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

THE COLORS OF FEATHERS.

BY J. AMORY JEFFRIES.

Feathers have been studied from the earliest days of the microscope, indeed long before the modern microscope came into existence. Malpighei, Hooke and Leeuwenhoek all wrote on the subject, and not a little of our knowledge dates from their time. Since then authors have constantly written on feathers and their colors, until the papers on the subject may be counted by hundreds. Accordingly little that is new can be expected from this short article, nor even a history of the literature of the subject. My only object is to give an idea, so far as is known, how the colors of feathers are produced, the literature of the subject being out of the track of most American ornithologists.

Color may be the result of any one or more of the following causes: a pigment, interference and diffraction of light in their various phases, fluorescence, and phosphorescence. Of these causes only three have been called upon to explain the colors of feathers, the last two apparently playing no part. The fluorescence noted by Dr. Krukenberg in solutions of certain feather-pigments probably plays no part, or at most an insignificant one, in the colors of feathers. Pigments act by absorbing all rays of light but those which enter into their color, that is turn them into heat.

130Interference acts in several different ways, all of which are based on the same principle, and so films may be taken as an example. If a beam of light, xy (figure 1), is allowed to fall on any thin plate, or film, part of the rays will be reflected in the direction yz, the angles byx and ayz being equal. The rest of the rays will pass through the film to the other surface, being slightly refracted in their course. Here part will be reflected, and being again refracted at the first surface, will emerge in a line wz′ nearly coincident with yz, the balance passing out into the air. Now the waves composing the white light of two beams yz and wz′ will run together and partially obliterate each other, after the manner of ripples on water. Accordingly certain waves will be obliterated, and since white light is due to the blending of waves of the different colors, the light reflected from the film will be that of the colors not interfered with, the waves thus obliterated depending upon their length and the thickness of the film traversed. So as we look at the film from different points the conditions vary, and with them the resultant color.

Interference may also produce colored light by means of fine particles diffused through another substance, as milk in water, the particles in the air, and the like. Colored light produced in this way is known as opalescent, the transmitted light tending to the red end of the spectrum, and the reflected to the other portions. This result can be obtained by mixing black and white grains, an experiment which all have tried as school boys, by soaking chalk in ink, the result being a bluish color.

Diffraction acts apparently by bending the light rays different amounts, and thus spreading out the spectrum. Explanations of the various phenomena of this sort are difficult, and need not be entered into here.

Feathers are classed, according to their appearance, into ordinary, metallic and iridescent, the peculiarities of which are well known and so need not delay us.

The ordinary feathers are colored by simple pigments, by contrast of light and darkness and mechanically, as in the case of the Bluebird (Sialia sialis). Pigments of various colors are known to occur in feathers, and have received special names, as turacin, zoönerythrin, zoöfulvin, zoöxanthin, zoöchlorin, zoömelanin. These evenly distributed, as turacin, zoönerythrin, and zoöfulvin, or in patches, as zoömelanin, impart their respective colors to the 131feather parts in which they exist.^[67] The color of the mass of the feather may, however, owing to various colors in the small feather parts, be different from that of any part.

Of these pigments none seem to be peculiar except turacin. This pigment is altered by wetting the feathers, and comes from the feathers into the water in which the birds bathe, a fact of considerable interest, since the birds maintain their normal color, thus necessitating a new supply of pigment.

White feathers are the result of the light being reflected as a whole from the finely divided feather parts. Some grays are the result of small black nodes in the barbules, which nodes are of considerable size, and do not disperse the light, being distributed along the barbules. Other grays are the result of a small quantity of black pigment.

Yellow feathers colored with zoöfulvin receive their hue from this pigment, which is pretty evenly distributed through the texture like a dye.

Red feathers, as those of the Flamingo, Cardinal Bird, and the like, are so colored by a red pigment similar to the yellow one. Brown feathers are colored by a brown pigment in the feathers, which is for the most part collected in patches within the cells of the feather.

Violet pigments are said by some to exist, while others have never been able to extract them, so the causes of this color still remain in doubt.

Green feathers owe their color to various causes. In some it is due to a green pigment, as Turacoverdin or zoöchlorin, in others it is said to be due to a mixture of yellow and blue dots. The olive-greens are sometimes produced by a yellow pigment overlying a dark brown or black.

132All the above pigments seem to be blended and used in gaudily colored birds much after the manner of paints by artists. So that a great variety of colors may be produced from a few pigments by the skilful hand of nature.

Metallic feathers, properly speaking, are those which partake of the characters shown by the red crests of the Woodpeckers. The metallic appearance is limited to the barbs, the barbules not showing this peculiarity, and being quickly shed. If a feather from the crest of a Woodpecker, say Picus pubescens, be examined, it will at once be noticed that the red barbs have few if any barbules, and that the barbs themselves are enlarged. Such barbules as are present, are not red but black, and only serve to diminish the effects of the red parts. They would seem accordingly to be properly classed among useless hereditary organs. That the red color is due to a pigment is proved by dissolving it out and by its persistence when examined by transmitted light. But what causes the brilliancy which has led to their being called metallic? This is due to the extreme smoothness of the barbs, the horn-cells of which they are composed being fused together and solid. Thus the unabsorbed rays of the beam of light which strikes them are reflected as a whole, instead of being sent in every direction by the walls of the cells as in most cases. The metallic feathers differ from ordinary feathers in the same way that window or glass paintings differ from ordinary pictures. They simply give off much more light, and thus produce more marked effects on our eyes.

The colors of metallic feathers seem to be limited to the red end of the spectrum, the colors varying from yellow or orange to red; blue, green or purple feathers constructed on this principle do not seem to abound.

So far we have only had to deal with pigments, and all has been plain sailing, but the various accidental colors shown by feathers are far more difficult of explanation. Not only are the parts extremely small, but the entire subject of accidental colors as regards organic structures has been in large part dealt with from a theoretical point of view. The question has not been how is the feather part made, but what kinds of structures will produce such color effects. Accordingly divers opinions have been expressed on the subject, the most probable of these we shall now endeavor to sketch out.

133Blue colors seem to be accidental, that is, the result of other causes than pigments. Not only have all efforts to extract the pigments failed, but blue feathers appear gray when examined by transmitted light. Again, no blue can be found in transverse sections of blue feather parts. This method of studying the colors of feathers is worthy of more extended use than it has yet had. By this means all physical effects of the outer coat are avoided, and the exact position of the pigments can be seen. Sections are quickly prepared by fastening the feather on to a piece of pith with collodion, and mounting sections pith and all. The pith keeps the sections on end, a result otherwise difficult to obtain.

Gray-blues, such as those seen in Dendrœca cœrulescens, are due to opalescence. The feather is full of fine granules of black or darkish pigment, which in a manner already described produces a blue color.

Brilliant blues, as those shown by Sialia sialis, Cyanospiza cyanea, Cœreba lucida, and the like, do not seem to be susceptible of a like explanation. The color is too intense and pure to be produced in such a small space by opalescence. So most authors have simply ascribed it to some other form of interference, as a thin outer plate, which would seem on examination to be the true cause. Figure 2, drawn from a section of a Bluebird’s barb enlarged about one thousand diameters, will give an idea of the structure found in such cases. The central cells are full of some dark pigment, probably zoömelanin, while the surface is bounded by a transparent layer of horn varying from ¹⁄₃₀₀₀₀ to ¹⁄₁₀₀₀₀ of an inch in thickness. Thus we have a contrivance not ill adapted to the production of interference colors, the black pigment absorbing all rays which are not reflected by the horn coat on the outside. Yet there are decided difficulties in this view. Thin as it is, the outer horn coat is thick compared to the length of light waves, and again the blue color is constant. However, in spite of these objections, the color must be ascribed to the action of the outer coat of cells. The structure of other bright blue feathers is much the same, though differences in minutiae exist. Thus the outer layer of cells, the external walls of which form the outer coat of the barb, are devoid of pigment in the Blue Jay. (Fig. 3.)

134Here it is of interest to note that the barbs of the brown female Indigo bird differ but slightly from the bright blue barbs of the male. In the female the pigment is more diffuse, and the outer horny coat is thicker and less dense and lustrous.

The above feathers with their smooth outer coat are connected with true iridescent feathers by an intermediate group. I refer to the highly-colored blue and green feathers of such birds as Chlorophanes atrocristatus (Fig. 2) and Cœreba lucida. In these the ends of the barbs are enlarged and the barbules reduced to a minimum, after the manner of the Woodpeckers; unlike them, however, the surface is rough, each cell being rounded out. When examined under a microscope such barbs appear as if covered with a mosaic of gems. Sections show, whatever may be the shape of the barb, that the walls of the iridescent parts are extremely thin, so thin that exact measurements cannot be made with the instruments at my disposal. The thickness got when reduced to fractions of an inch, is approximately ¹⁄₁₀₀₀₀₀₀ of an inch, a film sufficiently thin for all purposes of interference. Many of these feathers when magnified show that the color is not uniform, but that all the colors contribute their quota to the final color. The figure of a section of a barb of Chlorophanes atrocristatus will give some idea of such a feather. In this case the final color seems to be the result of mixing the light reflected from the dark end with that from the yellow triangular part.

We now naturally come to the true iridescent feathers, of which the Peacock may be taken as an example. The iridescent barbules are made up of flat, wonderfully thin cells, arranged end to end, as shown in figure 5. When examined with transmitted light, they are seen to be films full of a brownish pigment more or less evenly dispersed through the mass. When cut in sections and looked at on edge they resemble, even under quite high powers, the edge of a piece of paper. Here we have the most admirable contrivance for the production of iridescent light, the plates being fully thin enough, and all white light which may get through the walls being taken up by the brown pigment within. All the parts of the eye are constructed on the same plan, and only provided with brownish pigments, hence the color must be due to variations in the thickness. Here it is well to notice that the colors are quite constant.

135The brilliant colors of these feathers have often been ascribed to irregularities of surface, the traces of the cell cavities being mistaken for pits on the surface. That this is an error is at once shown by examining a section.

Before leaving the subject I cannot refrain from calling attention to the wonderful diversity of means employed, as well as their complexity in the production of feather colors. Among the Parrots we have the most skilful painting combined with accidental colors. Yet all ornithologists base specific differences on slight variations of color, and this in spite of the fact that birds may change their color according as they are wet or dry, owing to the nature of their food, or to slight differences in the quantity of pigment.

In this they are no doubt often right, but when we come to varieties based on the very faintest distinctions of color and form, we may well pause till more is known of avian physiology.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE I.

Fig. 1. Diagramatic representation of the effect of a film on light.

Fig. 2. Transverse section of a barb of Chlorophanes atrocristatus; Hartnack 3–9 im. the light part yellow, the dark part dark brown.

Fig. 3. Transverse section of a barb of Cyanocitta cristata. Hart. 3–9 im.

Fig. 4. Same of Cyanospiza cyanea ♂.

