88 BIRDS OF KAUAI ISLAND, HAWAIIAN ARCHIPELAGO. 



bird collected on Kauai by Mr. Kuudseu and by me described below as 

 Ch. dolei. This species is smoky gray above, has a white supraloral 

 spot, but no superciliary line; throat, foru-neck, breast, and flanks uni- 

 form tawny. Xor can this one be Latham's " Sandwich Flycatcher," 

 for he says that the latter has "the upper parts of the body brown," and 

 "over the eye a white line." The chin he describes as "pale, marked 

 with dusky streaks," while no such streaks occur in Ch. dolei. I am, 

 therefore, obliged to regard 2Iuscica]}a sandicichensis as distinct from 

 both the forms mentioned, and its real habitat may be one of the islands 

 between Hawaii and Kauai. 



In regard to the tawuy-rumped forms the accessible facts are as fol- 

 lows : 



Mr. Eidgway in 1882 described two specimens collected by Mr. Knud- 

 sen in Kauai as Ch. sclateri. These specimens Dr. Sclater afterwards 

 compared with a specimen (without certain locality) in the British Mu- 

 seum, which Dr. Cabanis had determined as Ch. sandicichensis "by com- 

 parison with the specimens of both sexes of this species in the Berlin 

 Museum," the specimens in the latter museum having been obtained in 

 Oahu by Mr. Deppe. Dr. Sclater at the same time gives a figure of 

 the British Museum specimen (Ibis, 1885, pi. i, fig. 2), and states that 

 Mr. Ridgway's type specimens " agree completely with the specimen 

 now figured." This specimen is nowhere described (not even in the 

 Cat. B. Brit. Mus., IV), but the figure quoted above shows so great a 

 difference from the four Kauai specimens before me that I feel great 

 doubt in regard to their identity with the British Museum specimen, es- 

 pecially as lam forced to believe that the different islands are inhabited 

 by different forms of the white-rumped kind. However, should, con- 

 trary to expectation, the British Museum specimen and those in the 

 U. S. National Museum really prove identical, then I can only say that 

 the published figure of the former is worse than useless. 



The chief differences betvs-een Ch. sclateri and the figure in the " Ibis," 

 which I shall designate as Chasiempis ibidis, consist, in the first place, 

 in the much deeper and richer tawuy color of the former, aud this color 

 extends much further on the breast, flanks, and tibije than in Ch. ibidis. 

 TJie latter has the greater wing-coverts tipped with brownish white, 

 while in Ch. sclateri these tips are tawny like those of the smaller cov- 

 erts. Ch. ibidis has the ear-coverts dusky, apparently of the same color 

 of the back, thus setting off a well-defined superciliary stripe, entirely 

 wanting in Ch. sclateri, in which the whole side of the head, including 

 ear-coverts, is of a uniform bright tawny. In Ch. ibidis the bill seems 

 to be horn gray, darker towards the tip ; in Ch. sclateri it is blackish 

 brown, except the basal half of the lower mandible, which is bright 

 yellow. 



Whether these differences hold good in nature, of course I cannot say, 

 but I think it is safer to assume the correctness of the plate. That Dr. 



