ies ie i, Weds shine oil Se ~ hor nang | oN ¥y Vu uuu awe viii Oud Manet “vivegtiay™ y : Wve yoy w' Wwwauy’ eee’ ie 6 ste F vouyie' -- Od ee i a LTS? JV% pb 8 ad ay wih! ¥ AL , “ Adhd We Ad Thad sil tie w) ete 44 a) moky Peau’ A? aa New SPECIES AND SupsPE- cies oF NorRTH AMERICAN Birps. By Jj. A. Allen . : GENERAL NOTES. The Black Tern (Hydrochelidon nigra surinamensis) in New York Harbor, 351; Capture of the Brown Pelican in Wyoming, 351; The Little Blue Heron (Ardea cerulea) in Connecticut, 351; The Green Heron Breeding in Ontario, 351; White-tailed Hawk in Arizona, 352; A Phenomenal Flight of Hawks, 352; A Musi- cal Woodpecker, 353; Note on the name Drymophila, 353; New Song of the Baltimore Oriole, 354; Song of the White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), 355; Ammodramus henslowtt —a Correction, 356; Leconte’s Sparrow (Ammodramus lecontett) in Kentucky, 356; Nesting of Nelson’s Sparrow (Ammodramus nelsont) in North Dakota, 356; Hirondelles de Guanajuato, Mex- ico, 357; Very Early Record of the Cliff Swallow, 359; Philadel- phia Vireo in West Virginia, 359; A Note on Kirtland’s Warbler (Dendroica kirtland?), 359; The Hooded Warbler at Montville, Conn., 360; Odd Nesting of Maryland Yellow-throat, 360; vil 395 308 313 318 323 325 330 338 Viil Contents of Volume XVI. Puerto Rico Honey Creeper, 361; Notes on Marian’s Marsh Wren, Cistothorus mariane, and Worthington’s Marsh Wren, Cistothorus palustris griseus, 361; Birds Feeding on Hairy Caterpillars, 362. RECENT LITERATURE. Pycraft on the Osteology of the Impennes, 363; Montgomery on the Food of Owls, 363; Lantz’s Review of Kansas Ornithology, 364; The Goss Collection of Mexican and Central American Birds, 365: Cory’s ‘ The Birds of Eastern North America, Water Birds, Part I,’ 366; Knobel’s ‘ Field Key to the Land Birds,’ 367; Mrs. Miller’s ‘The First Book of Birds,’ 368; Stone on Birds from Bogota, 369; Chapman on New Birds from Venezuela, 369; Oberholser on Untenable Names in Ornithology, 370; Farring- ton on a Fossil Egg from South Dakota, 370; Gurney and Gill on the Age to which Birds Live, 370; Kellogg and others on Mallophaga, 372; Huntington’s ‘In Brush, Sedge, and Stubble,’ 372; Publications Received, 373. CORRESPONDENCE. The Proper Function of ‘ Binomials’ and ‘ Trinomials,’ 374. NOTES AND NEWS. Seventeenth Annual Congress of the A. O. U.,. 3773 Obituary, Major Joshua L. Fowler, 377: John Cordeaux, 378; Ornithologi- cal Publications, 379; The Harriman Expedition, 380; Meeting of Hungarian and Austrian Ornithologists, 381; Third Interna- tional Ornithological Congress, 381; Erratum, 382. THE AUK, VOL. XVI. PLATE I. i i e | f LOUISIANA SEASIDE SPARROW. AMMODRAMUS MARITIMUS FISHERI CHAPM. TEXAS SEASIDE SPARROW. AMMODRAMUS SENNETTI ALLEN, 34 NATURAL SIZE. THE: AMR AOU ART ER YnpOwEeN A L, .OF ORNITHOLOGY VOI. XVI. JANUARY, 1899. NG t: THE DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIONSHIPS OF A’Z10- DRAMUS MARITIMUS AND ITS ALLIES. BY FRANK M. CHAPMAN. Pirate I. A FIELD experience with four of our five recognized Seaside Sparrows has been the means of calling my attention to certain apparent anomalies in their distribution and relationships which in the following pages I have attempted to make clear. The material at my command while not wholly satisfactory, is nevertheless, I trust, sufficient to warrant a provisional explana- tion of the facts it presents. It numbers some 160 specimens, including series loaned me by Mr. Robert Ridgway from the col- lections under his charge, by Mr. William Brewster and Dr. A. K. Fisher, and also the examples in the American Museum of Nat- ural History. The specimens loaned me by the gentlemen named constitute so important a part of the material studied that I feel under more than usual obligation to them. From Mr. Ridgway I have received a series of May birds col- lected by Mr. E. A. MclIlhenny on the coast of Louisiana, and of breeding birds collected by Lieut. Wirt Robinson near St. Augus- tine, Florida; Mr. Brewster sends specimens from the west coast of Florida, breeding birds collected by himself at St. Mary’s, Georgia, and a most puzzling series from the vicinity of Charles- Auk 2, CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. Waa ton, South Carolina, while Dr. Fisher forwards breeding birds and young in first plumage from Grand Isle, Louisiana. The questions involved in a study of these birds may be best presented by a brief consideration of our recorded knowl- edge of the distribution and relationships of the five described forms, namely: Ammodramus maritimus, A. m. peninsula, A. m. sennetti, A. m. macgillivrait, and A. nigrescens, Of these five forms, which are here given under their current names, the status of 4. nigrescens and A. m. sennetti is apparently clear and these two birds may be considered before taking up the perplexing questions presented by the remaining three forms. Ammodramus nigrescens (/7dgw.). Ammodramus maritimus var. nigrescens RipGw. Bull. Essex Inst. V, 1873, 198; B. B. & R. N. A. Birds, III, 1875, App. 513 (descr. only) ibid. I, pl. facing p. 560. Ammodramus melanoleucus MAYNARD, Am. Sportsman, V, 1875, 248; Birds of E. N. A. 1881, 119, pl. V (descr., habits, dist.) Ammodramus nigrescens RipGw. Proc. U.S, Nat. Mus. III, 1880, 178; CHapman, Auk, XV, 1898, 270 (habits). This strongly marked species was discovered by Mr. C. J. Maynard at Salt Lake, near Titusville, Florida, in March, ae Only a single specimen was secured at this locality, but he after- wards found it to be ‘quite common” on the marshes bordering the east shore of the Indian River, opposite Titusville, as recorded in the ‘American Sportsman’ and ‘ Birds of Eastern North America.’ The information contained in these publications con- stituted all our published knowledge of the life history and dis- tribution of this species until the appearance of my note on its abundance in the marshes about the mouth of Dummitt’s Creek (Auk, |. c.), but Mr. Maynard has furnished me with the follow- ing valuable data in regard to its distribution, which, with his kind permission, I print in full: “The Black and White Shore Finch, of which I have, so far as I know, taken all of the speci- mens in collections, excepting two, that were shot by a friend who was with me in Florida, but who took the two in question after I left, occurs rarely about Salt Lake, Upper St. Johns, Florida, commonly on the northern end of Merritt’s Island, on the marshy Vol. XVI hos CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. z islands of Banana River, on the marshes north of this lagoon, west to the Indian River, north along this body of water to the Haulover Canal. It never occurs out of the marsh grass or low water bush. Thus the bird is confined to a belt of country not over a quarter of a mile wide and about ten miles long, if fol- lowed through its extent.” ‘ When one considers the abundance of this Sparrow and that the region it inhabits is in no sense insolated, but that both to the north and south of the area outlined above there are marshes appar- ently similar to those it occupies, its restriction to a habitat only a few square miles in extent makes its distribution unique among American birds. In color it is the most strongly characterized form of the group, the black which prevails on the upper parts and so heavily streaks almost the entire under parts, not being equalled in intensity or extent in any of its congeners. Seventeen speci- mens taken in March, 1898, at the mouth of Dummitt’s Creek, are in comparatively unworn plumage and present little variation in color. Their average measurements are: wing, 2.60: tail 2.043 bill from nostril, .43 inches. The nearest point at which another representative of this group has been secured is Matanzas Inlet, Florida. Ammodramus sennetti (4//en). Ammodramus maritimus sennetti ALLEN, Auk, V, 1888, 286 (orig. descr.); CHAPMAN, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. III, 1891, 323 (habits) Ruoaps, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1892, 109. . > As the second most distinct form in thé group and the only one, except 4. nigrescens, which apparently does not intergrade with its allies, we may next treat of the Seaside Finch resident at Corpus Christi, Texas. In April, 1891, I found the bird abundant and breeding in the marshes of Nueces Bay. A series of thirteen specimens shows that it more nearly resembles true maritimus than it does any other member of the group. It is, however, quite distinct from that form, being distinguished chiefly by its greener color and the black centers to the feathers of the upper parts. To the form geographically nearest to it, the dark Seaside Sparrow Auk 4 CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. Fei, breeding on the coast of Louisiana, the Corpus Christi bird is less closely related than to any other form of the group, except A. nigrescens. There is no evidence whatever of its intergradation with any of its congeners and consequently no reason for deny- ing it specific rank. Ammodramus maritimus et subsp. Having disposed of the two forms whose status is clearest we may now approach those whose relationships and distribution present certain apparent anomalies. Before discussing the questions involved ina study of these birds it will be well to first give briefly our recorded information concerning their distribution and the accepted views in regard to their relation- ships. Ammodramus maritimus (W7s.). In the second edition of the A. O. U. ‘ Check-List’ the range of this species is given as “Salt marshes of the Atlantic Coast, from Connecticut southward to Georgia. Accidental in Massa- chusetts.” Recent records show the bird to be a regular summer resident in Rhode Island and as far east as Westport, Mass., just beyond the Rhode Island State line.!| The locality ‘‘ Geor- gia,” given in the ‘ Check-List,’ is evidently based on Mr. William Brewster’s identification of the series of twelve dveeding birds taken by himself, in some instances with nests and eggs, at St. Mary’s, Georgia.” In the second edition of his ‘ Manual,’ Appendix, page 602, Mr. Ridgway gives the range of marvitimus as “ Massachusetts to northern Florida,” the latter locality being doubtless based on Lieut. Robinson’s breeding birds from St. Augustine and Matan- zas Inlet, which I have previously mentioned as included in the series loaned me by Mr. Ridgway. 1See Howe, Auk XIV, 1897, 219; Sturtevant, zbid. 322; Farley, zbzd. 322. 2 Auk, XII, 1890; 212. « Vol. XVI ! aos CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. 5 Ammodramus maritimus peninsule 4//en. This race was described by Dr. J. A. Allen from specimens col- lected by W. E. D. Scott at Tarpon Springs, on the west coast of Florida, in February, 1888.1 With the Florida birds Dr. Allen identified a series of ten adult and six immature birds collected by Dr. A. K. Fisher at Grand Isle, Louisiana, in June, 1886. Shortly afterward Dr. Allen recorded a specimen of peninsule, in the collection of G. S. Miller, Jr., which had been collected on Sapelo Island, off the coast of Georgia, Dec. 14, 1887." Mr. Brewster also referred to feninsuie two specimens taken on this same island in December, 1887, and Dr. Allen identified with the same form a specimen from near Charleston, S. C.8 Mr. W. E. D. Scott records peninsu/e as a very common winter resident near Tarpon Springs,‘ the type locality, where, however, it does not breed. In fact the breeding grounds of this Sparrow on the Gulf coast appear to be as yet unknown. Mr. C. i Maynard? states that he found Seaside Sparrows, doubtless this form, about to breed at Cedar Keys, Florida, in February. The date is surprisingly early but it is quite probable that peninsule may breed in the marshes at Cedar Keys. Ammodramus maritimus macgillivraii Ridew. (not of Audubon). March 25, 1891, I collected at Corpus Christi, Texas, two specimens of a dark Seaside Sparrow which were provisionally referred to feninsuie, with the statement that they were darker than that form and had gray instead of olivaceous edgings to the feathers.° They were evidently winter visitants and their breed- ing ground remained unknown until Mr. E. A. MclIlhenny col- lected a large series of breeding birds on and near Avery’s Island, 1 Auk,V, 1888, 284. ? Tbid., V, 1888, 426. 3 Tbid., VII, 1890, 212. 4 Auk, VI, 1889, 322. a Birds baN. A.) T20. 6 Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., III, 1891, 324. x 5 arse) Auk 6 CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. ol Louisiana. Then it appeared that the birds collected by Dr. Fisher at Grand Isle were also referable to this form. These birds, with the Corpus Christi specimens just mentioned, were considered by Mr. Ridgway" to represent Fringilla macgillivrai ’ described by Audubon? from Charleston, South Carolina, and said later by the same writer to also occur on the coast of Louisi- ana and Texas.?. This name had previously been synonymized with that of Ammodramus maritimus under the belief that it was based on a specimen of that bird in first plumage. The following year Dr. Walter Faxon called attention to the fact? that Audubon’s description of macgillivraw having been based on specimens from Charleston, South Carolina, a locality in which pexinsule was known to occur, the name macgi/livrait was obviously applicable to the bird known as feninsule and not to the quite different bird of Louisiana. In attempting now to explain the peculiar conditions which this brief summary of current views has set forth, one is at once confronted with the difficulty which has beset all students of these birds, that is, the unusually worn plumage of breeding birds. So greatly does this abrasion affect a bird’s appearance that almost the entire range of color variation between mariti- mus and the Louisiana bird, respectively the lightest and darkest members of this restricted group, is shown in Dr. Fisher’s series of breeding birds from Grand Isle. Specimens in worn plumage, therefore, must be examined with great care and identified only after the closest comparison. Hence in order to clearly grasp the characters separating these three forms it will be necessary to use non-breeding examples. Thus I have selected a series of fall and early spring® birds from Long Island, N. Y., Tarpon 1 Manual N. A. Birds, 2nd Ed., 1896, App. 602. Ber Hiog, 11/1844, 285.1 a 3 Tbid., VV, 1838, 394. 4 Auk, XIV, 1897, 321. 5It is remarkable, in view of the rapid and extreme abrasion of the plumage of breeding birds, how little the plumage shows the effects of wear and tear during the winter. There is practically no difference between the plumage of:September specimens and those taken early in the following spring. ita CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. | Springs, Florida,— the type locality of penimsule,—and Texas. From the last named State I have only three specimens repre- senting the dark, west Gulf coast form, but the characters they present are shown, by comparison with Mr. MclIlhenny’s series of breeding birds from and near Avery’s Island, La., to be typical. From a careful study of this material it appears that in fresh and unworn plumage the three forms are to be distin- guished from one another chiefly by the characters set forth in the appended tabular synopsis. Here it may be briefly said that maritimus is greenish olive margined with bluish gray above, with the breast and flanks streaked with bluish gray and mar- gined with buff. In feninsule the upper parts are dull black margined with greenish olive, the breast and flanks being streaked with dusky black margined with buff or bluish gray, while the dark west Gulf coast form has the upper parts deep black bor- dered by mummy brown and margined with bluish gray, the breast and flanks being distinctly streaked with black and heavily margined with pale ochraceous. Bearing these differences in mind we may approach the puzzling series of non-breeding birds from South Carolina and Georgia. It contains thirty-one adults and two immature (first plumage) specimens. Fifteen of the adults are perfectly typical, in color, of Long Island maritimus. Only one has the wing under 2.40 in., their average measurements being: wing, 2.46; tail, 2.18; bill from nostril, 45 in. ‘They thus ciosely approach Long Isiand birds in size (see table of measurements beyond), evidence that they were winter residents from the north. Of the remaining sixteen adults ten are intermediate between maritimus and peninsule, most of them approaching the latter much more closely than the former. Their average measure- ments are: wing, 2.40; tail, 2.153; bill from nostril, 45. Nine of these birds are in Mr. Brewster’s collection, seven of them being labeled by him “ peninsule.” I believe these birds to be resident, raciai representatives of maritimus, marking a stage in the geographical variation in this species, which, on the west coast of Florida, appears as peninsule. A specimen, evidently breeding, collected by Dr. Coues at Fort Macon, N. C., April 15, 1869 (U. S. N. M. No. 55523) is appre- 8 CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. or ciably darker than comparable Long Island birds and apparently indicates an approach to the feninsule type, as it is represented on the Atlantic coast by birds similar to the ten specimens first mentioned. To this intermediate, South Atlantic form of mavriti- mus I refer with some confidence Brewster’s breeding birds from St. Mary’s, Georgia, and Robinson’s breeding birds from the vicinity of St. Augustine and Matanzas Inlet, Florida. These birds, I am aware, have been referred to true maritimus and their plumage is in such worn condition that it is true they closely resemble, at first sight, Long Island specimens of that species. Carefully compared, however, with equally worn Long Island birds, they are grayer and more streaked below, while the lateral stripes of the crown, areas which seem least to show abrasion, are darker than in maritimus, being raw-umber as in feninsule, agreeing in fact, considering their abrasion, very closely in the color of this region with the ten specimens which I have spoken of as inter- mediate between maritimus and peninsule. Accepting this identification, what shall we call this dark representative of Ammodramus maritimus which apparently is a permanent resident on the Atlantic coast from at least St. Augus- tine to Charleston? Individually they have for the most part been identified as penznsude, and while they have longer bills and are less green above and less heavily streaked below than true peninsule, they are so much nearer to this form than to maritimus, that I should prefer to refer them to the former rather than to the latter, or rather than to accept the alternative of giving them a name of their own. This leaves us with six specimens of the South Carolina and Georgia series which can be referred to neither maritimus nor peninsula. Three of these birds are in the collection of the United States National Museum (Nos. 159387, 2, Oct. 24, 1893 ; No. 159388, 2, Oct. 27, 98935 Won 150657; 0), Oct...23, ago, all taken at Mount Pleasant, So. Car.), and three are in Mr. Brewster’s collection (No. 19047, 2, Dec. 3, 1887, Sapelo Is., Ga No.°45753, dj. Nov. 27; 1894 and) Non 47656, 7, Apriln7, 1897, Mount Pleasant, So. Car.). In the coloration of the upper parts they resemble the dark, west Gulf coast bird, but the black of the feathers of the upper parts is margined with olive Vol. XVI oR CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. 9 instead of mummy brown, the nape is more olive, and, with the exception of No. 159388, the breast and flanks are much less strongly streaked and less heavily washed with buffy ochraceous, the coloration of these parts agreeing with that of peninsule. Apparently these two forms of Seaside Sparrow, represented by my series of ten and six birds respectively, are found breeding in the same area, a fact which is evidently proven by two birds in first or nestling plumage. One of these (U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 159389, ¢) was taken by Mr. A. T. Wayne at Mount Pleas- ant, So. Car., Aug. 10, 1893, and is obviously the offspring of a very dark Seaside Sparrow, being much blacker than any of a dozen New York examples in similar plumage, and in fact agree- ing very well with six young birds collected by Dr. A. K. Fisher on Grand Isle, La., June 6-9, 1896. .This is evidently the progeny of the dark bird just described. The other young bird (No. 12437, Coll. Wm. Brewster) was collected by Mr. Walter Hoxie, near Frogmore, So. Car., Aug. 10, 1886. It is much lighter than the Mount Pleasant specimen, with which it agrees in age, and approaches young maritimus from New York, differing from it to just about the same extent and in much the same manner as do the peninsule—maritimus adults of this region from adult true maritimus. This bird is apparently the offspring of peninsule-maritimus parents. Hence the breeding of these birds and of the dark type in the same region is shown both by the presence of adults and_ their respective offspring. What their interrelationships may be, and whether they occupy different breeding areas, are questions which can be settled only by observation in the field. Speci- mens before me apparently show their intergradation but my material does not admit of satisfactory conclusions. However, admitting that we have two forms, we are now con- fronted by the question of nomenclature. What names shall we apply to them? The feninsule-maritimus specimens, as I have previously said, should, in my opinion, be identified with Aenn- sule rather than with maritimus, but what shall we call the black and gray birds? Unquestionably, it seems to me, they represent macgillivrait of Audubon, and while he also placed the Louisiana and Texas birds under this name, there can be no doubt that, as Auk IO CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. Fan. Dr. Faxon had shown, he figured and described specimens col- lected near Charleston by Dr. Bavhman. In support of this statement see Volume II, page 285 of the Ornithological Biog- - raphy, on which Audubon states that Bachman presented him with a dozen specimens of this Sparrow collected near Charleston, where J. W. Audubon made the drawing which was afterward published in the fourth volume of the ‘ Birds of America.’ No mention is made in Volume II of Texas and Louisiana, where the bird was evidently not discovered until several years later, being first recorded from these States in Volume IV, page 394, of the ‘Ornithological Biography,’ published in 1838, or four years after the description of ‘ A7ingilla macgillivrai’ from Charleston. The specimen upon which this description was probably based is now in the U. S. Nat. Mus. (No. 2894) but is without date or locality. It is a young bird in first plumage, of the same age as the specimen taken at Mt. Pleasant, S. C., Aug. 10, 1893, from which it differs no more than do immature specimens of maviti- mus from one another. If this view of the case be accepted it will permit us to give the Louisiana bird a name of its own, a course which the speci- mens involved seem to warrant. And I therefore propose to name it in honor of Dr. A. K. Fisher who, after Audubon, was the first ornithologist to secure specimens of the Louisiana bird. Hence we have Ammodramus maritimus fisheri, subsp. nov. Ammodramus macgillivraii Aup. (in part) Orn. Biog. IV, 1838, 394. Ammodramus maritimus macgillivrayt RipGw. Manual N. A. Birds, 2d Ed., 1896, App. 602. Ammodramus maritimus peninsule ALLEN (in part), Auk, V, 1888, 284. Ammodramus marittimus peninsule? CHAPM. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Fist. Ul, Leon 324. Char. Subsp.— Upper parts deep black, in fresh plumage the feathers bordered by mummy brown and margined with bluish gray, the breast and flanks streaked with black and more or less heavily washed by pale ochraceous. Type, No. 163,722, U. S. Nat. Mus. Collected by A. K. Fisher, M. D. Collector’s number No. 2622, @ ad., egg in oviduct, Grand Isle, Louisiana, June g, 1886. i Vol. XVI 1899 CHAPMAN, The Seaside Sparrows. II Range.— Coast of Gulf States, breeding from Grand Isle, La., west- ward, probably to northeastern Texas, southward in winter to Corpus Christi, Texas, and Tarpon Springs, Florida.! In the appended table a comparison of the diagnostic charac- ters of all the forms of the restricted marztimus group in fresh plumage is given. As before remarked, abrasion so alters a breeding bird’s appearance that in some cases badly worn speci- mens are practically unidentifiable. Of the 17 breeding birds collected by Dr. Fisher on Grand Isle and by Mr. MclIlhenny on and near Averys Island, all but four are-more or less suffused with pale ochraceous on the breast and flanks, the most diagnos- tic character presented by /sherz, and about half the series are still more or less distinctly streaked with black below. It is in unworn plumage, however, that the differential characters of these birds are most evident, and it is on specimens in this con- dition that the appended table comparing the four forms of the restricted maritimus group is based. TABLE OF DIAGNOSTIC CHARACTERS OF SEASIDE SPARROWS OF THE Ammodramus maritimus GROUP. Crown. Marttimus.— Sides olive with occasionally black shaft-streaks, median line well defined, bluish gray. Pentnsule.— Sides dull black, margined with raw umber, median line ill defined, bluish gray. Macgillivrai.— Sides deep black, margined with mummy brown, median line ill defined, bluish gray. Fishert.— Sides deep black, margined with mummy brown, median line ill defined, bluish gray.” Nahe. Maritimus.— Pale greenish olive. Pentnsule. — Greenish olive. Macgillivrait.— Tawny olive. Fishert.— Mummy brown. 1No. 43472, 9, Tarpon Springs, Nov. 2, 1891. Coll. Wm. Brewster, is clearly referable to fisher?. ?Ridgway’s ‘ Nomenclature of Colors’ is used throughout this paper. 2 WARREN, Zhe Canada Jay. re Back. Maritimus. — Olive, margined by bluish gray. Peninsule.— Dull black, margined by greenish olive. Macgillivraii.— Deep black, bordered by greenish olive and margined with bluish gray. Fisheri.— Deep black, bordered by mummy brown and margined by bluish gray. Breast. Maritimus.— Streaked with bluish gray, margined with buff. Peninsule.— Streaked with dusky, margined with buff or bluish gray.’ Macgillivrat.— Streaked with dusky, margined with buff. Fisheri. —Streaked with black, widely margined with pale ochraceous. Flanks. Maritimus.—Obscurely streaked with bluish gray and faintly washed with butt. Peninsule.— Streaked with dusky, margined with grayish or olive buff. Macgillivrati.—Streaked with dusky, margined with buff. Fisherii.— Streaked with black, widely margined with pale ochraceous. A verage measu rements. Wing. Tail. Bill from nostril. Maritimus : - : PS 2.25 46.5 in. Pentnsule - ; : 2.32 2.09 AD Wr Macgillivrad . ; é 2.36 2.18 NOs 3 Fisheri . 4 : : 2.29 Pt) AGO Gah Seba A CHAPTER IN THE LIFE OFFRHRE CANADA JAY. BY OSCAR BIRD WARREN, On THE 22d of February of this year (1898), while returning from a walk to a lumber camp near Mahoning, Mich., I dis- covered a pair of Canada Jays (ferisoreus canadensis) building a nest. 1 Eight of sixteen specimens have the breast more or less washed with buff.. Vol. XVI 1869 WARREN, Zhe Canada Jay. 13 Though on the lookout for the nest of the ‘ Meat Hawk’ ever since its acquaintance was first formed, never before had it by any sign or action revealed its nesting place to me. Many a long walk through almost impenetrable spruce swamps, flounder- ing in several feet of soft snow too light for snowshoeing, had been unrewarded. ‘These birds had often been abundant around the lumber camps and in company with the Blue Jay, were com- mon about the houses during the fall and winter months; but their breeding habits remained a secret. Therefore this dis- covery coming so unexpectedly after many fruitless searches was all the more joyfully received. I was walking down the Wright-Davis railroad through a spruce swamp at the time, and had come to a place known as the ‘ Sink,’ where a few years ago a large stretch of roadbed had suddenly -disappeared in the seemingly bottomless ‘Muskey’ swamp, and where the track is now laid on a mass of pine and tamarac logs, the only means of support; when my attention was attracted by a flock of noisy Chickadees chasing through the trees. Looking up, what should I see but a pair of Canada Jays pulling beard moss and spider nests from some dead trees and making short trips to a neighboring live spruce about 150 feet from the rail- road track, where they were evidently building a nest. Taking a short circuit I reached a position where I could watch their movements better without attracting attention. ‘They brought small sticks, beard moss, spider nests and strips of bark from the trees and sphagnum moss from about the base of the trees where not covered with snow, and deposited all of this in a bunch of branches at the end of a limb,—a peculiar reversed umbrella-shaped formation commonly seen in the small spruce trees, probably caused by some diseased condition of growth. The female arranged the material, pressing it into the proper -shape and weaving it about the small twigs to form a safe sup- port. Though the birds obtained the material so near, where it was abundant, yet they carefully picked up any which accidentally fell from the nest, and there were no signs of sticks or any frag- ments of nesting material at any time during the construction of -the nest. My first observation was short, owing to the cold weather. A Auk Jan. 14 WARREN, Zhe Canada /ay. sharp wind was blowing, accompanied by a light fall of snow, and the temperature was hovering near the zero mark. Return- ing in a few days, I found the birds still adding to their nest and working in a manner which meant business. From this time on my visits were as frequent as opportunity permitted. After the bulk of the nest was built the work went on more leisurely, very little being accomplished on stormy days. ‘The birds were away feeding at the lumber camps in the morning until about 10 o’clock and went back soon after 4 p.m. They also gathered grubs from the floating logs at the ‘Sink,’ and I have often seen them chasing a Woodpecker away from the trees. just when he had uncovered the worm he had worked so hard to dig out. ' The notes of the Canada Jay are varied and pleasing, and they are as hard to identify as those of his cousin, the Blue Jay. On pleasant days the male trilled from a spruce top a song of sweetly modulated notes wholly new to my ears. He always sang in sotto voce, and it required an acquaintance with the songster to realize that he, though so near, was the origin of those notes which seemed to come from somewhere up in the towering pines which surrounded this strip of swamp, so lost was the melody in the whispering, murmuring voices of the pines. By the 3d of March the nest was well formed and smoothly lined with fine grass and thin strips of bark. On the 12th it was completed, being’ beautifully and warmly lined with feathers picked up in the forest and representing several species of birds. Those of the Ruffed and Canada Grouse were in greatest evi- dence, a feather of the latter being stuck in the edge of the nest where it showed quite conspicuously. These birds had spent nearly a month building their nest, and as a result the finished abode was perfectly constructed. It was large and substantial and yet not bulky, being a model of neatness and symmetry. The bulk of the nest was composed of strips of bark, small sticks, an abundance of dry sphagnum moss, some beard moss and grass, the whole being fastened securely together by small bunches of spider nests and cocoons. The first lining was made of thin strips of bark and fine grass, and this received a heavy coating of feathers, making a nest so warm that a temperature far below sige eg WARREN, The Canada Jay. 15 the zero mark would have no effect on the eggs it was to receive, as long as the mother brooded over them. The small twigs grow- ing from the cluster of branches in which the nest was built gave it a rough appearance from below, but they served the purpose of secure supports and as a screen for concealment. As there were dozens of similar masses of limbs in the trees all about, a good observer might pass underneath this tree a score of times, and never see the nest, though but a few feet above his head. The four eggs were laid between the 14th and 18th inclusive, and incubation fairly started on the 19th. The measurements, carefully taken, were as follows: .83 1.18, 82 X1.16, .84X 1.16, and .83x1.17. They were placed with the small ends all point- ing in and made a pretty sight on a background of feathers of various colors. The eggs were very uniform in color, having a ground of greenish gray when fresh, the whole finely dotted and spotted with slate and brown with obscure blotches of light lav- ender. The bulk of the markings were grouped about the large end, forming a distinct circle of larger markings than on the balance of the egg, the lavender being more obscure and tending to run together. From the time the nest was first discovered plans were being formulated to obtain the most good from my rare fortune. When I climbed the slender swaying tree and looked at the completed set of beautiful eggs in the deep feather lined pouch whose edges nearly met striving to protect the treasures from the frigid weather and yet colder human avarice, I will confess the evil spirit possessed me for a moment and I longed to secure these gems for my hoard, yet better judgment soon dispelled these evil thoughts. Pity for the poor birds who had begun to trust me, and a desire to allow Nature to further reveal her hidden secrets to me, overcame the narrow cravings of the egg hunter and opened the way to experiences never to be told in any language I can hope to command. Were it not that my camera caught these pictures, the scenes would have remained undescribed. The circumference of the tree in which the nest was placed, 112 ft. from the base, a point just opposite the nest, was nine inches, and but four inches five feet above this point. Less than three feet from this tree was a dead spruce, slightly smaller, on 16 * WaRREN, Zhe Canada Jay. Sy which I nailed a few cleats to assist in climbing and as resting places while watching the birds feed their young. I fastened these trees together with heavy twine to give them mutual sup- port. Seven feet from the nesting tree was a larger spruce which I fitted up as an observatory and camera stand and from which all my successful exposures were made. The first picture (Fig. 1) was taken on the morning of March 25, after incubation had advanced at least six days, and the mother bird had begun to sit quite closely. The front of the camera was a little over five feet from the nest and I stood just be- hind the camera barely seven feet from the bird. It required the greatest amount of patience to secure this picture as the day, though fairly clear, was windy and cloudy at times. The bird seemed to leave the nest just when the light was most favorable, return- ing to warm the eggs, then away again for a moment, until I almost despaired of obtaining a good picture; but finally a short timed exposure was made under favorable conditions. Having a picture of the nest I next attempted to photograph the nest and eggs mm situ, but I was unable to, as I had no means of fastening my camera in so slender a tree in a position to secure a properly focused picture, without rigging up an elaborate stand, which would have attracted the attention of passersby and resulted in the destruction of the nest. In my efforts to secure this picture I had nearly demolished the beautiful canopy which protected the nest from above and which it was necessary to remove in order to get a clear view of the nest and contents. I had also caused the poor birds much discomfort. The female was always on the nest when I came but left as soon as I had climbed the tree, uttering a loud clear alarm note, which soon brought the male soaring from over the trees to her side. Never did either give voice to a harsh, scolding note, but showed their excitement by hopping restlessly about in the tree just out of reach, raising and lowering the feathers of the head, twitching their tails and uttering in low tones several notes, among which were some which could be expressed by the syllables koke, koke-ke-keer, keer, keer. Koke-ke-keer (uttered quickly) is a favorite cry of this bird, and when given loudly can be heard very plainly for over a quar- ter of a mile. ———————— hs o, i aesth YOUNG NEST. o ©) 4 Z q a Z q a 2 | g 4 4 O Te @ Jay CANADA |] DA JAY > oI IgiKes Fic. 1. CANADA JAY AND NEST Fic. 2. CANADA JAys FEEDING » YOUNG. Vol. XVI <9 WARREN, Zhe Canada Jay. | The mother bird often tried to enter the nest, but was unable to, as I kept the eggs warmly covered while trying to get my ‘camera into position. The expression of anxiety in her dark eyes will never be forgotten, nor could I longer endure the sight of discomfort I was giving these helpless creatures. Repairing what damage I had done as well as I was able, I gave up this part of my plans and waited with great eagerness for the appear- ance of the young birds. The last egg was hatched at 