PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10024 Number 3620, 37 pp., 5 figures, 6 tables August 28, 2008 Falsified Data Associated with Specimens of Birds, Mammals, and Insects from the Veragua Archipelago, Panama, Collected by J. H. Batty STORRS L. OLSON ABSTRACT TheprofessionalcollectorJosephH.Battyobtainedbirds,mammals,andinsectsinPanamain 1901 and supposedly 1902, at least some of which have long been thought to have been labeled withsuspiciouslocalityinformation.Examinationofcatalogrecordsforbirdsandmammals,the labelsofhundredsofspecimens ofbirds,andarchival materialprovidednoconcreteevidence of Battycollectinganywherein PanamaexceptonIsladeCoiba andin thevicinityofBoqueteand Boquero´ninmainlandChiriqu´ıProvince.HisseriesofbirdsfromCoibacontainssometaxathat arerecognizableasendemicsubspeciesfromCoibabutalsocontainsmanyspecimensofthesame speciesbelongingtomainlandsubspeciesinadditiontospeciesnotknowntooccurontheisland. AnalysisofthetypesoflabelsusedbyBattyonbirdsprovedusefulfordeterminingwhichCoiba specimens are the more likely to have authentic locality information. Batty’s series of mammals fromCoiba,uponwhichfournewtaxawerebased,alsoprobablycontainsmislabeledspecimens. The series of birds and mammals labeled by Batty as having come from the smaller, low-lying Pacific islands of Chiriqu´ı and Veraguas (Veragua Archipelago), with dates of 1902, contains specimensofmanytaxathateitherarehighlandspeciesordonotoccurintheonlyhabitatslikely to be present on some of the islands, or that have never been found on any island elsewhere in Panama,includingtheverylargeIsladeCoiba.Theitineraryreconstructedfromspecimenlabels aswellasthenumberofspecimensarenotconsistentwiththerealitiesoftransportationorhuman capabilities.Itisconcludedthatthespecimensinthisseriesprobablycamefromthegeneralareaof Batty’s two mainland localities in Chiriqu´ı and that he never went to the smaller islands. Accordingly, the type locality of the porcupine Coendou rothschildi Thomas, 1902, should be altered from Isla Sevilla to the vicinity of Boquero´n, Chiriqu´ı. With very few exceptions, all of Batty’s specimens with questionable locality were sold by him to the private collector Walter Rothschild and do not involve specimens that Batty provided to other museums. Another small 1DivisionofBirds,NationalMuseumofNaturalHistory,P.O.Box37012,SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C. 20013-7012. CopyrightEAmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory2008 ISSN0003-0082 2 AMERICAN MUSEUMNOVITATES NO. 3620 Fig.1. MapoftheVeraguaArchipelagowiththenamesofislandsasusedbyJ.H.Battyonspecimens labeledascollectedin1902(insmallcaps).Forcurrentnamesoftheislandsseetable 3.IslaBrincancowith unlabeledIslaUvatothesoutheastmakeupthe IslasContrerasmentionedinBatty’scorrespondence but notusedon specimenlabels. seriesofbirds,includingsomeveryrareones,obtainedthroughBattyandlabeledasfromChitra, Veraguas, also haveuntrustworthy dateandlocality information. INTRODUCTION fromthatislandaswell.Mostofthebirdscame to the American Museum of Natural History Thedataassociatedwithalargecollectionof (AMNH) in 1932 with the purchase of the birds, nearly 850 specimens, supposedly ob- Rothschildcollection(Murphy,1932),whereas tainedfromnearlyeverysmallislandalongthe the mammals and insects, along with some western Pacific coast of Panama (Veragua hummingbird nests and eggs and ‘‘associated’’ Archipelago of Olson, 1997; see fig. 1) by the skins, went to the Natural History Museum, commercial collector J. H. Batty in 1902 and London (BMNH). Batty also made extensive sold to Walter Rothschild have long been collectionsinmainlandChiriqu´ıatBoqueronin regarded as suspicious (see History below). thelowlandsandBoqueteinthehighlands.No This collection also contained more than 230 specimenswithmainlandlocalitydataweresold mammals and an undetermined number of to Rothschild and these series went mainly to insectswiththesamecollectiondatabutwhose AMNH and to the Field Museum, Chicago provenancehasnotheretoforebeenquestioned. (FMNH). Batty was the first person to collect birds and I undertook an investigation of Batty’s mammals on the very large island of Coiba, Panama collections to determine the extent to which is now known to harbor a rich diversity whichhisspecimendatamaybeunreliableand of endemic taxa of birds. Yet problems were to approximate what the correct data may be also identified with some of Batty’s specimens whenever they appeared to be questionable. 