134 BULLETIN: MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY. 
specimen). Bryant, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., 2d ser., II. 1889, 23, 24 (descr. 
nest and eggs from Comondu), 297 (Cape Region). Townsenp, Proc. U.S. 
Nat. Mus., XIII. 1890, 187 (Cape St. Lucas). 
C [arpodacus] mexicanus ruberrimus RipGway, Loc. cit., 594. 
Carpodacus mexicanus ruberrimus RipGwax, Loc. cit., 592. Bryant, Loc. cit., 296 
(Cape Region). 
C.{arpodacus] ruberrimus McGrecor, Condor, III. 1901, 13, 14 (dichromatism in 
birds from San José del Cabo). 
Mr. Ridgway has claimed! that the House Finch of Lower California differs 
from C. m. frontalis: “ (1) in the smaller general size, (2) rather more swollen 
bill, and (3) greater extension of the red.” That the first and second of those 
characters are so variable as to be practically worthless, is shown conclusively 
by the large series collected by Mr. Frazar, but the extreme extension of the 
red is sufficiently constant in these specimens to fully warrant the recognition 
of the Lower California bird under the appropriate name which Mr. Ridgway 
has proposed. ; 
I cannot, however, endorse the still more recent separation which Mr. Ridgway 
has made ? of Carpodacus mexicanus sonoriensis, based on the bird of ** Southern 
Sonora (north to Guaymas on the coast) and southeastern Chihuahua,” which 
is said to differ from ruberrimus of Lower California only in having longer 
wings and tail and slightly smaller bill. It is true that, as a rule, my ex- 
amples from the Cape Region are characterized by somewhat thicker or more 
swollen bills than are possessed by those which I have received from Guaymas 
and Alamos, Sonora, but the birds of the two regions, as represented in my 
collection, do not show (even by averages of measurements) the difference in 
respect to the length of the wings and tail which Mr. Ridgway has noted. 
I am therefore forced to regard them both as referable to the same form 
(ruberrimus). 
Individual variations: — The males vary considerably in general size, and 
excessively in respect to the size and shape of the bill. The under tail coverts 
are always tinged with red, and in the majority of specimens this color extends 
well down over the abdomen, while in a few it spreads over the entire 
under parts, never, however, quite concealing the underlying white of the 
abdomen, anal region and under tail coverts nor cbscuring the brown streaks 
on the sides. On the upper parts, the red invariably tinges the entire back as 
well as occasionally the sides of the head, excepting the lores. Its tint differs 
somewhat with different individuals and very considerably with season. In 
spring specimens it varies from poppy red to brilliant carmine, in autumn 
birds it is nearly uniform dull wine purple. Fully fifty per cent of my spring 
males and a few autumnal ones, also, show more or less yellow on the under 
parts, usually either on the breast or sides. Young males in autumn plumage 
are apparently not distinguishable from adults taken at the same season. 
1 Man. N. Amer. Birds, 2d. ed., 1896, 391, footnote. 
2 Birds N. and Midd. Amer., pt. I. 1901, 135, 186. 
