10 Mr. D. G. Elliot on some Trochilidye. 



these without any doubt whatever. The birds named were 

 Polytmus {Campyloptenis) cecilice, Mellisaga {PanopUtes) 

 Judith, Mellisuga {Cynanthus) salvadorii, and Mellisuga {Eri- 

 ocnemis) ridolfii. The first of these I have not seen, as it 

 is in the Museum of Turin ; but on writing to Count Salva- 

 dori, he assures me that it is only a female of Campylopterus 

 lazulus ; and I believe this identification to be perfectly cor- 

 rect. The second is 



Mellisuga (Panoplites) judith. 



Mellisuga judith, Benv. Ann. del R. Mus. Florent. 1865, 

 p. 203, sp. 11. 



This bird proves to be the Panoplites flavescens, w^ith which 

 Signer Benvenuti had compared it; and I cannot perceive 

 that the differences given by him were in any way of suffi- 

 cient consequence to cause him to give the specimen a new 

 name. It is a male, in adult plumage ; and the name of M. 

 judith must become a synonym of P. flavescens. 



The third was named 



Mellisuga (Cynanthus) salvadorii. 



Mellisuga salvadorii, Benv. Ann. del R. Mus. Floren. 1865, 

 p. 204. 



The type of this so-called species is an adult female of Cy- 

 nanthus cyanurus in the ordinary state of plumage, such as 

 is commonly observed in all the specimens of this sex com- 

 ing from Bogota. There is nothing to distinguish it as dis- 

 tinct; and the name given by Sig. Benvenuti must become a 

 synonym. 



The last described is 



Mellisuga (Eriocnemis) ridolfii. 



Mellisuga ridolfii, Benv. Ann. del R. Mus. 1865, p. 205. 



This bird, on examination, proves also to be a female of a 

 well-known species, Eriocnemis vestita, one of the commonest 

 and best-known among Humming-birds. The name ridolfii 

 must sink into a synonym. 



It is a pity that before naming these birds as distinct. 

 Signer Benvenuti had not followed the advice given to him 

 by M. Salle in the letter pul)lishcd in his article, and sent 



