70(> 



BULLETIN ;30, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



on auricular region gradually fading downward and pas.sing into ])alc 

 grayish buffy on chin, throat, and chest, the remaining under parts 

 similar but more yellowish, especially on Hanks, the abdomen and 

 under tail-coverts olive-whitish; bill and iris dark brown; legs and 

 feet clear or dusky brown (in dried skins). 



Adult male in (n/tumn and winter. — Similar to the spring and sum- 

 mer plumage but more decidedly olivaceous above, more olive-butfy 

 below. 



Ad%di female. — ;Similar to the adult male, but without the red crown- 

 patch. 



Young ., fird, 2)1 vnn age {sexes alike). — Similar to the adult female, but 

 upper parts browner (nearly hair brown), wing-l)ands tinged with 

 brownish buff}", under parts less j^ellowish, and texture of plumage 

 more lax. 



Adult ;/?///('.— Length (skins), 99-106 (102); wing, 56., 5-61. 5 (58.9); 

 tail, 40.5-45 (42.8); exposed culmen, 7-9.5 (8.6); tarsus, 18-20 (19); 

 middle toe, 9-10.5 (9.6).« 



Adult female.— IjQngih (skins), 93-104 (100); wing, 54-58 (5().l); 

 tail, 40.5-44 (42.2); exposed culmen, 7.5-9.5 (8.7); tarsus, 17.5-19.5 

 (18.7); middle toe, 9-10 (9.4).« 



«Ten specimens from eastern United States. 



Specimens from different geographic areas compare in average measurements as 

 follows: 



Locality. 



Middln 

 toe. 



MALES. 



Ten adult males from eastern United States 



Four adult males from interior of Alaska 



Ten adult males from Rocky Mountains (Wyoming to So- 



nbra and Chihuahua) 



Ten adult males from California 



FEMALES. 



Ten adult females from eastern United States 



Ten adult females from Rocky Mountains (Wyoming to 



chihuahua and Sonera) 



Nine adult females from California 



9.G 

 9 



9.1 

 9.3 



8.9 

 9.2 



Besides l^eing larger, specimens from the Rocky Mountain diistrict, especially 

 those from Chihuahua, are paler and grayer than those from otiier portions of the 

 continent; but California examples are nearly as large and are quite as dark as those 

 from the East. It is possibly one or more subspecies may be made out, but with the 

 material examined I am not able to do so satisfactorily. (See Brewster, Bull. Mus. 

 Comp. Zool., xli, 1902, 208.) 



Since the above was written Mr. Joseph Grinnell has described a supposed new 

 form of this species breeding in the mountains of southern California, which may or 

 may not be the same as these large gray Rocky Mountain birds; but I have not seen 

 specimens of Mr. Grinnell's bird {Regulus calendula cincraceus Grinnell, Condor, vi, 

 no. 1, Jan., 1904, 25; type from Mt. Wilson, Los Angeles Co., California, in coll. J. 

 Grinnell) , and therefore am not prepared to express a decided opinion as to its status. 



