Vol. X1V™ 
1897 BrewstER, Nomenclature of the Downy Woodpeckers. SI 
Linnzus based his Picus pubescens on Catesby and Brisson. 
There can be no doubt as to Catesby’s bird, for that author says 
distinctly in his introduction that the collections on which his work 
was based were all made either in “the inhabited Parts of Carolina”’ 
which “extend West from the Sea about 60 Miles” or “at and 
about /ort Moore, a small Fortress on the Banks of the River 
Savanna, which runs from thence a Course of 300 Miles down to 
the Sea, and is about the same Distance from its Source, in the 
Mountains.” The whole of this region, of course, is included in 
the range of meridionalis and Swainson’s type of that form came 
from the neighboring State of Georgia. 
Brisson gives a detailed description, evidently drawn from a 
specimen in hand, but he does not mention from whence his bird 
came. As he is ordinarily careful to state not only the locality 
but the collector’s name, it seems probable that in this instance he 
had no definite knowledge on either point, and that his state- 
ment “on les trouve en Virginie & a la Caroline” was made 
largely on the authority of Catesby, whom he cites in his synonymy 
and whose work he appears to think related to Virginia as well as 
to the Carolinas. He also cites Klein but this author’s P2cus 
varius minimus” ' was based wholly on Castesby. 
Mr. Oberholser says that the Downy Woodpeckers which 
he has examined “from North Carolina .... and extreme 
Southern Virginia, appear to be intermediate between D. pudes- 
cens meridionalis and D. pubescens ; and these, although not above 
included, are perhaps without impropriety referable to D. pubes- 
cens meridionalis.” Jf Brisson’s bird really came from Virginia 
it was probably taken somewhere not far from the coast and in 
the southern part of the State. Its measurements favor this 
hypothesis, for they indicate an exceptionally small bird of even 
the southern form. It is impossible, however, to ascertain defi- 
nitely from whence this specimen was derived. It may have 
been taken almost anywhere in eastern North America —in Can- 
ada, for instance, where many of Brisson’s birds were obtained. 
These facts and considerations have led me to conclude that 
Mr. Oberholser’s position is not tenable, and that if the separation 
1 Historia Avium Prodromus, 1750, p. 27. 
It 
