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]) BULLETINOFTHEAMERICANMUSEUMOFNATURALHISTORY Number343,68pp., 7figures,2 tables IssuedDecember8,2010 CopyrightEAmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory2010 ISSN0003-0090 CONTENTS Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Accusations against ‘‘Native Collectors’’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Alfonso and Ramo´n Olalla in Amazonian Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Chapman Engages the Olallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Expeditions to Sumaco in Eastern Ecuador. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Down the Napo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Mouth of the R´ıo Curaray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Carlos Returns to Quito . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Alfonso and Ramo´n Leave the Curaray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Puerto Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A Move Downriver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A Remarkable Decision and a Reversal of Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Sarayacu: First Stop on the Ucayali. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Three Localities along the Southern Ucayali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Another Change of Plans and Departure from Peru. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Labels on the Olallas’ Specimens. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Localities of the Olallas’ Collections in Peru and Nearby. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Boca R´ıo Curaray. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Boca Lagarto Cocha. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Puerto Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Orosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Apayacu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Sarayacu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Boca R´ıo Urubamba. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Santa Rosa and Lagarto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Teffe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Distributions of Birds in Amazonian Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Distributions Confirmed by the Olallas’ Collections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Accepted Distributions Challenged by the Olallas’ Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Limits of Distributions along the R´ıo Ucayali. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Specimens in Harvey Bassler’s Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Primates in Amazonian Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Birds on River Islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Birds of Andean Foothills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Migrant Birds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Scarce and Interesting Species Collected by the Olallas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2 ABSTRACT In1922FrankM.ChapmanhiredafamilyofEcuadorianstocollectbirdsandmammalsfor theAmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory(AMNH).Inthefollowingtwoyears,CarlosOlalla and his four sons (especially Alfonso and Ramo´n) shipped some 3500 carefully prepared and neatlylabeledspecimensofEcuadorianbirdstoNewYork.In1925,underanewcontractwith theAMNH,theOlallasmovedtheiroperationstonortheasternPeru,andduringthenexttwo and a half years, mostly as a result of efforts by Alfonso and Ramo´n, they sent over 7000 specimens of birds to New York from Amazonian Peru, as well as additional thousands of specimens of mammals. The two brothers shifted their operations to Brazil in 1928. Alfonso went on to ship even larger collections of birds from Brazil to museums in the United States, Sweden,andBrazil.Altogetherthesecollectionshaveprovidedthedocumentationformuchof what wenowknow about the distributions of Amazonian birdsand mammals. In1962accusationssurfacedthattheOlallashadfalsifiedmuchoftheinformationabouttheir specimens. Although based on hearsay, these accusations raised lingering doubts about the Olallas’ collections. Alfonso sent reports of the brothers’ activities to the AMNH with their shipments of specimens. These reports together with