ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB. 
99 
brilliant with that of T. moschilus (!) (which, so far as I have seen, is 
never the case with the other species), and it has, he says, more of 
a red than an orange gloss,” and the tints are “exquisitely splen- 
did ” ; a perfectly accurate description of the California bird, but not 
of the other, which has the gorget orange., and not at all brilliant. To 
come a little nearer to our own time, we have Audubon, who, in his 
“Birds of America” (8vo edition, Vol. IV, p. 202), thus describes 
the Selasphorus rufus as he knew it from the specimens collected 
on the Blue Mountains of the Columbia Eiver and at Nootka 
Sound by Messrs, Nuttall and Townsend: “Tail rather long, 
broad, graduated, the lateral feathers four and a half twelfths of an 
inch shorter than the central ; the latter are extremely broad, 
measuring four and a half twelfths across, and the rest gradually 
diminish to the lateral, w^hich are very narrow, all obtusely pointed.” 
Not a word, it will be noticed, is said of the notch on the first 
rectrices from the central ones. The throat is also stated to be 
“splendent fire-red,” etc. Baird, in the “ Birds of North America” 
(1860), p. 134, in his description of the S. rufns, says that “the 
tail is strongly cuneate ; the outer feather .40 of an inch shorter 
than the middle, which projects .14 of an inch beyond the rest. The 
outer feather is very narrow, not exceeding .11 of an inch in width; 
the rest widen and lengthen rapidly to the central one, which is 
very broad (.35 of an inch) ; the central feathers are all ovate-acu- 
ninate. The entire throat, including a short ruff on the side of the 
neck (about .40 of an inch long), is metallic red, of the same shade 
as in the Ruby-throat, although with brassy reflections in some 
lights.” Could, in his “Monograph of the Trochilidoe,''' has appar- 
ently confused the two species together, but he makes no mention 
of the notched rectrices, but states they are all of a “ broad lanceolate 
form,” and his figures would seem to be taken from the California 
bird. I might go on and multiply the instances w'here writers in 
their descriptions of S. rufus have spoken only of the birds with the 
narrow rectrices, although, as in Mr. Could’s case, they may have 
had both Californian and Mexican specimens before them, but, 
regarding them as one species, they have always selected for their 
descriptions the specimens with the brilliant throats (as being in 
more perfect plumage, as they supposed), rather than the duller- 
throated examples, and so these last have escaped receiving a dis- 
tinctive name, as they deserved. But I think enough has been 
said to show that authors generally, and the older ones especially, 
