Skip to main content

Full text of "The Auk"

See other formats 


~ wr By 
MW ie: ‘Uae * 
\ ; ; ¥ : . ie 
deve re oS vi “yoy Ww et (3% Mid yi Gite : 
Ng ¥ = ea we. hf i ] ee iy iv Yip NI ind a ~ Pad ~ 

bh oie ee ¥ ‘€: 4 os oo a a Oe | j i (Wt 4 ra e Perr - . Bowes «l x “Vy ~ SN y ta 


‘ é vu vu “i +, ve 
Paik ae SEPT ota, Pees UY ee Wie 
WN a) wy vw “S 
i ae ‘ Vv yey V “ws “yy 
ot wi Wy at vy 
PS \ oy tr NS OW 
WW MWY ae Be 5 Se) 3) PAYS 4 iy Oe E ~ Be ‘a y Vv Ve 
we WY aA se ene RA INCR ORG ie” Anis! Si Ss Ue wiagd yt w © wos ; 
pe © ~ we el 4 igs. NM W . x 9 \ a ied e Y 
iG: Ute avayet w dvvy he Wer Wyle yt UY yi WY. ©. bf SY Ny " 
; Laustethdtast Nu y- : Rae ¥. he ey ciaake 
J WOH oy PA 4 ie Wy ee ef 
NS, A add ns OOM Wy Ww v 
yf we Jee ’ 


“avd Wey io rgacne WY YUL 


v VYYYVY 
wu iyetes 


+ 


as 
‘or 


ae hed 


SCM 


be oak NS 
ae ne pry at ie 


ite, Ath 


OLD Series, ) CONTINUATION OF THE { NEw SERIES, 
VoL. XXI f BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLuB. | VoL. XIII 


‘The Auk 


A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 


EDITOR 
ie) A. AE EN 


ASSOCIATE EDITOR 
FRANK M CHAPMAN 


VOLUME XIII 
PUBLISHED FOR 


The American Ornithologists’ Union 


>. 


INI = No ORK 
ES. Hos 2 hr 
1896 


IB89A9NS 


CONTENTS OF VOLUME -XIlt. 


NUMBER I. 


PAGE 
IN MEMORIAM: GEORGE NEWBOLD LAWRENCE. By D. G. Elliot, F. 
it. S. 2. (Frontispiece: ). : 3 s : 2 : : 
THE STANDING oF Ardetta neoxena. By Frank M. Chapman. 
(CelatesIs) ys ; : : : é : : : : F : “TL 
AN ImMpoRTANT FACTOR IN THE STUDY OF WESTERN BIRD-LIFE. 
By Carl F. Baker. . : : : ; : ; 5 
THE PINE GROSBEAK IN CaprTiviry. By O. W. Knight. . : 5 
DescRIPTIONS OF AN APPARENTLY NEW SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES 
OF PTARMIGAN FROM THE ALEUTIAN ISLANDS. By D. G. Elliot, 
Its Sito Si JBq (Penne WI.) : : ‘ : 
SONGS OF THE WESTERN MEADOWLARK. By L. Belding. : > 2) 
A NEW SUBSPECIES OF THE GENUS Dryobates. By A. W. Anthony. 3 
DESCRIPTION OF A NEW JAY FROM Mexico. By Gerrit S. Miller, 31 
Jt 3 


NESTING Hasirs oF Phatnopepla nitens IN CALIFORNIA. By Flor- 


ence A. Merriam. ‘ : : : 2 : : ; : ees 
DESCRIPTIONS OF A NEW WARBLER AND A NEW SONG SPARROW. 

By William Brewster. . : : 2 : : : : - 44 
THE TERNS OF MUSKEGET ISLAND, MASSACHUSETTS. PART II. 

By George H. Mackay. . ; : : 3 ; : : spay 
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ 

Union. By John 1. Sage. : ; : : : E ; 55 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Elliot’s Monograph of the Pittidee;60; The Fossil Birds of Patagonia, 
61; Elliot's Limicole. 64; Some Canadian Birds, 67; Kirkwood 
on Maryland Birds, 67; The Structure and Life ot Birds, 68; 
The A. O. U., Check-List of North American Birds, Second 
Edition, 69; Hudson’s British Birds, 70; Bendire on the Cow- 
birds, 71; Lucas on the Weapons and Wings of Birds, 72; Fish- 
ers Hawks and Owls from the Standpoint of the Farmer, 73; 
Beddard’s ‘Text-book of Zodgeography, 73; Townsend on the 
Birds ot Cocos Island, 75; Publications Received, 76. 


Contents of Volume XTTIT. 


GENERAL NOTES 


Do Young Loons eat Fresh-water Clams? 77; ‘Gull Dick’ Again, 78; 


ON 


an 
Pie 


An Early Description ot Puaiactocnran dilophus, 78; Another 
Harlequin Duck Record for Long Island, 78; Olor buccina- 
tor in Western Minnesota, 78; White-faced Glee Ibis Breed- 
ing in Minnesota, 79; Ardetta neoxena from Wisconsin, 79; 
The King Rail Again in Maine, 79; Baird’s Sandpiper in 
Maine, S80; The 1895 Migration ot Charadrius dominicus in 
Massachusetts, 80; Habits of the Valley Partridge, $81; Additional 
Records of the Passenger Pigeon (&ctopzsfes migratortus) in 
Wisconsin and Illinois, 81; The Golden Eagle in New Jersey, 
81; The Golden Eagle in Marne 82; A New Long Island, N. cg 
Record for the Red-bellied W oodpecker, 82; The Deltoid Muscle 
in the Swifts, 82; The Scissor-tailed Flycatcher in Virginia and 
Maryland, 83; The Raven in Illinois, 83; The Ipswich Spar- 
row,— A Correction, 84; Second Occurrence of the Lark Spar- 
row in Virginia, 84; The Cape May Warbler (Dendroica 
tigrina) in the Maritime Portions of South Carolina, 84; 
The Carolina Wren in Connecticut, 84; The Red-breasted 
Nuthatch (S7/¢a canadensis) on Long Island, South Carolina, 
84; The Dwarf Thrush in Colorada, $85; Food of Woodpeck- 
ers and Flycatchers, 85; Rare Visitors to the Connecticut 
River : Valley in Massachusetts in 1895, 86; A correction, 
86; Notes on Long Island Birds, 87; Nantucket Island Notes, 88; 
Giatke’s Birds of Heligoland, 89. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


The Soaring ot Birds and Currents of Air, 92. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Obituary, Thomas Henry Huxley, 93; Henry Seebohm, 96; 
Henry T. Wharton, 97; Ornithological Lectures at Columbia 
College, 97; Kent Ornithological Club, 98; Protection of 
North American Birds, 98. 


NUMBER II. 


THE FLORIDA GRouND Ow t (Sfcotyto foridana). By Weliiam 
Palmer. (Plate II.) . y ? 3 : ; : 

TAXONOMIC VALUE OF THE TONGUE IN Birbs. By Frederic A. 
Lucas. : i 


NOTES ON SOME OF THE BIRDS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. By 


THe 


Florence A. Merriam , : 
LAW WHICH UNDERLIES Proree TIVE CoLor ATION. By Abbott 
Hl. Thayer. : 


PAGE 
96 


106 


Contents of Volume XTTIT. Vv 


PAGE 

DESCRIPTIONS OF A NEw HoRNED LARK AND A NEW SONG SPAR- 

ROW, WITH REMARKS ON SENNETT’S NIGHTHAWK. By Louzs B. 
Bishop. : : E . 129 

AN APPARENTLY New Chordeiles FROM “Cost a Rica, By George Kk. 
Cherrte. 5 : = et : : : . 5 UNS 
GATKE’S ‘HELIGOLAND. By j. A. Allen. . : : 5 : 2137 

- A REVISION OF THE NortTH AMERICAN HORNED OWLS, WITH 
DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SUBSPECIES. By Wetmer Stone. 5 sting) 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Mex Birds’ ot ‘The Royal Natural History,’ 156; Saunders and Sal- 
vin’s ‘Catalogue of the Gavie and Tubinares,’ 160; Salvadori’s 
Catalogue of the Chenomorphe, Crypturi, and Ratite, 162; 
Chapman on Changes of Plumage in the Dunlin and Sanderling, 
164; Chapman on the Plumage ‘of the Snowflake, 165; Allen on 
Alleged Changes of Color in the Feathers of Birds without 
Moulting, 166; The Mockingbird and Yucca alotfolia, 167; 
Loomis on California Water Birds, 168; Publications Received, 
169. 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Brtinnich’s Murre at Cape Charles, Virginia, 171; The Parasitic Jaeger 
near Cleveland, Ohio, 171; Pufinus tenutrostris oft San Diego, 
California, 171; The Skull of the Young Cormorant, 172; 
Clangula hyemalis at San Diego, California, 172; Occurrence 
of the Great White Heron at Escondido, California, 172; 
Note on the Flexor hallucts brevis in the Night Heron 
(Nycticorax nycticorax nevius), 172; Porzana noveboracensis 
near Ottawa, Canada, 172: Crymophilus fulicarius in Maine, 
173; Crex crex in Maine, 173; Baird’s Sandpiper in Michi- 
gan, 174; Western Sandpiper (/reunetes occidentalis) more abun- 
dant than the Semipalmated (2. puszllus), 174; Woodpeckers’ 
Tongues —a Plea for Aid, 174; Péntcola enucleator in West- 
chester County, N. Y., 175; The Pine Grosbeak at Poughkeepsie, 
ING Ney aly 8 Ab he Pine Grosbeak (P. enucleator) in New Jersey, 175; 
Abnormal Plumage of a Pine Grosbeak, 176; The American 
Crossbill at Sea, 176; Harris’s Sparrow aa Spring Dress in 
Autumn, 176; A Brown Thrasher (Harporhynchus rufus) in 
Massachusetts in winter, 176; A few Notes from Maine, 177; 
Three Winter, Notes from Longwood, Mass., 178; Bird Notes 
trom Erie County, New York, 178; Virginia Notes, 179; On Birds 
reported as rare in Cook County, IIl., 179; Additions to the Avi- 
fauna of Tennessee, 181; Sundry Notes, 182. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


Some Questions of Nomenclature, 183; A Question of Nomenclature, 
190; ‘Ord’s Zoology’ Again, 192; Chen hyperborea and C. nivalis, 


195. 


vi Contents of Volume XIII. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Obituary, Dr. Willard Lorraine Maris, 193; The Delaware Valley 
Ornithological Club, 193; The Michigan Ornithological Club, 194 ; 
New Edition of Ridgway’s ‘Manual of North American Birds,’ 
194; ‘ The Feather,’ 195 ; The Seebohm collection of Birds, 195 ; 
The Field Columbian Museum Expedition to Africa, 196. 


NUMBER III. 


PAGE 

Tue Ducks of. PrymoutH Country, MAssAcHusETTS. By Her- 
bert K. Job. ; : ; ‘ : ; ‘ : : 5 BELO 

Joun Assor’s DRAWINGS OF THE BIRDS OF GEORGIA. By Walter 
: Faxon. : ; 3 : : ; : : : : ; = 204 

THE PENINSULA OF MissouRI AS A WINTER HOME FOR BIRDs. 
By O. Widmann. ; ; 5 PS 

THE a eae D SHEARW) ATER (Paginas apisthonelas). By A. 
Anthony. . Bye) 

sees ENT OBSERVATIONS ON Pinon us beer Zontcus IN Marne. By 
Arthur H. Norton. , : 4 229 

Some NoTES ON THE PASSENGER PIGEON (Ectopistes mLovatoreus ) 
IN CONFINEMENT. By /uthven Deane. : ¢ - 234 
Nores ON THE BirvDs OF BERMUDA. By D. Webster Prentiss. 5 DAG 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Stone on the Molting of Birds, 240; Stone on Birds collected in North 
Greenland, 243; Shalow on a Collection of Birds trom West 
Greenland, 243 ; Rotzell’s Birds of Narberth, Pa.,and Vicinity, 244 ; 
Rhoads’s List of Tennessee Birds, 244; Short’s Birds of Western 
New York, 245 3 A List of Nebraska Birds, 245 ; Cory’s ‘ Hunting 
and Fishing in Florida, with ‘A Key to the Water Birds of the 
State; 246; “Howe's ‘Every Bird, 247; Artistic and Scientific Tax- 
idermy, 247; Witchell’s ‘Evolution of Bird Song, 249; Harvie 
Brown and Buckley’s ‘A Vertebrate Fauna of the Moray Basin,’ 
eit ANN PUB Hols of the Royal Natural History, 252; Publica- 
tions Received, 253. 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Name of the Large-billed Puffin, 255; Record of a Fourth Specimen 
of the European Widgeon (Aas penelope ) in Indiana, 255 ; Recent 
Occurrence of the Florida Gallinule in Southern Maine, 255; 
Baird’s Sandpiper in Michigan, 255; The Belted Piping Plover 
in Massachusetts, 256; Discovery of the Eggs of the Belted Pip- 
ing Plover, 256; Recent Capture of the Golden Eagle near Port- 
land, Maine, 2 256; Golden Eagles in Virginia, 256; Nidification of 
the Dusky Horned Owl, 257; Four Winter Records of the Short- 
eared Owl on the Massachusetts Coast, 257; The Road-runner as 
a Rat-killer, 257; The Red-headed Woodpecker in Eastern Massa- 
chusetts, 258; Pyrocephalus rubineus mexicanus in Los Angeles 
County, Cal. 255; Intergradation in Song of Sturnella magna 
and S. m. neglecta in Missouri, 258; Pénxicola, enucleator at Wor- 


Contents of Volume NTTI. Vii 


cester, Mass., 259; Evening Grosbeak in Southern Wisconsin, 
259; Zonotrichia albicoll’s and Mniotilta varia at Pasadena, Cal, 
260; The Wintering of the ‘Towhee at Longwood, Mass., 260; 
The Nonpariel at Longwood, Massachusetts, 261; Peculiar Traits 
of some Scarlet Tanagers, 261; The Occurrence in Nebraska of 
Vvreo flavoviridis, 263 ; ; Helminthophila rubricapilla vs. Helmin- 
thophila ruficapilla, 263; Bachman’s Warbler (//e/minthophila 
bachmanz) in Greene County, Arkansas, 264; Second Occurrence 
of the Blue-gray Gnateatcher in Maine, 264; Southern California 
3ird Notes, 265; Merrem’s Work, 265; Mandt’s Inaugural Disser- 
tation, 266; Correction, 266. 


NOTES AND NEWS 


Obituary, Dr. Juan Gundlach, aera Clarence A. Sa 267; The 
Palm Beach Museum, 268 ; * The Osprey, 268; ‘ The Nidologist,’ 
268; U.S. Biological Surv ey, 206; Elliot's African- Ex xpedition, 
268; Zodlogical Nomenclature, 269. 


NUMBER IV. 
PAGE 
THE SHARP-TAILED SPARROW (Ammodramus caudacutus) AND ITS 
GEOGRPHICAL Races. By Jonathan Dwight, Jr., (Plate IV) 271 
SUMMER BirRDS OF THE ANTHRACITE COAL REGIONS OF PENNSYL- 


VANIA. By /e. 7. Young. : 4 ; : 1 278 
FEEDING IIABITS OF THE ENGLISH SP nRow! AND Crow. By Sy/ves- 

ter D. Judd. : ‘ ; : i P : . ; : 205 
SUMMER Birps OF NORTHERN ELK County, PA. By Werlliam L. 

Bailey. A . : F ; : ! ; ; : . 289 
SuMMER BIRDS (Jury igs ee 13, 1894) OF THE RHINE. By 

Ralph Hoffmann. ¥ 5 ¥ : : : ; ‘ 5 207 
THE CORMORANT ROOKERIES OF THE LOFOTEN ISLANDS. By /?. 

W. Shufeldt, M. D. (Plate V.). ; ; ; hoo he 
CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE MEXICAN FORMS OF THE GENUS 

CertHiaA. By Harry C. Oberholser.  . : : : : - 314 
FURTHER REMARKS ON THE LAW WHICH UNDERLIES PROTECTIVE 

CoLoRATION. By: Abbott H. Thayer. . , : F ; SS) 


EVIDENCE SUGGESTIVE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF ‘INDIVIDUAL Dr- 
CHROMATISM’ IN Megascops asto. By Arthur P. Chadbourne, 
M.D. : : : - : : : : ; é : 6) 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Sclater on Rules for Naming Animals, 325; Swann’s Ilandhook of 
British Birds, 325; Loomis on California Water Birds, 329; Ridg- 
way on New Species and Subspecies of Birds, 330; Oberholser on 
Two New Subspecies of Dryobates, 330; Richmond on Mexican 
Birds, 330; Richmond on New Species of Birds, 331 ; Dr. Abbott’s 
Collections from Asia, 331; Dr. Abbott’s Collections from the 


vill Contents of Volume NTTI. 


Seychelles and other Islands, 331; Robinson’s Birds of Margarita, 
332; Cherrie on San Domingo Birds, 333 ; Warren’s ‘ Taxidermy’ 
and Bird-Laws, 334; Ridgway and Lucas on a New Family of 
Birds, 334; Montgomery on Migration as a Check upon Geograph- 
ical Variation, 335; Contributions to Economic Ornithology, 
335; Publications Received, 338. 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Occurrence of the Wood Ibis ( Tantalus loculator) in Bristol County, 
Mass., 341; Wilson’s Snipe in Nova Scotia in Winter, 341; The 
Wild Pigeon at Englewood, N. J., 341; Recent Record of the Pas- 
senger Pigeon in Southern Wisconsin, 341; The Turkey Vulture 
in the Catskills, 341; Bateo borealis harlant in Minnesota, 342 ; 
A note on Buteo borealis lucasanus Ridgway, 342; Feeding-habits 
of Purple Finches, 342; First Occurrence of the Blue Grosbeak in 
New Hampshire, 342; Solitary Vireo (Vzreo sol¢’tarius) nesting in 
Connecticut, 343; Dendroica palmarum in New York City, 343; 
Breeding of the Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica) in 
Virginia, near Washington, 343; The Louisiana Water Thrush 
breeding in Berkshire County, Mass., 344; The Mockingbird 
(Mimus polyglottos) in Canada, 344; Thréothorus or Thryothorus? 
344; The Hudsonian Chickadee breeding in Southern Vermont, 
345; The Hudsonian Chickadee (Parus hudsonicus), Red-breasted 
Nuthatch (Sv¢#a canadensis), and Golden-crowned Kinglet (/eg- 
ulus satrapa) in Plymouth County, Mass., in Summer, 346; The 
Western Martin and the California Cuckoo at Escondido, Cal., 
347; Bird Notes from Toronto, Canada, 347; Iridescence of 
Feathers, as explained by an Old Author, 347; Birds killed by a 
Storm, 345. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Obituary, Lord Lilford, 348; Eugene Carleton Thurber, 349; Dr. 
G. Brown Goode, 349; Bird Day in Schools, 349; Museum of Nat- 
ural History at Providence, 350; ‘The Osprey,’ 350; ‘Das Tier- 
reich, 350; New Ornithological Publications, 351. 


INDEX > 35 
ERRATA . 366 
Title Page and Contents i-viii 


Officers and Committees of the A. O. U. ; , ; ix 


Members of the A. O. U. x 


PLATES IN VOLUME XIII. 


Frontispiece, George Newbold Lawrence. 
I. Ardetta neoxena Cory. 
Il. Florida Burrowing Owl. 
Il]. Evermann’s Ptarmigan (Lagopus evermannt). 
Vi 


V. Breeding Cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo). 


“OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES OF THE AMERICAN 


ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 1895-06. 


Expiration of Term, 


BRAWSEERLONVEEIEUAIM) VOVESELERE cise cjeics die Isle felt ore suc ciete November, 
A Oe ART ; ; 

ee es ee: \ Vice-Presidents, .. 0-220 a 

RipGWAY, ROBERT, 

SYNGE Osu; Ish SGentie bo acossaoeupo dud osa sro ocosoe 

IDWS bors MNO I EAE I acAT7Y Ao OOOO 6.6 OOD OO OOOO ne 6 


ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 


ALLEN, J. A....-. Ser otealls oa ay Saree ate shalslaua ele aie sie he duatele a ate November, 
BATCHELDER, C. (Hain, are coeravietonch-yanenicieteis tay acevaiie ouereietel siete tetene “ 
BEND TREE @EDAIRIU ES UEyaceicvenicis slew tise eis avels Send eieresw aha'e enki “ 
GEAR IMITAIN  OLURUAINIS, Mls) aire: o20 lars 'etallseisie ots aieis) toayereteleeiebete.e ac 6s 
COURS MELO Pe Ase caeie nr otene ates roroie cieitie.ainicleraeresie Beles <li “ 
[Bienes ID(Gob oad Seas once or Peretataielats o¥eyauelanstaxcicicrs esters ra onets 6 
UT SET ES NC fhnepenedet were pclen efetiate casera: stella) S/ereocl-o4e"s asl wie atefatanaions ie ve 


EDITORIAL STAFF OF ‘ THE AUK.’ 


ANUIEDIN |[o Akar JAH) 7o 000 306 Sa50 baOCUD BUoOuacGuN daonc November. 


CHAPMAN, FRANK M., Associate Edittor.....-+scerecsece ce 


COMMITTEES. 
Committee on Publications. 


BREWSTER, WILLIAM, Cha‘rman. ALLEN, J. A. 
SAGE, JOHN H., Secrefary. CHAPMAN, FRANK M. 
DuTCHER, WILLIAM. 


Committee of Arrangements for the Meeting of 1896. 


BREWSTER, WILLIAM, Chairman. BATCHELDER, C. F. 


1896. 
1896. 


1896. 
1896. 


1896. 
1896. 
1896. 
1896. 
1896. 
1896. 
1896. 


1896. 
1896. 


SaGe, Jonn H., Secretary. CHAMBERLAIN, MONTAGUE. 


PurpDI£, Henry A. 


se Active Members. 


MEMBERS! OF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ 
UNION. DECEMBER, 1895. 


ACTIVE MEMBERS. 


[Omission of date indicates a Founder.] 


Date of 
Election. 
Acpricu, Hon. CHARLES, Boone, Lowa... +++ sees teee cece cece cece ees a 
ALLEN, Dr. J. A., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City..-.-..--..-. — 
Antuony, A. W., 1052 12th St., San Diego, Cala.......-......... 1895 
Barrows, Prof. W. B., Agricultural College, Ingham Co., Mich..-.1883 
BATCHELDER, CHARLES FosTER, Cambridge, Mass.....-.---++.--+-- — 
BRLDING doy MAN VOtOcktom, \Gallate > ale steletele lente ielneleteleheteleltateiietetetateyeetete 1883 
BenpDIRE, Maj. CHARLES E., U. S. A., Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D. Co... ee eee eee cece cece ee ee cence tee e eens == 
BICKNELL, EUGENE P., P. O. Box 2958, New York City......-....... Ss 
*BREWSTER, WILLIAM, Cambridge, Mass..........---------.----. = 
Brown, NATHAN CLiFFoRD, 85 Vaughan St., Portland, Me......... — 
BRYANT, WALTER ne 1352 Franklin St., Oakland, Cala............. 1888 
CHADBOURNE, Dr. ARTHUR P., 225 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass..1889 
CHAMBERLAIN, MontaGuE, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass.... — 
CHAPMAN, FRANK M., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City...... 1888 


Cooke, Prof. W. W., State Agricultural College, Fort Collins, Colo. 1884 
* Cory, CHARLES B., Boston, Mass.....-- rivela acts wiallcye fesetoteveneyeee ay Feueraatoaye _ 
*Cougs, Dr. ELLiorr, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C... — 


Deane, RuUTHVEN, 61 Wabash Ave., Chicago, Ill.........----..... 1883 
DurcHeER, WILLIAM, 525 Manhattan Ave., New York City.......... 1886 
Dwieur, Dr. JoNATHAN, Jr., 2 East 34th St., New York City......... 1886 
Extiot, DanieL G., Field Columbian Museum, Chicago, Ill........ — 
FisHer, Dr. ALBERT K., Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.... — 
Foster, LyMan S., 35 Pine Street, New York City...--......--..... 1888 
Gitt, Prof. THeopore N., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

DAN Conse ee ees Gao OO GOOd OT OOO ISS COCO TOD 1883 
GRINNELL, Dr. GeorGe Birp, ‘Forest and Stream’ Office, New York 

City..c secre cece neee cece cece cone cnans tena cees ccs sees verece 1883 
Hensuaw, Henry W., Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, D. C....1883 
Lanopon, Dr. F. W., 65 West 7th St., Cincinnati, O..---.+--..+.-.. 1887 
LAWRENCE, NEWBOLD T., 51 Liberty St., New York City.......... 1883 


1 Members of the Union and Subscribers to ‘The Auk’ are requested to promptly 
notify the publisher of ‘he Auk’ of any change of address. 
* Life Member. 


Honorary Members. xi 


Loomis, Leverett M., California, Acad. Sci., San Francisco, Cala. - 1892 


Lucas, Freperic A., U. S. Nat. Mus., Washington, D.C............ 1892 
MCIEW RATES elITOMAS.» Ela tmilcombs .OmbAanOls sis c.ereis <i5.0 ave sm 0b \e,¢.0fe'e oxeg —_ 
Mearns, Dr. EpGar A., U. S. A., Fort Myer, Va., via Washington, 

La Grereterretee iors chec eon terstareres situate cima a cist cmietd ou siersienais slas'o ads salt 
MERRIAM, Dr. C. Hart, Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C... — 
‘MERRIE Ore AMES ©... U.S An. Fort Sherman, Idaho......-..-- 1883 
NEHRLING, H., Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wis............ccecces 1883 
Nenson, E: We, Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C...-.-..... 1883 
Purnig, HeENry A., Room 36, State House Extension, Boston, Mass. — 
RipGway, ROBERT, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.... — 
Roserts, Dr. THoMaAs S., 1015 Harmon Place, Minneapolis, Minn. . - 1883 
*SAGE, JOHN H., Portland, Conn Baiats apaseraiel teNerene seid) etavaiete etevel ovescrmatavercie 1883 
SAUNDERS, WILLIAM E., 188 Dundas St., London, Ontario........... 1883 
*SENNETT, GeorGE B., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City........ 1883 
SHUFELDT, Dr. RoBert W., U. S. A., Smithsonian Institution, 

Wasininetoms IDs scdas cotndécobobs toocdncboaseaous Hoodbr — 
SreJNEGER, Dr. LEONHARD, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 

HUD) a Geiecescho vat ovcl cise cole) sp eVareuetatalishe) etre. slerave to’ erec crete Guest orele Sierclereicrs.ele) clatere 1884 
SronE, WITMER, Acad. Nat. sci, bhiladelp bias Pay ccc ela 2+ 1892 
*TRUMBULL, GURDON, 970 Asylum Ave., Hartford, Conn............ 1888 
MIM NDA NING OTTO Old) Orchards NOs -1eaiele «5 eis) cclaeieie aiciela cre svar eel sete 1884 


HONORARY MEMBERS. 


‘BERLEPSCH, Count Hans von, Miinden, Germany............++.: 1890 
BLANFoRD, Dr. WILLIAM T., 72 Bedford Gardens, Kensington, W., 

London, England............ otandsqnociatasaadoc 7, ska ae 1895 
Bocace, Prof. J. V. BARBozA Du, Royal Museum, Lisbon........... 1883 
CaBANIs, Prof. Dr. JEAN, Alte Jacobsstrasse, 103 a, Berlin........... 1883 
Dresser, Henry EeExLes, Vopclyffe Grange, Farnborough, Becken- 

Inver, INE, [inkllanClooco ommodasccs coud Seba pooNHGcadonoLE oC 1883 
BinscH Dr Onto, Delminhonrst., neas Be Gemeia se <ncs oe «leis o clejeye's +) -\< 1883 
GADKE. HEINRICH. sheloolangd ; wilawlsre meni relalstercts| «1-lelel(ofa) «11 ofa \-1<)s\e1s sia0is 1884 
GrieLioL1, Dr. HENry HILtyeEr, Director Royal Zodlogical Museum, 

PTO TSMC Siar aves Stevcisponsra: a -ehelat apnate atareltateh ctararsetenclatna aia var Atsy aveveren'e: Sten occve, 1883 
GuNDLACH, Dr. JuAN, Institute de 2a Ensefianza, Havana, Cuba..... 1883 
iSLARaMEWNGs, ID ie GWisuEQya JsineR el loOGoondonDoor Coco Do nao be anon cate 1883 
Hume, ALLAN OcraviAN, The Chalet, Kingswood Road, Upper Nor- 

Wool, emeoingtsadhoooshae nooedo bos po cose ce Kudo OoR Oars 1883 
MILNE-EDWARDS, Prof. ALPHONSE, Rue Cuvier, 57, Paris........... 1883 
Newton, Prof. ALFRED, Magdalene College, Cambridge, Eng....... 1883 


* Life Member. 


xii Corresponding Members. 


ReicHeNnow, Dr. ANTON, K@6nigl. Mus. fiir Naturkunde, Invaliden 


Str., 43, Berlin. --.eseceeeee eee ee eect ee eens avgigcate arctan ene 1891 
SaLvapor!I, Prof. Count Tommaso, Zodl. Museum, Turin, Italy. ..1883 
SALVIN, OsBert, Hawksfold, Fernhurst, Haslemere, England...... 1883 
Saunpers, Howarpb, 7 Radnor Place, Hyde Park, London, W...... 1884 
ScLaTer, Dr. Pumre Luriey, 3 Hanover Sq., London, W........- 1883 
SHARPE, Dr. RICHARD BOWDLER, British Museum (Natural History), 

Gromwell Road; ondomy 'S] Weenie cletertelsicteretstna tse eatadet felon 1883 
WALLACE, Prof. ALFRED RUSSEL, Corfe View, Parkstone, Dorset, 
England... -.-. cece cece rene renee ee cence eee tence ene enes 1883 


CORRESPONDING MEMBERS. 


ALFARO, ANASTASIO, Director National Museum, San José, Costa 


RTC Apercyaie oie: exotic loses seyeekeccie tshelele he, eylelecens ieieteene note Gcteleceac ni tata ie ie tatchet amare 1888 
Attum, Dr. C. A., Eberswalde, Germany....-.s00+0+0+--00- ahem’ spe OOH 
ANDERSON, Dr. JonHN, India Museum, Calcutta..............------- 1884. 
BiaAsius, Dr. RuDOLPH, Brunswick, Germany.....-------------.+6- 1884 
Buiasius, Dr. WILHELM, Brunswick, Germany.---.------.---.--.-- 1884 
BROOKS, W.- E-DWIN. Mount Honest. Ontario lemaleleieteiee eile eenteitetelare 1886 
Butter, Sir WALTER Lawry, Wellington, New Zealand......... - 1883 
Bureau, Dr. Louis, Ecole de Medicine, Nantes, France............ 1884. 
Bur.Ler, Lieut.-Col. E. A., Brettenham Park, Bildeston, Suffolk, 

Sinai UTA Clin yeieyavajopsierose’etsrer e+ aleusisl elena y edete es ene teeta 1884 
BUTTIKOFER, Dr. J., Leyden, Holland............-....---+++---00- 1886 
CiarKeE, Wm. EAGLE, Science and Art Museum, Edinburgh....... 1889 
Cotietr, Prof. RoBertr, Zodlogical Museum, Christiania, Norway.1883 
Coorer, Dr. J. G., Haywards, California-............------------- 18S4 
CorRDEAUX, JoHN, Great Cotes, Lincoln, England................. 1884 
DALGLEISH, JOHN J., Brankston Grange, Bogside Station, Stirling, 

SCOtland:«\cs ss 4s s.5,s0a.e) ood Baie) oar elehoeie olotraey eneis le tans Re ersieret Nem eteerote 1883 
Davip, L’Abbé ARMAND, Rue de Sévres, 95, Paris..-------------.- 1883 
DOLE SANRORD Bs Eonoliulus Elawaianelc soretciectsteiettetetcteiencletetersteinie 1888 
DuBois, Dr. ALPHONSE, Museum Nat. History, Brussels.--..-....- 1884 
DucGés, Prof. ALFREDO, Colegio del Estado, Guanajuato, Mexico....1884 
Ecut, ADoLpH BACHOFEN VON, Nussdorf, near Vienna....---.---- 1883 
HALO, Dir Vieror: (Geneva,, Switzerland lesretersmtereusmtrenterseherererarstteliet= 1884 
FEILDEN, Lieut.-Col. H. W., West House, Wells, Norfolk, Eng...... 1884 
FeRRARI-PEREZ, Prof. FERNANDO, Naturalist Mexican Geol. Expl. 

Commission; Pueblos Mexicon-sesemereeerieet: bie etree 1885 
FREKE, Percy Evans, Rosemount, Dundrum, Co. Dublin, Ireland..1883 
FURBRINGER, Dr. Max, Jena, Germany....+....-+ceceesensnncctcces 1891 
Gapow, Dr. Hans, Zodlogical Museum, Cambridge, England..... 1884 
GIRTANNER, Dr. A; St: GallesSwitzerlandiemmemeieienieseiiieraris enter ts 1884. 


Gopman, F. Du Caner, 10 Chandos Street, Cavendish Sq., London..1883 


Corresponding Members. Xlli 


Gopwin-AustTen, Lieut-Col. H. H., Shalford House, Guilford, Eng- 


Lepr ee et reer erel asus aie a si teh leva tavaretelafelicevaverci evel Selec! ote sal steveiets 1884 
GRANDIDIER, ALFRED, 6 Rond-Point des Champs Elysées, Paris....-1883 
Gurney, JOHN Henry, Keswick Hall, Norwich, England.....--.--- 1883 
HartTert, Ernst, Zoological Museum, Tring, England..--...-.-.-. 18g 
HaArTING, JAMES EpmMunD, Linnean Society, Burlington House, Pic- 

cadilly, London......----.+seece cece cece cece sete cece sc eneees 1883 
Harvisr-Brown, JoHn A., Dunipace House, Larbert, Stirlingshire, 

Syaolanaeloginadocds Aioooooaoones FATED oan eee Cece tehenarstslenetele Slehare 1883 
Hayex, Dr. GUSTAV VON, Vienna............++-+---- RS ensverals este 1884 
EIENSON: EVARRIY View YOKODMAMIAS << os 5.0 016 chew = nice vicivic on «sie a ewiein sis oe 1888 
iq. 1Dits 1am, Wiieinitioccoon cocoon obo0dco0c0n5 dnodob<ecag 760 no00 1884 
KNUDSON, VALDEMAR, Kauai, Hawaiian Ids.........-.----2+eeeeees 1888 
KRUKENBERG, Dr. E. F. W., Wiirzburg, Germany...-.......-+-22-++- 1884 
Krier, Dr. THEOBALD J., University Museum, Athens, Greece...-- 1884 
Layarp, E. L., Budleigh Salterton, Devonshire, England...-...--- 1884 
LEGGE, WILLIAM V., Cullenswood House, St. Mary’s, Tasmania..--1891 
LEVERKUHN, PAUL, Sophia, Bulgaria..... 22-6 +22 eee ee ee ee eee eee 1890 
LytrrLeton, Tuomas, Lord Litrorp, Lilford Hall, Oundle, England. 1889 
MacFarLane, ROBERT, Winnipeg, Manitoba......-...+.-.--++--0+- 1886 
MaparAsz, Dr. Juttus von, National Museum, Budapest, Hungary. 1884 
MALMGREN, Dr. A. J., University, Helsingfors, Finland..........--. 1884 
Menzsier, Dr. M., Imperial Society of Naturalists, Moscow.....-- 1884 
Meyer, Dr. A. B., Director of the Royal Zool. Museum, Dresden...- 1884 
Mojsisovics, Dr. A. VON, Gratz, Austria......+ssees ee ee eee e cece 1884 
INpAnTIBaES IMIs4 WC. agno0c6 ood ERT Pe Pats niie cee kapcuatavererenors ters: =, sieusiavaysuaters 1886 
NICHOLSON, FRANCIS, Oakfield, Ashley Road, Altrincham, England.1884 
OaTEs, EUGENE WILLIAM, Mandalay, Burma......----+-+++-+2+ eee: 1884 
OusTALetT, Dr. Emite, Jardin des Plantes, 55 Rue de Buffon, Paris.1888 
Patmén, Prof. J. A., Helsingfors, Finland.......-------++++++---- 1883 
Puitiprr, Dr. R. A., Santiago, Chili..... PE oe Ua PMN roles orci oho Stores ie 1884 
Rapper, Dr. GusTAv FERDINAND, Tiflis, Russia....-.----++++++--- 1884 
Ramsey, E. P., Sydney, New South Wales...---+---+-+++-++eeeeee-- 1884 
RINGER, FREDERIC, Nagasaki, Japan......--.. eR IE ORE Fiaretoe -- 1888 
ScHALow, Dr. HERMAN, 105 Rathenowerstrasse, Berlin...--..------- 1884 
Se._ys-Loncscnuamps, Baron EpMoND Dk, Liége, Belgium........-- 1884 
SHELLEY, Capt. G. E., 10 Thurloe Square, London, S. W....-.-.---- 1884 
THEEL, Dr. HJALMAR, University of Upsala, Upsala, Sweden.......- 1884 
TrisTRAM, Rev. Canon H. B., The College, Durham, England...... 1884 
Tscuus! zU SCHMIDHOFFEN, Count Vicror RITTER VON, Hallein, 

(Villa Hainnenhof), Salzburg, Austria. ..-....2---.ee eee eee ees 1884 
WATERHOUSE, F. H., 3 Hanover Square, London, W........------- 1889 


ZELEDON, Don Josk& C., San José, Costa Rica..... Ul one cron leleieias 1884 


Xiv Associate Members. 


© 


ASSOCIATE MEMBERS. 


ADAMS, STEPHEN J., Cornish, Me€.--.--. eee ee cece eee cece ee ee cece ns 1892 
ADNEY, E. T., Flushing, N.Y. s.0 02000 222 oe co eeecee oro cores ne 1885 
ALLEN, CHARLES ANDREw, Nicasio, Mn Con Calatinece scree aces 1894 
ALLEN, Francis H., West Roxbury, Mass......---..-...-.0.2.e00- 1888 
ALLEN, WILLIAM Go t Edward St., Worcester, Masse. +- le 1893 
Ames, J. H., 85 Bay St., Toronto, Can.ererceseseeeseseseeveeeee 1895 
ARCHER, W. C., 45 Chamber St., N. Y.------ 0202 eee+ ee eeeeeencenes 1888 
ARNOLD, EDWARD, 126 Van Buren St., Battle Creek, Mich......... 1894 
ATHERTON, FRANK Irvine, P. O. Box 60, Los Gatos, Cala...-.... 1894 
ATKINS, JOHN W., Key West, Florida.......+-...---+...++-2------- 1887 
ATKINSON, GEORGE EpGAR, 81 Borden St., Toronto, Can........- 1894 
ING NINA aly der wey Vavahwohapiol, Wer eiSaouoaag oso oootodewoaQOUeaOD 1891 
AVeRIEE, C.1K,, ij Bridgeport, (Comin -tlr-mrttr eee err gamoocr 1885 
INGcits IDE IDA ileEM a olor (Clonkcakeron IWNcooehodub ossodonsesnoseodous 1889 
BABBIT DT, JAMES 22, Manito, Wasser rete) <tm op ctetetellatetelstetetst-tal-ts aleletalcte liens 1891 
Bacon; (CARRINGTON Cy, Imboden; AuwjkamSaismcterm srl iie ste eee eieiete 1890 
BACON, SAMUEL D-, Jr., 2d National) Barmy Himes Wael eter) -)el-tkele telat 1SgQI 
BAGG, EGBERT, Tot) Gemesee ssita, Witla Nine \erereteled-eleteteltethetentetetercr siete 1883 
BAL, \GARLETRON Rios leittle: Riock,, lowalesceneiaceeicinn eater cients 1891 
BALL, Miss HELEN AuGusTA, Worcester, Mass...-- TP See DA aee 1893 
BAILEY. VERNON, lk River, Ivlimiti. ales st \crcleleleneietstatelateleteiatetee terete 1887 
BAIDYe CHARTES) E., NMaldem, Wiaissi-c/.c1. asus aioe rcisielerene ereieteneyiere inte 1890 
BAtLY, WiLEran I., 421 Chestnut ot, ehiladeliplaiassbaetermterrletcrr 1885 
BAKER, CART JFs;) Hort: ‘Collimss (Colosee + ache iearecieieeenie teemeerseiee 1893 
Baker, FRANK COLLins, Acad. Sci., Lincoln Park, Chicago, Ill...... 1894 
BancGs, EDWARD APPLETON, 22 Penn Sq., Boston, Mass....... 1884 
BANGS, OurTrrRAM, 240 Beacon St:, Boston, Mass.......... eistelavarepatente 1884 
BANKS, JAMES W., St: Jolam),. IN. Bi icrevjrs cts ciareine eternal etek eter rere 1887 
BarBour, Prof. Erwin H., Univ. of Neb., Lincoln, Nebraska....... 1892 
BAREOW,, CHESTER. Santa: Claras (Galaeem-stek een cera ereceeeer 1894 
BARNARD, JoB, 500 Sth St., N. W., Washington, D. C.............. 1886 
BARNDS:.Hon:/R: M:, Icacon, dilliccet eee eee eee ee eee nt 1889 
BARNEY, EVERETT Hey Spring fields Niasseee etettteke ete rte elite 1891 
BASKETT, JAMES New ron MexiOi, Nie@iertereisuaisteneteteneraione ererereieteleie ree erate 1892 
BASSETT, HENRY FRANKLAND, Tauntomy Meise gee eee re bisieeiceriol «1895 
Bates, ABBY FRANCES CALDWELL, Waterville, Maine............. 1S94 
Baur, Dr. G:, Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, Uilsemsccsislm- me = erate piolaoide 1892 
BaxTeR, GEORGE STRONG, Jr., 109 E. 17th St., New York City..... 1894 
Bea, F. E. L., 1633 19th St., N- W., Washimetoms i). Gor. cincels os 1887 
BEAN, J. Berurie Lp, Nicollet, Minnie, seeemeeneir eres eer 1892 
BEARD, Daniet C., 110 Fifth Ave., New York Gity..-..>.......... 1887 
Beck, Rotto Howarp, Berryessa, Santa Clara Co., Cala........... 1894 
Beers, Henry W., Bridgeport, (Contny-me gee aise niee oe) tee 1895 


Associate Members. XV 


BEuR EDWARD IA, 420 denny, ot, Brooklyn, N.. Y-. +5). /eislswes soc 1892 
BEbEOWs, (De 120th 4i oot. Fensey City, Ne Ja<s-cjesencasicssccce 1889 
BENNER, FRANKLIN, 110 2d St., N. Minneapolis, Minn............. 1883 
BENNERS,| GEO. be l22) Walnut ot. me ailadelpliia, bate 0. «s\cclsees «20s 1889 
BENT PAR EHURN CURVE ANDS, “EMammtOts IWaASSicic ieee cit vice s0 els\s eels w cin 1889 
BERGIOED, Or. We H.,3213 (Champa ot:, Denver, Colo... -. 1.0... .. 1889 
Poonnie ase ee venrete RIGSe WOU AN. I. dels <'clorels’ais/a)o.c'aeiojereiers css s'='5 «'e 1885 
iii (CRUNRILDSS Sjomlines ellos IN BIS soocncoc ooton pono dono onoooooe 1889 
BIRCHFIELD, Dr. CHARLES EDWARD, St. Joseph, Mich....-......-.. 1895 
BisHop, Dr. Louis B., 77 Whitney Ave., New Haven, Conn........ 1885 
BLACKWELDER, EL1oT, Morgan Park, Cook Co., Ill............... 1895 
BOARDMAN GMORGE. Acs Calaiss IVicuime ers siaals olerclcttisiclsleleleieis iolelaisiole(s) cle 1883 
IEGnDS. Jy elon O18 tnleoil Mie Negonoocosoactn nen conc HDdeuconoe anpoecerd 1890 
BonpD, PRANK, Cheyenne, Wyoming-.--.....00-.62-secs ence sacs 1887 
yoni; JENS Ig diilemiclem, lien icnepoodoeoD adoro DO AtoUbOo SM ABOOo OE 1890 
BOWERS JGIONEE He Columbia leancaster COs, ha cialacloe ciorse ss « c siche 1894 
Bow Les, JOHN Hooper, Ponkapog, Mass...--...-----+++ecceceseees 18gI 
BRACKET @ HOSDER I) bOXs 21455 "BOSCO, INIASS us -re1e-'s s/ayeye o'clals) «1-12 1895 
BRAD RORID] NIOSH SH En en GONCOnGH IMlaS'Siccis oie <ovaleteleleve atone ies cee ete 1889 
BRAIsLIN, Dr. WILLIAM C., 217 St. James Place, Brooklyn, N. Y....1894 
BRAND REE LRA NISUUNG | SIMONI New Yiasiel «(a lejelsl(s/e\cicle elelaiclas ele «cre oleic 1889 
BREWSEERS Hehe iron Mountains Mirehiecre <- 1c clee 6 = Ey Lae ers 1893 
BRIMLEY, CLEMENT Sos lRileitedas Ip (Ch cobedododdecos deta ncoceerocr 1888 
BROCK HENRY ERBERT. MegD.. Portland: Messi... ssa.eccaccs sce 1894 
SROKA lata WWaig « Gabratitels alincl Sexes arernieece) vetelerciate ere a0 excrersiatave.cls clo.cte oe 1893 
Brooks, EARLE A., Morgantown, Upshur Co., W. Va..........-.-. 1892 
BROWN Nae Epes tomers Vian aotefelatere/ fatale 2) alot siel clciele oie, </sic/cire otele se 1891 
Brown, Epwarp J., 820 20th St., N. W., Washington, D. C........ 18g1 
BROWN ERE RBE Rael CSO lm At Z OIA etetele) oka a airalafclsra'e}eial ol n's/e)e) 1c clelera tel 1885 
BROWNE HUBERT E 22) Collier St ahoronto. (Omarion sac 212 asics 1889 
BrRowN, JOHN CLIFFORD, 28 W. 37th St., New York City........... 1888 
BIROMEsIg VVUEMOAD ANY ay Miton Somos. IVES So56 dubs agoaneacoooce deme 18g2 
BROWNE, FRANCIS CHARLES, Framingham, Mass..................- 1883 
BRUCE MAIS Ye HNTLENaE Sth aim Ptolemy MLAS Setetettoha.«\clcleliessie ain <lsterevere aye e 1894 
BrYAN, WILLIAM ALANSON, State College, Ames, Iowa........... 1894 
BRANES ORN Avs, 022 Oliver Stn niansass City eNO, al 4) oe «fete < - 1893 
BRYANT (DRS Wits SAWYER, (Coliasset, Miassis.- cs selec sc cece + cise les 1893 
BUNEER, ULYSSE, 129, E. 76th St:, New York (City. 0. soc. cases ae 1894 
BULEEY. UREGINAT Db: Hie Cantomns lito scams sce ve careless cles ice s 1889 
BuRNERAe WilbmbAn IG. ‘hort. Collims., (Coloemecccter cciccicic ose caress 1895 
BURNS WuRAN Kaloo) Berwyt, Ghesters Gorn babetejetsieralcls slelelo/<sate) «)srsie) +) «1s 1891 
BURTOHMUVIERD ECM, X All, Nien Niccrete: cstetepetetelsteieal tela ays erares ois syerete ores 1895 
BURLON, piier Gx, 220. OUD. SE. New. Y¥ ORC Mbyjcre cee gene oie cls ls a'c'o.s 1893 
BUREER SeAMOSIIW op DrOOK villes Mri acre a cpciecatenel «lake cys) cvareel s.ctsicicls Aeic as 1885 
BuxBaum, Mrs. CLarA E., Lexington Hotel, Chicago, Ill......... 1895 
(GAIL, VATIONS IARIIOGINS Isiah ING TelodotGnoe coded deatoboaudr 1894 


CAMPBELL s NOBPRM ARG Vlg .0 D OUlGEty) | COLO rei iele ele cle 21st eet 01 1894 


xvi Assoctate Members. 


