Identified as "C.musicus" on the original label. However, the USNM label has the word "type" written on the back side with no attribution, and an orange type label is affixed with a designation of "Copsychus saularis ephesius, Oberholser." This name does not appear in the Richmond index and was not found in any other taxonomic resource (Jan 2023- JRS). One possibility is that this is a mispelling of "ephalus" from C.s.ephalus-- a now unrecognized taxon described by Oberholser(1923) that is synonymous with C.s.musicus. Oberholser cites USNM 180979 as the type for ephalus. So although USNM 175189 pre-dates the type of ephalus this specimen is not referred to or implied in the description and it is unclear why this would have been considered a type or co-type of ephalus. It may be worth checking Oberholser's writings more thoroughly to see if he intended to describe a different taxon for the Singapore populations.