2008 OLSON: FALSIFIED DATA OFSPECIMENS COLLECTED BYJ. H.BATTY 3 A BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF J. H. BATTY Joseph H. Batty (fig. 2) was a professional collector, hunter, and taxidermist who sold specimenstomuseumsandprivatecollectorsin thelatterpartofthe19thcenturyandupuntil his death in 1906. According to a note in the collector/donor file in the Division of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smith- sonian Institution (USNM), he was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, on September 3, 1847. Other biographical information comes mainly from two notices in The Auk (Anony- mous,1906a,1906b)thatweresurelywrittenby J.A.Allen,whowastheneditorofthatjournal andthecuratoratAMNHwiththemostdirect dealingswithBatty. In 1873, Batty was a collector for the Hayden Survey in Colorado, and he collected with Elliott Coues in Montana as part of the Northern Boundary Commission Survey in 1874. Numerous specimens of birds and mammals at USNM date from this period. Following this, he was a taxidermist in New York City and wrote two popular books on huntingandtaxidermy(Batty,1878,1880).He is said to have traveled extensively in tropical America and at one time was engaged in plume hunting (Anonymous, 1906a, 1906b). Fig. 2. Joseph H. Batty in costume, from his In the late 1800s, Batty ran his business out bookon Practical Taxidermy(Batty,1880). of Sheepshead Bay, New York, according to theelaborateletterhead(fig. 3)thatheusedat Batty collected in the lowlands of western the time, which proclaimed ‘‘We collect any- Panama before most of the forests were thingthatwalks,crawls,flies,swimsorgrows’’ removedfromthatarea,sohisspecimensfrom (correspondenceinthefilesoftheDepartment there, even if mislabeled, may retain consider- of Ornithology, AMNH). Correspondence ablescientificandhistoricalimportance. in 1902 with Rothschild and Ernst Hartert Fig. 3. Letterheadof J. H. Batty’scompanyin 1899. 4 AMERICAN MUSEUMNOVITATES NO. 3620 (originals in BMNH) placed Batty on 85th islands, including Coiba, so that these could Street,NewYorkCity,notfarfromAMNH. be arranged by locality, or date, and, more Batty returned to active collecting about importantly, taken into the collection and 1898, mainly in Colombia and Mexico in annotated after examining specimens. addition to his few months in Panama (then Eventually, in order to have information on stillpartofColombia)in1901.In1902,hewas thenatureofthespecimenlabelsthemselves,I ‘‘commissioned to take charge of a collecting retrieved all the hundreds of Batty specimens expedition in Mexico and Central America, from all the Panamanian islands, including under the direction of the American Museum Coiba, from the collections at AMNH and of Natural History’’ at a salary of $2000.00 assembled them for study, which allowed per annum (letter of agreement from AMNH comparison of different styles of specimen president H. C. Bumpus, 27 Sept 1902, in preparation, styles of labels, etc. I also AMNH archives). This activity kept him obtained copies of the catalog entries for employed in Mexico for the next three and a Batty specimens of birds and mammals at half years. During this time, copies of corre- BMNH and the Field Museum, Chicago spondence from curator J. A. Allen to Batty (FMNH) and for mammals at AMNH, consistedmainlyof‘‘nicelywordedcomplaints although I have made no study of any of the about Batty’s field practices (e.g., mismea- specimens of mammals. sured and misnumbered specimens, difficulty in finding his locations on the map, jammed BATTY’S ITINERARY IN PANAMA