Volume 7 — BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB. VOL. VII. July, 1882. No. 3. (continued 2)

108. Chætura pelasgica Bd. Chimney Swift.—On August 20, 1880, I saw numbers on the borders of woods near Spring Creek. During May, June and July I have seen only a few pairs.

109. Antrostomus carolinensis Gld. Chuck-will’s-widow.—Common during the breeding season in dry woods, with much undergrowth. Arrives late in April from its winter quarters; the time of departure I do 170not know. They remain silent during day-time, and commence their peculiar cries soon after dusk of evening. The eggs are laid on the bare ground in dry places, and are commonly well hidden by thick shrubbery. In the dry woods near Spring Creek they are common, but not in the wet wooded tracts near Houston.

110. Chordiles popetue Bd. Nighthawk.—Seen in very large numbers. I saw thousands during a cloudy, rainy day in the early part of May, near the borders of woods. They all soon disappeared.

111. Chordiles acutipennis texensis Ridgw. Texan Nighthawk.—A regular but somewhat rare summer sojourner. Differs from the preceding in many respects. They are more retiring in their habits; they also sail very low over ponds and pools of water, where myriads of insects, especially mosquitoes, abound. Four to six are often seen together, flying quite near each other. I never heard them utter a sound, and do not know where they breed, but I think they have their nests on the shrubby borders of woods, where they are most commonly to be observed when flying. They are readily distinguishable from their near relatives, our familiar northern Nighthawk, by their peculiar, low, and quiet sailing, and also by their smaller size.

112. Campephilus principalis Gray. Ivory-billed Woodpecker.—Very rare; I have found it only in the large and dense pine forests in the northern part of Harris County and in Montgomery County far from human habitations. Very shy and not easy to approach.

113. Picus villosus Linn. Hairy Woodpecker.—Frequently seen during winter, but only a few times during the breeding season.

114. Picus scalaris Wagl. Texas Woodpecker.—This beautiful little Woodpecker is quite numerous in all wooded districts; it comes often during winter into the gardens of Houston, and is then very unsuspicious. I can give no particulars about its nesting habits, as I have never found a nest.

115. Picus pubescens Linn. Downy Woodpecker.—Common; breeds in all wooded districts, but is by no means so abundant as I have found it to be in Wisconsin.

116. Picus borealis Vieill. Red-cockaded Woodpecker.—The Picus querulus of Wilson is resident in all the large pine woods; it is very shy, restless, and noisy. The male is very wary during the breeding season, and every pair has its own limited breeding range. I discovered a nest in an old high pine stump, but it was out of reach. These birds are not rare in heavily wooded districts. I never have seen one in the deciduous woods.

117. Sphyropicus varius Bd. Yellow-bellied Woodpecker.—Winter resident from November to March, and then not uncommon. Always seen singly.

118. Hylotomus pileatus Bd. Pileated Woodpecker.—Common resident in all the wooded tracts, in the “post oak” as well as in the bottom and pine forests. A very noisy species; its drumming is almost as loud as that of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. It is not a shy and retiring 171species, but, on the contrary, is very often seen near farm houses. Especially abundant where during the previous winter or spring many trees have been cut down; these they search for worms, and very soon have all the bark hammered away from them. They often excavate a hole for their nest in a post oak, in a sycamore, and also in elms, often at a considerable height. The cavity is from 10 to 20 inches deep and so large that a man can easily put his hand into it. The eggs, from four to six, are of a brilliant white color. Only one brood is raised, and the young follow their parents till late in the fall.

119. Centurus carolinus Bonap. Red-bellied Woodpecker.—Another very common Woodpecker. Its loud, harsh croaks, sounding like crirrk, are almost continually to be heard in the woods. Prefers deciduous woods. It is resident throughout the year, and is not shy or of retiring habits, but often visits the larger gardens. In the winter months I have often observed them on the ground searching for insects, but it can not walk as easily as Colaptes auratus. Breeds usually on the borders of woods, and raises only one brood yearly.

120. Melanerpes erythrocephalus Sw. Red-headed Woodpecker.—The most abundant of its family in and near Houston; breeds commonly in the city in sycamores, water and swamp oaks, and in magnolias along Buffalo Bayou. Very confiding and tame; hammers often on houses and stables, on church towers, telegraph posts, etc. Two broods are raised each season. I have seen, late in August, young just from the nest. Once I discovered the nest in a sycamore in a street, about fifteen feet from the ground, the tree standing only a few yards from a house. Resident throughout the year. Many are killed by negro boys with so-called “nigger-shooters,” and not only this species, but also numberless other birds are thus destroyed by them.

121. Colaptes auratus Sw. Golden-winged Woodpecker; “Flicker.”—Rare during the breeding season, abundant in the winter months. Frequently seen in pairs and small companies of from four to ten, and even more. Spends its time during this season mostly on the ground, where it searches for food. The first companies arrive late in October, and they steadily increase in numbers till December, when they are exceedingly abundant. They begin to migrate northward late in February.

122. Ceryle alcyon Boie. Belted Kingfisher.—Seen only occasionally. In the western part of Texas, where the rivers and creeks have clear water, the bird is evidently more common.

123. Coccyzus americanus Bonap. Yellow-billed Cuckoo.—Common summer sojourner; breeds abundantly in the thickets on the edges of woods, and is in this part of our country a very unsuspicious bird, as it is not only often seen in gardens, but sometimes breeds in them, in pomegranate bushes, in Banksia and Cherokee-rose thickets, etc. The first nests I found late in April, the last, July 5. This, a typical nest for this region, was placed in a young sweet-gum tree (Liquidambar styraciflua), about ten feet above the ground, and was almost hidden among Smilax laurifolia, with which the tree was overgrown. It was built of 172sticks, fragments of leaves, Spanish moss and a few grass-stems lined with the leaves of the loblolly pine (Pinus tæda). It contained two eggs, one somewhat advanced in incubation, the other quite fresh. I think two broods are, in many cases, reared each season.

124. Coccyzus erythrophthalmus Bd. Black-billed Cuckoo.—Common during the middle of April, but I do not think that any remain to breed.

125. Strix flammea americana Coues. American Barn Owl.—More or less common in all suitable localities. Breeds usually in hollow stumps, but last year (May 6, 1881) I discovered a nest in the side of a high bank of a “gully” near Spring Creek. The nest was about two feet from the entrance and nearly horizontal; a few feathers were the only lining. Eggs, three in number, dirty white.

126. Brachyotus palustris Gld. Short-eared Owl.—Not uncommon late in autumn and during winter near thickets and marshes, where many little birds associate, on which it feeds almost entirely. Very shy, and not easily secured.

127. Syrnium nebulosum Gray. Barred Owl; “Hoot Owl”; “Bottom Owl.”—Very common, especially in all the bottom woods and in the thick woods bordering Buffalo Bayou. Their curious notes are heard every night from the dusk of evening till dawn, and also in dark cloudy and rainy days. These notes are easily imitated, and often three or four of the birds may be thus attracted. During night time they come fearlessly near farm houses, and, with their loud, laughing, unearthly sounds, make a terrible noise. I have often heard four or five at one time near a house. Their flight is easy and quick. In Texas where the hens, turkeys, etc., roost on trees, this Owl is very destructive. They do not kill old poultry, but like half-grown chickens, and soon depopulate a whole poultry-yard. The nest is usually built high up in trees, mostly in pin oaks (Quercus palustris) and elms, sometimes also in pines, of strong twigs and sticks, without a lining. They also use old Crow’s and Hawk’s nests, which they repair a little.

