310 Annals of the Carnegie Museum. 



eggs are plainly visible through the walls and bottom of the nest. 

 They have an outside diameter of about 3 to 3J^ inches, and a depth 

 (inside) of about 2 inches. 



" The [two] eggs are grayish white, thickly sprinkled with dots 

 and small spots of lilac, with a few specks and blotches of very dark 

 chocolate intermingled, the markings about the larger end almost 

 wholly covering the surface. Measurements, 19X^3 (average of 

 four eggs)." 



261. Myrmopagis schisticolor sanctas-martae (Allen). 



Myrmotherula sanctce-marta Allen, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., XIII, 1900, 

 121, 160 (Valparaiso [type-locality], etc.; orig. descr. ; type in coll. Am. 

 Mus. Nat. Hist.). — Sharpe, Hand-List Birds, III, 1901, 23 (ref. orig. 

 descr.; range). — Dubois, Syn. Avium, II, 1903, 1070 ("Santa Marta," in 

 range; ref. orig. descr.). — Braboukne and Chubb, Birds S. Am., I, 1912, 198 

 (ref. orig. descr.; range). 



Hylophilus brunneus ( !) Allen, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., XIII, 1900, 121, 

 171 (Las Nubes [type-locality] and Valparaiso; orig. descr.; type in coH. 

 Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.). — Dubois, Syn. Avium, II, 1903, 1102. ("Santa 

 Marta," in range; ref. orig. descr.). 



Pachysilvia brunnea Sharpe, Hand-List Birds, IV, 1903, 255 (ref. orig. descr.; 

 range) . 



Myrmopagis schisticolor (not Formicivora schisticolor Lawrence) Ridgway, 

 Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, V, 191 1, 70 (Valparaiso, in range). 



Myrmotherula schisticolor sancta-marta Hellmayr, Proc. Z06I. Soc. Lon- 

 don, 1911, 1163, in text (Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta; range; crit.). — 

 Hellmayr and von Seilern, Arch. f. Naturg., LXXVIII, 1912, 124 (ref. 

 orig. descr.; range; crit.). — Hellmayr, Nov. Z06I., XX, 1913, 235 (Las 

 Nubes; crit.; syn.). 



Myrmopagis schisticolor sanctiB-marta Chapman, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 

 XXXIII, 1914, 615, in text (Santa Marta [region]; range; crit.; syn.). 



Nine specimens : Valparaiso and Cincinnati. 



In describing the male of this form Dr. Allen compared it with M. 

 longipennis, but it turns out to be conspecific with M. schisticolor 

 (Lawrence), a species which was long confused with M. menetriesu 

 (D'Orbigny). The female he described independently as Hylophilus 

 brunneus, and while this error of identification was known to the 

 writer and others for some time before, it was not actually corrected 

 in print until 1913, when Mr. Hellmayr published a note on the sub- 

 ject. As pointed out by this author in 191 1, the present is a strongly 

 marked form, the male differing conspicuously from that of true 



