142 



THE CONDOR 



Vol. XX 



dividual bird goes through the changes in- 

 dicated. What reason is there for believing 

 that goshawks with heavier markings are 

 younger than those with finer vermicula- 

 tions — since the transversely barred plum- 

 age, coarsely or finely marked, is the only 

 test we now know for distinguishing old 

 from young? The author may be perfectly 

 correct in refusing recognition to the west- 

 ern subspecies, striatulus, but a casual state- 

 ment of his belief, such as is cited above, 

 cannot by itself be expected to convince 

 others. 



At just one point in -the paper is a tri- 

 nomial used: "Hybrid Flicker, Colaptes au- 

 ritus [sic] cafer". As no comments are 

 made it is not clear what inference is to be 

 drawn from this manner of entry. 



The bird report by Anderson (pp. 376-381) 

 lists species collected by the Canadian Arc- 

 tic Expedition on the coast of extreme north- 

 western British America and northern 

 Alaska. Sixty-one species are listed, most- 

 ly without comment. Mr. Taverner's pecu- 

 liar usage of names is not adopted, the 

 more generally accepted classification of 

 the A. O. U. Check-List being followed 

 throughout. — H. S. Swarth. 



The Geographical Distribution of Color 

 and of other variable characters in the 

 Genus Junco: a new Aspect of specific and 

 subspecific Values. By Jonathan Dwight, 

 M. D. Bulletin of the American Museum of 

 Natural History, vol. xxxvin, June 1, 1918, 

 pp. 269-309, plates xi-xm, 5 figs, (maps) in 

 text. 



Dr. Dwight's previous studies of plumage 

 variation, together with his known interest 

 in the group of birds here discussed, render 

 this publication one deserving of more than 

 ordinary attention. The problem concerned 

 is the classification of the juncos so that 

 names may be applied to the various groups 

 of species and subspecies, the method em- 

 ployed is somewhat novel, and the resulting 

 systematic treatment of the genus is radi- 

 cally different from that adopted in the A. 

 O. U. Check-List. While, however, the ar- 

 rangement of species' and subspecies here 

 given may be taken as the author's concep- 

 tion of their proper relationships, the out- 

 come of the careful study of a large amount 

 of material, the treatise itself is more in the 

 nature of an essay on a method of research, 

 rather than the detailed exposition of ac- 

 cumulated data bearing upon this particular 

 problem. Thus, in the author's own words, 

 it is not so much his purpose "to attempt 

 a complete revision as it is to focus atten- 

 tion upon them [the juncos] from a new an- 

 gle;" and "the winter ranges are not given 

 and other matters of indirect interest are 

 not taken up because they scarcely come 

 within the scope of this particular study of 

 the Juncos." 



As a result the reader is confronted with 

 many sweeping statements, rather dogmat- 



ically uttered, on points regarding which he 

 might wish to weigh the evidence for him- 

 self before accepting the author's classifica- 

 tion of the genus as final. 



Characters of the juncos are found to be 

 "of two kinds, qualitative and quantitative, 

 which include all differences of structure, 

 size, proportions, pattern, and coloration. 

 In structure .... they are all practically 

 alike; in size and proportions, their differ- 

 ences are quantitative; but, in pattern and 

 coloration, the variations are both quanti- 

 tative and qualitative." Color characters 

 alone are here considered. Nine areas on 

 the bird's body are differentiated (head, 

 breast, back, sides, wing-coverts, tail, lores, 

 iris, and bill), and each part considered by 

 itself. The geographical distribution of the 

 types of coloration on the several parts is 

 separately platted, and species and subspe- 

 cies determined according to the extent of 

 coordination in the several maps. In a gen- 

 eral way, of course, this (barring the maps) 

 is very similar to what has been done by 

 most monographers of bird groups, though 

 not usually with the different parts of the 

 bird so rigidly defined, nor with such abso- 

 lute disregard for other modifying factors. 

 Some of the results attained by Dr. Dwight 

 are more or less in accordance with those 

 of one or another of previous authorities on 

 this group, but the allocation of some forms 

 is so widely at variance with all prior class- 

 ifications, that, before arriving at a final 

 conclusion, it would seem desirable to give 

 some consideration to factors other than 

 those of color characters, so arbitrarily de- 

 fined. 



Several forms in good standing in the 

 Check-List are here regarded as hybrids, 

 annectens, ridgwayi, montanus, and dorsalis 

 being disposed of in this way. The speci- 

 mens serving as types of annectens and 

 ridgwayi had already been shown to be 

 clearly cf such character by Ridgway, but 

 that montanus and dorsalis are of the same 

 category is a new idea. The contention ap- 

 pears to be well founded, and is a point of 

 some importance in the author's argument. 

 The occurrence of individual birds appar- 

 ently of hybrid origin and in sufficient num- 

 bers to have long been regarded as repre- 

 sentative of distinct forms, is, of course, a 

 feature deserving of most careful considera- 

 tion in any systematic treatment of the 

 group. 



A new name is provided Junco nomencla- 

 ture, Junco oregonus couesi, proposed for 

 the race called connectens in the Check-List, 

 and shufeldti by Ridgway. Connectens is 

 regarded as a synonym of hyemalis (in ac- 

 cordance with Ridgway's previous conten- 

 tion), and shufeldti as a synonym of ore- 

 ganus. The type specimen of shufeldti is a 

 winter collected bird from Fort Wingate, 

 New Mexico, and if this individual is actu- 

 ally an example of the Alaskan Junco o. 





