Chapter IV: Part 4

This attitude of the Johnsonian school exactly parallels that of our book ornithologists toward bird names evolved by the common people. And when I remind you that the so-called classical product is remorselessly scrapped now, and, further, that Skeat, the greatest modern authority on English, has warned us that, rules or no rules, grammar or no grammar, classics or no classics, the street language of London today will inevitably become the university language of England tomorrow; and the street language of modern New York, the university language of America, just as surely as the street language of Elizabeth’s time devoured alike the Norman French, and the Anglo-Saxon as well as the bastard classic of the pedants, and became at last the language of Oxford and Cambridge.

Now to apply this to our bird names.

If it is the aim of ornithology to spread a nation-wide knowledge of birds, then the popular names are at least as important as the Latin names.

In 1885, I wrote to ‘The Auk’ on the same subject, (Vol. 2, p. 316) and have no reason to change the views therein expressed.

The scientist, as such, has no more to do with the popular names of the birds than he has with the conjugation of the verb “to be,” for these are a growing part of the living language. And yet, the scientists have arrogated the sole right to dictate the popular names, even while they frankly and openly despise them; sometimes ignoring them altogether; sometimes condescendingly translating the scientific name into alleged English, saying that it was good enough. How far all this is wrong and harmful to bird study, I hope you will allow me to point out.

The popular name of a bird must always be produced by the genius of the language, speaking usually through some personal genius who makes a happy hit. The name must be simple, easily said, descriptive, short, and is much stronger if in some way it ties up the bird’s characteristics with familiar ideas.

For example, “Kingbird” is a success; is short, is of familiar elements, and describes the bird’s character. Every farm boy in its region knows the Kingbird, and by that name, except in a few localities where the rival name ‘Bee-martin’ still fogs the issue.

If we pretend that the name of that species is “Tyrant Flycatcher,” as our scientists once insisted, our popular knowledge of the bird would disappear and with that all popular interest in it.

Another example, “Bronzed Grackle.” For a hundred years, the scientists have been trying to force the people into believing that Bronzed Grackle was the English name of the bird, and have met with the unanswerable response of dumb silence; readers of the scientific bird books use the name, but the public do not. Everywhere to the farm boys the “Bronzed Grackle” is simply a “Big Blackbird.” This is descriptive but far from satisfactory. Scores of times I have handed out this name “Bronzed Grackle” to inquiring boys, to find that it never reached their consciousness as a name; it had no appeal to ear or memory; it was hard to say; it was not backed by the genius of the language. I doubt if the word “Bronzed” ever could be; its really acceptable English representative is “Copper”; but the bird doesn’t look coppery to ordinary view; and the word “Grackle” is impossible, hard to say, meaningless, not striking any familiar chord in the memory.

“Blackbird” is the popular name. But a local genius in the northwest, a boy with instincts and eyes to see, described it and named it as a “Fantail Blackbird.” Here was a real English name, descriptive, acceptable; and instantly it was a success. Everyone who heard it once remembered the name and remembered the bird.

Perhaps the best illustration of all is the name of the common American Robin. The scientists scolded the colonists fiercely for calling it a “Robin.” It was not a “Robin,” they maintained, it was a Thrush of the Merula section of the family; and they refused to use, print or sanction any English name for the bird except “Migratory Thrush.” After a century of irascible attack, which was received in silent, ponderous apathy, the scientists were beaten. The cause of English triumphed and today actually even the scientific lists give the bird as the “American Robin,” by which name it is known to every child in America, and loved because it is known.

For a hundred years, scientists had been trying to make us believe that Rice Troupial, Yellow-bellied Woodpecker, Carolina Nightjar, Virginia Goatsucker, Black-throated Bunting, Vociferous Plover, Golden-winged Woodpecker, Virginia Quail, Polyglot Thrush, Ferrugineous Thrush and Black-capped Titmouse, were the English names of certain American birds; but the genius of the language was unconquerable, and at last it is admitted by the defeated scientists that the _trivial_ names (as they called them) of these birds are really Bobolink, Sapsucker, Whippoorwill, Nighthawk, Dickcissel, Killdeer, Flicker, Bobwhite, Mockingbird, Thrasher and Chickadee; and with that admission public interest in these particular birds takes on a great and enduring growth.

A similar struggle is now going on between the Black-billed Cuckoo vs. Rain Crow, Snowflake vs. Snow Bird, Passenger Pigeon vs. Wild Pigeon, Goldfinch vs. Wild Canary, Junco vs. Slaty Snowbird or Tip, Cardinal vs. Redbird, Sand Martin vs. Bank Swallow, Spotted Sandpiper vs. Tip-up or Peetweet, Barred Owl vs. Hoot Owl, Virginia Horned Owl vs. Cat Owl, Acadian Owl vs. Saw-whet, Carolina Rail vs. Sora, Phalarope vs. Sea Goose, Vulture vs. Turkey-Buzzard, Pectoral Sandpiper vs. Jack Snipe, Gallinule vs. Mud Hen, Osprey vs. Fish Hawk, Peregrine Falcon vs. Duck Hawk, American Kestrel vs. Sparrowhawk.

A few names such as Bluebird, Crossbill, Chat, Wagtail, Sandpiper, etc., have long been such a success that one knows instinctively that they did not originate with the scientists.

Such clumsy names as White-throated Sparrow, Black-and-White Warbler, Red-shouldered Hawk, are, of course, not names at all, but cumbrous descriptions and doomed to failure, while absurd pedantries like Pileolated Warbler, Protonotary Warbler, Plumbeous Gnatcatcher, are worthy of the afore-mentioned pedants of the Jacobean classical epoch.

Names like Blackburnian Warbler, Nashville Warbler, Clay-colored Sparrow, Townsend’s Solitaire, are utterly impossible. They are clumsy, meaningless, un-English and detrimental. I was showing the first of these birds to a group of lively children and said it was called Blackburnian Warbler. A bright boy, speaking wiser than he knew, said, “If it was ‘Flaming Warbler’ I’d remember it.” ‘Nashville Warbler’ is, of course, utterly misleading. We are told that the “Nashville” is a mere fortuitous word added for distinction. Then I say drop it as soon as possible, since it is no more a Nashville Warbler than it is a Virginia or Minnesota Warbler; while the word “Warbler” itself is open to grave suspicion. I wonder the clumsiness of “Clay-colored Sparrow” has not put it out long ago. I suppose the reason is it never was in.

