ee Bisnop, New Birds from Alaska. rie 
would it not be still stranger if they did not, or if different, 
_ species, with their different habits, were still more alike? Surely 
this difference of pattern does not clamor for explanation. 
Still another argument to show that pro/ection is, somehow, the 
main object of the cross-bars lies in the fact that young birds in 
many Cases are more barred than the adults of the same species. 
just as nature keeps the young of many wugraded species graded’ 
for protection like their mother. 
DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE NEW BIRDS FROM ALASKA. 
BY LOUIS B. BISHOP, M.D. 
In stupyING the collection of birds secured in Alaska during 
the summer of 1899 by the party from the Biological Survey, of 
which I was a member, thanks to the kind invitation of Dr. Mer- 
riam, Chief of the Survey, I have found that three Alaskan birds 
differ sufficiently from the same species from other parts of the 
country to deserve description as subspecies, and that two sub- 
species already described — Parus hudsonicus evura Coues and 
fLylocichla ustulata alme Oberholser — in the light of more mate- 
rial seem to merit recognition. 
Parus hudsonicus from Alaska is certainly subspecifically dis- 
tinct from PP. hudsonicus from New Brunswick, and so far as I 
have been able to study them Auwdsonzcus from Ungava, Labrador, 
and New Brunswick appear the same, but as I have not seen birds 
from the type locality of Awdsonicus, or from Ungava in nestling 
and early fall plumage, I can only hope to throw a little light on 
the races of this puzzling species. 
To the gentlemen in charge of the collections of the Biological 
Survey, the U. S. National Museum, the American Museum of 
Natural History, and the private collection of Mr. Brewster, I wish 
to express my thanks for the privilege of studying large series of 
these species and for much assistance received, and to Mr. Outram 
Bangs, Dr. Jonathan Dwight, Jr., and Mr. Homer L. Bigelow for 
kindly loaning me specimens for comparison. 
