Sexual Difference in Size of the Pectoral Sandpiper ( Tringa macu- 
lata). — I have fora number of summers noticed that the local shore bird 
gunners at Newport and Jamestown, R. I., speak of two sizes of Pectoral 
Sandpipers or, as they call the bird, Kreikers. They go so far as not only 
to say this is a big or little Kreiker after the bird is in hand, but say here 
comes a big or little one as the bird is seen flying toward the blind. I 
have just examined a large series, fifty specimens, from throughout the 
range of the species including both spring and autumn birds, in regard 
to this point of size and find that twenty-five females average : Wing, 
4-95 1 tarsus, 1.05 ; and bill, 1.07 ; and twenty-five males : Wing, 5.4; ; tar- 
sus, 1 .1 1 ; bill, 1. 12 ; or, that in the males the rving averages .50, the tarsus, 
.06, and the bill .05 larger than in the females. Mr. II. B. Bigelow, who 
has taken a great number of these birds, calls my attention to the fact that 
the little and big, that is females and males, flock together and that the 
little birds always appear in the autumn a week or so before the big 
ones ; the latter has not been my experience. I cannot find a manual 
that mentions any difference in the size of the sexes of this species and 
therefore believe it worthy of note. — Reginald Heber Howe, Jr., 
Long-wood, Mass. Auk, XVI, April, 1899, pp./yf-/9o. 
Sexual Difference in Size of the Pectoral Sandpiper ( Tringa macu- 
lata ). — In connection with my note in ‘ The Auk ’ (Vol. XVI, April, 1899, 
p. 179), I have lately run across the following reference which seems of 
interest. From John Murdoch’s account of the birds observed at Point 
Barrow, Alaska (see Lt. P. H. Ray’s Report of the Expedition, 1885, p. hi) 
I quote the following: “ There is frequently a great disparity of size 
between the two sexes. A comparison of the large series we collected 
shows that the average length of the female is about three quarters of an 
inch less than that of the male, but that the smallest female was fully an 
inch and a half shorter than the largest male. The difference in size is so 
marked that the natives noticed it and insisted that the small females 
were not Aibwffkia, but Niwiliwilfik ( Ereunetes ■pusillus.) ” Certainly 
such facts should be in our manuals. — Reginald Heber Howe, Jr., 
Long-wood , Mass. XVIII, J&U., 1901, P. ! o' - ] , 
