( 532 ) 



11. Heliangelus claudia llartert. 



A skill Im-s come to liaiiil which eiitirel}- resembles in every wa}' the type in 

 this Museum, ouly the under tail-coverts are pure white and the wing is 6 mm. 

 longer, but on re-examining the type I find that both wings are slightly damaged at 

 the tip, and therefore the length of the wing given in the original diagnosis must be 

 considered too small. 



The second specimen of II. claudia was also found in a Bogota collection. (Cf. 

 Nov. ZooL. II. p. 484.) 



12. Heliangelus dubius sp. nov. 



With the last-named specimen the Museum received an Heliangelus to which 

 I give the name //. r/ubiujs. It differs from // clarissae in having the tliroat shining 

 violet-blue, and not so glittering as the rosy red throat of //. clarissae. The 

 feathers of the throat are elongated as in the other species, but it seems that the 

 glittering throat-patch is more oval and not so straight below as in //. clarissae, it 

 being shaped more as in //. spencii and //. macors. The green above is a shade 

 darker, but not much. 



The specimen in Mens. Simon's collection, mentioned by him in note 2 on 

 p. 32 of his Catalogue de la Famille des Trochilides, which I have seen, is 

 like my H. dubius. I admit that it is with some hesitation that I describe 

 this bird, but if it is not separated nominally many other sjiccies wonld liave 

 to be sunk as synonyms, for examjile Ilcliotr>/jiku riolicollis Salv., which differs 

 from U. strophianus in about the same characters as my H. dubius does from 

 //. clarissae. It is possible that Mons. Simon's theory that these darker forms are 

 melanistic aberrations is right, but as yet we have no jiroof of it, and we do not 

 know their proper locality, so that it will be better to give names to those at least 

 of which several entirely similar sjiecimeus are known and which seem to be 

 distinct enough. This proceeding will more incite future research, and thus be of 

 more advantage for the present than treating such peculiar forms witli neglect. 



That lleliamjelus dubius should be a sjiecimen with the brilliant throat-jiatch 

 discoloured by any process is out of question. Tlie Triug Museum has such dis- 

 coloured specimens, for example of //. exortis, but they look quite different and are 

 detected at a glance. 



13. Heliangelus barrali (Muls. ik Verr.). 



Of this rare si)ecies I have seen specimens, all from Bogota, in tlie British 

 Museum, in the Boucard and Simon collections, and the Tring Museum has now 

 received three skins which seem to bidoiig to it, but it is remarkable that the colour 

 of the glossy throat-piitdi differs a liule in all three. In all three, however, the 

 glossy throat is sharply separated from the colour of the breast, and there is u 

 conspicuous dark area surrounding the throat. 



With the three specimens which I must consider to be //. barrali, this Museum 

 received one which in its coloration agrees with 



