130 THE CONDOR Vol. XXIV 
The blue of the underparts of all the races of Cyanocitta varies a great deal 
with individuals. Some of the Requa birds tend strongly toward the blue of 
frontalis while others are of darker hue, but, even with these of darkest blue, 
the rump is lighter than that of stelleri or even of carbonacea. In these north- 
west coast specimens secured by us, the blue frontal spots are very conspicuous 
in nearly all of the adult birds, very much like the ‘‘blue fronts’’ of frontalis, 
and on the average much more conspicuous and extended than they are with 
carbonacea. This character is much restricted in stelleri. 
One of the difficulties in making the differences in coloration clear to the 
reader is due to the variety of definitions given by different authors to the 
colors of the parts of the various subspecies of this jay. For instance, in four of 
our leading publications which are recent enough to consult for the purpose, the 
eolor of the back and seapular region in the case of the Steller Jay is given as 
follows: ‘‘deep black, or brownish black’’, ‘‘dark sooty brown’’. ‘‘fore parts of 
body dull blackish’’, and ‘‘sooty brown’’: while Dr. Fisher, in the Connor arti- 
cle already quoted. calls it ‘‘warm slate black’’. This last descrivtion is to mv 
mind the most suitable, if Rideway’s Nomenclature of Colors is used as the hasis 
of comparison. Again, the second and third of the above authorities, in the same 
order, give these parts of the Coast Jay as. ‘‘slatv brown or brownish slate’’, and 
‘“back warm slate gray’’; while Fisher gives the color as ‘‘warm slate gray’’. 
with which I do not so readily agree. In the ease of the Blue-fronted Jav the 
colors run as follows: ‘‘brownish slatv’’, ‘‘hair brown, broccoli brown or drab’’. 
‘“fore parts of body brownish slate’’. and ‘‘similar to No. 487 (stelleri) but 
back paler’’: while Fisher ealls it ‘‘ mouse grav’’. which seems to me to be correct. 
Dr. Fisher made a trip to the northwest coast of this state in 1899. and. in a 
paper vublished soon after. stated that the 1av of the Humboldt Bav reeion was 
tvnieal carbonacea. hoth in summer and winter (Condor. 1902. np. 133). Now. 
if Dr. Fisher was correct in this diagnosis. at what noint on the coast. between 
the Blue-fronted Jay habitat in Sonoma County. and Humboldt Bav. did the lat- 
ter form give way again to the Coast Jay? Between the mouth of the Russian 
River. in Sonoma County. now known to be inhabited by the Blue-fronted Jav. 
and Humboldt Bay. there are no non-coniferous areas of any size. none large 
enough to make a barrier against this genus. The character of all this coast 
stretch—the nature of the association. and the climate——is vractically the same 
throughout. differine onlv in degree. This beine the case. where and whv 
would the Blue-fronted Jay, which inhabits a cross-section of the state in all 
suitable localities, straight east from the mouth of the Russian River to the 
‘Sierras, merge into the Coast Jay to the northward? Or, why should the Coast 
Jay interpolate itself into the realm of the Blue-fronted in such a leap-frog 
fashion. | | 
Opportunity presented itself for a visit to Eureka in June, 1916. and dur- 
ing my stay there several specimens of the jay were obtained from the Humboldt 
Bay region. The plumage of the birds taken at that season of the year was poor 
for comparisons, but I remarked at the time upon the light coloration of these: 
specimens as compared with Coast Jays from the central coast district (Condor, 
xvi, 1916, p. 199), and called attention to a certain similarity between them and 
specimens from Sonoma County, which latter have since been acknowledged to 
be good frontalis. However, not enough evidence had yet been brought to bear 
upon the points involved, and but little interest in the matter had so far been 
