1915.] Chapman, New Colombian Birds. 653 
Char. subsp.— Distinguished from P. u. geospizopsis (Bonap.) by its smaller size 
(at least in the male) and by its grayish, instead of buffy olive auricular region; 
distinguished from P. u. grandis by its smaller size. 
ftange.— Alpine Zone of the Santa Marta group and Andes of Merida, Venezuela. 
Remarks.— Through the kindness of Mr. Bangs I have before me the 
type and eight topotypes of this race. All were taken in October and 
November. ‘The latter, therefore, are in more worn and consequently not 
comparable plumage, though it does not seem probable that the olive-buff 
ear and throat color of geospizopsis can be due to wear. 
“ Haplospiza montosus”’ of Riley is based on August specimens in worn 
plumage in which the streaks of the underparts are strongly emphasized. 
A June female from near the type locality of montosus is in comparatively 
fresh plumage and does not differ essentially from the Santa Marta birds 
which indeed can be nearly matched by an August topotype of montosus 
in our collection. 
So far as color is concernéd, therefore, I am convinced that there is no 
more differences between Santa Marta and Merida birds than there is be- 
tween Santa Marta and Santa Isabel birds. The Bogota bird seems to 
stand alone with its olive-buff suffusion on the ear coverts and throat. 
As for size, while there appears to be no constant difference between males 
from Santa Marta and Merida, some Merida females have the wing and tail 
decidedly shorter than in Santa Marta birds. The three Merida birds show- 
ing this difference are, however, all August specimens in worn plumage and 
their apparent small size is, in a measure at least, due to their worn condition. 
The table of measurements of all females is rendered somewhat unre- 
liable by evident inaccuracy in sexing. The male appears to wear the 
plumage of the female until at least its first breeding season and during this 
period can be distinguished externally from the female by size alone. ‘This 
fact should be taken into consideration in connection with the apparent 
discrepancy shown by certain measurements of supposed females. 
Specimens examined.— Colombia: Paramo de Chiruqua, Santa Marta, 
5 9 ads.; 3c ads.,1 im. Venezuela: 3 J ads.; 5 9 ads. 
The Limits of the Genus Phrygilus— The reference by previous authors 
of certain forms of Phrygilus wnicolor to Haplospiza may be considered to 
express their belief that this species is not properly referable to the genus 
Phrygilus, of which P. gayi is the type. With this opinion I agree, but it 
seems equally obvious that unicolor is not referable to Haplospiza, trom which 
it differs in its less acutely pointed bill and more pointed wing; the outer 
primary being longer instead of shorter than the sixth (from without). 
Doubtless we shall eventually refer it to Geospizopsis Bonap., of which the 
bird I have here called Phrygilus unicolor geospizopsis is the type. I am not 
