66 ORCHARD ORIOLE. 



and independent as any other, is, to call it by no worse name, 

 a gross absurdity. Should the reader be displeased at this, I 

 beg leave to remind him, that, as the faithful historian of our 

 feathered tribes, I must be allowed the liberty of vindicating 

 them from every misrepresentation whatever, whether origi- 

 nating in ignorance or prejudice; and of allotting to each 

 respective species, as far as I can distinguish, that rank and 

 place in the great order of nature to which it is entitled. 



To convince the foreigner (for Americans have no doubt 

 on the subject) that the present is a distinct species from the 

 baltimore, it might be sufficient to refer to the figure of the 

 latter in Plate I, and to fig. 4., Plate 17., of this work. I 

 will, however, add, that I conclude this bird to be specifically 

 different from the baltimore, from the following circum- 

 stances : its size — it is less, and more slender ; its colours, 

 which are different, and very differently disposed ; the form 

 of its bill, which is sharper pointed and more bent ; the form 

 of its tail, which is not even, but wedged ; its notes, which are 

 neither so full nor so mellow, and uttered with much more 

 rapidity; its mode of building, and the materials it uses, both 

 of which are different ; and lastly, the shape and colour of 

 the eggs of each (see figs, a and &), which are evidently 

 unlike. If all these circumstances — and I could enumerate 

 a great many more — be not sufficient to designate this as a 

 distinct species, by what criterion, I would ask, are we to 

 discriminate between a variety and an original species, or to 

 assure ourselves that the great horned owl is not, in fact, a 

 bastard goose, or the carrion crow a mere variety of the 

 humming bird ? 



These mistakes have been occasioned by several causes ; 

 principally by the changes of colour to which the birds are 

 subject, and the distance of Europeans from the country they 

 inhabit. Catesby, it is true, while here, described and figured 

 the baltimore, and perhaps was the first who published figures 

 of either species ; but he entirely omitted saying anything of 

 the female, and, instead of the male and female of the present 



