18S5.] Stejneger, Analecta Omithologica. I 70 



larly decisive is the reference to the white wing- and tail-spots. 

 It will also be remarked that bristles at the mouth are not men- 

 tioned at all. So far it is all right, and as this description is the 

 basis of the oldest binominal, I think we might content ourselves 

 with this result. It has been urged, however, that the references 

 belong to the Whip-poor-will (R., No. 354), that Gnnelin's spe- 

 cies is a composite one, and, therefore, untenable. Let us then 

 examine a little closer into the references given. 



We will commence with the third of Gmelin's enumeration, 

 "Whip-poor-will, Catesb. Car. 3. t. 16," because it is the oldest 

 and the one which has caused the whole trouble. 



Plate 16 of the Appendix of Catesby's 'Natural History of Caro- 

 lina. Florida and the Bahama Islands' represents a Goatsucker 

 which he calls ' Capriniiilgus minor Americanus.'' The figure 

 is one of the poorer pictures of that celebrated work, but may 

 be said to represent the Nighthawk, on account of the white 

 wing-spot, which is very recognizable. Above and below the 

 bill are some long and fantastically arranged bristles, which has 

 led to the belief that the Antrostomus vociferus was meant, the 

 more so since Catesby in the text calls the. bird 'Whip-poor-will.' 

 The latter mistake is very excusable, for I have been told that 

 the people in the localities in which both species occur generally 

 confound them, and believe that the Nighthawk utters the sound 

 which has given 'Whip-poor-will' its name. Concerning the 

 bristles, we are justified in presuming that they are due to an 

 intended improvement on the part of the artist. Catesby may 

 have seen specimens of the A. vociferus with the strong bristles, 

 and, confounding the two species, introduced the bristles into 

 his drawing thinking that they were accidentally absent from the 

 specimen he figured, for, inasmuch as the plate is inscribed 

 "M. Catesby ad viv. del in." it is not at all probable that the 

 white wing-spot is a freak of his fancy. There is another 

 point of importance in that drawing, namely, the length of the 

 pointed wings, which reach considerably beyond the end of the 

 tail, proportions particularly characteristic of the Nighthawk. 

 We are, therefore, justified in saying that the figure in question 

 is a rather poor representation of the so-called 'Nighthawk.' 



The next reference in time is Edwards's Plate 63. That this 

 figure represents the Nighthawk is beyond doubt, it being a very 

 good picture of that bird. It may he remarked that he also calls 



