626 PKOCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. [1885. 



decorated, but be adduces no evidence iu support of this supposition. 

 In the " Birds of the Colorado Valley," 1878, p. 93, and in the second 

 edition of the " Key," 1884, p. 259, he expresses a doubt upon this point. 

 He says {II. cc): "This beautiful ornament is apparently not gained 

 until the second year, and there is a question whether it is ever present 

 iu the female. * * * Young for the first year (and 9?) quite like 

 the adult, but wanting the scarlet patch." 



The "British Museum Catalogue of Birds," Vol. VIII, p. 85, "keeps 

 the ball rolling," denying the crown to the young bird, but silent as to 

 its possession by the female. In fact, the same statement, in substance, 

 runs through all the books I have seen that have had occasion to de- 

 scribe the plumage of this abundant and interesting little bird. 



As regards the alleged presence of the ornament in the female, it is 

 difficult to see how this error could have so long prevailed. In addi- 

 tion to the large series of the National Museum, I have examined a 

 good many others, amounting in the aggregate to about 125 specimens, 

 and but one of those having a red crown-patch purports to be a female. 

 This skin. No. 10937 U. S. N. M., was collected in April, 1858, at Fort 

 Bridger, Utah, by Mr. C. Drexler; but this determination may be set 

 aside as in all probability erroneous. The error originated with the older 

 American ornithologists, who, knowing that the females of all the other 

 Begulince had a brightly colored crown, although differing from that of 

 the male, doubtless took it for granted that this one had it also. 



The presence of this character in young autumnal males is a fact 

 that I have but recently ascertained. During October of this year 

 (1885.) I took four young males, and Mr. William Palmer, of Washing-" 

 ton, two, all with the brightly colored crown; three of the former were 

 taken on the same day. I took particular pains in determining the 

 fact that they were young birds, and Mr. Palmer informs me that he 

 exercised the same care with his two specimens. This point was easy 

 enough to determine, on account of the very incomplete ossification of the 

 various parts of the skeleton, particularly the skull, the softness of the 

 rictal membrane, &c. Altogether I shot seven of the birds this fall, all 

 of them "birds of the year" — four males, as above stated, with the 

 bright crown, ohe male without the crown (shot in September), one 

 female, and one (without the crown) whose sex, on account of the mu- 

 tilation of the parts, was not determinable. This would seem to indi- 

 cate the numerical preponderance of the young males with the crown 

 over those without this decoration. The large series I had under ex- 

 amination contains a good many fall males with the crown, and I have 

 no doubt that most of them were birds of the year, a fact of easj^ de- 



and that neither gains it for at least one year is proved by the circumstance that in 

 the spring migrations a number of individuals are found with the head perfectly plain. 

 The sexes are never positively distinguishable by outward characters. In this respect 

 the species differs from B.satrapa, the female of which lacks the scarlet central patch 

 in the yellow of the crown." 



