480 U. S. P. R. BR, EXP. AND SURVEYS—ZOOLOGY—GENERAL REPORT. 
size, leads me to consider the species as a good one, as, if it were merely a smaller race of another 
species, the general proportions would be retained. 
MELOSPIZA RUFINA, Baird. 
‘© Emberiza rufina, Brant, Desc. Av. Rossic. 1836, tab. ii, 5, Sitka.’ Bonaparte. 
Passerella rufina, Bonar. Conspectus, 1850, 477. 
Fringilla cinerea, (Gm.) Aup. Orn. Biog. V, 1839, 22; pl. 390.—Is. Syn. 1839, 119.—Is. Birds America, III, 1841, 
145; pl. 187. 
Passerella cinerea, Be. List, 1839.—Is. Conspectus, 1850, 477. 
2 Zonotrichia cinerea, Be. Conspectus, 1850, 478. 
22 Fringilla cinerea, Gmewin, I, 1788, 922. 
Fringilla (Passerella) guttata, Nurtati, Man. I, 2d ed. 1840, 581. 
Zonotrichia guttata, GamBe., J. A. N. Sc. I, Dec. 1847, 50. 
Sp. Cu.—Bill slender. Similar in general appearance to M. melodia, but darker and much more rufous, the colors more blended. 
General appearance above light rufous brown, the interscapular region streaked very obsoletely with dark brownish rufous, 
the feathers of the crown similar, with still darker obsolete central streaks. A superciliary and very obscure median crown 
stripe, ashy. Under parts brownish whitish; the breast and sides of throat and body broadly streaked with dark brownish 
rufous; darker in the centre. A light maxillary stripe. Sides of the body tinged strongly with the colors of the rump, 
and leaving only a narrow space of the belly white. Under coverts brown. Length, 6.75; wing, 2.70; tail, 3.00. 
Hab.—Pacific coast of the United States to Russian America. 
This species appears larger than I/. melodia, and will be readily distinguished by the absence 
of the blackish brown centres to the brown streaks, and of any marked contrast of color in 
different parts of the feathers, as well as by the general dark rufous shades of color. There are 
no grayish edges to the feathers of the back, nor blackish streaks. The spots beneath are 
broader, more blended, and more thickly crowded; the sides and under tail coverts much 
darker. The bill is smaller and considerably more slender and conical. The light and dark 
markings about the head are less strongly contrasted. 
The color of the spots on the breast is much as in JZ, fallax; they are broader and much 
more numerous, however; the sides and under tail coverts much darker. The upper parts, too, 
are much darker and more rufous; the feathers lacking the grayish edges, so conspicuous in 
fallax as well as in melodia. In fact, the upper parts are frequently so uniform as INOS to 
resemble Passerella townsendii, there being only a faint trace of darker centres. 
The bill is more slender and attenuated than in any of our large song sparrows. 
The young has the head above olivaceous rufous without any streaks; the feathers of the 
back are brownish rufous with obsolete central blotches. The spotting is thus much less than 
in melodia. 
I do not agree with Nuttall in considering Fringilla cinerea of Gmelin so far removed from 
the present species; in fact, it is quite possibly the same, as based on the cinereous finch of 
Pennant.—(Arctic Zool. II, 378.) Still, as the species is not cinereous and there is yet much 
uncertainty about it, it may be best not to take Gmelin’s name. 
The next name in order appears to be rufina of Brandt, which I identify from Bonaparte’s 
description, not having the original reference at hand. 
There is yet much to be done in the determination and identification of the numerous spotted 
sparrows from the northwest coast, described by Pennant, Gmelin, and other authors. 