128. Scops asio maccalli Ridgw. Texan Screech Owl.—This little Owl seems to be quite common. If they are disturbed, they hide in the hollow of a tree or stump. All their movements are exceedingly quick and elegant, and the flight gliding and noiseless. I have never had an opportunity to examine a nest.

129. Bubo virginianus Bonap. Great Horned Owl.—Common; resident; breeds. Nests abundantly in all the large woods; especially common in dense bottom woods. Their loud cries are to be heard not only during the nights, but also in the day-time, when the weather is cloudy and rainy. They are very destructive to the poultry; they, like the Barred Owls, come near the farm houses and commence their ludicrous cries about nine o’clock in the evening; they utter their cries only during the breeding season; later they are almost silent. The flight is very quick and easy. The nest is placed from thirty to seventy feet from the ground in the top of a large forest tree; it is composed of sticks and 173twigs, and is sometimes lined with a bunch of Spanish moss, but this may be accidental.

130. Speotyto cunicularia hypogæa Ridgw. Burrowing Owl.—This little Owl is every year increasing in numbers. Breeds in the higher prairies, and also in waste fields, in holes. They also breed in the burrows of the salamander, a species of Geomys, probably Geomys pinetis. I have not seen their eggs.

131. Falco mexicanus polyagrus Coues. Prairie Falcon.—This noble bird is resident on the borders of woods near prairies, but it is by no means a common bird. Its flight is graceful, but always low; its food is said to consist especially of Prairie Chickens and domestic fowl.

132. Æsalon columbarius Kaup. Pigeon Hawk.—Common in fall and winter, as soon as the large flocks of Blackbirds and different Finches appear from the north, among which it makes great havoc. None remain to breed. They disappear quite early, usually in the first days of March.

133. Tinnunculus sparverius Vieill. Sparrow Hawk.—Common in fall and winter, but never observed during the breeding season. This bird also does great harm among our small birds.

134. Polyborus cheriway Cab. Caracara Eagle; Mexican Eagle; “Mexican Buzzard.”—Regularly distributed, but in this part of Texas is not so common as farther in the interior. It is a very showy bird, and the flight is extremely elegant and quick. Although it is very shy and not easily to be approached, it often builds its nest in trees not far from farm houses. The farmers say they are as harmless as Turkey Buzzards. The nest is usually from twenty-five to thirty feet above the ground and is built of sticks, sometimes lined with bits of cotton and Spanish moss; the cavity is shallow. Often the birds, commonly single individuals, are to be observed with Vultures feeding together on carrion.

135. Elanoïdes forficatus Ridgw. Swallow-tailed Kite; Fork-tailed Kite.—Abundant summer sojourner from the first part of March to October. A beautiful bird, and one of the most characteristic species of this locality. Especially abundant in the bottom woods near prairies or fields. Nest very high in slender trees in the river and creek bottoms; it is built of sticks and Spanish moss. I never had an opportunity to collect eggs of this bird as the nests, in almost every case, were out of reach. In August and September the birds are often seen in cotton fields, where they feed on cotton worms and other insects. They are particularly fond of small snakes, such as Leptophis, Rhinostoma coccinea, lizards (Anolius carolinensis and Ameiva sex-lineata). I never have seen them take a bird or a small quadruped.

136. Elanus glaucus Coues. White-tailed Kite.—This rare and beautiful bird I have seen several times sailing over cotton fields. Its flight is easy and graceful, but not rapid; sometimes it stops a few moments and then descends with great velocity to the ground to capture a lizard or a snake. It is not shy, and is easily recognized by its white tail.

137. Ictinia subcærulea Coues. Mississippi Kite.—Not a common summer resident, and very shy and retiring in its habits. It is generally 174found in the same localities with Elanoïdes forficatus. Its sailings are extremely beautiful and sometimes the bird is so high in the air as to be almost invisible. Like the Swallow-tailed Kite, it is often seen about cotton fields, where it feeds on the cotton worms and on small snakes and lizards. I have a few times seen the nest high up in the top of gigantic pines, pin oaks and sycamores, entirely out of my reach.

138. Circus hudsonius Vieill. Marsh Hawk.—Common resident in the marshy prairies in the northern part of Harris County; also common near the sugar-cane fields on the Brazos. It is very destructive to all the smaller prairie birds, but it also feeds on snakes, frogs and lizards. I never found a nest.

139. Accipiter cooperi Bonap. Cooper’s Hawk.—This very common and impudent robber is the most destructive of the Raptores to the barnyard fowls; in a short time all the young chickens, turkeys, and ducks are killed by it. It is so bold as to seize the poultry before the farmer’s eyes, and in only few cases can the bird be punished, as it is very difficult to shoot. The flight is easy, very quick, and usually low. Nests found in April had already half-grown young. They were similar to Crows’ nests, built of twigs in the tops of middle sized trees, and lined with bunches of Tillandsia.

140. Accipiter fuscus Bonap. Sharp-shinned Hawk.—Common in winter.

141. Buteo pennsylvanicus Bonap. Broad-winged Hawk.—Not uncommon during the winter months, and a few remain to breed, nesting in the high trees near the rivers and creeks.

142. Buteo swainsoni Bonap. Swainson’s Hawk.—Not uncommon during the breeding season; often seen on the prairies near woods. Many are killed, as they commit great havoc among the poultry. The nest is built in the tallest trees, in an almost inaccessible position.

143. Haliaëtus leucocephalus Savig. Bald Eagle; White-headed Eagle.—This is not a common bird, but is known to breed in certain parts of this region. They build their nests in the tallest trees of the river bottoms. Two young, taken out of a nest in the spring of 1880, became very tame pets.

144. Cathartes aura Illig. Turkey Buzzard.—Very abundant, and resident throughout the year. Nests on the ground.

145. Catharista atrata Less. Black Vulture; Carrion Crow.—Common but not abundant; about one-twentieth as common as the Turkey Buzzard. Breeds on the ground in the grassy prairies.

146. Ectopistes migratoria Sw. Passenger Pigeon.—Occasionally common during the migrations. In September and October, 1881, I saw immense numbers in the post oak woods, where they were feeding on acorns.

147. Zenaidura carolinensis Bonap. Mourning Dove.—Very abundant, and resident throughout the year. In very cold winters many migrate farther south. They raise, at least in this part of the country, three broods yearly. On the prairies the nest is not unfrequently placed upon the ground.

