T}tE taxonomic relationship of the Blue Goose (Chen caerulesceus cacrulescens) and the Lesser Snow' Goose (Chcn hyperborca hyperborea) has long created controversy among avian systematists, e.g., Blaauw (1908), Soper (1930), Sutton (1932), Manning (1942), and Manning et aI. (1956). I believe that the two forms are conspecific and that the species consists of two subspecies: a large form, Chcn cacruIcscens atIantica, which has no color phases, and a smaller form, Chcn caerulescens caeruIescens, which is polymorphic and has two clearly defined color phases. The remainder of the discussion is concerned only with the latter race. Because of slight pleiotropic differences between the phases, reflected especially in nesting and incubation behavior, some may prefer to follow the lead of Manning et al. (1956) and confer subspecific status on hyperborea. However, my opinion is that such differences should be considered as dichromatic polymorphs of a single subspecies Chc•t c. caeruIesce•s. 76 Cooc}•, The Blue-Snow Goose Complex .auk Vol. 78 3O • Goose 77 Auk I Coocn, The I htc-3'•]ozo Complex Vol. 78 ] Auk VoL 78] CoocH, The Blue-Snow Goose Complex Auk ] CoocIt, The Blue-Snow Goose Complex 89 Vol. 78 J

No abstract

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

No abstract