Take the name “Western Grebe.” Of course, it isn’t a Western Grebe any more than several others; and, viewed from some standpoints, it is an Eastern Grebe, a Southern Grebe, a Northern Grebe, a Northeastern Grebe, a South-southwestern Grebe, or any other compass point you like to give it. But what popular ear, tongue, or imagination is ready to seize on such a name?

It has no point, power or appeal. How much better, for the present, the descriptive “Swan-Grebe,” that does, in a small measure, do justice to the superb creature in question.

I suppose, if we are to be candid, the word “Grebe” has never taken root in America. I do not know why. It is, indeed, of French origin; but it has been thoroughly Englished in form. It is short, angular and individual. But the fact is that in the popular mind all “Grebes” are “Hell-divers,” and we may as well admit it; although I do not see the word at all in the scientific list of popular names.

I can imagine some hearer objecting here that his ten-year-old boy or girl has all the names at his tongue’s end—far better than grown-ups. Yes; I know you can teach a child to talk Latin if you do it at the language learning age and make it interesting; but you cannot thereby make it the language of the nation.

To sum up—I take it that the business of ornithology is, first, to accumulate correct information about birds and then to diffuse it among the people.

If the ornithologists had set out definitely to build an eternal barrier to popular interest in birds, they could not have done it better than by establishing such impossible names as are cited above. They never were, and never could be, English names.

* * * * *

The puzzle has been set forth; now what is the answer? I admit that scientists, describing a new bird, may suggest a name in pseudo-English. That seems necessary. But let them receive fair warning, that it is a temporary makeshift; tolerated, but barely respectable.

How are we to discover the acceptable name? Only by looking out for it, as a precious thing to be found, tested when found and accepted when proven. I shall never forget the little thrill that I got when I learned that, in some good and old writings, a Woodpecker was called a “Wood-wale.” How gloriously that name would fit the so-called Pileated Woodpecker (whatever ‘pileated’ means; I don’t know). How rhythmic—how simple! How beautifully descriptive. Doesn’t it make you hear that long, eerie wail in the woods?

Doctor Elliott Coues, with his usual far-sight, insight and literary appreciation, sensed this question, I think; and, in the last edition of the Key, made a move toward the solution by offering every name he could find or invent for each of our birds. Take Woodthrush for instance; he calls it Woodthrush, Wood Robin, Bell bird and Geraldine. Why “Geraldine”? I do not know, unless it is an imitation of its nore, which is, of course, good. But all of these names seem to me of good origin and sound structure. At a guess, I would venture to say that, given equal publicity, “Bell bird” would win over all the others, even granting the already considerable success of the word “Woodthrush”; because it is so descriptive, so alliterative, so easy to say, so easy to remember and so rhythmic; in other words, it is good English.

At once, I hear the objection that that name belongs by priority to a wholly different bird in South America; and I reply that the genius of language does not know of the existence of South America or concern itself with priority, or with anything but getting the idea into the mind and the memory. As to priority, if that spectre be allowed to walk, it will surely eliminate every popular name on every list that ever was given to the public.

I would encourage all who meet them, to collect and send in the names that appear locally under pressure of the growing popular interest.

I would ask bird men of literary instinct to gather, make up, or invent good names to be submitted to the great test.

Last, for suggestions, I would ransack the pages of those outdoor poets and writers who have the two-fold gift—love of the birds and language-sense.

Thus I would gather the continual product of the popular attempts, until some day, for each bird, is discovered a happy solution that can stand the great and final tests:—Does it describe the bird? Is it short and pat? Is it a monosyllable? Or, if more than one syllable, is the accent on the first? Is it different from other names? Is it easily said? Does it tie up the bird with existing ideas? Can it be used in writing verse? Does it win the popular attention and put both the bird and name in the memories of the children and of the farmers? If it does all these, it will have back of it all the power of the genius of English to fix it, make it nation-wide and carry with it clear knowledge of the bird.

This, it seems to me, is one of the greatest needs for the spread of bird knowledge in America today.

THE REALITY OF BIRD SPECIES.

BY LEVERETT MILLS LOOMIS.

In 1858, in volume IX of the ‘Reports of Explorations and Surveys ... from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean,’ _Ammodromus samuelis_ Baird and _Melospiza fallax_ Baird appear as full-fledged species. In 1874, in ‘A History of North American Birds,’ Land Birds, volume II, these so-called species are reduced in rank, being designated respectively _Melospiza melodia_, var. _samuelis_, Baird and _Melospiza melodia_, var. _fallax_, Baird. In 1886, in the first edition of the A. O. U. ‘Check-List,’ these names are altered, in accordance with earlier lists by Mr. Ridgway and Dr. Coues, to _Melospiza fasciata samuelis_ (Baird) and _Melospiza fasciata fallax_ (Baird), pure trinomials and the term subspecies having come into vogue. In 1910, in the third edition of the A. O. U. ‘Check-List,’ the two names are amended to _Melospiza melodia samuelis_ (Baird) and _Melospiza melodia fallax_ (Baird).

Owing to his lack of knowledge of geographic variation, Professor Baird gave to each of these geographic variations of the Song Sparrow an entity which they did not possess, and this entity, having gained a foothold in the literature, is perpetuated today in the subspecies (‘incipient species’). As no one can foresee the future of these variations of the Song Sparrow, it is not known whether they are the beginnings of species or not. Nevertheless, it may be urged that bird history repeats itself, and that the record of past events warrants the conclusion that bird species are now in process of evolution through geographic variation. Theorize as we may, the fact remains that we do not know what part geographic variation or other agencies played, or did not play, in the origin of existing bird species, the _modus operandi_ of the evolution being unknown. But we do know that geographic variation is one of the common variations occurring within the bounds of a bird species of today, and that it is not the only variation in which geography is a factor.

