Mar., 1906 | 
53 
“Atratus versus Megalonyx” 
BY ROBERT RIDGWAY 
A N article from me on the present subject would obviously have been more 
appropriate soon after Mr. Grinnell first questioned the validity of Pipilo 
maculatus atratus (Condor, IV, Jan., 1902, 23); I have been very busy, 
however, and besides had quite forgotten the matter until it was brought to mind 
by Mr. Swarth’s recent article (Condor, VII, Nov., 1905, 171). That both Mr. 
Grinnell and Mr. Swarth are in error in concluding that Pipilo maculatus atratus is 
synonymous with P. m. megalonyx , I feel quite sure, and will here state my 
reasons for this conviction. 
Because the type of Pipilo maculatus Baird came from Fort Tejon, and the 
breeding black Pipilo of that locality is the form which 1 described as P. macu- 
latus -atratus, of course seems logical to assume that both names represent the 
same form. But it is very unsafe to assume anything in scientific matters. It is 
by no means an uncommon occurrence (I could cite several instances) for a new 
species to be first taken at a place far outside its normal range. Whether the oc- 
currence of the Rocky Mountain or plateau form of this species at Fort Tejon, as a 
winter visitant or straggler, is abnormal or not, I am not able to say; but that the 
type of Pipilo megalonyx is not only a typical example but almost an extreme ex- 
ample of the form re-named by Mr. Swarth Pipilo maculatus montanus I have no 
doubt, having recently re-examined it and carefully compared it with the reason- 
ably good series of P. m. atratus and very extensive one of “ P . m. montanus" in 
the National Museum collection. 
Mr. Swarth’s paper is an exceedingly able one and shows most clearly the 
difference between the two forms and their distribution, and I much regret that 
my long silence in the matter may have been the cause of his adding another 
synonym to the literature of North American birds. 
Whether P. m. atratus is sufficiently distinct from P. m. falcifcr , however, 1 
am not so sure, since I have not been able to examine a sufficient series of 
the latter. 
Washington , D. C. 
Oceanodroma leucorhoa and Its Relatives on the Pacific Coast 
BY W. OTTO EMERSON 
T HE petrels, or “sea-patters,” have always been of particular interest to the 
ornithologist tho relatively little seems to be known as yet concerning the 
species on our coast and especially their distribution. 
I he early western explorers gave the name Oceanodroma leucorhoa to the 
white-rumped petrels found by them on this coast; but as this name was first ap- 
plied to birds of the Atlantic (St. Kilda), and as the specimens examined by me 
from the Pacific seem to all differ from Atlantic leucorhoa , it seems probable that 
the lattter name must be dropped from our western lists. 
The first departure came when W. E. Bryant described O. macrodadyla from 
Guadalupe Island (Bull. Cal. Ac. Sc. II, July 1887, p. 450); and as far as is yet 
known this very distinct species is restricted to that immediate vicinity. 
