84 Hans von Berlepsch on the Genus Cyclorliis. 



tlie attention of the readers of ' The Ibis ' to tliis already- 

 much discussed matter, pointing out where my views are 

 diflFerent from those held by the latest authority on that 

 subject. 



Mr. Sclater lays much stress on the form or thickness of the 

 bills in the species of Cyclorhis. It is evident that in several 

 species the bill is much more slender or less high than in others. 

 For instance,, I agree that in many northern species, viz. C.fla- 

 vipectus, virenticeps, contrerasi, and gidanensis, the bill is more 

 slender than in the southern ones. The group containing 

 C, 7iigrirostris and atrirostris is still more remarkable for 

 their small and feeble bills, and in this case the form of the 

 bill may be well taken as a criterion to recognize the species. 

 On the other hand, I cannot agree that the southern species, 

 viz. C. albiventris, ochrocephala, and altirostris of Sclater's 

 list differ among themselves so constantly in the form of bill 

 as Mr. Sclater asserts. As a rule, it is true that C. alti- 

 rostris, Salv., has the bill somewhat higher and thicker than 

 C albiventris and C ochrocephala ; but in my collection 

 there are several specimens of C. albiventris from Bahia, and 

 a skin from Buenos Ayres of C. ochrocephala, which possess 

 bills quite as high as in typical C. altirostris, although not so 

 broad on the culmen as in the latter. What 1 would point 

 out is that in the form of this organ much individual dif- 

 ference is observable, and that it does not seem advisable 

 to make much use of this diffei'cnce for a key to facilitate 

 the distinction of the species of Cyclorhis. 



I shall now proceed to point out my vicAvs regarding the 

 different species of Cyclorhis in the order in which they are 

 given in Mr. Sclater's article. 



■f 1. Cyclorhis flavivextris, Lafr. 



Regarding C. flaviventris yucatanensis, Ridgw., and C. in- 

 sularis, Ridgw., I am in the same position as Mr, Sclater. 

 Not having seen these birds, I am unable to form an opinion 

 about them. The former seems very slightly different from 

 typical C. flaviventi'is, and C insularis ought perhaps 

 rather to be compared with C. flavipedus subfluvescens. In 



