312 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. »3 



March 22, taking specimens on March 7, 13, 17, and 18. Carriker 

 collected it in 1940 on January 20, February 22, and March 27. 



The status of the parula warbler as regards its division into sub- 

 species appears to me unsatisfactory at present. The treatment here 

 is in accord with that of the fourth edition of the A. O. U. Check-list. 



COMPSOTHLYPIS PITIAYUMI INORNATA (Baird) 



Panda inornata Baird, Review of American birds, 1864, p. 171 (Choctum, Guate- 

 mala). 



Though we did not encounter this warbler because of its rarity in 

 the general area, it is of interest to record a male received from A. E. 

 Colburn, taken at Buena Vista, Veracruz, May 18, 1901. This bird 

 while slightly intermediate toward nigrilora is decidedly nearer to 

 inornata. 



DENDROICA PETECHIA RUBIGINOSA (Pallas) : Alaska Yellow Warbler 



Motacilla rubiginosa Paixas, Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica, vol. 1, 1811, p. 496 

 (Kodiak Island, Alaska). 



Among the yellow warblers there are three that are identified as 

 the present form distinguished from D. p. amnicola by duller, more 

 greenish dorsal color, and in the male by less yellow on the forehead. 



On April 6, 1939, I shot an adult female at Tres Zapotes, this bird 

 having nearly completed the molt. Carriker secured a male at 

 Hueyapa in the Tres Zapotes area April 2, 1940, with the molt nearly 

 at an end. He also took a female at El Conejo on May 15, this being 

 an outstanding example of the late date to which some migrants from 

 the far northern parts of North America may linger within the 

 Tropics. 



J. W. Aldrich 63 has demonstrated recently that the yellow warblers 

 and golden warblers are conspecific, so that all are to be grouped 

 under the name petechia. 



DENDROICA PETECHIA AMNICOLA Batchelder: Newfoundland Yellow Warbler 



Dendroica aestiva amnicola Batchelder, Proc. New England Zool. Club., vol. 6, 

 Feb. 6, 1918, p. 82 (Curslet, Newfoundland). 



The present form, though not included in the fourth edition of the 

 A. O. U. Check-list (1931), in my opinion is to be recognized. As 

 has been indicated by Oberholser, 64 it is separable from D. p. rubigi- 

 nosa by the more yellowish dorsal surface, with the forehead yellow 

 in the male. The female has the upper surface lighter. It differs 

 from typical aestvva by being darker above, with the yellow on the 



63 Auk, 1942, pp. 447-449. 



M Louisiana Dept. Conservation Bull. 28, 1938, pp. 530-531. 



