i
None o f the recognized authorities' on Brazilian Ornithology speak o f it, and not one o f the
specimens o f this bird that we have examined has any definite locality attached to it. These
specimens, wc may observe, are only tbi-ee in n um b c r~ a skin in Mr. Sclater’s collection
purchased o f a dealer in Leeds—which is represented in our figure and also formed the
subject o f Professor Baird’s remarks in bis “ Review o f American 13irds,” and one example iu
each o f the Museums o f Berlin and Philadelphia.
As regards tbe difficult question o f tbe correct systematic position o f GicJihpsis, wc may
say tbat w e share in tbe doubts already expressed by Pi'ofessor Baird* as to its having much to do
with tbe Bombycillmm, or, as we prefer to call them, tbe Ampelinai, to which group Dr. Cabanis
has referred tbe genus. There can, indeed, be no doubt tbat Cichlopsis is very closely allied
to Myiadestes, o f which it possesses a ll the most prominent characters, differmg only iu the
longer and much stouter bill, and more uniform style o f plumage. So that wherever Myiadestes
is to be placed, Cichlopsis must go next to it. And, as we shall presently point out, in referring
to figm*es o f some o f tbe latter gi’oup, which we propose to give in om- next number, Myiadestes
appears to have been wrongly associated with Ampelis, and should be more correctly referred
to tbe Turdidte—under which bead we include tbe Sylviidfc—bemg more nearly allied to
S ialia than to any other American foi-m o f this family.
' E ev . Am. B. p. 417,
M ay, 1867.
I II