5 p.. April 4, and fortunately being on hand to assist in freeing the bird from the shell, I pocketed the two pieces and afterwards rudely fastened them together. Before descending, I noticed that there were but three young birds in the nest, the other hav- ing fallen from the nest, perhaps when the mother bird had hurriedly flown away. I found the naked youngster in the ice and snow at the foot of the tree; tenderly picking it up, it was replaced with its fellows and was alive and seemingly well on my visit two days later. The period of incubation had been between sevénteen and eighteen days. After the young were a few days old the camera was again brought into play and two negatives taken. These were made from a point further up in the tree and looking down into the nest, which gave it a flattened appearance. In the first picture the hardy young birds were dozing in the sunshine, while the mother bird watched my movements, half suspiciously, and finally left the nest after the exposure was made, returning from the opposite side, where she was joined by the male who had come with food for the nestlings. [I made a snap shot (Fig. 2) when the sun was slightly obscured by a cloud, as I wished to get the two birds feeding the young together, and chances were few. On the 1sth four more exposures were made, but at this time I had fastened the camera on a projecting support at a point a little higher than the nest and so close that the front was scarcely four feet from the birds. The results were much better on account of the in- ‘crease in size. ‘The weather at this time in the spring was so unfavorable that no more pictures could be taken; otherwise a few very interesting scenes could have been added. The food given to the young was always in a soft, partially digested state, and was placed deep in the mouths of the young 2 Auk Jan. ibe} WARREN, Zhe Canada Jay. by the old birds. I often watched them feeding the young when my eyes were not three feet from the birds, thus giving a chance for the closest possible observation (Fig. 3). I have held my hand on the side of the nest while the mother unconcernedly fed her babies, but I was never able to take as great liberties with the male. During the first few days after the nestlings were born, the male brought most of the food, the female remaining at the nest and, when the male returned, assisting in giving the food to the young by putting her bill into their mouths and forcing down any troublesome morsels. As the birds grew older the female took a more active part in carrying the food. I have timed them during the feeding hours and found that they came and went about every fifteen minutes with great regularity until the young were satisfied. When the male had discharged his burden he left immediately without waiting for the return of the female, but the mother always staid until the male had returned or was in sight. The male was never seen on the nest during the period of incu- bation, nor afterwards, and as his color is much darker than the female’s there was never any trouble in distinguishing between them, even at a distance. The female cleaned the nest often and very carefully, keeping it perfectly free from any filth. It seems this was done both for cleanliness and for the purpose of keeping the nest dry and warm. A picture was taken of this nest cleaning operation but was unfortunately light struck (Fig. 4). It shows the four young to good advantage as they were all-pushed up to the edge of the nest to allow the mother plenty of room for her work. ‘The male always picked up any droppings which were cast over the nest and had clung to the branches, carrying all away almost every time he left the nest. By this constant care no trace of the pres- ence of the nest was allowed at any time. It should also be added here that the young never made any noise excepting a weak chirp while with open mouths they waited their turn to be fed. : When the nestlings had their hunger appeased they took a nap, either seeking a covering under their mother’s wing or basking in the sunshine. The mother finally became so accus- ee WARREN, Zhe Canada Jay. 1g tomed to my company that she also dozed perfectly at ease. The reason for this trustfulness was perhaps the natural quiet temperament of the bird, added to which was my good deportment, I being always careful to avoid frightening her by any sudden noise or movement, and I had never handled the eggs except when the measurements were taken, nor had ever touched the young birds except to save the life of the newly born infant as before referred to. It had been my intention to secure a pair of the young when they were about large enough to leave the nest, and rear them in captivity. There was quite a heavy fall of snow on the 18th and rgth, and thinking the young would not leave the nest until the weather was pleasanter, I neglected visiting the nest until the afternoon of the 2oth, and then found the side of the nest roughly torn out, by what agency I know not. ‘The old birds were flying about and I soon found a youngster lying on the ground in the frozen mass. Picking it up I discovered that, though perfectly feathered, it was a cripple, having a twisted neck. It then oc- curred to me that this bird must have been the one which fell from the nest on April 4th and though in perfect condition, according to appearances, while in the nest, it was now in a help- less state. Not being able to raise this deformed bird it was killed and sent to Dr. T. S. Roberts of Minneapolis who made an examination of it and described its injury as follows: ‘‘ The deform- ity of which you speak seemed to consist in the stiffening or partial ankylosis of the middle third of the neck. The injury sustained must have caused an inflammation between the bones of that part of the neck, this resulting in their being more or less firmly united by adhesion. Other than this no injury was de- fected.” Thus ended a most interesting and instructive acquaintance with this family of Jays. Though my plans had not been wholly accomplished yet I felt very thankful to Nature for her kindness in showing me one of her closest kept secrets and await an op- portunity to renew my acquaintance with Perisoreus canadensis. Auk 20 GiLL, Pedtocetes and Poocetes. Tate THE GENERIC NAMES PEDIJOCZTES AND POOCAETES. BY THEODORE GILL. THE two generic names,. Pediocetes and Poocetes, have been much animadverted upon, but have nevertheless been adopted in the A. O. U. Check-List of North American Birds. ‘These names were adopted because it was supposed that they were the first ones published for the genera involved. That such was not the case will be made evident. Not only were they not first pub- lished, but before publication Baird himself substituted for them names of entirely different etymology and only resembling them in superficial appearance. The substitute names were of later formation — “happy afterthoughts ’’ — though published first in the same volume. The substitute names were also adopted gen- erally, and not until long afterwards were the abandoned names taken up again and generally adopted. In 1858 Baird published his great work on the ‘ Birds of North America,’ under cover of the ‘ Reports of Explorations and Sur- veys’ for a Pacific railroad, ‘volume IX.’ In the descriptive portion he introduced, as new genera /oocetes (p. 447) and Pedi- ocetes (p. 625), but in the table of the higher groups, preceding the descriptive portion, he used the names /ooecetes and Pedive- cetes, referring to the pages on which the genera were on following pages described. It is known that Baird submitted partial proofs of his work to a correspondent and had been informed that -cae/es was not a legiti- mate component, and that -oecefes should replace it. The assump- tion that Baird thus submitted to has been maintained ever since. For example, Mr. Elliot, in the October (1898) number of ‘ The Auk,’ has remarked (p. 295) that “neither could zedov and okxérns be correctly compounded into Pediocetes, two blunders in one word.” eave GiL1, Pediocetes and Poocetes. 21 True, if the assumption were true! but wedvov and xoirns could be compounded into Pedzocwfes and the resultant would be a word abundantly sanctioned by classical usage. Put in italics, the dif- ference between /ediocetes and Pediocetes is small indeed, and as Baird may never have seen the pattern name otherwise than in italics, it is no wonder that at first sight he might have mistaken the w for @ and carried over his impressions into other fields. Ti: Baird unquestionably modelled the names Pedzocaetes and Poocaetes after Ammocaetes. He suffered from obliquity of vision or mind respecting the last name and rendered it Ammocetes in- stead of Ammocetes: the name was so spelled in the ‘ Icono- graphic Cyclopedia’ (II, 207, 208, 1851). He later (1854) based a generic name for a true frog (/e/ocaetes) on the same model. Finally (1858) he coined the bird names WVephocaetes, Poocaetes and Pediocaetes after the same patterns. Baird was not acquainted with Greek, and when he was informed that the bird names should have been written Wephoecetes, Pooecetes, and Pedivecetes, he not unnaturally assumed that his critic was correct and altered the names correspondingly in the table of contents. But his critic was not correct, and was probably ignorant of the model Baird had used. That model was justified by a number of ancient Greek names. Two of the best known names of ichthy- ology were classical Greek names used for genera which are the types of distinct families — Avocoetus and Hemerocoetes: Exo- coetus, misapplied by Linnzus to the flying fishes, appears in the works of Theophrastus, Aelianus and Oppianus, and was a com- ponent of é& and xoity —a fish sleeping out of the water; Hemerocetes, misapplied by Cuvier and Valenciennes, to a New Zealand genus of fishes, occurs as the name of an undetermined fish in Oppian, and was a compound of ypuypa, day and xoirn- Another well-known zoological name is that of a genus of Cystig- nathoid batrachians — Aordborocoetes : this was literally reproduced from a designation in the ‘ Batrachomyomachia’ translated in Lid- dell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon as *“ mudcoucher.” Still further, by a notable coincidence the name /ediocetes is closely Auk 22 Git, Pediocetes and Poocetes. Tae approximated by a medieval Greek name used by Maximus Planudes in his ‘ Anthology’— Pedocoetes —the only difference being that the first component of Pedocoetes was wédov, the ground, while that of Pediocoetes was wediov, a plain. These examples amply justified Baird in the coining of the names in question, and the only mistake he made was in the substitution of a for a. LEE It will be thus seen that Pedvocaetes and Poocaetes, by a very slight alteration, might have been corrected into Pedzocoetes and Poocoetes. As it is, through misunderstanding, names of entirely different etymology were suggested in place of them, and those very different names must be accepted. They must be accepted. for the following reasons : — 1. The substitute names vvecetes and -Pedioecetes were delib- erate corrections of Poocaetes and Pediocaetes. 2. They were published not only simultaneously with the incorrect names, but “stand first in the book.” 3. They were adopted in the quarto edition of the “ Catalogue of North American Birds” (Oct. 1858) and the octavo edition (1859). 4. They were in part at least accepted before the incorrectly formed names, Povecetes having been adopted by Sclater in 1859 (P. Z.S., 379) and Pediwcetes' by Hayden in 1861 (Trans. Am. Phil! ‘Soc., Ne S. Xia 72)): 5. They were generally adopted at first and only replaced later by the incorrect names. IV. The data respecting the species in question given in the A. O. U. code and Check-List of N. A. Birds should be replaced by the following : — 1 Suckley also in 1861, retained the text name Pedzocaetes. a OBERHOLSER, A New Hylocichla. 22 Pedioecetes Baird. Pedioecetes BAIRD, B. N. A. 1858, xxi. (= fediocaetes, p. 625). 308. Pedioecetes phasianellus (LINN.). Pedioecetes phasianellus (part.) Barrp, B. N. A. 1858, xliv. 308a. Pedioecetes phasianellus columbianus (Orp). Pediewcetes phastanellus var. columbianus COuUES, Key, 1872, 234. 3084, Pedioecetes phasianellus campestris Ripcw. Pediecetes phasianellus campestris Ripcw. Proc. Biol. Soe. Wash. II, 1884, 93. Pooecetes Aaird. Pooaeies BAIRD, BON. A. 1853, xx. (== Feotaerss, p) Aan). 540. Pooecetes gramineus (GMEL.). Pooecetes gramineus BatrD, B. N. Am. 1858, xxxix. 54oa. Pooecetes gramineus confinis (Barrp). [ Poocaetes gramineus| variety confinis Batrp, B. N. Am. 1858, 448. [ Povecetes gramineus| var. confinis COUES, Key, 1872, 136. 540d. Pooecetes gramineus affinis (MILLER). Poocetes gramineus affinis MILLER, Auk, V, 1888, 404. DESCRIPTION OF A NEW HYLOCICHLA. BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. True Hylocichla ustulata appears to be divisible into two fairly well defined geographical races, one of which is without a name. The type of Ay/ocichla ustulata came from the Columbia River, and examination shows it to belong to the form characteristic of the Northwest Coast region. The bird inhabiting interior and southern California may therefore be called Hylocichla ustulata cedica, subsp. nov. Cuars. sussp.— Hylocichla H. u. ustulatae similis, sed hypochondrtis et partibus supertoribus pallidioribus ac minus rufescentibus. Auk. Jan. 24 OBERHOLSER, A New Hylocichla. Geographic Distribution.— California, excepting the northern coast; north in the interior to southern Oregon; south, in winter, to Arizona and southern Mexico. Description.— Type, male, adult, No. 79462, U. S. Nat. Mus.; Santa Barbara, California, June 25, 1875; H. W. Henshaw. Upper surface olive, the wing-quills and tail-feathers more brownish, the latter having their outer webs somewhat more grayish than the inner ones; lesser coverts and outer webs of all the other wing-feathers nearly like the back; bases of inner webs of secondaries and innermost primaries buff. Lores and eye-ring buff, the former mixed with brownish; sides of neck and head buffy, much mixed with the color of the head; sub-malar streak olive; throat and upper breast pale buff, the chin and center of throat almost immaculate; sides of throat streaked with olive; jugulum with triangular spots of the same color; remainder of under surface dull white, sparingly spotted anteriorly, the sides and flanks heavily washed with brownish gray; axillars dull brown, edged with buff. Wing, 98 mm.; tail, 78 mm.; exposed culmen, 13 mm.; tarsus, 30 mm. Young in first plumage, male, No. 153944, U. S. Nat. Mus.; Santa Cruz, California, July 27, 1891; R. C. McGregor. Upper parts brownish olive, the superior tail-coverts tipped with rufous; wings fuscous, the inner- most secondaries, together with outer webs of all other of the wing- feathers practically like the back; tail similar, the inner webs somewhat darker; head, neck, back, scapulars, lesser and median wing-coverts with tear-shaped spots of deep buff; sides of head and neck deep buff, mixed with the color of upper parts; sub-malar streak dull brown; chin buffy white, unspotted; jugulum and upper breast deep buff, heavily marked. with brownish olive; remaining lower parts dull white, marked trans- versely on anterior portion with buff and pale brownish olive; sides and flanks washed with brownish olive; crissum dull buffy white; lining of wing buffy, mixed with brownish. This new race most closely resembles Mylocichla ustulata swainsonii, from the eastern part of North America; so closely, in fact, that it has not infrequently been identified as such; but all records of ‘szwaénsonii’ from California belong undoubtedly under the present form. It differs from szaénsonii in more rufes- cent coloration on the flanks, sides and upper surface, this being often most noticeable on the tail and superior tail-coverts. The. same characters, though much more pronounced, distinguish it from fylocichla u. alme. It is usually paler than wstulata, and has very much less of rufous tinge to the upper surface, includ- ing both wings and tail; the sides and flanks are more grayish; the buff of jugulum somewhat paler. Although most of these. ey NELSON, New Birds from Mexico. 25 characters are not entirely constant, typical specimens may be without difficulty discriminated. There seems to be no material difference in size between any of the forms of Aylocichla ustulata. Breeding specimens from Fort Klamath, Oregon, are not typi- cal edica, but are nearer this form than to wstwv/ata. Birds from the northern part of the Californian coast, at least as far south as Nicasio, are intermediate and rather difficult satisfactorily to place, but they seem to be, on the whole, nearer wstw/ata than to edica. Specimens of ylocichla u. edica from the following localities have been examined, breeding records being designated by an asterisk : Calitornia.— Santa Barbara*; SantaCruz*; Panamint Mts.; San Fran- cisco; Sacramento; Milpitas; Marysville*; Tuolumne County*; San Jose; Tehama; Laguna Station, San Diego County; Mountain:Spring, San Diego County; Summit of Coast Range, Mex. Bound. Line, San Diego County; Jacumba, Mex. Bound. Line. Oregon.— Fort Klamath *. Lower California.— Gardiners Laguna, Salton River, Mex. Bound. Line. Arizona.— Fort Huachuca. Mexico.— Chicharras, Chiapas. The writer is indebted to Mr. Ridgway and to Dr. C. Hart Merriam for the use of material in the collections of the National Museum and Biological Survey, respectively. DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW BIRDS FROM MEXICO. BY E. W. NELSON. The birds described below are from the collection of the Bio- logical Survey, U. S. Department of Agriculture. I am indebted to Mr. Robert Ridgway, Curator, and Dr. C. W. Richmond, Assistant Curator, of Birds, U. S. National Museum, for various courtesies while preparing the present paper. All measurements are in millimeters. 26 NELSON, Mew Birds from Mexico. “Auk Jan. Colinus virginianus maculatus, subsp. nov. SPOTTED-BELLIED BoB-WHITE. Type, No. 158471, g ad., U.S. National Mus., Biol. Survey Coll. Alta Mira, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Collected May 16, 1898, by E. W. Nelson and E. A. Goldman. Distribution.— From Tancanhuitz, San Luis Potosi, north to Victoria and Jaumave Valley, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Subspectfic characters. —- Similar to C. v. texanus from which it differs in darker and grayer colors ot dorsal surface and chestnut and spotted lower surface. Color of Male.— Chin, throat and broad stripe from lores back over eye to nape white. Crown and nape black, with gray and brown edges to feathers on back of crown and nape. A well defined band of black extends from bill back below eyes and across neck, bordering white throat area. Feathers on back and sides of neck black, edged near tips with white and dull rutous. Feathers of shoulders dull rufous heavily marked with irregular black and gray cross bars andedgings. Rest of back and tertials blackish with gray and brown mottling and indistinct barring. Wing-coverts dull rufous with black bars and gray edges. Lower neck and fore part of breast usually plain dull rufous, rest of lower parts, including lower tail-coverts, of the same color heavily marked on borders of teathers, with black and white spots on sides of feathers near tips. Dimensions of tyfe.— Wing, 106; tail, 60; culmen, 13; tarsus, 31. Remarks. — Compared with C. fexanus the female is decidedly darker and grayer above with a better defined pectoral band of black, dull rufous and white markings just below buffy throat patch. The series at hand shows conclusively that C. vz. texanus grades through the present bird directly into O. graysonz, thus reducing the latter to a subspecies of O. virginianzs. Callipepla gambeli fulvipectus, subsp. nov. BUFF-BREASTED PARTRIDGE. Type, No. 164093, d ad., U. S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Survey Coll. Camoa, Rio Mayo, Sonora, Mexico. Collected Nov. 7, 1898, by E. A. Goldman. Distribution. — Southwestern Sonora, Mexico. Subspecific characters. — Ditters mainly from typical C. gambdel? in its generally darker or more intense colors and larger bill. Color. — Crown patch rich burnt umber; neck olive washed; breast Vol. XVI 1899 NELSON, Wew Birds from Mexico. ; ay patch dark buffy; abdomen dark buffy and feathers on posterior part of flanks and under tail-coverts, bordered with same. Dimensions of type. — Wing, 110; tail, 96; culmen, 11; tarsus, 30. Remarks. — Dr. A. K. Fisher has traced Gambel’s route and finds that the type of Cal/ipepla gambeli, which is recorded as having been taken November 18, ‘“‘some distance West [error for East] of California,” must have been secured in southern Nevada or immediately adjacent part of eastern California. My compari- sons, establishing the form described above, have been with specimens from the region of the type locality. Birds from southern Arizona also are typical gambe/i. Aphelocoma sieberi colime, subsp. nov. CoLIMA JAY. Type, No. 156052, Q ad., U. S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Survey Coll. From Jacala, Jalisco, Mexico. Collected March 6, 1897 by E. W. Nelson and E. A. Goldman. Distribution. — Pine and oak forests from the Sierra Nevada de Colima north to the Santiago River in Jalisco, western Mexico. Subspecific characters.— Similar to A. steber? but smaller, with a lighter shade of blue on dorsal surface, grayer back and paler lower surface on which there is a dingy brownish wash as in A. couch. Color.— Top and sides of head and neck, with upper surface of wings, rump and tail, azure blue; chin and throat dingy grayish white with fine black shaft streaks and shading into dingy gray on breast and thence to dingy whitish on abdomen; under tail-coverts dingy whitish with faint gloss of blue. Dimensions of type. — Wing, 173; tail, 156; culmen, 25; tarsus, 43. Aphelocoma sieberi potosina, subsp. nov. San Luis Poros! Jay. Type, No. 144642, & ad., U.S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Survey Coll. Mountains near Jesus Maria, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Collected by E. W. Nelson, Sept. 3, 1892. Distribution.—Scrubby pine and oak forest on arid mountains of the tableland in northern Queretaro, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi, eastern Zacatecas, Coahuila and southern border of Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Subspecific characters. — Similar to A. sezberé but smaller, with larger 28 NELSon, New Birds from Mexico. oe bill, paler or lighter shade of blue on dorsal surface and grayer on throat and breast. Color.— Top and sides of head, neck and rump azure blue; upper surface of wings and tail a duller shade of same, back azure blue washed with ashy. Lower surface from chin to crissum dull ashy thinly washed with blue and shading into white of entire crissum. Dimensions of type. — Wing, 170; tail, 148; culmen, 29; tarsus, 46. Remarks.—In western-central Zacatecas this form is found intergrading with A. gracilis Miller, and the latter therefore becomes a race of A. seber7. Compared with A. couchi the form described above is larger, more bluish on middle of back, and the lower surface is grayer. Pachyrhamphus major uropygialis, subsp. nov. SINALOA PACHYRHAMPHUS.! Type, No. 157150, @ ad., U. S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Survey Coll. Plomosas, Sinaloa, Mexico. Collected July 14,1897 by E. W. Nelson and E. A. Goldman. Distribution—Western slope of Sierra Madre in Sinaloa and Tepic, Mexico. Subspectfic characters. — Similar to Pachyramphus major from which it may be distinguished by the distinctly paler rump (lateral upper tail- coverts are nearly white); the paler lower surface of body and larger size. Dimensions of type.— Wing, 86; tail, 65; culmen, 15; tarsus, 22. Average of 3 ad. gs of P. major (topotypes from Jalapa, Vera Cruz,. Mexico): Wing, 81; tail, 62.7; culmen, 15; tarsus, 21. Melospiza adusta, sp. nov. MIcHOACAN SONG SPARROW. Type, No. 144046, g ad., U. S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Survey Coll. Patzcuaro, Michoacan, Mexico. Collected July 27, 1892 by E. W. Nelson and E. A. Goldman. Distribution. — Known only from vicinity of Patzcuaro, Michoacan, Mexico. Subspecific characters. — Similar to but a little smaller than Melospiza 1T am indebted to Dr. J. A. Allen, Curator of Mammals and Birds in the Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York, for the loan of five topotypes of P. major. collected by Mr. F. M. Chapman at Jalapa, Vera Cruz, Mex. —— Vol“ XVI 1899 NELSON, New Birds from Mexico. 29 mexicana trom which it differs also in being decidedly lighter and more rusty rufous on borders of feathers on entire dorsal surface, including wings. On sides of head the dark markings are suffused with rusty brown and the white markings have a slight wash of pale bufty. Dimensions of tyfe.— Wing, 67; tail, 64; culmen, 11; tarsus, 2 S> <4: Remarks.— The young in first plumage are readily distin- guished from those of mexicana by being more rufous above, more buffy below and by the restriction of black shaft markings below, mainly to breast and sides of neck, leaving the rest of under surface almost unmarked buffy whitish. This form is based on two adults and one young of the year. Melospiza goldmani, sp. nov. GOLDMAN’sS SONG SPARROW. Type, No. 159182, 9 ad., U.S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Survey Coll. El Salto, Durango, Mexico. Collected July 17, 1898 by E. W. Nelson and E. A. Goldman. Distribution. — Sierra Madre Mts., western Durango, Mexico. Specific characters. — This species is considerably larger and grayer than either AZ. mexzcana or M. adusta. Color.— Feathers on top of head and nape dull vandyke brown with narrow shaft lines of black, and dull grayish edges on crown; feathers on shoulders and fore part of back brighter vandyke brown with narrow black shaft streaks and grayish edges ; rump and upper tail-coverts dingy vandyke brown, slightly more rufous on coverts. Wing-coverts like mid- dle of back without gray edges to teathers ; rufous On secondary coverts brighter than on back; quills clove brown edged with dull vandyke brown; tail clove brown washed externally with dull rufous brown. Superciliary stripe ashy white; postocular and malar stripes, and streaks on ashy whitish cheeks and ear coverts, dark rufous brown. Throat and middle of abdomen whitish; sides of breast and sides of neck with small shaft spots of blackish, washed with dark rufous brown. Feathers on flanks dingy rufous brown edged with dull grayish brown. Dimensions of type.— Wing, 75; tail, 77; culmen, 12; tarsus, 23. Remarks. — The young are paler or grayer on dorsal surface than JZ. mexicana and much lighter and less heavily streaked below. This form is based on 2 adults and one young compared with a series of over 20 specimens of JZ. mexicana. 30 NELSON, New Birds from Mexico. ree Spizella socialis mexicana, subsp. nov. MEXICAN CHIPPING SPARROW. Type, No. 143975, & ad., U.S. Nat. Mus., Biol. Survey Coll. From San Cristobal, Chiapas, Mexico. Collected Sept. 24, 1895, by E. W. Nelson and E. A. Goldman. Distribution.— Highlands of southern Mexico from Sierra Madre of Jalisco and Cofre de Perote, Vera Cruz, Mexico, south through Chiapas to border of Guatemala. Subspecific characters. — Differs from S. socéalzs in generally larger size and darker and more rufous color on back. Color of type (in winter plumage).— Crown dark, almost chestnut, rufous overlaid with black shaft lines and dull buffy brown edge to feathers near tips; back heavily streaked with black, chestnut brown and dull buffy brown; rump plumbeous ashy indistinctly streaked with dit- fused blackish shaft lines; ear coverts dingy brown; chin dingy whitish; throat, neck and breast dark ashy; crissum white; flanks ashy thinly washed with brown. Dimensions of type. — Wing, 72; tail, 59 ; culmen, 10; tarsus, 17. Remarks. — Mr. Ridgway has examined the type of Sfzze//a pinetorum and refers to that form a specimen from Honduras. which is decidedly darker colored and smaller than the form described above. 5S. pinveforum appears to be a race of S. soctalis ranging through the parts of Guatemala lying east of the central highlands and thence into similar country in Honduras. From SS. s. arizone the form described above may be distinguished by its much darker colors, slightly smaller size and larger bill. Vireo noveboracensis micrus, subsp. nov. SMALL WHITE-EYED VIREO. Type, No. 158930, ¢ ad., U. S. National Mus., Biol. Survey Coll. Vic- toria, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Collected May 23, 1898 by E. W. Nelson and E. A. Goldman. Distribution. — Lowlands of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Subspecific characters. —Similar to V. noveboracensis but smaller and_ duller colored with a paler wash of yellow on flanks. Dimensions of type. — Wing, 58; tail, 50; culmen, 10; tarsus, 20. Vol. XVI 1899 OBERHOLSER, The Blue Honey-Creepers. 21 Geothlypis flaviceps, sp. nov. YELLOW-HEADED WARBLER. Type, No. 158741, d ad., U. S. National Mus., Biological Survey Coll. From Alta Mira, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Collected April 20, 1898 by E. W. Nelson and E. A. Goldman. Distribution.—Tulé marshes along coast lagoons near Tampico in southern Tamaulipas and northern Vera Cruz, Mexico. Description of tyfe.— Color: A broad black mask from bill to line back of orbits on crown and thence down over cheeks and ear coverts. to sides of neck; rest of top and sides of head and nape distinctly yellow, slightly washed with olive green posteriorly. Back, including upper surface of wings and tail olive green. Entire lower surface almost uni- form gamboge yellow, only a little duller on flanks. Dimensions of type. — Wing, 60; tail, 56; culmen, 15; tarsus, 21. Remarks. — This species is closely related to Mr. Ridgway’s. G. flavovelatus, also described from Alta Mira, but may be distin- guished at once from that species by its larger bill, greater extent of yellow on top of head and deeper yellow under surface. The type of G. flavovelatus was taken in December and was probably a migrant from farther north while my specimens were taken in April and May and were undoubtedly resident birds. Dimensions of G. flavovelatus: Wing, 53; tail, 54; culmen, 12; tarsus, 21. A SYNOPSIS OF THE BLUE HONEY-CREEPERS OF TROPICAL AMERICA. BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. THis very homogeneous group of Ccerebida has by some authors been called Cewreba, by some Caereba, by others Arbelo- rhina, but unfortunately none of these names is properly appli- cable to the genus. As Mr. Ridgway has already shown! the ‘Manual of N. Amer. Birds, 1887, 590. Auk Jan. 32 OBERHOLSER, The Blue Honey-Creepers. name Cereba Vieillot’ can not be used for this group, since the only recognized” species mentioned in the original diagnosis is Certhia flaveola Linn., which must therefore necessarily be the type; the term Cereba thus supplanting the more recent Certhiola Sundevall. Caereba of Vigors® is merely an emendation, acci- dental or otherwise, of Vieillot’s Coereba, and therefore identical in application. Arbelorhina was proposed by Cabanis# simply to replace Cereba,—“ Den regelwidrigen Namen Caereba haben wir in Arbelorhina umgeindert.” That the same author subsequently sought® to restrict Arbelorhina to the group at present under consideration can, of course, not in the least alter the case, and Arbelorhina must be considered a strict synonym of Cwereba. As this disposition leaves the Blue Creepers without a generic name *, it is proposed that they be called Cyanerpes,’ gen. nov. Careba AuCT., nec VIEILLOT, 1807. Cereba Auct., nec Vicors, 1825. Arbelorhina Auct., nec CABANIS, 1847. Arbelorhina CABANIS, 1850. Type, Certhia cyanea Linneus. CHARS. GEN.— Genus generi ‘Chlorophanes’ dicto similis, sed rostro multo graciliore et magis incurvato dignoscendum. Geographic Distribution. — Neotropical Region, from Cuba and south- ern Mexico to southern Brazil. Cyanerpes cyaneus (Linneus). Certhia cyanea LINN&XUS, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, 1766, I, 188. ? Certhia flavipes GMELIN, Syst. Nat., 1788, I, i, 472. ? Certhia cyanogastra LATHAM, Ind. Orn. 1799, I, 295. 1 Ois. Amer. Sept., 1807, II, 70. * C. bananivora (Gmel.) is also noticed but is referred to flaveola. 3 Zool. Journ., Oct., 1825, 401. ‘ Archiv fiir Naturg., 1847, I, pt. 1,'325. ° Mus. Hein., 1850, I, 96. ® Guitus Rafinesque, Analyse, 1815, 68, is a nomen nudum. * kY¥avos = cyaneus, + prs. Vol. XVI Beas OBERHOLSER, The Blue Honey-Creepers. ae Coereba cyanea Vi1EILLOT, Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat., 1817, XIV, 44. Arbelorhina cyanea CABANIS, in Schomb. Reise in Brit. Guiana, 1848, III, 675. Geog. Dist.— South America, from southern Brazil and Bolivia to ‘Trinidad and central Colombia. Cyanerpes cyaneus carneipes (Sciater). Cereba carnetfes SCLATER, P. Z. S., 1859, 376. Geog. Dist. — Central America, from southern Mexico to Panama. This race differs from typical cyaneus in the color of the femades, which are noticeably darker and more yellowish green below. Cyanerpes cyaneus brevipes (Cadanis). Arbelorhina brevipes CABANIS, Mus. Hein., 1850, I, 96. Arbelorhina extmia CABANIS, Mus. Hein., 1850, I, 96. Coereba brevipes REICHENBACH, Handb. Spec. Orn., 1851, 2 Coereba eximia REICHENBACH, Handb. Spec. Orn., 1851, 23 Arbelorhina cyanea eximia ROBINSON, Proc. U. S. Nat. XVIII, 679. Geog. Dist.— Caribbean coast of Colombia and Venezuela; islands of Cuba and Tobago. Sith Whe Mus., 1895, This form, whenever recognized, has usually been called eximza ; but the name érevifes undoubtedly applies to the same bird, being from the same locality; and, as it stands first on the page, should be adopted. Although Cabanis states his Arbelorhina brevipes to be smaller than cyaneus, whereas his Arbelorhina eximia is larger, this discrepancy can apparently be accounted for by individual variation,— in fact, to the difference in length of bill among specimens from the mainland of Venezuela, Dr. C. W. Richmond has already called attention !. From cyaneus proper the present race may be distinguished by the darker, more yellowish color of the lower surface in the females; and from both cyaneus and carneipes by the considerably greater length of bill. 1 Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 1895, XVIII, 680. 3 Auk Jan. 34 OBERHOLSER, The Blue Honey-Creepers. Cyanerpes ceruleus (Zineus). Certhia cerulea LINN&US, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, 1758, I, 118. \ Certhia ochrochlora GMELIN, Syst. Nat., 1788, I, i, 472. Certhia surinamensts LATHAM, Ind. Orn., 1790, I, 295. Coereba cerulea VieEILLoT, Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat., 1817, XIV, 45. Arbelorhina caerulea CABANIS, in Schomb. Reise-in Brit. Guiana, 1848, III, 675. Arbelorhina brevirostris CABANIS, Mus. Hein., 1850, I, 96. Cereba brevirostris SCLATER, Cat. Coll. Amer. Birds, 1861, 53. Coereba coerulea microrhyncha BERLEPSCH, Journ. f. Orn., 1884, 287. Arbelorhina cerulea microrhyncha BANGS, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 1898, XII, 143. Geog. Dist.—South America, from Bolivia to Colombia, Venezuela and British Guiana. Material now at hand does not seem to warrant the recognition of a subspecies microrhyncha; but should this form eventuaily prove distinct it ought probably to bear the name $érevtrostris Cabanis. Cyanerpes czruleus longirostris, (Cadvanis) . Arbelorhina longtrostristris (err. typ.) CABANIS, Mus. Hein., 1850, I, 96. Coereba longirostris Finscu, P. Z. S., 1870, 561. Geog. Dist.— Trinidad and the coast of Venezuela from Caracas eastward. There seems to be little doubt that the birds from Trinidad are identical with those from Caracas, whence came the type of Arbelorhina longirostris Cabanis; but should this prove not to be the case the Trinidad form will require to be named. The pres- ent subspecific distinction is based on Trinidad specimens, which differ from true cerudeus of Guiana chiefly in the conspicuously greater length of bill. Cyanerpes lucidus (Sclater & Salvin). Cereba lucida SCLATER & SALVIN, Ibis, 1859, 14. Arbelorhina lucida HEINE & REICHENOW, Nom. Mus. Hein. Orn., 1882, 60. Geog. Dist. — Central America, from Guatemala to Panama. Se Ae RipGway, New Sfectes of American Birds. 35 Closely allied to ceru/eus, but apparently a distinct species. Cyanerpes nitidus (Hardlaub). Coereba nitida HARTLAUB, Rey. Zool., 1847, 84. Arbelorhina nitida CABANIS, Mus. Hein., 1850, I, 96. Geog. Dist.— Province of Amazonas, in Brazil; northeastern Peru, eastern Ecuador, and southeastern Colombia to Bogota. The writer is under obligations to the authorities of the National Museum and of the American Museum of Natural History, for the use of the specimens upon which this paper has been based. NEW (SPECIES, ETC, OF AMERICAN BIRDS: FRINGILLID (Continued)!. BY ROBERT RIDGWAY. Curator of the Division of Birds, U. S. National Museum. (By permission of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. ) Melospiza fasciata cooperi. San DirGo Sonc Sparrow. Similar to WZ. f. heermannz but slightly smaller and coloration much lighter and grayer; prevailing color of back, etc., grayish olive, the back breadly streaked with black, these streaks with little if any rusty edging. Adult male: wing, 2.30-2.66 (2.48); tail, 2.19-2.68 (2.49); exposed cul- men, 0.44-0.52 (0.48); depth of bill at base, 0.29-0.31 (0.29); tarsus, 0.80— 0.89 (0.86). 