SPECIES 2. ORIOLUS MUTATUS. ORCHARD ORIOLE. [Plate IV.] Bastard Baltimore, CATESBY, 1, 49.-Le Baltimore batard, BurFON, III, 233. Pl. enl. 506.-Oriolus spurius, GMEL. Syst. I, p. 389.-LATH. Syn. 11, p. 435, 20, p. 437, 24.-BARTRAM, p. 290. -PEALE'S Museum, No. 1508. THERE are no circumstances, relating to birds, which tend so much to render their history obscure and perplexing, as the various changes of colour which many of them undergo. These changes are in some cases periodical, in others progressive; and are frequently so extraordinary, that, unless the naturalist has resided for years in the country where the birds inhabit, and has examined them at almost every season, he is extremely liable to be mistaken and imposed on by their novel appearance. Numerous instances of this kind might be cited, from the pages of European writers, in which the same bird has been described two, three, and even four different times, by the same person; and each time as a different kind. The species we are now about to examine is a remarkable example of this; and as it has never to my knowledge been either accurately figured or described, I have devoted one plate to the elucidation of its history. The Count de Buffon, in introducing what he supposed to be the male of this bird, but which appears evidently to have been the female of the Baltimore Oriole, makes the following obser *O. Spurius LINN. which name must be adopted. Icterus minor spurius, BRISS. I, 111, pl. 10, fig. 3.—Carouge de Cayenne, BUFF. Pl. Enl. 607, fig. 1, (adult male.) Carouge du Cap de bonne Espérance, BUFF. Pl. Enl. 607, fig. 2, (female.) Merle à gorge noire de St. Domingue, BUFF. Pl. Enl. 559, (young male.) vations, which I give in the words of his translator. "This bird "is so called (Spurious Baltimore,) because the colours of its "plumage are not so lively as in the preceding (Baltimore O.) "In fact, when we compare these birds, and find an exact cor"respondence in every thing except the colours, and not even "in the distribution of these, but only in the different tints they assume, we cannot hesitate to infer, that the Spurious Balti"more is a variety of a more generous race, degenerated by the "influence of climate, or some other accidental cause." 66 How the influence of climate could affect one portion of a species and not the other, when both reside in the same climate, and feed nearly on the same food; or what accidental cause could produce a difference so striking, and also so regular, as exists between the two, are, I confess, matters beyond my comprehension. But, if it be recollected, that the bird which the Count was thus philosophizing upon, was nothing more than the female Baltimore Oriole, which exactly corresponds to the description of his male Bastard Baltimore, the difficulties at once vanish, and with them the whole superstructure of theory founded on this mistake. Dr. Latham also, while he confesses the great confusion and uncertainty that prevail between the true and bastard Baltimore and their females, considers it highly probable that the whole will be found to belong to one and the same species, in their different changes of colour. In this conjecture, however, the worthy naturalist has likewise been mistaken; and I shall endeavour to point out the fact as well as the source of this mistake. And here I cannot but take notice of the name which naturalists have bestowed on this bird, and which is certainly remarkable. Specific names, to be perfect, ought to express some peculiarity, common to no other of the genus; and should, at least, be consistent with truth; but in the case now before us, the name has no one merit of the former, nor even that of the latter to recommend it, and ought henceforth to be rejected as highly improper, and calculated, like that of Goatsucker, and many others equally ridiculous, to perpetuate that error from which it originated. The word bastard among men has its determinate meaning; but when applied to a whole species of birds, perfectly distinct from any other, originally deriving their peculiarities of form, manners, colour, &c. from the common source of all created beings, and perpetuating them, by the usual laws. of generation, as unmixed and independent as any other, is, to call it by no worse a name, a gross absurdity. Should the reader be displeased at this, I beg leave to remind him, that as the faithful historian of our feathered tribes, I must be allowed the liberty of vindicating them from every misrepresentation whatever, whether originating in ignorance or prejudice; and of allotting to each respective species, as far as I can distinguish, that rank and place in the great order of nature, to which it is entitled. To convince the foreigner (for Americans have no doubt on the subject) that the present is a distinct species from the Baltimore, it might be sufficient to refer to the figure of the latter, in Plate I, and to fig. 4, Plate IV, of this work. I will however add, that I conclude this bird to be specifically different from the Baltimore, from the following circumstances: