Cyclorhis (sic) cearensis Baird

LeCroy, Mary, 2013, Type Specimens Of Birds In The American Museum Of Natural History Part 11. Passeriformes: Parulidae, Drepanididae, Vireonidae, Icteridae, Fringillinae, Carduelinae, Estrildidae, And Viduinae, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2013 (381), pp. 1-155 : 35

Cyclorhis (sic) cearensis Baird

Cyclorhis (sic) cearensis Baird, 1866: 391 (Bahia and Ceara, Brazil).

Now Cyclarhis gujanensis cearensis Baird, 1866 . See Allen, 1889a: 123–130, fig. 4; Hellmayr, 1935: 202–204; Zimmer, 1942a: 15; Deignan, 1961: 480; Dickinson, 2003: 482; and Brewer, 2010: 415.

SYNTYPE: AMNH 40156, unsexed, collected in Bahia, Brazil, undated. From the George N. Lawrence Collection (no. 179).

COMMENTS: In the original description, Baird listed three specimens in his type series, two of these are in USNM and are listed as [syn]types by Deignan (1961: 480); the third specimen listed by Baird is the above specimen, no. 179 in the Lawrence Collection. This specimen bears an AMNH type label, apparently attached by Allen (1889a: 123–130). In his treatment of Cyclarhis viridis, Allen synonymized cearensis with viridis , but in fig. 4 (p. 125) noted that the specimen pictured (‘‘No. 179, Coll. Lawrence’’) was a type of cearensis . For some reason, probably because Hellmayr (1935: 202) noted that the ‘‘type’’ of cearensis was in USNM, Zimmer (1942a: 15), in his list of Bahia skins of cearensis , called the above specimen a paratype, and someone, perhaps Zimmer, has so annotated the AMNH type label. On the reverse of the AMNH type label is the following pencilled comment: ‘‘This is not a type! Type from Ceara see reference above. G.K.C[herrie].’’ The ‘‘reference above’’ is a reference to Baird’s description of cearensis , which includes Bahia specimen no. 179 from the Lawrence Collection about which he ( Baird, 1866: 391) says: ‘‘A specimen from Bahia (thus likewise from the easternmost part of Brazil) is quite similar’’ to the Ceará specimens. Thus, as no holotype was designated by Baird, and Deignan (1961: 480) listed syntypes, indicating that no lectotype had been designated, the above specimen retains its syntype status.