2 Type, No: A1895, U.S. Nat. Mus., adult, San Diego, California, April 18, 1862; Df. J. G. Cooper. Range.— Southern coast district of California (north to Monterey Bay, east to Ft. Tejon, San Bernardino, etc.) and northern Pacific coast of Lower California (south to San Quentin Bay). Melospiza fasciata pusillula. Sait MarsH SonG SpARROw. Similar to M. f. samuelzs but still smaller, the wings and tail especially ; coloration much less rusty (more olivaceous) above, with superciliary stripe and under parts more or less tinged with yellowish, the latter ! Part II was published in ‘The Auk’ for October, 1898 (pp. 319-324). 26 RipGway, Mew Species of American Birds. never (?) pure white. Adult male: wing, 2.24-2.37 (2.29); tail, 2.11-2.26 (2.16); exposed culmen, 0.46-0.48 (0.47); depth of bill at base, 0.24-0.26 (0.25); tarsus, 0.80-0 83 (0.82). ; Type, No. 105324, U. S. Nat. Mus.,- g ad., Alameda Co., California, April 18, 1885 ; W. O. Emerson. Salt marshes of San Francisco Bay (Alameda, Santa Clara, Range. and San Mateo counties ). Melospiza fasciata caurina, YAKUTAT SONG SPARROW. Similar to Mf f. rufina but with decidedly longer bill and grayer coloration; the superciliary stripe, middle portion of auricular region, sides of neck, hindneck, and edges of interscapulars decidedly gray, in more or less strong contrast with the brown markings; streaks on chest, etc., dark seal brown, and ground color of flanks olive-grayish. Adult male: Wing, 2.90-3.15 (3.03) ; tail, 2-81-2.86 (2.84); exposed culmen, 0.56 ; depth of bill at base, 0.30; tarsus, 0.92-1.02 (0.97). Type, No. 138367, U. S. Nat. Mus. (Biol. Surv. Coll.), 6 ad., Yakutat, Alaska, July 6, 1895; C. P. Streator. Reange.— Coast of middle Alaska, from Cook’s Inlet (Port Graham, Ft. Alexander, etc.) to Cross Sound; in winter to southern Alaska (How- can, Prince of Wales Island, one specimen). Passerella iliaca fuliginosa. Soory Fox Sparrow. Similar to P. ¢. townsend but darker and less rufescent, the upper parts, sides of head and neck and lateral under parts sepia or sooty brown, the upper tail-coverts and tail slightly more castaneous; spots on under parts dark sooty brown, larger and more confluent than in other forms. Type, No. 157611, U. S. Nat. Mus. (Biol. Surv. Coll.), &@ ad., Neah Bay, Washington, June 10, 1897; E. A. Preble. } Range. — Breeding in coast district of southwestern British Columbia, including Vancouver Island, and northwestern Washington; south in winter to coast of northern California (to San Francisco, etc.). (P. a Zownsendt breeds in the Sitka district; P. ¢. wnxalaschensis breeds on Kadiak Island and adjacent mainland of Alaska, but migrates much farther south than the other two forms, being the only one occurring commonly over the greater part of California.) Zonotrichia leucophrys nuttalli. NurraLL’s Sparrow. Zonotrichia gambeli and Z. leucophrys gambeli, Aucy. nec Fringilla gambeltt NUTTALL. When, in 1873, I separated the lighter colored form of this species of the more northern and interior districts from the darker coast form, under the name of Zonotrichia leucophrys var. inter- .anedia, I erred in restricting the name gambelii to the coast form. Pas Rmeway, New Species of American Birds. By) A recent examination of extensive material, including specimens from the type locality of -ringilla gambelii (Walla Walla, Wash- ington), has convinced me that Nuttall’s bird was really the interior form, although his description, mainly ambiguous, alone would lead one, as it did me, to suppose that he had the darker of the two forms in hand. His type was a fall bird, in the plumage of the young in first winter, his reason for considering it a new species being, apparently, that the corresponding plumage of Z. leucophrys was unknown to him. It seems necessary, therefore, to use the name Zonotrichia leucophrys gambelii, Gambel’s Sparrow, for the form which we have been calling Z. 7. ¢ntermedia, Inter- mediate Sparrow, and to give a new name to the coast form, which may be called Z. 7. nu¢talli, Nuttall’s Sparrow, as above. Sicalis chapmani. CHAPMAN’s GOLDEN BUNTING. Sycalis minor (nec CABANIS) CHAPMAN, Auk, VII, 1890, 268 (Santarem ELCs Cig.) Somewhat like S. arvenszs but bill much larger, with more strongly curved culmen, under parts much brighter yellow (bright lemon yellow) and upper parts much more yellowish, even the back, in adult males, being olive-yellow broadly streaked with blackish. Adu/t male: Wing, 2.62—2.72; tail, 1.80-1.90; exposed culmen, 0.41; tarsus, 0.65-0.70. Type, No, 120835, U. S. Nat. Mus., @ ad., Diamantina, Lower Amazon, June 25, 1887; C. B. Riker. Range.— Lower Amazon Valley (Santarem, Diamantina, etc.). Spinus alleni. ALLEN’s GOLDFINCH. Spinus yarrelli (nec Carduelis yarrell? AUDUBON) ALLEN, Bull. Am, Mus. Nat. Hist. III, 1891, 375 (Chapada). i Similar to S. capitalts (Cab.) but adult male with lower rump clear yellow, under parts purer yellow, femoral region yellow (instead of white), edges of tertials olive-yellow (instead of grayish), and size somewhat less. Differing from S. ¢cferzcus (Licht.) in much smaller size, narrower wing-bands, and relatively less extent of yellowish on basal portion of tail, the latter quite concealed by the coverts. Adult male: Wing, 2.58-2.65 (2.61); tail, 1.56-1.58 (1.57); exposed culmen, 0.40-0.41; depth of bill at base, 0.30-0.31; tarsus, 0.51-0.53 (0.52); middle toe, 0.40-0.45 (0.42). Type, No. 32618, g ad., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Chapada, Matto Grosso, Brazil, May 21, 1883; H. H. Smith. Range.— Southwestern Brazil (Province of Matto Grosso). 38 Evuior, Truth versus Error. TRUTH VERSUS ERROR. : BY D. G. ELLIOT F. R. S. E. In Hts defence of Canon XL of the A. O. U. Code, my friend Dr. Allen has accused me, half heartedly it must be confessed, and as if he was not quite sure of his premises, of misrepresenting the beauties and advantages of that wonderful production, and also the beneficial results, which in his opinon, the enlightened doctrine it preaches has achieved. If I was capable of com- mitting the crime so. delicately mentioned (and I hardly deem it necessary to defend myself from the charge), in this instance, it would be as profitless and unnecessary as an attempt to blacken coal, for it would be quite impossible with all the skill possessed by the most adroit manipulator to make the Gospel of Error this Canon advocates appear ina more unlovely aspect than it has itself so successfully accomplished. The charge made of misrepresen- tation, however, is the familiar plea of all those who try to defend an indefensible cause,.and is synonymous with the legal maxim ‘‘when you have no case, abuse the opposing Counsel.” Stability and uniformity of nomenclature is the goal which all naturalists are striving to attain, and after fifteen years, during which this Canon has been permitted to instill its pernicious counsel in the minds of ornithologists entirely unopposed, yet all the success that Dr. Allen can claim it has achieved is, that ‘it has practically thus far rendered fixed and permanent the nomenclature of North American ornithology, 7 North America at least,” and thereupon he qualifies this by adding “in so far as the emenda- tion or rejection of names upon purely philological grounds is concerned.” The after-thought, italicised by me above, was most happily grasped by its author, and thus he saved himself from a disastrous overthrow. It is also stated that “so nearly all the leading authorities in vertebrate zodlogy in this country” are among its supporters and advocates. “So nearly all” while a very safe way of enumerating, is not any more definite as regards numbers than is the expression “few” applied to those “leading authorities” whom Dr. Allen kindly permits to join Dr. Coues and myself in rejecting this Canon. Vol. XVI ei “us Vror. 84 Exxiot, 7ruth versus Error 39 In not including among his sympathizers the experts in inver- tebrate zoélogy, I suppose Dr. Allen attributes their defection entirely to a lack of backbone, which would not permit them a sufficient rigidity to be wrong when they could be right! My friendly critic did not care, in his assertion of the success Canon XL has achieved, to go beyond the boundaries of the United States, save to make a faint claim of having converted some «Naturalists abroad being well aware that the doctrine that advocates adopting not only every blunder that is in sight, but also every one that shall be made hereafter, is not one likely to find favor with those who have been taught from their child- hood to write grammatically and spell correctly. Excepting in the case of “so nearly all the leading authorities, at least in North America,” how has this educational Canon succeeded in other lands? The authors of the Great Catalogue of Birds, which for many years to come will be the standard work in Ornithology, have throughout the long series of volumes already issued, with an unanimity that was to be expected, completely ignored and repudiated this Canon XL, and have not permitted the blunders of other writers to disfigure their productions. These gentlemen are the recognized “leading authorities ” in ornithological science in the Old World, both on account of their scientific as well as their literary attainments, and as “educated men” versed in classical knowledge and grammatical construction, it can never be expected that even a conformity of nomenclature can be established if it depends upoa their endorsement of the doctrine embodied in Canon XL. Where then is stability of nomencla- ture to be looked for? Is it to be confined “at least to North America?” Is the avifauna of this country so great and _ para- mount that we can build a Chinese wall along our borders and have a nomenclature all our very own and be quite independent of those who are not so happy as to live among us? The Birds of North America, numerous and splendid as they are, constitute only a fraction of those of the world, and a stable nomenclature for our feathered inhabitants can only be assured by codéperating with ornithologists of other lands. And it requires no prophet to foretell that some other basis will be necessary than the tenets offered by Canon XL before any agreement will be reached. Auk 40 Evxuiot, Truth versus Error. fan “In North America at least ” everything is not lovely,and serene. There are a “few!” even Dr. Allen admits that much, who with Dr. Coues and myself refuse to bow the knee to Baal. We may be of little repute, but so long as we insist upon writing grammat- ically and spelling correctly there can be no uniformity in the nomenclature of North American ornithology, in spite of the fact that ‘“‘so nearly all” of the “ leading authorities,” will hereafter do their best to perpetuate blunders. If, as is claimed, the ‘leading authorities ”” among American ornithologists have nearly all become advocates of the doctrine of error preached in Canon XL we must not forget that some of them were members of the Committee that formulated its provisions, and it was to be expect- ed that they would do their utmost, like my friendly critic, to induce others to adopt these and enjoy the manifold blessings. they shower on thankful hearts. Only one of the Committee has publicly expressed his disapproval of this rule. Possibly there are others of his opinion but who have not yet spoken. If among those who as yet have not attained the dignity of being ” a ‘leading authority,” there are some who have accepted this. Canon as their mentor and guide, it is probable that they have been influenced in a large degree so to do from a mistaken loy- alty to the Union. This same mistaken loyalty to the works of the Committee caused the adoption of our Check-List, when it was known to contain many, even grievous errors, certain of which have lately been corrected, but the end is not yet. A sim- ilar exhibition of courage in removing blunders and which should eliminate Canon XL, would be advantageous to the Union and Ornithological Science. Dr. Allen seems considerably elated because other Naturalists as he claims besides ornithologists have in some degree adopted this Gospel of Error. While we may all be gratified to witness the A. O. U. Code accepted by other zodlogists in all its provisions, excepting Canon XL, and believe it the best guide they can have, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Code was written primarily for ornithologists, and one of its chief aims was the attainment of a stable nomen- clature for birds. ‘Therefore, if one of its Canons proves to have been unfortunately drawn, and contains precepts that will effec tually defeat the very object desired, it is poor comfort to learn Vol. XVI 7899 Evxriot, Truth versus Error. 41 that we have only succeeded in leading our brethren astray. Moreover it was Ornithological nomenclature we desired to render stable before all else, and what zodlogists, devoted to other branches, may do, neither helps nor harms us. If we are right, it matters not to ornithology if those in other branches go wrong, nor does it help us when we go wrong if they all follow our example, save on the principle that ‘‘ misery loves company.” The Code is not so sacred an instrument as I fear Dr. Allen regards it, that it may not be emended, even by the unhallowed ‘efforts of Purists and Classicists. The pity of it is that any of its Canons so urgently require correction. Dr. Allen appears greatly disturbed at some of my remarks upon faulty construction and bad spelling, and assures us that there have been many authors who have endorsed Canon XL who know how to spell in as many languages as I and my“few” sympathizers do. While delighted to be informed that this knowledge is so wide- spread that even some “eminent authors” have acquired it, I would however beg to state that I am not aware that in anything I have said I have made claim to a special knowledge of any language, or of being unusually proficient in orthography or etymology, nor has anything that I have written been directed against any particular individual, be he a “leading authority” or of more humble station. My article in the October number of this journal had but one object in view, to call the attention of the members of the Union to the Gospel of Error taught in Canon XL, which in my opinion (and according to Dr. Allen, a ‘few others,’ but I only speak for myself), is thoroughly bad, and in some respects calculated to lead many astray by its teachings. Thoroughly bad, because it strives to elevate Error over Truth and Wrong over Right, and gives to the law of prior- ity an interpretation that was never intended, for while this law protects an author in his discoveries, there is no clause that provides a safeguard for his blunders. And the teachings of this Canon are evil because they misdirect those, who, whatever may be the reason that actuates them, prefer to follow some leader depending on his knowledge or experience, and there are many such, little heeding where their guide may take them, rather than investigate for themselves. Auk 42 Exvvuiotr, Truth versus Error. fen Dr. Allen thinks it “too absurd for serious consideration,” the charge that this Canon XL places a premium upon illiteracy, and yet what are the facts? It provides for the retention of names no matter how ridiculous they may be, nor how grossly they may violate all rules of orthography and etymology, and then assures all those who may commit such blunders that they shall be perpetuated. That is clearly offering a premium on illiteracy, for a writer would doubtless feel that even though he tried earnestly to have his production free from blunders, yet it would not matter, if he was not up in his Greek and Latin, for his errors if he made any, would stand in the place of honor side by side with those words that were correct in construction. It is true that the rule ends with some good advice such as, “ word coiners will pay the closest attention to philological proprieties,” but if any are ignorant of these proprieties, attention to them, no matter how densely concentrated, would be of little avail. And Dr. Allen in his glorification of this rule says that the rising genera- tion of naturalist have not ‘perceptibly deteriorated” in their spelling. The “ rising generation” will no doubt return thanks for so much praise. If, however, they have not “ perceptibly deteriorated” it is not the fault of Canon XL which tells them they can be careless with impunity, but because the facilities for instruction afforded by this Age enables every one to acquire an education, therefore, the blunders in nomenclature become more and more obnoxious, and the precepts of this Canon more and more distasteful. One of the principal objections to amending Canon XL urged by Dr. Allen in his ‘ Defense,’ as I gather from reading it, is the great number of blunders that exists in ornithological nomencla- ture, and he fears that I do not appreciate what a task it would be to overcome them. It is a poor soldier who throws down his weapons because the enemy appears formidable, and in spite of multitudes it is quite unnecessary to follow the example of the Advocates of Error and take refuge in the opposing ranks. Run over to the enemy in fact! ‘The difficulties of the task are more fictitious than real, and would speedily vanish together with the blunders themselves before a competent tribunal sum- moned to substitute a sensible Canon XL, for the one that now Vol. XVI 1899 Exyiot, Truth versus Error. 43 burdens the Code. ‘There is no doubt in my mind that a Canon could be drawn that would be acceptable to all Naturalists and offend none in any of its provisions, and produce a nomenclature that would be stable. Those who have no sympathy with Canon XL and its doctrines are characterized in the ‘ Defense’ as extremists. I leave it to my colleagues, the overwhelming majority of whom I am per- suaded prefer Truth to Error, to decide which is the better, to be extremely right or extremely wrong, and of those who comprise the two classes thus designated which are the reprehensible extremists? In Dr. Allen’s wrestling with the spelling lesson that worries him so greatly, on page 300 he complains because trans- literation from other languages in Latin is so difficult, but on page 303 he speaks of it as a “simple matter.” Evidently as he investigates his eyes become open, and eventually he will be able to see clearly in their true light the evils he now so strenuously defends and that they can, by a little mental activity, be made to disappear like an uneasy dream. One more point, my friend states that purists or classicists and all other bad people who sympathize with them, though happily they are “few,” vacillate and do not even spell alike, and there can never be a uniformity of nomenclature with such persons, and he enumerates quite a list of reasons why this must be so.— Man is fallible, and even those who strive with all their strength to do right, at times may wander by the way, but if they hold to the direct path an occa- sional slip, though it may retard their progress and that of others, yet will not prevent them from reaching the light at last. But the Advocates of Error never slip nor vacillate, nor with them is there a shadow of turning. Having determined to go wrong, ’ and that once taken “facile decensus Averni,” and they speedily reach their goal and settle themselves comfortably amid the congenial darkness that can be “¢c’est le premier pas qui coite,’ felt. In the ‘Defense’ of Canon XL it is quite refreshing to observe the complacency with which it is taken for granted that its clauses can only be interpreted in one way, zv7z.: that in which the authors wish to have them regarded. ‘Thus, take ‘obvious ”’ or “known” typographical errors. By ‘ obvious” is meant ‘transposition of letters ” or their ‘‘ inversion overlooked in proof- 44 EvuiotT, Zruth versus Error. as . reading”; by “known,” where the “error has been corrected by the author.” There are instances of utterly nonsensical words now in use, where the change of one letter would cause them to have an important meaning. How are we to “know” whether such words are misprints, “obvious transposition of letters,” or misspelling ‘‘ overlooked by the author?” ‘There is no possible way of ascertaining, yet Canon XL insists in maintaining them in all their deformity. Among the instances available of this fact that may be cited is Have/da, which means nothing, is a nonsense word, but which is evidently a misprint or a misspelling for Havelde (Latinized Havelda), Scandinavian for Sea Duck. It is impossible to prove whether Stephens intended to write Hare/da or overlooked the error in the proof, and so there is nothing “ obvious ” or “ known” in the case, save the fact that Havelda is right and Harelda is wrong, but if the backward tenets of Canon XL are to be adopted we must as usual accept the wrong and reject the right. Place Error always before Truth! Of course there are other nonsense words employed, even by those who have no sympathy for Canon XL, such as ‘“ Dafila,” also by the author of ‘“ Harelda.’”’ But such words have no derivation, they just ‘‘ growed ” like Topsy in the temporarily disordered brains of those who originated them, consequently cannot be corrected and are protected by the law of priority. They remain, however, as monuments to the frivolousness and extremely bad taste of their authors. And here, we may suppose, the Advocates of Error would come forward and with ill-concealed exultation, exclaim : ‘“ Well, if these nonsense words answer the purpose, why not accept those, that, derived from well known Greek or Latin sources, have, through the ignorance or carelessness of their authors, also become nonsense words?’’ Simply for two reasons. -— First, because a word properly spelled has a definite meaning and often gives the clue to the habits of the animal it represents, its general appearance, or its relationship to others ; and second, because, to employ it in its debased condition, is repugnant to an educated man and is a source of offense whenever met with, and what is of even more importance, because it prevents the very information its author desired to convey from being known. There is no question that any epithet applied to a species would. Vol. ial 1859 EvyiotT, 7ruth versus Error. 45 serve to distinguish it after it becomes known, and the more non- sensical and outrageous the spelling might be the more it would probably be remembered, and the most bizarre words have been coined to prove that this is a fact. But this method is neither sensible nor scientific, and the evils of such a procedure are fully appreciated even by the Authors of Canon XL, who urgently advise naturalists with the same breath they promise to perpetuate their blunders, to observe when forming words all the philological proprieties. Surely this advice was entirely unnecessary, if names have no importance but are merely handles to swing species on. If that which is the most easy is to be adopted in place of that which is most correct, if knowledge is to be considered of little worth, and blunders, no matter what may have been the cause that produced them, are to be preferred because first born, to that which is well shapen and correct ; if, through mere force of num- bers, erroneous and faulty productions are to be placed on an equality with those words grammatically correct, achieved only through their Author’s intimate, possibly profound, knowledge of classical literature, and if there shall be no uniform nomenclature unless it be that one debased by all the errors that ever have been or ever shall be committed, then it is easy to perceive that we shall have no Augustan Age of ornithological literature, but that its swift decadence will surely follow. In this ‘ Defense’ of a Cult that can have no possible attractions for any educated person and which is a debasement of all literary effort, the Advo- cates of Error have spoken, and with the voice of their strongest man, and when the arguments advanced are subjected to a criti- cal analysis, what do we receive? Only this— ‘‘It is exceedingly difficult to do right, and superlatively easy to do wrong, therefore, my brothers, do wrong.’’ How simple! And now in conclusion. It is quite evident from Dr. Allen’s attitude that if he can prevail upon the majority of the Committee to adopt his views, there can be little hope of improving by that Body the present illiterate con- dition existing in the nomenclature of North American ornithol- ogy ; the remedy must come from without. Therefore, and I do not now address myself to the “ authorities,’ but to those who, if they have not attained that glorious distinction, yet who will be the future leaders in North American ornithology, I would repeat Auk 46 ALLEN, “ Truth versus Error.” iene what I said in my former paper, and urge my younger colleagues. not to be beguiled by the voice of the charmer, but to repudiate this Canon XL and all its mischievous doctrines. Have nothing to do with precepts that would advise you to choose Error before Truth, and elevate Wrong over Right, but stand firmly for gram- matical purity and orthographical correctness, a position which, if stoutly held, will not cause you in after years to look back upon your writings with regret, that you knowingly permitted them to be disfigured by the blunders of others. Use your influence to overthrow the Doctrine of Error, that with siren voice has been sung in your ears so long, and the ‘few’ adherents that are now unwillingly accorded to the ranks of the opponents of this gospel will become a mighty force to battle for the Truth. Sometimes, however, it requires but a little leaven to permeate a large lump and cause it to change its aspect, and the conflict may not be so severe as the Advocates of Error would like to have us believe. As for my friend, who has honored my paper with his criticism, and whose eminent services to Natural Science have been so widely and deservedly acknowledged, and whose long and suc- cessful labors in declaring nature’s truths makes his position on this subject the more incongruous, of him, in this instance, I am obliged mournfully to say, as did the old prophet of his illustrious. but wilful nation, “‘ Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone.” “TRUTH VEARSCOS ERROR.” BY Jz Ay sAnEREN: Ir 1s seldom that a title for an essay is more unhappily chosen than in the case of Mr. Elliot’s “ Truth versus Error.” In this long effusion on the subject of Canon XL of the A. O. U. code he betrays ‘‘ the weakness of his cause,” to borrow the phrase- ology of my esteemed disputant, by beautifully illustrating the maxim he has himself quoted, namely, ‘‘ When you have a bad cause, abuse the opposing counsel.’’ With this feature removed Vol. XVI 6c pies r 2D BEG ALLEN, “ Truth versus Error. 44 we have no points not covered and much better stated in his former comparatively short paper in the October number of ‘ The Auk.’ As the real points in the case have already been sufficiently met in my paper following Mr. Elliot’s in the October ‘ Auk,’ all I would ask of any interested reader would be to reread that article in the present connection. Mr. Elliot himself is doubtless well aware that satire is not argument. The last half of his ‘Truth versus Error’ is mainly a plea for the plaintiff, while the first part is an attempt to mislead in respect to the real point at issue ; neither calls for special comment. To show the character of Mr. Elliot’s defense, one or two points may be noted. First, the kind of “stability in nomenclature”’ here involved is simply that relating to the emendation or rejection of names on purely philological grounds. Hence, it was not “a happily grasped afterthought,” by which I saved myself from “a disastrous over- throw,” as Mr. Elliot knowingly (it would be discrediting his intelligence to think otherwise) misrepresents the situation. Mr. Elliot refers triumphantly to the “Great Catalogue of Birds,” meaning probably the British Museum Catalogue of Birds, as an example of where Canon XL has been “ completely ignored -and repudiated” by eminent authorities. But he has failed to tell his readers how many and what other Canons of the A. O. U. Code were equally “completely ignored and repudiated” by these same eminent authorities, as, for example, that fixing the date of the beginning of binomial nomenclature at 1758 instead of 1766, and that providing atrinomial nomenclature for subspecies. This was done, too, in the face of the fact that these two prin- ciples have come to be accepted by so large a number of other ‘eminent authorities’ as to have been incorporated into the recent international codes of nomenclature, and have been otherwise quite generally adopted. Mr. Elliot refers to the fact that one member of the A. O. U. Committee agrees with him on the subject of Canon XL, and rather intimates that if we knew the whole truth in the case there might be others on his side also. Hecan be assured that such is not the case; and if he had been present at a discussion of this matter at the last meeting of the A. O. U. he would have been much enlightened, and possibly surprised, by the unanimity with Auk 48 ALLEN, “ Truth versus Error.” jee which Canon XL was sustained by the participants in the dis- cussion, one only speaking in opposition. Mr. Elliot would cer- tainly have derived small encouragement for any hope he may be entertaining that Canon XL may be changed to accord with his wishes by either the present A. O. U. Committee or any other A. O. U. Committee before whom, for some years at least, the matter is likely to come. Mr. Elliot has given at length his reasons for standing ‘ firmly for grammatical purity and orthographical correctness.” I here add the views of a few ‘ leading authorities’ who have equal right to an opinion in the case, and who are not members of the A. O. U. Committee, nor, with one exception, even American ornithologists. In 1883, the great French botanist, Alphonse de Candolle, in his article 60 of his revised ‘ Lois de la Nomenclature Botanique,’ originally published in 1867, says: ‘‘A generic name should subsist just as it was made, though a purely typographical error may be corrected. The termination of a Latin specific name may be changed to bring it into agreement with its generic name.” He even accepts bybrid names, which he formerly suppressed, showing the tendency of his mind on this point under the influence of long experience. The late eminent American botanist, Prof. Asa Gray, stated in one of his later publications that “ the tendency among working naturalists is to retain names in spite of faults.’ This statement of fact, it may be noted, was made long before the promulgation of Canon XL. Dr. David S. Jordan, President of Leland Stanford University, and the leading ichthyologist of America, in reviewing the A. O. U. Code and Check-List in 1886 (Auk, III, p. 394), in comment- ing indirectly on Canon XL, said: “ An illustration of this may be taken from the last Check-List of Dr. Coues [1882]. This work is in many respects most valuable. In it, however, so much learning and labor has been expended in the mending and remodelling of scientific names, as fairly to bring purism in that regard to reductio ad absurdum. Hence the Committee on the new Code, with Dr. Coues at its head, now declare that ‘a name is only a name, and has no necessary meaning’ and therefore no Vol. evn / may 66 “Pas » 5 oy 3s Seip ALLEN, “ Truth versus Error. 49 necessarily correct orthography. After this experience, the work of strengthening the lame and halting words is hardly likely to be continued in other fields of science.” Perhaps it would not be unfair to history to say that the maxim, “ A name is only a name, and has no necessary meaning,’ when adopted in 1885 received the unanimous approval of the Committee. But with the lapse of time, alas! Y Mr. Oldfield Thomas, curator of mammals in the British Muse- um, not only discountenances the emendation of names, but in a recent paper ‘On the Genera of Rodents’ (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1896, p. 1015, footnote) makes the following pertinent comment on a question which has greatly agitated Mr. Elliot, namely, the insertion or omission of the Greek aspirate. Apropos of that much emended name Af/odontia, he says: ‘‘ With regard to the insertion of the aspirate into the spelling of this and similar words, inquiry among pure classicists (other than zodlogists) elicits the opinion that the Latins were so careless and irregular themselves in this respect, that it is impossible to make a hard- and-fast rule about it, and that we should therefore accept the original aspiration or non-aspiration of scientific names. Person- ally I look with loathing on these /-less names, but I feel bound to recognize that it is not right to alter words formed by authors who Latinized their Greek in the very way that the Latins themselves sometimes did.” Mr. F. A. Lucas, in commenting in ‘Science’ (Nov. 4, 1808, p. 626) on Mr. Elliot’s paper in the October Auk, makes the following timely remarks: “ ZoGlogical names are not literature, but simply handles by which species may be grasped, and they serve their purpose equally well if rough hewn or grammatically polished. LeConte used Gyascutus as a generic name simply to illustrate the point that a name need not of necessity have any meaning, and Dr. Leidy coined names with the express statement that they were not etymologically correct, but used because they were shorter than if correctly formed.” This, it may be added. has often been the case with many scholarly naturalists, as stated in my reply to Mr. Elliot in the Oct. Auk. Ni Lhoemas KR. Stebbins, M. A. Fo Resi ete. a leading English authority in Carcinology, in the ‘ Zodlogist’ for Oct., 1898, 4 30 ALLEN, “ Truth versus Error.” xs a (p. 424), in commenting on the proposed new International Code of Nomenclature, says: “It should surely be the object of an International Code to interfere with individual liberty as little as possible, and to protect accepted names from any change that can be avoided. But in correcting names which may be considered to offend against grammar or philology, more inconvenience than advantage is likely to arise. A longer name .... will often have to be substituted for a shorter one. The practical nuisance of this will be understood by those who have to write labels for small bottles and glass slips. It is also contrary to the tendency of language, which is constantly condensing instead of expanding FORMS 5/04 + By correction a name will sometimes secure a different imitial,.... which is apt to be very confusing when an index has to be consulted. The principle of priority is weakened when the original form of a name is relinquished not in the interest of science, but of scholarship. On the other hand, it is so easy to let names alone, carrying with them their small but interesting touches of autobiography, and no possible harm is done if we do leave to the polished scholar some occasion for chuckling over us untutored sons of science.” I will conclude these extracts— which might be indefinitely extended — by the testimony of a philologist, Mr. Walter Miller, Professor of Classical Philology in the Leland Stanford Univer- sity, who in a paper on ‘Scientific Names of Latin and Greek Derivation,’ published recently in the Proceedings of the Cali- fornia Academy of Sciences (3d Ser., I, No. 3, 1897, p. 143) says: “We may recognize the law of priority as absolute, and retain the many monstrous and misspelled names to be found on the records of natural history, just as their makers left them. They are his- toric facts and serve to mark the group of animals or plants to which they apply, but these misshapen forms of words are not ornamental and they are unworthy of scholars. It is to be hoped that, in future, greater care may be taken to make words that give correctly the idea the author may have intended.” This paper may fittingly close with the following extract from the ‘ Introduction’ (p. 12) to the A. O. U. Code: “Thus, in seeking to attain a basis of uniformity and stability, it is always necessary to go back to the original forms of names, bie le Sixteenth Congress of the A. O. U. 51 and consistently adhere to them, in entire disregard of the verbal innovations of purists or grammarians, who, aiming at classical correctness in names, have too often brought about instability and confusion.” SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. THE SIXTEENTH CONGRESS of the American Ornithologists’ Union convened in Washington, D. C., Monday evening, Novem- ber 14, 1898, the business meeting being held at the Army Medical Museum. The public sessions, commencing Tuesday, November 15, and lasting three days, were held at the U. S. National Museum, the Central High School, and at the Cosmos Club. Business Sessron. — The meeting was called to order by Vice-President Dr. C. Hart Merriam, in the absence of the Presi- dent, Mr. William Brewster. Seventeen active members were present. The Secretary’s report gave the membership of the Union at the opening of the present Congress as 695, constituted as follows: Active, 47; Honorary, 17; Corresponding, 66 ; Associate, 565. During the year the Union lost sixty-four members — six by death, twenty-one by resignation, and thirty-seven were dropped for non-payment of dues. The members lost by death were Osbert Salvin,! an Honorary Member, who died at Hawksfold, near Haslemere, England, June 1, 1898, aged 63 years; Dr. Anders Johan Malmgren,” a Corresponding Member, who died in Helsingfors, Finland, April 12, 1897, at the age of 63; and Dr. Felix Georg Herman August Mojsisovics von Mojsvar,? also a 1 For an obituary notice, see Auk, XV, pp. 343-345. 