packingcasescausingdamagedspecimensand IN 1901–1902 collection of too many specimens)’’ (P. A. Brunauer,AMNH,inlitt.,27February1997). Here I review the available evidence to On his last expedition, Batty was ‘‘killed reconstructBatty’sitineraryinPanamaduring instantly by the accidental discharge of his the pertinent portions of 1901 and 1902 gun while collecting near Pijijiapan, in the (table 1). Although no correspondence seems southernpartoftheStateofChiapas,Mexico, to exist to confirm it, Batty may have gone to on May 26, 1906’’ (Anonymous, 1906b: 356). Panama at Walter Rothschild’s instigation, because Rothschild was interested in islands and Batty’s first collecting station in Panama MATERIALS AND METHODS wasIsladeCoiba,Panama’slargestislandand One of the main factors inhibiting an probably a high priority for Rothschild. As investigation of this sort is that there are no discussed below, there are a few specimens existing specimen registers for the Rothschild received from Batty labeled as from collection.Thus,thereisnosinglevolumeone Chitra,Veraguas, with dates of 5–6 March might consult to find the Batty material listed 1901,and17,18,and27April1901,butBatty inablock.Itwassimplyincorporatedintothe madelittleattempttodisguisethefactthathe immense Rothschild collection (more than obtained these from Enrique Arce´ or one of 280,000 birds), which, when transferred to his relatives and the dates are not considered AMNH in 1932, was arranged in systematic reliable,particularlyastheAprildatesoverlap order and cataloged family by family. The with those from specimens from Coiba. only way to compile species lists for each The first evidence now available for Batty’s island Batty visited and to reconstruct his presence in Panama are the specimens ob- itinerary is to go page by page through the 14 tained on Isla de Coiba, which bear dates volumes of AMNH Rothschild catalogs and ranging from 4 April to 27 June 1901. There make a list of all Batty specimens, a task I are only single specimens for 4, 6, 7, and 8 undertook in December 1992. This was not April, one of which (Basileuterus) is of a too onerous considering that there are many mainland subspecies and therefore suspect. families and genera that do not occur in There are no Coiba specimens for 5 April or Panama that could be passed over quickly, so 9–15 April with the exception of two Coiba thejobtookonlyabouttwodays.Ithenmade endemics labeled 12 April. Most of the a file card for each specimen from any of the specimens of Coiba endemics are labeled with 2008 OLSON: FALSIFIED DATA OFSPECIMENS COLLECTED BYJ. H.BATTY 5 TABLE1 Chronologyof Batty’sActivities Relative to HisCollections in Panamain 1901and1902as Developedfrom SpecimenLabelsandArchived Correspondence Dubiousorfalse dates are bracketed. [1901March5,6 SpecimenslabeledChitra,Veraguas,withquestionabledates.] [1901April4 FirstspecimenslabeledfromCoiba.] 1901April16–28 ProbableactualdatesofcollectingonCoibabasedonspecimensstillhavingtheoriginal (style3)fieldlabel. [1901April17,18,27 AdditionalspecimenslabeledasfromChitrawithunlikelydates.] [1901June27 LastspecimenslabeledasfromCoiba.] 1901June29 DateoflistofCoibaspecimenssenttoRothschild,presumablywithCoibacollectionthat wasprobablysentbyBattyfromColo´n. [1901Aug2,14 SpecimenslabeledfromBoquete,probablyinerror.] 1901Aug14 BattylettertoRothschildfromDavidsayinghehadbeentosmallerislandsandsincebeing onCoibahadbeeninhotels,coaches,steamerswithalivedoefromCoibaandwould leaveintwodaysforthemountains. 1901Aug19 FirstlikelycollectingdateatBoquete. 1901Sept6 BattylettertoRothschildfromBoquete,sayinghehadbeensickandcoulddoonlylight workalthoughmanybirdswerelabeledwithpriordates,andagainsaidhehadnowdone thecoastislandsmostthoroughly. 1901Sept24 LastspecimendatefromBoquete. 1901Sept27 FirstspecimendatefromBoquero´n. 1901Dec17 LastspecimendatefromBoquero´nexceptonelabeled26December. 1902May2 BattyletterfromNewYorktoRothschildwithstoryaboutexportdutiesonspecimens. 1902May13 Letterstatingspecimensshippedtoday,includingthehummingbirdsandnests. 