232 EULLETIN 50, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



strictly congeneric with AlmophUarufe><ceni< (type of the genus) and A. 

 suinichiYiMi ^ respective!}'. The species which belong- to Peuccm in the 

 restricted sense indicated above differ from the true Aimophike in their 

 decidedh' more produced and truncated wing-tip and longer outer- 

 most primaries, the ninth primary never shorter than the third and 

 usually equal to the fourth, while in the tvxxe, Ailnophike\t\^ never longer 

 than the second and sometimes shorter than the first, the longest pri- 

 maries exceeding the secondaries by more than half the length of tarsus 

 instead of less than length of culmen. They also have weaker feet, 

 with relativeh' longer and straighter claws, and the hallux is relativel}' 

 longer. Were there no species of intermediate character to bridge 

 over the gap between these two groups a genus Peuccea might be rec- 

 ognized, but unfortunately this is not the case, '"'' Ammodramns'''' 'peteni- 

 cua being an Aimojyhila Avith respect to its wing-formula but a Peuccm, 

 in other respects. Therefore I have no alternative but to combine 

 the two groups into one. This results in a generic, or supposed gen- 

 eric, group of something more than a dozen species (not counting sub- 

 species), among which there are yq^vj great differences of coloration 

 and considerable differences of form; but unless several subdivisions 

 be recognized it seems necessary to consider them all as belonging to 

 one genus. 



The genus Aimop>hila^ thus enlarged, includes five more or less well- 

 defined groups, as follows: 



{a) Aimophila rufescens (with its three subspecies), A. mcleodii, A. 

 nok)Sticta^ and^l. rxificeps (with subspecies), of plain coloration, streaked 

 brownish above and plain dull whitish or otherwise light colored beneath, 



(5) A. ruficauda (with two subspecies), A. hnmercdis^ and A. 

 inyskicalis\ a not very homogeneous group, the structual differences, 

 while not of a positive character, being well defined. This group is 

 characterized b}^ a verj' bold and striking style of coloration, 

 involving conspicuous lilack and white head-stripes, broad back jugu- 

 lar band, black throat-patch, or other very prominent markings. 



(c) A. sumichrasti and A. caipalis, in coloration somewhat interme- 

 diate between the above two groups, having the generally plain colo- 

 ration of a but with rufous lesser wing-coverts, and more of the 

 form of species belonging to h. 



(d) A. qiiinquestriakf alone. This has the bold coloration of species 

 of group h, but is wholly unstreaked, the colors themselves quite 

 different, the bill ver}- slender, and the tail relatively much shorter. 

 This species I once placed in Amphispiza, but I now find it wholly out 

 of place there unless that genus also be merged into Aimophi/a, which 

 I feel sure would be going quite too far. 



(e) Aimophiki cestivalu (with its subspecies), A. hotkrii, A. sartorn, 

 and A. petenica^ these being the species constituting the genus Peiicxea^ 

 if such genus be recognized, except the last, which in that event 



