Additional notes on Peale's Petrel (<I>aestrelata gularis</I>)

" S86.]

Brewster

ofi

PeaWs

Petrel.

t8q

beginsfromthreeweekstoa

month

earlier. Ihavetaken birdslateinOc- toberthatstillweremoultingfromthe nestplumage.

49. Cyrtonyx montezumse.

Massena

Partridge.

—

^{This partridge} I

found rather

commonly

in theevergreenoak region of the Pinal

Moun-

tains, near the head of Mineral Creek. Also in about the

same

abun.

danceandinthe

same

localities onthe San Pedro slope of the Catalina Mountains, ranging up as high as 5700 ^feet, and as low as 4000feet

throughoutthe year. Itisgenerallytobe

met

with in small coveys of from sixto adozenbirds,and seems to affect points where the coarser

bunch

grassis mostluxuriant. I have not found it breeding, but have taken

young

abouttwo-thirds

grown

and stillin the nest

plumage

early inOctober, intheCatalinaMountains.

Mr.

Brown

tells

me

thatitisa

common

speciesintheoakregion of the SantaRitaMountains,andisgenerallytobe

met

withinthe

same

region

on

themountains southwardto the Mexicanborder.

50. Meleagris gallopavo. mexicana.

Mexican _Turkey. — The

only records ofthisspecies thatIhavearefrom the

San

PedroRiver, and the oakandpine region of the Catalina Mountains.

The

bird seems,from whatIcan learn, tohavealreadygreatly decreased in

numbers

in

most

localities,and tohave

become

exterminatedinotherswhereitwasformerlj' abundant. In the pine

woods

ofthe Catalinasatthehighestaltitudesit

was very

common

late in

November,

18S5, though

snow

covered the ground.

(Tobecontinued^

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON PEALE'S PETREL {^^STRELATA GULARIS).

BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.

In his description* of the

new Alaskan

Petrel, ^'Estrelata Jisheri^

Mr. Ridgway

intimatesthat

perhaps

I

was mistaken

in referring

an yEstrelata

taken in

Western New Yorkf

to

u^.

gularis, adding

that it

"seems, judging from

the description, to

belong

rather to

^E. Jisheriy Through

the courtesy of the

National Museum

thetype oi

^E. gidaris

has

been permitted

to

make

a

second journey

to

Cambridge,

this

time

in

company with

the type of

yE.

jisheri; thus these three interesting birds are atlength

brought

together.

*Proc.U.S,Nat. Mus.,Vol.V, 1883, pp. 656-658.

tBull.N.O.C,Vol. IV, April, 1881, pp. 91-97.

2 go Brewster

on

PeaWs

Petrel. [July

After

carefully

comparing them

I

am

led to thefollowing

con-

clusions: (i)

That

.^^.

Jisheri Ridgw.

is perfectly distinct

from

,^^.g^iilarisPeale. ₍₂₎

That

the

New York waif

isequally dis- tinct

from y^.

Jisheri. ₍₃₎

That

this

New York

bird

may be

also distinct

from y^. gularis.

In

referringit to

yE gularis^

I ascribed the difference in color of the

two specimens

to a difference of age,

assuming

that the case afforded afair parallel tothat

made

out

by Dr. Coues

for the closely related ^'E. viollis.,

which, according

to the

author

just

named, has

several well-defined progressive stages of plu-

mage, from

the nearly

uniform

sooty or fuliginous conditionof the

young

bird, tothe

ashy-gray and white

livery of the adult.

Mr. Ridgway, however,

has lately said* tliat

"no

factin orni- thology

can be

moi'e

thoroughly

established than that,

with

the possibleexception of the Albatrosses, tJie

Petrels have no

dis- tinct

progressive stages of ^plumage.,

^the

young assuming with

theirfiist feathers the fully adultlivery" ;

an opinion which seems

to

be shared by

the best

European

authorities

on

Procellaridae.

Granting

thisto

be an

established fact

—

^I

^{have no}

disposition to dispute it

— my ^former

^{theory that the}

New York

bird

and

Peale's

type

o^

gularis

represent different

ages

of the

same

spe- cies

must

be, of course,

abandoned.

It is still possible to fall

back on

^a theory of

dichromatism, and

to

assume

thatthe ^'Estre- latce. likecertain of the

Fulmars, have two

phases, a

dark or

fuliginous,

and

a lightor grayish one.

The

fact that

my

bird agrees so closelv

with

Peale's in every structuralrespect,

and

that the difference

between

the

two

consists chieffy in the

absence

in

my ^specimen

of the sooty

wash which

overlies

most

of the plu-

mage

of the type,

has made me

hesitate to discard

such an apparently

reasonable hypothesis.