Independent of individualism, age, sex, season, or climatic conditions, there exists a type of variation known as dichromatism, which perhaps originated in mutations. It is well exemplified in the Jaegers, Albatrosses and Petrels, Herons, Hawks, and Owls. In some species there is a difference in the geographic range of the phases, but it does not correlate with environment as in geographic variation. Instances to the point are found in the Wedge-tailed Shearwater, Red-tailed Hawk, and Screech Owl.

More than thirty years ago, when our knowledge of variation was far less than it is now, Dr. Stejneger had the discernment to interpret _Colaptes auratus_ (Linnæus), _Colaptes cafer_ (Gmelin), and _Colaptes hybridus_ (Baird) to be dichromatic or trichromatic phases of one species, and not two species that hybridize on a gigantic scale.[21] None of the characteristics of dichromatism are wanting in these extremes and intermediates. They are similar in general character to the extremes and intermediates of well-known dichromatic species, of the Wedge-tailed Shearwater, Neglected Petrel, and Rough-legged Hawk for example. They are not individual and are not dependent upon age, sex, season, or environmental conditions. Moreover, intermediates crop out sporadically in the Eastern States, where the _auratus_ phase is dominant. It is well to bear in mind that these variations of the Flicker are not greater than certain other normal variations; as the age variation of the Western Gull, the sexual variation of Williamson’s Sapsucker, the seasonal variation of the Marbled Murrelet, and the dichromatic variation of the Parasitic Jaeger.

The question naturally arises, whether dichromatism has often been misinterpreted and made the basis of apocryphal species and their supposed hybridization on a grand scale. In the alleged Junco species, for instance, possibly dichromatism or polychromatism, originating in mutations, obtains along with geographic variation.

_Vermivora leucobronchialis_ (Brewster) and _Vermivora lawrencei_ (Herrick) are not overlooked in this discussion. The evidence thus far presented tends to prove that they are hybrids between two species rather than intermediates of one dichromatic species.[22] Be this as it may, hybridization between unquestionable species of birds is an abnormal and relatively rare occurrence.

To affirm that bird species are concepts, is to ignore the facts in the case. _Ammodromus samuelis_ Baird and _Melospiza fallax_ Baird are concepts, but _Melospiza melodia_ with all its geographic variations is a reality. It is absolutely separated from _Melospiza lincolni_ and _Melospiza georgiana_ and all other existing bird species. _Colaptes auratus_ is likewise a reality. In spite of its great dichromatic variation, it does not intergrade with any other woodpecker. It is confidently stated that the great majority of the A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ species are also realities, and the remainder time-honored concepts based on inconstant variations, like _Fulmarus rodgersi_ Cassin, which is merely an extreme white phase of _Fulmarus glacialis_ (Linnæus).[23]

In a word, absence of intergradation among birds results in a definite entity, the existing bird species.

FOOTNOTES:

[21] Riverside Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, pp. 8, 9.

[22] Cf. Faxon, Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool., Vol. XL, 1911., pp. 57-78.

[23] Cf. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., 4th Ser., Vol. II, Pt. II, 1918, p. 88.

GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATION IN THE BLACK-THROATED LOONS.

BY A. C. BENT.

Dr. Jonathan Dwight’s interesting paper in ‘The Auk’ for April, 1918, describing a new species of Loon from northeastern Siberia, has opened up a subject to which I have given considerable study without having been able to come to any satisfactory conclusion. After examining directly or indirectly some seventy specimens of Black-throated Loons, including the entire series in several of the largest collections in this country, I came to the conclusion that the necessary material was still lacking to settle satisfactorily the true status of this group.

I have long recognized the existence of a large, Green-throated Loon in the Bering Sea region; but I have postponed publishing anything on it until I could obtain enough breeding birds from somewhere in that region, to establish a more or less definite breeding range in which a more or less constant form is to be found. Now that Dr. Dwight has seen fit to open up the subject, I feel called upon to publish what incomplete data I have on the whole group.

It seems to me that there are only two alternative theories into which the known facts may be made to fit. The first and most likely theory is that there is but one circumpolar species, divided into three, or possibly four, subspecies, as hereinafter designated. To support this theory we need more material from Siberia and eastern Europe to show complete intergradation between the two intermediate subspecies, _arctica_ and _suschkini_, though what material we have seems to indicate that such intergradation exists. An argument against this theory is the fact that the two extreme subspecies, _viridigularis_ and _pacifica_, apparently breed side by side in northeastern Siberia and northwestern Alaska.

The second theory is that there are two species, _arctica_ in Europe, with _viridigularis_ as a Siberian subspecies occupying a subarctic area, and _pacifica_ in North America, with _suschkini_ as a Siberian subspecies occupying the Arctic coast. This theory would explain the breeding of the two extreme forms in the same or in contiguous areas; but it would be upset by the discovery of more complete intergradation, unless such intergrades could be regarded as hybrids. A final choice between these two theories cannot be made until more material is available showing the distribution and relationships of the forms to be found in Siberia, a vast and little known region.

I will now attempt to state, roughly and in general terms, the main known facts in this complicated case and let the reader judge for himself how they fit in with the above theories. There are apparently three or four fairly well marked subspecies of Black-throated Loons, as follows:—

1. _Gavia arctica pacifica_ (Lawrence), the smallest of all, in which the hind neck or nape is much lighter gray than the crown or forehead, nearly white in some cases, the black throat patch terminates below in a straight line and the metallic reflections of this patch almost always appear purplish in any light. This form occupies a breeding area which includes the whole of northern North America (which need not be more definitely outlined here), the Arctic Islands west of Greenland and the Arctic coast of Siberia for our unknown distance westward.

2. _Gavia arctica suschkini_ (Sarudny), intermediate in size between _arctica_ and _pacifica_, but nearer the latter, in which the colors are nearly as in _pacifica_, but with a slight tendency towards _arctica_. This form probably has a breeding range somewhere on the northern coast of Asia, but is known only from specimens taken in winter or on migrations in the Ural and Turkestan regions.

