September, 1902. 
THE CONDOR 
115 
Status of the “Arizona Goldfinch” in California. 
BY JOSEPH GRINNEEE. 
S EVERAL persons have asked me 
why I left the “Arizona Goldfinch” 
out of the Check-list of California 
Birds. I had what appeared to me 
good reasons for not considering Astra- 
galinus psaltria arizonce to be a bona 
fide subspecies at least as occurring in 
California, and I will here try to ex- 
plain my standpoint. The following 
are all the California records of this 
bird known to me. 
Chrysomitris Mexicanus Cooper, Am. 
Nat. VIII, Jan. 1874, 17 (one seen 25 miles 
north of San Diego). 
Chrysomitris psaltria, var. arizoiia Baird, 
Brewer, & Ridgway, Hist. N. Am. Bds. 
Ill, 1874, appendix, 509 (Encinetos Ranch, 
vSan Diego Co., San Buenaventura). 
Spinus psaltria arizonce Emerson, Zoe I, 
April, 1890, 44 (Haywards); Fisher, N. 
Am. Fauna No. 7, May 1893, 85 (Three 
Rivers); SeEvin, Bull. Coop. Orn. Club I, 
July 1899, 73 (Santa Clara); Cohen, Con- 
dor III, Nov. 1901, 185 (Alameda); Swarth, 
Condor IV, July 1902, 94 (Los Angeles). 
I happen to have examined several 
of the above specimens as well as others 
not recorded; and I have seen a num- 
ber of living birds at close enough 
range to note their general peculiarities. 
In the ordinary plumage of the adult 
male psaltria, the back, scapulars and 
ear-coverts are uniform olive-green, 
with the feathers of the dorsum centrally 
more or less blackish. In well-marked 
specimens of so-called arizonce, the 
whole upper parts together with the 
ear-coverts and sides of the neck are 
pervaded with shiny black like the top 
of the head, sometimes quite as deep 
and uniform. A bird of the latter type 
is thus easily di.stinguished from its 
fellows of ordinary plumage in a flock 
at quite a distance, and there seems at 
first glance good grounds for consider- 
ing it a distinct and nameable form. 
But the contrary opinion rests on a 
number of indisputable facts which may 
be enumerated as follows: 
I. The differences are only evident 
in the case of the male. A female taken 
in company with a male of arizonce 
shows no discernible differences from 
female psaltria of the same plumage age. 
2. The characters of ^‘‘arizonce" are 
limited to the peculiar blackening or 
melanism of the upper parts. A care- 
ful comparison of psaltria examples 
with extreme specimens of "'arizoiice” 
shows not a single difference in measure- 
ments as a whole or proportionately, 
and there are no other color differences 
either in extent of white markings or 
tint of lower surface. 
3. The melanism characteristic of 
“arizonce" is altogether inconstant in 
quantity. I have seen no two exactly 
similar examples. Between the ex- 
treme of “arizonce" and normal psaltria 
there is every intermediate condition. 
The melanism begins with the spread- 
ing and final coalescence of the dark 
centres of the dorsal feathers. Black 
feathers appear in the ear-coverts, 
which finally become umiform black to 
their lower limits; not that I believe 
that any such changes take place in the 
individual, but only to express the rel- 
ative conditions in a series of specimens. 
4. Those birds called arizonce appear 
throughout the range of psaltria (in 
California); they are not confined to 
any particular faunal area. They have 
not been recorded anywhere where 
psaltria has not, and psaltria has been 
found in no faunal area where speci- 
mens “inclining to arizonce" have not. 
This is an extremely important consid- 
eration; for observation has shown us 
that subspecies (which are incipient 
species) probably always originate 
through isolation (either by long dis- 
tance or intervention of barriers) in 
separate zoo-geographical areas. 
5. There is no definite season of oc- 
currence of the arizoiice type which 
might go to show that it was a regular 
visitant from elsewhere. It occurs at 
all seasons and is found feeding and 
breeding in the same localities and at 
