ProcellariidÆ versus HydrobatidÆ.—The discovery that the generic name Procellaria LinnÆus belongs to the group commonly called Majaqueus Reichenbach (cf. Mathews, Novit. Zool., XVII, December, 1910, p. 497) makes necessary a change in the family name ProcellariidÆ. On account of the adoption of Thalassidroma Vigors for Procellaria auct. nec LinnÆus, the family name ThalassidromidÆ has been used (Committee of Brit. Ornith. Union, List Brit. Birds, ed. 2, 1915, p. 281). Since, however, the generic name Thalassidroma has been properly retired in favor of Hydrobates Boie, the family name ThalassidromidÆ must accordingly be altered to HydrobatidÆ, as has already been done by Mr. Mathews in his ‘Birds of Australia,’ (Vol. 2, No. 1, May 30, 1912, p. 9).—Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C. Long-tailed Jaeger in Indiana.—A beautiful specimen of the Long-tailed Jaeger (Stercorarius longicaudus), taken at Millers, Ind., November 30, 1918, was seen by me in a Chicago taxidermist’s shop. Knowing of only three previous records of the bird’s appearance in the Chicago area, I purchased the bird and it is now in my collection. The first record was made by Mr. Stoddard of the Field Museum and the other two by Mr. Woodruff of the Chicago Academy of Sciences (Auk, Vol. 35, p. 234). Mr. Cory of the Field Museum kindly verified its identity and as this forms the fourth instance of the bird’s occurrence within our boundaries it should be of interest. It is in the immature plumage with the tail-feathers only partially developed.—Nathan F. Leopold Jr., Chicago, Ill. Larus canus brachyrhynchus in Wyoming.—A Wyoming specimen of Larus canus brachyrhynchus, a male in juvenal plumage, has for many years been in the collection of the Biological Survey, in the United States National Museum. It is No. 141395, U. S. Nat. Mus., and was taken on Lake Fork, a tributary of the Green River, at an altitude of 10,000 feet in the Wind River Mountains, Wyoming, on August 28, 1893, by Mr. Vernon Bailey. It has already been recorded incidentally (Cooke, Bull. U. S. Dept. Agric, No. 292, October 25, 1915, p. 47), but owing to its importance it seems worthy of special notice in a place more accessible to ornithologists generally. It represents the easternmost record of Larus canus brachyrhynchus, and the only really interior occurrence of the species in the United States. For the change of the name of this bird from Larus brachyrhynchus to Larus canus brachyrhynchus see ‘The Auk,’ XXXVI, No. 1, January, 1919, p. 83.—Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C. Polysticta Eyton versus Stelleria Bonaparte.—Mr. G. M. Mathews has recently (Austral Avian Record, III, No. 5, December 28, 1917, p. 123) advocated the use of the generic name Stellaria Bonaparte for the species now known as Polysticta stelleri (Pallas). The term Stelleria is, of course, as he shows, not debarred from employment in zoÖlogy by the previous use of Stellaria in botany; but he has apparently overlooked the fact that Polysticta is not preoccupied, since Polysticte Smith (Illust. South Afr. ZoÖl.), June [or later], 1836, does not invalidate Polysticta Eyton (Catal. Brit. Birds), April, 1836, a fact to which Dr. C. W. Richmond long ago (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XVI, September 30, 1903, p. 128) called attention. It is evident, therefore, that the name of Steller’s Eider should remain Polysticta stelleri (Pallas).—Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C. Further Record of the European Widgeon at Madison, Wis.—On April 14, 1918, in the wide-water at the head of Lake Waubesa, four miles south of Madison, I was able to identify unmistakably a typical specimen of the European Widgeon (Mareca penelope) that was in the company of seventeen Baldpates (Mareca americana). The bird was drawn so close by my 40-power telescope that it covered one-third of the field and allowed close study.

It may be of further interest to restate the substance of a note submitted by Mr. A. W. Schorger to the January, 1918 issue of ‘The Auk’ in regard to the recent appearance of the European Widgeon in the vicinity of Madison. On April 22, 1917, a specimen was discovered by Mr. Schorger on the Hammersley Marsh in company with about thirty Baldpates and a few other ducks. It remained at least four days and was seen by me at close range on three occasions; the last being on the 26th. On the 28th Mr. George H. Jenkins observed a specimen, perhaps the same, among a flock of Baldpates on the Yahara Marshes ten miles distant.—Warner Taylor, Madison, Wisconsin. A Late Record for Rallus elegans for Maine.—November 22, 1909, Mr. A. G. Dorr, Bucksport, Me., collected and sent me in the flesh a fine male specimen of the King Rail. It measured as follows: length, 16.30; wing, 6.75; tail, 2.10; tarsus, 2.34 and bill, 2.40 inches. It was marked above with brownish-black and olive-brown feather edging; light throat and rufous-cinnamon, breast and flanks fuscous, distinctly barred with white. It was in good physical condition and apparently well able to join the majority of its species in the South had it so chosen.

Mr. Dorr considered this a rare bird for Maine, especially so in the fall. There are a number of fall and winter records for Massachusetts and Maine, but I consider the occurrence sufficiently unusual to be worth recording.—C. L. Phillips, Taunton, Mass. The Proper Generic Name of the Ruff.—The generic name now used for the European Ruff is Machetes Cuvier (Regne Animal, I, 1817, p. 490; type by monotypy, Tringa pugnax LinnÆus). This name has been preferred over Pavoncella Leach (Syst. Cat. Indig. Mamm. and Birds Brit. Mus., 1816, p. 29), because the latter was supposed to be a nomen nudum. It was introduced by Leach, however, in combination with the specific term pugnax, which is, of course, readily identifiable and of undoubted application to the Ruff. The name is on exactly the same basis as Spatula Boie (Isis, X, 1822, col. 564) and several other names proposed by him and by other authors at various times. All these names have hitherto been accepted without question as entirely warranted by both the International and A. O. U. Codes of Nomenclature; and there is no more reason for rejecting Pavoncella than any of the other names.

