ICTERUS WAGLERI. 



Psarocolius Jlaviyaster, AVagl. Isis, 1829, p. 756, nec Vieill. 

 Pendalinus dotninieaisis, Bp. Consp. p. 432, uec Liun. 



Niffro-sericeus : tectricibus alarutn minoribus infra et supra, dorso 

 postico et ahdomine toto fiavis, hoc aurantiaco tincto : tectrici- 

 bus caudčB inferioribus nigris, 



Long. totą 8'0, alae 4'2, caudse 3"7. 



There are examples of this bird at tlie Smithsoniaa Institutiou 

 collected by Lieut. Couch in Coaliuila. I have Hlvewise examples of 

 it in my owu coUectiou. Icterus prosthemelas, Strickland (Contr. 

 Orn. 1850, p. 120. pi. 52) (which is not the šame as Pendulinus 

 lessoni, Bp.), is a closely allied species, but is smaller and has the 

 under tail-coverts yellow. 



Emberisa belli, Cassin (Pr. Ac. Sc. Phil. 1S50, pi. 4. p. 104), and 

 Emberiza bilineata (ibid. pi. 3) seem to me to form natūrai members 

 of the genus Poospiza, and I propose to call them Poospiza belli and 

 Poospiza bilineata. 



Junco cinereus has recently been described as new for the third 

 time as Stnithus caniceps (Woodhouse in Pr. Ac. Sc. Phil. -vi. p. 202). 

 As I have already observed, the name Junco ouglit to be employed 

 instead of Struthus for all the three closely allied species of this 

 genus, which will henceforth stand as /. cinereus, J. oregonus, and 

 J. hyemalis. 



Zonotrichia gambelli (the third species of Bp.'s Consp.) is now 

 eonsidered in America as the young of Z. leucophrys : Z. mortoni 

 (the fifth species), of \vhich I have seen the type in the Philadel- 

 phian eoUection, is nothing more than a Chiliah specimen of Z. pi- 

 leata sive matutina : Z. querula (the ninth species) is the šame as 

 (the tenth) Z. comata, and ought rather to be placed in the genus 

 Passerella. 



Struthus atrimentalis, Couch (Pr. Ac. Sc. Phil. vii. p. 68), seems 

 to be the šame as Spinites atrigularis (Cab. Mus. Hein. p. 133), 

 though M. Cabanis' phrase is not very perfect. 



The beautiful Zonotrichia cassinii lately described by Woodhouse 

 (Pr. Ac. Sc. Phil. vi. p. CO) is very closely alhed to Peuccea bach- 

 manni, and mušt be placed next to it. 



Dr. Gambel's FringiUa blandingiana (Journ. Ac. Phil. i. pi. 9) 

 is the šame as Pipilo rufipileus, Lafr. It is not an Embernagra, as 

 arranged by Bonaparte, nor a Pipilo, and, as divisions are made now- 

 a-days, ought probably to have a distinct generic appellation. 



Chondestes ruficauda, Bp. Notės Orn. p. 18, of which I found 

 several specimens in the collection at Philadelphia, is a typical Aimo- 

 phila, and Embernagra pyrgitoides, Lafr., seems to be nothing more 

 than A. rufescens, the second species of that šame genus. 



The Philadelphian Collection has likewise specimens of Chryso- 

 mitris yarrelli (Aud.), not hovvever from AYestern America, but from 

 the Orinoco ; and I believe Audubon was altogether in error as to 

 its locality, and that it is an inhabitant, not of the northern, but of 

 the southern portion of the American continent. 



