258 FLAX-BIRD—FLICKER 
The same distinguished zoologist also refers to this Family remains 
designated by him Agnopterus, and those of the “ Elornis” (properly 
Helornis) of M. Aymard (cf. Fossth Birps). 
FLAX-BIRD, the North-American Goldfinch or “ Yellow Bird,” 
Chrysomitris tristis (congeneric with our SISKIN), so “called in the 
back parts of Carolina” as Latham (Gen. Hist. B. vi. p. 120) was 
informed by Abbot ; but the name seems to have dropped out of use. 
FLICKER, one of the most characteristic, common, and con- 
spicuous birds of the greater part of North America, the Golden- 
winged WoopPECKER of books, the Picus auratus of Linnzus, and 
Colaptes auratus of 
modern ornithology. 
Its habits have been 
well described by 
Wilson, Audubon, 
and other writers, 
but there is no space here to dwell upon them, engaging as the topic 
is, for the mention of this bird suggests a more important theme. 
Widely distributed as it is from the Atlantic coast, so far southward 
as Louisiana, to Canada, and thence across the Rocky Mountains, and 
still further northward to Alaska, its place is taken on the greater 
part of the Pacific side by a species which, avoiding Southern 
California, reaches the tablelands of Mexico—a_ species more 
brilliantly tinted, for ruby appears in its plumage instead of gold, the 
C. mexicanus or rubricatus* of authors. But in an intervening broad 
belt running north-westward from Texas to British Columbia there 
occur birds presenting almost every combination of the distinctive 
coloration of the two species just named,” and though one of these 
intermediate specimens had been long before figured and described 
as CU. ayresi by Audubon (8. Amer. vii. p. 348, pl. 494), yet Baird 
was so much persuaded that all these puzzling birds were hybrids, 
that he used (Kapl. de. Railroad Route, ix. p. 122) the name 
C. hybridus to cover the whole of them.* It must be admitted that 
CoxaPtTes. (After Swainson.) 
1 By some writers identified with the P. cafer of Gmelin, founded on Latham’s 
description of a specimen said to have come from South America; but most likely 
the locality assigned is wrong. 
? The series contained in the Museum of the Smithsonian Institution in 
1857 was in that year shewn to me and descanted upon by my highly esteemed 
friend the late Prof. S. F. Baird. He did not convince me of the truth of 
his views, and I afterwards saw greater reason to doubt their correctness ; but 
they were probably the only views in those days consonant with philosophy to 
any one not in the confidence of Mr. Darwin, whose secret was not revealed till 
the next year. 
3 Cassin at that time was inclined to believe that they could be broken up 
into several distinct ‘‘species”’; but I do not know that he ever published 
this opinion, 