CANFIELD, J. B., 329 Iraniston Ave., Bridgeport, Conn...........- 1893 
CARPENTER, CHARLES Knapp, Ann Arbor, Mich...........ss0+es: 1894 
CARRUTH, CHARLES THEODORE, 4 Fayerweather St., Cambridge, 

INE AUS'S 0 Sos c revere el) oie) wi Gis) a (= cranei'e wletere ohejera ctelovienerate eiekeus clevereveraaotoher aeietete 1891 
Cary, CLINTON DE LA MonTalrcGne, 181 W. 135th St., New York 

Giiiiadosmosdiau se boodn doscdndojanododdS dascqaased {8005086 1894 
CASE, CLiprorD) M., 54 Babcock St., Hantfords Womm.i- ses sete stele 1892 
CASE RALPH ERNEST. Avon Comics cei cieentisiiceieeteenetr 1894 
CAaunkK. WimB, ere Hautes indiscretion weenie ener apeetee 1891 
CHAMBERLAIN, CHauNcy W., 51 Lincoln St., Boston, Mass......... 1885 
CHAMBERLAIN, ERNEST, Jubilee, Peoria Co., Ill..... SUS ARS i EPO ES 1893 
CuAsE, VirGINIUS He, Wady Petra, Lie. scene hese ree eres 1892 
CuHERRIE, GeorGE K., Field Columbian Museum, (Cloitenieroy MISSA Seo 1891 
CHUBE, SAMUEL, H., 110 W. 12jth St., New Yorke Givi... > 1894 
CuurcH, Miss Harriet Dupiey, Bourne, Mass.........-..«..---- 1895 
Crark, Huspert Lyman, 906 McCulloh St., Baltimore, Md........ 1886 
CLARK, JOHN N., Saybrook, (Conti >:.ccj saneineieclee en eeae eee 1885 
Ciark, Jostan H., Paterson, Nas win% hierar cepa eines Ma dee 1895 
CrarkE. Prof. S> \F), Williamstownes Wassy-ceuesen eee eee eee 1890 
CLEARWATERS, Rev. JOHN FRED, Indianola, Ill............----+--- 1895 
Coats, H. K., 136 Washington St., Chicago, Ill......... Sahat ee 1883 
CorvBuRN, ALBERT ©. Mount Vernon NEG EEE eee rEere eee teee 1891 
Cornurn, W..W.,; Springfield, ‘Mass. 2. = «ce.s- sees ce Tiehevoacieeahe wets 1889 
Cott, WiLtraM C., 59 Pleasant St., Worcester, Mass..--..--+-+..0 1892 
Comps; Bertie LAwReNnce, Hot Springs, Ark... .-. 00: -ee-5ees =e 1895 
Comeau, Napo.eon A., Godbout, P. 6 Eee arteries eh ae. 5 oP 1885 
Convrr, Dayton Lorp; St. Anthony Park, Minm-2-ssee7sne star 1894 
ConGpon, HERBERT WHEATON, 194 Clinton St., Brooklyn, N. Y.--1893 
CONKLIN; CHARLES Ex, Roslyn, N, Y sss ss<c0: oc eoleses ohne sae 1892 
ConkLIN, Dr. Witti1aM A., 10th Ave. cor. 187th St., New York City.1885 
Cook, -Arrer@® Joan, Claremont, (Calas.c. ccc cigaeee eeeen rennin 1894 
Cootey, Rosert C., rst Nat’l Bank Bldg., Springfield, Mass....... 1895 
Copri ATBAN, Hartford, (Comnassscdee seawater eee eee 1885 
Core, Francis R., Ju: Bhiladeliphiay Baacrcc- Sic be cia rehas Gin cee Big SemeRebore 1892 
Corsetr, Hersert Epwin, Pipestone, Minn.......-.....+----6- 1894 
Comes, Dro WILLIAM PrarRcr? Bostoms) Masceeaoceotetite aac anes 1888 
Cox, Wryssrs. O,., Matikato;! Mass...00 a4e0 Seen aa eee ee 1894 
Cram, R. J., 26 Hancock Ave., W. Detroit, Mich...-.....+.+.0+--+- 1893 
CRANDALL, C. W., Woodside, @lucenisi@o re Nem ee tlea eli ie ent 18g 
Crone, JOHN’ V.,) Marathon, lowae see see see eee eee 1893 
Cutyerr, Col. Joan Y., Room 150, Potter Building, New York City.18go 
Curriz, Rota P. 7oo T. St., N. W., Washington, D. C.........- 1895 
CurRIER, EDMONDE: SAMUEL, Keokuk, Iowa..+---+eeceesceeess cess 1894 
DAENZER, CARE, -Stiduouis: (Motes ccce cee ee eer near 1888 
Darrin, W. H., 5000 Franklin St., Philadelip itary WP atajeayoteisdeleta)«-i-l-ers 1892 
DaGGeETT, FRANK ©), Pasadena; 'Callisi.. uactremscrae ereeetoein racieusieeeen eects 1889 
DaKIN, J. A., Syracuse, Ni VY eisece4 .2 oe eee eee a ae 1895 


Assoctate Members. XVii 


DANA aE eRONe lac hiawikon ©Ol Olr\eteiele cielais) series) l0/0) 4c \e/*\=/ (al aleieiael= 1889 
DAnsBy, DURWARD E., Custer City, South Dak..........-.........- 1895 
DANIEL, JOHN W., Jir., Lynchburg, Va...----.e22-seeccee sense ccese 1895 
Davis, DENNIS BARNES, 816 Colfax St., Toledo, Ohio............. 1894 
IDS, (Ginn JN MIS SIEO, IN, Wioossoemeos condecunoeouagpoon ooo Ge 1890 
Davis, NaTHAN L., Brockport, .N. Y ..--.--+-+0+-- poop OUeIDeeas~ 1893 
(Divison. wleockpork. Niagara Gaui No Yiieese secs cisieicies «28 «os 1885 
DAWSON, WILLIAM Lion, Chelan, Wash.............-00++-20s-0%- 1895 
Dean, R. H., Tennallyfown, Washington, D. C.....--.----+--- 00+: 1893 
Dr Haven, Isaac Norris, Ardmore, Pa......--.eeeseseesece scenes 1893 
DELAFIELD, JOSEPH L., 475 Fifth Ave., New York City......--..... 1888 
DENNE, DAvip, 100 St. Francois Xavier St., Montreal, Can.......- 1890 
DETWILLER, Dr. JNO. W., Bethlehem, Pa.-..--. 2.2.0.2. -552.2+--2-% 1891 
Dewey, Miss MARGARET, 168 Pearl St., Springfield, Mass........... 1892 
DickINson, Epwin, West Springfield, Mass...-.....+-++++s++eeeeee 1885 
DickINSON, JOSEPIOA., (Gresham, , NeDisss eccaigss0 sie senses ote oat 1894 
DICKINSON, JOSEPH EDWARD, Rockford, Ill.-............-..+++.--- 1894 
Dickinson, W.S., Tarpon Springs, Pla... ..5.0..6s00cene cenccncces 18g 
DILuie, FrReperIc M., 611 McPhee Bldg., Denver, Colo..... odaodact 1892 
Dionne, C. E., Laval Univ., Quebec, Can. ..--....-.seeeeesseeeeee 1893 
Drxon, FREDERIC J., Fairmont, N. J...-2--cecsceccceessccecccccnces ISgI 
DOERTENBACH, WILLIAM FAUTZ, 226 Main St., Pueblo. Colo...-... 1894 
DouGHERTY, Capt. W. E., U. S. A., Hoopa Valley, Cala...-....... + 1890 
DouGLass, Ber H., Burlington, Kansas -......-.-.-.2.2..s+--- os 1890 
Drake, Lewis MARVIN, Blissfield, Mich...... PR ROI CONE see eee ee 1894 
DURBEE OWPnN, PialliRiviers MlaSSuisers aicleis «\) terse ¢cisis p oss 010 ici se uate 1887 
Dutcue_er, Dr. B. H., New York Hospital, New York City........-- 1886 
DYVCHk weroty lp lil awhemcesmia nl Sas cheletcleyeaiciacislnielstle) celers\eio sloieisher 1886 
Eames, Dr. Epwin H., Bridgeport, Conn. .......+.eseeeee sees eeees 1888 
EASTMAN, Harry D., Framingham, Mass............-20ce-seeceees 1891 
BVARONG PANT VeNrie Naren Gl DLO O key Neg blvactorarsrereefete rile ts evel olelel love el eis =inraie care 1890 
BATON. Wea El, Catia ti atenia Ns NG o=p4gs)ele- mieiele cit lveleheus icles © vie =i ase) 1895 
Eppy, NEWELL A., 615 North Grant St., Bay City, Mich..........-. 1885 
EpGAR, NEWBOLD, 28 E. 39th St., New York City ..--.....--......- 1891 
Epson, JoHN M., New Whatcom, Washington....---...-...--+----- 1886 
EDWARDS, WILLIAM SEYMouR, Charleston, W. Va......-.--+-+e-. 1894 
BEDON, CHARLES, E,,. Williamsport. bas snes se snainc sles oem a arin os 1891 
ELrRop, Prof. M. J., Illinois Wesleyan Univ., Bloomington, IIl..-... 1892 
IBieMiasp (olor win VaNiS (Goes Syeokillizn, MlOodcocaoo dopguo mo oaoe 1892 
Evans, Dr. Evan M., Englewood, N. J.-..-..+--.-ee- es eeeeee cence 18838 
EVERMANN, Prof. BARTON W., U.S. Fish Comm., Washington, D.C. 1883 
FANNIN, JOHN, Provincial Museum, Waic lon amin Garis tiie: cis sista nels 1888 
FANNING, JED FRYE, Kingston, Mass.....----.-2..s-eeee sees eeeeee 1895 
FARLEY, JoHN A., Newton, Mass..--......-222 2-222-222-0202 0e- Sfejfenshe) Sue 1892 
Faxon, Dr. WALTER, Mus. Comp. Zo6él., Cambridge, Mass.......... 1891 
FERGUSON, CHAvUINGEY. | CORBIN. wVLenrimlaGa NlaSSeisised<iriclane ¢ cfs. a)eie). «fe 1894 


FERNALD, RoBERT Heywoop. 26 Cornell St., Cleveland, Ohio...... 1890 


xvill Assoctate Members. 


FerRY, JOHN FARWELL, Lake Forest, Lakes @ormllilevacrsccicraerete 1894 
Ficcrns, Jesse Dane, Kensington, Md... +. eee sere e cece cece eee 1889 
FISHER, WILLIAM H., 14 W. North Ave., Baltimore, Md.........-- 1895 
FisHer, WILLIAM HuBBELL, 12 Wiggins Block, Cincinnati, Ohio....1883 
FLANDERS, JAMES WALTER, Wwiikonoie lke. IN Slo Se andsboo ance boec 1894 
FLEMING, JAMES H., Toronto, Can..---.--+--+++-eeccce eee - =e eee 1893 
FLINT, HARRY W., Yale National Bank, New Haven, Conn........ 1888 
FLINT, WILLIAM R., Oakland, Cala... --- 00-2 saecen ccs wee eer ene 1890 
BLOOD. OLIVER. D:, Malden Miaissicq cic cis-tevsl-rsonereieilery eretete eietenenetarsices 1893 
FLoyp, Harry Wess, 2 Verona Place, Brooklyn, N. Y........... 1892 
EORBUSH, EDWARD: Els, eMiald ems MiaisSeatcie ete etemeretatet fet ene remit ieaetetetetats late 1887 
Foster, Francis ApTHORP, Cambridge, Mass:.-.......---..-++--- 1893 
POWLER, PREDERICK FlALE, Fort Wogan, Colojeee a eme cine cir 1892 
Fow ter, Capt. J. L., 2d Cavalry U. S. A., Fort Logan, Colo....... 1892 
Fox, Dr. WILLIAM H., 1826 Jefferson Place, Washington, D. C....--. 1883 
ERANCIS, NATHANIEL AtTwoob, Brookline), Malsstyee rr cilsicleielreret 1893 
Frost, ALBERT H., 255 W. 74th St., New York City..-....... Moree 1893 
Fuertes, Louis AGAssiZ, Ithaca. N. Y. Leen eee cee eee cece eens 1891 
BULLER, CHARLES) ANTHONY, Brooklimey Malssricmelse)-eirloleleeiietelolels 1894 
Gage, DENIS, Gold Hill, Boulder Co., Colo.......... etaaie ee seeeee 1886 
GARCELON. PREDERICK Av MON, /AUlbrgiaa Mile renetetto nals /etetloie terse eters tcianerers 1895 
GARMAN, Prof. H., State College, Lexington, Ky-.---...°-..--.--.- 1893 
GARNIER, RAaLpH LEE, 8 Stockton St., Los Angeles, Cala........... 1894 
GAULT, BENJAMIN T., Glen Ellyn, DuPage (Co., Ill..--..----...... 1885 
Gicsert, Prof. Cuartrs H., Stanford University, Cala...........-... 1892 
GitrEen, ours, B.,)131 Bs 76th Sh. New sion Ciltyeretttiratetene tiers 18a5 
GILMAN, ARTHUR ScoTT, 5 Waterhouse St., Cambridge, Mass...... 1895 
GLeAson, Rev. HERBERT W., 728 E. 18th St., Minneapolis, Minn..1894 
GoopDaLeE, Dr. JosepH LINCOLN, 3 Fairfield St., Boston, Mass....... 1885 
COLMA) [Os Iase Wag IDiepnayisoyny (Miia, scssdunsoucds oschccsosbcagqsace 1889 
GRANGER, WALTER W., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City....... 1891 
(GRUNSAES lao gd sto 1a tbisloMi eek INNES God Sooo obs coggooacdLonoodOD ass coe 1890 
GREEN, Morris M., 7o6 BE; Fayette St., Syracuse, N- Yee... ose 1886 
GREENE) aCe, Pitch bre, Mass cies cr) -tievereteletetdetehe tenet tetoiereneteistoteteretstel tees 1891 
GREGG) Di Wuorrmrane H., Port Chester, Ne yeaee eee eee eine 1883 
GRINNELE, JOSEPH, Passadena.. Callas saci iaei eee reer ier 1894 
Haun, Rev. Benjamin Daviese, 266 Union St., Springfield, Mass...1894 
PLAT WS PEENRY, Rudge wood, INe i|ieristel otek Nettie eternal lee erertaetet 1890 
Ean, JuDSON BAxmER, Wyndon Centre mvt tree eee reitaeter 1894 
EPAMBEL DD, “Ai:,-Ottaiwal;: Dllllc.%.% 12 lo leye sae teeter etene nee ener ereiete Cree nate ie ste 1892 
HAMLIN, GEORGE L..; Bethel) (Conn -).1c6. eee eee teeta 1893 
Hancock, Dr. JosepH Lane, Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill.......... 1894 
Hareirt, Prof. CHArLes W., 904 E. Genesee St., Syracuse, N. Y...1892 
HARDY, MANLY, Brewer, Mainesace s2..5 peCReeneeE ete rele reriaieeee 1883 
MDARRIS,) WiILElram: C:;, Utica; SNe Ye ce cmiaceeteseteiestts ee cie iar +++. 1894 
HARTZELL, Prof. Josepu Cutver, Orangeburg, S.C. .............-. 1892 


Hassrouck, Dr. Epwin M., 2510 14th St., N. W., Washington, D.C. .1887 


Assoctate Members. xix 


HATCH, JESse MAURICE, Escondido,’ Cala-.<-<... 2.2... .222. 05255 1894 
PLAVEMEVERG: HO ite, Mialiwiae Ni. Jassie ste eee ce ie conse wenn sis 1893 
[RU Wanininyn Ris (Giz Teeveteu DIY AIRS ILE OigAG aun re OC ORCA CEE aoe ae aCreias 1885 
HeapnHy, Dr. LAwrRENCE F., 104 E. 26th St., New York City.......1894 
HECKER RMD H RVG Ka Ge INO LOOM a C.OMitiiersrarclealelsie sc sleljele «15.6 diac iieiela = 1893 
‘lahore. (Giaormemy 15, ieee, (Cojicis\oddde coon mons odooodoeoood oa coc 1893 
HmppGEs) CHARTE SEH ING We bl aweTnl yCOTMsi-s\)c stele + cle oicls © sels. clsle oe 18gI 
inUoumisneaainies 1D yen Aiea see aye I Di i sts on teliny, 0 bine h Za oub Canin coi Aen ome 1888 
Hewes Arraur EH, Millers’ Place, Suttolk €oz, N:- ¥...-.2-......%- 1888 
HENDRICKSON, W. F., 130 12th St., Long Island City, N. Y-........ 1885 
NEI GO ARMOR TE 7S OOMEs PlOwaieeterains alesse ss) ele) aie/s a e's: 210) «lures, o/s 1892 
LIeKS.) DE NPAMIN, 2, Od Westbury. Nie) Nise eee elle leew © wel cle ne 0) 1892 
FANG GUNS ELEN Wa Oss Mle ummactse UNie Nosia ls ck orereieyalsiiche a cWice ejstelere: ct elaler ete 1892 
Hine, J. BRAINARD, East Onondaga, N. Y..-..-.-2.+-+- see eee eee 1895 
JHUesya,, MURS | Aesie IL, 4 Sisekiin. Mingl. cess codtdoogctcoss wenpoopoouDoona: 1890 
Hircucock, FRANK Henry, Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 1891 
HoaG, BENJAMIN, Stephentown, N. Y...-.--+---00+ eeeee seen seen 1892 
A VORBIVENN CAGE rT Belmonts EAS. acrcc stle ects cisrsiaraeieiets aletalcs cl wie e'sets 1893 
Horcoms, LEON C., 14 Howard St., Springfield, Mass............. 1893 
HOMGISMER INE Ds IOelawalniy \VWWASs « celels lo! olle/ele)=les-'s(=!o)(e/micle!sivie =!-le =lorlel< - 1894 
FV ORIMES TORY eile, Seltay essa, Calls tals reel wie!a< lo ol s)e/eia 1s oe) ael~lelnieareie o's) e1eie 1893 
ROU ANER SS RANK OSes Same DIES Onn Call ater. arciers #1 +11 stale so lies» se is) eere 1893 
EIOMmER, is des) West Parmiimetoms (@MiOV «2... = mes) = mel aals/0\ +1» wicisiels 1893 
HLOOPRES; JOSIAH, West (ChestenpPascnccce cs -enne + ecies cece ce cn .-- 1889 
iloxeyyinins Viverteneme NG. MVeIlingile eno oc doléoddungob sed Co GooCume paar 1895 
HOoRNADAY, W. T., 53 Erie Co. B’k Bldg., Buffalo, N. Y...-......... 1888 
IROWIEHE JOR TIEN aS) 1Bing don AIA INT SG Gaol cooscncdcUon BAO oaean or 1883 
Bowe: 12) Wankeshine wise eae ees = a oo Seale vale bad ease oO rasiey 
Howe, REGINALD HEskerR, Jr., Sta. D., Boston, Mass.....-...----..-1899 
HOWwELE, ARTHUR H., Putnam Ave:; Brooklyn, N. Y.---......+..... 1885 
HOMEE, CHART ES) Gy. mVVESt | Mollie yen ctsS aleteteta sie fete lrels/-)nlel,-'1=\\\eelelols 1889 
EUOWeE ss WIE PANt les tamnonde Gonineenmtamereetaactis stele eri iis cle Jel everest els) e4e 1888 
HuBBARD, Mrs: SARA A329 33rd St., Chicago, Tll...-.--...----2.-. 18g 
Hueues, Dr. WILLIAM E., 3726 Baring St., Philadelphia, Pa........ 1891 
ISNUSEib g WOM Eom opy 1Bii5 Mayol igfg IN Millent eee) Vie od scnd beam boa oon olocdsc 1889 
Hunn, JoHN T. SHARPLESS, Plainfield, N. J.-.---..------+-22+- 20-0. 1895 
HUNTER, Miss Susan Morrison, Newport, R.I.---..-.-.......0.. 1894 
HMURDs Man ODORE Di. Wiviersid ex GC allqterierteratevelcitetssttets a <2 vials cle. ct cte 3 1890 
leivvosicinin, Dire |, Ges IGeinNesione. INbinine onclo0 chee aboosbooeepdDaaEoe 1885 
INGALLS, CHARLES E., East Templeton, Mass.............-----+++0- 1885 
INGERSOLL, ALBERT M., 818 5th St., San Diego, Cala..............- 1885 
INGERSOLL, JOSEPH CARLETON, Bowie, Md......--+--++.22ee-+eeee-s 1895 
UNERON ERG IOS 25 away (Golleso5conds on 0csoododcd59d0cnsdodoDnodE 1889 
IRVING, JOHN, 550 Park Ave., New York City..........22--------- 1894 
IsHam, C. B., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York Cicadas Jancwons'aoue 18gI 
JACKSON OMAG HEI) WES) CMeStelia Bale srateteyeretemiet = loko, «ene « cre) eiel'e«i= 1888 


Jacoss, J. WARREN, Waynesburg, Pa..-.-----2--+-.--2 see e ee eee eee 1889 


OX Associate Members. 

James, Howarp K., 225 W. 38th St., New York City...---...+.++--. 1888 
JEFFRIES, WILLIAM AUGUSTUS, 78 Devonshire St., Boston, Mass..... 1883 
Jesurun, Dr. Mortimer, Douglas, Wyoming..---+++esseeeeeee eee 1890 
Jounson, ALBERT I., Des Moines, lowa....--eeeeeeee cere ce eeee ene 1885 
Jounson, A. W., Upper Lake, Lake Co., Cala.......-.++-.- Sodcdoe 1893 
Jounson, Frank E., Parkville, Kings Co., N. Y.----.+++-+++ ayplehoeiae 1888 
Jounson, JAMES Howarp, Mains fiel ai viatssitie-cmltetcreivorterat-lsiciinancert. 1894 
JouHNnson, WALTER A., Galesburg, Ill... -.ee ee eee cece eee eee eee eens 1895 
Jounson, WM. S., Boonville. No Yo. ++ sees cece ee eee ee eee eee eee 1893 
Jounston, CHARLES Haven Lapp, Cambridge, Mass........-+---- 1894 
Jones, Lynps, College Museum, Oberlin, Ohio. ..-. +--+ --+eee-+--- 1888 
Jones, Prof. Marcus E., Salt Lake City, Utah..........-...-.---.5-- 1Sg0 
Jorpan, A. H. B., Johnsonburg, Pa....-- ee eeee eee eee cece eee e ees 1888 
JorvDAN, Prof. DAvip STARR, Stanford University, Cala.............. 1885 
Jupp, ELMER T., Cando, No. Dak.....--.seccessccese rs ceccccee cues 1895 
Jupp, Sytvestrer D., Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C...... 1893 
Justice, WILLIAM W., Jr., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa.......... 1895 
KELLOGG, VERNON L., Stanford University, Cala..........-... isfeaa 1888 - 
KENDALL, W. C., U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C....... 1886 
KENNARD; HREDERIC) HEDGES Brookliimes mNiais star) rereterieleleteleleast2iclenel <yele 1892 
LIB Nit ENVIS. NNO Nemo) Lalas IB(eyel soropeley INIE S¥ooosn ob onceo Opadda onodDe aos 1893 
tian, INEKA isin ae Se5. Davari, OloiCiscoons0sbe sascdo80Gadc- 1891 
KIMBALL, R.-E., 631 G St., N. W., Washington, DiGi e scion 1893 
ISING, GEORGE GORDON, NEw ports) IR Ue tie <r tele i lotene ete telelles stole tetetokeloieter= 1888 
KIRK AT RICK) HH. 1G. Meadville: Teas =r «eve etelsroatenercretstatel etsistaierietatsteyaiars 1891 
KIRKWOOD, FRANK C., P. O. Box 364, Baltimore, Md..-...-...-..- 1892 
NIGHT, ORA WILLIS, Bacon, Me. <micieveiele/leltern: EES AE OS COE 1893 
KNOWLTON, Ee lo, OU. oS: Nat, Mius., Washime tom, 9s Cactei\tetoteratatal 1883 
OCH Erol eAU GUS TMV illliannis pO tal ae eiirioleleetiebelelsteiey ellie teteretn rete 1So1 
IMOCH, HREDERICRW.,— Univ. Calas. pb encele yay Gallant rte vtetteretettarter 1891 
KouHN, GUSTAVE, 14 Carondelet St., New Orleans, La.............. 1886 
Koum ty, Rey. PIRMINE M., St. Benedict’s College, Atchison, Kan. ..1892 
KRAEMER, FREDERICK L., Box 198, Williamsport, Pa......-......+. 1893 
KEOM, STEPHEN SARTHUR, Plasmtield) INeo ¥e weit eel cretaelieten ieee 1894 
IGUMELEN, Iu DwiG., Milton, Wilss,- (sic cies cine cise cients eee eer 1895 
ADD J OAMUEM Ba.uWest, Chester. bat. ade cheese enocreee Greiner 1889 
ABH. EUGENE IE:., (Alto, DG ot aie aie ete 50a eiel tele einer array 1893 
Laneopon, Epwin, Central National Bank, New York City.......... 189 
WANO’) ALBERT; Madisona Minin: sooncels eee or eee eee 1890 
Lanrz, Prof. D, .E., Manhattan, Kansas... ccsseeeee ee eee eee 1885 
LAwReENcE, Hiram V., 203 Bedford Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y...-.-.-.-- 1895 
LAWRENCE, Robert B., MIDIS ISIN EN Sdoocaasondécde Gabe odeboqoc 1883 
Lawrence, Ropert Hoe, 45 William St., New York City.......-... 1890 
LkvINGS, GLENN V. B., 117 W. 58th St., New York City............ 1892 
Lewis, Wittiam-H., Pawtucket, R: 1... saceneeeeercmeec ere e 1890 
LINSKILL, DAvip Jss-Plymouthy Bate <i: twice suetemeneipeiattetetletsterstctare etceetetar= 1891 


LIVERMORES, Jc, Newport, .R. 1...:,. 5 «cits ocels eaten ner eee eee eats 1893 


Associate Members. xx 


NEGING A FIG ee VVOLCEST CTIA SS neste esis lapcvale eke cs! shave sw eislaisotereie elalee a 1889 
WOoOMIS) JOHN A.) Lainteock, Comeho) Gor, MeExasiee- ce. c seis oo ee oc 1887 
LorinG, J. ALDEN, Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.........1889 
HOWE, WIbWOuUGHB Yl. mete blOs@OllOlrs <teclaalee «1s a1 clole's/s c/a s) ce s)s\eve sles 1893 
EVHRMAN, JOHN: Jiu, toorracihic Ave., Jersey City, N. Js......s.2 4.0% 1893 
EUS RICHARD HD aan Omir El ial chitiGal yew Uzarelatelelsleisielelcis aleve icicle. eieie sie eie cle 1894 
‘MacDoueatt, Guo. R., 88 Wall St., New York City............... 1890 
INWACTE SG, IDieeZe\o 1a los IERIE) INTO SYeOliE halon o claco Ho oone cipcenon Gap 1885 
NAGRAVEeGHORGE Nils, NambiGkKet, Nia SSeai ss lo tieje cicleic) cles ofelo atclete sbesvere 1890 
Macoun, Prof. Joun, Geol. and Nat. Hist. Surv., Ottawa, Ontario..1883 
MAILLIARD, JOHN W., 323 California St., San Francisco, Cal......., 1895 
IN UMTLL NRO Ifosineiei, Shin (Cemonvbane, (Cullonccocdousoucssae quasi soanoE 1895 
MANN; Kev AiR) 132) Be Hanover St., irentom, IN. jp -cecrem* - 1894 
WOR G Vi enol Omi RMD AIS TONG! Lille cretion tere) ate aberstslertois crelete sereislcrcvere 1892 
Maris, WILLARD LORRAINE, Newton, Bucks Co., Pa............... 1894 
IMUME TE IDINSTIDIL, ng Sp misNalGl, WENSccontond coocydonds cocSuaHdpeor 1894 
MASTERMAN, ELMER ELLSwortH, New London, -Ohio............. 1895 
NUAKON  WiMUL DANE IMAnPE, 132) Main) sta. OmerdaiNe Yeece ccd. . cos. 1894 
May, FRANK DwiGur, Jr., 17 Huntington St., Hartford, Conn....... 1894 
MAYNARD, COLTON, 1407 15th St., N. W., Washington, D. C....... 1895 
McCoo, Panrnpyjanns, Knoxville’ Mle) sy0) wre © -1ici= lela) aeiel ele «minis «1 1895 
Mie Coramens, Ibo Imi (Glenn disi@vively INi¢ Néoeob Gace oceosooououonpod 1892 
NMcGRMNGOR] Re Gh PalowAlito wm Gall al cro sisteveelctoreis.ocetsat a. cleuss. sete ors oie erels; 5a 1889 
McIZHENNY, EDWARD Avery, Avery, La.........-2-..2----+----0-e 1894 
MGIGAING INOBERD BAT D. PiliimiGrOv esi Vidiecles -lelcis.celels eielsvclec selene 1893 
MAITLAND, ROBERT L., 10 BE. 35th St., New York City............. 1889 
MALI, CHARLES M., 93 Willow St., Brooklyn, N. Y..........-..-.- 1889 
MARSHALL, ALFRED, 59 South Canal St., Chicago, Ill.............. 1886 
Mason. EDWARD CAMPBELL, 76 Johnsons Park, Buffalo, N. Y...-.-- 1888 
Mine ZR MAUS) er, OVUtEo mse Nismllcetetarefelsia1 etelare silo leje¥eiais lo/e! ale/eie) seis eel ajole 1891 
MERRIAM, Miss FLORENCE A., 1919 16th St., N.W., Washington, D.C.1885 
Mim Rn: SEAR Ry sain OO ry INMAMG erort smal Setret oeretnicya Se acl © wlaiacle ores ave 1883 
METCALFE, WILLIAM C., 21 Cortlandt St., New York City.......... 1886 
NMiEr ER MGERRIn) OMI, |i.) EEterbOnOrs Nis Mie! -le ys -telel-leir «ate ciel sleie'@ 1886 
MILLER, Harry Epwarp, Derby Conn...-..-.-.-...--.-seseee weeees 1892 
MigeiE DIRE: [NMS Isto Ionia, INL Moo cousdsenodesoddcouocamnac 1894. 
Miccer, Mrs. OLive THORNE, 628 Hancock St., Brooklyn, N. Y....- 1887 
IMT IDSs Ris VivuNipaniares § NVClopitare (Giron nese IMO dyad doar uoodaneoudo0 so0odC 1893 
MITCHELL, WALTON I., 534 Summit Ave., St. Paul, Minn.......... 1893 
MOORE. PERG. Univ. Of balou biillad elipliiaee bce stetere cals) s\ele\e ac ols -i 6 1886 
Morcom, G. FREAN, 328 So. Broadway, Los Angeles, Cala...--..... 1386 
Morris, GEORGE SPENCER, Olney, Philadelphia, Pa:.............- 1887 
MORRIS; ROBERT ©., Springtield; Mass)... sneer. cose oecie vs cleees ee 1888 
MORRISON GEOR GEVAts Mo: [alee java stcristenreictsiets! are stele sts.c/s.6 secs @ 1891 
NIGER. WON LIRR Sag Iida Wilco oomocas coaoeoonobe.s, BoonodoT 1895 
INNGRDOCES JOrsiNI; INCClic, MIGIGS Genco ootebodd0e 6 52500 5dob co bosdeEmddc 1883 


Murpuy, Prof. EuGENE EpmuNnpD, Athens, Ga...................-- 1893 


XXii Associate Members. 


NACHTRIEB, Prof. Henry F., Univ. of Minn., Minneapolis, Minn....1892 


NASH. din We, Pueblo, Coloradorrcgevetat-ttteelttehrtetiotrltale este titer tts 1892 
NEAL, HERBERT VINCENT, 31 Holyoke St., Cambridge, Mass....... 1894 
INTCHOLS. EUGENE) C., ) Bilston INE eptetelalattelelstetete tenet aterteioy erate 1895 
NicHoLs, Howarp GARDNER, Alabama City, Ala.................. 1892 
NICHOLS, J. M., Peabody, Massic-o- ee se oeen eee eee 1890 
NISWANDER, Prof. F. J., Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie, Wy.........-.- 1893 
INORRIS, Guy BRUNAUGH, | Gardens City. g Walnisretdettat-teley-laielsieteieloieaiet 1894 
Norris, Rev. JAMES Avery, Hastings-on-Hudson, N. Y..........-. 1894 
NORRIS, J, PARKER, 723 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Par ore.ee r-- sale 1886 
NORTON, ARTHUR Ely Westbrook. s Viaimertelerd teractelsicislieieioicie eicrsioieieiete 18go 
Norton, ARTHUR HENRY WHITELEY, San Antonio, Texas......... 1894 
NORTON, RICHARD), Cami bride ea Wciss erceeteteteteretat-velete-aeteie(aietenele ts tote tet 1888 
OBERHOLSER, Harry C., Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C...1888 
OEDRIELD, -W. A-, Port SanilacsMiichkenteiseeier cicero ncmiente cen tine 18g1 
ONFEIL, BDwWARD, Sewickley, Allesemiy | Compeaserislelateleieieleelers teres 1893 
OrtH, GErorGE S.,406 S. Hiland Ave:, Pittsburgh, Pa.............. 1892 
OsBORN, CHASE SALMON, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich........... aueirelelats 1893 
OSBORNE, Joun LANG, Manchester, Nioider ie) crdlsretiie cme esis ence 1894 
OSBURN, Rev. Wiamnranr, Nashivalley Memes <r cic clelctsreleietsie sieiereieie mies 1890 
Oscoop, WILFRED H., Willcox, Cochise Cor, AMZN elie) wale einen 1893 
OWEN, VIRGIL WILLIAMS, P. O. Box 774, Los Angeles, Cala........ 1894 
PAINE, AuGustus G., Jr., 47 W. ere Seog INIA NONE (Oin7aads aasaas 1886 
PALMERS Ws 155, ING wo blaviens (GComm-scia scieis crete teri ciitran eiiae arene 1SgI 
Pacer, Dr. THeoporES., Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C..1888 
PALMER, WM... U.S. Nat. Mus -s-Washinietomee Dy Gane sicher 1888 
PANNEPACKER: (Di 3E 25 SO NOGEn 12th ot) Eladladelphiarmeaceemiece 1888 
lee is Monee Iavelsoinig IMMSS3 5 Sogodobcodo bnondetoooboodegoqund dosed 1890 
PARKER, J. GRAFTON, Jr., 100 Washington St., Chicago, Ill........ 1894. 
PEABODY: Rev. E-7Bs. ote Vancelnt. Within sci sisieletetornie cee rinisieneieteeneete 1891 
PEABODY, WILLIAM RODMAN, Cambridge, Massne cs. . naicite aes 1Sgo 
BEACOCK, WILETAM. I.,.\Chico, Butter Co. Calase seen eietoneraroee 1888 
PENNOCK, CHARLES J., Kennett Square, Chester Co., Pa..........- 1888 
PERKINS » CHARLES IH. . hanttondeConneeem oeecieenerbect near 3---- 1888 
Pernonr, B.A. Granger, Benton Gor, Orecona- ance res cet eeree 1891 
Pn RBRSON,.)|7.,. Wiest Denmark. Polk Con mwWisrecrncnricererdeeernee 1885 
PHELPS, WILLIAM Henry, Cambridge, Masser e)-merinstsine menien ieee 1895 
Puiviirs, A. H., Princeton, N. Jletteintesmtesate Nolet tovovolinyolsteielalehoyataleteuetsic ieketedee IS8gI 
PIEROR, A. (1K: Renovo, Pa. ice scce ote ene eee Eee TEE 18g 
Piers, Harry, “‘Stamyan,” Willow Park, Halifax, Ni /S..+.cs.e ses 1891 
PLEASANTS, J. H., Jr., 606 Cathedral St., Baltimore, Md...... Sa aioe 1888 
Pomeroy, Harry KirRKLAND, P. O. Box 575, Kalamazoo, Mich..... 1894 
PORENOE, Prof. A. Manhattan kane et eeeeEe eee eee reer renee 1886 
FORTER, Louris) H:, Yale Univ.. New Havens ©onnecseaccnrc senate 1893 
LOMDERS LAYMOND Bi, IN yackssIN si yeicheeteteiebereiieetet tattle renee 1895 
Powers, WILLIAM LINCOLN, Gardiner, Maine.-....-..sseesscoceecs 1895 


PRAEGER, WILLIAM E., Keokuk. lowabien tenner een eee ee 1892 


Assoctate Members. XXili 


BPRATI, Reva GHorGe si.) Onelbanin Stk) Chicago, Tl... is sasas+ oes 1895 
PREBLE, Epwarp A., Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C...... 1892 
lA, IDE Wc lites NiVelslntintettornse Dy (Caobnoboo ao skoneEneitosee nar 1890 
PRICE WIEETAMANV. wStatoand  WimiMersibys “Calis. a's anos 20. 63,5 sce oe 1893 
PRIME, Rev. WENDELL, 35 Park Row, NeW Wonks (Gilinces donne coe co oe 1889 
PHYO, |AMIDS 1Bio5 1Elvan@relda,, Meelis toc Bada oodee BODoe A FOMes Omen or 1893 
RAINE, WALTER, 181 Bleeker St., Toronto, Ontario..............--- 1889 
AG PH a Rav TEE TAG Ie 20) Comntio te. Witicas Nig Vion sieisesasc.a:e.c 01 1888 
RGANNEEIERSen UN Vol Vain Chester LOwialeeyis «leters\as/e1e alelarclore eters ote ee ccs 1893 
RUA Baas Dm mV Me amGalStetey Evcicis:celetsieraa le siairavale @ atele)eyevetaues al pore cisiaveie 1890 
RATHBUN, LRANK Ra, 42% Pranklin St. Auburn: IN.) Y ees... ce 1883 
RATHER UNG pO NUE re Hee SeAthl es VWalS hncs < stercieieter ets elsie, excl elmisie:erele(evers) oo c's 1893 
EVANS ON al GC Ale VENI ME URDELE RG v INO WyilG lay) Om Mate talle cle alelelelels eeislereia cece oe 1885 
READ, ALBERT M., 1140 15th St., N. W., Washington, D. C........ 1895 
REDINGEON: CALERE De. Santalbaibanans Gallas. eerste cielcmisls cis ca elalera ete 1890 
JRun 4 Ja NraG, lsd bin INIa Iencesodcolucubs cece UapmodcoouUONGEes 1890 
NEED, SOWARD) 5-5) 1320 Gaylord) St. Denver.) COlOM sci. cle)< aja\> »/+/e\ciee 1894 
RISES WIGS TYAS alas SSteennillen, MVEISIn oe oc Goue aooood odoemoe mcs os aopoor 1893 
TOADS W CHARICE S|, mln yi) Nair, Eats ar-l-\0\le\e70)-1clelelolnleleiee!etelolefel=l <= +1-)= 1895 
ROSAS SAIN(ODIL INS, IsleyeleloimMaeliol, ING |lascdeccs coppanbadobendebancc 1885 
RICHARDS, JOHN BION, 10 Barnaby St., Fall River, Mass............ 1888 
RicHarpDson, W. M., Am. Mus. Nat.“Hist., New York City......... 1891 
RICHMOND, CHARLES W., 1307 T St., N. W., Washington, DE) fi Gyaversvere 1888 
RICKER, EVERETT WILDER, P. O. Box 5083, Boston, Mass......... 1894 
RipGway, Joun L., U. S. Geol. Surv., Washington, D.C............ 1Sgo 
iniasmRe (Ciomnrusineis) 1834, Mljolennswrsl, ING ljuecaocdesac cogacguboodDOgEDe or 1885 
Rives, Dir WILLIAM, ©); 22, We 33d St. New York City... 00.550 1885 
ROBBINS, LINVILLE WADSWORTH, Gardiner, Me................---- 1895 
Rossins, WILLIAM A., 178 Garfield Place, Brooklyn, N. Y........... 1888 
ROBINS, JULIA STOCKTON, 114 S. 21st St., Philadelphia, Pa......... 1895 
ILOBERIS)  GEORGEOW emesis ester sale aielercieishererciaielie'e ctehelcleia, ae sie se/n ots 1891 
RGSS NVeadhay tiene (Gr Sita INS Wi/og \eaislanboveritoyol, [De (Gpdqwoogcsnancc 1888 
Rouoveng, PRON Jal jase, MOVER ales Tees coool dosconoopoetoodaodoe 1891 
IROKOND), ilies Iie Whsousiay ldioellenoreyals, (Croyoltc (COs, Whe con ackeoodue ododon 1893 
RoosEVELT, Hon. THEODORE, Oyster Bay, Queens Co., N. Y......-. 1888 
ROHAN AU TE VVIAGNE Res Gree vit eal anrasractelaferceststclaislerelata ye cists. ote ierel eles 1895 
IRoyrvAmitie. IDPs Ms )Bioe iN iawploveliel. devlagoidinc ua dic nus Ood oa DOSS eboSorer 1893 
ROWLAND, (RUSSEED So TURGIS.. Aime ATG bois ICI sels © eto! «)0\¢/0/eye1610/<15 © 1895 
ROWLAND) VLHOMAS, 162 Oth) vAve>. New, Oks Citys <1.) eae) -)/ 0 1890 
Row tey, JOHN, Jr., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City............ 1889 
ROZYCKI, STEPHEN, Navy Dept:, Washington, D: (Ga 53. 22)... + 1894 
RUSSELIM GHORGEHCG.l Bice, Pais myers) els oe iene berete susie) evalevsl eyebele (evel e; 6.4, e\e%s 1888 
IIS Simin. RON IN ovaavondlnahhertos coooo ance core ogobud) Counoonaoeabe 1891 
RVUGSSHEE Vil PAM eBInACGK., Biskdailes: MiasSictetae1eici rjc) tse) es.a/e) <0 1893 
SAGE mn, Mi Alb aliys Nis) Yess yaselmieleraitei ere‘ eletellaioieis)ela alels!* 6/ cle «/ele!/-1c\ 0 c/% 1885 
SARGENT LAR bidity VV oLO2ds ota Newonk C@ibyaiye. 0.6 ce 30s» 1892 


SIMWAGID, LDN) ILia\inigs “Selleions l@iwalac dnoc ococoe congpoaSsoeee bones 1894 


XXivV Associate Members. 


