A CONTRIBUTION TO THE BIOGRAPHY OF WILSON’S 
PHALAROPE. 
BY E. W. NELSON. 
Although this species ( Steganopus wilsoni, Coues) is more or 
less common in portions of the country frequently visited by 
Ornithologists, it is remarkable that its life-history should be so 
little known. The account of nearly every author who has men- 
tioned the species contains more or less error, and none give any- 
thing like a complete history of it. To remedy this to some 
extent is the object of the present paper, since I have had abundant 
opportunity for observing the bird in the field. 
But first I wish to make a few quotations from and remarks upon 
the principal accounts of the species. Ord, in his edition of “ Wilson s 
Ornithology (Yol. Ill, p. 205), states as follows : “ Our figure of this 
species [ Phalaropus lobatus, Ord] bears all the marks of haste ; it is 
inaccurately drawn, and imperfectly colored ; notwithstanding, by 
a diligent study of it, I have been enabled to ascertain that it is the 
Coot-footed Tringa [Phalarope] of Edwards, pis. 46 and 143, to which 
bird Linnteus gave the specific denomination of lobatus." Thus far 
Ord is undoubtedly coiTect, as is evident by a comparison of the 
plates in question. As Dr. Coues has already stated (Birds of the 
Northwest, p. 467), Tringa lobata, Linn, is Lobipes hyperboreus, (L.) 
Cuv., and I perfectly agree with Ord in referring Wilson’s plate to 
the same species; but farther on Ord describes an undoubted speci- 
men of Steganopus wilsoni, taken near Philadelphia, as being identi- 
cal with Wilson’s plate of lobatus, which is certainly a bad case of 
mal-identification. From references I have been enabled to make, I 
ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB. 39 
think it extremely doubtful that Wilson ever saw a specimen of 
S. wilsoni. 
Audubon’s account of the sexes of this bird is quite erroneous. 
Concerning a pair taken near Great Egg Harbor, in June, 1829, he 
states that, “ on examining the birds when we returned, I saw that 
the female had been sitting ” ; * and on the opposite page, “ I ob- 
served scarcely any difference in the coloring of the sexes, the 
female being merely larger than the male ” ; and he again states : 
“ The female, which is somewhat larger, is in color precisely similar 
to the male.” The few specimens seen by Audubon during the 
breeding-season were apparently all females, and, taking it for 
granted that the males were equally bright, he so stated. In his 
plate of this species he figures a “ female ” young of the year and 
an adult “ male,” which is, in reality, a female in breeding plumage. 
Audubon’s statement regarding the likeness of the sexes in the 
breeding plumage has been accepted as true by subsequent authors, 
even when they have had the opportunity to settle the matter for 
themselves in the field. 
Nuttall adds considerable to the known range of the species, but 
makes his statements curiously conflicting, as the following quota- 
tions show : “ Taking the interior of the continent for its abode, it 
is seen not uncommon on the borders of lakes, in the vicinity of the 
City of Mexico. In these situations, choosing the shelter of some 
grassy tuft, it forms an artless nest, in which it deposits two or 
three pyriform eggs, between yellowish-gray and cream-color, inter- 
spersed with small roundish spots and a few larger blotches of um- 
ber-brown somewhat crowded towards the obtuse end.” He also 
states that “ it is unknown in summer beyond the 55th parallel, 
passing the period of reproduction on the plains of the Saskatche- 
wan, being also a stranger to the coasts of Hudson’s Bay ” ; and 
again, that “ in the United States it can only be considered as a strag- 
gler t 
Dr. Coues, in his “ Birds of the Northwest,” arranges the synon- 
ymy of the species in a very satisfactory manner, but makes essen- 
tially the same statement as Audubon regarding the sexual plum- 
ages, and adds nothing of importance to the life-history of the 
species. To Mr. A. L. Kumlien % is due the credit of being the 
* Birds of Amer., Yol. V, pp. 229, 230, pi. 341. 
t Man. Orn., Yol. II, pp. 245, 246. 
J Field and Forest, July, 1876. 
