i66 Field Museum of Natural History — Zoology, Vol. XIII. 

 ♦Eutoxeres aquila salvini {Gould). Salvin's Sickle-bill. 



Eutoxeres salvini Gould, Ann. & Mag. N. H., I, 1868, p. 456 (Veragua, Panama) ; 

 Salvin, Cat. Bds. Brit. Mus., XVI, 1892, p. 262; Ridgway, Bull. U. S. Nat. 

 Mus., V, 191 1, p. 312; Hellmayr, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 191 1, p. 1180; 

 Chapman, Bull. Am. Mus. N. H., XXXVI, 1917, p. 284 (San Jose; San 

 Antonio, western Colombia). 



Range: Costa Rica to western Colombia. 

 3: Panama i; and Costa Rica 2. 



Eutoxeres aquila heterura Gould. Gould's Sickle-bill. 



E[utoxeres] heterura Gould, Ann. & Mag. N. H., VI, 1868, p. 456, in text (Quito, 



Ecuador). 

 Eutoxeres heterura Elliot, Syn, Trochil., 1879, p. 3; Hartert and Hartert, 



Nov. Zool., I, 1894, p. 53. 

 Eutoxeres aquila heterura Ridgway, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, V, 191 1, p. 311, 



in key; Chapman, Bull. Am. Mus. N. H., XXXVI, 1917, p. 285 (Cocal, 



southwestern Colombia). 

 Eutoxeres baroni Hartert and Hartert, Nov. Zool., I, 1894, p. 54.' 



Range : Western Ecuador. 



Genus PAMPA REICHENBACH. 



Pampa Reichenbach, Aufz. der Colib., 1854, p. 11 (Type P. campyloptera Reich. 

 = Ornistnya pampa Lesson). 



*Pampa pampa pampa (Lesson). Wedge-tailed Sabre-wing. 



Ornisnya pampa Lesson, Hist. Nat. Colibr., Suppl. Ois. Mouch., 1830-31, 



p. 127, pi. 15 ("Paraguay"; error = Guatemala) . 

 Sphenoproctus pampa (not of Cabanis and Heine, i860) Salvin, Cat. Bds. Brit. 



Mus., XVI, 1892, p. 286. 

 Pampa lessoni Simon, Cat. Trochil., 1897, p. 8 (Guatemala). 

 Pampa pampa pampa Ridgway, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 50, V, 191 1, p. 354. 



Range: Guatemala to Yucatan. 



2: Guatemala i; and "Central America" i. 



*Pampa pampa curvipennis (Licht.). Curve- winged Sabre- wing. 



Trochilus curvipennis Lichtenstein, Preis-Verz. Mex. Vog., 1830, I, No. 32; 



Id., Joum. Omith., 1863, p. 55 (Mexico). 

 Spenoproctus curvipennis Salvin, Cat. Bds. Brit. Mus., XVI, 1892, p. 287, 



part. 



» Eutoxeres baroni Hartert & Hartert: The preponderance of opinion seems to 

 be that this questionable species is not separable from E. a. heterura {of. Salvadori & 

 Festa, Boll. Mus. Torino, XV, 1900, p. 2 and Hellmayr, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1911, 

 pp. 1180-1181, in text); Ridgway (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 50, V, 1911, p. 312, in 

 key) and Oberholser (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XXIV, 1902, p. 314) recognizes it as a 

 distinct species. Chapman does not consider it as worthy of even subspecific value 

 (c/. Bull. Am. Mus. N. H., XXXVI, 1917, p. 285). 



