GENUS SAGMATORRHINA, 
SagrnatorrMna. Bonp. Prod. Zool. Soc. (1851.) p. 202. 
101. S AGM ATORRII 1 NA LATHAMI. Vol. II. Plate LXYI. 
GENUS CERATORHYNCHA. 
Geratorliyncha. Bonp. Syn. U. S. Birds. (1828.) A. N. Y. Lye. Nat. Hist. p. 428. 
102. CERATORHYNCHA SUCKLEYI.^O. MONOCERATA. 
Cerorhixa Suckleyi. Cass. B. of N. Am. p. 906. 
We have here a bird which has been somewhat of a puzzle to Ornithologists, since the first specimen was obtained by Dr. Suckley. 
In all respects, save the horn at the base of the upper mandible, the dried skill is identical with the well-known and long established 
C. Monocerata. The type was obtained at Puget Sound. 
The following extract of a letter addressed to me by Dr. Suckley, sets at rest the question as to whether or not this bird had 
any “knob” at the base of the upper mandible during life. 
New York, 17 th March, 1869. 
* * The bird Cassin described as Oerorhina Suckleyi, I killed on Puget Sound nearly opposite the mouth of the Puyallup 
river. I was returning from an Indian reservation, and when the bird — which had been under water, diving' — came to the surface close 
by the canoe, I shot it. The Indians who paddled the canoe said “Heloima” (Chinook for stranger or strange). There was a black 
or blackish-gray “knob” on the bill. The presence of that horn or knob caused me to be anxious to preserve the skill. I had 
seen, about twenty months before, the G. Monocerata, of which a pair were brought to me alive, by the late Gov. Mason of 
Washington Territory. They were obtained by him near Port Townsend, Puget Sound. Their “knobs” were, say three lines high, 
of a wax color. My specimen, described by Cassix, appeared to be an old bird. The G. Monocerata generally leave Puget Sound 
for more genial climes dining the winter. It frequently makes its home during that season at the Faralones. 
The dark, dusky, nearly black knob on the bill -was about half the size of that of G. Monocerata, and softisli, so that much 
must be allowed for shrinkage. 
Yours truly, 
George Suckley. 
The above is conclusive evidence that during life Dr. Suckley’s bird had a knob upon the bill, no matter whether it may be 
present on the dried skin or not, and all efforts to explain away what may be an unwelcome fact, must of necessity fail. The 
chief, indeed we may say the only, difference between this bird and G. Monocerata, was the absence of the knob, for as regards 
the variation in the outline of the bills, I would merely state that of the many specimens of the well-known species which I have 
examined, I have never seen that member in any two of them alike. The examples from which the drawings of the heads here 
represented were made, are in the Smithsonian collection. The adult is No. 31,908, and came from Sau Diego, California, collected by 
Dr. Cooper; its measurements are: Length, 14.50; wing, 7.25; tail, 4.50; tar, 1 T V; bill, 1.50. The young (?) No. 21,439, was- 
procured at the Far alone Islands by Amos Cleft, and on the label was written, apparently in the collector’s handwriting, “Young 
horn-bill Guillemot.” Now here is an apparent contradiction, for the bird has no horn, at least as yet. The thoughts that naturally 
arise are : If this is the young of the G. Monocerata, then there is a period in their lives when they are without the indication of 
a horn or knob at the base of the mandible, and at that age belong to the form denominated as Suckleyi; but if it is not the 
young of this species, but of 0. Suckleyi, then we have the strange spectacle of birds so closely allied, breeding together in great 
numbers, yet keeping distinct, although resembling each other so entirely that the collector was unable to distinguish them, even when 
in the midst of their nests. The horns in adVilt C. Monocerata are of all sizes and shapes, and rarely are two seen to resemble each 
other. I have been thus particular in describing this specimen of the young, and its locality, since it appears to me a matter of very 
great doubt if as yet urn have any sufficient reason for separating these two birds specifically, and save the absence of the horn in 
this skm, which, however, was present in life, I am unable to perceive any characters which cause either of the examples called Suckleyi , 
to be conspicuously different from the -well-known species; and the absence of the horn in one or two specimens, may be accounted 
for in too many ways (such as an injury to the member in its early growth, or a want of development from physical causes) 
for us to conclude — as has been somewhat hastily done — that 0. Suckleyi is entirely worthy of specific distinctness. 
CERATORHYNCHA MONOCERATA. 
CEEATORIIYNCIIA SUCKLEYI, AD. 
CERATORHYNCHA SUCKLEYI, (?) YOUNG. 
