218 Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 



Family CAPRIMULGID^. Goatsuckers. 



154. Chordeiles acutipennis acutipennis (Hermann). 



Two specimens: Rio Hacha. 



A' species which has a wide distribution in tropical South America, 

 and has been taken twice in our region, a single example having been 

 secured by Mr. F. M. Gaige, of the University of Michigan Expedi- 

 tion, at Cienaga on August 22, 1913, and two young birds by the 

 writer at Rio Hacha on July 16, 1920. 



155- Nyctidromus albicollis gilvus Bangs. 



Nyctidromus albicollis (not Caprimulgus albicollis Gmelin) Salvin and GoD- 

 MAN, Ibis, 1880, 174 (Arihueca; habits). — Hartert, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., 

 XVI, 1892, 587 (Arihueca). — Bangs, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, XII, 

 i8g8, 135 ("Santa Marta ").— Allen, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., XIII, 

 1900, 137 (Santa Marta and Bonda). 



Nyctidromus albicollis gilvus Bangs, Proc. New England Z06I.. Club, III, 

 1902, 82 ("Santa Marta"; orig. descr. ; type now in coll. Mus. Comp. Z06I. ;' 

 crit.).- — ^Dubois, Syn. Avium, II, 1903, 1065 (ref. orig. descr.). — Allen, 

 Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXI, 1905, 277 (ref. orig. descr.; syn.), 281 

 (Bonda and Don Diego; descr. nest and eggs). — Chapman, Bull. Am. Mus. 

 Nat. Hist., XXXVI, 1917, 274, in text ("Santa Marta"; crit.). — Cory, 

 Field Mus. Z06I. Series, XIII, 1918, 127 (ref. orig. descr.; range). 



Nyctidromus gilvus Brabourne and Chubb, Birds S. Am., I, 1912, 100 (ref. 

 orig. descr. ; range) . 



Nyctidromus albicollis albicollis Ridgway, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, VI, 

 I9i4> 537 (Santa Marta [region]; meas. ; references). 



Twenty-five specimens : Bonda, Buritaca, Agua Dulce, Fundacion, 

 Don Diego, Mamatoco, and Dibulla. 



For a long time we were not disposed to accord recognition to- this 

 race, believing that it was not different from true albicollis, but the 

 receipt of a magnificent series of thirty-five specimens of the latter 

 from the type-locality (French Guiana) has necessitated a revision of 

 former conclusions. We now find that the separation of the Santa 

 Marta bird can be maintained on the general grounds indicated by Mr. 

 Bangs. It is true that there is very little if any difference between the 

 two forms in the color of the' upper parts in either phase of plumage, 

 but the lower surface appears lighter colored, more buffy, less rufes- 

 cent, and the barring is narrower, and obsolescent posteriorly. The 

 differences (as in many other species of this family) are difficult to 

 express exactly, but are sufficiently obvious upon actual comparison of 



