332 Eleventh Supplement to A. O. U. Check-List. [^^[^ 



Orpheus meruloides Swainson, Faun. Bor.-Amer. II, 183 1, 

 187. 



Hesperocichla ncevia meruloides Grinnell, Auk, XVIII, April, 

 1901, 142. 



Ixoreus ncevius meruloides Richmond, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash, 

 XV, 85, April 25, 1902. 



[B Yz^d^part^ C 2, part, R <^,part, C <^,part7\ 



Geog. Dist. — Interior of northern Alaska and eastward, win- 

 tering in southern California. 



II. PROPOSED CHANGES IN NOMENCLATURE 

 NOT ADOPTED. 



Aythya vs. Nyroca {Cf. Howe & Allen, Bds. Mass. 1901, 

 53)- 

 Aythya has been rejected as being a ?iomen nudum {cf. Salva- 

 DORi, 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 Aythya and Nyroca 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 Aythya in the 

 Check-List. 



211. Rallus crepitans vs. Rallus longirostris crepitans {cf. 

 Tenth Suppl., Auk, XVIII, 1901, 315). 



There appears to be no good reason for the adoption of longi- 

 rostris in the place of crepita?is in this and the following case. 



211a. Rallus crepitans saturatus vs. Rallus longirostris satu- 

 ratus {cf Tenth Suppl., Auk, XVIII, 1901, 315). 



232. Macrorhamphus scolopaceus vs. M. griseus scolopa- 

 ceus {cf. Tenth Suppl., Auk, XVIII, 1901, 316). 



Intergradation between the two forms has not been satis- 

 factorily shown. 