Fig. 5. Two sections of a barbule of a Peacock.

Fig. 6. Section of barb of Sialia sialis much magnified.

ON A COLLECTION OF BIRDS LATELY MADE BY MR. F. STEPHENS IN ARIZONA.

BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.

(Continued from p. 94.)

33. Peucedramus olivaceus (Giraud) Coues. Olive-headed Warbler.—The Olive-headed Warbler, one of Giraud’s famous “sixteen” Texas species, has found an unquestioned place in our fauna only on the strength of three Arizona specimens, taken by Mr. Henshaw at Mount Graham, in September, 1361874. Accordingly, the acquisition of the fine series catalogued below can scarcely fail to be a matter of much interest. As will appear from the accompanying data, Mr. Stephens met with the bird in only a single locality in the Chiricahua Mountains where it was apparently not uncommon in March: but he writes of a previous specimen (an adult male) taken among the Santa Catarina Mountains, in February, 1880, a date which seems to imply that the species winters in the latter range. His observations throw no light on its still unknown breeding haunts.

The specimens obtained during the past season were found in pine woods on the mountain sides at an elevation of from ten to twelve thousand feet. Although individuals often occurred not far from one another, two were rarely seen in actual companionship. The only exception to this is noted under date of March 24, when a small flock was met with on a steep slope near the summit of one of the mountains. In their actions these Warblers reminded Mr. Stephens of Dendrœca occidentalis. They spent much of their time at the extremities of the pine branches where they searched among the bunches of needles for insects, with which their stomachs were usually well filled. Occasionally one was seen to pursue a falling insect to the ground, where it would alight for a moment before returning to the tree above. The only song heard consisted of “a few low notes” which were rarely uttered, but a peculiar “cheerp” was repeated at frequent intervals.

The examples before me illustrate a fact which I do not find mentioned by previous writers, viz., that during the first year the males wear a plumage similar to that of the females. I have three in this condition; two of them, although in unworn dress, are absolutely undistinguishable from adults of the opposite sex; the third (No. 77), however, has the throat appreciably tinged with the brownish-saffron of the adult male. The females show some variation in respect to the dusky patch on the side of the head. In most of them it is confined to the auriculars, and even there is much mixed with yellow; but No. 46 has a continuous, dull-black stripe extending from the bill through the eye, and spreading over the auriculars in a broad, well-marked patch. Nos. 94 and 101 differ from the others in having the crown so slightly washed with olive-green that the whole upper surface is nearly uniform, a condition which I take to be the immature one of this sex. The adult males show but little individual variation. Both sexes and all ages have the basal half of the lower mandible light brown.

44. ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 14, Length, 5.10; extent, 9; wing, 3.12; tail, 2.35; culmen, .56; tarsus, .72.

13745, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.40; extent, 9.20; wing, 3.16; tail, 2.55; culmen, .55; tarsus, .69. Iris dark brown.

72, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 19. Length, 5.40; extent, 8.90.

91, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 5.40; extent, 9; wing, 3.08; tail, 2.50; culmen, .55; tarsus, .75.

92, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.90.

102, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.80; wing, 3.10; tail, 2.44; culmen, .56; tarsus, .75.

77, ♂ im., Morse’s Mill, March 20. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.90; wing, 3.03; tail, 2.37; culmen, .55; tarsus, .77. In plumage of the ♀.

90, ♂ im., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.85; tail, 2.30; culmen, .56; tarsus, .71. Same remarks.

103, ♂ im., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.33; culmen, .57; tarsus, .67. Same remarks.

46, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 14. Length, 5.20: extent, 8.50; wing, 2.93; tail, 2.35; culmen, .56; tarsus, .73.

47, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent, 8.30; wing, 2.87; tail, 2.18; culmen, .58; tarsus, .73.

81, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 21. Length, 5; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.76; tail, 2.35; culmen, defective; tarsus, .72.

93, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.80.

94, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent, 8.20: wing, 2.84; tail, 2.18; culmen, defective; tarsus, .71.

101, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50: wing, 2.87; tail, 2.22; culmen, .58; tarsus, .75.

34. Dendrœca æstiva (Gmel.) Baird. Yellow Warbler.

210, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 5; extent, 7.50; wing, 2.75; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .74. “Iris dark brown; bill dark horn color above, lighter below; legs pale brown. Common in the migrations.”

35. Dendrœca coronata (Linn.) Gray. Yellow-rumped Warbler.—Chiricahua Mountains; a single specimen, taken March 26.

From its general dispersion over North America, the Yellow-rumped Warbler was of course to be expected in Arizona, at least as a visitor, but I cannot learn that it has been previously detected within the limits of that Territory. Mr. Stephens, however, sends me an adult female which must be referred to coronata, although it is in some respects peculiar, if not intermediate between that species and auduboni. The wing-bands are as distinctly separated as in coronata (with females and immature males of both species this character is not always well-defined), and the throat, generally, is equally white, but on its left side, adjoining the maxillary line, there is a small patch of the faintest possible yellow. The light superciliary stripes, which should be at least indicated in female coronata, are also entirely wanting.

114, ♀ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 26. Length, 5.50; extent, 8.70; wing, 2.98; tail, 2.52. “Iris brown.”

13836. Dendrœca auduboni (Towns.) Baird. Audubon’s Warbler.

343, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 5.80; extent, 9.52; wing, 3.05; tail, 2.75. “Iris dark brown; bill and legs black.”

37. Dendrœca nigrescens (Towns.) Baird. Black-throated Gray Warbler.—On April 1, Mr. Stephens secured five males of this species among the Chiricahua Mountains. The only additional specimens in the collection are two females taken late in the season (No. 203, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. No. 357, Santa Rita Mountains, May 12.).

38. Dendrœca townsendi (Nutt.) Baird. Townsend’s Warbler.

2.98, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 28. Length, 5.10; extent, 7.70; wing, 2.45. “Iris dark brown; bill and legs black; soles of the feet yellow. Among mesquites.”

373, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 13. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.10; wing, 2.64.

374, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 4.90; extent, 7.40; wing, 2.44. “Iris dark brown; soles of feet yellowish. Water oaks of foot-hills; very fat.”

Even the most adult males of this species seem to have the throat-patch slightly sprinkled with yellow. At least I have yet to see one with the black absolutely pure and unmixed.

39. Siurus nævius (Bodd.) Coues Northern Water Thrush.—A single specimen taken May 4, at Tucson. It was among willows on the borders of a stream.

This example differs from New England ones in being darker above and less yellowish beneath. In these respects, as well as some minor ones, it resembles a rather peculiar style from West Virginia to which I once called attention.^[68] Mr. Ridgway kindly furnishes the following opinion regarding its relationship with S. notabilis. “The Siurus from Tucson is very different in proportions from the type of notabilis, with which I have compared it, but it may be a small individual of that form. The wing is about the same length, but the bill and tail are very much shorter, and the tarsi more slender. The color above is grayer, the streaks beneath much narrower, and the spots on the throat much smaller.” Notabilis, based as it is on a single specimen, and instituted in a species which varies to an unusual degree in size, color and markings, seems to me, however, to be, at best, a very doubtful race.

329, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 4. Length, 6.20; extent, 9.50; wing, 3.10; tail, 2.32; tarsus, .85; culmen, .64. “Iris brown; bill black above, brown below; legs light brown. Very fat. Stomach contained insects.”

13940. Geothlypis macgillivrayi (Aud.) Baird. Macgillivray’s Warbler.—Two specimens collected at Tucson (♀ April 20, ♂ June 8). “I have not found it common in either Arizona or New Mexico.”

41. Geothlypis trichas (Linn.) Caban. Maryland Yellow-throat.—Mr. Stephens found this species “abundant along streams,” an experience at variance with that recorded by Mr. Henshaw, who met with it but twice while in Arizona.

The only specimen taken agrees closely with some examples from the Truckee River, Nevada, and differs from my eastern representatives, in having the upper parts yellowish-olive instead of olive-green; the crown-band much broader and creamy white in color; the wings and tail longer; the yellow beneath richer, and extending more over the abdomen. Mr. Ridgway has already called attention^[69] to some of these differences which, as he now writes me, would be enough to warrant the varietal separation of the western bird, were it not that specimens from both sections of the country occasionally vary in such a manner as to invalidate any characters that could at present be proposed. With the acquisition of better series, however, it is probable that the representatives of two regions, as yet undefined, will be found to present sufficiently constant characteristics to deserve distinctive names.

219, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 5.40; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.16; tail, 2.40; culmen, .55. “Iris brown; bill black, bluish beneath; legs pale brown.”

42. Icteria virens longicauda (Lawr.) Coues. Long-tailed Chat.—This bird was observed only in the vicinity of Tucson. The first specimen was taken April 30, and it soon afterwards became abundant.

310, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 30. Length, 7.50; extent, 9.40; wing, 3.12; tail, 3.52. “Bill and legs black.”

318, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 3. Length, 7.70; extent, 9.60; wing, 3.05; tail, 3.61.

335, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 5. Length, 7.30; extent, 9.70; wing, 3.12; tail, 3.45.

521, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 11. Length, 7.10; extent, 9.40; wing, 3.15; tail, 3.36.

43. Myiodioctes pusillus pileolatus (Pall.) Ridgw. Pileolated Warbler.

Although Mr. Henshaw referred all his Arizona Black-capped Flycatchers to pusillus, mine are absolutely typical of pileolatus; in fact they are brighter than some specimens from Nicasio (California), the yellow below being richer, and the upper surface more yellowish, while the bill is equally

140narrow and several shades lighter in color. Compared with eastern examples they of course present an even greater contrast. Dr. Coues was undoubtedly right in saying (Birds of the Colorado Valley, p. 327) that pileolatus “is not confined to the Pacific coast region”; but I cannot agree with him in thinking it an inconstant form. On the contrary, I find its characters, as proposed by Mr. Ridgway, so well maintained that any one of my western birds can be separated at a glance when placed in a series of twenty-one specimens from the Atlantic States.

221, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 4.70; extent, 6.80; wing, 2.17; tail, 2.23; width of bill below nostrils, .12. “Iris brown; bill dark above, pale brown below. Common here in willows and underbrush along streams.”

257, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.90; extent, 7; wing 2.27; tail, 2.30; width of bill below nostrils, .12.

44. Setophaga picta Swains. Painted Redstart.—During the past season this beautiful species was met with only among the Chiricahua and Santa Rita Mountains, but in 1876 Mr. Stephens found it in New Mexico, a Territory from which I believe it has not previously been reported. In the Chiricahua Mountains it was not uncommon after March 21, and many specimens were taken near Morse’s Mill, at an elevation of fully seven thousand feet. They occurred most numerously among pines, in a cañon where they had been previously observed in April, 1880. This experience, it will be observed, differs somewhat from that recorded by Mr. Henshaw, who says: “It appears not to inhabit the high mountains nor the extreme lowlands, but to occupy an intermediate position, and to find the rocky hills covered with a sparse growth of oak most congenial to its habits.”