The name Pavoncella, however, will not become the generic name of the Ruff, as Dr. C. W. Richmond has already shown (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., LIII, August 16, 1917, p. 581), and Mr. G. M. Mathews emphasized (Austral Avian Record, III, No. 5, Dec. 28, 1917, p. 117). There is an earlier name, Philomachus, proposed by an anonymous reviewer of Bechstein’s Ornithologische Taschenbuch (Allgem. Lit.-Zeitung, 1804, Vol. II, No. 168, June 8, 1804, col. 542), the type of which is, by monotypy, Tringa pugnax LinnÆus. This name is proposed in a perfectly legitimate way with a diagnosis and citation of species, and is, of course, not to be rejected because anonymous. The name of the Ruff will, therefore, become Philomachus pugnax (LinnÆus). —Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C. Heteractitis versus Heteroscelus.—The generic name now in use for the Wandering Tattler is Heteractitis Stejneger.[30] This term was proposed as a substitute for Heteroscelus Baird,[31] because the latter was considered invalid on account of the prior Heteroscelis Latreille, instituted in 1829 for a genus of Coleoptera. According to our present rules of nomenclature, however, Heteroscelis does not preoccupy Heteroscelus, since the two words differ not merely in grammatical termination, but have different classical endings. Mr. G. M. Mathews a few years ago called attention[32] to the desirability of using Heteroscelus, but other authors seem generally to have overlooked the matter. In view of the facts in this case it will apparently now be necessary to reinstate Baird’s name Heteroscelus as the generic designation of the Wandering Tattler. The two species of the genus will therefore stand as follows:

• Heteroscelus brevipes (Vieillot).
• Heteroscelus incanus (Gmelin).
• Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C.

The Status of Charadrius rubricollis Gmelin.—A good service has been performed by Mr. G. M. Mathews in the identification of Charadrius rubricollis Gmelin. Unfortunately, however, he neglects to employ this name for the species to which he has shown that it belongs (Birds of Australia, III, pt. 2, May 2, 1913, pp. 130-132). It was originally based by Gmelin (Syst. Nat., I, pt. 2, 1789, p. 687) on the “Red-necked Plover” of Latham, from Adventure Bay, Tasmania. As Mr. Mathews has proved, Latham’s description (Syn. Birds, III, pt. 1, p. 212, No. 19) was taken from the Ellis drawings in the British Museum, and is found to fit the species currently called Charadrius cucullatus Vieillot, except for the statement that there is “on each side of the neck a large square chestnut spot, the size of a silver penny, almost meeting together at the back part,” and “a little mixture of white about the bastard wing,” which two characters evidently were taken by mistake from the drawing of Steganopus tricolor. This is, therefore, a case of two species confused under the same name; or of a species described with partly erroneous characters; or, in fact, of both, according to the point of view. If we consider only that the characters given have been taken from two species, the name Charadrius rubricollis must be used for one of the species involved if the name can be identified, and that it can, Mr. Mathews has shown. Such adoption is sanctioned by both the International and A. O. U. Codes of Nomenclature, and by common usage as well. The name, therefore, should apply to the species to which the greater or most pertinent part of the description refers, which in this case is, of course, Charadrius cucullatus. If, however, we take the view that it is erroneously described, neither current usage nor the commonly accepted codes of nomenclature allow its rejection because of indefinite or even erroneous characters, if the description can be positively determined as pertaining to a certain species. Thus, in any case, we should call the species ordinarily known as Charadrius cucullatus Vieillot by the name Charadrius rubricollis Gmelin. Its two forms will, therefore, stand as Charadrius rubricollis rubricollis Gmelin and Charadrius rubricollis tregellasi Mathews.—Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C.A Self-tamed Ruffed Grouse.—The following is an account of a tame Ruffed Grouse: the first statement is by Miss Torrey. In the spring of 1914, probably in April, as I was driving back and forth to the village to High School, I first noticed a rustling in the leaves and bushes by the side of the road and watched until I found out that it was caused by a Partridge or Ruffed Grouse. After that I always let the horse walk past the spot, and the bird would walk under cover of the trees for about a hundred yards or more, but never would go any farther. I never tried to tame the bird, only keeping quiet as I liked to have it follow me. It seemed as if it was always watching for me night and morning.

My father first noticed the Partridge in May, when he was plowing, which was on the opposite side of the road, quite a distance from where the bird followed me. As my father is fond of all animals he quickly made a pet of this one and, if I remember rightly, fed it. The bird would follow him while he was plowing but never went with him to the barn.

I think this Partridge must have been left alone, as at that time there were no others about. I should say it was lonely and finding that I did not hurt it, it followed me, until it made friends with others. We never knew of anyone having a tame Partridge or being able to tame one before. The continuation of the account of this bird is by Miss Knight as follows: On returning to Deer Isle, Maine, my home town, to spend the summer of 1914, I heard the neighbors talking about a tame Partridge. They told me that Miss Torrey, as she drove through the woods during the latter part of the winter and early spring, had often seen a Partridge following the team.

My own experience with the bird began a few days later when we went into the woods after strawberries. As we walked along the road a Partridge followed us closely, possibly three or four rods away, in the edge of the wood. We crossed the road and went into the woods on the other side and I forgot all about the bird until suddenly he flew out from under my very feet. When I came home the Partridge walked down the wood road, flew across the highway road, and followed me fifteen or twenty rods on the side on which I had first seen him.

A few days after this, when father and I were driving to the village we saw the bird again following us for a few rods.

Accidentally we discovered that we could call him at any time we wished by going to the section of wood which he frequented, and whistling. After we had whistled a few minutes he always appeared, never on the wing but walking, coming from various directions but always on the same side of the road, although later if we crossed the road he crossed also. As the summer passed he became more and more friendly, often hopping up into our laps. As he strutted around us he frequently made a soft cooing sound in his throat. He never liked to be caught and held, but would allow himself to be petted. He would feed from our hands. He did not care for corn, but enjoyed berries, especially huckleberries. During the summer he shed out all his long tail feathers, as may be seen in some of the photographs, and we kept several of these feathers as souvenirs.

The bird seemed to have a fondness for the color blue, for he would hop up into the lap of anyone dressed in that color. One day I tested this several times as follows. I wore a blue skirt under a pink skirt. So long as the pink skirt was prominent he would not come into my lap. As soon as I folded that back he came up onto the blue skirt.

Throughout the summer we showed the bird to many of our friends. In the fall, father talked of taking him home; but I, thinking that he might be unhappy if confined, urged that he be left in his natural surroundings. Late in the fall some workmen who did not know the story of the tame Partridge were driving through the woods and the bird flew on the horse’s back and then down into the road. One of the workmen seized a tool from his kit and threw it, striking the bird and killing him.—Ruth M. Torrey and Martha G. Knight, Deer Isle, Maine. Unusual Contents of a Mourning Dove’s Nest.—On May 5, 1917 while passing a clump of thorns, a Mourning Dove flushed from her nest therein, and was almost immediately followed by a young bird, nearly full grown and able to fly fairly well, which awkwardly alighted near by. As it was rainy and cold, and had been so for a week past, I would have passed on without further disturbing them had I not noticed that another young bird remained in the nest and seemed to be very wet and apparently dead with head hanging over the rim. I determined to remove it, as the other bird might wish to return.

