10 Mr. D. G. Elliot on some Trochilidse. 
these without any doubt whatever. The birds named were 
Polytmus (Campylopterus) cecilia, Mellisuga ( Panoplites) 
judith, Mellisuga ( Cynanthus ) salvadorii, and Mellisuga (Eri- 
ocnemis) ridolfii. The first of these I have not seen, as it 
is in the Museum of Turin; but on writing to Count Salva- 
dori, he assures me that it is only a female of Campylopterus 
lazulus; and I believe this identification to be perfectly cor¬ 
rect. The second is 
Mellisuga (Panoplites) judith. 
Mellisuga judith, Benv. Ann. del R. Mus. Elorent. 1865, 
p. 203, sp. 11. 
This bird proves to be the Panoplites flavescens, with which 
Signor Benvenuti had compared it; and I cannot perceive 
that the differences given by him were in any way of suffi¬ 
cient consequence to cause him to give the specimen a new 
name. It is a male, in adult plumage; and the name of M. 
judith must become a synonym of P. flavescens. 
The third was named 
Mellisuga (Cynanthus) salvadorii. 
Mellisuqa salvadorii , Benv. Ann. del B. Mus. Eloren. 1865, 
p. 204. 
The type of this so-called species is an adult female of Cy¬ 
nanthus cyanurus in the ordinary state of plumage, such as 
is commonly observed in all the specimens of this sex com¬ 
ing from Bogota. There is nothing to distinguish it as dis¬ 
tinct ; and the name given by Sig. Benvenuti must become a 
synonym. 
The last described is 
Mellisuga (Eriocnemis) ridoleii. 
Mellisuga ridolfii, Benv. Ann. del R. Mus. 1865, p. 205. 
This bird, on examination, proves also to be a female of a 
well-known species, Eriocnemis vestita, one of the commonest 
and best-known among Humming-birds. The name ridolfii 
must sink into a synonym. 
It is a pity that before naming these birds as distinct. 
Signor Benvenuti had not followed the advice given to him 
by M. Salle in the letter published in his article, and sent 
