ii . • 



VTf 



140 



REVIEW OF AMERICAN BIRDS. 



[PAUT I. 



from Florida). No. 26,368, however, probably killed in spring, Ims 

 the brea.st gray, and, as in sotue spccinujns of ssdon, the featliers 

 faintly spotted with brownish. 



From the paler shade ol" the upper parts, and possibly a rather 

 snaaller size, I am inclined to consider these Mexican specimens as 

 residents, and not migrants from the north. 



A specimen (7,139) collected south of the Rio Grande, by Lt. 

 Couch, agrees better with the Mexican variety, than with T. parL- 

 manni, to which 1 had referred it. 



-Ml'-^ . y 



1 



Uj^^' 



Locality. 



Cbarco EKCondidd 



TaniHulipas. 

 OHzaba, Mex. 

 Mirador, Mex. 

 Xalapa, Mex. 



Wlien 

 Col levied. 



Dec. 1862. 



Received from 



Lt. D. N. Couch. 

 F. Suniicliraxt. 

 i)r. Snrtorius. 

 .1. Krider. / 

 Cab. Lawrimce. 



Collected by 



D'Oca. 



(r.iao.) Eyoiidai'k-brown. (30,872.) IriH brown 



Troglodytes parkmanni. 



Troglodi/tes parkmanni, Aud. Orn. Biog. V, 1839, 310. — In. Synopsis, 

 18.39, 76.— Ib. Birds Auier. II, 1841, 133, pi. 122.— Baird, Birds 

 N. Am. Ib58, 367.— Cooper & Suckley, P. R. R. Rep. XII, u, 18G0, 

 191 (nest).— ScLATER, Catal. 1861, 23, no. 146. 



Troglodytes sytvestris, Gambel, Pr. A. N. Sc. Ill, 1846, 113 (Californi.i, 

 quotes erroneously Aud. T, atnericanus). 



nab. Western and Middle provinoes of United States, 



Although the diflFerences between the eastern and western House 

 Wrens, as stated in the "Birds N. Am.," are not very appreciable; 

 yet a comparison of an extensive series shows that they can hardly 

 be considered as identical. The general color above is paler and 

 grayer, and there is little or none of the rufous of the lower back 

 and rump. The bars on the upper surface are rather more distinct. 

 The under parts are more alike, as while sedon sometimes has flanks 

 and crissum strongly tinged with rufous, other specimens are as pule 

 as in T. parkmanni. 



Perhaps the most appreciable differences between the two species 

 are to be found in the size and proportions of wing and tail. Tlu' 

 wing in parkmanni is quite decidedly longer than in mhn, measur- 

 ing, in males, 2.12 to 2.15, instead of 2.00 to 2.05. This is due not 

 HO much to a larger size as to a greater development of the primaric.'^. 

 TUe first quill is equal to or barely more than half the second in 



