( 133 ) 



as will be shown liereafter, uot can one form be said to be more arctic than the 

 other. Ill Ibbs a very elaborate article on the N'infrfigafi of Tschnsi-Rchmidhoffen 

 appeared iu the Verh. zool. hot. Ges. Wien. 



It is somewhat surprising that, in spite of all these more or less accurate 

 statements, British ornithologists have not yet all accepted the two forms. But in 

 1894 Professor Newton {Dictionary of Birds, p. 047) repeated his former statement 

 that, " as in the case of the Hnia {Heterolocha acutirosfris), the considerable differ- 

 ences in the form and size of the bill of examj)les of this species are now supposed 

 (sic) to depend on the sex — that of the cock being stout and short, while in the 

 hen it is long and thin." This statement is absolutely wrong. I have now before 

 me a fine series collected by me in East Prussia for the Homeyer collection, now 

 in Braunschweig, and kindly lent me by Professor Wilhelm Blasins, and a number 

 of Siberian nut-crackers, and in neither of the two forms is there any remarkable 

 diiference in the size of the beak in the sexes. Perhaps Professor Newton had 

 before him the two species, i.e. & male of the European one and & female of the 

 Siberian one, or the dili'erences which be noticed were such slight individual 

 ditferences as are always found in birds.* 



Again in the same year (1804) Dr. Sliarpe, in A Handbook to the Birds of 

 Great Britain, Vol. I. p. IT, says: "Two forms of nut-cracker in Europe are 

 recognised by many naturalists, X. carjocatactes, and a short-billed form, S. 

 brachyrhynchus, the sujiposed differences between which we have never been able 

 to appreciate." Be this as it may, the nomenclature might have been right 

 (X caryocatacies and X. brackyrhynchus being the same thing), but in fact they 

 differ at a glance by the form and size of the bill, the extent of white on the tips 

 of the rectrices, and general size. The reason why ornithologists have found it so 

 difficult to recognise the two is, I believe, that the one often invades the countries 

 inhabited Ijy the other. Therefore in museums we find, or should find, both forms 

 from Germany, parts of Russia, Austria, France, etc. When, however, clear-headed 

 field-ornithologists collect and observe them, it will be found that the stout-billed 

 form alo?ie breeds in Scandinavia, Lappland, Bornholm, the Russian Baltic jiro- 

 vinces, and East Prussia, as well as, in a very slightly differentiated form, the Alps, 

 the Carpathian and Sudetic Mountains, and perhaps the Pyrenees. This bird is 

 not a migrant. In East Prussia it never leaves its home, and is not even, as a rule, 

 found out of the very forests where it breeds. In the Alps it descends to lower 

 hills if too deep snow covers its haunts ; but also there it can on no account be 

 called a migrant. On the other hand, the slender-billed form is an inhabitant of 

 Siberia, where it breeds, and whence it wanders far and vfide. Single individuals 

 of the latter form are very often observed in Europe, and it is probable that many 

 wander so far every year, but in certain years, notably 1754, 1802, 1844, 1856, 

 1859, 1804, 18.^5, 18(tG, they appeared in extraordinary numbers. 



The natural history of these two forms of Nucifraga clearly shows that many 

 problems regarding species and subspecies in ornithology cannot be solved by the 

 cabinet-ornithologist alone. It further shows the importance of exact labelling, 

 still (incredible, but true I) neglected by some collectors. In fact, labels like 

 " Germany, 1800," are entirely insufficient. We may, and sometimes must, be 

 content with tradeskins without exact locality, such as Japanese, Bogota, and New 

 Guinea skins ; but, though they may be very valuable at the time, they are only 



* See also Stevenson, Birds of Xor/olk, p. 2S-I, and the eonimeut to it by A. G. liutler in British 

 Birds, their Xesti and Eggs, London, 1897, p. 143 and footnote ! 