1902May21 LettertoRothschildsayingmorespecimensontheway,includingporcupines. 1902June17 LettertoRothschildacknowledgingletterfromRothschild. 1902July14 LettertoHartertaboutbellbirds. 1902Aug19 LettertoHartertaboutlabelsandbellbirds. datesof16to27April. Thereisahiatusfrom shipping, so it is assumed that Batty had 28 April through 2 May (except for one returnedfromCoibatoPanamaCityorColo´n Cyanerpes on the 28th). well before 29 June, the supposed date of his There are specimens of birds and mammals last specimen from Coiba (a Molossus). We supposedly from Coiba labeled from 3 May know that this first shipment was received through 29 June 1901, although there are 18 expeditiously because in the Bulletin of the days in that period for which there are no British Ornithologists’ Club, published 30 specimens and another 11 for which there is December 1901, Rothschild (1901) named onlyasinglespecimen.AsdiscussedunderIsla Leptotila battyi and in the same issue Hartert de Coiba, below, the June dates are highly (1901) named Cyclorhis coibae and Aphanto- suspicious and the same may apply to those chroacuvierisaturatior(5Cyclarhisgujanensis with dates in May. It now appears that the coibae and Phaeochroa cuvierii saturatior) amountoftimeBattyspentonCoibamaynot based on the Batty material from Coiba. have been much longer than the nearly two These are very distinctive taxa and the Batty weekperiodinAprilduringwhichheobtained collection contains examples of other subspe- most of the specimens that are recognizably cies now known to be endemic to Coiba, so Coiba endemics. there is no question that Batty actually In the Batty correspondence at BMNH is a obtained some birds on that island. listof203birdsand39mammals‘‘sentfromJ. In a letter to Rothschild of 14 August 1901 H. Batty Coiba I. to Hon W. L. Rothschild’’ from the town of David, in the lowlands of that is dated 29 June 1901 (table 2). Batty is Chiriqu´ı (see appendix), Batty mentions a pet unlikely to have trusted someone else to deer obtained on Coiba that he had taken ‘‘in invoice, pack, and arrange for and pay hotels,coaches,steamers&c…whentraveling 6 AMERICAN MUSEUMNOVITATES NO. 3620 TABLE2 ListofSpecimensfromIsladeCoibasentbyBattytoWalterRothschild,fromaCopyintheArchivesofBMNH Thislistof203birdsand39mammalsisdated29June1901andisheaded‘‘SpecimenssentfromJ.H.Batty CoibaI.toHon.W.L.Rothschild.’’Ihaverearrangedthesequence.Probableidentitiesofbirdsarebased on museum holdings. Mammal identifications are modified from Thomas (1902) and BMNH catalog records.*5therearenowfewerspecimensintheRothschildcollectionatAMNHindicatingthatsomemay havebeenexchanged,sold,ordiscarded.15therearenowmorespecimensintheRothschildcollectionat AMNH indicating acquisition of some in a subsequent shipment. The six specimens of King Vulture SarcoramphuspapacanbeaccountedforonlybyincludingfourgiventoFMNHbyBatty.EitherRothschild returnedthemtoBattyorBattydidnotincludeallsixintheshipment.Rothschildapparentlydidnotkeep anyoftheshorebirds.Batty’s‘‘Mis’’and‘‘mis’’’5miscellaneous.Someofthesespeciesdonotactuallyoccur onCoiba(seetext).ThesixFinch’s[sic]ParrotspresumablyrefertoAratingafinschi,butthesespecimensare entirelyunaccountedforamongtheseriesinthefirstshipmentandthespeciesdoesnotoccuronCoiba.Six specimens of Aratingafinschiwere laterincluded among the 1902seriesfrom the smaller islands (table4). Batty’sDesignation ProbableIdentity *6KingVultures Sarcoramphuspapa 1Falcon Harpagusbidentatus *2Accipiters Buteomagnirostris 1LargeHawk Buteogallusanthracinus 2largeblackhawks Buteogallusanthracinus 1Rail Aramidescajanea *3Plovers notpresent *1sandpiper notpresent *1turnstone notpresent 1RedbilledPigeon Notaccountedfor 2MisPigeons Columbacayennensis 16Pigeons Leptotilabattyi 6Redmacaw Aramacao 6LargegreenParrots Amazonaautumnalis *3BlueheadedParrots Pionusmenstruus *6Finch’s[Parrots] PresumablyAratingafinschi (seeabove) 6Greenparoquets Brotogerisjugularis 1LargeCuckoo Piayacayana 1LargeKing-fisher Ceryletorquata 5Kingfishers Chloroceryleamericana 5smallswifts Chaeturavauxi 3Largegreenhummers