My own opportunity to study the bird life of Micronesia came as a member of the scientific staff of the Laboratory of Mammalogy of United States Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2 (NAMRU2) in the late war. The primary duty of this laboratory was to obtain examples of the vertebrate fauna for examination for ectoparasites by the Laboratory of Acarology and to preserve specimens for identification. As a result sizeable collections of mammals, birds, and other vertebrates were obtained. In addition, ecological data were obtained (as time permitted), especially as an aid in studying the distribution of ectoparasites which affected man. In 1945, I spent Subsequent to the field studies in the Pacific, I was sent to Washington and spent approximately eight months at the United States National Museum studying the collections of birds and preparing several reports for publication. In this period other material was studied, both in the United States National Museum and at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, and the literature dealing with the birds of Micronesia was explored and a bibliography of Micronesian birds was prepared. At the University of Kansas, I continued the bibliographic work, borrowed and studied some specimens, and completed accounts of the avifauna of Micronesia. Under the account of each bird, all known references in the literature, which mention the scientific name of the bird and its distribution in Micronesia, are listed. The references are arranged as follows: (1) citation to the original description, and (2) citations to names in literature in the order of their first appearance. When a name is a pure synonym, it may be recognized as such by the fact that the type locality is given immediately following the citation. In compiling these references the writer made use of the invaluable work by Wiglesworth (1891) and of Utinomi's "Bibliographica Micronesia," made available through the translation by Fisher (1947). The arrangement of the families follows that of Peters (1931-1945) and Wetmore (1940). Specimens examined are designated as to collection in which catalogued by the following abbreviations: USNM, the United States National Museum; AMNH, the American Museum of Natural History; MCZ, the Museum of Comparative ZoÖlogy; and KMNH, the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. Average and extreme measurements of specimens are usually listed in tables; unless otherwise indicated, measurements are in millimeters, and are of adult specimens. The wings have been measured by flattening them on a ruler. Weights are in grams. Unless otherwise indicated, descriptions of the birds have been written by the author. Descriptions of shore birds are not given; for these the reader may refer to Mayr (1945a:28-47) where characters useful for identification of the birds in the field also are given. The writer is especially In dealing with insular forms the criterion of intergradation as indicative of subspecies cannot be applied as it can in kinds of birds on the mainland which have geographically continuous distributions. Instead, degree of difference in combination with geographic position plus other factors such as degree of variation in the geographic races of the same species or a related species on continental areas are used in deciding whether two closely related kinds are subspecies or full species. Many kinds of birds in the islands are modified but little from island to island (examples, Rhipidura rufifrons, Aplonis opacus, Ducula oceanica, and Myzomela cardinalis), and can be treated as subspecies. Others show much variability from island to island and it is uncertain whether they should be treated as subspecies or as separate species (examples, Myiagra oceanica, Zosterops cinerea, Rukia, and possibly Acrocephalus luscinia). Decisions on generic status are equally difficult to make. In many cases the experience and judgment of the taxonomist may be the only criteria by which he can decide whether a bird is different enough to be considered as a distinct genus. This "human element" has caused some disagreement. Knowing whether the bird is to be considered as a distinct genus or instead merely as a species may not be as important as knowing its correct phylogenetic relationship. The circumstance that variation in these insular birds is in general less predictable than in mainland birds adds, I think, to the pleasure inherent in the classification of the variations. First, I thank Commodore Thomas N. Rivers (MC) USNR, then commanding officer of NAMRU2, for the opportunity to join the Unit, for his interested cooperation in seeing that the plans for field trips were successful, and for his thoughtfulness in obtaining for me the orders for duty at the United States National Museum subsequent to our field investigations. Greatly appreciated also is the help rendered by my former colleagues of NAMRU2, including Dr. David H. Johnson, Dr. George W. Wharton, Dr. Aaron B. Hardcastle, Mr. Odis A. Muennik, Mr. L. P. McElroy, Mr. Charles O. Davison, Mr. Merle H. Markley, Mr. Walter L. Necker, Dr. Wilbur G. Downs, Dr. Bernard V. Travis, and Mr. E. W. Coleman. Other personnel, then stationed in Micronesia, who contributed data used in this report include: Dr. Joe T. Marshall, Jr., (who generously |