SHARP-TAILED STINT. 
Seebohm’s figure does not correctly show this arrangement, and by 
examination of the next figure it is easily seen that the artist has failed 
to grasp the essential features of the tails of these birds. Of this bird 
{Tringa hairdi) Seebohm wrote : “ May always be recognised by its tail, the 
central feathers of which are not longer than the outer, though the 
intermediate ones on each side are rather shorter.” The outspread drawings 
given by Seebohm do not show such features well, whereas the ones I now 
present fairly give the essentials. It should be noted that Coues (Proc. 
Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 1861, p. 198) wrote of 7naculata { = pectoralis) : 
Tail rather long, deeply doubly emarginate, the central feathers pointed 
and greatly projecting.” 
In this place Coues, following Cassin, replaced pectoralis, as the specific 
name, by inaculata, and he appears to have been followed without question. 
In the A.O.U. Checklist, 3rd ed., p. 114, 1910, the species is called Pisobia 
maculata, and the prime reference given as “ Tringa maculata VieiUot, Nouv. 
Diet. d’Hist. Nat., XXXIV., 1819, 465 : ” but there is a prior Tringa 
7naculata of Linne’s Syste7na Natures, 12th ed., 1766, p. 249. The next name 
seems to be the one formerly commonly in use and which agrees with the 
vernacular “ Pectoral Sandpiper,” Tringa pectoralis Say : “ Long’s Exped., 
1823, L, 171.” 
I now decide that the species pectoralis and acu7ninatus are not sub- 
specifically related, but are genericaUy distinct. In addition to the wedge- 
shaped tail of the latter I find the structural proportions different, the bill of 
the last named being shorter while the legs and feet are longer and stronger. 
I moreover give the plumages of the two species, which seem to have been 
misunderstood as in no phase do they very closely resemble each other, and 
if properly identified specimens are compared no signs of intergradation 
are seen. Superficially they appear similar, if the upper-sides only be glanced 
at, but the under-sides are always very different. Baird, Brewer, and 
Ridgway in the “ Water Birds of North America,” Vol. I. (iHem. Mus. 
Cennp. Zool. Harv., Vol. XII.) 1884, p. 225, correctly differentiated the two 
species, but omitted the detail of the wedge-shaped tail of acu7ninatus, 
concluding : — 
“ This species {acu7ninata) resembles very closely the common 
A. 7naculata, but differs constantly in several respects. As to proportions, 
the biU is decidedly shorter and more slender, and the tarsus slightly 
longer, while the wing is about the same length. The middle tail-feathers 
are narrower and more acuminate. The colors are nearly the same but the 
rectrices are darker, the breast almost or quite unspotted centrally and 
posteriously, and the crown decidedly rufous.” 
VOL. m. 
261 
