230 General Notes. [j^ 



ern California which I believe to be erroneous. As recorded these were 

 "The California Partridge (Callipepla calif arnica) ," and "The Black- 

 fronted Warbler (Dendroica auduboni nigrifrons) ," each based on a single 

 specimen from Los Angeles County. As Mr. Wayne definitely stated, 

 these were of Mr. Harry S. Swarth's collecting. Since the locality in both 

 instances was far out of the normal range, and knowing the painstaking 

 care with which Mr. Swarth had worked over his material (I could not be- 

 lieve that Mr. Swarth would let such things slip through his hands un- 

 noticed), I will confess that my suspicions were distinctly aroused. So I 

 at once wrote to Mr. Wayne asking for the privilege of examining the skins 

 in question in order to make sure in my own mind of the determinations. 

 That was in October. February 23, 1906, after I had been so importunate 

 as to write a third time, I received a blunt reply ending with the statement: 

 "The specimens that I recorded in the Oct. Auk need no verification as I 

 believe I know as much about these birds as you do." (!) Meanwhile I 

 had written to Mr. Swarth, and obtained the following information: 



"The bird he [Wayne] records [as the 'California' Partridge] was shot 

 on the first day of the open season, when three of us made a pretty big bag. 

 I put up four males, the pick of about forty, if I remember rightly. It is 

 probably an adult bird, two years old or more; sometimes there is an 

 appreciable difference between such and a bird of the year. Anyway I 

 don't believe it is anything but vallicola, born and raised in the San Fer- 

 nando Valley." Let me call attention to the fact that calif ornica is a race 

 belonging to the humid coast belt of California from Monterey, or possibly 

 San Luis Obispo, County northward, and that the vast numbers of quail 

 examined from Los Angeles County by various ornithologists have all 

 been vallicola. This quail is not possibly migratory to the extent of 200 

 miles. It seems to me that here is another instance of an extreme of indi- 

 vidual variation in one race being seized upon and labelled as an example 

 of some remotely indigenous subspecies. 



Mr. Swarth writes me further: "As to the 'Black-fronted' Warbler, I 

 sent him [Wayne] a number of male Audubons, the highest colored ones I 

 could get, and of these he kept the very finest and returned the others. . . . 

 In my note-book the measurements of his 'nigrifrons' are down as 'length, 

 5.75; extent of wings, 9.37.' You can see how this compares with my 

 Arizona specimens." I would refer Mr. Wayne to Swarth's comparison 

 of auduboni and nigrifrons, as regards plumages and measurements, as 

 detailed so carefully in 'Pacific Coast Avifauna,' No. 4, pages 54 and 55, 

 and then ask if it be probable that Mr. Swarth would make such a ' break ' 

 as to label a skin of nigrifrons, auduboni. It seems to me again a case of 

 an extraordinarily richly-colored plumage, and an unwarranted jump at 

 conclusions. 



Although I have not had the opportunity of seeing the specimens in 

 question, I think the above evidence supports my surmise that Mr. Wayne's 

 "Callipepla calif ornica " is only an example of the ordinary Lophortyx 

 californica vallicola, and that his "Dendroica auduboni nigrifrons" is no 

 more than Dendroica auduboni auduboni, the common form of the region. 



