HI 1.1. hi IN Ml Ml \1 I >] . OMPAI M n i eq6u kii 



EtBMARU \ < -r\ likely the rufotlfl appeaiain.- of the <>1<1 Bahia 

 skin- l- in part due t<» tin- age of the spccinicn-, 1ml \s»- <lo not think 



it is wholly so. Three birds from Boi \ iata (Penard coll.), collected 

 by Schwanda in 1907, are of ■ deeper rufous shade, probably because 



they are much fresher. None has the olivaceous tone of the Guiana 

 specimens. Perhaps birds from eastern Brazil average slightly larger 

 than D. p. picas, as our measurements indicate, hut our series i> much 

 too small to substantiate this. 



5. Dendroplex picus picirostris (Lafresnaye). 



Dendrocolaptea picirostris Lafresnaye, Rev. zool., 1847, p. 70 (Colombia: Rio 

 Hacha). 



Cotype.— M. C. Z. 77,106, Lair. coll. 2,283. Cotype — Acad, 

 nat. sci. Philadelphia, 6,979. 



Subspecific CBARACTEB8. — Paler than Dendroplex picus picus Gmelin, 

 back more chestnut-rufous, less olivaceous; throat white, without any, or with 

 very little, dusky edges to the feathers; superciliary stripe fairly well marked; 

 bill stouter. 



Measurements. — Cotype. — Adult — wing, 104.0; tail, 80.0; tarsus, 

 22.0; culmen from base of forehead, 32.0. 



Adult (six specimens) — wing, 96.0-104.0 (100.3); tail, 80.0-85.0 

 (82.0); tarsus, 22.0-22.5 (22.1); culmen from base of forehead, 29.0- 

 32.0 (30.7). 



Range. — Central and western Venezuela, Colombia. 



Specimens examined. — Colombia: Rio Hacha, 3 ad., including 

 the type; near Santa Marta, 2 cf d 71 , 1 9 ; no locality, 1. Total, 7. 



Remarks.— Cherrie (Mus. Brooklyn inst. Sci. bull., 1916, 2, p. 268) 

 records specimens of both D. "picas and D. picirostris taken at Ciudad 

 Bolivar. He observes that on his previous expeditions he had not 

 met with picus until he reached Perico. 



D. picus and D. picirostris are two very different looking birds, and 

 intermediate forms are not known to exist. The occurrence of both 

 at Ciudad Bolivar seems to indicate that they are distinct species, 

 and they have been so considered for a long time. Chapman (Bull. 

 Amer. mus. nat. hist., 1917, 36, p. 422), however, treats picirostris as 

 a subspecies of picus. This view is in accordance with the principles 

 announced by him in his remarks on the treatment of subspecies 

 (Chapman, loc. cit., p. 175-179). He also met with picus in the 



