418 XOVITATES ZOOLOGICAE XXIV. UI17. 



though Ridgway (Birds oj North and Middle America, v. p. 174) calls attention to 

 the differences between specimens from British Honduras and Mexico and those 

 from Costa Eica, and suggests that " the species almost certainly requires 

 further subdivision." 



Looking at our series from Guatemala, which agrees apparently with 

 Mexican specimens, and Panama and Costa Rica, the difference between the 

 former (from Guatemala) and those from Panama and Costa Rica is so striking, 

 that one must wonder that they have not yet been separated. The specimens 

 from southern Central America, i.e. Costa Rica and Panama, are much less 

 rusty on the upperside, the crown of the head is not so bro-wn, and the under 

 surface considerably more olivaceous ; these birds, as a matter of fact, differ 

 at a glance, but are very closely aUied to X. genibarhis littoralis of U'ostcrn 

 Ecuador and X. geniharbis neglecUis Todd from Northern Venezuela. From 

 neglectus they differ in having the upperside shghtly browner, the under surface 

 not quite so oUvaceous, from littoralis in having the crown browner, less oUvaceous, 

 the breast and abdomen hghter, less brownish ohve. When describing his 

 X. genibarbis neglectus (Proc. Biol. Sac. Washington, xxvi. 1913. p. 173) Todd 

 should have compared his new form also with X. g. littoralis, with which it 

 agrees much better in the more olivaceous underside, unless he took specimens 

 of our ridgwayi for typical mexicanits. 



Habitat of A", g. ridgivayi : Costa Rica, Panama, and the Uttle islands of 

 Iguaros, Sevilla, Almijas, and Medidor. 



Type : S Tocoume, Panama, 7. iii. 1899. E. Andre coll. "Iris very dark 

 brown. Beak black, base of lower mandible pale. Feet dark slate " (Andre). 



We have examined 14 skins from the above-said islands, Panama and 

 Costa Rica, collected by J. H. Batty, E. Andre, J. Watson, Underwood and 

 Cherrie. Of littoralis the Tring Museum possesses 5, of neglecta 2 specimens, 

 the latter from Las Quigas near San Esteban, the type locahty, and the 

 Cumbrc de Valencia, collected by 8. M. Klages. 



13. Note on Xenops rutilus heterurus. 



In Nov. ZooL. 1908, p. 147, Count Bcrlepsch quoted specimens from 

 Cayenne as X. r. heterurns, though stating that they were smaller than Bogota 

 specimens, and had more black in the tails than X. r. rutilvs. The fact is that 

 the Caj'enne specimens and others from Surinam differ stril<ingly from X. r. 

 heterurns in size and shape of bill and colour of underside. They would fonn a 

 distinct new subspecies, unless they might be X. tenuirostris. which is unknown 

 to us. The extent of black in the tail varies a good deal. 



14. Note on Glyphorhynchus cuneatus castelnaudi Des Murs. 



The distribution of the various forms of G. cuneatus is evidently very little 

 understood at present. IMost authors have treated all the birds from Brazil 

 to Cayenne and the Orinoco as typical cuneatus, while Peruvian and Ecuadorian 

 birds were separated as G. cuneatus castelnaudi. Bogota (Colombian) speci- 

 mens were called cas<ei?M«rf» bj- Hellmayr in 1911 (P.Z.8., 1911, p. 1152), but 

 Brabourne and Chubb [List B. 8. Anier. p. 248) called them typical cuneatus. 



G. c. cuneattis is probablj' restricted to Eastern Brazil and is distinguished 



