302 HISTORY OF THE WATER THRUSH 



adopted, is the same as M. nm-ia Bodd. (1783), both being based upon PL 

 Enlum. 752, f. 1, which represents the Fauvette tachetfa de la Louislane of 

 Buffon, afterward the New York Warbler of Pennant and Latham. It is a 

 curious fact, that Gmelin in another place made Slums ncevius out to be a va- 

 riety of the Cape May Warbler, Dendrceca tigrina : for the Motacilla tigrina 

 var. /?. of Gmelin, and the Sylvia tigrina var. /3. of Latham, are both based 

 exclusively upon the Ficedula dominicemis fusca of Brisson, which is obvi- 

 ously this Siurus. Vieillot, in 1807, noticed the circumstance, which later 

 authors seem to have overlooked, and correctly allocated the synonymy. 

 The Motacilla fuscescens of Gmeliu has been queried as a synonym of this 

 species; it is based upon Ficedula jamaicensis Briss. iii. 512, n. 61 ; but Bris- 

 son's account cannot be made to square with the characters of Siurus ncevius. 

 The remaining references above given, though so numerous, do not call for 

 special remark, excepting Audubon's accounts, which, it should be remem- 

 bered, include both this species and S. motacilla, as he united the two, having 

 previously described Turdus ludovicianus as distinct. These and other tech- 

 nical points are discussed in my paper above cited, on " Corrections of Nomen- 

 clature in the Genus Siurus". 



MATERIAL for the life-history of the Water Thrush has 

 gradually accumulated, until we now possess knowledge 

 enough of the subject for a more complete biography than has 

 hitherto appeared. The latest article, that from the long-accus- 

 tomed pen of Dr. Brewer, is much the best, though the many 

 items there given are perhaps none too closely knit into conse- 

 quent narrative. As Dr. Brewer justly remarks, all that the 

 earlier authors have left us respecting the habits of this bird 

 must be taken cum grano; for it was a good while before the 

 Louisiana or Large-billed Water Thrush was fairly recognized, 

 and much that Wilson, Nuttall, and Auduboa have to say of 

 the Water Thrush refers either to the other species, or to both 

 species indiscriminately. Audubon indeed capped the confu- 

 sion by reuniting the two species which he had formerly distin- 

 guished with sufficient precision. Wilson pertinently describes 

 the aquatic habits and Motacilline actions of the true Water 

 Thrush as observed in Pennsylvania; but the rest of his notice 

 seems to point to the Large-billed bird. NuttalPs and Audu- 

 bon's whole accounts parallel Wilson's in this regard ; and none 

 of these authors seem to speak of the vocalization, nidification, 

 and breeding habits of the real Water Thrush, but rather of 

 the Louisiana species. Sir John Bichardson must have had 

 the present species in exclusive view, as the other is not found 

 about Carlfcon House; and Swainson's plate is unmistakable. 

 Mr. Philip Henry Gosse gives us one of his delightful and char- 

 acteristic sketches, undoubtedly referring to the present species, 



