020 



BIRDS PROM TOKYO, JAPAN STE.TNEfJER. 



liardly be rt'^aidcd as their true liuiiie. ^K. l(>H(jlro.styis probably 

 breeds on some out-of-the-way islet iu the North Pacific, and the 

 specimens in cpiestiou, wliose wing-leathers are molting, were most 

 likely driven from their regular habitat by a heavy gale. The <liscov- 

 ery of this species affords an interesting parallel to that of JEstrelata 

 Jishcri, described not many years ago by Mr. Kidgway from Kadiak, 

 Alaska. 



Measurements. 



Musi'tim and No. 



Sc. Coll. Tok., 1584 . 

 Sc. Coll. Tok., 1583 . 



Collector 

 and No. 



Ad 

 Ad 



Locality. 



Prov. Mutsu, 



Hondo. 

 ....do 



Remarks. 



Type. 



* Longest iiriniaries molting. 



BulTweria bulweii (.Jard. imd Sclliy). 



The specimen (No. 45:^) referred to in the i)revious account (Proc. U. 

 S. Nat. Mus., XIV, 1891, No. 874) as having been "i)icked up on the 

 shore of Sulphur Island" is now before me. Like the other Pacific 

 specimens examined by me, it lias the light wing bar. By Canon 

 Tristram's eourtesy I have been able to compare our Sjjecimeus with 

 the one in his collection from the Marquesas Islands and referred to 

 /?. macffinivraifi (Tristram, Cat. Coll., 1880, p. 6). I must regard it as 

 typical B. hnlicerl, Xov it has the wing bar very eonsjjicuous, and I fail 

 entirely to understand the remark in the Ibis, 1881, p. 252. 



Oceanodronia fuliginosa (Gju.). 



In introducing this interesting addition to the Jai)anese avifauna I 

 have at once to state that this is neither Kuhl's, nor Porster's, nor 

 Solander's, nor Parkinson's Frocellaria fuliginosa. 



It is with great reluctance that I ado])t "this much abused si)ecific 

 name, the various applications of which in this family of birds are hard 

 indeed to trace, and harder still to remember," as Sahin truly says 

 (RoAvley's Orn. Misc., i, 187(5, p. 232), but I see no other alternative. 

 The matter stands thus: The present spe(umen certainly does not be- 

 long to any of the species now recognized by ornithologists. I should, 

 therefore, have felt but little hesitation in describing it as new, were it 

 not that Latham's (and consecpiently also Gmelin's) descrii^tion fits the 

 bird exactly. The case is in many respects parallel to that of Gmelin's 

 P. dcsolata, a specific name almost as "much abused" as ]^. fuliginosa. 

 Both having been misapi)lied by Kuhl, an ^I'Jstrehda was for many 

 years kuowu as -^\ desolata. Of late, however, Latham and (xinelin's 



