EEGULUS CRISTATUS. 



FEMALE GOLDEN-CROWNED GOLD-CREST.* 



[Plate IL Fig. 4.] 



Motacilla reguhis, Linn. Sys^t, i., p. 338, Sp. 48. Gmel. Syst. i., p. 995, Sp. 48.— 

 Sylvia regulus, Lath. Lid. p. 548, Sp. 152. Temm. Man. d' Orn. p. 229. Ran- 

 ZANi, EUm. di Zool. in.. Part v., p. 105, PL 16, fig. 3. — Regulus crisfatus, Ray, 

 Syn. p. 79, Sp. 9. Aldr. Orn. ii., p. 649. Will. Orn. p. 163, PL 42. Vieill. 

 Nouv. Diet. d'Hist. Nat. xxix., p. 420. — Regulus vulgaris, Stephens, Cont. of 

 Shaw's Zool. xx. p. 758, PL 59. — Farus calendula, Regulus cristatus vulgo Dicta, 

 Beiss. Av. in., p. 579, Sp. 17.— ie R&itelet, Gerardin, Tabl. Elem. d' Orn. i., p. 

 318, Sp. 26, PL 15, (not of Buff. Ois. v., p. 363, PL 16, fig. 2, nor PI. Enl. 651, 

 fig. 3, which represent Sylvia igiiicapilla o? Brequ.) — Regolo, Storia degliuccelli, 

 IV. PL i9Q.— Gold-crested Wren, Lath. Syn., ii.. Part ii.,p. 508, Sp.l45. Penn. 

 Brit. Zool. Sp. 153. Penn. Arct. Zool. Sp. 321.— Golden-croivned Wren, Edw. 

 Glea7i. v., p. 95, PL 254, lower fig. Male. 



Two distinct species of Gold-crest have been, until lately, considered 

 by naturalists as but one. Are they both inhabitants of this continent ; 

 and, if not, which is the American species ? These questions cannot 

 be readily answered, since we have nothing better than negative evi- 

 dence to offer relative to the first. The present female, however, is 

 decisive as to which of them inhabits this country, and we have there- 

 fore concluded, that the faithful representation in the accompanying 

 plate will be acceptable to ornithologists. A slight inspection of this 

 specimen leaves no doubt as to its being the female of the Regulus 

 cristatus ; and, should the Regulus ignicapillus, contrary to our expec- 

 tations, also prove to be an inhabitant of this country, it will appear, 

 along with its mate, in another volume of this work. All the ornitholo- 

 gists state, that the latter is a native of this continent, whilst they take 

 no notice whatever of the Recpilus cristatus, which, if not the only 

 indigenous, is certainly the more common species. This error seems 

 to have originated with Vieillot, who, considering the two species as 

 but one, probably was not careful in selecting the individual from 

 which his drawing was made ; he may, therefore, have chosen an European 

 bird, and unluckily of the other species, as both are found in Europe. 



However this may be, his figure is certainly that of the ignicapillus ; 

 and, it is equally obvious, that his short description of the female can 

 only apply to the female of the cristatus, which corroborates my opinion. 

 In the (French) New Dictionary of Natural History, Vieillot distin* 



* See Wilson's American Ornithology, n., p. 169, PL 8, fig. 2, for the Male. 



(164) 