SAVAGE, JAMES, 134 Abbott St., lbbuaimko, INlg SCgadnocagoamcaocadacc0odl5 1895 
SCHALER, JOHN, Stamford, Conn..--+.+++eeeeeeeeee cee e cece ei ce eeee 1893 
SenrRAGE, &. Bis Pomtiac, Michie tetersterete = itolstey= er tiveraielsyaleNolel= ls cletatetle tates 1895 
ScHuRR, THEODORE A.., Pittsfield, Mass..--.-----+--eeeeeeeeeeevens 1888 
Scuwas, Rev. LAWRENCE H., to1 Lawrence St., New York City.... 1892 
Scott, W. L., 74 Sparks St., Ottawa, Ontario...----..+ eee eee e eee 1883 
Scroces, Dr. G. A., Tempe, Ariz... +. 0. ee eee cece cece ee eee ce eeee 1891 
SCupDER., BRADHORD eA a al avumltO ty) wv Wals slay elets reel ayayalefatelelelfesletor<lelreirejatet=ts 1893 
SHARPLESS; ROBERT Bes (Blotirag, WU erty t eletey=lnl «tee srae ata olin ele oy s)el-ota ete 1894 
SHEARER, AMON R., Wallaceville, Chambers Co., Téxas............ 1893 
SHEPPARD, EDWIN, Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Pass-..---0.....- 1892 
SHERRATT, W. J., 263 North 2d St., Philadelphia, Pa................ 1891 
SHOEMAKER, FRANK H., Hampton, lowa....-............-. s..-.- 1895 
Suores, Dr. E. I., West Bridgewater, Mass..........---2----+---2- 1883 
See Dai ocaedl SAK Cloihin INN Ananenbodoobosco.cacc aes Aboomodandes 1891 
Suryock, WILLIAM A., 823 N. Broad St., Philadelphia, Pa........... 1893 
SKINNER, PRAwcIS Bi, Rockvalley (Goines crc riajsietetere ele lo rales seit 1894 
SLADE, JOHN A., 1134 Herkimer St., Brooklyn, N. Y.......-- ap tees 1888 
Sri, i Nive) WGA BAU, CAvolnobods Il5 lelso5cananooadoMobadonaacc 1895 
SMITH; CLARENCE A., 182 Fifth Avenue, New York City.......--.- 1889 
Smiru, Horace G., 2918 Lafayette St., Denver, Colo............... 1888 
SmirH, Dr. HuGH M., 1248 New Jersey Ave., Washington, D. C....- 1886 
SMITH, James E., East Killingly, Conn.......-.2-sseecesceeseseee 1889 
SMITH, S. SIDNEY, 59 Wall St., New York City.............2..+6--. 1888 
SmyTH, Prof. ELiison A., Jr., Agr. and Mech. Coll., Blacksburg, Va..1892 
SNYDER) NVILLE Eo DWWiN« Beaver Dam) Wisco somite tierce ene eiee 1895 
SORNBORGER, JEWEHEL 2, Caimbrid ges Mia's Sejaisleiciereiaietelelal-lelelateratetoteteieys 1888 
SouTHwick, E. B., Arsenal Bldg., Central Park, New York City----1888 
SPAUE DING. RD. ee.) ealmiGa's ters Nim blttelsiele telat aleteiatelayiolstetatel = etetetstatetets 1894 
SPELMAN, HENRY MUNSON, 62 Sparks St., Cambridge, Mass........ 1883 
SPRAGUE, JOHN C., 257° W. 74th St., New York City............. +. 1891 
SPRATT, CHESMAN CHADWICK, Richmond, Maine.............---- 1894 
DLANTON. Erot. J. Xe, Bates \Collese, WMewistom, Mes =~ iret lel el-ti- 1883 
Sao a Lehto Ie less Aone reYdoyoymy IMNelssccose adao0cbso0dpoconoFoo0s 1890 
Supa \fosinaed lelay peInke shen NRK, INI (Clio qonaococnoo boo cenKsooKC 1894 
DiMEMENG,HVWatch Creek; San Mi1ero Conn @allametrelloeiiate\scha teeters 1883 
STEPHENSON, Mrs. Louise McGown, Helena, Ark...-..........--- 1894 
STICKNEY, MyRON WILDER, 62 George St., Providence, R. J....-... 1895 
Simon Nice \onwa rbauis ubtgen leans coo ooohocosdoDoDod2 dau 000S0 400004 1891 
SLONE, CLARENCE FREEDOM, Branchpont, Nailers «j= ele) = 2 =e 1894 
DHONE sO wiGE TD) sleamsins INi ciel siete eerie lee ear eee iars 1891 
STONEBURN, FRED H., Newark, N. J.....-----+- +--+ +--+ eens eee es 1893 
STREATOR, CLARK P., Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C...... 1889 
STREEKER, Joun IEE RIN ies) Wilco, lieixdissemteonrer teil tales ey nero tee 1894 
SIRONG, INEUBEN (M.) Oberltns ONION)... cite ete ctelene aie ierelelsvsls eis saclsiee niece 1889 
STUDER, JACOB HENRY, 114 Fifth Ave., New York City..........-.. 1888 


SWINBURNES JOHN, GUernSeyy Whe land ertcleuntetlelsielerelstiiancts = telereier eaters 1887 


Assoctate Members. XXV 


Aeon IDS lilo5 Sion (Ciinys lO icloGdoeccoo-docpd ce Gobo on coud me 1885 
TATLOCK, JOHN, Jr., Mutual Life Ins. Co., New York City........-. 1887 
TAYLor, ALEXANDER O’DRISCOLL, 124 Bellevue Ave., Newport, R. I. 1888 
TayLor, H. H., 63 Park Place, Bridgeport, Conn.....-.....--..---- 1893 
Test, FREDERICK CLEVELAND, Dept. of Agriculture, Washing- 

COTM CEa tebe te rar ctiare: Scoters x wteteis ie, = Penevenei ee ieheeneverete tone e'ciseveicte Talerens: sielecallen 1892 
MERON OMe ALOT iba prcle sai oleie tie eiahe eae miele teh oays fio ole Sima ao F els 1895 
THOMPSON, ERNEST E., 86 Howard St., Toronto, Can.............. 1883 
THOMPSON, FRANK J., Zodlogical Garden, Philadelphia, Pa......--. 1885 
THomson, Prof. GEorGE S., Los Angeles, Cala...--..-+.........----. 1892 
THORNE, Capt. PLATTE M., 22d Inf. U. S. A., 102 Spring St., Roch- 

SS TST INIA cepsserseictereieale aise craeces ies cic he erste dale, @ aera aisles. « 1885 
(HUBER He CARTETON: Al rambGacn Callas ciever-eheletctejcr, serie elelererer rele 1886 
Aouoinn, [Ooi Wil Sry Enis ay (Ge onieer ceca e ts Gicts Stars oO oA Otcomis oo mrcreoe Or 1887 
Topp, W. E. Crype, Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C...... 1890 
Toppan, GEorRGE L., 294 Newbury Si., Boston, Mass..........-... 1886 
(ORREV DRADEORD,aWellesley, Elisa Mass eccis\<lefrieioty ole iclelele afetaieleleior 1883 
TOWNSEND, CHARLES H., U. S. Fish Comm., Washington, D. C.....1883 
TOWNSEND, WitMoT, Bay Ridge, N: Y.--.-.......22-0.2--2.2--05- 1894 
AURaNes NWVAneIc/ Neb) Bon Scio: Webas. (Coy litleo doo dnboondas ono so nponab se 1885 
RROMELEY, |EROME, Petersbung, (MIGHis.'- uss: 24% seco e mine ae 1885 
Trotrer, Dr. SPENCER, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa..... 1888 
GiRongeciniont lDycs Idi deen Gollel laiils (Cots oomacioid ooo ao moe eda Soo cs 1893 
Wupemios, irs Crue, Isbin Iles; Olt oocsocencccsnopca4sonsne 1890 
VAN CORTLANDT, Miss ANNE S., Croton-on-Hudson, N. Y.........-. 1885 
VAN DENBURG, JOHN, Acad. Sci.. San Francisco, Cala............. 1893 
WANE WINK, EDMUNDS) VialiseallianjDOme ILI CMG srercteic «) s)cteietele lc cle ©.c eletere 1894 
VAUGHAN, CLIFFORD WHEATON, 47 W. 83d St., New York City..... 1894 
Wisiatits 1D ik |[o Woy Stic |JOseiln, Mubiclino coca oosccosbouODeRoCoUgadE Smat 1886 
ViILARO, Dr. JUAN, Havana Univ., Havana, Cuba......-....-....-....1808 
VOORHEES, CLARK G., 64 W. 39th St., New York City.............. 1888 
Watcorr, ROBERT, 11 Waterhouse St., Cambridge, Mass.......... 1893 
WEST, IDiss Ita Won (GAMES) Iso cbo cbc cgooDuoRb Hoe puecocton oer 1888 
Westen D DWAR D aoa emmaTrcunneos "Gala stetsreietaisicn-sr74suclereelchc crcl eters ciel = 1894 
WALTER, HERBERT EUGENE, 402 Center St., Chicago, Ill......... 1894 
WarRREN, Dr. B. H., Dept. of Agriculture, Harrisburg, Pa........... 1885 
VWiAR REN OSCAR BIRD ball ners MELe href ercrtetestlatapevereley eres cede ttele ces see 1892 
WARHRS]) EDWARD oDANLES, sil ollyokeon WasSaceictelercieisisc l-fe)-1 ess -05- <1 1894 
WEADIGINS Sele \VEEENE YY Manchester Mite he cesencrerericiitteyare ior e216 clenreve 1894 
WEBSTER, FREDERIC S., 106 E. 23d St., New York City............ 1886 
WEBB Ween Rabe. CA bron“ Nint Westenra ccc eperereta telels orsieieletalarareiersalvsive siste 1891 
Wiis. DAV IDE HIRANTEEN | rOLt ands iOne@OMercree ec <i! eels) -lle)s1e = 7-12 1894 
WARTS; Gas eines KON elo pid ccdo Gocco cs Hb ae oMobon obodos sbaese 1893 
Wirsi lor wisudleskeoshyin, Qureensn Gon Nem eceirreteeise catele ola icle («e's 3) 1887 
Witt, Sywiomedsl.. Mins Gees (roy. Na Wanboocsoonscu oggene 1889 
Witte iiRANCISMb MAGE, «Cat bees mass aeticie)cleialclert)letelelaei+ e\sfolevele 18gI 


WHITAKER, WILLIAM LINCOLN, Frankford P. O., Philadelphia, Pa...1894 


XXvi Deceased Members. 


WHoLEY, W. N.; 204 Brady Ave., Baltimore; Mdi.-.---...-... 2.0.22 18g1 
Wireman. Hi. Ai Beaver, Parner. ic siete sccherectene) Ualeteoisieercteiel keno a nee 1890 
WHGKS. OME Ja.nn|me5 Ios sAnpeless Callave iinet tnty-heise r-less 1890 
Wiesur, Appison 2.) Canandaig tay Ney cn. isini- = «foxeieler=(eelsiocts sie ite 1895 
Wiricox, T. FERDINAND, 115° W. 75th St., New Work Citywire: ee eee 1895 
NWVidb io EY oil Ea Gag Crmunvarsiny INE Wadoonaomuidens SacosanoosGs~ . +++ 1893 
Witirams, Dr. HENRY SMITH, 66 W. 84th St., New York (Cilias eaisc 1893 
WILLIAMS, J. BICKERTON, 116 University St., Montreal, Can.......- 1889 
WiELiAMS. /RoBperr S:, Columbia Falls, Montanacoce eee ene eee 1888 
Wirerrants, WJ) 8.) elolilanied (Patents Nip eee rretr-raer Weed tench piece avaitses te 1893 
WE SON. SLIDNEN 552,05 t-u)OSepi we MO sel ieleseeliereteiel sel enier ster ee 1895 
Witson, Wm. EpwaRD, 387 Olney St., Providence, R. I] .....- in OOH! 
WINELE. ERNEST D-.10 ElospitalySt.) Montreal @Galneeier ain) eee 1887 
Woop, Av HH. Painted (Post, Nie Yau.-2- soe ieee einer Onision tee 1887 
WoopruFF, FRANK M., Acad. Sci., Lincoln Park, Chicago, IIll.. -.1894 
WooprurF, Lewis B., 14 East 68th St., New York City............. 1886 
Woobs, WILLIAM J., State Bank Bldg., Richmond, Va........ ees eRe 
WoopworTH, Mrs. NELLY Hart, St. Albans, Vt.-........-.:. Seeraeg fsicy 
WORCESTER. Prof. Dran C -Ann Arbors Mich eesecoce eee ee cee 1895 
WioR THEN. CHART DS) Kee g Warsaw blll ccintcsaccie cick iene ne pete ne reach) eee ianees 18g1 
WORTHINGTON Rb. Dedham: WWlaissi.. =a) sei eet eee 1893 
WoRTHINGTON, WILLIS W., Shelter Island, Suffolk Co., N. Y.......- 1889 
WikicGHa. RANE S:. 40 (Genesee St... AuisummeNe peer oir eee Je RO4. 
Wrichr Mss MABEL Oscoop) Painields Connessece eee eee eee 1895 
NVIRLGETT oe OA OMS ONO CRE Ite aia ceche eee sacs neta ete everson 1895 
VWiorkE: Dirwhe Hipwrey, Hallock. Miimitiscdhsieis clus) oekeree ere nieeeeneereere 1891 
Youne, Curtis Cray, 395 Clermont Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y...-...... 1891 
YounG, Henry PaAvTHROor, Poughkeepsie, No Yieo- os ao eres 1894 


ZWARG, Emit, Marysville. Cala 


DECEASED MEMBERS. 


AcTIvVE MEMBERS. 
Date of Death. 


BIRD OPE NCER UE ULE ER TON, 4-2/1): sols erri neil een Aug. 19, 1887 
Gosst ING Sic cence Re ee eR CA a Gon ou dO ao ae March ro, 1891 
HOEDER VOSEPH (Be. te. 6 4 oie ie el eee ee CORSE Feb. 28, 1888 
JERBRIES: JOHN-AMORY - << ¢-. 2)siirleies sl clone eee Sere March 26, 1892 
WHEATON, JouHN IMD see ceh ies hele ak ae i Jan. 28, 1887 
Honorary MEMBERS. 
BURMBEISTER!: ORDERIMAINN ic) osc diate eleierets token ae erence Ten May 1, 1892 
GuRNEY, JOHN HENRY........ POI DSA oan ae --- April 20, 1890 


HUXLE VS DAOMAS Hb 6c... seen eae ene ee June 29, 1895 


Deceased Members. 


XXVU 


RERAUS ERED TINVAUN DD wetelecteraiers ea 6 ore. 6 6 iene oid ete mbataterlotouote oi shapes Sept. 15, 1890 
WIRING GiB ORG MeN ory oroycrersnelcs-) srcvere: s\e eve) o\ eyelerelel stele: os s)sls@tese's Jan. 17, 1895 
ESARUSE Rl VET PATA RGTET’ GEDIESINGS | 21/52 ye ayo WAN ooo) 2. a. lane ver osc shake exe UA Musiaie's July 3, 1890 
ESTA Z TENE AT GUL SAME OmNelels cleusiaierelra etches cra ctover stains sveidlatnvels eifelomne oh sale Sept. 2, 1891 
SG HIGEG Ese lel RUVIEAININs cycles esinstenielitc vere ieuievensale cuetevensycle. chskatere bdberel ste Jan. 17, 1884 
SEE OM Mam EONS aa era aster isla alors crsaces Se ners eee dene Noy. 26, 1895 
AIAG Z AUNTONVI SIRT a gle SIE VA'S ciehetinr=! o rales ola oylollere oi chsle (sisi jsievs S#cieiates hae Jan. 17, 1890 
CORRESPONDING MEMBERS. 
BALDAMUS. EDUARD Sse MuNy.eteinelelpiaioialatetole s-ar stele. aie! aleteleicielaetereetakeis’s Oct. 30, 1893 
EIESREST ONE UH OMIANS | Wilas.o aloials aveioha ls lalaveenetectatete chara erence’ bathe Oct. Lice 1Sgi 
HO GDANOWANIODEST ON sisi sre sieie oluiatonteate ofale as sales she tae eae March 4, 1888 
IRL AA SITS TE TOS AiO icc aks o Gand oloag ocs DoDD DUE econ ooan oe Aug. 15, 1887 
FAVA GDS eS EAI soy =eceailen caste siaysqeve sa) s elerere oa scerelate si vic.e March 19, 1895 
GOO Wir esis aes WO ING a reie sahara ace ore eau slateho canto iseere cide sities urere May 31, 1889 
NESS CELATN EAE IE Serer PUR iae aca) ae apse tekoray ove rect aie Cis eae al oto S Oct. 11, 1887 
MIDDENDORFF, ALEXANDER THEODOR VON.....--.....0.0-05 Jan. 28, 1894 
EPRAR IIE VAAie SIKaTen NP Neyer ole) sroseteits Srato evel a wisest cichelerstae ars eie een eee was Oct. 20, 1887 
leleavioit, ISUNRive IPMS Synonaiviog googobac ocodccbapabodepeonae Feb. 17, 1888 
SCHRE NG VEE OROL DuV.ONwetrtesioc ae areca a ereeiaie sini d da stallbitsierte ae Jan. 20, 1894 
SHUT RE BAON4 hb [ee eS eC CGR, cc ERE eae Nr AT Feb. 8, 1885 
SE VIE NS O NGM EIIEINIR Seer eel RN le eer ac late cel Oae Savas ou Aug. 18, 1888 
VOMIT ON st EME NIRS a Uline Pessoa Nosteayaye aches sie se ei erb vee) ccepee soon totes Sept. —, 1895 
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS. 
SAUD ACNE Set CEVA RUTAIE Sis iy ae tavena erterchaveua nce ate eeekades sentra, Sal «ae ehavnleh stations May 20, 1893 
NT TERING 1 OHUAIRT WSS 1c VERGs ae aise sete ieee seit e oiiraiece ere eeie aoe Oct. 15, 1893 
PNG SHES GNIS ol te GOP Wate SHER ROMANO CHAIR CLR ERR RIE Ee Eee ISIE May 19, 1885 
PNVTENR ese SNVADIS DANE | US UIMIAGN oa cle) 2felar et aleiay efe¥orsit) stare oie tnt stat March 11, 1894 
IDC EPART, CEA TEES WICKL UB Hels = orarard «yefeletet/sn.t ap «sia soe qs 5s June 8, 1888 
BOLI SS | EURVAUN Reayaterans, ais chaverets ar auehoaretnan ee tes GMA mibtchens Ghat wetda es Jan. 10, 1894 
IRIE Sey VINE TLE, ha). dep site yee vate CAI EPR Leet ca lal, a Dec. 7, 1889 
(CAMIENISs, OER Sanlene op solancondacne Reet hay Mew ah liar eseiasrars Sakis tab Sys June 10, 1895 
(COINS ORY NS mesa Ntomomone: iS Coons Gaucigs od soc cleo damenae April 9, 1893 
GOH INVES oases aeece o's eter cuss dl wich eS erapoeode a ts SIS RVorehe rere wedi April 26, 1885 
LEPC COT PARR AS CON 71 0 Op Ppt PERCE REN Ne OPA SC ATER eso y gk LE ak 1 ga Feb. 11, 1889 
EVANIRUBIAINGRES HERONS: TIN «co: =, <==. intens yore oleae) e aietoneveietovelclae Gao nicis:s April 24, 1895 
(GHBG AS aa TAA] B leet cepa OR TSM CRRA mE GIT Er SP Nic osics ian Se eae eae April 30, 1895 
(GOSN, Bis AWN ahs acide scien bo obsinin Desion on bagdacoommtS see July 6, 1893 
LOAD ME ye we DERG blest cies iene Oh Ali Nea A ate 8 aa at Feb. 26, 1895 
OM VAG AID spl] OLINE SIN OW: D ONG aje)slclejelaelaerelotsralelaleh stays ees tel cieie = Sept. 19. 1885 
JeEnKs, Jonn W. P Bee Watrake. crea .enstehetavelrecehe susliilovel le PaMen cP cickeuaitisiyeare ane Sept. 27, 1894 
Oui; 1Piis iis, ALOIS Goon gone bona lc coete Seretosio daocceeead March 22, 1894 


XXVIil Deceased Members. 


IRSO IMIS Ns LEMUR a) owe 91 0) ere 0 = = view) 2:= silo ohh aie) ovehey *lstieh~/=/y iain) otenay are Aug. 5, 
(Orit Ol NR OO peo OM eeB One Dons boos Asoc cee ado asine Sooc Feb. 3, 
IM PATA ou (Chan TON Hen oDOMOMa Dene robo blag gs> cl ouweisade cor Aug. 15, 
Minot, Henry Davlis....-- tists fie ele ine ei wie nleusieiata ain aa Wels Nov. 13, 
NorTuHrop, JOHN I RRS ROOT CIO Se ICO, AIO Oo Op CEC June 26, 
PARK. AUSTEN Pie <2 «oe % cicje seine semicon sie en mine © acinar n= © Sept. 22, 
RAGSDALE, GEO. H...--- +2 eee cece ree eee t ee teees March 25, 
RICHARDSON, JENNESS. +--+ 02-2 ee eee cece et eee een tee enee June 24, 
SLATER, JAMES H.......-----+-++ e+e: are er ae -.-Feb. —, 
SW Neitg IBDYGHNR Noo on so o0d0 Gospdoooocton GoSbc sO 00s eRe as April 24, 
STON. Aire Nise GOODIE ONO doco ocmcoo neo oOosohdmoes co soD March —, 
AVAININOR GY EA Gr cyte nistel Sarton teloee oliete ce etcle toroie okie Cine eee Sema tote June 8, 
WHOM Dy Sy NOE, WOES oopabog, DASSSo Doss Doom dona dae May 24, 


VIGO Die WiLL ETA Miners e's ele aho ccle iaiet ie sles le rterohaneaaiielone CR enter een arene Aug. 9, 


1888 
1888 
1890 
1890 
18g 
1893 
1895 
1893 
1895 
1884 
1895 
1884 
1887 
1885 


a 
a 
anes m 


iy bi ' 


“i 


wtybax hint 
OWN seentte ty 
Tie 


F a Pye itd 
ai \y 
4 tae 


hi ak 


A ty FAN 


v 
hee 
A 


OM i Any 


ey 


Zz Yi iy, 
Yi 


MEE e Ee, 


LE: 

Es ee, 
TELE Z 
ELE Z 


if 
Life 


Hi 
HY 
HTH 
OTL 
LETH, 
77 


Aw IS: 
mwQuUAK LE RY JOURNAL OF 


ORNITHOLOGY. 


VOL. XU. JANUARY, 1896. NO. 1. 


IN MEMORIAM: GEORGE NEWBOLD LAWRENCE! 


Born, 20th Oct., 1806. Died, 17th Jan., 1895. 
BY DG.) EilOT, eh Res. 


“To him who in the love of Nature holds 
Communion with her visible forms, she speaks 
A various language,” 


and none can understand her rythmic lines so well as he who 
has taken the denizens of the forest and the fields into intimate 
fellowship with himself, and gained them for his own familiar 
friends. With such a one Nature holds especial converse, and 
unfolds to him the secrets hidden from all ordinary eyes. The 
way of a serpent on a rock, and of an eagle in the air, the wisest 
of men confessed he was unable to understand, and yet by many, 
in the closing years of this nineteenth century, profiting by their 
own, and the labors of those who have preceded them, in the 
close and earnest study of Nature’s laws and methods, much 
more intricate and obtruse problems than those which perplexed 
the King of Israel have been clearly comprehended. In that 
branch of science which relates to the living things of earth, and 


‘An address delivered at the Thirteenth Congress of the American Orni- 
thologists’ Union, at Washington, D. C., Nov. 12, 1895. 


Auk 


2 Exxiot, George Newbold Lawrence. jaa 


reflecting upon what has been accomplished in solving its mys- 
teries, we look back upon the past, and: behold, from out the 
mists of by-gone years shadowy forms arise refulgent with the 
glory of illustrious names, won by their possessors when in the 
flesh they struggled in this earthly literary arena, and who by 
the influence they exert in their works, remain with us still con- 
querors in the fight, though dead. How long that shadowy line 
has grown, and how far back into the silent past it reaches, 
and how rapidly, alas for the living, is that column augmented, of 
those scientific soldiers, who though they were members of 
different companies and regiments, yet each and all battled for 
the same cause, and died conscious of having fought a good 
fight, and upheld the scientific faith. In their written words they 
still speak to us, and point out the lines which their successors 
are to follow. While our thoughts are thus directed to this 
invisible army of once earnest earthly workers, we are reminded 
that we have assembled here to-day to pay our tribute of respect 
to one who but lately has gone to join that shadowy host, and 
who while with us was an honored member of this Union, a 
distinguished ornithologist, and to some of us a personal valued 
friend. 

In the death of George Newbold Lawrence, though the great 
number of his accomplished years had diminished his scientific 
activity, ornithology has met with a serious loss. Born in the 
city of New York in 1806, his life was lengthened to almost 
thrice the period usually given to the generations of men, but 
the judgment passed by the Psalmist, on the years that exceeded 
those allotted to man, that they should bring nothing but “labor 


5 


and sorrow,’’ was never written for him, and the evening of his 
days was the most peaceful of his long life. Born in 1806, and 
gone from among us, as it seems but yesterday, think of the 
extent of time encompassed in the duration of this single life. 
Almost a century of active work, in the daily pursuit of an 
engrossing business, in the field studying the ways of our 
feathered creatures, in the closet laboring to solve perplexing 
problems that had to be met, in all that busy century of his 
existence there was little time yielded to idle recreation. Dur- 
ing the period covered by this life was witnessed the rise, 


SA a ELLIoT, George Newbold Lawrence. 2 


progress, and attainment to its present important position in 
Natural Science, of American Ornithology. In 1806 there were 
no American ornithologists. He who was to shed so great a 
lustre upon the science by his immortal work, had as yet given 
no outward sign, and at this date Audubon, a young man, was 
unknown. Wilson was busy preparing his work upon our birds, 
which, however, did not make its appearance until two years 
after Mr. Lawrence’s birth. As we come down the years 
hearken to the catalogue of names of celebrated men who have 
adorned the annals of ornithology in this land, finished their 
work, and passed over the river beyond the unknown farther 
shore. Beside the two already mentioned we recall Bonaparte, 
Jameson, Jardine, Ord, Say, Swainson, Richardson, Nuttall, 
Prince of Wied, Giraud, DeKay, Townsend, Cassin, Baird, 
Hermann, Suckley, Kennicott, beside many that are still active 
workers in the cause. But all of these who have been men- 
tioned were the friends and acquaintances of Mr. Lawrence. 
They died not, most of them, in their early youth, cut off in 
the midst of their powers, with the hand still guiding the plough 
of investigation and research through an unfinished scientific 
furrow, but, on the contrary, many of them saw the accomplish- 
ment of their desires in their completed works and the attain- 
ment of advanced years. But time seemed to take no heed 
of our friend, touched not his powers, but left him unscathed, 
alert and active in the midst of his contemporaries falling about 
him on every side. 

The Lawrence family from which the ornithologist descended 
was English, residing at Great St. Albans, Hertfordshire, and the 
first members to come to this country, where they arrived in 1635, 
were John and William, aged seventeen and twelve respectively, 
with their mother and sister. They settled first at Plymouth 
Colony, and then, in 1644, removed to Long Island where John 
became one of the Patentees of Hempstead. In the following year 
they moved to Flushing where the brothers, with others, obtained 
the patent of that place. John, in 1658, removed to New Amster- 
dam, and was one of the first aldermen of New York after 
its incorporation and change of name by the English, and its 
mayor in 1672. William, from whom Lawrence’s branch decended, 


Auk 


4 Exiior, George Newbold Lawrence. jo 


continued to reside at Flushing, where he married Elizabeth Smith 
of Smithtown. After his death, his widow married Sir Philip Car- 
teret, Governor of New Jersey, who named Elizabethtown after her. 

From his earliest youth George Lawrence was a lover of birds, 
and passed much of his spare time studying their habits. But the 
early age when he entered actively in business (for he was only 
sixteen when he became a clerk, and twenty when he was made a 
partner in his father’s house), did not permit him to have much 
leisure to devote to ornithology. In 1820, he was permitted 
to have a gun, seventy-five years ago! and then he began to 
pay attention to the movements of the feathered hosts, their 
arrival and departure in the spring and autumn. At this time he 
was living during the summer at his father’s country place, called 
‘Forest Hill,’ about eight miles from the City Hall, on the high 
ground overlooking Manhattanville and the Hudson River, not 
very far distant from where the American Museum of Natural 
History now stands. He has, in one of his papers, recorded his 
observations of bird migration at this spot, which in view of our 
knowledge of the locality as it is to-day, sounds very strangely 
to us. From the middie of July for some weeks there would 
be, every afternoon, a flight of Red-winged Blackbirds (Age/azus 
Pheniweus), in flocks of fifty or more individuals, while in August 
and September there would be late in the day a continuous flight 
of White-bellied Swallows (Zachycineta bicolor), with a few 
Barn Swallows (Chelidon erythrogaster). At the beginning of 
September, when there was a strong northwest wind, Passenger 
Pigeons (£ctopistes migratorius) would appear in great numbers 
in the mornings, with occasional flocks throughout the day. 
From Forest Hill north was an unbroken forest to Fort Washing- 
ton Point, and the Pigeons could be seen speeding over the tree 
tops at a rate of seventy-five miles or more an hour. Another of 
the old country seats at that time was Claremont, now for some 
years used as a restaurant and situated not far from General 
Grant’s tomb, and during one of these flights of the Pigeons more 
than a hundred were shot one morning by a gentleman from 
the roof of the dwelling. He enumerates many other species 
of birds that passed Forest Hill during the various months of the 
summer, and also speaks of the Robins pursued by gunners in 


ee ELLIoT, George Newbold Lawrence. 5 


the high woods where is now Third Avenue and 2oth Street. At 
the time the Robins were migrating there would frequently be 
seen large flocks of Meadowlarks (Sturnel/a magna) going south, 
and they would congregate in great numbers in what were then 
pasture fields, about where Broadway and goth Street now is. 
He tells of skating from where the Tombs now stand in Centre 
Street, down the Canal that ran through the middle of Canal 
Street, passing under the wooden bridge that spanned it at Broad- 
way, onto the Lispenard’s meadows which stretched away to the 
Hudson River. To those of us who are conversant with the 
localities in the metropolis just mentioned, it seems strange indeed 
to hear one who has but just left us speak of them as familiar 
ground to him, when they were yet covered in great part by the 
primeval woods. It brings to our minds more forcibly than almost 
anything else can what seventy-five years in the life of our country, 
and of one single witness means. 

It was while the Lawrences were living at Forest Hill that J. J. 
Audubon purchased several acres and built his house in what is 
now known as Audubon Park. Lawrence became intimate with 
his sons, Victor and John, yet he saw but little of the naturalist 
himself, who was then failing in health. 

While thus studying the feathered tribes in his youth and early 
manhood, his knowledge did not extend beyond that gained from 
observation of birds’ habits, and such appreciation of the subject 
as the possession of a few specimens enabled him to acquire, but 
ornithology as a science was unknown to him. Thus time passed 
on, and Lawrence was recognized as the successful merchant with, 
perhaps to a few of his friends, a great fondness for birds, but 
there was no evidence that he was in later years to become one 
of the great triumvirate, of what has been termed the Bairdian 
Epoch of American Ornithology. 

In the year 1841 occurred one of those apparently trifling 
incidents in one’s life that often alter its entire current, and 
which in this instance served to change Lawrence’s interest in 
birds (which up to this period had been merely regarded as a 
pastime) into a serious scientific study. He and J. P. Giraud, 
who were among the first to make collections of birds found in 
the United States, were invited by Mr. J. G. Bell to come to his 


6 Exxiot, George Newbold Lawrence. hea 
room to meet a young ornithologist who was to show some facts 
in the anatomy of birds, especially exhibiting the muscles that 
move the wings. He then and there made the acquaintance of 
Spencer F. Baird, than whom no naturalist that ever lived pos- 
sessed to such a degree the power to imbue others with his own 
enthusiasm, and to attract them to become devotees of the study 
of Nature’s Kingdom by the irresistible magnetism of his own 
personality. The acquaintance thus formed soon ripened into an 
intimacy that never ceased nor slackened, but strengthened with 
the rolling years, until, like so many of Lawrence’s fellow-workers, 
his guide and friend passed away from earth. 

This friendship with Baird brought forth almost immediate 
results, and in 1842, when he was thirty-six years of age, appeared 
Lawrence’s first scientific paper, the pioneer of that long line of 
publications which was destined to extend throughout the next 
fifty years. It was devoted to a description of the Black Brant 
(Bernicla nigricans), and with a happier fate than falls to the efforts 
of many budding ornithologists thirsting for immortality, this new 
creation was pronounced very good. Once launched in scientific 
work, every moment that could be snatched from mercantile 
pursuits that claimed the major portion of the day was given 
to the investigation of birds, and his contributions to’ different 
periodicals devoted to natural science increased in frequency and 
importance. Nearly at the same time with the advent of 
Lawrence’s first paper, appeared one from the pen of a new 
writer, who was also to be associated with Lawrence in some of 
his most important work, and who by his great attainments and 
profound widespread knowledge in ornithological lore was to 
exert a deep and powerful influence on the science, and cause the 
name of John Cassin to be known and held in high repute 
throughout the world. It is fitting that as this form in shadowy 
lines moves across the vista of passed scenes, I should pay a 
tribute to one who perhaps more than any other was my guide 
and instructor in natural science, and who in certain lines of 
scientific investigation stood without a peer amid those whose works 
have dignified and rendered illustrious American ornithology. 
Baird, Cassin, Lawrence,— these were the names that represented 
for many years our science in the New World, the triumvirate . 


ee Exxiiot, George Newbold Lawrence. yj 


that dominated the period in which they unitedly labored. In 
1869, in the midst of his powers, when it seemed there might be 
many years of profitable work yet in store, Cassin passed away, 
followed later by Baird, with labors more completely finished ; 
and now it has fallen to my lot, who, when I first became 
acquainted with these celebrated men, was regarded by them but 
as an enthusiastic boy, to pay such tribute as I may to Lawrence 
who has laid down his pen after accomplishing the fullness of his 
years, his labors completely ended. 

For the first ten years or so of his literary work, Lawrence was 
engaged in investigating the birds of the United States, and 
describing new:forms, and his labors in the avifauna north of 
Mexico largely ceased with the completion of his portion of the 
ninth volume of the Pacific Railroad Reports, the fruit of the 
joint labors of Baird, Cassin, and Lawrence. ‘This work created 
a revolution in the technicalities and methods of American orni- 
thology, sweeping away all the old land-marks, and introducing a 
new era, a new system, and practically a new science. Lawrence’s 
part in this great work was restricted to such of the water birds as 
were comprised in the Longipennes, Totipalmi, and Brachypteri. 
From this year, 1858, to the end of his scientific career, Lawrence 
devoted himself mainly to the birds of Central and South America, 
Cuba and the West India Islands, and he published continuously 
for nearly fifty years, his last paper appearing in ‘The Auk,’ in 
January, 1891. During his active scientific life he published in all 
one hundred and twenty-one papers, and described three hundred 
and twenty-three species as new, most of which have stood the test 
of subsequent investigation. In his work he showed much patient 
research, was slow to arrive at a conclusion, careful in all his 
comparisons, diligent in seeking his authorities, ever ready and 
willing to receive suggestions, and to acknowledge any error he 
might inadvertently have committed. Man is born to commit 
errors. I think naturalists are more convinced of that fact than 
any other class, but those who admit having done so are the 
exceptions, and therefore entitled to the more honor. 

Lawrence’s writings were mainly confined to the description of 
new forms, or lists of the birds in certain localities, and he never 
attempted monographic essays, or to embody his views and the 


Auk 


) = : ‘ 
8 EL1Liot, George Newbold Lawrence. Tit 


results of his investigations in a complete book form, but he was 
a faithful laborer in laying the foundation upon which others 
might raise a noble edifice. His knowledge of the birds of the 
New World was great and varied, and no one was ever more 
willing than he to place it all at the service of any seeking 
information. Systematic ornithology, and the great and absorbing 
questions of distribution, causes of migration, evolution, effects 
of environment on races and species, natural selection, and 
similar problems that have engaged the attention of many of his 
contemporaries in late years, were passed unheeded, and he was 
satisfied to restrict his work to the simpler branches of the science. 
But it is necessary in the construction of any great building that 
artificers of every rank and degree of skill should be available in 
order to produce the united, complete, and harmonious whole ; 
and so it is fortunate for our science in the New World that it 
found so capable a master-workman, willing to devote his time and 
abilities to the formation and strengthening of the first stories of 
her stately edifice. The value of his labors was acknowledged 
throughout the world by ornithologists of. every nation, and 
recognition was accorded him by a large number of learned and 
scientific societies. He was an Honorary Member of this Union, 
as well as one of its Founders and Member of its Council ; also an 
Honorary Member of the Linnzan Society of New York, Foreign 
Member of the British Ornithologists’ Union, Member of the New 
York Historical and Geographical Societies, Corresponding Mem- 
ber of the Zodlogical Society of London, of the Academy of 
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, of the Natural History Society 
of Boston, and many others. 

He was an active and important member of the New York 
Lyceum of Natural History, which he joined in 1845, famous 
throughout the world wherever zodlogical science is known, but 
now engulfed in the New York Academy of Sciences. It was 
through the exertions and faithfulness of Lawrence and a few 
other devoted men of his generation, that this old historic society 
was kept alive in the time of its greatest need, and I remember 
well the little band that used to meet once a week in the College 
of Physicians and Surgeons on r4th Street in the sixties, and, 
under the presidency of Major Delafield, read their papers and 


Vol. XIII > : 
1896 ELLIOT, George Newbold Lawrence. 9 


discuss subjects of mutual interest. In this company Lawrence 
was always present, and he published all, or nearly all his writings 
in the ‘Annals’ of the Society, until it disappeared in the one 
with a more resounding name ; but to the suppression of the title 
under which the old corporation had gained an enviable rank 
throughout the world, he was never reconciled. He, however, 
became a member, which indeed was his of right, then Fellow, and 
finally a Patron of the Lyceum’s successor. He was one of the 
founders of the New York College of Pharmacy. In recognition 
of his labors, his brother ornithologists throughout the world con- 
ferred his name upon one genus and twenty species of birds, a 
more enduring monument than any raised from bronze or marble. 

Lawrence’s rank as an ornithologist will always be a prominent 
one, on account of the particular period of his activity, the men 
with whom he was associated, and the patient, faithful character 
of his scientific work, and his name will always adorn the annals 
of American ornithology. 

But it is of the man himself, rather than the ornithologist, that 
I best like to think and speak. I cannot recollect the time when 
I did not know George N. Lawrence, and from the closest inti- 
macy with his sons and various other members of his family, and 
the mutual interest in our sciences that naturally brought us 
together, I suppose it can be said that I knew him better than did 
any other naturalist, not even excepting Baird. Courteous, gentle, 
simple in his tastes and habits, almost child-like in his deference 
to the opinions of others in whom he reposed confidence, asserting 
his own opinions with a modesty that was remarkable, because so 
rare, Lawrence was a conspicuous example of that personage to 
whom we all turn with mingled feelings of admiration and respect 
—a gentlemen of the Old School, of the days of our ancestors, 
when knee breeches and brocaded silks were parts of the ordinary 
costume, and the manners of the age were characterized by dig- 
nity and a respectful demeanor. Although verging on to four 
score and ten years, Lawrence never grew old, and his interests 
in the sports of the fields and the occupations of youth were as 
lively and intense in his last year as in the days when he was 
wont to shoulder his gun and take an active share in them. ‘The 
last time I saw him, but a short while before his death, he was 


2 


Auk 


Io ELLiot, George Newbold Lawrence. Tan: 


as eager for news of ornithology and ornithologists as he ever 
displayed in the days of his activity, and his mind was clear and 
showed no evidence of his great age. The end was peaceful, and 
he passed away only a few days after the death of his wife, to 
whom during the period of her long illness, he had ever exhibited 
a touching, affectionate devotion rarely witnessed. 

With Lawrence ends an era of our science in the New World. 
In a certain sense he belonged to the past, to the ranks of those 
who directed ornithological science into a new path in the middle 
of this century before a large proportion of the present workers 
were born, and although he wrote and published as late as four 
years ago, his name is best associated with those long since 
passed from earth. What he did, he did well, to the best of his 
ability, and he has left an unblemished record and an untar- 
nished name. Happy for that Science! Happy for that land! 
which can claim for its own men like this, pure in life and 
mind, devoted to the interests which command the highest 
thought of their being, and which bring gcod to the many. 
There is one more escutcheon on Fame’s temple wall, one more 
name inscribed in line of golden light, and as we contemplate 
this life, and behold the “upright man and the just,” and mark 
his peaceful passing from earth’s familiar scenes, we seem to 
hear, as though from out a cloud illumined with celestial fire, a 
voice uttering the solemn admonition — 


“So live, that when thy summons comes 

[Thou too shall] approach thy grave 

Like one that wraps the drapery of his couch 
About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams.” 


ae ly 


hope, 
Riek Oe ate 


AGOO VNEXOUN VLLYCUV 


aloWwy)29 'NSneooL 


Se i 


‘ ; 4 
Dll ome & a 


Ss 


Ti eciN care Tx “LOA “MOY SH, 


Leg CHAPMAN, The Standing of Ardetta neoxena. II 


THE STANDING OF ARDETTA NEOXENA. 


BY FRANK M. CHAPMAN. 


Plate Tf. 


CERTAIN facts in the history of this well-named Bittern have 
caused several writers, myself among the number, to speak of it 
as probably an aberrant form or color-phase of our widely distrib- 
uted Ardetta exilis. In figuring this peculiar bird in ‘The Auk’ 
an attempt has therefore been made to bring together for direct 
comparison as many of the known specimens as were available, 
for the purpose of deciding if possible the bird’s standing. 

Described by Mr. Cory in 1886 from a specimen taken in the 
Okeechobee region of Florida, there have since been captured 

‘ thirteen additional specimens. Of this number five are from the 
type locality in Florida, one is from Michigan, and seven are from 
Toronto.! Through the generosity of the owners of these rare 
birds I now have before me ten of the fourteen recorded speci- 
mens. ‘This series presents much variation, to be spoken of more 
particularly after comparing the apparently normal plumage of 
the adult male and female and immature male with the corre- 


sponding plumages of Ardetta exilis. 


Ardetta neoxena, & ad. 


Crown glossy black. 
Back of the neck glossy black. 
Interscapulars entirely 


black without buffy margins. 


glossy 


Tail glossy black. 
Front of the neck chestnut. 


Abdomen, sides, and tibiz mixed 
chestnut, black, and smoky brown. 
Under tail-coverts glossy black. 


Primaries slate gray w/7thout cin- 
namon rufous tips. 


Ardetta exilis, 8 ad. 


Crown glossy black. 

Back of the neck chestnut rufous. 

Interscapulars glossy black, outer 
edge of outer ones margined with 
butty white. 

Tail glossy black. 

Front of the neck white more or 
less washed with buffy. 

Abdomen, sides, and tibi® white 
more or less washed with butty. 

Under tail-coverts white slightly 
tinged with buffy. 

Primaries slate gray, the outer 
ones sometimes, the inner ones 
always tipped with dull cinnamon 


rufous. 


} A fifteenth specimen, from Wisconsin, is recorded beyond in this number 


of ‘The Auk.’ 


Auk 


17 CHAPMAN, The Standing of Ardetta neoxena. Sam, 


Outer secondaries slate gray with- 
out cinnamon rufous tips; inner 
secondaries black, glossy on the 
outer web and wethouwt chestnut 
rufous. 

Lesser wing-coverts at bend of 
wing black. 

Median wing-coverts chestnut. 

Greater wing-coverts 
slate gray, the inner ones with chest- 


blackish 
nut tips. 


Under wing-coverts chestnut. 


Outer secondaries slate 
tipped with cinnamon rufous; inner 
secondaries with outer web chest- 


nut rufous, inner web blackish slate 


gray 


gray. 
Lesser wing-coverts at bend of 
wing chestnut rutous. 
Median wing-coverts cream buff. 
Greater wing-coverts with basal 
half slate gray, terminal half chest- 
nut rufous, the inner ones washed 
with cream-buff on the outer vane. 
Under wing-coverts white, grayer 
at the base, and washed with butty. 


It will be seen from this comparison that there is no regularity 
in the substitution of colors; hence these birds differ not alone 
in color, but also in pattern of coloration. Thus, the chestnut 
of neoxena may replace either the white or buff of ex7/is, or the 
former may be black where the latter is chestnut rufous, buff, or 
white. The differences in distribution of color, or relative mark- 
ings of the same parts, are most marked in the interscapulars, 
under tail-coverts, greater wing-coverts, and tips of the quills. 


Ardetta neoxena, & ad. Ardetta exilis, 2 ad. 


Similar to male but black of head 
tinged with brown; back rich, dark 
brown; interscapulars more widely 
margined with buffy; under parts 


Similar to male but crown slightly, 
and back decidedly duller. 


more heavily washed with buff, and 
with numerous’ blackish — shaft- 
streaks, andin places slight blackish 
mottlings. 


Measurements. 


Six adults (5 males andi female, 
4 from Florida and 2 from Toronto) 
tail, 
tarsus, 1.56; culmen, 1.76. 


Six adults (4 males and 2 females, 
3 from Florida and 3 from Erie, 
Pa.) average: wing, 4.60; tail, 1.59; 
tarsus, 1.59; culmen, 1.81. 


average: wing, 4.59; iy EGG 


My notes on the female of weoxena are based on the original 
records and Mr. Hubert Brown’s comparison of the two adult 


Toronto females, neither of which I have seen. One of these 


Vol. XIII 


1896 CHAPMAN, The Standing of Ardetta neoxena. Lif 


has been compared by Mr. Brewster with a bird (No. 44,087) in 
his collection, and which he has loaned me.+ Mr. Brewster 
remarks: ‘“‘ The Toronto bird is a trifle the darker on the back 
and the chestnut of its under parts is slightly richer, but in other 
respects the two specimens are almost exactly alike.” This No. 
44,087 is not sexed, but with little doubt is an adult female. 
The outer margins of the interscapulars are decidedly brownish, 
but whether this marking appears in the two Toronto birds is 
not stated. 

It appears, therefore, that there is less sexual difference in 


neoxena than in exidis. In size the two birds agree. 


Ardetta neoxena, & immature. 


Similar to adult male but black 
of the head and back 
duller, the outer margins of the 


somewhat 


Ardetta exilis, & immature. 


Similar to adult male but crown 
duller, the feathers margined with 
rutous ; 


chestnut back slate gray 


interscapulars slightly tinged with or blackish slate gray, the feathers 


tipped with chestnut rufous and 
ochraceous buff ; under parts more 


‘ heavily washed with buff, and with 


chestnut. 


numerous blackish shatt-streaks. 


Four of the ten specimens of eoxena now ia my possession are 
birds of the year, three of them still showing remains of the 
nestling plumage. 
Toronto (Aug. 24, J. H. Ames) in which the nestling plumage still 
covers the abdominal region while the feathers of the head and 
back, although fully grown, still have the downy neossoptiles 
attached to their tips. 
tance for they evidently show that the immature plumage of 


This is especially marked in a male from 


These specimens are of the utmost impor- 


neoxena, or the first plumage succeeding the nestling down, is 
practically like that of the adult, while exz/s, on the contrary, at 
this age, differs markedly from the adult. 

Here also should be mentioned the notes of Mr. J. F. Menge 
on the nest and young of weoxena, as quoted by Mr. W. E. D. 
Scott.! Mr. Menge, who collected four of the six Florida speci- 
mens, writes as follows: “I herewith send you notes concerning 
the Bittern as requested by Mr. J. W. Atkins, first found on 8th 


Auk, VIII, 1891, 309. 


Auk 
Jan. 


14 CHAPMAN, The Standing of Ardetta neonend. 


of June, 1890, two and a half miles above Fort Thompson, 
Florida, in a small willow swamp on the borders of Lake Flint 
[Zege Flirt]. It was built of willow twigs and lined inside with 
maiden cane leaves. It was in a low bush two feet and a halt 
above the surface of the water. ‘There were four young birds, 
about two-thirds grown, in the nest. I had one of the old birds 
in my hand, which I think was the female. She was not inclined 
to fight and would not leave the nest. The other old bird was 
two or three feet from me and seemed a much larger bird. I did 
not disturb them and when [I let the old bird go she hopped back 
on her nest as though she was accustomed to being handled.” 

This comparison shows such striking differences between these 
two birds, that to give further reasons for regarding them as 
specifically distinct seems much like proving an axiom. : 

Aside from the differences in color and pattern of coloration 
and the manner in which the mature plumage is acquired, the 
fact that the young of weoxena resemble the adults, and that no 
example of exz/is showing an approach to weoxena has ever been 
recorded, would seem to give Cory’s Bittern undisputed title to 
full specific rank. 