Indeed,

I

do

not

wholly

dis- card it, for I

cannot

help suspecting that it

may

turn out to

be

the real solution of the

problem

;

but having no

material

by which

to either

prove

or

disprove

^it, I

merely

call attention to it in passing,

and adopt what seems

to

be

tlie only plain course,viz. :

that of

naming and

describing the

New York

bird asfollows^:

—

^strelata scalaris, nov. sp.

—

Scaled

Petrel.

Sp.

Char.

Adult.

Sex—?

(No.5224, Coll.

W.

^B.,Mt. Morris,Living- ston Co.,

New

York, April, 18S0). Beneath white, immaculate onlj

on

* Proc.U.S. Nat.Mus.. Vol. V,1883,p.658.

iSS6.]

Brewster

on

PeaWs

Petrel.

39

1

thechin, throat,juguluin,centralportion of breastand undertail-coverts;*

sidesandlower portion of breastfinelymottled or vermiculated with graj- ish-ash;axillars, sidesofbody, crissuni,and anal region with

numerous

broken, confused, but generally transverse, bars ofplumbeous gray;abdo-

men

darkslaty plumbeous, the feathers justperceptiblytipped withgray, giving the darker color a slightly hoary appearance. Above, with the forehead, crown, occiput, back, scapulars, and

rump

dark bluish-ash, darkest (witha slaty cast) on the rump, occiput, and ends of the longer scapulars; feathers oftheforehead ratherbroadlyand conspicuously mar- ginedandtipped vvithwhite; those of the crown narrowlywith grayish- white; those oftheocciputessentially plain; feathersof the back,as well asthe scapular coverts,broadly tipped with ashywhite, giving the plu-

mage

of theseparts a scaledappearance;tailfadedbrownish-ash,essentially plainabove, even

when

widely spread, although the outer three pairs of feathershaveconcealed white spaces mottled with gray on their inner webs, the whitebeingmost extendedandpurestontheouterpairand dim- inishingsorapidly inward that

on

the fourth pair it is nearlywanting, and on the central four feathers practically entirely so, these feathers beingperfectly plain and uniform onboth

webs

nearlytotheirbases.

The

wingsare difficultof description.

On

their under surfacesthe ex- posed (inner) webs of the primaries and secondaries are ashy-white to within aboutan inch oftheir tips,which are light faded

brown

on both webs.

The

middleandgreater under-coverts are purewhite with a silky sheen;the lesserunder-coverts blackishslate, forminganarrow darkband, bordered outwardly (or anteriorly) next the

body

by white, but about

midway

between the

body

andthecarpaljointspreadingoverthe

plumage

whichlinestheedgeofthe

wing

beneath, and from this point forward to theends oftheunder primarycoverts,extendingquite totheedge of the wing.

On

the upperor outersurfacethe firstprimary isdarkslatybrown, the tenthpalefaded

brown

withahoarytinge;theintermediateonesformaper- fectly graduated, connectingseries,each,beginning with thefirst,being slightlypalerand graj'erthanthe preceding one.

The

secondaries and

tertialsareall uniformand rather darker than the darkest primary, but

still with obscure hoary on their outer webs. All the primaries and

secondarieshavepure white spacesontheirinner vanes,andbasally, for a varying butalwaysshortdistance,all are white across both vanes.

On

theoutervanethewhite

comes

ratherabruptlyto an end just below the point reached bythe tips of the overlapping primary coverts.

On

the innervaneitdiverges fromthe shaft alittlebeyond ^thispointand extends towithinabout an inch oftheextremity ofthe feather,leavingagradually widening duskyspace nextthe shaft.

On

thefirstprimarythiswhite space endsapicallyina long,acutepoint, formed and

bounded

on three sides bythe dark colorwhichextendsbackward alongtheinner 4nargin of the innervanefornearlytwo inches.

On

each succeeding feather this dark

*

A

few oftheshorterundertail-covertshaveplumbeousspotsonbars.

^Q2 ^Brewster

^{on Peale's Petrel. [J"'y}

innermargin isshortened untilwitiithe sixthitdisappears, thewhite

on

this feather, andallthe remainingones,ending

more

orlessabruptly

and

squarely.

The

^{primarycoverts}are essentially similar to the primaries,but with lesswhite

on

their inner vanes.

The

greater,middle, and lesser secon- darycovertsare concolor with the back (hence,

much

lighter and bluer thanthe secondaries), and,likethe feathersof the back, each is tipped, as well as margined, with ashy-white, forming narrow but distinct light wing-bands.

The

anterioredge of the wing, for a space

more

than an inch inwidth,isabrupt!}'darker thantheadjoiningsecondarycoverts,and rather darker, as wellasdecidedly

more

sooty, thanthe darkest primaries.

There^is

much

dark mottlingabouttheeye, but the lores and a rather broad superciliary strip arepure white.

The

billisblack;the tarsus dull flesh-color.

