286 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 221 



Empidonax trepidus Nelson 

 Auk 18 (1) : 47, January 1901. 



=Empidonax affinis trepidus Nelson. See Van Rossem, Bull. Mus. Comp. 

 Zool. 57:393, 1934. 



154593. Adult male. Hacienda "Chancol," Department of Huehuete- 

 nango, Guatemala. January 5, 1896. Collected by Edward W. Nelson 

 and Edward A. Goldman. Original number 3354. Received from the 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 Empidonax difficilis Baird 



in Baird, Cassin, and Lawrence, Rep. Expl. and Surv. R.R. Pac. 9: 198, 

 1858. 



=Empidonax difficilis difficilis Baird. See Moore, Auk 57 : 369, 1940. 



7243. Adult (sex not indicated). Shoalwater Bay, Pacific County, Wash- 

 ington. July 4, 1854. Collected by James G. Cooper. Original number 

 84. Pacific Railroad Survey, Line of the 47th Parallel. 



13720. Adult male. Fort Tejon, Kern County, California. Entered into 

 the museum register in December 24, 1859. Collected by John Xantus. 

 Original number 1680. 



13721. Immature male. Fort Tejon, Kern County, California. Entered 

 into the museum register on December 24, 1859. Collected by John 

 Xantus. Original number 615. 



This name was based upon four cotypes, of which one. No. 5920, from 

 Fort Steilacoom, Washington, cannot now be found in the collection. 



It is instructive to observe the careless manner in which Fort Tejon has 

 come to be considered the restricted type locality, despite the fact that one 

 of the Washington proveniences might well have seemed more suitable to a 

 thoughtful student of the problem. No. 13720 was long ago set aside by 

 Richmond as the only possible type, because, as he wrote on the red type 

 label, "Species was based on 3 skins, of which this is the only adult one"; 

 ergo, the restricted type locality must be Fort Tejon. But No. 7243 is in 

 fact likewise an adult, as may also have been No. 5920. There were, more- 

 over, not three, but four, cotypes; No. 13721 arrived at the museum together 

 with No. 13720, and was identified by Baird himself as an example of 

 difficilis. There is nothing whatsoever in the original description that makes 

 one Fort Tejon specimen more important than the other, since Baird failed 

 even to indicate whether he had one bird or two. 



Xantus's skins were not registered until a year or more after publication 

 of Baird's new name, so that museum numbers were not yet available for 

 them. Since, however, Baird neglected to give even the sex and collector's 

 numbers, clearly shown on the original labels, one must wonder whether 

 mention of the California birds was not a last-minute addition to the manu- 

 script, with comment on the new form actually based upon the Washington 

 specimens, which had already been in the museum collection for years. 



