of H. leucobronchialis had been secured by different collectors at various points in south

'Record of Additional Specimens of the WhiteThroated Warbler (Helminthophaga leucobronchialis), by H. A. Purdie, Newton, Mass., ibid., Vol. IV., No. 3, p. 184, 1879. Mr. Purdie describes four additional birds; a typical specimen collected in Hudson, Mass., in May or June, 1858. This specimen is in the possession of Williams College, Williamstown, Mass. A second bird is from Portland, Conn., where it was collected on May 22, 1875. This is a male and has a decided blotch of yellow on the breast, and a general suffusion of the lower parts with a fainter wash of this shade. There is also a slight suffusion of this color on the upper parts. The third specimen was taken at Saybrook, Conn., and was thus written of by J. N. Clark who collected it: "Took a fine male H. leucobronchialis, May 30 (1879); an exceptional specimen, with a patch of bright yellow across the breast from the bend of the wings. Thought it was pinus when I fired; notes and habits the same." A fourth bird was shot by Mr. Gunn, in Ottawa Co., Mich., and described as 'H. Gunnii, Gibbs,' in a local newspaper. The bird is a female and was taken on May 25, 1879. It is characterized by a bright yellow breast, the color extending as far down as the abdomen and on the flanks; its crown is particularly brilliant. Mr. Robert Ridgway subsequently identified this bird as H. leucobronchialis, Brewster. He also comments on its unusual coloration, but says it is in all essential respects like the type' and further that with this 'seventh specimen thus far collected the validity of H. leucobronchialis may be considered as established beyond question.' (Cf. Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. IV., No. 4, p. 233, 1879.)

'Helminthophaga leucobronchialis in New York,' by A. K. Fisher, M.D., Sing Sing, N. Y., ibid., Vol. IV., No. 4, p. 234, 1879. Records an adult male taken at Sing Sing, N. Y., on August 24, 1879. The bird had a band of yellow across the breast and a slight suffusion of pale yellow on the throat; the wing bars were 'whitish, whiter even than H. pinus. The back is that of a typical H. leucobronchialis.'

'Two More Specimens of Helminthophaga leucobronchialis from Sing Sing, N. Y.,' by A. K. Fisher, M.D., Sing Sing, N. Y., ibid., Vol. VI., No. 4, p. 245, 1881. Records the capture of a probable female having a black auricular patch.' This bird was taken on July 24, 1881, near Sing Sing, N. Y. Also a specimen from the same

ern New England, the lower Hudson River Valley, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia

營

*

6

region August 3, 1881, sex not given, with a yellow pectoral band, * the wing-bands were normal; yellow, not white.'

Another Example of Helminthophaga leucobronchialis from Connecticut,' by John H. Sage, Portland, Conn. (and a footnote by William Brewster), Auk, Vol. I., No. 1, p. 91, 1884. Records the capture of a female at Deep River, Conn., on May 18, 1880. Mr. Brewster says in the footnote: 'It differs from the type in having the yellow of the forehead partially obscured, * in the unusual restriction of the wing-bands, and in the generally immature appearance of the plumage.' These characteristics, he says, 'are just what would be expected in the female of this species.'

Occurrence of Helminthophila leucobronchialis in Virginia,' by William Palmer, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C., Auk, Vol. II., No. 3, p. 304, 1885. Records the capture of a male near Fort Meyer, Arlington, Va. The specimen is typical.

'A Specimen of Helminthophila leucobronchialis in New Jersey,' by C. B. Riker, New York City, Auk, Vol. II., No. 4, p. 378, 1885. Records a male collected at Maplewood, Essex Co., N. J., May 11, 1883. First record for the state. Very gray on the back, this bird has an indistinct yellow breast band and whitish wing bars much as in pinus, very conspicuously separated.

