many of the Robins seen in Nova Scotia this winter may have spent the
first part of the winter outside of this province, in the neighboring,
wilder regions to the northward. In proposing this theory he says,
“Granting that scattered Robins do remain [in winter] in regions north
of Nova Scotia (a fact concerning which I have no evidence), would not
the continued cold weather tend to drive them south, and, owing to the
contour of the coast, might they not hesitate to cross the water south
of us in winter, and therefore be more or less congested here?... It
might be argued that Robins would not hesitate to cross the Atlantic
strip of water south of us, as many thousands do cross in the fall. On
the other hand, might it not be possible that in winter the migratory
instinct might not be sufficiently strong to carry them straight out to
sea over rough water?” There is need of data from New Brunswick, Prince
Edward Island, and Newfoundland concerning winter Robins to throw
additional light on this interesting theory.
If the number of Robins which remained here last winter was greater
than usual, the cause of this condition is wholly problematical. I have
not had such opportunities as I desire for observing the abundance of
juniper berries and mountain ash berries in the wilder parts of Nova
Scotia last fall or this spring, but no unusual abundance or scarcity
of Robin food has been revealed by such observations as I have been
able to make. It may be that the migratory instinct failed last fall
in a greater number of Robins than usual, and thus more of them were
influenced to remain here, or it may be that subtle meteorological
forces caused a change in the migration of some of these birds.
It has already been noted that low temperatures seem to have
accompanied the appearance of the Robins. In what way the temperature
may have caused the Robins to seek the inhabited districts I cannot
say, unless it might be by temporarily congealing the surface of swampy
and springy areas, which ordinarily remain open in winter weather,
and from which the Robins may have obtained food when the rest of the
country was covered with snow. Further investigation appears to be
much needed here. While considering temperature, it is worthy of note
that the past winter was exceptional for one other thing besides the
unusual numbers of Robins seen—that is, for its long, unbroken periods
of low temperature. A direct relation between these two phenomena
may be suggested. In other parts of northern North America this low
temperature seems to have caused an unusual scarcity of winter birds,
but that was not the case here.
After February 25, although the weather remained severe, there
appear to have been no observations of Robins in the province until
the arrival of the first spring migrants, noted at Halifax on March
26. This may be due to the birds’ having finally left us for a more
congenial climate, but I am strongly inclined to believe that it
was caused by the destruction of practically all the Robins in the
province, their last available supplies of food having been exhausted.
This would account for the disagreement between the Robin graph and the
temperature graph after February 20. Although only two dead Robins,
other than those killed by an owl, were reported, yet scarcely more
than this would be expected, since most of the birds would probably die
in out-of-the-way places, and would soon be covered by snow or devoured
by animals.
It is hoped that the facts and suggestions here presented may throw
some light on the subject of winter Robins and perhaps help to
point out some new lines of inquiry, so that before long additional
observations and investigations may make the full truth of the matter
clear. The observations of the winter of 1917-18 were unusual, but it
is often by a study of the unusual that the usual is understood.
REMARKS ON BEEBE’S ‘TROPICAL WILD LIFE.’
BY THOMAS E. PENARD.
In a previous number of ‘The Auk’ (1918, XXXV, p. 91), Dr. Witmer
Stone reviewed briefly this interesting volume published by the New
York Zoölogical Society, presenting the first season’s work at the
tropical research station, established in British Guiana under the
direction of Mr. William Beebe. The results obtained by Mr. Beebe
and his associates are of such interest and importance, and the work
in general so deserving of the reviewer’s praise, that I feel rather
reluctant in offering a few slight corrections. My observations are not
intended as criticisms, and I would hardly have thought it worth while
to express them, were it not for the fact that the very excellence and
authoritative character of Mr. Beebe’s book might perhaps have the
effect of creating a few misleading impressions in regard to some minor
matters with which it deals.