In the Santa Rita Mountains, where it was rather common in May, Mr. Stephens had the good fortune to find its previously unknown nest and eggs. The nest, which is now before me, is large, flat and shallow. It is composed of bark, coarse fibres from weed-stalks, and fine, bleached grasses, the latter, with a few hairs, forming a simple lining. The cup measures 2.10 inches in width by 1 inch in depth; while the external diameter of the whole structure is rather more than 5 inches, and its depth about 1.50. The eggs, which were three in number, measure respectively .64×.51; .64×.50; and .66×.49. They are clear, dead white, delicately spotted with light reddish-brown, the markings being sparsely distributed over the general surface of the egg, and handsomely wreathed about its larger end. Neither nest 141nor egg resembles that of S. ruticilla. But a greater surprise is the character of the nesting-site, which was “under a projecting stone, in a bank near a small stream.” This position is so unexpected that, from an unproved collector, I should hesitate to accept the accompanying evidence of identification, which is a simple statement that the parent was sitting, and was distinctly seen. But knowing as well as I do Mr. Stephens’ unusual accuracy and conscientiousness in such matters I cannot doubt the correctness of his determination, especially as the Painted Redstart is a bird of such striking colors and markings that it could not possibly be mistaken by one who is so familiar with its appearance in life.^[70] After all the case is not more peculiar than that presented among Helminthophilæ by Lucy’s warbler which, as has just been shown, departs from the normal nesting habits of the genus and builds in holes, behind loose bark and in all sorts of unexpected places. The nest above described was taken May 18, when the eggs were sufficiently advanced in incubation to show that the clutch was complete.

Mr. Henshaw comparing the sexes, says: “The adult plumage of the sexes differs little, though the coloration in the female is quite perceptibly duller throughout. The black is less lustrous; the wings are blackish brown instead of pure black; the white on the wing confined to the coverts, and only just visible on the edges of the secondaries.” These differences, however, are not always maintained for one of the two adult females before me is quite as bright as the average male, while the black is not less lustrous, and the white edging on the secondaries is even broader. The other is more like those examined by Mr. Henshaw, but seems to be peculiar in having the sides, with a broad collar across the nape, fine stone-gray.

14245. Vireo gilvus (Vieill.) Bonap. Warbling Vireo.—Found among all the well-timbered mountains visited, but nowhere as a common bird.

Of the several characters which are said to distinguish var. swainsoni from gilvus proper, I can appreciate only the slightly different shape of the bill. The relative length of the wing-quills is an absolutely inconstant characteristic with birds from any of the localities represented in my series, while I do not find that western specimens—at least California and Arizona ones—are either paler or grayer than many we get in the Atlantic States. Indeed, nearly the darkest one in my whole suite comes from Arizona. In view of these facts I cannot regard swainsoni as worthy of varietal recognition.

46. Vireo solitarius cassini (Xantus) Ridgw. Cassin’s Vireo.—Common among the foot-hills of the mountains.

Mr. Henshaw has so satisfactorily defined^[71] the characters which respectively distinguish the Cassin’s and Plumbeous Vireos from solitarius proper, as well as from each other, that there is no room for any further remarks on what, previous to his examination, was a very tangled problem. The specimens mentioned below are all unmistakably referable to cassini, although one or two of them present slight approaches to plumbeus. It is a singular fact that Mr. Stephens did not meet with any typical examples of the latter race.

209, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 5.40; extent, 8.70. “Iris brown; bill dark horn-color above, lighter below; legs dark bluish.”

214, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.60; extent, 9.10; wing, 3; tail, 2.44.

236, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.70; wing, 2.89; tail, 2.41.

316, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 2. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.50; wing. 2.71; tail, 2.26.

346, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 5.30; extent, 9; wing, 2.76; tail, 2.23. “Very fat. Would not have laid for a long time.”

354, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 11. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.80; wing, 2.82; tail, 2.27. “Iris brown; bill nearly black, bluish at base below; legs lead-color.”

47. Vireo huttoni stephensi var. nov. Stephens’ Vireo.

Ch. Sp.—♂ ♀ Similis V. huttoni sed rostro robustiori, alis longioribus. Supra griseo-cinereus, infra fusco-albidus. Uropygio et marginibus caudæ sordide virenti-olivaceis. Alis albo bifasciatis; remigibus albo-marginatis. Loris et orbe circum-oculari (macula fusco-brunnea in palpebra superiori excepta), cinereo-albis.

Adult ♂ (No. 5,728, author’s collection—collector’s No. 41—Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona, March 14, 1881. F. Stephens). Bill stout; wings from .30 to .40 inches longer than tail. Above grayish-ash; the crown, 143vertex and sides of head and neck nearly pure; the back faintly tinged with olive; the rump and an edging on the tail feathers, dull olive-green. Wings with two nearly confluent bands on the coverts, and the outer edges of the inner secondaries, broadly white; outer quills edged more narrowly with the same color. Beneath brownish or smoky-white, with a mere wash of yellowish on the sides and crissum. Upper eyelid dusky brown; remainder of orbital region, with the lores, ashy-white in decided contrast with the nearly clear cinereous of the head generally. Lining of wings white.

Dimensions. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.25; culmen, .50.

Habitat. Arizona and New Mexico.

Four additional specimens offer no variations affecting any of the characters above detailed.

In its generally dull, grayish coloration, with little trace of olive or yellow shades, this Vireo is curiously like V. pusillus, but the under parts are obscured with brownish, while the differences in size and proportions are too evident to require detailed comparison. From the smaller, much brighter-colored V. huttoni, which is unmistakably its nearest United States relative, it may be distinguished by the following diagnoses.

V. huttoni.—Wing, 2.28 to 2.37. Olive-green above and olivaceous-yellowish beneath. No clear white anywhere.

V. huttoni stephensi.—Wing, 2.55 to 2.90. Grayish-ash above with no decided olive-green excepting on the rump and tail. Beneath brownish-white, untinged with yellowish excepting on the sides and crissum. Wing-bands pure white and nearly confluent.

It will be observed that the above differences are closely parallel to those which separate Vireo belli and V. pusillus, while they are in no respect less important. Indeed were I disposed to emphasize certain peculiarities presented in the wing-formula of my type, it would not be difficult to make out an equally good case of specific distinctness, but unfortunately, the relative length of the wing-quills (including the spurious primaries) proves to be quite as variable in V. huttoni and its Arizona race, stephensi, as I find it to be in V. pusillus and V. belli, and, I might add, in all closely allied species which I have so far studied. In short, I am convinced that this feature, if ever of any diagnostic value, is so with only a small proportion of the birds to which it has been so freely and confidently applied.

In naming this Vireo after its discoverer, Mr. F. Stephens, I have paid but a deserved compliment to that gentleman’s zeal and energy as a field ornithologist. He notes the bird as “not uncommon in scrub oaks” among both the Chiricahua and Santa Rita Maintains. He also writes me that he has taken specimens in New Mexico, where, near Fort Bayard, a nest with four eggs was obtained in 1876. In both Territories it seems to be confined to the mountain ranges, where it undoubtedly breeds in all suitable localities.

14441, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 14. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .73; culmen, .50; depth of bill at nostrils, .15. “Iris brown.”

50, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 16. Length, 4.90; extent, 8; wing, 2.55; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .73; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.

118, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 28. Length, 5; extent, 7.90; wing, 2.68; tail, 2.30; tarsus, .70; culmen, .50; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.

140, ♂ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 31. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.40; wing, 2.65; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .73; culmen, .49; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.

353, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 11. Length, 5; extent, 8.10; wing, 2.74; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .70; culmen, .48; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.

Seven California specimens of V. huttoni measure as follows:—

1443, ♂, Nicasio. Wing, 2.35; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .75; culmen, .50; depth of bill, .11.

1445, ♂, Nicasio. Wing, 2.31; tail, 2.15; tarsus, .76; culmen, .51; depth of bill, .11.

1444, ♀, Nicasio. Wing, 2.35; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .76: culmen, .49; depth of bill, .10.

1446, ♀, Nicasio. Wing, 2.32; tail, 2.28; tarsus, .74; culmen, .50; depth of bill, .14.

6800, ♂, Berkeley Co. Wing, 2.37; tail, 2.30; tarsus, .75; culmen, .46; depth of bill, .11.

6801, ♀, Berkeley Co. Wing, 2.28; tail, 2.15; tarsus, .75; culmen, .51; depth of bill, .11.

6339, ♀, Riverside. Wing, 2.34; tail, 2.14; tarsus, .75; culmen, .52; depth of bill, .14.

48. Vireo pusillus Coues. Least Vireo.—An abundant summer species frequenting willows along streams and, near Tucson, thickets of mesquites. “It is active, restless and very noisy.”

Numerous nests were taken. The only one sent me is a shallower, but nevertheless rather more elaborate structure, than that of V. belli to which, however, it bears a strong resemblance. It is mainly composed of fibrous shreds, apparently obtained from the stalks of some herbaceous plant. The lining is of delicate, bleached grasses, which are very neatly arranged. The eggs are white with a cluster of small black spots about the larger ends. The clutch comprised three, a number which was not exceeded in any of the other nests. The notes relating to this set are as follows: “Tucson, June 11. Nest pensile between the forks of a small mesquite branch, about five feet from the ground, in a 145thicket of weeds and brush. Incubation commenced. Female shot. This species seems to abandon a nest if it is found before any eggs are laid.”

205, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. Length, 5; extent, 7.10; wing, 2.21; tail, 2.25. “Iris dark brown; bill dark above, light below; legs dark.”

235, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.10; extent, 7.30; wing, 2.23; tail, 2.25.

262, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 22. Length, 6; extent, 7.10; wing, 2.28; tail, 2.34.

275, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 5; extent, 7; wing, 2.21; tail, 2.25.

276, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 4.90; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.18; tail, 2.25.

282, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent. 7.10; wing, 2.30; tail, 2.30.

461, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, May 31. Length, 5; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.21; tail, 2.25. “Laying.”

499, ♀ ad., Tucson, June 7. Length, 5; extent, 6.90. Skin lost.

589, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 24. Length, 4.80; extent, 6.80; wing, 2.21; tail, 2.25.

49. Vireo vicinior Coues. Gray Vireo.—The only individuals met with were a male and female—apparently a mated pair—which were taken at Tucson, on April 26. “They were in low brush and were very shy.”

286, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 26. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.20; wing, 2.63; tail, 2.67; tarsus, .80.

287, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.30; wing, 2.58; tail, 2.70; tarsus, .80. “Iris dark brown; bill plumbeous, darkest above; legs light plumbeous.”

50. Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides (Sw.) Coues. White-rumped Shrike.—“Common and generally distributed.”

