We believe the species, of which the female is figured, to be that described by
Wilson under the name of Lanius excubitor; the more so, as his account of the
female perfectly agrees with our bird. It had long been imagined that this was
identical with the European species; but it appears, from a passage in theNouveau
Diet. d’Hisi. Nat., that this belief has been abandoned. Nevertheless, it is desirable
first to state the distinctions between two male specimens of L . borealis and one of
L . excubitor, killed during the last year in Hertfordshire, near Tittenhanger Green.
In the general disposition and in the tint of their colours, no difference worthy of
remark is apparent. In the British specimen, the white upon the upper tail coverts
and scapulars is much more obscure; but the colours of the wings and tail are
precisely alike. The true distinction seems to be, that borealis is obviously a
larger bird, not in regard to its total length or to its size after preservation (for
both these depend in a very great degree upon the mode of preparing the skins),
but in the relative length of the bill : that of borealis measures, from the angle of
the mouth to the extreme tip, 1 a inch ; that of excubitor 1 w, inch. In borealis, the
second quill is clearly shorter than the sixth; the third is slightly shorter than the
fourth, and obviously longer than the fifth,—the fourth thus becoming the longest.
This disposition is observed in both sexes *. Now, in excubitor, the proportions
are different: in two specimens now before us, the third and fourth are of equal
length and are the longest, while the second is precisely as long as the sixth -j-.
We may, therefore, consider that the specific distinctions of the two are satisfactorily
established.
Let us now inquire whether the Lanius septentrionalis of Gmelin, as some writers
have supposed, be intended for our American borealis. Gmelin confessedly copies
his account from Latham, applying the above name to the “ Northern Shrike”
of the Synopsis. This bird is stated to have “ the bill not much bent; the plumage
brown above ; belly and vent inclining to brown ; the four middle feathers
plain brown ; the webs of the rest white at the tip ; legs short.” Scarcely one of
these characters can be applied to either sex of our species ; while the length of
the tail, which is stated to be “ two inches,” is not only inapplicable to this, but
to every other Shrike yet discovered in North America. The same account is
repeated nearly verbatim in the General History o f Birds, ii., p. 95. The description
of the Northern Shrike, given by Vieillot, is manifestly a mere translation from
Latham. Pennant has obviously confounded the European and the American
* We adopt, of course, the usual mode of considering the spurious'quill as the first.
•f- We cannot reconcile these measurements and proportions with those given by Prince C. Bonaparte as distinctive
of the two species.—Syn., p. 72.
species in his description of the “ Great Shrike, in Arctic Zoology ; his account,
therefore, cannot be cited with confidence, either for one species or the other.
We must now compare our specimens with the Lanius borealis of M, Vieillot,
whose description is so applicable to the female of our bird, and to the female
of Wilson’s excubitor, that we feel no doubt of the identity of all three. But it
may well be inquired, why this author, who appears to have been in America, and
to have seen the borealis in its native regions, should have omitted all mention of
the male bird ?—presuming that Wilson is correct in describing the male as differing
so much in colour from the female. Now the only solution we can give to
this question is, by referring the reader to our remarks upon Lanius ardosiaceus, and in being compelled to add, that this writer’s statements, upon similar matters
Of fact, have been frequently called in question, or positively denied, by the
American From thoer nfoitrheoglooignigst ss.tatements we feel justified in concluding First, that the
accounts of the Northern Shrike of Latham (Syn., i., p. 165, Gen. Hist., ii., p. 95),
and of Gmelin, Shaw, and Vieillot, are undeserving citation, as being totally
inapplicable to any known American bird, and as having, in all probability, originated
in a description, hasty and imperfect in itself, or drawn up from a young
or mutilated Shrike of an unknown species.—Secondly, that the male of borealis
has been mistaken by Pennant and Latham for the European excubitor ,* and that
the female appears to have been unknown to either.—Thirdly, that the female of
borealis, although stated by M. Vieillot to be exactly like the male, is in reality
very different; this writer, as we shall subsequently show, having confounded the
true male with his L. ardosiaceus.—Sw.
DESCRIPTION
Of & female, killed at Carlton House, June, 1827«
C olour of the upper aspect of the head, neck, back, scapularies, and part of the lesser
wing coverts, intermediate between yellowish-brown and yellowish-grey*. Tail coverts whitish,
with a slight tinge of ash-grey, and some very obscure cross lines. The secondary coverts
and the adjoining row of lesser coverts are pitch-black, the latter being narrowly edged with
the general colour of the back. The primary coverts, primaries', and secondaries, are dark
liver-brown. The third primary and following ones to the tenth inclusive have a white space
next the quills, which is slightly mottled with brown, and is mostly concealed by the coverts.
The second primary is slightly bordered with greyish-white at the same place, and the seventh
and following primaries, and all the secondaries, are narrowly edged at their tips with soiled
white. The tail is pitch-black, with a white border; its two central feathers are entirely
* i. ft., Yellowish-brown, with much bluish-grey shining through it. Q