2 For an obituary notice, see /ézd, pp. 214-215. 3 For an obituary notice, see /d7d, p. 215. Auk Jan. 52 Sixteenth Congress of the A. O. U. ‘Corresponding Member, who died in Gratz, Austria, August 27, 1897, aged 48. Also the following Associates: J. Maurice Hatch, who died May 1, 1898, at Colton, Calif., aged 19 years; Dr. George Baur,’ who died in Munich, Germany, June 24, 1898; and Joseph Carleton Ingersoll, who died October 2, 1898. The report of the Treasurer showed the finances of the Union to be in good condition. The officers elected were: Robert Ridgway, President; Dr. C. Hart Merriam and Charles B. Cory, Vice-Presidents; John H. Sage, Secretary; William Dutcher, Treasurer. The vacancy in the Council, occasioned by the election of Mr. Cory as one of the Vice-Presidents, was filled by the selection of Witmer Stone. Mr. William Palmer, of the U. S. National Museum,.was elected an Active Member, and the Hon. Walter Rothschild, of the Tring Museum, England, a Corresponding Member. One hundred and one Associate Members were elected, the largest number in any one year, with one exception, since the foundation of the Union. As in the previous year many of the new Associates were women, a result of the Audubon Society movement, and of the present interest taken in the study of birds by teachers in the public and private schools of the country. The usual reports of Standing Committees were received. Pusiic Session. first Day. — The meeting was called to order by Vice-President Merriam. After the transaction of the usual routine business, President-elect Robert Ridgway took the Chair. The reading of scientific papers began with a paper by Mr. Harry C. Oberholser, entitled ‘ Among the Birds in Nevada.’ Next came ‘ The Moult of Passerine Species in the vicinity of New York City,’ by Dr. Jonathan Dwight, Jr. Remarks followed by Dr. Coues, Messrs. H. C. Oberholser and William Palmer, and the author. The graphophone demonstration of a Brown Thrasher’s song, given by Dr. Sylvester D. Judd, at the opening of the afternoon session, was a new and unique feature of the Congress. Dr. Judd’s experiments were made with a cage bird, but the results 1 For an obituary notice, see Auk, XV, p. 287. ae Sixteenth Congress of the A. O. U. ny. obtained were enough to show that great possibilities in this field may be looked for in the future. The second title was ‘The Distribution and Relationships of Ammodramus maritimus and its Allies,’ by Mr. Frank M. Chap- man. The next paper was ‘The Geographical Distribution of the Wrens of the dewzckiz Group,’ by Harry C. Oberholser. The fourth title was ‘ Polygamy among Oscines,’ by Prof. F. E, L. Beal. Remarks followed by Messrs. Baskett, Chapman, Fuertes, and Nelson. The fifth paper was ‘The Prothonotary Warbler, Protonotaria citrea, a common summer resident of Southeastern Minnesota,’ by Dr. Thos. S. Roberts. Remarks followed by the Chairman (Dr. Merriam), and Mr. Stone. The sixth title was ‘Some early Philadelphia Collectors and Collections,’ by Mr. Witmer Stone. Remarks followed by Drs. Coues and Merriam, and the author. The concluding paper of the afternoon was by Mr. William Palmer, entitled ‘Chadbourne on Individual Dichromatism in Megascops asio, with some evidence in the question.’ Discussion followed by Drs. Allen and Coues, Messrs. Oberholser, Judd, Wood, Dutcher, Baskett, and the author. Second Day.—The meeting was called to order by Vice- President Merriam. Mr. William Palmer gave, as the first paper of the morning, ‘Some Characteristics of Neossoptiles.’ Remarks followed by the Chair and Dr. Gill. Mr. Witmer Stone, Chairman of the ‘Committee on Protection of North American Birds,’ then read the report of his committee for the past year. The report is published in this number of ‘ The Auk,’ and will be issued as a pamphlet to be sold at a very low price for general distribution. The afternoon session was held at the Central High School, the large hall in the building having been placed at the disposal of the Union and its friends, by Prof. W. B. Powell. Vice-Presi- dent C. B. Cory in the Chair. All of the papers read there were illustrated with lantern slides. The first title was ‘The Bird Rocks of the Gulf of St. Law- 54 Sixteenth Congress of the A. O. Us ea: rence,’ by Frank M. Chapman. Remarks followed by the Chair, Messrs. William Palmer and F. A. Lucas. Next came an ‘ Exhibition of lantern slides of birds, birds’ nests and nesting haunts, from Nature,’ by Dr. Thos. S. Roberts. Then followed exhibitions of lantern slides by Messrs. Wil- liam Dutcher and William L. Baily. The evening session was held in the Assembly Hall of the ‘Cosmos Club, by courtesy of the Club, the meeting being called to order by Vice-President Merriam. As in the afternoon all papers read were illustrated with lantern slides. The opening paper was by Mr. Frank M. Chapman, entitled ‘On the Nesting Habits of the Brown Pelican, on Pelican Island, Florida.’ Remarks followed by Messrs. Fuertes, Bangs, Wood, Evermann, Oberholser, and the author. The second title was ‘ A Chapter in the Life of the Canada Jay,’ by Oscar Bird Warren. In the absence of the author it was read by Dr. Thos. S. Roberts. Remarks followed by the Chair. The concluding paper, ‘ Clarke’s Crows and Oregon Jays on Mt. Hood,’ by Miss Florence A. Merriam, was read by Mr. Dutcher, in the absence of the author. Remarks followed by the Chair, and Messrs. Baskett and Osgood. Third Day. — The meeting was called to order by Vice-Presi- dent Merriam. Before proceeding to the reading of papers reso- lutions were adopted thanking the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution for the use of a hall in the U. S. National Museum fora place of meeting, and for other courtesies extended ; to the Washington members of the Union for the cordial welcome and generous hospitality shown visiting members; and to Dr. J. C. Merrill, U. S. A., of the Army Medical Museum, Professor W. B. Powell, Superintendent of Schools, and to the Cosmos Club, for the use of halls under their control for places of meeting. The first paper of the morning was by Witmer Stone on ‘ Crow Roosts in Eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.’ Remarks fol- lowed by Messrs. Fuertes, Dutcher, S. N. Rhoads, William Palmer and the author. The second title was ‘The Generic Names edzocetes and Poo- cates, by Dr. Theo. Gill. Discussed by Drs. Coues, Allen, Palmer and Merriam, Messrs. Oberholser, Rhoads, and the author. Vol. XVI oe Report of Committee on Bird Protection. 55 The opening paper of the afternoon was by Mr. Harry C. Oberholser entitled ‘The Blue Honey-creepers of Tropical America.’ Remarks followed by Frank M. Chapman, E. W. Nelson, and the author. The next title was ‘The Water Ouzel on Mt. Shasta,’ by Miss Florence A. Merriam. As the author was not present the paper was read by Mr. Dutcher. Messrs. Nelson R. Wood and Louis Agassiz Fuertes, two members of the Union, then gave, by special request, imitations of the notes of birds. The third and concluding paper, ‘The Nocturnal Flight of Migrating Birds,’ by O. G. Libby, was read in the absence of the author by Dr. T. S. Palmer. The Union then adjourned to meet in Philadelphia, November 13, 1899. This Congress was a most successful one, both from the high character of the papers read, and from the large attendance of members and visitors. JNO. H. SAGE, Secretary. | | REEORI OF THE, A.-O: U.. ‘COMMITTEE, ON | PRO= TECTION OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS. THE COMMITTEE ON PrRoTEcTION oF NorTH AMERICAN BIRDS is pleased to report a constantly increasing interest in the work in which it is engaged. During the year it has been in corre- spondence with representatives of thirty-six States and Territo- ries and the mass of data submitted to the chairman is so large that it is possible only to present a small portion of it in this report. As heretofore the Committee has acted mainly as a bureau of information, placing correspondents in communication with active workers in their respective States, and furnishing literature and advice whenever possible. Beside this general work some special Auk Jan. 56 Report of Committee on Bird Protection. work has been undertaken by the Committee, especially in rela- tion to State Bird Laws. Following the suggestions of the last annual report, the Com- mittee prepared a ‘Model Bird Law’ to serve as a guide for those who should undertake reform in their State laws. ‘This is accompanied by suggestions for modifying the law in cases where its adoption ¢w ‘oto was deemed impossible. Copies of this Model Law are furnished to those who are willing to inter- est themselves in bringing it before their State Legislatures. Early in the year a meeting of Game Wardens of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and North Dakota was held in Chicago for the purpose of drafting uniform game laws for these States. Mr. Deane of our Committee appeared before this meeting, in the interest of the uniform bird law, and with the assistance of Mr. L. Whitney Watkins succeeded in securing its adoption for presentation to the respective legislatures, along with the game law. Effort has also been made to secure recognition of this Com- mittee by the various Audubon and other bird-protective Societies of America, as their representative in international matters. This was deemed. desirable in consequence of correspondence with the Oesterreichisch Bund der Vogelfreunde of Griitz, Austria, which has undertaken to establish an International League for the protection of birds, to be represented in each country by some organized body or society. Such organization will doubtless be of much service in securing more uniform bird laws in widely separated countries. Much important work has been accomplished during the year which has originated outside of your Committee, but which deserves mention in this connection, such as (1) the establish- ment of the League of American Sportsmen ; (2) Mr. Hornaday’s report to the New York ZoGlogical Society on ‘The Destruction of Our Birds and Mammals’; and (3) Senator Hoar’s labors in behalf of his bill in Congress to prohibit the importation of wild birds’ plumage for purposes of ornamentation. Senator Hoar’s bill strikes at the root of the whole question of bird millinery ; for so long as it is permissible to import ‘ aigrettes’ and similar feathers it is almost impossible to prove that dealers Ree | Report of Committee on Bird Protection. ‘Si are violating the law and selling American plumes; as they insist that they are all imported. With the importation stopped the traffic would be practically at an end. Senator Hoar writes that his bill passed the Senate at the last session with but one dissenting voice and now awaits the action of the House. ‘In the short session, with so many important subjects strug but if you can enlist the vigorous support of one man of influ- ence (in the House) it will be easy, I think, to get it through.” Many have already used their influence to secure support for gling for attention,” he says, “its fate is uncertain ; this bill, and your Committee cannot too strongly urge further action on this line. Even should Senator Hoar’s bill fail of pas- sage, his agitation in Congress of the question of bird- protection and the resultant publicity given to it has done an immense amount of good. The establishment of the League of American Sportsmen is a matter for congratulation among all lovers of nature, and too much praise cannot be given to Mr. G. O. Shields and his asso- ciates for their tireless efforts in exposing ‘game hogs’ and bird destroyers. Though its work is primarily directed towards the protection of game, the birds also come in for their share of attention, and we look for most satisfactory results from codpera- tion between this organization and the bird protective societies. In consideration of the widespread agitation in favor of bird protection and popular bird study during the past year it may prove desirable, before considering the reports from the several - States, to take a hasty view of the present status of Bird Protec- tion in the country at large. As regards the killing of birds for the millinery trade, there is apparently little done within the limits of the United States, though in Florida the slaughter of the remain- ing Egrets seems to go on in spite of.laws and all that has been written against the practice. Mr. Geo. W. Kinnison, of Lake City, Fla., writes: ‘‘ This last season more plumes were shipped than usual, as, owing to the very dry season hunters penetrated the everglades farther to find the rookeries than usual. Our laws are such that a heavy penalty is provided for any one engaged in buying, shipping, or dealing in any way in plumes, but the bulk of the Egret plumes being so small, men will collect them and 58 Report of Committee on Bird Protection. ae with a couple of hand satchels go North and dispose of them. When your northern dealers are punished to the fullest extent of the law for buying them then, and only then, will the killing of plume birds stop in Florida.” The killing of small insectivorous birds for game or ‘sport’ seems to be largely restricted to the Southern States, but is there practised to such an extent as to warrant the most serious con- sideration. Miss Florence A. Merriam writes: ‘“ The protection we give birds during the nesting season in the North is not wholly satisfactory if they are shot on migrating South, and, as is well known, many of our most valuable insectivorous birds are used. for food in the South, and as soon as they begin migrating are subjected to a persistent fusillade. During one week in the spring of 1897, 2600 Robins, shot in North Carolina, were exposed for sale in one market stall in Washington, and in Summerville, S. C., the shooting was so constant that I came to feel that no northern bird could ever reach home alive.’ Prof. Nehrling and Mr. Allison report the same practice in New Orleans where vast numbers of song birds of all sorts are sold in the markets. As regards Laws, nearly every State has laws intended to protect the birds, though many are so badly framed as to be absolutely useless. But even good laws are usually dead letters unless there is some one whose business it is to enforce them. In only a few States do the game wardens make it their business to arrest violators of the bird laws, and the greatest need in bird- protective legislation is the provision of salaried game wardens to enforce the laws. It is in this connection, however, that we look for good results by codperation with the League of Ameri- can Sportsmen, some of whose wardens are already taking deep interest in the welfare of the song birds. In the lack of regular wardens much good can be done by posting copies of laws and penalties in prominent places through the country, which experience has shown will deter many would- be slaughterers. It is also well worth while to instruct country constables as to the laws and the profits resulting from the arrest of offenders. One case has come to the notice of the Committee of a country constable who, to use his own words, “netted $35 in fines from people shootin’ birds as Mrs. calls valuable.” Vol. XVI ae Report of Committee on Bird Protection. 59 That the widespread agitation for bird protection in the North has caused a much stricter regard for the laws is also shown by the decrease in the number of small birds brought to taxidermists’ shops to be mounted. A bird stuffer in one of our large cities, in reply to an inquiry as to his business, said: ‘It is simply dead. If it warn’t for rugs and deer heads we couldn’t live. Those —, —, — Audubon Societies and bird books and newfangled laws are just crowding us out. I haven’t sold a bird in three years. The men are afraid to shoot them or handle them in any shape. What’s the birds for if they ain’t to be used ?” This is very gratifying, but it seems much more difficult to obtain like results in the South, owing to the fact that small birds have there been regarded as legitimate game for generations, and it will only be by educating the rising generation that satisfactory results will be obtained. As bearing directly upon this point a quotation from Miss Merriam’s report is of interest : “ Some valuable hints were given me last winter by the bad Loys of a Summerville, S. C., school. It was reported that they robbed every nest in the neighborhood and used sling shots right and left, and I was asked to labor with them. Believing that the only way to prevent killing is to create an interest in the live bird, I preached merely by telling tales of my bird friends, drawing out the boys to tell in turn what they knew. I soon felt that I had fallen not among robbers and sling shooters but among ornithologists. Nevertheless there was work to be done among them ; their knowledge was mainly of nests and eggs; they knew little of the general habits of the birds. The sportsman’s instinct was strong within them. One lad confessed quite frankly that he had killed a Great Blue Heron ‘just to pass the time,’ and two boys whom I was cherishing as future Audu- bons one day announced with cheerful pride that they had just shot 13 Robins. ‘This sporting instinct was, however, offset by a strong love for natural history, and it was easy to stimulate their interest in the habits of the birds by picturing the delights of observing. This plan quickly bore fruit. A Chickadee was building near the house of one of the boys and one day the child came to me full of enthusiasm —he had spent half a day watch- ing it. Graphically he explained the way it had worked and with Auk Jan. 60 Report of Committee on Bird Protection. eyes aglow he exclaimed, ‘ I declare it was delightful to watch that little bird build.’ I felt the child had given me the answer to the bad boy problem. Prove to him that the live bird is more interest- ing than the dead one, or rather enable him to prove it to himself.” It is on the educational side of the question that the members of the Committee have exerted themselves especially during the past year, and the results are very encouraging. Several new Audubon Societies have been established in 1898 and there are now 14 States societies, with a combined membership of over 16,000, while some go,ooo leaflets, pamphlets, etc., have been ° distributed through. their agency. Lectures and bird talks have been given in greater numbers than ever before, under the auspices of schools, women’s clubs and literary societies; and the observation of bird day in schools, although not authorized by iaw to the extent that it should be, is being more generally considered as the teachers become aware of its importance. And the most admirable plan of joining its obser- vation with that of Arbor Day is meeting with much favor. The status of bird millinery remains practically as it has been, no arguments being able to prevail against the fashion leaders of to-day, and the increase and decrease of birds for ornament seems mainly a question of variation in fashion and of the character of material available for use. ‘Though the traffic in American birds is reduced to a minimum, the use of imported species goes on practically unabated. The milliners in many of our large cities have joined gladly with the Audubon Societies in exhibiting ‘ birdless hats,’ and some, notably Gimbel Bros. of Milwaukee and Philadelphia, have advo- cated in circulars and advertisements the abandonment of wild birds, while they made a special department of Audubon millinery in their stores; but the present generation of fashionable women, as a class, seems not to be open to argument on this subject. The only possible way to reach them will be by the passage of Senator Hoar’s bill. The effect of the widespread appeal for the birds cannot, however, fail to be felt, and it will become more and more apparent as years go by and the younger generation, brought up under its teaching, begins to exert an influence in the community. Vol. XVI ‘S35 Report of Committee on Bird Protection. 61 One more point remains to be considered in reviewing the present status of bird protection; that is the sacrifice of birds to science. This cannot be conscientiously ignored. It has been abundantly proven that the birds killed for real scientific use are a factor so small as not to require serious atten- tion in this connection; and it is only necessary to add that the practice of loaning the specimens in large collections to ornithol- ogists engaged in special work obviates to a great extent the neces- sity of obtaining additional specimens for every new investigation. The day is past, too, when every ornithologist needs a collec- tion. The collections of our large museums, placed cordially at the convenience of students, answer the needs of many who would otherwise have to possess a cabinet of their own, and many an ornithologist to-day — well deserving of the title— has pursued his studies without a gun. So much for science: but there is collecting done which science does not sanction; too often permits are granted for scientific collecting to those who collect merely for natural history dealers. The strict enforcement of the law would prohibit this, and it is a matter for serious consideration. Far worse than the collecting of dzrds for the trade is the ‘scourge of egg collecting,’ against which Mr. Hornaday has entered such an earnest protest. Egg-collecting has become a fad which is encouraged and fostered by the dealers until it is one of the most potent causes of the decrease in our birds. The vast majority of egg-collectors contribute nothing to the science of ornithology and the issuing of licenses promiscuously to this class makes any law for bird protection practically useless. There can be no objection to a student collecting a series of two or three sets of eggs of a species selected to show variation, but when a man numbers in his cabinet ‘210 sets or g17 eggs of the Kentucky Warbler,’’ and other species in proportion, it becomes an outrage. Permits should of course be allowed in all States for sczentific collecting, but the granting power should be in the hands of those who are capable of knowing a true ornithologist or odlogist from an ‘ egg-hog.’ . Auk 62 Report of Committee on Bird Protection. ce It is not desirable to prevent a beginner from collecting, as is done in some States where no permits are given to those under 18 years of age. But nothing need be feared from young students if our active ornithologists will take pains to give them a few words of advice. Too often boys regard the formation of a /arge collection of eggs or birds as necessarily the first step towards becoming an ornithologist of note: but if those who have already won their spurs, will take the trouble to point out to the beginners, the lines of work which yield results of real benefit to science they will be led to see exactly how much collecting and what sort of specimens are really needed for scientific research and not needlessly dupli- cate what has already been procured. Further, they will in all probability become known as original contributors to ornithological science, while as mere collectors they would bid fair to remain in obscurity. As bearing directly upon egg collecting by boys, a letter dic- tated by the late Prof. Spencer F. Baird, shortly before his death and kindly placed at my disposal by his daughter, Miss Lucy H. Baird, is so pertinent that I make the following quotation from it, to show the feelings of one of America’s greatest ornithol- ogists upon this subject. “When I was in the [egg] ‘business,’ I was collecting mate- rial for an exhaustive work on the natural history of the birds of North America, and a set of nests and eggs of each species, in all variations, was a necessity. I consequently needed to have as large a variety as possible, so as to complete the ground. The ordinary bird-egging boy, however, whose enterprise is not to be frowned at, is not such an individual, he simply wants to make a collection of eggs without an ulterior scientific object. A single egg will answer the same purpose in his case as the one hundred required in the one first mentioned. . . . I am inclined to ascribe the reduction in the number of our home birds as much to the taking of eggs for various purposes and driving away the parents as to actual extermination of the birds themselves. However, the most effectual way of preventing the difficulty is. by prohibiting the taking of eggs entirely, which I would earnestly recommend.” ee Report of Committee on Bird Protection. 6 2 With this brief outline of the present status of Bird Protection I turn to the reports furnished to the chairman by members of the Committee and others in the various States of the Union. Only an abstract of these can be given in the present paper but even from this it will be readily seen how extensive and how sincere is the interest in Bird Protection and Bird Study. The more important reports received by the Chairman from members of the Committee are considered in the following pages, that of Mr. Mackay being given in full, as it is of particular inter- est in connection with his work of previous years in the protection of the Gulls and Terns of the New England coast. It is with sincere regret that we are compelled to announce Mr. Mackay’s retirement from the Committee, as he feels him- self unable to longer continue his valuable work in its behalf. MASSACHUSETTS. Mr. Mackay reports as follows: “I herewith submit my report for the year ending Nov. 14, 1898. I was instrumental in hav- ing inserted a protective clause in the ‘ Muskeget Act,’ approved June 1, 1895. Acting under this clause the town of Nantucket this year appropriated one hundred dollars for a special police officer, whose duty should be to remain on Muskeget Island from May 1 to August 15, to protect certain birds living in and about that island. Mr. John R. Sandsbury of Nantucket, my candidate, was considerately appointed to the position, and on my applica- tion to the Commissioners of Inland Fisheries and Game, was made a Deputy Fish and Game Commissioner, with the authority to arrest without warrant. On entering upon his duties Mr. Sandsbury repaired the old signs, and repapered them with new warning notices, all of which was done by the time the Terns and Laughing Gulls commenced to breed. ‘ By referring to my report for 1897 (Auk, Vol. XV, pp. 84-89), it will be noticed that large numbers of Terns were not in evi- dence in 1897, and had apparently abandoned the locality. This caused me considerable uneasiness when I viewed with dismay the large falling off in the number ofthe birds. While on Muskeget, July 2, 3, 4, 5, 1898, I resolved to make such accurate observa- 64 Refort of Committee on Bird Protection. oe tions that they could be used hereafter with confidence, for it is doubtful if similar data will be again collected in the near future. It is no slight undertaking to accomplish this conscientiously. The condition of the ‘Terns and Laughing Gulls this year is the best that has ever been reached, to my knowledge, as far as simi- lar observations show. “Adams Island, which has not had any breeding birds for years, had this season an estimated colony of four hundred Terns. I found here two hundred and ninety-five nests containing five hundred and forty-three eggs. Other localities also show gains over former years: It would appear that many of the Terns not present during 1897 have this season returned to their former haunt, while others, I have reason to believe, have located on Penixese Island. ‘This satisfactory condition does not include the Roseate Terns; their numbers, I regret to state, are still con- siderably below the splendid aggregate of 1896. I am still in hopes that another season will see most of them back again. When one contemplates the decrease in bird life elsewhere, it must cause extreme satisfaction to all lovers of bird life to know that we have in our midst two such great colonies of Terns as are domiciled on Muskeget and Penikese Islands, the aggregate num- bers of which are beyond estimate. A home in such a thickly settled State as Massachusetts, where available sites on the coast are constantly sought for summer residences, is most unusual. The presence of these beautiful birds must naturally enhance the interest in such surroundings. “When the Massachusetts Legislature met last winter, I had two bills (Nos. 5 and 6) introduced, ‘ For the better Protection of Certain Birds.’ Both bills were similar in character, having the protection of certain Hawks and Owls, etc., as one of the main features, the economic value of which were explained in a letter by Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Chief of the Biological Survey, U. S.. Department of Agriculture. I had this letter read before the Senate in connection with my argument. Bill No. 6 omitted certain clauses affecting the marketmen, hotel men, and cold storage interests, who were, and always have been, inimical to my endeavors. I thought if bill No. 5 with such clauses failed, I might succeed with the other. Unfortunately both bills were Vol. XVI iG Report of Committee on Bird Protection. 6 5 heard at the same time by the Fish and Game committee, and although the strongest kind of arguments were presented in their favor, it was without avail, the committee reporting against both bills. I fought them through but was defeated in the end. ‘The combined interests above mentioned have thus far proved too strong for me. *“T would again call attention to the shooting and shipment East mm the spring of certain birds, and strongly appeal to our Western friends to make some endeavor to prevent it, if possible, in the case of the American Golden Plovers, Eskimo Curlews, and Bartramian Sandpipers. These birds are permitted to be sold in Massachusetts during the closed season provided ‘hey have been taken out of the State. I have tried very hard to prevent such sale ere, but without success. These birds are killed in the West and Southwest during the spring while on their way to the breeding grounds. It is a common occurrence to take eggs from the females when cleaning them, Unless protective laws are enacted 7 the West, little can be hoped for in Massachusetts, and it will not be long before these birds will disappear on our coast except as stragglers. In fact, judging from a number of years past in Massachusetts, such conditions have already been reached. Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas (Fort Worth) appear to be the principal shipping points. “One retrograde law was enacted this year, viz.: The open season on the Scoters having been extended from April 15 to May 20, in order to cover for shooting purposes, the spring migration of these Ducks northward to breed. I endeavored to defeat this bill, and at first thought I had succeeded, as it was voted down. A subsequent reconsideration reinstated it, and with another vote it was passed, and later received the approval of the Governor. As a precedent, I consider the success of this bill as unfortunate, as it will invite similar attempts, more than one of which, I hear, are to be undertaken next winter. “ Black-bellied Plovers continue to increase in this State, both in spring and autumn, the result, I am convinced, of protective laws. This increase is creating some discontent with such laws, as persons who desire to kill them in the spring during the closed season, are prevented from so doing. 5 66 Report of Committee on Bird Protection. a “The colony of Terns on Penikese Island have enjoyed a season of unmolested quiet. ‘The old signs were repaired, and repapered with new warning notices in Portuguese and English. Arrangements were made early in the spring with Captain Proctor ° of the Buzzards Bay police boat to continue his surveillance of the island. The Terns arrived in larger numbers this season than for years, which fact is affirmed by fishermen and the inhabitants of Cuttyhunk Island. Mr. Frederick A. Homer wrote me recently that the number of eggs this season is the largest in his experience. He also added: ‘In conclusion, I will say I think you would be abundantly satisfied with the Penikese colony of Terns, for in my estimation there has been a decidedly larger number of old birds than for years, as well as a larger number of young, and they seem to have increased in the past few years very materially. At any rate you may rest assured they have been well cared for and protected so far as we were able to do so, and if any good results are obtained we shall be pleased.’ You also will be pleased to know, I am sure, that [ attribute the present high status of the Terns on Penikese Island to the sup- port I have received from the Messrs. Homer Brothers, owners of the island.” Mr. E. H. Forbush, Ornithologist of the Massachusetts Board of Agriculture and a member of the Committee, sends a most interesting report covering the whole subject of bird protection in his State and we regret that Jack of space prevents its presenta- tion in full. Of the work of the Audubon Society he says: “ Its work in distributing literature, in interesting teachers, and thereby providing for the inculcation of its principles among the schools, cannot be too highly recognized. This kind of work is bound to bring forth good fruit, ‘for what is learned in youth is remem- bered in old age.’” As regards Mr. Mackay’s report on the Terns he says: “I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing the highest admiration for the practical work that he has done. It has, I believe, resulted in the increase of the number of Terns all along the Massachusetts coast.” In regard to enforcing the bird laws of the State, Mr. Forbush reports that there are at present So fish and game wardens, some Peed Report of Committee on Bird Protection. 67 of whom have done excellent work in warning nest robbers and shooters. As most of the wardens are unpaid, however, they can devote but little time to this work. The precincts of the new Metropolitan Park are regularly patrolled by Park Policemen, and the laws against gunners or nest robbers here are very severe, the result being a large increase in the Park of Crows, Quail, Woodcock, Grouse, Jays, Squirrels, and Water Fowl. Most important has been the action of the Board of Agriculture which, at Mr. Forbush’s request, appointed twenty bird wardens from the Gypsy Moth force. Mr. Forbush regards stray cats as one of the greatest sources of harm to our smaller birds, especially to the young in the nests, while boy gunners, pot hunters and Italians are very destructive. Respecting nests he states that he has had several competent observers watching nests within a few miles of his office for three years past with the object of obtaining data on the habits and food of the birds, and each year 75% of the nests are in some way robbed of eggs or young. Mr. Forbush reports also, as a sample case, the arrest of three Italians, one of whom had on his person nine birds — Robins, Hermit Thrushes and Downy Woodpeckers, and Saysxe “olieais pleasant to be able to add that this man was fined $90, while the others with him were fined for carrying firearms. “Other Italians were also arrested and fined for trapping birds for dealers in cage birds in Boston, and Judge Pettengill, the trial justice, said: ‘I know and love our song birds. Time was when I knew every bird we have hereabouts by its call note. The woods around Boston are full of men and boys with guns who shoot song birds, and I am glad to hear of the interest now taken in the organization of societies for effecting their protec- tion and increase.’ Judge Pettengill furnishes a worthy example for imitation by some of our other judges who are sometimes more considerate of the shooters than of the birds.” ILLINOIS. Mr. Ruthven Deane, in addition to his report on the work of the Illinois Audubon Society, says: “Great credit is due to the 68 Report of Committee on Bird Protection. ce efficient work which has been done in our State by Warden H. W. Loveday and his deputies. Since the first of the year over one hundred prosecutions and convictions have been made for the wanton killing and trapping of song and insectivorous birds, by men and boys, largely Italians and Bohemians. In 1897 there were 580 convictions in the State for illegal killing of game birds, and the result has made violators much less bold, and greatly decreased the breaches of the law. An attempt was made to convict a dealer in native cage birds, but owing to a technicality in the faulty law it failed, though the Judge expressed sincere regret at his inability to punish the offenders. his is another evidence of the necessity of a carefully worded law.” DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Dr. T. S. Palmer of the Committee and of the Biological Sur- vey of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, has furnished much valuable information on bird legislation to various persons con- templating revisions in their State laws. He reports that the Survey has, as in former years, aided the cause of bird protection in every way possible. Its library is always open to students for consultation, and during the spring it kept a special collection of specimens convenient for reference for persons studying the local birds. More than 20,000 copies of the circular on ‘ Bird Day in the Schools’ have been distributed, as well as several editions of the Bulletin on ‘Common Birds in relation to Agriculture.’ Dr. Palmer conducted a class in bird study among teachers in the Normal School, “ the object being to familiarize them with the common birds of the District by actual examination of speci- mens.” The results were highly satisfactory and the plan is an excellent one. TEXAS. Mrs. E. Irene Rood of the Committee reports on her work in Texas: “No doubt the most important work done in this State during the year for the protection of birds, has been the organiz- ation of numerous Bands of Mercy, all pledged to protect the ire a Report of Committee on Bird Protection. 69 birds. Besides this, I have distributed about 20,000 circulars, and have had the law in regard to killing birds printed on large placards and posted in conspicuous places. “T have not had time to organize any Audubon Societies yet, but have organized a number of Humane Societies which ought to cover the same ground. In fact the State Humane Education Society proposes to do some protective legislative work the coming winter. I have addressed the children in the public schools at nearly all the places I have visited on the subject of bird protection, and advocated a Bird Day, which I hope to see established in a few months.” MIssouRI. Mr. O. Widmann, of the Committee, reports that little has been done in his State. An exhibition of birdless millinery was given in St. Louis, but seemed to have little effect. “ The laws,” he states, “are all right as far as they go but are good for nothing if they are not taken care of by somebody who has the means to enforce them, and as a rule the oniy means to enforce a law is money to. pay men who see that it is enforced... . The sale of shot guns and ammunition has been unprecedently large in St. Louis, and the war has given a new incentive to the love of slaughter.” ARKANSAS. Mrs. Louise McGowen Stephenson, of the Committee, sends a most important report which we regret, from lack of space, can- not be given entire. She has distributed 2000 placards of the bird laws throughout the State, having them posted in schools, railroad stations, express offices, barber shops, saloons and meat markets. Through her efforts and those of Mr. John M. Rose, a new law will be pre- sented to the legislature providing for a State fish and game warden to look after the enforcement of the laws, and. with power to appoint assistants. Mrs. Stephenson has also been active in Auk 7O Report of Committee on Bird Protection. oe distributing literature and writing for the daily papers in the interest of bird protection. She says in closing her report: ‘This report must not close without mention of some whose aid has been invaluable. To Mr. Neal, editor of ‘The World,’ great credit is due, for not only are the columns of his paper open to me, but often he has entered the lists himself, and it was at his request that Senator Hoar’s ‘Plea of the Birds’ was scattered broadcast over the whole land, by one of the greatest manufacturers of ‘ plate matter.’ ‘Mrs. Sara Thorpe Thomas, of Alexander, Ark., is a faithful friend of the birds and her beautifully written articles are pub- lished in various journals throughout the State. *‘ Last of those I can name here is a dear little girl in Little Rock, Merle McCain, with whom it is my pleasure to correspond, who has with the help of her teacher organized the only Audu- bon Society in the State.” AUDUBON SOCIETIES. Owing to the limited space at my disposal it will be impossible in the present report to include extracts from the many letters received from the Audubon Societies, and from individuals who have been working in the interest of bird protection, and we are therefore compelled to summarize their work as briefly as possi- ble. Audubon Societies at present exist in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Ohio, Indiana, Illi- nois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. Their work has been mainly devoted to the issuing and distribution of literature, and the holding of lectures and meetings at which bird protection and bird study were discussed. Excellent progress has been made in many States towards the establishment of bird exercises in the schools in connection with Arbor Day celebration, notably in Wisconsin and Indiana, where the State Superintendents of Public Instruction have lent their aid. Great success has attended the efforts of some of the Societies —_- Vol. XVI | 1BG6, Report of Committee on Bird Protection. vig in their attempt to interest milliners in the work. Mrs. Robins of Pennsylvania says: “ An exhibition of millinery trimmed without the use of wild birds, aigrettes, etc., was held at the Hotel Strat- ford, Philadelphia, in May, in which all the leading milliners of the city participated, and the attendance of visitors was very large. The exhibits of the various firms were afterwards displayed in their stores and advertised in their newspaper notices, which did still more to draw public attention to the possibilities of ‘ Audu- bon millinery.’ Asa result many of the stores have agreed to make a speciality of birdless hats, and Messrs. Gimbel Bros. have established an Audubon department, besides issuing an appeal for the birds in their millinery advertisements.” SOUTHERN STATES. In the Southern States, as already stated, there is probably greater need for the agitation of bird protection than anywhere else in the Union. The slaughter of birds there during winter cannot but counteract our best efforts for protection in the North during the nesting season. Mr. Kinnison has already been quoted in relation to the destruction of Egrets in Florida. He adds, in reference to song birds, “Our most welcome bird in the North, the Robin, comes South to winter in droves and is killed here asa game bird. It is notuncommon to see a hunter come to mar- ket with them in strings of a dozen each to sell. It makes a man like myself who was raised in northern Indiana sick. Every bird was protected there by my father, and I have watched him when plowing give a wide birth to the little Ground Sparrows’ nests. I can never forget these impressions of boyhood, and it hurts me to see the birds slaughtered when they come to Florida simply for a home during the winter.” Mr. T. W. Talley writes from Tallahassee that there is ‘ prac- tically nothing done for the protection of birds; each county has its laws but there is rarely any enforcement of them. I feel con- fident,” he continues, “that much of the destruction of small, beneficial species is due to guns placed in the hands of small boys who learn an accomplishment of every southern gentleman Auk 72 Report of Committee on Bird Protection. ant —to shoot arene killing every small, beneficial bird that they can see.’ In Louisiana Mr. Andrew Allison reports much the same con- dition of affairs as in Florida. A new bird and game law has been passed, and he hopes to obtain the passing of still better laws next year.! Mrs. E. G. McCabe, of Atlanta, Georgia, has undertaken to introduce the principles of the Audubon Societies during the year, by interesting children in the study of birds and in distribut- ing literature. Rev. H. E. Wheeler of Huntsville, Alabama, has done similar work but deplores the neglect of the birds in his State. Miss Elizabeth J. Cummins has formed a branch of the Pennsyl- vania Audubon Society at Wheeling, W. Va., and secured 61 members. In Tennessee, North and South Carolina, correspondence shows that practically nothing has been done for bird protection, though Mr. J. R. Lowry, principal of the North Knoxville School (Tenn.) has undertaken to interest his teachers in the subject, and Miss Merriam has done some work in South Carolina, as already described. As showing what can be accomplished in the way of legislation the report of Mr. F. C. Kirkwood, of the Maryland Fish and Game Protective Association, is very encouraging. Heretofore Robins, Flickers and Meadowlarks were lawful game birds but in face of strong opposition they have now all been placed in the protected list. Mr. Kirkwood writes: ‘This was one of the hardest pills to swallow, for the rural population as well as a great many city men; still the law has in the main been observed. As far as song birds are concerned, I consider them as numerous as ever.” Let us hope that similar reforms may be undertaken in the States further south. PACIFIC, CoAsi From the Pacific coast we have only meagre reports. Mr. 'T have been informed since this report was written that an Audubon Society was organized during the year in New Orleans, but have no further information of it. Vol. XVI 7869 Report of Commitree on Bird Protection. 73S Anthony, of the Committee, writing from Portland, Oregon, early in the year, stated that former sealers were reported fitting out plume hunting expeditions to the Mexican coast. He was later of the opinion that the rush to the Alaskan gold fields, and the consequent demand for vessels, had benefited both birds and seals by attracting the men elsewhere. Mr. Leverett M. Loomis reports that the sea bird egg trade at San Francisco, Cal., has practically stopped, owing to the steps taken last year. ; In Washington, Mr. J. H. Bowles states that bird protection is as yet almost unnecessary, for civilization is not sufficiently advanced to make every boy think it necessary for him to have a collection of eggs or birds. One may see a boy after birds with a sling, but there is a very strict law against these implements and they are very scarce. In conclusion, your Committee would call attention to the fact that most of the suggestions embodied in last year’s report have been acted upon, as shown in the preceding pages, with good results. Continuance of work on these lines, however, is strongly to be recommended, especially (1) Foundation of Audubon societies. (2) Encouragement of Bird study in schools, women’s clubs and other societies, both by lectures and publications in daily and school journals. (3) Establishment of Bird day in connec- tion with Arbor day in the schools. (4) A passage of the model Bird Law in full or in modified form by State legislatures. (s) The assistance of all members of the A. O. U. in furthering these undertakings and in bringing all who are interested in bird study into the Union. New suggestions which present themselves, or old ones which have not been acted upon are: (1.) The publication of uniform leaflets for Audubon Soci- eties. At present the weaker societies are unable to publish sufficient literature to meet the demands made upon them, while the larger ones are wasting their funds in printing almost identical matter. A publisher could easily select the best of the various leaflets now in circulation and issue them in large quantity at a very small cost, with the heading left blank for printing in the 74 Report of Committee on Bird Protection. ia name and seal of the individual societies. If one of the larger societies would take the matter up, arrangements could no doubt be made with a publisher and the support of all the other soci- eties secured. (2.) The need of a cheap monthly magazine devoted to pop- ular ornithology which could serve as an organ for the various Audubon societies and keep the members in touch with their work. All societies which have reached a membership of several thousand realize that it is impossible to communicate with their members more than once or twice a year, owing to the cost of postage, and the success of the societies depends largely upon keeping in communication with their members.* (3.) The need of assistance from all true ornithologists in guiding beginners to the proper fields of ornithological research, in discouraging collecting by those who are not contributing to the advancement of the science, and especially in the suppression of the ¢rade in birds’ eggs. (4.) The earnest effort of all bird protective associations and members of the Union, in bringing about a better regard for our birds in the South and West. Respectfully submitted, WITMER STONE, Chairman. 1Since this was written, I have learned that a bi-monthly magazine of ornithology, to be called ‘Bird-Lore’ has been established under the editorship of Mr. Frank M. Chapman. This journal will be the official organ of the Audubon Societies, and the first number, which will be issued in Feb- ruary, will contain reports of their work for the year. Vol. XVI cae General Notes. 7 5 GENERAL NOTES. The Black-capped Petrel (.#s/relata hasitata) on the Ohio River at Cincinnati.— A specimen of this oceanic bird was noticed yesterday (Oct. 5, 1898) on the river at the east end of Cincinnati by two young men who approached it in a boat, close enough to hit it with an oar. It was brought alive to the Museum of Natural History. Its skin will be preserved in the museum. It proved to be an adult female. ‘ A young male of the same species was taken the same evening on one of the bridges connecting Cincinnati with the Kentucky shore. It was seen fluttering about the electric lamp, and finally struck the glass globe and fell down on the bridge where it was picked up by the bridge watchman. The specimen was brought to the Zodlogical Gardens in Cincinnati where it lived one day and was then given to Mr. Charles Dury, in whose collection the skin will be preserved. Mr. Dury, who skinned both birds, tells me they were extremely emaciated and their digestive canals con- tained nothing but a little watery fluid. A few days after the capture of these two specimens at Cincinnati my attention was called to a notice in a Kentucky paper about an “arctic gull” captured by Captain W. L. Thomas of the ferry boat at Augusta, Ky. I at once wrote to Captain Thomas for more information. He very kindly sent me the skin of the bird together with the following notes: ‘“*The bird was discovered and caught near my boat, last Tuesday a week ago (Oct. 4) just at daybreak, exhausted; for a few days he showed fight and appeared to wander all after night...I oa him alive for ten days by forcing small minnows down his thvode The specimen I would call a Fulmar.” Captain Thomas’s ‘dentiaenien proved correct. The bird is the Black-capped Petrel, and was the third specimen of its kind brought by the same gale to the Ohio River between Ohio and Kentucky. —JosuA LINDAHL, Céncinnatr, O. The Purple Gallinule (Jonornis mar tinica) in Ohio. — On Nov. 16, 1898, a fine young specimen of this species, which had been shot the day before on the banks of the Scioto River, was brought to me. This is, as far as I know, the only time this species is recorded from the fall in Ohio. The phase of plumage is an interesting one; the bird is just beginning to change from the plumage of the young into that of the old bird. The age of this bird, and also the date on which it was taken, settle the question whether this species breeds in Ohio or not, beyond all doubt in the affirmative. The bird is now in my collection. — W. F. HENNINGER, Waverly, Ohio. The Corn Crake in Nova Scotia — During his visit to this city recently I had the pleasure of exhibiting to Mr. Frank M. Chapman acase of birds 76 ; General Notes. Auk Jan. containing specimens which I have collected and mounted in years gone by and among which he recognized a specimen of the Corn Crake (Crex crex) which I had inadvertently identified as another species. As regards the history of this bird, I may briefly mention that nearly a quarter of a century ago, in the month of October, while Snipe shooting in a boggy, swampy situation, my dog flushed the strange bird which, fly- ing steadily, was readily brought down, and its like has never since been seen in this vicinity—JAmMEs McKIntay, Pictou, WN. S. The Stilt Sandpiper in Maryland. — As records of Micropalama himan- topus are rather scarce along the Atlantic coast; and as there is but one record for Maryland, the often quoted Patuxent River bird taken by Mr. H. W. Henshaw on Sept. 8, 1885, the following may be of interest. On Sept. 9, while shooting Reedbirds on Gunpowder Marsh, Baltimore Co., three Sandpipers came along, were whistled down and all three shot. They proved to be Stilt Sandpipers. Two were badly cut up but the third formed a good skin and is now in my collection. On the same day another bird, in company with two Ring Plovers (4gvalitzs semtpalmata) was watched for over an hour, through a field glass, but its actions were only those of any Sandpiper. It was on mud where there is usually a small pond in the marsh on Graces Quarter Ducking Shore, a point about five miles from where the others were shot and near the mouth of Gunpowder River, both points being fifteen miles in an air line from the centre of Baltimore city. Being on private prop- erty this last bird was not shot. It, however, came within fifteen feet of me and at no time was over one hundred and fifty feet away during the hour I watched it.— F. C. Kirkwoop, Baltimore, Md. The Turnstone(Avexaria tnterpres) in Minnesota.— On May 27, 1889, (see O. & O., Vol. XIV, p. 168) my friend, Mr. Geo. G. Cantwell, secured what he thought the first specimens (five birds) of this species for the State, in Lac Qui Parle Co., but in the same journal (see O. & O., Vol. XV, p. 16) I recorded the capture of a male on the shore of Lake Minnetonka, at Excelsior, on May 24, 1888. On May 29, 1891, at Madison, Minn.,a fine adult male was proueia to me which was found dead near the railroad with part of the left wing miss- ing, caused, no doubt,by the bird flying against the telegraph wire. While at Mankato, Minn., on Noy. 1, 1898, I was permitted, through the kindness of my friend, Prof. U. S. Cox, in charge of the Department of Biology and Geology of the Mankato State Normal School, to examine the collection of the school. I found there a mounted specimen of an adult Turnstone but, unfortunately, without any data whatever. Upon inquiry I learned that the specimen had been brought, together with a small collec- tion of mounted birds collected near the city, by Mr. D. L.Rose. Mr. Rose informed me that he collected the specimen about 1875 near the city of Vol. XVI 1899 General Notes. a4 Mankato. Mr. Rose, therefore, is entitled to the credit of securing the first specimen for the State, for his bird antedates my first capture by thirteen, and Mr. Cantwell’s by fourteen years.— ALBERT LANO, A/zthin, Minn. Note on Meleagris gallopavo fera.—In discussing the Turkey ques- tion (Auk, XIV, July, 1897, pp. 272-275) I neglected to express a prefer- ence for Vieillot’s term fera, and make the formal combination here given. Also, there occurs on p. 274 the typographical error of pera for fera in citing the Gal. Ois. II, 1825, p. 10, pl. 201, and I inadvertently used the term sylvestrzs instead of fera in citing the Nouy. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. IX, 1817, p. 447-— ELttiorr Covues, Washington, D. C. The Golden Eagle and Barn Owl at Northville, Wayne Co., Mich. — A short time ago a Golden Eagle (Agucla chrysaétos) was caught at this place. It had dived down upon a flock of Quail and had become entangled in a thick growth of raspberry bushes, and a man standing near by rushed upon the monster bird and caught it alive. This is the first specimen of its kind ever taken in this part of Michigan, and according to all indications it had been in captivity before, for it is perfectly docile, and will devour its food in the presence of bystanders without fear. This Eagle not being in its full adult plumage I wrote to Dr. Elliott Coues upon the subject who, in reply, said, “If your Eagle is feathered down the shanks to the roots of the toes it is the Golden Eagle,” which proves its identity beyond a doubt. Sometime during the last days of October, 1898, a Barn Owl (Strix pratincola) was shot by Mr. Abraham Sheffield near Northville, Michigan. It has been mounted and is now in possession of Stark Bros., of that place. The Barn Owl is very rare in Michigan, and very few have been found in the State. —James B. Purpy, Plymouth, Michigan. New Name for the Genus Tetragonops.— Je/ragonops Jardine (Edinb. New Phil. Journ. II, No. 2, Oct. 1855, 404), as a genus of American Barbets is preoccupied by TZetragonops Gerstacker (Monatsb. Akad. Berlin, Feb. or March, 1855, 85), and I will propose in its stead Paz, the name of a mythological god of the forests. The two known species will then be Pax rhamphastinus (Jardine), and Pan frantzit (Scl.).— CHAS. W. RicHMOND, U. S. Nat. Museum, Washington, D. C. Notes on the Myology of Hemiprocne zonaris.—It might be sup- posed that the anatomical possibilities of so small a group as the Swifts had been exhausted, but that this is not the case is shown by an examination of Hemzprocue zonaris, for which I am indebted to Mr. C. B. Taylor of Jamaica. The cranium is typically cypseline, so are the wing muscles, although the deltoid is small, as in the majority of the true Swifts, there being an apparent tendency to reduction in the number AW) 78 General Notes. Auk Jan. of wing muscles in birds which fly, so to speak, by main strengthZand in which the humerus is reduced in length. The leg muscles are curious first by the absence of the peroneus dongus,a muscle which runs from the head of the tibia to the upper end of the tarsus in Passeres, and second by the great simplification of the deep plantar tendons. In the Passeres, as we all know, one tendon flexes the first digit of the foot, while another with three branches flexes the three front toes. In the true Swifts, Macropterygide, the tendon of the hind toe is attached by a short slip to the branch running to the fourth digit. In the other Swifts so far examined the two main tendons are completely fused for some distance although worked by two muscles. Now in //femiprocue while the muscle which ordinarily works the front toes, the exer per- forans, is present, it has no separate tendon, but is attached to the mus- cle of the first digit, fevor longus hallucis, and is diverted to the work of pulling on its tendon, which as usual runs up over the outer side of the belly of the muscle. Below this single tendon sends off four slips, one to each digit, thus presenting the simplest condition possible and literally realizing Gadow’s statement that the flexor longus hallucis is really a common flexor of all digits. If a good generic character is needed for Hemiprocne, here it is.— F. A. Lucas, Washington, D. C. The Authority for the Combination Cypseloides niger borealis. — In the Eighth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List (Auk, Jan., 1897, XIV, 126) the second reference under Cypselotdes niger borealis is credited to Drew, Auk, Jan., 1885, II, 17. Turning to Mr. Ridgway’s ‘ Catalogue of North American Birds,’ it is seen at once that Mr. Drew was not the first to write Cypselordes niger borealis; and unless one still earlier be found, the proper quotation is Ridgway, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Aug- 27, 1880, ITI, 188. — Harry C. OBERHOLSER, Washington, D. C. Octheeca frontalis (Lafr.) and Cardinalis granadensis Lafr.—In a paper published in the Revue Zoologique, 1847, p. 67, Lafresnaye described a number of birds from ‘Peru, Colombia, etc., collected by M. Delattre, the types of which are now in the Philadelphia Academy. Most of these are well known, but two— 7'yrannula frontalis and Cardinalis granadensts — have been generally overlooked, and neither name appears in the British Museum Catalogue of Birds. Tyrannula frontalis was redescribed by Sclater as Octhwca citrintfrons (P. Z. S., 1862, 113), which name must of course be relegated to synonymy. Cardinalis granadensits trom Colombia is probably a synonym of C. phenicurus Bp. (type locality, Venezuela), though it should be considered if any subdivision of this species is deemed advisable. — WITMER STONE,. Acad. Nat Sctences, Philadelphia. Pica pica hudsonica in California.—- In August last the Black-billed Magpie was found abundantly about Alturas, Modoc County. I believe: Vol. XVI 3 ; = igs General Notes. 79 this is a record for California. There is no question as to the identity for I am familiar with both our American forms. PP. nutfal/¢¢é occurs as far north along the Sacramento River as Shasta County.—R. C. McGREGor, U.S. Fish Hatchery, Battle Creek, Cal. On the Genus Astragalinus Cabanis. — When Cabanis established the genus Asfragalinus (Mus. Hein. I, July, 1851, 159) he mentioned no type, but ranged under the generic name A. ¢rs¢7s, A. mexicanus, and A. columbianus, and in a footnote mentions also A. féstacénusand A. yarrellé ‘¢as the nearest relatives of the type of the genus,” which must, therefore have been one of the above mentioned species. In the catalogue of the Fringillide in the collection of the British, Museum (Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. XII, 1888, 192), Dr. Sharpe gives the type as ringilla tristis Lin- neus; and that he is correct in doing so is proven by the fact that the only one of the three species named by Cabanis to be made the type of another supposed genus is Fringilla psaltria Say (conspecific with Carduelis mexicanus Swainson), which Cassin, fourteen years later, designated as type of his subgenus Pseudomztris (Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1865, 93). This clearly establishes Aringilla tristis as the type of the genus Astragalinus, even were L. psaltréa (with its subspecies mextcanus and columbianus) generically distinct, which they are not. Carduelis lawrencet Cassin is also an Astragalinus,and the only known species of the genus not mentioned by Cabanis. The genus is connned: so far as known, to North America, one form barely entering the northern frontier of the southern continent. This is Astragalinus psaltria colum- biana, which ranges from Colombia to Costa Rica. Carduelis yarrell¢ Audubon, which Cabanis, in the footnote cited above, refers to Astraga- linus is a Spruus, as are all other purely South American species, as well as all of those peculiar to Mexico and Central America (excepting, of course, the subspecific forms of Astragalinus psaltria). The North American species and subspecies of Astragalinus are as follows : — 529. Astragalinus tristis (LINN.). A. [stragalinus] tristis CABANIS, Mus. Hein. I, July, 1851, 159. 529a. Astragalinus tristis pallidus (MEARNs). 5294. Astragalinus tristis salicamans (GRINNELL). Spinus tristis salicamans GRINNELL, Auk, XIV, Oct. 1897, 207. Geoc. Distr. — Pacific coast district of United States. 530. Astragalinus psaltria (Say). Astragalinus psaltrta RipGway, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. III Aug. 2 1880, 177. 530a. Astragalinus psaltria arizonz (COUEs). Astragalinus psaltria arizone RipGway, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 177. 5300. Astragalinus psaltria mexicanus (SwaAINs. ). 7> So General Notes. Auk Jan. Astragalinus psaltria mextcanus R1ipGWway, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 177. 531. Astragalinus lawrencei (CAssIN). Astragalinus lawrenceti R1ipGWAY, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 177. The remaining species ranged under Sfzzus in the A. O. U. Check-List should remain in that genus. — ROBERT RipGWay, Washington, D. C. Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus) in Massachusetts in Win- ter. — The statement that there is but one winter record of the Lapland Longspur in New England (Brewster’s Minot’s Land and Game Birds of New England, page 194) makes it interesting to record a second occur- rence. The record above was at Brandon, Vermont, February 21, 1879. On February 22, 1892, Mr. H. F. Kendall of Cambridge, Mass., shot a Longspur (unsexed) among a flock of Horned Larks at Duxbury, Mass. There were two Longspurs in the flock feeding on the beach, but one separated from the Larksas they flew up, and could not befound. The fact that the birds were in winter plumage among a flock of Horned Larks, would seem to show that they could hardly have been early migrants. The specimen that was shot is in Mr. Kendall’s collection.— Mrxor Davis, Cambridge, Mass. Henslow’s Sparrow in Ontario.—I have to record the first capture of Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowit) in Canada, and its pres- ence in fair numbers at different localities. At the north of the Thames River (Lake St. Clair) two were taken on May 24, and June 12, 1898; while near Sarnia, forty miles north, on July 2, two more were shot. Altogether about twelve specimens were seen and heard, and it seems probable that they are regular breeders in the western end of Ontario, their unobtrusive habits aecounting for their not having been previously noted. The birds were all in wet meadows not far from marshy ground, and while not particularly wild, were so difficult to see on the ground, and so shy of exposing themselves above it, that we saw probably only a few of those actually present. — W. E. SAuNDERS, London, Ont. On the Generic Name Aimophila versus Peucza.—JIn a footnote on page 226 of ‘The Auk’ for July, 1898, expressed my inability “ to discover any characters sufficient to separate Peuc@a from Aimofhila, unless the former be restricted to P. @estivalis, P. botteri, and P. cassint.” After careful reconsideration of the matter, I am only the more firmly con- vinced that the generic name Azmofhila must be used for Ammodramus ruficeps Cassin, and its subspecies, together with Peucea carpalis Coues. Some doubt exists as to the latter, the relationship of which is without doubt closer to Atmofhila sumichrasti Lawrence than to any other species ; but in any event, P. carfalis is not a Peucea, and since it must be removed from the last named genus (in event of its recognition as dis- Mie ae General Notes. SE tinct from Armophila), it may as well be referred, at least provisionally, to Aimophila. Whether Zonotrichia mystacalis Hartlaub, Z. guingues- triata Sclater & Salvin, Hemophila humeralis Cabanis, Aimophila acuminata Lichtenstein, Hemophila lawrencit Salvin & Godman, and Chondestes ruficauda Bonaparte, are to be retained in Azmofhila! or not has nothing to do with the case as affecting the nomenclature of the A. O. U. Check-List. It therefore seems evident that the nomenclature of the A. O. U. Check- List requires modification in the following respects : — (1) The interpolation of the genus Azmofhila Swainson (Classification of Birds, II, 1837, 287, type, by elimination, P2pzlo rufescens Swainson). (2) Change in generic names of nos. 579 to 5808, inclusive, which should read as follows :— 579. Aimophila carpalis (Cougs). 580. Aimophila ruficeps (CAssr). 580a. Aimophila ruficeps scottii (SENNETT). 5806. Aimophila ruficeps eremceca (BRown). (3) Interpolation of an additional subspecies of A. ruficeps, as 5Soc. Aimophila ruficeps sororia RipGw. (Auk, XV, July, 1898, p- 226), from the mountain districts of southern Lower California. — RoBertT RipGway, Washington, D. C. P Further Notes on Dendroica kirtlandi.— My paper on Kirtland’s War- bler published in the last number of ‘The Auk’ (Vol. XV, pp. 289 ~ 293), requires an addition and a correction as follows: Mr. B. T. Gault calls my attention to the record of a capture of a specimen of this species by Mr. J. E. Dickinson, in Winnebago Co., Illinois, May 25, 1894, published in Bulletin No. 4 of the Nelson Ornithological Chapter (Oberlin, O., Jan. 15, 1895); and Mr. A. H. Jennings writes that his inclusion of the species in his nominal list of the birds of New Providence (Johns Hopkins University Circular, VII, 63) was based not on one but on eight speci- mens. With Mr. Cory’s Florida specimens recorded in the same number of “The Auk’ in which my paper appeared, these additions raise the totai number of known specimens of this Warbler to seventy-five, of which fifty-five have been taken in the Bahamas and twenty in the United States. — FRANK M. CHAPMAN, American Museum of Natural fTistory, New York City. Proper Name for Macgillivray’s Warbler.— Macgillivray’s Warbler was one of those western species discovered by John K. Townsend 1834- 'T have already made Azmophila superciliosa Swainson, the type of a new genus, Plagiospiza (Auk, XV, July, 1898, p. 242). 6 82 General Notes. en 37 on the Columbia River and sent by him to Audubon for publication in the ‘ Birds of America.’ When Audubon received the first specimens of this bird he considered it identical with the Mourning Warbler of the East, notwithstanding that Townsend regarded it as distinct, and not having published a plate of the latter species he drew one from these western specimens and issued it with the title Sy/vza prrladelphia. Upon Townsend’s return he demonstrated to Audubon that the two birds were distinct and a drawing of the eastern species was thereupon published, also (this time correctly) entitled Sylva philadelphia. The fifth volume of Audubon’s ‘ Ornithological Biography,’ which appeared soon after, contained the accounts of the two species, the western one being described as new under the name of Sylva macgillivrayt. Townsend meantime prepared his ‘Journal’ for publication and in the appendix included a list of the birds found by him in the West, and descriptions of such as had not already been described by Audubon. Among the latter was this Warbler which he called Sylvia Tolmiez, after W. F. Tolmie an officer of the Hudson Bay Company whose acquaintance he had made at Fort Vancouver. Townsend supposed that Audubon would use this name, as he had indicated it on the specimens that he had sent him, and he was much annoyed to find that he had substituted Sylva macgillivrayi for it, claiming at the same time that his own name /o/m/ez had priority'. This claim has not been recognized in late years, but investigation shows that Townsend’s ‘Journal’ was issued and received at the Philadelphia Academy by April 16, 1839, while Audubon’s fifth volume was not received at the London Atheneum until June 22 of the same year, and did not of course reach America until later still. These facts show that Townsend’s name has clear priority, and in the interests of accuracy and justice it is a satisfaction to make the correction. Macgillivray’s Warbler should therefore stand in our list as Geothlypis- tolmiei ; whether or not the common name shall also be changed to Tol- mie’s Warbler we shall leave to the judgment of the A. O. U. Committee. — WITMER Stone, Acad. Nat. Sctences, Philadelphia. Sprague’s Pipit near New Orleans, La.— On Noy. 24, 1898, I found in the drier parts of a favorite Snipe field, across the Mississippi from New Orleans, five Sprague’s Pipits (Authus spraguerz): | had found them, as had also Messrs. Pring, Kopman, and W. B. Allison, in the vicinity of the: city before, but these were the first I had seen for some years, and were earlier than any noted in former years. I flushed the birds repeatedly, shot one, a female, and had excellent opportunities for watching their 1 Jour. A. N.S. Phila. VIII, 1839, p. 159. Vol. XVI 5 365 General Notes. 53 towering flight, and hearing the notes that so markedly differ from those of A. pensylvanicus.