Phaeochroacuvieri 6Poorman’semeralds Chlorostilbonassimilis 1mis’greenhummer 6Blue-throated[hummers] Hylochariseliciae 3White-belliedhummers Amaziliaedward *6Browntailed[hummers] Amaziliatzacatl 2mishummers Lepidopygacaeruleogularis 6Woodpeckers Melanerpesrubricapillus 6Brownchats(?) Thamnophilusdoliatusfemale *6[Brown]+whitechats(?) Thamnophilusdoliatusmale 6Manakins Chiroxiphialanceolata 1‘‘shrike-like’’bird Tityrasemifasciata 4Largeflycatchers Megarhynchuspitangua Myiodynastesmaculatus 14LargePewee[flycatchers] Myiarchuspanamensis *5Mis[flycatchers] Tyrannusmelancholicus Myiozetetessimilis 2med.Pewee Elaeniaflavogaster 3small[Pewee] ??? 2008 OLSON: FALSIFIED DATA OFSPECIMENS COLLECTED BYJ. H.BATTY 7 TABLE 2 (Continued) Batty’sDesignation ProbableIdentity 1misflycatcher Todirostrumcinereum 3Martins Prognechalybea 1Gnatcatcher Polioptilaplumbea 12wrens(large) Thryothorusleucotis *2[wrens](small) Troglodytesaedon 2Thrushes Turdusalbicollis 1Largeolive-backedthrush Turdusgrayi 2mis.Tanagers Cyclarhisgujanensis 6mangrovewarblers Dendroicapetechia 1Brown-headedwarbler Basileuterusrufifrons 5sugareaters Coerebaflaveola 1Waterthrush Seiurusnoveboracensis 1Blk+bluecreeper Dacniscayana 6Bluecreepers Cyanerpescyaneus 6S.R.Tanagers Ramphocelusdimidiatus *6yel-throatedfinches Tiarisolivacea 4Blkseedeaters Sporophilaamericana *6Greenishfinches Saltatoralbicollis S.maximus 4Finchs[sic] Arremonopsconirostris Sporophilaangolensis 1BlkthroatedBunting Spizaamericana 3smallyelbreastedbirds ??? 1Largegrakle Quiscalusmajor 2yel’billedBlkBirds Amblycercusholosericeus 6[Coiba]Possums Didelphismarsupialis 6BlkVampires Molossuscoibensis 1smalllight[Vampire] Natalusstramineus 1smallbat 1LargebrownVampire Noctilioleporinus 6White-facedmonkeys Cebuscapucinus 6BlkCoibaHowlers Alouattacoibae 6[Coiba]agouti Dasyproctacoibae 6[Coiba]Deer Odocoileusvirginianus for several months’’, which indicates that he thisinformationinhisletterfromBoqueteof6 hadbeentravellingfor‘‘severalmonths’’after September 1901 (see appendix): ‘‘On visiting he left Coiba, and in fairly civilized surround- otherislandsne[ar]thecoast,Ifoundaboutthe ings, but prior to 29 June. This is not same spe[cies] as on Coiba which I though[t] consistent with specimens from Coiba with youwouldnotbeinterested in.AnythingIdid June dates. no[t]findonCoibahoweverIcollected.Ihave In the same letter (14 August 1901), Batty ‘done’the‘coast’islandsmosttho[r]oughlyand told Rothschild that ‘‘since writing you [pre- will now work seaward as so[on] as the dry sumably there was a letter accompanying the season commences.I shall [text missing]Coiba invoice of 29 June 1901], [I] have been on the & Jicaron as I go to sea, to ge[t] any migrants following islands, viz Cebago, Gobernador, not already taken’’. Yet right after saying that ContreraSecas,ParidaCanalis&otherislands’’ hehasalreadythoroughly‘‘done’’theislandshe wheretherewere‘‘veryfewbirdsandbutafew mentions figuring with builders for a special speci[es] different from those of Coiba’’. I boatforcollectingon‘‘theotherislands’’. interpret the islands or island groups intended Thus,Battytwicestatedthathehadbeento to be Ce´baco, Gobernadora, Islas Contreras, the small islands in 1901 and surveyed them Secas,Parida,andCanaldeAfuera.Herepeats thoroughly and the birds were little different 8 AMERICAN MUSEUMNOVITATES NO. 3620 from those of Coiba. Yet there are absolutely supposedly collected in 1902, I could not no Batty specimens from any of those islands uncover any archival material to document with labels dated 1901 except for five speci- Batty’s whereabouts between the time he mensofmammalsatAMNHfromIslaParida collected specimens at Boquero´n on 17 taken inNovember. As seen in thecorrespon- December 1901 and when he wrote to dence from W. W. Brown (MCZ archives, Rothschild from New York on 2 May 1902. letterof10May1901),gettingtotheseislands Thus, there is no known independent evidence would have been difficult and expensive, yet toestablishthatBatty,oranyonecollectingfor Batty did not send back any specimens