settled in Brazil. He and hiscrews went on to make large collections forthe AMNH, the Museum of ComparativeZoology at Harvard University (Griscomand Greenway, 1941), the Royal Museumin Stockholm (in recognition of which theAcademy of Science in Stockholm awarded

him its Linnaean Medal), the PeabodyMuseum at Yale University, the Los AngelesCounty Museum, and the Museu Paulista inSao Paulo (Pinto, 1938–1944). His collectionsin Stockholm from the rıos Jurua and Purusand from northern Bolivia provided thematerial for detailed monographs by Gylden-stolpe (1945a, 1945b, 1951), which, likeZimmer’s earlier publications, remain cor-nerstones of our current knowledge about thedistribution and taxonomy of Amazonianbirds (for the mammals from these expedi-tions, see Patterson, 1991). Alfonso himselfpublished papers in Revista do Museu Pau-lista (Olalla, 1935a, 1935b, 1937). WhenAlfonso died in 1971, Paulo Vanzolini wrotehis obituary in Arquivos de Zoologia (Museude Zoologia, Universidade de Sao Paulo) inwhich he acknowledged his valuable contri-butions to that museum. Professor Vanzolini,who had visited Alfonso Olalla in the field inthe 1960s, described the care with which hiscrews worked and summarized his feelingsabout the extraordinary person as follows:

The contribution of Alfonso Maria Olalla to thecollections of this Museum [Museu de Zoologia,Universidad de Sao Paulo] were of the greatestimportance, not only in quantity (he was amajor contributor to the collections of birds andmammals) but also in quality. He was a friendlyand outgoing person, with an interest inzoological matters that was always fresh.Although a professional collector, he wasgenerous. He understood the value of littlethings, often giving the Museum specimens thathe knew made valuable additions to ourcollections. We have considered him to be moreof a colleague than a dealer and deeply feel hispassing (Vanzolini, 1972, translated from thePortuguese).

The American Museum of Natural Histo-ry, as well as other museums around theworld, might all heartily agree. It is difficultto imagine any other person who exploredthe Amazon basin so thoroughly, or whocontributed so much to documenting its birdsand mammals, as Alfonso Olalla.

LABELS ON THE OLALLAS’ SPECIMENS

All specimens from the Olallas include alabel with penciled information on date,location, sex, and size of the gonads (G for


‘‘grande’’ or enlarged, P for ‘‘pequeno’’ ornot enlarged). Evidence presented belowsuggests that these labels were written at thetime the specimens were prepared. No doubtChapman’s early instruction included thisbasic procedure. In contrast, collectors in thepreceding century often first attached a smalllabel with a number for cross-reference withtheir notebook and only later added a labelwith information about the specimen. TheOlallas’ had blank labels printed in advance,following the practice of the AMNH expedi-tions in the preceding decades, with allinformation in common for the expedition,so that only the particulars about eachspecimen had to be added.

The handwriting on all the Olallas’ labelsfrom collections in Ecuador, Peru, and Brazilfrom 1923 through 1930 resembles thehandwriting in Alfonso’s handwritten reportssent to the American Museum with ship-ments of specimens. There is some variationin the formation of letters and numerals, butI have not detected any pattern to thesedifferences. It is possible that Alfonso himselfprepared most of these labels, but it is alsopossible that Alfonso, his father Carlos, andhis brother Ramon all intentionally stan-dardized the letters used on the labels. Forinstance, the specimens from Lagarto Cocha(where Carlos worked without his two sons)and from the last months at the mouth of theRıo Curaray (where Alfonso and Ramonworked without their father) all have labelswith handwriting similar to that during thefirst months at the Curaray (where they allworked together). As Alfonso’s collectingcontinued in Brazil, his writing on labelsslowly evolved but remained recognizablysimilar to that on earlier labels.

The blank labels used by the Olallas wereevidently printed in batches, at least some ofwhich can be differentiated by slight varia-tions in format. Each batch was usedconsistently for a block of dates, often moreor less corresponding to an expedition. Fortheir first expedition to Sumaco in 1923, forinstance, they had standard AMNH labelsprinted thus:

American Museum of [extra space] Natural

History / … [location] [date] / Olalla & Sons. / E.

Ecuador. Tropical Zone. (verso) [blank]

where a slash indicates a new line, dots ablank line, and square brackets enclose myown notes about format or about informa-tion entered on the labels later. For theirsecond expedition to Sumaco the followingyear, they must have had a new batch oflabels printed:

Fecha…[date] Sexo… [sex then gonad, each

followed by a period] /Loc… [location] /

OLALLA Y HIJOS-ECUADOR (verso) Am.

Mus. Nat. Hist. No.

Perhaps these were printed in Quitowithout Chapman’s supervision. Note thatthe American Museum’s name is abbreviatedand placed on the verso and that the name ofthe Olalla firm is printed in capital letters,entirely in Spanish, prominently on the front.

Labels identical to the last were used for allspecimens from the mouth of the Curarayand the mouth of Lagarto Cocha. Indeed,specimens from all subsequent localities inPeru, with the exception of Sarayacu, alsohad identical labels, except that each labelhas a neat stamp in ink, ‘‘PERU,’’ addedafter ‘‘ECUADOR.’’ All of these labels had avertical black line to mark the left margin,and all had the proximal corners trimmed.

The brothers used different labels atSarayacu. These lacked the vertical line(although the corners were trimmed) andhad been printed,

Fecha … Sexo … / Loc… / Carlos Olalla e hijos

/ QUITO-ECUADOR [‘‘PERU’’ stamped neat-

ly to right of ‘‘ECUADOR’’] (verso) [space]

Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. / No.

A small number of specimens from themouth of the Rıo Urubamba also have thesealternative labels, which also reappear inBrazil later, as we shall see. Alfonso nevermentioned a shortage of labels in his lettersto Chapman, which often urgently requestedother supplies, so the labels presumablycame from elsewhere. The incorrect countryon the labels suggests that they came fromQuito, sent by Carlos to his sons for use inPeru.

After leaving Peru, the brothers still hadsome of these labels remaining. Althoughthey continued to use them, they introducedprogressively more corrections. On the Rıo


Negro in 1929 and Rıo Madeira in March1930, they used labels of the second type,above, with ‘‘Y HIJOS-PERU’’ lined out and‘‘Bros’’ and ‘‘Brasil’’ added in the samehandwriting as the date, location, sex, andgonad. On the other hand, on the Madeira inFebruary 1930, they used labels of the thirdtype, like those at Sarayacu, except with‘‘Carlos,’’ ‘‘e hijos,’’ and ‘‘QUITO-ECUA-DOR’’ lined out and ‘‘Bros’’ and ‘‘Brasil’’added, again all in the same handwriting. Thechanges in the name of the firm correspondwith Alfonso’s requests beginning in 1928that Chapman deal directly with the twobrothers (and eventually just Alfonso) with-out including their father, who was by nowfar from the scene of operations.

The close resemblance of the handwritingon all labels from Ecuador and Peru suggestthat Carlos, Alfonso, and Ramon workedtogether closely to standardize their proce-dures, even the formation of the letters andnumerals in their writing. Presumably theyalso attempted to standardize their proce-dures for determining the sex and the stateof the gonad for each specimen. There areonly a few specimens for which the sex isindicated‘‘?’’. On all other specimens thestate of the gonad is recorded. Nearly alldates on the labels, as explained below,correspond to those on which the twobrothers worked at each locality accordingto Alfonso’s reports. The exceptions areplausibly explained by a common humanerror: a few specimens prepared in the firstweek of a new year have the preceding yearerroneously written on the label (for in-stance, ‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba, 2 January1927’’ instead of ‘‘… 1928’’). Note that theseoccasional errors in dates in early Januaryare compelling evidence that the labels wereactually written as the specimens wereprepared, rather than at some later time.The localities on the labels from Peru allstipulate only the locality of the camp andnever provide more specific locations orhabitats within each general area, a pointdiscussed in more detail below.

In summary, the Olallas’ labels fit allexpectations for labels prepared at the sametime as the specimens to which they wereattached. The close correspondence betweenthe kinds of printed labels, the localities, the

dates, and the corrections to the labels, onthe one hand, and Alfonso’s reports, on theother, tends to confirm the contemporane-ousness of the labels and the specimens.

LOCALITIES OF THE OLALLAS’COLLECTIONS IN PERU AND NEARBY

INTRODUCTION

Each of the Olallas’ collecting localities hasraised problems in the ornithological litera-ture. At least one of the Olallas’ locations,according to Vaurie, was an outright fabri-cation. Less serious problems include thecountry in which the location is now located,the side of the river on which the brothersworked, and in some cases the approximatelocation of the camp.

The Olallas’ labels in Peru indicate onlythe locations of their camps and neverinclude additional information about thehabitat or circumstances in which a speci-men was collected. As we have seen,Alfonso’s reports included brief descriptionsof the scope of their operations at eachcamp and the corresponding terrain andvegetation. As the Peruvian expeditionscontinued, these remarks became morespecific, but they never were as detailed asthose in Alfonso’s subsequent reports fromBrazil. On the expeditions to the Orinocoand the Rıo Negro in 1929 and 1930, forinstance, Alfonso added small maps of eachcollecting locality to indicate the scope ofoperations and the extent of importanthabitats. These maps usually encompassedan area about 5–6 km around the camp,about the distance that a field worker onfoot might cover in a morning’s work.Native hunters can cover greater distances,but intensive collecting would restrict activ-ities to a smaller area.

The following sections review evidencefrom various sources, including Alfonso’sreports, about the Olallas’ collecting localitiesin Peru. I have visited a number of these sitesin person. Satellite imagery now available onthe Internet provides further information.Google Earth in particular provides latitudeand longitude based on WGS84 datum (allcoordinates provided below were obtained inMarch 2008). GPS coordinates from the field


were obtained with a Garmin 12-satellite unit(WGS84 version current in 2000). I have alsoconsulted the American Geographical So-ciety’s ‘‘Map of Hispanic America,’’ includ-ing the supplement, as well as other sourcesof Peruvian place names.

I have examined almost all of the Olallas’specimens in the AMNH, as well as manyothers (including almost all the Tyranni) inthe ANSP, MCZ, FMNH, and BM. Thenumbers of specimens examined in theAMNH are included in the accounts below.The Olallas’ specimens from Peru in othermuseums were all obtained by exchange orpurchase from the AMNH. The catalogs inthe Department of Ornithology indicate theseexchanges, and their numbers and localitiescorrespond well with the holdings in othermuseums. In particular, the AMNH catalogsand the holdings of other museums show thatmany specimens from the mouth of the RıoCuraray, Puerto Indiana, Orosa, andApayacu were exchanged, but none fromlocalities on the Rıo Ucayali. As explainedbelow, a small number of the Olallas’specimens from Peru reached the AMNH inthe Bassler Collection, rather than in theirown shipments. Otherwise, so far as I haveascertained, the Olallas shipped all of theirother material from Peru directly to theAMNH.

The specimens sent to ANSP resulted in aminor misunderstanding about the Olallas’localities inadvertently propagated by Ste-phens and Traylor (1983). When Bond(1945–1956) published his series of notes onPeruvian birds in the collections of theAcademy of Natural Sciences in Philadel-phia, he listed all specimens from Peru in thiscollection, most of which had been obtainedby M.A. Carriker, Jr. (Bond, 1956). He alsolisted the Olallas’ specimens purchased fromthe AMNH on 29 June 1928, but (as TomSchulenberg pointed out to me) Bond failedto indicate who had collected these specimensand thus left the impression that it had beenCarriker. As a consequence, Stephens andTraylor (1983) subsequently listed Carrikeras a collector at the relevant Ollalas’ loca-tions (mouth of the Rıo Curaray, PuertoIndiana, Orosa, and Apayacu). In fact, onlythe Olallas collected at these localities andnot Carriker.

BOCA RıO CURARAY

The Rıo Curaray, a well-known river(fig. 2), is navigable by cargo vessels fromits mouth on the Rıo Napo upstream beyondthe current international boundary withEcuador. In Peru the Curaray is not morethan 250 m wide, has no islands, andmeanders densely (in some stretches with aperiod of 2.0 6 0.5 km and an amplitude of3.8 6 0.2 km) within a floodplain 7–9 kmwide. The mouth of the river is thus unlikelyto have changed location by more than akilometer or two in the past century. GoogleEarth provides coordinates of 2u219480S,74u59260W, within 200 m of a GPS readingin 2001.

One source of confusion about this localityin the ornithological literature stems from theOlallas’ labels that state ‘‘Ecuador’’ ratherthan Peru. The international boundary be-tween these countries, fixed by an interna-tional commission in the Protocol of Rio deJaneiro in 1941, was finally accepted by bothnations with minor modifications in 1998.Nevertheless, Alfonso’s account of theirjourney down the Rıo Napo in 1925 madeit clear that the boundary was in its currentposition at Rocafuerte even then. Perhaps theOlallas, like other Ecuadorians, had not yetaccepted the de facto boundary. At any rate,while at the mouth of the Curaray, they didnot correct their preprinted labels stating‘‘Ecuador.’’ Consequently, for decades orni-thologists recorded these specimens in theavifauna of Ecuador, not Peru. For instance,Zimmer first listed these specimens fromEcuador. Beginning with his 43rd installmentof Studies of Peruvian Birds, which appearedsoon after the protocol of 1941, he correctlylisted ‘‘mouth of Rıo Curaray’’ under Peru(Zimmer, 1942). In his revisions of theCracidae, Vaurie (1964–1967) also correctlylisted these specimens in Peru. Nevertheless,not long afterwards, Vaurie (1972) failed toinclude this location in his gazetteer ofPeruvian ornithological localities. Stephensand Traylor (1983) corrected this omission,and subsequently all ornithologists haverecognized that this locality is well withinthe boundaries of modern Peru.

Recent satellite images show two majorislands in the middle of the Rıo Napo


opposite the mouth of the Curaray, bothabout 0.5 km from each bank. Alfonso’saccount of the camp on Isla Panduro almostnext to the mouth of the Curaray (‘‘elcampamento general estaba situado en la ıslaPanduro, casi junto a la Boca del Curaray’’or ‘‘entre la confluencia del Napo y elCuraray’’) suggests an island more closelyassociated with the mouth of the Curaraythan any current island. If so, the arrange-ment of islands in this part of the Napo haschanged in the past 75 years, not an unlikelypossibility considering the rate at whichislands in large Amazonian rivers change insize and location. At any rate, Alfonso’sdescription does not allow us to specify theexact island on which the Olallas camped.

His use of the term ‘‘campamento general’’suggests that there might also have beentemporary camps nearby. They had a largeteam working here, so it is possible that someindividuals ranged widely. Alfonso’s notesdescribe the scope of their trips, whichextended to both sides of the Napo andalong the Curaray (‘‘exploraciones diarias ala banda de le Curaray o en ambas orillas delNapo’’). With some effort a person couldtravel 10 km upriver by canoe in 2 or 3 hours,spend a morning collecting, and returndownriver in 1 hour. On the densely mean-dering Curaray, such an excursion wouldreach only half that distance in a straight linefrom the mouth of the river. Nothing inAlfonso Olalla’s reports allows us to deter-mine exactly where any of the specimens werecollected with respect to the Curaray or theNapo. It is not until later that they made apoint of locating nearby camps on oppositesides of a river. Furthermore, as discussedbelow, the Olallas’ collections do not suggestthat much of their effort was spent onislands.

Recent satellite images suggest that imme-diately east of the Napo, in a major bend ofthe river, is a large aguajal, a backswampdominated by aguaje palms Mauritia flex-uosa. On the other hand, ridges orientedNW-SE within 3–5 km to the south of theconfluence of the Curaray and the Naporeach 30–35 m above the rivers, which hereare about 125 m above sea level. The areathus provides an unusual breadth of habitatsfor lowland Loreto.

The catalogs of the Department of Orni-thology at the AMNH do not list the Olallas’specimens in the order collected. CharlesO’Brien, who cataloged most specimensbetween the 1920s and 1950s, often had abacklog of work (Mary LeCroy, personalcommun.). Sometimes he left space in acatalog for an earlier acquisition while hecataloged a later one, and sometimes he neverreturned to the first. When Mary LeCroybegan cataloging specimens in the 1950s, sheoften filled in blank spaces in earlier catalogs.In some cases, O’Brien noted when anacquisition had been received and when hebegan and finished cataloging it, but in othercases he did not. The Olallas’ specimens fromthe Ucayali (Sarayacu, Boca Rıo Urubamba,Santa Rosa, Lagarto) were entered in thecatalog in three batches. Those from PuertoIndiana, Orosa, and Apayacu were allcataloged in one batch, with annotationsabout the dates of arrival and cataloging.This latter batch included some specimensfrom Boca Rıo Curaray and Boca LagartoCocha, but most of the material from thesetwo locations is cataloged in a batch alongwith specimens from several locations inEcuador in March and July 1925. There areno notations in this latter case of when thespecimens were received or when the cata-loging took place.

The catalogs include approximately 7625specimens of birds from the Olallas’ collec-tions in Peru (table 1), many subsequentlyexchanged with or sold to other museums,especially the MCZ and ANSP. I haveexamined 6329 of these specimens (table 2),all that were available in the AMNHcollections during several visits from 2004to 2008 (presumably all that were catalogedexcept those on loan and those exchangedpermanently). Of this total, 1261 came fromBoca Rıo Curaray.

Of these 1261 specimens, all had dates onthe Olallas’ labels between 15 October 1925and 15 May 1926, although there wererelatively few after January (table 2). Alfon-so’s first report stated that work began on 15October. On 9 January most of the expedi-tion left to return to Quito, as describedearlier. On 21 March Alfonso and Ramonprepared to leave for Iquitos. In his nextreport, however, Alfonso made it clear that


TA

BL

E1

Cata

log

num

ber

so

fth

eD

epart

men

to

fO

rnit

holo

gy

(AM

NH

)fo

rbir

ds

inth

eO

lall

as’

coll

ecti

on

s

Lo

cali

ties

Ca

talo

gn

um

ber

s

N

Da

tes

cata

log

edR

ecei

ved

No

tes

Fir

stL

ast

Sta

rtE

nd

Da

teN

Pto

.In

dia

na

,O

rosa

,a

nd

Ap

ay

acu

230

443

233

07

62

63

3A

ug

192

7S

ept

192

7?

?In

clu

din

gso

me

spec

imen

sfr

om

Bo

caR

ıoC

ura

ray

an

dL

ag

art

o

Co

cha

;m

an

ysp

ecim

ens

exch

an

ged

wit

hA

NS

Pa

nd

MC

Z

Sa

raya

cu2

37

431

238

70

71

27

61

0O

ct1

92

81

9N

ov

192

8N

ov

192

71

256

Lag

art

o2

38

757

239

59

58

38

21

No

v1

92

81

0Ja

n1

92

9Ju

n1

928

838

Bo

caR

ıoU

rub

am

ba

an

dS

ta.

Ro

sa2

39

596

240

88

51

27

61

7Ja

n1

92

96

Feb

192

9?

?E

xce

pt

23

98

64

–8

76

Bo

caR

ıoC

ura

ray

an

dL

ag

art

oC

och

a2

54

760

257

12

62

36

6?

??

?A

bo

ut

160

0sp

ecim

ens

fro

m

Bo

caR

ıoC

ura

ray

an

dL

ag

art

o

Co

cha

wit

hth

ere

ma

ind

er

coll

ecte

db

yO

lall

as

inM

arc

h

an

dJu

ly1

925

at

fou

rlo

cali

ties

inE

cua

do

r

TO

TA

L(P

eru

,in

clu

din

gL

ag

art

oC

och

a)

762

3(a

pp

roxim

ate

ly)


he left for Iquitos alone and that Ramonstayed behind at the Curaray although mostof his supplies had been exhausted. Onlyafter Alfonso’s second return from Iquitosdid the two brothers finally leave the Curarayon 15 May 1926. The dates on theirspecimens thus correspond exactly to thedates of their residence at the Curarayaccording to Alfonso’s reports. Alfonso’ssecond report, covering the final departurefrom the Curaray, was sent to New Yorkafter the brothers’ subsequent trips to theOrosa and Apayacu, much later than the lastshipment of specimens from the Curaray.

