﻿FIELD AND FOREST. 77 



aust 'ral/'s, the distinction is very marked." Without attempting to 

 squarely meet this issue, he calls attention to supposed differences in 

 the character of the specimens constituting our respective series, re- 

 marking that while his series " embraced both forms in very dissimilar 

 Winter and Summer dresses," mine "embraced only Winter speci- 

 mens." As a "matter of fact," however, mine were collected (as 

 shown by the collector's labels,) at different times from November to 

 March n, while his latest published dates are March 20 to 25 for teph- 

 rocotis, and March 10 and April 18, (single specimens each) for litto- 

 ralis. 



The main point at issue being substantially conceded by Mr. Ridg- 

 way, I will say but a word or two on minor points. In respect to my 

 still regarding all the forms of Leucosticte as " intergrading forms," 

 Mr. R. labors under a grave misapprehension. The main subject of 

 my paper being sexual variation in two varieties of L. tephrocotis, I 

 very naturally entitled my article " Sexual, Individual and Geographi- 

 cal Variation in Leucosticte tephrocotis y " but I see nothing in the article 

 that need to lead to the supposition that I accorded any of them, ex- 

 cept L. " atrata" a different rank from that which Mr. Ridgway 

 claims for them in his Monograph. On the contrary, I intended to 

 imply, by adopting, without reservation, (by the use of quotation- 

 marks or otherwise, Mr. Ridgway' s nomenclature, that I did admit 

 all except L. " atrata," in the same sense as- did Mr. R., himself, and 

 trusted that I had made that fact evident. I regret that he has been so 

 far misled as to feel called upon to re-argue and re-affirm the specific 

 and varietal rank of the other forms, or that he should feel warranted 

 in assuming that the views I expressed four years since have been un- 

 modified by the subsequently greatly increased knowledge of the dif- 

 ferent forms of this, at that time, little known group. Perhaps I may 

 be allowed, in this connection, to remind Mr. Ridgway that he would 

 not, at that time * admit even the varietal distinctness of L. australis 

 from L. tephrocotis proper, while at the same time L. campestris was 

 so recognized by him, and so retained two years later whenZ. austra- 

 lis was formerly introduced as a " variety. " f I may add that it was 

 partly in deference to the opinion of Mr. R. and other well-known 



* See Baird, Brewer and Ridgway's Birds of North America, Vol. I, p. 504, foot- 

 note, 2. 



t Ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 509. 



