452 WILSON’S PHALAROPE. 
WILSON’S PHALAROPE. (Phalaropus Wilsonii.) 
PLATE XXIV.—Fic. 1, ApuLT. PLATE XXV.—Fie. 1, Youne. 
See Wilson's American. Ornithology, Grey Phalarope, Phalaropus lobatus, 
vol. iii. p. 94, pl. 73, fig. 2, for a very bad figure and imperfect account ; 
and a much better one illustrating the same figure in the second edition of 
the same volume, called by Mr Ord, Supplement to the American Ornitho- 
logy of Wilson, under the name of Brown Phalarope, Phalaropus lobatus, p. 
232.—Phalaropus Wilsonii, Sabine, Zool. App. Franklin’s Exp. p. 691.— 
Nobs. Obs. Wils. sp. 233; Id. Add. Orn. U. S. in Ann. Lyc. N. Y. i. p. 
159; Id. Suppl. Syn. in Zool. Journ. Lond. ,; Id. Cat. and Syn. Birds 
U.S. sp. 279; Id. Specch. Comp.—Phalaropus freenatus, Viedll. Gal. Ois. i1. 
p. 178, pl. 271.—Phalaropus fimbriatus, Zemm. Pl. Col. 370.—Lobipes fim- 
briatus, Selby and Jardine, Orn. Ill. 1, Syn. sp. 2, adult.—Lobipes incanus, 
Selby and Jard. Orn. Lil. 1, Syn. sp. 3, tab. 16, young.—Phalarope liseré, 
Temm. loc. cit.—Phalarope bridé, Vieill. loc. cit.—American Phalarope, 
Sabine, loc. cit. Lath. Gen. Hist. x. p. 4, sp. 2.—Philadelphia Museum, 
adult.—Leadbetter’s Collection, young. 
Tris beautiful, and, as regards system, so remarkable bird, was 
first discovered by Wilson, who, had he lived to publish the 
species himself, would doubtless have fixed it on the same 
firm basis as in other instances of the kind. But death put 
an end to his labours, and to the advantage which science daily 
realised from them, when, among other important materials, 
this phalarope remained in his portfolio. It became the task 
of friendship to publish a few rough notes and unfinished 
sketches, the present among the rest, and a figure was thus 
produced impossible to be recognised except upon actual 
reference to the specimen itself. The description which 
accompanied it was as defective as the figure, the author’s 
pencil-notes having been found partly illegible, and it was 
marked by him asa 7’ringa. In a second and much improved 
edition, which it has pleased the author to call an original 
work, though the plates are identical with the former, Mr 
Ord’s description and personal observations are very correct 
and ingenious, but the name and synonyms are altogether 
misapplied, through his mistaking it for the Phalaropus 
hyperboreus. In a paper published in the Annals of the 
Lyceum of New York, I availed myself of the first opportunity 
