NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 135 



omnium. Nectris anglorum, Kuhl. Monog. Proc. Beit. Zool., 1820, p. 

 146, sp. 23. 

 Proc dl aria puffinus, Briinn., Orn. Bor., 1764, p. 29, sp. 119. Linn. Syst. 

 Nat. i. 1766, p. 213 ; Gruel. S. N. i. 1788, p. 566. Lath. Ind. Orn. ii. 

 1790, p. 824 ; sed non auct. aliorurn, quae potius ad Puff, majorem 

 speetat.) Nectris puffinus, Keys, et Bias. Wirb. Europ. i., Ib40, p. 94. 

 Puffinus arcticus, Faber, Prod. Isl. Orn., 1822, p. 56, sp. 1. Puffinus 

 Baroli, Bonelli; Bp. Consp. Av., 1856, ii. p. 204; (an == P. "anglo- 

 rum. ex Mare Medit. ;" an sub. P. yelcuano adducenda ?) P. " mank- 

 sii, ,, aliq. 

 Habitat. North Atlantic Ocean, at large. 



This species, though so long known and so common, yet requires very 

 careful investigation ; both because its bibliography is somewhat exten- 

 sive, and on account of its variations in size and color, which are so consider- 

 able that there has been much confusion concerning it. I will first examine 

 into its synonymy, and then proceed to characterize the species beyond the 

 probability of any further difficulty with its specific characters. 



The Procellaria puffinus of Linnaeus, Gmelin, and Latham, has been various- 

 ly interpreted by modern authors. Most writers, including Kuhl and others, 

 consider it as the bird which was afterwards named P. major by Faber. 

 Temminck makes it equal to the cinervus of Gmelin. Bonaparte and Schlegel 

 regard it as undoubtedly referring to the present species. An examination ot 

 the diagnoses of Linnaeus, or Gmelin, or Latham, particularly the latter, 

 will, I think, make it quite patent that the last is the only tenable view to 

 take of the name. Such expressions as are found in e. g. Latham's notice, 

 as " Pr. corpore supra nigra, subtus albo" * * * "15 pollices longa," 

 etc., can only be considered as referring to the anglorum ; for they are totally 

 at variance with the essential characters of the P. major. Moreover, Latham " 

 cites "P. anglorum, Raii, Syn."as a synonym of the species. Such being the 

 case, I unhesitatingly accord with Bonaparte and Schlegel in their identifica- 

 tion of the Linusean P. puffinus. I am quite at a loss to understand upon 

 what grounds M. Temminck makes the remark that " ni Linne ni Latham 

 n'out connu cet oisean." 



The first recognized classical notice of this species is that given in 1713 by 

 Mr. Ray, under the name of Proc. anglorum. Brisson calls it Puffinus anglo- 

 rum; it is indicated by Linnaeus, Gmelin, and Latham as Proc. puffinus, with 

 "anglorum, Ray," as a synonym. Temminck was, I believe, the first binom- 

 alist who adopted Ray's designation ; he calling it in 1820 Procellaria anglo- 

 rum ; inlS40 Puffinus anglorum. 



This species is also the Proffinus arcticus, Faber (1. c), as is evident from 

 his diagnosis. The reference of Faber's name arcticus to the P. major, as has 

 been occasionally done, is quite erroneous. I have an indistinct recollection 

 of having seen this species cited as Procellaria or Puffinus " manksii," but I 

 cannot at present call to mind the reference. 



A certain "Puffinus Baroli, Bonelli," is admitted as distinct by Bonaparte 

 in his Conspectus, p. 204, and also in his Tab. Longip. in the Comptes Ren- 

 dus. It is said to be somewhat smaller, lighter colored, and with a slenderer 

 bill. Well acquainted as I am, however, with the variations in just these 

 features which the anglorum frequently presents, I cannot discover sufficient 

 grounds upon which to separate P. Baroli even as a distinct variety ; but 

 rather entirely agree with Dr. Schlegel in considering it as an undoubted 

 synonym of anglorum, or at least of P. gelcuanus, which is the representative 

 species in the Mediterranean Sea. 



Bonaparte (Consp. ii. p. 203) inquires "quid Proc. puffinus, Kuhl, Mon. 

 Proc. p. 146, sp. 22, t. xi., f. 10, ex Mediterriineo ?" to which I would reply 

 unhesitatingly that it is the Puffinus major, Faber. The description is entirely 

 pertinent, and the figure much more readily recognizable as representing the 

 head and bill of this species, than are many of the delineations of the work. 



1864.] 



