Vol. X 



igo2 



I Nelson, Certain North American Gallince. 39 ^ 



Cyrtonyx merriami. The characters of this species are so 

 well marked that in conjunction with my critic's comments, it 

 serves to illustrate strikingly the true value of Mr. Grant's criticism 

 and conclusions. He says that " By almost invariably contrasting 

 his supposed new birds with the species to which they are least 

 nearly allied, ' old friends ' are made to appear in the guise of very 

 distinct species. We cannot imagine that so excellent a field- 

 naturalist as Mr. Nelson does this wilfully, and must therefore 

 infer that such errors are due to insufficient knowledge of the sub- 

 ject and want of material. By referring to the various ' keys to 

 the species ' in the ' Catalogue of Birds,' XXII, Mr. Nelson would 

 have escaped such absurdities as redescribing Cyrtonyx saUaiwnd^^x 

 the name of C. inerriami and comparing it with C. montezumce ! !'''' 

 "There can be no doubt that C. inerriami is a synonym of the beau- 

 tiful species described in 1859 as C. sallceiP The foregoing 

 authoritative disposal of C. inerriami made me almost fear that 

 Mr. Grant held the power to make the ' tiger change its spots.' 

 On examination of the type of C. merriami however I find that the 

 color characters between it, C. montezumcB diwd C.sallcei^ are such 

 that a photograph brings out some of the most salient differences. 

 After examining the accompanying photographs of these birds I 

 think that any competent ornithologist will admit that I was 

 justified in the " absurdity " of describing C. vierriami as distinct 

 and in comparing it with its nearest relative C. montezumcB, even 

 after consulting the " keys to the species " in the ' Catalogue of 

 Birds, XXII.' 



Dactylortyx. While admitting that my revision of this genus 

 was done on scanty material I see no reason for considering 

 myself in error in describing D. chiapensis and D. devius. That 

 Mr. Ogilvie Grant cannot find any differences in a series of 23 

 specimens in the British Museum, in the light of his recent utter- 

 ances, is not at all surprising and really would not appear to have 

 any bearing on the facts in the case. 



