118 



THE CONDOR 



Vol. XX 



per Orn. Club, I, 1899, p. 11) described Pipilo fuscus carolae, from Battle Creek, 

 near Balls Ferry, Shasta County, California. This subspecies was accepted by 

 the A. 0. U. Committee (Auk, xvni, 1901, p. 306), but was subsequently repudi- 

 ated both by the original describer (McGregor, Pac. Coast Avil, no. 2, 1901, p. 

 •15) and by the A. 0. U. Committee (Auk, xxi, 1904, p. 415), as supposedly rep- 



Points from which specimens were examined: 



■ Pipilo crissalis crissalis 



A Pipilo crissalis carolae 



• Pipilo crissalis senicula 

 Some important points from which the species has 

 been recorded previously, but from which no 

 specimens were examined: 



D Pipilo crissalis crissalis 



A Pipilo crissalis carolae 



O Pipilo crissalis senicula 



Fig. 19. Distribution ix California of the Subspecies of Pipilo crissalis. 



resenting the fresh fall plumage of Pipilo c. crissalis. The name carolae was later 

 revived by Grinnell (Condor, xiv, 1912, p. 199; Pac. Coast Avil, no. 11, 1915, p. 

 134) as designating a race occupying northern California and the Sacramento 

 Valley. Recently obtained material is corroborative of the validity of this sub- 

 species with a more extensive range than was heretofore supposed. 



