SCOPS. 21 
tota circa 9°0, ale 6°5, caude 3:4, tarsi 1:3. (Descr. exempl. ex Coban, Guatemala. 0. S. 2352. 
Mus. nostr.) 
Forma hepatica. Supra rufa, plumis omnibus medialiter nigris, maculis scapularum et tectricum alarum albis 
distinctis ; subtus usque ad pectus imum rufescens, abdomine albo, plumis omnibus medialiter nigris et 
lineis nigris frequenter transfasciatis. (Descr. exempl ex Las Salinas, Guatemala. Mus. nostr.) 
Hab. Mexico, Vera Cruz (U.S. Nat. Mus.), Catemaco (Nelson & Goldman '°), Jalapa 
(de Oca), Zentla (Ferrari-Perez), Chimalapa, Isthmus of ‘Tehuantepec (W. B. 
Richardson), Tizimin in Yucatan (G. Ff. Gaumer) ; GuatEMALA, Coban, Choctum, 
Las Salinas (0. S. & F. D. G.), Cahabon (Skinner }*) ; Costa Rica (v. Frantzius , 
Carmiol, Gen. Lawrence 13), San José (v. Frantzius*, Boucard °, Cherrie §), La 
Palma de San José (Zeledon’); Panama, Calobre, Chitra, Calovevora (Arcé *), 
Lion Hill (M‘Leannan °). —W. Ecuapor. 
The common bare-toed Scops Owl of Central America was long considered by us to 
be undistinguishable from the South-American 8. brasilianus, but Dr. Sharpe, when 
writing his ‘ Catalogue of Owls in the British Museum,’ separated it under the name 
of S. guatemale, and in so doing he was followed by Mr. Ridgway. The chief 
differences defining S. guatemale from S. brasilianus are the more confused mottling 
of the under surface and the denser marking of the chest as compared with the 
abdomen of the former, the middle of the feathers of the under surface being white, 
without any of the buff colour characterizing those of S. brasilianus. 
Mr. Ridgway in his first paper 1, when he had all the Central-American specimens we 
then possessed before him, made no distinction between the birds of Guatemala and 
those of Costa Rica and Panama; but he subsequently separated the latter under the 
name of Megascops vermiculatus 43, comparing the types from Costa Rica with S. nudipes, 
the tarsus being bare at the extreme end, and the sides of the face without any black 
border. The plumage he describes as much more uniform both above and below, and 
the feathering of the legs light brownish or brownish-white, distinctly barred with 
brown instead of plain bright ochraceous. It is, however, with S. guatemale that the 
Costa Rica and Panama birds must be compared; and so far as the coloration is 
concerned they show practically no difference, every variety of colour being present in 
«a series of the two birds, and the dark mark at the sides of the face is to be seen in some 
southern birds though no doubt generally absent. Then as regards the extent of the 
feathering of the extremity of the tarsus no doubt great variation exists, even in 
Mr. Ridgway’s types one has the bare part more than twice as wide as the other, and 
amongst our series we notice even greater discrepancy. Failing, then, to discover any 
distinctive characters we unite S. vermiculatus with S. guatemale. We may add that 
Mr. Ridgway has most kindly sent us one of his types (no. 90398) for examination, and 
we find almost its exact counterpart in a specimen from Calovevora. 
Turning now to the Mexican State of Vera Cruz, whence two species or subspecies 
have been described, viz. S. cassini and S. marmoratus', we have Mr. Ridgway’s 
