TWO ADDITIONS TO THE JAPANESE AVIFAUNA, INCLUDING DE- 
SCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES. 
BY 
LEONHARD STEJNEGER, 
Curator of the Department of Reptiles and Batrachians. 
A few specimens belonging to the Science College Museum in Tokyo 
_ have been received by mail from Dr. Ijima in advance of a more exten- 
sive collection, but as they are quite interesting in themselves, and as a 
considerable time may lapse before I shall be able to report upon the 
larger collection, I have thought it best to embody my remarks upon 
the present specimens in a separate paper. 
Tringa temminckii (LEISL.). 
A young bird (Se. Coll. Mus., No. 2193; ¢ ?) collected in the neighbor- 
hood of Tokyo, during the autumn of 1891, is an interesting addition to 
the Japanese avifauna. 
Synonymy and East Asiatic references to this species may be found 
in my Results of Ornithological Explorations in Kamtschatka, etc., p. 
119, and the distinctive characters are indicated op. cit., p. 117. 
Tringa temminckit has already figured among the Japanese birds 
(Blakiston, Ibis, 1862, p. 330), but the record rested upon an erroneous 
identification, as the birds collected were T. ruficollis, the correction 
being made by Blakiston himself (Trans. As. Soc. Jap., VIII, 1880, p. 
195), and Palmén’s reference (Vega Exp. Vet. Arb., v, 1887, p. 320) to 
‘it as oceurring in northern Japan during the migrations must be cor- 
rected accordingly. 
T. temminckii, thus for the first time correctly attributed to Japan, is 
apparently only an occasional visitor during the migrations, although 
it occurs and breeds in the countries to the north of it. Palmén (Ul. ¢.) 
shows that it is not uncommon on the Tchuktchi peninsula; Kittlitz 
has recorded it from Kamtchatka (Denkw,, I, 1858, p. 196), and I have 
collected it on Bering Island.* 
* Seebohm in his “ Distribution of ‘the! Ch hanaiiiate, p. 435 (1887), says that it “has 
not been recorded from Kamtschatka” in spite of me fact that two years previously 
I had recorded four specimens from Bering Island (Res. Orn. Expl., Kamtsch., 1885, 
p. 119), and in spite of Kittlitz’s record. The latter I have doubted somewhat, as 
Kittlitz only gives the name without adding anything that will aid us in ascertaining 
the correctness of his identification. 
Proceedings National Museum, Vol. XV—No. 906. 
371 
