2 20 Brewster on Helminthofhaga leucobronchialis. 



abdomen white ; the remainder of the lower parts gamboge-yel- 

 low ; the wing-bands white ; the nape ashy tinged with green ; 

 the occiput, back, and wings as purely olive-green as in H. 

 pi mis. 



No. i,2io (Dr. Fisher's collection, ? adult, Sing Sing, July 24, 

 1 881) is entirely pale greenish-yellow beneath ; the back is simi- 

 lar to that oifinus but the nape is decidedly ashy and the wing- 

 bands as clearly yellow as in chrysoftera ; the dusky brown 

 eve-stripe is restricted to the lores and post-orbital spot. 

 ' Of the above specimens, No. 605 is perhaps the most important ; 

 with its white wing-bars, ashy back, and yellow breast and throat 

 it very equally combines the resp3ctiv3 characters of leucobrjn- 

 chialis and finus. Nos. 2,630 and 1,210, approach pinus even 

 more closely ; but the former has the white throat and cheeks of 

 leucobronchialis; and the latter an ashy nape, yellow wing-bands 

 and generally pale coloring bjneath. No. 1.208 shows a signifi- 

 cant variation in the other direction, the extension of the black 

 eye-stripe indicating an increased affinity with chrysoptera. No. 

 1,335 i''^ apparently similar to Gibb's type oi H. '■'gunnii" after- 

 wards referred io leucobronchialis hy M.Y. Ridgway (this Bull., 

 [ V, p. 233) . Taken as a whole, the series perfectly connects leuco- 

 bronchialis with pinus, as well as showing an extension of the 

 former toward chrysoptera. This fact being established, the 

 question immediately follows. How can these aberrant birds be 

 accounted for? Before attempting to answer this let us take up 

 //. lawrencei and examine a few more specimens. 



I have before me a female Hel mint hop haga (No. 4,667, author's 

 collection. Highland Falls, New York, July 7, 1.^79, presented 

 by Dr. Mearns) which has the crown yellow ; the back and 

 wings dull ashy tinged with olive-green ; the wing-bands yellow ; 

 the cheeks and throat ashy ; the chin, sides of throat, and re- 

 mainder of the under parts heavily washed with greenish- 

 yellow. Making due allowance for the fact that its plumage is 

 excessively worn and faded, this specimen presents nearly the 

 relative characters that would be looked for in the female of 

 laivrencei ; the throat and cheek-markings are those of chrysop- 

 tera (female) , while the remainder of the plumage is colored 

 nearly as in pinus; the wing-bands however are yellow, instead 

 of white, and the back is not purely olive-green : but these varia- 

 tions are closely parallel to those which occur in leucobron- 



Bkewster on Helminthophaga leucobronchialis. 22 1 



chialis, and, reasoning from that analogy, it seems quite as con- 

 sistent to refer the present example with yellow wing-bands 

 to lawrencei as the specimen No. 605, with white wing-bands, 

 to leucobronchialis. Assuming this to be granted, we will 

 next consider a young bird (No. 4,668, author's collection) of 

 which the individual just described was ascertained to be the 

 parent. Although in process of change, the fall plumage is fortu- 

 nately sufliciently developed to afford some important points : tlie 

 gray first plumage of the under parts is replaced across the breast 

 and along the sides by patches of bright yellow feathers, whWe 

 the sprouting second plumage of the throat is pzire white; the 

 lores are black, but the few second featliers which appear on the 

 auriculars are, like those of the throat, white.* 



It may with confidence be stated that this individual would 

 have developed a fall plumage characterized by black lores, white 

 throat, and yellow breast and sides, a condition, in short, nearly 

 similar to No. 605. Now the only way of accounting for the 

 parentage of such an oflspring is to assume that the female, No. 

 4,667, had mated with a male of either H. pinus or H. chrysop- 

 tera; for had the male been either I aiur cure i or chrysoptera, 

 the black throat and cheek patches would inevitably have been 

 reproduced. 



A nice muddle, certainly ! But let us see how all the facts in the 

 several cases look when more closely associated. We have found : 

 (i ) That the prominent characters of leucobronchialis and /aw- 

 re??f:c/ are not original, but are essentially borrowed from their 

 allies, H. pinus and chrysoptera. (3) That the characters of 

 leucobronchialis are inconstant, and that this supposed species 

 intergrades with pinns. (3) That the characters of lawrencei 

 are also inconstant, and that lazvrencei interbreeds with some 

 unknown all)' — presumal)ly H. pinus, producing oflspring that 

 resemble aberrant specimens of leucobronchialis. 



The inference to be drawn from all this can scarcely be doubt- 

 ful. Race affinities will not explain the peculiar characters of 

 either leucobronchialis or lawrencei, for the region over which 

 all the known specimens have occurred is everywhere occupied 

 by either one or both of the species to which they are most inti- 

 mately related. Nor can they be considered as either immature 



* Specimens of young chrysoptera. in precisely the same stage, liave the throat and 

 cheek-patches distinctly indicated by black or ashy pin-feathers, according to sex. 



