18S4.J . Stkjnkgf.r, Analecta Oruitholosrica. 2 27 



A detailetl description is not thought necessary in this connec- 

 tion, ns prol)al)ly Mr. Nelson's original description will soon be 

 l)ul)lislicd. 



In respect to Nelson's remark about Dall's winter specimen 

 from Unalashka, that the lack of "the black border through the 

 eye appears to be a merely individual character," It may be men- 

 tioned, that the specimen in question is labelled ' ? ,' and conse- 

 quently is in the nf)rm d plumige of the female, wliich usually 

 lacks the black stripe. 



Tlie often-mentioned erratum leaf, however, tloes not correct a 

 most important tvpographical error contained in the heading 

 '•'• Lagopus alpinus. (Si.) Subalpine Ptarmigan" ; for it is evident 

 that it ought to be either '■'• Lagofits alpinus. (Si.) Alpine Ptarmi- 

 gan," or "Z^'^c/z^jr ^?^ii5a/^/?z^/.«r. (81.) Subalpine Ptarmigan" ; but 

 which of the two it is not possible to tell without turning to Nor- 

 denskjold's original account. 



Looking through Nordenskjold's 'The Vo^yage of the Vega' 

 (Ainer. Ed., 1S82, pp. 431-436) we find in his account of the an- 

 imal life near his winter station, some notes given him bv Lieu- 

 tenant Nordquist (for whicli consequently the latter gentleman, 

 and not Nordenskjold, is responsible), and there (p. 433) occurs 

 the following relating to our case: ''Of land birds there winter 

 in the region only three species, viz., an oxvl {Sirix 7tyctea, L.), 

 a raven {Corv7ts sp.)^ and a ptarmigan i^Lagopiis S7(balpina. 

 Nilss.) ; the last-named is the most common." From this it 

 would seem as if Mr. Nelson had intended to have No. 81 headed 

 Lagopus subalpiniis Nilss. ; but in that case No. 81 only dupli- 

 cates No. 77, Lagopus albus^i of which it is and always has been 

 an unconditional synonym. This is under the supposition that 

 Lieut. Nordquist's determination is correct, wdiich may be seri- 

 ouslv doubted ;* liut if referable to a species of the Attagcn (or 

 mtitus) group, his remarks should have been placed under rupes- 

 tris., as it is to the latter form, and not to the true ?nufus ( ^ 



*Mr. Nelson, on page 60, accepts a name from the same work without suspect- 

 ing it to be identical with another bird of his list. Although no description accompa- 

 nies the statement, that Sylvia evcrsnianiii "in June settled on the black deck 

 of the Ve^a" it seems little doubtful, that the bird was Pliyllopnciiste boreaits Bias., of 

 which, m fact, Sylvia eveismaimi Midd. nee Bp. is a synonym. There is, consequently, 

 every reason for uniting Nos. 8 and 9 under the heading of the latter. Of course it is 

 much less likely to be the ti'ue Ph. «Yv.fW(Z«;//Bp., which is a synonym oi Ph. trochiliis, 

 a Western Paltearctic form occurring not at all as far east as the 'Vega's' winter 

 quarters. 