The bush was very thorny and I had trouble in forcing my head and shoulders up through the tangle for the few feet necessary. I found that the bird was alive but very wet and weak as though the old bird had not been able to protect both young through such a long stretch of bad weather. My surprise came, however, when I discovered that the nest also contained three eggs, which, held to the light, seemed well along in incubation. They could not have been placed there by boys as the nest situation was such that had it been tampered with, broken twigs would have told the story, for I had to break and force a passage through to the base of the tree as well as to break one for my head as I climbed up a few feet. Returning on May 8 I found the nest deserted, the young bird dead and one of the eggs broken. I have heard before of sets of three of the Mourning Dove, but never heard of them being laid before the first brood had left the nest.

This clump of thorn was on a river flat, several acres of which is thickly grown up with several varieties of haws, wild crab, and wild apples and is used by Robins, Cowbirds, Grackles and Mourning Doves as a roost. Some 2000 Robins use this roost, the males and non-breeders even resorting to it nightly during the nesting season. During the migrations and after the Blackbirds flock it is also used by about 1000 Bronzed Grackles and several hundred Cowbirds. The Mourning Doves use it not only as a roost, but also as a nesting place. Their numbers, however, are comparatively small; probably not over 150 after the breeding season is over. About ten days after finding the nest described in this note, I made a survey of the thicket and found twenty-two occupied nests of the Mourning Dove,—and one of them contained three eggs.—E. A. Doolittle, Painesville, Ohio. Mourning Dove wintering in Vermont.—I have never known of a Mourning Dove wintering in this state, but on January 8, 1919, one was taken alive in Shaftsbury, Vt. It died the following day but was mounted and is now in the collection of Henry Bradford, Bennington, Vt.

Robins, Meadow Larks, and Sparrow Hawks are wintering in Bennington—a very unusual thing—due, I suppose, to the mildness of the winter and to the lack of snow.—Lucretius H. Ross, Bennington, Vt. Thrasaetos versus Harpia.—The generic name currently used for the Harpy Eagle is Thrasaetos Gray, because Harpyia Vieillot is preoccupied by Harpyia Illiger (Prod. Syst. Mamm. et Avium, 1811, pp. 118-119) for a mammal. Vieillot’s name, however, was first spelled Harpia (Analyse Nouv. Ornith. ElÉm., 1816, p. 24; type by monotypy, Vultur harpyja LinnÆus), in which form, with one less syllable, it is according to the International Code of Nomenclature, not invalidated by Harpyia. Furthermore, the original spelling of the specific name of this species is harpyja (Vultur harpyja LinnÆus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, p. 86; Mexico); and the Harpy Eagle should, therefore, now stand as Harpia harpyja (LinnÆus).

It may be worth while also to call attention to the fact that Swainson in 1827 spelled this generic name Harpya (Philos. Mag., new ser. I, No. V, May, 1827, p. 366); and that the generic name Thrasaetos, commonly attributed to G. R. Gray, is merely a manuscript name of Gray’s, originally published by Bonaparte (Thrasaetos Bonaparte, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1837 (June 14, 1838), p. 108 [ex G. R. Gray MS.], type by monotypy, Vultur harpyja LinnÆus).—Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C. The Status of the Generic Name Archibuteo.—The generic name Archibuteo Brehm has for long been in use for the Rough-legged Hawks. This name, proposed in 1828 by Brehm (Isis, XXI, No. 12, December, 1828, col. 1269), was based solely on the “Rauchfussbussard” and two nomina nuda, Archibuteo planiceps Brehm and Archibuteo alticeps Brehm; hence Falco lagopus BrÜnnich, to which from Brehm’s later publications all these evidently must be referred, has been commonly considered the type of Archibuteo. In the original description, however, aside from the two pure nomina nuda, only the vernacular name without citation of authority or anything else that would serve to identify it, is given. The generic term Archibuteo is, therefore, certainly a nomen nudum at this place, as is clearly indicated by the International Code of Nomenclature and current practice. The earliest tenable citation for Archibuteo is in 1831 (Brehm, Handb. Naturg. Vog. Deutschlands, 1831, p. 38), when Brehm gives as the two included species, Archibuteo planiceps Brehm and Archibuteo alticeps Brehm, here fully described, both of which are synonyms of Falco lagopus BrÜnnich. Meanwhile, however, two other names were introduced for the group—Triorchis Kaup (Skizz. Entw.-Gesch. NatÜrl. Syst. Eur. Thierw., 1829, p. 84; type by monotypy, Falco lagopus BrÜnnich); and Butaetes Lesson (TraitÉ d’Ornith., May 8, 1830, p. 83; type, by monotypy, Falco lagopus Gmelin). The first of these becomes, therefore, the tenable name for the Rough-legged Hawks, since it is not preoccupied by Triorches Leach (Syst. Cat. Indig. Mamm. and Birds Brit. Mus., 1816, p. 10; type, by monotypy, Pandion fluvialis Savigny = Falco haliaetus LinnÆus), for the latter must be regarded as a different word from a nomenclatural standpoint because of its different classical ending. By reason of this the two forms of the Rough-legged Hawk will stand as follows:

• Triorchis lagopus lagopus (BrÜnnich).
• Triorchis lagopus sanctijohannis (Gmelin).
• Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C.

Harris’s Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus harrisi) in Kansas.—A fine specimen of a female Harris’s Hawk was killed seven and one half miles southwest of Lawrence, Kansas, December 25, 1918, by Fred Hastie and is now in the skin collection of the University of Kansas Museum.

So far as I know this Hawk has not been reported before from the state.—C. D. Bunker, Lawrence, Kansas. The Proper Name for the Texas Barred Owl.—Some time ago (‘The Auk,’ XXV, No. 3, July, 1908, page 316) Mr. Outram Bangs renamed his Syrnium nebulosum helveolum (Proc. New Engl. Zool. Club, I, March 31, 1899, page 31) because, when transferred to the genus Strix, it was supposedly preoccupied by Strix helvola Lichtenstein (Verz. Samml. SÄugeth. und VÖgeln Kaffernlande, 1842, page 11). Since, however, both helveola and helvola are classical Latin adjectives differing in the possession of an additional syllable, they are to be regarded as different words, and therefore by neither the International Code of Nomenclature nor the A. O. U. Code would they conflict when employed in the same genus. It thus becomes necessary to return to the earlier name for the Texas Barred Owl, and it will consequently stand as Strix varia helveola (Bangs).—Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C. Concerning a Note of the Long-eared Owl (Asio wilsonianus).—I was interested in the note of Mr. G. Clyde Fisher in the last number of ‘The Auk,’ with similar heading to the above. I can furnish information which will help to verify the conclusions which Mr. Fisher reached as to the source of the sound he heard. On August 9, 1914, while camped near Red Eagle Lake, in the Glacier National Park, I heard a sound of some night bird, which was very similar to the sound described by Mr. Fisher, and for which I could give no better description than the phrase he uses, I tried to investigate the source of the sound, and soon found several owls, at least four being seen at once. It was moonlight at the time. The country consisted of a mountain meadow, dotted with clumps of fir trees, and the Owls were easily seen as they flew from one clump to another at my approach. I followed, and soon got a good view of one silhouetted against the sky, as it sat in the top of a fir. The bird was evidently watching my approach, and its ear tufts could be plainly seen. From their position, rising from the center of the head, rather than the sides, as well as from the size of the bird, I felt sure that it was a Long-eared Owl. I believe that the birds were a family containing both adults and young, and that they had been attracted by the light of our camp fire. This is the third time that I have known these Owls to be attracted by the light of a camp fire in the mountains of Montana.—Aretas A. Saunders, Norwalk, Conn. The Short-eared Owl Breeding on Nantucket.—In ‘The Auk’ for January, 1919, Mr. Francis H. Allen, reporting the occurrence of the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) at Nantucket in August, 1918, speaks of the somewhat doubtful status of this Owl as a breeding bird in Massachusetts, and quotes the opinion of Mr. George H. Mackay that at one time it doubtless bred quite regularly on Nantucket and more rarely on Muskeget Island.

