EiDGWAY on Macrorliamphus griseus, etc. 157 



M. scolojMceus at Eastham, Mass., by Mr. Frank L. Tileston, Nov. 

 2, 1878. 



I have never seen more than one at a time, althongh an old 

 gunner informs me he has had a flock of five come in to his decoys. 



The following are my records of the bird in question : — • 



Sept. 27, 1873. Shot a young female out of a small flock of Totanus 

 Jlavipes ; when first seen it was supposed to be a Dowitcher, but at the 

 same time I was struck with the large size and length of bill noticeable at 

 quite a distance. (This was the first time I had seen the bird alive.) 



Sept. 28, 1873. One observed flying with a flock of Totanus Jlavipes. 



Sept. 15, 1874. Had a fine specimen alight within a few feet of my 

 blind while Snipe-shooting ; it was very gentle, and I watched it for some 

 time, but, on starting it up, failed to secure it. 



Sept. 25, 1875. Shot an immature bird in a salt pond on the marshes; 

 peculiarity of note noticed. 



Aug. 7, 1878. Secured an adult specimen in summer plumage; came 

 in to the decoys alone ; abdomen uniform pale rufous. 



Oct. 13, 1878. While lying for Ducks at a pond on the marshes early 

 one morning, I heard the note of this bird from high overhead, but could 

 not see it ; the next moment it darted down and settled alongside of a 

 Duck decoy, notwithstanding the water was almost up to its breast, where 

 I secured it. 



ON MACRORHAMPHUS GRISEUS (GMEL.) AND M. SCOLO- 

 PACEUS (SAY). 



BY ROBERT RIDGWAY. 



Not being fully satisfied in my own mind as to the exact status 

 of the bird called Macror-hamjihus scolojMceus, and there being much 

 variance of opinion among ornithologists concerning the bird iu 

 question, I was induced, some months since, to submit to a very 

 close examination all the material at my command, and to carefully 

 analyze all the published data bearing on the subject. The collec- 

 tion of birds of this genus in the National Museum, while very ex- 

 tensive (embracing no less than 75 specimens), was unfortunately 

 deficient in examples from Eastern localities ; therefore the conclu- 

 sion arrived at from the study of this material alone proved errone- 

 ous, from the fact that nearly all were of the scolopaceus type, the 



