ees Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 129 
The evidence that anethetus is a “ misprint’ is not satisfactory. 
88. Puffinus borealis Cory vs. 2. kuhlii (Bon.). Cf. SAL- 
vIN, Cat. Bds. B. M. XXV, 1896, 426. 
The proposed change is undesirable, in view of fairly satisfac- 
tory evidence that the two names represent distinct species. 
106.2. Oceanodroma cryptoleucura Ripcw. vs. Procellaria 
castro Harcourt. Cf. Grant, Ibis, Apr. 1898, 314. 
It is probable that Harcourt’s name castro was applied to a 
species distinct from O. cryptoleucura RipGw. 
151. Clangula clangula americana (Bonap.) vs. Clangula 
clangula. Cf. Exviiot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 178, 289. 
There is no apparent reason for the proposed change. 
SuBFAMILY PLECTROPTERINZA. Cf Satvapori, Cat. 
Bds. B. M. XXVII, 1895, 45; Evviot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 273. 
The introduction into the Check-List of this heterogeneous 
Old World group for the genus Azx Bork is considered undesir- 
able, even though the genus 47x may not be strictly referable 
to Anatine. 
Genus ATX (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 52). vs. 4x. Cf B. O. U. 
Check-List Br. Bds. 1883, 123; Exxiior, Wild Fowl, 1898, 
2 
Genus Harelda (Eighth Suppl. Check-List, in Auk, XIV, 1897, 
124) vs. Havelda. Cf. Eviiot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 290. 
These proposed changes are rejected as being contrary to 
Canon XL of the A. O. U. Code. 
Genus OLOR (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 65) vs. Cygnus. C&. 
Exxiot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 265. 
No reason is evident for adopting the proposed change. 
9 
