78 . Vol. XXIII 
THE PROBABLE STATUS OF THE PACIFIC COAST SKUAS 
By A. C. BENT 
‘7 HILE working out the distribution of Catharacta skua Briinnich, I was 
somewhat puzzled to know what to do with the Pacific Coast records of 
this species, for it hardly seemed reasonable to suppose that the Great 
Skua of the northern Atlantic Ocean would wander so far away from its normal 
range. My suspicions were strengthened by a prophetic, and perhaps intuitive, 
statement by Ridgway (Birds of North and Middle America, part 8, 1919, p. 
678) that this species is ‘‘recorded from Aleutian Islands and from Monterey 
Bay, California, but probably erroneously, at least as far as correct identifica- 
tion is concerned, the Monterey specimens, at least, being more likely M. chi- 
lensis.’’ 
After corresponding with Mr. Harry 8. Swarth, in an endeavor to help him 
to establish the identification of the two Monterey specimens in the University 
of California collection, he finally decided to send me these two birds and very 
kindly did so. But when I saw them, I was more puzzled than ever, for they 
were entirely unlike any specimen of Catharacta I had ever seen. The chief 
characters of these two birds are small size and uniform dark colors, without any 
signs of mottling or streaking. They are smaller than any of the skuas except 
chilensis and maccormickt, the former of which is quite rufous in color and the 
latter very hght colored. In the Monterey birds the wings and tail are “‘sooty 
black’’; the head, neck and back are ‘‘hair brown”’ to ‘‘chaetura black’’; the 
under parts are uniform ‘‘hair brown’’; and the under tail-coverts are ‘“‘chaetura 
drab’’ (Ridgway’s Color Standards and Color Nomenclature, 1912). I thought, 
at first, that they represented an undescribed svecies and I am not sure now 
that they do not. JI determined to investigate the matter thoroughly and now 
propose to give the readers of THe Conpor the results of my investigations and 
let them come to their own conclusions. 
In the Museum of Comnvarative Zoology, at Cambridge, Massachusetts, | 
compared them with the small series there available of Catharacta skua Briin- 
nich, C. antarctica (Lesson) and C. chilensis (Bonanarte). The Monterey birds 
are entirely unlike any of these; but there is one bird in the Museum (Bangs eol- 
lection, no. 13927). taken in Sagami Sea, Japan, August 23, 1903, which closely 
resembles them. Mr. Bangs had called mv attention to this bird a long time ago 
and showed me some correspondence he had had with Dr. Richmond about it: 
but the bird was in such badly worn and faded plumage that it seemed hardly 
safe to base any conclusion on it. It probably belongs, however, to the same 
species as the Monterey birds. 
After reading Mathews’ (The Birds of Australia, p. 485) statement that 
immature specimens of Catharacta lonndergi Mathews are ‘‘uniform brownish 
black on the uvper surface: the lower uniform brownish gray’’, I thought that 
I had found the solution of the problem: for these colors seemed to match the 
birds in question exactly. So I apnealed to Dr. Richmond and he very kindly 
sent me the entire series of this species in the National Museum collection, three 
birds from Kerguelen Island, one bird from Tasmania and one bird from the 
Seychelles Islands. But I was thrown off the track again, when I examined 
these birds, for they all proved to be very much larger than the Monterey birds: 
