NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 
389 
forming two conspicuous transverse bands across the wings. The tail is 
brownish black, like the wings, quite broadly edged with white ; and is com- 
paratively as well as absolutely longer than in other species. The entire 
under parts, from the throat, together with the rump, are pure white, entirely 
without spots or streaks ; the breast and rump having a light rosy tinge. The 
feet are brownish black; remarkably long and strong for this genus, exceed- 
ing in this respect those of any other species. The claws are all long, strong, 
greatly curved and very acute. That of the middle toe nearly or quite equals 
its digit, and that of the hind toe much exceeds it. 
The entire plumage in this species is of a thick, soft, mollipilose character, 
enabling it to endure the rigors of winter in very high latitudes. 
Variations by age , sex , <fc. — Immature birds, though preserving the general 
characteristics and appearance of the adults, differ in several respects. The 
changes are entirely analogous to those adverted to under A. exilipes. The 
pure white edgings of the feathers of the upper parts and wings become 
tinged with yellowish, more or less intense, especially about the head and 
neck, where there is a general buffy suffusion. This yellowish sometimes be- 
comes very bright and conspicuous. The crimson on the crown is restricted 
to a patch extending scarcely half way to the occiput. The nasal plumuli 
and the front are more yellowish, and the dusky lores and gular spot more 
restricted. The bill is yellowish, except along the culmen and gonys. There 
is little or no indication of the rosy on the breast and rump, which, instead, 
are sparsely streaked with narrow lines of dusky. 
According to Holboll, the summer plumage differs from that of winter, 
chiefly by the narrower whitish edgings of the feathers. The bill is entirely 
dusky, except along the cutting edges, and very thick, being as broad as high. 
The old females, and the young males after the first month, differ from the 
adult males in winter plumage in the entire absence of the rosy on the breast 
and rump, and in the less purity of the white beneath, the sides being lightly 
streaked. 
Without a sufficiently extensive series of skins, I am unable to present the 
variations in size, proportions, &c., to which this species is subject. As, how- 
ever, neither Temminck nor Holboll, as far as I can discover, make mention of 
them, it is to be presumed that the species is subject to no very remarkable 
deviations in these respects. 
Comparison with allied, species. — This species, in its large size, strong feet and 
claws, general light colors, white rump, &c., is too distinct to require compari- 
son, except perhaps with A. exilipes. The differences will be found detailed 
under the head of the latter. 
Discussion of synonymy. — We have not been able to find where Linaria canes - 
cens is first characterized ; but, as Bonaparte, in 1838, gives a Linota canescens , 
the species must have been introduced at least as early as that date. The date 
of Linota Hornemanni is 1843 ; and the latter consequently loses the priority 
claimed for it by Holboll. 
The Fringilla borealis of Temminck (but not of Yieillot) is undoubtedly the 
present species. The diagnosis and the very full description are accurate and 
pertinent, although the dimensions given (“longueur, cinq pouces”), is below 
the usual standard. But, while the description is thus applicable to the pre- 
sent species, the author evidently either considers his bird as quite a different 
one, viz., the common linaria of Europe and America, or else is in error with 
regard to the names he quotes as synonyms. For, in giving the synonymy 
he says : “ C’est dans 1‘une ou l’autre de ces livrees tres variables suivant la 
saison, la Fringilla linaria des auteurs tant anciens que modernes, qui out sou- 
vent confondu les deux especes.” Pie then quotes as synonymous, “ La 
Fringille sizerin,” Vieill. (Gal. Ois. 78, pi. 65), and “ Le Sizerin boreal,” Roux. 
(Orn. Prov. 165, pis. 101 and 102), both of which refer to the true Fringilla 
linaria of Linnasus. He also, in a note under F. linaria , while insisting on the 
1861.] 