3. _Gavia arctica arctica_ (Linnæus), intermediate in size, but nearer _viridigularis_ than _pacifica_, in which the crown and nape are uniform dark gray, the black throat patch terminates below in a point and the reflections of this patch appear either purplish when held away from the light and greenish when held towards it, or wholly purplish in any light, with considerable individual variation. This form inhabits northern Europe, and northern Asia for an unknown distance eastward and southward in Siberia.

4. _Gavia arctica viridigularis_ (Dwight), the largest of all, but intergrading perfectly with _arctica_, in which the crown and nape are colored as in _arctica_, the black throat patch terminates below in a point and the reflections of the throat are usually more greenish than in the others. I have yet to see a specimen in which more or less purple reflections could not be found. Even Dr. Dwight’s type shows “slight purplish tints.” This form, if it is a good subspecies, has no well defined habitat; but what specimens I have seen would seem to indicate a breeding range on both sides of Bering Sea, which may extend for a considerable distance westward into the interior of Siberia.

The above arrangement may appear satisfactory to the casual observer, but the trouble with it is that all of the above characters, particularly those on which Dr. Dwight bases his new species, are decidedly variable and inconstant. Size is the most satisfactory character but even this shows intergradation or overlapping and greater individual variation in each group than the differences in averages between the groups. The measurements, in inches, of the four forms, which I have taken or had sent to me, are as follows:—

_Gavia arctica pacifica_ (Lawrence)
12 males from North America, east of the Mackenzie River,
average, bill 2.14 wing 11.65
largest, " 2.32 " 12.42
smallest, " 1.93 " 10.80
13 males from North America, west of the Mackenzie River,
average, bill 2.06 wing 11.66
largest, " 2.20 " 12.50
smallest, " 1.87 " 10.50

_Gavia arctica suschkini_ (Sarudny)
5 males from Turkestan,
average, bill 2.35 wing 12.40
largest, " 2.60 " 13.35
smallest, " 2.20 " 11.80

_Gavia arctica arctica_ (Linnæus)
6 males from Europe,
average, bill 2.44 wing 12.24
largest, " 2.62 " 12.75
smallest, " 2.30 " 12.

_Gavia arctica viridigularis_ (Dwight)
4 males from Bering Sea region,
average, bill 2.63 wing 12.69
largest, " 2.87 " 13.
smallest, " 2.50 " 12.

The other characters are equally confusing. The nape is lightest and almost constantly so in North American _pacifica_; it is darkest in _viridigularis_ and more or less intermediate in many specimens of the other two forms.

The black throat patch terminates below in a straight line almost invariably in North American _pacifica_; I have seen but one exception to this rule; but in Siberian _pacifica_ this character is less constant. In _viridigularis_ this patch terminates below in a decided point, in all specimens that I have seen. In European _arctica_ about half of the specimens I have seen have the patch decidedly pointed below and the others have it nearly straight or only slightly pointed.

The colored reflections of the black throat-patch are the most variable and inconstant of all the characters. In _viridigularis_ three of the specimens examined show mainly greenish colors but even these show some signs of purple; and in one, a bird in my own collection, the colors are about equally divided. In European _arctica_ about half of the specimens show mainly purplish reflections, while fully half show both purplish and greenish. In North American _pacifica_ the purplish reflections predominate, but five specimens out of twenty-two show more or less greenish in certain lights. Mr. Waldron DeWitt Miller, in sending me descriptions of Pacific Loons in the American Museum, used the following terms in designating the colors of the throats; greenish-blue, bluish-green, dark greenish-blue, violaceous and dark violet. It can be easily seen from the above that the colors are very variable.

Dr. Dwight says, in his diagnosis of _viridigularis_:—“The green coloration of the throat is the essential character that sets this species apart from _arctica_ and its races, which all have purple throats.” In the light of the facts stated above this “essential character” disappears and his new species must be reduced to the rank of a subspecies at least. Even a subspecies must prove to be fairly constant in a more or less definite range. The range of _viridigularis_ is very imperfectly known; the four specimens, referable to this form, that I have seen were taken at Nijni Kolymsk, Siberia, St. George Island, Bering Sea, Nome and Saint Michael, Alaska; Dr. Dwight’s specimens all came from northeastern Siberia. The Nijni Kolymsk bird, referred to above, is somewhat intermediate between _viridigularis_ and _arctica_; if it had been taken in Europe it would probably be referred to the latter. I also have a perfectly typical _pacifica_ from the Kolyma River, Siberia.

I have seen birds from Victoria, B. C., from Finland and from Norway which closely approach this new form, _viridigularis_, in size and color characters. If we had a larger series of _arctica_ from Europe and Asia available for comparison, we could perhaps match these birds exactly and we could certainly show, if I have not already demonstrated it, that _viridigularis_ is merely a subspecies of _arctica_. To use Dr. Dwight’s own terms, the green throat seems to be a quantitative rather than a qualitative character.

REASONS FOR DISCARDING A PROPOSED RACE OF THE GLAUCOUS GULL (_LARUS HYPERBOREUS_).

BY JONATHAN DWIGHT, M. D.

In discussing the moults and plumages of the Glaucous Gull, a dozen years ago I took occasion to bury “_Larus barrovianus_” among the synonyms of _Larus hyperboreus_ (then known as _glaucus_) because the alleged characters seemed to me to afford insufficient grounds for recognizing even a subspecies (Auk, XXIII, 1906, p. 29). Later, in the 1910 edition of the A. O. U. ‘Check-List,’ the Committee on Nomenclature and Classification adopted my view of the case and discarded “_barrovianus_”; but recently Dr. H. C. Oberholser has seen fit to dig it up and it is revived, somewhat impressively, as a subspecies of _hyperboreus_ (Auk, XXXV, 1918, p. 472).

