CRITICAL REMARKS ABOUT THE HOUSE WREN 173 



I derive my name of the typical House Wren, T. domeslicHS, as Wilson did 

 his Sylvia domestica, from the Motacilla domesticaof Bartrani, which antedates 

 Vieillot's name by many years. The current orthography of the latter 

 (d'don} is clearly wrong, since it is fro arjduv (th. aeidu), whence properly 

 action. Nor has the varietal designation of the Western House Wren escaped 

 maltreatment, being spelled four different ways. The bird having been 

 dedicated to Dr. George Parkman (not Parkmann)of Boston, its name should 

 be written parkmani. The various combinations of these two words in their 

 several shapes result in a curiously involved set of synonyms, which show 

 that the care to be expected from an author in the use of technical terms in 

 science is not always exercised. I am free to speak in the matter, having 

 been myself quite as guilty as the rest. 



Respecting the relationships of Audubon's " Wood Wren ", T. americanus, 

 to the common House Wren, there seems to be no longer a doubt that the 

 two are identical. The authors of the " History of North American Birds", 

 while agreeing in this view, differ in their explanation of the ascribed char- 

 acters of the " Wood Wren ". At page 149 of the work just mentioned, we 

 read : " There can scarcely be any doubt that the T. americanus of Audubon 

 is nothing more than this species [T. aedon~\ in dark, accidentally soiled 

 plumage (from charcoal of burnt trees, etc.)." At pages 151 and 152 of the same 

 work, the folio wing statement occurs : " Under the name of Troglodytes ameri- 

 canus, or Wood Wren, Mr. Audubon figured and described as a distinct 

 species what is probably only a somewhat larger and darker form of the 

 present species [T. aedon], hardly distinct enough to be treated even as a 

 race." A specimen which came to me as a " Wood Wren", under color of 

 Audubon's personal identification, and which I retain in my cabinet, is noth- 

 ing but a House Wren. 



Before proceeding to speak of Turkman's Wren, I wish to correct an im- 

 portant error into which Dr. Brewer has fallen respecting the distribution 

 of the common House Wren, which, he states (op. cit. p. 150), ''is not ob- 

 served in any portion of the United States after the first of November ". 

 But Audubon found his " Wood Wren " in South Carolina in winter; the 

 House Wren is marked "probably resident" in my List of the Birds of 

 South Carolina ; and Mr. Allen found it on.^ of the abundant winter birds of 

 Florida, " occurring everywhere ". The fact is that the South Atlantic and 

 Gulf States are exactly the winter home of the House Wren; there may be 

 some extralimital records, indeed, but I am afraid to quote any of the sup- 

 posed references, as I have not satisfied myself that the bird ever winters 

 anywhere but in the region where Dr. Brewer states it is never seen in 

 winter. The same writer says further : "This species does not appear to 

 be found be.yond the southwestern portion of Maine and the southern por- 

 tions of New Hampshire and Vermont." I understand that confirmation of 

 its alleged extension to Nova Scotia would be desirablx*, but of its appearance 

 in Canada there is no reasonable doubt. In the interior, it also extends to 

 the British Possessions. I have myself found it breeding abundantly on 

 the Red River of the North, latitude 49 N. 



IN comparing the habits of Parkman's Wren with those of 

 its eastern relative, we must not regard the matter from the 

 standpoint usually assumed. Being familiar with the .ways of 



