ANALECTA ORNITHOLOGICA. 
Fifth Series. 
BY LEONHARD STEJNEGER. 
XXV. Why Chordeiles virginianus and not Ch. popetue? 
In order to answer this question I will first have to quote the 
description of the author who first established the binominal 
Cap rim ulgus virginianus. Gmelin gives the following account 
of the species (S. N., I, 1788, p. 1028) : 
“Virginianus. 3. C. fuscus, transversim griseo-fusco et hinc inde cinereo- 
varius, subtus ex rubescente albus transversim stria- 
tus, menti macula trig'ona alba, area oculorum et 
cervice aurantiis maculis varia. 
Caprimulgus minor americanus. Syst. nat. XII. i. p. 
346. 1. p. Kalm it. 3. p* 93. 
Caprimulgus virginianus. Briss. av. 2. p. 477. n. 3. 
Whip-poor-will. Catesb. Car. 3. t. 16. Ed™. av. 2. /. 
63. Buff. hist. nat. des ois. 6 . p. 534. 
Longwinged Goatsucker. Arct. Zool. 2. p. 436. n. 337. 
t. 18. 
Virginia Goatsucker. Lath. Syn. II. 2 . p. 595. n . 6 . . . 
Genae ex cinereo fuscaej remiges atrae , 5 primae circa 
medium , rectrices extimae prope apicem macula alba 
notatae; pedes incarnati .” 
This description, considered alone, will be seen to fit the 
Nighthawk (Ridgw., Nomencl., No. 357) very well. Particu- 
larly decisive is the reference to the white wing- and tail-spots. 
It will also be remarked that bristles at the mouth are not men- 
tioned at all. So far it is all rights and as this description is the 
basis of the oldest binominal, I think we might content ourselves 
with this result. It has been urged, however, that ithe references 
belong to the Whip-poor-will (R., No. 354), that Gmelin’s spe- 
cies is a composite one, and, therefore, untenable. Let us then 
examine a little closer into the references given. 
We will commence with the third of Gmelin’s enumeration, 
“Whip-poor-will, Catesb. Car. 3. t. 16,” because it is the oldest 
and the one which has caused the whole trouble. 
Plate 16 of the Appendix of Catesby’s ‘Natural History of Caro- 
lina. Florida and the Bahama Islands’ represents a Goatsucker 
which he calls ‘ Caprimulgus minor Americanus : ' . The figure 
is one of the poorer pictures of that celebrated work, but may 
be said to represent the Nighthawk, on account of the white 
wing-spot, which is very recognizable. Above and below the 
bill are some long and fantastically arranged bristles, which has 
led to the belief that the Antrostomus vociferus was meant, the 
more so since Catesby in the text calls the bird ‘Whip-poor-will.’ 
The latter mistake is very excusable, for I have been told that 
the people in the localities in which both species occur generally 
confound them, and believe that the Nighthawk utters the sound 
which has given ‘Whip-poor-will’ its name. Concerning the 
bristles, we are justified in presuming that they, are due to an 
intended improvement on the part of the artist. Catesby may 
have seen specimens of the'H. vociferus with the strong bristles, 
and, confounding the two species, introduced the bristles into 
his drawing thinking that they were accidentally absent from the 
specimen he figured, for, inasmuch as the plate is inscribed 
“ M. Catesby ad viv. delin.’’ it is not at all probable that the 
white wing-spot is a freak of his fancy. There is another 
point of importance in that drawing, namely, the length of the 
pointed wings, which reach considerably beyond the end of the 
tail, proportions particularly characteristic of the Nighthawk. 
We are, therefore, justified in saying that the figure in question 
is a rather poor representation of the so-called ‘Nighthawk.’ 
The next reference in time is Edwards’s Plate 63. That this 
figure represents the Nighthawk is beyond doubt, it being a very 
good picture of that bird. It may be remarked that he also calls 
