( 385 ) 



Nos. 1048, 1050. ? ad., ? jnv., Hnmaytha.— Wing 52, 51; tail 39; bill 

 14 mm. 



Two of the males and the two females from Humaytha have the whole back 

 uniform chestnut, rufous, like specimens from the Orinoco, Caura, etc., in the Tring 

 Museum, while in No. 942 and in the skins from Borba there is only on the upper 

 back a limited area of a paler, more cinnamon rufous shade to be seen. 



The female from Borba agrees perfectly with others from the Orinoco district, 

 the throat being uniform ochraceoos, breast and abdomen of a rather bright 

 ochreons or buffy brown. Those from Humaytha, on the other hand, are decidedly- 

 paler and duller, less ochreons, on the belly, resembling one from Teffe. In 

 No. 1048, as well as in several females from Eastern Peru, Rio Jnrua, Teffe, etc., 

 the throat is light buffy and scarcely freckled with dusky, while No. 1050 has 

 large buffy-white stripes with distinct black lateral edges. 



108. Anoplops* salvini (Berk). 



Pithys salrlui Berlepsch, Journ.f. Ornith, 1901. p. 08 (San Mateo, North Bolivia). 

 Gymnopithys salvini Hellmayr, supra, p. 71. 



Nos. 1102, 1103,1094, 1111. SS ad., Humaytha, 17, 18. viii. 00. "Iris brown, 

 feet plumbeous, bill black."— Wing 72—75; tail 45-49; tars. 23- 25^ ; bill 

 17 — 18 mm. 



Nos. 991, 1180. S$ imm., Humaytha, 20. vii., 28. viii. 06. "Iris brown, 

 feet plumbeous, bill black."— Wing 74, 75 ; tail 47, 49 ; tars. 24, 25J ; bill 

 18 mm. 



Nos. 1100, 992. SS jnv., Humaytha, 20. vii., 25. viii. 00. "Iris brown, 

 feet plumbeous, bill black."— Wing 74, 72 ; tail 49, 40 ; tars. 25, 24 ; bill Ml, 

 18 \ mm. 



Nos. 989, 1100, 1144, 1145, 1101, 1102, 1178. ? ? ad. and imm., Humaytha, 

 20. vii., 17, 23, 25, 2S. viii. 00. "Iris brown, feet plumbeous, bill black, below 

 pale greyish."— Wing 71J— 75] ; tail 45—47 ; tars. 24—25 ; bill 17—18 mm. 



The adult males agree perfectly with the one from Teffe" previously secured 

 by Mr. Hoffmanns. Most of the secondaries show a very narrow whitish apical 

 margin ; the upper wing-coverts are uniform schistaceous, but in No. 1102 a single 

 feather of the greater series is edged with white at the tip. My assumption that 

 there is a transitional plumage in this species thus falls to the ground. In one 

 specimen (No. 1102) both webs of the two outer rectrices are barred with white, 

 while in the others the white cross-lines are confined to the inner web. 



The series of females exhibits a certain amount of individual variation. 

 No. 1100 is perfectly similar to those from Teffe, described above on p. 72. The 

 six other examples agree in general coloration, but differ by the restriction of 

 the cross-markings on the back. Nos. 1102 and 1144 possess the pale 

 cinnamomeons dorsal patch as well as the cinnamomeous cross-bars in the 

 middle of the mantle, but the blackish subterminal bands are only slightly 

 indicated. In Nos. 1145, 1101, 1178, and 989 the back appears nearly uniform, 

 for only a few feathers have an obsolete, very narrow, pale cinnamon margin, 

 followed by a hardly perceptible dusky line ; the bases of the interscapular feathers 



* Gymnopithys Bp. {Ann. Sri. nat. Zool. (4) 1. 1864, p. 132) is a pure nomrn nudum, no diagnosis 

 being given nor any species mentioned. The next available generic name is Anoplops Cab. & Heine. 

 'Mns. Heinean. ii. July 1859, p. 9, type: Tuning rufyula Bodd.). I quite agree with Salvin and (iodman 

 (Biol. Crntr. Amer. ii. 1S92, p. 'I'll) as to the limits uf the genera Pithy s and Anoplops (Gymnopithys'), 