For change of generic name cf. Ridgway, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. VII., No. 1, p. 53, 1882. Capture of Two More Specimens of Helminthophila leucobronchialis at Sing Sing, New York,' by A. K. Fisher, M.D., Sing Sing, N. Y., Auk, Vol. II., No. 4, p. 378, 1885. Records the capture of two specimens at Sing Sing, N. Y., on August 11, 1883. "The under parts of both specimens are much more deeply suffused with yellow than is the case in any of my other three specimens; in fact, the yellow on one is evenly distributed over the entire under surface, but is not so deep as in Helminthophila pinus.”

Cf. Ridgway, Auk, Vol. II., No. 4, pp. 359-363, October, 1885.

Cf. Thurber, Auk, Vol. III., No. 3, p. 411, 1886. Remark. These are all the recorded individuals up to the end of 1885, but I have reason to think that there are a number of known specimens that were not recorded, and which were taken between 1878 and 1885.

and Michigan. However, the birds are most common about the lower reaches of the Connecticut and Hudson rivers. At the present writing I have no doubt that in all the collections in the country there are at least 150 individuals of H. leucobronchialis and, moreover, it is entirely possible, at the proper season and locality, to observe these birds annually.

Again I must insist upon the importance of considering carefully the history of the appearance of this and other probable 'mutations.' It is not likely that a form or kind of bird so common as H. leucobronchialis is at the present time, and ranging over as large an area as from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts and from Virginia to Michigan, should remain unknown to the earlier ornithologists, such keen field naturalists as Audubon and Wilson, Baird, Lawrence, Coues and Prentiss. Nuttall made careful and prolonged study of birds in the region where Mr. Brewster collected the type. Yet none of these close observers and good collectors either recorded or secured an individual of this kind. Clearly then, the presumption is that this bird could not have been so common early in the last century as it is now, if indeed it existed at all at that time. Nor does it seem that the theory of hybridity" is supported when we

"On the Relationship of Helminthophaga leucobronchialis, Brewster, and Helminthophaga lawrencei, Herrick; with some Conjectures Respecting Certain other North American Birds,' by William Brewster, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. VI., No. 4, pp. 218-225, 1881. Basing his hypothesis upon similarity of color and marking, Brewster considers these birds hybrids and says: Taken as a whole, this series (of seven specimens) perfectly connects leucobronchialis with pinus, as well as showing an extension of the former towards chrysoptera.'

6

consider the vast number of known specimens already in collections and the fact that it is possible to observe living specimens, as I have indicated, each year. I am aware that many capture by Mr. Auguste Blanchet of a specimen about ten miles from Morristown, in May, 1859. He says: The whole plumage resembles somewhat that of the female H. chysoptera, but the grayish on the breast is not so deep.' Mr. Thurber regards this bird as a hybrid.

*

'An Interesting Specimen of Helminthophila,' by William Brewster, Cambridge, Mass., Auk, Vol. III., No. 3, pp. 411-412, 1886. Records another specimen taken by Mr. Frank Blanchet two miles from Morristown, N. J., on May 15, 1884. The sex was not determined. Mr. Brewster writes of this specimen that it ** * is apparently a hybrid between the hybrid H. lawrencei and the typical H. pinus.' After describing the bird with much detail he adds: "In briefer terms, this interesting bird may be said to be about intermediate in color and markings between typical pinus, with its short narrow eye-stripe and uniformly yellow underparts, and the so-called H. lawrencei, which has a broad black patch extending from the bill through and beyond the eye, and the chin, throat and forepart of the breast solidly black. It forms an important link in the chain of evidence supporting my theory (Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. VI., No. 4, pp. 218-225, 1881) that H. pinus and H. chrysoptera frequently interbreed, and that their offspring perpetuate a variously characterized hybrid stock by breeding back into one or the other parent strains."

'The Significance of Certain Phases in the Genus Helminthophila,' by Spencer Trotter, M.D., Auk, Vol. IV., No. 4, pp. 307-310, 1887. Accepting the theory of hybridity, Dr. Trotter believes, because of its apparent common occurrence, as represented in the many specimens of H. leucobronchialis, that it indicates the degeneracy of the species producing this hybrid. He concludes, therefore, that the extinction of chrysoptera and pinus is in process, and perhaps imminent.

