Jan., 1921 SUPPOSED TWO RACES OF LONG-BILLED CURLEW 23 
range of the species within the limits above indicated. I have no present means 
of knowing what exact point or what general portion, even, of this breeding 
range the specimens taken come from, wnless these birds can be shown definitely 
to possess subspecific characters as set forth for the two races claimed to be rec- 
ognizable. This, then, becomes the special object of my enquiry. oa 
In their diagnoses of the supposed two races of Numenius americanus, Bish- 
op, Oberholser and Ridgway (places cited above) assign characters as follows: 
americanus occidentalis 
Bishop: size larger size “smaller” 
(1910) bill much longer bill “much shorter” 
Oberholser: size “larger” size “decidedly smaller” 
(1918) bill “particularly” longer bill “particularly” shorter 
wing “particularly” longer wing “particularly” shorter 
Ridgway: size larger size “smaller” 
(1919) bill longer bill “especially” shorter 
No features of coloration have been ascribed; so that the differentiation of 
the two forms rests upon ‘‘size’’ (apparently as judged only from chord of 
elosed wing) and, more particularly or especially, upon length of bill. It is 
obvious, therefore, that carefully ascertained measurements of an adequate num- 
ber of comparable birds, are essential to determining the meaning of the varia- 
tion shown in the species. 
The measurements given by all the authors cited are those of wing, tail, ex- 
posed culmen, and tarsus. Bishop gave also length (total) and extent (spread 
of wings) of the type of ‘‘parvus’’ (occidentalis) ; but these two dimensions 
are useless in the present study of the case. 
Bishop measured a total of 18 males and 10 females representative of the 
two races he wished to differentiate as well as of intermediates between the two. 
Analysing Bishop’s figures, which he gives in inches and hundredths, we find 
average and extremes given for 7 males and 3 females of unequivocal ‘‘parvus’’ 
(occidentalis) and for just 3 males and 3 females of unequivocal americanus. 
Turning to Oberholser’s review of the problem, the first impression received 
is that the main object of this writer was to advance a nomenclatural point, 
namely, to raise the name occidentalis of Woodhouse to replace Bishop’s parvus. 
There is no question, however, but that he thoroughly endorses the proposed 
division of the species. Oberholser says: ‘‘In this connection we have examined 
a total of 279 specimens’’. And yet, to the reader’s inescapable astonishment, 
all of the measurements given by him are merely those of Bishop’s sixteen birds 
‘“transposed into millimeters’’! Not only does the validity of the two races de- 
pend upon definitely ascertained measurements, but also does the identification 
of the individual specimens so depend. Yet the localities for every one of the 
specimens are given with seeming exactitude under one name or the other. More- 
_ over, the majority of these localities, to judge from the accompanying dates, are 
for migrants ! . 
In the interests of accuracy in systematic ornithology I am compelled te 
point out this extraordinary lapse on the part of the author cited, in not oliving 
original measurements of series of comparable specimens. This lapse vitiates 
all Oberholser’s conclusions in regard to the ranges of the two alleged races, par- 
ticularly as to the fall, winter and spring when the birds are more or less off 
their breeding grounds. The reader will recall here the well-known custom of a 
few systematists (Bishop, at least, included) of diagnosing individual speci- 