In Chapter VIII Mr. Beebe gives a list of the birds of the Bartica
District, in which, for the sake of completeness, he includes some
species collected by Whitely at the same place, and listed by Salvin
in ‘The Ibis’ for 1885 and 1886. Twenty-two species are starred to
indicate that they are new to the Colony of British Guiana. Of this
number, however, at least eighteen have been previously recorded from
various localities in the Colony as follows:
=Columba plumbea plumbea= VIEILLOT.—Listed by Salvin (Ibis,
1886, p. 173) from Bartica Grove and Camacusa. Percival (Birds
of the Botanic Gardens, 1893, Argosy reprint, p. 6) says that
it is “unfrequent in Gardens, though a common species.” Dawson
(Hand-list of the Birds of British Guiana, 1916, p. 51) lists
it as a Colonial species. Some of these records may, however,
apply to _Œnœnas purpureotincta_ (Ridgway). The form inhabiting
British Guiana is _Œnœnas plumbea locutrix_ (Max.).
=Ibycter americanus= (BODDAERT). Bonson (P. Z. S., 1851, p.
56) records it from Br. Guiana under the name of “Red-headed
Carracarra.” It is listed by Salvin (_l. c._, 1886, p. 77)
from Bartica Grove and Camacusa; by Quelch (Timehri, 1890,
p. 102 and p. 334) from Demerara Falls and Upper Berbice; by
Chubb (The Birds of British Guiana, 1916, i., p. 216, McConnell
coll.) from Kamakabra River, etc., giving range in Br. Guiana;
and by Dawson (_l. c._, p. 7).
=Urochroma batavica= (BODDAERT).—Lloyd (Timehri, 1895, p. 272,
sub nom. _Urochroma cingulata_) mentions it as formerly very
plentiful in the neighborhood of “Groete Creek,” and (_l.
c._, p. 278) gives local range as Essequibo River and N. W.
District; F. P. and A. P. Penard (De Vögels van Guyana, 1908,
i, p. 523) say these birds are not unfrequently seen in Surinam
and Demerara during the Dry Season; Chubb (_l. c._, p. 336, sub
nom. _Touit batavica_) records specimens from Supenaam River
and other localities, and gives range in Br. Guiana; and Dawson
(_l. c._, p. 20) lists it as the “Black-winged Parakeet.”
=Ceryle americana americana= (GMELIN).—Recorded by Salvin (_l.
c._, 1886, p. 60) from Bartica Grove and other localities; by
Sharpe (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1892, xvii, p. 139) from Demerara
River; by Chubb (_l. c._, p. 348) from Bonasika River, etc.,
giving range in Br. Guiana; and by Dawson (_l. c._, p. 16).
=Cypseloides fumigatus= STREUBEL.—F. P. and A. P. Penard (_l.
c._, 1910, ii, p. 95) state that there are specimens in the
Georgetown Museum, and Dawson (_l. c._, p. 34) lists it as a
Colonial species.
=Tapera nævia= (LINNÉ).—Schomburgk (Reis. 1848, iii., p. 713,
sub nom. _Diplopterus galeritus_) says that it is abundant in
coast regions. Quelch (Timehri, 1891, p. 95; Reprint, p. 27)
speaks of it as common in Georgetown; and Percival (_l. c._,
p. 9) states that its frequent plaintive note “Wife-sick”
is one of the most familiar garden sounds. It has also been
recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1886, p. 64) from Bartica Grove
and Roraima; by Shelley (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1891, xix, p.
423) from Georgetown; by Chubb (_l. c._, p. 443) from Ituribisi
River, etc., giving range in Br. Guiana; and by Dawson (_l.
c._, p. 23). The Br. Guiana form stands, _Tapera nævia nævia_
(Linné).
=Pteroglossus aracari aracari= (LINNÉ).—Schomburgk (_l. c._,
p. 720) states that the species is tolerably abundant in Br.
Guiana. It has been recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1886, p. 65)
from Bartica Grove; by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus. 1891, xix,
p. 138) from Demerara; by Chubb (_l. c._, p. 458, sub nom.
_Pteroglossus roraimæ_) from Roraima etc., giving range in Br.
Guiana; and by Dawson (_l. c._, p. 22). The form inhabiting Br.
Guiana is _P. a. atricollis_ (P. L. S. Müller)—see Bangs and
Penard (Bull. M. C. Z., 1918, p. 55).
