347 



same, in fact, as occurs in L. australis, in which and in L. atrata Mr. 

 Ridgway admits it to be well marked. 



L. griseinucha is the only other American form of Leucosticte alleged 

 by Mr. Ridgway to show no sexual difference in size or color. 



In respect to individual variation. Mr. Ridgway remarks as follows : 

 "There is no noticeable range of individual variation among typical 

 examples of any form, and it is only the transitional specimens connect- 

 ing two races of one species that vary at all from the normal standard ",* 

 etc. (1. c.j p. 60). "Regarding the subject of individual variation, we 

 shall say little, since the immense series at our command shows that 

 this is really insignificant" (I. c., p. 58). These remarks are made in 

 reference to statements of mine quoted by Mr. Ridgway, in which I say 

 that "it seems probable that some of the differences whereon certain 

 species t of Leucosticte have been founded may be only individual varia- 

 tions". This remark had reference to a series of mounted specimens in 

 the Museum of the Boston Society of Natural History, collected at Cen- 

 tral City, Colo., by Mr. F. E. Everett. My remarks respecting these 

 Mr. Ridgway also quotes (I. c., p. 55), and, without having seen them, in 

 commenting on them in foot-notes, assigns them, with great positiveness, 

 to his different species and varieties of Leucosticte. In poi nt of fact, there 

 is a considerable range of color- variation in birds of .the same sex from 

 the same localities, referable, unquestionably, to the same varieties. 

 These aifect not only the intensity of the general tints, but the areas of 

 dusky and ashy markings about the head, as Mr.Ridgway's own comments 

 under L. littoralis sufficiently show. Whether or not such specimens 

 form the mtergrading Mnks between varieties is immaterial to the point 

 at issue. 



In respect to individual variation in size, it is sufficient to say that 

 the length of the wing varies in males of variety littoralis from 3.90 to 4.50, 

 and in the females from 3.88 to 4.25: in variety tephrocotis (see Mr. Ridg- 

 way's tables), from 4.00 to 4.40 in the males, and from 3.90 to 4.30 in the 

 females ; in variety, griseinucha, from 4.25 to 4.75 in the males, and from 

 3.90 to 4.80 in the females! It seems a priori improbable that such 

 a wide range of individual variation in size should obtain without there 

 being also considerable variability in color. Such a state of things 

 would certainly be an exceptional and noteworthy fact in our present 

 knowledge of individual variation among birds. 



As the present forms a convenient opportunity for noticing some other 

 strictures by Mr. Ridgway on some general remarks of mine respecting 

 this group, I will add a few words respecting geographical variation 

 among the different forms of Leucosticte. Mr. Ridgway, in commenting 

 on my attempt " to show a correlation between the distinguishing char- 

 acters of the different forms of this genus and the recognized general 

 laws of geographical variation", in which I claim the northern forms to 

 be larger, with more ash on the head, etc., says that, respecting these 

 statements, "there is need of correction. There is no such variation 

 from the north southward as that stated in the passage quoted, for the 

 northern forms are quite as brightly colored as the most southern ones, f 

 while in the gray-headed races of L. tephrocotis it is the more southern 

 one (var. littoralis) which has the most gray. Thus, in this latter race 

 the throat is more or less gray, frequently entirely gray ; while, in var. 

 griseinucha, the whole throat is black. Var. griseinucha is also much 



* Not italicized in the original. 



t Referring, among others, to L. campestris, a form Mr. Ridgway himself docs not 

 regard as even varietally distinguishable. 

 t Not italicized in the original. 



