H)0 Ridgway on Helminthophila leucobronchialis. [October 



A supposed strong point which h;is been urged against the 

 validity of //. leucobronchialis &% a distinct species, is the circum- 

 stance that typical specimens constitute a small proportion of all 

 those obtained, and the suspicious circumstance that each in- 

 dividual of the aberrant majority inclined, in one respect or 

 another, toward //. f^iiius. Only seven of the twenty-two exam- 

 ples which have been recorded ( including those of ' //. lawrencei,* 

 which must be considered in this connection), oi" not quite one- 

 third, are true //. leucobronchialis; but when, instead of taking 

 two elements into consideration (i. e., //. piiuts and //. chrysop- 

 /<■/■</) we add a third ( //. leucobronchialis itself), the dispro- 

 portion becomes far less significant. 



In no other way than by assuming that //. leucobronchialis \§ a 

 distinct species, which itself hybridizes with its allies, can we 

 account tor the origin of the puzzling series of specimens which 

 have so prejudiced the claims of the bird under consideration to 

 specific rank ; and 1 feel convinced that Mr. Brewster expressed 

 the exact truth when he stated {cf. Nuttall Bulletin, 111, p. 99) 

 that "the validity of this distinctly characterized species must 

 now be regarded as established," and I feel equally satisfied that 

 the hypothesis of hybridism which he subsequently advanced 

 tails to settle the case as affecting //. leucobronchialis itself. 

 however well it may answer for the 'aberrant' specimens which 

 have been wrongly referred to it. 



Regarding the very close resemblance between certain speci- 

 mensof //. /< , //<t>/>/-o//c///<r//.s\ Mr. Brewster observes : "Indeed, it 

 would be difficult to select three individuals of any species which 

 vary so little inter se." I have myself seen only the type and the 

 Virgina specimen in the National Museum collection ; but I can 

 affirm that the two are as nearly counterparts of one another, 

 so far as details of plumage are concerned, as any two specimens, 

 of any species, that have ever come under my observation. 



'The following classification of all the specimens* hitherto 



recorded of both //. leucobronchialis (in its widest sense) and 



• //. lawrencei,' expresses my views as to their nature and origin. 

 The arrangement is of course purely hypothetical, but at the 



same time admits of a much more satisfactory solution of the 

 problem which Mr. Brewster has so carefully discussed than 



* A few may possibly have been overlooked. 