'Notes on Birds Observed in the Vicinity of Englewood, New Jersey,' by Frank M. Chapman, Auk, Vol. VI., No. 4, pp. 302-305, 1889. Mr. Chapman writes of leucobronchialis as this puzzling hybrid.'

Cf. Ridgway, 'Manual of North American Birds,' 1896, footnotes on page 486. Mr. Ridgway advances the dichroic theory plus hybridity to account for lawrencei and leucobronchialis.

But

good field ornithologists declare that they have seen either Helminthophila leucobronchialis or H. pinus attending young which they supposed to be H. leucobronchialis. And it is also on record that a parent leucobronchialis was observed with two young, feeding them. This bird was observed with these young ones two different days in the same locality. two young composed the brood, and Dr. Bishop, who saw and collected them, writes: 'A careful search on both days through the adjacent country failed to disclose any other member of the genus Helminthophila.' believed the parent bird to be a female and also concluded, though the two young were still in the down plumage of nestlings, from the final feathering that showed through, that: 'One, and probable that the other, would have become a typical specimen of H. pinus.'

He

These facts10 would in themselves seem to

19 Notes on Helminthophila leucobronchialis,' by Edwin H. Eames, Seymour, Conn., Auk, Vol. V., No. 4, pp. 427-428, 1888. Records the capture or observation of six adult and several young in a brood, between May 26, 1888, and June 22, of the same year, near Seymour, Conn. From this series of notes I quote Mr. Eames, writing of H. leucobronchialis, the date being June 3: "At last with more eagerness than usual it descended, and disappeared in the bushes (an unusual occurrence), where it apparently took possession of its nest, as in less than half a minute thereafter an H. pinus, the first I had seen in the neighborhood, flew hastily from about the same place. This occurred at about sunset, and between that and dark leucobronchialis did not again appear in sight. I had previously had it in view, or could hear its song, almost continuously. On several days following I searched this thicket thoroughly, as it seemed, and once succeeded in flushing a pinus, but could not even then find its nest. In company with pinus, leucobronchialis cautiously approached and surveyed me for a short time, then departed with no apparent misgivings. At all other times leucobronchialis was near by and always reconnoitered the track of my careful search when I had moved to some distance, then, apparently satisfied, pursued its avocations as before. I was not able to visit the spot again until June 17, and neither then nor since have I found this leucobronchialis, but I did find a brood of several young being fed

controvert the theory of hybridity, for, though hybrids do occur among wild birds, they can by an H. pinus, possibly the result of a union between the two. These two birds were the only ones of the genus which I had at any time detected in the locality."

'Notes on the Blue-winged Warbler and its Allies (Helminthophila pinus, H. leucobronchialis, H. lawrencei and H. chrysoptera) in Connecticut,' by Edwin H. Eames, Auk, Vol. VI., No. 4, pp. 305-310, 1889. Speaking of the comparative abundance of H. chrysoptera and H. leucobronchialis in southern Connecticut, Mr. Eames writes: "Of H. chrysoptera but little can be said, as it is properly considered a rather rare bird here, and our yearly records are but few, usually less than half a dozen."

"The beautiful H. leucobronchialis is much (?) more common than the latter (chrysoptera) and is eagerly sought after by most of our collectors, latterly with good success considering its former (supposed) rarity." During the spring of 1889 he procured five specimens, and recorded the breeding of leucobronchialis as follows: Mr. C. K. Averill, Jr., of this city, found a leucobronchialis early in June. * June 24 I accom

*

panied him to the place and we soon had the pleasure of watching the bird at shorter range than I think has fallen to the lot of others, i. e., three to ten feet. It came to the same conspicuous clump of bushes and briar many times, with from one to five minutes' intermission, each time with one or more small worms, about three quarters of an inch long, first reconnoitering, then cautiously approaching, and again hastily leaving a part of this clump of bushes not over two feet in extent. We failed to discover the identity of the object of its cares, but I have reason to believe it was a young cowbird. The rest of this brood was being fed by the only H. pinus (a female) to be found in the neighborhood. They showed a marked general similarity to the young of pinus. I shot this male leucobronchialis August 8 and also one of the young, carefully observing that the others were similar to the one killed, which was altogether too familiar with the adult bird to allow a possibility of doubt concerning its male parent.