There is, I think, good reason to believe that this Owl has nested on Nantucket in recent years not less regularly than in the past. In the years 1908 to 1912 when, in the month of June, I explored the island intent on its plants, but always with a side eye to birds, the Short-eared Owl was frequently met with, this and the Marsh Hawk appearing to be the only raptorial birds of the island at that season. In 1912 it was more numerous than at any time before, or else chance made it so appear, and between June 27 and July 14 not less than twelve were observed. On June 10, 1908, a nest containing two eggs, evidently fresh, was found in Trot’s swamp on the western side of the island. The locality was a dryish open part of the swamp less than an acre in extent hemmed about on all sides by thickets that were in many places swampy and impassable. The nest, a slight structure of grasses and other light material, was set in a cluster of hay-scented fern (DenntstÆdtia punctilobula) whose delicate fronds rising around the margin of the nest gave less protection than concealment and, indeed, little concealment from above, for down within the encircling ferns the eggs were in open view. At this spot the ground was slightly raised above the level of the swamp, and the unrestrained growth of this fern attested that here, even in a wet season, the soil must be free from saturation. The sitting bird left the nest at my near approach, when its mate almost immediately appeared, both birds ranging widely about well in the air at no time coming very near and, at intervals, almost pausing in their flight directly overhead. One or both birds continually repeated a weak and expressionless guttural note—as memory now recalls it. The eggs, measured at the nest and replaced, were 1.37 and 1.44 inches in length—small for the species according to published measurements.

South of Nantucket the Short-eared Owl has not often been reported in its breeding season. There are several records of its having nested along the New Jersey coast, even as far south as the Cape May region, but I do not know that it has ever been found breeding on Long Island. There would seem to be little doubt, however, that it has recently nested there at Long Beach. At that place, on May 25, 1917, I watched a pair of these owls, evidently, from the disparity in their size, a male and female, repeatedly attacking a single Crow. The birds were flying about over a tract of dunes and thickets flanking a salt marsh inaccessible to me across a broad creek. The Crow, perhaps to escape the Owls, perhaps intent on depredation of their nest, several times swept down to the ground about a certain spot, the Owls pursuing it or awaiting its return into the air when attack and counter-attack were renewed. The following year at the same place a pair were observed on February 22, attacking a Marsh Hawk, one was seen on April 12, a pair on May 17, and again a single one on August 9.—Eugene P. Bicknell, New York City. Early Occurrence of the Snowy Owl and the Pine Grosbeak in Monroe County, New York.—On November 3, 1918, while riding on a trolley car toward the lake, my attention was called by the motorman, to a large Snowy Owl (Nyctea nyctea) which was sitting on the top of a wooden pole in a gravel bed and about 150 feet from the tracks.

He also informed me that the bird had been in the same place while on a previous trip an hour and a half before. Later it was seen to fly into a nearby vineyard. The locality was in the town of Irondequoit, a mile and a half from Lake Ontario. On the same afternoon at 3.30 o’clock, while walking along the border of the woods at Durand-Eastman Park, near the lake, I observed three Pine Grosbeaks (Pinicola enucleator leucura). There were two females and one male, they were feeding in some bushes close to the roadway and were very tame, allowing me to approach within ten feet of them, when they would fly into the nearby bushes. This is the earliest record that I can find of their occurrence in Monroe County.—Lucius H. Paul, Rochester, N. Y. The Deep Plantar Tendons in the Puff-birds, Jacamars and their Allies.—One of the most distinct and peculiar types of the deep plantar tendons in birds is that known as the antiopelmous, characterizing certain zygodactyl groups such as the Woodpeckers, Toucans and their allies. In this arrangement of the simple flexor perforans digitorum runs to the third toe, while the trifurcate flexor longus hallucis supplies the first, second and fourth toes. The two tendons are connected by a vinculum which runs from the flexor longus to the flexor perforans.

The nature of these tendons in the Puff-birds (BucconidÆ) and Jacamars (GalbulidÆ) is of special importance in determining the systematic position of these families. Both are commonly given as antiopelmous, perhaps on the sole authority of Garrod (cf. P. Z. S., 1875, p. 345; also Sclater’s Monograph of the Jacamars and Puff-birds, p. XXVIII). The following species were examined by Garrod: Galbula rufoviridis, G. albirostris, and Urogalba paradisea of the GalbulidÆ, and Monasa flavirostris, Malacoptila fusca and Bucco maculatus of the BucconidÆ. Of allied groups the following were determined: Ramphastos ariel (RamphastidÆ), Megaloema asiatica (CapitonidÆ), Gecinus viridis and Tiga javanensis (PicidÆ).

Descriptions of the plantar tendons in other groups have so often proven erroneous that the verification of all such statements is desirable. This is my excuse for the present note which merely confirms the observations of Garrod; however the species, with one exception, and three of the genera are different and I am able to point out one or two minor variations.

I have made careful dissections of specimens of Monasa grandior and Malacoptila inornata (BucconidÆ), Galbula melanogenia (GalbulidÆ), Ramphastos ariel (RamphastidÆ), Chloronerpes yucatanensis, Dryobates villosus and Campephilus malherbii (PicidÆ). The essential antiopelmous arrangement is the same in all, but several variations occur that are worthy of note.