While we may therefore reject the suggestion that meoxena is 
a color-phase of ex7/7s, and in fact leave exz/7s entirely out of the 
question, the specimens of weoxena present certain characters 
which demand investigation. Allowing for normal variation only 
three of my ten specimens of seoxena are alike, while the remain- 
ing seven show either melanistic or albinistic markings or both 
combined. No. 167 (¢ im., Mich.) has several white feathers on 
the right tibia but is otherwise normal. The type (No. 2001, Fla.) 
has two entirely white feathers on the right flank. No. 44,087 
(Fla.) has the abdominal region and flanks wholly chestnut with- 
out black. ‘There are three pure white feathers on one side of the 
belly and five on the other; part of the anterior portion and the 
entire inside of the right tibia are white. No.71 (¢ ad., Toronto) 
has conspicuous white patches on the abdomen, vent, and tibiz, 
No. 44,088 (im., Fla.) presents the extreme of albinism; the 
abdominal region, breast, and tibia are almost wholly white, the 
outer primary of the left wing is entirely white, and white feathers 
appear on the bend of both wings and under wing-coverts. No, 


Vol. XIII 


1896 CHAPMAN, The Standing of Ardetta neoxena. 15 


29,289 has the abdominal region and breast black slightly tinged 
with chestnut and with one or two white feathers on either side of 
the belly. The left tibia (the skin on the right is wanting) is 
chestnut and black with white filoplumes. The chestnut on the 
median coverts is much reduced. No. 44,086 (¢, Fla.) is almost 
completely melanistic. The abdominal region is wholly black 
with the exception of two pure white feathers on either side of the 
belly. The tibiz are smoky brown the inner side of the right one 
being white. The foreneck is black washed with dull chestnut, 
the wing-coverts are glossy black with no trace of chestnut. 

This remarkable variability will be more fully appreciated by 
an examination of the following table : — 


= — ——— Set a —— 


No. ABDOMINAL REGION. TIBLE. REMARKS. 
| 
a | | 
167 Mixed chestnut and smoky Like abdo-| 
brown. men but right 


with white 
| feathers. 


2001| Mixed chestnut and black;| Like abdo-| 

two white feathers on right | men. 

flank. 

44087 Chestnut with eight white Chestnu t, | 
feathers. right partly | 

white. 
71 Mixed chestnut, black and Like abdo- | 
white. men. | 


| 
44088 | White with a few chestnut; Front white,; Outer primary 
and brownish feathers. back smoky|of left wing and 
brown. some feathers of 
| bend of wing and 
| under wing-cov- 
| erts white. 


29289| Black tinged with chestnut; Chestnut| Wing coverts 


three white feathers on belly. | and black. | black tinged with 
| chestnut. 
44086 Black with two white feathers. | Right smoky | Foreneck black 


brown, left|washed with 
|smoky brown | chestnut. Wing- 
| | and white. |coverts glossy 
| | black. 


| 


16 CHAPMAN, The Standing of Ardetta neoxena. ay 

While I do not pretend to explain this unusual degree of varia- 
tion, I can see no reason for making it the basis of a theory 
that meoxena is a color-phase of exz/is. Only three of the fourteen 
known specimens depart widely from what is evidently the type 
of coloration, and in every instance these differences are due 
to albinism or melanism, not one of the specimens showing 
any approach te ex7/is. Nor do the known cases of dichromatism 
among Herons give us any ground for asserting that eoxena is 
a dichromatic phase of evz/7s. Aside from the important differ- 
ences exhibited by the young and female, a careful compari- 
son of the adult males shows no substitution of colors such as 
we find in the phases of Ardea rufescens, Megascops, Fulmarus, or 
even Sfercorarius. This is especially marked in the under parts, 
which in exz/is are essentially all buffy, while veoxena has a chest- 
nut forneck, a chestnut and black belly, and, in every instance, jet 
black under tail-coverts. 

It is natural that the variability of weoxena should cause us to 
regard it with suspicion, but beyond the fact that the two birds 
are generically related and of the same size, there is not one 
grain of evidence implicating exz//s. This latter bird is repre- 
sented in our collections by hundreds of specimens not one . 
of which has given reason for believing the species is dichromatic. 

For the loan of specimens of this rare bird I desire to heartily 
thank Messrs. William Brewster, J. H. Ames, Charles B. Cory, 
J. H. Fleming, Jas. 8. Thurston, and L. W. Watkins. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


1886. Cory, CHARLES B. Description of a New North American Species 
of Ardetta. Auk, III, 262. 
1886. Cory, CHARLES B. More news of Ardetta neoxena. Auk, III, 408. 
Gives collector’s name and approximate place of capture of the 
type specimen. 
1886. Coues, ELLtiotr. Key to North American Birds. Third Edition. 
Appendix, 888. 
Description of Ardetta neoxena. 
1889. R1pGWAy, RoBERT. Manual of North American Birds, 127. 
Description of Botaurus neoxenus. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 CHAPMAN, The Standing of Ardetta neoxena. ley’ 
1889. A. O. U. COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE. First Supplement to 


Check-List of North American Birds, p. 6. 

Ardetta is here ranked as a subgenus of Bofaurus and the 
species is therefore recognized as Botaurus neoxenus. 

1889. Scorr, W. E. D. A second specimen of Cory’s Bittern (Bofaurus 
neoxenus). Auk, VI, 317. 

Records the capture near Lake Okeechobee of the second 
known specimen. 

1891. Cory, CHARLES B. Capture of a Fourth Specimen of Ardette 
neoxena. Auk, VIII, 309. 

Records an adult male from the Kissimmee River, Florida. 
The capture of the third known specimen herein referred to was 
not published until 1892. 

1891. Scorr, W. E. D. Notes on the Nest and Habits of Cory’s Bitterm 
(Botaurus neoxenus). Auk, VIII, 309. 

Records the discovery, June 8, 1890, by J. F. Menge, of a nest 
containing four young on the borders of Lake Flirt, a small lake 
west of Okeechobee. 

1892. Scort, W. E. D. A Description of the adult male of Botaurus- 
neoxenus (Cory), with Additional Notes on the Species. Auk,, 
ibis obegd : 

Records the capture of three birds by J. F. Menge near Lake 
Okeechobee. It is suggested that zeoxena may prove to be @ 
color-phase of exzZzs. 

1892. Scorr, W. E. D. Notes on the Birds of the Caloosahatchie Regiom 
of Florida. Auk, IX, 214. 


? 


“ Botaurus neoxenus”’ is stated to occur regularly, though prob- 
ably in small numbers, about Lake Flirt and in the great tracts 
of sawgrass that surround Lake Okeechobee. 

1892. Cross, W. A new Species for Ontario. Proc. Ornithological Sub- 
section Canadian Inst., for 1890-91, 41. 

Records the capture, on May 18, 1890, of the first known Tor-. 
onto specimen. 

1893. A. O. U. COMMITTEE ON NOMENCLATURE. Fifth Supplement to. 
the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-List of North Amer- 
ican Birds. Auk, X, 61. 

Ardetta is restored to -full generic rank, Bofaurus neoxenus 
thus becoming Ardefta neoxena. 

1893. BRown, Husert H. Capture of another Ardetta neoxena at Tor- 
onto, Ontario. Auk, X, 363. 

Records a female taken May 20, 1893. 

1893. BREWSTER, WILLIAM. Capture of another Ardetta neoxena at 
Toronto. Auk, X, 364. 

Comparing the specimen recorded by H. H. Brown with the 
four Florida specimens in his collection. It is stated to agree 
closely with No. 44,087. 


1894. 


1894. 


1894. 


1894. 


1894. 


1894. 


1894. 


1894. 


1894. 


1895. 


1895. 


Auk 
Jan. 


CuapMANn, Zhe Standing of Ardetta neoxena. 

SHARPE, R. Bowpier. [The Geographical Distribution of the 

Little Bitterns (Ardeffa)]. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, XXI, xxxi; 
reprinted in The Ibis, July, 1894, 425. 

The writer states that “ Ardefta neoxena of Cory seems to 
be founded on very old individuals of A. exis, in which the 
rufous tips to the quills and the light stripes on the back have 
disappeared with age or wear”! 

Ames, J.H. Third Specimen of Ardefta neoxena taken at Toronto. 
The Biological Review of Ontario, I, 52. 

Records the capture of a male on May 26, 1894. 

McItwraitH, THomas. The Birds of Ontario, Second Edition, tog. 

Botaurus neoxenus described with comment on the Toronto 
specimens. 

PICKERING, CHARLES. Fourth Specimen of Ardetta neoxena at 
Toronto. The Biological Review of Ontario, I, 54. 

Records a specimen taken July 16, 1594. 

Bropikr, WILLIAM. Fourth Specimen ot Ardetta neoxena at Tor- 
onto. The Biological Review of Ontario, I, 54. 

Description of the specimen collected by Mr. Pickering with 
references to previously published records of this species._ 

THURSTON, JAMES R. Ardetta neoxena at Toronto. The Biological 
Review of Ontario, I, 84. 

Records an adult male taken August 16, 1894. 

FLEMING, JAMES H. Avrdetta neonena at Toronto. The Biological 
Review of Ontario, I, 85. 

Records an immature bird taken August 17, 1894. 

Ames, J. H. Ardetta neoxena at Toronto. The Biological Review 
of Ontario, I, 86. 

Records an immature male taken August 24, 1894. 

Brown, Huserr H. Notes on Cory’s Bittern (Ardetta neoxena) 
and a comparison of the seven Toronto specimens. The Biolog- 
ical Review of Ontario, I, 86-91. 

An important paper describing the locality in which all the 
Toronto specimens were taken, giving notes on their habits and 
food and comparisons of their plumage. 

Watkins, L. Witney. Cory’s Least Bittern in Michigan. Auk, 
>I Yi7/ 

Records a male from Jackson County, taken August 8, 1894. 

CHAPMAN, FRANK M. UHandbook of Birds of Eastern North 
America, 131. 

Ardetta neoxena described and the suggestion that it may prove 
to be a color-phase of A. exz//s endorsed. 


1@ 


CuHapman, The Standing of Ardetta neoxena, 


Vol. canal 
1896 


"SUINITAA “AA 7] 
‘sqooel “gq 

‘eq ‘H 

‘ouN;, — 

. ‘SULIOYONg *svyo 
‘sqoov{ — 
‘uapsuivy “[ 
‘asuaW “Af 
‘asua “af 
esueyy “a ‘ff 
‘SSOID “AN 
"JABMIIS *D “Y 
‘asuemy ‘af 
"JAVMIIS “LW 


"409992109 


t6g1 ‘g ‘any 
F6gt ‘be -sny 
b6gt ‘Li -sny 
b6gt ‘ol ‘Suny 
F6gt ‘or Apnf 
b6gt ‘gz AIK 
€6g1 ‘oz Av 
1691 ‘$1 sny 
16g ‘Sr Apnf 
16gI ‘gz oun{ 
o6gt ‘gi Av 
o6g1 ‘61 Avy 
6391 6 Ajnf 
[Segt] 
‘agvq 


‘POUIUIeXd JON , 


4s) 
3 
O+ SO O+ —O FO SO &H 


om 
[‘pe 4] 
"pe P 


‘pe ? 
oh a 
[pe Pp] 


‘SP pun xay 


“USHA ‘OAP'T SUPE Ay 


JUQ ‘0}U0.10 T, 
” ” 


VT Oye T 


‘VL ‘PaqoyoaIayYO 9ye7] Awan 


‘JUQ ‘O}UOIO TL, 
MOATQ] BIULUIISSE YY 


” 9 ” ” 


‘Bl ‘9eqoyoIayO syvVyT Ivan 


42] D20T 


‘puaxoau DiJapAp AO SNAWIOUdS GAAACYOOAY AO LSI’T 


‘SUIMIEAA “AAT 
‘soury ‘Hf 
‘Sura “Hf 
‘uojsanyy, “y‘sef 
‘SULIOYOIg ‘sveyd 
‘soury “Hf 
‘Surwmely Hf 
IQISMAIG WLIT[T AA 
‘9]N}IJsUy UvIpeUuRD 


“TQISMOIG ULLIT[L AY 


‘sn URIGuIN[OD platy 


‘fo u01,93]]09 


Auk 
Jan. 


20 BAKER, A Factor tn Western Bird-life. 


AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN) THE |STUDY (OF 
WESTERN BIRD-LIFE. 


BY CARL F. BAKER. 


PROBABLY no better instance of the progressiveness of the 
American can be offered than that of the settlement of the arid 
lands of the Western States. ‘Through the magic touch of irriga- 
tion a desert has been made to support a vegetation of almost 
tropical richness. Where once was but a barren plain, now 
spread broad fields of luxuriantly growing crops, fine orchards, 
and green meadows. 

It would seem that in this wonderful transformation, brought 
about in so short a time, the zodlogist would find a field of sur- 
passing interest for study, and one promising varied and valuable 
results.. How it has affected the buffalo, antelope, elk, and badger 
are familiar facts. But its effects on the smaller mammals and birds 
have never been traced, although they must in many instances be 
nearly as marked as on those species mentioned. Compare for 
an instant the two sets of conditions. Zen, a treeless, uninhab- 
ited tract (except along the streams which were few and far 
between) covered with a very scant herbaceous vegetation, upon. 
which fell but very little rain. Vow, covered with farms having 
ornamental trees and orchards in abundance, the face of the 
country not gray brown, but green, and water everywhere. These 
changes have been effected over immense tracts within a very few 
years, and are going on rapidly to-day. 

It seems as if here was an opportunity such as occurs but once 
in an age. It is true that similar changes are in progress in all 
inhabited countries, but in no instance have changes on so grand 
a scale been brought about in so short a time. With a single 
exception, in none of the literature at my command can I find that 
such studies have been carefully prosecuted. This exception is 
anvariele by Dr. Hi. H. Behr (Proc.\Calii, Acad? Sci, Vol. 1), 
entitled ‘Changes in Fauna and Flora of California.’ Ornitho- 
logical literature is full of specific instances of variation of habit 
produced by the settlement of the country, such as those of the 
Phoebe, Martin, Barn Swallow, and others. But I cannot find 


Vol. XIII 


TRGe Knicut, Zhe Pine Grosbeak tn Captivity. BHAT 


that such a faunal study as I have mentioned, embracing any 
extended area, has ever been made. 

In a recent article in ‘The Auk’ (Vol. XII, ‘The Summer 
Range of Colorado Birds’) Prof. Cooke ignores any such element 
_ as this in the study of Colorado birds, and for this reason he may 
describe anything but a natural state of affairs. For instance, the 
present status of the Western Meadowlark, Mourning Dove, Say’s 
Pheebe, and Bullock’s Oriole, in the Cache la Poudre Valley, 
must of a necessity be very different from what it was forty years 
ago, when nothing existed there to modify the natural distribution 
of the species. Thus it is entirely possible that Prof. Cooke’s 
statement that “there is a greater variety of birds among the 
foothills, but not so many individuals as on the p!ains,’”’ may 
represent only an artificial condition. To describe the range of 
an animal like the buffalo, which occurred in immense numbers 
over a large part of the United States, as “very rare, occurring in 
small herds of some half a dozen individuals each, in remote fast- 


> 


nesses of the Rocky Mountains,” would be but illy describing the 
life and distribution of the hordes of the plains. 

At some few localities investigations have been carried on to 
determine the primitive and natural distribution of birds in our 
desert regions. But these regions are not now being irrigated 
and probably never will be. Studies should be prosecuted now 
in those regions liable to irrigation. It is from these as a basis 
that exact comparisons can be drawn in future years, and exact 
values given of effects produced by such tremendous surface 
changes as those occasioned by irrigation and the settlement of 


the arid region. 


THE PINE GROSBEAK IN CAPTIVITY. 
BY O. W. KNIGHT. 


THE winter of 1892-93 will be long remembered by Maine 
ornithologists on account of the great number of Pine Grosbeaks 
(Pinicola enucleator) which visited this State. November 16, 1892, 


Z2 KNIGHT, The Pine Grosbeak in Captivity. fae 
I noticed two or three individuals feeding on seeds of the white 
ash near Orono, Maine. December 25 a flock of about two hun- 
dred individuals appeared in the yard of a friend in Bangor and 
began to feed upon the seeds of crab-apples of which a large quantity 
remained on the leafless trees in his yard. He at once sent word 
to me, and I was soon on the spot. I determined to catch a pair 
of the birds and see if they could be induced to breed in captivity. 

A horse hair slip noose was speedily arranged at the end of a 
bean pole, and with this crude apparatus I essayed to capture the 
birds, which were very tame. ‘They would sit quietly engaged in 
feeding, while I slipped the noose over one’s head, and hauled it 
from its perch on the tree. The remainder of the flock did not 
seem to take any notice of the queer antics of their captured 
comrade, which uttered loud, harsh cries when handled while the 
noose was being removed from its neck. In this way about 
twenty females and young males were captured, but the handsome 
adult males were more wary and remained near the top of the 
tree, so that it was impossible to capture any of them. 

After a careful scrutiny of the captives, I selected two likely 
looking ones which by sheer luck turned out to be a pair. My 
friend also selected a couple of the birds, and the remainder were 
set free. My pair of birds were placed in a large cage in our 
kitchen, where they would become accustomed to seeing persons 
near them, and they quickly became very tame. The next day 
after their capture, the male began to sing in a low ventriloquial 
voice which seemed to come from an entirely opposite direction 
from where he was. 

In a few days they would eagerly take apple and hemp seed 
from my hand, and very soon I would allow them to come out of 
their cage and fly about the room. When I desired to get them 
into their cage again, a few seeds placed near the door at once 
enticed them within. 

The male quickly assumed the ascendency, and did not allow 
the female to partake of any proffered dainties until his own 
appetite was satisfied. The second week in May he showed 
indications of pairing, and nesting material was put in the cage. 
Both birds would carry this around the cage in their beaks, but 
did not seem to know how to begin to build a nest. May 30, the 


ee Knicut, The Pine Grosbeak in Captivity. Z3 
male was found dead in the cag2. Notwithstanding this, the 
female continued preparing to lay, an1 the morning of June ro an 
egg was found in the bottom of the cage. June ri a second and 
last egg of the set was laid. ‘They were of a greenish blue color, 
spotted with black and lilac. The spots were thickest at the 
larger end where they tended to become confluent and form a 
wreath. The eggs measured 1.00 X .68 and 1.02 X .64 inches 
respectively. 

The next winter, 1893-94, no Grosbeaks were observed in this 
vicinity, and so I was disappointed in getting a mate for my bird. 
The last of May, 1894, she showed signs of desiring to bui'd a 
nest. An old nest of the Lozgernead Shrike was placed in a box 
in her cage, and she at once occupied herself in tearing it to 
pieces and attempting in a crude way to build a nest. On June g, 
14, 17, 22, and 23 she deposited eggs which exhibit the following 
dimensions: .go X .69, .g4 X .70, .g5 X .68, .go X .65, and .go 
x69. On completion of this set she desired to incubate, acting 
very much like a sitting hen. In July she again began to prepare 
a nest, and on July 17 and 18 she laid eggs which measure .81 x 
‘op ane. SLR 62 In: 

January 17, 1895, a few Grosbeaks were observed feeding on 
some sumach berries in a small grove near Bangor. February 2 a 
flock of about twenty visited a crab-apple tree in a neighbor’s 
garden, and, although they were very wild, I finally managed to 
capture one which proved to be a young male. He was at once 
introduced to the captive fema'e, but the two developed a strong 
antipathy to each other, and a fierce fight ensued, so that I was 
obliged to place them in separate cages. 

May 20 the female began to build a nest, and I again tried to 
mate the birds, but they at once began to attack each other, so I 
was obliged to give up all hopes of their mating. 

On May 28, 29, and June 5, 6, and 7 eggs were deposited which 
measure .g2 X .69, .83 X .66, .93 X .71, .88 X .70, and .88 X .69 
in., and the female at once desired to incubate. June r1 the 
bird began to construct another nest, and on June 14, 15, 22, and 
24 she again laid. The eggs measure .g9 x .70, .86 X .67, .95 X 
.70o, and .64 X .57 in. ‘The last egg laid was very small and con 
tained no yolk. ‘The bird now ceased laying until July, when on 


Auk 
Jan. 


24 Eviior, Mew Ptarmigans from Alaska. 


July 10, r1, and 12 she laid eggs measuring .93 X .69, .94 X .68, 
and .88 x .69 in. I now supposed that she was through with her 
remarkable production of eggs, but to my astonishment on July 25, 
26, and 27 she again laid, the eggs measuring .93 X .67, .89 Xx 
.64 and .go X .65 respectively. This ended the production of 
egos for this year. In August I tried to put the male in the cage 
with the female, and this time they managed to get along without 
quarreling, and have been kept in one cage ever since. 

It was very interesting to observe the moulting of the male, and 
see him gradually take on the adult plumage. July 20 a few 
orange colored feathers could be observed on his head near the 
base of the bill; these gradually grew until on August 1, his drab 
colored head feathers were all replaced by orange colored ones. 
July 25 a few orange feathers were noted on his throat, and these 
grew and replaced the old ones until on September 5 the moult 
was completed. The-feathers of the head, throat, etc., are of a 
peculiar orange color instead of the beautiful red hue which char- 
acterizes the wild birds of the same sex. 


DESCRIPTIONS OF AN APPARENTLY NEW SPECIES 
AND SUBSPECIES OF PTARMIGAN FROM 
THE: ALEUTIAN TSEANDS, 


15\' 108 (Ep INIAKO ME 1A IRS So 1D. 


Pigiewilde 


DurtnG a late visit to Washington my friend Mr. R. Ridgway 
kindly allowed me to examine the extensive series of Ptarmi- 
gan in the collection of the National Museum with permission 
to describe any novelties I mizht discover, and the two appa- 
rently new forms named in this paper are the results of my 
investigations. 


The publication of this plate is. necessarily deferred till the July number. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Eviiot, New Ptarmigans from Alaska. 25 


Lagopus evermanni, sp. nov. 


Flabitat, Attu Island. 

Adult male, Attu Island, 4th June, 1894.— Forehead white. Top ot 
_ head and back of neck black, finely barred with tawny. Loral space, 
breast and entire upper parts, tertials, innermost secondaries, and upper 
tail-coverts black, with faint vermiculations of russet on rump, upper tail- 
coverts and edges of tertials. Sides of face black and white mixed. 
Comb over eye, scarlet. White feathers of the winter dress are inter- 
spersed among the feathers of the back and upper part of the breast. 
Most of wing-coverts, secondaries, and entire primaries pure white, with 
the shafts of primaries pale brown. ‘Tail clove brown, almost black, with 
narrow white tips to the feathers. Entire under parts, including under 
tail-coverts, pure white. Bill and claws, black. Total length, 13.90 
inches ; wing, 7.50; tail, 5.30; tarsus, 1.30; exposed culmen, .50. 

This specimen is not in complete summer dress, as is shown by the few 
remaining white feathers, scattered among the black ones, and also by the 
white forehead. These feathers would undoubtedly give place to others 
colored like those of the adjoining parts. 

Adult female, Attu, 28th May, 1892.—Entire plumage of body ochra- 
ceous, palest on the throat, blotched and barred on the back with black 
and the feathers with white tips, while the feathers of rump and upper 
tail-coverts have ochraceous tips. On the breast and flanks the black 
blotches are much fewer but the black bars are broader, and there are no 
white tips on the breast feathers, but those on the abdomen and some on 
the flanks are broadly tipped with white. Under tail-coverts ochraceous 
barred with black. The tertials, inner secondaries and some of the greater 
wing-coverts ochraceous like the back, barred and tipped with white; 
remainder of wing and primaries pure white with the shafts of the latter 
pale brown. Bill and claws black. Total length, 12.80 inches; wing, 6.60; 
tail, 4.90; tarsus, 1.30; exposed culmen, .60. 


Seven specimens, five males and two females, from Attu, one 
of the Near Island Group, brought by Prof. B. W. Evermann, 
Mr. C. H. Townsend, and Dr. S. I. Call, are all the representa- 
tives of this new species yet obtained. Of the Rock Ptarmi- 
gans of the Northwest, Z. evermanni is apparently nearest allied 
to L. rupestris nelsoni of Unalaska and the Shumagin Islands, 

but is distinguished at once from all the Ptarmigans of the 
Western Hemisphere by its entire black and white plumage, 
exhibiting a strong contrast to Z. r. me/soni with its russet color- 
ation. The female, while having a general resemblance to that 
of L. r. nelsoni, which is to be expected, as the females of most 


4 


Auk 


26 Eviiot, New Ptarmigans from Alaska. 7a 


Rock Ptarmigans are similar in appearance, presents differences 
in co'or and style of markings that cause it to be readily recog- 
nizable from all its relatives, the black predominating to such 
an extent in the hues of the plumage as to make her appear 
much darker than the female of any other species. 

Attu Island is about 1400 miles west of Unalaska, and between 
these points only two forms of Ptarmigans have been procured,— 
L. r. atkensis and the subspecies ZL. 7. ftownsendi described farther 
on, both very different in all respects from LZ. evermanni, and 
there are no opportunities for intergradation, the habitats of the 
different forms being islands and too far separated by extent 
of sea, while Z. atkensis and L. r. townsendi, to be described later, 
preserve their peculiar general characteristics and individual dis- 
tinctness throughout their range. The males of Z. évermanni 
bear a certain resemblance to specimens of Z. mutus, of the 
Eastern Hemisphere, where these have much black in their 
plumage; but between Attu and the continent of Asia is found 
L. ridgwayi, a very distinct form from Bering Island, about 
300 miles west of Attu. This would seem to bar any possible 
relationship between Z. evermanni and any continental species, 
though it is a surprising fact, and one that can only be theorized 
upon and not thoroughly explained, that species which are 
closely allied can be separated by many miles of sea and land, 
and yet retain their specific characteristics, though distinctly 
different species may be found occupying interlying territory. 
This is one of the curiosities of geographical distribution, the 
solution of which is probably beyond the power of man to fathom. 

It gives me much pleasure to bestow upon this new species 
from Attu Prof. Evermann’s name, as he was the first to bring 
this Ptarmigan to the notice of naturalists. 

The other new form I propose to name 


Lagopus rupestris townsendi, subsp. nov. 


Flabitat, Kyska and Adak Islands, Aleutian Chain. 

Adult male, Kyska Island, Sth June, 1894, Nat. Mus. No. 135,634, type.— 
The general color of the entire upper parts, including head and neck, 
together with the breast and flanks, raw umber with a tinge of russet, finely 
vermiculated with black on lower back and rump, more coarsely marked 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Evxior, Mew Ptarmigans from Alaska. 27 
on the other parts, with black blotches on the head, neck, upper part of 
back and wings; feathers of back, rump and wings tipped with white. 
Some of these white tips are finely spotted with black, giving them a 
gray appearance. The outer secondaries, tertials, and most of the wing- 
coverts and primaries, pure white, the last having black shatts. The 
long upper tail-coverts are marked and colored like the back, with white 
tips. Tail clove brown, nearly black, the feathers tipped with white, 
broadest on the median, decreasing towards the outer ones, where it is 
either hardly perceptible or absent altogether. ‘Throat white, mixed with 
a few colored feathers. Breast, sides of neck, and flanks ochraceous, 
barred with black, the bars broader and more conspicuous on neck. 
Abdomen and belly white. Under tail-coverts mummy brown barred 
with black. Loral space and ring around the eye black, and a scarlet 
comb above the eye. Sides of neck of a slightly paler hue than back or 
breast. Total length, 13.70 inches; wing, 7.50; tail, 4.00; tarsus, 1.50; 
exposed culmen, .5o. 

Adult female, Kyska, 8th June, 1894, Nat. Mus. No. 135,635, type.— Entire 
upper parts, including scapulars, tertials and upper tail-coverts ochraceous 
blotched and barred with black, most of the feathers tipped with white, 
except those on hind neck which are tipped with ochraceous. ‘Tail square, 
clove brown, the four median feathers tipped with white. Secondaries, 
wing-coverts, and primaries white with black shafts, except those of inner 
secondaries which are white. Throat white. Breast, sides of body, and 
under tail-coverts ochraceous butt, lighter than the back, and broadly 
barred with black. Center of breast, abdomen, and belly pure white. 
Thighs and tarsus covered with white feathers. Bill and claws black. 
Total length, 12.50 inches; wing, 6.90; tail, 4.40; tarsus, 1.20; exposed 
culmen, .50. 

Adult male, Adak Island, 4th July, 1893, Nat. Mus. No. 131,874.— Upper 
parts grayish wood-brown finely vermiculated with black, and having 
occasional black blotches, with generally subapical narrow black bars on 
the feathers, and white tips. The head and hind neck are more of a 
fulvous hue, and the black bars are very narrow. ‘The breast is fulvous 
finely vermiculated with black, and with narrow black bars, the tips of 
the feathers being usually butt. The general appearance of the males in 
this month is more grayish with finer black lines and vermiculations. 

Adult female, Adak, 4th July, 1893, Nat. Mus. No. 131,878.— There is 
not much difference upon the back of the female in this month, except 
there is apparently more ochraceous on the tips of the feathers in the 
median line and on the rump, with a tendency to grayish on the scapu- 
lary region. The under parts differ in being uniformly rich buff with 
much narrower black bars than is seen in the June birds, and with the 
exception of an occasional white feather in the abdominal region, there 
is no white anywhere. This seems to be the full summer dress, and at 
once attracts the attention of the observer by the narrowness of the black 
lines and absence of white. 


28 Exiuiot, New Ptarmigans from Alaska. re 


There are about twenty specimens of both sexes of this sub- 
species in the collection, taken in June on the island of Kyska 
and in July on Adak. ‘The first of these lies in about 183° west 
Longitude and the latter in about 177°. There is a slight differ- 
ence in the appearance of the birds from the two localities, and 
this can be attributed possibly somewhat to the difference of date 
in their capture, the Adak birds having been obtained one month 
later, but more to their geographical distribution, as Adak is sev- 
eral hundred miles east of Kyska, and the birds’ environment has 
produced a different result upon them but one, not yet sufficiently 
pronounced to establish even a subspecific form. It will be 
observed that the male — and this example agrees with all the 
others taken at the same time— has much finer vermiculations, 
giving the back a slightly grayish hue, and the conspicuous black 
bars on the neck of the Kyska birds have been reduced to very 
narrow bars or vermiculations, and the general plumage presents 


a much more delicate pittern. The female shows even more 
striking changes. The back is decidedly grayish about the tips 
of the feathers, and the entire under parts are ochraceous buff, 
narrowly barred with black; the white on the breast, abdomen, 
and belly having entirely disappeared, only an occasional white 
feather showing here and there. The entire throat is a pure 
light buff. The specimen appears to have assumed a complete 
summer dress. 

It is very evident that comparisons of Ptarmigans should be 
made between individuals not only from the same locality, but 
also taken in the same month, if possible the same day, for these 
perplexing birds being in a constant state of moult, a few days’ 
difference in the time of their capture exhibits much change in 
their appearance, and one who has not studied them carefully 
with sufficient material, could easily be led to form an erroneous 
opinion regarding the status of a subspecific or even a specific 
form. As the birds from Atka and the two islands Kyska and 
Adak are spread before one, the differences between those of the 
first and the last two localities are so distinguishable and marked 
thit the most careless observer would be able to detect them, and 
after a little investization to separate them without hesitation even 
if they were mixel indiscriminately together, the Atka birds being 


Vol. XI11 


1896 BELDING, Songs of the Western Meadowlark. 29 


lighter in general hue and without the black blotches on the upper 
parts so conspicuous in the examples from the other islands. It 
is not, however, always easy to cause a description of allied forms 
among Ptarmigans to bring to one’s mind any one of them with 
the clearness and unfailing accuracy that even one glance of the 
eye is capable of producing, and the doubter then, who has no 
access to the specimens, must form his opinion either mainly in 
the ‘dark’ or wait until access to sufficient specimens will enable 
him to comprehend thoroughly their differences. 

I have conferred upon this subspecies the name of Mr. C. H. 
Townsend. of the United States Fish Commission, who has 
brought many specimens of Ptarmigans from various islands in 
the Aleutian Chain. 


SONGS OF THE WESTERN MEADOWLARK.! 
BY L. BELDING. 


THESE songs of the Western Meadowlark (Sturnella magna 
neglecta) were copied at Gridley, California. 

Numbers 1 and 2 are good examples of superior articulation. 
The pitch of No. g is uncertain, but that of the others is correct, 
or nearly so. 

These twelve songs are selections from the best songsters. I 
have heard these songs many times, and have heard them sung 
imperfectly oftener than otherwise. 

I have heard more w~rzteab/e songs from this bird at this locality 
than at any or all places where I have been in this State, and I 
have always noticed the songs wherever I have been. 


1 For musical notations of songs of the Western Meadowlark as heard in 
Colorado, see Charles N. Allen, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, VI, 1881, pp. 145-150; 
as heard in Manitoba, see Emest E. Thompson, Amer. Mag., April, 1887 
(republished in Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. XIII, 1891, pp. 575-579).— Epp. 


30 


nN 
CONS 
| | | Pe 
OC 
NTe|> 
® 

| 
elL 

i 
aE? 
ve 
| 
| ie 
eae 
| 
a 


- 
ttm 
CONE 
| Ae 
Okc 
|| l= 
\ | | 
| 
; 
aL 
ell 
| 
NTe 
Acie 
ae 
| | te 
| | 96 
| 
t 
— 


~T 
‘EN 
| Et 
Ly 
He 
ey 
Tre 
| 
| 
| TTS! 
| 
ms 
Tie 
le 
| 
XXT] RS 
| 
tent 
YXTTR> 
| | 
RSIeTaiG 
M6 | 
| 
|] 
Sa 


ih Seay aes ec iat So 
t+ 4 —@ a <—f+——_-.—,—_F 
: r= Se eee eae a x | 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Antuony, A Mew Subspecies of Dryobates. 21 


A NEW SUBSPECIES OF THE GENUS DRYOBATES. 
BY A. W. ANTHONY. 


SoME time since in looking over a series of western Dryobates 
of the Aarrisi-hyloscopus group, my attention was attracted by a 
number of specimens that seemed to belong to none of the recog- 
nized geographical races of w//osus, and the difference was such 
as to warrant the supposition that a third western race eventually 
would have to be separated from ydoscopus, to which form it 
seems to have been very generally assigned. In order to ascertain 
how constant the supposed characters might be, and to improve our 
somewhat unsatisfactory knowledge of the western Woodpeckers 
of this group, a series has been brought together representing nearly 
all of the important parts of the habitat of Ayloscopus. About one 
hundred specimens have been examined, over half of which are in 
my own collection. The mountains of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, 
and Utah are represented by a series kindly loaned me by Dr. C. 
Hart Merriam. Unfortunately I have been unable to secure any 
specimens from Nevada, but other parts of the West and Southwest 
are represented in most cases by a good series. As long ago as 
1888 Mr. William Brewster called attention to a difference in size 
between northern and southern specimens of Ay/oscopus (Auk, Vol. 
V, p. 252) and suggested that it might in time seem advisable to 
separate them. The types of Ay/scopus were taken at San José, 
Cal., so it is from that part of the coast that we must look for 
specimens on which to base our investigations. I can see no 
constant difference in size between a series from this region and 
skins from Lower California (San Pedro Martir) or the northern 
part of the range of the subspecies. There is considerable indi- 
vidual variation both as to size and to purity of the white of the 
lower parts, and the series from the peninsula averages a little 
smaller than my skins from the central part of the State. There 
is one character, however, that seems to be rather constant in the 
series from Lower California that is not found in the northern 
skins to any extent. Ten of the twelve skins before me from 
San Pedro Martir have the lores black, the white superciliary 
stripe being separated from the smoky white nasal tufts by the 


Auk 


32 ANTHONY, A New Subspecies of Dryobates. tan 


black of the crown. “Two show whitish lores, a character belong- 
ing to Ayloscopus and harrisi. Only one of my skins from central 
California shows blackish lores. I would not, however, attempt 
to separate the southern bird upon this rather unstable character. 

The series from the Rocky Mountain region is quite easily 
separated from California specimens and constitutes a well-defined 
geographical race for which I can find no name available, and 
propose to separate from Ay/oscopus, to which race it has heretofore 
been assigned, to be known as 


Dryobates villosus montanus, subsp. nov. Rocky Mountain 
W OODPECKER. 


Subsp. Char.— Dittering from hyloscopus by larger size, nnuch more 
purely white lower parts, and in having the lores chiefly or entirely black 
as in wellosus. 

Description of type, No. 3625, coll. A. W. A. Boulder County, Colorado, 
December 27, 1892.— Above black, dorsal stripe pure white, outer webs of 
primaries spotted with white as in 4arrzs¢ and hyloscopus ; occiput with 
red patch common to the group; lores chiefly black, with white superciliary 
stripe, separated from the basal tufts by the glossy black of the pileum ; 
nasals white lined with black; below pure white. Wing, 135; tail, 105; 
tarsus, 18; bill from nostril, 30; depth of bill, 8 mm. 

Habitat, Rocky Mountains from New Mexico to Montana, West to Utah 
(Uintah Mountains). 


From reference to the measurements it will be seen that the 
present race is fully the equal in size of /eucomelas, and consider- 
ably larger than either Aarrist or Ayloscopus. It is distinguished 
from /eucume/as at a glance by its usually unspotted wing-coverts 
and tertials. That it intergrades with /eucomelas is shown by a 
specimen from Salmon River, Idaho, and one from Summit, Mon- 
tana, both of which have the wing-coverts and tertials somewhat 
spotted and are intermediate between montanus and J/eucomelas. 
A specimen from Wind River Mts., Wyoming, Aug. 29, and one 
from Big Snowy Mts., Montana, Aug. 25, in the series from the 
Department of Agriculture, are directly referable to /ewcome/as and 
would indicate the race to be a resident in those localities. Only 
one of the skins from Colorado has the wing-coverts noticeably 
spotted and the measurements of this specimen place it with the 
eastern vel/losus. 


33 


Antuony, A New Subspecies of Dryobates. 


| 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


“SIOPOUMT[[IUL UL SJUDULIINSVOU [[V I 


L ea eee 8 6 Lag 
CCMNOZ a Orhe alueee | Ocmlmse oc 
DoS )|.e0 “OO Te | Ol sesic Qt 
16 | zor) Sh-96 | 6 | Lor) SZ:101r 
| 
eels | : ; 
ew ean eran Nolen |popere | - eereten 
alee ies 
S| 5s ee Ns > 
=e | < } oss D < 
z. 4. g ey se g 
=e a ja si 8 R 
e z | 8 = = 4 
3 3 ; 3 3 ; 


“Soypeuu OI 


“UUM UU AY 


Ay Gy See | L 
‘é Wee | Gz WOS. coun Sz 
é ig Oe line) Clspaie ot 
go | £26 | lg |g6 | SL:26 || 16 


IY 


WIN PT 
“UINWIXE J] 


“COTLUUTOLT 


8 Sod, 
Sie: pe Sie 
£z cone 


Mere |) SNS ire 
ee > 
» < 
# & 
SE Fi 
= 
= 
a 
g ¢ 
=f 


W 


“UU 


8 gh 

6c | 99% 
GT || oloptere 
tor, So-+6 


asvlIAY 


“LOTLUIX JT 


‘SHPOISOJAY SNSO]]22 SAZDQONACT 


‘sopeur ST 


‘sopeuog £ 


‘SO[VUl g 


TH 
jo yideq 
"[LSON 
wooly [IE 
“‘SnSIVy 

TRL 
‘SUL 


‘smuvjuou “2-7 UNV ‘snGoosojAy °2 °° ‘estdAvy susopzj12 sagvgohtq” AO SLNAWAUASVAN 


en) 6 es ne Auk 
34 MILLER, Mew Fay from Mexico. ia 


From the series of Ay/oscopus examined I would not consider 
that it is ever “ pure white” below, though always much nearer 
white than Aarrisz. There is always a slight smoky brown or 
soiled appearance to the plumage of the breast and belly, quite 
noticeable in contrast with the Rocky Mountain race. I have 
never seen a specimen from California that I should call typical 
harrist, though a few of the more northern skins are rather near 
that race, and a specimen from Lake County, California (Barrett 
Mt.) is much nearer Aavrisé than /Ayloscopus. 

The habitats of the three western races might be maped as 
follows: . 

Dryobates villosus harrisi.— From British Columbia south to 
northern California (Barrett Mt.). 

D. villosus hyloscopus.— California south to San Pedro Martir 
Mts., Lower California, east to Chiricahua Mts., Arizona. 

D. villosus montanus.— Northern New Mexico, north to Montana 
and Idaho. Utah (Uintah Mts.). 


DESCRIPTION OF A NEW JAY FROM MEXICO. 
BY GERRIT S. MILLER, JR. 


Aw undescribed Jay collected by Mr. W. B. Richardson in the 
mountains near Bolanos, Jalisco, Mexico, in February, 1889, 
differs in many ways from Aphelocoma couchi Baird, its nearest 
relative. It may be called 


Aphelocoma gracilis, sp. nov. 


Sp. Ch.— A little smaller than Aphelocoma coucht Baird and with dis- 
proportionately slender billand weak feet ; color throughout much grayer 
than in A. couchz. 

Adult male (Type No. 5658, collection of Gerrit S. Miller, Jr., Sierra 
Bolafios, Jalisco, Mexico, February 26, 1889. W. B. Richardson collector) : 
Back smoke gray faintly tinged with blue; rump, upper tail-coverts, 


Cet MILLER, New Fay from Mexico. 35 


pileum, and sides of neck pale glaucous blue; cheeks and auriculars 
brownish slightly tinged with blue; wings blue of a shade somewhat 
darker than that of head, the flight feathers brownish on the inner webs 
and gray beneath; tail like wings, but the feathers showing faint trans- 
verse darker bars when held in certain lights, and blue extending over 
_most of inner webs; whole ventral surface of body pale drab gray without 
trace of blue, darker across chest and on thighs, fading to dirty white on 
belly and crissum; feet and bill black, the latter marked with pale horn 
color at tip and along cutting edges from base to region about opposite 


nostrils. 


None of the eleven specimens of Aphelocoma couchi that I have 
seen are near enough to 4. graci/is, either in size or color, to 
cause any difficulty in distinguishing the two birds. ‘The blue on 
the head, wings, tail, and upper tail-coverts is darker and much 
more intense in A. couchi than in A. gracilis, while in unworn 
specimens of the former the blue of the back is only just per- 
ceptibly dulled with gray. In the type, however, which was killed 
in April, the plumage is so much abraded that the color is much 
grayer than in fresh autumnal skins. The type of 4. gracilis, 
taken in February, is apparently unworn, yet the back is notice- 
ably grayer than in the type of A. couchi, and entirely different 
from fresh specimens of the latter. In Aphelocoma couchi the 
cheeks are either concolor with the pileum or so slightly tinged 
with brown as to make no strong contrast. In A. gracilis, on the 
other hand, the cheeks are noticeably browner than the pileum. 
The gray of the chest and thighs is in A. couch always strongly 
tinged with blue (except in much worn specimens), while in 
A. gracilis it is entirely unmixed with this color. The bill of 
A. couchi varies considerably in shape, in immature birds appear- 
ing shorter and thicker than in the adults, but never approaches 
the weak slender bill of A. gracilis. In A. couchi the bill is 
entirely deep blue black except at the tip where it is pale horn 
color. In A. graci/is, on the other hand, the cutting edges from 
the base to near the middle are pale horn color like the tip. No 
trace of such marking can be seen in any of the specimens of 
A. couchi, although the series represents all ages from the adult to 
young not wholly moulted from the first plumage. The feet of 
the two birds differ greatly in size though not in the proportion 
of the various parts. The accompanying drawings show the 


36 MILLER, Mew Fay from Mexico. ae 


differences between the bills and feet of the two species. They 
were made by Mr. Frank Miller from the type of A. gracilis and 
an adult male 4. couch. the latter taken at Villar, San Luis Potosi. 


Aphelocoma couchi is now known to range from Monterey, 
Nuevo Leon (the type locality), south to Zacatecas and central San 
Luis Potosi. Over this area the species is very constant in size 
and color. ‘The more southerly specimens, however, are slightly 
larger than those taken farther north, while the largest in the 
series came from Jerez, Zacatecas. The fact that this specimen, 
taken at a point nearer the type locality of Aphelocoma gracilis 
than any of the others, differs most widely of all from the smaller 
bird is a strong argument in favor of the specific distinctness of 
the two forms. 

My thanks are due to Mr. Robert Ridgway for the opportunity 
to examine the original specimens of Aphelocoma couchi; and to 
Dr. C. Hart Merriam for the use of the Jays in the collection of 
the United States Department of Agriculture. 


37 


‘adAy, | 


8 Nie || tere Il ete 


gti | Dep =| ‘oostpef ‘souvlog v.1a1s 1898 
oa | | 


“S2719DA vUor0z,0Y4 FY 


S a _ — = = — 
5 tz-6V | gor | g1z 66 z ob |ozbr | cfSr ‘sayvur ypnpe § Fo asvioay 
& ai Se pee pe ker oe é : : 
os Clb | For te 8 How | Sere ob | gti €S1 j:anf P | tsojog stn7y uvg ‘viv snsaf avou ‘sq | Lze 
S S-6r | For IZ 8 96 ob Cte letrre \arsiy seamed ggf 
ag 9 Lr OI 1Z “f 6 Sec, |) SHGke || sea ghi |-anl P ‘Is0]Oq siIn’y ues tLe 
~ Heresy WM tacoyn 61 L 6 ae si, |) Copsin zQI ‘pe Pp *svooqyeovZ ‘za.iaf | 6S9S 
mh gilt II ez $6 o°S¢ é ght vS1 ‘pe & | ‘isojog sin] uvg ‘e1ivyy snsaf avau sz gst 
d $6r | tor 1 z'6 Pee vital ain be oh Lopsice ‘pe & Sot 
5 glr 11 €z ol Sz 6& orn” |<oSt ‘pe P ele 
e. Be lomor | SZ or tz 1b | obt SSi ‘pv —p ‘1sOJOg sIn7y urs ‘iv Zhe 
ie os II (ie Sol bz — | oti | 6b pe Pp Z1IF 
a Lov Oleg 1 Ol Sie Gon esien thy ‘pu ‘uoeTyT OAONN ‘Aosoquoy | ,e11b 
: = | a 7 
2. ‘Zoe |] ZS Z S 4 4 ie = 
2505/65 | 23 Baal cme |e. | Eee a | 
=A ale BS | BB ae = Ga m “*xog “ALY1V90°] ‘ON 
= iene He 3 | 
(Chua ° | | 
Tg ® ° | | 


Vol. XII 4 
1896 


‘2y9no2 vmozr0j;04g F 


‘S2]29DAST “fy UNV 2y9n02 vmorojey~@p AO SLNAWAUNASVAIN 


Auk 
Jan. 


38 Merriam, Nesting Habits of Phainopepla nitens. 


NESTING HABITS OF | PAATNOPEPLIA NIZLENS AN 
CALIFORNIA. 


BY FLORENCE A. MERRIAM. 


At Twin Oaks, San Diego County, California, in the spring of 
1894, I had unusual opportunities for studying Phainopeplas. 
Five or six pairs nested in the valley and collected to eat the 
berries of the pepper trees in my front yard. I counted as many 
as four males and two females on the trees at one time. 