If it were not for certain aspects of the matter I would merely reaffirm my convictions of 1906; for it is a question whether Dr. Oberholser has added anything new to the original claims made by the describer, Mr. R. Ridgway (Auk, III, 1886, p. 330). This does not seem to be the case, for his diagnosis is virtually a restatement of Mr. Ridgway’s, except that a supposed character of the bill is discarded on evidence I submitted in 1906. My measurements had shown that this character, namely, “depth through the angle never less and usually decidedly greater than through the base,” was not diagnostic, but this was not my only “evident reason” then for rejecting “_barrovianus_” as Dr. Oberholser now wrongly assumes. What I said was that this form “is scarcely 3% smaller [than _glaucus_] in size and 4% smaller in bill” and furthermore, I said; “It is true that the largest specimens of _barrovianus_ never quite reach the dimensions of the largest _glaucus_, but overlapping of size is so considerable even when careful comparison of sexes is made that without first reading the labels one cannot, except in a very few cases, tell whether a bird is from Greenland or Alaska. The variation in the size and shape of the bill in gulls is very great and a few millimeters difference in wings that are as long as one’s arm is hardly ground on which to rest a subspecies, much less a full species.”

These conclusions may be contrasted with Dr. Oberholser’s recent diagnosis which reads, “Similar to _Larus hyperboreus hyperboreus_, but smaller, the bill particularly so and relatively as well as actually more slender; mantle decidedly darker; and the line of demarcation between the white tips to the primaries and the pale grayish basal portions usually more evident.” I would here call attention to the fact that the “line of demarcation” is not a distinct character but a corollary of the preceding, for the color of the mantle in the Glaucous Gull regularly runs over, so to speak, into the wings, and a darker mantle would mean darker bases of the primaries and therefore greater contrast as a matter of course. Consequently, in the final analysis there are two characters and only two on which “_barrovianus_” rests,—(1) darker mantle and (2) smaller size, especially of the bill. I will invite attention to a new estimate of the value of these characters.

1. As for the color of the mantle, which Mr. Ridgway calls “somewhat” and Dr. Oberholser “decidedly” darker, I can only say that my series fails to support either of these statements. I find that if comparison of _like stages_ of plumage be made, birds from Greenland are quite as dark as Alaska specimens and conversely Alaska birds are as pale as those from Greenland. It is, perhaps, a matter of more than passing interest that the majority of adult Greenland birds in the collections I have seen are in worn faded plumage while most of the Alaska material is in fresh dark plumage. One might easily get the impression that the darker birds represent a race unless due allowance is made.

It may not be generally known that the adult Glaucous Gull moults twice in the year, a complete postnuptial moult beginning toward the last of July and extending over nearly two months and a prenuptial in March and April which involves most of the body feathers but not the wings nor the tail. Between moults the mantle fades and looks even paler than it is in color because of the worn and whitened feather edges. There is some individual variation in the depth of color in freshly moulted specimens, whether from Greenland or Alaska, but both may be equally dark and they may become equally pale after the lapse of a few months. I have examined birds taken nearly every month in the year and I am at a loss to understand how Dr. Oberholser finds a “decidedly darker” race unless he has unwittingly compared birds of unlike stages of plumage.

2. As for size, this is a question of relative dimensions that permits some latitude of opinion, so that a new presentation of the facts seems desirable.

My early table of measurements (Auk, XXIII, 1906, p. 28) based on 31 adults (14 of them males and 17 females) is accepted by Dr. Oberholser “except for dimensions of the bill which have been remeasured for the present use.” I have reproduced all of these measurements by the graphic method (Fig. 1) and anyone may see, almost at a glance, what the variations of size in the Glaucous Gull actually are. The diagrams are drawn to scale, the upper horizontal line representing the actual size of the largest specimens, males and females, the middle line the mean or average size and the lower line the smallest specimens. The oblique solid lines represent _hyperboreus_, the broken lines “_barrovianus_” and the dotted lines Dr. Oberholser’s remeasurements of the bill. His “depth of bill” for “_barrovianus_” is the same as mine and therefore cannot be separately plotted. He does not tell us from what series he made the remeasurements that do not tally with mine, but the figures suggest that it may have been a small one and with an unusual proportion of very large and very small birds, possibly wrongly sexed in some cases.

The original series that I measured was composed of breeding birds from Greenland and from Alaska which formed a small part of the 200 specimens I had then gathered together for comparison. Although they are now widely scattered, some of them (as well as new specimens) are still either in my collection or in that of the American Museum of Natural History. A reëxamination and remeasurement of them (68 in all, 39 being adults) confirms to a surprising degree my earlier measurements and conclusions. Individual variation is greater than the supposed subspecific values and the overlapping of size is marked. Birds as large as these Gulls, it must be remembered, may not be measured with unfailing accuracy, especially when different persons attempt it, for specimens are often greatly worn, the wings or tail are sometimes not quite grown and often the feathers are bent and broken. It is not unusual to find a variation of five to ten or more millimeters between the right and left wing of the same bird, due to the make-up of the skin, while tarsi and toes of opposite legs may be bent very much out of shape in drying. Where such variation exists, one may to advantage measure each wing or foot separately and strike an average as I have done in many cases.

Turning finally to the bill, I would call attention to the sketch (Fig. 2) which shows the average adult bill of the male of _hyperboreus_ contrasted with that of “_barrovianus_.” When one realizes that the variation in the bills of all female gulls is much greater than that of the males and that young birds only very slowly acquire adult dimensions, it becomes evident that “_barrovianus_” is _not_ “very readily recognizable by its usually smaller size and particularly smaller bill.” One may guess cleverly that large birds belong to one race and small ones to another, but without reference to the labels the guesses may be astray by a continent’s width.

