^°189Y''] PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM. 621 



descriptiou and name have been applied to Prion desolatus. So far the 

 parallel is absolute. The only difference is that Latham's description 

 of P. desolata does not fit the Prion half as well as his description of 

 P.fuliffinosa does the present species. Therefore, if it is defensible and 

 correct to recognize a Prion desolatus Gmel. nee Kuhl (and I believe it 

 is), then it also becomes necessary to recognize the bird before me as 

 Oceanodroma fuliginosa Gmel. nee Kuhl. 



The present specimen is strongly suffused witli plumbeous above, 

 but this plumbeous tinge is probably present in all the uniform fuli- 

 ginous species, when fresh, and will probably in time disappear in this 

 specimen, too. It is chiefly distinguishable from the other similarly 

 colored species by its large size. 



The specimen (Science College Museum, No. 1555) was collected by 

 Mr. Y.Tanaka at Torishima, 1801, and by him presented to that museum. 



Oceanodroma markhami (Sulv.). 



Through the great kindness of Canon Tristram 1 have before me the 

 specimen from Sendai Bay, collected by Lieut. Ounn in 1871, which has 

 caused the introduction of the name 0. melania into the Japanese 

 avifauna. I have also before me U. S. Kat. Mus. No. 13025, the (). 

 melania collected by Xantus, at Cape St. Lucas (entirely overlooked 

 by Seebohm, B. Jap. Emp., p. 1571), and the only specimen thus far 

 obtained in North America besides the type. The coloration of the two 

 specimens is practically identical (the uniform brown upper surface, 

 without plumbeous tinge of the National Musueum bird, I attribute to 

 the age of the specimen), l)ut the proportions are so different that I 

 feel compelled to regard them as belonging to different species. The 

 (piestion now arises, Avhich one is the true (). melania of Bonaparte? 

 Seebohm has compared Tristram's bird with the type in Paris, and says, 

 in a general way, that he has "no doubt that they belong to the same 

 species" (B. Jap. Emp., p. 271). On the other hand, I find on the back 

 of the label of the Cape St. Lucas specimen, in Dr. E. Coues's handwrit- 

 ing, the following: "True melania, as ascertained by measurements 

 procured from Pucheran by Prof. Baird." Now, if Seebohm has not 

 minutely noted the various dimensions and found them identical, he 

 would naturally have no doubt as to the identity of the two specimens, 

 if depending chiefly on coloration. Under these circumstances I think 

 it safer to rely upon the measurements of the type given by Pucheran, 

 and to regard the two Mexican birds, the type and the specimen in the 

 National Museum, as being the same — consequently true 0. melania. 



The Japanese bird, on the other hand, agrees very well with Salvin's 

 0. markhami. It will be observed in the table of dimensions given 

 below that the chief difference between the Mexican and the Japanese 

 birds is in the length of the tarsus, and we are at once reminded of 

 Salvin's remark in regard to this O. marlliami (P. Z. S., 1883, p. 430) : 

 " (7. /He?amVc, Bp. apud Coues, certe similis, sed capite plumbescente, 



