168 General Notes. pen 
GENERAL NOTES. 
Notes on the Genus Micruria.—In the ‘Catalogue of Birds in the 
British Museum’ (Vol. XXVI, p. 595) W. R. Ogilvie-Grant suggests that 
Micruria craveri may possibly be the breeding plumage of AZ. hypoleuca. 
That such is zo¢ the case I have abundant evidence in some ‘fifty or more 
hypoleuca of both sexes which I have taken from the nest, all of which 
were perfectly characteristic in having pure white under wing-coverts. I 
have taken hyfoleuca in every month in the year and have never yet seen 
an adult with gray or dusky under wing-coverts. On many of the islands 
off the coast of Lower California JZ hypoleuca begins nesting in late 
January, though I have found fresh eggs as late as early April. Late in 
February they may be seen at sea in family parties consisting of the 
parents and one or two downy young, which are taken to the water the 
first night, I think, after they are hatched. The young stay in company 
with the adults until late in the year, and after June 1 I have never seen 
an immature bird that could be identified as such at gunshot range. Dur- 
ing the second week in June, 1897,I fell in with a number of family parties 
of Micruria off Magdalena Bay, Lower California. An immature bird 
was shot and upon securing it I found the under wing-coverts smoky 
gray more or less tipped with white, though I hough? I was sure that the 
parents were typical hyfoleuca. In March, 1899, I was so fortunate as 
to find several nests of young only just from the egg; two of these are 
before me, and as regards color, they are exact counterparts of the adults, 
except that the wings are sooty below as well as above. The parents in 
this case were secured and identified beyond a doubt. Thinking that I 
had at last a clew to the status of MZ. craverz¢—a species I had begun to 
consider somewhat mythical—I sent my Magdalena Bay specimen to 
Mr. Ridgway for comparison with specimens of craverdé in the National 
Museum. His reply is to the effect that the National Museum has but 
three specimens of craverZ and the same number of hyfoleuca; the 
former “are evidently old birds, being in worn plumage; one of them 
has nearly completed the moult and still has the dusky wing-coverts!” 
Mr. Ridgway suggests that the plumages may possibly represent the 
two sexes, the sexing of the specimens in the National Museum support- 
ing that supposition, the “cravert” being marked males and “ hypoleuca” 
as females; or that they may be individual phases of one species. As for 
the first suggestion, I can say that my series does not bear out the theory, 
there being, so far as I can see, no tangible difference in the plumage of 
the sexes. As for the theory of individual variation, if that be the solu- 
tion, ‘craver?’’ must be very rare indeed in the northern part of the 
habitat of the genus. I have taken possibly 75 specimens between the 
Santa Barbara Islands and Magdalena Bay, and seen a great many more. 
The only one I have ever taken that suggested in any way the plumage 
