VOL. XI 

 1891 



'■'] PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 341 



white," this sometimes extending below the eye in an ashy whitish line 

 to the forepart of the cheek; in some it is almost obsolete; in none of 

 the specimens before me is there white on the "npper" eyelid. The 

 black of the lores extends around, above, and behind the eye. None of 

 the Costa Rican nor the Guatemalan examples show more than a trace 

 of the " white spot mixed- with chestnut behind the ear-coverts." 



Costa Rica specimens have a dark rich chestnut crown and ear-cov- 

 erts, the feathers of the crown usually tipped, especially posteriorly, 

 with grayish olive; from the nape this latter color passes gradually 

 into the rather dark olive-green of the back. The white spot back of 

 the ear-coverts is in most cases only faintly indicated. 



The specimens from Veragua, Bogota, and Panama have the head 

 and ear-coverts rufous-chestnut; the grayish olive of the nape passes 

 rather abruptly into the olive green (brighter than in Costa Rica exam- 

 ples) of the back, and there is a white spot back of the ear-coverts, this 

 white spot consisting of the feathers on the posterior edge of the auric- 

 ular orifice, which are blackish at the base, but with white tips; the 

 chin, forecheek, and iufraocular line are more whitish than in Costa 

 Rica specimens. 



The Guatemala bird is distinguished from all the other examples by 

 the more extended rufous-chestnut crown (in color like Veragua and 

 Panama birds), including the occiput, and the entire lack of a grayish- 

 olive collar on the hind neck. The infraocular whitish stripe extends 

 below the ear-coverts. 



Viewing the material before me, and noting the comparisons I have 

 just made, it is evident that either the Guatemala or Costa Rica bird 

 should be separated under a new name. It might be supposed that 

 there would be little question but that the Costa Rican was the one to 

 be separated, but after a careful examination of the literature on the 

 subject I am convinced that the Costa Rica bird is Basileuferus delattrii 

 Bp., not mesochrysus Scl., and that it is the Guatemalan bird that ought 

 to be named. 



Bonaparte in his original description oi' delattrii distinctly says (Notes 

 Orn., p. 62) "espece nouvelle de Nicaragua.''^ Why Messrs, Salvin and 

 Godman doubt Delattre's specimen having come from Nicaragua (Biol. 

 C. A., Aves, I, p. 170) I do not know. Certain it is, Bonaparte's de- 

 scription" applies much better to the Costa Rica bird than to the one 

 from Guatemala, in which latter bird the chestnut of the head is not 

 confined to the pileum, but embraces ^^pileo cum nucha" as in rufifronH ; 

 besides, there is indication of a median stripe in the crown, which is not 

 to be found in Costa Rica examples. 



*"Traete viridis subtiis omnino flavus, genisque castaaeis ; superciliis albis." 



" Daus le rufifrons la coulenr est raoius briliaute " cinereo virens " et le roux de la tete 



est plus etenda '^jnleo cum nucha costaneis." De plus au voit sur le tete " Htura lon- 



(jitucUnali verticis albida." 



