WHAT IS THE "WASHINGTON EAGLE"? 525 
as to its species. Besides, I never knew of a Bald Eagle being so large. 
If you will please inform me in regard to the Washington Eagle you will 
oblige me very much. — WILLIAM JARVIS, Hanover, N. 
Tue " Washington Eagle” ( Haliaétus ees Aud.) 
appears to be still inakaa upon, especially by amateur orni- 
thologists, as a probably valid, though little known species. 
The question of its true character was formerly a source of 
perplexity to professional naturalists, some of which may 
still regard it as having claims to recognition as a “good spe- 
cies." As our knowledge of the birds of this continent be- 
comes more perfect, the existence as valid species of several 
of the hypothetical species, especially of the rapacious birds, . 
becomes less and less probable. This results principally 
from two facts. First, through the constant accession of 
materials in our museums we are every year finding out more 
and more definitely the variations resulting Pi sex, age, 
individuality and locality to which each species is subject, 
and in these variations the forms which with greater or less 
probability gave rise to some of the doubtful species in our 
catalogues. Secondly, the continent itself and its fauna are 
becoming too well-known to render tenable the suppositions, 
formerly entertained, that some of the strange birds de- 
scribed in early times may have their habitats in unexplored 
districts, whence they have occasionally wandered to better 
known localities. The opinion long since advanced by some 
writers that the * Washington Eagle" is but a very large im- 
mature Bald Eagle, is hence gaining ground. 
Audubon described his "Bird of Washington" from a 
large specimen taken by him in Kentucky more than fifty 
years ago. The original specimen from which Audubon 
made his drawing and description is not known to be extant, 
and seems to have never been preserved. Audubon appears 
to have been the only naturalist who examined it. He re- 
garded it as a very rare bird, and states that he saw not 
"more than eight or nine” specimens. He does not seem, 
however, to have actually examined more than one. It dif- 
