94 



Vol. XIX 



THE STATUS OF APHELOCOMA CYANOTIS AND ITS ALLIES 



By HARRY C. OBERHOLSER 



THE BLUE-EARED JAY, Aphelocoma cyanotis, was described by Ridgway 1 

 from a specimen collected by John Taylor at an unknown locality in Mex- 

 ico. It was later discovered in the state of San Luis Potosi 2 , and has since 

 been found also in the states of Mexico, Hidalgo, Coahuila, and Durango ; and it 

 was reported from Sutton County, Texas, in 1902 3 . The Texas jay was first de- 

 scribed by Ridgway as Aphelocoma texana 4 , from a specimen taken in Edwards 

 County, Texas, near the head of the Nueces River. Both this and Aphelocoma 

 cyanotis have since been regarded as distinct species. The material hitherto avail- 

 able from Texas has not been satisfactory, and identification of specimens of 

 these two birds from that region has, therefore, in many cases been difficult. Re- 

 cently, however, a large series of good plumaged birds was collected by F. B. 

 Armstrong in Kerr, Sutton, and Edwards counties, and is now in the collection 

 of John E. Thayer, to whom the writer is indebted for the privilege of examina- 

 tion. Study of this fine series and of the other specimens available, altogether 

 sixty-seven examples, shows clearly that Aphelocoma cyanotis does not occur any- 

 where in Texas, since all individuals from the state so identified turn out to be 

 Aphelocoma texana in very fresh plumage. This discovery readily accounts for 

 the difficulty hitherto experienced in identifying specimens of these two jays 

 from Texas. The Texas bird (Aphelocoma texana) is, however, separable from 

 Aphelocoma cyanotis by reason of its smaller size and rather lighter breast, the 

 latter character most appreciable in worn plumage. From these facts it follows 

 that Aphelocoma cyanotis must be eliminated from the list of North American 

 birds, as well as from that of Texas. 



The examination of the above large series of Aphelocoma cyanotis and Aphe- 

 locoma texana, and of other related jays of the same genus, brings up some in- 

 teresting points in addition to those already stated, and proves conclusively that 

 several changes are necessary in the current status of these and allied forms. In 

 the first place, Aphelocoma texana intergrades with ApJielocoma wooclhouseii 

 (Baird), as intermediate specimens from the Davis Mountains, Texas, show. The 

 differences between Aphelocoma texana and Aphelocoma cyanotis are entirely 

 bridged over by numerous intermediate specimens, and the two must be regarded 

 as only subspecifically different. The latter intergrades geographically through 

 the state of Puebla, Mexico, with Aphelocoma sumichrasti Ridgway, of southern 

 Mexico; and also, at least individually, with Aphelocoma grisea Nelson, of the 

 states of Chihuahua and Durango, in Mexico. Furthermore, the individual vari- 

 ation in Aphelocoma sumichrasti covers the difference between this form and 

 Aphelocoma calif ornica calif ornica and Aphelocoma calif or nica Jiypoleuca. Con- 

 sequently there is no logical course open except to regard all the above-mentioned 

 jays, hitherto all considered distinct species, as subspecies of a single specific 

 type. It is, therefore, necessary to call them all subspecies of Aphelocoma Cali- 

 fornia, since this is the oldest name applied to any form of the group. 



The bird described by Joseph Grinneir as Aphelocoma calif ornica imryanis, 

 from Scio in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, has commonly been considered a 



'Manual North Amer. Birds, 1887, p. 357. 



2 Jouy, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XVI, 1893, p. 781. 



American Ornithologists' Union Committee, Auk, XIX, July, 1902, p. 321. 



4 Auk, XIX, January, 1902, p. 70. 



: Auk, XVIII, April, 1901, p. 188. 