=Chloronerpes rubiginosus= (SWAINSON).—Schomburgk (_l. c._,
p. 715) says he found it throughout Br. Guiana. It has been
recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1886, p. 59) from Bartica Grove,
Merumé Mountains, and Roraima; by Chubb (_l. c._, p. 483) from
Anarika River, etc., giving range in Br. Guiana; and by Dawson
(_l. c._, p. 24).
=Thamnophilus amazonicus= SCLATER.—Schomburgk (_l. c._, p. 687)
states that it inhabits the low bushes of the coast woods.
It has been recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1885, p. 423) from
Bartica Grove and Camacusa; by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus.,
1890, xv, p. 199) from Takutu River (Salvin-Godman coll.); by
Quelch (Animal Life in Br. Guiana, 1901, p. 182); and by Dawson
(_l. c._, p. 26), who stars the species, indicating that there
are no representatives in the Museum at Georgetown. All these
authors, except Sclater, refer to this species as _Thamnophilus
ruficollis_ [= _amazonicus_ ♀].
=Dysithamnus schistaceus= (D’ORBIGNY). F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 308) state that there are specimens in
the Museum at Georgetown. Dawson (_l. c._, p. 26) lists it as a
Colonial species.
=Automolus infuscatus= SCLATER.—Recorded by Salvin (_l. c._,
1885, p. 420, sub nom. _Automolus sclateri_), from Bartica
Grove, stating that the specimens are rather smaller than those
from the type locality, with faint indication of striation on
the throat; and by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus. 1890, xv, p.
95, sub nom. _Automolus sclateri_) from Camacusa and Bartica
Grove. _Automolus sclateri_ (Pelzeln) is a pure synonym of
_Automolus infuscatus_ Sclater, having been proposed by Pelzeln
(Orn. Bras., 1867, i. p. 41) on the assumption that the name
_Automolus infuscatus_ was preoccupied by _Anabates infuscatus_
Bonaparte, which, however, proves to be a _nomen nudum_ (_Cf._
Hellmayr, Nov. Zool., 1905, xii, p. 279). Mr. Beebe lists both
_infuscatus_ and _cervicalis_, apparently considering them two
distinct species, the former only being starred as new to the
Colony. Hellmayr (Nov. Zool., 1906, xiii, p. 335) says that
“the specimens of _Automolus sclateri_ from British Guiana in
the British Museum are absolutely identical with the type of
_P. cervicalis_,” and states that the type of _P. cervicalis_
is an immature bird. He lists the Guiana form, which differs
from true _infuscatus_, as _Automolus infuscatus cervicalis_
(Sclater), type locality “Camacusa and Bartica Grove.”
Apparently, then, records of _A. infuscatus_, _A. sclateri_,
and _A. cervicalis_, in Br. Guiana, apply to the same bird.
=Sclerurus rufigularis= PELZELN.—Hellmayr (Nov. Zool., 1906,
xiii, p. 364) mentions an immature bird from Takutu River, Br.
Guiana, and says (_l. c._, p. 365) that there is a specimen in
the British Museum collected by Whitely at Bartica Grove. He
also says that the Br. Guiana Museum has a ♂ from Ourumee.
=Xiphorhynchus guttatoides= (LAFRESNAYE).—The form
_guttatoides_ of Colombia, is a subspecies of _Xiphorhynchus
guttatus_ Lichtenstein, of which the race inhabiting Br.
Guiana is _X. g. sororius_ (Berlepsch and Hartert), type
locality Perico, Orinoco River. Berlepsch and Hartert (Nov.
Zool., 1902, ix, p. 63), who originally described this form as
_Dendrornis rostripallens sororia_, mention a specimen from
Quonja, Br. Guiana, coll. Whitely, agreeing with birds from
Perico. Schomburgk (_l. c._, p. 690, sub nom. _Dendrocolaptes
guttatus_) says he found it throughout Br. Guiana; Salvin
(_l. c._, 1885, p. 422), referring to it as _Dendrornis
guttatoides_, records a specimen from Bartica Grove; and Dawson
(_l. c._, p. 29) lists it under the same name. Quelch (Animal
Life in Br. Guiana, 1901, p. 177), speaking of _Dendrornis
pardalotus_ and _Dendrornis guttatoides_, says that one or both
of these species will invariably be found in collections made
in the forest districts.