175148. Chamæpelia passerina Sw. Ground Dove.—A rare summer sojourner. Have never seen more than two together.

149. Meleagris gallopavo (americana Coues?). Wild Turkey.—I can not state with certainty whether the Wild Turkey under consideration is the Meleagris gallopavo americana or M. gallopavo, but I think it is the first-named variety. I have found the bird abundant in all the heavily wooded districts, especially common in the thick woods with much underbrush near Spring Creek. Eggs are often put under a tame hen, but the young are not easily domesticated; as soon as they are grown they become very wild, and many go off again to their favorite woods. Early in May I have seen the mother bird with about a dozen young ones, but they were so extremely wild that they suddenly disappeared among the almost impenetrable thickets of blackberries (Rubus villosus) and Smilax (Smilax laurifolia and S. lanceolata). When the pecans are ripe, they assemble in flocks of from ten to twenty and even thirty, and feed particularly on these nuts. Later in the season they feed on several kinds of acorns, and in winter when food becomes scarce, they eat the berries of the myrtle-holly (Oreophila myrtifolia) and other berries.

150. Cupidonia cupido Bd. Prairie Hen.—Common resident on all the flat grassy prairies. Is becoming scarcer every year.

151. Ortyx virginiana Bonap. American Quail; “Bob white.”—Very abundant resident. Two broods are raised yearly. They are exceedingly tame and confiding, breeding sometimes in close proximity to the habitations of men. In winter from fifty to one hundred are usually seen in cotton and sugar-cane fields.

(To be continued.)

Recent Literature.

Bailey’s Index to Forest and Stream.^[81]—The newspaper thus indexed as to the bird-matter contained in its first twelve volumes has always given much space to ornithological articles, which have become of late years more valuable from a scientific standpoint than newspaper pieces generally are, being authenticated by the signatures of the writers instead of some silly pen-name, and being on the whole scarcely below or not below the grade of the bird notes that one finds in periodicals of professed technical character. No one who has had any experience in hunting for what he wants through the scantily indexed pages of a weekly issue can 176fail to appreciate the good office Mr. Bailey has rendered us all; and every one upon whom the bibliographical blight has descended knows what an immense amount of industry that curse entails. The author has our hearty sympathy in the latter, and our best thanks for the former. His work is more than a mere alphabetical list of names, followed by reference figures; for it includes, as the title says, a summary of each article indexed—often giving just the points wanted, thus rendering it unnecessary to look up the reference. The Index also includes authors’ names, and among these the authorship of many pseudonyms and initial-signatures are for the first time properly exposed. The summation of the bird-matters seems to be quite complete, and is certainly extensive, in the cases of some common game birds occupying several pages. We presume the work is not free from faults and errors of all sorts, because nothing of the kind can be; but we have found it more reliable than its mechanical execution would lead one to expect. Considering how great a favor Mr. Bailey has conferred upon the publishers, and how much good his Index will do the paper, by “setting it up” in the estimation of working ornithologists higher even than it was before, his work might have been better dressed.—E. C.

Chamberlain’s Catalogue of the Birds of New Brunswick.^[82]—As many of our readers are doubtless aware, Mr. Montague Chamberlain has been engaged, for some time past, in investigating the bird fauna of New Brunswick, and an interesting result of his labors is now before us in the form of a catalogue of the birds of that Province. This paper, which forms by far the most important one in the publication of which it is a part, comprises some forty-three pages which are divided into two sections; “Section A” being restricted to “species which occur in St. John and King’s Counties”; while “Section B” embraces “species which have not been observed in Saint John or King’s Counties but which occur in other parts of the Province.”

The former division treats of a region to which the author has evidently paid special attention, and the text, being mainly based on his personal observations or investigations, includes many interesting and several important notes and records. From these we gather that the rather marked Alleghanian tinge which is known to pervade the bird-fauna of the entire coast region of Maine, as far as Eastport and Calais, extends still further eastward. Thus the Catbird, White-eyed Vireo, Towhee Bunting, Cowbird, Meadow Lark, Baltimore Oriole, Carolina Dove, Least Bittern, Florida Gallinule, and a few others scarcely less characteristic of the more southern fauna, have been found within the area treated by the present paper, but all are marked as rare, and the greater number as merely accidental visitors. Many of the more important records have already been published elsewhere.

177The annotations in this section are often full and always interesting. The author writes clearly and simply and his style is characterized by a modest frankness that is very attractive. We fear, however, that some of his views respecting the distribution of races are hardly orthodox. Thus he thinks that “two races of Loon spend the summer in New Brunswick, and breed here. They have plumage of similar colors and markings, but one is smaller than the other, being some six inches less in length. The larger bird is common on the lakes and rivers in all sections of the Province, seldom seeking the salt water until the rivers freeze over, while the smaller is rarely found away from the sea shore”; and again that a light form of the Ruffed Grouse “resembling the descriptions given of umbelloides” occurs with typical umbellus and that it is “not improbable that both the Brown and Gray varieties are represented here, with numerous hybrids”; a condition of affairs which, if true, is certainly deplorable.

“Section B” is almost wholly compiled, the authorities mainly drawn on being Boardman, Herrick, and Dr. A. Leith Adams. Several of the records left by the latter writer are, in the light of our present knowledge, of very doubtful value.

Mr. Chamberlain’s work, so far as it has gone, has evidently been done carefully and well, a fact which makes it the more to be regretted that the publication of his report could not have been longer delayed, for in many respects it lacks the completeness that is desirable in a paper of its kind. Any adequate exploration of a region so extensive as that embraced within the limits of New Brunswick cannot be accomplished in one or two seasons only. It is rather the task of a lifetime. But we must bear in mind that the present “Catalogue” is offered simply as a “starting point,” to be “supplemented by additions and revisions as opportunity for further investigation occurs”; and considered from this standpoint it is in every way a highly creditable production. That its author is qualified to carry out an undertaking which he has so satisfactorily begun can be a matter admitting of no doubt, and we shall look for many interesting developments in the field which he has chosen.—W. B.

Krukenberg on the Coloring Matter of Feathers. Second Part.^[83]—Turacoverdin, a green pigment which occurs in the green feathers of the Musophagidæ is first considered. This pigment is soluble in alkalies, such as soda and the like, but is insoluble in acids, chloroform, ether and the alcohols. Concentrated sulphuric acid added to the pigment in solution turns it violet red. Turacoverdin in solution emits a weak red fluorescent light, and when examined by the spectroscope shows an absorption band near D. It contains a considerable quantity of iron, but little copper or manganese, and probably, like Turacin, lacks sulphur and nitrogen. A point of considerable interest is its identity with a green 178pigment procured by Church by boiling a solution of Turacin for a long time.

Zoörubin, a red-brown pigment occurring in Cicinnurus regius is next described. In solubility it much resembles the preceding, but has no absorption band, though all of the spectrum beyond D is absorbed. When treated with a very small quantity of copper-sulphate, Zoörubin instantly becomes cherry-red, a characteristic reaction. This pigment occurs in the brown female paradise bird though not in other brown birds, as Strix flammea and Alcedo ispida. As regards the colors of Eclectus polychlorus, where green, blue, red, yellow and brown may all be found, the author has brought out some very interesting points. The blue and green are mechanical, or rather the blue is mechanical and the green is the result of a yellow pigment overlying a brown one. The true pigments of the feathers are brown, yellow, and red. If the feathers be blackened on their under surfaces with lampblack or sepia, they become blue. If the yellow feathers are treated in a similar way, they become green. The yellow pigment is Zoöfulvin, the red probably Zoönerythrin.

