404 PIPING PLOVER. 
PIPING PLOVER. (Charadrius melodus.) 
PLATE XXIV.—Fice. 3. 
See Wilson’s American Ornithology, Ring Plover, Charadrius hiatacula, vol. ii. 
p. 360, pl. 37, fig. 3, for a reduced representation of the adult in spring dress, 
and the history.—Charadrius melodus, Ord, in the reprint of Wils. Orn. 
vii. p. 71, and Gen. Ind. of the Water Birds, Suppl. Orn. Wils. (ix.) p. eexii.— 
Nob. Obs. Wils. Orn. sp. 220; Id. Cat. and Syn. Birds U.S. sp. 217; Id. 
Specch. Comp. sp. Philad.—Charadrius Okenii, Wagler, Syst. Av. i. Charad. 
sp. 24.—Ringed Plover, var. B, Lath. Gen. Hist. ix. p. 327,-sp. 12, var. B. 
—Philadelphia Museum. 
Tu well-merited elevation of this bird to the rank of a 
species fully vindicates our predecessor from the unjust cen- 
sure of ‘T'emminck, who thonght his figure of it intended for 
the Charadrius hiaticula. 'The same censure is repeated and 
ageravated by Mr Sabine, who probably thought it intended 
for the C. semipalmatus. But if the figure is free from the 
supposed fault of incorrectness, its extremely diminished size, 
which renders it almost useless, requires that the bird should 
now appear in this work in its full dimensions. 
Not only is the true C. hiaticula of Europe not found on 
the American continent, but the birds hitherto mistaken for 
it constitute two very distinct and exclusively American 
species, notwithstanding the awkward quotations in the new 
edition of Cuvier’s “Regne Animal,” which, in this instance, 
as in several others, is as far behind its age as the former was 
in advance of it. 
Although the never-too-much-lamented Wilson gave in his 
fifth volume the present bird as a variety of which he intended 
ficuring the type in a future part of his work, when he came 
to it in his seventh volume, he clearly and positively pointed 
out the difference in markings, habits, migrations, and voice, 
between the two which he then considered as distinct species : 
he thus in reality established the species, and indeed so well, 
that we cannot do better than refer to his conclusive reasonings. 
The only essential point he omitted was to impose a name on 
