Vol. XX Twelfth Supplement to the A, O. U. Check-List. 363 
1903 
Not considered worthy of recognition, its relationship with AZ. ¢. 
cooper being too close for separation as a distinct subspecies. 
Progne subis floridana M&éarns, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 
XXIV, 1902, 918. 
Inseparable from 7. swdzs, the alleged color characters being 
due to age. 
[fTirundo erythrogaster palmert GRiINNELL, Condor, IV, 1902, 
rine 
Considered as not satisfactorily distinguished from //. exv/hro- 
gaster, (Cf. also Tenth Supplement, Auk, XVIII, 313.) 
Geothlypis trichas scirpicola GRINNELL, Condor, III, 1901, 6s. 
Rejected as being equivalent to G. 4 arizea. 
IV. DEFERRED FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. 
{Cases added to this list since the appearance of the last sup- 
plement are marked with an asterisk. | 
Colymbidee vs. /odicipide (cof. Onernorser, Auk, 1899, 
286). 
Phalerine vs. Simorhynchine (cf Operinoiser, Auk, 
1899, 286). 
52. Larus vegee vs. Z. argentatus (cf. Kopnt, Auk, 1902, 19 
2a), 
94. Puffinus fuliginosus vs. 7? gv/seus (cf SAtvin, Cat. Bds. 
Br. Mus., XXV, 1896, 386). 
120. Phalacrocorax dilophus vs. /?. auritus (cf. Grant, 
Cat DGSy i, US. AL VI, 1898, 373). 
121. Phalacrocorax mexicanus vs. /”. vwiguva menxicanus (Cf. 
Grant, Cat. Bds. Br. Mus., XX VI, 1898, 378). 
127. Pelecanus californicus vs. 7. fuscus |= octdentalis| cal- 
Jornicus (of. GRANT, Cat. Bds. Br. Mus., XXVI, 1898, 478). 
Rallus levipes BANGS, Bull. New Engl. Zo6l. Club, I, 1899, 45. 