It is unfortunate that so much prominence has been given to the white rump of excubitorides as a distinguishing character, for I have yet to see a good series of Shrikes from any Western locality, excepting, possibly, Arizona, which did not afford a considerable percentage of dark-rumped birds; and conversely, it is by no means difficult to find light-rumped specimens in the East. The same instability also affects most of the other characters which have been assigned to excubitorides, as is sufficiently shown by the various conflicting rulings of the authorities regarding the precise definition and limits of distribution of this troublesome race. The only differential points which seem to me to hold good with any number of specimens, are the lighter, purer ash of the upper parts as compared with those of ludovicianus, and the smaller and very much weaker bill. 146But if these alone are to be depended upon, it becomes necessary to limit the distribution of ludovicianus proper to the Gulf States, Georgia and the Carolinas, if not strictly to Florida, and to refer all representatives from the United States at large, east of California, to excubitorides: and this course, I believe, will ultimately have to be adopted. The proper position of the dark California form which is so curiously like ludovicianus remains to be satisfactorily determined.

51. Ampelis cedrorum (Vieill.) Baird. Cedar Waxwing.—Met with but once, at Galeyville, where on January 12, 1881, several were shot from a small flock. Mr. Henshaw took a single specimen near Camp Apache, in September, 1873.

52. Progne subis (Linn.) Baird. Purple Martin.—“Common.”

438, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 26. Length, 7.6; extent, 15.7; wing, 5.45. “Iris dark brown; bill black; legs blackish.”

53. Petrochelidon lunifrons (Say) Lawr. Cliff Swallow.—At Yuma. “They were breeding abundantly along a bluff above the town.”

54. Tachycineta bicolor (Vieill.) Caban. White-bellied Swallow.—“Common in the migrations.”

195, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. “Iris dark brown; bill black; legs brown.”

55. Tachycineta thalassina (Swains.) Caban. Violet-green Swallow. “Common.”

212, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. “Iris dark brown; bill and legs black.”

56. Stelgidopteryx serripennis (Aud.) Baird. Rough-winged Swallow.—Common. Breeds.

211, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. “Iris and legs dark brown.”

57. Pyranga ludoviciana (Wils.) Bp. Louisiana Tanager.—Santa Rita Mountains. “They frequent oaks, and are not very common.”

408, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 18. Length, 7.30; extent, 7.60; wing, 3.80; tail, 3.17. “Iris dark brown; bill blackish horn-color above, greenish-yellow below.”

58. Pyranga hepatica Swains. Liver-colored Tanager.—This Tanager was not uncommon in the Santa Rita Mountains, where the first specimen was taken on May 12. “They range from the foot-hills, through the oaks to the lower pines on the mountains.”

359, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 12. Length, 7.80; extent, 12.10; wing, 3.75. “Bill black above, bluish horn-color below; legs lead-color; iris brown.”

147377, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 14. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.70; wing, 4.20.

380, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 14. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.40; wing, 4.07. “This bird would have laid in about ten days.”

386, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 15. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.80; wing, 4.10.

59. Pyranga æstiva cooperi Ridgw. Cooper’s Tanager.—Mr. Stephens found this bird rather common at a point about five miles south of Tucson, where it frequented the cottonwoods along a small river. He also informs me that in May, 1875, he took several specimens on the Rio Grande River, between Albuquerque and Mesilla, and some others on the Gila, in New Mexico, during May and June.

227, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.40; wing, 3.83; tail, 3.50. “Iris brown; bill pale horn-color; legs pale brown. Skin very tender. The first seen this season.”

268, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.40.

297, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 27. Length, 7.90; extent, 12.20; wing, 4; tail, 3.60.

515, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 10. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.85; tail, 3.60.

522, ♂ im. Tucson, June 11. Length, 8; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.78; tail, 3.46. In mixed yellow and red plumage.

526, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.50; wing, 3.89; tail, 3.45.

579, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 23. Length, 8; extent, 11.60; wing, 3.99; tail, 3.58.

339, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 7.90; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.75; tail, 3.39.

NOTES ON THE SUMMER BIRDS OF THE UPPER ST. JOHN.

BY CHARLES F. BATCHELDER.

(Concluded from page 111.)

41. Carpodacus purpureus (Gm.) Bd. Purple Finch.—Common.

42. Astraga1inus tristis (Linn.) Cab. Goldfinch.—Common. Though somewhat beyond the limits of my subject, I quote the following from Mr. McLeod’s notes: “This winter [1876–77] they have been abundant, although the season is very severe. I have seen them at this time of year but once before.” The Goldfinch has been supposed not to winter north of Massachusetts.

14843. Chrysomitris pinus (Wils.) Bp. Pine Finch.—Seen in May at Grand Falls. Mr. H. A. Purdie tells me that he observed it at Houlton in June, 1878.

44. Passerculus sandwichensis savanna (Wils.) Ridgw. Savanna Sparrow.—Common in the pastures at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was common. It was found in grassy fields, especially along the roadsides.

45. Poœcetes gramineus (Gm.) Bd. Grass Finch.—Common at Fort Fairfield. Some seen in the open fields at Grand Falls.

46. Melospiza fasciata (Gm.) Scott. Song Sparrow.—Abundant at Grand Falls. It was common at Fort Fairfield.

47. Melospiza palustris (Wils.) Bd. Swamp Sparrow.—“Not common” at Houlton. Not found at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.

48. Junco hyemalis (Linn.) Scl. Black Snowbird; “Bluebird.”—Very common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was very abundant everywhere.

49. Spizella socialis (Wils.) Bp. Chipping Sparrow.—This bird was quite abundant at Grand Falls. The nests found were not the loose structures they are in Massachusetts, but were well lined with hair. It was rather common at Fort Fairfield.

50. Zonotrichia albicollis (Gm.) Bp. White-throated Sparrow.—Very abundant at Grand Falls wherever there was dead wood on the ground. At Fort Fairfield also it was very abundant; this bird and Junco hyemalis were the commonest species. The nests were apt to be in a clearing near the edge of woods, and frequently were in damp places. They were often under a fallen branch, or at the foot of a sapling, and were but slightly concealed.

The White-crowned Sparrow is probably only a migrant through this section. With regard to its abundance, however, I quote the following from Mr. McLeod’s notes: “These Sparrows make their first appearance from May 10th to 18th. Some seasons they are very abundant, scores of them at a time feeding in my garden. By June 1 they have disappeared. In the autumn I have seen but one flock of them.”

51. Zamelodia ludoviciana (Linn.) Coues. Rose-breasted Grosbeak.—Common in low hard woods at Grand Falls. Rather common at Fort Fairfield, apparently more so than in eastern Massachusetts. Rather common at Houlton.

52. Dolichonyx oryzivorus (Linn.) Swains. Bobolink.—Apparently not rare at Fort Fairfield. Found in grassy fields and meadows near the river. Not observed at Grand Falls. At Houlton “arrives by the 25th of May, common by June 15.” July 2, on our return from Fort Fairfield, Mr. Dwight and I saw them at several places along the St. John River above Fredericton.

53. Agelæus phœniceus (Linn.) Vieill. Red-winged Blackbird.—“Quite common at Eel River, ten miles from Houlton” (R. R. McL.). It does not occur at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.

14954. Quiscalus purpureus æneus Ridgw. Crow Blackbird.—Common at Fort Fairfield, in the town, along the river, and about a small pond back in the woods. At Grand Falls it was not uncommon about the town. “Very common” at Houlton.

55. Corvus corax Linn. Raven.—Rare at Grand Falls. Not met with at Fort Fairfield. “Very rare” at Houlton.

56. Corvus americanus Aud. Crow.—Common.

57. Cyanocitta cristata (Linn.) Strickl. Blue Jay.—Common at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was rather common, but shy and seldom seen.

58. Perisoreus canadensis (Linn.) Bp. Canada Jay.—At Houlton: “very common. These birds do not often appear in the thickly settled part of the town, but are very abundant around the lumber camps in this vicinity.” This no doubt explains the fact that the species was not seen by any of us at Grand Falls and Fort Fairfield.^[72]

59. Tyrannus carolinensis (Linn.) Bd. Kingbird.—Rather common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls several were seen, but it was not common.

60. Myiarchus crinitus (Linn.) Caban. Great Crested Flycatcher.—In June, 1878, Messrs. H. A. Purdie and Ruthven Deane observed a pair nest-building at a point in New Brunswick about six miles east of Houlton.

61. Sayornis fuscus (Gm.) Bd. Pewee.—One was observed at Fort Fairfield, June 28. “Very rare” at Houlton.

62. Contopus borealis (Swains.) Bd. Olive-sided Flycatcher.—Common in the woods at Grand Falls. This species was rather common at Fort Fairfield. We usually saw them perched on the tops of tall dead trees in clearings. They were rather shy.

63. Contopus virens (Linn.) Caban. Wood Pewee.—At Fort Fairfield it appeared to be not uncommon. It was not met with, however, at Grand Falls.

64. Empidonax flaviventris Bd. Yellow-bellied Flycatcher.—At Fort Fairfield this species was rather common in wet evergreen woods, especially in those that had small streams flowing through them. It was not observed at Grand Falls. Messrs. Purdie and Deane found it rather common at Houlton in June, 1878.^[73]

65. Empidonax trailli (Aud.) Bd. Traill’s Flycatcher.—Not common at Grand Falls. They were to be found mostly where there were scattered dead trees. We did not find it at Fort Fairfield. Mr. H. A. Purdie informs me that it was not uncommon at Houlton in June, 1878.

66. Empidonax minimus Bd. Least Flycatcher.—Very abundant in hard woods at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was rather common.

67. Caprimulgus vociferus Wils. Whip-poor-will.—Mr. McLeod 150notes that there are a few at Houlton during the summer. The species was neither seen nor heard at Fort Fairfield and Grand Falls.

68. Chordeiles popetue (Vieill.) Bd. Nighthawk.—Very abundant at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was common; they frequented burnt lands.

69. Chætura pelasgica (Linn.) Bd. Chimney Swift.—At Fort Fairfield they were common, breeding both in chimneys and in hollow trees. Common in the burnt country at Grand Falls. Not many were breeding in chimneys, the people disliking to have them there.

70. Trochilus colubris Linn. Ruby-throated Hummingbird.—Common at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was apparently rather common—we saw several.

71. Ceryle alcyon (Linn.) Boie. Belted Kingfisher.—Rather common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was to be seen wherever there was good fishing ground.

72. Picus villosus Linn. Hairy Woodpecker.—Common.

73. Picus pubescens Linn. Downy Woodpecker.—At Fort Fairfield this species was much less common than P. villosus. It was not uncommon at Grand Falls.

74. Picoides arcticus (Swains.) Gray. Black-backed Three-toed Woodpecker.—Common at Grand Falls in burnt cedar swamps. At Fort Fairfield we shot two, all we saw.