Lastly the author describes the yellow pigment, Coriosulfurin, found in the tarsus of the birds of prey. This substance is unlike any known to occur in feathers. It has three absorption bands between F and G.—J. A. J.

Stejneger’s Nomenclatural Innovations.^[84]—Proposing to use “the oldest available name in every case,” the author shows that many of our current names must give way if the “inflexible law of priority” is to be observed. For ourselves, we believe that the surest way out of the nomenclatural difficulties that beset us is to be found in some such simple rule as this, and that to upset every name that can be upset according to any recognized principle is really the shortest road to that fixity of nomenclature for which we now all sigh like furnaces. Still such a paper as this makes us wish, as so many others have done, that some counteractive “statute of limitation” could come into operation, by which a bird resting in undisturbed enjoyment of its name for, say, a century or half a century, should not be liable to eviction under the common law of priority. Human welfare and happiness on the whole is the final cause of all law, and in the case of titles to real estate it is we believe statutory that undisturbed possession for a certain period shall exempt property-holders from litigation on account of any adverse claim, however otherwise sound, which is not presented within a certain number of years. This seems to be necessary for the security of any title and to proceed upon the theory that if owners don’t take the trouble to make good their title in due time they ought to forfeit it. The logic of a bird’s right to its name and a possessor’s right to any other property is the same in theory, and might properly be carried into effect. Fifty years of unchallenged usage might do, and a 179hundred certainly would suffice, to eliminate the factor of “contemporaneous courtesy,” and the shades of a few departed greatnesses might not be offended by being invited to yield a point now and then for the benefit of the many whom natural selection has not yet eliminated from the struggle for existence.

Stejneger’s points seem to be well taken in the main; and though we have not yet had opportunity of verifying them, we presume the restitutions and substitutions he proposes are available if not indeed necessary under the priority statute. But has he in all cases taken up names which rest upon diagnosis? Does indication of a type-species make a generic name valid? Some other objections might also be raised. We pass no judgment, pendente lite, but simply note the following propositions advanced:—Phænicurus Forst., 1817, for Ruticilla Naum., 1822.—Cinclus merula Schäff., 1789, for C. aquaticus Bechst.—Regulus cristatus V., 1807, for R. satrapa Licht., 1823.—Chelidon Forst., 1817, for Hirundo L. et auct. (rustica, etc.).—Hirundo L., 1758, for Chelidon Boie, 1822.—Clivicola sive Riparia Forst., 1817, for Cotile Boie, 1822.—Calcarius Bechst., 1803, for the birds now commonly called Centrophanes, and Plectrophenax, g. n., for “Plectrophanes” nivalis.—Otocoris Bp., 1839, for Eremophila, preocc. in botany, and by Eremophilus in ichthyology.—Archibuteo norvegicus Gunnerus, 1767, for A. lagopus Gm. (but there is A. lagopus Brünn, 1764).—Morinella M. & W., 1810, for Strepsilas Ill., 1811.—Vanellus capella Schäff., 1789, for V. cristatus M. & W., 1803.—Ægialitis alexandrinus, L., 1758, for Æ. cantianus Lath., 1790.—Gallinago cælestis Freuzel, 1801, for G. media Leach, 1816.—Totanus nebularius Gunnerus, 1767, for the Greenshank.—Pavoncella Leach, 1816, for Machetes Cuv., 1817.—Tadorna dameatica Hasselq., 1762, for T. cornuta Gm., 1788.—Harelda hyemalis L., 1758, for H. glacialis L., 1766.—Eniconetta Gray, 1840, for Polysticta Eyt., 1836, preocc. by Polysticte Smith, 1835, and for “Stellaria”! Bp., 1838, preocc. in botany.—Gavia Boie, 1822, for Pagophila Kaup, 1829, and the species G. alba (Gunn., 1767, for P. eburnea) Phipps, 1774.—(Larus hyperboreus Gunnerus, 1767, for L. glaucus Brünn, 1764.)—Hydrochelidon nigra (L., 1758, p. 137) for H. lariformis (Ibid., p. 153).—The short and long-tailed Jägers to be respectively Stercorarius parasiticus (L., 1758, p. 136), and S. longicaudatus (V., 1819).—Urinator Cuv., 1799, for Colymbus auct., nec Briss., 1760; U. immer (Brünn, 1764, p. 38) instead of U. torquatus (id., ibid., p. 41) and U. lumme Brünn, 1764, for C. septentrionalis L., 1766.—E. C.

Ingersoll’s Birds’-Nesting.^[85]—This little book is intended for a guide to the beginner, and as such it will no doubt be of service. The book may be summarized as a readable account of the various modes of collecting birds’ eggs and nests. There are, however, a few points which we regard with suspicion, as the contrivances for descending cliffs; such things in 180careless hands would become instruments of self-destruction. A long account of the various paraphernalia for blowing and marking eggs is given. To the novice such things may be amusing, but are sure sources of disaster. A keen eye, accuracy of hand and a mind to govern, not patent scissors and forceps, are the requisites for blowing eggs.

The list of unknown nests, which does not claim to be free from faults of omission, contains faults of admission, though these are not numerous. Finally, we would heartily indorse all advice for absolute identification of eggs and the avoidance of gummed labels.—J. A. J.

General Notes.

Note on Mimus polyglottus.—In the summer of 1879 I found on the Platte River, about a mile west of Fort Fetterman, Wyoming, in Lat. 42° 23′ 35″ N. and Long. 105° 21′ 4″ W., a pair of Mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottus) breeding; the nest was placed in a low cottonwood, very near the river bank. In the following year these birds, undoubtedly the same pair, returned and reared a brood in identically the same place. This time I secured the male bird; and the specimen is now in my private collection.

In the “Birds of the Colorado Valley” Dr. Coues tells us, when referring to the limits of Mimus, that “the northermost records generally quoted fix the limit in Massachusetts; but Dr. Brewer speaks of a single individual seen near Calais, Me., by Mr. George A. Boardman. Another record from an extreme point, given by Dr. P. R. Hoy, is above quoted; the extension of the bird to Wisconsin, as there indicated, has been commonly overlooked. Other States in which the bird is known to have occurred are New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, and Kansas. The parallel of 40° N. has been named as its usual or normal limit.”

In view of these facts, and what I have learned from other ornithologists, it seems to me that this case is entitled to record, as another interesting instance, extending the limits of this bird.—R. W. Shufeldt. Washington, D. C.

The Nest of the House Wren.—Some writer speaks of the well known habit of the House Wren of filling up any cavity within which it builds its nest with sticks and rubbish, as a “survival” of an old habit for which there would seem to be no present use. I think I have seen this statement in some of the writings of Dr. Elliott Coues, though I cannot refer to the book or page. Possibly it may have been stated by some one else. But it is a generally recognized fact that if a box holds half a peck the little birds will fill it up full! It seems to me, however, that while this 181may be really a “survival,” it is still a most useful habit. When a hole or space is so filled the nest proper is generally built on the side of the mass of rubbish opposite to the entrance and as far as possible from it. Manifestly there is a clear purpose in this—viz: that of protection from any enemy seeking an entrance. I have observed many nests, in large cigar boxes, and in the majority find this state of things to exist. The interior space will be filled with sticks, leaving a little passage way over the top, through which the bird can reach the nest on the back side of the rubbish. It seems to me that this is clearly a defensive habit, necessary at this time. When they build a nest in the skull of a horse or ox, it will be found that they follow the same rule, and that it will be very difficult to get at the nests.

