( 613 ) 



S ad. Uniform black all over, with a large concealed dorsal spot of white, 

 inner aspect of quills blackish-brown. AVing 59-71.5, tail 45.47, bill 20, tarsus 

 " Iris reddish brown, bill and feet black." (In the original description and in Nov. 

 ZooL. 1898. p. 493 the wing-measurement is given quite erroneously by some error.) 



? ad. (Pandjuv.) Above black, without gloss, with a large concealed white 

 patch, rump somewhat more brownish, upper wing-coverts with white tips. Under- 

 side black, abdomen more slate-colour with a brownish tinge ; all feathers, except 

 those of the abdomen, with white tips and very narrow, sometimes indistinct, white 

 shaft-lines ; on the abdomen only a few feathers along the middle of the upper 

 portion show these white markings. Wings CG-7U, other measurements as in the 

 adult male. " Iris brown (red, reddish brown, chocolate-brown), bill and feet black." 



Hub. Cachavi, 500 ft. ; Buliin, 160 ft. ; S. Javier, GO ft. ; Carondelet, 60 ft. ; 

 and Ventana, 90 ft. high ; all in N.W. Ecuador. 



I am now jjcrfectly satisfied that my " Thamnophihis cac/iabiensix" are the/emales 

 (? and young) of my " Ptjriglena berlepschir One of the latter shows remains, 

 and another quite a number of the white tips to the upper wing-coverts, and the' 

 latter has also the more slate-coloured abdomen in contrast to the blacker throat 

 and chest. 



This species is most difficult to place. It is certainly not a Thamnophilux, the 

 bill being too long and depressed for that. I think it fits best into Cercumacra, 

 and Count Berlepsch agrees with me in that respect. The bill is somewhat stronger 

 (higher), and the tail rather shorter than in typical Cercomacra, Imt there are 

 already so many genera of Formicariidae which are not easy to se|.'arale, and per- 

 haps some rather ill-defined, that I refrain from creating a new genus lor tlie 

 species under consideration. 



[Hj/j)OCiiemis naevioides (Lafr.) S. Javier.] 



Gymnopithys ruficeps Salvin & Godm. 



Gjimnopithys riificeps Salv. & Godm., Biol. Centr. Am. ii. p. 222 (1892 : 

 Canca Valley, Colombia) ; Salvadori & Festa, Boll. Miis. Univ. Tori/io .\v. 1*99. 

 p. 32 (Rio Santiago). 



J'it/ii/s leucaspis {errore !) Hart., Nov. Zool. v. 1898. p. 493 (Chimbo). 



Chimbo, Paramba, 3500 ft. ; S. Javier, GO ft. 



This form is very difl'erent from lei/ca.yji.i, with which I erroneously united it in 

 1898, having compared it in the British Museum, where at least three forms were 

 united under leuciLspia. 1 am, however, inclined to think that G. leucaspis, oliciscens 

 and ruficeps are subspecies. A specimen from El Paila in W. Colombia (K. Andre 

 coll.) is again less rufous on the forehead than our W. Ecuadorian birds, therefore it 

 may be that there are even two forms in Colombia and Ecnador. Tlie specimen 

 obtained by Messrs. Goodfellow and Hamilton at St. Domingo, in \V. Ecuuilor, is 

 also G. ruficep.f. 



Phlegopsis macleannani Lawr. 



Phloyopsis macleannani Lawr., Ann. Li/ceiim X.Y. vii. pp. 285. 294 (Pansima). 



Buliin (160 ft.), Rio Bogota, N. Ecnador (350 ft.). " Iris red-browu, feet flesh- 

 colour, bill black." 



This species is apparently new to Ecuador. The specimens do not seem to differ 

 at all from others from Costa Rica, 