*

"In this, as in many other species of our smaller birds, such an affection is shown for the haunts occupied during the nesting period that they rarely leave them until after moulting, or even till the commencement of the fall migration. In the above case I never failed to find the birds

be considered at best as only casual, and the infertility of hybrids, especially among the

within the bounds of a two-acre tract of land."

'On the Breeding of Helminthophila pinus with H. leucobronchialis at Englewood, New Jersey,' by Frank M. Chapman, American Museum of Natural History, New York City, Auk, Vol. IX., No. 3, pp. 302-303, 1892. Record of typical male H. pinus, breeding with non-typical female H. leucobronchialis. Description of nest and eggs. This pair of birds deserted the nest and further observation could not be made.

*

'Notes from Connecticut,' by E. H. Eames, Bridgeport, Conn., Auk, Vol. X., No. 1, pp. 89–90, 1893. Mr. Eames writes: * while on the other side and within a stone's throw a beautiful Brewster's warbler spent the greater part of his time. The latter after patient watching revealed his mate, a blue-winged warbler, and a nest in course of construction. * When again, on June 14, it contained four eggs, two of which were cowbirds', which were removed. Those remaining brought forth a pair of birds that, as they left the nest, could not be distinguished from normal young of the female parent, as would be expected, whatever the color of the male."

seen

• Helminthophila leucobronchialis,' by Louis B. Bishop, M.D., New Haven, Conn., Auk, Vol. XI., No. 1, pp. 79-80, 1894. "On July 1, 1893, I found an adult H. leucobronchialis with two young in a small tract of alder swamp and woodland of North Haven, Conn. They were little disturbed at my presence, and I watched them carefully for some time. The adult fed both young at short intervals, leaving little doubt of its relationship to them. On July 4 they were still in the same locality, and I collected all three. Possibly the remainder of the family had been killed, as a careful search on both days through the adjacent country failed to disclose any other member of the genus Helminthophila.

"Decomposition was so far advanced before I could prepare the adult that I was unable to determine its sex. The fact that it never sang while I was watching it, together with the generally dull color of its plumage, lead me to think it a female.

"Unfortunately both of the young were still principally in the olive, downy plumage of nestlings, but enough of the final feathering had appeared on the throat, breast and upper parts to make it certain that one, and probable that the

higher animals, is too well known to need further comment here. If it be conceded then as improbable that over one hundred cases of wild hybridity have occurred between H. chrysoptera and H. pinus, only one other conclusion can be reached, namely, that from one of these warblers (probably H. pinus) there began to occur mutations' that have increased in geometrical progression and have finally grown sufficient in number to become themselves a parent stock, though it seems probable that the 'mutations' are still occurring from the ancestral stock, as witness the observations of good field ornithologists alluded to above, who say they have seen H. pinus feeding young which they supposed to be H. leucobronchialis. They supposed the young to be H. leucobronchialis, because in every case one of the parents was H. leucobronchialis, but, on the other hand, in every case, one of the parents was an H. pinus. Now the cases where such conditions have prevailed are five in number. It is significant that while the generally accepted hypothesis to account for the origin of H. leucobronchialis, is that H. chrysoptera has crossed with H. pinus, the result being a hybrid, H. leucobronchialis, yet in no case has any naturalist asserted that he has seen H. chrysoptera feeding young supposed to be H. leucobronchialis. I am aware that there are two cases" of the other would have become a typical specimen of H. pinus. The wing-bars of the young differ, being in the most mature specimen narrow and almost white, and in the other broader and light yellow."