In Chloronerpes, Megalaima, Ramphastos, Malacoptila and probably Monasa, the distance between the first and second bifurcations of the flexor longus is much greater than in Dryobates and Galbula; in Campephilus, on the other hand, the three slips spring from practically the same point. The position of the vinculum is somewhat variable. In Ramphastos, Megaloema (Garrod), Dryobates, and Campephilus the vinculum leaves the flexor longus decidedly above the primary bifurcation of the latter; in Malacoptila, Galbula and Chloronerpes at the extreme lower end of the main tendon, just as it divides, while in Monasa (as recorded by Garrod also) it originates from the upper ends of the two branches.

Stejneger states (on what authority I do not know) that the Honey Guides (IndicatoridÆ) are antiopelmous. There is every reason to believe this statement correct and also to assume that the Wrynecks (JyngidÆ) and Piculets (PicumnidÆ) have the same arrangement.

This close agreement in the deep plantar tendons is, as remarked by Dr. Stejneger, strong evidence of the mutual relationships of the families possessing this unique arrangement. As this character is not neutralized or overbalanced by any of equal or greater value we may regard these families as forming a natural group, an order or suborder, characterized essentially by their antiopelmous, zygodactyl feet. In other zygodactyl birds, the Parrots and Cuckoos, the tendons are of the wholly different desmopelmous type, and moreover the ambiens muscle, absent in the antiopelmous group, is here present.—W. DeW. Miller, American Museum of Natural History, New York City.The Status of the Genus Hypocentor Cabanis.—The genus Hypocentor was originally instituted by Cabanis (Mus. Hein, I, 1851, p. 131) for three species of Buntings, Emberiza aureola Pallas, Emberiza fucata Pallas, and Emberiza rustica Pallas. Its type was soon afterward designated by Gray (Cat. Gen. and Subgen. Birds Brit. Mus., 1855, p. 79) as Emberiza aureola Pallas. Modern authors have commonly synonymized it with Emberiza Brisson, but an examination of its type and comparison with typical species of Emberiza shows that it is well differentiated as a generic group. It differs from Emberiza Brisson (type, by tautonymy, Emberiza citrinella LinnÆus) as follows; bill slenderer, more compressed, more sharply pointed, thus less conical; basal two-thirds of culmen straight or even somewhat concave, instead of convex; maxillar and mandibular tomia vertically not so strongly concave, thus not giving the closed commissure the somewhat open appearance that it has in typical species of Emberiza; palatal surface of maxilla lacking the peculiar rounded protuberances of Emberiza; mandible more rounded (less squarish) basally; gonys very long, its length much more than the height of the bill at base (instead of about equal to that dimension), and not strongly ascending, the gonydeal angle therefore not so prominent; tertials and tail much shorter.

The species to be included in this genus are at least the three originally indicated by Cabanis, the last one of which is North American by reason of its accidental occurrence on Kiska Island in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. These are:

• Hypocentor aureolus (Pallas).
• Hypocentor fucatus (Pallas).
• Hypocentor rusticus (Pallas).
• Harry C. Oberholser, Washington, D. C.

A Correction Involving Some Juncos.—An error that may be explained as due to oversight, inadvertence, plain stupidity or all three combined, crept into my paper on the Juncos (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. XXXVIII, 1918, p. 296) and Mr. Todd has called my attention to it. In placing insularis under mearnsi as a race, I quite forgot that the former name has many years priority. Therefore the Pink-sided Juncos should stand as follows:—

• Junco insularis mearnsi
• Junco insularis insularis
• Junco insularis townsendi
• Jonathan Dwight, M. D., New York City.

An Additional Record of Ammodramus savannarum bimaculutus in Eastern Washington.—Although the breeding range of the Western Grasshopper Sparrow is stated by the Check List (A. O. U. Check-List of North American Birds, 1910, p. 257) to embrace “Transition and Austral zones from southeastern British Columbia, northwestern Montana, and southern Minnesota south to southern California and southern Texas,” it appears that only one actual record of occurrence in eastern Washington has been published to date. Dr. Lee R. Dice took two adult males in breeding plumage in a wheat field in the Touchet Valley, near Prescott, Walla Walla County, on June 16, 1908 (Auk, Vol. XXVII, 1910, p. 217).

On May 29, 1918, a bird which I am practically certain was of this species was encountered in a grassy swale not far from Pullman, Whitman County. When first sighted it was perched on a grassy tussock near the bottom of the swale. When flushed it flew to a grass clump some distance up a gentle hill slope, disappearing from view in the usual slinking fashion. Too much reliance cannot, of course, be placed on this record, since the bird was not secured.

On June 13 I noted the song of a Grasshopper Sparrow in a grain field near Six Mile Ranch, six miles south of Sprague, just over the line in Adams County. The bird was pursued for some time before it was finally taken. Its actions were as usually described, the bird characteristically dropping behind a grass tussock, ledge of earth or pile of brush, and then, with bill low, body in crouching position, and tail drooping, sneaking off through the grassy vegetation, refusing to flush until one was too close to shoot.

The bird is now No. 262090, U. S. National Museum, Biological Survey Collection. It is a male in much worn plumage.

These experiences during the past field season indicate that the Grasshopper Sparrow is probably more common in eastern Washington than has previously been supposed.—Walter P. Taylor, Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. The Dickcissel in New Hampshire.—At Concord, New Hampshire, on October 13, 1918 I shot a male Dickcissel (Spiza americana) in immature plumage. It was alone at the moment, in birches at the edge of woods that bordered extensive fields of corn and stubble, the autumnal resort of sparrows of several kinds, which were then swarming there among the weeds. The only records of the bird from north and east of Massachusetts with which I am acquainted are as follows:

• Maine, September 29, 1884. C. W. Townsend (Auk, 1885, p. 106)
• Maine, October 10, 1888. A. H. Norton (Auk, 1893, p. 302).
• Nova Scotia, September 13, 1902. J. Dwight, Jr. (Auk, 1903, p. 440).
• Francis Beach White, Concord, N. H.

Early Nesting of the Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus) at Savannah, Ga.—I am indebted to Mr. Gilbert R. Rossignol, of Savannah, Ga., for the privilege of announcing the taking by him on February 15, 1919, at Savannah, of a nest and five eggs of the Loggerhead Shrike. Mr. Rossignol first discovered the birds building the nest in a live oak tree, among a cluster of vertical shoots, on January 16. The eggs were all fresh and the nest was approximately twenty feet from the ground.