from Batty,wasinwesternPanamain1902. this supposed visit in 1901. Ultimately he sent We learn much about Batty’s methods in Rothschild hundreds of specimens of birds western Panama from a letter in the archives dated 1902 containing a multitude of species of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, that have never been obtained on Coiba or Harvard University (MCZ), written by the anyoftheotherislandsoftheVeraguaArchi- collector Wilmot W. Brown to Outram Bangs pelago, which is certainly not consistent with his at MCZ after Brown had left Panama and statementsthatthebirdswerelikethoseofCoiba. proceeded to Honduras: Because Batty’s letter places him in David on14August,whenhesaidhewouldbeoffto Ceiba, Spanish Honduras, the mountains in two days, the dates on some Central America, seven specimens from the upland locality Jan. 27, 1902 Boquete labeled 2 August and one labeled 14 August are probably erroneous. Otherwise Mr. Batty is collecting at Boquete and has Batty’s specimens from Boquete are dated been up there three months my correspon- from 19 August through 24 September 1901. dent informed me. His system of collecting Tojudgefromspecimenlabels,Battymoved is this.—As long as his collectors bring him very expeditiously from Boquete on 25 birdshelooses[sic]notimehuntinghimself, September and resumed collecting in the but devotes all of his time to making up lowlands at Boquero´n on 27 September. It skins. He has trained several men how to wouldappearthatBattycollectedinthevicinity skin and he does most of the stuffing. He is of Boquero´n up until 17 December. After that collecting on the wholesale plan making up date there is only a single bird labeled 26 big series of all species. Under the circum- December and three mammals labeled 29 stances he can hardly help making a fine December, all dates that may be considered collection. He also has two Americans doubtful. The dates of three additional mam- working for him. Captain Hughes informed mals (Mustela and two Macrogeomys) cata- me that Batty was collecting for some rich loged as coming from Boquete on 24 and 25 man,buthecouldnotrememberthename.I December 1901 are likewise questionable. A believe Mr. Batty is collecting for the Tring single skin of a puma Felis concolor (AMNH Museum, but am not sure. When I was out 18948)wascatalogedwiththedata‘‘Boquero´n to see F. B. Webster, both he and his 6January1902’’,andthecatalogwasannotated taxidermist tried to jump me in regard to ‘‘Mr. Batty says he will send skull’’. This he Panama, etc. Mr. Batty did not speak very apparently never did, and the skin has since well of Cambridge Naturalists, for some been lost (R. Voss, AMNH, in litt., 10 Aug, reasonorother.Heplayedyouameantrick 2000).InalllikelihoodthiswasaskinthatBatty inencroachingonyourcollectingground.In may have received incidentally from someone my opinion it was a put up job. He could else, for which reason it had no skull, and the have gone to the Buenaventura region, as date is doubtful. Thus, the evidence from there was no revolution there [Brown’s specimenssuggeststhatBatty ceasedcollecting emphasis], when he arrived at Panama from at Boquero´n after 17 December, if not before, New York. It makes me mad. and may have been back in Panama City or Colo´nfortheholiday.Apartfromtheseriesof Batty was certainly not ‘‘put up’’ to collect- specimens from the small islands of Panama ing at Boquete and Boqueron by Rothschild, 2008 OLSON: FALSIFIED DATA OFSPECIMENS COLLECTED BYJ. H.BATTY 9 who had no interest in specimens from the revisionary studies (e.g., Hartert and Good- mainland, so this must have been at Batty’s son, 1917; and Zimmer’s ‘‘Studies of Peruvian owninitiative. Birds’’, published in 66 parts in American Museum Novitates during the years 1931– 1955),butreceivednoattentionasacollection HISTORYOFSUSPICIONSREGARDING until Eugene Eisenmann, a research associate BATTY’S PANAMA COLLECTIONS atAMNHwithaparticularinterestinPanama, Rothchild’s curator of birds, Ernst Hartert, discovered the Batty collection. Among the