their correspondence with Chapman and other curators are still preserved in the archives of the departments of ornithology and mammalogy.ExaminationofthesearchivesandofmostoftheOlallas’specimensofbirdsand primatesfrom Peru providesa clearview of their activities for thefirst time. AlloftheOlallas’collectingsitesinAmazonianPerucannowbeconfidentlylocated,anda large majority of their specimens from these localities accord with current understanding of avian distributions in Amazonian Peru. The accusations of general carelessness or systematic duplicity can thus be rejected. Nevertheless, there remains a small number of problematic specimens.EspeciallysuspectarethoseacquiredfromtheOlallasinIquitosbyHarveyBassler with labels from the mouth of the R´ıo Urubamba. These specimens eventually came to the AMNHas a partof Bassler’scollection,rather thandirectlyfrom the Olallas. AlfonsoandRamo´nOlalla’schoiceofcollectingsitessuggeststhattheybecameawareofthe importance of major rivers in limiting avian distributions in Amazonia, and their correspondence with Chapman suggests that their collections brought this insight to the attentionofornithologistsinNewYork.Inaddition,theircollectionssuggestpatternsofavian distributionthatstill need furtherinvestigation,especiallytheextensionofsomespecies ofthe Andean foothills into the lowlands of upper Amazonia and the less consistent limitations of avian distributions by the upper R´ıo Ucayali in comparison to the R´ıo Amazonas. No doubt someoftheOlallas’specimensindicateyetundiscoveredfeaturesofaviandistributioninupper Amazonia,where,despiteAlfonsoandRamo´n’spioneeringefforts,thereissurelymoretolearn. INTRODUCTION erswentontocollectthousandsofadditional birds for the AMNH in Brazil. Later, he During the 1920s the American Museum collected further thousands of specimens for of Natural History (AMNH) engaged a other museums in North America, Europe, family of Ecuadorians, Carlos Olalla and and Brazil. As a result, it is possible that his sons (Alfonso, Ramo´n, Manuel, and members of the Olalla family collected the Rosalino), to collect birds and mammals in majorityofallspecimensofAmazonianbirds Ecuador and Peru. As a result, the museum currently in museums around the world. acquired over 10,000 specimens of neatly They certainly did so in the first half of the prepared and labeled specimens of birds and 20th century. hundredsofspecimensofmammals.Manyof This entire corpus of work has been cast thesespecimenswerelaterexchangedwithor into shadow by charges of duplicity and sold to other museums. Altogether they carelessness. These accusations arose from a formed the basis for systematic revisions of single source in 1962 and were subsequently many Amazonian birds and primates. In pursuedbyasingleornithologist.Attempting subsequent decades, one of the Olalla broth- to understand what can and what cannot be 3 4 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OFNATURALHISTORY NO.343 trusted in the Olallas’ enormous body of collector in Ecuador, asserted that he had workisanimportantenterpriseforNeotrop- seen the Olallas falsify their labels: ical ornithology and mammalogy. This re- I know of one important instance in particular view focuses on the Olallas’ collections from [of irregularities by native collectors]— Dr. AmazonianPeruintheintervalfrom1925to Chapman of the Am. Museum paid a family 1928, the period on which the accusations of native collectors very handsomely to get also focus. together a collection of birds from the lower After reviewing the accusations and the Putumayo and the Napo rivers.… The collec- controversy they engendered, I examine the tors only covered about half of their assigned documentary evidence for the Olallas’ itiner- territorybutthelabelsonthespecimensshowed them collected from a dozen collecting stations ary in Peru, their procedures for labeling thattheynevervisitedandincaseswhere20or specimens, and the locations where they more specimens were collected in a single day, worked. This evaluation relies heavily on the dates were ‘‘fixed up’’ to show that the Alfonso Olalla’s manuscript journals in the material had been collected over a period of 6 archives of the AMNH departments of mos.! I not only happened along and saw the ornithology and mammalogy. In addition, I collectors,thespecimens&thelabels,butheard have examined most of the specimens of them talk of