The small number of specimens afterJanuary 1926 is partly explained by thesmaller crew in the field but mostly by thelack of supplies, especially arsenic for pre-serving skins. Evidently the brothers cur-tailed collecting when they could not followthe AMNH procedures for preparing speci-mens. A letter from Tate at the AmericanMuseum on 20 June 1927 cautioned thebrothers about using local substitutes forarsenic, a possibility that Alfonso emphati-cally denied in his response on 7 September,when he pleaded for additional shipments ofarsenic from New York.

BOCA LAGARTO COCHA

This locality, where the returning Olallasstopped on a detour during their trip upriver,is also easily located today. The Rıo Lagarto

Cocha is a small tributary of the RıoAguarico, itself a tributary of the Napo.The current international boundary betweenEcuador and Peru follows the lower Agaricoand the Lagarto Cocha. As mentioned above,Carlos Olalla’s letter stated that it took threedays to canoe up the Rıo Aguarico to reachthe Lagarto Cocha. It also referred to theLagarto Cocha as the route to the Putumayo,so there is no doubt this locality is thecurrently recognized Rıo Lagarto Cocha onthe border of Ecuador and Peru.

Carlos had nothing to say about where hisparty camped or collected at the mouth of theriver. Lagarto Cocha, despite its name(‘‘cocha’’ means lake in Quechua), is a smallblackwater river, less than 50 m wide, thatmeanders southward through hilly terrain.Recent satellite photos show the mouth ofthe river at 0u399180S, 75u159410W, but itappears that this mouth is recent, formerlyhaving been about 2 km SW. Like manysimilar cases in Amazonia, the lower courseof the tributary lies within the floodplain ofthe larger river and parallels it for somedistance, often following old channels of thelarger river. On some occasion, the tributarycut through the narrow separation to form anew mouth upstream. The most remarkablefeature of Lagarto Cocha is the extensivecomplex of blackwater lakes and swampsstraddling the international boundary forsome 30 km beginning about 5 km upstreamfrom the current mouth. This area is prob-

TABLE 2Numbers of specimens of birds collected by the Olallas in Peru and examined in the Department of

Ornithology (AMNH)

Locality

Passeriformes

Other

Dates

Passeri Tyranni Totals Earliest Latest

Boca Rıo 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 Rıo 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.’’


ably the source of the name Lagarto Cocha(‘‘lagarto’’ is caiman in Amazonian Spanish)and also of the local reports received byCarlos that the area had interesting birds andanimals.

The major uncertainty about this localityis whether the specimens, including the typeof Thamnophilus praecox (Zimmer, 1937),should be included in the avifauna ofEcuador or Peru. Because Carlos gave nohint of the scope of collecting around themouth of the river, the specimens could havecome from either country. Although officialsmonitored movements on the Napo atRocafuerte at the mouth of the Aguarico, itseems unlikely that any officials constrainedthe Olallas’ movements along the Rıo La-garto Cocha in 1926. Specimens from La-garto Cocha all have the Olallas’ usual labelswith ‘‘Ecuador’’ preprinted on them, but, aswe have already seen, the Olallas used theselabels for all specimens from the Curarayalso, which they knew full well was farbeyond the de facto international border atRocafuerte. The labels thus provide nojustification for assigning the specimens toone country or the other. In view of thenarrow width of the Lagarto Cocha, it seemsunlikely that any bird or mammal, or humanexplorer, would be limited to one side or theother. A reasonable approach, thus, would beto include the specimens from Lagarto Cochain the avifaunas of both countries.

The specimens of birds from Boca LagartoCocha, of which we examined 111 in theDepartment of Ornithology, have dates from15 January through 26 January 1926, inagreement with Carlos’ report in the letter heposted from Quito on their return.

PUERTO INDIANA

This town, now named simply ‘‘Indiana,’’with several thousand inhabitants, must havehad only a few houses in the 1920s. The Mapof Hispanic America (sheet SA-18, 1938,1949) does not include any such locality.Even decades later, a detailed description ofthe Peruvian Amazon (Faura Gaig, 1962)described only a small village with a Fran-ciscan school. At that time there were plansto connect the town with nearby Mazan onthe Rıo Napo. This road, finished in 1975

and paved in 1989, according to localresidents, no doubt contributed to the town’sgrowth. Indiana is on the left (northern) bankof the Rıo Amazonas on the narrow neck ofhigh ground that separates this river from thelarge southern loop of the Napo some 40 kmabove its mouth (fig. 3). No doubt forcenturies there has been a trail across thisneck to permit people and cargo to portagefrom the Napo to the Amazonas on the wayto and from Iquitos. The alternative name,Puerto Indiana, used by the Olallas, is thusappropriate. Google Earth has coordinates3u309100S, 73u29400W.

The isthmus between the Amazonas andthe Napo is 3.5 km wide at Indiana. At itsnarrowest, about 3 km SW of Indiana, it isonly 3.0 km wide. To the east of Indiana itrapidly widens. Nowadays some 10 km of theisthmus, including the area around Indiana,is deforested except for about 150 ha onproperty owned by Explorama Tours. Thestretch of the Amazonas opposite Indiana isas narrow as anywhere in Peru, about 1.0–1.1 km wide, and the river is about 98 mabove sea level at this point. The isthmus inthe narrowest section reaches elevationsabout 10 m above the river, but not farENE or WSW, elevations exceed 20 m abovethe river. No varzea (seasonally floodedforest) occurs along the northern bank ofthe Amazonas near Indiana (the closest isover 25 km ENE). On the Napo side of theisthmus, however, large tracts of varzea beginabout 7.5 km NNE of Indiana. Directlysouthward across the Amazonas from In-diana is a complex of large islands within alooping channel of the river. On this southernside of the Amazonas for a long way both up-and downstream, varzea extends at least10 km from the main channel.

There is no indication that the Amazonashas altered its course in this area in the pastcentury, so the situation at the time of theOlallas’ visit was presumably similar to thepresent one, except that the town was muchsmaller and the surrounding area less exten-sively deforested. As Alfonso’s report speci-fied, the brothers began daily explorationalong the bank of the Amazonas on 20 May1926 as far as the Rıo Napo (‘‘recorriendo enexploraciones diarias la ribera del RıoAmazonas, limitada por el Rıo Napo’’).


The report emphasized that they did notcross the Amazon because the terrain on theopposite was flooded and unsuitable forcamping. The Amazonas reaches its maxi-mum stage in May and June (some 10 mabove the minimum in November), so duringthe Olallas’ visit nearly all of the landopposite Indiana would have been inundated.None of the brothers’ specimens fromIndiana is a species now known to occuronly on the southern side of the Amazonas.Their collection thus presumably came fromthe area now mostly deforested on theisthmus between the Amazonas and theNapo within 5–10 km of the modern townof Indiana.

The catalog of the Department of Orni-thology at the AMNH shows that thespecimens from Indiana were cataloged alongwith those from the Olallas’ next twolocalities, Orosa and Apayacu, in Augustand September 1927 (table 1). We examined817 specimens of birds from ‘‘Pto. Indiana’’in the AMNH, all dated between 19 May and23 August 1926 (table 2), in agreement withAlfonso’s report of when they worked there.They embarked for their trip downriver on 26August.

OROSA

The Rıo Orosa is the largest southerntributary of the Amazonas between themouth of the Napo and the historic town ofPebas on the northern side of the river (figs. 2and 4). Presumably the brothers chose thislocation largely because of the storm thatwrecked their raft. After spending a daydrying out at a house on the bank of theAmazonas, they traveled only a few hoursfarther to reach Orosa (‘‘el lugar de Orosa’’).Beginning on 1 September 1926, they ex-plored islands of the Amazonas and the areathat extends southward toward the RıoJavarı (also spelled Yavarı) (‘‘haciendo ex-ploraciones diarias a las isles del Amazonas,o ya a los terrenos que se extienden hasta elRıo Javarı’’). No mention is made of a rivernearby, nor of the town of Pebas.

It seems almost certain that the brothersmade their camp in the general vicinity of theRıo Orosa near the southern (left) bank ofthe Amazonas, but their description makes it

difficult to determine the exact location.Although their itinerary did not includeenough time to travel a substantial way upa tributary before camping, they would havelearned from local people that the Rıo Orosaprovides a route to the Rıo Javari. From theheadwaters, many days by canoe upriver, it ispossible to cross overland to the Rıo Javarı-Mirim and then to descend to the Javarı.Recently this route has been used by loggingcrews (personal obs.). Even with motors, ittakes a number of days to reach the RıoJavarı, so it is unlikely that the Olallastraveled that far while collecting. The absenceof any mention of a river in Alfonso’s reporttends to confirm that canoeing upriver wasnot a major part of their activities. ‘‘Hasta elRıo Javarı’’ is best interpreted to mean ‘‘inthe direction of the Javari,’’ in other wordsgenerally southward from their camp.

The brothers often camped near the mouthof a river, so their locality ‘‘Orosa’’ waspresumably near the mouth of that river.Even if we accept this possibility, it is difficultto determine where this site might have beenin 1926. The Orosa is an extreme example ofa frequent pattern of tributary rivers in thePeruvian Amazon. Its lower course parallelsthe Amazonas for about 40 km, never morethan 8 km away, before reaching its mouth(fig. 2). The river appears to have incorpo-rated one old channel of the main river afteranother into its lower course. Its currentmouth in a narrow channel behind a largeisland suggests that this process is continuing.Consequently, it is likely that the mouth wasconsiderably farther west nearly 80 years agowhen the Olallas visited. The village at thecurrent mouth of the Orosa is Huanana(INEI, 2008, locally called Huanta). Anothervillage named San Jose de Orosa about 14 kmWSW of the current mouth of the river isdirectly opposite the mouth of the RıoApayacu (GOREL, 2005; INEI, 2008, how-ever, shows this town farther south on thecurrent course of the river, a location towhich the town perhaps moved after the riverchanged its course). Because towns at themouths of rivers in Amazonian Peru oftentake their name from the river, San Jose deOrosa might have formerly been at themouth of the river. Indeed the Map ofHispanic America (sheet SA-18, 1949) shows


a town named Orosa at this locationembraced by two mouths of the river.

The vestiges of this former mouth of theOrosa still exist. Just upriver from San Josede Orosa a secondary channel of the Orosaempties into the Amazonas (about 15 kmWSW of the current principal mouth; fig. 2).This secondary mouth faces a cluster ofislands near the southern bank of theAmazonas, just as Alfonso’s descriptionstates. There are no other islands in the mainriver until well below the current mouth. Inaddition, this site is directly opposite themouth of the Rıo Apayacu, the next localityvisited by the two brothers, who reached it bycrossing the Amazonas one afternoon.

The current mouth of the Orosa, on thesatellite images of Google Earth, is at3u299070S, 72u039020W, where it empties intoa long channel behind a large island. Theprobable location of the Olallas’ camp, nearthe current (or former) village of San Jose deOrosa, is near 3u319310S, 72u119220W (fig. 2).The land along the southern side of theAmazonas for a long way in either directionfrom the mouth of the Orosa (either currentor previous) is on the floodplain of theAmazonas, which is some 15 km wide at thispoint. The forest within 6–8 km of theAmazonas is seasonally flooded varzea. Atthe time of the Olallas’ visit, however, theriver would have been at or near its loweststage for the year, so this forest would havebeen easy to traverse on foot. The currentcourse of the Orosa now skirts the edge ofhigh ground along the edge of the floodplain.Wherever the mouth was in the Olallas’ day,a trip of 5 km or so upriver would haveprovided access to terra firme forest.

We examined 691 specimens of birds from‘‘Orosa,’’ all dated between 1 September and7 December 1926 (table 2). None of thesespecimens is a species now known to occuronly on the northern side of the Amazonas.None is a species now known to be restrictedto islands in major rivers (see below).Alfonso’s mention of visits to islands mightinstead explain the large series of migratingshorebirds from Orosa, presumably collectedon mud banks exposed by the falling river inthe months of their visit. The Olallascollections are thus in agreement with Alfon-so’s reports and most likely from a location

somewhat west of the current mouth of theRıo Orosa.

APAYACU

This locality is also associated with themouth of a well-known river, the RıoApayacu, a major northern tributary of theAmazonas between the Napo and the townof Pebas (figs. 2 and 4). Local people arecareful to avoid confusion between the RıoAmpiyacu, with its mouth at Pebas, and theRıo Apayacu, with its mouth considerablyfarther upriver. Vaurie (1972) was confusedabout this locality. His gazetteer includedtwo entries. One (APAYACU RIVER,‘‘mouth of river, near Pebas’’) he places at03u219S, 72u089W. The other (APAYACU‘‘[Ampiyacu, or Auayacu]’’) he equates withthe Islas Apayacu in the Amazonas, which heplaces at 03u239S, 72u089W. These two sets ofcoordinates are about 3 km apart about14 km NNE of the mouth of the RıoApayacu. Local people today might well callthe island just upstream from the mouth ofthe river ‘‘isla Apayacu,’’ but the island is notlarge enough to have had much permanenceover the course of decades. Vaurie’s accountthus conflates two adjacent but distinctrivers.

Although the Map of Hispanic America(sheet SA-18), on which Vaurie relied, wasextensively revised between the editions of1938 and 1949, both versions clearly distin-guish the Ampiyacu and Apayacu rivers andindicate ‘‘Isla (or Islas) Apayacu.’’ On themuch-improved later edition, these islands liewell below the mouth of the Apayacuapproximately opposite the current mouthof the Orosa where a cluster of large islandsstill exists.

Alfonso’s report stated that the brothersworked at Orosa until 11 December 1926. Onthat date they crossed the Amazonas to campon the island in which the Rıo Apayacudebouches (‘‘se camparon en la ısla delAmazonas en la cual desemboca el RıoApayacu’’). This reference to an islandpuzzled Vaurie, who assumed it referred toislands named ‘‘Isla (or Islas) Apayacu’’ inthe middle of the Amazonas on the Map ofHispanic America (sheet SA-18, which in-cludes these islands in somewhat different


locations in its 1938 and 1949 editions).These islands, however, do not correspondto the Olallas’ locality. Instead, the arrange-ment of the mouth of the river matchesAlfonso’s description exactly.

The Apayacu, like other Amazoniantributaries previously discussed, parallels themain river, in this case only for 7–8 km, andincorporates part of a former loop of theAmazonas (fig. 4). It then meets anothermore recent loop of the Amazonas, whichhas become the current mouth. Until recentlythe town of Apayacu, with about 20 houses,was located on the narrow spit of landbetween the final course of the Apayacuand the Amazonas. During periods of highwater the town was surrounded by floodedforest for many kilometers in all directions.As a result of extreme erosion during highwater in 2008 and 2009, the town wasrelocated upriver. By 2010, the narrow spitof land had almost disappeared. No doubtthe Olallas camped on this spot, where it islikely that a small village already existed inthe 1920s. On Google Earth’s satellite imagesthe location is 3u299200S, 72u109550W.

Alfonso’s report made no mention of theextent of their explorations around Apayacu.With the exception of restingas (formernatural levees of the main river), no highground exists near Apayacu. The floodplainof the Amazonas, unusually wide at thispoint, extends about 12 km northward. Thereis a small island in the Amazonas that wouldhave been easily accessible, but, unlesssubstantially larger in the 1920s, it wouldnot have taken long to explore.

We examined 437 specimens of birds fromApayacu, all dated between 11 December1926 and 29 January 1927 (table 2). Thecollection includes all of the expected speciesnow known to occur only on the north sideof the Amazonas and none of the species nowknown to occur only on the south side. Nospecies restricted to islands, nor shorebirds,are represented. The composition of thecollection is thus consistent with Alfonso’sreport.

SARAYACU

The Olallas, as described above, workednear Sarayacu during two distinct periods

between March and August 1927. During thefirst period they used two different campsacross the Rıo Ucayali from each other,although Alfonso’s report stated that duringpart of the time at the first camp, the brotherscollected on both sides of the river. Duringthe second period of work near Sarayacu,they camped at a third location somedistance upriver. Sarayacu is thus actuallythree localities in the same general vicinity.Alfonso’s notes together with recent satelliteimages allow us to reach some conclusionsabout where they camped and collectedduring these six months.

Sarayacu was originally a mission foundedby Franciscans who descended the Ucayali in1791. In the first half of the 1800s, it was themost important port of call for travelers onthe Ucayali and was visited by a number ofEuropeans and Americans, including severalornithologists (see Stephens and Traylor,1983). There is another Sarayacu, on theRıo Bobonaza in southern Ecuador, whichClarence Buckley used as a base for assem-bling a large collection of birds in the 1890s(Sclater and Salvin, 1880; Jenkinson andTuttle, 1976) and where a later Olallacollected for the Museum of ComparativeZoology in the 1960s. Alfonso and Ramon’slabels, however, are not ambiguous, becauseby the time they visited Sarayacu on theUcayali the brothers had begun to correcttheir printed labels by stamping ‘‘Peru’’ oneach one.

Sarayacu is now a village (with GoogleEarth coordinates 06u479280S, 75u069510W)along the edge of high ground, slightly over2 km from the left (overall western) bank ofthe Ucayali, which at this point flows nearlyeastward in one of its large loops (fig. 5). Thesurrounding administrative district is stillnamed Sarayacu, although the village is nolonger its capital. The Map of HispanicAmerica (sheet SB-18, 1938) shows Sarayacusome 15 km west of the Ucayali and 20 kmNNW of Orellana. The orientation of theriver at Orellana and the location of theContamana hills (‘‘Cerros de Canchyuaya’’)is approximately correct, but the location ofSarayacu on this map is misleading.

According to Alfonso, the brothers’ firstcamp was on the ‘‘left’’ bank of the riveropposite the town and their second camp was


on the ‘‘right’’ bank opposite the first. Wehave already noted that, by local custom,‘‘left’’ referred to the general direction oftravel. For the Olallas ascending the Ucayaliand thus traveling generally southward, thevillage of Sarayacu would have been on theirright (the side to the west of the generalcourse of the river). With reference to thedirection of flow, the first camp was on theright bank and the second camp on the left.

Alfonso’s descriptions of their first twocamps correspond closely with the terrain onthe two sides of the river immediately in front(south) of the village. The high groundoccupied by the town forms the edge of thefloodplain. To the south for some 2 kmbefore reaching the current bank of the river,the terrain consists of densely spaced rest-ingas (natural former levees) with tall forestand a few small lakes and clearings. On theopposite side of the Ucayali, low-lying landextends 6 km from the river with numerouslakes derived from former channels of theriver. Alfonso stated that the terrain nearboth of the first two camps was low-lyingwith wet soil.

Near the first camp, according to Alfonso,there were many swamps with aguaje palms(aguajales). The forest was flooded to a depthof 4–5 m (‘‘Esta anegado hasta una distanciade 4 o 5 metros sobre el nivel de la montana,o sea el agua penetra en la selva’’). This depthwould represent a high stage of the river,usually reached in May, coinciding with theOlallas’ visit. Only at lower stages wouldlakes become apparent. During rising water,mosquitoes are often abundant, as the Olallasnoted repeatedly.

Near the second camp, according toAlfonso, there were fewer aguajales but theground was nevertheless wet. In places theforest had been cleared for cemeteries, anindication of land above the level of annualflooding (see above). High restingas are stillused for cemeteries by riverside communitiesin Amazonian Peru.

Neither of these camps offered easy accessto terra firma. The town sits on an eastward-projecting peninsula of high ground. To thewest the land slopes upward gradually forsome 30 km to the outlying foothills of theAndes. To reach terra firma, the brotherscould have walked westward beyond the

cleared areas around the village. The smallmeandering Rıo Sarayaquillo enters theUcayali from the west just above thepresumed locations of their first two camps.Alfonso makes no mention of this tributary,so apparently it was not used by the twobrothers. To the east of these camps theywould have had to traverse 6–9 km offlooded varzea to reach high ground.