must have had at least some suspicions Coibamaterialhediscernedthatthespecimens regarding the origins of some of Batty ofTurdusassimilis,whichisusuallyanupland specimens as we see from correspondence species, were a distinct subspecies, a fact that (appendix) in which Hartert must have cast had perhaps been overlooked because Batty, some doubt upon the series of Three-wattled who seems to have had an aversion to dull- Bellbirds (Procnias tricarunculata) from Isla plumaged birds, had preserved only two Ce´baco. In looking at this series today, one specimens of it. In this case Eisenmann was sees that the specimens were clearly made by fortunate, because T. assimilis coibensis, as he twodifferentpreparators—afewareoftypical namedit(Eisenmann,1950),actuallyisoneof Batty make, but the rest are cruder, with the the interesting endemics of Coiba, as was bills pointing upward. In itself this would not shown later by Wetmore (1957). Eisenmann necessarily be a cause for suspicion, as Batty also became enthused by all the montane did have assistants. However, the more species in the Batty series, and thought that crudely prepared specimens are in the style the specimens’ locality data indicated the ofthecollectorEnriqueArce´ andhisrelatives, species’ substantial altitudinal migration. He whoresidedinthemountainsofChiriqu´ı,and prepared a manuscript on this migratory whose method of preparation was doubtless phenomenon, including a description of the familiar to Hartert. Thus, Hartert may have new subspecies of Turdus, that was submitted suspected that Batty had obtained specimens to The Auk, whose editor, Harvey Fisher, that Arce´ had collected in the highlands forwarded it to Alexander Wetmore for com- (whichhedid, asseenbelow)andwaspassing ment. This initiated a revealing interchange them off as being from the islands. Perhaps between Wetmore and Eisenmann. The origi- Hartert may also have thought that such a nal correspondence is now preserved in the large,striking,montanespeciesasthebellbird Smithsonian Institution Archives (accession was unlikely to occur in the lowlands. The 07-077), with copies in the Division of Birds, irony of this is that of all the montane species USNM, and Department of Ornithology, in Batty’s 1902 series from the islands, the AMNH. bellbird is the only one that actually has an At the outset, Wetmore was very dubious altitudinal migration and that moves into aboutmontanespeciesoccurringintheislands coastalareasandislandsduringthenonbreed- and in his response to Fisher (10 October ing season. Wetmore (1972: 306) found them 1949)heurged‘‘Dr.Eisenmanntogivefurther to be common on Isla Ce´baco. consideration to his data since he would not If Hartert or Rothschild had further suspi- want to go into print with his material unless cions about Batty’s 1902 specimens, the he was absolutely certain of his ground’’. He problem may have meant little to them addressedtheneedto‘‘makecertainthatthere because the series contained no new taxa. is not some confusion in data and that labels Rothschild’s great wealth and avidity for may not have been transposed or improperly specimens, especially of new taxa, tempted madeforsomereason’’.Then,inlookingover more than one dealer to manufacture false the data, which involved only a very small locality data, as his niece and biographer proportion of the Batty material, he noted relates (M. Rothschild, 1983: 106). severalinstancesofduplicationofdates,when Batty’s 1902 island specimens would occa- specimens supposedly were taken on widely sionally be mentioned without comment separated islands on the same day. He among comparative material examined in suggested that ‘‘it might be useful to build 10 AMERICAN MUSEUMNOVITATES NO. 3620 up a complete itinerary of the dates from the Islands as due to Batty’s hypothetical vessel entire collection to see what this might show. and hypothetical assistants touching at these J. H. Batty was active before I became well islands on returning to Chiriqu´ı for some acquainted here in the east so that I have