218 THE GRAY SHRIKE OF JAPAN — STEJNEGER. 



able, even by a S]»btt(T of so horrible a reputation as myself. What arc 

 we going" to do in this dilemma ? 



Someone " anxious to lump" might take the horn of considering it now 

 demonstrated that as (1) the ICuropean specimens with a single alar 

 speculum have been "proven" to be nothing but Jj. cveubitor, and (-) 

 the eastern Asiatic birds are indistinguishable from these, the so-calh d 

 L. sihiricKs is also '']>rov('n" to be L. cxcnbhor pure aiid sim])h'; fur- 

 thermore, as (3) it has also been "proven" that L. horetdis is not even 

 subspecilically distinct fiom L.sihiririis (Dresser, loc. cit., ]>. oTO), it fol- 

 lows that even the North American bird must stand as L. e.iriihilor. 

 There seems to be some logic in this, yet I doubt if anjxme will behold 

 enough to draw the consequences. 



The other horn is this: The American adult bird {L. horfalifi), and I 

 wish it understood that I s])eak of the adult birds alour, as I do not 

 thinlc it ])()ssible to separate all the young birds, is always* distin- 

 guished by having the under side cross vermiculated, and has always 

 a single wing speculum; Ij. sihiriciis also has a single wing six'culuiu, 

 but the fully adult bird is jnire white underneath; L. cxcuhitor, un- 

 mixed, has a dcmble wing siteculum. L. horeulh is stiictly contined to 

 North America; L. sihiriciis occurs from tlu' Japanese ^Sea all thnmgh 

 northern Siberia and northern Ilussia to Norwegian Finmark; L. 

 crciihUor, unmixed, is confined to central and southeastern Europe 

 (broadly speaking). The boundaries of the two latter forms do n.ow 

 meet, or in certain ])laces even overlap, interbreeding and conse(|uent 

 intermediate specimens being the result; but I have reason to believe 

 that this meeting of the two S]»ecies, in some places, at least, is of com- 

 paratively recent date. 



The very great uniformity whi<*h L. sihiricus shows over such an 

 enormous area, fi'om the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans, as eviden<''ed by 

 the sy)ecimens r«'ferred to above, speaks in favor of its stability and its 

 distinctness. And this point alone, if there were no others, is sufli- 

 cient to indu( e nu> to select the latter horn of the dilemma. Whether 

 this view of the case is the true one 1 think is b(\vond anybody's jxiwer 

 to say for the i)resent, for 1 do not believe that there is enough nmteii.il 

 in any one museum or city to decide, and I even doubt tlnit all the 

 s])e<'imens in St. Petersburg, Tjondon, and Washington today, if bronghl 

 together, would settle the (jucstion beyond dispute. 



In the mciin time T think it i)erfectly safe to call the sp(( i • Vn:n 

 Askold and from Yezo Lanius sihiricus (Bogdanow). 



" " Always" in the sense Avbicli (Iocs not precliKle possible exccptious due to indi- 

 vidual variation. 



