332 Eleventh Supplement to A. O. U. Check-List. nls 
Orpheus merulotdes SwAtNsON, Faun. Bor.-Amer. II, 1831, 
187, 
Hesperocichla nevia meruloides GRINNELL, Auk, XVIII, April, 
IQOI, 142. 
Lxvoreus nevius meruloides RICHMOND, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 
XV, 85, April 25, rgo2. 
[B 156, part, C 2, part, R 9, part, C 5, part.] 
Geoc. Dist.-— Interior of northern Alaska and eastward, win- 
tering in southern California. 
II. PROPOSED CHANGES IN NOMENCLATURE 
NOT ADOPTED. 
Aythya vs. Wyroca (Cf Howe & ALLEN, Bds. Mass. rgor, 
53): 
Avthya has been rejected as being a momen nudum (cf. SALVA- 
port, Cat. Bds. Brit. Mus. XXVII, 1895, 334), but since the 
species now commonly referred to it were originally placed under 
it by its author, it cannot be properly construed in that sense. 
As both Avthya and Vyroca were published in the same year, 
with no evidence as to which has priority, there seems to be no 
good reason for change in respect to the use of dAr/Aya in the 
Check-List. 
211. Rallus crepitans vs. Radlus longirostris crepitans (of. 
Tenth Suppl., Auk, XVIII, 1901, 315). 
There appears to be no good reason for the adoption of /ongz- 
rostris in the place of crefifans in this and the following case. 
2llv. Rallus crepitans saturatus vs. Aa//us longirostris satu- 
ratus (of. Tenth Suppl., Auk, XVITI, rgor, 315). 
232. Macrorhamphus scolopaceus vs. J/. griseus scolopa- 
ceus (cf. Tenth Suppl., Auk, XVIII, rgo1, 316). 
Intergradation between the two forms has not been satis- 
factorily shown. 