11 6

Evidence concerning the Interbreeding of Helminthophila chrysoptera and H. pinus,' by A. K. Fisher, M.D., Sing Sing, N. Y. “On July 4, 1885, while collecting specimens in a piece of woods underlaid by a scattering undergrowth, I came upon a female golden-winged warbler busily engaged in collecting insects. As I stood watching her she flew to a neighboring cedar tree and commenced to feed a young bird. I immediately shot and killed the latter as the female flew away. The noise of the discharge started another young bird from some bushes near by, and as it flew the female flew and alighted near it. Just as I was on the point of firing they started,

mating of H. chrysoptera with H. pinus, but in the first of these, as will presently appear, the male parent is hypothetical. It is to be noted that in the first case Dr. Fisher found a female H. chrysoptera feeding a young H. pinus in a cedar tree. Upon the shooting of this fledgling the old female flew away; the shot startled another young bird from some bushes near by, and as it flew the female also

and I succeeded in wounding the female only and had to follow and kill her with a second shot. On my return to the place where I first shot at her, I could not find the young one, nor did a careful search disclose it. In advancing for a nearer shot I had a good opportunity of seeing the young bird: it closely resembled its mother in appearance and had no yellow on the breast, whereas the one killed was the exact counterpart of the young of the blue-winged yellow warbler, with its yellow breast and white wing-bars. In all probability the father of this interesting family was a specimen of Helminthophila pinus.”

This is the entire account of the incident. (W. E. D. S.)

'The Interbreeding of Helminthophila pinus and H. chrysoptera,' by John H. Sage, Portland, Conn. "On June 13, 1889, Mr. Samuel Robinson, who has collected with me here for the past fifteen years, noticed a male Helminthophila pinus, with food in its bill, fly and disappear at the foot of a small alder. A female Helminthophila chrysoptera soon appeared, also with food, and was lost to sight at the same spot as the other bird. On going to the locality five young birds flew from the nest and alighted on the bushes in the immediate vicinity. Both parent birds were soon feeding the young again. He shot the old birds and secured all the young, which, together with the nest, are in my cabinet.

* The male (pinus) is a very bright specimen with white wing-bars, edged with yellow. The female (chrysoptera) is strongly marked with yellow below, the wing-bars being exceptionally rich with the same color.

"The young, two males and three females, are all similar, and have the head, neck, chest, sides and back olive-green. Abdomen olive-yellow. Remiges like adult pinus. Two conspicuous wingbars of light olive edged with yellow."

This is the entire account of the incident, except a description of the locality, the nest and its situation. (W. E. D. S.)

flew and alighted near it and was then shot. The young bird that was killed' was the exact counterpart of the blue-winged yellow warbler' (H. pinus), while the second bird carefully observed resembled the adult bird that was shot, and was, therefore, apparently a young H. chrysoptera. No male parent was seen nor were any other young observed.

Granting that both of these fledglings were the progeny of the bird seen feeding one and associated with the other, and also granting that the unknown male parent of both these young birds was H. pinus, neither of the young was H. leucobronchialis, the hybrid which it is asserted is the result of such a union.

The second case which is recorded by Mr. Sage goes on to state that a male H. pinus and a female H. chrysoptera were discovered feeding five young in a nest; these birds flew out of the nest on being approached, whereupon all seven were collected. The author says that the male was typical pinus and the female typical chrysoptera, 'strongly marked with yellow below.' The five young proved to be two males and three females and are all similar,' being olive green in color, becoming olive yellow on the abdomen and having the wings like young pinus. Surely these young are not leucobronchialis, and while the interbreeding of chrysoptera and pinus is hereby thoroughly established as a rare and casual occurrence, these hybrid young, the result of this union, so far as I can perceive, are a direct refutation of the hybrid theory, which attempts to account for the origin of HI. leucobronchialis.

On the other hand, we have direct evidence that both H. leucobronchialis and the rarer H. lawrencei have mated and bred and reared young with H. pinus.

In view of the foregoing facts, I am of the opinion that in H. leucobronchialis and in H. lawrencei, presently to be considered, we have examples of two separate and distinct 'mutations' from a common parent stock or species. That is, I believe that H. pinus, early in the last century became unstable as