75. Sphyropicus varius (Linn.) Bd. Yellow-bellied Woodpecker.—Common—the commonest Woodpecker—at Fort Fairfield. They were generally found about recent clearings, or in the more open mixed woods. At Grand Falls they were common in hard woods.

76. Hylotomus pileatus (Linn.) Bd. Pileated Woodpecker.—At Grand Falls half a dozen pairs were seen. Probably there is too little of the heavy forest left in the immediate neighborhood of Fort Fairfield to suit their tastes, as we did not meet with them. “Common” at Houlton.

77. Colaptes auratus (Linn.) Sw. Golden-winged Woodpecker.—Rather common at Fort Fairfield. Not common at Grand Falls.

78. Coccyzus erythrophthalmus (Wils.) Bd. Black-billed Cuckoo.—Mr. McLeod records this bird in his notes, but without comments. It was not seen at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.

79. Strix nebulosa Forst. Barred Owl.—“Very common” at Houlton. We were shown a mounted specimen by Mr. Frank P. Orcutt at Fort Fairfield. He considered it the commonest Owl.

80. Nyctale acadica (Gm.) Bd. Saw-whet Owl.—This bird is not uncommon at Houlton. Mr. Frank P. Orcutt told us that it was tolerably common at Fort Fairfield.

81. Bubo virginianus (Gm.) Bd. Great Horned Owl.—“Very common” at Houlton. Mr. Orcutt said it was rather common at Fort Fairfield.

82. Circus hudsonius (Linn.) Vieill. Marsh Hawk.—Rare at Houlton. One seen at Fort Fairfield.

83. Accipiter cooperi Bp. Cooper’s Hawk.—Not common at Grand Falls. Not observed at Fort Fairfield or Houlton.

15184. Accipiter fuscus (Gm.) Bp. Sharp-shinned Hawk.—“Not common” at Houlton.

85. Falco sparverius Linn. Sparrow Hawk.—Commonest Hawk at Grand Falls. Not met with at Houlton or Fort Fairfield, though Mr. Orcutt considers it common at the latter place.

86. Buteo borealis (Gm.) Vieill. Red-tailed Hawk.—Not common at Grand Falls. Not observed at Fort Fairfield. “Common” at Houlton.

87. Buteo pennsylvanicus (Wils.) Bp. Broad-winged Hawk.—Not common at Grand Falls. It was found breeding at Houlton, but not met with at Fort Fairfield.

88. Haliæetus leucocephalus (Linn.) Savig. Bald Eagle.—“Not common” at Houlton.

89. Ectopistes migratorius (Linn.) Sw. Wild Pigeon.—Breeding at Grand Falls, but not common.

90. Canace canadensis (Linn.) Bp. Spruce Partridge.—At Houlton “mostly found in the deep fir thickets, or in the swamps of firs and cedars.” Not met with at Fort Fairfield and Grand Falls, though of course it occurs there.

91. Bonasa umbellus (Linn.) Steph. Ruffed Grouse.—Rather common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls only a few were seen—in the hard woods.

92. Ardea herodias Linn. Great Blue Heron.—“Common” at Houlton.

93. Nyctiardea grisea nævia (Bodd.) Allen. Night Heron.—“Not common” at Houlton.

94. Botaurus lentiginosus (Montag.) Steph.—Bittern.—“Common” at Houlton. One seen at Grand Falls.

95. Philohela minor (Gm.) Gray. Woodcock.—One seen on Little River Flats near Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield we saw a specimen in the collection of Mr. Frank P. Orcutt, who considered it rare in that neighborhood. “A few breed in the vicinity” of Houlton.

96. Rhyacophilus solitarius (Wils.) Cass. Solitary Sandpiper.—At Grand Falls some were seen along the river June 9 (J. A. J.).

97. Tringoides macularius (Linn.) Gray. Spotted Sandpiper.—At Fort Fairfield it was very numerous along the Aroostook River, and was also noticed in one or two other places. It was abundant along the rivers at Grand Falls. At Houlton too it was very common.

98. Porzana carolina (Linn.) Bd. Carolina Rail.—One seen at Fort Fairfield, June 20, in a wet meadow partly grown up with alder bushes (J. D.).

99. Anas obscura Gm. Black Duck.—“Very common, breeding” at Houlton.

100. Aix sponsa (Linn.) Boie. Wood Duck.—“Quite common” at Houlton.

101. Clangula glaucium americana (Bp.) Ridgw. Golden-eye.—A few seen at Grand Falls.

152102. Mergus merganser americanus (Cass.) Ridgw. Sheldrake.—Not uncommon at Grand Falls.

103. Mergus serrator Linn. Red-breasted Merganser.—“Very common, breeding,” at Houlton.

104. Larus argentatus smithsonianus Coues. Herring Gull.—At Houlton it is common on the neighboring lakes, where it breeds.

105. Podilymbus podiceps (Linn.) Lawr. Pied-billed Grebe.—Rare, breeds, Houlton.

A SKETCH OF THE HOME OF HYLOCICHLA ALICIÆ BICKNELLI, RIDGWAY, WITH SOME CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE ALLIES OF THIS NEW RACE.

BY EUGENE P. BICKNELL.

That there remained unrecognized at this late day a bird regularly inhabiting one of the must populous portions of our country; or, indeed, that a species of eminently boreal habitat during its breeding season, and not known to occur at all at such time within the limits of the United States, should have a representative race regularly breeding in our midst, are facts for which we were little prepared. Mr. Ridgway’s recent paper^[74] announcing these facts being necessarily of a technical nature, and confined to a formal description of the new Thrush, it has been thought well on the present occasion to allude more particularly to the character of the locality inhabited by the bird, and to some of its associates there, in connection with other sequential considerations. As the general physical character of the Catskill Mountains and the faunal features of the region will be treated by the writer elsewhere, it will be unnecessary to extend the range of the present relation from the summit of Slide Mountain in Ulster Co.,^[75] where the new race was discovered.

On June 15, 1881, nearing the summit of this mountain, the forests of a more northern latitude were forcibly suggested. A shower had fallen during the ascent, and the sun was still obscured, 153while a sharp wind from the northwest piercing the wet woods and sighing among the balsams, blasted and weather beaten, heightened an impression of remoteness and desolation. The evergreens, constituting the principal arboreal growth, extended off on all sides, clothing the rocky and moss-grown slopes, and presenting the striking contrast of a young and fragrant second growth clustering about the branchless and spiny trunks of their sires tottering in decay; or, with tangled and matted branches outlined here and there, as we approached the summit, against a gray and cheerless sky. Owing to the comparatively short life of these trees, that high portion of the mountain where their tribe had pitched was brought into grim contrast with its surroundings. Old age and death, continually present invading their ranks, had everywhere left their traces; flourishing clusters had been stricken in their fellowship, groups and gatherings had been divided and scattered, and like a contagion the destroyer had spread among their hosts. But the younger generations are continually forming their associations, and with green and fragrant grouping filling in deserted chambers and screening the devastation that has gone before, although only to furnish material for its continuance in the future. All this, with an occasional undergrowth of greater or less luxuriance, gave a diversified and somewhat open character to the surroundings, entirely dissimilar to that of the environing forest; conditions, which, in conjunction with humidity and elevation, have brought this mountain top into some relation with the swampland of a more northern region.

Reaching a more elevated portion of the ridge where the ground was more level and the surface less rocky, that north-woods tree, the Paper Birch (Betula papyracea) occasionally appeared, and more abundantly the Mountain Ash. Almost the only remnant of the dense mountain forests below was the Yellow Birch (Betula lutea) which, joining the undergrowth, persisted with small and stunted stature to the summit. On all sides were to be seen the white blossoms of Viburnum lantanoides which, though also found in the valley woodlands, had there long since flowered and was now bearing green fruit. Another characteristic shrub was Amelanchier canadensis oligocarpa; lower down had been found the var. botryapium, but here, the northern form was well marked, seeming almost specifically distinct. In the deep, damp moss, covering and filling in the rocks beneath the balsam growth, 154and relieving the ruggedness of the slopes, northern plants were growing in greater or less profusion. The Dwarf Cornel (Cornus canadensis) grew in such close luxuriance in congenial spots, that its snowy bracts imparted an almost uniform whiteness to whole beds. With, or near it, blossomed the Wood Sorrel (Oxalis acetosella) with delicately violet-veined petals, and the appropriately-named Gold-thread (Coptis trifolia) of evanescent bloom but shining evergreen leaves, and the little Star Flower (Trientalis americana) were often also associates. Excepting the pale yellow bells of Clintonia borealis, and the purplish tinge, or veining, of the blossoms of several other species, all the plants noticed in bloom at this time upon the mountain bore flowers of some shade of white. The more open ground about our course along the ridge supported a luxuriant and graceful growth of that lovely fern Aspidium spinulosum, and with it, in openings about the summit, grew abundantly the Mountain Golden-rod (Solidago thyrsoidea) which, although yet many weeks from bloom, heralded a royal emblem to light the mountain’s brow ere the white locks of winter should again possess it.

At the elevation where these plants first appeared the trees nowhere attained more than a medium stature, those which seemed best to have surmounted the difficulties of their situation, the Balsam and the Paper Birch, never rising to a height of more than, perhaps, twenty-five feet. This growth completely encompassed the range of vision, but an occasional scantiness in the foliage permitted glimpses of surrounding mountains rolling off like huge green billows into the blue distance.

From these evergreens came the leisurely call of the Canada Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), and on closer approach the low, plaintive notes of the little Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris). The brief warble of the Black-and-Yellow Warbler (Dendrœca maculosa) told of the presence of its unseen author in the surrounding trees, while among the undergrowth the less frequent, but louder and more sustained song of the Mourning Ground-warbler (Geothlypis philadelphia) showed that this species, which had been left at the foot of the mountain, had here reappeared. At intervals, faintly mingling with these songs, from some hidden fastness below, came the fantasia of the Winter Wren, a melody that seemed to pass from the spirit of unclaimed nature, voicing some mystery of the mountains. 155The clamor of a party of Blue Jays occasionally arose and died away in the forest, but here, in this mountain solitude, their screams seemed more subdued than in less primitive regions, and lacked that suggestion of consciousness which individuals constantly within human hearing, seem to acquire. Busily roaming Chickadees (Parus atricapillus) at times came about our path, and the Snowbird (Junco hyemalis) was present with its simple song. Olive-backed Thrushes (Hylocichla ustulata swainsoni) too, were constantly to be heard, and finally, guided by its near song, one was followed up and secured. A moment later another Thrush darted across the path, and disappearing through a young balsam growth, immediately began to sing a few rods off. The song was different from that of the bird which had just been shot, so much so, in fact, as to be remarked even by my guide. It seemed to be more uniform in character, with less variation and definition of the notes; as I wrote in my note-book at the time—more suggestive of the song of H. fuscescens. A conspicuous point of difference was that it was more subdued in tone, in fact of a somewhat ventriloquous nature. On examining the bird, in hand, although I had thought myself familiar with all our eastern Hylocichlæ, I must confess to having been puzzled. It was obviously neither the Olive-backed nor the Hermit Thrush, the only species of our own smaller Thrushes which from the distribution of their group (as then understood) could possibly be expected to occur. I at once noted its general resemblance to the Gray-cheeked Thrush, but it seemed impossible that this Hudsonian bird could be found so far south at this season; and though a second specimen pointed more strongly toward it, it was not until I had reached home and made actual comparisons, that I could feel satisfied that its true relationship was with that species. I had long noticed certain somewhat constant differences between examples of aliciæ occurring at New York on their migrations, and incited by these specimens went carefully over my series of seventeen examples and found them separable into two forms, characterized by slight differences in coloration and a notable difference in size. The examples from the Catskills were more closely allied to the smaller of the two forms, and these, with, subsequently, my entire series, were submitted to Mr. Ridgway, the result being the recognition of a new bird, belonging to our eastern fauna.

