COOPER ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB PACIFIC COAST AVIFAUNA NUMBER 11 A DISTRIBUTIONAL LIST OF THE BIRDS OF CALIFORNIA BY JOSEPH GRINNELL CONTRIBUTION FROM THE MUSEUM OF VERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA PUBLISHED BY THE CLUB October 21, 1915 NOTE PACIFIC COAST AVIFAUNA No. 11 is the eleventh in a series of publications issued by the Cooper Ornithological Club for the accommodation of papers whose length prohibits their appearance in THE CONDOR. The publications of the Cooper Ornithological Club consist of two series- THE CONDOR,which is the bi-monthly official organ, and the PACIFIC COASTAVI- FAUNA. For information as to either of the above series, address one of the Club Business Managers, J. Eugene Law, Hollywood, California, or W. Lee Chambers, Eagle Rock, California. CONTENTS page Introduction ....................................................... 5 Plan of Treatment .................................................. 7 Distributional Areas ................................................ 9 Acknowledgments .................................................. 13 The Birds of California ............................................. 15 Species Credited to California on Unsatisfactory Grounds. ............. 178 Hypothetical List .................................................. 174 Index ............................................................. 191 plate Map of Life Zones of California ...................................... I Cross-sectional Profiles of California Showing Life Zones. .............. II Map of Fauna1 Areas of California ................................... III -*- _ -- _- - --. .,- -- _..I_ ,,m.- il.< _ c_ Bi-ml II II III l-r-7 n-r - --I-- --- --- -- -- INTRODUCTION Apparently the first attempt to catalog all the birds known at any one time from California was made by Dr. James G. Cooper in his unsigned contribut,ion to Cronises’ Natural Wealth of California (pp. 448-480), published in 1868. A brief running account is there given of 353 species. In 1890, Lyman Belding (Occasional Papers, II, California Academy of Sciences) ascribed 295 species of land birds to California, and in 1892, Walter E. Bryant (Zoq III, pp. 135-140) listed 150 water birds, making a total of 445 species and subspecies then credited to the state. Ten years later, in Pacific Coast Avifaulaa number 3, 1902, the present writer enumerat,ed, with brief annotations, 491 species and subspecies; and in 1912, in Pacific Coast A&fauna number 8, the same author gave a nom- inal list of 530 forms. The present contribution shows a total of 541 species and subspecies believed at the time of going to press, May 1, 1915, to properly belong to the Recent avifauna of the state. Of course? in each of the previous lists there have been some erroneous entries; but the omission of these names in the succeeding list has always been more than compensated for by additions during the intervening period. This process may be expected to continue almost ad itzfinitunz, as long as fauna1 lists are published. As in the fifteen years or so just past, the increments will come chiefly through the detection of stragglers, and, judging from the nature of those already recorded, individuals representing practically every species and sub- species in North America and the adjacent waters may be expected to reach California sooner or later. This would probably hold true as well for any other area in temperate America. A notable part of the recent expansion in our state list has been due to more intensive exploration, to the accumulation of series of specimens more or less fully representing practically all of our fauna1 areas, and to the resulting activ- ity in subspecific discrimination made possible by these favoring circumstances. While a great gain has been evident of recent years in the accumulation of materials for the study of avian distribution, our basis for exhaustive research in this line is yet far from ideal. The present writer, after having gone over the literature with considerable care, confesses that there is still so much to be desired that he has been discouraged from attempting now, as originally planned, a far more detailed definition of the range of each species of California bird. 6 PACIFIC COAST AVIFAUNA No. 11 An example of how he had wished to undertake such a treatment is to be found in his paper on the “Distribution of the Mockingbird in California” (Auk, XXVIII, 1911, pp. 293-300, map). Part of the trouble lies in the general lack of accurate systematic analyses of the variable groups of birds. Systematic ornith- ology is popularly supposed to have reached such a high plane that no further work remains to be done. As a matter of fact, the status of very many forms, both species and subspecies, is but imperfectly understood, and consequently it is impossible to map their distribution accurately. The type of work needed in this connection is well illustrated in Swarths’ paper entitled “The California Forms of the Genus Psaltriparus” (Auk, XXXI, 1914, pp. 499-526, pl. XL). A score of other groups