how easy it was—that it made no birdsandprimatescollectedbytheOlallasin realdifference—‘‘thegringoswouldneverknow Peru, including nearly all those in the anyway!theimportantthingwastogivethema AMNH but also many in other museums. lot of material with diversified labels’’—I’ve Intheend,thereappearstobenocompelling often wondered if the ‘‘bird-men’’ of the Am. Mus. ever discovered the hoax that had been reason to doubt the Olallas’ collections or workedonthem,oriftheyfaithfullybasedtheir localities.Instead,itisdifficultnottosuspect geographic&seasonaldistributionsonthedata a dark currentof ethnic prejudice underlying of thoselabels? the accusations. Nevertheless, in light of our current understanding of avian distributions Brodkorb suggested that Eisenmann might in Amazonian Peru, a small number of the want to bring this matter to the attention of Olallas’ specimens are from surprising loca- Dean Amadon, then chairman of the De- tions. Some of these surprises suggest new partment of Ornithology at the AMNH. He lines for further research. Also important is believed that MacIntyre was dead but had a the human story of three years’ labors in the relative in New Jersey. rainforests of Amazonian Peru by two According to Brodkorb’s letter, the quo- brothers in continual financial and medical tationcamefromaletterbyMacIntyredated extremities. It is a story of persistent explo- 1 June 1941 to Helen T. Gaige, then curator ration, despite repeated setbacks, and of ofherpetology attheUniversity ofMichigan insightful decisions, despite crossed commu- Museum of Zoology. Presumably Brodkorb nications, in one of the most challenging had seen it while at Michigan in the 1940s. landscapesofthe20thcentury.Itisastoryof Gaige’s correspondence is not preserved in extraordinary accomplishments. the UMMZ, according to a message from Greg Schneider in 2004. Schneider consulted two active curators emeriti, Robert Storer ACCUSATIONS AGAINST and Reeve Baily, neither of whom had any ‘‘NATIVE COLLECTORS’’ recollectionof this correspondence aboutthe The controversy over the Olallas’ collec- Olallas,althoughbothexpressedhesitationin tions began with a letter from Professor accepting information from commercial col- Pierce Brodkorb at the University of Florida lectors at face value. to Eugene Eisenmann at the AMNH on 5 Brodkorb’s papers are stored, although October 1962. Brodkorb had information not cataloged, at the Florida Museum of that ‘‘should be on record in the American Natural History, where after two searches Museum,’’ namely accusations of fraud by Tom Webber located a five-page letter dated the Olallas. A letter written in 1941 by 16July1941toBrodkorbattheUniversityof William Clarke-MacIntyre, a commercial MichiganfromMacIntyreinEcuador.Inthis 2010 WILEY:ALFONSOOLALLAANDHIS FAMILY 5 letterMacIntyrementionsapreviousletterto part to purchase the birds from Loja, did Gaige‘‘bylastmail,’’butprovidesnohintof notincludealltheindividualsinvolvedinthe its contents. MacIntyre instead responded to expedition to Peru and beyond. The father, a requestfromBrodkorbforspecimensfrom Carlos, might still have been alive, but the Loja, Ecuador. MacIntyre had no plans to Olalla who collected in southern Ecuador in visitLojainthenextyearandinsteadtriedto the late 1930s and 1940s would have been interest Brodkorb in specimens from an Rosalino or Ramo´n, who had returned to anticipated expedition to the upper r´ıos Ecuador by then. Carlos, as revealed in his Napo, Putumayo, and Caqueta´ or, alterna- correspondence with Chapman during the tively,inacrateofbirdsfromLojacurrently 1920s, had an argumentative streak and in storage. The letter made two references to harbored repeated suspicions that the muse- the Olallas. um underpaid him. Whether this situation First, he mentioned Chapman’s plans for ever led him or his family in Quito to collections from thePutumayo andCaqueta´: shortchange the museum, in retribution, is another story. Whatever we conclude in that IknowthattheAmericanMus.wasatonetime case does not apply to the two Olallas in very anxioustohavea largecollectionof birds Peru, thebrothers Alfonso and Ramo´n, who (they wanted ‘em in series of 20!) from those in fact took steps to dissociate themselves regions, & I’m pretty sure they haven’t gotten professionally from the rest of the family in them as yet. I know Dr. Chapman sent the Olallas on a trip