Alfonso’s report stipulated that specimenscollected from 11 March through 15 April1927 came from the ‘‘left’’ bank ‘‘oppositethe old village of Sarayacu’’ (on the generallyeastern side of the river), those collected from16 April to 10 May came from both sides ofthe river, although they remained at the firstcamp. Subsequently, specimens obtainedfrom 11 May to 16 June came from the‘‘right’’ bank while they were at their secondcamp.

After a hiatus in Iquitos to replenishsupplies and to recover from malaria, thebrothers returned to Sarayacu where theyused a third camp from 10 July to 15 August.During this time, specimens were collected onthe ‘‘left’’ bank again, so presumably theycamped on that bank also. According toAlfonso’s report, this third location was twohours by canoe south of the earlier camps (‘‘ados horas de sureada en canoa desde losprimeros campamentos’’). Two hours upriverin a loaded canoe would take them about 8–12 km almost due southward to a pointapproximately opposite the current town ofOrellana (with Google Earth coordinates6u549440S, 75u099220W), the capital of thedistrict Vargas Guerra. Once again theterrain opposite Orellana fits Alfonso’s de-scriptions of the area around the brothers’camp.

Just above (south of) Orellana the Ucayalimakes a right-angled bend, which embraces alarge triangular area with terrain much likethat around the first two camps (withnumerous former channels and restingas)(fig. 5). Behind this low-lying area is a zoneabout 3 km wide that lacks these indicationsof flooded varzea. This northwesterly trend-ing zone is a continuation of the Contamanahills (Cerros de Canchahuaya), an outlierfrom the more rugged hills toward theBrazilian border. On recent satellite imagesthis zone supports many agricultural plots


(chacras). Lying behind the triangular blockof flooded varzea, this zone reaches the bankof the Ucayali in two places, one oppositeOrellana and another 10 km upriver, aroundthe right-angled bend, at the northwesternend of the Contamana hills (fig. 5). Later, inhis final report from Lagarto, Alfonsomentioned that the Contamana hills are theonly place on the eastern side of the Ucayaliwhere the river adjoins high ground. Becausethey lie a little farther upriver from thebrothers’ third camp at Sarayacu, where theyhad not yet explored, Alfonso does notmention these hills in his reports fromSarayacu.

According to Alfonso, the third campoccupied land that flooded only in excep-tionally high water. There were few lakes andno swamps. The land was flat, and from thebanks of the river the forest was high andeasy to move through (‘‘facil de hacercorrerio’’). At that time, there were almostno inhabitants. This description seems likelyto have applied to the zone, now thoroughlycultivated, that extends northwestward fromthe Contamana hills to a point oppositeOrellana. The area opposite present-dayOrellana is the most likely location of thethird camp.

If these interpretations of the Olallas’ threecamps near Sarayacu are correct, then theircoordinates from Google Earth are approx-imately 6u499040S, 75u069220W (first camp),6u489360S, 75u069370W (second camp), and6u549280S, 75u89350W (third camp) (fig. 5).

We examined 1124 specimens of birdscollected by the Olallas and labeled Sarayacu(table 2): 261 from 11 March–15 April, 304from 16 April–10 May; 122 from 11 May–16June; and 417 from 10 July–14 August. Allfell within the dates stipulated by Alfonso’sreport, except one ‘‘Egretta alba’’ (Ardeaalba) dated ‘‘17 June 1927.’’ Of the total, 678came from the ‘‘left’’ bank (east of theUcayali), 122 from the ‘‘right bank’’ (westof the Ucayali), and 304 from the periodwhen collections were made on both banks.

The third camp was close to the narrowestsection of floodplain along the entire courseof the Ucayali. At their northern end, theContamana hills approach within 1 km of theeastern bank of the river. On the other side,SW of Orellana, outlying hills of the Andes

approach within 9 km of the western bank.These two ranges of hills are only 25 kmapart at their ends. The floodplain betweenthem narrows to 6 km wide and the riveritself to 0.3 km, by far the narrowest betweenthe origin of the Ucayali at the confluence ofthe Urubamba and the Tambo and its mouthat its confluence with the Maranon. This gapdivides the lower Ucayali from the drierupper Ucayali, which lies in the slight rainshadow of the rugged hills along the Brazi-lian border (Sierra Divisor). Throughout itscourse the upper Ucayali meanders through afloodplain 20–30 km wide.

BOCA RıO URUBAMBA

This locality, between the confluence of therıos Tambo and Urubamba according toAlfonso’s report, is readily located on satel-lite images at coordinates 10u429250S,73u459000W (fig. 6). Today the small cityAtalaya, a provincial capital, occupies thewestern side of the Tambo just above theconfluence and no more than a few kilome-ters from the Olallas’ old campsite. LikePucallpa, Atalaya became a populationcenter and capital only in the 1930s and1940s (Ortiz, 1974, 1984).

Alfonso’s report accurately described theorientation of the two rivers at the confluence(the Urubamba flowing from the east, theTambo from the south). He mentioned asmall canal of the Tambo that flowed into theUrubamba just above the principal conflu-ence. Today this canal has evidently becomethe main channel of the Tambo, and asecondary channel (presumably the mainchannel in the Olallas’ day) now joins theUcayali just below the confluence. Alfonsomentioned Campos and ‘‘Peios’’ (Piros), bothof which are described as ‘‘civilized Indians,’’which occupy essentially the same areastoday (the Piro east of the Campo) (Gow,1991). Alfonso described high forest extend-ing to the south on low terrain for ‘‘up to5 hours walking from the camp,’’ beyondwhich the surface became stony. Recentsatellite imagery shows the land between theTambo and Urubamba rising gently to thesouth. About 10 km south of the confluence,ranges of low hills first appear and clearingsfor cultivation disappear. The detailed corre-


spondence between Alfonso’s account andthe conditions at the mouth of the RıoUrubamba leaves no doubt that the brothersactually camped here, despite Vaurie’s widelycirculated conclusion that this locality wasfabricated by them.

The Tambo and Urubamba are each about300–500 m wide near their confluence.Alfonso’s report is unclear about whetherthe brothers’ explorations extended acrossthese rivers. Nevertheless, it seems likely thatthey limited their activities to the peninsulabetween the rivers, because their next twocamps seem to have been chosen expressly toexplore the nearby western and eastern sidesof the Ucayali. Alfonso’ report stipulates thattemperatures were recorded here from 7September to 7 November 1927.

In the AMNH Department of Ornitholo-gy, we examined a total of 420 specimenslabeled ‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba’’ with datesbetween 9 September and 5 November 1927(table 2). An immature Tigrisoma lineatumfrom this locality has a discolored label witha date now illegible.

SANTA ROSA AND LAGARTO

These two localities are the last collectingsites visited by the Olallas before they shiftedtheir operations to Brazil. The two are not farapart, as Alfonso’s report stipulated that hetraveled from Santa Rosa to Lagarto in twohours by canoe. Such a trip would cover adistance of about 15–20 km by river.Furthermore, Santa Rosa was only one hourby canoe from the mouth of the RıoUrubamba. Alfonso stipulated that SantaRosa was on the ‘‘left’’ bank and Lagarto onthe ‘‘right’’ bank. As he was now travelingdownriver, ‘‘left’’ would correspond to thewest side and ‘‘right’’ to the east side of thegeneral course of the river.

From Alfonso’s description, Santa Rosawas in a large loop of the Ucayali with the‘‘left’’ bank of the river lying both east andwest of the brothers’ camp. Furthermore, theriver included a large island to the north onwhich was located a village named SanPablo. He stated that this island began aboutone hour downriver (perhaps 8–10 km) fromthe confluence of the Tambo and Urubamba.Santa Rosa was located opposite the (pre-

sumably far) end of this island. A house onthe riverbank served as a base of operations.To the east of camp the land was flat, but tothe west hills rose from the bank of the river.

The locatity called Lagarto (Alfonso’sreport always stipulated ‘‘denominado La-garto,’’ as if the name were unusual or notwell-known) lay between two small streams(‘‘pequeno riachuelo’’) where Alfonsocamped at the house of one Senor Rios.Alfonso described the limits of his collectingas the Rıo Ucayali itself to the north, theRiachuelo Lagarto to the east, and theRiachuelo Apenihua to the west. To thesouth, east, and west the ground was low,with a few small swamps as a result offlooding by the river and torrential rains. Tothe south there was high forest, much like inlowlands along the lower Ucayali and Ama-zonas. Aside from Sr. Rios’ house, the areawas uninhabited. Between Santa Rosa andLagarto were many islands, and two islandswere east and west of Lagarto respectively,apparently just bars that disappeared at timesof high water. He noted that the ‘‘left’’(eastern) side of the Ucayali was flat fromits origin to its mouth, except below Con-tamana, where, as noted above, hills comeclose to the river.

Recent satellite images reveal candidatesfor both of these locations (fig. 4). A range oflow hills reaches the western bank of theUcayali about 10 km northwest of theconfluence of the Tambo and Urubamba,and two small creeks enter the Ucayali fromthe east about 15–20 km northwest of thesehills. Based on these geographic features, it isreasonable to place Santa Rosa near10u409550S, 73u499100W and Lagarto near10u359500S, 73u529400W.

Current place names confirm these loca-tions. INEI (2008) lists two small communi-ties about 20 km northwest of Atalaya namedLagarto and Apinihua. There is also a townnamed Santa Rosa between Atalaya andLagarto. Coriat names eastern tributaries ofthe Rıo Ucayali named Apinihua and La-garto in approximately the locations identi-fied above (Coriat, 1942: 196) and presents amap with towns named Santa Rosa andLagarto roughly 10 and 20 km northwest ofthe mouth of the Rıo Urubamba, respectivelyon the west and east banks of the Ucayali


(ibid.: 192–193). Faura Gaig (1962) alsoincludes Santa Rosa in his description ofthe upper Ucayali in a location not far belowAtalaya and on the same side of the river,and Ortiz (1984) includes maps that showSanta Rosa and Rıo Lagarto in this area. TheInstituto de Bien Comun, which assists na-tive communities to acquire title to sur-rounding land, lists ‘‘comunidades nativastitulados’’ named Lagarto Millar (10u379260S,73u489490W), Santa Rosa de Laulate (10 4054 S, 73 49 28 W), Apinihua (10 33 55 S, 7355 53 W), and Apinihua Centro (10 35 30 S,73 54 40 W), each readily located on GoogleEarth. The first is associated with a rivercalled ‘‘Quebrada Lagarto’’ and the thirdwith ‘‘Quebrada Apinihua.’’ Santa Rosa deLaulate lies close to the position deducedabove for Santa Rosa based on Alfonso’sreport of its topography. Quebradas Lagartoand Apinihua enter the Ucayali from theeast about the right distance downriver. Thecurrent mouth of Quebrada Lagarto is atthe position deduced above for the Olallas’camp. The Apinihua is farther downriver,rather than a short distance upriver, as inAlfonso’s description. The location of Api-nahua Centro suggests that the Apinihuamight have changed its mouth in the pastdecades, so it is possible that the two‘‘creeks’’ were closer in the Olallas’ time.The reversed locations of the two creeks inAlfonso’s description are perhaps related toa problem with the location of the Ucayaliitself (see below).

The Map of Hispanic America (sheet SC-18, 1938) shows a village named Santa Rosaabout 5 km north of the mouth of theUrubamba, close to the presumed locationidentified above. This map shows the Ucayaliflowing almost due west at this point, anunlikely possibility. There is no localitynamed Lagarto along the upper Ucayali onthis map. There seems to be no trace of thetown of San Pablo, mentioned by Alfonso onthe island opposite his camp at Lagarto.Perhaps it has disappeared entirely, a fate notimprobable for a small town on an island inAmazonia.

The descriptions of the course of theUcayali in Alfonso’s reports do not corre-spond to the river’s likely course during hisvisits. At Santa Rosa he described the river

both east and west of the camp and an islandto the north. Currently, at the presumedlocation of Santa Rosa, just above the hillsthat reach the river, the Ucayali flows moreor less northwestward through a cluster oflarge islands. The channel through theseislands might well have changed since the1920s, but it is not clear how the river couldhave been west of camp as well as east at thislocation. At the presumed location of La-garto between the two eastern tributaries, theUcayali again flows approximately north-westward, so it is not clear how the rivercould lie north of camp.

There are two possible explanations forAlfonso’s problematic descriptions of thecourse of the Ucayali: either the locationsof Santa Rosa and Lagarto deduced aboveare wrong or Alfonso was confused about theorientation of the river. Satellite images showno alternatives to the proposed locations forthese two sites. The nearest loop of theUcayali flowing eastward, which wouldprovide a location on the eastern bank withthe Ucayali to the north, is at least twice asfar downriver, well beyond any reasonabledistance for three or four hours’ travel bycanoe and well beyond the current placenames. As Alfonso noted, there are no hillseast of the Ucayali until far downriverbeyond Contamana. Even west of theUcayali the only hills approaching the bankof the river are the ones noted above.

Because there are no plausible alternativesfor Santa Rosa and Lagarto, it seems morelikely that Alfonso confused the directions tothe river in his reports. If he inadvertentlyswitched ‘‘north’’ and ‘‘south’’ in his descrip-tion of Lagarto, the directions to the twocreeks would probably also have beenswitched. If so, the reversed locations ofLagarto and Apinihua creeks would beexplained. Even today local people make nouse of compasses and refer to the cardinaldirections in a general sense only. Adding tothe difficulty of distinguishing north andsouth, at the season when Alfonso worked atthese sites, the sun would have been nearlyoverhead at noon.

Alfonso’s reports stated that temperatureswere recorded at Santa Rosa from 12November 1927 through 7 January 1928and at Lagarto from 8 January through 7


March and again from 8 March through 31March 1928. We examined 734 specimensfrom Santa Rosa and the same number fromLagarto in the AMNH Department ofOrnithology (table 2). The specimens fromSanta Rosa had dates between 12 November1927 and 10 January 1928, except oneLepidothrix coronata exquisitor on 2 Novem-ber 1927 (perhaps an error for 2 December).The specimens we examined from Lagartohad dates between 11 January and 31 March1928. Alfonso’s report indicated that he hadtaken advantage of a passing launch to shipspecimens to Iquitos on 11 March. Hisnotebook in the archives of the Departmentof Ornithology includes temperatures to thatdate, and his translated report in the Depart-ment of Mammalogy summarizes the tem-peratures for the remainder of March.

Alfonso’s report covering the final weeksat Lagarto leaves it uncertain whether he everbegan work on the route to the Gran Pajonal.It states that he awaited supplies to continuethis work (‘‘para seguir viaje al Pajonal’’).His letter to Chapman after his return toIquitos indicated that the brothers had goneto some expense (‘‘los pagos que hicimos’’) inanticipation of opening trails (‘‘nos anticipa-mos en hacerlos [caminos]’’) into the moun-tains to the west, as Chapman had earlierrequested. It is thus not clear that the trail tothe Gran Pajonal was actually begun, al-though the brothers had apparently incurredexpenses in anticipation of this work. Itremains possible that Alfonso spent sometime on the western side of the Ucayaliduring this time, but the tenor of his reportsdoes not suggest that he made collectionsthere.

TEFFE

Alfonso submitted a report on the work atTeffe (now Tefe), currently present in trans-lation in the archives of the Department ofOrnithology. As discussed earlier, Alfonsonever visited Tefe and must have preparedthis report from Ramon’s notes. The reportonly summarized temperatures for the dates10–25 July 1928. According to dates onspecimens, collecting took place from 10 to23 July at ‘‘Boca Lago Teffe’’ and then from

25 July to 14 August from ‘‘Santo IsidoroTeffe.’’ These dates agree with those inAlfonso’s report in the Department ofMammalogy, discussed above.

Alfonso’s description of activities for thefirst period stated that the base for collectingactivities was the town of ‘‘Teffe.’’ Theterrain he described corresponds with thecurrent location of the town, just inside themouth of the channel connecting the lake tothe Solimoes on the southern bank of thelake with high ground to the south. Nomention is made of Santa Isidoro, thelocation on labels from the second period.Alfonso’s report of his activities from Junethrough August in the Department of Mam-malogy, however, describes Santo Isidoro asa neighboring community (‘‘colindando conel mismo Teffe’’).

In their gazetteer for Brazil, Paynter andTraylor cited Zimmer (1931: 9) for thelocality Santo Isidoro, but stated that thecollector and date were unknown and thelocality ‘‘not located.’’ They suggested thatZimmer might have misspelled the name. Infact, Zimmer had spelled the locality correct-ly and Ramon Olalla collected many speci-mens there.

The Map of Hispanic America (sheet SA-20 dated 1930) shows a village named ‘‘SitioIsidoro’’ about 8 km east of ‘‘Teffe,’’ on thesouthern bank of the Solimoes just outsidethe mouth of the channel leading to the lake.Searches on the Internet revealed that there iscurrently a ‘‘comunidade San Isidoro’’ in themunicipality of Tefe, although there is noinformation available about its exact loca-tion. The channels and islands in theSolimoes at the mouth of the Rıo Tefe mighthave changed since the 1920s, so the town ofSanto Isidoro might also have moved.Nevertheless, it is almost certain that at thetime of the Olallas’ visit Santo Isidoro was onthe southern side of the Solimoes adjoiningTefe itself.

Google Earth has 03u209450S, 64u429300Wfor Tefe. Santo Isidoro was probably within10 km to the east or southeast. Thecoordinates provided by Paynter and Traylorin their listing for Santo Isidoro are presum-ably intended to be for Tefe itself, as theycould not locate Santo Isidoro, and are closeto Google Earth’s coordinates for Tefe.


Santo Isidoro was possibly about 12 km SEat 03u249080S, 64u369420W.

DISTRIBUTIONS OF BIRDS INAMAZONIAN PERU

INTRODUCTION

One reason that ornithologists have onoccasion doubted the Olallas’ localities is theunexpected distributions indicated by someof their specimens. The information present-ed so far has suggested that the Olallasthemselves were aware of the faunal differ-ences encountered on opposite sides of majorrivers and indeed might be credited withbringing this phenomenon to Chapman’sattention. Nevertheless, some of their speci-mens do not conform to our current notionsof bird and mammal distributions in easternPeru. Furthermore, some specimens arelabeled from sites hundreds of kilometersfrom the nearest locations at which thespecies are otherwise known to occur. Thefollowing sections discuss the limitations ofspecies and subspecies by major rivers inrelation to the Olallas’ collections.

Before proceeding, however, it is well toemphasize that we are still a way fromunderstanding the details of the distributionsof birds and mammals in Amazonia. There isalways the possibility that new informationcan change expectations. A striking exampleis the recent confirmation that Leucopternismelanops occurs on the Rıo Tapajos, close tothe location at which Alfonso Olalla collecteda specimen in 1936 on the ‘‘wrong’’ side ofthe Amazon (Barlow et al., 2001, Raposo deAmaral et al., 2007). It is also now knownthat Mitu tuberosum occurs north of theAmazon near the location at which theOlallas collected a specimen on the RıoNegro (Scheuerman, 1977). It is also well toremember that few, if any, modern ornithol-ogists have spent as much time in Amazoniaas Alfonso Olalla and that nobody has evercollected so many Amazonian specimens.Encounters with a few vagrants or outlyingpopulations, even a few dozen, constitute nomore than a tiny proportion of his collec-tions.

In this list and the following ones, theOlallas’ locations are abbreviated with two-

letter codes and listed from north to southand east to west in Peru:

LC, Boca Lagarto Cocha;

CU, Boca Rıo Curaray;

IN, Puerto Indiana;

AP, Apayacu;

OR, Orosa;

SAA, SAB, SAC, and SAD, the four stages ofinvestigation near Sarayacu;

LA, Lagarto;

SR, Santa Rosa;

UR, Boca Rıo Urubamba;

LT, Boca Lago Tefe;

SI, Santo Isidoro Tefe.

