60 



REVIEW OF AMERICAN BIRDS. 



[part I. 



and throat, from Bolivia ( C. leucocephalus, Tschudi) ; and one dusky, 

 with white head, back, and under parts, from Ecuador and New 

 Grenada (C. leuconotus, Scl.). Of these, specimens of leucocephalus 

 are in the Smithsonian collection, from Bolivia ; and Mr. Lawrence 

 possesses C leuconotus, from Ecuador. 



Cinclus luexicauus. 



Cinclus pallasii, Bon. Zool. Jour. II, 1827, 52 (not the Asiatic species). 

 Cinclus mexicanus, Sw. Phil. Mag. 1827, 368.— Sclater, Catal. 1861, 10. 



— Hydrohata mexicana, Baird, Birds N. Am. 1858, 229. — Cooper 



& SucKLEY, Rep. P. R. R. XII, ii, 1859, 175 (nest). 

 Cinclus americanus, Rich. F. B. A. II, 1831, 273. 

 Cinclus unicolor, Box.; C. mortoni, Towns.; C. townsendii, "Aud." 



Towns. 

 Figures: Bonaparte, Am. Orn. II, 1828, pi. xvi, fig. 1. — Aud. Orn. 



Biog. pi. 370, 435.— Ib. Birds Amer. II, pi. 137. 



Hab. Found through the mountainous region of the central part of North 

 America, from Fort Halkett south into Mexico. None received from the coast 

 region of California. 



A Mexican specimen, from Xalapa, representing the species as 

 established by Swainson, is rather darker below than skins from the 

 United States, and the feathers exhibit none of those whitish edgings 

 So common (but not universal) in the latter. The smoky brown of 

 the head and neck is sharply defined against the plumbeous of the 

 back, but below shades off insensibly in a wash over the breast. 

 The bin is black ; the legs dark brown. 



In a young bird from Chiloweyuck Depot, the chin and throat are 

 of a dirty white, and the head is plumbeous without any of the 

 smoky brown tinge. 



Locality. 



Fort Halkett, B. A. 



Frazer'sRiv. B. Col. 

 Chiloweyuck. 

 Deer Creek, Neb. 

 Fort Mass. N. M. 



Wheu 

 Collected. 



Dec. 10, '62 

 Mar. 18.58. 

 Jan. 4, '60. 



Received from 



J. Lockhart. 



A. Campbell. 



Capt. Raynolds. 

 Capt. Bowman. 



Collected by 



Mr. Brass. 

 Dr. Kennerly. 

 Dr. Hayden. 



12th edition as the starting point, instead of the 10th, though without any 

 apparent good reason. 



As Moehring is not a Linnsean binomialist, only adopting the generic or uui- 

 nomial idea, and not the binomial, I do not consider his names as tenable, 

 &nd consequently do not find that his use of the name Cinclus, in 1752, for 

 another genus, is a pre-occupation, as rigidly understood. 



