NATURAL HISTORY OF THE KING RAIL 



5 



Charleston, S.C., region, it is apparent from his original description 

 (Audubon, 1835) that he finally decided that it was indeed a new spe- 

 cies on the basis of their work in that region. It would seem that the 

 species distinctness may even have been brought to his attention by 

 Bachman, who in a letter to Audubon sent from Charleston, S.C., and 

 dated December 27, 1832, posed this question : 



May not the Northern Marsh Hen, be the Bird which we here call the Fresh 

 Water M. Hen & our Ash coloured one that keeps to the Marsh be peculiar to 

 the South? I should like to have this matter ascertained. 



In a letter from Charleston dated March 27, 1833, Bachman, again 

 referring to the Marsh Hen, said (Deane, 1929, p. 180, 184), "My 

 opinion first expressed [in the letter of December 27, 1832] is every 

 day strengthened." 



Audubon (1835, p. 27-28) reported that he caught a female at Hen- 

 derson, Ky., on May 29, 1810, and also collected a female near Camden, 

 K J., in July 1832. 



Stanley C. Arthur (1937, p. 503) , a biographer of Audubon, believed 

 that Audubon's painting of the Fresh- water Marsh Hen was made at 

 New Orleans in 1821 when he spent the winter, spring, and fall there. 

 Audubon obtained birds from the city market and from two hunters 

 engaged to collect for him, and painted over 100 birds from this area 

 (including work in the St. Francisville area in West Feliciana Parish) . 

 An entry in Audubon's journal, dated December 20, 1821 (Corning 

 1929, p. 224), says that he "Kec*^ a nondescript rail." And an entry 

 made the next day says, "Drew a streaked Rail." This may have been 

 a King Rail, but if it was, apparently it was not recognized as a new 

 species at that time. 



An interesting letter from Rodolphe M. deSchauensee, Curator of 

 Birds at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, dated 

 February 7, 1962, sheds some light on the possibility of an existing 

 type specimen or cotype : 



I have gone into the question of the type specimen of the King Rail mentioned 

 in your letter of February 1 with what I think are interesting results. 



Some years ago Fletcher and Phillips B. Street gave to the Academy a collec- 

 tion of birds which had belonged to Edward Harris who was a friend of Audu- 

 bon. On looking through our collection I found in this lot an immature specimen 

 of the King Rail. In vol. 3 (p. 28) of Audubon's Ornithological Biographies he 

 says "I killed one female in New Jersey, a few miles from Camden, in July, 1832 

 in company with my friends Edward Harris and Mr. Ogden . . 



In the Elephant Folio (vol. 3) pi. 203 engraved in 1834 two birds are shown, 

 an adult and an immature. The bird in Harris's collection agrees very well both 

 in color and measurements with the bird depicted as the immature specimen. As 

 the bird was collected in 1832 the plate engraved in 1834 and Audubon's original 

 description published in 1835, there is every reason to suppose that this is the 

 bird shown on the plate. 



In view of all the above I feel that it is justifiable to regard this specimen 

 as a cotype. Audubon described an adult male, a female and an immature. If 