But their practices are sometimes varied. If a box is not too large, and the hole is only large enough to admit of the passage of the birds, they will often carry in only just enough material to build the nest, leaving the space all open above. I have often known them to pursue this course in building in a cigar box where a small hole had been made at the middle of one of the sides. But if the box is a large one with a large hole cut through the end near the top, as it is suspended on a tree or the side of a building, then they will carry in “fully a peck of rubbish,” and build the soft nest down on the side opposite the entrance.—Charles Aldrich, Webster City, Iowa.

Remarkable Plumage of the Orchard Oriole.—There is in the collection here a very curiously marked specimen of the Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius) from Columbia, Pa. It is evidently a male bird in the transition stage of plumage from young to that of the adult. Young males of this species usually exhibit “confused characters of both sexes,” but in this case the male plumage is confined to the right side of the bird, and the female plumage to the left side, the two colorations uniting on median lines above and below. So distinctly is this peculiarity marked, that a bilateral section of the bird would divide the phases about equally. The left side, however, shows very slight traces of black and chestnut, yet not so distinct as to lessen the general yellowish-olive appearance of the female. There is more of the white on the coverts of the left wing than usual.—Charles H. Townsend, Acad. Nat. Science, Philadelphia, Pa.

The Nest and Eggs of Perisoreus Canadensis.—The nest upon which the following description is based was found by Mr. P. S. Glasier on April 7th, 1881, twenty-three miles from Grand Falls, New Brunswick. It was built in a small fir tree with few branches, about ten feet from the ground. The tree was in “mixed land” beside a brook, on the south side of a hill and near a lumber camp. From the men in the camp it was learned that the bird built the nest about the middle of March, and had been sitting for ten days. The parent bird was found on the nest, shot, and forwarded to me, so that there can be no doubt of identity.

182The nest is rather a large structure, between nine and ten inches in diameter and five inches deep. The cavity is slightly oval, measuring three and six-tenths by three and two-tenths, and is two inches deep.

The bottom is formed of large pieces of rotten wood, which must have been torn from some neighboring stump, while the sides are supported by a scraggy structure of long twigs. The walls are formed of strips of bark and the subjacent rotten wood, apparently of cedars, cocoons, the remains of wasp nests, lichens and the like. All this material is closely packed together, but not woven, so that were it not for the outer coat of twigs the whole would quickly fall apart. On one side, snarled up among the twigs, is a long piece of white twine, which shows that the neighboring camp was called upon to pay its tribute. The lining is quite thick, and offers a decided contrast to the walls. Rootlets of various kinds form the greater part, though grass and the remains of wasp nests form the floor. A few feathers are scattered throughout the structure and about as many more are to be found inside. By far the greater part of these are from the Jays themselves, and they might be regarded as of accidental occurrence were it not for a few from some species of Grouse. As a whole the nest is a substantial structure, admirably adapted to keep the eggs and nestlings warm.

The eggs were three in number, and are of about the same size and form as those of the Blue Jay. Their ground-color is a light green of much the same color as the Field Sparrow’s egg. Two of the eggs are thickly covered with fine spots of lavender and light brown, the spots being most abundant at the large end. The third has less lavender and more brown, while the spots are of considerable size and evenly distributed.—J. Amory Jeffries, Boston, Mass.

Notes on the Plumage of Nephœcetes niger borealis.—An examination of ten birds of this species, taken at Howardsville, Colorado, in 1880 and 1881, leads me to believe that four years are necessary for them to acquire their complete plumage. A young male of the year, taken Sept. 17, was marked as follows. General color dull black, every feather tipped with white, scarcely appreciable on upper back and throat, broader on upper tail-coverts and rump. Crissum almost pure white. In birds of the second year the general plumage has a brownish cast; feathers of back tipped with brown, the head whitish, belly feathers yet broadly tipped with white. The third year the color is black, with a very faint edging of white on under tail-coverts. In the fourth year pure black, forehead hoary, neck with a brownish wash. Feathers bordering the black loral crescent whitish.

Tail in young of first year, rounded; in second year, slightly rounded; in third year slightly emarginate, feathers becoming more acute. In adult, forked, outer feathers three-eighths of an inch longer than inner.

I do not know when they come—some time late in June—but they remain until long after the Violet-green Swallows leave. They always hunt in flocks, range far above 13,000 feet and breed up to at least 11,000 feet. Those I have shot have had their crops filled with Ephemeridæ, and it 183is only when a cloud of insects is discovered low down that the birds come within gunshot range. Often one will sweep down almost to the earth and, swinging on in the same ellipse, soar far up entirely out of sight.

Measurements from dried skins of eight specimens give an average length of six and seven-sixteenths inches, with extremes of seven and one-half inches—an adult male, and five and seven-eighths inches—a young female; and an average wing of six and five-sevenths inches, with extremes of six and seven-eighths and six and three-eighths inches.—Frank M. Drew, Bunker Hill, Ill.

Plumage of the Young of Eclectus Polychlorus.—Dr. A. B. Meyer in the P. Z. S. for 1877, p. 801, says in an article on Eclectus polychlorus: “Formerly I discussed the question whether the young bird in both sexes is plain green or not; but I now believe that it is red in both sexes, i.e. bears the dress which the female keeps during its whole life.” This conclusion would seem to be incorrect, since among a series of these birds in the possession of Prof. H. A. Ward, there is one bird so young as not to be fully fledged, but which is nevertheless of the same bright green color as the adult males. This substantiates the statement of the Rev. George Brown that the young birds have the same colored plumage as the adults.—F. A. Lucas, Rochester, N. Y.

[This is a large Parrot found in the Malacca and Papuan Islands. The occurrence of “young red-and-blue birds” has already been recorded (see Ibis for 1878).—J. Amory Jeffries.]

An Owl’s Egg Laid in Confinement.—The history of my Acadian Owl, given in a late number of this Bulletin,^[86] has an interesting sequel. On February 4, 1882, the bird (then but nine months old) astonished its friends—and perhaps itself as well—by laying an egg in the bottom of its cage. This, when first brought to me, was of normal size and shape, but soft and leathery to the touch, like the egg of a turtle. One side was fractured; and soon afterward the shell around the edges of the hole began to curl inward until, in a short time, the whole egg became shrivelled and distorted. Finally, in the course of a day or two, the shell crumbled and scaled off in small fragments leaving only the half-dried yelk and albumen.

Of course more eggs were looked for, and in anticipation, the floor of the cage was lined with saw-dust and a hollow stump even supplied to serve as a nesting-place. But despite these attentions the bird obstinately refused to gratify our hopes. For several days after the removal of her egg she was restless and irritable, continually flying from perch to perch, and fiercely attacking any one who ventured to approach her. Indeed, it was two or three weeks before she recovered her wonted gentleness.

