260 



REVIEW OF AMERICAN BIRDS. 



[part I. 



ScLATER & Salvin, Ibis, 1859, 12 (Guatemala). — Cabanis, Jour. 

 IX, ISGl, 85 (Costa Rica). 

 Setophaga intermedia, Haktlaub, R. Z. 1853, 3. 



Eab. Guatemala ; Costa Rica (Cab.). 



It is with much hesitation that I admit this as a distinct species, and do so 

 mainly because Dr. Sclater, who has seen many sj^ecimens of the two allied 

 forms, considers them different. The most highly plumaged specimen before me 

 diflfers from the /S. miniata, as just described, in the red of the belly being more 

 vermilion than carmine. The black on the throat and forehead is less intense ; 

 on the side of the head it is mainly confined to the region below and anterior 

 to the eye, the plumbeous ground color extending in quite a broad and distinct 

 band from the bill over the eye. The chestnut of the feathers of the vertex 

 is lighter, and of a yellowish shade at the basal portion, while in miniata it is 

 unicolored ; it is more restricted in extent, being bordered on each side by 

 quite a broad band of black. The white of tail is more restricted, only one- 

 third the inner web of outer feather being involved instead of two-fifths, and 

 rarely extending on the third feather. The bill is perhaps a little broader, 

 the tail and wings shorter, the tail feathers narrower. 



A female, as marked by Mr. Salvin, differs from the male only in having a 

 still greater mixture of plumbeous in the black of the forehead. 



Length of 20,400, %, 5.10; wing, 2.45 ; tail, 2.70; tarsus, .72. 



The S. intermedia, of Hartlaub, was probably based upon a female 

 bird — the diagnosis of plumbeous throat, concolor with the back and 

 forehead, not being applicable to the male. Kaup's diagnosis of tips 

 only of the outer three tail feathers white is not very distinctive, as 

 there is comparatively little difference in this respect from miniata. 



From a statement by Mr. Sclater, in the Pr. Z. S. 1855, ^1, it 

 appears that the name of Kaup, though presented to the Zool. Soc. 

 in 1851, was not actually published until after that of Hartlaub, in 

 1853. It is, therefore, a question whether the latter should not have 

 ])riority. As, however, there is no internal evidence or external in- 

 dication apart from the claim of Dr. Hartlaub and the unofficial 

 admission of Sclater to prove the fact, I retain the name of flammea, 

 regretting at the same time that the actual date of issue of the sheet 

 containing the description was not in some Avay noted upon it. 