Recall that these localities lie along the RıoNapo (LC, CU), on the northern side of theRıo Amazonas (IN, AP), on the southernside of the Amazonas (OR), on the easternside of the overall course of the Rıo Ucayali(SAA, SAD, LA), on the western side of theUcayali (SAC), on both sides of the Ucayali(SAB), between the rıos Tambo and Uru-bamba at the origin of the Ucayali (UR), andon the southern side of the Solimoes (con-tinuation of the Amazonas in Brazil) (LT,SI). For each locality, I list the numbers ofmale (-), female (U), and unsexed orunknown (?) specimens collected by theOlallas.

DISTRIBUTIONS CONFIRMED BY THE

OLALLAS’ COLLECTIONS

The following systematic list includesspecies whose ranges (or whose subspecies’ranges) are now thought to reach limits innortheastern Peru (or to vary geographicallythere) and for which all the Olallas’ speci-mens are in agreement with current under-standing of their distributions. Subsequentlists include those species for which some ofthe Olallas specimens do not match currentunderstanding or for which their specimensraise interesting questions about distribu-tions. The present list shows that a largeproportion of the Olallas’ specimens confirmcurrent understanding of distributions.


Leucopternis melanops (CU 1U).

Leucopternis kuhli (UR 2U). Replaces melanopssouth of the Amazonas in Peru.

Nothocrax urumutum (LC 1- 1U, AP 1-). Onlynorth of the Amazonas.

Crax [Mitu] salvini (CU 3- 1U).

Crax [Mitu]mitu [tuberosum] (OR 1- 1U, SAB1U, SR 1-, UR 2- 2U). Replaces salvini southof the Amazonas in most of Loreto and north ofthe Amazonas in easternmost Loreto near theRıo Putumayo (Scheuerman, 1977).

Odontophorus gujanensis (buckleyi, LC 1-, CU 5-3U, IN 1- 1U).

Odontophorus stellatus (OR 5- 7U, SAD 1U, LA3- 2U, UR 3- 1U). Replaces gujanensis southof the Amazonas and Maranon.

Psophia crepitans (napensis, LC 1- 1U, CU 2-3U, IN 1-).

Psophia leucoptera (LT 1-, OR 2- 4U, SAA 1-2U, SAB 1-, UR 1- 5U). Replaces crepitanssouth of the Amazonas.

Phaethornis bourcieri (bourcieri, CU 1-, AP 1-,IN 1-).

Phaethornis philippii (SI 2- 5U, LT 1U, OR 3-,LA 1U). Replaces bourcieri south of theAmazonas (although the situation is morecomplicated along the Ucayali).

Galbalcyrhynchus leucotis (CU 1- 4U, AP 3U, OR2- 2U, SAA 1-, SAD 1- 1U).

Galbalcyrhynchus purusianus (LA 1U). Replacesleucotis on the upper Ucayali.

Eubucco richardsoni (richardsoni, CU 10- 8U, IN1U; nigriceps, AP 7- 2U; aurantiicollis, OR 2-1U, SAD 3- 5U, LA 3- 2U, SR 2- 1U). In thisseries there are distinct differences across theAmazonas and less consistent differences acrossthe lower Napo. North of the Amazonas maleshave gray-blue napes, those to the southyellowish. Males from AP have the sides of thehead entirely black, those south of the Amazo-nas have feathers in this area tipped with darkred, and those from CU vary between theseextremes. Males from AP also have moreextensive dark red on the lower breast than dothose from CU.

Pteroglossus beauharnaesii (SI 1-, OR 5- 4U,SAA 2- 3U, SAD 3-, LA 1- 2U, UR 2-).Restricted to the southern side of the Amazonasand the eastern side of the Ucayali.

Philydor erythrocercum (lyra, OR 1U, LA 1-;subfulvum, LC 1- 1U, CU 3U, AP 2-). Thisseries shows a well-defined difference across theAmazonas, but there are too few specimens todocument distributions in western Loreto (theAMNH includes one specimen of subfulvumfrom the mouth of the Rıo Santiago).

Automolus ochrolaemus (turdinus, CU 2- 1U, AP1U, IN 1-; ochrolaemus, SR 1-). The specimen

from Santa Rosa resembles two from SanMartın and others from Junın southward.

Thamnophilus aethiops (kapouni, OR 1U, UR 1U).The female from OR resembles the female fromthe Urubamba and others from southeasternPeru.

Myrmotherula axillaris (melaena, CU 3U, IN 11-9U, LT 2- 2U, OR 1- 1U, SAA 1-, SAD 3-4U; heterozyga, SR 8- 5U, UR 3-). Femalesfrom all localities are similar. Males from CU,IN, OR, and Sarayacu are all similar, almostblackish below and thus lacking contrastbetween the sides and the black bib. Thosefrom LT are slightly paler on the back and sidesof the breast, so they approach heterozygamales, which are slate gray with a longcontrasting bib.

Myrmotherula erythrura (erythrura CU 1- 4U, AP2U, IN 1U; septentrionalis, LT 3U, SR 9- 6U).Specimens from LT, all females, resemble thosefrom SR, except one with an extensive chestnutpatch like nominate males.

Myrmotherula menetriesii (pallida, LC 1- 2U, CU5- 1U, AP 1- 1U, IN 2- 1U; menetriesii, SAD2- 5U, LA 1- 4U, SR 10- 7U, UR 3- 3U).Females from all locations are similar, but malemenetriesii have a narrow black bib that variesin extent without relation to locality.

Myrmotherula ornata (saturata, CU 8- 2U 2?;atrogularis, SR 1-). The male from Santa Rosaresembles those from Curaray. There are nofemale atrogularis in this series.

Microrhopias quixensis (quixensis, CU 6- 2U, IN1- 1U; intercedens, LC 1-, OR 1- 1U, SAD1- 3U). Males of the two subspecies areindistinguishable, so the intercedens at LC wasassigned to the wrong subspecies. Females of thetwo subspecies differ distinctly.

Cercomacra cinerascens (cinerascens, CU 1- 1U;sclateri, LA 3- 5U, SR 3- 2U, UR 1-).Nominate males have plain wings (no spots onwing-coverts), and nominate females havesmaller spots on wing-coverts than do femalesclateri.

Cercomacra nigrescens (fuscicauda, IN 1-, OR 2-1U, LA 4- 5U, UR 1-). The type ofaequatorialis, a female from Sumaco Abajo,Ecuador, is slightly more orangish above andhas a larger white patch on its back than thefemales from OR and LA.

Myrmoborus myotherinus (napensis, CU 1- 4U,AP 1U, IN 4- 1U; myotherinus, SAD 1-, LA10- 5U, SR 5- 1U). Nominate females havebrighter cinnamon breast and abdomen. Spec-imens from Pomara (dept. Amazonas) resemblethose from SR and LA.

Myrmeciza atrothorax (tenebrosa, IN 2-; obscur-ata, SAA 1-, LA 2-, 3U). The males from IN


are slightly darker than those from Sarayacu orLA.

Myrmeciza hemimelaena (hemimelaena, OR 1U,LA 7- 5U, SR 2-, UR 1- 1U). Males andfemales in this series have more white belowthan do specimens from farther south.

Pithys albifrons (peruviana, CU 1-, SR 2-). Thesespecimens resemble males from Ecuador andBrazil (including the type of brevibarba).Crown and throat plumes vary in lengthregardless of location (although 4 of 5 malesfrom San Martın have longer plumes than anyothers). In Loreto this species only occurs northof the Amazonas.

Gymnopithys leucaspis (castanea, CU 2- 1U). Nospecimens of peruana collected by the Olallas,although the American Museum has specimensfrom Chamicuros, Chyavitas, and Jeberos (alsospelled Xeberos) in western Loreto.

Formicarius analis (zamorae, CU 3- 2U, AP 3-,IN 1- 1U; analis, OR 1- 1U, LA 2- 3U, SR1U, UR 2- 1U). Specimens from south of theAmazonas have some whitish on the abdomen;those from the north have abdomens all gray.One specimen from CU has a pale gray lowerabdomen, intermediate between the two sub-species.

Chamaeza nobilis (rubida, LC 1U, CU 3- 2U, AP1U, SI 1-; nobilis, OR 4- 3U, SAD 1-, UR2-). The southern subspecies is slightly lessreddish above and has slightly more white onthe abdomen.

Phoenicircus nigricollis (LC 2-, CU 6- 1U, AP1-, IN 2-). Only north of the Amazonas.

Machaeropterus regulus (CU 1U). The Olallas’only specimen of this widespread species.

Machaeropterus pyrocephalus (SR 3- 2U). One ofthe males is in femalelike plumage, evidently animmature.

Chiroxiphia pareola (napensis, CU 1-; regina, SI1U, OR 5- 1U, SAD 1- 1U). Females are allalike, but males north and south of theAmazonas differ in color of the crown.

Lepidothrix coronata (coronata, CU 14- 6U 1?, IN7- 1U 1?, OR 10- 3U, SAA 1- 1U, SAD 1U1?, LA 3- 2U, UR 1- 1U). Eight of the maleshave femalelike plumage (one with a few blackfeathers below). One bird labeled female withenlarged ovaries has male plumage. Specimensfrom all of these localities are similar in size andcoloration, although a few males (about 1 in 20)have the crown slightly darker blue.

Lepidothrix coronata hoffmannsi (LT 1U, SI 2-).Another distinctive subspecies occurring not fareast of Loreto. Males are black with yellowishabdomen and darker blue on the crown incomparison with nominate males from Orosa.Females are duller green than nominate females.

Pipra erythrocephala (berlepschi, LC 1-, CU 14-5U, AP 7- 3U, IN 7- 3U). Four of the maleshave femalelike plumage, including one with

enlarged testes.

Pipra rubrocapilla (LT 6- 1U, SI 7- 1U, OR 11-4U, SAA 1U, SAD 2-, LA 1-). Four of themales have femalelike plumage, including two

with red feathers on the head. Replaces ery-

throcephala south of the Amazonas.

Pipra filicauda (filicauda, CU 4- 5U, PI 7-, SAD

4U). Sarayacu females are like those fromCuraray. This species extends south of theAmazonas but not as far as the upper Ucayali.

Pipra fasciicauda (purusiana, LA 10- 1U, SR 6-1U, UR 2-). Males from the upper Ucayali lackthe more extensive red below and other features

of saturata from San Martın. The two specimensfrom the mouth of the Urubamba are errone-

ously identified as filicauda in the AMNHcatalog. For more about them, see the discus-sion of Bassler’s collection below.

Leptopogon superciliaris (superciliaris, CU 1-).

Leptopogon amaurocephalus (peruvianus, SR 1U,UR 2U). These two species are similar except

the top of the head is dark gray in superciliaris,dark brown in amaurocephalus. This species

occurs at higher elevations and thus closer to theAndes than superciliaris.

Lanio fulvus (peruvianus, CU 1- 1U, AP 1-).

Lanio versicolor (versicolor, OR 1- 1U, LA 1-).Replaces fulvus south of the Amazonas.

Psarocolius angustifrons (angustifrons, LC 1- 1U,

CU 2- 3U, IN 2- 1U, SAA 3- 1U; alfredi, LT2- 2U, UR 2- 4U). All specimens of alfredi

have yellowish faces and entirely yellowish bills.Nominate examples have dull olive faces andbills entirely black.

ACCEPTED DISTRIBUTIONS CHALLENGED BY

THE OLALLAS’ COLLECTIONS

The following list includes species forwhich one or more specimens in the Olallas’collections do not match (or extend) ourcurrent understanding of the distributions ofpopulations in northeastern Peru. For eachspecies I provide comments on the divergencefrom current understanding or suggestionsfor future attention.

Six specimens with labels from the mouthof the Rıo Urubamba are particularly prob-lematic (Pyrrhura melanura [2U] and Momo-tus momota microstephanus [1U], Philydorerythrocercum subflavum [1-], and Thamno-manes caesius glauca [1- 1U]). All were


acquired by the AMNH from Harvey Bass-ler. For completeness, these specimens areincluded in the following list, but discussionof them is deferred to the subsequent sectionon Bassler’s collection.

Jacana jacana (peruviana, CU 3- 2U, AP 1U, IN2-, OR 3- 1U, SA 5- 8U). This series shows acline in coloration from populations in easternEcuador (scapularis) where the upperparts arebright cinnamon brown southward to Sarayacuwhere the upperparts are dark chestnut. Thereseems to be no discontinuity at the Amazonas.

Geotrygon saphirina (rothschildi, CU 2U, OR 5-6U). Specimens from OR resemble those fromCU and Ecuador.

Geotrygon montana (OR 1-, SAB 1- 1U, LA 3-2U, UR 2- 1U). There are also two specimensfrom CU in the Academy of Natural Sciences inPhiladelphia purchased from the AMNH in1928. Although elsewhere saphirina replacesmontana at higher elevations, these two speciesevidently overlap widely on both sides of theAmazonas in northeastern Peru.

Pyrrhura melanura (CU 2- 1U, AP 5-, IN 1U,LT 2U, UR 2U). All birds in this series aresimilar, except that specimens from the CU havewider and paler scalloping on the throat andbreast (resembling 5 specimens from Ecuador).For the two specimens from UR, see thediscussion of Bassler’s collection.

Pyrrhura picta (SI 1-, OR 7- 2U, SAD 1U).Joseph (2002) describes complex variation inthis species and close relatives south of theAmazonas-Maranon from Yurimaguas to theRıo Jurua. In this series the amount of scarleton the forecrown varies without clear relation tolocality. In addition, the extent of buff or brownon the auriculars varies in a similarly chaoticfashion. Replaces melanura south of the Ama-zonas in Loreto (but notice the overlap in Brazilnear Tefe).

Pionites melanocephala (CU 2- 1U, AP 7- 3U,SAB 1U, SAD 1U, UR 1- 1U). All alike. Thespecimen from SAD (on the eastern side of theUcayali) indicates that this species is not limitedby the Ucayali in this area.

Pionites leucogaster (OR 8- 2U). In this series, sixspecimens have black flecks scattered on thecrown, evidently young birds. There are nospecimens in the AMNH from the Ucayali.Replaces melanocephala south of the Amazonasand east of the Ucayali.

Phaethornis superciliosus (moorei, CU 8- 2U, AP1- 1U; ucayali, LA 5-, SR 1- 3U, UR 1-).Males from the CU, like specimens from easternEcuador, have the breast and abdomen consis-tently less buffy than do specimens from farther

south, without a clear difference across theAmazonas.

Thalurania furcata (viridipectus, CU 5- 3U, IN 8-6U; boliviana, LA 1-, SR 5-, UR 2-). Thisseries provides no evidence for geographicvariation. Specimens from north of the Amazo-nas are indistinguishable from those farthersouth.

Momotus momota (microstephanus, LC 1-, CU2- 3U, AP 1U, IN 1-, UR 1U; ignobilis, SAA3- 3U, SAB 4- 1U, SAC 2- 1U, LA 4- 3U,SR 2U, UR 3-). All microstephanus are dullgreen below, whereas those of ignobilis havedull cinnamon underparts tinged to varyingdegrees with greenish on throat and flanks. Overhalf of the specimens from Sarayacu areintermediate in coloration, with breast andabdomen tinged green also, a suggestion ofintergradation between the two forms. For thespecimen of microstephanus from UR, see thediscussion of Bassler’s collection.

Galbula albirostris (chalcocephala, CU 1-, AP 1U,IN 3- 1U, LA 2-). The males from LAresemble those from IN.

Galbula cyanicollis (OR 7-, SAD 5- 2U).Replaces albirostris south of the Amazonasand east of the lower Ucayali, but albirostrisapparently crosses the upper Ucayali at LA.

Galbula tombacea (CU 5- 1U, AP 1- 2U, IN 4-6U, SAB 1-, LA 2- 1U). All three specimensfrom LA resemble those from farther north.They have dates before 10 March, when Alfonsosent many of his specimens to Iquitos.

Galbula cyanescens (OR 1U, SAA 1-, SAB 1-,LA 5- 1U, SR 4- 4U, UR 1-m 1U). Replacestombacea south of the Amazonas, but these twosimilar species evidently have more complexdistributions on the upper Ucayali, with bothpresent at LA. Five specimens of cyanescensfrom LA have dates after 11 March; the sixth isdated 7 March. All resemble those from theother localities in this series.

Capito niger [auratus] (punctatus, CU 8- 5U, IN5- 3U, LA 3- 4U, UR 1-; amazonicus, LT 1-1U, SI 1- 1U, OR 4- 1U; auratus, AP 2- 3U,SAA 4- 2U, SAD 4- 3U). In this large series,males and females from north of the Amazonasand west of the Napo and from the upperUcayali lack red on throat and forecrown, incontrast with those from east of the Napo andsouth of the Amazonas, as described byArmenta et al. (2005). The examples fromSarayacu (all specimens come from dates onwhich the Olallas collected on the eastern side ofthe general course of the Ucayali) vary in theamount of red on throat and forecrown, and thespecimen from UR is intermediate in thisfeature.


Pteroglossus flavirostris (flavirostris, CU 2- 2U,AP 2U, SAA 1- 2U; mariae, SI 1-, OR 4- 5U,SAD 1-, LA 1-). Specimens from CU and APhave a long brown band on the lower bill,darker than this area on specimens fromEcuador. Those from Sarayacu and OR vary.Some have the lower bill mostly dark brown andothers mostly pale brown. Immatures haveextensive dusky at the base of the bill. Speci-mens from south of the Amazonas are thusvariable, some resembling birds north of theAmazonas and others birds farther south.

Selenidura reinwardtii (LC 1- 2U, CU 4- 2U, IN2- 1U, SAA 2- 4U, LA 1-). These sixspecimens from Sarayacu (238005, 238006–238010) and one from LA (238947) have billsthat closely match those from CU, with morethan half pinkish brown (although these Sar-ayacu birds have duskier brown and moreextensive black).

Selenidera langsdorffii (SI 1-, LT 2- 1U, OR 5-3U, SAA 2-, SAD 1- 1U, LA 1-, SR 1- 2U,UR 1- 1U). These specimens from Sarayacu(238002–238003, 238006, 238011), LA (238948),and UR have bills that resemble those from OR,with varying amounts of greenish gray near themiddle of the lower bill (varying from none toover half the length of the bill) and no pinkish orbrown. This form replaces reinwardtii south ofthe Amazonas, but the situation along theUcayali is more complicated. The two formsare identical except for coloration of the bill.They are often considered conspecific on thebasis of an unusual specimen from Rıo Negro,west of Moyobamba, San Martın (AMNH234528) (Meyer de Schauensee, 1966; Haffer,1974), its upper bill about 60% dusky brownand its lower bill about 60% grayish horn. Aspecimen from nearby (Rıo Seco, AMNH234529) has a bill much like those from Curarayexcept the lower bill is paler than usual. Neitherof these two specimens from San Martın isclearly an intermediate nor a mixture of thecolorations of the bills of the two widespreadforms. The occurrence of typical examples ofboth forms at Sarayacu and at Lagarto suggeststhat overlap without hybridization might occuralong the eastern side of the Ucayali.

Xiphorhynchus elegans (ornatus, CU 1U, IN 1-;juruanus, LT 1- 1U, SI 2- 2U, OR 3U 1-,SAD 4U 1-, LA 6- 4U, SR 1- 4U). The seriesfrom SR and LA indicate that the upper Ucayaliis not a limitation for juruanus, as Aleixo (2004)also noted.

Xiphorhynchus ocellatus (napensis, LC 1-, CU 4-,IN 2- 1U, AP 2- 1U, LA 3- 1U; perplexus, SI1-, SAD 3-). In this series the two subspeciesare indistinguishable.

Synallaxis rutilans (amazonica, OR; caquetensis,LC 1U, IN 2- 1U). The specimens from IN areintermediate in size between those from south ofthe rıos Amazonas and Maranon (includingspecimens in the AMNH from Tefe, Chami-curos, Chyavetas) and those farther north(including eastern Ecuador and the Rıo Negro),an indication that the Amazonas does notproduce a distinct separation between the twoforms.

Philydor erythrocercum (subflavum, UR 1-). Seethe discussion of Bassler’s collection.

