6 Messrs. Salvin and Elliot on the Trochilidse. 



Trochilus cephalus, Bourc. et Muls. Rev. Zool. 1848, p. 269. 



Phaethornis cassini, Lawr. Ann. N. Y. Lye. Nat. Hist. viii. 

 p. 347. 



Phaethornis cephalus, Gould, Mon. Troch. pi. 19. 



Phaethornis longirostris, Cab. & Hein. Mus. Hein. Th. iii. 

 p. 9 ; Gould, Intr. Troch. p. 42. 



Phaethornis boliviana, Gould, Intr. Mon. Troch. p. 42. 



Hab. The whole of Central America from Southern Mexico 

 to the lower portion of the valley of the Magdalena and Western 

 Ecuador. 



Lesson and De Lattre first described this species in the ' Echo 

 du Monde Savant ' from a specimen obtained in Vera Paz. In 

 the ' Revue Zoologique ' for 1848, Bourcier and Mulsant rede- 

 scribed the species from Central- American specimens collected 

 by Salle, under the name of Phaethornis cephalus. This has 

 long been acknowledged to be a synonym of longirostris. In the 

 'Annals" of the New York Lyceum of Natural History for 1866, 

 viii. 347, Mr. Lawrence described a specimen from Cartagena, 

 collected by Mr. Schott, who was attached to the Atrato ex- 

 pedition under Lieut. Michler, as P. cassini. This type has 

 been examined by Mr. Gould, who pronounces it to belong to 

 P. longirostris ,thus adding another to the synonyms appertain- 

 ing to this species. 



Through Mr. Gould's kindness, we have had an opportunity 

 of carefully comparing the type specimen of his P. boliviana, 

 described in the ' Introduction to Trochilidse/ with the large 

 series of P. longirostris now before us. The specimen in ques- 

 tion is immature, and we cannot separate it from examples of 

 the present species from Santa Marta and Costa Rica. We 

 cannot but suppose that Mr. Gould is in error in giving Bo- 

 livia as the habitat of this species. A second, similar speci- 

 men in Mr. Gould's collection, but of a more adult bird, and 

 said to be from Brazil, we refer also to P. longirostris. In 

 associating his P. boliviana with P. syrmatophorus, we think 

 Mr. Gould to be clearly wrong, the bright rufous upper tail- 

 coverts of that species being sufficient to separate it at a glance. 

 The differences between P. superciliosus and P. longirost?-is 

 are not very decided and j we are even in doubt whether speci- 