its size-it is less, and more slender; its colours, which are different, and very differently disposed; the form of its bill, which is sharper pointed, and more bent; the form of its tail, which is not even but wedged; its notes, which are neither so full nor so mellow, and uttered with much more rapidity; its mode of building, and the materials it uses, both of which are different; and lastly, the shape and colour of the eggs of each (see figs. a and b,) which are evidently unlike. If all these circumstances, and I could enumerate a great many more, be not sufficient to designate this as a distinct species, by what criterion, I would ask, are we to discriminate between a variety and an original species, or to assure ourselves, that the Great-horned Owl is not in fact a bastard Goose, or the Carrion-crow a mere variety of the Humming-bird? These mistakes have been occasioned by several causes. Principally by the changes of colour, to which the birds are subject, and the distance of Europeans from the country they inhabit. Catesby, it is true, while in Carolina, described and figured the Baltimore, and perhaps was the first who published figures of either species; but he entirely omitted saying any thing of the female; and instead of the male and female of the present species, as he thought, he has only figured the male in two of his different dresses; and succeeding compilers have followed and repeated the same error. Another cause may be assigned, viz. the extreme shyness of the female Orchard Oriole, represented at fig. 1. This bird has hitherto escaped the notice of European naturalists, or has been mistaken for another species, or perhaps for a young bird of the first season, which it almost exactly resembles. In none of the numerous works on ornithology has it ever before appeared in its proper character; though the male has been known to Europeans for more than a century, and has usually been figured in one of his dresses as male, and in another as female; these varying according to the fluctuating opinions of different writers. It is amusing to see how gentlemen have groped in the dark in pairing these two species of Orioles, of which the following examples may be given: Buffon's and Latham's) Male-Male Baltimore. Baltimore Oriole. Female-Male Orchard Oriole, fig. 4. Spurious Baltimore of Male-Female Baltimore Ditto. of} Female-Male Orchard Oriole, fig. 2. Pennant's Baltimore O.} Female-Young Male Baltimore. Spurious O. of Ditto. } Male-Male Orchard O. fig. 4. Male-Male Baltimore. Catesby's Baltimore O.} Female-Not mentioned. Spurious B. of Ditto.} Male-Male Orchard O. fig. 2. Among all these authors, Catesby is doubtless the most inexcusable, having lived for several years in America, where he had an opportunity of being more correct; yet when it is considered, that the female of this bird is so much shyer than the male, that it is seldom seen; and that while the males are flying around and bewailing an approach to their nest, the females keep aloof, watching every movement of the enemy in restless but silent anxiety; it is less to be wondered at, I say, that two birds of the same kind, but different in plumage, making their appearance together at such times, should be taken for male and female of the same nest, without doubt or examination, as from that strong sympathy for each other's distress, which prevails so universally among them at this season, it is difficult sometimes to distinguish between the sufferer and the sympathizing neighbour. The female of the Orchard Oriole, fig. 1, is six inches and a half in length, and eleven inches in extent, the colour above is a yellow olive, inclining to a brownish tint on the back; the wings are dusky brown, lesser wing-coverts tipt with yellowish white, greater coverts and secondaries exteriorly edged with the same, primaries slightly so; tail rounded at the extremity, the two exterior feathers three quarters of an inch shorter than the middle ones; whole lower parts yellow; bill and legs light blue, the former bent a little, very sharp pointed, and black towards the extremity; iris of the eye hazel, pupil black. The young male of the first season corresponds nearly with the above description. But in the succeeding spring, he makes his appearance with a large patch of black marking the front, lores and throat, as represented in fig. 2. In this stage, too, the black sometimes makes its appearance on the two middle feathers of the tail; and slight stains of reddish are seen commencing on the sides and belly. The rest of the plumage as in the female. This continuing nearly the same, on the same bird during the remainder of the season. At the same time other inviduals are found as represented by fig. 3, which are at least birds of the third summer. These are mottled with black and olive on the upper parts of the back, and with reddish bay and yellow on the belly, sides and vent, scattered in the most irregular manner, not alike in any two individuals; and generally the two middle feathers of the tail are black, and the others centred with the |