Vol. XIV 
1897 
in the case of the Sanderling, in the 
change from fig. 10 to fig. 11, but 
that it is the colouring matter 
moving down the feather and obli- 
terating the white. After 
change, JZ thinxk that the edge of the 
feather then wears away in an 
appreciable degree, causing its form 
to be altered as seen in fig. 12. 
“To sum up, so far I see no reason 
whatever to differ from the opinion 
of many of our own naturalists, avd 
LI maintain that Herr Gitke’s solu- 
tion of the Spring change of the 
Dunlin and the Sanderling is per- 
_fectly correct as regards an actual 
influx of pigment through the old 
feather, whilst Mr. Frank M. Chap- 
man’s observations on these two 
birds in the same journal as Mr. 
Allen’s require modification. We 
know well that new feathers come 
in place of the few that are cast, 
but that is no evidence that the 
whole bird undergoes a moult of all 
except the rectrices and remiges.” 
this 
Recent Literature. 
Dot 
which with the median pair are 
about half grown. Only seven of 
the twelve old tail-feathers remain, 
and it seems probable that all the 
rectrices are renewed. Am. Mus. 
No. 60007 (Micco, Florida, April 
30, 1891; C. S. Allen) has nearly 
completed the molt, though new 
feathers are still appearing all over 
the body. The rectrices, tertials 
and lesser and median wing-coverts 
have apparently been renewed. 
Nearly all the newly-grown or 
growing feathers of the upper parts 
are broadly tipped with ashy gray, 
which, as zumerous specimens show, 
ts later worn off, leaving the black 
and rufous of the full breeding 
plumage. It is evidently unneces- 
sary to describe other specimens in 
this series which show fhe molt in 
every stage, and prove beyond ques- 
tion the manner in which the 
change from winter to summer 
plumage is accomplished.” 
Comment seems quite unnecessary, and such evidence as Mr. Chap- 
man’s can hardly be set aside as needing “ modification” by so uncom- 
promisingly biased a writer as Mr. Millais. The balance of his article 
need not occupy us seriously, for he states no facts which are not admitted 
by everybody, and figures no feathers which new growth could not have 
produced. He even admits that some of the feathers are of new growth, 
but clings to the old idea of color change in others adjacent. He finds a 
moult in Harelda glactalis, a winter resident, and only slight evidences 
of one in the transient migrants, Podécifes aurttus and Calidris arenaria. 
The fact, that most birds largely complete their moult defore migrating 
seems to have been quite overlooked in explaining these differences, In 
fact, the superficial views of the sportsman rather than the deductions of 
a careful ornithologist pervade the article, which smacks strongly of the 
very dogmatism the author so deprecates in others.— J. D., Jr. 
