certain Species of American G alii me. 109 



Firstly, as regards Lagopus leucurus altipetens Osgood, a 

 supposed new subspecies from Colorado, shown to be identical 

 with typical L. leucunis Swains. & Rich. Mr. Allen appa- 

 rently admits the correctness of this identification ; for he 

 doubts whether birds from latitude 54° in the Rocky Moun- 

 tains, the type-region of L. leucurus, are separable from the 

 Colorado bird. This was the only point entered into in my 

 notes. Mr. Allen, however, for some unaccountable reason, 

 says that my " comparison of specimens from Colorado and 

 the Cascade Mountains has no bearing on the case. The status 

 of the Alaskan form, which is the question at issue, is not 

 touched. . . . Mr. Osgood should probably have named the 

 Alaskan form instead of that from Colorado." The fact 

 remains that he did not do so ; and Mr. Allen's half- 

 page of criticism is therefore somewhat superfluous. It is 

 almost unnecessary to add that the White-tailed Ptarmigan 

 from Alaska, though only one female specimen in autumn 

 plumage was available for comparison, was named without 

 loss of time, and now appears as L. I. peninsularis (cf. 

 Chapman, Bull. Am. Mus. N. H. xvi. p. 236). As a sub- 

 species it will tio doubt compare favourably with the various 

 forms of L. rupestris recognised by American ornithologists. 



As regards the discussion about the Canada Grouse and 

 the Turkeys, it would be a waste of space to continue so 

 unprofitable a controversy ; but I should like to acknow- 

 ledge Mr. Allen's apologies respecting Vieillot's name of 

 the North- American Turkey (cf. Auk, 1902, p. 420), and 

 to thank him lor them. 



In the October number of the ' Auk ' (1902, pp. 336-391, 

 pis. xiv. & xv.) Mr. E. W. Nelson has published a series of 

 notes in which he attempts to justify his belief in the existence 

 of other North-American and Mexican species of Game- Birds 

 which I was unable to recognise as distinct. Having already 

 given my reasons for proposing to suppress a number of these 

 names, it is unnecessary to repeat them. There are, how- 

 ever, certain points in Mr. Nelson's paper which cannot be 

 allowed to pass without remark. 



