•560 Stejneger, Analecta Ornithologica. [October 



The group of the Lari Is so extremely difficult a one that 

 observations, not based upon the most careful identification, are 

 worse than none. 



There is further confusion among the Gulls of Nelson's 'Birds 

 of Bering Sea,' to which 'the Erratum Leaf gives no clue what- 

 ever. No. 149 (page 106) is headed "Zarz/^ /(??/<:o^i'e;-z^5' Faber. 

 Glaucus Winged Gull." Of this he says: "This species was 

 found with the preceding \^L. glaucus\^ and perhaps outnumber- 

 ing the Glaucus Gull upon the Aleutian Islands, in the spring of 

 1877." The heading is evidently a mix-up of Larus lezicopterus 

 and L. glaiicescens^ the Latin name belonging to the former, the 

 English appellation to the latter. In fact, the text refers mostly, 

 if not exclusively, to L. glaucescens^ one of the most common 

 species of the region, the name g/azicesce/zs, however, appearing 

 nowhere in his book. But what does the concluding paragraph — 

 "it may usually be distinguished when in company with the latter 

 [^glazicus^ by its smaller size" — mean ? If leucoftertis^ it is 

 correct. \i glaucescens^ it has hardly any sense, for yN\\en glau- 

 cus diW^ glaucescens are together they may be easily distinguished 

 by the color alone, while I will defy anybody to tell the living 

 birds of these two species apart by the size. I would add, how- 

 ever, that I would not accept the identification even of glaucus 

 and leucopterus, if only based upon observation of the flying 

 bird. 



I abstain from any remark upon the statement "None were 

 seen at Point Barrow, although they undoubtedly occur there," 

 as I do not know whether it relates to leucoptei^us proper, or is 

 only a case similar to the 'undoubted' occurrence of Rissa 

 brevirostrls in the Okhotsk Sea. 



XII. Chiysomitris or Spimis'^ 



The generic term Spinus Koch has been rejected for several 

 reasons. Some authors, following Gray, refuse to accept it 

 because preoccupied in 1752 by Mohring for a genus having 

 Emberiza miliaria Linn, for type ; but as we do not recognize 

 the genera of Mohring, as given prior to 1758^ its previous use 

 by him does not prejudice its employment in the Linucean 

 nomenclature. The other reason for excluding the name, given 

 by Koch, is, that the type of his genus was considered to be 



