i?90-1 Et.moT on the Genus Dendrornis. *^5 



1853. ScjLAikk, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of 

 London. — D. eytoni desci-ibed as Dendrocolaptes eytoni. 



Species 13. 



1856. Lafresnaye, Castelnatc Voyage de V Amerlque d?c 

 Sud. — D. iveddclll and D. rostrif aliens described. Species 15. 



1S56. Des Murs, Castelnau Voyage de VAmirique du S11J. 

 — D. kleneri and D. palllata described. . . Species 17. 



1S56. Sclater, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of 

 London. — D. eryihropygla described. . . Species 18. 



1S62. Lawrence, Annals of the Ncxv York Lyceum of Nat- 

 ural History. — D. lacrymosa described. . . Species 19. 



1863. Lawrence, Ibis. — D. nana described. . Species 20. 



1S67. Lawrence, Annals of the New York Lyceum of Natu- 

 ral History. — D.Jlavigaster Swain, re-described as D. mentalls. 



1S6S. Pelzeln, Ornlthologle Brasillens. — D. elegans 

 described Species 21. 



1SS3. Salvin and Godman, Ibis. — D. polystlcta described. 



Species 22. 



1S83. Berlepscii and Taczanowski, Journal far Ornl- 

 thologle. — D. erythropygla Sclat. re-described as D. eryihro- 

 pygla azquatorialls. 



1854. Ridgway, Proceedings of the United States National 

 Museum. — D. nana Lawr. re-described as D. lazvrencel. 



1S87. Ridgway, Proceedings of the United States National 

 Museum. — D. sus7irrans Jardine re-described as D.fratcrculns. 



1855. Ridgway, Proceedings of the United States National 

 Mttscum. — D. punctlgula described. . . . Species 23. 



1889. Ridgway, Proceedings of the United States National 

 Museum. — D. nana Lawr. re-described as D. lawrenccl cosia- 

 rlccnsis. 



Genera. 



The birds enumerated in this paper had been assigned by 

 different writers to various genera of the family Dendrocolaptida^ 

 until 1831, when Eyton, in 'Tardine's Contributions to Ornithol- 

 ogy,' proposed for them the term Dendrornis with the following 

 characters: " Bill nearly straight, of moderate length, the upper 

 mandible hooked at the tip, fourth quill longest." These charac- 

 ters are comparative rather than positive, with the exception of 

 the last, and yet perhaps they are the best that can be given, as 



