332 FEMALE ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK. 
FEMALE ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK. (fringilla 
Ludoviciana.) 
PLATE XV.—Fic. 2. 
See Rose-breasted Grosbeak Loxia rosea (Ludoviciana) Wils. Am. Orn. ii. p. 135, 
pl. 17, fig. 1, for the male.— Loxia Ludoviciana, Linn. Syst. i. p. 306, sp. 88.— 
Gmel. Syst. i. p. 862, sp. 38.—Lath. Ind. p. 379, sp. 25.—Fringilla punicea, 
Gmel. Syst. i. p. 921, sp. 81.—Lath. Ind. p. 444, sp. 34, adult male.—Loxia 
maculata, Gmel. Syst. i. p. 861, sp. 87.—Lath. Ind. p. 379, sp. 26, young.— 
Loxia obscura, Gmel. i. p. 862, sp. 88.—Lath. Ind. p. 379, sp. 27, female.— 
Coccothraustes Ludoviciana, Briss. Orn. iii. p. 247, sp. 14, pl. 12, fig. 2; Id. 
8vo, i. p. 378.—Coccothraustes rubricollis, Vieil/. Gal. Ois. i. part ii. p. 67, 
' pl. 58 (very bad), and Dict.—Pyrrhula Ludoviciana, Sabine, Zool. App. to 
Frankl. Exp. p. 675.—Fringilla Ludoviciana, ob. Obs. Nom. Wils. Orn. sp. 
80,.—Id. Cat. Birds U. S. sp. 189.—Id. Syn. Birds U. S. sp. 189.—Guiraca 
Ludoviciana, Swainson, Syn. Mex. Birds, sp. 76, in Phil. Mag. N. S. i. p. 
438.—Le Rose-gorge, Buff. Ois. iii. p. 460.—Gros-bec de la Louisiane, Buff. 
Pl. enl. 153, fig. 2, male.—Moineau a poitrine et ventre pourprés, Sonn. 
Buff. x\viii. p. 240.—Red-breasted Grosbeak, Penn. Arct. Zool. sp. 212.—Lath. 
Syn. iii. p. 126, sp. 24.—Red-breasted-Finch, Penn. Arct. Zool. sp. 275.— 
Lath. Syn. iii. p. 272, sp. 30, adult male.—Dusky Grosbeak, Penn. Arct. 
Zool. sp. 216.—Lath. Syn. iii. p. 127, sp. 26, female.-—Spotted Grosbeak, 
Penn. Arct. Zool. sp. 213.—Lath. Syn. iii. p. 126, sp. 25, young.—Phila- 
delphia Museum, No. 5806, male ; 5807, female. 
GUIRACA LUDOVICIA NA.—SWAInNson. 
See vol. i. p. 277. 
TnouGH several figures have been published of the very showy 
male rose-breasted grosbeak, the humble plumage of the 
female and young has never been represented. It would, 
however, have better served the purposes of science if the pre- 
ference had been given to the latter, though less calculated to 
attract the eye, inasmuch as striking colours are far less liable 
to be misunderstood or confounded in the description of species 
than dull and blended tints. It will be seen by the synonymy 
that nominal species have in fact been introduced into the 
systems. But if it be less extraordinary that the female and 
young should have been formed into species, it is certainly 
unaccountable that the male itself should have been twice 
described in the same works, once as a finch, and once as a 
erosbeak. This oversight originated with Pennant, and later 
compilers have faithfully copied it, though so easy to rectify. 
