356 BIRDS FROM YEZO, JAPAN—STEJNEGER. 
In fact, I was long in doubt whether they could be separated at all, and 
still more so as to where to draw the line. 
The two Japanese forms were originally separated by Schlegel in 
Fauna Japonica, the characters ascribed to them being the smaller size 
and the deeper and brighter colors.of Ch. kawarahiba minor, Sharpe 
(Cat. B. Br. Mus., x1, pp. 26-28), who accepts Swinhoe’s identification 
of the latter with Ch. sinica, gives the same characteristic of the two 
forms which he regards as species. Schlegel gives the following di- 
mensions of the wing: kawarahiba major, 90™™; k. minor, T77™™ to 81™™, 
Sharpe’s measurements are respectively: 86™™ to 59™™ and 76™™ to 
85™™, the larger dimensions being in every instance that of the male, 
the smaller that of the female. Whitely (Ibis, 1867, p. 202) gives also 
some measurements, viz, 82.5™" and 89™™, the latter being, however, 
that of a female bird only. Thus these authors allow a gap of about 
10™™ between the males of the two forms. Capt. Blakiston, however, 
has already shown that there is no such gap (Chrysanth., 1882, p. 474), 
and a glance at the tables below shows conclusively that they run into 
each other as far as size expressed by length of wing is concerned. 
According to the authors quoted above, the smaller size is accompa- 
nied by deeper and brighter colors. A glance at my series would con- 
vince any one that this does not hold good. My Kamtchatkan* male, 
one of the largest, is quite as brightly colored as any one in the whole 
collection. 
Capt. Blakiston (loc. cit.) has called attention to the greater size of the 
bill of Ch. kawarahiba as a more reliable character than the length of 
body or wing; but even in this respect no hard and fast line can be 
drawn. There is a regular gradation between the heaviest and longest 
bills to the shortest and most slender, and it will be seen that generally 
the bigger bill is associated with the longest wing. Size of bill, there- 
fore, is no more absolute character than length of wing. 
An inspection of my series, however, convinces me that there is a 
character which, taken in conjunction with those of size, makes it pos- 
sible to distinguish in most cases between the two forms, for I find that 
the larger birds have the secondaries and tertiaries, particularly the 
former, much more broadly edged with light than the smaller speci- 
mens, in which, moreover, the edges are grayer, while in the former 
they are nearly pure white. This character is most beautifully illus- 
trated in the two breeding females, No. 88680, from Fiji, Hondo, and 
No. 92626, from Petropaulski, Kamtchatka, for although the latter is 
in a more abraded plumage than the former, the pure white edges to 
the secondaries form a very conspicuous white longitudinal bar on the 
folded wing; in the former there is hardly a trace of light edges. 
This, fortunately, gives us a fixed basis for determining the range of 
the two forms. Defining, as I do, Chloris kawarahiba as the larger form 
*The Kamtchatkan habitat of Ch. kawarahiba and the reference to this species 
in my ‘Results of Ornithol. Explorations in Kamtschatka, ete.,” have been entirely f 
overlooked by Sharpe (loc. cit.). 
t 
