Museums of the United States. 313 



sought more light. The following are a few of the notes I 

 made : — 



The identification of Mr. Gould's Troglodytes leucogastra 

 by Prof. Baird in his ' Review of American Birds/ and adopted 

 in the present work (i. p. 141), has been recently reconsidered 

 by us (Nomencl. p. 7, et App. p. 155), and a new genus pro- 

 posed for the species, which is also identified with Mr. Sclatcr's 

 Cyphorhinus pusiUus. The bird is quite remotely allied to 

 the T. bewickii group, and comes nearer T)'oglodytes. 



In a note appended to the synopsis of the genus Contopus 

 (ii. p. 352), Mr. Ridgway expresses his belief that the species 

 described by Mr. Sclater and myself as C. ochraceus (P. Z. S. 

 1869, p. 419) from Costa Rica " seems to be scarcely different 

 from C. lugubris," and that " it is probably the same." I can 

 only trace a reason for this statement in the fact that, in 

 a note appended to our description, we mentioned that we did 

 not know the bird described by Mr. Lawrence as C. lugubris, 

 but that, judging from the description, it could hardly be in- 

 tended for the bird we were characterizing. I have now seen 

 and possess C. lugubris, and can state that Mr. Ridgway's sug- 

 gestion is altogether wide of the mark, and that our name and 

 description were quite sufficient to have saved him from pro- 

 nouncing so hasty a judgment upon a bird he had never seen. 

 In coloration C. ochraceus is not unlike Einpidonax flavescens 

 of Lawrence. I have not yet met with a second example. 



Pyrocephalus obscurus (ii. p. 387) (by a misprint, E. obscu- 

 rus) is only a melanism of the common species, P. rubineus, 

 or one of its races. These dark varieties occur in various 

 localities. Besides Peruvian examples I have seen others, 

 including one from Mexico. {Cf. Sclater, P. Z. S. 1864, 

 p. 176; also Scl. & Salv. P.Z.S. 1868, p. 175.) 



In treating of the genus Chatura (ii. p. 431), C. poliura, 

 Temminck, is placed as a " variety " of C. pelagica. I have 

 sought in vain for any grounds to warrant such an arrange- 

 ment. In this and in the case of Panyptila cayennensis 

 (p. 434), have not our authors, in their anxiety to introduce 

 their novel nomenclature, far outstepped the limits of varia- 

 tion indicated by the specimens at theii* command ? 