184I cannot now recall an instance of the breeding of Owls in confinement, but the present occurrence would apparently indicate that it might be accomplished with Saw-whets, which, as captives, seem to be more animated and cheerful than most of the members of their sedate family.—William Brewster, Cambridge, Mass.

Buteo brachyurus—A Correction.—An inaccuracy, comparatively so unimportant that I have hitherto neglected to call attention to it, will be found in the paper “On a Tropical American Hawk to be added to the North American Fauna” (this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 207). The Hawk in question was shot Feb. 22., 1881—not Feb. 1, as stated in the article referred to. I was at Palatka at the time, and saw the bird in the flesh the day it was shot. It was secured on the outskirts of the town, early in the morning, by a young taxidermist, Mr. Wm. Dickinson, since deceased. We could not determine the species, and he would not part with the specimen, a very fine one, but “set it up” for himself. A short time afterwards he presented it to Mr. G. A. Boardman.—J. Dwight, Jr., New York City.

The Turkey Buzzard in New Hampshire.—A specimen of Cathartes aura was shot this spring near Hampton Falls, N. H., by Mr. Frank Percell. The bird was killed April 6th or 7th. and received by Mr. C. I. Goodale on the 8th. When I examined it on the 10th it was still quite fresh.—Charles B. Cory, Boston. Mass.

Rapacious Birds in Confinement.—In the winter of 1874 I spent several months with a friend who had a number of rapacious birds in confinement. There were a couple of Barred Owls, a Great Horned Owl, and a Rough-legged Hawk, living together upon excellent terms in one apartment; in another, half a dozen Mottled Owls; and in another a superb Bald Eagle. Most of these birds became quite tame after a short period of captivity, tolerating our presence in their quarters, taking food from our hands, and even submitting to caresses. One little Scops developed especial docility. My friend, who was a taxidermist, used to place it upon a perch at his side and copy strigine attitudes from nature. The accommodating bird would sit content for half an hour at a time, and never objected to any sort of gentle handling. One of its brethren. however, was vicious and untameable. He nipped our fingers whenever occasion offered, snapped and spat if even approached, and finally sealed his own doom by decapitating his gentle associate.

We did not succeed in cultivating a spirit of great tractability in the Eagle. Aside from the amusement he occasionally afforded in tackling living quarry, generally some superfluous cat, he was a rather uninteresting captive. One morning we omitted his breakfast, but in the course of the forenoon introduced a kitten into his apartment. He eyed her sharply for a few moments, then persistently ignored her and in the evening she was removed unscathed. Upon this we instituted upon the royal bird a brief 185course of starvation, and then submitted the unfortunate kitten again. This time her reception was very different. At sight of her he manifested great excitement, and in a very few minutes left his perch with a jump and a flop, and seized the poor beast in his talons. He struck her very nicely, pinning fore paws and head together with one foot, the hind paws together with the other, thus preventing the slightest resistance. My remorse at this stage of the proceedings was somewhat alleviated by the fact that the kitten did not even quiver, having apparently been instantly killed by the force of the blow. However, the Eagle at once put an end to what little life may have been left by breaking her spine with his beak. He thereupon tore a hole in her abdomen, and cast the intestines daintily aside. The contents of the stomach were examined and, with the exception of a single tid-bit which appeared to be a piece of bread, rejected. The rest of the body was then rapidly devoured. On the following morning a full-grown tom-cat was turned loose in the cage. The Eagle attacked him several times but was valiantly repelled, and up to the end of the third day, when he made his escape, Thomas remained master of the situation. Dissatisfied with this experiment, my friend subsequently introduced the cat in a half-stunned condition, and after getting well scratched the Eagle succeeded in overcoming him.—Nathan Clifford Brown, Portland, Maine.

Note on Mareca Americana.—I shot at Wayland, Mass., October 1, 1881, a young male Widgeon (Mareca americana). It was flying in company with a flock of twelve others, apparently of the same species.—A. Thorndike, Brookline, Mass.

Destruction of Birds by the Cold Wave of May 21st and 22nd.—It seems worthy of note that, judging from indications in this vicinity, the destruction of bird life by the recent cold wave must have been very considerable.

On the morning of May 21st, a specimen of Helminthophila peregrina was picked up so nearly chilled to death that it died shortly afterwards. The same was also true of a specimen of Dendræca pennsylvanica On the morning of May 22nd, three other specimens of the following species were picked up here which had apparently died of cold: Dendrœca maculosa, Myiodioctes pusillus, and Empidonax minimus.

These facts suggest that the abundance of bird life may, to a considerable extent, be influenced by sudden extreme changes of temperature, as well as by heavy gales.—F. H. King, River Falls, Wis., May 24, 1882.

A “Tidal Wave” of Birds in Washington.—In the twenty-five years during which I have paid more or less attention to birds hereabouts I have never seen anything like the “wave” that rolled up in the second and third weeks of May of this year. The highest spring “season” is usually the month from April 20 to May 20, at which latter date the tide has usually ebbed equably from its greatest height at the middle of May. This year the birds seemed to be held back by the cold and wet, and such 186an accumulation has seldom if ever been seen before. The streets and parks were full of the birds, and the daily papers all had their say upon the unwonted apparition. In the Smithsonian Grounds, for example, I saw one day a flock of a hundred or more Orchard Orioles, mixed with Baltimores. There were flocks of Scarlet Tanagers, Rose-breasted Grosbeaks, etc., and any quantity of Thrushes, Vireos, Flycatchers and Warblers—among the latter the rare beauty Dendrœca tigrina. Of the latter Dr. Prentiss took several—the only ones we have known to be captured here for many years. The cause of this gathering of the clans was doubtless the cold wave Mr. King speaks of in the preceding paragraph.—Elliott Coues, Washington, D. C.

More Definite Statistics Needed in Regard To the Abundance of Birds.—It is deeply to be regretted, it seems to me, that we have so little specific information in regard to the abundance of birds in the various portions of the United States from which lists of species have been published.

Such terms as “common”, “not common,” “abundant,” “rare,” “rather rare,” etc., may have such different values in the minds of different observers, as to render them of but little value for any but the most general considerations. They are absolutely valueless in the discussion of such economic questions as, Can birds ever become abundant in thickly settled districts? and, What birds, if left to themselves, are likely to become most abundant in thickly settled sections?

The table given below indicates the character and kind of information which is much needed in the discussion of many important ornithological questions.

The first four columns are compiled from notes made in Jefferson County, Wisconsin, between July 31 and August 7, 1877; those in the last four columns are from notes taken in the vicinity of Ithaca, N. Y., in 1878.

In each column, opposite the name of the species, is given the number of individuals which were observed in travelling the distance indicated near the foot of each column. The item, “birds seen or heard but not named.” includes those individuals which were known to exist in the territory passed over, but which for various reasons could not be identified with certainty.

