•890-] Elliot on ike Genus Dendrornis. IOI 



Society of Natural History, — a large series with Lafresnaye's 

 types ; the National Museum at Washington, — another large 

 series with the types of Mr. Ridgway's lately described forms ; 

 the material in the collections of the American Museum of Natu- 

 ral History in New York, with Mr. Lawrence's types ; the 

 specimens contained in the Museum of Comparative Zoology of 

 Cambridge ; those of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

 Philadelphia, and some specimens from the collection of my 

 friend, Mr. G. B. Sennett. Many of the specimens in Mr. Law- 

 rence's collections and also in the National Museum have been 

 identified by Mr. Sclater, Mr. Salvin, Herr von Berlepsch and 

 others, and in some instances examples from the private 

 collections of these gentlemen were present in one or other of 

 the series committed to my charge, showing what they considered 

 a certain species to be, at all events at the time they identified 

 that particular example. A change of opinion regarding the 

 proper name to be applied to any specimen of this genus, judging 

 from the labels borne by a number of them, seems to have been 

 admissible, even if of very frequent occurrence. 



The types in my possession while preparing this paper, are the 

 following : D. xveddelU Lafres. , D. nana Lawr., D. multiguttaia 

 Lafres.,/?. lacrymosa Lawr. ,D. guttatoides Lafres., D. triajign- 

 laris Lafres., D. mentalis Lawr., D. fraterculus Ridgw., D. 

 lawrencei Ridgw., D. lazvrencei costaricensis Ridgw., D. 

 punctigula Ridgw., D. albisquama Lafres., D. peruana Lafres. 

 MS., and D. albirostris Lafres. MS. Beside these I have a typical 

 specimen of D. cluinchotambo Tschudi, procured by the describer 

 of the species during his journey in Peru, and typical specimens of 

 D. rostripallois Lafres. Of many of the species I have a consider- 

 able number of examples, sometimes large series, as in D.Jiavi- 

 gaster .Swain., represented by no less than sixty specimens, so that 

 altogether 1 think I may consider that my material is as ample as 

 any that may have been at the command of anyone who has paid es- 

 pecial attention to this genus, and tar greater and more complete 

 than has been at the service of the majority of ornithologists. 



In Thy conclusions, in so far as the species were represented be- 

 fore me, I have been guided solely by my material, and although I 

 am well aware that in this age, when the 'pendulum' has swung 

 almost to the verge of the 'splitters' limit, to some many of my 

 determinations may not be acceptable, yet X am satisfied that an 



