Vol. | 
1902 
Eleventh Supplement to A. O. U. Check-List. 335 
seems to be no reason for disturbing the present nomenclature of 
the Check-List by introducing the proposed change. : 
949.1. Ammodramus nelsoni vs. 4. caudacutus nelsont, and 
549.142. Ammodramus nelsoni subvirgatus vs. 4. caudacu- 
tus subvirgatus (cof. RipGway, Bds. N. and Middle Am. I 
Igor, 221 and’ 223). 
’ 
The evidence is insufficient to warrant a change from the Com- 
mittee’s previous ruling (cf Ninth Suppl., Auk, XVI, 1899, 117, 
118). 
83a. Melospiza lincolni striata vs. A/elospiza lincolni (ef. 
Ripeway, Bds. N. and Mid. Am. I, tgo1, 376). 
There is fairly good ground for the recognition of s¢v/afa asa 
subspecies. 
600a. Cyanospiza versicolor pulchra vs. C. versicolor (cf. 
Ripeway, Bds. N. and Mid. Am. I, 1go1, 205). 
As C.v, pulchra is a fairly stable form in Lower California, there 
seems to be no reason why the occurrence of intergrades in west- 
ern Mexico should invalidate it as a reasonably good subspecies 
of versicolor. (Cf. BREwsTER, Bds. Cape Region, L. Calif., in 
press). 
617. Stelgidopteryx serripennis vs. S. rujicollis serripennis 
(cf. Banos, Proc. N. Engl. Zool. Club, II, 1901, 60). 
The proposed change not considered expedient. 
612. Petrochelidon lunifrons vs. ?. pyrrhonota (cf. SHARPE 
é& Wvyarr, Mon. Hirun. I], 523). 
There is no new evidence to show that the change is necessary. 
Seiurus vs. Henzcocichla (cf. Dupots, Syst. Av. 1961, 436). 
Dubois emends Sezwrus to Scurus and then rejects it as too 
near Sciurus / 
