\c>D&c < U 
W. B. 2 . 
Another case of reversal of the Cambridge decision is that of 
Dryobates pubeso ens. Pube scens was based by Linnaeus on Brisson and 
Catesby. Brisson states that his bird came from Virginia, while 
Catesby's bird was of course from some point south of Virginia. It 
is obvious, therefore, that the type of pubesoens could not be fixed 
on the bird from Alaska, and that Swainson had no right to restrict 
it as he did to the northern bird. Oberholser, in revising the east¬ 
ern members of the pube s oens group, accepted Brisson's type locali¬ 
ty (Virginia) in order to obviate a change in the current usage of 
the name. His only alternative course would have been to accept 
Catesby's bird as the type, and fix the name pubesoe ns to the south¬ 
ern form, which would be most unfortunate. The Committee has ap¬ 
proved Oberholser's course, thus reversing the decision made in Cam¬ 
bridge, which seems to have rested on an imperfect understanding of 
the facts. The action taken today was unanimous. 
Tiie matter of Molanerpes fo rmicivorus also has been settled 
in what seems to be a final and satisfactory way. The type of for ¬ 
m ic ivorus came from a place called Tnmascaltepec, on the south slope 
of the volcano of Toluca, in the state of Mexico. Fortunately, Nelson 
has sent us a good series of birds from this region. They prove to 
be/as I said in Cambridge T thought they would be)f the same as the 
bird now called A*, m 1e i m by Ridgway. Ridgwav admitted this at once 
on seeing the specimens. This makes it necessary to call the south- 
