26 JVelson — North American Mainland Myiarchus. 



paper was not actually published until October 28, 1852, while 

 the American Journal of Sciences and Arts, 2d Series, XIII, 

 No. 38, p. 303 for Maich, 1852, contains a notice of Lawrence's 

 paper, thus giving cinerasceus at least six months priority. 

 The reasons for believing that Kaup's ?nexicana is the same as 

 cinerascens are as follows: Kauj) states that the type of T. 

 mexicana was sent from Mexico by Mr. Wollweber but men- 

 tions no definite locality. Mr. Wollweber sent various birds 

 to the Darmstadt Museum in addition to the type of mexicana, 

 among which were the types of Pltangus derhiaima and Pariis 

 wollweberi both of which were recorded from Zacatecas. I 

 have seen no other locality mentioned for any of Wollweber's 

 specimens and it is not unreasonable to suppose the type of 

 tnexicana came from the same district. Zacatecas lies on the 

 west side of the Mexican tableland remote from the range of 

 the so-called M. mexicanus mexicaiius of eastern Mexico, but 

 within the range of cinerascens which is common in parts of 

 this State. Furthermore Kaup, in his description of T. c(Wj')eri, 

 says, "with shorter wings than mexicanus but with longer bill 

 like crinita, throat and over breast light gray," and mentions 

 the broad black stripe along inner web of outer tail feathers, 

 all of which applies to the bird we now call mexicanus. In the 

 description of mexicana he says, "breast light ash-gray; above 

 lighter," which is certainly applicable to cinerascens. Meas- 

 urements of a large series of the bird we now call mexicanus 

 and of cinerascens show that a considerable percentage of 

 males of cineras'ce7is have longer wings than many of the 

 specimens of '■'■mexicanus'''' from eastern Mexico, while the dif- 

 ferences between the size of bill and color mentioned by Kaup 

 are exactly applicable to these two birds. It is true that Mr. 

 Sclater compared Kaup's type of mexicana with certain speci- 

 mens in the British Museum and found them to be similar and 

 that they were the same as Baird's M. cooperi (fide Ridgway, 

 Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., II, pp. 90-91); but in the Biologia II, 

 p. 91, Salvin and Godman, apparently with the same specimens 

 before them which Sclater found to be similar to Kaup's type 

 and pronounced to be the same as M. cooperi Baird, come to ex- 

 actly the opposite conclusion and pronounce these specimens to 

 represent cinerascens, and state that Baird's conclusions as given 

 above regarding the application of Kaup's names were correct. 



