NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 181 



plumage of the adult and of the younj? of the first autumn. These represent 

 the two extremes; but birds maybe found of every intermediate stage. In 

 respect to form, the bird varies chie9y in the length of the bill and shape of 

 the tail. The bill in adult specimens is always longer than the tarsus, but 

 being dependent somewhat on age, may in young birds be found equal to the 

 tarsus, or even a little shorter. The tail, usually nearly or quite even, is some- 

 times in immature birds considerably doubly emarginate ; the central feathers, 

 however, are never pointed and projecting as in Actodromas. As usual among 

 the Trtngece, the tarsus and toes do not differ much in length or proportions. 



TringiwcamUus is mentioned in the very earliest ornithological writings, and, 

 as is usually the case with those species which vary much in plumage, has 

 received a great variety of names. The older authors instituted nominal 

 species on almost every change of plumage which it undergoes ; but still, these 

 stages are now so well known, that there is little difficulty in identifying the 

 descriptions. The " grisled " and " freckled " sandpipers of Latham and Gmelin, 

 T. grisca and«?ia;i'««, as well as, in all probability, the T. australis, Gm., are to be 

 referred to intermediate stages of the present bird. But it is the plumage of 

 the first autumn which has given rise to the most firmly established nominal 

 species, the T. cinerea, Auct. ; it is as different as possible from that of the 

 adult, and at the same time is marked in character and presents but few evi- 

 dences of immaturity. It is not a little singular that as late as 1813 Wilson 

 should give the bird a new name, (T. rufa,) and say that "of this prettily- 

 marked species I can find no description;" there being already at that date no 

 less than seven different appellations for the bird. Tringa canutus of Linnaeus 

 seems to have priority over all others, and is the name now in general use, 



CALIDRIS Cuvier. 



Calidris, Cuvier, 1799—1800, (fide G. R. Gray;) 1805, (fide Gen. Rep.) Nee 



Calidris, Cuv. Regn. An. 1817. 

 Aretiaria, Meyer, 1810, (fide G. R. Gray.) Nee Linnaei. 



Char. — Bill stout, straight, about equal to the head or tarsus ; tip thick- 

 ened, expanded and rather hard, the culmen just posterior to it somewhat 

 depressed and hollowed. Nostrils situated far forward. Wings long, pointed ; 

 tail short, doubly emarginate, central feathers projecting. Tibia bare for two- 

 thirds the length of the tarsus; toes very short and widely margined. Hind 

 toe wanting. (General characters of Tringa proper, but without hind toe.) 



A genus well marked by the absence of the hind toe, a feature entirely 

 peculiar among Tringece. In other respects it comes nearest to Tringa proper, 

 with which it has a very close affinity, the bill, tarsus and toes, as well as the 

 tibia, having much the same proportions. The toes, however, are even shorter, 

 and the tail is doubly emarginate, a feature scarcely seen in Tringa. The bill 

 in its short and stout proportions has much the general appearance of that of 

 Charadrius, which fact, in connection with absence of the hind toe, has caused 

 the single species of the genus to be referred to the plovers by some of the 

 older authors. In all other respects, however, as well as in general habits, the 

 bird is a true Sandpiper. 



According to Gray, Calidris of Cuvier, of 1799 — 1800, is founded upon the 

 T. arenaria, L. The name must therefore be employed in the present con- 

 nection, though in 1817 Cuvier gives T. canutus, L. as the type of the genus. 

 Arenaria of Meyer, of 1810, based, according to Gray, upon the T. arenaria, is 

 preoccupied in Botany, that being the name of an old Linnsean genus of plants. 



Calidris arenaria lUiger. — Sauderling. 



Tringa arenaria, Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. 1766, L 251. Audubon, Orn. Biog. 1839, 

 iii. 231, V. 582; id. Syn. 1839, 237: id. Birds Amer. 1842, v. 287, tab. 338. 

 Schlegel, Rev. Crit. 18-16, 90. 



1861.] 



