200 Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 



Sporophila haplochroma sp. now 



Type, No. 37,748, Collection Carnegie Museum, adult male; 

 Cincinnati (Santa Marta district), Colombia, June 14, 191 1 ; M. A. 

 Carriker, Jr. 



Description. — Above plain olive, inclining to bistre on the rump and 

 upper tail-coverts; tail also olive; wings and their coverts clove-brown, 

 edged externally with the color of the back; below dull olive, fading to 

 buffy white on the center of the abdomen, and to buffy olive on the 

 flanks and under tail-coverts; under wing-coverts dull buffy; "bill 

 blackish horn; feet horn-color; iris brown.-" 



Measurements. 



Locality. Date. Wing. 



Cincinnati June 1, 191 1 51 



Cincinnati June 14, 191 1 54 



Cincinnati June 14, 191 1 56 



Minca Aug. 1, 1899 50 



Minca Aug. 1, 1899 53 



Remarks. — This species somewhat resembles S. obscura Tacza- 

 nowski, 2 from Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina, two specimens of 

 which are now before me, but differs in its decidedly darker and more 

 uniform under parts, as well as in its darker bill. The two specimens 

 from Minca are much more brownish above and below than the type 

 and other specimens taken at the same time, but this is probably due 

 to their being in fresher plumage. These two skins are the ones 

 which Dr. J. A. Allen referred provisionally to Phonipara bicolor 

 (Bulletin American Museum Natural History, XIII, 1900, 165), but 

 which on re-examination prove referable rather to Sporophila, the 

 culmen being more decidedly arched and the mandible proportionally 

 heavier than in any species of "Phonipara" (i. e., Tiaris) I have 

 examined. At any rate, all of these specimens are certainly very 

 different from authentic examples of Tiaris bicolor omissa from north- 

 ern Venezuela. The type is marked as a breeding bird, and is slightly 

 darker, with a blacker bill, than the females. 



1 Collection American Museum. 



2 Mr. C. E. Hellmayr writes me that he is at a loss to understand Mr. Sharpe's 

 remark in the Hand- List, V, 1909, 209, footnote, to the effect that S. obscura and 

 5. simplex are identical, for he (Hellmayr) certainly never made any such state- 

 ment! 