In the vicinity of Charleston, S. C., the earliest dates upon which I have found eggs were on March 24, 1916, six eggs almost hatched, and March 13, 1917, five fresh eggs, both nests being found in the same live oak tree and doubtless belonging to the same pair of birds.—Arthur T. Wayne, Mt. Pleasant, S. C. A Note on the Decrease of the Carolina Wren near Washington.—The winter of 1917-1918 in the vicinity of Washington, D. C., with its prolonged cold and unusual fall of snow, was a severe one for many birds, a fact that was manifested especially in the case of the Carolina Wren (Thryothorus l. ludovicianus). Near Washington Carolina Wrens increased steadily in numbers in the period extending from 1912 to 1917, and during the last two years of this time were common. Their abundance at Plummer’s Island, Maryland, was noticeable, and birds were seen or heard on practically every visit to that vicinity. Through December, 1917, and January, 1918 they remained in their usual numbers. February 1, during a visit made to Plummer’s Island immediately after a heavy snowfall I found that the snow in the woods where it had not been drifted was sixteen inches deep. Several Carolina Wrens were seen on this day. One was observed climbing up the trunk of a red birch, where the bird broke open the curling rolls of bark, in search for food, making a rattling, rustling noise audible for some distance. Another was clambering about the eaves of the cabin. Both of these feeding habits were more or less unusual. This heavy snow covered the ground for a considerable period after this and must have rendered food difficult to find. Immediately after February 1 the Carolina Wrens in the area under consideration disappeared, and the supposition was that the greater part of them had perished. Only three of four pairs were known to remain in the region between the end of the carline at Cabin John’s Bridge and Plummer’s Island, while none were left on the island property. The same decrease in number among these birds was observed throughout the entire Washington region and when spring opened it was found that there were only scattered pairs in a few areas.

In a former note (published in ‘The Condor,’ 1913, pp. 120-121) I have called attention to a similar occurrence in eastern Kansas, where other species of birds in addition to Carolina Wrens were concerned. These observations and others of a similar nature seem to show that the Carolina Wren is a bird that may be considered resident in the strictest sense of the word in regions where it is found. In many so-called resident species, though the species as a whole is represented at all seasons individuals are migratory and perform regular journeys each year. With the Carolina Wren however, this does not seem to be true, as adult individuals (in pairs) frequent certain restricted areas throughout the year without reference to season. The immature birds that have not yet become settled, wander somewhat during spring and fall, and individuals may occur at this time in cities or elsewhere outside of their normal haunts. These movements however, are irregular, and seem at most to be restricted to short distances when compared with the regular spring and fall movement found among other birds of recognized migratory habits. It is by these restricted movements that these Wrens extend their local range.

At Plummer’s Island one of these wanderers visited the island and adjacent parts of the mainland on April 7 and worked restlessly about, singing loudly. No others were observed during the spring and summer months and the species did not occur again until December 8 when one was observed skulking in a brush pile below the cabin. One bird (presumably the same one) is still present on the island at present writing (January 12, 1919).

The instances given here are indications of the conditions limiting the range of the Carolina Wren, in one direction at least and show, too, how readily a species apparently common may be reduced or even exterminated in a given region in a very short period of time. In the case of the Carolina Wren the heavy blanket of snow covering the food supply would seem to be the direct cause of extermination rather than prolonged cold, as here at Washington these birds were able to survive a low temperature for a considerable period but were killed when deep snow covered the greater part of their normal feeding ground. It is to the comparatively few that are able to survive that we must look for the perpetuation of the species. The increase in numbers however, seems to be a slow process, as following their decrease in 1912, I found the species still comparatively rare near Lawrence, Kansas, in 1914, 1916 and as late as November, 1918.—Alexander Wetmore, Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. The Affinities of ChamÆthlypis.—As generic distinctions become more and more refined the need of a supergeneric group intermediate between the family or subfamily and the genus, corresponding approximately to the former genus, becomes increasingly evident.

In his great work on the ‘Birds of North and Middle America’ Mr. Ridgway has supplied this want in many families. In the Warblers (MniotiltidÆ) the grouping does not appear to be so successful as in most cases. Not only is the old genus Geothlypis broken up into three genera but these are distributed in as many supergeneric groups. Oporornis is banded with Dendroica and its allies in the DendroicÆ, while ChamÆthlypis is placed in the IcteriÆ.

We cannot help feeling that this arrangement is artificial, and that too much importance has been placed on the length of the wing-tip (easily modified by habits and migration), and insufficient weight given to coloration, nesting and even song.

Also, the distinctions are partially invalidated by exceptions. Thus the sections including Geothlypis and ChamÆthlypis are separated by differences in the length of the tail and form of the bill; but Geothlypis nelsoni agrees with ChamÆthlypis in having the tail longer than the wing. Again the GeothlypeÆ are separated from the DendroiceÆ by having the rictal bristles obsolete and the wing-tip shorter, but in Geothlypis Æquinoctialis and G. cucullata, at least, the rictal bristles are well-developed.

The particular point of criticism is in regard to the affinities of ChamÆthlypis which is distinguished from Geothlypis by its stouter bill, with strongly curved culmen, and its longer, graduated tail.

Mr. Ridgway expresses the opinion that while “this genus is very much like Geothlypis as to its general appearance” it is “quite distinct structurally, in which respect it comes much nearer to Icteria.” I have carefully tabulated the structural differences between these three genera, and the result to my mind unquestionably indicates a nearer relationship of ChamÆthlypis with Geothlypis.

Sharpe (Hand-List of Birds) while recognizing ChamÆthlypis, included in this genus two South American species of Geothlypis, G. Æquinoctialis and G. auricularis. These two species and G. cucullata are intermediate between ChamÆthlypis and the typical species of Geothlypis in coloration and in the form of the bill and have well developed rictal bristles as in ChamÆthlypis. They do not, however, approach the latter genus in the length of the tail, as do certain Mexican species of Geothlypis, notably G. nelsoni.

While in Nicaragua in the spring of 1917 I had the opportunity of hearing the song of the ‘Ground-chat’ on several occasions. It is a highly musical warble resembling that of Geothlypis semiflava bairdi but even superior; the songs of both these species much excel that of G. trichas. The song of ChamÆthlypis possesses nothing whatever of the eccentric qualities of the Yellow-breasted Chat’s vocal performance.

In conclusion, the evidence of size, coloration, external structure and song, strongly indicate the near relationship of ChamÆthlypis with Geothlypis and the more remote affinity of the former with Icteria. The first two genera are, in fact, practically connected by intermediate species.—W. DeW. Miller, American Museum of Natural History, New York City.Blue-winged Warbler Feeding a Young Field Sparrow.—On June 16, 1918, I was passing through a brushy area near Norwalk, Conn., when my attention was attracted by a Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus) evidently much excited at my presence as though it had a nest or young in the vicinity. It carried a green caterpillar about with it, as though wishing to feed young, so I sat down to watch it. A Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) soon appeared and also manifested excitement at my presence. After some waiting the Blue-wing approached a certain point in the bushes so frequently, that I got suspicious and searched it, finding to my surprise a young Field Sparrow, evidently just out of the nest and unable to fly. I waited some time longer, hoping to find the young of the Blue-wing, and finally the latter got over its fear, and approached the young Field Sparrow, and fed it the caterpillar it had been carrying. The adult Field Sparrow remained nearby but would not go to the young bird.

