GEOGRAPHICAL SURVEYS WEST OF 100TH MERIDIAN. 303 
of the points involved will not be uninteresting, even if an entirely definite and satis¬ 
factory conclusion respecting the relationships of the eastern and western birds be not 
reached. The name caurinus was proposed by Professor Baird in 1858 for a crow 
inhabiting the northwestern coast, and specimens were cited from Pnget Sound and 
Washington Territory. The characters of the supposed species rested mainly upon its 
smaller size, together with certain peculiarities of habits and notes. But from the first, 
the exact habitat and status of the new species appears to have been somewhat doubt¬ 
ful, as at the time of description the above author included under amerieanus a number 
of specimens from contiguous regions in California aud Washington Territory, their 
distinctness from the newly-described caurinus being assumed entirely on account of 
their large size, no other differences being discernible.* 
Since then the different habits aud notes of the crows of the Pacific coast have beeu 
remarked in turn by nearly every observer who has visited that region, and appear to 
have been the main cause of the retention of caurinus, either as a distinct species or a 
geographical race of the common crow. In fact, habits and notes aside, no one appears 
to have been able to find a single tangible character by means of which the so-called 
caurinus was to be recognized.! 
Thus Captain Bendire, in his list of Camp Harney birds, in which he gives caurinus 
as a “ rare summer resident,” remarks: “ If it were not for their [that is, caurinus and 
amerieanus ] totally different habits, I could see no really good reasons for separating 
this species.” 
Dr. Cooper seems to have been equally doubtful of the relations of caurinus, aud 
says, in “ Birds of California,” “ I am now satisfied that there is but one species of 
crow on this side of the continent, and, if distinguishable at all from the eastern, it is 
by its smaller size, less graduated tail, more gregarious habits, and different voice.” In 
conformity with this view, he includes in the habitat of caurinus, not only the Pacific 
coast, but the region “ east to the northern Rocky Mountains,” thus entirely excluding 
amerieanus from the Pacific region. 
Assuming the position taken by Dr. Cooper, that but one species of crow is repre¬ 
sented upon the west side of the continent, I have been able, after a careful examina¬ 
tion aud measurement of all the material afforded by the Smithsonian collection, to 
verify the statement of the smaller size of the crows from the Pacific States only as a 
alight average, while among specimens from this region are some of the largest indi¬ 
viduals I have seen—three, respectively from Tulare Valley, Southern California; 
Fort Crook, Northern California; and Camp Harney, Oreg., being matched in size by 
but few from the Eastern States. Nor do the strictly coast-inhabiting birds appear 
to be much, if any, smaller than those from interior districts. At least they are not 
constantly so, since Dr. Cooper says “the smallest specimens I have seen were col¬ 
lected by Mr. F. Gruber on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, about latitude 38 3 30'.” 
The shape of the tails of west coast specimens appears to vary in no particular from 
eastern, and I am fully convinced that it is in vain to attempt to separate the crows 
of California, Nevada, Oregon, and probably Washington Territory from amerieanus 
by definite and reliable external character, the range of that species, therefore, in my 
opinion, embracing the Pacific as well as the Central region. 
Butfromthe region northof Washington Territorythe crows appear to undergo a gen¬ 
eral diminution in size, this being especially marked in respect to the length of tarsus; all 
the specimens at hand from the northwest coast (including one from Shoalwater Bay) 
agree in small size and extremely short tarsus. The general size of these birds is but 
little in excess of the average of ossifragus. But in no other particular are they like 
that species, being, in fact, save in the one particular of size, indistinguishable 
from eastern amerieanus. It was remarked by Professor Baird that the Corvidae appear 
to form an exception to the general rule, and that “ the same species in southern lo¬ 
calities are larger than those from points farther north.” This statement will require 
qualification in the case of Corines var. floridanus, which, while averaging in general size 
a trifle smaller than Northern-born birds, yet oilers, in the increased size of bill aud 
feet, a marked contrast to them. But as applied elsewhere in the United States the 
statement appears to hold good, and especially on the other side of the continent, 
where a decrease of size with increased latitude appears to be the rule. Possibly this 
simple statement of fact is all that the difference in size exhibited by the crows of the 
extreme northwest requires. 
As considerable stress has been laid upon the different habits of caurinus it may be 
* Prof. Baird further remarks of caurinus, after enumerating the points by which it may “readily be 
distinguished from the eastern fish crow,’’ “it is so much like the Corvus amerieanus as to be only dis¬ 
tinguishable by its inferior size and habits. Indeed, it is almost a question whether it he more than a 
dwarfed race of the other species.” 
t In the recent work, “ Birds of North America,” by Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway, a further distinct¬ 
ive feature is assigned to caurinus, viz, the fact that the tarsus is shorter than the bill. But this state¬ 
ment resulted from an incorrect method of measurement, as Mr. Ridgway now informs me, the tarsus 
being measured on its anterior surface, at the end of the feathering, instead of from the joint, thus giv¬ 
ing a length too short by a very appreciable amount. With the exception of the diminutive Mexican 
species ( C. mexicanus) all the North American crows agree in having the tarsus longer than the bill. 