no mission, notwithstanding that Isla Burica, for direct information concerning him. I have example, would be far off to the west of any distinct recollection, however, of hearing of port to which anyone would resort for somedifficultywithdataonhislabelsinother supplies or any other reason (figs. 1, 4). collections’’. Eisenmann assumed that ‘‘the number of Wetmore wrote Eisenmann directly shortly mountain birds labeled from many different thereafter (28 October 1949), mentioning the lowland localities on dates when Batty was reservations he had expressed to Fisher and undoubtedly in the lowlands could not be the suggesting that he ‘‘look a little further into result of mistakes, and I have no reason to the matter since Batty’s records seem to me supposethatBattyintentionallyfalsified’’.Ina entirely out of line for some of the species’’. follow-up letter (4 November 1949) he re- He expressed further disbelief that ‘‘such marked that certain references in his manu- mountain species as Catharus, Balanosphryra scriptshowedthat‘‘Battyisnottheonlyperson [Melanerpes formicivorus] and Myioborus who has found mountain birds in the Panama should occur in a region of lowland jungle. lowlands’’, although this statement applies to … It might be informative to take all of only five of 26 species, and records of two of Batty’srecordsandsobuildupanitineraryas those are highly dubious—Eupherusa eximia indicated by his specimens’’. (see Wetmore, 1968: 339) and Buarremon Eisenmann stated (2 November 1949) that brunneinuchabythesamereasoning. he had initially had his own reservations, that Wetmore relented and wrote (18 November he was certain that the montane species could 1949) that ‘‘there is no question in my mind not be breeding on the islands, but that ‘‘if now from what you have written that the there is a seasonal altitudinal movement, the Batty specimens are authentic’’, but still cool and windy dry season would be just the expressed reservations that certain species time when one would expect to find the birds such as Catharus would move through such inthelowlands’’.Heconjecturedthat‘‘thereis elevations, so that the populations on the no reason to doubt that [Batty] did visit the islands must be resident. Here he first men- variousislandsoffthePacificcoastofwestern tions a Batty specimen of Cyclarhis from Isla Panama’’ and cited as evidence the facts that Jicaro´nthat would eventuallyreceiverenewed Rothschild was interested in islands, that attention because it was the same as the Goldman (1920) had referred to some of mainlandsubspecies,whereastheverydistinct Batty’s specimens of mammals from these form C. g. coibae occurs on Coiba, between islands and had cited Thomas’s (1902, 1903) Jicaro´n and the mainland. Eisenmann then papers describing new species of mammals published the Batty records (Eisenmann, based on Batty material in his bibliography, 1950),includingtheCyclarhis,whichwascited noneofwhich,however,isinanywayrelevant as another possible example of a mainland to establishing whether the data on the wanderer‘‘inseparablefromChiriquihighland specimens are reliable. birds’’. That Jicaro´n might be expected to Eisenmann didindicatethat he hadworked share taxa with Coiba is confirmed by a out a ‘‘rough itinerary based upon label specimen of Tropical Pewee belonging to the indications’’ and concluded that Batty was CoibasubspeciesContopuscinereusaithalodes. not collecting in the mountains from 1 Thiswasamongaseriesoffivebirdscollected January to 7 February 1902, when he was on Isla Jicaro´n on 24 March 1959 by P. T. supposed to be on the islands. It might be BeaudetteandJ.R.Northernthataretheonly noted, however, that establishing where Batty genuine specimens of birds known from that wasnotin1902doesnottelluswherehewas. island (Olson, 2007). Eisenmann explained the overlap in dates ButWetmorecontinuedtodoubt.Hebegan between specimens from Ce´baco in theeast in expressing his reservations in his mono- Veraguas and those from Almijas and Burica graph on Coiba birds (Wetmore, 1957: 6–8),