/ 
Henshaw on the Species of the Genus Passer ella. 3 
Passerculus princeps. 
Centronyx bairdii, Allen, Am. Nat. iii, 1869, 513 (original notice of 
supposed occurrence of P. bairdi in Massachusetts, the actual reference 
being to P. princeps). — Mayn., Am. Nat. iii, 1869, 554 (next notice of 
the same). — Allen, Am. Nat. iii, 1869, 631 (third notice of the same). 
— Mayn., Nat. Guide, 1870, 113, frontisp. (fourth notice of the same). 
— Brewst., Am. Nat. vi, 1872, 307 (fifth notice of the same, and of 
additional specimens). 
Passerculus princeps, Mayn., Am. Nat. vi, 1872, 637 (explanation of 
the error, and the supposed “ C. bairdii ” from Ipswich, Mass, named P. 
princeps). — Coues, Key, 1872, App. 352. — Coues, Am. Nat. vii, 1873, 
696. — Bd., Brew., and Bidgw., Hist. N. A. B. i, 1874, 540, pi. 25, f. 2. — 
Brewer, Pr. Bost. Soc. xvii, 1875, 441. — Brewst., Bull. Nuttall Club, 
i, 1876, 52 (New Brunswick). — Merriam, Bull. Nuttall Club, i, 1876, 
52 (Connecticut). — Brown, Bull. Nuttall Club, ii, 1877, 27 (New 
Hampshire). — Bailey, Bull. Nuttall Club, ii, 1877, 78 (Coney Island, 
N. Y.). — Minot, Birds New Engl. 1877, 195 (general account). — May- 
nard, Nat. Guide, 2d Ed. 1877 (colored plate ; text rewritten). 
ON THE SPECIES OF THE GENUS PASSERELLA. 
BY H. W. HENSHAW. 
The genus Passerella was instituted by Swainson in 1837 to re- 
ceive the only species known at that time to him, the Fringilla 
iliaca of Merrem and of the early authors generally. The Aonal- 
ashka Bunting, doubtfully the P. townsendi of recent authors, was 
named by Gmelin, in 1788, constituting his Fringilla unalaskensis. 
In the uncertainty respecting Gmelin’s bird, his description apply- 
ing equally well to the Melospiza iusignis, the townsendi of Audubon, 
named in 1838, has been accepted by most ornithologists. The 
genus, with its two species, thus remained till 1858, when Profes- 
sor Baird described the P. schistacea from the interior, and at the 
same time noticed a closely allied form from California with larger 
bill, for which he proposed the name megarhyncha. These four 
“ species,” as they have sometimes been called, or forms, make up a 
very interesting as well as puzzling group, as shown by the doubt- 
ful manner in which they have been treated by various writers, 