In feeding, the birds occasionally flew against a bunch of berries, 
as Chickadees do, clinging while they ate; and I once saw one 
hover before a bunch while eating, as a Hummingbird whirrs under 
a flower. More frequently they lit on a branch from which they 
could lean over and pick off the fruit at leisure. I never actually 
saw them eat anything but peppers, but at one time when the 
brush was full of millers, the birds seemed to be catching them; 
and they sometimes made short sallies into the air as if for insects. 
They did this much as a Kingbird does, flying up obliquely and 
going down the opposite side of the angle. 

Their flight was interesting. In leaving the pepper trees to 
go back to their nesting ground, they uniformly rose obliquely 
high into the air,— sometimes, I should judge, as high as one hun- 
dred feet, 
several pairs going so far that they would disappear up a side 


and then flew on evenly, straight to their destination, 


canon, or, as black specks, would be lost in the fog down the 
valley. When watching the flight of Phainopeplas, Mourning 
Doves often passed close beside me, and I was struck by the 
contrast in motion. The Dove cut the air, swerving to one side 
as it flashed by, and its free whirling flight served to emphasize 
the calm, even rowing of the Phainopepla. Occasionally the 
birds flew in an undecided way, still high and even, but changing 
their direction by sudden jerks. Frequently, when nearing the 
nest tree, a male would close his wings and shoot obliquely down, 
tilting his tail fora brake. One of them used to fly in at a height 
of about ten feet, waver as he came near, as if slowing up, and 
then after turning his head to look down and place the nest, 
tilt down in the usual labored way, his tail pressing the air. Not 


Me Merriam, Nesting Habits of Phainopepla nitens. 39 
until he was nearly through building did he discover that it was 
easier to slow up in time to fly down to the nest. 

I once saw an odd flight. The bird flew out horizontally 
with its high crest erect; the effect was very droll. Indeed, the 
Phainopepla’s expression changes as much with the position of 
the crest as the Waxwing’s does. Ordinarily the high crown gives 
the bird a dignified, distinguished air, but when lowered in anger 
it adds a sudden menace as he darts at his enemy. 

In watching the birds at their nests, I found that they had 
a number of calls. The commonest was uttered in the same tone 
by both male and female, and was like the call of a young Robin. 
In giving it, they flashed their tails, showing the square corners 
conspicuously. The male also had a harsh cry of warning, drawn 
out like ca-rack or ca-ra-ack. In addition, he had a scold anda 
note suggesting the Meadowlark. The Phainopepla’s ordinary 
song had some weak squeaking notes, but it also had phrases of 
rich blackbird quality, recalling the o-ka-/ee of the marshes. One 
of these was a high keyed whee-d/e-ah. Other parts could be 
roughly syllabified as £7ter-ah-at and cher-nack'-ec. The song in 
flight was bright and animated. I once heard a bird break out as 
he came down from a sally into the air, and he often flew away 
from the nest singing. Sometimes I thought he even sang in the 
nest. Of the other birds heard when listening to the Phainopepla, 
none were so commonas the Wren-Tit (Chamea fasciata henshaw) 
and there could be no sharper contrast than that between the 
slow, distinct, descending scale of the Wren-Tit and the rapid runs 
and jumbled notes of the Phainopepla. | Dr. Coues speaks of the 
evening song asa ‘requiem,’ and Professor Evermann dwells upon 
its plaintive quality. As I never watched the birds at dusk, | 
never heard this song, but the character of the day songs was 
markedly cheerful. Indeed, to me the Phainopepla’s song was 
pleasing in spite of its jumbled notes, not merely because of the 
flute-like quality of some of its tones, but pre-eminently because 
of the bright, vivacious way in which it was uttered. However, 
with these general characters, even in the day time the song 
varied greatly, ranging from the soft lay which the bird warbled 
to himself as he sat in the sun to the rich and tender musical 
outburst with which he greeted his mate. 


40 MERRIAM, Nesting Habits of Phatnopepla nitens. aa 

By following the birds as they flew from the pepper trees, I found 
four nests. They were all on the border or in the midst of dense 
chaparral. The valley had been almost cleared of brush and 
planted to grain, orchards and vineyards; but the desert-loving 
Phainopepla went back into the brush at the foot of the hills. 
One ‘island’ of brush was left in the middle of the rich 
valley, and this attracted them strongly. I found two of their 
nests there and suspected three. Of the four that I did find, 
all were built in low oaks, two not eight feet above the ground, 
and two under five. One was in a narrow socket between two 
small branches, and another was placed on a horizontal limb. 
All the nests were broken up, and the three that I took after 
they were deserted were made of about the same materials: small 
bits of plant stems, oak blossoms and other small flowers. The 
materials were so fine that, although I sat within a few yards 
of the nests when the birds were at work, I rarely saw them bring 
anything, except in the few instances when they came with grass 
dangling from their bills. 

As soon as I began to watch the Phainopepla’s nests, I dis- 
covered that the males did almost all the building. ‘This was 
especially surprising because in direct opposition to the laws of 
protective coloration, for their black plumage and white wing 
markings made them striking figures as they went about their 
work. On the other hand, the dull colors of the females toned in 
admirably with the gray brush in which the nests were situated. 
Moreover, their plumage was most inconspicuous with the sun on 
it, and in the low brush where the nests were, the sun beat down 
constantly. 

I saw three pairs of birds building, andin each case the males 
were doing most of the work. Two of the nests I studied closely, 
watch and note-book in hand, in order to determine the exact 
proportion of work done by each bird. The appended tables show 
the results. One nest was watched two hours and a half, during 
a period of five days, in which time the male went to the nest 27 
times ; the female, only 3. The other nest was watched 7 hours 
and 35 minutes, during the period of ten days, in which time the 
male was at the nest 57 times; the female, only 8. Taking the 
total for the two nests: in to hours 5 minutes, the male went to 


Vol. XIII 


1896 MerrRIAM, Nesting Habits of Phainopepla nitens. 41 


the nest 84 times; the female, 11. That is to say, the females 
made only 13 percent of the visits. In reality, although they 
went to the nest 11 times, the ratio of actual work might safely 
be much reduced, for in watching them I was convinced that 
-as a rule they came to the nest not to build, but to inspect 
the building done by their mates: indeed, at one nest ! saw 
nothing to make me suspect that the female did any of the work. 
Her coming was usually welcomed by a joyous song, but once the 
evidence seemed to prove that she was driven away; perhaps she 
was too free with her criticisms! In another case the work was 
sadly interrupted by the presence of the visitor, for while she sat 
in the nest her excited mate flew back and forth as if he had quite 
forgotten the business in hand. In several instances, while the 
males were at work building, or were guarding the nests, the 
females went off by themselves, and I saw two of them return 
home high in the air as if they had come from a distance. I 
suspected that they had been to lunch at the pepper trees, for they 
came from that direction. As they approached, their mates who 
had been sitting about indifferently before, suddenly became 
alarmed and warned them away from my neighborhood. 

At other times when I rode in, the males would make large 
circles, seventy-five feet or more above me, asif to get a clear 
understanding of the impending danger. This was when small 
nest hunters were about, and the birds were some whose nests I 
could not find. Those whose nests I studied soon lost their fears, 
and were perfectly natural at their nests, even answering my calls 
and attempted imitations of their songs. 

After finding that the males did most of the building, I was 
anxious to see how it would be when the brooding began. Three 
of my nests were broken up beforehand, however, and the fourth 
was despoiled after [ had watched the birds on the nest one day. 
Nevertheless, the evidence of that day was most interesting, as 
far as it went (see Tables, Nest No. 2, June 25). It proved 
that while the female lacked the architect’s instinct, she was not 
without the maternal instinct. There were two eggs in the nest, 
and in the one hour that I watched, each bird brooded the eggs 
six times. Before this, the female had been to the nest so much 
less than the male that she was much shyer; but now that the 


6 


Jan. 


42 MERRIAM, Nesting Habits of Phainopepla nitens. [fx 


eggs were there, although my horse frightened her by trampling 
down the brush near by, it was she who first overcame her fears 
and went to cover the eggs. 

When building, the male was an enthusiastic worker. He 
would fly back and forth from the ground to the nest with his 
material so rapidly that it kept me busy recording his visits. As 
_.the tables show, he once went to the nest four times in four 
minutes (Nest No. 1, May 27); at another time, 17 times in 
one hour four minutes (Nest No. 2, June 9). Sometimes he 
stayed at the nest only half a minute, and when he stayed 
three minutes, it was so unusual that I recorded it. However, 
he worked spasmodically. On June 9, he came 17 times in one 
hour, but during the next half hour, he came only 5 times. 
The birds seemed to divide their mornings into quite regular 
periods. When I awoke at 5.30 I would hear them at the 
pepper. trees breakfasting, and some of them were generally 
there as late as eight o’clock. From eight to ten they worked 
with a will, though the visits usually fell off after half past nine. 
When working in this more deliberate way, the male would go 
to his perch on an adjoining tree and sit and preen himself, 
catch flies, apparently, or sing between his visits. Once he sat 
on the limb in front of the nest for nearly ten minutes. By 
ten o’clock, I found that I might as well go to watch other birds, 
as little would be going on with the Phainopeplas. They often 
flew off to the pepper trees. 

In building, the birds laid in the fine bits of weed gently, 
weaving in the longer stems a little and moulding more or less; 
but the compactness of the nest came rather from the mass of 
material than from any effort of workmanship. 

It would be interesting to know how commonly the males do 
the building, and if the custom prevails, how it affects the broods 
that should keep up the Phainopepla population. None of the 
four nests I found came to anything. As there was a school- 
house near the nesting ground, the birds should have paid 
better heed to the laws of evolution. Supposing that the 
ancestors of these birds came from deserts unfrequented by 
small boys, it would be interesting to know if civilization will 
eventually modify the habits of the Twin Oaks’ Phainopeplas. 


11 | ¥g | S$ | oF || ‘s}89N YIOq 107 [¥I0,7, 
= Ee, *YOO]I,0 OF 0 0S°6 WOIZ JUASGV SBA Tz 


Se 
| || 
= 8 | LS | SE | L || *Z ‘ON ISON 1OF [VIOT, *a19Y] SVAL OYS J[IYM 991M} ae aye PUL ajNUTUI aUO ys9U UO pateys aTeUIAY | 
¢ oo ; | | | ee a oe ae ue gi 

x 7 ey é Fe | , | gS€ | 916 | +16 | 906 | S06 | z06 | gz'g | €z'g a : 
: : Wee ait Btls POP ee ee aie le oe ee 
= || TETTgere |Pr11 |For j|€S‘or |zS-or |1S-o1 |ov-o1 | 026 | g1°6 | #16 | z1'6 | 016 | 90°6 | S06 

= F Fy gi | 8 | 9 9 II 

= 2 ee a ak ao a oR alee ra EN a aad een ae Ea le ea 

& ; cc gt ' ; |coror | 6S°6 | SS:6 | LE-6 | Lz6 | 616 || S16 ] 

E : Ren ee Pelee teat ee Pal ce eels 

S | 90°6 | vo'6 | €S-g | 18g | oS-g | 6hg | SHg | 6E-g | Eg |Fzk-9| ete | Seg | 41g | g1°g | Sig | | 

Sy os By ie ae a lA ey nw cL al ee peal ee ee Ee 

| S€°6 | $16 | 11°6 | 01°6 | g0°6 | Lo6 | oS:g | oFg | Sz-g ; 
1 6 ol I | ¢ xe aun 
pee R al ieee lh ae Wl aol Popa PoP Palen ap a eee 
S £ Lz | of ~ || “I “ON JSON 107 [VIO ‘Z “ON 1S9N 
S | <a 2 Sa 

Ege eet lh | | | -o1 | 6t-6 |£+-6 | 686 | 9€6 [of6 | ¢. 

y Reels , | meer a Pan ei fo lee lee es 

3 z z | | | | | gz°6 | $26 4 

i == c fee | | | | ie | | P P ; ST 

, eel | | | ov'6 | ghg fire) lve |r| 1, 

ne epate Naa [eee eae ae Palep ales sol ap lee 
5 5 area | | FS6 | oF6 | $46 gt6 |0f6 |g16 | 11-6 | 606 | Lo6 ae 

& fee Sa ; | SA et a | ee 
a. I S Sr | | Sz AvIN 
iy = He —— a UT ee = les | | 
Fe ) Pe | ME NGS 3 ‘XHS GNV AW, | ‘dLvqd 
a® ‘SIVLOL, ATIVG ON TEEN 
> — _ ———————————— 


‘F691: dO ONINdG ‘“ONIGTING AHHM LSaN OL vpJofourvyg AIVWAY GNV WIVIX AO SLISIA AO GNOOAY 


. 


Auk 


44 BREWSTER, A New Warbler and Song Sparrow. ine 


DESCRIPTIONS OF A NEW WARBLER AND A NEW 
SONG SPARROW. 


BY WILLIAM BREWSTER. 


ON examining the large series of Parula Warblers contained in 
the United States National Museum and in my own collection — 
in all upwards of two hundred specimens — I find that the birds 
which breed in the lowlands of our Southern States differ so 
appreciably from those which pass their summers at the North 
as to make it desirable to separate the two subspecifically. The 
southern form has first claim to the name americana, for Catesby’s 
excellent plate and description of “ Parus fringillaris” (Nat. 
Hist. Car., etc. I, 1731, p. 64), on which Linnzus based his 
Parus americanus (Sys. Nat., I, 1758, p. 190), were unmistakably 
taken from a southern bird. As no one of the other names 
which have been applied to the species at large seems to be 
clearly available for the northern form,! I propose to call the latter 


Compsothlypis americana usnez,” new subspecies. NorrTH- 
ERN PARULA WARBLER. 


Type, & ad., No. 5392, Collection of W. Brewster, Lake Umbagog, 
Maine, May 14, 1881; W. Brewster. 


| Ficedula ludoviciana Briss. (Orn. ILI, 1760, p. 500, pl. 26), Wotacilla ludovt- 
czana Gmel. (Sys. Nat. I, 1788, p. 983, based on Brisson) and Motacilla eques 
Boddaert (Planches Enlum., 1783, pl. 731, fig. 1, 709 fig. 1) all relate exclu- 
sively to the southern bird. Sylvia torquata Vieill. (Ois. Am. Sept., II, 1807, 
p- 38, pl. 99) is in some doubt inasmuch as ‘“*New York” is mentioned in 
connection with its range, but the accompanying description, as far as it can 
be identified, applies to the southern form. Sy/véa pusilla Wils. (Am. Om. 
IV, 181t, p. 17, pl. 28) is preoccupied in Latham’s ‘Index Ornithologicus,’ 
Supplement, II, 1801, p. 56, by Sylvia pusilla = Acanthiza pusilla Vigors, an 
Australian bird belonging to the family 77melizde. 


* This bird usually, if not invariably, builds its nest in or of the Usnea 
‘moss,’ while its southern representative, the true C. americana, is almost 
equally addicted to nesting in the Spanish moss ( 77//andsia). 


7 r r 
voce | BREWSTER, A New Warbler and Song Sparrow. 45 


COMPARATIVE DIAGNOSES. 


Compsothlypis americana.— Averaging slightly smaller but with a 
longer bill. Adult male with more yellow on the under parts and 
less black or blackish on the lores and malar region; the dark collar 
across the jugulum narrow, obscure, often nearly wanting; the chest 
pale, diffuse russet, without obvious markings. 

Breeding Range.—The South Atlantic and Gulf States east of Texas, 
northward near the Atlantic Coast to the District of Columbia, and in the 
interior to Mt. Carmel, Illinois. 

C. a. usnez.— Averaging slightly larger but with a shorter bill. Adult 
male with less yellow on the under parts and more black or blackish on 
the lores and malar region; the dark collar across the jugulum black or 
blackish, broad and conspicuous; the chest mottled or spotted with rich 
brownish chestnut. 

Breeding Range.— New England, New York, and westward along the 
northern tier of States, northward into the Maritime Provinces and Canada. 


Although the characters just pointed out are all, apparently, 
of greater or less diagnostic value, no one of them, unfortunately, 
is quite constant. The most reliable distinction is that of the 
depth and definition of the reddish brown on the chest. With 
both forms the feathers of this part have brown centres and yellow 
margins, but in americana the brown is so pale and suffused with 
yellowish that the whole area over which it is distributed appears 
nearly uniform in tone, whereas in wsze@ the brown is so rich 
and red (approaching chestnut in many birds) that it contrasts 
strongly with the yellow by which it is bordered, and gives the 
plumage the appearance of being rather distinctly mottled or 
spotted. ‘This difference is almost as pronounced in young males 
in autumn as in old birds in breeding plumage. A still more 
striking character is to be found in the relative depth and extent 
of the dark collar on the jugulum, but while in fully seventy-five 
per cent of my specimens of wsvee this collar is much broader and 
blacker than in any of the examples of americana, a few spring 
males of the former have it but poorly defined or even practically 
wanting. Such birds are probably immature. With some of them 
the yellow of the under parts is quite as extended as in typical 
americana, but as a rule wsae@ has’much the less yellow of the two, 
especially on the throat. It is difficult to separate females of the 
two forms save by the difference in size, and in the shape and pro- 


46 BREWSTER, A New Warbler and Song Sparrow. aes 
portions of the bill, but the female of americana is usually yellower 
beneath than that of wsvee and much more rarely shows any 
distinct traces of blackish on the jugulum. 

It is probable that in the main the breeding range of C. amer?- 
cana is confined within the low parts of the South where the 
Spanish moss (Z7//andsia) flourishes, and that C. a. usnee is to be 
found in summer only where the ‘Old Man’s beard’ ( Usnea) 
grows, but the summer distribution of the northern bird is evi- 
dentiy not fully co-extensive with the distribution of its favorite 
‘moss,’ and the southern form passes somewhat beyond the north- 
ern limits of the Z7//andsia region, for it is represented in my 
series by several apparently typical examples from Washington, 
D.C., and Mt. Carmel, Illinois. Unfortunately I have seen no 
summer birds from the regions immediately to the northward of 
these points, where, it may be assumed, the two forms approach 
each other more or less closely if they do not actually intermingle. 
That they sometimes intergrade is shown conclusively by five 
breeding males taken by Mr. Scott at Wytheville and Mountain 
Lake, Virginia, in June and July. 1889. In respect to color and 
markings these birds are about intermediate between americana 
and wsvee, but their bills are as large as in extreme specimens of 
the former. | have several other similar specimens collected 
during the migration in Florida. 


Melospiza fasciata merrilli, new subspecies. MERRILL’s SONG 
SPARROW. 


Subspectjic characters.— Similar to Melospiza fasctata guttata but with 
the bill smaller, the ground color of the upper parts— including the sides 
of the head and neck—lighter and more ashy, the dark markings (espe- 
cially those of the back) blacker and more sharply defined, the white of 
the under parts clearer and more extended. 

Type, & ad. (No. 46,026, Collection of W. Brewster, collector’s No. 947) 
Fort Sherman, Idaho, March 6, 1895; Dr. J. C. Merrill, U. S. A. 

Length, “6.10”; wing, 2.63; tail, 2.58; tarsus, .84; length of culmen 
from feathers, .44; depth of bill at nostrils, .25. 


In respect to the size and shape of the bill, the length of the 


tail, the character and definition of the dark markings of the breast, — 


sides and back, and the extent of the white on the under parts, 


boas Mackay, Jerus of Muskeget Island. 447 


this form, of which Dr. Merrill has sent me nine specimens from 
Fort Sherman, is apparently intermediate between JZ. f. montana 
and AZ. f. guttata. It differs from both, however, in the ground 
color of its upper parts which are generally of a dark but clear 
ashy brown very unlike the faded grayish brown of montana and 
with but little of the rich, dull rusty which suffuses the plumage of 
guttata, Of the thirteen specimens of merri//i one taken in 
autumn affords the nearest approach to gwftata. The spring 
birds (some of which were collected in April and May) are all 
essentially similar to the type of merrill. 

Dr. Merrill writes me that this Song Sparrow breeds at Fort 
Sherman where he took four nests and sets of eggs in 1895. 


THE TERNS OF MUSKEGET ISLAND, MASSACHU-— 
SETTS:. PART LE 


BY GEORGE H. MACKAY.! 


REFERRING my readers to ‘The Auk’ for January, 1895, page 
2, I now desire to put before them under the same title, some 
further data collected during the past summer. It had been my 
intention to visit Muskeget this year on the same dates as last, 
that comparisons might be better made of results. Had my 
purpose been carried out, which it was not, such would not have 
proved conclusive, for the reason that although the Terns arrived 
a week earlier than they did in 1894 and 1893, and ten days 
earlier than in 1892, they apparently did not commence to lay 
their eggs as early this season as last, for it was not until May 28, 
1895, that the first two nests, each containing one egg, were dis- 
covered, notwithstanding Mr. Sandsbury had taken daily walks 
over Muskeget Island proper for this purpose, commencing on 
May 20. The first eggs noted in 1894 were found on May at. 


'Read before the Nuttall Ornithological Club, October 21, 1895. 


Auk 
Jan. 


48 Mackay, Terns of Muskeget Island. 


It was on the evening of May 1, 1895, that the cries of the 
jirst arrivals of this season’s Terns were heard ; none were seen, 
however, until the next day, when half a dozen were observed 
high up in the air over Muskeget proper, the wind being east. 
On May 3 they were arriving in fair numbers, some three hun- 
dred (estimated) being seen; of these, some alighted on the shore 
of a cove on the northeast side of Muskeget Island proper. The 
weather was clear and calm, and there was a very heavy dew 
during the night. On May 6 the wind was northeast and the 
weather foggy; the Terns were now quite numerous. On May 7 
it was calm in the morning, but breezed up in the afternoon with 
fog. The Terns were continually augmenting in numbers and 
were now abundant. 

As previously stated, the first eggs this season were noted on 
May 28; on the 29th, 9 nests, each containing 1 egg, were dis- 
covered. On June 6 were observed 18 nests, each containing 
I egg; 72 nests each with 2 eggs; and 4 nests with 3 eggs each; 
but none with either 4 or 5 eggs. On June 8 was observed 16 nests 
with 1 egg each; 80 nests with 2 eggs each; 26 nests each with 3 
eggs; and 2 nests each with 4 eggs; no nest of 5 eggs was seen. 
On June g, Mr. Sandsbury walked in a direct line from his house to 
the north shore of Muskeget Island proper, returning by another 
line not covered by the first. He noted 263 eggs. On June 23 
he repeated the walk, noting 457 eggs. On July 5 he again went 
over the same ground and noted 34 live, and 27 dead chicks. 

I Janded on Muskeget shortly before noon on July 7, and soon 
commenced observations. I have followed my previous plan of 
giving the results of this visit in the following condensed form : — 


Dead Live 
Nests. Eggs. Chicks. Chicks. 


oS 
July 8, ’95. Muskeget Island proper. 716 1280 BCG 18} 
“7,795. South Point, Muskeget Island. 65 127 2 13 
7,°95. South Point Island. 257 534 13 51 
7,795. Gravelly Island. 406 SoS I 6 


Totals, 1447 2749 272 88 


‘Mr. Sandsbury did not note the live chicks here. 


a 


ee Mackay, Zernus of Muskeget Island. 49 


Of the nests on ALuskeget [sland proper 244 contained each 1 
egg; 395, each 2 eggs; 62, 3 eggs; 15,4 eggs; no nest with 5 
eggs was observed. 

South Point of Muskeget [sland— This is a narrow strip of sand 
forming the extreme western extension of Muskeget proper. The 
beach-grass (Ammophila arundinacea) grows here \uxuriantly, 
excepting near the shores, and towards the extreme end, which 
latter is bare of grass, with the exception of a few tufts. The 
Terns do not place their nests to any great extent among the tall 
grass, although some do where there are small ofen spaces. The 
majority of them apparently prefer the thinner grass and the 
windrows of eel grass (Zostera marina), as also the bare sand 
nearer the shores. We found here 1g nests, each containing 1 
egg; 31, each 2 eggs; 14, 3 eggs; 1, 4 eggs; no nest with 5 eggs 
was observed. I 
here. 


noticed but few chicks or broken egg-shells 


South Point Lsland.—'This breeding ground is more elevated 
than any of the neighboring sands, and presents the best of condi- 
tions for the wants of these birds. ‘The beach-grass grows scantily 
over its surface, and good sites for nests, with an outlook, are 
available everywhere. When I visited it on July 7 I found a great 
many of the eggs hatched. Its occupants are the same as last 
season, Roseates and Wilson’s. ‘This island being separated by 
only a narrow strait of water from South Point, Muskeget Island, 
the birds are practically the same at both places. Of the nests 
found, 30 contained each 1 egg; 179 each 2 eggs; 46 each 
3 eggs; 2, 4 eggs; no nest with 5 eggs was discovered. 

Gravelly Lsland.— Of all the breeding grounds in these waters, 
none attract and hold me pleasure bound equal to this little spot 
of about two acres, on which is concentrated the greatest amount 
of bird life, for its area, on the coast, its occupants being mostly 
the beautiful Roseate Tern (Sterna dougall). Being situated at 
some little distance from the other islands, it is slightly more 
secluded and but little visited. Its central and highest part is 
covered with tall beach-grass. In the middle of the island is an 
unoccupied house, within fourteen inches of one of the corner 
posts of which, in a little hollow in the bare sand, there rested two 
eggs of a Roseate Tern; a little further away, say fifteen feet, was 


7 


Auk 
Jan. 


50 Mackay, Terns of Muskeget Island. 


still another nest and eggs. Disturbing the birds on our landing, 
we were immediately surrounded by a throng, all vigorously pro- 
testing against our entry. Mr. Sandsbury and I found here 68 
nests which contained 1 egg each;. 280 nests with 2 eggs each; 
52 with 3 eggs each; and 6 with 4 each; no nest with 5 eggs was 
observed. It causes me some solicitude to think that if in any 
season the above house is occupied, not a bird will nest on this 
island, there being only sufficient room for one occupant. I am, 
however, of the belief that if such should be the case, the birds 
will locate on the other islands, if they can find undisturbed 
occupation. 

On July 29, 1895, I again visited Muskeget Island and took a 
survey of all the breeding grounds. As will be perceived by 
the following result, incubation was drawing to a close, most 
of the young birds now being able to fly. At times when dis- 
turbed on Muskeget Island proper they would rise in such 
numbers as to remind me of a snow storm. ‘The result of this, 
my second trip, is tabulated as follows : — 


Dead Live 
Nests. Eggs. Chicks. Chicks. 
July 30, ’95. Muskeget Island proper. 166 260 45 12 
« 30, ’95. South Point, Muskeget Island. 33 53 2 45 
« 30,95. South Point Island. 75 120 26 63 
“« 29,95. Gravelly Island. 61 93 14 26 


Totals, 335 526 88 146 


Of the above nests on Muskeget Island proper, 80 contained 
each 1 egg; 77, 2 eggs; 9, 3 eggs; no nest of 4 or 5 eggs was 
observed. 

On South Point, Muskeget /sland, 13 nests contained each 1 
egg; 19, 2 eggs; I, 3 eggs; no nest of 4 or 5 eggs was observed. 
On South Point Island, 33 nests contained each 1 egg; 39, 2 
eggs; 2, 3 eggs; I, 4 eggs; no nest with 5 eggs was observed. 
On Gravelly Island, 36 nests contained each 1 egg; 20 nests, 2 
eggs; 3 nests, 3 eggs; and 2, 4 eggs. No nest of 5 eggs was 
observed anywhere during the entire season, nor was there any- 
thing unusual or peculiar in the appearance of any of the eggs 


\ 


Vol. XIII 


1806 Mackay, Zerus of Muskeget Island. 51 


observed this summer, with the exception perhaps of two nests, 
each containing two eggs; in each case one egg was normal, while 
the other was of about half the usual size. On July, 30, and 
again on August 16, about half a dozen chicks in the down, just 
out of the shell, were observed on South Point Island. 

No correct conclusions can be based on the number of “ve 
chicks noted, on account of the impossibility of making even an 
approximate. estimate of their real number. I take pleasure, 
however, in stating that never since I have known anything about 
them, have these Terns increased to such an extent as they did 
from last season to this. I regret my inability to give even esti- 
mates, there being too many of them for that. The present year 
has also been a most favorable one, as will be evidenced by the 
, arrivals next spring. 

In regard to certain ‘“ dropped eggs” described in my former 
article, I would say that during my first visit I found ten, eight of 
which I called Roseates, and two Wilson’s; all were fresh. On 
my second visit I found thirty. One of these was dropped by a 
Wilson’s Tern close beside me, being the direct result of the 
excitement caused by my presence. It struck a small stick and 
was broken. Mr. Sandsbury this summer also saw a Tern drop 
an egg in mid air. 

It would seem as if the Terns in this locality were not adverse 
to drinking fresh water, for the two small ponds on Muskeget 
Island proper are constant/y frequented. by numbers, who take up 
the water invariably while on the wing. 

From September 1 to 7 the Terns seemed to leave the middle 
of Muskeget Island proper, and roosted on the outside beaches 
at the west and south side of the island. From the 15th to the 
22d they were observed to collect in large flocks, when they 
would mount in a spiral way, circling high up, and then descend 
again, indicating that they were getting themselves in training to 
start on their southern migration. The weather was fine, with 
southerly winds. On the 26th and 27th of September the wind 
was easterly with gentle breezes. Several very large flocks rose 
up in the air until lost to sight, being headed in a southwest 
direction when last seen. These Terns must migrate at an 
immense altitude, for they go up out of sight when they depart in 


52 Mackay, Zeras of Muskeget Island. ae 
the autumn, and seem to drop from the clouds when they appear 
in the spring. By September 30 there were comparatively few 
Terns remaining, these being around the rips at the openings. 
On October 2 Mr. Sandsbury wrote me there were no Terns in 
sight from his house on Muskeget Island proper. I saw a few 
single Terns resting on the water, and flying about, as I passed 
through the Sound on October 3. 

Since my former article I have made some further attempts to 
solve the problem of the cause of certain differences between what 
I have called the reddish legged and /flesh-colored legged chicks of 
Sterna hirundo (see Auk, Vol. XII, p. 44). I found these chicks 
in evidence again this summer in about the same proportion as 
last season, say one-third red-legged birds and two-thirds with 
flesh-colored legs. As far as my observations go the differences 
between them appear to be fairly constant up to the period of 
their being able to fly, which is as far as I have been able to 
observe them. Hoping to obtain some further evidence, I kept a 
number of each kind in separate coops on Muskeget. None of 
them, however, lived over ten days, and most of them died inside 
of a week. ‘They were fed on lobsters and clams. I then took a 
small series of selected chicks, had them sexed, made up into 
skins, and forwarded to Washington for Mr. Robert Ridgway’s 
inspection, together with some other Terns’ skins. He pronounced 
them SS. irundo, as did Mr. William Brewster later. This point 
being thus settled I would say that there are here apparently ¢wo 
kinds of chicks which differ in actions and in appearance. ‘The 
red-legged are brighter, more active, and neater looking. Those 
with flesh-colored legs are lethargic and more stupid. ‘Their bills 
are stouter and larger, and all in all they are a coarser looking 
bird, and I think a good many of them are hatched earlier than 
the red-legged birds. Under such conditions, is it not possible 
that there may be two varieties of S. Azrundo, with differences 
which may be constant during youth, but which become undis- 
tinguishable in the adult birds ? 

The downy young of the Roseate (.S. douga//i) may be distin- 
guished by their upper parts being gray, white, and black, inter- 
mixed in longitudinal streaks ; under parts whitish ; bill pinkish 
flesh color, with black tip; legs and feet black. As they advance 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Mackay, Terns of Muskeget Island. 


3 


cs 


in age, and by the time they are about to fly, the bill becomes 
wholly black, and the legs a more intense black. The general 
effect of the upper parts while in the downis a muddy brownish 
black ; when older, the first color of the scapulars is black with 
dight ash brown border, and when about to fly, a slight roseate 
hue is noticeable, in certain lights, on the breast. 

It is interesting to see how defined and prominent certain char- 
acteristics of this beautiful bird are evinced in the chicks, in 
contrast with those of Wilson’s Tern. The former has the 
‘blooded’ strain, resenting in a vigorous, I might almost say 
fierce, manner, any unceremonious treatment, actively struggling 
and biting in order to effect release when captured. ‘They are 
graceful and stylish looking even before they are able to fly much. 
Wilson’s Tern, on the other hand, scarcely shows any of these 
marks of character (the nearest approach being developed in the 
red-legged chicks above described), being stupid and lethargic, 
and but slightly aggressive up to the age of flying. 

Among the series of Terns taken this summer was one Arctic 
(S. paradisea), a bird just commencing to fly, and which was sent 
to Washington with the others. It is now in Mr. William 
Brewster’s collection. It may be described as follows: Entire 
under surface w/zte, with the exception of a very faint winaceous 
wash over lower sides of neck and a few grayish tipped downy 
feathers on tibia and about anal region. General color of back 
and wings clear gvay with upper outside edges and tips of prim- 
aries and outer tail feathers s/a/e gray, the feathers of the back 
narrowly and faintly edged first with c/ove drown and outside of 
this with pinkish buff; inner edges of primaries and nearly the 
whole of secondaries as well as feathers of the tail pure white. 
Feathers of the forehead white; those of the crown mixed black 
and white, becoming entirely black upon the occiput and sides of 
head, including region about the eye. The black of the head is 
separated from the pure gray of the back and wings by a broad 
band of white faintly washed with gray. ‘The whole bird is spar- 
ingly covered with long downy hair-like feathers protruding 
beyond the others, so light and fluffy as to wave about at the 
slightest breath. Tip of bill black; rest ‘of bill and feet pale 
reddish. 


Auk 
Jan. 


54 Mackay, Terns of Muskeget Island. 


I wish to say a few words before closing regarding the condi- 
tion of the colony of Laughing Gulls (Larus atrici/la), which are 
domiciled on Muskeget Island proper. A more highly gratifying 
state is difficult to imagine. The increase of last season is unmis- 
takable. On June g, 1895, Mr. Sandsbury found ro nests, 4 of 
which contained 1 egg each; 5, 2 eggs each; and 1, 3 eggs. On 
June 18, he found 4 nests, each containing 1 egg ; 3 nests with 2 
eggs; 7 nests with 3 eggs each. On June 23 he again walked 
over the ground and noted 3 nests of 1 egg each; 3 nests of 2 
eggs each; and g nests of 3 eggs each. No nests containing 4 
or 5 eggs each have been observed during the entire season. On 
July 5 he again walked over the same ground, noting 4 nests of 1 
egg each; 3 nests of 2 eggs; 2 nests of 3 eggs each. He also 
noted 18 young chicks in the down. The greater part of the 
nests above noted were marked with sticks during his walks, so 
that they might not be counted a second time. 

On July 8 I went all over this breeding ground, which is located 
this year where it was last season ; its area has, however, increased 
very materially. It now embraced a strip nearly one quarter of a 
mile long and one hundred to one hundred and fifty yards wide, 
commencing at the North pond and extending in a westerly direc- 
tion. I noticed a great many broken egg-shells, from which the 
chicks had been hatched, but I failed to find any of them in the 
grass. I judged these Gulls were feeling the utmost security, for 
their nests this season have all been placed in plain view on the 
top of a bunch of beach-grass stubs, of which materials the nests 
were constructed. I saw only one ‘alley’ nest this year. Besides 
a number of abandoned nests from which the eggs had been 
hatched, I noted 17 nests containing 37 eggs, most of which 
had, however, been previously noted by Mr. Sandsbury. Two 
of these mests contained each 1 egg; 6, 2 eggs each; 2 each 
1 egg and 1 chick in the down; 7 nests contained 3 eggs each. 
As nearly as I could judge, all these eggs were near the point of 
hatching, a large portion of them being chipped. 

On July 30, during my second trip to Muskeget, I again went 
carefully over all this breeding ground. Nearly all the eggs had 
been hatched, but I did not see a single young bird in the air. 
After considerable search Mr. Sandsbury and I found one nest 


Mie Thirteenth Congress of the A. O. U. 55 
with 1 egg and 2 chicks in the down, and close by a fresh soft- 
shelled crab recently dropped by one of the parents ; another nest 
contained 1 chipped egg, and a broken egg-shell; and still 
another 2 eggs. We discovered only 1 chick, which was about 


_ the size of a pigeon and looked very much like one, except for the 


length of its legs. This bird was mature enough to fly but made 
no attempt to do so, being very tame, eating from the hand the 
same afternoon. I have not seen a dead chick this season. 

As a description of this large chick may prove of interest to 
some readers I give it, as follows: Feathers of the back slate 
gray edged at the tip with drab gray; top of head and sides 
mouse gray; exposed edges of wing-coverts and covered edges of 
feathers on back plumbeous; inner webs of the tail feathers and 
primaries black; throat light gray ; breast and sides gray; bill, 
legs, and feet chocolate color. 

It was apparent to me from the many abandoned nests and 
broken egg-shells — more than I have ever before seen— that 
this season has been a most favorable one for these Gulls. I 
noticed the old birds contentedly sitting about on all the bare 
spots of sand that were available on their breeding grounds, 
where they could watch and care for their young which were 
hidden in the beach-grass. 


THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE AMERICAN 
ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 


THe THIRTEENTH CONGRESS of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union convened in Washington, D. C., Monday evening, Novem- 
ber 11, 1895. The business meeting was held at the residence 
of Dr. C. Hart Merriam. The public sessions, lasting three days, 
were held in the Lecture Hall of the U. S. National Museum, 
commencing Tuesday, November 12. 

BUSINESS SEssion.— The meeting was called to order by the 
President, Dr. Elliott Coues. Eighteen Active Members were 


56 Thirteenth Congress of the A. O. U. aan 
present. The Secretary’s report gave the membership of the 
Union at the opening of the present Congress as 667, constituted 
as follows: Active, 47; Honorary, 20; Corresponding, 68 ; 
Associate, 5323; the total increase for the year being 5r. 

During the year the Union lost forty-six members,— eleven by 
death, fifteen by resignation, and twenty were dropped for non- 
payment of dues. The members lost by death were George 
Newbold Lawrence,! one of the Founders and an Honorary 
Member, who died in New York City, Jan. 17, 1895, in the 
eighty-ninth year of his age; Professor Thomas Henry Huxley, 
who died in London, England, June 29, 1895, aged 70, also an 
Honorary Member; Edward Hargitt,? a Corresponding Member, 
who died in Edinburgh, Scotland, March 19, 1895, in the sixtieth 
year of his age; and Henry T. Wharton, also a Corresponding 
Member, particulars of whose death have not yet been received. 
Also the following Associates: Dr. Frederick H. Hoadley,® 
who died at Palm Beach, Florida, Feb. 26, 1895, aged 453 
George H. Ragsdale,* who died in Gainsville, Texas, March 
25, 1895; Hon. Franklin Fairbanks,® who died in St. Johnsbury, 
Vt., April 24, 1895, aged 67; Rev. A. H. Gesner,® who died 
at Sing Sing, N. Y., April 30, 1895; John S. Cairns,” who was 
accidentally killed June 10, 1895, while on a collecting trip to 
Black Mountain, N. C.; Dr. W. H. Stowe, who died in Palmer, 
Mass., March, 1895; James H. Slater, who died at Nashua, in 
February, 1895, aged 17. 

The report of the Treasurer showed the finances of the Union 
to be in excellent condition, much better than ever before. 

William Brewster was elected President ; Dr. C. Hart Merriam 
and Robert Ridgway, Vice-Presidents ; John H. Sage, Secretary ; 
William Dutcher, Treasurer; Dr. J. A. Allen, Charles F. Batchel- 


'For an obituary notice, see Auk, XII, pp. 198-199, also Memorial Address 
in the present number. 


* For an obituary notice, see /é/d., p. 315. 

* For an obituary notice, see 7did., ,P- 199. 

‘ For an obituary notice, see /d7d., 316. 

°» For an obituary notice, see /dzd., Pp- 315-316. 
° For an obituary notice, see /éid., p. 316. 


7 For an obituary notice, see /bid., p. 315. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Thirteenth Congress of the A. O. VU. 


ii 
der, Major C. E. Bendire, Frank M. Chapman, Dr. Elliott Coues, 
D. G. Elliot, and Dr. A. K. Fisher, members of the Council. 
A. W. Anthony, of San Diego, Cal., was elected an Active 
Member; William T. Blanford, of London, England, an Honorary 
-Member; Dr. D. Webster Prentiss, of Washington, D. C., and 


1S a | 


William Henry Hudson, of London, England, Corresponding 
Members. Eighty-eight new members were added to the list of 
Associates. The usual reports of Standing Committees were 
received. 

Pusiic Session. First Day.— ‘The meeting was called to 
order by.the President, Mr. William Brewster. After the routine 
business was disposed of Dr. Elliott Coues exhibited and explained 
a collection of unpublished water-color paintings of birds made by 
Louis Agassiz Fuertes. Remarks on the paintings were made 
by Mr. D. G. Elliot and the Chair. 

The first paper of the morning was by Carl F. Baker- entitled 
‘An Important Factor in the Study of Western Bird Life.’ In the 
absence of the author it was read by Mr. Frank M. Chapman. 
Remarks followed by Dr. Merriam. 

The second paper was ‘On Pallas’s Cormorant,’ by Mr. F. A. 
Lucas. It was remarked upon by Dr. Coues, Mr. Chapman, and 
the author. 

The third title was ‘ Further Remarks on the Subgenus Quwis- 
calus, by Frank M. Chapman. Discussion followed by Drs. Allen, 
Merriam, and Coues, Mr. Brewster, and the author. 

The opening paper of the afternoon session was by Geo. H. 
Mackay ‘On Gatke’s Heligoland.’ It was read by Mr. William 
Dutcher in the absence of the author. Remarks followed by Drs. 
Coues, Mearns, Merriam, Stejneger, Gill, Palmer, and Allen, 
Messrs. L. M. Loomis, Frank M. Chapman, F. A. Lucas, William 
Dutcher, and the Chair. 

In the evening a special public Memorial Meeting was held in 
the Lecture Hall of the U.S. National Museum, in commemoration 
of the two distinguished Honorary Members of the Union who 
have died during the past year. The late George N. Lawrence 
was eulogized by Mr. D. G. Elliot, and Prof. Thos. H. Huxley by 
Dr. Elliott Coues. 

Second Day.—The meeting was called to order by the President, 


58 Thirteenth Congress of the A. O. U. on 
Mr. Brewster. A communication was received from Dr. Ch. 
Wardell Stiles, delegate from the United States to the Interna- 
tional Zodlogical Congress, requesting the Union to appoint a 
representative to an Advisory Committee to which will be sub- 
mitted all questions of nomenclature likely to be ruled on by the 
International Zodlogical Congress to be held in England in 1898. 
Dr. J. A. Allen was so appointed. 

The reading of scientific papers began with one by Prof. F. KE. 
L. Beal on the ‘ Food of the Meadowlark.’ 

The next paper was ‘Methods in Economic Ornithology, with 
special reference to the Catbird,’ by Sylvester D. Judd. Remarks 
followed by Prof. Beal, Messrs. F. A. Lucas, and J. Van Denburgh, 
Dr. Merriam, and the author. 

The third title was ‘ Notes on the Birds of Idaho,’ by Prof. M. 
J. Elrod. In the absence of the author it was read in part by 
Dr. Merriam, who remarked upon the paper. Further remarks 
followed by Mr. Rolla P. Currie. 

‘Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) in Captivity, by Ora W. 
Knight, was the fourth paper of the morning. It was read by 
Mr. F. A. Lucas in the absence of the author. Remarks followed 
by Drs. Merriam and Allen, Messrs. Loomis, Judd, and Lucas. 

The first paper of the afternoon was by Mr. Leverett M. 
Loomis entitled ‘Midwinter Migration Southward in the North 
Temperate Zone to Breeding Grounds.’ It was discussed by 
Major C. E. Bendire, Mr. C. H. Townsend, Drs. Palmer, Mearns, 
and Merriam, and the author. 

The concluding paper of the day was‘ Why are there so few 
Bluebirds?’ by Mrs. Louise M. Stephenson. As the author was 
not present it was read by Mr. Wm. Dutcher. Extended remarks 
followed by Dr. T. S. Palmer. 

Third Day.— The meeting was called to order by the President, 
Mr. Brewster. Before proceeding to the reading of papers, the 
Committee on resolutions presented the following Report : — 

“ Resolved: That the thanks of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union be and hereby are tendered to the Board of Regents of 
the Smithsonian Institution for the use of the Lecture Hall of the 
U. S. National Museum as a place of meeting for the Thirteenth 
Congress of the Union, and for other courtesies extended. 


ne: 


wre Thirteenth Congress of the A. O. U. 59 


“ Resolved: ‘That the thanks of the visiting members of the 
American Ornithologists’ Union be and hereby are tendered to 
the Washington members for their cordial welcome and generous 
hospitality.” 

The first paper of the morning was by Mr. Frank M. Chapman, 
‘On the Standing of 4rdetta neoxena.’ Remarks followed by Drs. 
Allen and Merriam, Mr. Brewster, and the author. 

The second paper was ‘What Constitutes Publication,’ by Dr. 
J. A. Allen. Remarks followed by Dr. Merriam. 

The third title was ‘The Value of the Tongue in the Classifica- 
tion of Birds,’ by F. A. Lucas. Remarks followed by Dr. Allen. 

The fourth paper was by Dr. T. S. Palmer, ‘On Introduced 
Birds.’ Remarks followed by Drs. Merriam and Gill, and the 
author. 

The opening feature of the afternoon session was an exhi- 
bition by-Mr. William Palmer of pictures, thrown on a screen, 
of living birds taken in their haunts, and of nests 7 s/tw from 
photographs made by Messrs. Wm. Brewster, F. M. Chapman, 
Harry W. Flint, and himself. Explanations were made by Messrs. 
brewster, Chapman, and Palmer. 

The first paper of the afternoon was entitled ‘A Critique on 
‘Trinomial Inconsistencies,’ by Wm. Palmer. Discussion followed 
by Drs. Allen and Merriam, Messrs. D. G. Elliot, F. M. Chapman, 
H. C. Oberholser, and the author. 

Owing to the lack of time for their presentation in full the 
following papers were read by title: 

‘The Terns of Muskeget Island, Part II,’ by Geo. H. Mackay. 

‘Kingbird and Sapsuckers in Southern California,’ by A. J. 
Cook. 

‘A few Effects of the Winter of 1895 upon the Spring and Fall 
Migration in Canton, Mass.,’ by J. H. Bowles. 

The Union then adjourned to meet in Cambridge, Mass., 
Nov. 9, 1896. 

This Congress was a most successful one — a thoroughly repre- 
sentative gathering of American ornithologists. It was especially 
gratifying to see so many Associate Members present. 


Jno. H. Sace, 
Portland, Conn., Nov. 30, 7895. Secretary. 