This incident seems rather surprising, but I believe it is explained by supposing that the two species nested near each other; that the young of the Blue-wing were destroyed by a natural enemy just as they were about to leave the nest; and that the adult Blue-wing, finding a young Field Sparrow of about the same age nearby, fed it, perhaps not realizing that it was not its own offspring, and in any event, satisfying its natural instinct to feed and care for young at that time.—Aretas A. Saunders, Norwalk, Conn. The Blue-winged Warbler near Boston.—Walking in dry, scrubby woods in the town of Brookline, Mass., May 19, 1918, Dr. Charles W. Townsend and I found a Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus) singing the typical song of the Golden-winged Warbler (V. chrysoptera). The bird had the bright-yellow throat, breast, belly, and crown and the black line through the eye, and we had no hesitation in pronouncing it a Blue-winged Warbler. As this species is regarded as extremely rare in Massachusetts (see note by Mr. Horace W. Wright, Auk, 1917, pp. 482, 483), the bird was afterwards visited by other observers, some of whom saw it to better advantage than we did and discovered that its wing-bars were yellow, not white as in typical examples of the species. Among these observers were Mr. Charles J. Maynard, Judge Charles F. Jenney, Dr. John B. Brainerd, Mr. Barron Brainerd, and Mr. Henry S. Shaw. Mr. Maynard, who visited the locality June 15 in company with Judge Jenney and Mr. Shaw, wrote me under date of July 31, 1918: “I saw the bird very distinctly a number of times and clearly saw that it had decidedly yellow wing-bands, not as yellow as those of the Golden-winged, yet decidedly yellow, and we heard no other song than the one indistinguishable from that of the Golden-wing.... I was interested in trying to find whether the bird was mated, but we did not succeed in finding any mate.” None of the observers saw anything of a mate, and none heard any other song from the bird than the Golden-winged Warbler song. Illness in my family prevented my visiting the locality again until July 10, when the bird was not to be found, and the Golden-winged Warblers, two of which had been found there before had also stopped singing.

Forms of the Blue-winged Warbler with yellow or yellowish wing-bars are not very rare in collections, and Dr. Louis B. Bishop, who has a large series of this species, makes particular mention of them in his paper on ‘The Status of Helminthophila leucobronchialis and Helminthophila lawrencei’ in ‘The Auk,’ 1905, XXII, p. 21-24. In the light, however, of Dr. Walter Faxon’s discovery of the hybrid nature of Brewster’s Warbler it seems probable that these non-typical examples are really of mixed ancestry and possess a modicum of chrysoptera blood. This seems the more likely in the case of our Brookline bird because it sang the chrysoptera song, as do most, if not all, of the leucobronchialis found in this region. Mr. William Brewster permits me to cite him in support of this theory, and Dr. Bishop writes me, “I think it quite possible your bird had a ‘lawrencei’ as a more or less remote ancestor, which means chrysoptera of course farther back, added to its predominant pinus blood.”

Though our bird was found, as I have stated, in the town of Brookline, the cities of Boston and Newton also corner near by and, as Judge Jenney has pointed out to me, it doubtless had in its daily range not only these three municipalities but also the three counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Middlesex to which they severally belong. —Francis H. Allen, West Roxbury, Mass. Nashville Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) in New York in Winter.—This is not merely a winter record for New York City but for a backyard garden on Broadway. This bird was first seen by Mrs. Chubb on December 16, 1918. It was feeding on aphids which were still very abundant on some brussels sprouts in a very small garden patch.

Up to the present date, January 9, I have seen the bird frequently. Apparently it visits the garden daily where the aphids still survive the mild winter. The bird is in perfect flight and apparently normal in every way. It was also identified today by Mr. W. DeW. Miller. —S. Harmsted Chubb, New York City. Four Rare Birds in Sussex County, New Jersey.—In the fall of 1918 the American Museum of Natural History received in the flesh a female Northern Pileated Woodpecker (Phloeotomus pileatus abieticola) shot in the Kittatinny Mountains, three miles southwest of Culver’s Gap, Sussex Co., New Jersey, on Oct. 12, and an adult female Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaËtos) killed in the same locality on November 23.

On a visit to this region from October 19 to November 3, I was gratified to find that the Pileated Woodpecker still exists in the larger woodlands of Sussex County. Many characteristic examples of their work, both old and fresh, were found and several birds were seen.

Through the kindness of Mr. Justus von Lengerke, I am able to record a Raven (Corvus corax europhilus) also from the vicinity of Culver’s Gap. This bird, which was accompanied by another individual of the same species, was secured by this gentleman on September 21 and is now in his possession.

Mr. von Lengerke tells me that the Goshawk (Astur atricapillus atricapillus) is a regular winter visitor in northwestern New Jersey, but usually rare. In the fall and winter of 1916-17 and again in 1917-18 there were, for the first time in his experience, large flights of the Goshawk two years in succession. In the former season Mr. von Lengerke, who makes special efforts to kill these destructive birds, secured about nine Goshawks; in the latter he personally killed sixteen (fifteen at Stag Lake, Sussex Co., and one about ten miles from this locality), and knows of two more shot in the same county. In the fall of 1918 he handled eight individuals, five of which were killed by himself and his son.—W. DeW. Miller, American Museum of Natural History, New York City. Notes from a Connecticut Pine Swamp.—The pine swamp of which I write is situated in the township of Ledyard, Connecticut, two miles east of Gales Ferry and the Thames River, and about eight miles north of Fisher’s Island sound. It runs north and south for about half a mile, and is three hundred feet above sea level. In it grow tall white pines, though many which formerly grew along the edges of the swamp have been cut down. It is a wild place, containing the usual “Bottomless Pit,” the old time farmers, with their longest poles, being unable to find a bottom. Once upon a time, also, a wildcat inhabited it—so sayeth tradition! The native Rhododendron (R. maximum) grows here in profusion attaining a height of twenty-five, or more, feet, and is a wonderful sight when in blossom in July. There is also much laurel and many hardwood trees on the edge of the swamp. On July 5, 1918, walking here among the Rhododendrons, listening to the songs of the Hooded Warbler, I made a discovery. The Hooded Warbler is quite common in this locality and sings freely. I heard the two songs on this day—one of which seems to say “you’re it, you’re it, you’re it, you’re it yourself” sung rapidly and varying in the number of “you’re its.” The other song seems to say “Nobody can touch me-Ë.” a rising inflection on the end. They made me think of children playing tag. Suddenly a strange distant song drew my attention and I hastened along listening intently—then as I stood on a rock surrounded by Rhododendrons out flew a beautiful Black-throated Blue Warbler, which alighted on a tree and sang. It flew about from tree to tree quite near and sang over and over again, and was answered by the same song from a more distant bird. The song was much finer than the books lead one to suppose. About six zees—the first three seeming to have a sort of double resonance and the last longer drawn out and higher. Of course the birds were nesting here, but although I visited the spot every few days and heard and saw the bud near the same locality, I could never locate the nest, in the wild tangle of growth. The last time that I heard the song was on August 1. In Dr. Bishop’s ‘List of Connecticut Birds’ the Black-throated Blue is given as nesting at Eastford in 1874 and 1881, in Kent in 1905 and in Litchfield in 1905. Near this same place some Broad-winged Hawks were nesting and every time I visited the spot one of them would perch in a tall tree and whistle—a shrill penetrating whistle, although at times they could do it quite softly. They seemed to be unafraid and it was amusing to see one of them watching my dog as he ran among the bushes; it would stretch its neck and twist its head from side to side in a very funny way. For two years now the Solitary Vireo has nested in this vicinity and delighted us with its song all summer.

