39 
of Sciences of Philadelphia from Oracoke, North Carolina, and Bishop’s 
Head, Dorchester county, Maryland, and January birds in the Museum 
of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., from Pea island and Currituck 
sound, North Carolina. 
Most of these little geese that have come to the attention of ornithol- 
ogists have been referred to minima which they resemble in all but colour, 
but now as separate breeding and winter ranges can be shown for them 
and also as they never show the dark breasts or underparts of that race 
there can be no doubt as to their distinctness. 
Richardson’s account of hutchinsi , Soper’s findings on Baffin island, 
and this suggestion from the winter range all point towards hutchinsi 
being a marine rather than a freshwater bird, which may account for the 
comparatively few and erratic numbers of Mississippi Valley records, the 
flocks passing over the freshwater interior with few or only accidental 
stop-overs, much as does the blue goose ( Chen caerulescens ) with a some- 
what similar distribution and range. 
Nomenclature. Branta canadensis hutchinsi is based on A user hutchinsi 
Richardson, Fauna Boreali Americana II (1832), page 470, from a male 
bird taken on Melville peninsula, north of Hudson bay. In studying the 
measurements there given it is evident that a very small bird was in hand. 
In fact the describe!* plainly states that in form and size the new bird more 
nearly resembles the brant than the Canada goose. The measurements 
are with one exception consistently small, the feet and tarsi being extremely 
so, and much smaller than anything here presented. The culinen measure- 
ment, however (1 in. 8f lines = 43 -5 mm.), is much too large to agree with 
the other dimensions and taken literally makes the bird a monstrosity. 
I have tried to imagine the bill of No. 4496 (leucopareia ) on one of the 
Baffin Island birds and the absurdity is apparent. Nor does the culmen 
figure harmonize with the other bill measurements. It is only one-half 
a line shorter than the figure given from tip of bill to the tip of the frontal 
angle and is 3^- lines longer than to rictus, whereas to agree with the canadensis 
type, it should be about equal to it. To any one who has measured many 
Canada goose bills the solution is apparent. The feathering on the fore 
crown was w*orn away and did not give the true exposed culmen line. 
Many birds show this wear and it takes considerable care in making this 
measurement to be certain that the real and not the apparent feather 
line is taken. With this correction and the direct statement that the 
newly described bird is the size of a brant there can be no doubt that it 
was this little goose that Richardson designated hutchinsi and not its 
much larger relative to which the name has hitherto been attached. 
In order to avoid confusion with older references and to connect 
this bird with the man who first detected its distinctness I propose that it 
be known vernacularly as Richardson’s goose. 
General 
The degree of relationship between these various forms of the genus 
Branta is difficult to arrive at. Though the breeding specimens under 
review show clear enough lines of demarcation between the groups, inter- 
mediates are said to (and probably do) occur. Whether these are true 
