222 Brewster on He Iminthoph ag a leu cob r on c/i ialis . 
or abnormal examples ; the former hypothesis being decidedly 
negatived by the fact that all the early plumages of both of their 
affines are known to be widely different ; while the latter is made 
untenable by the number of essentially similar specimens that 
have come under our notice. Only one possible solution re- 
mains : — that they are hybrids between Helminthophaga pmus 
and H. chrysoptera. And in support of this view an additional 
fact may be pointed out ; viz., that nearly all the known speci- 
mens have been taken within an area where both these species 
breed , either together , or zVz close proximity. The very different 
combinations of markings and coloring in the two hybrid forms, 
as restricted, is unquestionably due to a reversal of the parents in 
each case. That is, one of them is produced by the union of 
H. pinus $ with H. chrysoptera 9 ; the other by that of H. 
chrysoptera $ with H. pinus 9- Just which combination pro- 
duces either must for the present remain a matter of conjecture. 
The logical inference is, perhaps, that ^ leucobronchialis” is the 
offspring of H. pinus $ with H. chrysoptera 9 , for in the 
case of No. 4,668 we have seen that the black throat and cheek- 
patches, characterizing lawrencei equally with chrysoptera , were 
eliminated by an assumed cross with the male of pinus. But 
additional facts must be forthcoming before this part of the 
question can be regarded as settled.* 
Before leaving the Golden-winged Warblers it may be well to 
dwell a moment on the general bearings of the facts adduced, 
for it must be evident to all that they have a wider significance 
than simply showing that pinus and chrysoptera interbreed, pro- 
ducing so-called leucobronchialis” and “ lawrencei .” They 
also show that these hybrid offspring — at least the females, as in 
*On a former occasion (this Bulletin, Vol. II, pp. 66-68) I bestowed a compound 
specific name on a hybrid Grouse, thereby adopting a custom followed by certain 
Eu ropean ornithologists, notably Mr. Robert Collett of Christiana, Norway. Since that 
time,' however, correspondence with my friend Mr. Ridgway has convinced me of the 
inadequacy of this form of nomenclature. As Mr. Ridgway pointed out, the hybrid in 
question was derived from parents of different genera, and hence a due regard for accu- 
racy would have demanded the compounding of the generic as well as specific titles : 
the result, it is needless to say, would be an absurdly cumbersome title. As this 
objection # will frequently be met with, and, moreover, in >> iew of the fact that such 
specimens are in the majority of cases of exceptional and abnormal significance, I 
fully agree with Mr. Ridgway that a distinctive name is not called for. The Smithso- 
nian specimens of hybrid origin are labeled with the names of both parents connected 
by the sign -+-, a method that fully meets the requirements of such cases. 
