nape and upper back with narrow whitish shafts; crown feathers with
tawny shaft streaks (giving a streaked appearance to the crown) most
pronounced on the forehead; under parts tawny buff shading into olive
buff on the belly and flanks; breast feathers with blackish streaks and
dots; sides of the head streaked with tawny buff and blackish; remiges
with outer webs and greater portion of inner webs rufous; terminal
third of the inner webs blackish; tail chestnut rufous; under wing
coverts bright ochraceous tawny.
_Measurements._—Wing, 64; tail, 55; culmen, 13 mm.
_Remarks._—This new form is apparently not very closely allied to any
known species. It somewhat resembles _S. stictothorax_ from Ecuador and
extreme northwestern Peru in size and in having the sides of the neck,
and breast, streaked with blackish, but it is otherwise very different.
=Synallaxis semicinerea pallidiceps= subsp. nov.
_Type_ from Serra Baturite, Ceara, N. E. Brazil. Adult male, No. 45627,
Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by R. H. Becker, July 16,
1913.
_Characters._—Similar to _S. s. semicinerea_ (Reichenbach) from Bahia,
but differs in having the general plumage decidedly paler; crown
between drab gray and light drab becoming olive drab on the nape; back
cinnamon rufous; wings and tail cinnamon rufous, but somewhat more
distinctly rufous and slightly less cinnamon than the back; under parts
like _S. s. semicinerea_, but more tinged with isabella color; flanks
and under tail coverts more tinged with olive buff.
_Measurements._—Wing, 67; tail, 77; culmen, 14 mm.
=Synallaxis scutata neglecta= subsp. nov.
_Type_ from Jua, near Iguatu, Ceara, Brazil. Adult female, No. 50562,
Field Museum of Natural History. Collected by R. H. Becker, August 28,
1913.
_Characters._—Similar to _S. s. scutata_ Sclater from Bahia, Goyaz and
Matto Grosso (Chapada), but differs in having the rufous coloration
very much paler (cinnamon rufous, not chestnut rufous as in _scutata
scutata_); crown brownish gray, superciliary stripe behind whitish (not
tawny buff); sides of throat, bordering the black patch, buffy white
(not rufous buff); under parts much more whitish; wings and tail near
cinnamon rufous.
_Measurements._—Wing, 54; tail, 68; bill, 13 mm.
=Pseudocolaptes boissoneautii oberholseri= subsp. nov.
_Type_ from Quito, Ecuador. Adult male, No. 30945, United States
National Museum, Washington, D. C. Collected by C. R. Buckalew.
_Characters._—Similar to _P. b. boissoneautii_ (Lafresnaye) from
Bogota, but differs in having the throat and ear tufts quite white and
the “scale” marking on the breast larger and more pronounced; belly and
flanks more olive rusty; tail darker and more brownish chestnut rufous.
_Measurements._—Wing, 107; tail, 99; bill, 20 mm.
_Remarks._—An immature specimen from Nanegal, Ecuador, in the
collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy has the whole top of
the head blackish and the belly and flanks bright rusty rufous. A
specimen labelled Guayaquil (locality probably not correct) in the U.
S. National Museum, agrees fairly well with the type, but has the sides
of the belly and flanks more olive rufous. I have dedicated this new
form to Dr. Harry C. Oberholser.
FOOTNOTE:
[29] The writer does not sympathize with the increasing tendency to
elevate subgenera (which are often based largely on color characters)
to genera, unless diagnostic structural characters are also indicated.
A well-marked and useful subgenus may represent a questionable genus.
GENERAL NOTES.
=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._