— A. ALLISON, New Orleans, La. The Carolina Wren (7kryothorus ludovictanus) at Peace Daley le I have been very much puzzled a good many times during the past sum- mer by hearing, in the near neighborhood of my house here, the notes of the Cardinal Bird given with great distinctness and for several minutes together. Every time when I have tried to find the author of the notes he has managed to escape observation. On the 21st of October, long after I had supposed the mysterious visitor had gone south, I heard the note very plainly and devoted half an hour to looking for the bird. I was so fortunate on this occasion as to get a good glimpse of the singer, and it proved to my astonishment to be a fine male of the Carolina Wren. As soon as I saw him he disappeared in company with his mate, both of them uttering the characteristic alarm note which the writers tell us of. I did not shoot the bird but feel entirely sure of the identification, as I distinctly saw the line above the eye, which is easily seen at tolerably close quarters. Immediately after the 21st we went through a long, cold rain storm and I supposed then I should not hear the Wren again. But on the 28th of October I did hear him singing with great spirit and for some minutes together. This is now the 28th of November and we have passed through a blizzard which began Saturday afternoon, the 26th, and has been without any doubt as severe a blizzard as we have ever experienced in this part of New England. Snow has fallen here to. a depth rather difficult to estimate, but on the level it cannot be less than eight inches; of course, being accompanied by a very high wind it drifted enormously, —I observed several exhausted birds, or at least if not exhausted more or less disabled by the storm. While investigating the damage done in my garden J again heard my friend the Carolina Wren. This being the third time that he has intensely surprised me, I lose no time to report it. Is it common for Carolina Wrens to linger beyond the summer time as far north as this? I cannot find any record of it and imagine that I have a very odd specimen of the bird here. — R. G. Hazarn, Peace Dale, R. J. The Finishing Stroke to Bartram. —I have changed not, and see no. reason to change, my view of Bartram’s case published in Pr. Phila. Acad. 1875, pp. 338-358, where I contend that he is a binomial author who sometimes lapses, and whose identifiable binomials which rest upon description are available in our nomenclature. On that occasion I anim- adyerted upon the fact that Bartram had been systematically ignored, though freely used when we wanted some binomial convenience like Vultur atratus or Corvus floridanus, for example—two specific names which still hold their proper place in the A. QO. U. Check-List, showing the inherent difficulty of doing entire injustice to Bartram. But to be 34 General Notes. ee Jan. consistent the Committee, in which I have always been in a minority of one on this subject, must eradicate these two names, thus giving Bartram his coup de grace. (1.) After Bartram’s Vultur atratus of 1791 the first tenable specific name of the Black Vulture would appear to be wrubu Vieill., Ois. Am. Sept. 1807, pl. 2; which, joined with the generic name Ca¢harista Vieill., Anal. 1816, p. 21, yields Catharista urubu Vieill., Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. XII, 1817, p. 401, as the required onym. (2.) After Bartram’s Corvus flortdanus of 1791, the next name of the Florida Jay appears to be Garrulus cyaneus Vieill., Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. XII, 1817, p. 476. This has been cited as a nomen nudum, as by Baird, 1858; that it is not such, but rests upon an unmistakable though not very good description is evident from the following verbatim copy of Vieillot’s account: “Le Geai azurin, Garrulus cyaneus Vieill., se trouve aux Florides et ne pénétre point dans le nord des Etats-Unis; du moins je ne l’y ai pas recontré. On ne peut le confondre avec le geaz bleu huppé, puisqu’il est plus petit, qu’il n’a point d’aigrette sur la téte, et que tout son plumage est généralement d’un bleu d’azur. Latham le rapporte au gear de Steller, mais celui-ci est huppé et ne porte pas le méme vétement.” Whence the onym of the Florida Jay would be AZA- elocoma cyanea. The next name in order is G. cwrulescens Vieill., zb¢d. p. 480, the description of which seems to indicate the same bird, but the type locality, “ Kentucky,” is beyond this Jay’s now known range. No doubt, however, attaches to “An Account of the Florida Jay, of Bartram,” by Ord, in Journ. Acad. Phila. I, 1818, pp. 345-347, where Vieillot’s name Garrulus cerulescens is adopted. Thus we have only to decide whether the bird shall be known as Aphelocoma cyanea or A. cerulescens. We next come upon two names by the same author and of ostensibly coequal dates. These are Corvus (Garrulus) foridanus Bp., Ann. Lyc. N. Y., I, 1828, p. 58, and Garrulus foridanus Bp., Am. Orn. II, 1828, p. §9, pl. xiv, fig. 1. Part I, pp. 7-128, of the paper in the Annals has actual priority over the 2d vol. of the Am. Orn.; it was ‘‘read” Jan. 24, 1826, and published apparently in March, 1826; so that, if we could use floridanus as the specific name, it would be accreditable to Bonaparte, after throw- ing out Bartram. (3.) It is a necessary corollary of the foregoing proposition, that the use of the binomial Corvus floridanus by Bonaparte in 1826, and subse- quently by Audubon, for the Florida Jay, precludes its use for the Florida Crow in the form Corvus americanus var. foridanus Baird, B. N. A. 1858, p. 568. The latter may, therefore, be renamed C. a. pascuus. This is a good Latin word, meaning of or relating to pastures; but I intend it to connote the same as forédanus in this instance, with allu- sion to the Spanish name of the country, said to have been called Pascua Florida or Pascua de Flores by Ponce de Leon, because he discovered it on Paschal or Easter Day of 1512.—ELuLiorr Cours, Washington, YOR MES Vol. XVI 1899 General Notes. 8 5 Rare Birds on Eastern Long Island.— AMERICAN BARN OwL (S¢rix pratincola). On Sept. 30, 1898, a fine specimen of this bird was sent me to mount from Gardiners Island. It had been caught in a steel trap, and was in good condition. On October 12 another specimen was sent me from East Marion, L. I., which had also been caught in a steel trap. This was a male—the former a female. The stomachs contained the remains of field mice. Duck Hawk (falco feregrinus anatum). A specimen of this bird, in juvenile plumage, was shot on Shelter Island on Oct. 2 and sent me to mount. It was a female, in good condition, but had scaled down on the bill of fare, from ducks to dragon flies —as the stomach contained the remains of several of these insects. FLORIDA GALLINULE (Gallinula galeata). A specimen of this bird was shot on Shelter Island on Oct. 28, by a gunner, being the first instance of its capture here that has ever come to my notice. It was feeding and swimming amongst the reeds in a rather open pond, and was approached and shot without difficulty, exhibiting little shyness. — WiLLis W. WorRTHINGTON, ShelterIsland Heights, New York. Notes on Two Rare Birds from Long Island, N. Y.— MourNING WARBLER (Geothlypis pPhtladelphia).— Giraud, in writing of this species in 1844 (Birds of Long Island, p. 65) says: ‘‘ A few years since, a specimen was obtained by Mr. Bell on Long Island, the only one which I have known to have been procured here.” So far as I am aware, there is no other published record of the occurrence of this species on Long Island, so I wish to place on record a specimen, now in the collection of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, taken at New Lots (now a part of the city of Brooklyn), in June, 1862, by George B. Brainerd. BICKNELL’s THRUSH (Zurdus alicie bicknellit.) —Since my previous records of this bird (Auk, Vol. X, p. 91), I have discovered four addi- tional specimens. Three of them are in the Brooklyn Institute collection, and were collected at Parkville, Kings Co., L. I., by E. F. Carson and Frank Suydam — two of them on Oct. 12, 1892, the other Sept. 30, 1893. Dr. Wm. C. Braislin, of Brooklyn, also has a specimen which he has permitted me to record, collected by himself at Parkville on Oct. 3, 1894. — ARTHUR H. Howe Lu, Washington, D. C. Springfield, Mass., Bird Notes.—Sturnus vulgaris.—During the spring of 1897, nearly a hundred Starlings were liberated near Springfield, some of which survived the following winter, which was one of about the average in point of severity. Otocoris alpestris praticola.— A flock of about twenty-five Prairie Horned Larks passed last winter in Longmeadow, just south of Spring- field ; their presence in this vicinity has never been recorded before. Falco sparverius. — About the middle of last March, a pair of Sparrow S6 Recent Literature. iy Hawks took possession for breeding purposes, of an apartment in a dove- cote at my farm in Tatham in West Springfield, driving out a pair of Doves that were there in possession and destroying their nest. Their first egg was laid April 17, the second after an interval of two days, and three others, each, after an interval of one day. Incubation commenced atter the fourth was laid. The male was at this time killed, but the female remained devoted to her work and on the 27th of May three Hawks were hatched, and the following day, another. One of the eggs proved not to be fertile. Incubation lasted thirty-four days, a period much longer than heretofore reported. During the whole of the time of incubation and the rearing of the young, the mother Hawk did not inter- fere with the wild birds that had adopted the territory in the vicinity of the dove-cote for their home. A pair of Bluebirds nested in a bird-house within thirty feet, and Robins, Phaebes, Vesper Sparrows and other kinds all remained undis- turbéd in the immediate neighborhood, and the pair of Doves that were first made to give way for the Hawks, were permitted to rebuild in a place adjacent to their first home. The young otf the Hawks were all successfully raised and are now well and happy in confinement.—ROBERT O. Morris, Springfield, Mass. Xema sabinii and Chordeiles virginianus sennetti— Two Additions to the lowa Avifauna. — My collection of lowa birds contains two imma- ture specimens of Sabine’s Gull, both of which were taken on the sandbar immediately above Burlington, Iowa. No. 50, (S. U. I. No. 15981) @, was shot Oct. 15, 1891;' No. 51, (S. U., I. Ne. 15982) 59) Oct. “125. 1894" These I believe are the first records of this species for lowa. The speci- mens are deposited at the State University of Iowa at Iowa City. The Smithsonian Institution recently received a specimen of Sennett’s Night Hawk from Mr. C. F. Henning of Boone, Iowa, shot four miles southeast of that place. This variety seems so far to have escaped Iowa observers and it gives me pleasure to add it to our list.— P. BArtTscnH, Washington, D. C. RECENT LITERATURE. Torrey’s ‘A World of Green Hills.”!— The subtitle of Mr. Torrey’s ‘A World of Green | Hills | Observations of Nature | and Human Nature | in the Blue Ridge | By | Bradford Torrey |... . [Motto,= 2 lines and Seal] Boston and New York | Houghton, Mifflin and Company | The Riverside Press, Cambridge | 1898 —16mo, pp. 285. Price, $1.25. Vol. XVI #895 Recent Literature. 87 little book — ‘ Observations of Nature and Human Nature’ — is eminently descriptive of the character of this new collection of charming essays, devoted about equally to the birds, the flowers, and the people of that portion of the Blue Ridge where the States of West Virginia and North Carolina meet. While the reader is given delightful reminiscences of the scenery and natural products of the region as seen by a lover of nature in the closing month of spring, perhaps not less entertaining are his ‘observations of human nature’ which so delightfully flavor the book and break the tendency to monotony that a purely natural history rela- tion by any writer, however gifted, is apt to present. The six essays here brought together are entitled ‘A Day’s Drive in Three States,’ ‘In Quest of Ravens,’ ‘A Mountain Pond,’ ‘ Birds, Flowers, and People,’ ‘A Nook in the Alleghanies,’ and ‘At Natural Bridge.’ The ‘ Quest for Ravens’ was not a great success so far as finding Ravens was concerned; the anticipated “little store of ‘first-hand knowledge’” was “a brace of inter- rogation points.” The Ravens evaded acquaintanceship, but the reader of Mr. Torrey’s book will not regret the length of this chapter that tells of the Raven hunt. In this, as in the other chapters, ‘anthropology and ornithology, and botany, are entertainingly blended. His successes and his disappointments in the ornithological line are narrated with an enthusiasm and a humor that appeals to the general reader as well as to the bird lover. He records, in the course of the book, much that is of permanent value from the standpoint of the naturalist, which an excellent index renders readily available.—J. A. A. Mrs. Maynard’s Birds of Washington.'— This little manual, prepared at the suggestion of the Audubon Society of the District of Columbia, is a credit to everyone concerned with its preparation. It gives untech- nical descriptions of about 100 species of the birds most likely to be seen in the vicinity of Washington, with something about the habits of those that nest there, about a page being devoted to each species, many ot the species being illustrated. There are also brief descriptions of the “migrants and winter residents,” and a tabular ‘List of All Birds found in the District of Columbia,’ the latter by Dr. C. W. Richmond, and so arranged as to indicate the season of occurrence. Other supplementary lists follow of ‘birds that may be seen in winter,’ ‘birds that nest within the city limits,’ and lists of birds seen on certain days at particular points, based on the observations of several of the best known Washington ornithologists. The ‘Introduction’ (pp. 11-16), by Miss Florence A. Merriam, is filled with excellent advice as to how, where and when to 1 Birds of Washington | and Vicinity | including parts of Maryland and Virginia | By | Mrs. L. W. Maynard | with | Introduction by Florence A. Merriam |.... [= motto, 3 lines] | Washington, D. C.| 1898.—8vo, pp. 204, with numerous illustrations. Auk Jan- 88 Recent Literature. find birds in the vicinity of Washington, written with a directness, sim- plicity and fervor that must lend inspiration and comfort to the inexpe- rienced bird lover. This is followed by a chapter ‘ About Birds in Gen- eral’ by Mrs. Maynard, which gives in the short space of three pages a surprisingly large amount of information about the generalities of the subject. This is followed by ‘ A Field Key to our Common Land Birds,’ taken, by permission, from Chapman’s ‘ Bird-life.. Then follows the descriptive matter forming the body of the work, as already detailed. The numerous illustrations are from Bulletins Nos. 3 and 54, published by the Biological Survey of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As a local manual Mrs. Maynard’s little book is in every way admirable, and must prove most welcome to the many amateur bird students of the District of Columbia. — J. A. A. Blanchan’s ‘Birds that Hunt and are Hunted.’!—The present is a companion volume to ‘ Bird Neighbors’, by the same author (see Auk, XV, 1898, p. 66), and is written from the same point of view, namely, “ that of a bird-lover who believes that personad, friendly acquaintance with the live birds, as distinguished from the technical study of the anatomy of dead ones, must be general before the people will care enough about them to reinforce the law with unrestrained mercy. To really know the birds in their home life, how marvellously clever they are, and how positively dependent agriculture is upon their ministrations, cannot but increase our respect for them to such a point that wilful injury becomes impossible.” The present volume treats of the Waterfewl, the Marsh and Shore Birds, the Gallinaceous Game Birds, and the Birds of Prey, or the leading North American forms of each in systematic sequence, with brief mention of their distinctive characters, etc., and very satisfactory biographies. The matter is very well chosen and skillfully put together, being well adapted to instruct and entertain any bird lover. The author does not forget neatly to make her points in behalf of the Herons and Terns and the Birds of Prey, and the whole animus and tendency of the book is in accord with the sentiments already quoted from the author’s preface. The colored plates, originally published in the magazine ‘ Birds,’ are an invaluable aid in the determination of the species. It is only to be regretted that better examples of taxidermy could not have been chosen in somecases. We notice very few slips on the part of the author, but we must confess that it is a new fact to us that the blade-like bill of the Skimmer is ever used as “a sort of oyster knife to open mollusks.” Also ‘Birds that Hunt | and are Hunted | Life Histories of One Hun- | dred and Seventy Birds of | Prey,Game birds and Water- | Fowls | By | Neltjie Blan- chan | Author of “ Bird Neighbors” | With introduction by G. O. Shields (Coquina) | And Forty-eight colored Plates | New York | Doubleday and McClure Co. | 1898.— 8vo, pp. xii-+ 359. Price $2.00. Vol. XVI 1899 Recent Literature. 89 it may be of interest to the author to know that the American Museum of Natural History in New York has also a mounted specimen of the Great Auk, where it has been among its prominent exhibits for the last twenty years. —J. A. A. Huntington’s ‘In Brush, Sedge, and Stubble.’ '— Mr. Huntington’s ‘In Brush, Sedge, and Stubble’ appeals alike to the sportsman, the naturalist, and the lover of art. The work is proposed as a series of “monographs on our feathered game,” “ written from the point of view of the sports- man, with a preference for the picturesque rather than the scientific... .In a word, we go out-of-doors from Montauk to San Lucas, and, listening to the whirring and whistling of wings, we observe the performance of dogs, and see America picturesque.” The first two parts treat of the sage Grouse, the Sharp-tailed Grouse, and the Prairie Grouse. The illustrations consist of half-tones from photographs of the birds described, and of hunting scenes and characteristic landscapes of the regions inhabited by the game under consideration, partly from nature and partly from sketches, principally by the author. The illustrations are beautifully reproduced, abundant, picturesque, and exceedingly attractive. The text is very good ornithology, written, as stated by the author, from the sportsman’s point of view, with more or less personal incident interspersed. All lovers of finely illustrated books relating to nature, and especially all sportsmen, will doubtless warmly welcome Mr. Huntington’s ‘In Brush, Sedge, and Stubble.’ —J. A. A. Oberholser on the Wrens of the Genus Thryomanes.?— The present paper of thirty pages deals with the Wrens of the dew7ckit group, of which 3 species and 12 additional subspecies are recognized, all the latter being variations, in most instances not strongly marked, of Thryothorus (Thryomanes) bewickit of the A. O. U. Check-List. The group ranges across the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from Pennsylvania, southern Minnesota, Colorado, and southern British Columbia southward to southern Mexico (Oaxaca), including the Socorro and Guadalupe Islands, off the west coast of Mexico. Of the 12 subspecies of JZ. dewickit, seven belong to the United States, the remaining five occurring in Mexico. In other words, 7 new sub- ‘In | Brush, Sedge, and Stubble | A Picture Book of | the Shooting- fields and Feathered | Game of North America | By | Dwight W. Hunting- LOM iyo) motto, 3) lines] | M 1) C © © xX © Vill |p iihe)Sportsman’s Society | Cincinnati.— Folio, Pt. I, pp. 1-16; Pt. II, pp. 17-32; 2 pll. in half-tone and 2 in colors, and numerous half-tones in text. 2A Review of the Wrens of the Genus 7zryomanes Sclater. By Harry C. Oberholser, Assistant Biologist, Department of Agriculture. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XXI, No. 1153, pp. 421-450. Nov., 1898 gO FRecent Literature. one species of 7. bewickit spilurus and T. b. leucogaster of the Check-List are for the first time separated and named. The United States forms of the group are as follows: (1) 7. bewéckit bewickii (Aud.), of the eastern United States; (2) 7. b. cryptus, Texas, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas, and probably north to Kansas; (3) 7. 6. eremophilus, southern border for the United States, from western Texas and southern Colorado to south- eastern California, south over the tablelands of Mexico; (4) 7. 0. char- tenturus, coast region of southern California, from about Pasadena south into northern Lower California; (5) 7. 6. drymaecus, Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys west to the coast about San Simeon, California; (6) T. b. spilurus (Vigors), vicinity of San Francisco Bay, California; (7) T. b. calophonus, Pacific Coast, from Oregon north to southern Van- couver Island and the valley of the Frazer River, British Columbia; (8) T. b. nesophilus, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands, California; (9) T. b. leucophrys (Anthony), San Clemente Island, California; (10) DAO: cerroensts (Anthony), Cerros Island, Lower California. The other members of the group are (1) Z. 4. percuus, State of Jalisco, north to Central Zacatecas, south to Guerrero; (2) 7. 6. murinus (Uartl.), States of Hidalgo, Mexico, Tlaxcala, and northern Morelos, Mexico; (3) 7. 6. bairdi (Salv. & Godm.), Oaxaca, southern Puebla, and southwestern Vera Cruz, Mexico; (4) 7. zusularis (Lawr.), Socorro Island, Mexico; (5) Z. brevicaudus Ridgw., Guadalupe Island, Mexico. Thus five of the forms are insular. Mr. Oberholser is no doubt very keen at discriminating slight differ- ences, not only in the present but in some other instances. The ques- tion is not so much whether the differences claimed exist, but the advisability of their recognition in nomenclature. The present group is apparently not exceptionally plastic, and the same methods carried out among North American birds in general would doubtless result in num- berless similar minute subdivisions, which it would serve no good pur- pose to recognize as ‘subspecies.’ In the present case the rather startling results seem due rather to a new point of view as regards the value of slight differences than to the discovery of new characters. We observe that Mr. Oberholser rejects the name dexcogaster used by Baird for the Texan form, and renames it cryffus, on the ground that Baird did not give a new name in this instance but used the name Jezco- gaster of Gould, through a misidentification of Gould’s species; and that, therefore, ‘‘ according to the usual procedure in such cases,” Baird’s name is unavailable —a point apparently well taken. Incidentally Mr. Oberholser claims full generic rank for Thryomanes and Anorthura, and we believe with good reason. —J. A. A. Bangs on Birds from Colombia.'— Mr. Bangs here reports on a third ‘On some Birds from the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia. By ‘Outram Bangs. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, Vol. XII, 1898, pp. 171-182. Oct. 31, 1808. a Recent Literature. 9 I lot of birds, received from Mr. W. W. Brown, Jr., collected in May and June, 1898, at various localities in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia, at altitudes ranging from 5000 to 8000 feet. The collection numbers about 300 specimens, representing 66 species and subspecies, of which 8, and one genus, are described as new, as follows: Meocrex colom- bianus, Aulacorhamphus lautus, Leucuria (gen. nov.) phalerata, Elenta sororia, Grallaria spatiator, Spinus spinescens capitaneus, Diglossa nocte- color, Merula pheopyga minuscula, M. gigas cacozela. The new Hum- mingvird (Leucuria phalerata), remarkable for its pure white tail, is related to Hel/anthea and Hemistephania; a colored figure of it will be given in a future number of this journal. —J. A. A. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science.— The ‘ Proceed- ings’ of the Indiana Academy of Science for 1897 (1898) contains (pp. 175-207) several short ornithological papers, as follows: (1) ‘Some Indi- ana Crow Roosts,’ by A. W. Butler (pp. 175-178), enumerating 13 roosts, with a population varying from a few thousands to tens of thousands each, while one roost was estimated to contain ‘ one hundred thousand Crows.” (2) ‘Notes on Crow Roosts of Western Indiana and Eastern Illinois, by John S. Wright (pp. 178-180), — brief notes on six or eight roosts. (3) ‘Brtinnich’s Guillemot (Uréa lomvia) an Addition to the Birds of Indiana,’ by A. W. Butler (pp. 180-183), — previously published, in substance, in ‘The Auk’ (XIV, April, 1897, pp. 197-199). (4) Notes on the Birds observed in the vicinity of Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana,’ by Alden H. Hadley (pp. 183-198),— an annotated list of 137 species. (5) ‘Notes on Indiana Heronries,’ by A. W. Butler (pp. 198-201). This is an attempt to enumerate all the heronries at present or formerly existing in Indiana. Evidence is given of the former breeding of the American Egret (Ardea egretfa) in some numbers in the Kankakee Marshes in northern Indiana, as well as at various points in the lower Wabash Valley. The inference is drawn that the few birds of this species noted in the central and northern parts of the State after the breeding season are not stragglers from the southward, as formerly supposed, but migrants on their way south from breeding stations in the northern part of the State. (6) ‘The Recent occurrence of the Raven in Indiana,’ by A. W. Butler (pp. 201, 202). Reported as breeding as late as 1894 at Raven’s Rock, in Martin and Dubois Counties, and as recently occurring in winter in the northeastern part of the State. (7) ‘An Instance of Bird Ferocity,’ by Glenn Culbertson (pp. 206, 207). A Loggerhead Shrike observed impaling a Sparrow Hawk on the thorns of an osage orange tree.-— Ifo Ae AX Recent Papers on the Great Auk.— Under the title ‘ The Orcadian Home of the Garefowl,’ Prof. Newton in ‘ The Ibis’ for October describes a visit to the Holm of Papa Westray, the breeding place of the species 92 Recent Literature. jae whose extirpation, so far as the Orkneys is concerned, was compassed in 1813 by Bullock. In the Transactions of’ the Edinburgh Field Naturalists and Micro- scopical Society, Mr. Symington Grieve brings the history of the Great Auk down to the end of July, 1898, recording the further discovery of bones in kitchen middings on the coasts of Iceland and Denmark. Still more interesting, however, was the finding of a hollow cast of an egg of the Great Auk, determined as such by Prof. Steenstrup, in a deposit of the sub-glacial period in the southern part of Sweden, to the northeast of Falsterbo, by members of the Swedish Geological Survey.— F. A. L. Stickney and Hoffmann’s ‘Bird World.’!—This book is designed for use as a school reader for intermediate grades. It contains some seventy odd chapters most of which treat briefly of the commoner birds while others deal with various phases of bird-life or bird structure; thus there are chapters on ‘ The Coming of the Birds,’ ‘Bird Homes,’ ‘ How Young Birds Get Fed,’ ‘ Food of Birds,’ ‘About Birds’ toes,’ ‘ Birds’ Bills,’ etc. The material has been carefully selected and seems well adapted to interest children in bird-study. The author has done wisely in securing the codperation of a practi- cal ornithologist and Mr. Hoffmann’s name on the title page of her work is a guarantee of its freedom from serious errors. In two or three instances, however, more careful revision would have added to the accuracy of the author’s statements. For example, on p. 22, feathers are said to grow on the toes of the Grouse; on p. 103 birds are stated to moult their feathers “one from one side, then one from the other,” while the unqualified assertion that “ Parrots hang themselves up at night by their beaks” requires considerable modification, and, as a matter of fact, the name ‘Candelita’ is not applied to the Redstart in the West Indian Islands, outside of Cuba. The book is profusely and well illustrated by ten full-page drawings by Mr. Thompson, eight half-tone color photographs of mounted birds, pen and ink outlines of birds’ wings, bills, feet, tails, etc., cuts from the publications.of the Department of Agriculture, and other illustra- tions from ‘ The Osprey,’ including several drawings by Mr. Fuertes. An appendix gives a color key to fifty common birds, and lists of com- moner birds grouped according to their local distribution, and whether beneficial or injurious, etc. —F. M. C. Publications Received.— Bangs, Outram. On some Birds from the Sierra Madra de Santa Marta, Colombia. (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XII, 1898, pp. 171-182.) "Bird Worid | A Bird Book for Children | By | J. H. Stickney | Assisted by | Ralph Hoffmann | — | Boston, U. S. A. | Ginn & Company, Publishers | The Athenzum Press | 1898 | 12 mo., pp. vi-+ 214. Numerous illustrations. Price, 70 cents. Vol. a Recent Literature. 93 Beal, F. E. L., and Judd, Sylvester D. Cuckoos and Shrikes in their Relation to Agriculture. Bull. No. 9, U. S. Depart. of Agric., Division of Biological Survey. 8vo, pp. 26, 1808. Blanchan, Neltje. Birds that Hunt and are Hunted. 8vo, pp. xii+ 359 and 48 col. pll. New York, Doubleday & McClure Co., 1898. $2.00. Campbell, Archibald J. Nests, Eggs, and Play-grounds of the Austral- ian Ptilonorhynchine, or Bower Birds, and their Allies. (Roy. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh, XIV, pp. 13-46, pll. i-tii.) Clark, Hubert Lyman. The Feather-tracts of North American Grouse and Quail. (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. XXI, No. 1166, pp. 641-653.) Clarke, Wm. Eagle. On the Ornithology of the Delta of the Rhone. (Ibis, Oct. 1898, pp. 465-485. ) Elliot, D. G. The Wild Fowl of the United States and British Pos- sessions, or the Swan, Geese, Ducks and Mergansers of North America. Svo., pp. xvi-+316, with 63 pll. New York, Francis P. Harper, 1808. $2.50. Huntington, Dwight W. In Brush, Sedge, and Stubble. Folio, Pelle Sportsman’s Society, Cincinnati, 1898. Maynard, Mrs. L. W. Birds of Washington and Vicinity. 8vo, pp. 204. Washington, 18908. Newton, Alfred. On the Orcadian Home of the Garefowl. (Ibis, Oct. 1898, pp. 587-592.) Oberholser, Harry C. A Revision of the Wrens of the Genus Thryo- manes Sclater. (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XXI, No. 1153, pp. 421-450. ) Rhoads, Samuel N. (1) The Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. (American Friend, 11th mo., 1898.) (2) Owls, Mice and Moles. Questions in Economic Zoédlogy. (Forest & Stream, Aug. 20, 1898.) (3) “ Noxious ” or “ Beneficial”? False Premises in Economic Zodlogy. (Am. Nat., Aug. 1898.) Sclater, P. L. (1) On the Psofhia obscura of Natterer and Pelzeln. (Ibis, Oct. 1898, pp. 520-524, pl. xi.) (2) Chairman’s Address, Seventh Session of the British Ornithologists’ Club. (Bull. Br. Orn. Club, No. LV1.) " Shelley, G. E. (1) On the final Collections of Birds made by Mr. Alexander Whyte, F. Z. S., in Nyasaland. With Prefatory Remarks by P. L. Sclater. (Ibis, July, 1898, pp. 376-381.) (2) A List of Birds col- lected by Mr. Alfred Sharpe, C. B., in Nyasaland. With Prefatory Remarks by P. L. Sclater. (Ibis, Oct. 1898, pp. 551-557.) Torrey, Bradford. A World of Green Hills, Observations of Nature and Human Nature in the Blue Ridge. 16 mo, pp. 285. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston and New York, 1898. $1.25. Tschusi zu Schmidhoffen, Vict. Ritter v. Bemerkungen tiber die europaischen Graumeisen (Parus palustris Auct.) nebst Bestimmungs- schliissel derselben. (Orn. Jahrb., 1898, Heft 5.) American Journ. Sci., Oct.-Dec., 1898. Annals of Scottish Nat. Hist., Oct. 1898. 94 Notes and News. : i Aquila, No. 4, 1898. Australian Museum. Report of the Trustees for 1897. Birds and All Nature, IV, No. 6, Dec. 1808. Bulletin British Orn. Club, No. LVI, Oct. 1898. Bulletin Wilson Orn. Chap. Agassiz Ass., Nos. 22, 23, 1898. Forest and Stream, LI, Nos. 14-27, 1808. Iowa Ornithologist, The, IV, No. 3, July, 1898. Knowledge, XXI, Nos. 156-158, 1808. Maine Sportsman, VI, Nos. 62, 63, Oct. and Dec., 1808. Naturalist, The, A Month. Journ. Nat. Hist. for North of England, Oct.-Dec., 1898. Ornis, Bull. du Comité Orn. International, IX (1897-98), No. 1. Ornithologische Monatsberichte, VI, Nos. 10-12, Oct.—Dec., 18908. Ornithologische Monatsschrift des Deutschen Vereins zum Schutze der Vogelwelt, XXIII, Nos. 10-12, Oct.-Dec., 1898. Ornithologisches Jahrbuch, IX, Nos. 5, 6, Sept.—Dec., 1898. Our Animal Friends, XX VI, Nos. 2-4, Oct.-Dec., 1898. Ottawa Naturalist, XII, Nos. 7-9, Oct.-Dec., 1808. Proceedings of the Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, pt. II, 1898, April— Sept. Proceedings of the California Acad. of Sciences, 3d Ser., Zo6l., I, Nos. 7, 8, and ro, 1898; Geol., I, pp. 129-160, 1898. Proceedings of the Indiana Acad. of Science, for 1897 (1898). Science, (2) Nos. 196-209, 1808. Shooting and Fishing, XXIV, Nos. 23-26, XXV, Nos. 1-11, 1898. ZoOlogist, The, (4) Nos. 22-24, 1898. NOTES AND NEWS. A NEw ornitholcgical magazine is announced by the Macmillan Com- pany, to be called‘ Bird-Lore.’ It will be published bimonthly, under the editorship of Mr. Frank M. Chapman, the first number to appear in Feb- ruary, 1899. It will be ‘“ addressed to observers rather than to collectors of birds,” and “will attempt to fill a place in the journalistic world simi- lar to that held by the works of John Burroughs, Bradford Torrey, Olive Thorne Miller, and others in the domain of books.” It will also be the official organ of the Audubon Societies, and a department devoted to their work and aims will be conducted by Mrs. Mabel Osgood Wright, the President of the Connecticut Audubon Society, and well known as a writer of popular books on natural history. It will also contain, in addi- tion to the general articles, departments entitled ‘Notes from Field and Study,’ ‘Hints for Teachers and Students,’ etc. ‘ Bird-Lore’ will be illus- trated with reproductions of photographs of wild birds from life, show- ie ade Notes and News. 95 ing their nests and eggs, and the birds themselves in their natural haunts. In a word, it will be “a magazine devoted to the study and protection of birds,” for which there is ample need and a wide field. Its publication by the Macmillan Company is a guarantee that ‘ Bird-Lore> as regards its typographical appearance and the character of the illustra- tions, will leave little to be desired. ‘THE Osprey,’ to quote from a recent editorial in the October issue ot this popular ornithological journal, ‘ being a migratory bird, has flown southward from New York to Washington this autumn, and taken up its winter quarters in a new locality, of which it proposes to become a permanent resident.” This is another way of saying that ‘The Osprey’ has changed hands, being now published by The Osprey Publishing Company of Washington, and edited by Elliott Coues and Theodore Gill, with the former editor, Walter Adams Johnson, as Associate Editor and Louis Agassiz Fuertes as Art Editor. The change of environment has apparently had a bad effect upon the health of ‘The Osprey,’ or, as its editor puts it, ‘‘ The moulting process has proven somewhat severe and protracted this season, and the appearance of the bird in its new plumes has consequently been delayed.” The choice of printer appears to have been unfortunate, for not only has ‘The Osprey’ been greatly delayed in its appearance but has lost much of the typographical lustre that was formerly so characteristic of this well-received magazine. The October and November numbers of last year appeared together the first week in January of this year. But ‘*the December number is in press, and the issue for January is nearly ready,” so that the lost time due to migration will doubtless be soon made up. In typography the second number under the new auspices is a great improvement over the first, so there is reason to hope that the former high grade of text and illus- trations will be regained, and its literary standing be even surpassed. Its present editors are certainly too experienced in both literary and scientific work not to know how to run a magazine, even a ‘popular’ one, of ornithology. ‘The Osprey’ certainly has our most cordial wishes for its success. Tue A. O. U. Membership Lists, usually issued as a part of the January number of ‘The Auk,’ are deferred to the April number, owing to the unusual demand for space in the January issue for matter connected with the publication of the Ninth Supplement to the Check-List of North American Birds, and for the Report of the A. O. U. Committee on Protection of North America Birds. This valuable document willg be reissued in pamphlet form and sold at cost, for distribution as a tract in behalf of bird protection. We must also ask the contributors of many valuable papers to pardon delay in their appearance, for the reasons already stated; they will all appear in due course, as fast as space can be found for their reception. Never in the history of ‘The Auk’ has) so 96 Notes and News. ie Jan. much desirable matter been offered for publication, during the same length of time, as within the last four or five months; for which favors the Editors beg to extend sincere thanks. SINCE ouR last notice of the New York ZoOdlogical Park (Auk, XV, Jan. 1898, p. 79), great progress has been made in laying out the grounds and in the construction of various buildings and dens for the animals. The Elk House has been completed and is fitted up for temporary use as offices and workshops. The Winter Bird House, to cost $14,400, is ready to receive its roof. The foundation walls of the Reptile House, which will cost $34,000, have been completed, and excavations have been made for the series of Bear Dens, and for eight Wolf and Fox Dens, and for the Beaver Pond. Also excavations for the Ducks’ Aviary have been made, and about five hundred cubic yards of sandy earth hauled to torm the dry runways for the Pheasants’ Aviary. The Flying Cage for birds will be soon begun, to cost $5000; it will be the largest structure of its kind in the world, with a length of 150 feet, a width of 75 feet, and a height of so feet. Among the many structures in contemplation are the Eagles’ Aviary, for the Birds of Prey in general; six shelter houses for Deer and Moose, an Antelope House, to cost $25,000, and a Monkey House, to cost $40,000, some of which, if not the most of them, will probably be completed the present year. No money will be expended on buildings of a temporary character, but all are to be built for permanent use, and after the best plans that modern experience and research in such matters can suggest. The Monkey and Antelope Houses may be utilized in part at first for the reception of other tropical animals, till the proper buildings for them have been provided. The Director states, in the last ‘News Bulletin’ of the Zodlogical Society (No. 3, Dec. 1898) : “The New York ZoGlogical park should, in fact, be so well equipped with buildings, dens, and aviaries, that by mid- summer, 1899, no type of animal need be turned away because there is no place in which to put it.” It is expected that the park will be in readiness to receive contributions of animals in April, and that the for- mal opening of the park will take place in May. ‘When the Zoological Park is ready for animals, all members of the Society, and also ftiends who are not, are expected and requested to do their utmost to secure, as gifts for the Park, a large and continuous supply of fine, typical quadrupeds, birds, and reptiles, especially of North American forms,” As stated in our former notice, the Society is largely dependent upon membership and patrons’ fees for its support, and is to be open free to the public. Among its advantages will be the encouragement and opportu nities it will afford to not only students of animal life, but to animal painters and sculptors. The office of the Secretary, Madison Grant, is still at No. 11 Wall St., New York City, but the address of the Director, William T. Hornaday, is New York ZoOdlogical Park, 183d St. and South- ern Boulevard, New York City. Aree | Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. CheckaList. 