Still another rarity has been found nesting in this swamp, the Canada Warbler. Dr. Graves found it there on June 25, 1884, and again thirteen years later on July 17, 1897; at this later date he saw and heard a number of them singing. Although looking for it here for the last ten years I have yet to find it nesting.—Frances Miner Graves, New London, Conn. The Name “erythrogaster.”—I have been interested in the discussion about erythrogaster, erythrogastra, erythrogastris, etc. in recent numbers of ‘The Auk.’ From analogy, both in the Greek and Latin tongues, I make no question of this being an adjective. Thus in Latin, from longus and manus comes the adjective longimanus -a, -um, long-handed. In Greek form (using the Roman alphabet) leukos and lithos, leukolithos, -on. The older naturalists, as many botanists still do, printed specific names that are nouns with an initial capital, those that are adjectives with a lower-case initial. LinnÆus, for instance, who observed this distinction, wrote Anas erythropus, Hirundo fissipes, Fringilla erythrophthalma, Parus atricapillus, etc., showing that he rightly considered these specific names to be adjectives.

From erythros and melas comes the adjective erythromelas, fem. erythromelaena, neut. erythromelan, red and black. Now if Piranga is considered feminine, as it is (Piranga rubra), the Scarlet Tanager’s name is Piranga erythromelaena. There is no escape from this except for those who refuse to make an adjectival specific name conform in gender to the generic name with which it is associated.[33] —Walter Faxon, Lexington, Mass. Constant Difference in Relative Proportions of Parts as a Specific Character.—In the oft-recurring discussions of what constitutes a species and the difference between subspecies and species, one interesting kind of intergradation which might be termed “pseudo-intergradation” had not been mentioned.

This is well illustrated by certain of the Guadalupe Island forms, notably the Rock Wren (Salpinctes) which has at times been regarded as a species and again as a subspecies even by the same authority.

The Guadalupe bird, together with its near ally of San Martin Island, differs from its relatives of other islands and the mainland in its longer bill, relatively shorter wing and darker coloration. The difference in proportions is constant so far as known; only exceptionally short-billed specimens agree in the length of this member with the longest billed individuals of other forms, while only very long-winged examples fail to differ from short-winged birds of the related races. This, however, has been held to be intergradation and on these grounds the Guadalupe bird, S. guadeloupensis, was degraded to subspecific rank by Ridgway in 1904, even before the somewhat intermediate race S. g. proximus was discovered.

Individuals agreeing in the length of the bill, however, naturally exhibit the maximum difference in the length of the wing, while those agreeing in the wing can be distinguished by the length of the bill. In other words the ratio of bill to wing length in the two species S. obsoletus and S. guadeloupensis is constantly different and furnishes a diagnostic character by which the species may always be distinguished. In the former the wing is more than three and a half times the length of the bill, in the latter less than three and a half. In addition there is a well-marked difference in color.

It seems reasonable to consider such differentiation in proportions when developed to the point where there is constant difference in ratio as of specific value. Measurements appear to indicate that this point has been reached in the Rock Wrens, and that the dark, long-billed forms should therefore be regarded as specifically distinct from the paler, shorter billed races. The same conclusion was arrived at by Swarth in 1914 (Condor, XVI, p. 216).

The Guadalupe Junco (Junco insularis) easily fulfills the above requirements of a species. Indeed as it averages 10 mm. less in length of wing than its nearest relative J. townsendi, and its bill is nearly 2 mm. longer, there is small likelihood even of ordinary intergradation. There are also well-defined color characters.

In Dr. Dwight’s recent paper on the Juncos (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXXVIII, 1918, p. 269) he has reduced this Junco as well as Junco townsendi to subspecies, on the grounds that their characters are quantitative rather than qualitative. But are their peculiarities merely quantitative, and do not the differences exhibited by these forms more nearly approach the characters commonly regarded as of generic value than do the “qualitative” color differences between the forms regarded by Dr. Dwight as species?—W. DeW. Miller, American Museum of Natural History, New York City. “Off” Flavors of Wildfowl.—Following is an extract from a letter on this subject by Dr. L. C. Jones of Falmouth, Mass., who has been quoted in a previous article[34] on this subject. It will be noted that one of Dr. Jones’ theories is much the same as that advanced by the writer in the last sentence of his first communication on fishy flavor.[35]

“I would like to advance a new theory which I think may explain the cause in many cases. I refer to the possibility of “fatigue toxins” in the flesh of birds which have taken long flights and are thin or emaciated and obviously out of condition. The same might hold in those birds which have been shot previously but not wholly disabled. Many of these have intestines agglutinated with peritonitis, local abscesses, or suppurating wounds in the skin or muscles where shot has entered. Unpleasant as it may be to think of this, practically all of these birds reach the market and are undoubtedly eaten, chiefly of course by those who do not dress their own game.

“The more you consider this explanation, the more points you will find to support it. For instance, I have eaten many ducks in the beginning of the season, Redheads, Bluebills and Black Ducks, birds which have just arrived from the north and I think without question that most of them have been comparatively unpalatable. Birds from the same flocks, shot a fortnight or so later, even when the diet has consisted almost entirely of eelgrass seed from the salt water bays and estuaries, have been plump and delicious. May not fatigue with starvation, or rest with repletion, be the great determining factors in the flavor of migrating fowl? You may readily conceive that in certain instances of excessive fatigue or when the abdominal organs were badly infected, the flesh of such birds might be distinctly poisonous....” L. C. Jones, M. D.—W. L. McAtee, U. S. Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.