392 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATION Al. MUSEUM. vol.55. 



Bemarks. — From the male of Sauropatis chloris chloris the same 

 sex of Sauropatis chloris sordida differs in having a longer bill ; the 

 upper parts, including the wing-coverts, much duller, more brownish 

 or greenish (less bluish) ; black nuchal band somewhat broader and 

 less overlaid with greenish ; no white superciliary stripe ; ear-coverts 

 washed with greenish instead of bluish. The female may be dis- 

 tinguished from the female of Sauropatis chloris chloris by its longer 

 bill, rather darker, much more brownish (less greenish) upper sur- 

 face, including the wing-coverts; less greenish wing-quills; and ab- 

 sence of a white superciliary stripe. 



The adult male of the present form has a closer resemblance to 

 the adult female of Sauropatis chloris chloris than to the same sex 

 of that subspecies, but is distinguishable by longer bill; absence of 

 a white superciliary stripe; more olivaceous or brownish superior 

 wing-coverts and remaining upper parts, especially the pileum; 

 more bluish wing-quills; and more olive greenish auriculars. The 

 adult male of Sauropatis chloris sordida is even more like the 

 Juvenal female of Sauropatis chloris chloris^ but is separable by the 

 entire absence of a superciliary stripe; more greenish (less blackish) 

 ear-coverts; more brownish pileum; more bluish (less greenish) 

 wing-quills ; and more olivaceous superior wing-coverts. 



The female of the present race is appreciably duller throughout 

 than the male, also more brownish above, with more blackish ear- 

 coverts. 



The type of Scmropatis chloris sordida^ which I have examined in 

 the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, is apparently a 

 female, since it is dull and brown for an example of even that sex. 

 The locality on the label is the same as that given in the original de- 

 scription — " North coast of Australia," and this is probably correct. 

 Mr. G. M. Mathews has subsequently restricted the type locality to 

 Cape York, northern Queensland.^ 



The other specimen in the Gould collection seems also to be a 

 female. This one is labeled "West coast of Australia," but from 

 the large size of the bill was probably obtained in northern Queens- 

 land and incorrectly labeled. 



There seems to be little doubt of the subspecific relationship of 

 Sauropatis sordida with Sauropatis chloris^ as Doctor Hartert has 

 already pointed out,^ since the differences between Sauropatis 

 chloris sordida and Sauropatis chloris solo-nionis are practically 

 bridged by individual variation in both color and size, and between 

 the former and Sauropatis chloris chloris by individual variation in 

 Sauropatis chloris grayi, as already mentioned.' 



»Novit. Zool., vol. 18, No. 3, Jan. 31, 1912, p. 289. 

 « Idem, vol. 11, No. 1, Mar. 25, 1904, p. 198. 

 8 See p. 390. 