Automolus infuscatus (infuscatus, LC 1U, CU 2U,AP 1-, OR 2- 1U, LA 1- 1U, SR 3- 2U, UR1- 1U). There is no variation with location inthis series. In addition, this series is indistin-guishable from two specimens of purusianusfrom the Rıo Purus, Brazil.

Thamnophilus schistaceus (capitalis, CU 3, AP 1,IN 8, SAB 2, SAD 7; dubius, LA 10, SR 5). Allspecimens from Sarayacu resemble those fromnorth of the Amazonas and differ distinctlyfrom the specimens from Lagarto and SantaRosa.

Thamnomanes ardesiacus (ardesiacus, LC 1-, CU1- 2U, IN 1U, SAA 1U, LA 2U, SR 2- 1U).The specimen from SAA resembles those fromLA and SR and differs from saturninus fromSarayacu in having a shorter tail and bill andlacking white on the back.

Thamnomanes saturninus (huallagae, OR 7- 3U,SAA 1-, SAD 3U). Replaces ardesiacus southof the Amazonas but not along the foothills ofAndes, on the upper Ucayali, or in southeasternPeru. One female from Sarayacu (238169, 12July 1927, small ovaries) has a short bill and tailand lacks white on the back but differs fromardesiacus in having its breast rich browninstead of gray brown. It thus combinescharacters of both this species and the preced-ing.

Thamnomanes caesius (glaucus, CU 3- 4U, IN 2-8U, UR 1- 1U; persimilis, LT 1- 2U, SI 2-2U). The specimens from LT and SI, both malesand females, are indistinguishable from theseries from IN or from specimens in the AMNHfrom the rıos Madeira (9U) or Tapajos (4U). InPeru, however, the species does not occur southof the Amazonas. For the specimens from UR,see the discussion of Bassler’s collection.

Thamnomanes schistogynus (schistogynus, SAD1U, LA 6U, SR 1U, UR 1U). The Olallas’collections from Peru include no males. Thereare no caesius or schistogynus from OR.

Myrmotherula hauxwelli (suffusa, CU 3- 2U, AP1U, IN 2- 1U; hauxwelli, SI 1U, SAD 1-, LA6- 6U, SR 3-). There are no clear distinctionsamong localities in this series. Females from CU


and IN average slightly darker below (inapproximately half of random pairwise com-parisons).

Myrmotherula longipennis (zimmeri, CU 2- 1U,IN 1-; garbei, AP 2U, IN 2-, LT 2U, SI 1-,SR 2-, UR 2- 1U). In this series males vary inthe extent of the black bib (only the throat atone extreme to throat and breast with spots onthe abdomen at the other) but without relationto locality. Females from CU and Ecuadordiffer from females from LT, SI, and UR inhaving a slightly grayer (less olive) dorsum andslightly darker cinnamon-buff underparts, butotherwise the intensity of cinnamon variesgreatly without relation to locality.

Cercomacra serva (serva, CU 3- 1U; hypomelania,OR 1-, SR 3-, 1U). In this series the twosubspecies are indistinguishable in colorationand size. Males vary, without relation tolocation, in darkness of plumage and in size ofthe tips on wing-coverts.

Hypocnemis cantator (peruviana, OR 1- 3U, SAA1-, SAB 1U, SAD 11- 9U, LA 9- 5U, UR 1-1U; saturata, LC 1U, CU 7- 3U, AP 1- 1U, IN9- 5U). These large series from north and southof the Amazonas are indistinguishable by size orcoloration.

Hypocnemoides maculicauda (maculicauda, SAD2U).

Hypocnemoides melanopogon (occidentalis, IN 6U2-, LA 1U, UR 2-). Specimens from LA andUR (the latter in Bassler’s collection) matchmaculicauda from SAD. Identification at theAMNH erroneously assigned them to melanopo-

gon. The two species differ in coloration offemales and in the width of white tips on therectrices.

Gymnopithys lunulatus (LA 1U). This specimen isdated 24 March, after shipment of most ofAlfonso’s specimens from Lagarto to Iquitos.In the absence of indications that he collectedon the other (western) side of the Ucayaliduring this period (see above), this specimensuggests that the species might cross the upperUcayali.

Gymnopithys salvini (maculata, LT 2U, SI 5- 1U,OR 1-, SAD 3-, LA 1- 2U, SR 1- 1U). Thespecimens from SR indicate that this speciesextends across the upper Ucayali. The Olallas’collections thus indicate that this species and thepreceding one might overlap on both sides ofthe upper Ucayali.

Rhegmatorhina melanostricta (melanosticta, LC1U; purusiana, LT 1-, SI 1U, UR 1U). In thissmall sample, the female from LT resembles theone from LC, and both are slightly paler on thecrown and underparts than the female fromUR.

Myrmothera campanisona (signata, CU 1- 1U;minor, OR 2U, LA 4-, SR 2-, UR 1U). Thetwo subspecies are alike in coloration in thisseries; minor possibly averages larger (larger in 3of 4 random comparisons).

Pipra [Dixiphia] pipra (discolor, CU 8-, IN 3-1U, LA 2- 4U; microlopha, OR 18- 4U, SAD1U, UR 1- 1U). Eight of the males havefemalelike plumage including two with scatteredblack feathers below. The type of discolor is amale from IN. The females in this series are allsimilar. Males from LA tend to have longerwhite caps than those from north of theAmazonas (5 of 9 random comparisons), thosefrom OR less so (4 of 15 comparisons). Otherthan this possible cline in the size of the cap, themales in this series are similar.

Mionectes oleagineus (hauxwelli, LC 1U, CU 12-4U, AP 4- 1U, IN 1- 1U; maynana, OR 1U,LA 1-, SR 2-). In this series the twosubspecies are indistinguishable in colorationor size.

Corythopis torquata (torquata, CU 1-, IN 1U;sarayacuensis, OR 1- 2U, UR 1-). In thissmall series the two subspecies are indistinguish-able.

Lophotriccus vitiosus (affinis, IN 1- 3U, AP 1-;vitiosus, LA 7- 3U, SR 10- 3U). In this seriesthe subspecies are indistinguishable in colora-tion or size. The length of the males’ crestsvaries regardless of location.

Terenotriccus erythrurus (signatus, CU 1- 1U, IN4-; brunneifrons, OR 1- 2U, SAD 1- 1U, LA4- 2U, SR 1U, UR 1U). Specimens of signatus

have crown and nape slightly grayer on average(in 3 of 5 random comparisons) but areotherwise inseparable from brunneifrons.

Rhytipterna simplex (frederici, CU 1U, AP 1-, IN1U; intermedia, SI 1U, OR 1U, SAD 1U). Thespecimen from SAD is slightly browner on thebreast, like specimens from SI, south of theSolimoes (continuation of the Amazonas) inBrazil. The specimen from OR, however,resembles those from north of the Amazonas.This series thus suggests that the divisionbetween the two subspecies lies south of theAmazonas in Peru but coincides with it inBrazil.

Thryothorus coraya (LC 1U, CU 4- 3U, IN 6-,SAC 1-, SAD 1-). The specimen from SAChas a malar with incomplete streaks, intermedi-ate between coraya and genibarbis.

Thryothorus genibarbis (LA 2- 2U, SR 1- 7U).All these specimens were assigned to coraya atthe AMNH. Unlike the specimens of corayafrom CU, they have the center of the abdomenbuff (instead of gray like the breast) and themalar stripe with a white streak over a narrow


black one (instead of solid black). Specimens

from IN have the center of the abdomen eithergray or buff (3 of 6) and thus are intermediate in

their coloration below. On the upperparts, all

these specimens have a dark brown crowngrading into a chestnut back. It is now known

that these two forms replace each other acrossthe Amazonas in Peru. Had the Olallas collected

these species at Orosa and Apayacu, where they

occur commonly, this point would have becomeclear earlier.

Turdus albicollis (berlepschi, CU 1- 2U, IN 1U;

saturatus, AP 2-, OR 1U). Geographic varia-tion in this small series is unclear. The specimens

from CU, IN, and OR are similar; those fromAP have the abdomen slightly buffier.

Ramphocaenus melanurus (badius, LC 1-; duidae,

CU 1U; amazonum, LT 2-, LA 1- 1U;obscurus, SR 2- 1U). The specimens from LC

and CU are slightly rufous on the sides of the

neck. Otherwise, all of these specimens aresimilar in coloration and size.

Tachyphonus cristatus (fallax, LC 1- 1U, CU 4-1U, LT 1U, SI 2- 1U, SAD 1-). The male fromSAD resembles those from CU, LT, and SI.

Despite this specimen, this species is currentlybelieved to occur only north of the Amazonas

and Maranon in Peru, although it extends south

of the Solimoes (continuation of the Amazonas)in Brazil.

Tachyphonus rufiventer (SAC 1-, SAD 2- 1U,

LA 2- 2U, UR 1U). This species replacescristatus south of the Amazonas in Loreto (with

the exception of the specimen of cristatus fromSAD).

Tachyphonus surinamus (napensis, CU 3- 1U, IN

1-, OR 11- 5U, LA 2- 1U, SR 4-). Thisspecies is included here for comparison with its

congeners with distributions limited by the

Amazonas. Specimens from all locations aresimilar.

Icterus [cayanensis] chrysocephalus (AP 3- 1U,

SAD 1U). The specimen from SAD suggeststhat this species might cross the Ucayali.

Icterus cayanensis (cayanensis, SI 2-, OR 1U).

With the exception of the previous specimen,this species replaces chrysocephalus south of the

Amazonas and east of the Ucayali.

LIMITS OF DISTRIBUTIONS ALONG THE

RıO UCAYALI

The following 14 species or subspecies arecurrently believed to have distributions lim-ited by the Amazonas or Ucayali, althoughspecimens in the Olallas’ collections from the

upper Ucayali provide exceptions. For two ofthe species (Hypocnemoides melanopogon andThryothorus coraya), the exceptional speci-mens were misidentified at the AMNH, sothey are not actually exceptions. For another(Xiphorhynchus ocellatus napensis), the spec-imens from the Ucayali cannot be reliablyassigned to subspecies, so again they are notactually exceptions. The remaining 11 speciesinclude five collected in the same locality withthe closely related congener thought toreplace it across the Ucayali (Galbula tomba-cea, Selenidera reinwardtii reinwardtii, Tham-nomanes ardesiacus, Gymnopithys lunulatus,and Tachyphonus cristatus).

These specimens do not match our currentunderstanding of avian distributions alongthe Ucayali. Several considerations, however,suggest that the Olallas’ specimens mightjustify some revisions in our understanding.Along the Amazonas in Loreto, recentornithological collections agree completelywith the Olallas’ collections at Puerto In-diana, Orosa, and Apayacu. In contrast,there have been no recent ornithologicalinvestigations on both sides of the Ucayalito compare with the Olallas’ collections.Furthermore, all the exceptional species inthe Olallas’ collections along the Ucayalioccur commonly in varzea forest. Through-out its entire course the Ucayali meandersthrough a wide and complex floodplain,although the river itself is not as wide as theAmazonas. It is possible that avian distribu-tions are not limited as clearly by the Ucayalias they are by the larger Amazonas, assuggested earlier by Aleixo (2006).

A case in point is the relationship of thetwo forms of Selenidera along the Ucayaliand nearby. The two forms langsdorfii andreinwardtii have long been considered con-specific on the basis of two putative hybridsin the AMNH from the department of SanMartın (Meyer de Schauensee, 1966; Haffer,1974). A reexamination of these specimens,together with the Olallas’ from the Ucayali,provides little evidence of hybridization. TheSan Martın specimens do not have billsintermediate between the parental forms(although one has an unusual bill), whereasthose from Sarayacu and southward on theUcayali show no signs of intergradation (onehas a slightly unusual bill). In plumage and


vocalizations the two forms are indistinguish-able. Only the coloration of the bill separatesthem. Although dried specimens lose some ofthe intensity of this coloration, they retain thepattern and hue accurately. The relationshipof these forms where they meet along theUcayali and in the valleys of San Martınneeds more work. A number of other pairs ofspecies have similar patterns of geographicalreplacement.

Pionites melanocephala (SAD). Two additionalspecimens of melanocephala labeled UR are inthe Bassler collection. There are no P. leucogas-ter in the Olallas collections from the Ucayali.

Galbula albirostris (LA).

Galbula tombacea with G. cyanescens (LA).

Selenidura [reinwardtii] reinwardtii and S. [re-inwardtii] langsdorfii (SAA and LA). See above.

Xiphorhynchus [elegans] juruanus (SR and LA).

Xiphorhynchus ocellatus napensis (LA). The sub-species napensis and perplexus are indistinguish-able in the Olallas’ series.

Thamnomanes ardesiacus (SAA with T. saturninusand LA).

Thamnomanes schistogynus (SR). There is aspecimen of T. caesius from UR in the Basslercollection. Otherwise, the Olallas collected no T.caesius on the Ucayali.

Hypocnemoides melanopogon occidentalis (LA,UR). These specimens, misidentified in theAMNH, match H. maculicauda maculicaudafrom Sarayacu rather than H. melanopogonfrom Indiana (also see the Bassler collectionbelow). In his discussion of Hypocnemoidesmelanopogon, Zimmer (1932a) noted the dis-junct location of these specimens from LA andUR, but he had no further comment on them.At this early stage in his treatment of Amazo-nian forms, he failed to notice that thesespecimens had been misidentified.

Gymnopithys lunulatus with G. salvini (LA).

Gymnopithys salvini (SR).

Thryothorus coraya (SR, LA). These specimens,misidentified at the AMNH, match T. genibarbis.

Tachyphonus cristatus fallax with T. rufiventer(SAD).

Icterus [cayenensis] chrysocephalus (SAD).

SPECIMENS IN HARVEY BASSLER’SCOLLECTION

The collections of the AMNH Departmentof Ornithology include 82 specimens with theOlallas’ labels but acquired from HarveyBassler. Bassler’s collection included some

500 specimens of birds (catalog nos. 406812–407313) along with some 10,000 specimens inthe Department of Herpetology and ethno-graphic material in the Department ofAnthropology.

Bassler was a petroleum geologist em-ployed by Standard Oil of New Jersey during1921–1931 to explore Amazonian Peru(Bradford, 1966). Based in Iquitos, he trav-eled widely along the Rıo Maranon as faras the department of Amazonas, along theRıo Huallaga and its tributaries into thedepartment of San Martın, along the entirecourse of the Ucayali and many of itstributaries, including the Rıo Tapiche, andup the Rıo Urubamba and its tributary theRıo Inuya.

In 1933–1934, shortly after his return tothe United States, he transferred most of hislarge collection to the AMNH in exchangefor the cost of packing and shipping it fromPeru and for access to the collections forstudy. According to an unpublished obituarywritten by Charles Bogert, curator of reptilesand amphibians, Bassler was appointed aResearch Associate in that department. Hedied in an automobile accident in Pennsylva-nia in 1950. In his will, he conveyed his largelibrary on South America and a largecollection of fossils to his alma mater, LehighUniversity. The archives of the AMNHDepartment of Ornithology has a copy ofthe obituary, but, aside from entries in thecatalog, has no other documentation aboutBassler’s collection of birds.

Bassler acquired material from a diversityof collectors, both during his own extensivetravels and also while in Iquitos. At leasteight collectors are named on the labels of hisbirds. Many specimens came from JoseSchunke, including most of the amphibiansand reptiles. One of Alfonso Olalla’s lettersto Chapman had recommended Schunke as acollector of amphibians and reptiles, aproposal that Chapman seems to haveignored. Nevertheless, no more than a decadelater, Schunke’s specimens came to themuseum through Bassler’s efforts. Othercollectors that provided birds to Basslerincluded G. Tessmann, evidently in Peru tocollect information for his pioneering workon the indigenous populations of northeast-ern Peru. Another notable collector was B.


Mendo, evidently a local person, who col-lected along the Rıo Mazan near Iquitos.

The specimens in Bassler’s collectionsusually have the collectors’ own labels,sometimes with annotations or additions onthe same or additional labels. A few have nocollector indicated and some have no data atall. Schunke’s labels written in ink in smallGerman script provide standard informationabout location, sex, age, and coloration ofsoft parts. Mendo’s labels have less informa-tion. Most of the specimens in Bassler’scollection have a number in ink on the back,presumably added by Bassler. Many alsohave the name of the collector added byBassler. They are all stamped ‘‘Bassler coll.’’on the back, presumably when acquired bythe AMNH.

The specimens with the Olallas’ labels areall neatly prepared like the ones sent directlyto the AMNH from Peru. Nine have thelocation ‘‘Rio Napo?’’; eight, ‘‘Rio Tapiche’’;16, ‘‘Upper Amazon’’; and the remaining 49,‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba.’’ These localities areassociated with different notations by Basslerabout the collector. Those from the first twolocalities are usually annotated simply‘‘Olalla’’ (once ‘‘Alfonso Olalla’’ and once‘‘Olalla Brothers’’), those from ‘‘Upper Am-azon’’ have ‘‘Alfonso Olalla’’ (once simply‘‘Olalla’’), and those from the Urubambahave ‘‘Olalla Brothers’’ (except three ‘‘Al-fonso Olalla’’). Because of their similarannotations, specimens from each localitywere probably acquired by Bassler in a singlebatch. Those from the first three localitieshave labels prepared presumably by Bassler,with locality, collector’s name, and a number.The specimens labeled by Bassler ‘‘RioTapiche,’’ all widespread species, could easilyhave been obtained by one of the Olallasduring a stop at the mouth of this river onone of their trips between Sarayacu andIquitos. Only the speciemens from theUrubamba carry the Olallas’ usual labels,with a number and the collector added on theback presumably by Bassler.

Probably the two brothers sold severalbatches of specimens to Bassler at times whenthey had run short of funds from Chapman.Because most of the specimens representwidespread common species, the Olallasevidently sold Bassler specimens that they

thought Chapman would find less interesting.Nevertheless, transferring specimens to Bass-ler would have violated the stipulation in theOlallas’ contract to send all material to theAMNH. On the other hand, the difficulties ofcommunication between Iquitos and NewYork, the brothers’ recurrent shortages offunds, and their unexpected expenses formedical care and for transportation back andforth from the upper Ucayali would mitigateany accusations of misbehavior.

The specimens in Bassler’s collection from‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba’’ present additionalproblems. Most obvious is the inclusion ofrepresentatives of populations not known tooccur as far south as the upper Ucayali:Pyrrhura melanura (1- 1U), Pionites melano-cephalus (1- 1U), Momotus momota micro-stephanus (1U), Philydor erythrocercum sub-flavum (1-), Thamnomanes caesius glaucus(1- 1U), and Hypocnemoides melanopogon(2-). It is possible that Pionites melanoce-phalus occurs west of the Ucayali as far southas the Urubamba as well as at Sarayacu (seeabove). The two specimens of Hypocnemoidesfrom the upper Ucayali, as noted above,actually represent maculicauda, the speciessouth of the Amazonas. The remaining sixspecimens of three species present moreserious problems.

Almost all of the species and subspeciesacquired by Bassler from the Olallas arenumerous around Iquitos, including the threeproblematic species. Perhaps those labeled‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba’’ actually came fromnear Iquitos. The brothers made repeated tripsto Iquitos to replenish supplies, to recovertheir health, and to await funds from theAMNH. It seems likely that Bassler mighthave proposed to buy some of their specimensto tide them over until funds arrived from NewYork. On the other hand, not all specimensacquired from the Olallas and labeled ‘‘BocaRıo Urubamba’’ could have come fromIquitos. These include the two Hypocnemoidesidentified at the AMNH as melanopogon (anorthern form) that are actually maculicauda(the southern form). Other southern formsinclude two male Pipra fasciicauda purusianatypical of populations on the upper Ucayali(also discussed above), two male Myrmother-ula axillaris suffusa, and male and femaleMyrmoborus myotherinus myotherinus.