The salient features of the two localities, briefly stated, are these:—

In the vicinity of Ithaca, there is a long, deep, and narrow valley, having somewhat rolling, glen-cut sides: in it lies Cayuga Lake, deep and weedless, stretching, like a broad river, to the northward. Its east and west banks are abrupt and rocky and cut, at intervals, by deep wooded glens. A small grass swamp, bearing a few trees, at the south end of the lake and running up into the city, is about the only low land in the vicinity. Formerly a mixed deciduous and evergreen forest covered the hills. Now, mere remnants stand near together upon small closely packed farms on both sides of the valley. The houses are numerous, the orchards large, and there are few fields not having some trees standing in them.

187In the portion of Jefferson County where the notes were taken, the country is nearly level, with gentle undulations, and is traversed by Bark and Rock Rivers. The streams make a sharp line between prairies and openings on one side and heavy hard and soft-wood timber on the other. Marshes trend along the streams, and shallow reedy ponds are common. Compared with the vicinity of Ithaca, the farms are larger, the houses less numerous, the orchards smaller, the woods and groves larger, and but few trees stand in the fields.

Route 1 led from a point about half a mile north of Bark River out across cultivated fields. Routes 2 and 3 each led east from Rock River, north of Jefferson, alternately through pieces of heavy timber and across dry cultivated fields. Route 4 led from the Crayfish west upon the prairie southwest of Aztelan, traversing dry treeless fields and leading through two small groves. Route 5 led from the University buildings west across the valley, leading through a pasture, through the north end of the city, through the swamp, and up the railroad, bordered on one side by cultivated fields, and by tangled thickets on the other. Route 6 led directly east from the campus to Varna, and then southwest along the railroad. On this trip only cultivated fields were crossed and one small piece of woods traversed. Route 7 led up the valley from Ithaca along the east side, and then across to Enfield Falls. On this tramp we passed in turn along the railroad, bordered with small scattering thickets on both sides, across the inlet through low fields, and then past cultivated fields and small pieces of woods. Route 8 lay ten miles east of Ithaca, and led from McLean off to the southeast of Dryden, and then through Dryden to Freeville. A branch of Fall Creek was crossed twice, and, with the exception of a small marsh near Freeville, only cultivated fields and small pieces of wood were passed.

NAME. ROUTES.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Turdus migratorius 11 3 20 13 31 44

Turdus fuscescens 2 2 4

Mimus carolinensis 2 8 3 2 12 25 7

Sialia sialis 1 2 2 8 5 17

Parus atricapillus 9

Sitta carolinensis 3 7 2 1 2 3

Troglodytes aëdon 1 5

Eremophila alpestris 3

Cistothorus stellaris 1

Dendrœca æstiva 1 2 5 5

Geothlypis trichas 1 3

Setophaga ruticilla 2 15 5 2

Pyranga rubra 1 3

Hirundo horreorum 5 5 12 7 20

Tachycineta bicolor 2

Petrochelidon lunifrons 2 12 10 55

Cotyle riparia 13

Progne purpurea 2 1

Ampelis cedrorum 8 4 7 12 4

Vireo olivaceus 1 13 13 1

Vireo gilvus 1 3

188Vireo flavifrons 10 4

Lanius excubitorides 1

Chrysomitris tristis 9 27 5 4 6 28 32 44

Poœcetes gramineus 5 10 16 19 28

Melospiza melodia 6 5 8 17 7 33 23 73

Melospiza palustris 1

Spizella socialis 3 1 1 7 33 17 36

Spizella pusilla (shot) 2

Cyanospiza cyanea 5 2 3 3

Pipilo erythrophthalmus 3 3

Dolichonyx oryzivorus 18 3 5 22 52

Molothrus pecoris 2 10

Agelæus phœniceus 1 12 10 12

Sturnella magna 1 2 2 8 5 11

Icterus baltimore 7 11 5 3

Quiscalus purpureus 2

Corvus americanus 1 2 3 10 8 28

Cyanurus cristatus 1

Tyrannus carolinensis 8 10 4 4 8

Sayornis fuscus 2 4 2 22 11

Contopus virens 3 20 15 4 2 4

Empidonax minimus 1

Chætura pelasgica 4 3 13 12

Trochilus colubris 1 5 1 1 1 1

Ceryle alcyon 2 7

Coccyzus erythrophthalmus 2 1

Picus villosus 2 1

Picus pubescens 1

Sphyrapicus varius 1 2 4

Melanerpes erythrocephalus 4 2 2 3

Colaptes auratus 7 6 2 2 1

Circus hudsonicus 5

Falco sparverius 1

Hawk 2 2

Zenaidura carolinensis 5 4 1

Bonasa umbellus 10

Ægialites vociferus 17 2

Tringoides macularius 1 11 4 3

Actiturus bartramius 2

Ardea herodias 2

Ardea virescens 2 3

Rallus virginianus 1 1 1

Podilymbus podiceps 1

Birds seen or heard, but not named 20 36 18 15 20 69 100 101

Total number of birds observed 137 141 112 95 127 282 405 626

Number of miles traveled 4 5 3 3 2¼ 5 7 11

Average number of birds per mile 34 28 37 32 56 56 58 57

Total number of species 35 27 18 17 23 22 31 32

Total average number of birds per mile in Jefferson County is about thirty-three.

Total average number per mile in the vicinity of Ithaca is about fifty-seven.

189The notes from which these tables are prepared were obtained by walking continuously over the routes named, without retracing steps in any case. When a bird was observed a record was made in the form of a dot placed against the name of the bird. The dots were placed for convenience in groups of five each separated by straight lines.

It seems a little remarkable that the four averages of the two localities should so nearly coincide. The fact that they do coincide so closely suggests that, unless we have here an unusual recurrence of figures, the averages represent a tolerably definite factor of the bird population of the two localities at the time the observations were made. The statistics do not indicate the actual bird-population in the two localities; but they do show, it seems to me, the relative abundance in the two sections, and, to a large extent, the relative abundance of the various species in each locality.

It is to be observed that the notes from the vicinity of Ithaca were taken in June before many of the young birds were upon the wing, while those from the other locality were made after the breeding season. The two localities should not be compared, therefore, without taking this fact into account. For instance, all the Bobolinks observed on trip 8 were, with two exceptions, males. Hence the figures probably show only about one-half the number of birds of this species that existed in the territory at the time of the visit.

In July, 1878, about the middle of the month, I went over route 5 and 6 a second time to see what effect upon the average the addition of the young birds would have. The whole number of birds observed was a little more than double that observed in June.

Perhaps some one will suggest a better method of obtaining the facts recorded in this connection.—F. H. King, River Falls, Wis., May 24, 1882.

Remarks on Five Maine Birds.—It appears that no formal announcement of the occurrence of the Gray-cheeked Thrush (Hylocichla aliciæ) in the State of Maine has ever been made, though the course the bird is known to pursue in its migrations renders such an announcement of slight importance. It may be stated, however, for the benefit of compilers, that this Thrush is a regular, not very common, spring and fall migrant in southern Maine, reaching Portland in spring about the middle of May, and in autumn about September 20.

Apropos of Dr. Coues’ recent prediction^[87] that the Titlark (Anthus ludovicianus) will yet be ascertained to breed occasionally along the Maine coast, is there anything but inferential evidence to indicate that it occurs there at all in spring or summer? Being known to pass through Massachusetts in spring and to occur on the island of Grand Manan^[88] at that 190season, it is fair to suppose that the Titlark also touches at favorable points in Maine while en route to its breeding grounds. Nevertheless neither my own observations nor the records of other observers substantiate this hypothesis.

