MERULA ALPESTRIS
MERULA AL PESTRIS , Brehm.
ALPINE RING-OUZEL.
Sylvia torguata, pt., Savi, Orn. Tosc. i. p. 206 (1827). '
Merula alpestris, C. L. Brehm, Isis, 1828, p. 1281; id. Yog. Deutschl. p.. 377 (1831); Stejn.
Pi. U.S. Nat. Mus. ix. pp. 365-373 (1886); Seebohm, Ibis, 1889, p. 309 ; Sahad. Boll. Mas.
Zool. Torino, viii. no. 152, May (1893).
Turdus torguatus (nee Linn.), Nanm. Vog. Deutschl. vi. p. 5 (1833), xiii. p. 363, Taf 361 fig 3
(1847-48).
Morula vooiferans, Brehm, Naum. 1855, p. 281; id. J. f. 0 . 1856jjp'. 446.
Merula maculata, Brehm, Naum. 1855, p. 281; id. J. f. O. 1856, p. .446..
Merula insignia, Brehm, J . f. O. 1856, p. 446.
Merula torguata, pt. (nec Linn.), Bettoni, Stor. Uce, nidif. Lomb., Turdid®, gen. 514 (1865),
Turdus alpestris, Stejn. Proo. U.S. Nat. Mus. ix. p. 2o5-(1886),
Merula torguata, var. alpestris, Tschnsi, MT. om. Ver. Wien, xii. p. 70 (1888).
Merula torguata alpestris, Seebohm, Ibis, 1888, p. 311.
Turdus torguatus alpestris, Praz&k, MT. orn. Ver. Wien, xvii. p. 68 (1893).
M. pedibus saturate brunneis, nec flavicantibus: notseo gastaeoque nigris, torque pnepectorali albo conspicuo:
plumis gastrsei singubs medialiter albis : subcaudalibus conspioub albo medialiter striatis : rostro flavo.
T h e fact that three species of Ring-Ouzel are found in Europe has only recently been recognized,
although in 1872, in writing the history of Turdus torguatus in the ‘ Birds of Europe,’ I was unable
to account for some of the phases of plumage in that species, and at least two of the birds figured are
now said by Mr. Dresser to belong to M. alpestris. The material at my disposal, however, was not
sufficient at that period for me to confirm the presence even of a second species in Europe. To Dr. L.
Stejneger belongs the credit of having re-established Merula alpestris of Brehm as a distinct species
from the Common Ring-Ouzel, M. torguata (Linnaeus). In the 9th volume of the ‘ Proceedings of
the U.S. National Museum ’ (pp. 365-373), he comments on the description and figure, (pi. 15) in
the ‘Birds of Europe’ and justly criticizes the fact that I had not seen that th e bird which puzzled
me was referable‘to Brehm’s M. alpestris-, but, as I have said before, the series at my disposal was
insufficient for the correct identification ;of the CentralvEuropean species. I t is also equally certain
that twenty-five years ago no ornithologist in this country treated the manifold species of the old
Pastor with the consideration which some of them apparently deserve, and the foRowing strictures of
r. Stejneger are certainly in the present instance well m e r i t e d “ I t has been the unfortunate
ashion to sneer at the species and subspecies of Brehm, and the simple fact that a name was
established by him has been sufficient reason to ignore it altogether and to put it into the synonymy
Without investigation. This is not only injustice to Brehm’s honest labour and his extreme power of
lscrimmation, but it has resulted in extreme injury to science. In the present case, for instance,
think I am in a position to prove that Brehm was correct, and that there exist two distinct species
o Rmg-Thrushes in Europe, notwithstanding the fact that hardly a single European ornithologist of
the present generation even dreams of it.”
p 2