The

^{basal third of toes,} with contained webs, pale straw color;the terminal portion black.

Measiirements^: Bill (chord of culmen), 1.03 in.; heightatbase, _.46;

width,.42^; length ofnostril tubes to middle ofincision, .16; to extrem-

ity,.25; tarsus, 1-37;outer toeand claw,1.65; middle. 1.70; inner, 1.43;

wing,9.88;^tail, 3.95; thegraduation ofthe rectrices, .90.

The

Petreljustdescribed differs

from yS.

fisheri in

having

a stouter,

more

strongly

hooked

^bill,

much

shorter nasal tubes, less

white on

the forehead,

crown and wings,

the inner

two

pairs oftail-feathers perfectlyplain

on both webs, and

the outer three

pairs with

^faintsparse mottling

on

the inner

webs

only.*

From

both

^j'^er/

and

^?//«r/5 itdiffers in

having

the feathers

of

the

back,

as wellas the greater

and middle

wing-coverts, tipped

and edged with

white,

giving

the

back

a scaled

appearance, and on

the

wings forming

distinct

bands. Neither Jisheri nor gularis shows ^any

^{trace of}

^{white on}

^{the back,}

^and

^neither

^{has anything} approaching

well defined

wing-bands. The

nostril tubesin

y^.

scalarisixve

apparently

shorter

and more prominent

than the ^r^.

giilai'is^ their superior outlinestraighter, the

ends more

squarely cutoff'

and

less

deeply

incised.

The

tubes in the type of fisheri

have been apparently

mutilated, so that their original

shape

can- not

be

safely stated, but they

were

certainly nearly twice as

long

as in Q.\S\\Qxgiilaris or scalaris.

Despite

the

wide

dissimilarity in coloring, the bird

under con-

sideration ^is clearly nearer related to ^^S".

gularis

than to

any

other

known

species. Structurally the

two appear

to

be

iden- tical (save in respect to the slight,

perhaps

trifling, difference

*Thetype oifisherihaslostthe central pairoftailfeathers, butall the othershave muchwhite mottlingonboth webs, givingtheuppersurface of thetailaconspicuously variegated appearance.

iS86.] Recent Literature. "^Q"?

in the nasal tubes just

mentioned),

and,as

already

hinted,

they

may prove

to

be merely

the

dark and

light

extremes

of a species subjectto

dichromatism.

If really distinct

from each

other, as

both unmistakably

are

from y^.Jisheri^

the three birds furnish a

remarkable

case, viz.: that

of

three closely related species, the habits

and

distributionof

which

are

almost wholly unknown, and each

of

which

is atpresentrepresented

by only

a single

specimen.

To

the speciesjustdescribed ^itis not

even

possible to ascribe a provisional habitat, its

occurrence

in the interior of

New York being obviously

accidental.

RECENT LITERATURE.

The

A. O.U.

Code

and Check-ListofNorth

American

Birds.*

Few

scien- tificbooksof recentyearshave been awaited withas

much

interest as this 'Check-List' of birdsandits

accompanying

'Code.'

To

those interested insystematic ornithology, the

work

is, of course, of the highest impor- tance, asgivinganauthoritative settlement

—

sofar as authoritycan settle

anythinginscience

—

^{of the} much-vexed questions in birdnomenclature.

But

tothe systematicworkersinother departments of Zoology, and even to botanists,itsinterestisscarcelylessgreat.

For we who work

inotherfields arevery willing to recognize the fact that the great questions which underlie all systematic nomenclature

must

befirst

met

andsettledbythe ornithologists.

The

abundance and attractivenessofbirdsandthe easewithwhich they

may

be collected and studied havecombinedto renderornithology oneof the best cultivated ofalldepartmentsofscience. Inspiteofa good deal ofamateur work, which, in one

way

or another, gets published, it is,Ithink, not too

much

tosaythat in allthe variousmatters which

make

up the ground-work of systematic science

—

^inthediscrimination ofspecies and varieties, in the study ofthe relationsof these groupstoeachother,andto their environ-

ment — ^American

ornithology standsatthefrontof systematic science.

We

^may,therefore, inthevariousstagesthroughwhich ourornithology has passed,orispassing,readthe futurehistoryofour

own

branchesof science In

many

regards, theornithologistsarefightingourbattles for us,and

we may

takeadvantageofthe results

won

hy their eftbrts.

Thus

the discus- sions of climatic influences on the characters of species, first serious-

*The Code of Nomenclature|and |Check-List|of|North American Birds

|

Adopted by the American Ornithologists' Union|being the Report of the

Com-

mittee of the^IUnion on Classification and| Nomenclature|

—

|Zoological Nomen-

clatureisameans, notanend, ofZoologicalScience|

—

|

New

York|AmericanOrni- thologists'Union| 1886. 8vo, pp.viii -|-392.