So far as I can see the case of _barrovianus_ stands where it did in 1906 and it is a pity that there should have been any need of reopening it. Fortunately the merits of this and similar cases do not rest upon individual bias, but they are determined by the A. O. U. Committee which, as far as North American birds are concerned, acts somewhat as a supreme court rendering verdicts according to evidence presented. Let us hope they will give us “safe and sane” subspecies rather than the shadowy indefinite groups of averages that too often are named as geographical races. It should be remembered that while a name is a handle to a fact, too many handles would make a door or a basket perfectly useless. Ornithology will become a wilderness of handles if every difference is named at sight,—a wilderness of subspecies founded more on hasty opinions than on digested facts. A step farther and we shall have the psychological subspecies in which the expectant mental attitude of the subspecialist (if I may be pardoned the word) will play the most important rôle. In our gropings after the truth it is wasteful of too much time to spend so much of it stumbling over names of groups so poorly defined that they convey only a vague meaning to a few specialists and none at all to everybody else. Decking the subspecies in all the glittering panoply of diagnosis, dimension, and distribution makes of it an impressive spectacle, but this does not necessarily make of it a good subspecies.

THE BIRDS OF THE RED DEER RIVER, ALBERTA.

BY P. A. TAVERNER.[24]

(_Continued from p. 21._)

Since the first part of this paper went to press, I am in receipt of a series of notes from F. L. Farley, now of Camrose but formerly of Red Deer. His observations extend from 1892 to 1906 at the former locality and from then to date at the latter. They consist chiefly of lists of spring arrivals but have been supplemented by further details in correspondence. I have also received some comments upon the list as published from J. H. Fleming. The pertinent new information is embodied in the following continuation and the Addenda at the end.

80. =Ceryle alcyon.= BELTED KINGFISHER.—We found the species
rather scarce on the river. This is probably accounted for by
the cloudiness of the water which hides the fish. One bird was
seen near Camp 4 near Nevis and Young recorded two at Camp 11
at Little Sandhill Creek. We have three birds taken by Geo.
Sternberg at Morrin, August and September, 1915. Horsbrough
records the Kingfisher nesting at Red Deer and Farley notes it
occasionally at Camrose.

81. =Dryobates villosus.= HAIRY WOODPECKER.—Not very common
anywhere but more seen in the upper parts of the river in
the wooded sections than lower down. Singles or pairs seen
at camps 1, 4, 6 and 8½. Specimen from Camp 1 also one from
Rumsey, September 24, 1915, taken by Geo. Sternberg and
another from Buffalo Lake, November 9, 1914, by Horsbrough who
reports nest at Sylvan Lake. I ascribe them all by their large
size to _leucomelas_. One specimen in Fleming’s collection
lately examined by me overmeasures any _D. v. leucomelas_ I
have previously seen, having a wing 140 mm. Our next largest
specimen is but 132.

82. =Dryobates pubescens.= DOWNY WOODPECKER.—Not seen by us
but both Horsbrough and Farley report it as a common resident
and a breeder. The former refers the local form to _D. p.
nelsoni_, probably on geographical grounds for we have an
Edmonton specimen, August 13, 1886, that has been identified
by Oberholser as _homorus_. A female, Red Deer, April 19,
1916 in Fleming’s collection agrees so closely with larger
specimens from New Brunswick and eastern Ontario that I see no
grounds for separating it from them and following Oberholser’s
determination of a Banff bird August 13, 1891, ascribe it to
_D. p. medianus_.

83. =Picoides arcticus.= ARCTIC THREE-TOED WOODPECKER.—Under
the subspecific designation, _P. a. arcticus_, Bangs lists five
specimens, without date (collections of Wm. Brewster, and E. A.
and O. Bangs) from Red Deer, Auk, XVII, 1900, —139.

84. =Picoides americanus.= AMERICAN THREE-TOED WOODPECKER.—Mr.
Farley reports taking a specimen in winter at Red Deer. He
makes no subspecific determination. Geographically _P. a.
fasciatus_ is the probability.

85.★ =Sphyrapicus varius.= YELLOW-BELLIED SAPSUCKER.—Quite
common on the upper parts of the river but as the country grew
more arid it became scarcer and none were seen below Camp
5. One specimen, a female with black cap, Camp 1, June 30.
Horsbrough records it breeding.

86. =Phlœotomus pileatus.= PILEATED WOODPECKER.—Farley says he
knows of a few having been killed at Red Deer in winter.

87.★ =Colaptes auratus.= FLICKER.—Common throughout the river
as far as we travelled. Of the four birds taken by us and by
Geo. Sternberg at Morrin but one is a pure _auratus_, the
remaining specimens all having slight to strong traces of
_cafer_ blood indicated by the color of the large shafts, the
graying of the throat or red in the black moustache. Near
Camp 1, Young saw what he thought to be a red-shafted Flicker
and doubtless birds that are more strongly _cafer_ exist in
the region, though _auratus_ seems to be the predominating
influence. Two birds, May 2 and July 17 Red Deer in Fleming’s
collection are pure _auratus_. Farley says he has seen nothing
at either Red Deer or Camrose that he can ascribe to _cafer_.
It would seem that the _cafer_ influence is farther reaching on
the lower than the upper parts of the river. Horsbrough on a
guarded suggestion from Fleming refers his specimens to _C. a.
borealis_.

88.★ =Chordeiles virginianus.= NIGHTHAWK.—Though rather rare
at Camp 1, the Nighthawk became more abundant as we descended
the river. None could be collected however, until Camp 11 was
reached, where breeding birds were also noted. Our single bird,
July 30, is considerably lighter even than several _hesperis_
as identified by Dr. Oberholser. I therefore tentatively refer
it to _sennetti_. I suspect that this is the form of the arid
southern sections, as a Red Deer Bird collected by Sternberg,
June 4, 1915, is evidently _virginianus_, as is another from
Banff determined by Oberholser.

89. =Archilochus= or =Selasphorus=. HUMMINGBIRD.—Mr. Farley
reports having seen one Hummingbird at Red Deer the summer
of 1892. He thought it a Ruby-throat at the time, but this
requires confirmation by specimens for confident acceptance.

90.★ =Tyrannus tyrannus.= KINGBIRD.—Rather scarce on the upper
parts of the river. At Camp 1, we noted but a single bird, and
until Camp 4 but occasional individuals were glimpsed in the
distance. Below Camp 4, near Nevis, however, Kingbirds became
common. The last one seen was September 7. Two specimens, Camps
4½ and 11.

