554 Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 



below and slightly browner above than the same sex of C. p. pallescens, 

 the color of the bill as in the male. 



Measurements. — Male: wing, 76-82 (average, 80); tail, 50-58 (53); 

 exposed culmen, 10. 5-12 (11.2); tarsus, 15-17 (16). Female: wing, 

 75-8i (79); tail, 51-58 (53-5); bill, 11-12 (11.1); tarsus, 15-16 (15.7). 



Range. — Extreme northern Colombia and northern Venezuela, 

 including the Leeward Islands, south to the Orinoco valley. 



Remarks. — This form has been involved in much confusion. Bona- 

 parte's name Chamccpelia granatina, which has anteriority over 

 C. albivitta, has been generally employed to designate not only the 

 Colombian and Venezuelan form of C. passerina, but also, until 

 recently, the South American bird in general. That such an appli- 

 cation of the name is not justified is practically certain. A translation 

 of Bonaparte's original diagnosis of Chamccpelia granatina reads as 

 follows: 



"Similar to the preceding [i. e., a specimen of " passerina" from 

 Mazatlan, Mexico]; but somewhat paler; beneath whitish, throat- 

 spots dusky, nape scarcely ashy, not vinaceous; wings beneath rufous, 

 not chestnut; wing-spots coppery garnet; most of the lateral rectrices 

 edged with white; feet somewhat weaker." 



Substantially the same diagnosis is given by Bonaparte in his 

 paper published the following year. To Dr. Sclater's intimation that 

 C. granatina was the female or young of C. passerina (as then under- 

 stood) Bonaparte returned an emphatic denial, claiming that he had 

 both sexes before him. Nevertheless, it seems very probable that 

 Dr. Sclater was right. Bonaparte said that his bird came from 

 Bogota, but, as is now well known, "Bogota" skins may have come 

 from any part of Colombia, and the locality assigned is of absolutely 

 no value. Moreover, as shown elsewhere, the Ground Dove of central 

 Colombia belongs to a very distinct form, to which Bonaparte's 

 description cannot apply in any case. Neither will it answer for the 

 form from western Colombia. Unfortunately, as we learn from 

 Count Salvadori, the actual type seems to have disappeared from the 

 Paris Museum, so that we are left without any means of determining 

 to which of the Colombian forms the name applies, and therefore, in 

 accordance with general usage in such cases, it is to be set aside as 

 indeterminable. 



The description of Chamccpelia albivitta which follows, however, is 

 at once seen to be applicable to the form from the north coast of 