=Elænia guianensis= BERLEPSCH.—The type locality of this
species is Camacusa, British Guiana. It has been recorded by
Salvin (_l. c._, 1885, p. 295) as _Elainea elegans_, from
Bartica Grove, Camacusa, etc.; by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus.,
1888, xiv, p. 150) as _Elainea gaimardi_, from Roraima; and by
Dawson (_l. c._, p. 13) as _Myiopagis gaimardi_. The Br. Guiana
form now stands, _Myiopagis gaimardii guianensis_ (Berlepsch).
=Empidochanes fuscatus cabanisi= LÉOTAUD.—Recorded by Salvin
(_l. c._, 1885, p. 297, sub nom. _Empidochanes olivus_) from
Bartica Grove; and by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1888, xiv,
p. 224, sub nom. _Empidonax oliva_), who states that this is
the northern form of _E. bimaculatus_ (d’Orb. and Lafr.),
adding that he was doubtful whether it was really entitled to
the name _oliva_. The type locality of _cabanisi_ is Trinidad.
The form inhabiting Cayenne is _Empidochanes fuscatus fumosus_
Berlepsch, to which we suppose the Surinam bird also belongs.
=Riparia riparia= (LINNÉ).-Recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1885,
p. 206) as _Cotile riparia_, from Bartica Grove.
=Sporophila bouvronides= (LESSON).—Brabourne and Chubb (Birds
of South America, 1912, i, p. 367) refer _S. ocellata_ (Scl.
and Salv.) to this species, and give the type locality
Trinidad. References to _S. ocellata_ in Guiana probably apply
to the same bird which Mr. Beebe had in hand. Mr. Beebe also
lists _S. lineola_ (Linn.). Sharpe (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1888,
xii, p. 130) lists _S. ocellata_ from Carimang River, Br.
Guiana. Dawson (_l. c._, p. 48) mentions both _ocellata_ and
_lineola_.
=Thraupis palmarum palmarum= (WIED).—Schomburgk (_l. c._, p.
670, sub nom. _Tanagra olivascens_) states that it is abundant
at the coast. It has been recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1885, p.
210) from Bartica Grove and Roraima; by Quelch (Timehri, 1891,
p. 81; Reprint, p. 13) who says it is common in Georgetown,
mentioning the species again later (Animal Life in Br. Guiana,
1901, p. 113); by Price (Timehri, 1891, p. 63) who describes
the eggs; by Percival (_l. c._, p. 16) who states that it
is “not very often seen in the Gardens, though common among
the innumerable cocoanut palms in and about town,” where the
writer also has seen it; and by Dawson (_l. c._, p. 46; and
Timehri, 1911, p. 272). The type locality of _palmarum_ is
Bahia, and judging from material examined, I would say that
birds from Cayenne, Surinam, and Br. Guiana, differ distinctly
from true _palmarum_, and are more nearly allied to, if not
indistinguishable from, the Eastern Peruvian race, _Thraupis
palmarum melanoptera_ (Sclater).
=Saucerottia erythronota= (LESSON).—With reference to this
species also marked with a star, we do not find in Mr. Beebe’s
list _Agyrtrina fimbriata fimbriata_ (Gmelin), which is common
in Br. Guiana, and which has been recorded from Bartica by
Chubb (_l. c._, p. 395). This bird has sometimes been confused
with _Saucerottia erythronota_ (_Cf._ Salvin, Cat. Birds Br.
Mus., 1892, xvi, p. 187) and has been listed from Bartica by
Salvin (Ibis, 1885, p. 435) under the name _Agyrtrina tobaci_
of which _erythronota_, type locality Trinidad, is a subspecies.
A longer stay at Bartica, no doubt would have augmented Mr. Beebe’s
list considerably. For instance, Mr. Chubb, in his work on the birds
of British Guiana, records twenty-seven species in the McConnell
Collection, which are not included in Mr. Beebe’s list.
In Chapter XIII we find an account of the author’s ornithological
discoveries, pertaining mostly to nests and eggs, with excellent
photographic illustrations. Some of these discoveries, however, are by
no means entirely new, reliable information on nests and eggs having
been published in regard to at least twelve of the seventeen species
discussed. Attention is called to the following records:
=Chæmepelia talpacoti= (TEMMINCK AND KNIP).—Dalgleish (Proc.
