BIRDS OF WESTERN COLOMBIA. 1169 



[Ti'ing Museum. 2 f^d- Primavera, Cordillera occidental, 

 1904. Raap coll. No. 390.— Wing 79 ; tail 79 ; bill 20 mm.] 



Mr. Ridgway * has correctly pointed out the distinctness of 

 31. imniacidatus, from Bogota, and 31. i. herlepschi Ridgw., froni 

 Western Ecuador, though some of his conclusions prove to be 

 not well-founded. Fii-st of all, M. i. herlepschi does not occur 

 anywhere in Colombia, the specimens from Bogota mentioned by 

 Berlepsch & Taczanowski f, wdiich were kindly forwarded to me 

 by the Count, being clearly referable to true M. iinmaculatus. The 

 female fi-om Primavera, W. Colombia, is practically identical with 

 several Bogota skins in the Berlepsch Collection, In all these 

 females the lower parts (except the blackish upper throat) are 

 rufescent brown, mottled with dull smoky grey on the foreneck 

 and in the middle of the breast, while there is only a narrow 

 white stripe on the bend of the wing. 



Sixteen femnles from Western Ecuador (Chimbo, Paramba, 

 Lita, Gualea, Buliin, etc.) have a much larger, heavier bill, the 

 forehead is more scantily feathered, the bend of the wing shows 

 a large white patch, and the lower parts are much brighter 

 rufous brown. The chin as well as the sides of the head are 

 blackish, exactly as in M. immacnlatus from Colombia. Seventeen 

 adult males from Western Ecuador also differ from the Colombian 

 ones in their larger bill, more scantily feathered forehead, and 

 in having much more white on the shoulders. The general 

 plumage is sometimes, though not always, deeper black. 



M. immaculaUis zeledoni Ridgw. J, lately united to the Colom- 

 bian form by Mr. CaiTiker§, appears to me to be much more 

 closely allied to M. i. herlepschi. In fact, on comparing three 

 adult males and two females from Costa Rica (Cariblanco de 

 Sarapiqui) with the large series from Ecuador. I find the difierences 

 not very pronounced. All that can be said is that the northern 

 birds have the white shoulder-patch slightly smaller. The females 

 otherwise agree with those from Ecuador. More material from 

 Costa Rica may even show the two forms to be inseparable. 



128. Myrmelastes exsul maculifer Hellm. 



[Myrmeciza exsul Sclater, P. Z. S. 1858, p. 540 (1859. — Panama: 

 Delattre).] 



Myrmelastes exsul maculifer Hellmayr, Nov. Zool. xiii. p. 340 

 (1906.— Paramba, N. Ecuador). 



Myrmeciza exsul (nee Sclater) Cassin, Proc. Acad. N. Sci. Philad. 

 1860, p. 191, no. 98 (= J), 99 (= 2 ) (Turbo) ; Sclater & Salvin, 

 P. Z. S. 1879, p. 526 (Rio Neche, Antioquia). 



Myrmelastes cassini Ridgway, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash.xxi. p.l94 

 (1908.— Turbo, N. Colombia). 



* Proc. Biol. Soc. Wa,sli. xxii. 1909, p. 74. 

 t P. Z. S. 1883, p. 565. 



X Ilyrmeciza zeledoni Ridgway, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. xxii. p. 74 (1909. — 

 Guayabo, E. Costa Rica). 



§ Ann. Carnegie Mus. vi. 1910, pp. G18-9. 



