Vol. XIX 

 1902 



1 Eleventh Supplement to A. O. U. Check-List. 333 



287. Haematopus bachmani vs. H. niger (Pallas). 



If Pallas's Zoogr. Rosso-Asiat. be taken at 1826, as has uni- 

 formly been the case in the Check-List, there is no reason for the 

 proposed change. 



317. Zenaida zenaida vs. Zenaida meridionalis {cf. Forbes & 

 Robinson, Bull. Liverpool Mus. I, 1899, 36). 



It is evident that the birds identified by Forbes and Robinson 

 as Zenaida meridionalis, cannot be the types of Latham's Coliimba 

 meridionalis. {Cf. Allen, Auk, XIX, July, 1902, 286.) 



320. Columbigallina passerina terrestris vs. C. /. pur- 

 purea {cf. W. Palmer, Osprey, V, 1901, 148). 



The reasons for the proposed change are not considered to be 

 well founded. 



341. Buteo albicaudatus sennetti vs. B. albicatidatus {cf 

 Godman, Biol. Cent.-Am. Aves, III. 1900, 58). 



There is nothing to show that the Committee was in error in 

 accepting sennetti as a subspecies of albicaudatus. 



358. Falco richardsoni vs. F. columbarius richardsoni {cf. 

 Bishop, N. Am. Fauna, No. 19, Oct. 1900, 75). 



The status of the form is admittedly in doubt, but on the basis 

 of present evidence no change is deemed advisable. 



403. Sphyrapicus ruber vs. S. varius ruber {Cf. Grinnell, 

 Condor, III, Jan. 1901, 12). 



Intergradation not satisfactorily proved. 



Sphyrapicus ruber flaviventris {cf. Osgood, N. Am. Fauna, 

 No. 21, 1901, 45)- 



Picus flaviventris Vieill. proves to be a synonym of Picus 

 ruber notkensis Sugkow. {Cf. antea, p. 319, under Sphyrapicus 

 ruber notkensis.) 



