July, 1922 A NBW SPARROW FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 127 
Remarks.—Specimens from northern Lower California resemble those from 
San Diego, and clearly belong to the same form, but as they are more or less worn 
they are not included in the table of measurements. These specimens are the 
same ones referred to by Mr. Anthony (Zoe, Iv, 1893, 242) as being ‘‘practi- 
eally indistinguishable from southern California examples’’, but he seems not 
to have suspected that the latter were not true ruficeps. A. ruficeps canescens 
is really intermediate in its characters between A. ruficeps ruficeps and A. ruf?- 
ceps sororia, but is grayer than either, and is evidently as well entitled to recog- 
nition as certain other races of birds found in this general region. It doubtless 
grades into the former in Los Angeles County, California, as indicated by a spe- 
ecimen from Pasadena (Mus. Vert. Zool., no. 35813), but where it meets the range 
of A. r. sororia is an undetermined question. 
Specimens examined.—California: San Diego, 3. Lower California: Guada- 
lupe Valley, 1; Sansal del Comanche, 3; Pion, 1; Todos Santos Island, 2. 
Total, 10. i‘ 
My acknowledgments are due to the authorities of the several institutions 
already specified for the loan of material for comparison, and to Dr. Harry C. 
Oberholser for his advice. 
Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 11, 1922. 
STATUS OF THE CRESTED JAYS ON THE 
NORTHWESTERN COAST OF CALIFORNIA 
By JOSEPH MAILLIARD 
WITH MAP 
INCE the year 1908, when it was found that the crested jay of that part of 
the Humid Coast Belt lying in Sonoma County, California. was not distin- 
- guishable from the Blue-fronted Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri frontalis) of the 
interior mountains and the southern portions of California. the idea of intergrad- 
ation on the northwest coast of this state between the Steller Jay (Cyanocitta 
stellert stelleri), of the southern Alaskan and British Columbian coasts. and the 
Coast Jay (Cyanocitta stellerit carbonacea), of the central humid coast belt. has, 
in my judgment, been open to doubt. It hardly seemed reasonable that there 
should be such an intergrading toward the north when the Coast J ay is not only 
eut off abruptly in the central humid coast belt by a strip of non-coniferous as- 
sociation, unattractive to this genus. in northern Marin and southern Sonoma 
counties, but its distribution also is interrupted by the appearance of the Blue- 
fronted Jay on the opposite side of this non-coniferous barrier. 
In 1902, Dr. Walter K. Fisher published an article upon the status of Cuva- 
nocitta stelleri carbonacea (Condor, 1v. pp. 41-44). in which he gives the distin- 
guishing characteristics of the different members of the genus Cyanocitla on the 
Pacific Coast, illustrated by a map showing their distribution as understood by 
him at that time. This paper was written not long after the Coast J ay was de- 
scribed by Grinnell (Condor, 1, 1900, p. 127), when much less was known of 
