434 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 22 1 



Wallace {op. cit., pp. 394, 397) seems not to have examined the five skins 

 kept by Bicknell, and it is probable that the ravages of Dermestidae led to 

 their destruction, with the result that the two in Washington are the only 

 surviving cotypes. 

 Hylocichla fuscescens subpallida Burleigh and Duvall 



Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 72(8) : 33, May 1, 1959. 

 419601. Adult male. Moscow, Latah County, Idaho. June 10, 1951. 



Collected by Thomas D. Burleigh. Original number 13895. Received 



from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 Hylociclila fuseeseens salicicola Ridgway 



Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 4: 374, Apr. 13, 1882. 

 66667. Adult male. Fort Garland, Costilla County, Colorado. May 26, 



1873. Collected by Henry W. Henshaw. Original number 142. 



Geographical Explorations and Surveys West of the 100th Meridian 



(Expedition of 1873). 

 66669 (not 66689). Adult male. Fort Garland, Costilla County, Colo- 

 rado, June 19, 1873. Collected by Henry W. Henshaw. Original 



number 577. Geographical Explorations and Surveys West of the 



100th Meridian (Expedition of 1873). 

 79460. Adult female. Fort Garland, Costilla County, Colorado. June 



19, 1873. Collected by Henry W. Henshaw, Original number 376. 



Geographical Explorations and Surveys West of the 100th Meridian 



(Expedition of 1873). , . 



Ridgway based this race upon a series of eleven cotypes, but some of 

 these are now taxonomically useless, and it seems to me advisable to list 

 here only those from the restricted type locality, especially since at least 

 two of them have the words "var. salicicolus Ridg./Type!" on the label in 

 Ridgway 's hand. The third, No. 66669, at some time became No. 2631 of 

 Ridgway's private collection, when it had its original label removed; con- 

 ceivably it also had been designated by the describer as "type." 



At the first description, five specimens were mentioned as from Fort 

 Garland, but, in fact, No. 66668 is from Denver, In addition to the three 

 listed above, there was No. 79461, which was sent to Henry W, Henshaw 

 in 1887; its present whereabouts is unknown, but may be the British 

 Museum (Natural History). 



In cases such as this, where no specimen's claims to typeship are superior 

 to another's, it was the practice of the late Charles W. Richmond to make 

 the first male listed the lectotype, and degrade all other skins to paratype- 

 ship. But since the first listed. No, 79461, had already left the museum 

 prior to his investigation of the problem, he was compelled either to admit 

 that the type was no longer in Washington, or to elect a specimen other 

 than the first listed. In choosing the second, No. 66667, he laid aside a 

 bird which, by his own rule, should not have been considered a type at all ! 



