IS PROCEEDINGS OP THE ACADEMY OP 



Examining Dr. Bryant's typical examples of var. dominicensis 

 (Port-au-Prince ; Younglove), I can see that, as he sa3's, the remiges 

 and rectrices are a little more rufous than in most Jamaican skins ; 

 but I also find that they can be precisely matched by some of the 

 latter, and consequently I am unable to recognize a variety in 

 this case. Dr. Biyant's other varieties (lucaysiensis and antil- 

 larum), however, are quite different. 



b. var. pkcebe. 



Tyr annus p7iabe, D'Orb., Sagra's Cuba, Ois. p. 84. Excl. syn. 



" sagrm," Gundl., Av. Cuba. 



Tyrannula (Myiarchus) stolida var. lucaysiensis, Bry., P. B. S. N. H. xi. 



1866, 66. Inagua and Nassau. 

 Tyrannula bahamensis, Bryant, ibid. p. 90 (in text). (Not Empidonax 



baliamensis, Bry.). 



M. olivaceo-fuscus, pileo sensim obscuriore, gula et pectore 

 cinereo-albis, ventre albo vix flavo-tincto, remigibus vix rufomar- 

 ginatis, pogoniis rectricum interioribus rufo et fusco fere dimi- 

 diatis. 



Hab. Cuba. Bahamas. 



Obs. The Cuban and Bahaman birds (which are precisely 

 alike) ordinarily have the inner webs of the rectrices, as in 

 Jamaican stolidus, nearly half rufous, half fuscous ; but the rufous 

 tends to be a little restricted, half the breadth of the vane seeming 

 to be its maximum width, while it is frequently reduced to a mere 

 edging, especially in Cuban skins. Yariety jjheebe, however, is 

 well distinguished from variety stolidus by other characters, the 

 chief of which is the almost entire absence of yellow on the under 

 parts. These, in fact, are "white," shaded in front with aslry, 

 and just tinged behind with 3^ellow the latter, however, is some- 

 times inappreciable. The rufous edging of the primaries is at a 

 minimum ; the whitish edging of the secondaries and upper 

 coverts is at a maximum. There is not so much olive in the 

 color of the upper parts as in var. stolidus, while the cap is much 

 less abruptly darker. 



Dr. Bryant says that his variety (lucaysiensis) is "larger than 

 either the Jamaican stolidus or the Cuban sagrse," and probably 

 this is so, on an average, but any difference there may be in this 

 respect eludes me in comparing any except the largest lucaysiensis 

 with the smallest of the others. I can only distinguish lucaysi- 



[Jnly 16, 