60 Recent Literature. Auk 


Jan. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Elliot's Monograph of the Pittide.— The fifth and concluding part 
of this beautiful monograph! is dated January, 1895, its publication thus 
covering a period of nearly two years. The present part contains nearly 
forty pages of introductory matter, and eleven plates, with their appro- 
priate text. The species here figured are the following: Prtta strepitans, 
P. mackloti, P. vigorst, P. palliceps, P. nympha, P. cyanonota, P. oreas, 
P. forsteni, P. propingua, P. soror,and P. tnspeculata. Several of these 
have not been previously figured. 

The species recognized in the present monograph number 45 


an 
increase of 18, or more than 50 per cent., over the number known in 1863, 
and included in the author’s first monograph of the group. These 48 
species are distributed in 3 genera (Anthocincla, Pitta, and Eucichla) and 
17 subgenera, of which 42 species and 15 of the subgenera are placed 
under Petfa. Mr. Elliot differs from most previous writers in adopting 
for some of the species names not generally current, their adoption being 
rendered necessary by due observance of the law of priority. No new 
species are described, nor are any new specific names given, but we note 
the introduction of the following new subgenera: (1) Mozzlipitta, type 
and only species, Pitta arcuata; (2) Galeripitta, type and only species, 
P. cucullata ; (3) Pulchripitta, type and only species, P. zrzs; (4) Oruati- 
pitta, including Eucichla guaiana, E. boscht, and E. schwaneri; (5) Lnsig- 
ntpitta, including &. ellzoté and EF. gurneyt. 

The Introduction gives (1) an elaborate ‘Review of the Literature ’ of 
the subject (pp. v-xiii) ; (2) a history of the Genera (pp. xiii-xv) ; (3) ‘ Key 
to the Genera and Species’ (pp. xv-xviii); (4) ‘Classification’ (pp. xviii- 
xx); (5) ‘Geographical Distribution’ (pp. xxi-xxvii). Mr. Elliot con- 
siders that the species of Pittas known to us to-day “ are probably but the 
survivors of what was once a great and brilliantly plumaged group, 
inhabiting a vast extent of territory. The majority of the species,” he 
believes, “ have long since become extinct, and those remaining represent 
the few which have, through what may be termed fortuitous occurrences, 
been able to keep themselves above water, when the greater portion of 
their habitats disappeared beneath the waves.” On no other supposition 
does he deem it possible to account for the isolated distribution of certain 
members of the group, as Pitta angolensis on the west coast of Africa,and 


1A | Monograph of the Pittida, | or | Family of Ant-Thrushes. | By | 
Daniel Giraud Elliot, |. . . [12 lines of titles, etc.] | — | London: | Bernard 
Quarich, 15 Piccadilly, W. | 1893-1895. _ Folio, pp. i-xxvii + (letterpress, un- 
paged), col. pll. i-li. 

For notices of previous parts, see Auk, XI, pp. 62, 173, 243, and XII, 
p- 65. ; 


ae _feecent Literature. 61 


P. nympha on the Japanese island Tsu-sima, in the Straits of Corea, as 
well as in Borneo; the species being for the most part natives of the 
Eastern Archipelago, but extending into India, Ceylon and China, the 
Philippine and Papuan Islands, to New Guinea and northern Australia. 
As the author states in his Preface, the present is an entirely new 
~ Monograph of the Pittida, the text of the earlier Monograph having been 
discarded and that of the present written “as if the subject had only 
now for the first time engaged my [his] attention.” A few of the 
plates of the first edition have been retained, but the majority are from 
new drawings by Mr. W. Hart of London, who has most skilfully exe- 
cuted his task. The Pittas constitute one of the most beautiful families 
ot birds, their striking and yet pleasing display of colors rendering them 
a most attractive subject for the monographer. “It is not often,” says 
our author, “that one returns to his first love and finds her, after many 
years, more beautiful than ever,” as has been his experience in the present 


instance.—J. A. A. 


The Fossil Birds of Patagonia.'— It may be a little late to notice Dr. 
Ameghino’s memoir, but as the work has not been reviewed in ‘The 
Auk,’ and as some of the birds described therein are truly extraordinary, 
it is perhaps a case of better late than never; moreover, there are one or 
two points concerning these birds and Dr. Lydekker’s notice of them? 
that deserve at least a passing notice. In this memoir Dr. Ameghino 
describes the remains of thirty-two species of birds from the Eocene of 
Patagonia, fifteen of which, as well as nine genera and one family, are 
new. The main interest of the paper, however, centers about the gigantic 
forms for whose reception the order Stereornithes was established by 
Moreno and Mercerat in 1891. These authors have distributed in four 
families the various genera placed by Dr. Ameghino in the family 
Phororhacide, although this grouping must be largely a matter of 
opinion, since the parts most necessary for a family diagnosis are lacking. 
Not all the species of the family are large, but the leading members of 
the group, Phororhkacos and Brontornis, were birds of great size, rivalling 
in bulk the .#fyornzs of Madagascar and the Moas of New Zealand, while 
they were, like them, flightless. The reduction of the wing had not, 
however, proceeded so far as in the last named birds. A remarkable 
feature of the genus Phororhacos is the great size of the skull, which in 
P. inflatus is 13 inches long and 54 inches across the articular portion, 
while the mandible of P. /ongtsstmus is 21 inches in length and 8 inches 
across the condyles. Small wonder that the symphysis of such a jaw, 


' Florentino Ameghino | Sur les | Oiseaux Fossiles | de Patagonie | Extrait 
du Boletin del Instituto Geografico Argentino | tome XV, cahiers Ir et 12 | 
Buenos Ayres | 1895. 


2 Knowledge, London, June, 1895. 


62 Recent Literature. i 
an. 


found in 1887, should have been ascribed to some sluggish edentate, so 
that the name as it now stands was originally intended for a mammal. 
This size is the more noteworthy when we consider that in most feathered 
giants, Gasfornts is an exception, the skull is comparatively small, that of 
the Moas being so absurdly diminutive for the big body and massive 
legs as to seem like a caricature. A cervical vertebra of the larger species, 
P. longissimus, measures 5 inches across, and the tarsus of the smaller is 
nearly 18 inches long, indicating a bird not far from six feet high. Bron- 
tornis seems to have held much the same position among the Stereor- 
nithes that Dénxornis elephantopus did among the Moas, being low and 
massive, as may be judged by the tarsus, which is 164 inches long and 54 
wide at either end. Pelycornis was a smaller, more lightly built species 
than those just mentioned, but, taking the beak as a criterion, it is closely 
related to Phororhacos. 

What may be the affinities of these big Stereornithes is a question of 
much interest, but it is one whose answer is still afar off, not only because 
such important parts as the sternum and palatal region are unknown, but 
because many intermediate links are needed to unite these extinct forms 
with any living birds. Dr. Ameghino lays great stress on the fact that 
there is no separation between the orbital and preorbital cavities, and 
that the lachrymal sends a thin process downwards and backwards from 
its inner edge to unite with the pterygoids (?). The first character is 
one of small importance since other birds, Gallinze for example, have 
practically no bar of bone intervening between the orbit and the nasal, 
there being but one opening between it and squamosal. The other char- 
acter seems important, but little can be said concerning it without having 
seen the skull itself, the more that one or two reference letters cannot be 
made out. One can but think that through some defect of the specimen 
the lachrymal and ethmoid have been misinterpreted, since it is ordinarily 
the lachrymal, and not the ethmoid, which is closely applied to the 
descending process of the nasal. Dr. Lydekker speaks of certain resem- 
blances between the beaks of Phororhacos and those of the Cathartide, 
but the writer fails to see the least similarity between the two. Also, by 
a slip of the pen, the upward curve of the lower mandible is said to be 
found only in the Trumpeter, Psofhza, among existing birds, whereas 
Psophia has no, or but the slightest, upturning ot the mandible while 
numerous other birds have this feature. The abortion of the distal part 
of the pubis zs unique, although there is a bare possibility that, as in 
some existing birds of prey, the posterior part of the pubis was present, 
but free, and attached to the ischium by ligament. Dr. Lydekker makes 
many comparisons with the Ratita, but, as Dr. Ameghino justly says, the 
Stereornithes appear to show that the division of the class of birds into 
Ratite and Carinate is not fundamental, a point wherein most American 
ornithologists will agree with him. Apparently the main reasons for 
comparing such forms as Pororhacos and Brontornis with the Struthi- 
ones is because they are large and extinct when, as a matter of fact, mere 


ee Il Recent Literature. 6 2 


c 


size is no reason for supposing a bird related to an Ostrich, while the 
pelvis of Phkororhacos, with its aborted pubis, shows that this genus at least 
is very many removes from any struthious bird. Neither is Gastornis, 
with its primitive type of skull, any relation of the Stereornithes. 

The well-developed supra-orbital bone of Phororhacos is particularly a 
-mark of South American forms, but as it occurs in such different birds 
as Psophia and some of the Tinamous, it gives no clue to probable rela- 
tionship, and until the sternum and palate come to light the Stereornithes 
must remain largely unclassified, although we have some hints as to their 
affinities and more as to their habits. The skull tells us that the Phoro- 
racide at least captured living creatures, for the upturned lower mandible 
occurs among the Herons, and is extremely well-marked in the King- 
fishers. Correlated with the beak is the squareness of the hind cranium 
and the prominence of all the ridges, these things, which have to do with 
seizing and holding, being found in very dissimilar forms of similar 
predaceous habits. Birds of prey, which grasp with their talons, have the 
beak modified for tearing and possess a weak decurved lower jaw. The 
coracoid has little resemblance to the unique coracoid of Psophia, but the 
bones of the shoulder girdle, particularly the scapula, are very like those 
of a Heron, while the metacarpus much resembles that of Palamedea, 
minus the spurs. The pelvis, in its straightness and squareness, has 
certain agreements with that of Palamedea and the Herons, and still more 
with that of Psophza, though differing from them most emphatically in 
the abortion of the pubis. The main facts, however, shown by pelvis and 
legs, indicate that these birds were runners, though the hypotarsus indi- 
cates very plainly that there is no relationship with birds of high degree. 
That Phororhacos and its allies should have resemblances to more than 
one group of birds is not surprising, not only from their geographical 
distribution and geological horizon, but because although specialized in 
details they were generalized in many points of structure. The Phororha- 
cide at least seem distantly related to Psophkza and not much more dis- 
tantly to the Herons,and we may recall that we have one aberrant relative 
of the Herons alive to-day in the shape of the curious African Baleniceps. 
That the Stereornithes have any zear living relatives is not evident and 
it is much easier to say where their affinities do not lie than where they 
do, but that such strange forms should have been found in South America 
seems quite natural, and others just as strange will undoubtedly come to 
light. We have in such birds as Chauna, Steatornis, Psophia and Car?- 
ama the waifs and strays of a lost avifauna left by the sea of time stranded 
on the shores of the present, and the more we delve in the sands of the 
past, the more of these quaint forms will we bring to light. And we 
cannot better close than by wishing it may be given to Senor Ameghino 
to find these missing pieces and fit them in their proper places.— F. A. L. 


Auk 
Jan, 


64 Feecent Literature. 

Elliot’s Limicolz.'— A title of twenty-three lines may spare the 
reviewer some pains in describing a book, but there is much besides to be 
said of this noble work, in the preparation of which the artist and the 
’ publisher have ably aided the distinguished author. Mr. Elliot’s splendid 
monographs of various other families have long since taken classic rank 
in technical ornithology, but we believe this is his first appearance in 
book form as a popularizer — an office of not Jess dignity than that of the 
systematist or monographer, one of practical importance and human 
interest, and one not so easy to fill creditably as those who have never 
tried to do so may imagine. The increase of knowledge is one thing, and 
its diffusion is another; but the latter is the real measure of the useful- 
ness of the former. He who would make knowledge “ understanded of 
the people” has no easy task to perform; and if he attain a measure of 
success in this effort, he has stood the severest test to which his ability as 
an author can be subjected. It would therefore seem certain that in the 
present instance Mr. Elliot has won fresh laurels. 

‘Shore Birds’ is a new departure for him, in-which he addresses himself 
less to his experienced peers in the science than to sportsmen and others 
in the rank and file of those who love to study birds in their haunts — 
those for whom birds are among the brightest flashes of animated nature. 
For all such, the Plover-Snipe group has such special attractions that the 
author who chooses this theme is sure of his clientele. 

Mr. Elliot’s method of treatment is an easy and natural one. After the 
introductory matter, which includes a glossary of technical terms, illus- 
trated with an outline plate, and a send-off for Limicole in general, he 
takes each one of about seventy species or subspecies in its turn, giving 
as main text a concise life-history, under a popular name, and then in 
small type paragraphs presenting the most accredited scientific name — 


* 


1 North American Shore Birds |a_ history of the | Snipes, Sandpipers, 
Plovers and their allies | inhabiting the beaches and marshes of the | Atlantic 
and Pacific coasts, the prairies, | and the shores of the inland lakes and | rivers 
of the North American continent; | their popular and _ scientific names, 
together with a full | description of their mode of life, nesting, migration and | 
dispersions, with descriptions of the summer and | winter plumages of adults 
and young, | so that each species may be readily identified. | A Reference 
Book for the Naturalist, Sportsman and Lover of Birds | by | Daniel Giraud 
Elliot, F. R. S. E., Etc. | Ex-president American Ornithologists’ Union | Cu- 
rator of Zodlogy in the Field Columbian Museum, Chicago; Author of 
“ Birds of | North America,” Illustrated Monographs of Ant Thrushes, 
Grouse, | Pheasants, Birds of Paradise, Hornbills, Cats, Etc. | With seventy- 
four plates | New York | Francis P. Harper | 1895 | One vol., pp. i-xvi, 17- 
268, pll. 1-74 (Counting 2 cuts in text)-+ 1 pl., = 75 illust., 100 autograph 
copies with rubricated title, sm. 4to, regular ed. crown 8vo; published 
Sept. 26. 


Vol. XIIL 


1896 Recent Literature. 65 


which members of the A. O. U. and other readers of ‘The Auk’ will be 
sure to recognize 


a statement of habitat, and a technical description of 
the plumage for the sexes, ages, and seasons. There is much to recom- 
mend this simple treatment; for the sportsman who already knows his 
bird, or perhaps does not like technical caviar in his usual rations, can 
-decline this dessert, and take his main course of biography in straight> 
easy reading. He will find these articles reasonably full, interesting as 
well as instructive, and may feel confident of their high degree of reliabil- 


, 


ity; for Mr. Elliot has been out among the ‘mud-dwellers’ with his gun 
himself, and what he knows of their ways smells less of midnight oil than 
of gunpowder. 

The author’s admirable treatment of the Phalaropes raises a point on 
which we wish to remark. He adopts three genera — Crymofhilus, Phala- 
ropus, and Steganopus. Contrary to the opinion of some of his contem- 
poraries, chiefly younger than himself, the present reviewer knows that 
recognition of genera in zo6logy is a purely arbitrary convention, mainly 
to facilitate list-making. We can take what grade of differentiation we 
please as our generic standard; but having adopted any one such, we are 
logically bound by it, and must not read off with a fine vernier-scale in 
some instances, and with a coarser gradation in some other cases. The 
differences between the three species of Phalaropes are coérdinated; any 
one of them differs from the other two to the same degree that these do 
from each other. There is then one genus, or else there are three 
genera as Mr. Elliot rightly holds ; there cannot be two genera. The 
hitch in this case seems to have been, that the A. O. U. committée per- 
mitted themselves to be influenced by a bit of faddism on the part of some 
person to whom birds’ beaks looked big and their toes small—one who 
could see minute rostral modifications in a great white light, which so 
dazzled him that he was blinded to equal or even greater differentiations 
of digital structure. The same one-eyedness reduced the four-toed genus 
Sguatarola to a subgenus of Charadrius, yet left the three-toed genus 
Arenaria (or Calédrts) in full fig apart from Trimga (type canutus). 
Now if we remember anything about a group of birds which engaged 
our virgin pen about thirty-five years ago, there are no two genera ot 
Sandpipers so nearly indistinguishable in form as those represented by 
Arenaria calidris and Tringa canutus, it we do not count their digits. 
Why then do we discriminate these generically, yet fail to separate Sguata- 
rola helvetica by the same token from the species of Charadrius proper? 
In point of fact, the evolutionary processes which result in the develop- 
ment of an articulated digit-and its accessories, however small and 
practically functionless it may be, or those which end in the suppression 
of such a digit, are vastly greater in duration and in force than those 
which merely modify the size and shape of a bill to some appreciable 
extent; so that in ignoring the former to insist upon the latter, we have 
probably travestied an evolutionary record of geologic date. 

But such points as these are niceties which need not have been made in 


9 = 


66 Recent Literature. Auk 


Jan. 


noticing a popular work, and would not have been raised in a review for 
any other periodical than our own and only ‘ Auk. Consideration of 
technicalities takes us to Mr. Elliot’s appendix, which gives keys to the 
families, genera, and species—short cuts to much learning, without 
which no bird-book now seems to be furnished with all appropriate 
belongings. These are excellent in the main, presenting the reader with 
successive alternatives, of which he has only to choose the one to which 
his specimen conforms to be led speedily and happily to its identification. 
The keyed appendix also gives formal generic diagnoses, references to 
authorities for the names used, and explication of etymologies. In this 
part of his work the distinguished author invites criticism which must be 
adverse in some few particulars, as in the statement that Heferactitis is a 
word “ signifying an inhabitant of ‘different shores.’” This word is a 
mere substitute for the prior but preoccupied Heteroscelus of Baird, and 
the difference implied in its construction is not one of ‘shores,’ but of 
certain shore-birds, to wit, those of the genus Acé#ct7/s. It is also unfor- 
tunate that typographical errors, which crop up in the main text, cluster 
obtrusively in the appendix. We happen to know that this is not the 
author’s fault, and can see how he wrestled with the printers — not in 
prayer, but with the reverse of devotional emotions, akin to those which 
marked the printers’ own struggles with unwonted copy. But aside from 
this, the manufacture of the volume is pertect, reflecting great credit upon 
the enterprising publisher, who is rapidly making his reputation for fine 
book-work. The regular edition is handsome in all its appointments; the 
limited autograph edition is sumptuous. 

Edwin Sheppard is a familiar name in connection with illustrated orni- 
thological literature, and the author of ‘Shore Birds’ is fortunate in his 
artist. His fine work began early in the Bairdian period, and the present 
plates show that his hand has lost none of its cunning with rolling years. 
Mr. Sheppard’s forte seems to be small, telling pictures which hit off 
likenesses of birds remarkably well for their size without the aid of other 
coloring than black upon white. They are very smooth and pleasing to 
the eye, and maintain their excellence evenly —none are bad, though 
some are more pleasing, and some more effective, than the rest. One of 
the most artistic pictures is that of the Stilt, whose colors suit the mode 
of printing well, and whose attitude is striking; the group of downy 
Kildeers is another which specially attracts the eye. Mr. Sheppard has a 
keen eye for points about a bird, and a sure touch is bringing them out; 
he understands structure, and consequently poses birds in natural atti- 
tudes. This is fortunate; for he had need of all his craft in attempting to 
delineate the difference between species of such genera, for example, as 
Tringa and Totanus, in which a trained ornithologist often has to look 
more than once to make a diagnosis. Our general criticism of Mr. 
Sheppard’s work has for many years been, his tendency to needless acces- 
sories and too much background; but that may be our individual fancy 
for pictures of birds on plain white paper— not in quarter-sections of 


es I Recent Literature. 6 7 


country or even on sections of tree trunks as large as themselves; and in 
the present case of full-page plates, the technique we have is perhaps 
preferable. 

We wish this book all the success it so thoroughly well merits; and 
should that be its happy lot, perhaps the eminent author will not forget 
that some other groups of game-birds might be treated in the same 
manner, with equally good results. — E. C. 


Some Canadian Birds.'— Mr. Chamberlain’s very worthy aim is to 
produce a book on common birds at so low a price that it will be within 
the reach of every child who would know something of the feathered 
inhabitants of field and grove. He warns us not to expect too much, 
and when we glance at the price on the cover of his little volume, we 
readily admit that we have received more than our money’s worth. 

He. gives pleasingly written biographies of some forty species. His 
style is attractive and seems well adapted to interest beginners. It is 
unfortunate, however, that he pays so little attention to the subject of 
identification, his descriptions being very brief and generally unac- 
companied by measurements. It is to be hoped that in the second 
series of these bird studies, which we doubt not will duly appear, 


scientific names will be properly capitalized.—F. M. C. 


Kirkwood on Maryland Birds.” 


Faunal lists are of two kinds: they 
may sum up existing knowledge, however slight, of the life of a region 
as the basis for future work, or they may present the essentially complete 
results of long continued, careful observations. The present list belongs 
to the former class and should be considered as a preliminary report on 
Maryland birds, or, more strictly, the birds of eastern Maryland, for the 
author’s information is largely drawn from what he terms the ‘ tide-water’ 
region. 

It is of course highly desirable that ina list of this kind attention should 
be drawn to the large number of birds whose presence in the State can 
scarcely be doubted, but which through insufficient observation have not 
actually been recorded within the State limits. To prevent their confusion 
with birds already known from the State, and to properly emphasize the 


‘Some Canadian Birds. A Brief Account of Some of the Common Birds of 
Eastern Canada. By Montague Chamberlain. First Series. Birds of Field 
and Grove. Toronto: The Copp, Clark Company, Limited, 1895, 12mo. pp. 
x-+96, 15 cuts. 30 cents. 


2A List of the Birds of Maryland giving Dates of the Arrival, Departure 
and Nesting Periods of our Regular birds; also including Stragglers and such 
others as no doubt occur but are not recorded. By F. C. Kirkwood. Re- 
printed from the Transactions of the Maryland Academy of Sciences, pp. 
241-382. Baltimore, 1895. 


68 Recent Literature. fe 


fact that they are to be especially sought for, these birds should be 
included in a separate list: with an appropriate heading, as is customary 
in standard faunal papers. The author, however, commits the serious 
error of placing these birds in the body of his paper without even typo- 
graphically distinguishing them from those that properly belong there. 
Examination shows that of the some 330 species given, about 42 are 
included as of probable occurrence. Gras mexicana, Scolopax rusticola, 
Pavoncella pugnax, and Milvulus forficatus have, it is true, been recorded 
from adjoining regions, where, however, they were too evidently acci- 
dental to deserve admission here. 

The list itself adequately reflects our present limited knowledge of 
Maryland birds, the author having apparently made excellent use of the 
material at his command. It is attractively printed and we trust may 
prove an incentive to ornithological research in the region of . which it 
treats.—F. M. C. . 


The Structure and Life of Birds.\—This work takes a place on an 
almost vacant shelf in the ornithological bookcase. Its purpose is best 
stated by the author, who in his preface remarks: “The aim of this book 
is an ambitious one. It attempts to give good evidence of the develop- 
ment of birds from reptilian ancestors, to show what modifications in 
their anatomy have accompanied their advance to a more vigorous life, 
and, after explaining as far as possible, their physiology, to make clear 
the main principles of their noble accomplishment, flight, the visible 
proof and expression of their high vitality. After this it deals, princi- 
pally, with the subjects of color and song, instinct and reason, migra- 
tion, and the principles of classification, and lastly, gives some hints as to 
the best methods of studying birds.” The specialist reading this syllabus 
will probably doubt the author’s ability to adequately treat of so many 
and such varied themes within the limits of 400 pages, and while it is 
true, that some subjects suffer at the expense of others, the book contains 
a vast amount of exceedingly suggestive and valuable information. 
Furthermore, at the conclusion of each chapter, a list of works is given 
for the assistance of those who would pursue the subject more fully. 

In the accepted meaning of the word we should imagine that the 
author of this well conceived book could not be called an ornithologist. 
Rather he seems to approach his task from the standpoint of the anato- 
mist or physicist, and here he is apparently at home. His chapters on 
‘The Skeleton of Bird and Reptile’ (pp. 6-28), the evolution of birds 
from reptiles (pp. 29-59), ‘Form and Function’ (pp. 60-172), and 
‘Flight’ (pp. 173-274) are important contributions to structural and 
functional ornithology. 


1 The Structure | and | Life of Birds | By | F. W. Headley, M. A., F. Z.S. | 
Assistant Master at Haileybury College | With seventy-eight Illustrations | 
London | Macmillan and Co. |.and New York | 1895 | The Right of Transla- 


tion and Reproduction is Reserved. | Sm. 8vo, pp. xx + 412. 


sar i : Recent Literature. 69 


When, however, he speaks from a more strictly ornithological point of 
view, or quotes the observation of others. he shows a lack of familiarity 
with these more distinctive phases of bird-life. This is particularly true 
of his remarks on ‘Change of Colour without Moulting,’ where he 
accepts as proven the theory that a practically white feather may become 
black by an influx of “pigment working its way to every part of the 
feather through channels as yet unknown”; for example, in the breast of 
the Dunlin, or head of the Little Gull or Black-headed Gull. 

The one hundred pages devoted to ‘Flight’ should be read by all 
students of animal motion, while the philosophic ornithologist will find 
abundant food for thought in the chapters on color, reason, instinct, ete. 

The chapter on migration will be read with special interest at this 
time when the publication of an English edition of Herr Giatke’s book 
has awakened a fresh discussion of the many perplexing questions pre- 
sented by this branch of ornithology. Mr. Headley here shows the lack 
of field experience more than in any other part of his generally excellent 
book. He thinks it unnecessary to “call. in the assistance of the often- 
invoked glacial period ” to account for the origin of migration and would 
seek a cause in the failure of the food supply both in the north and south, 
ignoring the fact that in the American tropics, at least, migrating birds 
begin their northward journey just as the rainy season sets in and the 
supply of both vegetable and insect food is greatly increased. 

American students will read with some surprise of the orderly manner 
in which Old World birds are stated to migrate. In the fall the young 
birds are of course said to start first, a month or two later they are fol- 
lowed by the old birds, and after them come irregular flights consisting 
probably of cripples and young birds hatched late. ‘In the spring the 
order is reversed. First come the old cock birds . . . then old hen birds, 
then old hen birds and young birds mixed; then young birds alone; and, 
lastly, cripples in every stage of dilapidation.” 

These, however, are minor defects in a book which should have a 
marked iifluence in raising the character of ornithological research from 
the mere collector’s level to the plane of scientific investigation.— F. M. C. 


The A. O. U. Check-List of North American Birds, Second Edition.'— 
The second edition of the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-List of 
North American Birds is uniform in style and typography with the first 
edition, published in 1886, but omits the ‘Code of Nomenclature, which 
was issued separately in 1892. The present edition is a reprint of the 
first edition, with such changes in nomenclature as have been found nec- 


'Check-List | of | North American Birds | prepared by a Committee | of 
the | American Ornithologists’ Union | Second and Revised Edition | — | 
ZoGlogical Nomenclature is a means, not an end, of Zodlogical Science | — | 
New York | American Ornithologists’ Union | 1895.—8vo, pp. xi + 372. 


Published Dec. 9, 1895. 


| oO Peecent Literature. Aa 


essary during the ten years intervening between the preparation of the two 
editions, and the proper interpolation of the additions in the seven Sup- 
plements published 1889-1895. Besides this the statements of ‘habitat’ 
or ‘ geographic distribution, have been carefully revised, a large propor- 
tion of them having been rewritten, in consequence of recent increase in 
our knowledge of the subject. An effort has also been made, where 
practicable, to distinguish the breeding range from the general range. 
The Check-List is thus once more brought fairly abreast of the present 
knowledge of the subject. 

The additions during the last ten years number about 36 species and go 
subspecies. Out of nearly one thousand specific and subspecific names in 
the first edition not more than 25 have been changed; 8 generic names 
have been changed, of which 3 were found to be preoccupied, the other 
generic changes being due to taxonomic revisions; a few groups ranked 
in the first edition as subgenera have also since been raised to full generic 
rank. ‘Thus, all things considered, the nomenclature of the first A. O. U. 
Check-List has proved as stable as its best friends could have expected. 
That further additions will be made to the list, as time goes on, is evi- 
dent, and probably a third edition may be found desirable by the end of 
the next decade:—]. “A. A: 


Hudson’s British Birds.'—It is not to be supposed that a new volume 
on British birds implies a corresponding increase in our knowledge con- 
cerning them. Consequently we look for this book’s racson détre in the 
method with which the subject is treated. In matters of detail, it resem- 
bles more or less closely other manuals of similar scope, but the author’s 
facile pen and the artist’s skilful brush seconded by a generous publisher, 
have resulted in the production of a work which is deserving a most 
cordial welcome. 

Mr. Hudson is not bound by tradition. He insists that a book on 
British birds should be strictly such, and he rightly rebels against the 
custom of allotting as much space to a species which has occurred but 
once or twice, as to the commonest permanent residents. Of the 37 
species enumerated by the B. O. U. list he considers that not more than 
210 can rightly be called British birds. The 160 odd accidental or occa- 
sional visitants are therefore grouped at the end of their respective 
families with a brief statement of their true habitat and manner of occur- 
rence in Great Britain. This very commendable proceeding serves a 


1 British Birds | By | W. H. Hudson, C. M. Z. S.| With-a Chapter on 
Structure and Classification | By Frank E.° Beddard, F. R. S. | With § Col- 
oured Plates from Original Drawings by A. Thorburn | and 8 Plates and 100 
Figures in black and white from Original Drawings by G. E. Lodge | and 3 
Illustrations from Photographs from Nature by R. B. Lodge | London | 
Longmans, Green, and Co. | and New York | 1895 | All rights reserved | Sm. 
Svo, pp. XXii -- 363. $3.50. 


oy II Recent Literature. 71 


double purpose. It does not give these stragglers undue prominence and 
it permits a much fuller treatment of the native species. Probably no 
book on British birds which is at all comparable with this in size, contains 
such extended accounts of their life histories. 

In writing these biographies Mr. Hudson aims to give us the character- 


istic habits of the species rather than a too finely spun sketch, which, 


however well it depicted his own experience, might be quite at variance 
with the results obtained by other observers. “Birds are not automata, 
but intelligent beings,” and resemble each other in habits only up to a 
certain point. It is to this point that Mr. Hudson’s biographies bring us. 
We wish, however, he had included a paragraph on distribution, a matter 
to which he gives little attention locally, while the fact that the birds he 
writes of are found outside of Great Britain is rarely stated. 

The value of this book is greatly enhanced by its illustrations. These 
are not only of rare beauty but they are evidently drawn by artists who 
are familiar with their subjects in life. Furthermore, they possess the 
latterly unique merit of being drawn expressly for the work in which 
they appear. 

Mr. Beddard’s prefatory chapter of thirty-eight pages on ‘ Anatomy and 
Classification’ treats briefly, but in a manner likely to interest beginners, 
of the more characteristic avian organs. He concludes with a classifica- 
tion of the orders of birds, in which, among living forms, he begins with 
the Ratita and ends with Psittaci! Not that he has ‘‘a deep-seated and 
mysterious reason” for placing the * Parrots at the end of the Aves Cari- 
nate,” but simply through “sheer inability to place them anywhere in 
particular.” This is evidently not an application of the decidedly original 
principle expressed on the preceding page, to the effect that, “‘the more 
perfect our scheme of classification, the greater our ignorance of the 
group classified.”—F. M. C. 


Bendire on the Cowbirds.'— he parasitic habits of the Cowbirds 
render them a peculiarly interesting group, consisting of about twelve 
species, commonly reterred to the two genera Molothrus (8 species) and 
Callothrus (4 species). They are of course all confined to the two Amer- 
ican continents, ranging from southern Canada to Paraguay. The species 
of Callothrus are essentially tropical, ranging from Mexico through 
Central America to northern South America, one only, C. robustus, 
barely reaching southern Texas; while AJZolothrus is represented from the 
colder temperate parts of North America southward across the tropics to 
temperate South America. Very little is known of the habits of many of 
the species, only our own Molothrus ater, and the MW. bonartensis, M. 


1The Cowbirds. By Major Charles Bendire, Honorary Curator of the 
OGlogical Collections, U. S. National Museum. Reprinted from the Report 
of the U. S. National Museum for 1893 (1895), pp. 587-624, pll. 1-3. 


72 Recent Literature. bere 
rufoaxillaris, and M. badius of southern South America, having been as 
yet carefully studied in the field. Major Bendire here presents us with 
an excellent summary of our present knowledge of the subject, consisting 
of his articles on the North American species, prepared for Part II of his 
‘Life Histories of North American Birds’ (issued as ‘advance sheets’), 
and Mr. W. H. Hudson’s articles on the Cowbirds of the Argentine 
Republic, from Sclater and Hudson’s ‘ Argentine Ornithology.’ We thus 
have in the present paper very detailed accounts of the habits and distri- 
bution of five species and one subspecies out of the twelve recognized 
members of this parasitic group.—J. A. A. , 


Lucas on the Weapons and Wings of Birds.'— As Mr. Lucas says, “a 
more accurate, if not a better, title for this article would perhaps be ‘Some 
Weapons of Birds’; and we venture to add that perhaps the title ‘ The 
Wings of Birds as Weapons’ would be even more descriptive, since the 
paper relates almost wholly to the use of wings as weapons, and to the 
spurs and tuberosities with which they are armed. Some birds without 
spurred wings, as the Pigeons and Swans, are good boxers, but some of 
the Pigeons are not entirely unarmed, being provided with a horny boss 
or tubercle at the wrist, which adds effectiveness to their blows. The 
armature of the Spur-winged Geese, the Spur-winged Plovers, Jacanas, 
and Screamers is described and figured. Spur-winged birds, although 
apparently so well equipped for warfare, are, however, so far as known, 
among the most peaceable and inoffensive of birds; at least such seems 
to be the case with the formidably armed Screamers, and with the Jacanas 
and Plovers. Curiously in the latter, the size of the spurs on the wings 
is correlated with the development of the wattles at the base of the bill> 
species with large wattles having large spurs, and conversely. 

Mr. Lucas has also something to say about the claws on birds’ wings, 
and their significance as ‘‘ reminiscences of well-clawed ancestors,” citing 
in this connection the clawed fingers of the Archeofteryx. Mr. Lucas 
also devotes a page or two to the Hoactzin (Of¢sthocomus cristatus), 
figuring the young birds from spirit specimens in the U. S. National 
Museum, to show the use made of the wing-claws in climbing. In 
commenting on this antiquated type of bird life Mr. Lucas observes: 
“Not the least of the many interesting features of the Hoactzin is the 
rapid change which takes place in the fore limb during the growth of the 
bird by which the hand of the nestling with its well-developed, well- 
clawed fingers, becomes the clawless wing of the old bird with its abortive 
outer finger.’—J. A. A. 


"The Weapons and Wings of Birds. By Frederic A. Lucas, Curator of the 
Department of Comparative Anatomy, U. S. National Museum. Reprinted 
from the Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1893 (1895), pp. 653-663, 
pl. 7 and 8 cuts in text. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Recent Literature. 7 
is 
Fisher’s Hawks and Owls from the Standpoint of the Farmer.!— This 
is a condensed and very useful summary of the relations of Hawks -and 
Owls to agriculture, based on Dr. Fisher’s more elaborate ‘Bulletin’? 
on the same subject. He considers first the ‘Cause of the Prejudice 
against Birds of Prey,’ and then refers to ‘some characteristics of rapa- 
- cious birds,’ and to the ‘food habits’ of the principal North American 
species, and then proceeds to briefly treat of the species under the several 
categories of wholly “harmless species of Hawks and Owls,” ‘ wholly 
beneficial Hawks,” “Hawks and Owls mostly beneficial,’ and “ harmful 
Hawks and Owls.” Among the latter are the Gyrfalcon, the Duck Hawk, 
the Goshawk, Cooper’s Hawk, and the Sharp-shinned Hawk, the two 
latter, owing to the northern distribution of the others, being really the 
only species occurring in the United States in sufficient numbers to be of 
any particular importance as enemies of the farmer. These two species, 
with the Goshawk, Dr. Fisher believes, are the cause of the “unjust 
hatred and suspicion with which our Birds of Prey are held,” in conse- 
quence of their often serious depredations upon poultry and game. The 
publication is timely and should do much to develop a more rational 
sentiment respecting the real character and the beneficial influence of 
most of these long-persecuted birds.—J. A. A. 


Beddard’s ‘ Text-book of Zodgeography.’ *—In view of Mr. Beddard’s 
excellent little work entitled ‘Animal Colouration’ (see Auk, X, 1893, 
pp. 195-198), and his many valuable contributions to technical zo6l- 
ogy, the present work is not a little disappointing and will hardly add 
to the author’s reputation as a careful and trustworthy investigator. The 
pages give evidence of either haste or carelessness, aside from the 
numerous typographical inaccuracies. Thus we are told, to cite a few 
examples, that Gallinula chloropus and Totanus tncanus (p. 10) are 
among the comparatively few species “that have a world-wide range ” ; 
that the Curassows (p. 27) occur in California; among the genera enum- 
erated as confined to the ‘ Palearctic Region’ (p. 89) are Perésoreus, Nuce- 
Jraga, Cyanocitta, and Acanthis (!); Elasmognathus (p. 109) is said to 


1 Hawks and Owls from the Standpoint of the Farmer. By A. K. Fisher, 
M.D., Assistant Ornithologist, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Reprinted 
from the Yearbook of the U. S. Department of Agriculture for 1894 (1895), 
pp. 215-232, pll. 1-3, and 3 fig. in text. 


2See Auk, X, 1893, p. 199. 


3A Text-book of Zoézeography. By Frank E. Beddard, M. A. (Oxon.) 
F. R. S., Prosector of the Zoological Society of London, and Lecturer on 
Biology at Guy’s Hospital. Cambridge: At the University Press. 1895. All 
Rights reserved. 8vo, pp. vili, 246. (Cambridge Natural Science Manuals’ 
Biological Series.) ; 


10 


| 4 Recent Literature. les 


Jan. 


have been “separated by the late Mr. Alston” as a distinct genus of tapirs, 
whereas the separation was previously made by Dr. Gill, and rejected by 
Mr. Alston, who referred the Central American tapirs to the genus 
Tapirus; the genus /thkea (p. 111) is given as limited to the Chilian 
subregion, whereas it has a wide distribution in the Brazilian subregion 
as well; contrary to current views, the West Indian genus Solexodon is 
repeatedly referred to the family Centetide. Besides numerous inaccura- 
cies of this sort, more or less erroneous and positively misleading state- 
ments regarding the range of certain groups occur with surprising 
frequency, while typographical (?) errors (as Crécetomys for Cricetus, 
Rhymphastide for Rhamphastide, Mimocychla for Mimocichla, Pilohela 
for Philohela, etc.) betoken, to say the least, great carelessness. The latest 
authorities are also frequently overlooked, as, for example, nothing later 
than Salvin, 1875, is cited on the birds of the Galapagos, although the 
whole subject was treated by Ridgway on the basis of much new material 
in 1889. Andso on, as regards questions of classification where accepted 
modern views are ignored. 

As regards the general subject. Mr. Beddard’s chief authorities are 
Wallace; Trouessart and Heilprin, the latter by no means a very trust- 
worthy guide. No reference is made to any recent papers on the subject 
of the geographical distribution of animals in North America, not even to 
warn readers against the heresies they must contain, judged from Mr. 
Beddard’s point of view. 

The work is divided into five chapters as follows: (1) ‘The General 
Facts of the Distribution of Animals’; (2) ‘Zoological Geography ’; (3) 
‘The Causes which influence the Distribution of Animals’; (4) ‘The Fauna 
of Islands’; (5) ‘Some Theoretical Considerations. The ‘ general facts’ 
given in the first chapter convey much general information, fairly well 
stated. The second chapter is devoted mainly to an exposition of ‘ Mr. 
Sclater’s regions,’ from the standpoint of Mr. Wallace. The slight impor- 
tance of the actual facts of distribution, in Mr. Beddard’s estimate, is suffi- 
ciently shown by the following extract from p. 78: “ The question is, what 
system shall we adopt? The ideal system would be one which would 
agree entirely with the distribution of land and sea and their inhabitants ; 
but that is unfortunately impracticable. The next best is obviously the 
plan to try; and Mr. Sclater’s regions are, with an exception here and 
there, coincident with the continents and larger islands. The great thing 
is net to dispute the standard to be taken, but to agree in holding one 
standard.” This illogical and unscientific platform is then followed by a 
recapitulation of Mr. Wallace’s reasons for the retention of the Sclaterian 
regions, which are adopted in the pages which follow. 

As necessarily follows in discussing “the causes which influence the 
distribution of animals,” temperature is held as of slight importance, the 
first subheading being ‘ Déstribution not dependent upon temperature’! 
Yet he is compelled to admit: “That the range of animals is to a large 
degree dependent upon temperature is an undoubted fact ; and to a certain 


bare os Recent Literature. 75 


extent that fact does permit of the zonal arrangement of the earth.” But 
he goes on to add, with strange disregard of facts, “only, however, as 
concerns the arctic regions ” ! although he does later make the admission : 
“Tt is chiefly marine organisms which show a close interdependence of 
temperature and distribution.” 

Lack of space forbids a detailed analysis of the book, which, notwith- 
standing much that is unphilosophic and objectionable, and many loose 
statements, contains a great deal of information of value to the general 
reader, while not a few special points connected with distribution are 
discussed with ability and fairness. But on the whole the make-up and 
general character of the book is such as to suggest that it was prepared 
at the solicitation of a publisher in search of a work on this subject to fill 
a gap in a projected series of publications on natural history rather than 
from any innate fitness or desire on the part of the author to write on this 
particular topic. In other words, that it comes very close to the line 
of scientific hack-work.— J. A. A. 


Townsend on the Birds of Cocos Island.'—It was Mr. Townsend's 
good fortune to be one of the first ornithologists to visit Cocos Island. 
It is of volcanic origin, and although only four miles long by three wide 
is heavily forested and well adapted to support a resident land-bird fauna. 
Situated midway between the mainland at Costa Ricaand the Galapagos, 
the affinities of Cocos birds are of unusual interest. If the islet is 
simply an isolated volcanic cone, in other words, a true oceanic island, it 
would be natural to suppose that its resident land-birds would be derived 
from the mainland. But if Cocos is a portion of the submerged land 
which, as Dr. Baur? claims, once connected the Galapagos with the con- 
tinent, we might expect to find a Galapagan element in the Cocos avi- 
fauna. Of the four species of land-birds secured by Mr. Townsend, 
Dendroica aureola, is Galapagan, Cocornis agasstzi, and Nesotriccus 
ridgwayt, described as the types of new genera, are the obvious represen- 
tatives respectively of the Galapagan Cactornis scandens and Eribates 
magnirostris, while Coccyzus ferrugineus, previously described by Gould 
from Cocos, has no near relative, though the genus Coccyzus is repre- 
sented in the Galapagos by the mainland C. melanocoryphus. The 
affinities of the Cocos avifauna are therefore clearly Galapagan and give 
support to Dr. Baur’s theory. 

The previously little known Creagrus furcatus was found in marshes at 
Malpelo, and five species of Petrels are given from the vicinity of the 
Galapagos.— F. M. C. 


1 Birds from Cocos and Malpelo Islands, with Notes on Petrels obtained at 


Sea. By C. H. Townsend. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zo6l., Vol. XX VII, No. 3, 
July, 1895, pp. 121-126. ‘Two colored plates. 


2 American Naturalist, 1891, pp. 217-229, 307-326. 


7 6 Recent Literature. es 
an. 


Publications Received.— Arrigoni Degli Oddi, E., and Paul Leverkiihn. 
Die ornithologische Litteratur Italiens wahrend der Jahre 1891 bis 1893. 
(Journ. f."Orn., 1894, pp. 280-290.) 

Bendire, Charles. The Cowbirds. (Rep. U. S. Nat. Mus. for 1893, pp. 
587-624, pll. 1-3.) 

Chamberlain, Montague. Some Canadian Birds. 12mo., pp. x, 96, 
Toronto, 1895. 

Clarke, Wm. Eagle. On Some Birds from the Island of Negros, Philip- 
pines. (Ibis, Oct., 1895.) 

Elliot, D. G. North American Shore Birds, a history of the Snipes, 
Sandpipers, Plovers, and their Allies. 8vo., pp. 268, pll. 74. Francis 
P. Harper, New York, 1895. 

Headley, F. W. The Structure and Life of Birds. 8vo., pp. xx, 412, 
with 78 ills. Macmillan and Co., London and New York, 1895. 

Hudson, W. H. British Birds. 8vo., pp. xxii, 363, with 16 pll. and 
numerous text figures. Longmans, Green and Co., London and New 
York, 1895. 

Kirkwood, F.C. A List of the Birds of Maryland. (Trans. Maryland 
Acad. Sci., 1895, pp. 241-382.) 

Leverktihn, Paul. (1) Todesanzeigen V-IX. (Orn. Monatsschritt, XIX, 
Nos. 3, 7, 12, XX,6,9.) (2) Vogelschutz in England. (/ézd., XIX, 
Nos. I-11.) 

Rhoads, Samuel N. Contributions to the Zodlogy of Tennessee, No. 2, 
Birds. (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1895, pp. 463-50t. ) 

Rotzell, W.E. Birds of Narberth, Pa.,and Vicinity. S8vo, pp. 8. 1895. 

Schalow, Herman. Ueber eine Vogelsammlung aus WestgrOnland. 
(Journ. f. Orn., 1895, pp. 457-481.) 

Sclater, P. L. Chairman’s Address on opening the Fourth Session of 
the British Ornithologists’ Club, 1895. 8vo., pp. 4. 

Stone, Witmer. List of Birds collected in North Greenland by the 
Peary Expedition of 1891-2, and the Relief Expedition of 1892. (Proce. 
Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1895, pp. 502-505.) 

American Journ. Sci., Oct.—Dec., 1895. 

American Naturalist, Oct._Dec., 1895. 

Anales del Museo Nacional de Montevideo, III, 189s. 

Annals of Scottish Nat. Hist., No. 16, Oct., 1895. 

Bulletin British Ornithologists’ Club, Nos. 29, 30, 1895. 

Forest and Stream, XLV, Nos. 14-26, Oct. 5—Dec. 28, 1895. 

Journal of the Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XVIII, Nos. 1, 2, April—July, - 
1895. 

Medical Age, The, XIII, Nos. 19-23, 1895. 

Naturalist, The, Month. Journ. Nat. Hist. tor North’ of Bagland, Nos. 
243-245, Oct.—Dec., 1895. ! 

Nidiologist, The, III, Oct—Dec., 1895. 

Observer, The, VI, Nos. 10-12, Oct.-Dec., 1895. 

Oregon Naturalist, The, II, Nos. 10-11, Oct.—Nov., 1895. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


General Notes. 77 
Ornithologisches Jahrbuch, VI, Hefte 5 and 6, Sept.—Dec., 18g5. 
Ornithologisches Monatsberichte, III, Nos. 10-12, Oct—Dec., 18gs5. 
Ottawa Naturalist, The, IX, Nos. 7-9, Oct—Dec., 1895. 