Because some of Bassler’s specimens la-beled ‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba’’ are southernforms, it is possible that the problematicspecimens are not actually out of place butinstead represent northern populations thatextend southward along the Ucayali. Such adistribution is known for Thamnomanesardesiacus, which occurs with and apparentlyhybridizes with T. saturninus near Sarayacuand also occurs at Lagarto (see above) and insoutheastern Peru (Schulenberg et al., 2007).Thamnomanes caesius glaucus occurs south ofthe Maranon to the west of the Rıo Huallagaand from there to the vicinity of Sarayacu butis not known from farther south (Schulen-berg et al., 2007). Specimens of Momotusmomota from Sarayacu appear to be inter-mediate between the northern and southernsubspecies (microstephanus and ignobilis) (seeabove), but the Olallas’ collections sentdirectly to the AMNH from the mouth ofthe Urubamba, unlike those in Bassler’scollection, include only Momotus momotaignobilis, the expected southern form. Nopopulations of Pyrrhura melanura or Phily-dor erythrocercum subflava are known any-where south of the Amazonas and Maranonin Peru. Apparently the birds in Bassler’scollection from the mouth of the Urubambaare a mix of unexpected and nearly impossi-ble specimens.

A clue to a solution for these problemscomes from the two specimens of Thamno-manes caesius glaucus (1-, 1U) that havelabels with incomplete data. The labels arelike others from ‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba,’’except the proximal corners have not beentrimmed and the only information other thanthe locality is ‘‘-G.’’ The Olallas otherwisealways wrote ‘‘M.G.’’ to indicate a male withenlarged testes. The accession numbers(432431–432432), on separate labels, are laterthan the rest of Bassler’s collection, but‘‘OLALLA BROS.’’ is written on the backof the original label as on other specimens inhis collection labeled ‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba.’’This set of irregularities strongly suggeststhat at least some of the specimens inBassler’s collection were not part of theOlallas’ regular collections.

Possibly some of these skins were sold toBassler by Alfonso during his interlude atIquitos before joining Ramon at the mouth

of the Urubamba. Perhaps he collected themnear Iquitos at this time and left them withBassler with the labels incomplete. Subse-quently, Ramon after his early return fromthe upper Ucayali to cure his recurrentmalaria might have finished the labels atBassler’s request. Previously unaware ofthese specimens, he might well have beenconfused about their provenance, even with-out the complication of his illness, and thusassumed an incorrect locality. Perhaps hebrought the specimens of the southern formswith him to Iquitos or collected them enroute. Even if the erroneous location can beexplained this way, the varied dates on thelabels with the erroneous location must havebeen fabricated.

Zimmer evidently recognized the errors onthese labels. As discussed in the list below, heignored the specimens of Philydor erythro-cercum subflavum and Thamnomanes caesiusglaucus from ‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba.’’ Henoticed but did not correct the discrepancyproduced by the incorrect identification oftwo Hypocnemoides melanopogon (see thepreceding list). Zimmer never got around toreviewing Pionites, Pyrrhura, or Momotus, sowe do not know his position on theproblematic specimens in these genera.

In summary, the following six specimensalmost certainly have incorrect informationon their labels. Probably others in Bassler’scollection from ‘‘Boca Rıo Urubamba’’ werealso mislabeled.

Pyrrhura melanura (UR 2U).

Momotus momota (microstephanus, UR 1U). TheOlallas also sent specimens of typical Momotus

momota ignobilis from UR directly to theAMNH.

Philydor erythrocercum (subflavum, UR 1-). Thisspecimen is a close match to specimens of thissubspecies obtained by the Olallas at CU (3U),LC (1-, 1U), and AP (2-). There are specimensof the distinctive southern subspecies lyra fromOR (1U) and LA (1-). This is the specimen onwhich accusations of fraud were based (seeabove). It is not mentioned by Zimmer (1935),nor by Vaurie (1980).

Thamnomanes caesius (glaucus, UR 1- 1U). Thereis also one typical female T. schistogynusschistogynus from UR (listed earlier) sentdirectly to the AMNH by the Olallas. Zimmer(1932b), in a detailed discussion of the distribu-tions T. glaucus and T. schistogynus in Peru,


recognized the correct pattern of replacement

across the Amazon, despite several old speci-

mens from questionable localities. No doubt

Chapman had mentioned the Olallas’ evidence

for limitations of avian distributions by large

rivers in Amazonian Peru. Zimmer studiously

doubted the provenance of an old specimen of

T. glaucus from Sarayacu, but he indicated that

some T. schistogynus from Sarayacu showed

signs of intergradation with T. glaucus (compare

with Momotus momota above). He nowhere

mentions the specimens labeled ‘‘Boca Rıo

Urubamba.’’ As in the case of Philydor ery-

throcercum subflavum, he ignored these prob-

lematic specimens.

PRIMATES IN AMAZONIAN PERU

The Olallas collected mammals as well asbirds during their work for the AMNH.Their specimens in the Department ofMammalogy consist of prepared skins andassociated skulls. I have not examined all ofthis material, but the primates in particularhave relevance to the Olallas’ collections ofbirds.

Primates have distributions in Amazoniawith many parallels to the distributions ofbirds. In particular, distributions of primatesare often limited by large rivers, and sets ofcongeners or subspecies often have distribu-tions that are congruent with those of somebirds. Northeastern Peru provides manyexamples, and the Olallas’ specimens provid-ed the basis for Hershkovitz’s pioneeringrevisions of Amazonian primates that firstmade some of these patterns apparent.Contrary to Vaurie’s statements in 1971 and1972 (see above), Hershkovitz (1977) listedthe Olallas’ specimens without comment inhis monograph of the Callitrichidae. Al-though his subsequent generic revisions(Hershkovitz, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1990)questioned the localities of certain specimenscollected by the Olallas in Peru, he listedmost of them without comment.

The Bassler collection also includes manyprimates collected in eastern Peru at aboutthe same time the Olallas were active. Thesespecimens fall into two categories. Thoselabeled ‘‘Iquitos’’ have labels prepared bySchunke in German or lack an original labelaltogether. Schunke sometimes included the

name of a local collector on the label. Theothers appear to have been acquired byBassler on his geological explorations onthe rıos Napo, Amazonas (Pevas, Marupa),Tapiche, and Ucayali (Pampahermosa, Con-tamana) as far as the Rıo Inuya (a tributaryof the Rıo Urubamba not far above itsconfluence with the Tambo). None of Bass-ler’s primates has one of the Olallas’ originallabels. The specimens labeled ‘‘Iquitos’’include some that cannot have come fromthere (Saguinus fuscicollis illigeri, S. f. leuco-genys, S. mystax, n 5 6, 1, 1 respectively).Schunke might have found them in the largemarket in Iquitos, or he might have broughtthem from elsewhere himself. In contrast, thespecimens from localities visited on Bassler’sown travels all accord with our currentunderstanding of distributions. Hershkovitz(see references above) also questioned somespecimens in Bassler’s collection from the RıoTapiche and Rıo Inuya. Although Hershko-vitz attributed specimens from these localitiesto the Olallas, they actually came fromBassler’s own expeditions.

The following list shows that nearly all ofthe Olallas’ and Bassler’s specimens conformwith current understanding of primate distri-butions. The Olallas’ specimens from Sar-ayacu and the upper Ucayali are particularlyinformative in confirming Alfonso’s reportsabout their activities there. The series ofSaguinus imperator and S. fuscicollis weddellifrom the upper Ucayali confirm that the twobrothers actually worked at these places,despite Vaurie’s accusations of duplicity. Theseries of S. f. illigeri and S. f. nigrifrons fromSarayacu fit expectations for populations eastand west of the Ucayali, respectively, exceptfor the two specimens of illigeri labelled 15April, the day before collecting began on thewest (see above). Perhaps Alfonso was off bya day. On the other hand, observations byTom Struhsaker and myself in 1997 along theRıo Tapiche suggest that the distributions ofthese forms in the complex floodplain of theUcayali are not yet fully understood (Struh-saker et al., 1997).

Some series of primates collected by theOlallas were questioned by Hershkovitz (seereferences below), particularly Pithecia fromIndiana and Callicebus and Saimiri along theUcayali. Before doubting the localities on the


labels of these specimens, we need more studyof variation in these populations. Distribu-tions might be particularly complex along theupper Ucayali, with some overlapping orintergradation of different forms, as we haveseen among birds. The specimens withlocations questioned by Hershkovitz arenoted in the list below.

One series of the Olallas’ primates conflictssquarely with current understanding: theseven specimens of Saguinus fuscicollis tri-partitus from Indiana. Each of these speci-mens has a different date between 31 Mayand 11 July 1926 (one specimen is missing itsoriginal label but has a catalog number insequence with the others). At present thissubspecies occurs primarily between the rıosNapo and Curaray in Ecuador and Peru. Thereplacement of S. f. tripartitus by S. f.lagonotus on the southern side of the Curarayis well known to local residents and con-firmed by recent expeditions (Aquino andEncarnacion, 1996, Heymann et al., 2002,Aquino et al. 2005, Devon Graham andmyself, personal obs.). The Olallas alsocollected lagonotus at Indiana (Thorington,1988), a form that still occurs in the area, inaddition to the seven specimens of tripartitus.

The specimens of tripartitus from Indianamight have been brought down the Napofrom the Curaray by Alfonso and Ramonthemselves. An indictment of duplicity wouldnot be straightforward, however. Notice thatnone of the Ollalas’ other specimens ofprimates from Indiana diverge from currentunderstanding. Their collections from Indi-ana included no Saguinus nigricollis or S.mystax, although it is more likely that thesewould have been offered for sale therebecause they occur close to Indiana acrossthe Napo and the Amazonas respectively.Furthermore, if duplicity were motivated bya plan to augment the diversity of theirofferings to the AMNH, nigrocollis andmystax would have been new additions totheir collections. They had already collected aseries of tripartitus at the Curaray.

Dismissal of these problematic specimensis complicated because the distribution oftripartitus and its relationships with otherforms of Saguinus fuscicollis might not yet becompletely understood. Contrary to most ofour current information, there are two

reports of tripartitus north of the Napo.One is a specimen labeled ‘‘Coca’’ collectedby Hershkovitz (1977) on his first expeditionto Ecuador. Hershkovitz later mentionedthat he had failed to recognize the impor-tance of the sides of rivers in his early days(Blake’s letter to Vaurie in 1965, discussedearlier), so perhaps the label on this specimenshould not imply a location on the northernside of the Napo. In his monograph of theCallitrichidae, he nevertheless mistakenlyshows the range of tripartitus restricted tothe northern side of the Napo. An additionalreport of tripartitus north of the Napo is anobservation of two groups on the RıoYuvineto in northern Loreto in 1978 (Aquinoand Encarnacion, 1996; Heymann et al.,2002; F. Encarnacion, personal commun.).Perhaps the Olallas discovered another pop-ulation (possibly disjunct) of tripartitus sym-patric with lagonotus near Indiana.

A disjunct population in the area ofIndiana could conceivably have been startedby people who brought animals down theNapo. Saguinus fuscicollis are often pur-chased as pets by travelers in Amazonia.Perhaps several animals escaped during theportage from the Napo to the Amazonas onthe way to Iquitos. The resulting populationmight never have been large. Even if it oncedid exist, it is certainly extinct now, perhapspartly as a result of the Olallas’ collecting.

One notable aspect of the Olallas’ collec-tions of primates is their documentation ofmany large species in areas from which theyhave long ago disappeared, in particularLagothrix lagotricha, Ateles paniscus, andCacajao calvus. It is unlikely that the Olallasprecipitated these losses, but documentationof the former presence of these speciesindicates how easily they can be extirpated.

The following list includes all specimens inthe AMNH from the departments of Loretoand Ucayali. The Olallas’ series are listedfirst, with the same abbreviations for local-ities used in the lists of their birds. Bassler’sspecimens are listed last. The few remainingspecimens are in the middle. Nomenclaturefollows Rylands and Mittermeier (2009). Thislist reveals that the distributional problemsraised by the Olallas’ specimens of primatesoften parallel similar problems among birds.In particular, distributions along the Ucayali


are more problematic than those along theAmazonas, perhaps because overlap andintergradation are more frequent there.

Cebuella pygmaea (CU 5- 2U, AP 7- 5U; SAA2- 1U; SAC 1-; OR 4U; lower Napo (N side)2?, Bassler). In coloration these specimens areall similar. Hershkovitz (1977) identifies speci-mens from north of the Amazonas and Mar-anon as subspecies pygmaea and those to thesouth as subspecies niveiventris.

Callimico goeldi (IQ 1U 1?, Bassler; ContayoTapiche 1U, Bassler).

Saguinus nigricollis nigricollis (LC 1U, CU 8- 7U;AP 5- 8U; Pevas 1- 1U, Bassler).

Saguinus fuscicollis avilapiresi (LT 2-).

Saguinus fuscicollis leucogenys (SR 2- 1U; Sa-miria, 6?, 1912; IQ 1?, Bassler). Specimens fromSamiria resemble illigeri from SAB below.

Saguinus fuscicollis lagonotus (CU 7- 7U 1?; IN9- 7U; Rıo Mazan 1U, Bassler; IQ 1- Bassler).

Saguinus fuscicollis illigeri (SAA 2- 1U; SAB 7-7U; IQ 2- 1U 3?, Bassler). The specimensfrom SAA are dated 15 April, the day beforecollecting began on both sides of the river, asexplained above. Otherwise the illigeri fromSAB could come from west of the Ucayali,and the nigrifrons (below) from SAA and SACwould come from east of the river. Thedistribution of these subspecies along the lowerRıo Ucayali is complex. Recent fieldworkfound illigeri east of the Ucayali as far asthe Rıo Tapiche above the Rıo Blanco(Struhsaker et al., 1997) and nigrifrons con-fined to the lower Tapiche below the Blanco(Hodun et al., 1981).

Saguinus fuscicollis nigrifrons (OR 8- 16U; SAA7- 5U; SAC 2- 2?; Marupa 2- 2U, Bassler).

Saguinus fuscicollis weddelli (simply weddelli on thelabels) (LA 8- 4U; UR 4- 2U).

Saguinus tripartitus (CU 9- 7U; IN 5- 1U 1?; IQ1- 1U, Bassler). See comments above on thespecimens from IN. The specimens from CUcould have come from either side of the Napo orCuraray. If they came from west of the Napoand north of the Curaray, they would agree withcurrent understanding of the distribution of thisspecies (see discussion above).

Saguinus mystax mystax (OR 8- 5U; SAA 6- 7U;LA 5- 3U; Samiria 6; IQ 1U, Bassler). Thespecimens from LA extend the range of thisspecies on the eastern side of the Ucayalisomewhat farther south than the Rıo Sheshea,the southern limit of this species reported byAquino and Encarnacion (1994). The specimensfrom Samiria and Iquitos are not within thecurrently recognized range of this form.

Saguinus mystax pileatus (LT 2- 1U).

Saguinus imperator subgrisescens (no subspecies onthe labels) (UR 6- 9U; Rıo Inuya 1- 2U,Bassler).

Saimiri boliviensis peruviensis.

Saimiri sciureus macrodon. Both species identifiedamong specimens from Puerto Punga, RıoTapiche, and from SA. Distribution of thesetwo forms along the Rıo Tapiche is complex(Struhsaker et al., 1997).

Cebus albifrons albifrons/cuscinus (albifrons uni-

color on the labels) (LC 2-; CU 5- 3U; IN 3-1U; SAA 1- 1U; SAB 1- 1U; UR 5-; RıoInuya 1- 1U, Bassler; Samiria 1) The specimensfrom SAB, one from LA, UR, and one from RıoInuya have hindparts with cinnamon tinge (likeone specimen from LC and CU each).

Cebus macrocephalus (apella apella on the labels)(CU 3-; IN 2U; OR 2-; SAA 2U; SAB 2-;SAC 1-; UR 2- 2U 1?; lower Napo (N side) 1,Bassler; IQ 2, Bassler; Samiria 4; Rıo Tapiche 2,Bassler; Contamana 1-, Bassler; Rıo Inuya 1-1U, Bassler).

Aotus vociferans (LC 1U; CU 5- 7U; AP 1U; IN1- 3U; IQ 3, Bassler). Hershkovitz (1983)identifies one specimen from IN as nancymaaeand suggests the locality is erroneous.

Aotus nancymaae (OR 1- 2U; SAB 1- 1U; SAC1- 2U; Samiria 2; Marupa 1- 1U, Bassler).

Aotus nigriceps (UR 3- 4U; Pucallpa, 5; Pampa-hermosa 2U, Bassler);

Callicebus cupreus/discolor (cupreus discolor on thelabels) (LC 2-; CU 4- 1U; IN 6-; LA 3-; IQ5, Bassler; lower Napo (N side) 1, Bassler; RıoTapiche 1, Bassler; Rıo Inuya, 1- 1U, Bassler).According to Hershkovitz (1990), C. cupreusdiscolor and C. cupreus cupreus occur west andeast of the Ucayali respectively. He doubtsspecimens of discolor identified among thosefrom LA and Rıo Inuya, both east of theUcayali and Urubamba. He also identifiesspecimens of C. calligatus from LA but doubtsthe locality (otherwise east of the Rıo Tapicheand the Peruvian border). He also doubts thelocality of specimens he identifies as C. brunneusfrom UR and Rıo Inuya, although theselocalities are not far from the distribution ofthis form in southeastern Peru. The localities ofthese problematic specimens (Rıo Inuya, UR,LA) are no more than 60 km apart. Furtherstudy of variation in these specimens is neededto clarify the identifications. Hershkovitz (1990)also questions the locaties of specimens identi-fied as C. cupreus from SA and UR.

Callicebus lucifer (torquatus lucifer on the labels)(LC 2-; CU 2- 2U; AP 3- 2U; lower Napo (Nside) 1, Bassler; Pevas 1- 1U, Bassler). Thespecimens from CU could have come fromeither side of the Napo or Curaray.


Pithecia monachus monachus (LC 2-; CU 7- 2U;IN 1- 2U, male possibly immature; OR 1- 2U;SAA 4- 2U; SAB 1-; SAC 1U; LA 1- 1U;UR 2- 1U; Rıo Inuya 2-, Bassler; RıoTapiche, 2?, Bassler; Rıo Pisqui, 1-, Bassler;IQ 1 juvenile, Bassler). Specimens from CUcould have come from either side of the Napo orCuraray.

Pithecia aequitorialis (monachus aequitorialis onthe labels) (IN 1-; OR 1U; IQ 2U, Bassler,both with extensive cinnamon below). Thefemale from OR lacks cinnamon below. It thusresembles female monachus, the form expectedsouth of the Amazonas. The four specimens ofPithecia from IN need further study. Hersh-kovitz (1990) doubts the locality of thesespecimens. He identifies the immature maleas a female aequitorialis. The two females areidentifed as monachus, the form otherwiserestricted to the southern side of the Amazo-nas. The adult male is clearly aequatorialis.Variation in the amount of cinnamon colora-tion on the ventral surface and resemblence ofimmature males and females require furtherstudy before these specimens can be properlyidentfied.

Cacajao calvus ucayalii (no subspecies on thelabels) (OR 3- 2U; SAA 2- 1U; LA 3- 2U;IQ 1- 1 juvenile, Bassler; Rıo Tapiche 1-,Bassler; Rıo Inuya 1- 1U, Bassler). Specimensfrom Sarayacu and Orosa are similar (evenlydark cinnamon); those from Rıo Inuya havepaler upperparts; those from LA are intermedi-ate. As Hershkovitz (1987) notes, all localitiesare east of the general course of the rıosUrubamba and Ucayali.

Alouatta seniculus. Does not extend southward tothe upper Ucayali. A. puruensis occurs south ofthe Rıo Inuya perhaps (IUCN). A. seniculus isperhaps a junior synonym of A. juara (mappedtogether by IUCN).

Ateles chamek (paniscus chamek on the labels) (OR2- 3U; UR 2- 3U; SAA 1U; Rıo Inuya 1- 1U,Bassler).

Ateles belzebuth (paniscus belzebuth on the labels)(CU 3- 5U; IN 2- 3U; IQ 1- 1U 1?, Bassler;Maralio, Rıo Napo 1-, Bassler).