demand similar close attention. There is marked need for much further field work, such as any conscien- tious student of birds can engage in locally, whereby relative numbers of each species will be ascertained for restricted areas throughout the year. The census idea is an excellent one in this connection, and it is to be hoped that greatly improved methods of recording bird populations will be developed, so that dis- tributional behavior can be expressed in more nearly exact terms than is at pres- ent possible. In the main list comprising the bulk of the present paper, the author has exercised care in admitting little known species to full standing. Where, after due enquiry, grounds have been found for doubting the validity of a record, it has been relegated to the Hypothetical List as a species credited to California on unsatisfactory grounds (see p. 173)) or else the name appears under the synonymy of some other form, or sometimes both dispositions have been made of the doubtful record. With rare, so-called “accidental”, species, the bird must, as a rule, have been secured and preserved in some accessible collection so as to be subject to re-identification whenever desirable. The oft-repeated maxim holds: That the more unusual and hence unexpected the alleged occur- rence of a species, the better must be the evidence in the case; such evidence must be reasonably conclusive to warrant its acceptance as authentic. 1915 PLAN OF TREATMENT It is important that the limitations of the following treatment of species be clearly understood ; too much must not be expected of it, and at the same time its full scope of usefulness should be realized. The systematic order is that of the American Ornithologists ’ Union Check- List (1910), except that within groups of species or subspecies a more natural arrangement is sometimes adopted, for example by according with geographical sequence. The A. 0. U. order is thus accepted here because of the convenience thereby admittedly secured, in concording with the bulk of current ornithological literature. That the classification indicated is quite unsatisfactory cannot be gainsaid. (See Pacific Coast A&fauna no. 8, 1912, p. 5.) The first number, in bold-face type, is the running number of this list. The second number, in parenthesis, is that of the species as enumerated in the third edition (1910) of the A. 0. U. Check-List. This may serve to facilitate concord- ance where the names are different. The term part, within the parenthesis, is used where the subspecies or species here given full standing is not also separ- ately recognized in the A. 0. U. list, but is included both geographically and sys- tematically with the species whose number is cited. The nomenclature in large measure follows that adopted by the A. 0. U. Committee on Nomenclature up to and including the Sixteenth Supplement (July, 1912). In a few cases departure from this standard has seemed justified because of the clearness of the contrary evidence as presented by the original investigator, or because my own knowledge of the problems concerned seems to provide sufficient ground for the expression of positive opinion. These points of difference as a rule concern subspecies only. The synonyms given are only those which have been applied to the species as occurring in California. No effort has been made to obtain a complete list of vernacular appellations, only the more common book names being given. Rut the scientific names have been collected during rather exhaustive search and are believed to include very nearly all ever applied to any bird of the state. The term part is employed in connection with such names as have been applied to more than one species or subspecies in California. 3linor departures in spelling from better known forms of names are not included; for example Dendroeca for Dendroica, unalascae for aonalaschkae, etc. Diphthongs are not indicated by the use of connected vowels. Possessivesin vernacular names are ignored. All 8 PACIFIC COAST AVIFAUNA No. 11 printed synonyms are entered in the Index, so that the latter may be used as a means of identifying any name in the literature of California ornithology. The terms employed for comparative abundance are the usual simple and relative ones : Abzcnda,nt, comnwn, fairly common,,’ rare: Seasonal status is in- dicated by these terms: Residertt, meaning permanently present throughout the year; summer visitant, indicating presence only during the summer season which is also usually the breeding season; winter cisitant, of obvious meaning, comple- mentary to summer visitant; transient,, passing through during spring and fall migrations and tarrying neither for the summer nor the winter. Occasional qualifying words are used, with the intention always of leaving the meaning clear. This is solely a distributional paper; it has nothing to do with migration, extent of breeding season, or systematic status, except in the 1att)er case in so far as is necessary to elucidate distribution. The distributional terms employed are explained on succeeding pages (pp. 9-12). The maps (~1s.