156But to return to the mountain. It would hardly be justifiable to make a positive statement about a difficult song that had been but once identified, but I feel positive that the Thrushes which were last heard that evening about our camp on the extreme summit of the mountain were of the new form. Night was rapidly falling, and the valleys were in darkness, when one sang several times near the camp, and for some time afterwards a single call-note was occasionally heard, and the varying distance of the sound showed that the birds were still active. Excepting these sounds, the last bird notes heard were those of the Yellow-bellied Flycatcher.

The sharp northwest wind continued late, and the night became clear and cold. Shortly after midnight the bright moon showed the temperature, by a thermometer which I had hung beside the camp, to be 35°, and at sunrise it stood at 32°. Before daylight I was standing on a boulder of conglomerate on the dim mountain’s brow listening for the awakening of the birds. The first songs heard were those of the Hermit Thrush, Snowbird, and Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, which began almost simultaneously, followed a little later by those of the Olive-backed Thrush and the Mourning Warbler, but H. bicknelli was not heard, or at least not near enough to be distinguished among the other species.

The increasing light upon the mountain seemed to attract the birds from below, whither, perhaps, they had retired for the night, and soon many different notes were to be heard about the camp; not, however, in that boisterous chorus with which the day is often announced about our homes, in which the notes of many individuals of many species are blended in such confused medley that separate voices are almost indistinguishable, but simply the association of a few vocalists, the very isolation of whose position endowed their voices with an additional interest and charm.

After those already mentioned the Black-poll Warbler (Dendrœca striata) began its unpretending notes, which always to me suggest a short dotted line, and this song, with that of the Black-and-Yellow Warbler, occasionally alternated about us in agreeable contrast. Now and then a Canada Nuthatch, on its morning tour, tarried to inspect some dead trunk or thinly clothed tree, upon the projecting apex of which, or that of some companion, 157a solitary Purple Finch occasionally alighted, and with a few wild fugitive notes was gone, to other mountain tops or the forests of the descending slopes.

But to revert to the Thrushes. The two specimens of the new form which were obtained were both males, and were unquestionably breeding,^[76] though no nest known to belong to their species was found.

It remains to briefly consider some facts furnished by the birds’ occurrence as narrated. These facts bear directly on the long contested question of the relationship which H. aliciæ and H. swainsoni bear to one another, and it can scarcely be denied that the present evidence on this point is conclusive. Not only have we representatives of both birds preserving their respective identities at the same locality, under identical conditions of environment, but examples of each taken under these circumstances, display, except in size, even a greater dissimilitude than those which occur together on their migrations. There is but one tenable interpretation of these facts: the birds—Hylocichla aliciæ and H. ustulata swainsoni—are wholly and entirely distinct. Any theory of dichromatism which might be advanced, aside from its extreme unlikelihood, would be shown inadequate by the relative differences in proportions of parts which the two birds exhibit. These differences, as well as those of color are illustrated by the Catskill birds. A specimen of H. swainsoni taken at the top of Slide Mountain was in every way typical of its species, and conspicuously unlike the examples of bicknelli taken at the same time. Aside from differences in the proportions of parts, the two birds were strikingly different in color, the decided grayish olive tinge of the superior surface of swainsoni contrasting strongly with the much darker brownish cast of its congener. One example of the latter instead of showing indications of a buffy tinge about the sides of the head and on the breast, which under the circumstances we should expect to be the case, were it in any way specifically related to swainsoni, has absolutely no indications whatever of this shade about the sides of the head, and actually less on the breast than any specimens 158of true aliciæ that I have seen, and this little most evident low down where the corresponding shade in swainsoni begins to pale. It seems probable that this newly recognized race of aliciæ is responsible for much of the ambiguity which the discussion of both species by different writers has occasioned. Indeed, it seems to occupy the same position relative to aliciæ proper which, by some, swainsoni was supposed to hold, viz., the more southern-born individuals of the species, but that it represents a link specifically connecting the two, the facts already presented refute. As it occurs with true aliciæ on the autumn migration most specimens of the new form are paler and more brownish in color above, and their general size is nearly that of swainsoni,^[77] and these differences may be regarded by some as approaches towards the latter species. In both species there is a wide individual variation, but the closest approach of each towards the other never exceeds that limit within which each may vary without its specific distinctness being compromised. I have yet to see a specimen of either which would admit of the slightest question as to its identity. I speak thus of adult birds. In such closely related species the young must almost necessarily approximate, and to these we must appeal for light on the things that have been—on the question of origin—whether one has been derived from the other, or both species from a common ancestor. Such obscure insight into this point as I have been permitted seems to indicate that the latter alternative will be found to be the more correct, but, for the present, from lack of the necessary data this important subject is proscribed.

It is unnecessary here to repeat the diagnosis of the new form of Hylocichla aliciæ given by Mr. Ridgway in the paper before cited. As this writer states, the race breeds “probably in other mountainous districts of the northeastern United States” than the single locality where it was discovered, and it seems very singular that up to the present time we have no knowledge of its occurrence in the summer season elsewhere, even in regions where the two congeneric species with which it was here associating—H. 159nanus^[78] and H. swainsoni—are well known to be common summer residents. The occurrence of a representative of H. aliciæ in the United States at all during its breeding season is a matter of surprise, especially when we recollect the boreal distribution of the typical form during that period, and read^[79] that so far towards the north as the Yukon and the Great Slave Lake it occurs “only as a bird of passage to and from more northern breeding grounds.” Additional information respecting the distribution of the new race will be awaited with great interest.

SHORT NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF BAYOU SARA, LOUISIANA.

BY CHARLES WICKLIFFE BECKHAM.

As the avian fauna of the lower Mississippi Valley is now receiving some attention,^[80] it seems well that I should contribute my mite of information to the general fund.

Bayou Sara and the adjoining town of St. Francisville, in the parish of West Feliciana, are situated on the east bank of the Mississippi River, 170 miles above New Orleans by that stream and about 80 miles in an air line northwest of it. It is 30 or 40 miles north of Baton Rouge, near which place Dr. Langdon made his observations in April, 1881. The following notes were made principally on and near “Wyoming,” two miles from the river, the plantation of Ex-Gov. R. C. Wickliffe, a place possessing peculiarly agreeable ornithological associations on account of its former owner, Gen. Dawson, having entertained Audubon as his guest for several months. It will be remembered that the type specimen of Buteo harlani was captured here.

160The topography is much more interesting, and is quite different from that farther south and that immediately opposite on the west side of the river. A level plateau, 100 feet above the levee, begins about a quarter of a mile from the river and extends back into the State of Mississippi. This plateau is deeply cut by numerous creeks and ravines, the banks of which are generally densely wooded, with water oak, sweet-gum, cedar, prickly ash, magnolias, etc. All of the level ground on top is in a state of cultivation; cotton being the principal crop. A few miles farther up the high ground does not extend so near the river, the intervening space being occupied by several small lakes and swamps—a great resort for water birds of all kinds. On account of the high water I did not have an opportunity of visiting this interesting field.

My observations extended only over a period of five days from April 15th to 19th, 1882, inclusive, but a great deal of ground was canvassed in that time; nearly the whole of each day being spent in the field. A good many birds were shot, but few were preserved, as taxidermy was necessarily subordinated to field-work. Dr. Langdon in his interesting paper particularly remarks the absence of the Catbird, Black-and-White Creeper, White-browed Yellow-throat, Kentucky Warbler, Large-billed Water Thrush, and the Redstart, but I found all of these at “Wyoming,” together with many others not noted by either him or Mr. Hay, the Catbird and Kentucky Warbler being particularly abundant.

The writer was greatly assisted in his work by Mr. Robert Wederstraudt of “Wyoming,” a young man whose unusually close and accurate observations of birds and bird life rendered his help peculiarly valuable. Many of the following notes are credited to him entirely. I have followed the nomenclature of the Smithsonian list of 1881.

1. Hylocichla mustelina (Gm.) Bd. Wood Thrush.—Common in woodland, and several seen in the yard near the house.

2. Merula migratoria (L.) Sw. and Rich. American Robin.—Not observed. They appear here in large numbers early in February to feed on the fruit of the “wild peach,” and hundreds are shot for the table. They leave early in March.

3. Mimus polyglottus (L.) Boie. Mockingbird.—Very abundant, both in the town about gardens and yards, and in the country. Frequenting open ground exclusively. Four sets of eggs were taken; two perfectly fresh, and two about half incubated. Mr. Wederstraudt called my attention to a curious foraging habit of this bird. We noticed one hopping 161along the ground in an open grassy place, pausing at every three or four hops to extend and close its wings. It repeated this several times until a grasshopper was flushed, when the bird immediately “reached” for it, and having captured it, made off to a neighboring bush to eat it. Mr. Wederstraudt says that he has observed this interesting performance many times.

4. Galeoscoptes carolinensis (L.) Cab. Catbird.—Abundant in the shrubbery in the creek bottoms. None were seen near the dwellings.

5. Harporhynchus rufus (L.) Cab. Brown Thrasher.—Abundant in same places as the last. Three clutches of three eggs each were taken, in one of which incubation was very far advanced, and on the 19th a nest was found containing two young nearly able to fly.

6. Sialia sialis (L.) Haldem. Bluebird.—Observed several pairs in town and in the country. Not as common as in Kentucky.

7. Polioptila cærulea (L.) Scl. Blue-gray Gnatcatcher.—A common, and, on account of its active and noisy habits, conspicuous bird.

8. Lophophanes bicolor (L.) Bp. Tufted Titmouse.—Not very common. Frequenting principally the tops of trees.

9. Parus carolinensis Aud. Carolina Chickadee.—But few observed. A pair bred in a hole in a cedar post within twenty yards of the house last year.