Our Animal’Friends, XXIII, Nos. 1-4, Sept—Dec., 1895. 

Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Part ii, April-Sept., 189s. 

Proceedings California Acad. Sci., 2d Ser. Vol. V, pt. 1, 1895. 

Proceedings and Transactions of the Nova Scotian Inst. Sci. VIII, 
1895. 

Records of the Australian Museum, II, No. 6, 1895. 

Shooting and Fishing, XVIII, Nos. 22-26; XIX, Nos. 1-10, 1895. 

Transactions of the Wisconsin Acad. Science, Arts and Letters, X, 

1895. 

ZoOlogist, The, 3d Ser., XIX, Nos. 225-228, Sept.—Dec., 1895. 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Do Young Loons eat Fresh-water Clams?—On July 5, 1895, while 
paddling with my brother along the northern end of Lake Utopia, in the 
Province of New Brunswick, we saw near our canoe a young water bird 
which by its size and actions and especially by the cries of its parents near 
by, was proven to be a young Loon, the Great Northern Diver (Urczator 
timber). Wishing to examine it more closely we chased, and in spite of 
its game efforts to escape, caughtit. When near by we noticed something 
hanging to its bill which plainly much retarded its movements and which 
proved to be a fresh-water clam or mussel of two inches in length. 
Closer observation after the bird was carried ashore showed that nearly 
all of its lower bill was gone and that its tongue was caught between the 
tightly-closed valves of the still-living mollusk, and was the means of 
attachment of the one to the other. I cut the tongue close to the shell 
and released the bird which went splashing and diving away to rejoin its 
parents, though without tongue or lower bill it could scarcely have 
survived for long. I broke the clam-shell and inside found the missing 
bill with the remainder of the tongue attached. The ragged end of the 
bill made it seem plain that having been thrust into the gaping shell, 
which promptly and firmly closed, it had been wrenched and torn off 
by the efforts of the bird to free itself, but the tongue yielding elastically 
to the strains did not give way. The Loon was a very young one in 
the downy stage with pin-feathers just appearing in the wings. The 
mussel and bill I now have, preserved for the inspection of the curious. 


7 8 - General Notes. Auk 


Jan. 


Since then I have looked in many books for something about the 
feeding habits of Loons but have found nothing. If it is a habit of theirs 
to eat these mussels, my specimen simply began too early ; if not, either it 
was too enterprising or too curious and tried to pick out the inmate from 
its shell gaping open upon the bottom, or else while probing for some- 
thing else in the sand it accidentally pushed its lower bill into the 
open shell, with the results above detailed. At all events the incident 
may show something to those fitted to interpret it— W. F. GANONG, 
Northampton, Mass. 


‘Gull Dick’ Again.—‘Gull Dick’ returned again (see Auk, IX, p. 227; 
X, p. 76;-XI, p. 73; XII, p. 76) on the evening of April 6, 1895, in com- : 
pany with a young Gull. He being hungry was fed as usual, and after 
satisfying his appetite few around the lightship and, in company with the 
young Gull, took his departure. I had but little hope that I should ever 
hear of his return. I was consequently agreeably surprised on receiving 
a letter from Captain Edward Fogarty, dated Oct. 2, 1895, informing me 
that ‘Dick’ had arrived that morning at sunrise for the twenty-fourth 
season. He looked in much better condition than last season, his feathers 
being smooth, with nothing of the ragged appearance he presented on his 
arrival last year. He seemed pretty hungry on being fed at 7 A.m. There 
was another Gull with him, but evidently not a friend, as ‘Dick’ would 
not allow him to partake of any of his breakfast GrorGE H. MacKay, 
Nantucket, Mass. ‘ 

An Early Description of Phalacrocorax dilophus.— The unpublished 
journal of David Thompson, of the old North West Company, Book No. 25, 
bound in Vol. XI, folio 46, date Thursday, May 9g, 1811, when the celebrated 
traveller and surveyor was on certain headwaters of the Columbia River, 
has the following: ‘‘1 Cormorant. They are plenty. This had fine 
green eyes, the ball black, the eyelids marked with blue like very small 
beads to a button hole, and the neck and head a fine glossy bright black 
with a bunch of side feathers on each side the back of the head.”— 
Exixiiorr Coues, Washington, D. C. 


Another Harlequin Duck Record for Long Island.— A male Harlequin 
Duck (Héstrionicus histrionicus) was shot at Orient Point (directly oppo- 
site Plum Island, L. I., where the species has formerly been taken) on 
November 11, 1895, and was mounted by a local bird stuffer. A female 
accompanied the male but was not procured. The male is now in the pos- 
session of Mrs. James Douglas of Orient, L. 1—W. W. WorRTHINGTON, 
Shelter Island Heights, N. Y. 


Olor buccinator in Western Minnesota. — It was not until 1893 that I 
observed this truly noble bird for the first time. Since then not less than 
seven specimens have come to my notice. The species is, however, not 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


General Notes. 79 
at all common in this section. No captures were reported in 1894, while 
in 1895, four individuals were-secured. Some of the oldest sportsmen 
tell me that they have observed this Swan quite regularly on Lac qui 
Parle during the spring and fall migrations. It is somewhat amusing to 
hear of the immense size of a Swan as reported by these gunners. Speci- 

_ mens weighing 50 pounds have been reported! The largest specimen I 
ever examined weighed 16 pounds and was very fat. A beautiful adult 
male now in my collection, shot near here on April 9, 1893, weighed only 
15 pounds, but it was not fat. It measured as follows: length, 51.00 ; 
extent of wing, 77.00; wing, 28.00; tail, 7.00 inches. — ALBERT LANo, 
Madison, Minn. 


White-faced Glossy Ibis Breeding in Minnesota.—I am glad to report 
that on June 22 and July 2, 1895, I took at Huron Lake, Jackson County, 
Minn., one mile from where two sets were taken in 1894, a set of three 
and one of four eggs (each complete) of the White-faced Glossy [bis ( Ple- 
gadis guarauna) from exquisitely suspended nests of rushes, in rushes, 
and two feet above eighteen inches of water in a large rushy arm of the 
lake. Four pairs of birds apparently were breeding in a colony of Black- 
crowned Night Herons, Coots, and Pied-billed Grebes. A single nest 
each of Ruddy Duck and of Red-head were found, the former fifty feet, 
the latter about eighty rods, from one of the Ibis nests. Two fine male 
Ibises were taken. 

[have just received (Nov. 10) from the big woods, seventy-five miles 
southeast of here, a very large dark specimen of Scotiaptex cinerea.— 
P. B. PeEaspopy, S¢. Vincent, Minn. 


Ardetta neoxena from Wisconsin. —The Field Columbian Museum 
has just come into possession of an additional specimen of this rare 
Bittern through the gift of Mr. C. E. Akeley. Mr. Akeley shot the bird, 
which is now before me — a mounted specimen —on Lake Koshkonong, 
Wis., May 22, 1893. It isa male in full plumage. Compared with the 
type of the species (No. 2001, Coll. Field Columbian Museum, Chicago) 
it agrees minutely above; below the throat and neck are just a trifle paler 
chestnut, and there is just a little more white on the abdomen. Mr. 
Akeley tells me no other examples were seen.— GrorGE K. CHERRIE, 
Field Columbian Museum, Chicago, 11. 


The King Rail Again in Maine.—- An adult male King Rail (/eadlus 
elegans) was shot in Falmouth, Maine, on September 19, 1895, by Mr. 
Walter Rich, of Portland, and is now in my collection. The township of 
Falmouth lies northeast of Portland, and the locality where the bird was 
taken was a brackish marsh known as ‘The Dyke,’ about two miles from 
the city, near the mouth of the Presumpscot River.— Henry H. Brock, 
Portland, Me. 


Auk 
Jan. 


So General Notes. 

Baird’s Sandpiper in Maine.— During the autumn of 1895 I made but 
two visits to the seashore and shot but seven Peeps, yet I secured two 
Baird’s Sandpipers (Zringa batrdiz). I passed the forenoon of Sept. 7 on 
Scarborough Beach, where I found less than a dozen Peeps and shot only 
five. Four of these were Semipalmated Sandpipers, the other was a Baird’s 
Sandpiper. On Sept. 141 went to the beach again. In walking the entire 
length of it,— perhaps a mile and a half,—I saw but three Peeps. One 
of them escaped me. The others were shot together, and proved to be an 
Ereunetes and a Baird’s Sandpiper.— NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, Poré- 
land, Me. 


Baird’s Sandpiper at East Hampton, Long Island, N. Y.—On Sept. 
17, 1895, a Baird’s Sandpiper (7ringa bairdit) was shot at East Hamp- 
ton, Long Island, N. Y., and another bird of apparently the same species 
escaped. A Semipalmated Sandpiper was with them.—C. WHEATON 
VAUGHAN, Wew York City. 


The 1895 Migration of Charadrius dominicus in Massachusetts.— 
Nantucket Island. The prevailing wind on August 13 was N. W.; on 
the 14th, east; on the 15th, 5. W.; onthe 16th, S. E.; on the 17th and 18th, 
S. W.; on the 19th, north; 20th, N. E. and N. W.; 21st, N. W.; 22d, N. E. 
to N. W.; 24th, west; 25th, N. E.; 26th, east; 27th, 28th, and 29th, N. W. 
The weather during the entire migrating period was pleasant with absence 
of storms or high winds. As a result these birds undoubtedly passed 
many miles outside of us, and only a few scattering Golden Plovers 
landed. On August 24 it was foggy outside the island with fresh 
southwest wind. The first Golden Plovers of the season were observed 
on this date, a flock of five at the west end of the island, flying towards 
the west. Two other single birds were seen at the eastern end of the 
island. On August 31 I saw a lone Golden Plover, and on September 1 
a flock of four, one of which was shot, this being the first one taken 
this season. Later in the day four others were shot, three of which 
were young birds. In all twenty-four Golden Plovers were seen. On 
September 9 a flock of forty Plovers were seen at the west end of the 
island. ‘This flock was also seen at the east end, and was probably the 
only flock on the island. On September 19 I saw seven Plovers in a 
certain preserved field near the centre of the island. I also saw three 
others, one of which was a young bird. These a friend and I shot. I 
heard of a small bunch of Plovers having been sent up trom ‘Tuckernuck 
on this date, but I did not see them. Up to September 15 only one 
Golden Plover had been taken on Tuckernuck Island. 

Not an Eskimo Curlew (Vumenius boreal’s) has been seen as tar as 
I have been able to learn this season. I have made repeated inquiries 
in the large Faneuil Hall Market in Boston, but have tailed to learn of 
any Eskimo Curlew, and of but a few Golden Plover which had been 


Vol. XIIL 
1896 


General Notes. SI 
taken on Cape Cod and at Ipswich, Mass. This meagre record is all 
I have to report for the season of 1895.—GEORGE H. Mackay, Nantucket, 
Mass. 


Habits of the Valley Partridge.— While collecting birds and mammals 
on the upper head of the San Diego River, near Lakeside, San Diego 
- County, California, on June 6, 1895, I walked unsuspectingly upon a bevy 
of Valley Partridges (Callipefla californica vallicola), consisting of an 
old male and female with about fifteen young ones. They were in acrevice 
of a fallen cottonwood-tree. On my stepping almost upon them, the male 
bird ran out afew feet and raised a loud call of ca-ra-ho; while the female 
uttered short calls, addressed to her brood. Seeing me, she picked up a 
young one between her legs, beat the ground sharply with her wings, and 
made towards the bush, in short jumps, holding the little one tightly 
between her legs, the remainder of the brood following her. 

Can any reader of ‘The Auk’ tell me if this isa common practice with 
this species?—FRANK XAvieER HoLzNer, San Diego, Cal. 


Additional Records of the Passenger Pigeon ( Ectopistes migratorius) 
in Wisconsin and Illinois.—I am indebted to my friend, Mr. John L. 
Stockton, of Highland Park, IIl., for information regarding the occurrence 
of this Pigeon in Wisconsin. While trout fishing on the Little Oconto 
River in the Reservation of the Menominee Indians Mr. Stockton saw, 
early in June, 1895, a flock of some ten Pigeons for several consecutive 
days near his camp. They were first seen while alighting near the bank 
of the river, where they had evidently come to drink. Iam very glad to 
say that they were not molested. 

Mr. John F. Ferry of Lake Forest, Ill., has kindly notified me of the 
capture of a young female which was killed in that town on August 7, 1895. 
The bird was brought to him by a boy who had shot it with a rifle ball, 
and although in a mutilated condition he preserved it for his collection. 

I have recently received a letter from Dr. H. V. Ogden, Milwaukee, 
Wis., informing me of the capture of a young female Pigeon which was 
shot by Dr. Ernest Copeland on the 1st of October, 1895. These gentle- 
men were camping at the time in the northeast corner of Delta County, 
Mich. (Northern Peninsula), in the large hardwood forest that runs 
through that part of the State. They saw no other of the species.— 
RUTHVEN DEANE, Chicago, /11. 


The Golden Eagle in New Jersey.— Authentic records of the recent 
occurrence of the Golden Eagle (Aguzla chrysaétos) in the Eastern States 
are so rare that each one seems worthy of note. The following instance 
happened in New Jersey, on the Crosswicks Creek, about seven miles 
south of Trenton. The bird was captured by my friend the Rey. W. E. 
Daw, now of Towanda, Pa., in the late fall of 1888, as near as can now be 
ascertained. I append part of a recent communication received from him 
in regard to the Eagle, in answer to my note of inquiry for particulars 


Luss 


82 General Notes. ee 


Jan. 


regarding it. Efforts made to obtain more accurate information trom the 
taxidermist as to the exact date of capture have entirely failed. 

“In regard to the ‘bird of freedom’ my memory is very rusty as to the 
time when it was shot, but the place I remember distinctly. I was sitting 
in my boat up Crosswicks Creek, quietly waiting for squirrels in the chest- 
nut woods of Alfred Reid (I being somewhat hidden by the bushes to 
which the boat was tied), when the Eagle sailed overhead, and was about 
to light in a tree when I fired a charge of duck shot and broke his wing 
near the shoulder. He fell in the water and was floating down stream 
when I fired squirrel shot in his head and he was still. I have looked up 
my diary but can find no record of the date when I shot him, but think 
it was late in the fall in 1888; time of day, about five o’clock. The bird is 
still in my possession. He measured 6 feet 4 inches from tip to tip. Iam 
positive he is a Golden Eagle for he is feathered to the toes and has the 
characteristic arrow-head teathers on head.’ —WILLIAM C. BRAISLIN, 
Brooklyn, N. VY. : 


The Golden Eagle in Maine.—On August 19, 1895, Professor F. L. 
Harvey of the Maine State College and myself were making the ascent of 
Sandy River Mountain in northwest Maine. When we had nearly reached 
the summit of the mountain, we heard the cry of some raptorial bird, and 
a Golden Eagle (Aguila chrysaétos) soon appeared and flew around us 
uttering its cry. We remained at the top of the mountain for some time, 
during which the Eagle remained in our vicinity and seemed much 
disturbed at our presence. We both concluded that the bird had young 
somewhere in our vicinity, and as the south side of the mountain was a 
steep cliff, there is no reasonable doubt but that the bird had a nest 
somewhere on the cliff. When it uttered its cry we could hear answering 
cries from the direction of the cliff, thus making it evident that the bird 
had young in the vicinity.x—OraA W. Knicut, Bangor, Maine. 


A New Long Island, N. Y., Record for the Red-bellied Woodpecker 
(Melanerpes carolinus).— When visiting Mr. C. DuBois Wagstaff at Baby- 
lon, N. Y., last fall, I noticed a well-mounted specimen of this southern 
Woodpecker among a collection of local birds, and on inquiring the par- 
ticulars of its capture, Mr. Wagstaff informed me that he shot it upona 
locust tree close to the house, a year or two after the war. A specimen 
was shot by me in Flushing, N. Y., in October 1870, which I understood 
was the second record for Long Island, N. Y., but this bird antedates my 
specimen some years. The specimen in the collection of Mr. Geo. N. 
Lawrence, which was taken at Raynor South by a Mr. Ward, was killed 
many years ago and was, I believe, the first record for this locality— 
Ropert B. LAWRENCE, Wew York City. 


The Deltoid Muscle in the Swifts.— In examining a number of Swifts 
recently I was struck with the fact that our common Chimney Swift 
(Chetura pelugica) \acks the deltoid muscle. This is interesting as being 


or 1 General Notes. 83 


another instance of the specialization of the Switts along various lines, 
and also as showing the’structural variation among different members of 
the group. In Alacropteryx the deltoid is well-developed and arises from 
‘two heads as in the Passeres. In Cyfselocdes, Micropus, Collocalia, and 
Tachornis, the deltoid is single and reduced in size, being proportionally 
-smallest in Zachornis. Finally, as stated above, the deltoid is quite absent 
in Chetura @elagica, this being a step beyond what is found among the 
Hummingbirds, where the deltoid is present though small. It would be 
interesting to know if other members of the genus Chetura lack the 
deltoid, and also what is the condition of this muscle in Hemcprocne. 

Dr. Shufeldt’s figure of the wing muscles of Chetura (Linn. Soc. 
Journ. Zool. XX, pl. 22, fig. 29) shows that he too found this muscle 
absent, although nothing is said about it in the text. 

I would be extremely grateful to any one for alcoholic specimens of 
Hemiprocne or any species of Chetura save pelagica—F. A. Lucas, 
Waskington, D. C. 


The Scissor-tailed Flycatcher in Virginia and Maryland.— My friend, 
Mr. P. Henry Azlett, of Azlett, King William County, Virginia, recently 
sent me for identification an adult specimen of this bird (A&/vulus forfi- 
catus) which was shot by a farmer near that place on August 31, 1895. 
The bird is in poor, half moulted condition. This is, I believe, the fourth 
record of this bird for Virginia, and it is of course possible that some or 
all were escaped cage birds. The late Mr. O. N. Bryan of Bryan’s Point, 
Maryland, on the Potomac River just below Washington, once told me 
that in August of a year about the close of the war while he was in a deep 
ravine near his home, called Johnson’s Gully, he was overtaken by a 
severe storm, and saw one of these birds which had evidently sought the 
seclusion of the same place for shelter.— WILLIAM PALMER, Washington, 
Ib} (Ex 


The Raven in Illinois.— 1 wish to place on record the capture of a speci- 
men of Corvus corax principals, at Mendosia, Il., Oct. 23, 1892. I was 
at that time making a collection of birds for the State, and was living with 
the crew of the United States Fish Commission. The bird had been seen 
for a week or more previous to this time, flying about Lake Mendosia, a 
body of water opening into the Illinois River. The lake is seven miles 
long and three quarters of a mile wide. A number of attempts had been 
made by market shooters to obtain the bird for me, but they could not get 
within gunshot, and so were unsuccessful. 

One day, however, as I was passing through a herd of cattle, the bird 
flew very low and I obtained it with a charge of number five shot. The 
specimen, a female, had been feeding upon carrion, and the odor from the 
body was as disagreeable as that from Cazhartes aura. The plumage is 
exceptionally fine; the body is deep blue black; from the secondaries to 
the primary coverts, the color is rich brownish bronze. The following 


Auk 
Jan. 


84 General Notes. 
measurements were taken: extent of wings, 4 feet 3 inches; length, 23 
inches; tarsus, 2.20; tail, 10.00; culmen, 3.00; lanceolate feathers of 
throat, 2.70. 

The specimen was sent to Mr. Ridgway for positive identification, and~ 
is, so far as known, the only C.c. prénctfalzs captured in Illinois. The 
specimen is now in the collection of the Chicago Academy of Sciences.— 
FRANK M. Woopruvrr, Chicago, il. 9 


The Ipswich Sparrow.—A Correction.— Dr. Jonathan Dwight, Jr.’s, 
interesting monograph of the Ipswich Sparrow! brings into prominence 
a boyish and ill-advised note on this bird which I published in the ‘ Bul- 
letin’ of the Nuttall Ornithological Club (Vol. H, pp. 27, 28). I regret 
that I have left the note so long unexpunged; but it is not too late to 
mend the matter, and I withdraw the record now.— NATHAN CLIFFORD 
Brown, Portland, Me. 


Second Occurrence of the Lark Sparrow in Virginia.— While collecting 
on the ‘Dry Isaacs’ (one of the sandy islets on the ocean side of Cape 
Charles) on August 24, 1895, I flushed from the grass an immature male 
Chondestes grammacus, which after considerable trouble, owing to its 
wildness, I secured. —WILLIAM PALMER, Washington, D. C. 


The Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) in the Maritime Portions 
of South Carolinaw—On September 13, 1895, I shot an adult male Cape 
May Warbler from the top of a live-oak tree. It was in company with 
many other Warblers, all being busily engaged searching for insects. 
The next day I procured another male which I shot from the same tree. 
Previous to this date there was much stormy weather accompanied with 
heavy rain which lasted for eight days. The Cape May Warbler is a 
very rare bird in the maritime districts of South Carolina, and these two 
are the only individuals which have ever been taken on the seaboard.— 
ARTHUR T. WAYNE, Mount Pleasant, S. C. 


The Carolina Wren in Connecticut.—While collecting in a grove about 
five miles from Bridgeport, April 20, 1895, Dr. E. H. Eames and the 
writer found two Carolina Wrens (Tkryothorus ludovictanus) occupied 
in running about a stone wall. On June 13, we found both old birds and 
shot two young ones. The young, which had probably been out of the 
nest a week, had only a faint chirp and were not as active as the adults.— 
H. H. Taytor, Bridgeport, Conn. 


The Red-breasted Nuthatch (S7#ta canadensis) on Long Island, South 
Carolina.—I shot a beautiful adult male of this Nuthatch within ten yards 
of the front beach on November 14, 1895, on Long Island, S.C. It was 


Memoirs of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, No. II. Cambridge, Mass., 
August, 1895. 


Mae yy General Notes. 8 5 


about one o'clock p. M., when, as I was sitting on some drift wood where 
the tide was ‘coming in, I heard just over me kink, hink, hink. 1 had 
never heard this note before but I remembered Audubon’s description, 
and truly there was the Red-breasted Nuthatch, which I had looked for 
in vain for twelve years, directly over me. There were two of them. 
The male I secured, but the female, which I badly wounded, I could not 
find. This species has never been taken in the maritime districts before, 
but has been recorded from Chester County, and my friend Mr. Ellison 
A. Smyth, Jr., shot one many years ago in Clarendon County. I have 
seen Mr. Smyth’s bird andI beleive it was recorded in ‘Random Notes 
on Natural History. — ArrHuR T. WAYNE, Mount Pleasant, S. C. 


The Dwarf Thrush in Colorado. A specimen of the Dwarf Thrush 
(Turdus aonalaschke) was taken October 6, 1895, at Magnolia, a small 
mining town some eight miles west of Boulder, Colorado. This is the 
first record of the species for this State. To make sure of the identifi- 
cation the bird was sent to Mr. Ridgway, who pronounced it a typical 
example of this species.— U. A. SpraGurE, Boulder, Col. 


Food of Woodpeckers and Flycatchers.— Southern Calitornia seems 
well adapted to the birds of the family Picide. [have been at Claremont, 
Los Angeles County, less than two years, and have had little time to 
work with birds, yet I have secured the following species: Dryobates 
villosus harristt, Nenopicus albolarvatus, Sphyrapicus ruber, Sphyrapicus 
thyroideus, Melanerpes formictvorus batrdit, Melanerpes torquatus, and 
Colaptes cafer. In the stomach of all these I have found insects, and 
often more or less bark. Melanerfes formictvorus bairdii has the habit 
of storing acorns in trees, presumably for future use as food. They 
gather the acorns and place them in holes which have been previously 
chiseled out by use of their bills. I have heard reliable observers state 
that they have frequently seen them eating these acorns during the 
winter months. Sphyrapicus ruber is the Sapsucker of southern Cali- 
fornia. It taps fruit trees, especially prune and apricot, and evergreens. 
Its mischief seems much more serious than that of its congener of the 
East, as trees are frequently killed by reason of its punctures, although 
these latter are more distant and less numerous. I never knew a tree to 
be killed by the Sapsuckers in Michigan. The evil in California is 
wrought in summer when the dry season has enfeebled the tree, and this 
is a possible explanation of the more serious harm to the trees of this 
region. 

I have also been interested in the species of the family Tyrannide. I 
have taken at Claremont and the adjacent cafions the following species: 
Tyrannus verticalis, Tyrannus voctferans, Mytarchus ctnerascens, Sayor- 
nis sayt, Sayornis nigricans, Contopus borealis, Empidonax pusillus, and 
Empidonax difficilis. \n the stomach of all these were found insects; but 


86 General Notes. Auk 


Jan. 


twice I found a strange exception to the usual food of the birds of this 
family. In two cases I found green olives in the stomach of Zyrannus 
verticalis, and in nearly all birds of the common species Sayornis nigri- 
cans, killed in winter, I have found pepper berries. Tyrannus verticalis 
is the Bee-martin of California. It flies from its perch near the apiary, 
captures its prey, then flies back to its perch, making some rapid motion, 
after which it swallows the bee. I have seen a toad swallow five bees 
in quick succession; then have killed the toad to find five bee stings 
sticking to its throat, and as many stingless bees in its stomach. Does 
the throat of the Kingbird become a sort of pin-cushion for bee stings, or 
does this bird extract the stings as it manipulates the bee before swallow- 
ing? I am eagerly waiting to settle this interesting question. I have 
taken worker bees from the stomach of the eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus 
tyrannus) but never noticed regarding the disposition of the stings. 
None of the Kingbirds which I have taken in California have had bees in 
their stomach, though I am told by good observers that this bird does 
capture and swallow bees.— A. J. Cook, Claremont, Cal. 


Rare Visitors to the Connecticut River Valley in Massachusetts in 
1895.— Seiurus motacilla—On the 28th day of July, a Louisiana Water 
Thrush was found dead, on the piazza of a house in the central part of 
Springfield, undoubtedly having been killed by flying against a window. 
The capture of a specimen by Dr. J. A. Allen on Mount Tom in April, 
1869, is the only other record of its occurrence here. 

Rallus elegans.— October 19, a young King Rail was taken in Long- 
meadow. It was found in the Z7zania aquatica which grows so profusely 
along the banks of the Connecticut River. The presence of this species 
in this part of the valley, I believe, has never before been noted; and 
the Clapper Rail (adlus longirostris crepitans) has been captured here 
but twice. 

Calcarius lapponicus.— A Lapland Longspur was shot in Longmeadow, 
November 28.— RosBert O. Morris, Springfield, Mass. 


A Correction.— In ‘ The Auk’ for April, 1892 (Vol. IX, p. 144), in a 
note on the ‘ Habits of the Black-bellied Plover in Massachusetts,’ I stated 
it as my conviction that the adults do not assume the gray and white 
winter plumage after having attained to the full adult spring plumage. I 
also expressed the same opinion in regard to the plumage of the adudt¢ 
Knots in ‘The Auk’ for January, 1893 (Vol. X, p.32) in ‘ Observations 
on the Knot, 7rizga canutus. I now desire to withdraw both of these 
opinions, as I am inclined to doubt, although not yet cer¢tazn, the correct- 
ness of such views, but believe it much better to so state, rather than let a 
probable error remain to misguide others.— GrorGE H. Mackay, Wan- 
tucket, Mass. 


ee General Notes. 87 


Notes on Long Island Birds.— Melospiza lincolni.—In the Parkville 
woods along the edge of a thicket, a small, active sparrow was seen on 
the morning of Sept. 28, 1895. A recent moderate fall of temperature 
made the morning an animated scene of bird-migration, and this bird 
would hardly have attracted attention among many other small birds had 
it not been for his alert and ill-at-ease manner. This fact alone led me to 
think him not a Song nor a Savanna Sparrow, either of which he might 
readily have been mistaken for. He made no sound by means of which 
aid could be gained in his identification, but stood on the horizontal 
limb of a small tree, with jerking tail and erected occipital feathers, as 
though resenting the gaze of an intruder. It proved a Lincoln’s Sparrow. 
The specimen is an adult female. 

Vireo gilvus.— On the morning of Sept. 16, 1895, while on the Boule- 
vard just beyond Prospect Park, Brooklyn, I was attracted by a sustained 
melodious warble, which for the moment I was unable to place, but which 
I afterward remembered having been tormerly fairly familiar with in 
New Jersey as the supposed song of the Warbling Vireo. I had never 
verified this supposition as it had always been heard in the shade trees of 
village streets. In this case the bird was in one of the outer of the four 
rows of shade’ trees which extend the length of the Boulevard. At my 
approach it flew into one of a cross row of maple trees, about forty yards 
from that in which it had first been heard, where it was secured. It 
proved to be an adult male Warbling Vireo—a bird which on Long 
Island I had often searched and listened tor in vain. For some reason, 
this bird on Long Island is either rare or often overlooked. The latter 
seems the less likely in that its song is very characteristic, as well as 
being one of the sweetest, and most apt to attract attention of all our 
singing birds. Its song isa refrain of trilled notes, varying up-hill and 
down in harmonious modulations, with only the merest pause between 
each ettort of, it must be, twenty-five or thirty notes. 

Helminthophila peregrina.— On the same morning on which the 
Lincoln’s Sparrow was obtained (Sept. 28, 1895), and but a few minutes 
later, a specimen quite as rare was captured; namely, the Tennessee 
Warbler. This bird was in the woods and when first seen was on the 
ground, from whence it flew into the low pendant branches of a tree, about 
four feet from the ground. No bird-note that I could identify as his was 
heard. The specimen is an adult male. 

Dendroica tigrina.— At Canaisee Village, Sept. 12, 1894, a Warbler of 
rather obscure markings was taken in the edge of a little grove of trees 
which stands back but a few yards from the salt-grass meadows. This 
and a male Black-throated Blue Warbler were seen in the lower branches 
of a thickly foliaged tree overhanging a heavy undergrowth of blackberry 
brambles and tall weeds. It was rather carelessly labeled as a Magnolia 
Warbler, which, of course, it does not in the least resemble. It was 
rediscovered and my diagnosis of it as the Cape May Warbler was kindly 
verified by Mr. Chapman. The specimen is an adult female. 


88: General Notes. Auk 


Jan. 


Dendroica castanea.— In the outskirts of the village of Flatbush, now 
a part of Brooklyn, on the morning of Sept. 24, 1895, a number of 
Warblers, chiefly Black-polls, was seen in a row of shade trees, not far 
from the Boulevard. Among them was a Bay-breasted Warbler, which 
was secured. It is an immature male with the buffy markings on the 
sides well developed.—WILLIAM C. BRAISLIN, Brooklyn, N. Y. 


Nantucket and Muskeget Island Notes.— Falco sparverius.— Nan- 
tucket, Sept. 22, 1895, I observed eight American Sparrow Hawks, in 
pairs, migrants; none noted before this season. Usually see a few about 
this time. 

Asio accipitrinus.— Muskeget Island, June 2, 1895. Mr. John R. Sands- 
bury informs me that he discovered the nest of a Short-eared Owl on the 
northeast side of the island containing three young birds in the down. 
The nest was placed at the foot of a bunch of beach-grass (Ammophila 
arundinacea) and partially concealed. It was raised about four inches 
above the sand; only one old bird was seen, it having been frightened 
off the nest. On July 7 Mr. Sandsbury and I saw one adult bird. 

Symphemia semipalmata.— Nantucket. On May 2, 1895, Mr. Charles 
E. Snow informed me he saw five Willets at the Hummock Pond. 

Totanus solitarius.—In the vicinity of the Hummock Pond, more 
Solitary Sandpipers have been noted this season than for a number of 
years. On Aug. 29, 1895, one female was taken; on Sept. 9, three more; 
Sept. 10, another; on Sept. 29, I saw still another. They were formerly 
quite abundant, but are now scarce. 

Ereunetes occidentalis.— Aug. 29, 1895. Four birds taken at the Hum- 
mock Pond, three of which proved on dissection to be females. These 
are the only ones I have observed here. 

Macrorhamphus scolopaceus ?— Aug. 29, 1895. A male bird (by dis- 
section) was taken at the Hummock Pond. This being a young bird of 


the year, it is next to impossible to cerfaznly identify it. MW. griseus 
is not uncommon here, but this is the frs¢ instance in which I have 
taken what I suppose to be JZ. scolopfaceus. 

Micropalama himantopus.— On Aug. 29, 1895, a female was taken at 
Hummock Pond. On Aug. 31,1 shot another at the same place. This 
pond is a very large one. On Aug. 29, with some friends, aided by a 
horse and scoop, I dug a trench to the ocean, thereby draining it, hoping 
that the margins thus exposed would offer an inducement for some of 
the migrants to tarry. 

Oidemia deglandi.— Sept. 28, 1895. Avery large tlock of White-winged 
Scoters were observed on the edge of Squash Meadow Shoal. 

Larus argentatus smithsonianus.— Muskeget Island, Novy. 1, 1895. 
The very large increase in the number of Herring Gulls in this vicinity 
has been remarked by all; nothing similar has been observed for years. 
The northeast point of Muskeget, as also the shoals about Gravelly 
Island, are covered with them in the morning, indicating that they 
roost there.— GEORGE H. Mackay, Wantucket, Mass. 


Bae a General Notes. 89 


Gatke’s Birds of Heligoland.—No work since the days of Audubon 
has come to my notice which has interested me to the same extent as 
this wonderfully instructive book. One reason for this is that the 
knowledge I have acquired regarding some of our birds has been gleaned 
during my long experience as a sportsman on the Atlantic seaboard. (It 
is now many years since I learned that the most successful way of secur- 
ing birds is through a knowledge of their habits.) I cannot therefore 
fail to recognize and appreciate how dwarfed become the observations of 
the ordinary observer in comparison with the life work of Mr. Giatke, 
who has for half a century so patiently gathered the tacts he now sets 
before the ornithologists of both continents. It seems impossible to 
read Gitke’s book without being impressed with the importance of his 
many years of painstaking research, and his originality and boldness of 
thought. As Dr. Coues has rightly written in his review of this book in 
the last number of ‘The Auk’ (Vol. XII, p. 322), 1895: “There is no 
Heligoland but Heligoland, and Gitke is its prophet.” It is nevertheless 
equally true that all of the statements contained in this work cannot be 
accepted as facts, as far as they relate to North American birds. For this 
reason I desire to call the attention of American readers of the book, as 
well as others, to certain of the author’s claims regarding some American 
birds which he.refers to in illustration of certain of his statements. I do 
this with the ‘greatest deference. 

On page 16, five lines from the foot of the page, we read: ‘* When one 
thinks of numbers of individuals such as these, which cannot be grasped 
by human intelligence, it seems absurd to talk of a conceivable diminu- 
tion in the number of birds being effected through the agency of man.” 
In North America, such a statement, in my opinion, can scarcely be 
assented to, as witness the destruction of American Golden Plovers 
(Charadrius dominicus). Eskimo Curlews (Mumenius borealis), and 
Bartramian Sandpipers (Bartramta longicauda), as also other species, 
in the Mississippi Valley during the spring migration to their northern 
breeding grounds. Also witness the fabulous quantities of eggs of the 
Water-birds taken in the far Northwest, as also on the Northeast coasts of 
North America. 

On page 44 he says: “ We have stated in the course of this chapter 
that birds perform the journey from their winter quarters to the breeding 
stations, if possible, in one uninterrupted flight.” In North America, as 
far as my observation shows, the reverse is the case with some of the 
Water-birds. The American Golden Plovers, Eskimo Curlews, Bartra- 
mian Sandpipers, and Black-bellied Plovers (Charadrius squatarola) all 
linger in the Mississippi Valley, and the last named on the Atlantic 
coast, on their way to their breeding grounds. 

On page 51, in writing of Diving Ducks, etc., he says: “ All these birds 
when alive and undisturbed (as also do their carcases) float so lightly on 
the water that they scarcely make any noticeable depression in it.” I 
have always regarded the three varieties of Scoters (Ozdemta americana, 


12 


go : General Notes. fen 
O. deglandi, O. perspicillata), the American Eider (Somateria dressert), 
Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax dilophus), Canvas-back Duck 
(Aythya vallisneria), and Loon (Urinator imber), as well as some others, 
as noticeably deep swimmers, and not very buoyant when dead and 
floating. 

On page 69: “The distance between the coasts of the two countries 
{Labrador and northern Brazil}, amounts to three thousand two hundred 
geographical miles, and since there is along this whole stretch of route 
not a single point on which the travellers could alight for rest, they are 
obliged to perform the whole length of this enormous journey in one 
uninterrupted flight.” After coming down from the shores of the Arctic 
Ocean and the region above forest growth, their breeding home, the 
American Golden Plovers (as do also the Eskimo Curlews) collect in the 
vicinity of Labrador, where they rest a while, becoming very fat. From 
there they set out on their prolonged southern migration, steering boldly 
out to sea after leaving Nova Scotia. I believe they can, under favorable, 
conditions, make the entire distance to their objective point, the Argen- 
tine Republic and Patagonia, in practically one flight, but if during such 
passage they require rest, they can easily obtain it by alighting on the 
ocean. This they do, being good swimmers. Neither are they exceptional 
in this respect, many others doing the same. As an instance in illustra- 
tion one of my shooting acquaintances while fishing one day about three 
miles off the coast of Massachusetts observed a flock of a dozen or fifteen 
Pectoral Sandpipers (Zynga maculata) passing; on whistling to them 
they abruptly turned from their course in response to his call, and flying 
towards his boat, whirled up into the wind and alighted on the ocean. 
After swimming around a short time they arose without effort, and, each 
bird giving its feathers a shake, proceeded on their way. ° 

On page ro, he quotes Palmen as saying: “ Direct observations in nature 
have yielded the result that among flocks of migrants the older and 
stronger individuals are in general the leaders of the migratory host” ; 
and adds: ‘He [Palmen] could not, however, have begun the treatment 
of this question with a more unfortunate assertion; tor there is no one 
who has ever made observations which might support this view.” I have 
made observations for a good many years on the Atlantic coast of 
North America, and I have particularly noticed many times during the 
migration northward of the Surf. Scoters (Ovdemta ferspicillata) in 
April, that many of the larger flocks of fifty to one hundred birds, are led 
by a full plumaged adult drake. The white markings on the head and 
neck, highly colored bill, and glossy black plumage render a mistake in 
identification unlikely. 

Page 102, he thus formulates his conclusions on this subject: “1. That 
under normal conditions in the case of the three hundred and ninety-six 
species occurring here, with the exception of a single one, the autumn 
migration is initiated by the young birds, from about six to eight weeks 
after leaving their nests. 2. That the parents of these young individuals 


eee. Ht General Notes. gI 


do not follow till one or two months later.” Taking the American 
Golden Plover again as an illustration, I must say that without a single 
exception my observations show results directly opposite, the adults 
always preceding the younger birds, usually from one to three weeks. 
It is not unusual for the adults and young to migrate together, but I have 
no knowledge of the young arriving first on the New England coast. A 
few examples from my note book may not be out of place. On the night 
of Sept. 11, 1889, amidst rain, fog, and southeast wind. Eskimo Curlews" 
and Golden Plovers, with a few young birds of the latter, landed on Nan- 
tucket Island, Massachusetts. On August 25, wind fresh south by east, 
and night of the 26th, 1892, there was a large flight of adult American 
Golden Pioyers (the second large flight of this month), some two hun- 
dred and seventy-five of which were shot. It was not until September 1 
that the first young bird of the season was noted; the first flock (about 25 
birds) was noticed on September 3, two of which were shot. On Septem- 
ber 15, I noticed two flocks of young birds containing thirty and twenty- 
five birds respectively. The larger flock, after mounting high up in a 
spiral way and circling, headed southwest on migration. There was not 
one black and white breasted bird in that flock, and this goes to prove 
that these young birds can, if necessary, migrate by themselves. But 
according to my observations, most of the flocks of young birds that land 
on the island of Nantucket while on their southern migration (they never 
return via the Atlantic coast in the spring) contain one or more adults, 
that is, until /z¢e in the season and the old birds have passed by, at which 
time we find few, if any, adults in the flocks with the young birds. Neither 
do the young birds seem to care to join at this later date with the adults, 
if there are any living in the vicinity. On September 11, 1894, I shot 
eleven young birds, the first noted that season. They must have landed 
the previous night, as all those previously seen were black and white 
breasted birds, of which I shot fifteen on the 27th of August. In 1888, up 
to September 8, a friend and I had shot seventy-three black and white 
breasted birds, but did not see a young bird until that date. Onthe night 
of September 24 or 25, 1882, over one thousand young Golden Plovers 
(Palebellies) landed on Nantucket Island during a northeast rain storm. 
I shot forty-nine of them the next day. Not a single black and white 
breasted bird passed me that day, nor did I hear of one being shot. I 
instance this out of regard for Mr. Gitke’s view, that the young birds can 
and do migrate by themselves. I might give many more instances of the 
case in point, but they would be only repetitions with other dates. 

Again, page 471, with reference to his statements respecting Charadrius 
sguatarola, 1 may say that with us, the adults arrive first in the middle 
of July, while it is not usual to see more than scattering young birds 
before the first week in September (see Auk, Vol. X, p. 79). Again (see 
Gitke, page 499), the adult Knots (7rzmga canutus) with us precede the 
young, the former appearing during the latter part of July, the young 
from the latter part of August to September to. 

( 


Auk 
Jan. 


92 Correspondence. 


On this coast, as far as I know, the adults of the Eskimo Curlew 
(Numenius borealis) arrive first. I merely mention it, as this bird is very 
closely allied to the Whimbrel (Mumentus Phwopus) (see Gatke, page 
460). This is also the case with the Hudsonian Curlew. 

Judging from the twenty-five years’ shooting experience of one of my 
friends at one of the larger fresh water ponds in Massachusetts, where the 
shooting of Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) has been made a specialty, 
it appears that they migrate in broods. It makes little difference how 
many birds may be travelling in company, for on alighting in the pond 
(unless in very stormy weather) they separate, each gander and goose 
with their young keeping together, the gander leading. . 

My observations in relation to rate of speed and length of flight lead 
me to believe that under very favorable conditions, such as flying before 
a very strong wind, such birds as the American Golden Plover and 
Eskimo Curlew for instance, will attain a speed of one hundred and fitty 
to two hundred miles an hour. It is consequently not inconceivable to 
me that under such favorable conditions they are able to reach the Argen- 
tine Republic or Patagonia in one flight, or with a possible rest on the 
ocean. Hence I cannot regard a flight, under favorable circumstances 
across the Atlantic ocean, as any great hardship to many of our birds.— 
GeorGe H. Mackay, Wantucket, Mass. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


The Soaring of Birds and Currents of Air. 


To THE EpiTors oF ‘THE AUK’: — 


Dear Strs,— Allow me to call the attention of ornithologists to the 
following question in which ornithology and meteorology join hands. 

In recent years, wind vanes have been devised to indicate the vertical 
component of the wind’s motion, and it has been shown that there is a 
significant variation in the strength of this component in various kinds 
of weather. It has long been known that the diurnal variation of wind 
velocity on land was due to local conyectional ascending and descending 
currents, these varying greatly at different times and places, according to 
the nature of the land surface, the strength of sunshine, etc. 

In recent years, attention has frequently been called to the importance 
of vertical currents in air movement as an aid in the flight of birds, 
Professor Langley’s studies being perhaps the most important in this 
direction. 


ae Notes and News. 93 

Now the question that I should like to have jointly considered by 
ornithologists and meteorologists, is whether there is a correlated varia- 
tion in the flight of soaring birds and in the activity of local convectional 
movements, or other vertical movements. Do soaring birds float for a 
longer time without flapping wings in weather when convectional ascend- 
- ing currents are indicated, or in localities where disorderly ascensional 
currents, prompted by irregularity in the land surface, may be expected? 
A pair of observers, one attending to the behavior of birds, the other 
following out the processes of the winds, might perhaps discover some 
interesting correlations in this field of study. The work might be 
commended to semi-invalids, who are sent South in search of mild 
weather and gentle occupation. Could anything be more genially lazy 
than lying on one’s back in the sun, and counting the turns of a Turkey 
Buzzard? 

Very truly yours, 
W. M. Davis, 


Cambridge, Mass. 
November 3, 1895. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Tuomas HENRY HuxLry, an Honorary Member of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, died June 29, 1895, at his home in Eastbourne, 
England, in the 71st year of his age, having been born at Ealing, Middle- 
sex, England, May 4, 1825. His early education was obtained partly at 
home and in part ‘‘at the semi-public school at Ealing, of which his 
father was one of the masters.” In 1842, he entered the medical school of 
Charing Cross Hospital, and in 1845 passed the first M. B. examination at 
the University of London. The following year he joined the medical 
service of the Royal Navy, and was soon after assigned to the post of 
assistant surgeon to H.M. 5S. ‘Rattlesnake,’ which sailed from England 
late in the year 1846 for a surveying cruise in the Southern Seas, and 
thence around the world, returning to England in 1850. In recognition of 
his scientific work during this voyage, he was elected in June, 1851, a 
fellow of the Royal Society. He left the naval service in 1853, and in 
1854 was appointed naturalist to the Geological Survey, and also made 
professor of natural history in the Government School of Mines, which 
latter position he occupied till 1885. From 1863 to 1869 he was Hunterian 
professor at the Royal College of Surgeons. He was president of the 
Geological Society of London in 1869 and 1870, president of the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science in 1870, and of the Royal 


94 Notes and News. Auk 


Jan. 


Society in 1883. Between 1870 and 1885, when impaired health compelled 
his retirement, he filled numerous government positions, including, from 
1881 to 1885, that of Inspector of Salmon Fisheries. 

To quote from Professor Haeckel’s memorable notice of Professor 
Huxley’s work, published in 1874 (Nature, IX, Feb. 5, 1874, pp. 257, 258) : 
‘Indeed if at the present we run over the names distinguished in the 
several sciences into which Natural Knowledge may be divided — in 
Physics, in Chemistry, in Botany, in Zoology—we find but few investi- 
gators who can be said to have mastered the whole range of any one of 
them. Among the few we must place Thomas Henry Huxley, the dis- 
tinguished British investigator, who at the present time justly ranks as 
the first zoologist among his countrymen. When we say the first zoolo- 
gist, we give the widest and fullest signification to the word * zoology’ 
which the latest developments of this science demand. Zoology is, in 
this sense, the entire biology of animals; and we accordingly consider 
as essential parts of it the whole field of Animal Morphology and Physi- 
ology, including not only Comparative Anatomy and Embryology, but 
also Systematic Zoology, Paleontology and Zoological Philosophy. We 
look upon it as a special merit in Prof. Huxley that he has a thoroughly 
broad conception of the science in which he labors, and that, with a most 
careful and empirical acquaintance with individual phenomena, he com- 
bines a clear philosophical appreciation of general relations. 

