jan., 1913 
FROM FIELD AND STUDY 
43 
pipe was not involved. This dove, moreover, was a last year’s bird, so that its peculiar 
hap could not have .been due to a misguided paroxism of parental regurgitation as I was 
at first inclined to surmise. — W. Leon Dawson. 
The Supposed Occurrence of the Blue Goose in California The recurring staie- 
nient that the Blue Goose ( Chen caenilcsccns) is of casual or occasional occurrence in 
California, an assertion which, on rather weak evidence, has had wide acceptance, renders 
it particularly desirable that the capture of every bird supposed to belong to this species be 
investigated, and the identity of the specimen be thoroughly established. This, however, 
is not always possible, as the birds on which hunters’ statements are based are seldom saved 
long enough to afford an opportunity for examination. 
The present remarks are incited by a recent instance, in which the capture of a Blue 
Goose appeared to be well authenticated, and which may serve as a demonstration of the 
extreme care to be used in accepting records whereby closely similar species may be 
confused. 
A letter was received from F. J. Smith, of Eureka, Humboldt County, California, 
stating that he had in his possession a specimen of the Blue Goose, taken in that vicinity, 
on October 22, 1908, and requesting permission to send it to the Museum of Vertebrate 
Zoology in order that his identification be confirmed. The bird arrived soon after, and was 
carefully examined. Although the Museum collection contains no specimens of Chen caeru- 
lescens, it does contain a fairly large series of Chen hyperboreus hyberboreus, and on com- 
parison the supposed Blue Goose proved to be a bird of this form, in the grayish, immature, 
plumage. 
A search through descriptive literature failed to bring to light any statement clearly 
defining differences between the immature plumage of caerulescens and hyperboreus, and the 
question naturallj' arises as to whether previous supposed instances of tlie occurrence ol 
caerulescens in California have not also been founded upon young birds of hyperboreus, the 
two forms being so very similar in this stage. 
The Blue Goose was first included in the list of California birds upon the strength 
of the statement by Belding (Zoe, III, 1892, p. 97) regarding the capture of two specimens 
near Stockton, February 1, 1892. Fragments of one of them, head, neck, wings and legs, 
were submitted to Mr. Ridgway, and by him pronounced to be juvenile caerulescens. While 
the authority in support of this record is thus of the highest degree, still, considering the 
apparently close similarity of the two species hyperboreus and caerulescens in the immature 
plumage, and the absence of corroborative evidence since the time of Belding’s record, we 
are surely justified in demanding stronger proof of the occurrence of the Blue Goose in 
California. 
The specimen suggesting these remarks is an example of the ease with which 
mistakes in identification can be made. From written descriptions alone there was nothing 
to disprove its being caerulescens, either that species in immature plumage liaving no 
distinctive peculiarities serving to distinguish it from the same stage of hyperboreus, or else 
such differences having never been clearly set forth ; but comparison with examples of 
hyperboreus unmistakably demonstrated the fact of its belonging to this species. — H. S. 
SWARTH. 
The Black-chinned Hummingbird in Marin County, California. — While driving 
along the road at San Geronimo, Marin County, California, one day last spring ( 1912) I 
was hailed by C. A. Allen, who came out of his house to tell me of having noticed a strange 
hummingbird among the usual number of Allens and Annas that nest in his yard every 
year, and that he had finally captured it. This stranger turned out to be a male Black- 
chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), and is the first record of this species in 
Marin County, as it does not seem to take kindly to the humid coast belt, but works its 
way to its northern limit by following the more interior valleys. Mr. Allen said he thought 
we ought to have the specimen on account of our having been so closely associated with 
Marin County for so many years, but he was collecting for Dr. Jonathan Dwight, Jr., at 
the moment, and felt that the specimen must go to him. Soon after receiving it Dr. Dwight 
wrote me of the circumstances, and said that he felt as if he were encroaching on our 
preserves, that the place for it was in our collection (Coll, of J. & J. W. Mailliard), and 
that it should be recorded by one of us. In due course the specimen arrived, and is now in 
the place where Dr. Dwight thought it ought to be. I mention these details in order to show 
our appreciation of the graceful courtesy thus shown to us — a sort of courtesy that ever 
should but does not always exist among collectors. The date on which this hummingbird 
was taken was March 3, 1912. — Joseph Maipeiard. 
