Nomenclature of South- American Birds. 243 



has been, and is now, often used for this species, and that 

 I see no ground whatever for rejecting it. 



Motacilla jpiza, Linn., was first published in the tenth 

 edition of the ' Systema Naturae,^ and was based on the upper 

 figure of Edwards^s pi. 25, which closely represents our 

 Chlorophanes. The lower figure on the same plate, which 

 Edwards thought to represent the female of the other bird 

 (but which is certainly the female of Dacnis cyanomelas) 

 is given as a variety /3 in the twelfth edition, where the 

 species is called Certhia spiza. A diagnosis is given which 

 strictly refers to our Chlorophanes; but, as synonyms, are 

 added : — 



1. Motacilla spiza, Linn. Syst. Nat. ed. 10. 



2. Certhia Cras. virid. atricap. p. 635 (which is our Chlo- 

 rophanes) . 



3. Edwards, tab. 25. figs. 1, 2 (fig. 2 being Dacnis cyano- 

 melas) . 



Hab. Brazil and Surinam. 



It is thus evident that " Certhia spiza, Linn." is chiefly 

 intended for the Chlorophanes, only the synonym " Edwards, 

 fig. 2 " belonging to another species, and that the species 

 must be called Chlorophanes spiza (Linn.) . 



i^j^ 5. Procnias tersa (Linn.), auct. plur., ought to be called 

 P. carulea (Vieill.). 



Although I do not know to what other species Linnseus's 

 description of his Ampelis tersa, Syst. Nat. ed. xii. p. 289, 

 refers than to P. tersa of authors, everybody must concede 

 that it is hardly applicable to it. P. tersa never has any 

 black on the back, and in some other points also does not 

 agree satisfactorily with Linnaeus^s description. 



The latter seems not, as in most other cases, to be copied 

 from a more full description of some other author, but must 

 have been drawn up from a specimen. Where this type exists 

 is not stated ; and unless it is found, which is very improbable, 

 the determination of Ampelis tersa, Linn., must remain very 

 doubtful. 



" Hirundo viridis, Teram.," and " Procnias ventralis, Illig.,^' 



