52 PACIFIC COAST AVIFAUNA No. 7 



177. (374) Otus flammeolus flammeolus (Kaup). Flammjjlated 

 Screech Owl. 



Although the last A. O. U. Check-List refers our California bird to the 

 form Otus flammeolus idahoensis (Merriam), \ am inclined to believe that this 

 conclusion was reached without the examination of a sufficient amount of ma- 

 terial to justify a final decision. In fact, it seems imp< >ssil>lc, at the present 

 time, to get together a large enough series of specimens t<> enable us to arrive 

 at a definite conclusion as to the range and exact differences of these two sub- 

 species. The natural assumption from a geographical standpoint would be 

 that our bird is referable to O. f. flammeolus. It may even be possible that 

 future study of the species will show that idahoensis is not entitled to sub- 

 specific rank. 



Four specimens of the Flammulated Screech Owl are recorded from 

 southern California, where they seem to be confined to the higher mountains, 

 probably not occurring south of the San Bernardino Range. Two of these 

 specimens were originally recorded as 0. f. flammeolus and are as follows: 

 Male taken by F. liall near San Bernardino, January 18, 1885 (Stephens, Con- 

 dor iv, 1902, 40), now in collection of W'm. Brewster. Male taken by E. D. 

 Calmer at an elevation of 5000 feet in the San Bernardino Mountains, May 26, 

 1893 (Auk xi, 1894, 78). Mr. Palmer informs me that this specimen was 

 destroyed by fire some years ago. Robert Ridgway, after examining Mr. Brewst- 

 er's specimen, wrote him as follows: "I have compared your specimen with 

 the few specimens in our collection. The material available is very meager — less 

 than a dozen adult birds altogether — and not nearly sufficient to give any clear 

 idea of the normal individual variation irrespective of locality. Your specimen 

 resembles the type of idahoensis very much more closely than it does any other 

 specimen in the lot ; in fact, it scarcely differs at all except in the slightly coarser 

 markings of the under parts. On geographical grounds, however, your speci- 

 men certainly should not be idahoensis — if there really is such a subspecies — 

 as it is hardly probable (though of course possible) for this form to exist in 

 southern California. Really, however, I must confess that 1 can not make 

 anything out of the matter one way or another from the scant material avail- 

 able, and we will have to wait until a much larger number of specimens can 

 he brought together, and especially a series from some one locality, before 

 we shall be able to understand the species well." 



The two following specimens were originally recorded as 0. f. idahoensis. 

 Adult female taken by M. E Gilman with a set of two slightly incubated eggs, 

 at an elevation of about 7500 feet, on the side of San Gorgonio Peak, June 

 3, 1894. The bird was sent to C. Hart Merriam. who pronounced it 0. f. idaho- 

 ensis (Condor iv, 1^02, 85). These eggs are still in the collection of Mr. Gil- 

 man, hut the bird was destroyed. Adult male taken by J. Grinnell at Bluff 

 Lake, about 7500 feet altitude in the San Bernardino Mountains, July 15, 1905 

 (Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. v, 1908, 59). This specimen (no. 6730 collection J. 

 Grinnell) was pronounced by II. C. Oberholser to be nearest to, but not quite, 

 idahoensis. Mr. Grinnell writes me further regarding this bird: "It is prac- 

 tically identical with others from Arizona, the latter being considered dam- 