down the Napo & Amazon, Quito. althoughheaskedthemtocollectthePutumayo Once the accusation of duplicity by the &Caqueta´,theydidn’tdoexceptinthemouths OlallashadreachedtheAMNH,ittookona ofthoserivers—butIdon’tdoubtbutthatthey newlife.Brodkorb’slettertoEisenmannwas sentmateriallabeledclearuptotheheadwaters forwardedtoDeanAmadonwithanundated ofthose rivers. note from ‘‘COB’’ (Charles O’Brien, then collection manager) that stated, ‘‘I don’t Then, with reference to the birds in believe F.M.C. [Chapman] discovered the storage, he stated, fraud but eventually it became evident to NowastoLojamaterial—Ihavesomeonhand, J.T.Z. [John Zimmer, associate curator of packed up, at Ban˜os—bought it of [sic] one of ornithology at the AMNH] in respect to the the Olallas when he returned from a trip he Amazonian material.’’ Charles Vaurie, asso- madetogetsomehummingbirdsforamuseum ciate and later curator of ornithology at the in Paris—don’t know, right now, just what I AMNH, however, was the one who pursued have. the matter repeatedly. He wrote to Emmet Blake, then curator of birds at the Field Inshort,hisopinionoftheOlallaswasnotso Museum in Chicago, for any information he low that he demurred at purchasing their or other curators there might have about the specimens and reselling them to northern Olallas’ specimens. Blake replied on 17 museums! February 1965 with information that Henry Before continuing the history of these Boardman Conover had done business both accusations, I should note that a few points with Carlos for Ecuadorian gamebirds and are already clear. Although MacIntyre had with A.M. (Alfonso) Olalla for Brazilian heard of the Olallas’ expedition to Peru, he material. Blake’s impression was that Carlos obviouslyknewlittleaboutit.TheOlallasdid was suspect but that Alfonso was ‘‘not given not in fact collect on the Putumayo and toactualskullduggery,althoughgenerallyhe Caqueta´ as originally planned but only didn’tbothertoindicatewhichsideofariver because Chapman changed the itinerary. his [specimens] came from … He simply The Olallas did not send a single specimen didn’t know any better.’’ with labels from either of those rivers, Blake went on to say that ‘‘[Philip] contrary to MacIntyre’s accusatory assump- Hershkovitz … bears me out on this and tion. has had exactly the same trouble with Furthermore, the Olallas with whom monkeys borrowed from the AMNH that MacIntyre had interacted, presumably in youarehavingwithsomeofourOlallabirds. 6 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OFNATURALHISTORY NO.343 In fact, Philip [Hershkovitz] admits that in Brodkorb’s letter. In addition, he claimed to his younger collecting days he also was less have found irregularities in the Olallas’ than precise in specifying localities as related collections for the Natural History Museum to the banks of rivers.’’ in Stockholm. In Gyldenstope’s correspon- Blakealsorespondedtotwoqueriesabout dence, Vaurie claimed to have found a letter specimens. The first case involved two with complaints that the Olallas had sold subspecies ‘‘[Ortalis motmot] motmot and some of their specimens to other buyers, ruficeps on virtually thesame dates’’at Lago instead of sending everything to Stockholm. Cuipeva (or Cuiteˆua), Brazil. ‘‘I believe,’’ ‘‘Gyldenstolpedidnotenlarge,butthelabels Blake concluded, ‘‘the explanation is clear of the skins subtracted must certainly be (carelessness), although the river appears to fraudulent,’’concludedVaurie.Furthermore, be damnably broad at that point [on the according to Vaurie, ‘‘Hershkovitz of Chi- lower Amazon].’’ Blake also felt that ‘‘the cago had decided to ignore all the material mixup at Pinhel would have the same collected by the Olallas because of too much explanation.’’ cheating.’’ Vaurie adds that ‘‘the sexing [of Vaurie’sinterestinthesespecimensarosein specimens] of the Olallas is also too often the course of his revisions of the Cracidae in improbable to trust.’’ He concluded, in a AmericanMuseumNovitates(10issues,1964– stupendous appeal to prejudice, ‘‘no critical 1967),inwhichheroutinelylistedtheOlallas’ decisions about systematic status, range, and specimens from Ecuador and Peru without dates can be based on Olalla material. If it comment, including those from the subse- ‘fits’, well and good, but if anything is quently contentious mouth of the R´ıo Ur- doubtfulatall—ignoreit’’(italicsfororiginal ubamba.However,Vauriedidquestionseven underlining). specimens collected by Alfonso Olalla in Not everybody was convinced. Paulo E. BrazilafterhehadleftPeru.One,aspecimen Vanzolini,directoroftheMuseudeZoologia of Mitu tuberosum from the R´ıo Negro daUniversidadedeSa˜oPaulo,wrotetoC.W. (Vaurie, 1967b: 17), is now known to be Myers,curatorofherpetologyattheAMNH, withintherangeofthisspecies(Scheuerman, ‘‘IpersonallytrustOlalla’slocalities.Thereis 1977). The other six have labels indicating the matter of wide apart localities on the theywerecollectedonthesamedate,10June same day, but this is because he employed 1933, at Lago Cuipeva (Vaurie equates this many local collectors. His name on the label withCuipeua)andPinhel,Brazilianlocalities actually means the firm, not always the north and south of the Amazon respectively. person. As we acquired over the years large The contentious specimens are two Ortalis collections from him, I took pains to check motmot ruficeps and one Pipile cujubi at the his field men (in the Tapajo´s), and found firstlocality,bothtaxaotherwiseknownonly themreliable,apparentlyevenastoonwhich from south of the Amazon, and three O. m. side of the river the bird was shot’’ (letter ruficepsatthesecondlocality,onthewestern dated1September1972inthearchivesofthe sideoftheR´ıoTapajo´s,althoughthistaxonis Department of Ornithology). otherwise known only east of that river InasubsequentinterchangewithMyerson (Vaurie,1965:16–17,1968:209).Thechacha- 11 October 1972, Vaurie reiterated his accu- lacas from Lago Cuipeva and Pinhel are sations: ‘‘I regret that Dr. Vanzolini doesn’t presumablythosementionedinBlake’sletter, seem to be discriminating.’’ He dismissed discussedabove.Ontheotherhand,Vaurie’s Vanzolini’s observations: ‘‘For instance on revisions of the Cracidae accepted other the same day, males may be labeled from a specimens obtained by Alfonso Olalla at locality north of the Amazon, and females Lago Cuipeva and twice based substantive from another, about 125 miles south of the decisionsonAlfonso’sspecimensfromnorth- Amazon, although it is usually not so ernBoliviareportedbyGyldenstolpe(1945b) flagrant’’ (italics for original underlining). (Vaurie,1965: 9, 1967a:4–5). Vaurie also reiterated Gyldenstope’s con- On 27 March 1971, Vaurie pursued the cerns. He added that ‘‘coming from Stock- matter with a handwritten letter to unspeci- holm—IfoundintheParisMuseumsomeof fied friends in which he referred again to these skins that they acquired innocently— 2010 WILEY:ALFONSOOLALLAANDHIS FAMILY 7 not knowing that the Olallas were under followedby thenames of collectors provided contract with Gyldenstolpe. If they are in by Zimmer, the department, and the coordi- Paris, some were probably offered else- nates from the American Geographical So- where.’’No details were presented,however. ciety’s‘‘MapofHispanicAmerica,’’ofwhich By this time, Vaurie’s ornithological gaz- the12sheetsforPeruwerepublishedbetween etteer of Peru had been publishedas anissue 1924 and 1939. Vaurie evidently did not use of American Museum Novitates (Vaurie, therevisionsof several sheets publishedafter 1972). Vaurie explained that this gazetteer 1945. Vaurie also quoted some of Zimmer’s was based on theindex of Peruvian localities comments about a locality and provided thatJohnT.Zimmerhadpreparedduringhis some comments of his own. revisions of Peruvian birds primarily in the Vaurie’streatmentoftheOlallas’localities 1930sand1940s.Zimmerhadparticipatedin reflected his conclusions about their authen- an expedition to Peru for the Field Museum ticity. He included neither Boca Lagarto in 1922–1923 and subsequently had pub- Cocha nor Boca R´ıo Curaray, presumably lished descriptions of new subspecies (Zim- becausethecollectors’labelsspecified‘‘Ecua- mer, 1924a, 1924b, 1927) and a monograph dor’’ (a point discussed below). For Puerto on the birds of the expedition (Zimmer, Indiana, Orosa, and Apayacu, Vaurie’s 1930). In 1930, Chapman hired Zimmer as treatment suggested uncertainty about the an associate curator in the Department of exact locations. Vaurie had no reservations Ornithology at the AMNH to prepare a about Sarayacu, a locality visited by many comprehensive study of the birds of Peru Europeans before the Olallas. Vaurie intro- along the lines of Chapman’s studies of the duced minor mistakes about the locations of birds of Colombia and Ecuador. Zimmer Santa Rosa and Lagarto, but for ‘‘URU- arrived in New York two years after the last BAMBA, ‘boca del Urubamba’ (Olallas),’’ of the Olallas’ shipments from Peru. Chap- Vaurie provided no location. Instead, he man no doubt felt that accession of these appended the comment, ‘‘this is a fraudulent large collections from Amazonian Peru, locality, the labels were forged by the combined with the museum’s already large collectors named, according to Zimmer.’’ In holdings from the Andes and the coast, put short,Vauriehadconcludedthatmostofthe the AMNH in a unique position to prepare Olallas’ sites could not now be accurately the first overview of the Peruvian avifauna. located and that one of them, the mouth of Zimmer never produced this overview. the Urubamba, had been entirely fabricated. Instead, with meticulous care, he proceeded As discussed below, Vaurie’s conclusions to revise the systematics of the majority of abouttheOlallas’locationsweresubsequent- Peruvian birds in a series of 66 papers in ly adopted with minor modifications by American Museum Novitates, between 1931 Stephens and Traylor (1983). In particular, and 1955, and in a few additional papers they repeated verbatim Vaurie’s allegations elsewhere.Duringthiseffortheassembledhis about ‘‘boca del Urubamba’’ under the file of Peruvian localities, usually one 3 3 heading ‘‘URUBAMBA, RIO.’’ 5 inch card for each locality, eventually To my knowledge, none of Zimmer’s totaling over 1000 cards, each of which publications expressed any doubt about the included alternative names for the locality, Olallas’ collections or localities. He included the department in which it was located, the their specimens routinely in his lists of names of collectors who had worked there, specimens examined, under the Olallas’ andthecoordinatesfromamappublishedin localities(althoughZimmeroftensubstituted Limain1912.This filewasinthearchivesof ‘‘Anayacu’’ or ‘‘Apiyacu’’ for Apayacu). the Department of Ornithology in 2004– There is, however, a comment on the back 2005, when I examined it. It is now perma- of his index card for ‘‘Boca de Urubamba’’ nently located in the Section of Ornithology about a fabricated label: attheLouisianaStateUniversityMuseumof Certain skins (of Philydor erythrocercus sub- Natural Science (Van Remsen, in litt., 2010). fulvus) [sic] sold by the Olallas to Harvey Vaurie’s (1972) gazetteer included the Bassler,havethislocality[BocaR´ıoUrubamba] names of localities on Zimmer’s cards, each on the label but they are fraudulently labeled 8 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OFNATURALHISTORY NO.343 and belong to the fauna of e. Ec. [Ecuador] & outthecountry.Peruhadbeenexploredbya PerunorthoftheAmazon.Thelabelisonenot number of intrepid ornithologists, but it had in use by the Olallas at this locality (square never developed native bird collectors. base; printed ‘‘Peru’’) (label actually used has Chapman’s careful work on the zonal basal corners clipped & is printed ‘‘Ecuador’’; distributions of birds in the Andes of thiscrossedoff&Perustampedonafterwards); Colombia and Ecuador had left him partic- according to our collections this label was not ularly sensitive to the limitations of native usedbeforeTeffe´,Brazil.Probablytheskinsare collectors (Chapman, 1926: 10–11). As orni- now collected in eastern Ecuador & mislabeled forsale asPeruvianbirds. thology advanced after the turn of the century, ornithologists could see the impor- In his revisions of Philydor erythrocercum tance of carefully documented specimens for and ruficaudatum, Zimmer (1935) did not distributional analyses. In Ecuador, Ludovic mention a specimen from Boca R´ıo Uru- So¨derstrom (the Swedish consul-general in bamba, even in the list of specimens exam- Quito in the 1920s) encouraged native ined. Vaurie’s comprehensive review of the collectors to label their specimens with Furnariidae (Vaurie, 1980) also did not locality and sex. Nevertheless, as Chapman mention this specimen. Otherwise, Zimmer cautioned, each locality was best interpreted routinely listed the Olallas’ specimens from as the base of operations for collectors who worked in areas of undetermined extent. He Boca R´ıo Urubamba (translated as ‘‘mouth did not doubt the sincerity of the native of R´ıo Urubamba’’). A specimen of Philydor collectors but only their awareness of the erythrocercum subfulvum, currently in the