260 BULLETIN 50, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



United States, higher Alleghenies/' region of the Great Lakes, western 

 and northern Washington, etc. 



Corvus corax (not of Linnaeus) Wilson, Am. Orn., ix, 1825, 136, pL 75, fig. 3. — 

 Doughty, Cab. Nat. Hist., i, 1830, 270, pi. 24.— Swainson and Richard- 

 son, Fauna Bor.-Am., ii, 1831, 290.— Nuttall, Man. Orn. U. S. and Can., i, 

 1832, 202.— Audubon, Orn. Biog., ii, 1834, 476, pi. 101; Synopsis, 1839, 150; 

 Birds Am., oct. ed., iv, 1843, 78, pi. 224.— Willis, Ann. Eep. Smithson Inst, 

 for 1858 (1859), 283 (Nova Scotia; resid.).— Reinhakdt, Ibis, 1861, 7 (Green- 

 laii^).- Cassin, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1862, 313 (Kayne I., Bering 

 Straits). — Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, Coraces, 1867, 11, part (Greenland; 

 Labrador).— Haeting, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1871, 112 (Beechey I., Barrow 

 Straits).— FiNSCH, Abb. Nat. Ver. Brem., iii, 1872, 40 (Alaska); 1874, 104 

 (s. w. Greenland) ; Zweite Deutsche Nordpolfahrt, ii, 1874, 185 (e. Greenland; 

 crit.).— CouES, Check List, 1873, no. 226, part; 2d ed. 1882, no. 338, part; 

 Birds N. W., 1874, 204, part; in Elliott's Affairs in Alaska, 1875, 178 (Pribi- 

 lof I.; introduced from Unalaska). — Newton, Man. N. H. Greenland, 1875, 

 99._Sharpe, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., iii, 1877, 14, part (Vancouver I. ; Fort Simp- 

 son; 49th Parallel ?).—Feilding, Ibis, 1877, 405 (Smiths Sound, lat. 81° 440-— 

 Adams, Ibis, 1878, 426 (St. Michael, Alaska).— Kumliex, Bull. U. S. Nat. 

 Mus., no. 15, 1879, 78 (Cumberland Sound, etc.; habits).— Scott, Bull. Nutt. 

 Orn. Club, iv, 1879, 223 (Long Beach, New Jersey).— Merrill (H.), Bull. 

 Nutt. Orn. Club, vi, 1881, 249 (coast Maine, resid.) .— Batchelder, Bull. Nutt. 

 Orn. Club, vii, 1882, 149 (Grand Falls, New Brunswick; Houlton, Maine).— 

 Merriam, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, vii, 1882, 236 (bet. Godbout and Point de 

 Monts, prov. Quebec, breeding).— Elliott, Mon. Seal Islds., 1882, 128. 



Clorvus] corax Bonaparte, Journ. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., iii, 1824, 359; Consp. 

 Av., i, 1850, 387, part.— Coues, Key N. Am. Birds, 2d ed., 1884, 416, part. 



[Corvus'] corax (var.?) Coues, Key N. Am. Birds, 1872, 162, part. 



Corvus corax var. littoralis (not Corvus liUoralis Brehm, 1831) Holboell, in 

 Kroyer's Tidskrift, iv, 1843, 390 (Greenland; Labrador). 



Corvus lugubris Agassiz, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., i, 1846, 188 (=:nomen nudum). 



Corvus carnivorus "Bartram"* Baird, Rep. Pacific R. R. Surv., ix, 1858, 560, 

 part (coast New Jersey); Cat. N. Am. Birds, 1859, no. 423, part.— Cooper 

 and SucKLEY, Rep. Pacific R. R. Surv., xii, pt. ii, 1860, 210, part (Vancou- 

 ver I.; Washington ?).— Coues, Proc. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1861, 225 (Henley 

 Harbor, etc., La)>rador; habits).— Lord, Proc. Roy. Art. Inst. Woolwich, 

 iv, 1864, 12 (British Columbia) .—Lawrence, Ann. Lye. N. Y., viii, 1866, 289 

 (Long Island; coast New Jersey).— Dall and Bannister, Trans. Chicago 

 Ac. Sci., i, 1869, 285 (Nulato, Alaska; habits, etc.).— Dall, Proc. Cal. Acad. 

 Sci., V, 1873, 27 (Unalaska; Shumagin), v, 1874, 274 (throughout Aleutians). 



«The southern limits of this form are not satisfactorily known, material being lack- 

 ing for determination of the question. The few eastern specimens which have been 

 examined seemed to be decidedly nearer typical C. c. principalis than C. c. sinuatus. 

 I have not been able to examine a specimen of the raven which breeds along the 

 coast of New Jersey, Virginia, etc., nor an example from the mountains of North 

 Carolina or Tennessee. References to these more southeastern localities are therefore 

 placed in the synonymy of C. c. principalis provisionally only. The same uncer- 

 tainty pertains to the status of the ravens which breed in southern Illinois, southern 

 Indiana, and other portions of the Mississippi Valley. References to them are, ten- 

 tatively, placed under C. c. sinuatus. 



b Corvus carnivorus, the raven, Bartram, Travels in Florida, 1791, 290 (Pennsylvania). 

 Bartram was not a consistent binomialist, and the birds he named were rarely 

 described so as to admit of positive identification. It is generally conceded, there- 

 fore, that his names can not properly have a place in systematic nomenclature. 