The once prized Ipswich Sparrow (Passerculus princeps) must now take its place among the common autumnal migrants of southern Maine, though restricted, so far as I am aware, to the sea-coast. In spring, however, it is uncommon if not rare. Since the capture of the first Maine specimen,^[89] March 20, 1875, I have seen but two other spring specimens. These I found upon Old Orchard Beach, March 28, 1882, and one of them is now in my collection. In their autumnal migration the birds reach Cumberland County about Oct. 13, remaining at least until Nov. 6, later than which I have never looked for them. Upon almost any day between these dates the collector may find a dozen or more individuals along the sandy shore between Scarborough Beach and the Saco River.

In the Proceedings of the Portland Society of Natural History for April, 1882, I spoke of the Ring-necked Duck (Fulix collaris) as having but once been taken in the vicinity of the city within my experience. On the very morning upon which my paper left the press, I found in one of the city markets two adult males which were killed in the Presumpscot River, March 31, 1882. On April 12 I found another male in the market; the next day I purchased a pair from a sportsman in Deering; and on April 17 detected another male in the market. That the bird’s occurrence in such numbers is very unusual there can be no doubt. In fact, so far as I have been able to learn, our most experienced hunters of wild fowl either knew the species only by tradition, before this year, or else were wholly unacquainted with it.

Mr. Brewster has more than once advanced good evidence to the effect that the Short-tailed Tern (Hydrochelidon lariformis) should be considered a regular and not uncommon visitor to suitable localities on the New England coast.^[90] Specific records for Maine are, notwithstanding, few as yet.^[91] Two recent specimens should go on the list. One of these was killed in Scarborough, the other at Wells Beach, York County, in the autumn of 1881.—Nathan Clifford Brown, Portland, Maine.

Maine Notes.—Oporornis agilis (Wils.) Baird. Connecticut Warbler.—Mr. Nathan Clifford Brown, in a paper read before the Portland Society of Natural History April 3, 1882, gives this bird for the first time a place in the Maine fauna. He met with it Aug. 30, 1878, on Cape Elizabeth. I would record a specimen which I took in August, 1879, at Ebeme Lake. This makes the second record for this State.

Hylocichla unalascæ pallasi (Caban.) Ridgw. Hermit Thrush.—These birds breed commonly with us every year (Bangor). Their eggs 191are usually taken early in June, but I find among my notes the record of a set taken August 5, 1873, at Dedham, Maine, the eggs being but slightly incubated. This would seem to be presumptive evidence for the belief that these birds raise two broods in a season.

Lomvia arra brünnichi (Scl.) Ridgw. Brünnich’s Guillemot; and Lomvia troile (Linn.) Brandt. Common Guillemot.—These birds are found on our coast in the winter season, Brünnich’s Guillemot being quite numerous, while the Common Guillemot is more rare. Some idea of their comparative numbers may perhaps be obtained from the fact that during the past two years I have procured some thirty specimens from different points on our coast (from Grand Manan to South Bristol) and out of this number only one was a representative of the Common Guillemot (L. troile.) The experience of Mr. N. A. Eddy of this city is exactly similar, and out of about an equal number of specimens he has obtained but a single example of troile. Other collectors in this vicinity who have received numbers of Guillemots have not obtained a specimen of Lomvia troile.

Actodromas fuscicollis (Vieill.) Ridgw. Bonaparte’s Sandpiper.—This bird is not given as a resident of our State in Hamlin’s, Verrill’s or Maynard’s lists, but is still a not uncommon autumnal migrant along our coast. They are seldom met with in the interior, and the only records of their capture away from the coast, so far as I can learn, are here given. Nathan C. Brown furnishes me the first record from his notes as follows: “Oct. 16, 1876. During the past two weeks our party has taken only three specimens of this bird at Lake Umbagog. One was shot about Oct. 2, the two others upon Oct. 14.” On October 23, 1881, I came upon a flock of four at a small pool near this city (Bangor), and obtained three of them. Mr. N. A. Eddy afterwards took one at the same place.—Harry Merrill. Bangor, Maine.

Stray Notes From Lookout Mountain, Tenn.—The following notes were taken on Lookout Mountain, Tenn., from March 17 to April 4, 1882. The “Mountain,” so-called, is a ridge, some twenty miles or more in length, extending nearly due north and south. Its altitude ranges from 2200 to 2450 feet above the sea, and from 1500 to 1750 feet above the Tennessee River, which touches the base at its most northern point: its width, at the top, is from half a mile to two miles. About two miles of its northern end is in Tennessee, the rest being in Georgia. My collecting was done mostly on the Tennessee portion, but occasionally I went into Georgia, my longest trip into that State being five miles. The country is, for the most part, heavily wooded, although towards the northern end a great deal of the timber was destroyed during the late war and the new growth is still quite small. There are numerous streams in the ravines, along the banks of which laurels, blackberries, etc., grow luxuriantly. On the east side of the ridge there are, for half a mile, huge boulders, and the trees, principally pines, on and around them, were, I found, a favorite resort 192for the smaller birds. The whole number of species noted during my stay was fifty, but I give only such notes as may, perhaps, be of general interest.

1. Sitta canadensis Linn. Red-bellied Nuthatch.—Met with but once, on March 29, in a partial clearing.

2. Dendrœoa virens (Gmel.) Baird. Black-throated Green Warbler.—First seen March 19. Taken March 20. After this date it was not at all uncommon, and could be heard singing at almost any hour of the day.

3. Peucæa æstivalis illinoensis Ridgw. Oak-wood Sparrow.—First noted April 3. Two males procured April 4, both in song. These were both well-marked examples of illinoensis, one, indeed, carrying the differentiation to an extreme degree. In this specimen the back was of a reddish-brown color, entirely without streaks, and exactly resembled extreme specimens from Illinois. The other had the back distinctly streaked with black, and closely resembled a specimen from Alabama, taken by Mr. N. C. Brown. I found these birds both in groves of small pines and in open fields where there were plenty of brush-piles. They seemed to be quite common, as I heard several singing, at the same time, in different parts of the field. I was enabled to compare my specimens with those of the Smithsonian Institution through the kindness of Mr. R. Ridgway, and for this and many other favors I wish to tender him my grateful thanks.

4. Corvus corax carnivorus (Bartr.) Ridgw. American Raven.—Quite common. Said to breed on the cliffs. I have seen as many as eight or ten chasing each other through the air at one time.

5. Catharista atrata (Wils.) Less. Carrion Crow.—Quite common. Breeds. They seem to keep in flocks more than Cathartis aura.

6. Bonasa umbella (Linn.) Steph. Ruffed Grouse.—Once seen and once heard “drumming.” The local sportsmen report them as being quite scarce.—W. H. Fox, Washington, D. C.

Errata.

Vol. VII, page 119, line 8, for “struggling” read “straggling”; page 122, line 9 from bottom, for “Rellon” read “Redlon”; page 123, line 28, for “Before” read “Upon.”

193