Lagothrix lagotricha (lagotricha lagotricha on thelabels) (CU 2- 4U; AP 3- 3U). Thesespecimens are tan with darker extremities(unlike the following, which are dark brownwith blackish extremities).

Lagothrix peoppiggii (lagotricha peoppiggii on thelabels) (LC 1U; CU 4- 2U; IN 2- 3U; SAA1- 5U; UR 3-; IQ 1-, Bassler; lower Napo(N side) 2, Bassler; Rıo Pisqui 2, Bassler).Specimens from Curaray are darker thanothers.

BIRDS ON RIVER ISLANDS

In Amazonia, some birds are now knownto be confined mostly to large islands inmajor rivers (Remsen and Parker, 1983;Rosenberg, 1990), despite the occurrence ofsimilar habitats on the banks of these rivers.Alfonso’s report on activities at Orosaexplicitly mentioned visits to islands. Hementioned camps on islands at the mouthsof the rıos Curaray and Apayacu. At otherlocations islands were not mentioned in thedescriptions of the areas for collecting, andthe report on Lagarto stated that the nearbyisland was not visited.

The following list of species believed to berestricted to islands includes the numbers ofspecimens in the Olallas’ collections fromPeru. With a few exceptions there is littleevidence that the brothers spent much timeon islands, in general agreement with Alfon-so’s reports. The collections from the Cur-aray include the most island species. Thosefrom Oroza and Apayacu include none.When Alfonso mentioned visiting the islandsnear Orosa, he must have had in mind themigrating shorebirds, particularly well repre-sented from September and October atOrosa. These birds visit mud banks exposedby the falling river in late summer, often atthe downstream ends of islands.

Some of these species are scarce, even onislands, but Thamnophilus cryptoleucus andMyrmochanes hemileucus occur reliably in theunderstory of forests on all major islands inthe lower Napo and Amazonas. The absenceof these species in their collections suggeststhat the brothers did not visit the interiors oflarge islands, at least along the Amazonas.On the other hand, their collections includemany specimens of Synallaxis propinqua andMyrmoborus lugubris. If the brothers did visitislands, they must have collected selectively.Alternatively, the latter species might occuralong river margins, in addition to theiroccurrence on islands, more often than nowrealized. Picumnus castelnau, collected by theOlallas only on the Ucayali, possibly occursthere along river margins.

Picumnus castelnau (SAA 2- 1U, SR 1- 2U, UR1-).

Xiphorhynchus kienerii. None.


Synallaxis propinqua (LC 2-, 1U, CU 7- 4U, IN5- 1U, SR 1U, UR 1- 2U).

Cranioleuca vulpecula. None.Thamnophilus cryptoleucus. None.Myrmotherula assimilis (IN 1- 2U, LT 4- 2U).Myrmoborus lugubris (CU 2- 3U, IN 1- 1U, SAA

1-, SAB 2-).Myrmochanes hemileucus. None.Elaenia pelzelni (CU 1- 1U).Serpophaga hypoleuca. None.Stigmatura napensis napensis (CU 1-, 2U).Knipolegus orinocensis. None.Attila bolivianus (SAB 1-).Celeus spectabilis. None.Conirostrum bicolor (minor, CU 2U).Conirostrum margaritae. None.

BIRDS OF ANDEAN FOOTHILLS

The Olallas’ collections include a numberof species whose ranges are, according tocurrent understanding, restricted to thefoothills of the Andes and thus are unexpect-ed at locations in Amazonia such as theOlallas’ locations in northeastern Peru. Nev-ertheless, all these specimens come from thethree localities closest to the Andes, mostlyfrom the Rıo Curaray and also from themouth of the Rıo Urubamba and SantaRosa.

In some cases we have recent evidence thatthese species actually occur in the hilly areasof northern Loreto far from the Andes:Heliodoxa schreibersii, Thamnophilus aethiopsaethiops, Poecilotriccus capitalis, Coloniacolonus, Henicorhina leucosticta (Vriesden-dorp et al., 2007). We now know thatHeliodoxa schreibersii and Poecilotriccus ca-pitalis also occur even farther south along theNapo (Cardiff, 1983).

In two cases the foothills forms identifiedat the AMNH are indistinguishable fromAmazonian forms, so the apparent discrep-ancy in distribution is best removed byreassignment to the Amazonian form (Perc-nostola [Schistochlamys] leucostigma intensa,Sporophila luctuosa).

One particularly interesting case is theseries of Lepidothrix coronata exquisitor inthe Olallas’ collection from Santa Rosa. Thissubspecies from the slopes of the Andes isreplaced by coronata in the Amazonianlowlands. As already noted, however, thepresumed location of Santa Rosa lies near a

range of hills extending from the easternmostAndes to the bank of the Ucayali, asdescribed in Alfonso’s report. Perhaps thisdistinctive subspecies occurs on or close tothese hills.

The remaining species pose problems. Inparticular, the specimens of Andean speciesfrom the Curaray provide one of the primarysources of doubt about the Olallas’ proce-dures. The Olallas had descended the Napofrom the Andes to reach the Curaray, andmost of the party accompanied Carlos backupriver to the Andes after three months atthe Curaray. Specimens from the Andesmight have been transferred to the collectionsfrom the Curaray on either occasion. Thenumber of specimens of foothills species inthe Curaray collections is large enough thatwe have to suppose either confusion by theOllalas’ on a large scale or systematicdeception. The original accusations aboutthe Olallas’ collections clearly raised thelatter possibility. The motive for such decep-tion would presumably be to provide a morevaried collection from any one place, bymixing specimens from different places.

The specimens listed below have labelswith dates scattered throughout October,November, and December 1925. Althoughthey might have been added to Carlos’shipments after his return from Quito, thereis no mention of such specimens in any of hiscorrespondence or in the catalogs of theDepartment of Ornithology. Instead Alfon-so’s accounts state that the specimens fromthe Curaray were shipped from Iquitos inJanuary just before most of the partydeparted upriver. Because of the shortage ofcritical supplies, relatively few specimenswere collected by the two brothers in thefollowing months before they moved toIndiana. The specimens collected in Ecuadorwhile preparing for the descent of the Napowere sent back to Quito with Rosalino whoreturned there when the others headeddownriver. In other words, Alfonso’s ac-counts, the correspondence from Quito, andthe AMNH catalogs provide a coherentaccount of the provenance of the specimensfrom the Curaray.

There is another point that goes againstaccusations of systematic deception. Most ofthe species involved are rare even in the


foothills of Ecuador. As noted below, theyinclude species that the Olallas never collect-ed in Ecuador. Augmenting the collectionfrom the Curaray by subtracting from theircollections in Ecuador does not constitute again in the diversity of their shipments toNew York.

In the Olallas’ large collection from themouth of the Curaray, each of the speciesbelow is represented by only one or a fewspecimens. Further information from north-ern Loreto would clarify their status there.

Tinamus tao (UR, 1-).

Megascops guatemalae (napensis, CU 1-). 15October 1925, enlarged testes.

Eutoxeres aquila (CU 1U). 23 October 1925.

Eutoxeres condamini (CU 1-). 30 October 1925.Testes enlarged.

Heliodoxa schreibersii (CU 1U). 16 November1925. Recently reported from elsewhere innorthern Loreto (Rıo Arabela, Vriesendorp etal., 2007) as well as farther down the Napo(south of the Napo at 3u009 and south of the RıoMazan at 3u339S) (Cardiff, 1983, and personalrecordings).

Colibri delphinae (CU 1-).

Taphrospilus hypostictus (hypostictus, CU 3- 1U).

Synallaxis moesta brunneicaudalis (CU 2U).

Anabazenops dorsalis (CU 1-). Enlarged testes.

Xenops rutilans (peruvianus, UR 1U).

Thamnophilus aethiops (aethiops, CU 2-). Bothwith enlarged testes. Recently reported fromnorthern Loreto (Rıo Arabela, Vriesendorp etal., 2007).

Myrmotherula sunensis (CU 2-). 27 and 30October.

Herpsilochmus rufimarginatus (frater, CU 1-). 6December.

Drymophila devillei (devillei, CU 1-, LA 1). Thespecimen from CU is dated 6 December.

Percnostola [Schistoclamys] leucostigma (intensa,SR 2U). Females of the subspecies intensa andsubplumbea are indistinguishable. Because of theproximity of foothills to Santa Rosa, thesespecimens might come either from populationsalong the foothills (intensa) or from the low-lands (subplumbea).

Lepidothrix coronata (exquisitor, SR 3- 3U). Thisdistinctive subspecies of the Andean slopesevidently occurs in the hills that nearly reachthe Ucayali near Santa Rosa.

Chloropipo holochlora (CU 3U). Two dated 27October and one 2 November 1925.

Poecilotriccus capitalis (CU 4- 2U). Dated 26October through 27 November. Three of themales have femalelike plumage, including two

with a few black feathers above. The species isnow known to occur sparsely in northernLoreto (Vriesendorp et al., 2007) and south tothe Rıo Sucusari (Cardiff, 1983, also personalobservations and recordings).

Myiobius villosus (clarus, CU 1U).

Myiophobus cryptoxanthus (CU 1U). 18 November1925. This specimen resembles others fromEcuador.

Colonia colonus (fuscicapilla, CU 2- 3U). Thisseries resembles birds from eastern Ecuador.Now confirmed in northern Loreto (Vriesen-dorp et al., 2007).

Henicorhina leucosticta (hauxwelli, LC 1-, CU 1-4U). Occurs sparsely in northern Loreto (Vrie-sendorp et al., 2007).

Microcerculus bambla (CU 2-).

Sporophila luctuosa (CU 1U, LA 1- 1U, UR 1U).The female from the mouth of the Curaray issimilar to female bouvronides, to which it is bestassigned.

Arremon aurantiirostris (spectabilis, CU 5- 3U).

Tangara cyanicollis (caeruleocephala, CU 4-).Like specimens from Ecuador and San Martın.

A few additional specimens collected bythe Olallas are from localities beyond thespecies’ currently known ranges, althoughthey are not specifically associated with theAndean foothills:

Megastictus margaritatus (LC 1, CU 2, PI 2, LA15). Otherwise unknown from the upperUcayali, this species has a patchy distributionin Loreto, evidently associated with nutrient-poor soils.

Conopophaga aurita (australis, CU 2- 1U, SI 2-,UR 1-). The specimen from UR resemblesthose from CU except black extends from thethroat to the upper breast and the cinnamonband across the breast is narrower. Recentlyconfirmed to occur south to the mouth of theUrubamba (T. Schulenberg, personal com-mun.).

Heterocercus linteatus (IN 1U). This specimen isdarker than most linteatus and thus resemblesfemale aurantiivertex, to which it is bestassigned.

MIGRANT BIRDS

Boreal migrants

Pandion haliaetus (CU 1-, LA 1U). Both inJanuary.

Actitis macularia (LC 1-, CU 4U, SR 3U 1-). 28October through 1 January.


Tringa flavipes (OR 2U, UR 1-). All 19 Septem-ber.

Tringa melanoleuca (CU 2U). 26 October, 22November.

Tringa solitaria (CU 3- 1U, IN, 1U, SI 1U, SR 1-,UR, 2U). 3 August through 8 April.

Calidris melanotos (OR 2- 11U, UR 5-). 4September through 1 October.

Calidris minutilla (CU 2U). 7–9 January.

Tryngites subruficollis (OR 5- 5U). 1–14 Septem-ber.

Coccyzus americanus (UR 1U). 8 October 1927.

Contopus virens (CU 1-, OR 1-, SR 1-). 19October through 19 November.

Empidonax traillii (CU 3-, LA 1U, SR 5- 4U). 6November through 19 March.

Tyrannus tyrannus (CU 1-, SAA 1-, SR 13- 5U,UR 3- 2U). 13 October through 24 March.

Catharus. None.

Dendroica striata (LC 1U, CU 3- 3U, IN 1U). 9November through 26 January.

Seiurus noveboracensis (CU 1U 1?). 10 Novemberand 10 December 1925.

Vireo olivaceus (olivaceus, CU 4-). 8 Novemberthrough 4 December.

Vireo flavoviridis (IN 1U, SR 1- 3U). 11November through 3 December (SR), 27 May(IN).

Austral migrants

Coccyzus melacoryphus (SAB 1-, SR 1-, LT 1-).April, July, November.

Elaenia gigas (SR 1-, UR 3-). Dated between 18September and 21 December 1927, all are inworn plumage with no signs of molt.

Elaenia spectabilis (SAB 1-). 26 April 1927.

Elaenia strepera (SR 1U). 13 November 1927.

Tyrannus albogularis (LT 2- 2U, SAA 1- 1U,SAB 3-). From 18 March through 19 July.

Tyrannus savanna (LT 1-, OR 1-, SAA 2U). 20–22 March, 20 July, 21 November.

Vireo chivi (CU 2- 1U). From 27 October through19 November.

Sporophila caerulescens (SR 1-). Testes small. TheAMNH also has two specimens from west ofPucallpa collected in 1971.

SCARCE AND INTERESTING SPECIES

COLLECTED BY THE OLALLAS

The following list includes specimens ofspecies now scarce or absent in lowlands ofthe departments of Loreto or Ucayali. Otherspecies are included to illustrate distributionsin this area or the scope of the Olallas’collections.

Crypturellus strigilosus (LA 5-).Zebrilus undulatus (CU 1- 1U, OR 1-, SAA 1U).Cochlearius cochlearius (CU 3, AP 1 SA 4, LA 2).Nycticorax nycticorax (CU 1, SA 3).Hydranassa caerulea (CU 1).Jabiru mycteria (SA 1U). May 1927.Dendrocygna autumnalis (OR 4, SA 5). No other

Dendrocygna.Neochen jubata (LA 1-).Cairina moschata (CU 1-).Accipiter bicolor (CU 5, SA 1, SR 1). No other

Accipiter.Morphnus guianensis (LC 1U, CU 1U).Harpia harpyja (CU 1-, LA 1-).Spizaetus tyrannus (CU 1-).Spizaetus ornatus (LC 1-, CU 1-, OR 1-).Micrastur buckleyi (OR 1U).Micrastur ruficollis (SAA 1-, LA 1U).Micrastur semitorquatus (SAC 1-).Micrastur gilvicollis (CU 1- 2U, OR 3- 2U, SAA

1-, LA 1-).Micrastur mirandollei. None.Falco rufigularis (AP 1-). No other Falco.Crax globulosa (CU 2U, AP 1- 1U).Aramides calopterus (CU 1U, UR 1-).Anurolimnas castaneiceps (CU 3- 1U).Laterallus exilis (exilis, CU 1- 1U).Laterallus fasciatus (hauxwelli, CU 1- 1U, SAA

1U, LA 1U).Laterallus melanophaius (oenops, SAA 1- 1U).Himantopus melanurus (OR 1- 1U, UR 1- 2U).

These specimens include immatures with whiteor gray crowns, mottled with black in some. Thecollar across the back also varies in the degree ofblack mottling.

Ara couloni (SR 1U).Brotogeris sanctithomae (AP 1U, IN 2-, LT 2-

1U, SI 3- 2U, OR 2- 1U, SA 7- 6U, SR 4-2U, UR 2- 1U). This species evidently does notextend far north of the Amazonas.

Touit. None.Dromococcyx. None.Neomorphus geoffroyi (aequatorialis, LC 1U).

Enlarged ovary.Neomorphus pucheranii (OR 3- 3U). Including

one immature.Megascops. Olallas collected no watsonii and only

two choliba.Ciccaba huhula (UR 1U).Ciccaba virgata (CU 2U, OR 1U, LA 2-, SR 2U,

UR 1- 2U).Rhinoptynx clamator (OR 1- 2U).Nyctibius aethereus (longicaudatus, LA 1U).Nyctibius bracteatus (AP 1-).Nyctiphrynus ocellatus (LA 1U).Threnetes leucurus (rufigastra, LA 1- 1U). No

others collected by the Olallas.Phaethornis longuemareus (atrimentalis, IN 1U).


Popelairia langsdorfii (melanosternon, CU 2- 1U,AP 1-).

Hylocharis cyanus (rostrata, IN 1-).Hylocharis sapphirina (CU 1U, IN 1-).Leucippus chlorocercus (CU 2U, AP 2U, SAA 1-).Notharchus macrorhynchos (hyperrhynchus, IN 1-

1U).Nystalus striolatus (striolatus, LT 1- 1U, SI 1-).

None from Peru.Malacoptila fusca (CU 2- 1U, IN 1U, LA 3- 2U).

All similar.Malacoptila rufa (CU 2-, OR 4U, SAB 2-, SAD

1U). All similar.Micromonacha lanceolata (CU 1-, AP 1U, OR

1-).Nonnula ruficapilla (rufipectus (IN 3U, SAD 1U).Nonnula brunnea (CU 2U).Nonnula sclateri (LA 3-, SR 2-).Monasa flavirostris (CU 3- 2U).Brachygalba lugubris (CU 1- 2U).Galbula leucogaster (chalcothorax, CU 4- 2U, IN

1U).Galbula dea. None.Piculus chrysochloros (laemostictus, OR 1-, LA

1-, SR 1-).Piculus flavigula (flavigula, AP 1-, SAA 1U).Piculus rubiginosus and leucolaemus. None.Hylexetastes stresemanni undulatus (SI 3- 1U, LA

1-). Male from Lagarto is in juvenal plumage.Philydor rufus (LA 1-).Automolus melanopezus (LC 2U, CU 3- 1U).Automolus rubiginosus (brunnescens, CU 1U).

Resembles 6 specimens from Ecuador.Xenops tenuirostris (tenuirostris, LA 1U).Xenops ruficaudus. None.Xenops rutilans (peruvianus, UR 1-).Simoxenops ucayalae (LA 1-). The type specimen.Thamnophilus praecox (LC 1U). The type speci-

men.Neoctantes niger (CU 1- 1U, IN 1U).Myrmotherula fjeldsaai (CU 1-).Myrmoborus leucophrys (LA 1- 2U, SR 5- 3U).Myrmoborus melanurus (OR 1U, SAA 1U, SAD

2- 1U).Percnostola lophotes (LA 1U).Phlegopsis erythroptera (LA 1-).Myrmornis torquata (nobilis, CU 1-).Grallaria dignissima (LC 1-, CU 1U).Hylopezus belepschi (yessupi, LA 1-, SR 3U).Hylopezus fulviventris (fulviventris, CU 1-).Hylopezus macularius (diversa, IN 1-).Conopophaga peruviana (IN 1-, LA 7- 4U). The

male from IN resembles those from LA. Theamount of chestnut-brown on the crown varies.

Schiffornis turdinus (amazonus, LC 1U, LA 1-).The only specimens of this widespread species inthe Olallas’ collections.

Hemitriccus iohannis (AP 1-, SAD 1-).

Hemitriccus zosterops [griseipectus] (griseipectus, SI2-). None from Peru.

Todirostrum calopterum (calopterum, CU 1- 2U).Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum (chrysocrotaphum,

SI 1- 1U).Ramphotrigon fuscicauda (LA 1U).Rhynchocyclus olivaceus (aequinoctialis, AP 1-

1U).Tolmomyias sulphurescens (insignis, SAD 1U).Platyrinchus coronatus (coronatus, CU 1-, SR

2-).Platyrinchus platyrhynchos (senex, LA 1- 1U, UR

1U).

Platyrinchus saturatus (IN 1U).Myiobius atricaudus (adjacens, IN 1- 1U, SAD 1-

2U).

Myiobius barbatus (amazonicus, OR 1- 1U, SAD1?, SR 2- 4U).

Neopipo cinnamonea (cinnamonea, SR 1-).

Muscisaxicola fluviatilis (SR 4- 2U, UR 1U).Knipolegus poecilocercus (SAD 1U).Myiarchus tuberculifer (tuberculifer, CU 2-, IN

1- 1U, LA 1- 1U). Between 2 January and 16July.

Tyrannopsis sulphurea (AP 1U).

Pachyramphus castaneus (saturatus, SI 2-, AP1-).

Pachyramphus rufus (LT 1U, SI 2U, SAB 1-).

