ORNITHOLOGICAL EXPLORATIONS. 297 



the cause of the diminution. An argument in favor of this opinion 

 is the fact that the only place where the bird is still found in propor- 

 tional abundance is on the small islet Toporkoff, where the Arvicola 

 has n'ot yet made its aj)pearance, nor have its numbers diminished on 

 Cojjper Island, where it is still common, and where there are no field- 

 mice to disturb it. 



In gt neral manners of movement, flight, &c., it closely resembles the T. 

 hiemaUs and T. troglodytes. It is, however, strictly confined to the rocks, 

 l)articularly the steep rugged walls near the shore, and they are fre- 

 quently met with among the large stones close to the water's line. 

 It creeps among the rocks in search of its food, and builds its nest 

 and rears its young in a deep hole or crack, usually where the stone is 

 most weathered and brittle, but always so that it is sale from anything 

 larger than a mouse and which cannot fly. I knew of several holes in 

 which there were nests, but it was, in every case, quite imx)ossible to 

 get at them. Its voice is agreeable and vigorous, remarkably so c m- 

 pared with the size of the bird. Like that of T. parvulnSj it has a great 

 resemblance to the song of the canary, but it diflers from that of the 

 European species in being of a somewhat higher and more metallic 

 sound. 



It is needless to remark that the bird is a resident on the island. 



Family PARID^. 

 132. Parus kamtschatkeusis (Bonap.). 



1826. — Parus carbonarius Pall., Zoogr. Ross. As., I, p. 556 (^part). 



1826. — Parus palustris Pall., Zoogr. Ross. As., I, p. 557 (part). 



1850. — PocciJa kamischatl-ensis Boxap., Consp. Av., I, p. 2o0 («ec Taczan., 1872, &c., 

 iiec Seeb., nee Blakist.). — Kittl., Deokw., I, p. 321 (cf. Bolle, J. f. Orn., 

 1859, p. 47).— Taczan., Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 1882, p. 390.— Dybowski, 

 Bull. Soc. Zool. Frauce, 1883, p. 361. — Parus Ic. Madarasz, Zeitscbr. Ges. 

 Orn., I, 1884, p. 77, pi. iv. 



1880. — Parus wiemuthi Dybowski, MSS. 



This bird is a most elegant and distinct species, as already remarked 

 by Bonaparte. It is rather strange that Taczauowski and others could 

 apply the name IcamtschatTcensis to the northeastern form of horeaUs, as 

 Bonaparte [l. c.) describes it as '■'■ alho-canescens^^'' while Taczauowski him- 

 self states that his birds were " schiefer-aschgrau," slaty ash-colored. It 

 is one proof more that it usually promotes more confusion to adopt an 

 older name, the description of which does not exactly fit, than to give 



