Page:Condor19(3).djvu/20

94 Vol. XIX THE STATUS OF APHELOCOMA CYANOTIS AND ITS ALLIES By HARRY C. OBERHOLSER HE BLUE-EARED JAY, Aphelocoma cyanotis, was described by Ridgway ? .?rom a specimen collected by John Taylor at an unknown locality in Mex- mo. It was later discovered in the state of San Luis Potosi '?, and has since been found also in the states of Mexico, Hidalgo, Coahuila, and Durango; and it was reported from Sutton County, Texas, in 19022 . The Texas jay was first de- scribed by Ridgway as Aphelocoma texana', from a specimen taken in Edwards County, Texas, near the head of the Nueces River. Both this and Aphelocoma cyanotis have since been regarded as distinct species. The materiM hitherto avail able from Texas has not been satisfactory, and identification of specimens of these two birds from that region has, therefore, in many cases been difficult. Re- cently, however, a large series of good plumaged birds was collected by F. B. Armstrong in Kerr, Sutton, and Edwards counties, and is now in the collection of John E. Thayer, to whom the writer is indebted for the privilege of examina- tion. Study of this fine series and of the other specimens available, altogether sixty-seven examples, shows clearly that Aphelocoma cyanotis does not occur any- where in Texas, since all individuals from the state so identified turn out to be Aphelocoma texana in very fresh plumage. This discovery readily accounts for the difficulty hitherto experienced in identifying specimens of these two jays from Texas. The Texas bird (Aphelocoma texana) is, however, separable from Aphelocoma cyanotis by reason of its smaller size and rather lighter breast, the latter character most appreciable in worn plumage. From these facts it follows that Aphelocoma cyanotis must be eliminated from the list of North American birds, as well as from that of Texas. The examination of the above large series of Aphelocoma cya?otis and Aphe- locoma texana, and of other related jays of the same genus, brings up some in- teresting points in addition to those already stated, and proves conclusively that several changes are necessary in the current status of these and allied forms. In the first place, Aphelocoma texana intergrades with Aphelocoma woodhouseii (Baird), as intermediate specimens from the Davis Mountains, T.exas, show. The differences between Aphelocoma texana and Aphelocoma cyanotgs are entirely bridged over by numerous intermediate specimens, and the two must be regarded as only subspeclfically different. The latter intergrades geographically through the state of Puebla, Mexico, with Aphelocoma sumgchrasti Ridgway, of southern Mexico; and also, at least individually, with Aphelocoma grisea Nelson, of the states of Chihuahua and Durango, in Mexico. Furthermore, the individual vari- ation in Aphelocoma sumichrasti covers the difference between this form and Aph. elocoma californica californica and Aphelocoma californica hypoleuca. Con- sequently there is no logical course open except to regard all the above-mentioned jays, hitherto all considered distinct species, as subspecies of a single specific type. It is, therefore, necessary to call them all subspecies. of Aphelocoma cal?- fornica, since this is the oldest name applied to any form of the group. The bird described by Joseph GrinnelF as Aphelocoma cal?forngca immanis, from Scio in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, has commonly been considered a ?Manual North Amer. Birds, 1887, p. 357. -?Jouy, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XVI, 1893, p. 781. ?American Ornithologists' Union Committee, Auk, XIX, July, 1902, p. 321. 'Auk, XIX, January, 1902, p. 70. ?Auk, XVIII, April, 1901, p. 188.