i8S6.J Recent Literature. 267 



Pelecanus californicus. — Dr. Cooper's remarks are apparently intended 

 to discredit the supposed distinctness of tlie Florida and California Brown 

 Pelicans. He says : "The adult plumage obtained by me at San Diego 

 does not differ from that of Florida birds, but the colors of the bill, pouch, 

 etc., differed from both the Florida and Lower California birds, being in- 

 termediate, and quite variable." Upon reference to page 143, Vol. II of 

 the ' Water Birds,' it will be seen that/'. cfl'///(?r««c«5 is described as being 

 "Similar to P. friscus, but decidedly larger, the gular sac, in the breeding' 

 season,* reddish, instead of greenish," etc., it being explicitly stated that 

 the supposed difference in the color of the nape might "not prove sufficiently 

 constant to serve as a diagnostic character." It will be observed that Dr. 

 Cooper does not mention the date or season when his specimens were ob- 

 tained, thus depriving his statement of "colors of bill, pouch, etc.," of any 

 weight whatever. Much material examined by me since the publication of 

 the 'Water Birds,' while negativing the doubtfully suspected difference in 

 the color of the nape, fully confirms the asserted great and constant difier- 

 ence in size between P. fiiscns and P. californicus, and, so far as the con- 

 dition of the specimens show anything as to fresh colors of the soft parts, 

 does not disprove the stated difference in this respect. 



Cymochorea melania and C. homochroa. — There is no more occasion for . 

 confounding these exceedingly distinct species than for confounding the 

 Raven and Crow, the difference in size and other particulars being quite as 

 great. The two species are so concisely distinguished in the 'Water Birds' 

 (Vol. II, p. 407), that it is unnecessary to further particularize here. 



Puffinus stricklandi.— Dr. Cooper's remarks respecting this species em- 

 body sevex-al errors of fact as well as wrong deductions. In the first place, 

 nothing can be more certain than that P. stricklandi is not the voung of 

 P. major, or that no species of Petrel is, in the same individual, dusky when 

 young and light-colored -when adult. (See Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, 

 p. 658.) In the second place, there is no evidence whatever that P. fnajor 

 itself occurs in any part of the Pacific Ocean. In short, it is very evident 

 that the species which Dr. Cooper has mistaken for P. stricklandi is P. 

 griseiis; and it is remarkable that this did not occur to him, since it is 

 carefully described and compared with P. stricklandi on the very next 

 page.f To unite under one specific name such obviously distinct species 



* Not italicized in the original. 



fThe length of wing given by Dr. Cooper for his specimen, 12 1-4 inches, is not very 

 greatly in excess of the maximum of the same measurement in P. griseiis, as given in 

 my diagnosis ; and, considering the fact that his measurement was probably taken from 

 a fresh or at least recently skinned specimen, while mine was of a thoroughly dried 

 skin, would readily account for the discrepancy, which might also result from a different 

 method of measurement. There is, however, in my description an unfortunate 

 contradiction of the statement that "P. ^m^^w is smaller in all its measurements than 

 P. stricklandi" in the figures given immediately above. This is explained by the fact 

 that the statement was written when only the type specimen (representing the mini- 

 mum measurement) was before me, the measurement of the larger one being subse- 

 quently interpolated and the contradictory statement inadvertently overlooked. 



