jan., 1913 FROM FIELD AND STUD? 43 pipe was not 'involved. This dove, moreover, was a last year's bird, so that its I peculiar hap could not have been due to a misguided paroxism of parental regurgitation ?s I was at first inclined to surmise.--W. L?;oN DAwsoN. The Supposed Occurrence of the Blue Goose in ?alifornia.---The recurri: ment that the Blue Goose (Chen caerulescens) is of casual or occasional occur California, an assertion which, on rather weak evidence, has had wide acceptance, it particularly desirable that the capture of every bird supposed to belong to this s investigated, and the identity of the specimen be thoroughly established. This, is not always possible, as the birds on which hunters' statements are based are seld{ long enough to afford an opportunity for examination. The present remarks are incited by a-recent instance, in which the capture c Goose appeared to be well authenticated, and which may serve as a demonstrati. c extreme care to be used in accepting records whereby closely similar species confused. A letter was received from F. J. Smith, of Eureka, Humboldt County, C stating' that he had in his possession a specimen of the Blue Goose, taken in that on October 22, 1908, and requesting permission to send it to the Museum of Zoology in order that his identification be confirmed. The bird arrived soon after, carefully examined. Although the Museum collection contains no specimens of Ch? lescens, it does contain a fairly large series of Chen hyperboreus hyberboreus, and par/son the supposed Blue Goose proved to be a bird of this form, in the grayish, plumage. A search through descriptive literature failed to bring to light any statem{ defining differences between the immature plumage of caerulescens and hyperboreu? question naturally arises as to whether previous supposed instances of the occm caerulescens in California have not also been founded upon young birds of hyperb( two forms being so very similar in this stage. The Blue Goose was first included in the list of California birds upon the of the statement by Belding (Zoe, III, 1892, p. 97) regarding the capture of two near Stockton, February 1, 1892. Fragments of one of them, head, neck, wings were submitted to Mr. Ridgway, and by him pronounced to be juvenile caerulesce? the authority in support of this record is thus of the highest degree, still, consid{ apparently close similarity of the two species hyperboreus and caerulescens in the i plumage, and the absence of corroborative evidence since the time of Belding's re are surely justified in demandil?g stronger proof of the occurrence of the Blue California. The specimen suggesting these remarks is an example of the ease wit mistakes in identification can be made. From written descriptions alone there was to disprove its being caerulescens, either that species irl immature plumage ha distinctive peculiarities serving to distinguish it from the same stage of hyperboreu.? such differences having never been clearly set forth; but comparison with exal hyperboreus unmistakably demonstrated the fact of its belonging to this ?species SWAR?. The Black-chinned Hummingbird in Marin County, California.--Whil? driving along the road at San Geronimo, Marin County, California, one day last spring 11912) I was hailed by C. A. Allen, who came out of his house to tell me of having noticed ? strange hummingbird among the usual number of Aliens and Annas that nest in his ya d every year, and that he had finally captured it. This strang.er turned out to be a real Black- chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri), and is the first record of this ecies in Marin County, as it does not seem to take kindly to the humid coast belt, but '?orks its way to its northern limit by following the more interior valleys. Mr. Allen said he thought we ought to have the specimen on account of our having been so closely associmed with Marin County for so many years, but he was collecting for Dr. Jonathan Dwight, Jr., at the moment, and felt that the specimen must go to him. Soon after receiving it Dr. Dwight wrote me of the circumstances, and said that he felt as if he were encroaching on our preserves, that the place for it was in our collection' (Coil. of J. & J. W. Mailliard), and that it should be recorded by one of us. In due course the specimen arrived, and is now ?n the place where Dr. Dwight thought it ought to be. I mention these details in order to show our appreciation of the graceful courtesy thus shown to us--a sort of courtesy that ever should but does not always exist among collectors. The date on which this hummingbird was taken was March 3, 1912.--Josmm M^?^m). ?g state- fence in renders )ecies be - . however, ,m saved a Blue of the nay be aliforma, vicinity, ertebrate and was '? corel*t- on com- nmature, t clearly and the fence oi ?eus, the strength )ecimen$ .nd legs, '. While ring the nmature
- ord, we
?oose in t which nothing ring no , or else nples of .--H. $.
