^°'<^'^] Elcvenfh Supplement to A. O. U. Check-List. 33c 



seems to be no reason for disturbing the present nomenclature of 

 the Check-List by introducing the proposed change. 



549.1. Ammodramus nelsoni vs. A. caudacutus nelsoni, and 



549.1a. Ammodramus nelsoni subvirgatus vs. A. caudacu- 

 ttis subvirgatus {cf. Ridgway, Bds. N. and Middle Am. I, 

 1901, 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). 



583(Y. Melospiza lincolni striata vs. Melospiza lincohii {cf. 

 Ridgway, Bds. N. and Mid. Am. I, 190 1, 376). 



There is fairly good ground for the recognition of striata as a 

 subspecies. 



C00«. Cyanospiza versicolor pulchra vs. C. versicolor {cf. 

 Ridgway, Bds. N. and Mid. Am. I, 1901, 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. ruficolUs serripennis 

 {cf Bangs, Proc. N. Engl. Zool. Club, II, 1901, 60). 



The proposed change not considered expedient. 



(512. Petrochelidon lunifrons vs. P. pyrrhonota {cf Sharpe 

 & Wyatt, Mon. Hirun. II, 523). 



There is no new evidence to show that the change is necessary. 



Seiurusvs. Hcnicocichla {cf. Dubois, Syst. Av. 1901, 436)- 



Dubois emends Seiuriis to Siuriis and then rejects it as too 

 near Sciiirus ! 



