﻿MAMMALS 
  OF 
  NORTHERN 
  COLOMBIA 
  — 
  ^HERSHKOVITZ 
  333 
  

  

  are 
  good 
  reproductions 
  of 
  living 
  animals 
  in 
  natural 
  settings. 
  With 
  

   regard 
  to 
  Cehus, 
  Cruz 
  Lima 
  (p. 
  136) 
  found 
  it 
  divisable 
  into 
  "three 
  

   groups 
  which 
  respectively 
  correspond 
  to 
  the 
  forms 
  apella, 
  capucinus 
  

   of 
  authors 
  and 
  albifrons 
  of 
  authors." 
  He 
  further 
  remarked 
  that 
  "it 
  is 
  

   difficult 
  and 
  risky 
  to 
  establish 
  fixed 
  bases 
  for 
  the 
  differentiation 
  of 
  these 
  

   groups 
  in 
  view 
  of 
  the 
  unknown 
  ranges 
  of 
  individual 
  variation, 
  but 
  

   any 
  layman 
  who 
  knows 
  the 
  fauna 
  of 
  the 
  Amazon 
  is 
  able 
  to 
  distinguish 
  

   them 
  at 
  first 
  sight 
  by 
  external 
  appearance. 
  To 
  this 
  end, 
  a 
  method 
  

   much 
  better 
  than 
  the 
  most 
  detailed 
  descriptions 
  which 
  would 
  neces- 
  

   sarily 
  be 
  based 
  on 
  fluctuating 
  characteristics, 
  we 
  publish 
  three 
  plates 
  

   illustrating 
  the 
  three 
  groups, 
  having 
  used 
  as 
  models 
  living, 
  fully 
  adult 
  

   specimens, 
  each 
  representing 
  more 
  or 
  less 
  the 
  average 
  form 
  (apella, 
  

   Plate 
  XXII 
  ; 
  nigrivittatus, 
  Plate 
  xxiii; 
  gracilis, 
  Plate 
  xxiv)." 
  

  

  In 
  the 
  text 
  Cruz 
  Lima 
  referred 
  to 
  the 
  work 
  of 
  Elliot, 
  Cabrera, 
  and 
  

   Tate. 
  He 
  confessed 
  having 
  received 
  Tate's 
  paper 
  too 
  late 
  for 
  critical 
  

   comparison 
  with 
  his 
  material. 
  Consequently, 
  he 
  included 
  unchanged 
  

   many 
  of 
  Tate's 
  decisions 
  in 
  his 
  own 
  monograph. 
  Unfortunately, 
  

   Cruz 
  Lima 
  attempted, 
  either 
  innocently 
  or 
  in 
  a 
  spirit 
  of 
  conciliation, 
  to 
  

   harmonize 
  his 
  own 
  views 
  with 
  those 
  of 
  the 
  mutually 
  contradictory 
  

   conclusions 
  of 
  Tate 
  and 
  Cabrera. 
  The 
  unhappy 
  result 
  is 
  that 
  both 
  his 
  

   key 
  and 
  classification 
  of 
  Amazonian 
  cebids 
  distort 
  his 
  own 
  expressed 
  

   concepts 
  of 
  the 
  real 
  divisions 
  of 
  Cehus 
  and 
  their 
  true 
  interrelationships. 
  

   The 
  cited 
  plate 
  of 
  Cehus 
  apella 
  shows 
  the 
  same 
  animal 
  that 
  Cruz 
  Lima, 
  

   in 
  accepting 
  Tate's 
  classification, 
  referred 
  to 
  asfatuellus 
  in 
  his 
  section 
  

   dealing 
  with 
  species 
  and 
  subspecies. 
  He 
  copied 
  Tate 
  further 
  by 
  listing 
  

   trepidus 
  as 
  a 
  subspecies 
  of 
  fatuellus. 
  His 
  key, 
  which 
  combines 
  cranial 
  

   characters 
  given 
  by 
  Tate 
  to 
  distinguish 
  "tufted" 
  from 
  "untufted" 
  

   cebids, 
  and 
  external 
  characters 
  of 
  these 
  monkeys 
  given 
  by 
  Cabrera, 
  

   shows 
  apella 
  as 
  "untufted"! 
  Cehus 
  nigrivittatus, 
  correctly 
  figured, 
  is 
  

   hsted 
  as 
  a 
  distinct 
  species, 
  but 
  the 
  key 
  shows 
  it 
  to 
  be 
  "tufted"! 
  C. 
  

   albifrons, 
  uvicolor, 
  and 
  gracilis 
  are 
  each 
  keyed 
  correctly 
  as 
  "untufted" 
  

   but 
  are 
  listed 
  as 
  distinct 
  species. 
  The 
  figure 
  of 
  gracilis 
  [— 
  C. 
  alhifrons 
  

   unicolor] 
  shows 
  its 
  subspecific 
  characters 
  admirably 
  well. 
  

  

  TAXONOMIC 
  HISTORY 
  OF 
  "UNTUFTED" 
  CEBIDS 
  

  

  Simla 
  capucina 
  Linnaeus 
  (1758, 
  p. 
  29). 
  The 
  description 
  is 
  indis- 
  

   putably 
  that 
  of 
  an 
  "untufted" 
  Cehus. 
  No 
  locality 
  was 
  given, 
  but 
  

   capucina 
  may 
  be 
  the 
  black 
  white-fronted 
  Cehus 
  of 
  Central 
  America 
  

   and 
  western 
  Colombia 
  and 
  Ecuador. 
  The 
  color 
  of 
  the 
  monkey 
  as 
  

   described 
  and 
  indicated 
  in 
  the 
  wood 
  cut 
  cited 
  by 
  Linnaeus 
  is 
  too 
  

   dark 
  for 
  any 
  member 
  of 
  the 
  alhifrons 
  group, 
  while 
  the 
  form 
  of 
  the 
  dark- 
  

   colored 
  portion 
  of 
  the 
  crown 
  excludes 
  it 
  as 
  a 
  member 
  of 
  the 
  nigrivittatus 
  

   group. 
  Pucheran 
  (1856, 
  p. 
  34) 
  attempted 
  to 
  identify 
  this 
  species, 
  and 
  

   Elliot 
  (1907c, 
  p. 
  227) 
  repeated 
  Pucheran's 
  discussion. 
  The 
  conclusion 
  

  

  