258 



General Notes. [July- 



lesser coverts tipped with the rosy of the abdomen, secondaries and tail- 

 feathers slightly edged with hoary, linings of wings white, each feather 

 slightly tipped with rosy. Bill yellow, tipped with black for one-quarter 

 of its length. 



Juv., sex? (No. 1515. Coll. A. W. A,; January 24, 18S6, Gold Hill, 

 Colo.). Crown dull grayish-black, feathers edged with gray, fading on 

 the occiput into the grayish brown of the neck. Lores dusky; nasal 

 plumes dull whitish. Sides of head and neck all around grayish brown, 

 deepening to umber-brown on the chin and throat. Lower parts ante- 

 riorly light brown, each feather edged with whitish; abdomen dusky, the 

 feathers tipped with pale pinkish and ding}' white, feathers of the back 

 dull brown, with darker shaft-lines and paler edges; upper tail-coverts 

 and lesser wing-coverts with rosy markings; greater coverts edged with 

 white, very slightly tinted with same. Wings and tail blackish, all of the 

 feathers more or less edged with dull white. Lining of wings white. 

 Bill yellow, clouded with black ; feet and tarsus black. The entire plu- 

 mage of this specimen has a very bleached, uncertain appearance. 



In comparing the full plumaged australis with L. tephrocofis, both in 

 winter dress, I find the latter much the darker bird, the umber-brown 

 on the breast and back of the female tcphrocotis being of about the same 

 shade as that found on the male australis. In tep&rocotis the rosy hue is 

 less extended, decidedly duller, and more broken by the ground colors of 

 the body. In tephrocotis\ often find the rump marked with crescent-shaped < 

 rosy spots on a chocolate ground, while in australis, although the rosy 

 patch is seldom, if ever, continuous, it is usually less broken and extends 

 farther forward. A few of the males of australis had the carmine of the 

 abdomen clear and unbroken, extending in the middle much farther for- 

 ward than in tcphrocotis, which, in all cases examined, had the colored 

 patch more or less broken by chocolate-brown. — A. W. Anthony, Denver, 

 Colorado. 



Note on Spizella monticola ochracea Brewst. — In his 'Additions to 

 the Catalogue of the Birds of Kansas', Col. Goss suggests that, since all 

 I he specimens of this form examined by him had been "captured in the 

 fall or early winter, further examination, especially of the birds in their 

 spring plumage, might prove the paler form to be the immature winter 

 dress" of the common species (true 5\ monticola), although he remarks 

 that "Mr. Brewster, in making his examination, had before him not only 

 his large collection, but that in the National Museum, which must have 

 embraced specimens taken at different seasons of the year." For Col. 

 Goss's information on this point, as well as for that of others who may not 

 be familiar with the two forms in their various plumages, I would state 

 that the National Museum collection embraces large series of both taken 

 on their breeding grounds, S. monticola in northern Labrador (Ft. Chimo, 

 Ungava, by L. M. Turner) and 5. monticola ochracea in Alaska (various 

 localities by various collectors), and that the two forms are in summer 

 dress quite as distinct from one another as in winter, the young in first 

 plumage being equally different. Moreover, the difference is perfectly 



