^°9o?^] T-velfth Supplement to the A. O. U. C/ieck-List. 363 



Not considered worthy of recognition, its relationship with M. c. 

 cooperi being too close for separation as a distinct subspecies. 



Progne subis floridana Mearns, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 

 XXIV, 1902, 918. 

 Inseparable from P. subis, the alleged color characters being 

 due to age. 



Hinindo erythrogaster pah7ieri Grinnell, Condor, IV, 1902, 

 71- 

 Considered as not satisfactorily distinguished from H. erythro- 

 gaster. {Cf. also Tenth Supplement, Auk, XVIII, 313.) 



Geothlypis trichas scirpicola Grinnell, Condor, III, 1901, 65. 

 Rejected as being equivalent to G. t. arizela. 



IV. DEFERRED FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. 



[Cases added to this list since the appearance of the last sup- 

 plement are marked with an asterisk.] 



Colymbidae vs. Podicipidce {cf. Oberholser, Auk, 1899, 

 286). 



Phalerinae vs. Simorhynchinee {cf. Oberholser, Auk, 

 1899, 286). 



52. Larus vegae vs. L. argentatns {cf. KoBBE, Auk, 1902, 19- 

 24). 



94. Puffinus fuliginosus vs. P. gn'seus {cf Salvin, Cat. Bds. 

 Br. Mus., XXV, 1896, 386). 



120. Phalacrocorax dilophus vs. P. auritns {cf. Grant, 

 Cat. Bds. Br. Mus., XXVI, 1898, 373). 



121. Phalacrocorax mexicanus vs. P. vigua mexicanus {cf. 

 Grant, Cat. Bds. Br. Mus., XXVI, 1898, 378). 



127. Pelecanus calif ornicus vs. P.fuscus [= occidentalis'] cali- 

 fornicus {cf Grant, Cat, Bds. Br. Mus., XXVI, 1898, 478). 

 Ralliis hvipes Bangs, Bull. New Engl. Zool. Club, I, 1899, 45. 



