CRIMSON-NECKED BULLFINCH.
FYRMHLFA FRONTALIS.
ifelate VI. Fig. 1, Mile; Fig. 2, Female.
Fringilla frontalis, Say,.«« Fong’s Expedition to^m^l Rocky Mountains, II, p. 40.
PlnJrtdMi/t. MmmmMmiG&l 6. Male;?Npt^3^7,' Femalgj >u
Much confusion Jt&isfsfiin the works *o£ naturalists respecting those
E*inches and Bullfinch^that are| tinged w ith jre ^ a n d , nr fact, their
.great, resemblance tri&ach. oth ers and their intricate sy^opytnyi
render them.Very difficulrtq'elueidate. "The only,} spe^ie^iri'Wilson’s
work witlf ^hich.JtheS p^rsent may b l ^ mfounded, is the Fringilla
purpurea, a bird cldsiely related^Sours;» andfa@,r„the firstt thine well
figjti’ir^dj and Iper manehtly e^allished thatiauthor.* But several
He was rather precipitate in serting the FripgiMa rosea and Loxia erythrina to be
identical with his bird, as they^are actually tw o ^ y distinct species, belongin|jf?to, the
genus Pyrrhula, and proper jt&ihe oriVyn|i)Rn t awii iht the purpurea is a lyue tyingUlp,
and peculiar to America. ToJ&feewho hayenof’ critically invSstigated^Ssubject, i&
may appear somewrat inconsistent to sikre,fthaPwie Wythrina is not an _ mhabitan<|iof
this Continent, When it i^a Util; known fact}vtha#Wraiiy authors spea^qfet as^an Ameifi
can bird. This appareiSt^cohteadicticfrL may be readily removed,pW consid^mg what
bird jtjiose authors’ alluded to,-when they stated the eryfhrma tepbej(a^native'. 0(®Norih
AnffWfca.]f,When Latham expressed a doubt in his jfehopsis, whe^hej^thi^ bdrdsWn the
neighbourhood m New-York. m> much resembling me aruthrina, w&e not specifically
the! same, he alluded to the,IVingllla purpurea: Gmelin, as usual, inpH lmisemble
FKimpilation, inserted tins doubt of Latham l|||f :,certamty. As withe Crimsote-neaded
Finch of Pennant^lt is evidently, the purpurea, thus Excusing, in part, the.-sffajfge assertion
of ^Valson. Latham, a^K^tohiitted an err®?ii®lf,ffildex^i^placing tlie Loxia
erythrina of, Pallas and Gmelin, his own? ferimson-headed Finch, ,a$ a v^®ty of Fringilla
rosea.
VOL. I.— N