Microcerculus marginatus (CU 2- 1U, AP 1U, IN1U, LA 1- 1U).

Turdus lawrencii (AP 1-). The only specimen inthe Olallas’ collections.

Microbates cinereiventris (hormotus, CU 2U).Oryzoborus crassirostris (CU 1-). Testes small,

bill mostly dusky.Caryothraustes [Parkerthraustes] humeralis. None.Passerina cyanoides (CU 1U, AP 1-, OR 1U, LA

1-).Lamprospiza melanoleuca. None.Hemithraupis guira (SR 1-).

Tachyphonus luctuosus (luctuosus, CU 3-, SR 2U,UR 1- 1U).

Euphonia chlorotica (taczanowskii, LT 1-). Noothers.

Euphonia chrysopasta, laniirostris, minuta, rufiven-tris, xanthogaster. All well represented from theNapo to the Ucayali.

Cyanerpes cyaneus (dispar). None. Bassler collec-tion includes 2 females from Rıo Mazan.

Coereba flaveola (dispar, LA 3- 1U, SR 2-).Cyclarhis gujanensis. None.Vireolanius leucotis. None.Vireo olivaceus (solimoensis, LT 3- 1U, SI 3- 1U,

AP 1-).Hylophilus thoracicus. None.Hylophlus hypoxanthus (AP 1-, SR 1-).Psarocolius yuracares (CU 1-, IN 1U, OR 2- 1U,

SAA 1U, SAD 2- 1U, SR 1-, UR 4- 2U).


Now scarce or absent near Indiana and themouth of the Orosa.

Psarocolius viridis (flavescens, CU 1- 1U, OR 2-1U, SAC 1U, SAD 1U, UR 1- 5U).

Agelaius icterocephalus (AP 3- 2U).

Molothrus bonariensis (riparius, AP 10- 4U, LA1-). The series from Apayacu was taken alongwith the series of their well-known host Agelaiusicterocephalus.

CONCLUSION

The evidence reviewed above providesconvincing documentation that Alfonsoand Ramon Olalla did indeed work at thelocalities recorded on their specimen labels.Alfonso kept careful notes, provided de-tailed descriptions of their journeys andcamps, and carried on an extensive corre-spondence with Chapman and other staff atthe AMNH, nearly all of which is preservedin the archives of the departments ofornithology and mammalogy. Their speci-mens, labels, reports, and correspondenceprovide a coherent picture of their activities.Furthermore, it is now possible, with somerecent fieldwork and satellite imagery, toidentify the location of each of their camps.The overwhelming majority of the speci-mens agree with our current understandingof the distributions of birds and mammalsin Amazonian Peru. Their collections docu-mented for the first time the limitations ofmany birds’ distributions by major riversand thus made Chapman and Zimmeraware of the pervasiveness of this distribu-tional pattern in Amazonia.

Nevertheless, there remain a substantialnumber of specimens that do not agree withour current understanding of bird andmammal distributions in Amazonian Peru.In some cases, errors have resulted fromincorrect identification of specimens in NewYork. Other errors occur among the fewspecimens acquired from the Olallas byHarvey Bassler in Iquitos and only latertransferred to the AMNH. There are also afew recognizably human errors, such aswriting the previous year’s date in the firstweek of a new year.

On the other hand, some specimens oncethought to be problematic have turned outnot to be. In some cases, unexpected distri-

butions suggested by the Ollalas’ specimenshave been confirmed by recent fieldwork.Furthermore, many of the exceptional spec-imens fall into patterns that suggest newinsights into the distribution of birds innortheastern Amazonia. For instance, theupper Ucayali appears to be a less consistentlimitation for the distributions of birds thanthe Amazon itself. In addition, some birdscharacteristic of the Andean foothills appearto occur sparsely in hilly terrain hundreds ofkilometers from the Andes. Overall, theOllalas’ collection of over 7000 specimens ofbirds from 10 localities in Amazonian Peruhas provided the basis for understanding oneof the world’s most diverse avifaunas. It alsoposes some questions for the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study could not have been finishedwithout the assistance of my wife, MinnaWiley, in examining the large collections inthe AMNH and other museums and inconducting fieldwork. Aleta Wiley also con-tributed to the work at the AMNH. MaryLeCroy provided essential help with thearchives of the Department of Ornithologyand explained much of the history andprocedures of that department, and RobertVoss provided similar assistance in theDepartment of Mammalogy. Matt Shanley(AMNH Photography Studio) prepared theexpertly retouched digital image of Alfonsoon Duida (fig. 7). Thomas Webber at theFlorida State Museum of Natural Historyprovided an enormous favor by searchingunsorted correspondence of Pierce Brodkorb.Greg Schneider helped by making inquiriesabout the correspondence of Helen Gaige atthe University of Michigan Museum ofZoology. Van Remsen, Steve Cardiff, andDan Lane helped at the Louisiana StateUniversity Museum of Natural Science.Many others on the staffs of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, the Museum ofComparative Zoology at Harvard University,the Field Museum of Natural History, thePhiladelphia Academy of Science, and theBritish Museum (Bird Department) helpedgenerously during examinations of Peruvianspecimens in their care. Scott Edwards,Jeremiah Trimble, and Alison Pirie provided


stimulating company at the Museum ofComparative Zoology, where most of thisreport was drafted. Filomeno EncarnacionCajanaupa, Jose Alvarez Alonso, Pablo E.Puertas, and Juan Diaz Alvan, IVITA andIIAP, Iquitos, provided hospitality in Iquitosand crucial assistance in understanding thedistributions of birds and primates in Loreto.Jungle Expeditions, Project Amazonas, Ex-plorama Tours, Paseos Amazonicos, Pacaya-Samiria Amazon Lodge, Wildlife Conserva-tion Society–Peru, and the Durrell Instituteof Conservation and Ecology supportedfieldwork in Loreto. Substantial improve-ments in the manuscript resulted fromsuggestions by Thomas Schulenberg, VanRemsen, Filomeno Encarnacion, RobertVoss, and Devon Graham, for which I amextremely grateful.

REFERENCES

Aleixo, A. 2006. Historical diversification offloodplain forest specialist species in the Ama-zon: a case study with two species of the aviangenus Xiphorhynchus (Aves: Dendrocolaptidae).Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 89:383–395.

Anthony, H.E. 1954. George H.H. Tate (1894–1953). Journal of Mammalogy 35: 281–282.

Aquino, R., and F. Encarnacion. 1994. Primates ofPeru / Los Primates del Peru. Primate Report(Deutsches Primatenzentrum, Gottingen) 40:1–127, (available at http://www.congreso.gob.pe/comisiones/1999/ciencia/cd/unmsm/unmsm-i2/unmsm-i2-10.htm).

Aquino, R., and F. Encarnacion. 1996. Distribu-cion geografica de Saguinus tripartitus en laAmazonıa del Peru. Neotropical Primates 4:1–4.

Aquino, R., C. Ique, and H. Galvez. 2005.Reconocimiento preliminar de la densidad yestructura poblacional de Saguinus tripartitus

Milne-Eduards en la Amazonıa peruana. Re-vista Peruana de Biologıa 12: 435–440.

Armenta, J.K., J.D. Weckstein, and D.F. Lane.2005. Geographic variation in mitochondrialDNA sequences of an Amazonian nonpasserine:the Black-spotted Barbet complex. Condor 107:527–536.

Barlow, J., T. Haugaasen, and C.A. Peres. 2001.Sympatry of Black-faced Leucopternis melanops

and White-browed Hawks L. kuhli along thelower rio Tapajos, Para, Brazil. Cotinga 18:77–79.

Bates, W.H. 1863. The naturalist on the riverAmazons. London: John Murray, 2 vols.Reprinted 1864, 1 vol.

Bond, J. 1956. Additional notes on Peruvian birdsII. Proceedings of the Academy of NaturalSciences of Philadelphia 108: 227–247.

Bradford, W. 1966. The Harvey Bassler collectionof Peruvian fossils. Bethlehem, PA: LehighUniversity.

Cardiff, S.W. 1983. Three new bird species forPeru, with other distributional records fromnorthern Departamento de Loreto. Gerfaut 73:185–192.

Chapman, F.M. 1926. The distribution of bird-lifein Ecuador: a contribution to a study of theorigin of Andean bird-life. Bulletin of theAmerican Museum of Natural History 55:1–784.

Coriat, G., and J.E. 1942. El hombre delAmazonas y ensayo monografico del Loreto.Lima: Coriat.

Dyot, G.M. 1926. On the trail of the unkown. NewYork: Putnam’s Sons.

Faura Gaig, G.S. 1962. Los rıos de la AmazonıaPeruana. Lima: published by the author.

GOREL (Gobierno Regional de Loreto). 2005.Mapa politico del Departamento de Loreto.1:600,000. Agosto 2005. Iquitos: Oficina Acon-dicionamiento Territorial.

Gow, P. 1991. Of mixed blood: kinship and historyin Peruvian Amazonia. Cary, NC: OxfordUniversity Press.

Griscom, L., and J.C. Greenway, Jr. 1941. Birds oflower Amazonia. Bulletin of the Museum ofComparative Zoology 88: 83–344.

Guevara, E. 1995. Motorcycle diaries: a journeyaround South America. New York: Verso.

Gyldenstolpe, N. 1945a. The bird fauna of RioJurua in western Brazil. Kungliga SvenskaVetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, Series 3,22 (3): 1–338.

Gyldenstolpe, N. 1945b. A contribution to theornithology of northern Bolivia. KungligaSvenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar,Series 3, 23 (1): 1–300.

Gyldenstolpe, N. 1951. The ornithology of the RioPurus region in western Brazil. Arkiv forZoologi, Series 2, hafte 1–3: 1–320.

Haffer, J. 1974. Avian speciation in tropical SouthAmerica. Publications of the Nuttall Ornitho-logical Club 14.

Hellmayr, C.E. 1910. The birds of the RioMadeira. Novitates Zoologicae 17: 257–428.

Hemming, J. 1987. Amazon frontier. London:Macmillan.

Hershkovitz, P. 1977. Living New World monkeys(Platyrrhini) with an introduction to primates.Vol. 1. Part III. Systematics, evolution, and


biology of the families Callitrichidae andCallimiconidae. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Hershkovitz, P. 1983. Two new species of nightmonkeys, genus Aotus (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): Apreliminary report on Aotus taxonomy. Amer-ican Journal of Primatology 4: 209–243.

Hershkovitz, P. 1984. Taxonomy of squirrelmonkeys genus Saimiri (Cebidae, Platyrrhini):a preliminary report with description of ahitherto unnamed form. American Journal ofPrimatology 7: 155–210.

Hershkovitz, P. 1987. Uacaries, New Worldmonkeys of the genus Cacajao (Cebidae, Platyr-rhini): a preliminary taxonomic review with adescription of a new subspecies. AmericanJournal of Primatology 12: 1–53.

Hershkovitz, P. 1988. Origin, speciation, anddistribution of South American titi monkeys,genus Callicebus (family Cebidae, Platyrrhini).Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Scienceof Philadelphia 140: 240–72.

Hershkovitz, P. 1990. Titis, new world monkeys ofthe genus Callicebus (Cebidae, Platyrrhini): apreliminary taxonomic review. Fieldiana Zool-ogy 55: 1–109.

Heymann, E.W., C.F. Encarnacion, and Y.J.E.Canaquin. 2002. Primates of the Rıo Curaray,northern Peruvian Amazon. International Jour-nal of Primatology 23: 191–201.

Hodun, A., C.T. Snowdon, and P. Soini. 1981.Subspecific variation in the long calls of thetamarin, Saguinus fuscicollis. Zeitschrift furTierpsychologie 57: 97–110.

INEI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Infor-matica), Internet resource (http://desa.inei.gob.pe/mapas/bid/), accessed March and December2008.

Jenkinson, M.A., and M.D. Tuttle. 1976. Accipiterpoliogaster from Peru, and remarks on twocollecting localities named ‘‘Sarayacu.’’ Auk 95:187–189.

Joseph, L. 2002. Geographical variation, taxonomyand distribution of some Amazonian Pyrrhuraparakeets. Ornitologia Neotropica 13: 337–363.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1966. The species ofbirds of South America and their distribution.Narberth, PA: Livingston Publishing Co.

Morey Alejo, H., and G.D. Sotil Garcıa. 2000.Panorama historico de la Amazonıa Peruana.Iquitos, Peru: Municipalidad Provincial deMaynas.

Olalla, A.M. 1935a. El Berlepschia rikeri y subiologia. Revista do Museu Paulista 19: 419–423.

Olalla, A.M. 1935b. El genero Sciurillus represen-tado en la amazonia y algunas observacionessobre el mismo. Revista do Museu Paulista 19:425–430.

Olalla, A.M. 1937. I. Um viaje a pesquizaszoologicas hacia el rio Jurua [sic], Estado delAmazonas, Brasil—1936. II. Notas de campo:observaciones biologicas. Revista do MuseuPaulista 23: 233–279, 281–297.

O’Neill, J.P., D.F. Lane, A.W. Kratter, A.P.Capparella, and C.F. Joo. 2000. A strikingnew species of barbet (Capitoninae: Capito)from the eastern Andes of Peru. Auk 117:569–577.

Ortiz, D. 1962. Los forjadores de Pucallpa. Lima:Imprenta Editorial San Antonio.

Ortiz, D. 1974. Alto Ucayali y Pachitea: visionhistorica de dos importantes regions de la selvaPeruana. Lima: San Antonio, 2 vols.

Ortiz, D. 1984. Pucallpa y el Ucayali: ayer y hoy.Tomo I (1557–1943). Lima: Editorial Aposto-lado de la Prensa.

Pinto, O.M.de O. 1938, 1944. Catalogo das avesdo Brasil e lista dos exemplares que asrepresentam no Museu Paulista. Revista doMuseu Paulista 22: 1–566 (2 vols.).

Patterson, B.D. 1991. Mammals in the RoyalNatural History Museum, Stockholm, collectedin Brazil and Bolivia by A.M. Olalla during1934–1938. Fieldiana Zoology 66: 1–42.

Raposo do Amaral, F.S., L.F. Silveira, and B.M.Whitney. 2007. New localities for the Black-faced Hawk (Leucopternis melanops) south ofthe Amazon River and description of theimmature plumage of the White-browed Hawk(Leucopternis kuhli). Wilson Journal of Orni-thology 119: 450–454.

Remsen, J.V., Jr, and T.A. Parker, III. 1983.Contribution of river-created habitats to birdspecies richness in Amazonia. Biotropica 15:223–231.

Ribas, C.C., L. Joseph, and C.Y. Miyaki. 2006.Molecular systematics and patterns of diversifi-cation in Pyrrhura (Psittacidae), with specialreference to the picta-leucotis complex. Auk 123:660–680.

Rosenberg, G.H. 1990. Habitat specialization andforaging behavior by birds of Amazonian riverislands in northeastern Peru. Condor 92:427–443.

Rylands, A.B., and R.A. Mittermeier. 2009. Thediversity of the New World primates (Platyr-rhini): an annotated taxonomy. In P.A. Garber,A. Estrada, J.C. Bicca-Marques, E.W. Hey-mann, and K.B. Strier (editors), South Ameri-can primates: comparative perspectives in thestudy of behavior, ecology, and conservation,23–54. New York: Springer.

Scheuerman, R.G. 1977. Hallazgos del paujil Craxmitu (Aves: Cracidae) al norte del Rıo Amazo-nas y notas sobre su distribucion. Lozania 22:1–8.


Schulenberg, T.S., D.F. Stotz, D.F. Lane, and J.P.O’Neill. 2007. Birds of Peru. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Sclater, P.L., and O. Salvin. 1880. On new birdscollected by Mr. C. Buckley in eastern Ecuador.Proceedings of the Zoological Society of Lon-don 1880: 155–161.

Snethlage, E. 1913. Uber die Verbreitung derVogelarten in Unteramazonien. Journal furOrnithologie 61: 469–539.

Stephens, L., and M.A. Traylor, Jr. 1983. Orni-thological gazetteer of Peru. Cambridge, MA:Bird Department, Museum of ComparativeZoology, Harvard University.

Struhsaker, T., H. Wiley, and J. Bishop. 1997.Conservation survey of the Rio Tapiche, Lor-eto, Peru, 1 Feb–8 Mar 1997. West Chester, PA:Amazon Center for Environment, Education,and Research (ACEER).

Tate, G.H.H. 1931a. Narrative of the expedition.In H.A. Gleason (editor), Botanical results ofthe Tyler-Duida Expedition, 279–284. Bulletinof the Torrey Botanical Club 58: 277–344.

Tate, G.H.H. 1931b. Random observations onhabits of South American mammals. Journal ofMammalogy 12: 248–256.

Thorington, R.W., Jr. 1988. Taxonomic status ofSaguinus tripartitus (Milne-Edwards, 1878).American Journal of Primatology 15: 367–371.

Vanzolini, P.E. 1972. Alfonso Maria Olalla:1.VII.1899, 13.XII.1971. Arquivos de Zoologia,22, [two pages without numbers].

Vaurie, C. 1965. Systematic notes on the birdfamily Cracidae. No. 3. Ortalis guttata, Ortalissuperciliaris, and Ortalis motmot. AmericanMuseum Novitates 2232: 1–21.

Vaurie, C. 1967a. Systematic notes on the birdfamily Cracidae. No. 9. The genus Crax.American Museum Novitates 2305: 1–20.

Vaurie, C. 1967b. Systematic notes on the birdfamily Cracidae. No. 10. The genera Mitu andPauxi and the generic relationships of theCracini. American Museum Novitates 2307:1–20.

Vaurie, C. 1968. Taxonomy of the Cracidae(Aves). Bulletin of the American Museum ofNatural History 138 (4): 131–260.

Vaurie, C. 1971. Classification of the ovenbirds(Furnariidae). London: Witherby.

Vaurie, C. 1972. An ornithological gazetteer ofPeru (based on information compiled by J.T.Zimmer). American Museum Novitates 2491:1–36.

Vaurie, C. 1980. Taxonomy and geographicaldistribution of the Furnariidae (Aves, Passer-iformes). Bulletin of the American Museum ofNatural History 166 (1): 1–357.

Vriesendorp, C., J.A. Alvarez, N. Barbagelata,W.S. Alverson, and D.K. Moskovits (editors),Peru: Nanay, Mazan, Arabela. Field Museum,Chicago: Rapid Biological Inventories Report18.

Wallace, A.R. 1853. A narrative of travels on theAmazon and Rio Negro. London: Reeve,Reissued London: Macmillan, 1870; 2nd edi-tion, London: Ward, Lock & Co., 1889.

Zimmer, J.T. 1924a. New birds from central Peru.Field Museum of Natural History ZoologySeries 12: 48–67.

Zimmer, J.T. 1924b. Two new birds from Peru.Field Museum of Natural History ZoologySeries 12: 101–109.

Zimmer, J.T. 1927. A new race of Myrmecizaschistacea from central Peru. Proceedings of theBiological Society of Washington 40: 207–210.

Zimmer, J.T. 1930. Birds of the Marshall FieldPeruvian Expedition, 1922–1923. Field Museumof Natural History Zoology Series 17: 233–480.

Zimmer, J.T. 1931. Studies of Peruvian birds. I.American Museum Novitates 500: 1–23.

Zimmer, J.T. 1932a. Studies of Peruvian birds. V.American Museum Novitates 538: 1–27.

Zimmer, J.T. 1932b. Studies of Peruvian birds.VII. American Museum Novitates 558: 1–25.

Zimmer, J.T. 1935. Studies of Peruvian birds.XVII. American Museum Novitates 785: 1–24.

Zimmer, J.T. 1937. Studies of Peruvian birds.XXV. American Museum Novitates 917: 1–16.

Zimmer, J.T. 1942. Studies of Peruvian birds.LXIII. American Museum Novitates 1193:1–16.

Zimmer, J.T. 1955. Studies of Peruvian birds.LXVI. American Museum Novitates 1723:1–16.


alfonso olalla and his family: the ornithological exploration of

Documents