132 
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF 
when they are transversely rayed with dusky and rufous, — paler on the ab- 
domen, and have the bases of the quills and rectrices white. The only point is 
to determine of what species it is the young. Regarding its size, Briinnich 
compares it with his Catharacta skua , saying, that it is much smaller than 
that species, and “ Magnitudo parasitica .” The young of the year of poma- 
rinus is more nearly of the size of an adult of parasitica , than is the young 
of the year Of the long-tailed species. The description of the colors, form, 
&c., which follows, agrees precisely with those of the young pomarinus ; and 
when we remember that at that date the differences between the common 
and long-tailed Jagers were not recognized, the two species being confounded 
together by authors generally, (except Brisson ;) it does not appear by any 
means certain that Briinnich had the long-tailed species in view in drawing 
up the description of 11 cepphus.” Had that been the case, he would pro- 
bably have compared it with parasitica rather than with skua. Moreover, 
Latham, in his description of his Larus crepidatus , which is the young poma- 
rinus , gives u cepphus, Briinn.” as a synonym of that species. 
Upon the whole, therefore, while I by no means insist upon the reference 
of the name under consideration to the pomarinus , I merely wish to show 
that it very possibly belongs to it : and that [the description is too vague 
and uncertain to justify the use of the name for either of the species. It is 
for this reason that I have adopted Boie’s name “ Buffoni” for the long-tailed 
J-ager. 
Having always professed a rigid adherence to the great law of priority in 
questions of nomenclature, I am, perhaps, in the present instance, rendering 
myself liable to be taken to task for not employing the name “ crepidatus ” 
of Grmelin and Latham (1788-90) for this species instead of pomarinus of 
Temminck, since the former name is in all probability based upon this 
species. The description is, however, short and unsatisfactory, and is, 
moreover, based upon the young bird of the year ; and, though there cannot 
really be much doubt as to the species which these authors had in their 
minds in preparing their descriptions, still I think in view of the above 
considerations, that it will hardly be expedient to supersede so definite, long- 
known and universally employed a name as pomarinus. At the same time, 
should any one else see fit to do so, I would in future writings unhesitatingly 
follow his example. 
4. Stercorarius parasiticus Gray ex Briinn. 
? Sterna rectricibus duabus internis longissimis, Linn., Fn. Suec., No. 129. 
?Larus rectricibus duabus internis longissimis, Linn., S. N., 1748. 
Catharacta parasitica, Briinnich, Ornith. Borealis, 1764, 37. 
Larus parasiticus, Linnseus, Syst. Nat., 1766, i. 226. Gmelin, Syst. Nat., 
1788, i. 601. (Num Lath.? qui me judice potius ad longicaudatum 
Briss spectat.) 
Catar acta parasitica, Retzius,* Fauna Suecica, 1800, 160. 
Catarractes parasita, Pallas, Zoog. Rosso- Asise, ii. 1811, 310. 
Lestris parasita, Keyserling 'et Blasius, Wirbelth. Europ., 1840, i. 240. 
Schlegel, Rev. Grit. Ois. Eur., 1844, 85. Bonaparte, Cat. Met. Ucc. 
Europ., 1842, 80. Des Murs, Traite d’Oologie Ornith., 1860, 551. Bona- 
parte, Rev. Grit. Degland’s Orn. Eur., 1850, 202. 
* It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to say whether the citations of the authors before 1800 
really refer to this species, or to the long-tailed Jager. I have, however, placed them under the 
head of parasitica, for this reason: Retzius in his edition of the Fauna Suecica (of 1800) gives 
them as synonyms of his parasitica, of which his description is, “ Rectrices 6, 6, (i.e., the central 
pair) caeteris 4 poll, longiores;” thus clearly referring to the true parasitica. Descriptions of 
previous authors had mostly been merely “ Rectricibus mediis longissimis ,” whence the uncer- 
tainty. Retzius, however, is in error in adducing Stercorarius longicaudatus, Briss., as a synonym 
of parasitica. 
