80 PACIFIC COAST AVIFAUNA No. 12 



cea ruficeps". Under the circumstances the species cannot be credited to the 

 fauna of that island. 



Several writers state that it is common on San Nicolas, and G. Willett (16) 

 reported it as numerous in tlie hrush of Santa Rosa Island in June, 1910. 



144. Aimophila ruficeps ruficeps (Cassin) 



RlIPOUS-CROWNED SpARROW 



Peucaea ruficeps (1) Cooper, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., iv, 1870, p. 78. (2) Cooper, Land 

 Birds Calif., i, 1870, p. 218. (3) Henshaw, Rep. Wheeler Surv., 1876, p. 244. (//) 

 Belding, Land Birds Pac. Dist., 1890, p. 163. 



Aimophila ruficeps ruficeps (5) Ridgway, Birds North & Mid. Am., i, 1901, p. 247. (6') 

 Linton, Condor, x, 1908, p. 128. (7) A. O. U. Check-list, 3d ed., 1910, p. 272. (8) 

 Willett, Pac. Coast Avif., 7, 1912, p. 83. (9) Grinnell, Pac. Coast Avif., 11, 1915, p. 122. 



Aimophila ruficeps {10) Howell and van Rossem, Condor, xiii, 1911, p. 210. 



Common resident on Santa Cruz, and has been taken on Catalina. J. G. 

 Cooper took two adults in worn plumage on Catalina, June 19 and 28, 1863, now 

 in the collection of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley. As far as I 

 know, no one has since met with the species in this locality. 



On Santa Cruz^ in December, 1907, C. B. Linton (6) encountered a flock of 

 some forty or fifty birds feeding on a hillside. Daring April, 1911, A. van Ros- 

 sem and I {10) found them rather common in suitable places. A female which I 

 shot on the 26th had no feathers on the abdomen, indicating that she was incu- 

 bating at the time. 



Through the kindness of J. E. Thayer and J. Grinnell, I recently assembled 

 a series of thirteen specimens of this species from Santa Cruz Island, and eighty- 

 three from the mainland. The conclusion reached is that the island birds differ 

 from the continental ones in having slightly shorter wing, bill and middle toe, 

 and longer tail and tarsus. The bill is wider at the base, and the tarsus heavier. 

 The underparts seem to average slightly darker, and there is less tendency to 

 buffiness on the chin. The upper parts are about the same in the two lots. Al- 

 though these differences are readily apparent in a series, there is no constant 

 criterion, and therefore, according to my opinion, no justification in naming a 

 new form. 



145. Melospiza melodia graminea C. H. Townsend 



Santa Barbara Song Sparrow 



Poospiza belli (1) Cooper, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., iv, 1870, p. 78. 



Melospiza heermanni (2) Cooper, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., iv, 1870, p. 78. (.{) Cooper, 



Land Birds Calif., i, 1870, p. 213. 

 Melospiza fasciata samuelis {J^) Henshaw, Auk, iii, 1886, p. 453. 

 Melospiza fasciata graminea (5) Townsend, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., xiii, 1890, p. 139. (6") 



A. O. U. Committee, Auk, viii, 1891, p. 86. (7) Grinnell, Pasadena Acad. Sci., i, 1897, 



p. 6. (8) Davie, Nests & Eggs N. Am. Birds, 5th ed., 1898, p. 392. (.0) Mailliard, 



Bull. Cooper Orn. Club, i, 1899, p. 44. 

 Melospiza fasciata samuelis i?) {10) Keeler, Zoe, i, 1891, p. 339. 

 Mielospiza'\. fasciata graminea {11) Keeler, Zoe, i, 1891, p. 342. 



Mlelospiza'i. fiasciata]. graminea {12) Beck, Bull. Cooper Orn. Club, i, 1899, p. 86. 

 Melospiza melodia graminea {13) Oberholser, Auk, xvi, 1899, p. 183. {V/) A. 0. U. 