Roy. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh, 1889, x, p. 86) describes two nests,
each containing two eggs, found Nov. 20, 1886, in Paraguay.
Nehrkorn (Kat. Eiersamm, 1899, p. 184) lists eggs from
Paraguay, 23 × 18 mm. Euler (Rev. Mus. Paulista, 1900, iv, p.
98) describes nests and eggs, 22.5 × 18 mm. Ihering (Rev. Mus.
Paulista, 1900, iv, p. 282) describes nest and eggs, and says
that he found a nest built upon the deserted nest of another
bird, containing two eggs, 22 × 17 mm. F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1908, i, p. 340) describe habits, nests, and eggs
under _C. rufipennis_, assuming _talpacoti_ and _rufipennis_
identical in Surinam, judging from specimens which had been
identified for them in England as _rufipennis_. Apparently
there is some confusion here, and the bird identified as
_rufipennis_ was probably the newly described _Chæmepelia
arthuri_ Bangs and Penard, (Bull. M. C. Z. 1917, p. 45).
=Geotrygon [= Oreopelia] montana= (LINNÉ).—Eggs listed by
Nehrkorn (_l. c._, p. 186) from Rio Grande, Mexico, and Porto
Rico, brownish, 27 × 21 mm. F. P. and A. P. Penard (_l. c._,
1908, i, p. 347) say that the nest is very much like that of
_Leptoptila_, placed on low branches of trees and in bushes;
eggs, short-elliptical, brownish cream-color, 27 × 21.5 mm.;
breeds in the Dry Season. Site, nest, and eggs, have also been
described by Lawrence (Proc. U. S. N. M., 1879, i, p. 276), by
Wells (Ibid., 1887, p. 625), and by Scott (Auk, 1892, ix, p.
124, quoting Taylor).
=Porzana albicollis= (VIEILLOT).—Nehrkorn (_l. c._, p. 202)
describes eggs from Surinam, meas. 35 × 26 mm. Ihering (_l.
c._, p. 286) describes eggs received from Iguape, meas. 35-26
× 27-28; he says that the eggs described by Euler (_l. c._, p.
102) undoubtedly belong to another species. F. P. and A. P.
Penard (_l. c._, 1908, i, p. 206) describe habits, site, nest,
and eggs, meas. 35 × 27 mm.
=Creciscus viridis= (P. L. S. MÜLLER).—Nehrkorn (_l. c._, p.
203) describes eggs from “Guyana,” meas. 32 × 23 mm. F. P.
and A. P. Penard (_l. c._, 1908, i, p. 210) describe habits,
nest, and site fully; eggs two, rarely three, usually oval,
pure white, almost without gloss, meas. 32 × 26 mm.; they say
further that the eggs do not vary much, some having a few
black-brown spots at the large end; in the nests are often
found infertile and abnormal eggs.
=Caprimulgus [= Nyctipolus] nigrescens= CABANIS.—Nehrkorn (_l.
c._, p. 156) lists eggs from Amazonia, meas. 23.5 × 18.5 mm. F.
P. and A. P. Penard (_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 78) describe eggs,
one or two, barely glossy, elliptical, pale yellowish-rose,
distinctly spotted and blotched with chocolate-brown and
purple-gray, meas. 25 × 18.5 mm. The eggs described by
Schomburgk (_l. c._, p. 711) must have belonged to another
species.
=Empidonomus varius varius= (VIEILLOT).—Mr. Beebe (_l. c._, p.
225) states that “although the eggs of this species have been
collected no description of the nest has been given.” We would
call attention to description of a nest by Ihering (Rev. Mus.
Paulista, 1914, ix, p. 443 and p. 482); the nest was collected
by Garbe near Joazeiro, Bahia, in November, 1913.
=Pipra aureola aureola= (LINNÉ).—F. P. and A. P. Penard (_l.
c._, 1910, ii, p. 188) describe site and nest fully, giving
measurements; the eggs are described as two, dull brownish
gray, with numerous dark-brown spots, streaks, and dots, over
the entire surface, but usually, on one of the eggs of a
clutch, forming a wreath at the middle; meas. 21 × 15.5 mm.
