of the American Meadow- Starling in England. 179 



North America, extending over the whole Atlantic watershed of 

 the continent, to the high central plains. With this form, as 

 might have been expected, the specimen killed in England 

 agrees, and it is the bird noticed in the various references given 

 in the note above. 



2. Sturnella negleda, And. (Baird, B. N. Amer. p. 537), re- 

 places the Eastern form in Western America from the high cen- 

 tral plains to the Pacific. Prof. Baird confesses that this bird, 

 though decidedly paler in colouring, is so closely related to S. 

 ludoviciana as to render it very difficult to distinguish the skins ; 

 but all observers of the two living birds declare that there is a 

 remarkable difference in their notes. 



3. Sturnella hippocrepis is a name founded by Wagler (' Isis,' 

 1832, p. 281) upon examples of the Sturnella brought from 

 Cuba. I have no very reliable Cuban specimens for comparison ; 

 but Mr. Lawrence, in " Notes on Cuban Birds," read before the 

 Lyceum of Natural History of New York, May 21st, 1860, has 

 pointed out its differences from Sturnella ludoviciana, which con- 

 sist chiefly in its narrow pectoral band and smaller size. 



4. Sturnella mexicana is the name I propose to apply to the 

 Southern Mexican bird, which has the throat-band always quite 

 narrow, and is in dimensions invariably much inferior to Northern 

 specimens. M. de Oca's birds collected at Jalapa, M. Salle's at 

 Cordova (P. Z. S. 1855, p. 301), and M. Botteri's from Orizaba, 

 are all referable to this variety, which I have hitherto callt d " S. 

 hippocrepis ? " Mr. Salvin's specimens from Guatemala (cf.' Ibis,' 

 1859, p. 19) also belong here. 



5. Sturnella meridionalis may be the term applied to the New 

 Granadian and Venezuelan variety of this widely diffused bird. 

 It agrees with S. mexicana in the form of the neck-gorget, but 

 is nearly of the size of the S. ludoviciana, and has the bill even 

 longer. 



In concluding this summary notice of the geographical range 

 of Sturnella ludoviciana and its allies, I may remark that there 

 seems to be so much variation in specimens of this bird brought 

 even from the same districts, that I cannot deny that much fuller 

 evidence is necessary before we can consider these different forms 

 (though eminently worthy of study and of record) as entitled to 