importance of precise information. Native AMNH with this locality on one of the collectorshadnotbeentheonlyonescareless Olallas’ labels, is among a group of six with labels, however, as Chapman (1926: problematic specimens in a collection ac- 728) explained in reviewing Clarence Buck- quired from Harvey Bassler, to be discussed ley’s collections on the r´ıos Bobonaza and in a separate section below. Pastaza near Sarayacu (Ecuador). It was the Subsequent students of Peruvian birds need for accurate information about bird have tended to follow Zimmer’s practice distributions that motivated Chapman’s own rather than Vaurie’s accusations (as perpet- expeditions to the Andes. uated by Stephens and Traylor, 1983) but Chapman’s encounter with a family of with some lingering doubts. In the following native collectors in Quito, however, trans- sections, I review the Olallas’ itinerary in formed the way the AMNH, and ultimately Peru, describe their labels, review the evi- other museums, could obtain large numbers dence for their locations, and discuss prob- of specimens with the new requirements for lematic specimens in their collections. accuracy. His association with the Olallas, and especially with Alfonso Olalla, was a ALFONSO AND RAMO´N OLALLA IN departure from the way major museums had AMAZONIAN PERU previously acquired ornithological collec- CHAPMAN ENGAGESTHE OLALLAS tions. In this venture, he relied on native collectorsbutinsistedonaccurateandprecise During the early ornithological documen- information and careful preparation of spec- tation of Andean countries, Colombia was imens, features previously attempted only by thesourceofthelargestnumberofspecimens trained ornithologists. (Chapman, 1926). Prior to the American Chapmen first met the Olallas in 1922 Museum’s expeditions early in the century, during his second trip to Ecuador. From mostspecimensofColombianbirdshadbeen 1913 onward (with a hiatus from 1917 to obtained by native collectors and exported 1919) Chapman and other collectors for the through Bogota´ without other information American Museum had worked extensively about localities. In contrast, although Ecua- along the western coast and in the south- dor had also developed a market for native western mountains of Ecuador. In August birdcollectors,ithadalsoregularlyattracted 1922 during his first visit to Quito, with visiting ornithologists to localities through- George Cherrie and Geoffrey O’Connell, 2010 WILEY:ALFONSOOLALLAANDHIS FAMILY 9 Chapman made a trip to Mindo accompa- EXPEDITIONSTO SUMACOIN nied by Ramo´n Olalla, ‘‘a member of a EASTERN ECUADOR familyofprofessionalbirdcollectors.’’Chap- AsChapman(1926)wrylyobserved,‘‘less- manwasimpressedwithhowquicklyRamo´n seasoned travelers would have made [these learned the American Museum’s methods of reports] the basis of tales of hardship and preparing specimens and the ‘‘importance of adventure.’’ For example, on their first care in sexing and accuracy in locality expedition to Sumaco, the return to Archi- labeling’’ (Chapman, 1926: 16–17). This dona on foot with their collections required experience led Chapman to employ Ramo´n, three weeks of travel in the tropical rains along with his three brothers (Alfonso, (April–May 1923) (see fig. 1). A total of Manuel, and Rosalino) and father (Carlos), 11dayswasspentwaitingforthreetorrential to ascend Sumaco, an ‘‘almost mythical’’ rivers to subside enough to ford. Chapman mountain east of the Andes. (1926) notes that the accuracy of Alfonso’s Chapman (1926: 17) noted that in the reports was confirmed by their agreement following two years the father and four with accounts of the British-American ex- brothers, working under the professional plorerGeorgeM.Dyot(1926),whoascended name ‘‘Olalla e hijos,’’ delivered a collection Sumaco within two years after the Olallas’ of ‘‘beautifully prepared’’ skins illustrating visits. the life zones of this area. The collection On their second expedition to Sumaco contained several new forms, including one (1923–1924), rising rivers, lack of food, and new genus. Chapman was nevertheless dis- scarcity of porters combined to make a appointed that the temperate zone on Su- journey from Quito to A´vila on the R´ıo macohadanavifaunapracticallythesameas Suno an ordeal lasting two months. On this that along the main range of the Andes. expedition,variouscombinations ofbrothers Perhaps