Museums of the United States. 313 
sought more light. The following are a few of the notes I 
made:— 
The identification of Mr. Gould*s Troglodytes leucogastra 
by Prof. Baird in his f Review of American Birds/ and adopted 
in the present work (i. p. 141), has been recently reconsidered 
by us (Nomencl. p. 7, et App. p. 155), and a new genus pro¬ 
posed for the species, which is also identified with Mr. Sclater*s 
Cyphorhinus pusillus . The bird is quite remotely allied to 
the T. bewickii group, and comes nearer Troglodytes . 
In a note appended to the synopsis of the genus Contopus 
(ii. p. 352), Mr. Ridgway expresses his belief that the species 
described by Mr. Sclater and myself as C. ochraceus (P. Z. S. 
1869, p. 419) from Costa Rica “ seems to be scarcely different 
from C. lugubris ,** and that “ it is probably the same.** I can 
only trace a reason for this statement in the fact that, in 
a note appended to our description, we mentioned that we did 
not know the bird described by Mr. Lawrence as C. lugubris , 
but that, judging from the description, it could hardly be in¬ 
tended for the bird we were characterizing. I have now seen 
and possess C. lugubris , and can state that Mr. Ridgway*s sug¬ 
gestion is altogether wide of the mark, and that our name and 
description were quite sufficient to have saved him from pro¬ 
nouncing so hasty a judgment upon a bird he had never seen. 
In coloration C. ochraceus is not unlike Empidonaoc flavescens 
of Lawrence. I have not yet met with a second example. 
Pyrocephalus obscurus (ii. p. 387) (by a misprint, E. obscu- 
rus) is only a melanism of the common species, P. rubineus , 
or one of its races. These dark varieties occur in various 
localities. Besides Peruvian examples I have seen others, 
including one from Mexico. (Cf. Sclater, P. Z. S. 1864, 
p. 176; also Scl. & Salv. P. Z. S. 1868, p. 175.) 
In treating of the genus Chcetura (ii. p. 431), C. poliura, 
Temminck, is placed as a “ variety ** of C. pelagica. I have 
sought in vain for any grounds to warrant such an arrange¬ 
ment. In this and in the case of Panyptila cayennensis 
(p. 424), have not our authors, in their anxiety to introduce 
their novel nomenclature, far outstepped the limits of varia¬ 
tion indicated by the specimens at their command ? 
