Todd: The Birds of the Isle of Pines. 217 



This is a very common species on the coast, wherever there are 

 sandy beaches, as at Punta del Este, Los Indios, and Rincon Lagoon. 

 Except in the breeding-season, it was usually observed in large flocks, 

 often associated with the Semipalmated Plover. 



63. Arenaria interpres morinella (Linnaeus). Ruddy Turnstone. 

 Three specimens: Caleta Grande. 



These birds were shot on November 26 and April 18 on the coral- 

 beach at Caleta Grande, and were all that were seen. They were 

 found singly, and not associated with any other shore-birds. All are 

 in winter dress, and in the November birds the remiges are very fresh, 

 in one case the outer primary still having the sheath attached. 



64. Jacana spinosa violacea (Cory). West Indian Jacana. 



Jacana spinosa (not Fulica spinosa Linnaeus) Cory, Cat. W. Indian Birds, 1892, 92 



(I. of Pines, in geog. distr.). 

 Asarcia spinosa Bangs & Zappey, Am. Nat., XXXIX, 1905, 196 (Santa Rosalia 



Lagoon, Laguna Grande, Pasadita, and the Cienaga; habits). 



Eight specimens: Santa Ana and Pasadita. 



The examination of a series of forty-six adult specimens of Jacana 

 spinosa, brought together in order to determine the status of the bird 

 of the Isle of Pines, shows conclusively that the sexes difi'er materially 

 from each other in size, and also to a less extent in color. But unlike 

 most birds, these differences are all in favor of the female, which is 

 decidedly larger and somewhat more brightly colored than the male, 

 and with a larger frontal lappet. The three exceptions to this rule 

 in the series before me are unquestionably wrongly sexed specimens. 

 So far as I have been able to discover, Gundlach {Ornitologia Ctibana, 



1895, 237) was apparently the first author to note this fact, which is 

 confirmed by Sharpe ( Catalogue Birds British Museum, XXIV, 



1896, 87) and Salvin and Godman {Biologia Centrali- Americana, Aves, 

 III, 1903, 343). There is no sexual difference affecting the color of 

 the inner secondaries, however, as intimated by the former author. 

 These sexual differences must constantly be kept in mind when com- 

 paring birds for geographic variation, else confusion is bound to ensue, 

 as was evidently the case with Mr. Elliot {Auk, V, 1888, 299) and with 

 Baird, Brewer & Ridgway {Water Birds of North America, I, 1884, 

 177). who must have been dealing with incorrectly sexed specimens, 

 and could find no differences correlated with locality. With the 

 material before me, however, I find no difificulty in recognizing no 



