Sorry for the bother - this is a low priority database error: I noticed today that the type locality of is placed in the Atlantic Ocean, offshore of Northern Brazil.
In the text of the CLOG page, the type locality is specified as "Rupununi R., Guyana, {for map 2.5°N, 50°20'W} 2°-3°N, 50°20'W."
These coordinates are consistent with the original description, which states,
The only problem with the original information is the way it maps - the Rio Rupununi is located at approximately 59°W rather than 50°W Longitude.In 1914, Fowler wrote:In the fall of 1912 the Academy received a collection of freshwater fishes from the Rupununi River, in the highlands of British Guiana. The specimens were purchased from Mr. J. Ogilvie, who collected them during the same year and in 1911. Mr. Ogilvie informs me, in lieu of the name of any settlement or town, they were approximately secured in North Latitude 2° to 3°, and West Longitude 50° 20'.
I'm not sure how you would want to resolve this, if at all, since we can't know the intent of the author. But we do know where the Rupununi river is: Perhaps instead of a specific coordinate (50°20'W), the original data should have been stated by Fowler as a range (50°- 60°W), which is how the latitude data was provided in the original paper (2°- 3°). It seems strange that the author would provide a range of latitudes, but a single precise longitude.
If that is an uncomfortable call, alternatively, perhaps it should be interpreted as a single value, for example, as 59°20'W or 60°20'W instead of 50°20'W as printed in the original paper.
I'll leave that for you to decide. I imagine that if it is left unresolved, it is trivial, and in fact if left as is, at least it does match the text of the original publication even if it is inaccurate.
Cheers, Eric