Picolaptes angustirostris praedatus Cherrie, 1916a: 187

LECROY, MARY & SLOSS, RICHARD, 2000, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History. Part 3. Passeriformes: Eurylaimidae, Dendrocolaptidae, Furnariidae, Formicariidae, Conopophagidae, And Rhinocryptidae, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2000 (257), pp. 1-88 : 14

Picolaptes angustirostris praedatus Cherrie, 1916a: 187

(Concepcion del Uruguay).

Now Lepidocolaptes angustirostris praedatus (Cherrie,

1916). See Ridgely and Tudor, 1994: 210.

HOLOTYPE: AMNH 36101 , female, collected at Concepción del Uruguay, Entre Ríos, Argentina, on 29 September 1880, by Walter B. Barrows (no. 843).

COMMENTS: Cherrie, in his original description of this form, attributed the type locality to Uruguay ; however, Barrows (1883: 82–83), in the introduction to his papers on the birds he collected, made it clear that Concepción is in Argentina, and his original field label listed the state as Entre Ríos. Paynter (1995: 175) placed this locality in Argentina, at 32°29′S, 58°14′W, on the right bank of the lower middle Río Uruguay, 23 km SSW of Paysandú, Uruguay .

Picolaptes lacrymiger sanctae-marthae Chapman

Picolaptes lacrymiger sanctae-marthae Chapman, 1912: 150 (Valparaiso, alt. 5000 ft., Sierra Nevada of Santa Marta, Colombia).

Now Lepidocolaptes affinis sanctaemartae (Chapman, 1912) . See Hilty and Brown, 1986: 354, and Fjeldså and Krabbe, 1990: 323.

HOLOTYPE: AMNH 72872 , male, collected at Cincinati (= Valparaíso), 11°06′N, 74°06′W, Magdalena, Colombia, on 31 May 1899, by Grace H. Hull, a niece of Mrs. Herbert Smith, on the Santa Marta Expedition, 1898–1899.

COMMENTS: Ridgely and Tudor (1994: 206) considered the South American forms of L. affinis to be a separate species, L. lacrymiger .

The original spelling of the name of this taxon was not a misspelling. In the same paper, Chapman (1912: 141) also named Chamaepetes sanctae-marthae , which has been maintained to the present (Hilty and Brown, 1986: 127). However, “when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling” (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999, paragraph 33.3.1).