he was hoping for differences andfatheroftenworkedinpairsthattraveled comparable to those he had discovered separately. In particular, Alfonso and Ra- between the main ranges of the Andes in mo´n Olalla routinely worked together, as Colombia. they would throughout their subsequent Chapman was particularly impressed with expeditions in Peru, while Manuel accompa- the meticulous records maintained by the nied their father, Carlos. As a result of a Olallas. Supplied with a thermometer and serious injury to Carlos’ leg while crossing a instructionstorecordtemperaturesatsunrise river on Sumaco, the party started back to andsunset,theOlallashadobtainedevidence Quito. Eventually they had to abandon their for a correlation between the avifaunas and equipment, and Alfonso had to proceed the temperatures of the different life zones. alone for help, ahead of the rest. After four Alfonso also provided narratives of the days in Quito, he returned to Sumaco where family’s itineraries in the form of reports, he continued collecting alone until finally now in the archives of the AMNH Depart- returning to Quito on 26 June over a month ment of Ornithology. These reports estab- later. By this time, trips back and forth to lished the pattern for subsequent ones about Quito had been shortened by a new trail Alfonso’s own expeditions throughout the openedby the Olallas from Baeza to the R´ıo following decade. Each report was apparent- Suno. ly written immediately after the expedition it In 1923–1924, the Olallas collected for covered and was usually sent to New York Chapman at a variety of elevations on the with the shipments of birds and mammals slopesoftheAndeseastofQuito(Papallacta, collected. Oyacachi, Cerro Guamani [or Huamani], Because the reliability of the Olallas’ Tumbaco, Baeza, Puente del R´ıo Quijos, records has been questioned, it is worthwhile R´ıo Sardinas; altogether 2019 specimens). summarizing these accounts of their activi- They twicecollected onthewesternslopesof ties,asabasisforevaluatingtheirprocedures the Andes near Mindo (189 specimens). In andasatestimonytothedauntingchallenges addition, on their expeditions to the R´ıo they faced in the field. Suno and Sumaco (1 February–26 April 10 BULLETIN AMERICAN MUSEUM OFNATURALHISTORY NO.343 Fig.1. MapofsomelocalitiesvisitedbytheOlallasatthebeginningoftheirexpeditiondowntheR´ıo Napoandontheirpreviousexpeditionsto Sumaco, anoutlyingpeak of the easternAndesin Ecuador. 1923, 1–27 December 1923, 20 January–18 contract with Robert Cushman Murphy February, 3 March–24 April, 24 May–15 from the American Museum during his visit June1924,basedondatesinChapman,1926: toQuito,andon20May1925theexpedition 21), they amassed an additional 1248 speci- left Quito. Carlos was accompanied by his mens (Chapman, 1926: 21). Nearly 3500 four sons and an employee, T. Mena. specimens resulted from this early work in Alfonso’s subsequent report, apparently Ecuador. sent to the American Museum with the second shipment of specimens the following March,presentedatersebutvividaccountof this expedition. On 25 May the Olallas DOWNTHE NAPO convened with eight porters who were to In 1925 the Olallas’ next expedition into carry their equipment from Papallacta to Amazonia for the AMNH was even more Archidona. After passing Baeza they at- harrowing than those to Sumaco. The tempted to cross a swollen torrent by means destination this time was the mouth of the of a fallen tree. Alfonso and one porter R´ıoCuraray,fardowntheR´ıoNapobeyond crossedsafely,butthenextporterfellintothe the present boundary of Ecuador. Letters raging river and disappeared, together with between the Olallas and Chapman (Depart- $397 worth of equipment. Following this ment of Ornithology archives), suggest that tragedy, the party decided to wait, camping theoriginalintentionwastocollectbirdsand in constant rain, until the river subsided. mammals along the lower r´ıos Napo, Putu- Further difficulties in obtaining porters mayo, and Caqueta´, perhaps not fully and serious illnesses of Alfonso and Manuel realizing the enormous distances involved beset the expedition as it made its way (Olalla letter, see below) nor the precarious toward Loreto, the district capital. At this political situation on the Putumayo at that town, on the R´ıo Suno, they intended to time. On 5 February, however, they signed a obtain canoes for their trip down the Napo.