﻿MAMMALS 
  OF 
  NORTHERN 
  COLOMBIA 
  — 
  HERSHKOVITZ 
  339 
  

  

  by 
  Humboldt 
  are 
  of 
  some 
  tone 
  of 
  brown 
  on 
  back 
  and 
  tail. 
  He 
  dis- 
  

   tinguished 
  C. 
  apella 
  from 
  C. 
  capucinus 
  of 
  authors 
  (nigrivittatus) 
  , 
  and 
  

   albifrons 
  from 
  these. 
  The 
  diagnosis 
  of 
  hypoleucus 
  emphasizing 
  the 
  

   great 
  extension 
  of 
  whitish 
  on 
  front 
  of 
  body 
  (face, 
  neck, 
  chest, 
  shoulder, 
  

   inner 
  and 
  front 
  sides 
  of 
  upper 
  arm, 
  and 
  upper 
  part 
  of 
  lower 
  arm) 
  was 
  

   intended 
  to 
  distinguish 
  this 
  monkey 
  from 
  other 
  species 
  of 
  the 
  genus. 
  

   Were 
  hypoleucus 
  black 
  instead 
  of 
  brown 
  on 
  upperparts, 
  that 
  alone 
  

   would 
  have 
  been 
  sufficient 
  for 
  a 
  diagnosis. 
  

  

  The 
  alleged 
  identity 
  of 
  hypoleucus 
  with 
  C. 
  capucinus 
  led 
  Goldman 
  

   (1914, 
  p. 
  99) 
  to 
  fix 
  the 
  type 
  locality 
  of 
  the 
  latter 
  upon 
  that 
  of 
  the 
  

   former. 
  In 
  doing 
  so 
  no 
  inquiry 
  was 
  made 
  into 
  the 
  true 
  status 
  of 
  

   hypoleucus, 
  and 
  no 
  evidence 
  was 
  produced 
  that 
  black 
  white-fronted 
  

   cebids 
  really 
  occur 
  in 
  the 
  region 
  of 
  the 
  mouth 
  of 
  the 
  Rio 
  Sinu. 
  No 
  

   such 
  evidence 
  exists 
  to 
  this 
  day, 
  but 
  it 
  is 
  highly 
  probable 
  that 
  both 
  

   black 
  and 
  brown 
  cebids 
  do 
  occur 
  there. 
  This 
  probability 
  has, 
  un- 
  

   doubtedly, 
  contributed 
  in 
  large 
  measure 
  to 
  the 
  assumption 
  that 
  

   hypoleucus 
  and 
  capucinus 
  are 
  identical. 
  

  

  To 
  be 
  different, 
  Pusch 
  (1941, 
  p. 
  191) 
  recognized 
  hypoleucus 
  as 
  a 
  

   valid 
  subspecies 
  of 
  capucinus 
  Linnaeus. 
  Its 
  range, 
  on 
  the 
  basis 
  of 
  

   localities 
  of 
  specimens 
  he 
  assigned 
  to 
  hypoleucus 
  (such 
  locality 
  records 
  

   and 
  his 
  "Verbreitung" 
  and 
  the 
  distributional 
  maps 
  of 
  the 
  forms 
  he 
  

   recognized 
  do 
  not 
  always 
  agree), 
  is 
  essentially 
  the 
  same 
  as 
  the 
  one 
  he 
  

   gave 
  to 
  typical 
  capucinus. 
  To 
  emphasize 
  impartiality 
  in 
  regarding 
  

   capucinus 
  and 
  hypoleucus 
  as 
  races 
  of 
  equal 
  status 
  living 
  happily 
  side 
  by 
  

   side, 
  Pusch 
  listed 
  the 
  female 
  type 
  and 
  paratype 
  of 
  imitator 
  Thomas 
  in 
  

   the 
  synonymy 
  of 
  the 
  first, 
  and 
  the 
  male 
  paratype 
  in 
  the 
  synonymy 
  of 
  

   the 
  second. 
  In 
  the 
  same 
  spirit, 
  he 
  apportioned 
  three 
  specimens 
  of 
  a 
  

   series 
  of 
  five 
  collected 
  by 
  Watson 
  in 
  Boquete, 
  Panam^, 
  to 
  capucinus 
  

   and 
  the 
  remaining 
  two 
  specimens 
  to 
  hypoleucus. 
  Pusch 
  did 
  record 
  a 
  

   hybrid, 
  without 
  locality, 
  not 
  of 
  hypoleucus 
  and 
  capucinus, 
  as 
  might 
  be 
  

   expected, 
  but, 
  strange 
  as 
  it 
  may 
  seem, 
  of 
  hypoleucus 
  and 
  the 
  middle 
  

   Amazonian 
  gracilis. 
  

  

  Cebus 
  barbatus 
  Humboldt 
  (1812, 
  p. 
  356). 
  See 
  discussion 
  below, 
  of 
  

   barbatus 
  Geoffroy. 
  

  

  Cebus 
  fulvus 
  Humboldt 
  (1812, 
  p. 
  356). 
  See 
  discussion, 
  below, 
  of 
  

   flavus 
  Geoffroy. 
  

  

  Cebus 
  barbatus 
  E. 
  Geoffroy 
  (1812, 
  p. 
  110). 
  On 
  the 
  basis 
  of 
  the 
  

   original 
  description 
  alone, 
  this 
  form 
  could 
  be 
  termed 
  unidentifiable 
  

   (c/. 
  Cabrefra, 
  1917a, 
  p. 
  231). 
  There 
  is 
  a 
  mounted 
  specimen 
  in 
  Paris, 
  

   however, 
  designated 
  as 
  the 
  ''type." 
  It 
  is 
  No. 
  561 
  of 
  the 
  type 
  catalog 
  

   and 
  No. 
  453 
  of 
  the 
  general 
  collection 
  of 
  the 
  Paris 
  Museum 
  (I. 
  Geoffroy, 
  

   1851, 
  p. 
  45; 
  Rode, 
  1938, 
  p. 
  231). 
  The 
  specimen 
  was 
  received 
  through 
  

   exchange 
  from 
  Temminck 
  in 
  1812. 
  The 
  right 
  side 
  of 
  body 
  and 
  tail 
  

   is 
  faded 
  to 
  dirty 
  gray; 
  on 
  the 
  left 
  side 
  the 
  body 
  is 
  yellow, 
  legs 
  and 
  

  

  799565 
  — 
  49 
  2 
  

  

  