FLUTTERING PETREL. 
incorrect conclusion. HuU determined this as a valid genus from his 
experience with it in life, but so little is on record as to the habits of 
these birds that we cannot gauge as to the value of his observations. 
Observers have noted the great difference in life between Alphapuffinus 
and Thyellodroma, for instance, while the latter seems to recall that of 
P'uffinus sensu stricto, to judge by published accounts. In view of these 
results it seems wise to maintain the groups I recognised in my “ List,” 
until future investigation compels their acceptance or rejection. By this 
remark I mean complete study from aU points of view, not merely the 
opinion based on examination of a few skins. 
At the same time Oberholser showed that my Puffinus couesi was 
needless, as the two different diagnoses of P. opisthomelas Coues and P. 
auricularis Townsend referred to two different birds, and not to the same 
bird, as I concluded. This has been accepted by Loomis, who gives 
the differential characters of the two species, but I am quite unable to 
understand from literature what is meant by this writer. The characters 
here accepted as valid are written off as of no value at all in connection with 
other allied forms. Oberholser’s comments are not very clear either, and 
I suggest that more work is necessary in connection with the two species, 
for judging from Loomis’ account there cannot possibly be two “ species,” 
and this conclusion alone necessitates reconsideration, while the geography 
of the habitats of the two “ species ” shows the absurdity of biased 
judgments in connection with these birds. The type of Coues’ species 
was procured at Cape San Lucas, Lower California, two or three hours’ 
flight from the Revilla Gigedo group, whence was described Townsend’s 
species. Apparently all Lower Cahfornian birds were referred to the first 
named by Loomis, breeding birds from the group being considered the latter. 
After this no separation was allowed between birds from Bass Strait and 
California, an extraordinary corollary. I will again point out that Coues’ 
description applies better to the Revilla Gigedo bird than to the Monterey one, 
but now accept the fact that there is only one species and that it is doubtful 
whether two subspecies are well distinguished. 
Reading Loomis again, I see that both species are recognised as breeding 
in the ReviUa Gigedo group, Townsend’s species being restricted to Clarion 
Island, while Coues’ name is applied to the birds breeding on Natividad and 
San Benito Islands. Such a conclusion certainly supports my suggestion above 
given that two species do not exist, 
Loomis further considers that : “ Obviously Puffinus bannermani Mathews 
and Iredale {Ibis, 1915, p. 594) is a variation of Puffinus auricularis C. H. 
Townsend.” If this be accepted no confusion could be expected between 
423 