97 NINE (SUPPLEMENT TO THE, AMERICAN ORNI-— THOLOGISTS’ UNION CHECK-LIST OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS. Tue Eighth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List of North American Birds — the first since the appearance of the “ second and revised ” edition of the Check-List — was published in Janu- ary, 2so7 (Auk, XIV, pp. 117-135). ‘The present. (Ninth) Supplement gives a report of the action of the Committee on Classification and Nomenclature of North American Birds on all questions affecting the Check-List that have come before it for consideration since that date, covering the two years between January, 1897, and January, 1899. While a satisfactory decision was practicable in most cases, in quite a number of instances either the material available for examination was insufficient, or the questions were too complicated for the Committee to decide in the limited time available for concerted work. These have been referred to subcommittees for investigation, and will come up for final action at a future meeting of the Committee. As in the previous Supplements, the numbers at the left of the scientific names furnish the means of easy collation of the Sup- plement with the Check-List. The interpolated. species and subspecies are numbered in accordance with the provision made therefor in the Code of Nomenclature (p. 14, last paragraph). ( Ropert RripGway, Chairman. qa AS AGEING Committee + WILLIAM BREWSTER. | ELLiorr COouEs. | C. Hart MERRIAM. Pa VOPIbIONS TO THE CHECK-LIST, AND. AG CEPTED CHANGES IN NOMENCLATURE. Famity URINATORIDZ! (Check-List, 2d ed, p. 3). (& ALLEN, Auk, XIV, July, 1898, 312.) This becomes Famity GAVIIDZ. Auk Jan. 98 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. GeNus URINATOR Cuvier. This becomes GEeNuS GAVIA Forster. Gavia Forster, Enchirid. Hist. Nat. 1788, 38. No type, but based exclusively upon ihe Loons. (C/ ALLEN, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 312.) Hence Nos. 7 to 11 will stand as follows: 7. Gavia imber (GuNN.). Colymbus imber GuUNNERUS, Trondh. Selsk, Skr. I, 1761 pl. ii. Gavia imber ALLEN, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 312. 8. Gavia adamsii (Gray). Colymbus adamsit GRAY, P. Z. S. 1859, 167. Gavia adamsii ALLEN, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 312. 9. Gavia arctica (LINN.). Colymbus arcticus LINN. S. N. ed. 10, I, 1758, 135. Gavia arctica ALLEN, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 312. 10. Gavia pacifica (Lawr.). Colymbus pacificus Lawr. in Baird's Bds. N. Am. 1858, 889. Gavia pacifica ALLEN, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 312. 11. Gavia lumme (GuNN.). Colymbus lumme GUNNERUS, Trondh, Selsk. Skr. I, 1761,%pl. Lip fe, Bi Gavia lumme ALLEN, Auk, XIV, Ju'y, 1897, 312. Genus GAVIA Bote (Check-List, 2d ed., p. t5). This becomes Genus PAGOPHILA Kavp. Pagophila Kaur, Skizz. Entw.-Gesch. Eur. Thierw. 1829, 69. Type, Larus eburneus Puiprps= ZL. albus Gunn. (Cf. Coves, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 313.) Vol. ae Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 1899 9 39. Gavia alba (GuNN.). This hence becomes Pagophila alba (GuNn.). Larus albus GUNN. in Leem’s Beskr. Finm. Lapp. 1767, 28s. Pagophila alba Couts, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, aro: 64. Sterna tschegrava Lreprecu. This becomes Sterna caspia Pavias. Sterna caspia Patitas, Nov. Comm. Petrop. XIV, 1770, 582, pl xk, fie io. This change is made on the grounds (1) that LeEPECHIN was not binomial in the article in which he named Sterna ¢tschegrava, and (2) that Sterna caspia PALLAS, of even date, was the name first used by a subsequent author. (Cf Cours, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 314.) SupceNnus HALIPLANA Wac ter (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 26). This becomes SUBGENUS ONYCHOPRION WaAGLER. Onychoprion WAGLER, Isis, 1832, 277. Type, Sterna serrata FORSTER —S. fuliginosa GMEL. (Cf. Cours, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 314.) 82.1. Diomedea immutabilis Roruscu. Laysan Albatross. Diomedea immutabilis RoruscHiLp, Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, Now is. June, 1593, pe xiviir [B= C= Re aaemen Geoc. Dist. — Laysan Islands; San Geronimo and Guadalupe Islands, Lower California. (Cf AnrHoNy, Auk, XV, Jan. 1898, 38.) re) Famity PROCELLARIIDZ: (Check-List, 2d ed., pp. 29— 38). For the two present subfamilies (PROCELLARIIN® and TOO Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. —— Jan. OcEANITIN#) substitute the four following (Cf. Cours, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 315): SurFAMILY FULMARINZ,, to include Nos. 85 to 87, inclusive, and No. [102], or the genera Ossifraga, Fulma- rus, Priocella, and Daption. SuBFAMILY PUFFININZ,, to include Nos. 86 to [101], inclusive, or the genera Puffinus, Priofinus, 4strelata and Bulweria. SUBFAMILY PROCELLARIINGZ,, to include Nos. 103 to 108, inclusive, or the genera Halocyptena, Procellaria, and Oceanodroma. SuBFAMILY OCEANITINZ,, to include Nos. 1og to 111, inclusive, thus leaving the subfamily without change. The former subfamily PROCELLARIIN# is thus divided into the three subfamilies FULMARIN&, PUFFININ2, and PROCELLARIINA, while the subfamily OCEANITIN# remains as formerly. In order of arrangement, No. [102] comes next after No. 87. SusGENUS PRIOCELLA Hompron & Jacguinot (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 31). This is raised to a full genus. (Cf CouEs, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 315.) Hence No. 87 will stand as 87. Priocella glacialoides (Smiru). Procellaria glacialoides SmirH, Illust. S. Afr. B. 1840, pl. 51. Priocella glacialoides B. B. & R. Water Bds. N. A. II, 1884, 373- (92.1.| Puffinus assimilis Goutp. Allied Shearwater. Puffinus assimilis GOULD, P. Z. S. 1837, 156. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Geoc. Dist. — Australian and New Zealand Seas, and north- ward in the Atlantic Ocean to the Madeira Islands; Sable Island, Nova Scotia (accidental). (Cf Dwicur, Pr. Biol. Soc. Wash. XI, 1897, 69.) Lichen Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. IOI 93.1. Puffinus auricularis C. H. Townsenp. Townsend’s Shearwater. Puffinus auricularis C. H. TowNsenpD, Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. XIII, Sept. 9, 1890, 133. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Geoc. Dist.— Clarion Island, north to Cape San Lucas, Lower California. (Cf AntHony, Auk, XV, Jan. 1898, 38.) 94. Puffinus stricklandi Ripcw. ‘This becomes Puffinus fuliginosus STRICKLAND. Puffinus fuliginosus STRICKLAND, P. Z. 5S. 1832, 129. The prior Procellaria fuliginosa GMEL. does not render Puffinus fuliginosus STRICKLAND untenable. (Cf Cours, Auk, XIV, July, ESQ7, 305.) SupcENuS PRIOFINUS Homepron & Jacqguinor (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 33). This is raised to a full genus. (Cf Cougs, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 315.) Hence No. [97] will stand as [97.| Priofinus cinereus (GMEL.). Procellaria cinerea GMEL. S. N. I, ii, 1788, 563. Priofinus cinereus JacQ. & Pucu. Voy. Péle Sud, Zool. III, 1853, 145- 105.2. Oceanodroma kaedingi ANTHONY. Kaeding’s Petrel. Oceanodroma haedingi AnTHoNYy, Auk, XV, Jan. 1898, 37. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Groc. Dist.— Socorro and Clarion Islands, north to southern California. [106.2.] Oceanodroma cryptoleucura (Ripcw.). Hawaiian Petrel. Cymochorea cryptoleucura Rrpcw. Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. IV, 1882, 337° Auk Jan. ToO2 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. Oceanodroma cryptoleucura RipGw., Man. N. A. Bds, 1887, 71. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Geroc. Dist. — Pacific and Southern Oceans; accidental in the District of Columbia. (Cf W. Patmer, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 297-) GENuS CYMODROMA Ripeway (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 38). This becomes Genus FREGETTA Bonap. Fregetia BONAP. Comp. ‘Rend. XLT, 1855, 22203. ) Type; Thalassidroma tropica GOULD= 7. melanogaster GOULD. Name sufficiently distinct from /yvegata Briss. (Cf Cougs, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 315.) Hence No. [110] will stand as [110.] FPregetta grallaria (VIEILL.). Procellaria grallaria VieILL. Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. XXVI, 1817, 418. fregetta grallaria BONAP. Consp. Av. II, 1856, 197. 112. Phaethon flavirostris Branpr. This becomes Phaethon americanus GRANT. Phaéthon americanus GRANT, Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, No. XEILX, Dec. 1897, p. xxiv; Vbis, Apna, asq8, 233. Geoc. Dist.— West Indies and Atlantic coast of Central America, north to Florida and Bermuda; accidental in western New York. Phaéthon flavirostris is the Indian Ocean species. [115.1.| Phaethon rubricaudus Bopp. Red-tailed Tropic Bird. Phaéton rubricaudus Bopp. Tabl. Pl. En. 1783, 57. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] ee ve Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 103 Groc. Dist.— South Pacific. Accidental near Guadalupe Island, Lower California. (Cf ANTHONY, Auk, XV, Jan. 1898, 39.) 129. Merganser americanus (Cass.). By a typographical inadvertence in the 2d. ed. of the. Check- List the concordance of this species was left blank. (Cf COUEs, Auk, XIV, 1897, 316.) The figures should stand as in the rst ed. of the Check-List, namely : (EsGnr Goren oon € -7ag) The subgenera Chaulelasmus, Mareca, Nettion, and Querquedula (Check-List, 2d ed., pp. 49-51) are raised to the rank of genera. Hence Nos. 135 to 141 will stand as follows: 135. Chaulelasmus streperus (LINN.). Anas strepera Linn. S. N. ed. 10, I, 1758, 125. Chaulelasmus streperus BoNAp. Geog. and Comp. List, 1838, 56. 136. Mareca penelope (LINN.). Anas penelope Linn. S. N. ed. 10, I, 1758, 126. Mareca penelope SELBY, Br. Orn. II, 1833, 324- 137. Mareca americana (GMEL.). Anas americana GMEL. Syst. Nat. I, ii, 1758, 526. Mareca americana STEPHENS, Gen. Zool. XII, ii, 1824, 135- [138.] Nettion crecca (LINN.). Anas crecca Linn. S. N. ed. 10, I, 1758, 126. Nettion creca Kaur, Skizz. Entw.-Gesch. Eur. Thierw. 1829, 95. 139. Nettion carolinensis (GMEL.).— Anas carolinensis GMEL. S. N. I, 1788, 533. Nettion carolinensis Bairp, Bds. N. Am. 1858, 777- 104 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. Auk Jan. 140. Querquedula discors (Liny.). Anas discors Linn. S. N. ed. 12, I, 1766, 205. Querquedula discors SrEPHENS, Gen. Zool. XII, ii, 1824, 149. Querquedula cyanoptera (VIFILL.). Anas cyanoptera ViEILL. Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. V, 1816, 104. Querquedula cyanoptera Cassin, Ill. Bds. Cal. 1855, 82, pl. xv. 148. Aythya marila nearctica Steyn. This becomes Aythya marila (Liny.). Anas marila Linn. S. N. ed. 12, I, 1766, 196. Aythya marila Botk, Isis, 1822, 564. Groc. Dist. — Northern part of northern hemisphere, breeding far north. South in winter to Guatemala, Japan, China, Formosa, and the Mediterranean. The American and Old World birds are not satisfactorily dis- tinguishable. (Cf BisHop, Auk, XII, 1895, 2933; SHARPE, Cat. Bds. B. M. XXVII, 1895, 359; Ettiot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 286.) 151. Clangula clangula americana (Bonap.). (Cf Eighth Suppl.) The authority for the combination should be Clangula clangula americana Faxon, Auk, XIII, 1896, 215. 159. Somateria mollissima_borealis (Check-List, 2d ed., p- 57. The authority should be C. L. BreEuHM, and the first reference, inadvertently omitted, is Somateria borealis C. L. BREHM, Isis, 1830, 998. Genus EXANTHEMOPS Ex: ior. Admitted as a subgenus of Chen Botr, to include No. 170, Chen rossii (Cassin). LExanthemops Exvuiot, Ill. Am. Bds. II, 1869, pl. xliv. Type, Anser rossit Cassin. (Cf. ELuiot, Wild Fowl, Nov. 1898, 44.) a Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 105 173c. Branta bernicla’glaucogastra (BREHM.). White-bellied Brant. Bernicla glaucogaster C. L. BrexM, Isis, 1830, 996, nomen nudum; Handb. Vig. Deutschl. 1831, 849. Branta bernicla glaucogastra Cours, Auk, XIV, April, 1897, 207. [B 570, part, C 484, part, R 595, part, C 700, part.| Groc. Dist. — Extreme northern part of northern hemisphere, including Arctic America, migrating southward in winter. (Cf. Coves, Auk, XIV, April, 1897, 207.) 201c. Ardea virescens anthonyi Mearns (¢/ Eighth Suppl.). This should stand as No. 2010. [230.1.] Gallinago major (GMEL.). Greater Snipe. Scolopax major GMEL. S. N. I, 11, 1788, 661. Gallinago major Kocu, Syst. Baier. Orn. 18 16,7313. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Groc. Dist. — Europe, Asia, and Africa. Accidentaljin_ North America (Hudson Bay). (Cf Coues, Auk, XIV, Apr. 1897, 209.) SuBncENuUS HELODROMAS Kavp (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 93)- This is raised to full generic rank. (Cf Cours, Auk, XIV, April, 1897, 211.) Hence Nos. 256, 256a, and [257] will stand as follows: 256. Helodromas solitarius (WILs.). Tringa solitaria Wits. Am. Orn. VII, 1813, 53; pl. lviii, fig. 3. Helodromas solitarius SHARPE, Cat. Bds. B. M. XXIV, 1896, 444. 256a. Helodromas solitarius cinnamomeus (BrREwsrT.). 106 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. Tae Totanus solitarius cinnamomeus Brewst. Auk, VII, Oct. 1890, 377: Flelodromas solitarius cinnamomeus A. O. U. Comm. MS. [257.] Helodromas ochropus (LINN.). Green Sandpiper. Tringa ocrophus (err. typ.) Linn. S. N. ed. ro, I, 1758, 149. Flelodromas ochropus Kaur, Skizz. Entw.-Gesch. Eur. Thierw. 1829, 144. Geoc. Dist. — Northern parts of the Old World. Accidental in North America (Hudson Bay and Nova Scotia). (Cf CouEs, Auk, XIV, Apr. 1897, 210.) Suscenus LOPHORTYX Bonaparte (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 109). This becomes Genus LOPHORTYX Bonap. Hence Nos. 294, 294@, 295(cf Grant, Cat. Bds. B. M. XXII, 1893, 399; Cougs, Auk, XIV, Apr. 1897, 214; ExLior, Gall. Game Bds. 1897, 196) should stand as follows : 294. Lophortyx californicus (SHaw). Letrao californicus SHaw, Nat. Misc. IX, 1797, pl. ccexiv. Lophortyx californica Bonar. Geog. and Comp. List, 1838, 42. 2942. Lophortyx californicus vallicola (Ripcw.). Callipepla californica vallicola Ripcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. VET 2655. 255, Lophortyx californicus vallicola Ex.i071, Gall. Game Bds. 1897, 60. 295. Lophortyx gambelii Gamrp. Lophortyx gambelii GAMBEL (ex NuttaLtt MS.) Pr. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1843, 260. ee ae Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 107 SupGeNuSs CANACHITES Sreynecer (Check-List, 2d ed., Pp. tii). hisvis raised tothe rank of afull\genus, (C7. Grant, Cat. Bds; Bs M. XXII, 1893, 69; Exiror, Gall. Game Bds. N. Am. 1897, 195-197.) Hence Nos. 298 and 299 will stand as 298. Canachites canadensis (LINN.). Letrao canadensis LINN. S. N. ed. 10, I, 1758, 159. Canachites canadensis Grant, Cat. Bds. Br. M. XXII, 1893, 69. 299. Canachites franklinii (Dovuct.). Tetrao frankliniti Douc.. Trans. Linn. Soc. XVI, ili, 1829, 139. Canachites franklinit GRANT, Cat. Bds. B. M. XXII, 1893, 71. GrENus PEDIOCZETES Barrp (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 116). This is corrected to GENUS PEDICGECETES Bairp. Pedivcetes BARD, Bds. N. Am. 1858, pp. xxi, xliv. Correction of Pediocetes in same work, p.625. (Cf GILL, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 20.) The same correction should be made in the generic name in the cases of Nos. 308, 308a, 3086. (Cf Exuior, Gall. Game Bds.%5g7, 125, 128, 134, 204; GILL, 7. ¢. 23.) Grnus: MELEAGRIS Linn. (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 117.) — The species and subspecies of this genus (cf Covers, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 272-275; Exviot, Gall. Game Bds. N. Am. 1897, 209-212) will stand as follows, numbers 310 and 310@ being transposed from their former order to conform to the new arrangement of names: 310. Meleagris gallopavo LINN. Mexican Turkey. 108 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. aa Meleagris gallopavo Linn. 8. N. ed. 10, I, 1758, 156. [B 458, C 379, R 470, C 553.] Groc. Dist. — Southwestern United States, from western Texas to Arizona; south over the tableland of Mexico. This is the main basis of the Linnzan name. 310a. Meleagris gallopavo fera (VIEILL.). Wild Turkey. Meleagris fera ViEILu. Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. IX, 1817, 447. Meleagris gallopavo fera Cours, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 77. [B 457, C 379@, R 470a, C 554.] Geoc. Dist. — Eastern United States, from southwestern Penn- sylvania to the Gulf Coast, and west to the Plains, along wooded river valleys; formerly north to southern Maine, southern Ontario, and up the Missouri River to North Dakota. 3102. Meleagris gallopavo osceola Scorr. (Not changed.) 310c. Meleagris gallopavo ellioti Sennerr. This becomes Meleagris gallopavo intermedia SENNETT. Meleagris gallopavo intermedia SENNETT, Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. Terr. V, No. 3, Nov. 1879, 428. The name 7vtermedia, proposed tentatively, has thirteen years priority over e//iot’, both names being based on the same form. (C/, Couns, Auk, XTV,-189975 275) 3202. Columbigallina passerina pallescens (Bairp). The concordance (cf Cours, Auk, XIV, April 1897, 215) should be corrected to read as follows : [B 453, part, C 3744, R 465, part, C 548.] 326. Catharista atrata (Barrr.). As Bartram was not strictly binomial in his nomenclature, it is inconsistent with the A. O. U. Code to recognize any of his names. (C% Cougs, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 84.) Hence No. 326 becomes. Vol. XVI aaa Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. sere) Catharista urubu (VIEILL.). Vultur urubu Vi8iLu. Ois. Am. Sept. I, 1807, 53, pl. ii. Catharista urubu ViEILu. Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. XII, 1817, 4ol. 552a. Halizeetus leucocephalus alascanus C. H. Town- SEND. Northern Bald Eagle. Flatietus leucocephalus alascanus C. H. TOwNSEND, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XI, June, 1897, 145. [iB 4m, 43) art, C 362, part, Ro4aci, pert, © 534, part. | Geroc. Dist. — Northern North America. By the admission of No.§352a, “7. leucocephalus becomes restricted to the southern form, confined chiefly to the United States. 569a. Syrnium occidentale caurinum Merriam. Northern Spotted Owl. Syrnium occidentale caurinum MERRIAM, Auk, XV, Jan. 1898, 39: [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Groc. Dist.—Coast region of Washington and_ British Columbia. 3736. Mlegascops asio trichopsis (WacL.). This becomes Megascops asio mecalli (Cass.). It will now stand as in the first edition of the Check-List {p. 201). The change was due to an erroneous identification of Wagler’s Scops trichopsis, which has since been corrected. 373.1. Megascops trichopsis (WaAcLER). Scops trichopsis WAGLER, Isis, 1832, 276. Megascops trichopsis Kaur, Tr. Z. S. Lond. IV, 1862, 227. oe a eee eee iD 116) Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. Auk Jan. Geroc. Dist.— Mexico, north to the Huachuca Mountains, Arizona. This is MZegascops aspersus BRewst., recently recorded by him as found in the Huachuca Mountains (cf Auk, XV, April, 1898, 186). 375e. Bubo virginianus pacificus Cassin (cf Eighth Suppl.). This should stand as No. 3754. In the Order CoccyGres (Check-List, 2d ed., pp. 153-155) the following changes should be made: (1) At the bottom of p. 153, a SuspramMILy NHOMOR- PHINZ should be introduced to include the genus Geococcyx. ? (2) The present “ Subfamily CoccyGina:”’ should be carried for- ward to p. 154, and include the genus Coccyzus only. (3) The orthography should be changed to COCCYZINAG. (4) At p. 155, insert SusramILyY CUCULIN 4 to include the genus Cucu- lus. (Cf. Cours, Auk, XIV, Jan. 1897, go.) 393¢. Dryobates villosus monticola ANnrTHowny. Rocky Mountain Hairy Woodpecker. Dryobates villosus monticola ANVHONY, Auk, XV, Jan. 1898, 54 =D. v. montanus ANTHONY, Auk, XIII, Jan. 1896, 32, the name montanus being preoccupied by Prcus montanus BreuM, which isa Dryobates. [B 75, purt, C 298a, part, R 360d, part, C 439, part.| Groc. Dist. — Rocky Mountains, from New Mexico to Mon- tana, west to Utah (Uinta Mountains). 405. Ceophloeus pileatus (LINN.). Groc. Dist.— By admission of No. 4os5a, this becomes restricted to the wooded portions of the southern United States, from about North Carolina southward and westward. 405a. Ceophloceus pileatus abieticola Banas. Northern Pileated Woodpecker. Ceophleus pileatus abieticola BANGS, Auk, XV, Apr. 1898, 176. Aare Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. lf Ra & [B go, part, C 294, part, R 371, part, C 432, part.] Groc. Dist. — Heavily wooded regions of ‘North America, fiom the southern Alleghanies northward. 412. Colaptes auratus (LINN.). Geroc. Distr. — By the admission of No. 412a@ this becomes restricted to the South Atlantic and Gulf coast region. 412¢. Colaptes auratus luteus Bancs. Northern Flicker. Colaptes auratus luteus Bancs, Auk, XV, Apr. 1898, 177. [B97, part, C 312, part, R378, part, C 457, part.| Geoc. Dist. — Eastern and northern North America, south to North Carolina, west to the eastern base of the Rocky Mountains. Occasional on the Pacific slope, from California northward. 422. Cypseloides niger borealis (KENNERLY). Instead of the authority given for this name in the Eighth Sup- plement to the Check-List (Auk, XIV, Jan. 1897, 126), the following should be substituted : Cypseloides niger borealis Ripcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 188. (Cf OBERHOLSER, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 78.) 435. Atthis morcomi Rkipcw. Morcom’s Hummingbird. Atthis morcomi Ripcw. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 325. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Geoc. Dist. — Huachuca Mountains, Arizona. In numeration this takes the place of No. 435, Zvochilus (Atthis). heloisa (Less. & DeLatt.) of the first edition of the Check-List, which proved to be extra-limital, and to have been admitted to. EE2 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. — Jan. the Check-List on an early erroneous identification. (Cf Ripew. Auk, VIFI, 189%, 115:) 439. Amazilia cerviniventris GouLp. ‘This becomes Amazilia cerviniventris chalconota OBERH. Amazsilia cerviniventris chalconota OBERHOLSER, Auk, XV, Jan. 1898, 32. 460. Contopus pertinax Cas. This becomes Contopus pertinax pallidiventris CuHapman. Contopus pertinax pallidiventris CHAPMAN, Auk, XIV, July, TOO7 513 1-0: Geroc. Dist. — Mountains of southern and central Arizona and northern Mexico. True C. fertinax is restricted to southern Mexico and Guatemala. 479. Aphelocoma floridana (Barrram). As Bartram was not a strict binomialist his names are not tenable, although in two instances they have been heretofore inadvertently used in the Check-List. Hence, taking the first tenable name (f. Cours, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 84), this species will stand as Aphelocoma cyanea (VIEILL.). Garrulus cyaneus ViEILL. Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. XII, 1817, 476. Aphelocoma cyanea Cours, Auk, XVI, Jan., 1899, 84. 488a. Corvus americanus floridanus Bairp. The name floridanus being preoccupied by Corvus floridanus BONAP., 1826, for the Florida Jay (f% Cougs, Auk, XVI, Jan., 1899, 84), No. 488a, should stand as Corvus americanus pascuus Cougs. Corvus americanus pascuus Cours, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 84. Vol. XVI Reb Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 1 501la. Sturnella magna mexicana (Sci.). This becomes Sturnella magna hoopesi STone. Rio Grande Meadowlark. Sturnella magna hoopesi SYONE, Pr. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1897, 149. [B—, € —, R 2634, C 321.) Geoc. Distr. — Valley of the Lower Rio Grande, Texas, south into eastern Mexico. 515. Pinicola enucleator (Linn.). This becomes Pinicola enucleator canadensis (Cap.). Pine Grosbeak. Pinicola canadensis Cas. Mus. Hein. I, Aug. 1851, 167. Pinicola enucleator B canadensis RipGw. Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, April, 1878, 66. B 304, part, C 137, part, KR 166, part, € 190, paré. 3 9°, fp Geroc. Dist.— Northern and northeastern North America, from New England and Minnesota northward; further south in winter. 5l5a. Pinicola enucleator montana Ripcew. Rocky Mountain Pine Grosbeak. Pinicola enucleator montana Ripew. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 319. [B 304, part, C 137, part, R 166, part, C 190, part. | Geroc. Dist. — Rocky Mountains, breeding from Montana and Idaho to New Mexico. 5154. Pinicola enucleator californica PRICE. California Pine Grosbeak. Pinicola enucleator californica PRicE, Auk, XIV, April, 1897, 182. [B—, C137, part, R—, C 190, pari. ] Auk Jan. us Ninth Supplement io the A. O. U. Check-List. Geoc. Dist. — The higher parts of the Sierra Nevada, central California. 51ic. Pinicola enucleator alascensis Kipew. Alaskan Pine Grosbeak. Pinicola enucleator alascensis Ripcw. Auk, XV, Oct.{ 1898, 319. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Geoc. Dist. — Northwestern North America, including wooded portions of Alaska, except Kadiak and the southern coast, dis- trict; south in winter to Montana, eastern British Columbia, etc. 515¢. Pinicola enucleator flammula (HoMEyErR), Kadiak Pine Grosbeak. Pinicola flammula HoMEYER, Journ. f. Orn. 1880, 156. Pinicola enucleator fammula RrpGw. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898,]320. A [B—, C—, R—, C 190, fart.] Groc. Dist. — Kadiak to Sitka, Alaska. 519c. Carpodacus mexicanus clementis (MEArRNs). San Clemente House Finch. Carpodacus clementis MEARNS, Auk, XV, July, 1898, 258. Carpodacus mexicanus clementis A. O. U. Comm. MS. [B, Ge Ge] Geroc. Dist. — Santa Barbara Islands, California. 520.1. Carpodacus mcgregori ANTHONY. McGregor’s House Finch. Carpodacus megregort ANTHONY, Auk, XIV, April, 1897, 165. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Geoc. Disr. — San Benito Island, Lower California. Vol, XVI Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. I 15 1899 Genus SPINUS Koca (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 218). This, in part, becomes Genus ASTRAGALINUS Caps. Astragalinus Cas. Mus. Hein. I, 1851, 159. Type, Pringilla tristis LINN. (Cf. Rrpcw. Auk, XV, Jan., 1899, 79.) Hence Nos. 529 to 532 will stand as follows: 529. Spinus tristis (Linn.). This becomes Astragalinus tristis (LINvn.). American Goldfinch. Fringilla tristis LINN. Syst. Nat. ed. ro, I, 1758, 181. Astragalinus tristis CABANIS, Mus. Hein. I, July, 1851, 159. [B 313, part, C 149, part, R 181, part, C 213, part. | Groc. Dist. — Temperate North America, east of the Rocky Mountains. 529a. Spinus tristis pallidus Mearns. This becomes Astragalinus tristis pallidus (Mearns). Pale Goldfinch. Spinus tristis pallidus Mearns, Auk, VII, July, 1890, 244. Astragalinus tristis pallidus Ripcw. Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, tis [B 313, part, C 149, part, R181, part, C 213, part.] Geoc. Dist.——Great Basin region, from Arizona northward, and south into Mexico. 5292. Astragalinus tristis salicamans (GRINNELL). Willow Goldfinch. Spinus tristis salicamans GRINNELL, Auk, XIV, Oct. 1897, 397: Astragalinus tristis salicamans Ripew. Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 79: 116 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. a [B 313, part, C 149, part, R181, part, C 213, part] Groc. Dist. — Pacific Coast region, from Washington to south- ern California. 530. Astragalinus psaltria (Say). Fringilla psaltria Say, Long’s Exped. II, 1823, 40. Astragalinus psaltria Ripcw. Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 177- 530a. Astragalinus psaltria arizonz (COUEs). Chrysomitris mexicana var. arizone Cours, Pr. Ac. Nat. Sci, Phila. 1866, 82. Astragalinus psaltria arizone Ripcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. Ili, Aug: 27, 1360, 177. 5306. Astragalinus psaltria mexicanus (SwaIns.). Carduelis mexicana Swatns. Phil. Mag. I, 1827, 435. Astragalinus psaltria mexicanus Ripew. Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. IIT, Aug.27, 1380, 577. 531. Astragalinus lawrencei (Cass.). Carduelis lawrencet Cass. Pr. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila. 1851, 105, pl. v. Astragalinus lawrencei Ripcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 177- Genus PLECTROPHENAZX SrejNEGER (Check- List, 2d ed., p-. 220). This becomes Genus PASSERINA VIEILL. Passerina Viritu. Analyse, 1816, 30. Type, by elimination, Emberiza nivalis Linn. (Cf. Rrpew. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 324.) Hence Nos. 534, 5344) 535 will stand as follows: 534. Passerina nivalis (LINN.). Ree | Ninth Supplement io the A. O. U Check-List. avg Emberiza nivalis Linn. S. N. ed. 10, I, 1758, 176. Passerina nivalis ViE1Lu. Faune Frang. 1820, 86. 534a. Passerina nivalis townsendi (Rincw.). Plectrophenax nivalis townsendi Rrpcw. Man. N. Am. Bds. 1887, 403. Passerina nivalis townsendi Ripew. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 324. 535. Passerina hyperborea (Rinc¢w.). Plectrophenax hyperboreus Rivew. Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. VII, June 11, 1884, 68. Passerina hyperborea Ripew. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 324. 3 6a. Calearius lapponicus alascensis Ripcw. Alaskan Longspur. Calcarius lapponicus alascensis Ripcw. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 320. [B 326, part, C 153, part, R 187, part, C 220, part.| Groc. Distr. — The whole of Alaska, including the Prybilof and Aleutian Islands, Unalaska, and the Shumagins; east to Fort Simpson; south in winter to Nevada, eastern Oregon, Colo- rado, western Kansas, etc. Genus POOCZTES Barrp (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 222). This is corrected to Genus POGICETES Barrp. Powcetes Barrp, Bds. N. Am. 1858, pp. xx, xxix. Correc- tion of Poocetes in same work, p. 447. (Cf Gitt, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 20.) The same correction should be made in the generic name of Nos. 540, 540@, 5400. (Cf. GILL, /. ¢. 23.) 5492, Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni ALLEN. This becomes 118 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U Check-List. ay 549.1. Ammodramus nelsoni (ALLEN). Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni ALLEN, Pr. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. XVII, March, 1875, 293- Ammodramus nelsoni Norton, Pr. Portland Soc. Nat. Hist. EL. Mareh 1's, 1697, 102: 5497. Ammodramus caudacutus subvirgatus Dwicnt. This becomes 549.1¢. Ammodramus nelsoni subvirgatus (Dwicur). Ammodramus caudacutus subvirgatus Dwicut, Auk, IV, July, 1887, 233. Ammodramus nelsoni subvirgatus Norvon, Pr. Portland Soc. Nat. Hist. II, March 15, 1897, 102. Changed on the ground that subvirgatus is a subspecies of nelsoni instead of caudacutus. (Cf. Norton, Z. ¢.) 550c. Ammodramus maritimus macgillivrayi(Aup.). This becomes Ammodramus maritimus fisheri CHAPMAN. Louisiana Seaside Sparrow. Ammodramus maritimus fisheri CHAPMAN, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, I0. [B—, C 165, part, R 202, part, C 238, part.| Geroc. Dist. — Coast of Louisiana; coast of Texas in migra- tion. 5502. Ammodramus maritimus macgillivraii (AuD.). Macgillivray’s Seaside Sparrow. Fringilla macgillivraii Aup. Orn. Biog. Il, 1834, 285; IV, 1838, 394, pl. ccclv. Ammodramus maritimus macgillivrati CHAPMAN, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899,5. (Not A. m. macgillivrayi RipGw. Man. N. A. Bds. 2d. ed. 1896, App. 602 = A. m. fisheri CHAPMAN.) tees | Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 119 [B—, C 165, part, R 202, part, C 238, part.| Geoc. Dist. — Coast of South Carolina and Georgia. 567.1. Junco montanus Ripcw. Montana Junco. Junco montanus Ripcw. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 321. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Geroc. Dist. — Northwestern Montana and northern Idaho, north to Alberta; in winter south to northern Mexico, Texas, etc., and east, irregularly or casually, to the Mississippi Valley, andjeven to Maryland. 573a. Amphispiza bilineata deserticola Ripew. Desert Sparrow. Amphispiza bilineafa deserticola RipGcw. Auk, XV, July, 1898, 229. (Separates published May 13, 1898.) [B 355, part, C 172, part, R 224, part, C 258, part.) oc. Dist.— Arid plains, from western Texas to coast of southern California, north to northern Nevada and Utah, south into Chihuahua and Sonora; Lower California ? Genus PEUCZEA Aun. (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 238). This in part becomes Genus AIMOPHILA Swains. Aimophila Swainson, Class. Bds. II, 1837, 287. Type, Pipilo rufescens Swatns. This will include Nos. 579 to 5800, heretofore placed in the genus Peucea (of. Ripcw. Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899,80). Numbers 579 to 5804 will hence stand as follows, leaving in Peucea only INOS. 575 to 578): 579.9 Aimophila carpalis (CovuEs). 120 Ninth Supplement.to the A. O. U. Check List. as Peucea carpalis Cours, Am. Nat. VII, June, 1873, 322. Aimophila carpalis Ripew. Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 81. 580. Aimophila ruficeps (Cass.). Ammodramus riuficeps Cass. Pr. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila. Oct. 1852, 184. Aimophila ruficeps Rrpcw. Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 81. 580a. Peuczea ruficeps boucardi (Scu.). This becomes Aimophila ruficeps scottii (SENNETT). Peucea ruficeps scottii SENNETT, Auk, V, Jan. 1888, 42. Aimophila ruficeps scottii Rripaw. Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 81. 9806. Aimophila ruficeps eremceca (Brown). Peucea ruficeps eremaca BRown, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, VII, Jan. 1882, 26. Aimophila ruficeps eremeca RipGw. Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 81. 580c. Aimophila ruficeps sororia Ripcw. Laguna Sparrow. Aimophila rujiceps sororia Ripcw. Auk, XV, July, 1898, 226. [B 372, part, C 171, part, R 230, part, C 255, part. | Geroc Dist. — Mountains of southern Lower California. 588c. Pipilo maculatus clementz (GRINNELL). San Clemente Towhee. Pipilo clemente GRINNELL, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 294. Pipilo maculatus clemente A. O. U. Comm. MS. [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Geoc. Dist. — San Clemente Island, California. In the genera Pipilo and Oreospiza (Check-List 2d ed., pp. 246-248, and Eighth Suppl., Auk, XIV, Jan. 1897, p. 129) the hain Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. I21 numeration should be changed (ci Cougs, Auk, Apr. 1897, 221) as follows: Cancel No. 590, and carry the present No. 590, Orecospiza chlorura, forward to follow No. 592, to stand as or 92.1. Oreospiza chlorura (Auvp.). 597a. Guiraca cezrulea eurhyncha Covers. This becomes Guiraca czrulea lazula (Lesson). Pitylus lazulus WESSON, Rev. Zool. V, 1842, 174. Gutraca cerulea lazula Ripcw. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 322. Genus PASSERINA Veit. (Check-List, 2djed., p. 251). This name being now used for what has been called /¥Vec- trophenax, is changed to Genus CYANOSPIZA Bairp. (Cf Rincw, Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 323.) Cyanospiza BatrRD, Bds. N. Am. 1858, 500. Type, Zanagra cyanea LINN. Hence Nos. 598 to 601 should stand as follows: 598. Cyanospiza cyanea (LINN.). Tanagra cyanea Linn. S.N. ed. 12, I, 1766, 315. Cyanospiza cyanea Baird, Bds. N. Am. 1858, 505. 099. Cyanospiza amoena (Say). Emberiza amena Say, Long’s Exped. II, 1823, 47. Cyanospiza amena Baird, Bds. N. Am. 1858, 504. 600. Cyanospiza versicolor (Bonap.). Spiza versicolor BonaP. P. Z. S. 1837 (June, 1838), 120. Cyanospiza versicolor Baird, Bds. N. Am. 1858, 503. 22 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. te ‘6002. Cyanospiza versicolor pulchra (Ripew.). Passerina versicolor pulchra Ripcw. Man. N. Am. Bds. 1887, 448, Cyanospiza versicolor pulchra Ripcw. Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 324. 601. Cyanospiza ciris (LINN.). Emberiza ciris Linn. S. N. ed. 10, 1758, 179. Cyanospiza ciris BatRD, Bds. N. Am. 1858, 503. Genus CHELIDON Forster (Check-List, 2d. ed., p. 258). This becomes Genus HIRUNDO Linn. Hirundo Linn. Syst. Nat. ed. 10, I, 1758, 191. Type, as fixed by SCH&FFER (Elem. Orn. 1774, pl. xl), Avrundo rustica LINN. (Cf. Cours, Auk, XV, July, 1898, 271.) Hence No. 613 becomes 13. Hirundo erythrogaster Bopp. Hirundo erythrogaster Bopp. Tabl. P. E. 1783, 45- 622¢c. Lanius ludovicianus anthonyi MEARNs. Island Shrike. Lanius ludovicianus anthonyi MEARNS, Auk, XV, July, 1898, 261. ‘i hee ES cree Geoc. Dist. — Santa Barbara Islands, California. 680. Geothlypis macgillivrayi (Aup.). This becomes Geothlypis tolmiei (Towns.). Sylvia tolmiet J}. K. TownsenD, Narr. April, 1839, 343. Geothlypis tolmiei STONE, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 82. ‘The name /o/miei has priority over macgillivrayt. (Cf. STONE, /. ¢.) 4a Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 123 Genus SYLVANIA Nourratti (Check-List, 2d ed, p. 285). This becomes GENus WILSONTIA Bonap. Wilsonia Bonar. Geog. and Comp. List, 1838, 23. Type, Sylvia mitrata LATHAM = Motacilla mitrata GMEL. Sylvania is a strict synonym of Setophaga Swatns. (cf. COUES, Auk, XIV, 1897, 223). Hence Nos. 684 to 686 will stand as follows: 684. Wilsonia mitrata (GMEL.). Motacilla mitrata GMEL. S. N. I. ii, 1788, 977. Wilsonia mitrata Bon. Geog. and Comp. List, 1838, 23. 685. Wilsonia pusilla (WILs.). Muscicapa pusilla Wits. Am. Orn. III, 1811, 103, pl. xxvi, fig. 4. Wilsonia pusilla Bon. Geog. and Comp. List, 1838, 23. 685a. Wilsonia pusilla pileolata (PALL.). Motacilla pileolata Pau. Zool. Rosso-As. I, 1811, 497- Wilsonia pusilla pileolata Cours, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, V, April, 1880, 95. 686. Wilsonia canadensis (LINN.). Muscicapa canadensis Linn. S. N. ed. 12, I, 1766, 327. Wilsonia canadensis Cours, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, V, April, 1880, 95. 710a.'Harporhynchus redivivus pasadenensis GRINNELL. Pasadena Thrasher. Harporhynchus redivivus pasadenensis GRINNELL, Auk, XV, July, 1898, 237. [B 256, part, C 13, part, R 16, part, C 23, pari] 124 Ninth Supplemen! to the A. O. U. Check-List. Ss Jan. Geroc. Distr. — Southern California. 71la. Harporhynchus lecontei arenicola ANTHONY. Desert Thrasher. Flarporhynchus lecontet arenicola ANTHONY, Auk, XIV, Apr. 1897, 167. [B 257, part, C 13a, part, R 16a, part, C 24, part.| Geoc. Dist. —— Lower California. [717.] Catherpes mexicanus (Swains.). This becomes 717. Catherpes mexicanus albifrons (Giraup). Certhia albifrons GiRAuUD, Sixteen Sp. Texas Bds. 1841, pl. XVIll. Catherpes mexicanus albifrons NELSON, Auk, XV, Apr. 1889, 160, Geroc. Dist. — Lower Rio Grande of Texas, and the States of Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas, Mexico. Suscenus THRYOMANES Sc rarer. This is raised to a full genus (cf OBERHOLSER, Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. XXI, Nov. 1898, 421). Hence Nos. 719, 719@, 719, 719.1, 720, will. stand as follows: 719. Thryomanes bewickii (Aup.). Troglodytes bewickii Aup. Orn. Biog. I, 1831, 96, pl. xviii. Thryomanes bewickii Ripcw. Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, II, July, 1877, 60. 7192. Thryomanes bewickii spilurus (Vic.). Troglodytes spilurus Vic. Zool. Voy. Blossom, 1839, 18, pl. Tie a eas Thryomanes bewicki spilurus Ripcw. Essex. Inst. V, Oct. 1874, 170, 7194. Thryomanes bewickii leucogaster (Bairp). cee Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 125 Thryothorus bewickit var. leucogaster BAiRD, Rev. Am. Bds. Aug. 1864, 127. Thryomanes bewicki var. leucogaster Ripcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus, 1 Oct ¢,-187S, p21. 719.1 Thryomanes leucophrys (ANTHONY). Thryothorus leucophrys ANTHONY, Auk, XII, Jan. 1895, 52. Thryomanes leucophrys A. O. U. Comm. MS. 720. Thryomanes brevicauda Ripcw. Thryomanes brevicauda Ripew. Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geog. suv. Yen II; No. 2, April 2, 1876, 186: Suscenus ANORTHURA Rennie. This is raised to a full. genus (cf OBERHOLSER, Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. XXI, No. 1153, NOy2tro,) 6699, 421). “Hence Nos:* 722, "7220.1 7255 wilt stand as follows: 722. Anorthura hiemalis (VIEIL1.). Troglodytes hiemalis ViEILL. Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. Nat. XXXIV, 181g, 514. Anorthura hyemalis Courts & PRENTISS, Smiths. Rep. for 1861 (1862), 410. 722¢. Anorthura hiemalis pacifica (Barrp). Troglodytes hiemalis var. pacificus BAIRD, Rev. Am. Bds. I, Sept. 1864, 145. | Anorthura hiemalis pacifica OBERHOLSER, Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. XXI, No. 1153, Nov. 19, 1898, 421. 723. Anorthura alascensis (Bairp). Troglodytes alascensis Batrp, Trans. Chic. Ac. Sci. I, 1869, ss pl. xXx, Ne. '3. Anorthura alascensis Cours, Key, 1872, 87. 725c. Cistothorus palustris plesius OBERHOLSER. Western Marsh Wren. 126 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. Ls Jan. Cistothorus palustris plesius OBERHOLSER, Auk, XIV, Apr. 1897, 188. [B 268, part, C 51, part, R 67a, part, C 80, part.] Groc. Dist.— Western United States, except the Pacific Coast; north to British Columbia and Alberta, east to the Rocky Mountains and ‘Texas, south into Mexico. The Tulé Wren (No. 7252, Crstothorus palustris paludicola) thus becomes restricted to the Pacific Coast region. 726. Certhia familiaris americana (Bonap.). This becomes Certhia familiaris fusca (Barron). Certhia fusca BARTON, Fragments Nat. Hist. Penn., 1799, 11. Certhia familiaris fusca Cours, Bds. N. W. 1874, 230. 737. Parus meridionalis Sci. Parus meridionalis SCLATER, 1856, is preoccupied by Parus meridionalis LILLJEBORG, 1852. Hence this becomes Parus sclateri KLEINs. Parus sclateri KLEINSCHMIDT, Journ. f. Orn. 1897, 92, 133- 7462. Auriparus flaviceps lamprocephalus OBERHOLSER. Auriparus flaviceps lamprocephalus OBERHOLSER, Auk, XIV, Oct. 1897, 391. [B 300, part, C 37, part, R 50, part, C 56 part.| Geroc. Dist. — Lower California. Suscenus HYLOCICHLA Barrp (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 316). This is raised to a full genus (cf OBERHOLSER, Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 304). Hence Nos. 755 to 7590 will stand as follows: 755. Hylocichla mustelina (GMEL.). Turdus mustelinus GMEL. S. N. I, ii, 1788, 817. Hylocichla mustelina Ripcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 166, ba oe Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 127 756. Hylocichla fuscescens (STEPH.). Turdus fuscescens STEPH. Gen. Zool. X, i, 1817, 182. LTylocichla fuscescens Ripcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. III,. Aug. 27, 1880, 166. 756a. Hylocichla fuscescens salicicola Ripcw. LTylocichla fuscescens salicicola Ripcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. IW, Apr: 6, 1882,.37 4. 797. Hylocichla aliciz (Bairp). Turdus alicia BAirRD, Bds. N. Am. 1858, 217. Flylocichla alicia Rivcw. Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. III,~Aug. 27, 1880, 166. 757a. Hylocichla aliciz bicknelli Ripcw. ffylocichla alicie bicknelli Rrpcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. IV, Apt, 05.1682, 37°7. 758. Hylocichla ustulata (Nu7v.). Turdus ustulatus Nutr. Man. Orn. Land Bds. ed. 2, 1840,. 830 (cestulatus, err. typ. p. 400). Fiylocichla ustulata Rrpcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 166. 758a. Hylocichla ustulata swainsoni (Cazs.). Turdus swainsont Cas. Faun. Per. 1845-46, 187. fTylocichla ustulata swainsoni Ripcw. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 166. 7584. Hylocichla ustulata cedica ObeEru. HHylocichla ustulata edica OBERHOLSER, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899,. 23) [B 153, part, C 5, part, R 4a, part, C 13, part.] Groce. Dist. — California, excepting the northern coast; north eas 128 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. in the interior to southern Oregon; south, in winter, to Arizona and northern Mexico. 759. Hylocichla aonalaschke (GMEL.). Turdus aonalaschke GEL. S. N. I, ii, 1788, 808. LTylocichta unalashke Ripew. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27 nLOGO, DOO. 759a. Hylocichla aonalaschke auduboni (Barrp). Turdus auduboni BAIRD, Rev. Am. Bds. June, 1864, 16. Hylocichla unalashke audubonit Ripew. Pr. U. S. Nat. Mus. Til, Aug. 27, 1680,-266. 7596. Hylocichla aonalaschke pallasii (Casz.). Turdus pallasii Cap. Wiegm. Archiv, 1847, i, 205. Hylocichla unalashke pallasti Rripew. Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. III, Aug. 27, 1880, 166. HYPOTHETICAL LIS a. 11.2. Totanus totanus (LINN.). Common Redshank. Scolopax totanus Linn. S. N. ed. 10, 1758, 145. Totanus totanus Cours, Auk, XIV, April, 1897, 212 [B—, C—, R—, C—.] Greoc. Dist. — Europe, Asia, and Africa. Accidental in North America (Hudson Bay)? (Cf Cours, Auk, XIV, April, 1897, 2EE.) II.— PROPOSED CHANGES IN NOMENCLATURE NODY ACCHPTED: 76. Sterna anzethetus vs. S. ave@estheta. Cf. Cours, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 314. eS Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 129 The evidence that anethetus is a “ misprint” is not satisfactory. 88. Puffinus borealis Cory vs. 2. Auilii (Bon.). Cf Sat- vin, Cat. Bds. B. M. XXV, 1896, 426. The proposed change is undesirable, in view of fairly satisfac- tory evidence that the two names represent distinct species. 106.2, Oceanodroma cryptoleucura Rincw. vs. Procellaria castro HaRcourT. Cf. Grant, Ibis, Apr. 1898, 314. It is probable that Harcourt’s name cas/ro was applied to a species distinct from O. cryptoleucura Ripcw. 151. Clangula clangula americana (Bonap.) vs. Clangula clangula. Cf. Eviiot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 178, 289. There is no apparent reason for the proposed change. SUBFAMILY PLECTROPTERINZA. C/ Satvaport, Cat. Bds. B. M. XXVII, 1895, 45; Exuiot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 273. The introduction into the Check-List of this heterogeneous Old World group for the genus Aéx Bork is considered undesir- able, even though the genus 4/x may not be strictly referable to Anatine. Genus AIX (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 52). vs. Ax. Cf B. O. U. Check-List Br. Bds. 1883, 123; Exiior, Wild Fowl, 1898, 273° Genus Harelda (Eighth Suppl. Check-List, in Auk, XIV, 1897, 124) vs. Havelda. Cf. Exiiot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 290. These proposed changes are rejected as being contrary to Canon XL of the A. O. U. Code. Genus OLOR (Check-List, 2d ed., p. 65) vs. Cygnus. Of. Extiot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 265. No reason is evident for adopting the proposed change, 9 130 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. ne Genus LIMNOGERANUS Snuarpe, Bull. Br. Orn. Club, No. VIT, March 25,1892, pr xexvil; Cat. Bds) BoM; ee 1894, 259. Type, Grus americanus (LINN.). There seems no sufficient reason for recognizing Zimnogeranus, even as a subgenus, for Grus americanus (LINN.). 236. Tringa couesi vs. 7! maritimus couesi. Cf. Eviiot, N. Am. Shore-Birds, 1895, 70, 235. 237. Tringa ptilocnemis vs. 7: mavitimus ptilocnemis. Cf. EviiotT, N. Am. Shore-Birds, 1895, 73, 235- [253.] Totanus nebularius (Gunn.). vs. Z. “ittoreus. Cf. Eviiot, N. Am. Shore-Birds, 1895, 120, 239. 303. Lagopus welchi vs. Z. rupestris welchi. Cf. Evuio7, Gall. Game Birds N. Am. 1897, 157, 207. 305a. Tympanuchus americanus attwateri vs. 7! a//wateri Cf. Eviot, Gall. Game Birds N. Am. 1897, 122. The Committee does not see any reason to change its former ruling in any of the preceding five cases. 328. Blanus leucurus (VIEILL.) vs. Z/anus glaucus (BARTON). Cf. CoveEs, Auk, XIV, April 1897, 216. Rejected on the ground that Falco glaucus BARTON is inde- terminable, but more probably referable to Circus hudsonius (Linn.) ¢ ad., than to L/anus leucurus (VIEILL.) 542a. Ammodramus sandwichensis savanna WIts.) vs. A. s. wilsontanus Cours. Cf. Cougs, Auk, XIV, Jan. 1897, 93). Savanna and savannarum are considered as sufficiently distinct names. 5504. Ammodramus maritimus sennetti ALLEN vs. 4. sennetti. Cf. CHAPMAN, Auk, XVI, Jan. 1899, 3. | Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 131 Its close relation to the maritimus group seems best expressed by the trinomial designation. Genus CLIVICOLA Forster (Check-List, 2d. ed., p. 259) vs. Riparia ForstTER. .Cf. Cours, Auk, XV, July, 1898, by hig Although A7paria stands first in the same work, C¥ivicola is retained on the ground that it was adopted in preference to kiparia by the ‘first reviser.’ Cf STeJNEGER, Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus.. V, 1882, 32. Mii. SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES NOT ACCEPTED, Oidemia carbo (PatLas). Cf Satvaport, Cat. Bds. B. M. KOOVIUL, 1895, 4rz. The supposed Alaskan specimen not satisfactorily identified. Ffalivetus leucocephalus washingtoni (Avp.). Cf. Bangs, Auk, XV, April, 1898, 174. It is deemed inadvisable to admit an intermediate form between the northern and southern Bald Eagles (cf antea, p. 109), and especially undesirable to resuscitate the name washingtoni. Speotyto cunicularia obscura STEPHENS, Auk, XII, Oct. 1898, 3/4: The supposed characters prove not to have been well founded. Cf. McGrecor, Auk, XV, April, 1898, 187. Tyrannus tyrannus vexator Bancs, Auk, XV, April, 1898, E7o. Myiarchus crinitus boreus Bancs, Auk, XV, April, 1898, 179. Sita pusilla caniceps Bancs, Auk, XV, April, 1898, 180. Based mainly on differences due to season. Larus (Lophophanes) bicolor floridanus Bancs, Auk, YV., April, 1898, 180. fiylocichla ustulata alme OBERHOLSER, Auk, XV, Oct. 1898, 304. Stalia sialis grata BANGS, Auk, XV, April, 1898, 182 132 Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. ae Jan. In the preceding six cases the alleged differences prove too slight to warrant recognition in nomenclature. IV.—- REFERRED TO SUBCOMMITTEES FOR INVESTI- GATION. Referred to Messrs. Ridgway and Brewster. Amphispiza belli nevadensis vs. A. nevadensis. Cf. GRINNELL, Auk, Jan. 1898, 59; FISHER, 707d. Apr. 1898, 190. Amphispiza belli clementee Rrpcway, Auk, XV, July, 1898, 230. Thryothorus cerroensis ANTHONY, Auk, XIV, Apr. 1897, 166. Thryomanes bewickii cryptus OBERHOLSER, Pr. U.S. Nat. Mus. XXI,. No. 1153, Nov. 1898, 425. Thryomanes bewickii eremophilus OBERHOLSER, /. ¢. 427. Thryomanes bewickii charienturus OBERHOLSER, /. ¢. 435. Thryomanes bewickii drymacus OBERHOLSER, /. ¢. 437. Thryomanes bewickit calophonus OBERHOLSER, ¢. /. 440. Thryomanes bewickii nesophilus OBERHOLSER, /. ¢. 442.- Referred to Mr. Ridgway. Fulmarus glacialis columba ANTHONY, Auk, XII, 1895, 372. Fulmarus glacialis minor vs. F. glacialis. Cf. SAatvin, Cat. Bds. B. M. XXV, 1896, 426. Fulmarus glactalis rodgersi vs. F. rodgerst. Cf. SALVIN, did. 426. Puffinus stricklandi Ripew. vs. P. griseus (GMEL.). Cf. SAL- VIN, zbzd. 386. Referred to Mr. Brewster. Empidonax insulicola OBERHOLSER, Auk, XIV, July, 1897, 300. Regulus calendula grinnelli WM. PALMER, Auk, XIV, Oct. 1897, 399. The following cases,were also referred for further investiga- tion, a Ninth Supplement to the A. O. U. Check-List. 12 Referred to Mr. Frank M. Chapman. 159. Somateria mollissima borealis Breum., vs. S. mo//is- sima. Cf. ELiiot, Wild Fowl, 1898, 294. Referred to Dr. J. Dwight, Jr. 2i7a. Aigialitis meloda circumcincta Rincw. vs. 4. mel- oda (ORD). Cf. SHarpE, Cat. Bds. B. M. XXIV, 1896, 294. Referred to Dr. Chas. W. Richmond. Bubo virginianus pallescens STONE, Am. Nat. March, 1897, 226. V.— DEFERRED ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF MATERIAL. Ammodramus halophilus MCGRrGor, Auk, XV, July, 1898, 265. Lanius ludovicianus migrans WM. PALMER, Auk, XV, July, 1898, 248. Salpinctes obsoletus pulverius GRINNELL, Auk, XV, July, 1898, 238. Fed ; ; ry Be fe d ® ' ; Se | iis , ‘5 iil nt ee - ms (Oe ih ee a er | hee a coer, waianae a +) ae a ; , Reeras 0 LX, ee i No le J) Mls aa ates Ne em Lah ae ' ‘= Wa os, Kai Fi ‘ PAs , Poy Ale f Ma ca ee Wy Like * Pie: , a =) Slike < P ‘ok a” UP hi ‘ Ue | . iat iv 4 ley i ae ; Ay 5 an aa th ' ie 4 ty Peay a ba ee. Anyh ee PY = uf i his . j ; 4 iF : 7 . edt 7 1 ‘ ’ ‘ 24 aA >4 rl ae i aha . si i sie era ‘ Ft ay A ‘ ‘ % ‘ i ‘ i sah a . ; a | ; ain i te tay , i ’ x ie), ! ' wee) i ’ z in ena | » [ A): j f t u ee “4 voy “ne Rife oN | i - wn - a « met ie Souk + _ s* & oe > 4 = = = é “Ta M4 be fy vik ' Ate . Z "fe , ‘ 4 : ‘ y ac . ae. 7 Pa! , ay Be eat ih 4 Lor as ae ty hia . ae , iff. a fat Se ie é "ie a i a al ac a an . = 7 bel a maha Fite ET: iA ~—s . “es . « - - = os - ~ =< - > a a a ~— ~ @ oe as _ a we: Wally aig = < 4 ee THE AUK VOL. XVI. LEUCURIA PHALERATA BANGS, NATURAL SIZE. THE AS: A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLGGY: is) WOE 5 SCV I. APRIL, 1899. No. THE HUMMINGBIRDS OF THE SANTA MARTA REGION OF COLOMBIA. BY OUTRAM BANGS. Plate IT. EVER since Messrs. Salvin and Godman published the results . of their study of the collections of birds made by F. Simons in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, the eyes of many American ornithologists and mammalogists have been turned in the direction of that “isolated mass of mountains, whose snowy peaks, visible from far out on the Caribbean Sea, form so striking a feature in the scenery of the northern coast of South America.’’! In December, 1897, Mr. Wilmot W. Brown, Jr., an experienced and skilful field collector, started for an indefinitely long trip in this region in the interests of the Bangs Collection. In the summer of 1898 his trip was broken up by his having to return to Boston on account of sickness in his family, but he is now back again at work in the Santa Marta region. Mr. Brown is peculiarly adapted by nature for out-door work in the tropics and throughout his trip in this unhealthy region never had a sick day. 1 Salvin and Godman, Ibis, 1879, p- 196. 136 Banos, The Hummingbirds of Colombia. Api For the first three months he worked in the vicinity of Santa Marta, collecting in the hot country and on some of the smaller mountains up to an elevation of 6000 feet. In March he left ‘Santa Marta and travelled along the coast in an Indian dugout ‘to Rio Hacha, from where roads lead in several directions into the higher mountains. Here he hired a pack mule, and taking along as a companion a shipwrecked sailor, started on foot up one of the mountain trails. After an arduous journey of several days he arrived at the Indian village of Pueblo Viejo, at about 8000 feet altitude. This was his first collecting ground in the higher sierra. Later he visited Macotama, 8000 feet, San Miguel, 7500 feet, San Franscisco, 6000 feet, and Palomina, sooo feet, making collections at all these places, but on this trip got no higher than 8000 feet. Travelling in the Sierra Nevada is at best slow and laborious and in the rainy season is harder still. Mr. Brown, in order to go as light as possible, carried no tent with him, and cut down his outfit in other ways till much too small for his comfort. Night after night he slept out with no shelter, wet to the skin by the terrific thunder storms that rage in these mountains nearly continuously throughout the spring. His one pair of shoes was soon worn out by the rough travelling, and for the greater part of the trip he went barefoot, his feet and legs exposed to the attacks of wood ticks and numerous insects, with every now and then a narrow escape from a fer-de-lance or a bushmaster. Many of the trails are fairly good, being used by the Indians, but occasionally Mr. Brown had to cut his way through the forest, and the mountain streams, swollen by the continuous rains to raging torrents, were often very hard to ford. Under these conditions Mr. Brown made a very creditable collection, sending in over a thousand bird skins and about three hundred and fifty mammals as the results of his six and a half months work. The Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, with its highest peaks rising to 17,500 feet above sea level, forms an immense isolated mountain mass cut off from the other mountain ranges of north- ern South America by deep tropical valleys. In the hot, dry lowlands about Santa Marta the forest is stunted and brushy, but as one ascends the mountains the growth becomes more Vol. XVI peg Bancs, The Hummingbirds of Colombia. Les luxuriant and the forest heavier. In places there are open grassy savannas, but most of the peculiar birds of the region dwell in the elevated mountain forest, cut off from their nearest relations in the elevated regions about Bogota and in the moun- tains of Venezuela by the intervening hot countries. Many of the birds living in the Santa Marta mountains appear to be peculiar to them; a few species, however, occur both here and in the mountains about Merida, Venezuela, though absent in the intervening lowlands. ‘Two good examples of such are the Parrot, fonus sordidus (Linn.) and the Green Toucan, Aulacorhamphus calorhynchus Gould. On the other hand, we find in these two mountain districts instances of closely related representative species, as with the Flycatching Warblers —the golden-crowned Setophaga flavivertex Saly. being known only from the Santa Marta mountains, and the white-fronted Sefophaga albifrons Scl. & Salv. inhabiting, so far as known, only the Merida region. Compared with the birds of the Bogota region the difference is even greater, as most of the strictly mountain birds of the two regions prove at least subspecifically distinct. Apart from the local forms there are of course a great many wide-ranging tropical species found in the Sierra Nevada, and a few Mexican and Central American birds, such as Muscivora mexicana Scl., push their ranges south to these mountains. Before Simons made his famous collection several new species had been described from the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, or the hot countries about Santa Marta, generally from single speci- mens sent to England by orchid hunters or travellers. ‘The more striking amongst these are the lovely little Hummingbird, the type of its genus, Anthocephala floriceps (Gould), the Motmot, Momotus subrufescens Scl., and the Oven-bird, /urnarius agnatus Scl. & Salv. Simons’s collection added about nine more (not all described in the original reports on this collection). Since then one very distinct Flycatching Warbler, Setophaga flavivertex Salv., has been described, from two specimens contained in a small collection of birds made in these mountains. Mr. Brown’s work, up to date, has yielded twenty-three additional new forms, most of them probably peculiar to the Santa Marta region. 138 Banos, The Hummingbirds of Colombia. Apa These have been described by me in three papers in the Pro- ceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. XII. (See Auk, XV, p. 339, and XVI, p. go.) Most interesting among the local birds of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta are the Hummingbirds. No less than six species peculiar to these mountains are now known. Most of these appear to be rare and local, and to breed high up in the moun- tains, migrating in winter down to lower altitudes. Mr. Brown took, in all, examples of seventeen species of Hummingbirds, and although he discovered one remarkable new species, secured examples of but two of the five local species previously known. The species supposed to be peculiar to the Santa Marta Moun- tains are as follows: Panychlora russata Saly. & Godm. Originally described from ten specimens collected by Simons in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Mr. Brown took six adults, at San Miguel and Palomina in May and June, and two females at Santa Marta in February, 1898. These last two I was unable to identify at the time and never recorded until now. Anthocephala floriceps (Gould). Described from a specimen taken at San Antonio by an orchid collector. Simons took one at San José, and Brown one at Pueblo Viejo. ‘These three speci- mens are I believe all that are known. Another species of this genus, A. derlepschi Salv., is found in the Bogota region, differing from 4. floriceps by having white instead of brown tips to the rectrices. Oxypogon cyanolemus Saly. & Godm. Described from five skins taken by Simons at 11,000 feet altitude in the Sierra. Not taken by Brown. Rhamphomicron dorsale Salv. & Godm. Described from two specimens of Simons’s collecting. Not taken by Brown. Campylopterus phainopeplus Salv. and Godm. Described from Simons’s ten specimens. Mr. Brown did not get this Hummer. Leucuria phalerata Bangs. Described from one specimen taken by W. W. Brown, Jr., June 17, 1898, at Macotama. The type and only specimen is here figured (Plate II). Of the capture of this beautiful Hummer Mr. Brown wrote me: “ After a difficult march through the forest, the way barred by Le Banos, The Hummingbirds of Colombia. 139 swollen torrents and fallen trees, I arrived at the Argoneous town of San Miguel. Here Hummingbirds of many species were seen, and on that day [June 17] I collected the only specimen of this beautiful white-tailed species that I have seen in these mountains. I first detected it hovering above an orchid. Its flight was rapid and strong, and it uttered, a twittering note as it darted from flower to flower in search of its food, its gorgeous plumage shining in the morning sun. As I only watched this little gem a few minutes before shooting it, I detected nothing in its habits to distinguish it from the numerous other Hummingbirds that were about me.” Another Hummingbird that may prove to be peculiar to the region is the AZefa//ura that occurs in the Santa Marta Mountains. I recorded the pair collected by Mr. Brown, the male at Palo- mina and the female at San Miguel, as J/. smaragdinicollis. ‘To this species, also, Messrs. Salvin and Godman referred the one skin in Simons’s collection, though with some misgiving. It would be very strange indeed if the Santa Marta bird is really M. smaragdinicollis, but my two specimens are so like skins from Bolivia and Peru that without much more material I cannot feel justified in separating it. There are slight differences, however, that may prove to be constant. The tail of the male is rather more of an auricula purple than in JZ. smaragdinicollis, and the rectrices seem to be wider; the luminous throat patch is also a darker green. The female is a paler buff below, much less spotted with green. These slight differences may or may not prove constant. On the other hand, AZ smaragdinicollis is only found in the mountains of Bolivia and of Peru south of the equator; while in the mountains of northern Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela another species, JZ. tyrianthina, very different from it, occurs. Therefore, if JZ. smaragdinicollis really occurs in the Santa Marta mountains, it is wholly cut off from the main stock of its species by a wide area tenanted by a very dif- ferent form. That such should be the case certainly seems improbable. 140 Lissy, Wocturual Flight of Migrating Birds. ee THE NOCTURNAL FLIGHT OF MIGRATING BIRDS. BY O. G. LIBBY. Ir Has long been a well-known fact of bird life that, during the migrating season, most, if not all, of the movement north or south takes place in the night. ‘This ensures protection from enemies and opportunity for securing food during periods of rest. Under the cover of darkness, the bird passes safely and secretly through the air. During the day he can search for necessary food and by evening he is again ready to continue his flight. But the very conditions that shield the migrating birds from danger, also preclude any very satisfactory study of their move- ments. We know, to be sure, that during the fall migrations, most of the large flocks will be found in the early morning on the north side of groves or belts of timber, and in the spring they are to be found on the south side. We know, too, from observa- tions covering a long period of time that birds are seen in the morning which were not in the neighborhood the day before. And most bird lovers know how distinctly the calls of the migrat- ing birds can be heard during the nights of middle September. Still it must be confessed that in proportion to the magnitude of this movement in the bird world and the importance of the inter- ests at stake, economical as well as biological, our actual knowl- edge of the migration is exceedingly meager. The writer has recently made two sets of observations upon the nocturnal flight of birds, an account of which may prove in- teresting to the general reader. The place of observation first selected was a small elevation west of the city of Madison, Wis- consin, with three lakes in the immediate vicinity. The evening chosen (September 14, 1896) was chilly and a raw southeast wind was blowing, though there were no clouds during most of the time. A total of three thousand eight hundred bird calls were recorded, an average of twelve per minute. This rate, how- ever, varied greatly, sometimes running as high as two or three per second and again falling to about the same number per min- ute. The largest number of calls counted for any hour was nine Vol. XVI 1899 Lissy, Nocturnal Flight of Migrating Birds. I4I hundred and thirty-six, between two and three o’clock, though nearly that number were noted for two other hours. Nor were the calls at all confined to the few hours during which they were recorded. They began much earlier in the evening and when the observations ceased, at a little after three, they were heard stead- ily on long after that hour, with the regularity of the ticking of a clock. Manifestly it is quite impossible to estimate the number of birds represented by these calls. The equation contains so many unknown quantities that no satisfactory mathematical solu- tion is to be expected with our present knowledge of the subject. But it may be very safely assumed that the number of calls must be multiplied many times to express even approximately the size of the flocks that were heard to pass during the course of the observation. Nothing but an actual experience of a similar kind can at all adequately convey the impression produced by such observations. The air seemed at times fairly alive with invisible birds as the calls rang out, now sharply and near at hand, and now faintly and far away. Repeatedly it seemed as if some of the nearer ones must be visible, so vividly was their presence felt as they passed overhead. All varieties of bird calls came sounding out of the darkness that evening. The harsh squawk of a water bird would be foliowed by the musical chzvk of the Bobolink. Almost human many of them seemed, too, and it was not difficult to imagine that they expressed a whole range of emotions from anxiety and fear up to good-fellowship and joy. The fine shrill notes of the smaller Sparrows or Warblers were heard only close at hand but the louder ones came from all along the line, east and west. More than once an entire flock, distinct by the unity of their calls, came into range and passed out of hearing, keeping up their regular formation with the precision of a swiftly moving but orderly body of horsemen. The great space of air above swarmed with life. Singly or in groups, large and small, or more seldom in a great throng the hurrying myriads pressed south- ward. It was a marvel and a mystery enacted under the cover of night, and of which only fugitive tidings reached the listeners below. The next station chosen was the Washburn Observatory, over- 142 Lipsy, Nocturnal Flight of Migrating Birds. ree looking the largest of the lakes in the vicinity of the city. The writer was assisted by Winslow Mallery, to whose patience and accuracy is due not a little of the success attending these initial observations. It was proposed to watch the moon through a small six-inch telescope, and to count the birds as they passed across its surface in the southward flight. For convenience in keeping the record, the whole time of observation was divided into periods of fifteen minutes each and the count for each period kept dis- tinct from the rest. ‘The result exceeded all expectations and well repaid the inconvenience attending such experimental work. During the three nights of observation, Sept. 11, 12 and 13, 1897, a total of five hundred and eighty-three birds were counted, and forty-five during one fifteen-minute period. On the evening of the 12th, three hundred and fifty-eight were counted, the largest number for any one period being thirty-five. The number of birds seen during different hours of the night was very unequal. The maximum number of three per minute was reached at 10.30, and it diminished rapidly to a little more than one third of this number at midnight. From this time the number declined, with three considerable upward variations, to very near the zero point. As to the direction of flight very great diversity was also observed. The predominant direction up to ten o’clock was very nearly south, and but comparatively few birds varied from this. ‘The diversity of direction, however, continued to increase till it reached its maximum between twelve and two o’clock. At this time the eight principal points of the compass were represented by numbers varying from three to twenty-eight ; two-thirds of the whole number still maintaining a southerly direction. The observations as to the number of birds and the direction of their flight tell substantially the same story. The first con- siderable falling off in the number of birds came at 11.15, and up to 10.45 they were observed to fly largely in one direction, not half that number for any period taking any other direction. Thus the intensity of the migratory movement, measured by the number of birds and the regular direction of their flight, is seen to be at its height early in the evening. The diminishing num- bers and increasing variety in direction indicate plainly enough that during the time of observation other things besides migration oie Lipsy, Nocturnal Flight of Migrating Birds. 143 were taking place later in the night. This latter conclusion is borne out by the larger number of calls heard toward morning, which may be explained as arising from the effort to reassemble the scattered members of the migrating companies. As a general conclusion to be drawn from the whole observation, it would seem that the great mass of migrants thrusts itself rapidly forward for the first two or three hours in one main direction and that sepa- rate flocks maintained this movement many hours later. And that after the first advance was completed, the remainder of the night was spent in more miscellaneous movements, having for their purpose, partly at least, the collecting of the widely separated fragments of the different groups, and the selecting of suitable feeding grounds. This fugitive glimpse into a new phase of bird life reveals many things besides the two chief points already noted. When one recalls the relatively small size of the moon’s surface com- pared to the length of its path from east to west, within the range of vision, some idea of the whole number of birds passing this line may be obtained. Prof. A. S. Flint of the Washburn Observatory estimated that about nine thousand per hour passed during the entire period of obsérvation, or a total of one hundred and sixty-eight thousand. And when the length of this line is compared to the breadth of the whole country over which birds move, the total number of migrating birds for a given area may be roughly estimated. This states in numerical fashion the meaning of the semi-annual migration of our birds. It falls as far short of expressing what the movement really is as does a census report of revealing the daily life of a city like New York -or Chicago. The movement of the birds across the field of vision irre- sistibly suggested the rapid, undulatory motion of animalculz under high magnifying power. ‘The time of passage varied from one-tenth to one-half a second. In most cases the movement of the wings was plainly visible, though occasionally a bird passed across like a flash. One bird hung for several seconds on the edge of the field of vision, poising itself by rapid motions of the wings. Several times a bird was seen to change its direction of flight completely, usually going off at right angles. Very rarely 144 Lissy, Wocturnal Flight of Migrating Birds. peei were the birds numerous enough to be seen two at a time, though this happened once during each evening. Not infrequently cur- rents of air seemed to aid or retard their flight. One bird was seen to move backwards across the field as a slowly flying bird is sometimes seen to do from the window of a swiftly moving train. Many of them sailed instead of flying across, occasionally flap- ping their wings to steady themselves. On account of the short time each bird was in sight, and the - difficulty of estimating their relative distances, not many of them could be identified. More Swamp Blackbirds were identified than any other, and next to them were the Meadowlarks, of which several flocks were observed. Besides these there were the Crow Blackbird, Sparrow Hawk, Yellow Hammer, and one species of Duck. Many of the birds, from their size and flight, must have been Warblers, but it was impossible to further identify them.