222 Brewster on Helminthophaga leucobronchialis. 



or abnormal examples; the former hypothesis being decidedly 

 negatived by the fact that all the early plumages of both of their 

 affines are known to be widely different ; while the latter is made 

 untenable by the number of essentially similar specimens that 

 have come under our notice. Only one possible solution re- 

 mains : — that they are hybrids between Helminthophaga pinus 

 and H. chrysoptera. And in support of this view an additional 

 fact may be pointed out ; viz., that nearly all the known speci- 

 mens have been taken within an area where both these species 

 breed, either together, or in close proximity. The very different 

 combinations of markings and coloring in the two hybrid forms, 

 as restricted, is unquestionably due to a reversal of the parents in 

 each case. That is, one of them is produced by the union of 

 H. pinus $ with H. chrysoptera 9 : the other by that of H. 

 chrysoptera $ with H. pinus 9 . Just which combination pro- 

 duces either must for the present remain a matter of conjecture. 

 The logical inference is, perhaps, that " /eucobronchialis" is the 

 offspring of //. pinus $ with H. chrysoptera 9 , for in the 

 case of No. 4,668 we have seen that the black throat and cheek- 

 patches, characterizing lawrencei equally with chrysoptera, were 

 eliminated by an assumed cross with the male of pinus. But 

 additional facts must be forthcoming before this part of the 

 question can be regarded as settled.* 



Before leaving the Golden-winged Warblers it may be well to 

 dwell a moment on the general bearings of the facts adduced, 

 tor it must be evident to all that they have a wider significance 

 than simply showing that pinus and chrysoptera interbreed, pro- 

 ducing so-called " leucobronchialis" and ki lawrencei." They 

 also show that these hybrid offspring — at least the females, as in 



*On a former occasion (this Bulletin, Vol. II, pp. 66-68) I bestowed a compound 

 specific name on a hybrid Grouse, thereby adopting a custom followed by certain 

 European ornithologists, notably Mr. Robert Collett of Christiana, Norway. Since that 

 time, however, correspondence with my friend Mr. Ridgway has convinced me of the 

 inadequacy of this form of nomenclature. As Mr. Ridgway pointed out, the hybrid in 

 question was derived from parents of different genera, and hence a due regard for accu- 

 racy would have demanded the compounding of the generic as well as specific titles : 

 the result, it is needless to say, would be an absurdly cumbersome title. As this 

 objection will frequently be met with, and, moreover, in \ iew of the fact that such 

 specimens are in the majority of cases of exceptional and abnormal significance, I 

 fully agree with Mr. Ridgway that a distinctive name is not called for. The Smithso- 

 nian specimens of hybrid origin are labeled with the names of both parents connected 

 by the sign-|-, a method that fully meets the requirements of such cases. 



