5*76 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 221 



tested territory). July 19, 1887. Collected by Charles H. Townsend. 

 Original number 2029. 

 Ridgway's classical orthography of the subspecific name has been, even 



by himself, quite unnecessarily emended to inexpectata. 



Sturnella neglecta confluenla Rathbun 

 Auk34(l):68,Jan.2,1917. 

 364855. Adult male. Seattle, King County, Washington. Apr. 5, 1895. 

 Collected by Samuel F. Rathbun. Original number 105. Received 

 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which acquired it from 

 Samuel F. Rathbun. 



Sturnella neglecta Audubon 



Birds of America 7: 339, pi. 489, 1844. 

 1939. Adult male. Fort Union (near the confluence of the Yellowstone 

 River with the Missouri), Williams or McKenzie County, North Da- 

 kota (see my comments under Alauda Spragueii, p. 474) . June 30, 1843. 

 Collected by John J. Audubon. Received from Spencer F. Baird, who 

 acquired it from John J. Audubon. 



Genus DOLICHONYX Swainson 



Dolichonyx oryzivorus, var. albinucha Ridgway 

 Bull. Essex Inst. 5 (11) : 192, November 1873. 



=Dolichonyx oryzivorus (Linnaeus). See Hellmayr, Catalogue of birds 

 of the Americas 10 : 220, 1937. 



61728. Adult male. Ogden, Weber County, Utah. June 17, 1872. Col- 

 lected by C. Hart Merriam. Original number 85. U.S. Geological 

 Survey of the Territories, 1872. 



In the original description, no type was designated, but the range was 

 given as "Missouri Plains and Rocky Mountains, west to Ruby Valley, 

 Nevada; Salt Lake Valley." Fortunately, the race was redescribed in the 

 same journal on page 198, where we find "(Type, No. 1739, Mus. R.R., $ 

 ad., Ogden, Utah.)." 



It is not at all easy to foUow Ridgway's reasons for making this specimen 

 the type. It became part of the national collection sometime between July 

 and October 1872, and was entered into the register as No. 61728. Before 

 November 1873, when albinucha was described, it had been transferred into 

 Ridgway's private collection as his No. 1739, and in the course of its trans- 

 lation suffered loss of Merriam's original label in favor of one of Ridgway's 

 own, onto which only partial data were transcribed. It seems not to have 

 occurred to the author to use as his type No. 61729, a male of almost 

 identical data, which had never left the museum collection. The date of 

 return of No. 61728 is now unknown. 