91.★ =Tyrannus verticalis.= ARKANSAS KINGBIRD.—Only seen
at Camp 11 after I left. Young says “Not as common as the
Kingbird.” Three taken July 31. Not listed by either Horsbrough
or Farley. Probably an inhabitant of the more southern sections
of the river.

92.★ =Sayornis phœbe.= PHŒBE.—Not uncommon as far down the
river as Camp 6, Tolman’s Ferry, but not noted below. One
specimen, Camp 2.

93.★ =Sayornis sayus.= SAY’S PHŒBE.—One pair were nesting
near the top of a cliff near Camp 2, and seen again the next
day while en route. At Camp 6, Tolman’s Ferry, Young found it
nesting in the adjoining hills and took a specimen. From then
on they were seen almost daily and at Camp 11, Little Sandhill
Creek, they were quite common. It nests on small ledges on the
cliff faces and seems rather more common in the arid than the
humid country. Specimens from Camps 6, 8 and 11, the last being
September 14. Not mentioned by either Farley or Horsbrough.

94. =Nuttallornis borealis.= OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER.—Farley
reports this species at Red Deer, May 22, 1905.

95.★ =Myochanes richardsoni.= WESTERN WOOD PEWEE.—Wood
Pewee-like notes were heard constantly about Camp 1, but the
birds were so shy that one was collected with difficulty.
The notes were much like those of our eastern Wood Pewee but
different enough in quality to be distinctive. They were not
noted often thereafter but from August 6 to 25, Young took
several at Camp 11, on Little Sandhill Creek.

96.★ =Empidonax trailli.= TRAILL’S FLYCATCHER.—On the uplands
about Camp 1, in the thickets adjoining sloughs, this species
was recognized a number of times. Thereafter we were seldom in
proper country for it. At Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek,
Young collected specimens, August 9 and 11, probably early
migrants. Both are referable to _E. t. alnorum_. Farley lists
it at Red Deer and Camrose.

97.★ =Empidonax minimus.= LEAST FLYCATCHER.—Common all along
the river. Specimens taken at Camps 3, 3½, 5 and 11.

98.★ =Otocoris alpestris.= HORNED LARK.—We saw no Horned Larks
until Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek was reached, where
Young reports that he found them common on the flats of the
north side of the river feeding on wild buckwheat. Fourteen
specimens were taken between July 26 and September 20. These
are all _leucolœma_ as recognized by the A. O. U. or _enthemia_
according to Oberholser and Ridgway.

99.★ =Pica pica.= MAGPIE.—One of the pleasures of the trip
was acquaintanceship with this bird. We heard of occasional
Magpies being seen about Camp 1, but did not meet with them
personally until between Camp 5 and 6 when we found a family
party of partially fledged birds discussing the world and
things in general in the Saskatoon bushes. “Chattering like a
Magpie” hardly gives a clear idea of the performances. They
keep it up continually in season and out, but the talk is
deliberate rather than “chattering.” They are never still for
a minute and their curiosity is insatiable. Every morning our
camp was the center of interest and conversation to a group of
these long-tailed clowns, uniting the gravity of judges with
the talkativeness of a debating society. At Camp 11 a nearby
creek bed cut down some twelve feet below the general level
and dry and parched in the sun was the repository of our empty
cans and table scraps. Magpies were always in attendance and
no sooner had the falling can ceased its noisy rattling and
come to rest than a “Pie” was on hand to glean what it might
from its depths. They seemed to go in small companies, probably
original families though perhaps in some cases more than one
brood had joined together and haunted the brush in the wooded
river edges or the low dense tangle on hill tops sailing from
clump to clump and furtively following one another from cover
to cover. Their nests were conspicuous objects in the heavier
bush. Great oval masses of sticks four or five feet high and
two or three feet through with the nest in the center reached
by openings in opposite sides for ingress and egress. The fact
that we invariably found them in the neighborhood or not more
than a hundred yards or so from nests of Red-tail or Swainson’s
Hawks may or may not have a meaning; nor is it clear, if it is
more than accidental, which—the “Pie” or the hawk—was first to
choose the locality. Specimens were obtained at Camps 5½ and 11
while we have others from Rumsey and Morrin collected by Geo.
Sternberg.

Farley, Horsbrough and Dr. George of Red Deer, all declare that
this species is increasing. Farley writes,—“No one knew this
bird ten years ago and for the past few years a month does not
pass that some one does not ask about it. I think this about
its limit line as I never saw or heard of one farther north
than ten miles from Camrose.”

100.★ =Cyanocitta cristata.= BLUE JAY.—Fairly common on the
upper parts of the river but not seen below Camp 4, near Nevis.
One specimen, Camp 1. Reported nesting by Horsbrough.

101. =Perisoreus canadensis.= CANADA JAY.—Spreadborough’s
hypothetical record of this species at Red Deer is
substantiated by Farley who says he found two nests of the
Canada Jay ten miles east of Red Deer, the eggs from which
he sent to W. E. Saunders of London, Ont. According to
Oberholser’s determinations these birds should probably be
referred to _P. c. canadensis_.

102. =Corvus corax.= RAVEN.—Farley says,—“The Raven is seen
nearly every November at Red Deer. I have never seen them
brought in except in early winter.”

103.★ =Corvus brachyrhynchos.= AMERICAN CROW.—Only fairly
common in the narrow parts of the valley where the river is
in closer proximity to cultivation. Below, where the valley is
wide, and more arid conditions prevail, it was but occasionally
seen. Young reports, at Camp 11 on the Little Sandhill Creek
after the middle of September, that they appeared in large
flocks. The farmers about Camp 1 did not regard the crow as
dangerous to crops but complained of the number of small
chickens they kill and the duck nests they rob. Specimens from
Camp 8½ and 11, also Morrin, October, 1916, Geo. Sternberg
and Alix, April 24, 1914, Horsbrough. Amongst our prairie
province specimens I can find little to substantiate the
Western Crow, _hesperis_. The birds of smallest measurement
in our collections come from Ottawa and Point Pelee, Ontario;
Red Deer, Alberta; and Lillooet, British Columbia, whilst
our largest specimens are from Ottawa and Indian Head,
Saskatchewan. Even the averages from eastern and western
Canadian specimens are too similar for the recognition of any
subspecies. I therefore prefer to class these birds with the
type form _brachyrhynchos_.