10. Thryothorus ludovicianus (Gm.) Bp. Carolina Wren.—Very abundant everywhere. A clutch of three eggs was taken on the 19th from a nest in a small recess formed by the junction of several timbers, under the piazza, which was frequented at all times of the day. The nest was empty on the 16th, one egg was deposited on the 17th, one on the 18th, and one on the 19th. I saw neither of the old birds about the place at all, and it was only by capturing the female on the nest at night, that the eggs were positively identified. A pair have bred about this piazza for many years, I am informed.

11. Mniotilta varia (L.) V. Black-and-white Creeper.—A male, the only one seen at all, was captured in a dense wood on the 17th.

12. Parula americana (L.) Bp. Blue-yellow-backed Warbler.—Very abundant. A persistent but weak vocalist.

13. Dendrœca æstiva (Gm.) Bd. Summer Yellowbird.—Common in open places.

14. Dendrœca blackburniæ (Gm.) Bd. Blackburnian Warbler.—Common in large trees about open ground.

15. Dendrœca dominica albilora Bd. White-browed-yellow-throated Warbler.—A male, the only one seen, was shot out of a magnolia tree on the 10th. In all of my Kentucky specimens of this bird the anterior portion of the superciliary line has a trace of yellow. In this one no yellow is perceptible.

16. Dendrœca pinus (Wils.) Bd. Pine-creeping Warbler.—Apparently not uncommon. Preferring open ground. In song.

17. Siurus auricapillus (L.) Sw. Golden-crowned Thrush.—One specimen captured in a thicket on the 15th.

18. Siurus motacilla (V.) Coues. Large-billed Water Thrush.—Heard 162one singing in a densely wooded ravine on the 17th. Mr. Wederstraudt has often seen them in pairs along the smaller water-courses.

19. Oporornis formosa (Wils.) Bd. Kentucky Warbler.—One of the most abundant inhabitants of the dense growth along the ravines. Two or three were often heard singing at the same time.

20. Geothlypis trichas (L.) Cab. Maryland Yellow-throat.—Abundant in the usual places.

21. Icteria virens (L.) Bd. Yellow-breasted Chat.—Very abundant. In full song.

22. Myiodioctes mitratus (Gm.) Aud. Hooded Warbler.—Found in same places, and almost as abundant as the Kentucky Warbler. An inhabitant of the undergrowth principally. In song; its note being uttered at intervals of 15 or 20 seconds as it hops from branch to branch in pursuit of insects.

23. Setophaga ruticilla (L.) Sw. Redstart.—A single specimen, a male, captured in a swamp. It was in company with a female.

24. Vireosylvia olivacea (L.) Bp. Red-eyed Vireo.—Very abundant everywhere.

25. Vireosylvia gilva (V.) Cass. Warbling Vireo.—Heard one singing in a shade tree in Bayou Sara on the 15th.

26. Vireo noveboracensis (Gm.) Bp. White-Eyed Vireo.—Very abundant and voluble everywhere.

27. Lanius ludovicianus L. Loggerhead Shrike.—Not observed. Mr. Wederstraudt says that they are not uncommon here in the fall. He once saw one kill and devour a small bird in a thorn tree.

28. Ampelis cedrorum (V.) Bd. Cedar Waxwing.—Observed several small flocks. Said to be very abundant here in winter when numbers are shot for the table. Known here as the “ortolan”—the fourth bird, I believe, embraced under that comprehensive name.

29. Progne subis (L.) Bd. Purple Martin.—Common about Bayou Sara and St. Francisville.

30. Stelgidopteryx serripennis (Aud.) Bd. Rough-winged Swallow.—Very abundant. Beginning to breed. Several holes examined but no eggs found. One was shot out of a dead tree.

31. Pyranga æstiva (L.) V. Summer Redbird.—Abundant about dwellings and open ground. In song.

32. Passerculus sandwichensis savanna (Wils.) Ridgw. Savanna Sparrow.—Common in old wet fields. One individual captured, a female, had a very large tumor on the bill and several smaller ones on the toes.

33. Zonotrichia albicollis (Gm.) Bp. White-throated Sparrow.—Abundant in parties of six or eight in the undergrowth about open places in the low lands.

34. Peucæa æstivalis illinoensis Ridgw. Oak-woods Sparrow.—Two specimens of this interesting form were taken; both males. One was shot from the top of a small bush near the edge of an old corn field; the other from the top of an isolated pine on the edge of a cotton field. 163Both were singing when shot. No others were observed. This, I believe, is the most southeasterly “record” of the form.

35. Melospiza palustris (Wils.) Bd. Swamp Sparrow.—Not uncommon in the usual places.

36. Pipilo erythrophthalmus (L.) V. Chewink; Towhee.— Abundant. Locally known as the “Joree.”

37. Cardinalis virginianus (Briss.) Bp. Cardinal Grosbeak.—Very abundant. Took a set of three fresh eggs on the 17th. Nest as usual.

38. Passerina cyanea (L.) Gray. Indigo Bunting.—Rather common about open places, but very shy. Not in song.

39. Passerina ciris (L.) Gray. Painted Bunting; Nonpareil.—First seen on the 16th. A male in full song captured on the 19th—the only two seen. Mr. Wederstraudt, who has trapped them, using a captive male as a decoy, says that the same individual is always to be found within a few hundred feet of the place where first observed. I saw several males in confinement in New Orleans, and observed that the red of the underparts was heavily blotched and obscured by yellow, and attributed it to immaturity, but was informed that it was due to the confinement. They are called “Pops” here, the derivation of which name I could not make out.

40. Agelæus phœniceus (L.) V. Red-and-buff-shouldered Blackbird.—Abundant in swampy places.

41. Sturnella magna (L.) Sw. Meadow Lark.—Common in old fields. Their note seemed to me to be different from that of the Kentucky bird.

42. Icterus spurius (L.) Bp. Orchard Oriole.—Common about open ground.

43. Icterus galbula (L.) Coues. Baltimore Oriole.—Observed several singing in shade trees in Bayou Sara and St. Francisville.

44. Quiscalus purpureus (Bartr.) Licht. Purple Grackle.—A common Grackle about the river and bayou at Bayou Sara is referred to this form, as the one found forty or fifty miles down the river is according to Dr. Langdon the Purple, and not the Bronzed Grackle.

45. Corvus frugivorus Bartr. Common Crow.—Common.

46. Cyanocitta cristata (L.) Strickl. Blue Jay.—Common.

47. Tyrannus carolinensis (L.) Temm. Kingbird; Bee Martin.—Common.

48. Myiarchus crinitus (L.) Cab. Great-crested Flycatcher.—A common and conspicuous inhabitant of yards and orchards.

49. Contopus virens (L.) Cab. Wood Pewee.—Common in dense timber.

50. Empidonax acadicus (Gm.) Bd. Acadian Flycatcher.—Common in same places as last.

51. Trochilus colubris L. Ruby-throated Hummingbird.—Very abundant about cultivated ground.

52. Chætura pelasgica (L.) Boie. Chimney Swift.—Common.

53. Antrostomus carolinensis (Gm.) Gould. Chuck-will’s-widow.—Heard but one, on the night of the 19th, near the house, but I am told that they are quite common.

16454. Chordeiles popetue (V.) Bd. Night Hawk.—Saw one about dusk on the evening of the 19th, high in air, giving the peculiar call common to the males during the breeding season.

55. Picus pubescens (L.) Downy Woodpecker.—Only two individuals were observed during my visit.

56. Hylotomus pileatus (L.) Bd. Pileated Woodpecker.—Not observed, but it is said to be common in heavy timber along the borders of the swamp.

57. Centurus carolinensis (L.) Bp. Red-bellied Woodpecker.—Rather common. At the time of my departure a pair had begun digging a hole for their nest in a large china tree within thirty yards of the house.

58. Melanerpes erythrocephalus (L.) Sw. Red-headed Woodpecker—A familiar and common bird here; preferring open to densely wooded country.

59. Colaptes auratus (L.) Sw. Yellow-shafted Flicker.—Not observed. Mr. Wederstraudt and others pronounce it an abundant bird here.

60. Ceryle alcyon (L.) Boie. Belted Kingfisher.—Common in open places along Alexander’s Creek and its branches. A clutch of six fresh eggs was taken from a hole in a perpendicular bank on the 16th. The orifice was about thirty-five feet from the bottom, and three and a half from the top of the bank. The hole extended horizontally into the bank for a distance of six feet. The old birds circled around a few times after we began digging for the eggs, and then flew off, apparently unconcerned at our operations.

61. Coccyzus americanus (L.) Bp. Yellow-billed Cuckoo.—One individual observed on the 19th in a large live-oak near the house. In song.

62. Conurus carolinensis (L.) Kuhl. Carolina Parakeet.—Not seen by me. Gov. Wickliffe says that twenty years ago it was quite common here at times in large flocks, and Mr. Wederstraudt has several times observed it within the last few years, but never more than two or three together at a time. About eighteen months ago he saw one in an orchard near “Wyoming.”

63. Scops asio (L.) Bp. Little Screech Owl.—Found here, according to Mr. Wederstraudt.

64. Bubo virginianus (Gm.) Bp. Great horned Owl.—Given as a common inhabitant by Mr. Wederstraudt.

65. Pandion haliaëtus carolinensis (Gm.) Ridgw. American Osprey; Fish Hawk.—Often seen here, according to the natives.

66. Haliaëtus leucocephalus (L.) Savig. Bald Eagle.—Said to occasionally occur here.

67. Cathartes aura (L.) Illig. Turkey Buzzard.—Common.

68. Catharista atrata (Wils.) Less. Black Vulture; Carrion Crow.—Very abundant. I flushed thirty or forty, one day, from the carcass of a dead horse.

16569. Zenaidura carolinensis (L.) Bp. Mourning Dove.—Abundant about open places. I took a clutch of two fresh eggs on the 19th from a nest on a horizontal limb of a water oak, eight feet from the ground.

70. Ortyx virginianus (L.) Bp. Bob white; American Quail.—Abundant in pairs about cultivated ground. They are not much hunted here as the shooting is very difficult, for when flushed they immediately make for the thickets.

71. Ardea herodias (L.) Great Blue Heron.—One was seen on the 19th flying towards the swamp

72. Herodias alba egretta (Gm.) Ridgw. American Egret.—A flock of eight was observed on the 19th flying towards the swamp.

73. Butorides virescens (L.) Bp. Green Heron.—A common bird about the creeks and ponds.

74. Oxyechus vociferus (L.) Reich. Killdeer.—Saw a party of eight on the creek. They were very tame.

75. Philohela minor (Gm.) Gray. American Woodcock.—Not observed. Said to be common here in the fall, when they are hunted in the cotton fields at night with torches.

76. Gallinago media wilsoni (Temm.) Ridgw. Wilson’s Snipe.—Not observed, but said to be common here in early spring.

77. Rhyacophilus solitarius (Wils.) Cass. Solitary Sandpiper.—Two individuals were several times noted about a pond of stagnant water.

