Vol. XIV" 

 1S97 . 



Recent Literature. 



Ill 



in the case of the Sanderling, in the 

 change from fig. 10 to fig. 11, but 

 that it is the colouring matter 

 moving down the feather and obli- 

 terating the white. After this 

 change, I think that the edge of the 

 feather then wears away in an 

 appreciable degree, causing its form 

 to be altered as seen in fig. 12. 



" To sum up, so far I see no reason 

 whatever to differ from the opinion 

 of manj' of our own naturalists, ««rf 

 / maintaitt that Herr Gathers solii- 

 tion of the Spring- change of the 

 Dunlin and the Sanderling is per- 

 fectly correct as regards an actual 

 influx of figment through the old 

 feather, whilst Mr. Frank M. Chap- 

 man's observations on these two 

 birds in the same journal as Mr. 

 Allen's require modification. We 

 know well that new feathers come 

 in place of the few that are cast, 

 but that is no evidence that the 

 whole bird undergoes a moult of all 

 except the rectrices and remiges." 



which with the median pair are 

 about half grown. Only seven of 

 the twelve old tail-feathers remain, 

 and it seems probable that all the 

 rectrices are renewed. Am. Mus. 

 No. 60007 (Micco, Florida, April 

 30, 1891 ; C. S. Allen) has nearly 

 completed the molt, though new- 

 feathers are still appearing all over 

 the body. The rectrices, tertials 

 and lesser and median wing-coverts 

 have apparently been renewed. 

 Nearly all the newly-grown or 

 growing feathers of the upper parts 

 are broadly tipped with ashy gray, 

 which, as numerous specimens show, 

 is later worn off', leaving the black 

 and rufous of the full breeding 

 plumage. It is evidently unneces- 

 sary to describe other specimens in 

 this series which shoxv the molt in 

 ez^ery stage, and prove beyond ques- 

 tion the manner in which the 

 change from winter to summer 

 phnnage is accomplished." 



Comment seems quite unnecessary, and stich evidence as Mr. Chap- 

 man's can hardly be set aside as needing " modification " by so uncom- 

 promisingly biased a writer as Mr. Millais. The balance of his article 

 need not occupy us seriously, for he states no facts which are not admitted 

 by everybody, and figures no feathers which new growth could not have 

 produced. He even admits that some of the feathers are of new growth, 

 but clings to the old idea of color change in others adjacent. He finds a 

 moult in Harelda glacialis, a winter resident, and only slight evidences 

 of one in the transient migrants, Podicipes aiiritus and Calidris arenaria. 

 The fact, that most birds largely complete their moult before migrating 

 seems to have been quite overlooked in explaining these differences. In 

 fact, the superficial views of the sportsman rather than the deductions of 

 a careful ornithologist pervade the article, which smacks strongly of the 

 very dogmatism the author so deprecates in others. — -J. D., Jr. 



