GENUS PODICEPS.
Podiceps. Lath. Ind. Om. (1790.) p . 780.
97. PODICEPS CALIFORNIOUS. Vol. II. Plate LXIV.
98. ¡H ... AFFINIS.
Salvad. Des. di Nouve Spec. Mus. Torin.
' Dr. Sa lv ad o ri, having kindly sent me a drawing of the head of this bird, I am enabled to give a life-size engraving'of it. It is
immature and appears to have considerable affinity to P . Cooperi. Lawr. Without seeing the two together- to compare, it would be
impossible to decide upon the specific value o f the present bird, and I therefore introduce it here under Dr. Salvadori’s name, merely,
suggesting the species to which it seems to be nearest allied.
The original description is as follows:
“ Podiceps supra nigricans, genis supeme cinereo—griseis, infeme ac gula albis, rostro valde incurvo. <Rostr. 0.053; Ala, 0.195, Tars.
0.055. Long tot. 0.520.”
FAMI L Y I I— ALCÏDÆ.
SUB-FAMILY ALCINiE.
GENUS FRATERCULA.
Fratercula. Briss. Omith. (1760).
99. FRATERCULA GLACIALIS. Vol. II. Plate LXV.
GENUS LOMYIA.
Lomvia. Ray. Syn. Melh. Av. p . 120.
100. LOMVIA CALIF0RN1CA.=L. TROILE.
Catarractes Californica. Bryant. Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H. (1861.) p. 11.
This, bird, separated by Dr. Bryant from the common L. Troile, rests'its entire claim for specific rank upon the shape and size of its
bill. There is no difference perceptible in the-color of the plumage or general dimensions of the'birds, and the slightly larger bill of the
specimen from the Pacific coast—a character so unreliable as not to be deemed worthy of consideration in many Ornithological groups—
should not entitle it to. the position in which its describer placed it. Engravings of the natural size of the heads of this bird and
L. Troile are here given for comparison. The example from the Pacific was loaned to me by the Secretaries of the Smithsonian Institution,
to whom I take this opportunity of expressing my thanks, and bore upon its label the number 3,9-44; the'other was from a specimen in
the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, whose officers have at all times given me every facility for pursuing
my investigations, and to whom I am much indebted.
GENUS SAGMATORRHINA.
Sagmatorrhina. Bonp. Proc. Zool. Soc. (1851.) p . 202.
101. SAGMATORRHINA LATHAMI. Vol. -II. Plate LXVI.
GENUS - CERATORHYNCHA.
Ceratorhyncha. Bonp. Syn. U. S.' Birds. (1828.) A. N. Y. Lyc. Nat. Hist. p. 428.
102. CERATORHYNCHA S^6ELEYi,==0, MONOCERATA.
Cerorhina SuckftRvr. Oass^ B . of N. Am. p. 906.
We have here a bird wh'ihlvi'has beeu somewhat of a puzzle to Ornithologists, since the first specimen was obtained by Dr. Suckley.
In all respects/ save the horn at the base of the üpper mandible, the dried skin is identical with the well-known and long established
0. Monocerata. The typé was obtained at Puget Sound.
The fallowing extract of a letter addressed to mo by Dr.. Suckley, sets at rest the question as to whether or not this bird had
any “ knob ” at the base of the. upper maudib'lC- during like.
, N ew York, 17/A March, 1869.
* * * The bird; Gassin described a s : Gororhina*Sueklcyi, I killed oil -Puget'Sound nearly opposite the mouth of the Puyallup
river. I was returning from a,u Indian -reservation, an d when the bird—which had been under water, diving—came to the surface close
by the, canoe, I shot it. . The Indians who paddled- the canoe said “Heloima” (Ohinodfc for stranger or strange). There was. a black
or blackish-gray “knob” on the,-¿bill;:.' - The presence of th a t horn: pr /knob caused me to be anxious to preserve the skin. I had
seen, about twenty months before, the C. Monocerata, of which a pair were brought to . me alive,* by the late Gov. Mason of
Washington Territory. They were obtained by him near Pott Townsend, Puget Sound. Their “ knobs" were, say three lines high,
of a wax color. My specimen, described by Cassin, appeared to be an old bird. The C. Monocerata generally leave Puget Sound
for more genial climes during the winter. It frequently makes its 'hOine during tfiat season at the Earalones.
The dark, dusky, nearly black knob on the bill was about half the size of. that of- C. Monocerata, and softish, so that much
must be allowed for shrinkage.
Yours truly,
George Suckley.
The above is conclusive -evidence that during life Dr. Suckley’s bird had a knob upon the bill, no matter whether it may be
present on the dried skin or not, add all efforts to explain away what may be an unwelcome fact, must of necessity fail. The
chief, indeed we may say the Only, difference between this bird and C. Monocerata, was the absence of the knob, for as regards
the variàtiOiîi iu the outline of the bills, I would merely state that of the many specimens of the well-known species which I have
examined, I have never seen that member in/any two of them alike. The examples from which the drawings of thé heads here
represented were made, are in the Smithsonian collection. The adult is No. 31,908, and came from San Diego, California, collected by
Dr. Cooper; its measurements are: Length, 14.50; .wing, 7.25; tail, 4.50; tar, l-fr; bill, 1.50.' The young (?) No. 21,439, was
procured at the Faralone, Islands by Asio^ Cleft, and on the label was written, apparently in the collector’s handwriting, “ Young
horn-bill Guillemot.” Now here is an apparent contradiction, for the bird has no horn, at least as yet. The thoughts that naturally
arise are: If this is the young of the C. Monocerata, then there is a period in their lives when they are without the indication of
a horn or knob at the base of the mandible, and at that age belong to the form denominated as Suckleyi; but if it is not the
young of this species, but of U. Suckleyi, then we have' the strange spectacle of birds so closely allied, breeding together in great
numbers, yet keeping distinct, although resembling each other so entirely that the collector was unable to distinguish them, even when
in the midst of their nests. The horns iu adult G. Monocerata are of. all sizes and shapes, and rarely are two seen to resemble each
other. I have been thus particular in describing this specimen of the yoiing, and its locality, since it appears to me a matter of very
„reat doubt if as yet we have any sufficient reason for separating these 'two birds specifically, and save the absence of the horn in
this skin which, however, was present in life, lam unable to perceive any characters which cause either of the examples called Suckleyi,.
to be “ conspicuously different” from the well-known species; and the absence of the horn in one or two specimens, may be accounted
for in too many ways (such as an injury to the member in its early growth, or à want of development from physical causes)
for us to conclude—as has been somewhat hastily done—that C. Suckleyi is entirely worthy of specific distinctness.