78. Tringoides macularius (L.) Gray. Spotted Sandpiper.—Several times observed along the creeks.

79. Rallus elegans Aud. Red-breasted Rail.—One several times seen in a small pond thickly overgrown with small trees, water-lillies etc.

80. Rallus virginianus L. Virginia Rail.—One seen in same place as the last. Both eluded capture.

81. Fulica americana Gm. American Coot.—Not observed, but said to be common here in fall and early spring. Known here by the Creole name of “Poulette d’Eau.”

82. Anas boschas L. Mallard.—Not observed, but it is said to be common here during the migrations.

83. Querquedula discors (L.) Steph. Blue-winged Teal.—Two were shot out of a flock of eight on the 16th on Alexander’s Creek.

84. Aix sponsa (L.) Boie. Wood duck; Summer Duck.—Not observed, but common in the swamp, I am informed.

85. Pelecanus fuscus (L.) Brown Pelican.—Said to breed in the lakes above Bayou Sara.

86. Podilymbus podiceps (L.) Lawr. Thick-billed Grebe.—Not observed, but well known here.

166

LIST OF BIRDS OBSERVED AT HOUSTON, HARRIS CO., TEXAS, AND IN THE COUNTIES MONTGOMERY, GALVESTON AND FORD BEND.

BY H. NEHRLING.

(Continued from p. 13.)

87. Molothrus ater Gray. Cowbird.—Very abundant throughout the year. They come in large flocks into the streets of the city in the winter months to search for food; they also associate at that season with Scolecophagus cyanocephalus Cab. I have never seen anywhere else such numbers of these birds as here, and in the breeding season most of the nests of our small birds contain eggs of this parasite.

87a. Molothrus ater obscurus Coues. Dwarf Cowbird.—A common bird during the breeding season. It is smaller than its near relative, and quicker in its motions. Moves usually in flocks of from two to ten. I first observed the bird when it was just leaving the nest of Lanivireo flavifrons Bd., and found its egg in it, besides four of the Vireo’s. The egg is smaller and not so thickly sprinkled as that of the common Cowbird.

88. Xanthocephalus icterocephalus Bd. Yellow-headed Blackbird.—Very common in marshy localities from the latter part of October to March and April. I think some remain to breed, as I observed small flocks during May in the low prairie districts overgrown with reeds and other water plants. The best opportunity I ever had to study the breeding habits of this beautiful but very locally distributed Blackbird was in the Calumet Marshes near Kensington, about eighteen miles south of Chicago, where I discovered in a single day about fifty nests among the reeds. During the winter months they associate with Molothrus ater, Agelæus phœniceus, and Scolecophagus cyanocephalus; many migrate further south, and in cold winters only a few remain near Houston.

89. Agelæus phœniceus Vieill. Red-winged Blackbird.—Common in swamps, but not so abundant as I have found these birds to be in Wisconsin and Illinois. May 6, 1881, I discovered a nest in a somewhat strange position, in a blackberry-bush (Rubus villosus) on the edge of a thicket; there was no swamp within a mile. This was in the northern part of Harris County. Only a few remain to winter, the greater part migrating farther south.

90. Sturnella magna Swains. Meadow Lark.—Common summer sojourner, and very abundant during winter; many thousands are killed in the latter season by pot hunters. During summer the Meadow Lark is strictly a prairie bird, always to be looked for on the open grassy savannas; 167I never found the bird breeding in a cotton field or corn field. In winter, however, they change their habits, and in large flocks visit the sugar-cane, cotton, and corn fields.

91. Icterus spurius Bp. Orchard Oriole.—Common during migrations.

91a. Icterus spurius affinis Coues. Southern Orchard Oriole.—Very common summer sojourner; breeds in all suitable localities, especially in peach gardens. The bird is decidedly smaller than the northern variety; it is also more active and quicker in its motions. The song is much more varied, and louder, quicker and more beautiful, reminding one of the song of the Baltimore Oriole. The nest is smaller, but it is built of the same materials—green grasses, lined with cotton. May 8, 1881, I discovered a very curious but not quite finished nest near Spring Creek, only a few yards from a dwelling. For several days I had observed a pair of these birds carrying fresh green grasses to a laurel oak (Quercus imbricaria), that was densely covered with large hanging bunches of Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides); they disappeared every time into a bunch of moss, yet I could see no nest. At last, on taking down the bunch of moss, I was surprised to find a beautiful structure in my hands. The grasses and moss were all woven firmly together; the entrance was on the side.

92. Scolecophagus ferrugineus Swains. Rusty Blackbird.—Very rare. A few seen in March, 1881, among flocks of the following species.

93. Scolecophagus cyanocephalus Cab. Brewer’s Blackbird.—During winter the most common of the family Icteridæ. They are very abundant in Houston from the early part of November to April, when they disappear for the north; by the end of that month only a few remain to breed in suitable localities. I found several nests May 5, 1881, in thick, small oaks near the Rose Hill Post Office in the northern part of Harris County. They were built in the tops of young post oaks (Quercus obtusiloba), about twelve to fifteen feet from the ground, and contained from two to five eggs each. The nests were composed exteriorly of strong slender plant stems and coarse grasses, and were lined with fine grasses. These birds are very unsuspicious and bold during winter, running about in even the most crowded city streets, and also frequenting door-yards. On cold days they are easily caught. I had a pair over a year in a cage; they soon became reconciled to confinement, and were lively, interesting pets.

94. Quiscalus purpureus æneus Ridgw. Bronzed Grackle.—The most abundant of all the Blackbirds during the breeding season, arriving from their more southern winter quarters early in March. None remain, so far as my observations go, during winter. They breed abundantly in the larger gardens of Houston, especially in the mountain cedars (Juniperus occidentalis texana), and the live and water oaks (Quercus virens et Q. aquatica). In the thick young oak grove near Rose Hill Post Office I found a large colony of about two hundred pairs breeding and in their company also the Boat-tailed Grackles (Quiscalus major) and Brewer’s Blackbirds (Scolecophagus cyanocephalus), but each species had its own 168limited nesting range. Every nest was built in the top of a slender oak and all the nests examined were neat, strong, and large structures; they were constructed of plant stems, slender grasses, fragments of corn-husks, intermingled with sheep’s wool, and lined with finer grasses. In some nests a layer of mud was also to be found.

95. Quiscalus major Vieill. Boat-tailed Grackle.—Quite regularly distributed over the coast region of Texas. I found the birds breeding in the colonies of the Little Blue Heron (Florida cærulea) and the Snowy Heron (Garzetta candidissima), on the button bushes (Cephalanthus occidentalis) standing in the water. May 6, 1881, I observed a colony of about twenty pairs near Rose Hill Post Office. They were all busily engaged in building their nests in the tops of young oaks. Only a few nests were finished, and only one contained eggs, four in number. Nest composed of weed-stalks, grasses and sheep’s wool, lined with finer grasses; cavity very shallow if compared with nests of Quiscalus purpureus æneus and Scolecophagus cyanocephalus. The male has a few very fine songlike notes, different from those of every other Blackbird.

96. Corvus frugivorus Bartr. Common Crow.—In winter numbers are to be observed on Galveston Bay, near bayous, and on the sugar cane fields near the Brazos. In spring they scatter over the country, breeding in all suitable localities, but they are then nowhere common in the coast region.

97. Cyanocitta cristata Strickl. Blue Jay.—A very common resident; breeds abundantly in all woody localities; also often in gardens on mountain cedars and sometimes on the beautiful Japan medlars (Eriobotrya japonica). Very bold and tame when well treated, coming then into door-yards and even into houses.

98. Milvulus forficatus Sw. Scissor-tailed Flycatcher; “Texan Bird of Paradise”; “Fork-tail.”—Very common summer sojourner; breeds frequently in the “bosquets” on the prairies, on the borders of woods, on isolated trees in the fields, and even in gardens. As the nest in this part of Texas is in most cases placed in trees, densely covered with Tillandsia, it is almost impossible to discover it. These beautiful birds are not at all retiring in their habits; in many instances they are so tame as to breed in close proximity to dwellings. They arrive from their winter quarters late in March, sometimes in the first days of April. Very often two broods are raised yearly. I found fresh eggs as late as July 4. The nests in the coast region are built partly of grasses but especially of gray Spanish moss. In September, after the breeding season, they gather in large flocks, visiting the cotton fields, where multitudes of cotton worms (Aletia argillacea) and their moths abound, on which they, with many other small birds, eagerly feed; early in October they depart for the South.

99. Tyrannus carolinensis Temm. Kingbird.—Common summer resident. Arrives from the South late in March or early in April, when the beautiful native yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) fills the air with its pleasant odor. Nests commonly in the honey locust (Gleditschia 169triacanthos) and also in the common locust (Robinia pseudacacia). In many cases two broods are raised yearly.

100. Myiarchus crinitus Cab. Great-crested Flycatcher.—Common summer sojourner, even in Houston, where it sometimes breeds in bird-boxes, but more commonly in knot-holes of the cedar and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and in old Woodpeckers’ holes. Their loud whistling cries are almost always to be heard from early April till the latter part of August; departs for winter quarters early in October. It is not a shy bird, but knows well how to escape danger. They are, with Kingbirds and other species, very busy during the time the Magnolia grandiflora is in bloom, about which millions of various insects abound.

101. Sayornis fuscus Bd. Phoebe Bird; Pewee.—Common in winter, from December to March, especially in the gardens of Houston. The common notes I heard were quite different from their familiar pewee, sounding like tsip, tsip, tsip, zewee. None remain to breed.

102. Sayornis sayus Brd. Say’s Pewee.—This Pewee I have observed only in April, on the borders of thickets and in the shrubbery near woods, and always singly.

103. Contopus virens Cab. Wood Pewee.—Common summer sojourner in open woods, particularly in the “post oak,” where its loud characteristic notes can be heard throughout the summer. Although this bird is common, I did not succeed in finding a nest. Arrives early in April; departs early in October.

104. Empidonax acadicus Bd. Acadian Flycatcher.—Common summer resident, and the only one of this attractive genus that breeds in this part of Texas. They are common in all the woods, particularly where a beautiful light green lichen (Usnea barbata) hangs from the trees. In all the deciduous woods of Harris County, and also in the mixed bottom woods near Spring Creek, they are common, but I was not so fortunate as to discover the nest, although I always kept a diligent lookout for it.

105. Empidonax trailli Bd. Traill’s Flycatcher.—Common during migrations, but none, I think, remain to breed.

106. Empidonax minimus Bd. Least Flycatcher.—Common during migrations in April and October.

107. Trochilus colubris Linn. Ruby-throated Hummingbird.—Very common summer sojourner. I observed them from early April to the middle of October. Very abundant when the Wistaria chinensis, Lonicera japonica, Gardenia florida, Pittosporum tobira, Cydonia japonica, etc., are in flower.

I have several times seen another species of Hummingbird, but I did not succeed in securing it.