Todd : A Revision 01 mi Genus Chjemepelia. .v.»1 



Salvin and Godman, Biol. Centr.-Am., Aves, 111. 1902, 253, pari (Mexican 

 localities and references; ci it.). 



Talpacotia rufipennis Mi llbr, Reisen in Mexico, in. [865, 589 (Me: 



Chamepelia rufipennis Sumichrast, Naturaleza, V, 1881, 231 ("tierra caliente" of 

 Vera Cruz, Potrero, and Omealca, Mexico). 



ColumbigaUina rufipennis Rim. way, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., VIII, 1885, 581, 583 

 (Cozumel I., Yucatan). — Ridgway, Man. X. Am. Birds, 1887, 215, part 1 Mex- 

 ican localities). — Stone, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1890, 204 (Tekanto, 

 Yucatan). — Chapman. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., VIII, 1896, 287 (On 

 It/a. Yucatan; habits). — DUBOIS, Syn. Avium, II. 1902, 764, part (Mexico; 

 syn.). — Cole, Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., L, 1906, 117 (Chichen-Itza, Yucatan; 

 nesting; food). 



ColumbigaUina rufipennis eluta BANGS, Auk, XVIII, 1901, 258 (Escuinapa and Los 

 Robles, Sinaloa, Mexico; orig. descr.; type in collection Museum Comparative 

 Zoology). — Miller, Bull. Am. Mus. Xat. Hist., XXI, 1905, 343 (Escuinapa, 

 Sinaloa, Mexico). 



Chamcepelia rufipennis eluta Salvin and Godman, Biol. Centr.-Am., Aves, III, 1902, 

 25 \. in text (crit.). 



Subspecific characters. — Similar to C. rufipennis rufipennis, but 

 general color of male decidedly paler, less rufescent, more brownish. 

 Female also averaging less rufescent, particularly on the rump and 

 upper tail-coverts. 



Measurements. — Male: wing, 85-92 (average, 88); tail, 59-70 (65); 

 exposed culmen, 11-13 (12.2); tarsus, 15-17. 5 (17). Female: wing, 

 82-88 (86); tail, 57-66 (62); exposed culmen, 11. 5-13 (12. 1); tarsus, 

 16-17 (16.5). 



Range. — "Tierra caliente" <>f Mexico, north to central Vera Cruz 

 and southern Sinaloa. 



Remarks. — This form was described from southern Sinaloa, in the 

 extreme northwestern part of its range. A series from this region is 

 appreciably different from another series from the Santa Marta 

 region of Colombia, close to the type locality (Carthagena) of C. r. 

 rufipennis, in the respects above pointed out. There is, however, a 

 wide range of variation in both forms, dependent partly upon age — 

 younger birds being duller — but partly apparently of a purely indi- 

 vidual nature. However, after allowing for all this, there still seems 

 sufficient difference between the two series to justify subspecific 

 separation. Moreover, with a fairly large series of specimens at my 

 command I find it quite impossible to distinguish the bird of eastern 

 and southern Mexico from that of western Mexico by any constanl 

 characters, and I am therefore obliged to assign practically all -peri 

 mens of the former to the present form. An occasional specimen, 