104.★ =Molothrus ater.= COWBIRD.—Rather scarce. We saw but
two at Camp 1. Young took a specimen at Camp 11 on the Little
Sandhill Creek, August 2. We also have one bird from Morrin,
July 1916, taken by Geo. Sternberg. The bird from Camp 11 is a
juvenile but extraordinarily heavily striped below, almost as
conspicuously so as a juvenile Red-wing. Above, every feather
is bordered with sharp buffy edges. The Morrin bird is similar
but does not depart from normal in so marked a degree. As these
are both juveniles their measurements are not satisfactory for
subspecific comparison. Examining our series of western Cowbird
specimens I can only see that they average slightly larger
than eastern ones. The bills are comparatively a little longer
but the concave character shown by Grinnell as characteristic
of _artemisiæ_ is not recognizable even though the sage brush
_Artemisia tridentata_ with which its range is supposed to
coincide extends far north of here to the Peace River Valley.
Without further data I can only regard these Red River birds as
abnormal _ater_.

105. =Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus.= YELLOW-HEADED
BLACKBIRD.—Not seen by us owing probably to the absence of
extensive marshes in the localities visited. Geo. Sternberg
reports having seen one at Camp 11 before our arrival. Mr.
Farley lists it at Red Deer and Camrose.

106.★ =Agelaius phœniceus.= RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD.—Not very
common but occurring in most of the suitable localities visited
by us. More common on the prairie level where sloughs are more
numerous than in the valley. Specimens from Camp 1 and 4. After
comparing these and other prairie specimens with eastern birds
I can only say that there is a larger percentage of oversized
birds amongst them than in the East. I can see no constant
difference in the bills and hence am not justified in referring
them to anything but _phœniceus_. Horsbrough refers his,
probably on geographical considerations to _P. a. fortis_.

107.★ =Sturnella neglecta.= WESTERN MEADOW LARK.—We did not
find this bird very common in the river valley and not overly
numerous upon the prairie levels when they were visited. Later
in the season, Young reports that they were common at Camp 11
in early morning when they came down from the Prairie level
to drink at the river. Specimens from Camp 1 and 11, also two
Morrin birds, August and July, Geo. Sternberg.

108. =Icterus galbula.= BALTIMORE ORIOLE.—Horsbrough records
the nesting of the Baltimore Oriole at Red Deer and Farley
pronounces it common. Neither seem to be acquainted with
Bullock’s. In our collections are specimens of _galbula_ from
Edmonton and _bullocki_ from Medicine Hat where, however,
Spreadborough also noted the former. Possibly the division
between the two occurs somewhere between the two cities and the
Baltimore is the form at Red Deer.

109.★ =Icterus bullocki.= BULLOCK’S ORIOLE.—Only two orioles
seen and those two of this species. Taken at Camp 11, Little
Sandhill Creek, August 29.

110.★ =Euphagus carolinus.= RUSTY BLACKBIRD.—One specimen,
Alix, Alberta, April 22, 1914, by Horsbrough who infers in his
annotations that it is only a migrant at Red Deer though Farley
reports it as with Brewer’s,—“a very common spring and fall
migrant and quite plentiful breeding along the streams in the
willows.” I was hardly prepared to regard this as a breeder in
this locality.

111.★ =Euphagus cyanocephalus.= BREWER’S BLACKBIRD.—Generally
distributed throughout the river valley but nowhere exceedingly
common. Young noted a large migrant flock at Camp 11, Little
Sandhill Creek, the middle of September. Specimens, Camp 1 and
11. Farley reports it breeding along the streams in the willows.

112.★ =Quiscalus quiscula.= CROW BLACKBIRD.—Only a few seen at
Camp 1, about Brock’s Lake where they were nesting in Flicker
holes. One specimen, Camp 1, another Buffalo Lake, August,
1915.—Horsbrough. Regarded as common by all correspondents.

113. =Hesperiphona vespertina.= EVENING GROSBEAK.—Farley
says,—“The Evening Grosbeak is not regular in winter. It comes
for about a month about every other winter, always feeding on
the seeds of the Manitoba Maple.” Red Deer Specimens, May 6, in
Fleming’s collection.

114. =Pinicola enucleator.= PINE GROSBEAK.—Farley says,—“Pine
Grosbeaks are fairly common all winter especially along
the rivers in the spruce,—never saw them after May 1.”
Horsbrough lists them under _P. e. leucura_ on J. H. Fleming’s
determination based upon a bird with an imperfect bill. I
have examined this bird but the subspecific characters are so
faintly indicated in our comparative series that I prefer to
withhold judgment upon the determination.

115.★ =Carpodacus purpureus.= PURPLE FINCH.—Not seen on the
upper river at all and at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, only
after I left. Young reports that beginning August 18, he noted
one to five daily to September 7. He observes that they were
feeding on the seeds of the black birch. One specimen, Camp
11, August 18. Listed by Farley as common at Red Deer though
Horsbrough gives only individual records.

116.★ =Loxia curvirostra.= AMERICAN CROSSBILL.—One specimen
taken at Camp 11, Little Sandhill Creek, July 21. It is a
juvenile with clear skull but with the red beginning to replace
the yellow plumage. About the face and throat is a powder
deposit similar to that on a Jasper Park bird that was feeding
upon woolly aphides suggesting that this bird was subsisting
upon a similar diet. Farley regards it as common all winter,
and I infer regular, but “never noted after May.”

117. =Leucosticte tephrocotis.= ROSY FINCH.—Farley says,—“I
have seen the Leucosticte in November around the coal mines in
the Red Deer valley where you go under the C. P. R. bridge.
They were the tamest birds I ever saw and I suppose had just
blown down from the tops of the mountains.” He later informed
me that he sent a specimen to W. E. Saunders, London, Ont., who
pronounced it Gray-crowned _L. t. tephrocotis_.