=Cyanerpes cyaneus cyaneus= (LINNÉ).—F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 475) say that the nests and eggs, 20 ×
14 mm., do not differ much from those of _C. cærulea_, under
which name they give full descriptions of nests and eggs. The
eggs are described as two in number, oval, almost without
gloss, black or purplish black-brown. The nest is described as
made of little black roots, pear-shaped or shoe-shaped, with
entrance low down at the side, measuring 16 cm. high and 9 cm.
across, suspended like the nest of _Todirostrum_ from twigs
two to five feet from ground. J. A. Allen (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat.
Hist., 1891, iii, p. 348) under the name _Arbelorhina cyanea_
describes an egg collected by H. H. Smith, “taken with parents,
Oct. 13, 1882,” in Matto Grosso, Brazil, but judging from the
description, it must have belonged to some other species.
Under the general heading of “Seed eaters” Mr. Beebe (_l. c._,
p. 237), speaking of _Oryzoborus angolensis brevirostris_,
_Oryzoborus crassirostris_, and _Sporophila castaneiventris_,
says, “Familiarity breeds contempt. There could be no truer
saying than where these little finches were concerned. In spite
of diligent search through all the few reports and excerpts on
the subject, no description of the home or eggs of these birds
could be found, and yet, in April and May, their nests were
everywhere.” H. Lloyd Price, in his paper on “The Nests and
Eggs of some common Guiana Birds” (Timehri, 1891, p. 64), says
in a general way, “Various species of small finches or grass
birds (_Spermophila_, etc.), build tiny nests in the long grass
growing at the sides of the trenches; they are generally made
of dry grass, and occasionally of dry sticks. The eggs, two in
number, are of a grayish white spotted with either red, brown
or grey, and of various sizes.” Much more definite information
in regard to the breeding habits, nests, and eggs of the
seed-eaters will be found in the works of F. P. and A. P.
Penard, Ihering, Euler, and Nehrkorn. We would call attention
to the following accounts pertaining to the species mentioned
by Mr. Beebe:
=Oryzoborus angolensis brevirostris= BERLEPSCH.—Nehrkorn (_l.
c._, p. 105) describes eggs from Brazil. Ihering (Rev. Mus.
Paulista, 1900, iv, p. 213) describes nest and eggs. F. P. and
A. P. Penard (_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 388) says that the nest is
smaller than that of _O. crassirostris_; the eggs are fully
described. All these authors deal with this species under the
name _O. torridus_.
=Sporophila castaneiventris= CABANIS.—Nehrkorn (_l. c._, p.
105) describes eggs from Amazonia. F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 389) describe habits, nest, and eggs
fully. They add the following interesting remarks (translated):
“The examples vary very much in form and color as well as in
measurements. In many the markings form a distinct wreath about
the larger end, others being uniformly covered with gray-brown
or brown. Those with wreathed ends are usually of a more oval
shape than the evenly covered eggs, but both types are often
found together in the same nest. It is thought [by the natives]
that the more pointed egg hatches the male, and the browner egg
the female. Eggs of a more spherical shape are less common with
this species than with the next [_S. minuta_].”
=Oryzoborus crassirostris crassirostris= (GMELIN).—F. P. and A.
P. Penard (_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 387) describe habits, nest,
and eggs fully, with similar remarks in regard to variations in
shape and coloration of eggs, both types sometimes being found
in the same nest.
=Sporophila bouvronides= (LESSON). F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 392, sub nom. _S. ocellata_) compare
nest to that of _S. minuta_, and eggs with those of _S.
castaneiventris_, but say that the eggs of this species average
a little longer and also a little grayer, with remarks in
regard to the two types of eggs.
In another chapter the author gives much interesting information
regarding the habits of Tinamous. By an ingenious experiment he is led
to the discovery that birds of the genus _Tinamus_ sleep at night in
trees, while those of the genus _Crypturus_ always pass the night upon
the ground. He accordingly correlates this difference in habits to the
character of the back of the tarsus, which in _Tinamus_ is rough, and
in _Crypturus_ quite smooth. He goes on to say (_l. c._, p. 255):