“When we consider the long series of distinguished memoirs with 
which, during the last quarter of a century, Prof. Huxley has enriched 
zoological literature, we find that in each of the larger divisions of the 
animal kingdom we are indebted to him for important discoveries. From 
the lowest animals, he has gradually extended his investigations up to 
the highest, and even to man. His earlier labors were, for the most part, 
occupied with the lower marine animals, especially with the pelagic organ- 
isms swimming at the surface of the open sea. . . . But it is the com- 
parative anatomy and classification of the Vertebrata which, during the 
last ten years, he has especially studied and advanced. . . . After Charles 
Darwin had, in 1859, reconstructed this most important biological theory, 
and by his epoch-making theory of Natural Selection placed it on an 
entirely new foundation, Huxley was the first who extended it to man, 
and in 1863, in his celebrated three Lectures on ‘ Man’s Place in Nature,’ 
admirably worked out its most important developments. With luminous 
clearness, and convincing certainty, he has here established the funda- 
mental law, that, in every respect, the anatomical differences between man 
and the highest apes are of less value than those between the highest and 
the lowest apes.” 

Huxley’s work on birds may be regarded as an incident in his general 
work on the morphology and classification of Vertebrates, although 
his contributions to ornithological literature place him in the front 
rank among investigators of the affinities and relationships of the various 
groups of birds to each other, and of birds as a class to other Vertebrates ; 


Vol. XIII enna 
1896 Notes and News. 95 


for in the ordinary sense of the term Huxley was not an ornithologist. 
As early as 1864 he marshalled birds with reptiles under one grand divi- 
sion, or ‘ province’ of the Vertebrata under the name Sauropsida, opposed 
on the one hand to the Mammalia, and on the other to the Ichthyop- 
sida, consisting of fishes and amphibians. His principal and epoch-mak- 
- ing ornithological memoir appeared in 1867, entitled ‘On the Classifica- 
tion of Birds; and on the Taxonomic Value of the Modifications of certain 
of the Cranial Bones observable in that Class’ (P. Z. S., 1867, pp. 415— 
472, with 36 figs. in text; see also Ibis, 1868, pp. 357-362). This was 
followed in 1868 by his important paper ‘On the Classification and 
Distribution of the Alectoromorphe and Heteromorphe (P. Z. S., 1868, 
pp- 294-319, with a map and 16 figs. in text). These two papers may be 
considered as his principal special contributions to the literature of 
ornithology. While a synopsis of these papers is perhaps uncalled for 
in this connection, it is of interest to note the insistence — then a novel 
idea — here made (P. Z. S., 1867, p. 415) ‘‘ that in all the essential and 
fundamental points of their structure” birds so nearly approach reptiles 
‘* that the phrase ‘ Birds are greatly modified Reptiles’ would hardly be an 
exaggerated expression of the closeness of that resemblance.” Professor 
Huxley’s classification, as is well known, was based primarily, and, in 
case of many of the minor groups, almost solely on the palatal structure, 
thus giving prominence to an unquestionably important set of characters 
previously almost overlooked. As is inevitably the case with any classi- 
fication based on a single set of characters, the allocations here and- 
there are bound to be more or less unnatural, and Huxley’s scheme is not 
an exception. Yet the importance of his memoirs can scarcely be over- 
rated, and their influence has been far-reaching. 

In common with most of the learned societies of the world, the Ameri- 
can Ornithologists’ Union has honored itself in its attempt to show 
respect to Professor Huxley by enrolling him in its list of Honorary Mem- 
bers,—as much perhaps in recognition of his eminent attainments in all 
fields of biological research as in the special field of ornithology. 

Any notice of this great man would be reprehensibly incomplete with- 
out some further reference to his wonderful influence upon the scientific 
thought of his time, and his rare gifts as a writer and lecturer. In his 
battles for evolution he has upheld unflinchingly what he believed to be 
scientific truth, and with a boldness and efficiency that has no parallel. 
As a fitting conclusion to this brief notice may be added the following 
selections from his own words: ‘‘To promote the increase of natural 
knowledge and to forward the application of scientific methods of inves- 
tigation to all the problems of life to the best of my ability, in the con- 
viction which has grown with my growth and stréngthened with my 
strength, that there is no alleviation for the sufferings of mankind except 
veracity of thought and of action, and the resolute tacing of the world as 
it is when the garment of make-believe by which pious hands have 
hidden its ugliest features is stripped off. 


gO Notes and News. Auk 


Jan. 


“Tt is with this intent that I have subordinated any reasonable, or un- 
reasonable, ambition for scientific fame which I may have permitted 
myself to entertain to other ends; to the popularization of science; to 
the development and organization of scientific education; to the endless 
series of battles and skirmishes over evolution; and to untiring opposition 
to that ecclesiastical spirit, that clericalism, which in England, as every- 
where else, and to whatever denomination it may belong, is the deadly 
enemy of science. 

‘‘TIn striving for the attainment of these objects, I have been but one 
among many, and I shall be well content to be remembered, or even not 
remembered, as such.” 


Mr. Henry SEEBOHM, an Honorary Member of the American Orni- 
thologists’ Union, died at his home in London, Nov. 26, 1895, after a 
short illness, although he had been in weak health since an attack of 
influenza some six months previously. According to a recent notice 
in the London ‘ Times,’ Mr. Seebohm ‘‘ came of an old Quaker family, 
and was born at Bradford, in Yorkshire, where as a child he showed an 
extraordinary love of natural history, and used to study every kind of 
animal which was to be met with on his father’s property. He was edu- 
cated at the Friends’ Schoolat York, where his love of nature still showed 
itself in the collections of ferns, birds, and their eggs, which he began to 
make at the time. For many years afterwards he was immersed in busi- 
ness at Sheffield, where he became very successful as a steel manufacturer ; 
but all through his business struggles he never lost his attachment for 
ornithology, and made short expeditions to various parts of Europe to 
gain an original experience of the habits of birds for his ‘ History of 
British Birds,’ which he had in contemplation. In the course of these 
studies he visited most of the countries of Europe, Greece, Asia Minor, 
Russia, Norway, Denmark, Heligoland, many parts of Germany and 
Austria, the Engadine, Holland, and parts of France. In company with 
Mr. J. A. Harvie-Brown he undertook, in the summer of 1875, his cele- 
brated expedition to the valley of the Lower Petchora, in northern 
Russia, in quest of the eggs of the Gray Plover and the Little Stint, both 
of which they managed to find, though they did not succeed in discovering 
the eggs of the Curlew Sandpiper. In 1877 he went alone to the valley of 
the Yenisei, in Siberia, and again obtained important ornithological 
results. On this occasion his ship was wrecked, and he built another, 
which he named the ‘Ibis,’ and in which he successfully returned to 
England by the North Cape.” 

In addition to numerous important papers in various scientific journals, 
Mr. Seebohm is the author of several monographs and faunal works of 
high value, among which are his ‘Catalogue of the Turdide’ (1881), 
forming Volume V of the British Museum Catalogue of Birds'; ‘ A His- 


' Cf. Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, VII, pp. 99-104. 


Vol. XIT1 
1896 


Notes and News. 97 
tory of British Birds’ (2 vols., 1883-84)'; ‘ The Geographical Distribution 
of the Charadriide, or the Plovers, Sandpipers, Snipes, and their Allies’ 
(4to, 1888)°; ‘The Birds of the Japanese Empire’ (1 vol. Svo, 1890)3; 
‘Classification of Birds: an attempt to diagnose the Subclasses, Orders, 
Suborders, and some of the Families of existing Birds’ (1890).1 His two 
chief works of travel—‘ Siberia in Europe’ and ‘ Siberia in Asia’— have 

‘attained well-merited popularity, on account of the interest of the regions 
visited and the pleasant manner in which the narratives are presented. 

Mr. Seebohm was an earnest and original investigator and a vigorous 
and at times a somewhat aggressive writer. He was also untrammeled 
by precedents and traditions, which to some extent detracted from the 
utility of his work, but on the other hand gave him an independence that 
favored the development of new lines of thought and the adoption of new 
methods. 


Mr. Henry T. WHARTON, a Corresponding Member of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, died recently at his home in Hants, England. 
Mr. Wharton was a well-known expert on British birds, an important 
list of which was published by him in 1877. Mr. Wharton was also Sec- 
retary and General Editor for the B. O. U. Committee, appointed in 1878 
to draw up a list of British Birds, which was finally published in 1883. 
Mr. Wharton not only acted as editor, but contributed the etymological 
notes relating to the scientific names. 


WE REGRET to learn that Volume II of Major Bendire’s ‘ Life Histories 
of North American Birds,’ although in type since last July, is not likely 
to be issued for several months, owing to delays in the Government 
Printing Office at Washington. 


Two courses of ornithological lectures are to be given as the third 
series of Biological Lectures at Columbia College, New York, during 
January 1896, the courses being respectively by Mr. Frank M. Chapman, 
Assistant Curator of Ornithology in the American Museum of Natural 
History, and by Professor C. Lloyd Morgan, F. R.S., of University 
College, Bristol, England, author of ‘ Animal Life and Intelligence.’ The 
courses will consist of four lectures each, and will be given in the Hall of 
the Academy of Medicine, 17 West 43d Street at 5 p.m. on Tuesdays and 
Fridays. Mr. Chapman’s course will be on ‘ The Distribution, Migration, 
Nesting, Colors, and Structural Adaptations of Birds,’ and will occur 
on January 7, 14, and 28, and February 4. Professor Morgan’s course 
is entitled ‘The Instincts of Birds in Relation to Habit and Inheritance,’ 
and will be given on January 10, 17, 24, and 31. ‘Tickets for the two 
courses may be procured at the College offices or at the Biological 
Department of the University. 


1 Cf. Auk, II, pp. 88-91. 3 Jbid., VILL, pp. 99—-10r. 
2 [bid., V, pp. 189-194. 4 Cf. Ibis, 1890, pp. 379-381. 


98 Notes and News. a 

THE KENT ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB was reorganized at Grand Rapids, 
Mich., on Dec. 12, 1895, under the name of ve Michigan Ornithological 
Club. The following officers were elected for 1896: A. B. Durfes, Presi- 
dent; R.R. Newton, Vice-President; W. E. Mulliken, Secretary; Prof. 
C. A. Whittemore, Treasurer; Leon J. Cole, Librarian. 

The Club will take up a systematic study of the birds of the State and 
it is hoped all Michigan ornithologists will address the Secretary, 191 
First Avenue, Grand Rapids, Mich., for particulars at once. 


AT THE Thirteenth Congress of the A. O. U. Mr. William Dutcher, in 
behalf of the ‘Committee on Protection of North American Birds,’ stated 
that the same precautions had been taken during the breeding season of 
1895 as in 1894, regarding the protection of Terns on Great Gull Island, 
New York. A special game protector had been employed, several of the 
Natural History Societies of New York City contributing toward the 
payment of his salary. Absolutely no shooting had been done and parties 
who visited the island during the summer were prevented from collێcting 
eggs. As Great Gull Island is the property of the United States Gov- 
ernment it will always be a breeding ground for Terns, if properly 
protected. The number of birds now in the colony on this island was 
estimated at 3500 —a large increase from the previous year. Mr. Dutcher 
thought that the numerous cottages now built and being erected on all 
portions of the New York coast would prevent the Terns from again 
nesting there. 

Mr. William Brewster said that the Terns on Muskeget Island, Mass., 
had increased from year to year, the result of protection. No birds had 
been shot on or near the island the past year and very few eggs had been 
collected. A notable increase was seen also in the colony of Laughing 
Gulls at the same place. Great credit is due Mr. Geo. H. Mackay for his 
continuous efforts in saving the Gulls and Terns on this island from 
destruction. 

Mr. Witmer Stone knew of only one colony of Terns on the New Jersey 
coast. As the birds nested back in the meadows and away from the 
coast, it was difficult to protect them, but he did not think they decreased 
in numbers. In recent years the ‘eggers’ (so-called) had destroyed 
immense numbers of the eggs of the Clapper Rail which nested in favor- 
able localities along the coast of New Jersey. This Rail had increased 
the past season, as game wardens had watched the meadows and arrested 
several marauders. 

Mr. Leverett M. Loomis remarked upon the wholesale destruction of 
birds and their eggs on the California coast during 1895. 

A new ‘Committee on Protection of North American Birds’ was 
appointed, as follows: William Dutcher (Chairman), Ruthven Deane, 
Witmer Stone, Leverett M. Loomis, and Geo. H. Mackay. 


isis AOE, VO, SUI PEAE Ne 


ne 
CL) 1 
We eh 
ooh RR Be LE iB ig) 
2 ANY. 04 4? 
te 4 4 nie. A if r fy Z 
4,7 Oy" 8, is “a Wy 


a! Naja all Se ani ' tow ; a3 i 5 ’ 7] " 
ee aa ‘Roatygie? em, Dadi oes x UAHA) fi 


oa 
sie ty ee 


sg 


A.Hoen & Co.Lithocaustic, Baltimore 


FLORIDA BURROWING OWL. 


EEO AU TS : 
FOG A RINE RY JOURN AL Ou 


ORNLETOLOGY. 


RAO SINT: APRIL, 1896. NO. 2. 


ON THE FLORIDA GROUND OWL (SPZOTYTO FLORI- 
DAWA ). 


BY WILLIAM PALMER. 
Joi MOE ’ 


UNIQUE, even among the many unfamiliar birds that a northern 
visitor sees in Florida, it is not strange that this bird should be 
always known, wherever it is found, by the distinctive appellation 
that I have used above and not by the usual d002 name of Bur- 
rowing Owl. 

The habitat of the species lies some distance off the usual course 
of tourist travel, and to visit their haunts one has to tramp many 
miles over otherwise very uninviting prairie ; thus few visitors to 
Florida have ever seen the birds, and even among the residents 
very little information can be obtained regarding its distribution 
and habits. 

The Ground Owl is found in varying degrees of abundance 
throughout the central prairie portion of the southern half of the 
State, from Lake Kissimmee southward through the Kissimmee 
Valley. Westward its range extends as far as the prairies 
allow, even in the southwestern portion, to the vicinity of salt 
water. In some localities they are quite common, while elsewhere, 


Auk 


TOO PALMER, Zhe Florida Ground Owl. oe 


where the conditions are apparently similar, few or none can be 
found. 

Of the bird but little concerning its habits has been written ; 
few naturalists having had the opportunity of seeing it alive, and 
then only for a very limited time. Mr. S. N. Rhoads,! Mr. 
W. E. D. Scott,? and Mr. Walter Hoxie? are the only writers who 
have recorded any extended experience with the species. Some 
additional information is also given by Major Bendire.* 

During March of last year, in company with Mr. Robert Ridg- 
way and Mr. E. J. Brown, I collected a series of these owls from 
about the central part of the western bank of Lake Kissimmee 
and on both sides of the Kissimmee River in Polk and Osceola 
Counties to near Fort Kissimmee in De Soto County. No eggs 
were found, our last date for collecting the birds — March 20 — 
showing several burrows nearly finished. 

Upon comparing the papers of Messrs. Rhoads and Scott vari- 
ous contradictions and agreements regarding their observations of 
the local habitats and habits of these birds will be noticed. They 
appear each to have found the birds in quite different situations, 
hence the differences between their observations. My own journey 
took me over both kinds of ground mentioned by these writers, 
and I am thus enabled to agree with both as to the correctness 
of their statements and to present something additional. Both 
writers, Mr. Rhoads especially, have given very interesting and 
perfectly correct descriptions of the peculiar topography of the 
region inhabited by these birds, and I shall content myself by 
adding but slightly to their accounts. 

My first meeting with these birds was on the evening of Feb- 
ruary 26. While walking at dusk toward camp on the sand ridge 
bordering the shore of Lake Kissimmee, I noticed an owl standing 
near the mouth of a burrow placed about the center of the ridge 
and less than thirty feet from the lake shore. Almost at the same 
moment I saw another, its companion, flying low and alighting on 


1 Auk, Vol. IX, Jan., 1892. 

* Auk, Vol. IX, July, 1892. 

1O.'&O., Vol. X1Vi,1889;;p-933: 

‘Life Histories of N. Am. Birds, No. I, 1892, p. 400. 


ee PaLtmMeER, Zhe Florida Ground Owl. 1OI 
the short grass ‘a little way out on the prairie. I secured both 
birds and they proved to be a pair. No others were seen at the 
time and there was only one burrow at the place. Shortly after 
daylight the next morning, I again visited the spot, and secured 
another pair which I surprised out of the same burrow. The 
female of this pair is a very dark bird in fine unworn and unfaded 
plumage, much darker than any of many specimens subsequently 
secured (No. 150,150, U.S. N.M. Coll.). A few hundred yards 
up the same ridge and above our camp, Mr. Ridgway secured 
three pairs from about five burrows. All these burrows were 
placed at about the center of the highest and dryest parts of the 
ridge and were within forty paces of the lake shore. The highest 
parts of the ridge were hardly four feet above the lake level. 

Mr. Scott says!: “The highest parts of the open prairie, away 
‘from the wooded ‘islands,’ the sloughs and ponds, seemed to be 
the places chosen by the birds for their burrows. I found none 
nearer than a quarter of a mile to any pond or slough.” Again 
he says : “ The situation of a burrow was always high, dry ground, 
and where there was some considerable growth of a kind of huckle- 
berry.” He thus found none in low wet places. Rhoads found 
all his burrows in entirely different situations; as he says,”*in the 
“margins of flat, grass-grown sand, of varying width, between the 
swamp.and the saw palmettoes, and extending indefinitely in the 
direction of the stream.” I found burrows and secured birds in 
both kinds of places mentioned by these gentlemen. 

The Kissimmee Valley region is used almost entirely as cattle 
ranges, and in order to decrease the abundance of dead grass and 
other undesirable vegetation, and at the same time to increase the 
possibility of a new growth of grass for the cattle, the cowboys 
frequently, as the wind allows, set fire to the prairies in many 
places. Thus during our entire visit we could always see fire or 
smoke at several points on the horizon. It thus naturally happens 
that when the sandy areas of the prairies are a little higher and 
thus drier than the surrounding parts, these frequent fires prevent 
almost entirely any vegetation from taking root on such places. 
’ Auk, Vol. 1X, 1892, p: 217. 

2 [bid.,-p- 4. 


[ Apn 


round Owl. 


> 
7 


PALMER, The Florida G 


102 


‘VaINOTY ‘AAATY AAWWISSIS YVAN STMQ, GNNOUL AO ANOTOD V AO NOILVOOT ONIMOHG WY YOVICG, 


puay ssuip 
ybnors 
Ss sv.b y bi H 


wes! 
ta 
Y, Xs ae: ae athe 44 > - : = es 


Vol. XIII 


1896 PatMER, The Florida Ground Owl. 103 


These irregular patches of open sandy areas are found in various 
parts of the prairies but always on the higher ground, though 
I must confess that these last words seem out of place when 
describing a country where one can travel many miles without 
noticing a three foot rise of the ground. Such more elevated 
‘ground, when originally overgrown with saw palmettoes, are the 
usual burrowing places of foxes and skunks. The burning drives 
out these animals to more secluded quarters, and thus, as I believe, 
in time the Ground Owls take possession of their burrows. As 
the bareness of such places increases, other burrows are dug by 
the owls, thus accounting for the various shapes and sizes of 
these excavations. The strong odor of the mammals in some 
burrows from which I had just driven the owls, and their size as 
compared with burrows undoubtedly dug by the birds themselves 
convinced me of these facts. Within a few feet of some burrows 
was a Shallower one but a foot or two deep, while about one I 
noticed a dozen or more shallow depressions, possibly the dusting 
places of Quails. 

The commonest and I believe the original burrows of the 
Ground Owls are placed, as described by Mr. Rhoads, in the low, 
wet, grassy areas between the edges of the sloughs and ponds and 
the margins of the prairies. Such suitable breeding grounds 
extend for many miles, are rarely more than a few hundred yards 
wide, and follow the contour line of very high water. The 
diagram will show the character and general shape of these 
places. It is drawn from memory of a place near the Kissimmee 
River in Osceola County, where my friend Brown and myself 
secured eleven owls out of the burrows represented. On the left 
is an extensive prairie of scrub saw palmetto interspersed with 
open areas of grass and ponds with here and there at long inter- 
vals an ‘island’ or ‘hammock’ composed of two or more cabbage 
palmettoes, live oaks and gums separately or mixed, scattered or 
densely crowded, and sometimes growing in the water, but usually 
on a little elevation surrounded by a ring of water. At intervals 
through this prairie are the drier elevations before mentioned. 
At the edge of the prairie are many round ‘islands’ of saw pal- 
mettoes, from five to about fifty feet in diameter, and perhaps 
four to eight feet high. On the right, at a slightly lower level, 


Auk 


104 PaLtMER, Zhe Florida Ground Owl. Apel 


are many circular shallow ponds, usually a hundred or more feet 
in diameter, while beyond is the slough, extending irregularly 
parallel with the edge of the prairie. 

Between the ponds and the palmetto ‘islands’ is the line of 
very high water, an almost flat sandy area densely carpeted with 
very short grass. About the center of this grassy area are the 
burrows of the owls, and here we found them in different stages 
of completion and at very irregular distances. At intervals off- 
shoots of this grassy area extend irregularly into the prairie, and 
usually contain one or more burrows at or near their centers; in 
fact it is usual for the owls to locate at a spot about equidistant 
from the surrounding taller vegetation. In February these grassy 
flats are very wet, and many of them contain water, but as the 
water rapidly lowers by drainage and evaporation, the owls select 
a location and excavate in the wet sand. One place visited on 
March 4 contained water. On March 15, I secured a pair of birds 
from a new and unfinished burrow placed near the center and 
lowest part. The birds also undoubtedly re-use old burrows as 
was shown by the new deposits of sand on the old hills and 
through which grass was growing. That the owls dig out their 
own burrows here is very evident. Many examined on March 20 
were in various stages of construction, some just begun, others 
fully excavated, while a few were finished, as was evidenced by 
the presence of pieces of dry cow droppings, grass roots and other 
rubbish in the tunnels and about the entrances of the burrows. 
Owing to their situation, the high water of the rainy season floods 
to some extent the sites of these burrows so that the owls are 
only able to inhabit the locality as the waters are receding. ‘This 
flood line is shown by the debris of washed up grassy matter, and 
is indicated onthe diagram. Thus at our visits the bottoms of 
the burrows were in very wet sand; indeed, owing to the flatness 
and the heavy dews, even the surface sand is very damp. As the 
season advances the burrows become drier and exactly suit the 
conditions necessary for the purposes of the birds. The rubbish 
carried into the excavation also tends to improve its habitable 
qualities. That the birds were pairing and seeking suitable 
breeding grounds during our visits is shown by the fact that 
several times when we secured one or both of the occupants of 


ee PaLtMER, The Florida Ground Owl. 105 
a burrow, in a few days (in one case the same night) it was again 
reoccupied bya pair. Where the owls spend the time between the 
close of one breeding season and the beginning of another, I am 
unable to say. That they withdraw from their summer quarters 
is evident from the statements of people living in the vicinity. 
Mr. Rhoads, in his paper cited before, says on page 6: “ Every 
action of this species bespeaks a bird of eminently diurnal habits, 
but I have no reason to believe that they cannot range with equal 
freedom at night. From the nature of their food, however, I con- 
clude they are more active in the daytime.” Mr. Scott says also 
in his paper, page 218: “For I believe these birds to be strictly 
diurnal, doing most of their hunting, however, in the early morn- 


’9 


ing and evening.”” As these gentlemen visited the haunts of these 
owls at the height of the breeding season, when many of the 
burrows contained young, the old owls were evidently forced by 
the demands of their numerous progeny to hunt in the daytime. 
In no instance did we find an owl away from the burrows except 
when frightened off by ourselves. Also I cannot agree with Mr. 
Rhoads that from the nature of their food they are more active 
in the daytime. All the stomachs examined contained remains of 
crayfish and beetles, which are certainly not animals whose season 
of activity is the daytime. In the tunnel of one burrow I found 
some feathers of a Savanna Sparrow. In the scratchings from 
the burrows, especially the old ones, minutely broken remains of 
crayfish were abundant, and in some cases we found about the 
mouths of the burrows what were certainly pellets, consisting of 
crayfish and beetle shells somewhat broken up. The nature of 
the material, containing no hair or feathers to bind it together, 
accounts for the rarity of pellets and for the abundance of the 
~ scattered remains in and about the tunnels. 

Most writers mention that the male usually keeps watch at the 
mouth of the burrow and on the appearance of an intruder warns 
his mate with a low note of alarm. This was our invariable 
experience. My own observations convinced me that in every 
instance at the time of our visits to the owls (usually in the mid- 
dle of the morning), the female was in the burrow while the male 
stood guard in the tunnel at the entrance. Upon slowly and 
quietly approaching a burrow, which could always be distinguished 


14 


106 PALMER, The Florida Ground Owl. Avr 
by the hillock. of usually white sand at one side, the first seen of 
its occupants was the upper part of the head of one bird intently 
gazing in our direction. Upon.a nearer approach a second head 
appeared at the burrow side of the first watcher while he moved 
up a little higher. Getting nearer they would move up more and 
more, when suddenly the first one, the male, would fly off for per- 
haps thirty yards. The female would remain a little longer and 
would sometimes run out of the tunnel and take a position facing 
us on the opposite side. If we remained stationary both birds 
would continue together, watching us intently as long as we stood 
unmoved, but it was always the first watcher that showed the 
most discretion by putting distance between himself and us upon 
our closer approach. In whichever direction they alighted they 
would instantly turn and, facing us, bow with the utmost gravity 
once or several times, as has been well told by Mr. Rhoads in his 
paper. If followed and flushed they usually returned to the 
burrow or some other, but rarely re-entered them unless wounded. 
In one instance a bird seeing the struggles of its mate flew directly 
into the burrow and disappeared, but an hour afterwards was found 
again on watch. A few of the male birds becoming alarmed would 
fly off into the palmettoes and hide, hence we collected more 
female than male birds. We saw no birds at work; possibly the 
female excavates the burrow while the male removes the accumu- 
lation of sand to the hillock. I doubt if any work is done while 
the sun is high. 

That the males watch all day in the tunnels is perhaps shown 
by a comparison of the plumage of the sexes. Laying my series 
of skins in two rows, backs up, each row containing but one sex, 
it is noticeable at once that the females are much darker than the 
males (sepia brown!) and show extremely little buffy color on the 
back and wings. The males, on the contrary, are lighter colored 
(olive with a very slight yellow wash'). A few of the darker 
males approach the paler females in tint, but the darker wings and 
breast markings of the females readily serve to distinguish the 
sexes. Several specimens collected by Mr. Brown are quite 
blackish, but this was evidently caused by the birds having sought 


'Ridgway’s. Nomenclature of Colors, 


megeees PatMER, Zhe Florida Ground Owl. 107 
out beetles, etc., in the newly burnt prairie. Nearly all of the 
males and but few females show wearing of the outer edges of the 
secondaries and tips of the primaries and also of the wing-coverts. 
This wearing of the feathers is evidently caused by abrasion with 
the sides of the tunnel, and as the male spends most of his time 
during the day within the narrow limits of the tunnel, and perhaps 
has frequent cause for moving, it is but reasonable to suppose that 
his plumage should be more abraded, which is found to be the 
case upon comparing our specimens. ‘This habit of the males of 
standing guard in the tunnels undoubtedly results ina bleaching of 
the plumage. The darkest and finest plumaged birds that we col- 
lected are all females, while the lightest colored and most worn and 
dingy specimens are all males. 

There is some difference between the statements of Messrs. 
Scott and Rhoads regarding the direction in which the burrows 
open. Those found by us had no regular direction, but more 
perhaps opened to the westward than to any other point, which 
was perhaps due to the ground sloping slightly that way. In the 
diagram (p. 102) the location of a colony of owls is shown by the 


SA 
ROY ; 
YN 

AS i ‘ 
AYN \\WWW es 
UU wes 
“tdVive® 


burrows being marked as a black spot, the lines radiating on one 
side representing the direction in which the scratched out materials 
have been piled. Ina few I have indicated the shape and direc- 
tion of the burrow as examined by us. The distance from the 
first to the last burrow, as shown on the diagram, is about half a 
mile. Nearly all the burrows were occupied by a pair of 
birds, and were in various stages of completion, though none 


108 PALMER, The Florida Ground Owl. me 
contained eggs. ‘The birds had evidently selected such a situation 
not only for ease of digging, but also for ease of observation 
against their natural enemies, skunks, rattlesnakes and such like. 
All burrows found except one had no vegetation except short 
grass immediately about the tunnel. This exception had on one 
side several tall, thin clumps of bunch grass. The burrows 
represented in the diagram may, in a sense, be said to form a 
community, though by using this expression I do not intend to 
convey any idea that these owls are really gregarious. Usually a 
community or colony contains about three to six burrows, and 
generally they are from thirty to over one hundred yards apart, 
though occasionally two will be found about fifteen or twenty feet 
from each other. Occasionally, also, a burrow will be seen ata 
considerable distance from any other, and again, many miles may 
intervene between colonies; in short, the birds seem to require 
peculiar conditions of environment, as indicated above, and also to 
have in slight degree some gregarious feeling, which leads them 
to locate with their fellows if there is adequate room. 

A comparison of the color of the feet of thirteen specimens, all 
collected at the same place and at the same time, presents consid- 
erable contrast. In about half of them the feet and lower portion 
of the tarsi were uniformly dark and but slightly paler beneath. The 
remainder showed a variety of changes from one which had the 
feet and lower third of the tarsi a dullish lemon yellow to the 
other extreme in which the yellow was confined to the soles. As 
this color is evanescent it does not show in dried specimens. 

My use of a binomial name for this bird requires perhaps some 
explanation. A comparison of about sixty specimens of /orzdana 
with an equal number of Aypfog@a shows them to be distinct. As 
the habitat of the Florida bird does not approach that of ypogea 
nearer than about eight hundred miles, and is also separated 
from its relatives in the West Indies and South America by vast 
areas of water, and as intergrading forms are unknown, I see no 
good reason why floridana should not rank as a species. 

Again, as the use of a trinomial implies direct relationship with 
the specific form, through known intermediate and intergrading 
specimens, which certainly do not exist in this case, I can see no 
reason why florzdana should be made a subspecies of the South 
American cunicularia, 


ea Lucas on the Tongues of Birds. 109 


THE TAXONOMIC VALUE OF THE TONGUE IN BIRDS. 
BY FREDERIC A. LUCAS. 


A RECENT paper of mine on the tongues of Woodpeckers con- 
cluded with the statement that “altogether the evidence favors 
the view that (external) modifications of the tongue are directly 
related to the character of the food, and are not of value for 
classification.” Dr. Allen, in noticing this paper in ‘The Auk’ 
for October, 1895, says: ‘“‘Granting that the facts are as stated, 
we are reluctant to agree with Mr. Lucas’s conclusions, for on the 
same grounds we should have to rule out of the list of taxonomic 
characters any structural feature adaptively modified to special 
modes of life, and these involve, in a more or less marked degree, 
every part of the organism.” 

In writing thus, Dr. Allen has drawn attention to what is per- 
haps the greatest of the many difficulties which beset the ambitious 
taxonomist who would venture upon the classification of birds, 
since, as Dr. Allen says, every part of a bird’s organism, whether 
external or internal, bears marks of modification for some purpose. 

Consequently it is practically impossible to use in classification 
those characters alone which are due to morphological variations, 
but it is a truism that those characters which rest on a good mor- 
phologic basis should have precedence over those which are solely 
due to adaptation to some particular purpose. Now it is by no 
means easy to certainly discriminate between these two things 
for a physiological adaptation may be of such long standing as 
to have taken on the guise of structural modification. Thus the 
absence of a keel to the sternum, the openness of the angle formed 
by the scapula and coracoid, and the fusion of these last two bones 
are all secondary characters, and yet they have been accorded 
a high, if not the highest, rank in classification. 

To illustrate the extent to which adaptive features may obscure 
the relationships of a bird, it may be worth while, for the benefit 
of the younger readers of ‘ The Auk,’ to recall that on the evidence 
of the tibia Owen put Cvemzornis with the Moas, while Parker, 
guided by the sternum, assigned it a place near the Rails. Each 
of these eminent anatomists was led astray by purely adaptive 


Auk 


IIO Lucas on the Tongues of Birds. April 


characters, the development of the legs of this great goose being 
due to its terrestrial habits, while the abandonment of flight had 
led to the degeneration of the shoulder girdle and the consequent 
‘cutting away and smoothing down of its various prominences, 
causing an appearance of relationship where none existed. 

If habit can thus influence the deeper and more substantial 
parts of the body, it is only natural to expect that more super- 
ficial, softer structures would yield still more readily to external 
influences and adapt themselves to the requirements of daily life. 
Among such parts is the tongue, which in the majority of birds 
is so intimately concerned either in the getting of food or in its 
subsequent manipulation. Just here it will perhaps be best, in 
sporting parlance, ‘to hedge’ a little and to say that I have made 
only a beginning, and a small one at that, in the study of the 
tougue of birds, and that I am quite ready to retract my statements 
in the face of better evidence. At the same time the testimony 
so far is so completely on one side that it does not seem probable 
that evidence in rebuttal will be forthcoming. Let it be recalled, 
too, that it was the ex/erna/ modifications of the tongue which 
were considered to be due to adaptations to food or feeding. 
As for the hyoid, its modifications, slight though they are, appear 
to be partly adaptive and partly morphological. For example, 
while the tongues of Woodpeckers vary immensely in length, and 
in the extent and character of their barbs and horny papille, 
their underlying hyoids agree in the fusion of the cerato-hyals, 
the complete absence of a basi-branchial, and the fact that the 
basi-hyal does not extend to the cerato-branchials! which abut 
squarely upon it. This last might appear a good morphological 
character were it not apparent that this mode of attaching the 
cerato-branchials to the basi-hyal is the best possible in a tongue 
which is used as a spear or probe. And yet we find the same 
condition in the short tongue of the Rhea, and it is hard to see 
the adaptation in this case. Also there are many birds, obviously 
not closely related, whose hyoids are similar, so that we are forced 
to the conclusion that the value of the hyoid for classification is 
not very great, and that it must be used with caution. 


'« These be hard words, my masters,” but unavoidable. 


Lucas on the Tongues of Birds. TEE 
Coming finally to the tongue! we would expect, if my conclusion 
were correct, to find a pretty constant relation between the shape 
of the tongue and the nature of the food, to find the same general 
style of tongue in birds belonging to different groups but eating 
the same kind of food, and, conversely, to find that birds 
undeniably closely related might have quite different tongues. 
The simplest tongues are naturally found in those birds which 
use them least. In the big-throated Pelicans and Cormorants which 
bolt their food whole, they are rudimentary, while in fish-eating 
or flesh-eating birds, they are quite simple. The various groups 
of Ducks which differ as to their diet possess corresponding 
differences in the pattern of their tongues. The Canada Goose 
has a rather simple, flattened tongue, slightly barbed along the 
edge, while the fish-eating Red-breasted Merganser has the 
serrations on its slender beak matched by a series of sharp, 
reverted, horny barbs on the slender tongue, whose obvious 
purpose is to help in holding and swallowing slippery prey. The 
Teal and other species of more varied diet, which eat a multi- 
plicity of little things, such as seeds, snails and worms, have a 
thick, fleshy tongue with several series of slender projections of 
various degrees of fineness, serving the double purpose of a rake 
and a sieve. The Honey-eaters have tubular and truly suctorial 
tongues, formed by the upturning of the edges until they lap, 
being so closely pressed together that it is a difficult matter to 
part them. The Meliphagidz, the Drepanididze and members of 
the genus Cwreba (formerly Certhio/a) have a brushy tongue which 
probably serves to collect pollen, nectar and small insects from 
the bottom of flowers, and the flower-frequenting Parrots of the 
genus Zrichoglossus also have a brushy tongue. In the Ducks 
then we have a variation in the tongue keeping pace with a 
variation in the bill of fare, while in the brush-tongued birds just 
noted we have a similarity of tongue correlated with similarity 
of food or method of obtaining it. A still better instance of 
similarity of tongues in widely separated birds, and one in which 


'T would like here to express my indebtedness to my friend, Mr. William 
Palmer, for his kindness in supplying me not only with much material, but 
information on many points regarding the food and habits of birds. 


TET 72 Lucas on the Tongues of Birds. el 


there seems to be no call for any special adaptation, is that shown 
by the Swifts and Swallows. Structurally these birds are very 
dissimilar! ; the pterylosis, skeleton, muscles and digestive tract 
of each group has its own distinctive features, and yet their 
tongues are almost identical, as a glance at the figures (p. 114), 
where the tongues speak for themselves, will show. More than 
this, the only Trogon’s tongue I have examined is also much like 
that of the Swallows,” and those of Sayornis and Ampelis are not 
far removed, so that were birds classified by their tongues all these 
would be placed near one another. Surely the similarity of all 
these can scarcely be due to kinship. 

On the other hand, the species of the genus Melospiza 
exhibit very considerable differences in their tongues, that of 
Lincoln’s Sparrow being perfectly plain and that of the Song 
Sparrow the most elaborately fimbriated I have yet met with 
among thick-tongued birds. The tongue of the Swamp Sparrow 
is intermediate between the two, though most resembling that of 
the Song Sparrow. Two specimens of J/e/ospiza georgiana are 
shown, the simpler being from a fresh specimen with a much 
worn tongue, the other from an alcoholic with a very perfect 
tongue, and the difference between them is striking, though 
probably entirely due to wear. I hardly venture the suggestion 
that the covering of the tongue is regularly moulted, although 
such may be the case, but it is certainly subject to great 
changes caused by use. The Woodpeckers have been treated 
at some length elsewhere, and it is only necessary to repeat that 
among them the relation between food and tongue seems obvious. 


‘IT do not know whether or not Dr. Sharpe is quite serious when he ex- 
presses a wish that some competent anatomist would point out the differences 
between the Swifts and Swallows, but although I might hesitate to call myself 
a “competent anatomist,” I can readily point out these differences, and would 
do so most willingly. 


2 It would be unfair not to point out that there is a decided difference 
between the tongue of Prote/ws and that of the others figured. What may 
be called the primary lateral barbs of Pyzote/us are single, while in the other 
birds they are double ; moreover, in Przote/ws the primary barbs are overlaid by 
a second series of smaller barbs, while in the Swifts and Swallows all barbs 
start from the same level. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Lucas on the Tongues of Birds. 113 


All Hummingbirds examined by me, or those whose tongues have 
been described by others, have identically the same style of 
tongue, and the members of this wonderfully homogeneous group, 
so far as I am aware, feed on the same kind of food and take it 
in the same manner. If any Hummingbird is known to depart 
widely from his brethren in the character of his food or method 
of taking it, I venture to say that his tongue will also be found 
~to have some peculiarity. 

The facts herein noted are few in number and our knowledge 
of the tongues and food of birds is far from complete, but, to sum 
up, what conclusions do we seem justified in drawing from the 
evidence so far advanced ? 

If we were to be guided by the tongues as they are found in 
our North American Woodpeckers, we might say that while they 
are clearly modified according to food or habits, yet they have a 
certain taxonomic value, since, in spite of their varied adaptations, 
it is still possible to recognize each and every one as the tongue 
of a Woodpecker. If, on the other hand, we based our conclusions 
on the Swifts and Swallows we would be justified in saying that 
the tongue is of no value since birds belonging to totally differ- 
ent orders may have precisely the same kind of tongue. Noting 
the differences that exist between the tongues of Spinus tristis, 
Passer domesticus, Loxta, Habia, and Melospiza, we would be 
forced to conclude that the tongue gives no hint even of family 
affinities, while a study of JZe/ospiza would cast doubts even on its 
generic value. 

But if we find that differences in the tongues of closely related 
birds are correlated with differences of food, and that birds widely 
separated by structure, but of similar habits, have similar tongues, 
and if we find that many tongues of peculiar form seem to bear a 
direct relation to the nature of the food, I think we are warranted 
in concluding that the evidence favors the view that modifications 
of the tongue are directly related to the character of the food and 
are not of value for classification. 


15 


te 


Lela Lucas on the Tongues of Birds. April 


EXPLANATION. OF FIGURES. 


1. Macropteryx coronata. 8. Passer domesticus. 

2. Collocalia sp. 9. Melospiza georgiana. 

3. Tachycineta bicolor. 10. Melospiza lincolni. 

4. Lachornis gracilis. 11. Melospiza georgiana. 

5. Htrundo puella. 12. Melospiza fasciata. 

6. Priotelus temnurus. 12a. Melospiza fasctata. Tip ot 
7. Amfpelts cedrorum. tongue much enlarged. 


These figures have been drawn with the camera lucida, all being 
enlarged to about the same absolute size to facilitate comparison. 


[Reference having been made by Mr. Lucas to some remarks of mine 
on the subject here under discussion, I trust he will pardon me for adding 
a few words to his excellent paper on the taxonomic value of birds’ 


rol. X : Seine 
vaeeaam MERRIAM, Some Birds of Southern California. 115 


tongues, in which he has set forth the subject with great fairness and 
excellent judgment, and with whose conclusions I fully agree. It seems, 
however, pertinent to call attention to the fact that what is true of the 
tongue is equally true of many other parts of the avian structure, as the 
bill, the feet, the wings, the tail, the sternum, the principal bones of the 
limbs, various internal organs, etc. In some cases the bill, the foot, or 
the sternum, as in the case of the tongue of a Woodpecker, would suffice 
for the reference of the owner to its proper order, or family, or even genus, 
while in other cases such parts, when isolated from the rest of the bird, 
would give no certain indication of its affinities. Particularly is this true 
of the bill, which, like the tongue, is so intimately concerned with the 
nature of the food and the manner of its procurement. Indeed, in the 
case especially of conirostral and dentirostral birds, one might easily be 
in doubt as to any one of half a dozen quite distinct groups, as witness the 
old genera Muscicapa, Turdus, Fringilla, Emberiza, Sylvia, etc., under 
which species of entirely different families were combined until long after 
the close of the Linnean period. 

All this simply goes to emphasize again the well-known fact that no 
single organ, or even a single set of characters, osteological or otherwise, 
can be taken as the basis of a system of classification, or even be relied on 
to furnish sure evidence of relationship, unless within: narrow limits. 
Probably Mr. Lucas could quite as easily show that the taxonomic value 
of almost any other organ was nearly if not quite s small, when taken 
by itself, as that of the tongue.—J. A. ALLEN. ] 


NOTES ON SOME OF THE BIRDS, OF SOUTHERN 
CALIFORNIA. 


BY FLORENCE A. MERRIAM. 


Tue following notes were made during the spring migration and 
nesting seasons of 1889 and 1894, at Twin Oaks, San Diego 
County, California. Twin Oaks is the post-office for the scattered 
ranches of a small valley at the foot of the Granite Mountains, 
one of the coast ranges. It is forty miles north of San Diego, 
and twelve miles from the Pacific. As the surrounding country is 
mainly treeless, its fauna is restricted, but this valley has a 


Auk 


116 MERRIAM, Some Birds of Southern California. April 


natural system of irrigation in numerous side canons that ditch 
down the spring rains from the hills, and as a result has a rich 
growth of sycamores and live oaks along the lines of the spring 
streams, with water near enough the surface to feed the vineyards, 
orchards and eucalyptus groves, and the grain and alfalfa fields 
that cover its floor. Moreover, the enclosing hills and the uncul- 
tivated parts of the valley are overgrown with chaparral, which 
offers a cover for many species that would not live out in the open ; 
so that the valley not only affords a rich food supply to a great 
number of individual birds, but its vegetation is sufficiently varied 
to attract an unusual number of species for such a small section, 
in the arid west. 

The orchards, eucalyptus groves, grain and alfalfa fields have 
largely been planted within the last six years, and must exert an 
important influence upon the future valley fauna. But unless the 
economic value of the birds is soon demonstrated and under- 
stood there is danger that the ranchmen, moved by the too obvi- 
ous harm the birds do the fruit, may check the incomers or 
actually exterminate the more obtrusive species. 


Callipepla californica vallicola. VALLEY QuaiLt.—In 1889, Quail were 
so numerous that the dust of the roads was printed with their tracks, and 
it was an every-day matter to have them start out of the brush and run 
ahead of the horses quite unconcernedly, pattering along in their stiff, 
prim way, with their top knots thrown forward over their beaks. In fact 
the Quail were so abundant as tobe a pest. For several years great flocks 
of them came down the cafions to Major Merriam’s vineyard, where they 
destroyed annually from twenty to thirty tons of fruit. In one season, 
July to October, 1851, one hundred and thirty. dozen were trapped on 
his ranch. The result of this wholesale destruction was manifest when I 
returned to the valley in 1894. The birds were then rarely seen on the 
roads, and seldom flushed in riding about the valley. 

Carthartes aura. TurRKEY VuLTuRE.— Mr. W. W. Merriam watched 
two of the Buzzards eating skunks. They began by pulling the skin from 
the head and ate till they came to the scent gland, which was left on 
the ground. 

Falco sparverius deserticolus. DESERT SPARROW HAwK.— March 30, 
1889, a Sparrow Hawk was feeding its mate at the nest. The mouth ot 
the nest was so small that it was difficult for the brooding bird to get in 
or out. It would fly against the hole and attempt to hook its bill over 
the edge to pull itself in, but its shoulders were too broad for the space’ 
and the only way it succeeded was by raising its claw to clasp the edge of 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


MERRIAM, Some Birds of Southern California. I 7 
the hole, by that means laboriously drawing up its body and wedging 
itself through. June 2, 1894, I found young Sparrow Hawks nearly ready 
to fly. 

Strix pratincola. AMERICAN BARN OwL.— April 5, 1889, I found one 
nesting in the charred hollow of a sycamore limb. Edwin Merriam told me 
that he had known the birds to change places on the nest in the daytime, 
and both birds to stay in the hole. They seemed to fly into any dark hole 
they could find to protect them during the day. A number were found in 
a partially covered well in the valley, and three were taken from a wind- 
mill tank in the neighborhood in about a month. Ina mine at Escondido 
a number were found sitting in a crevice where the earth had caved, and 
about a dozen more at the bottom of the mine shaft, fifty to a hundred 
feet underground. 

Bubo virginianus subarcticus. WrsTERN HorNED OwLt.— Found a 
nest with young, April 9, 1889. Saw another brooding, April 23, 1894. 

Speotyto cunicularia hypogea. BuRROWING OwL.— The Owls, besides 
using ground squirrel holes, built in old badger holes in the red lands of 
the San Marcos grant. I once saw nine sitting around one burrow. 

Geococcyx californianus. ROAD-RUNNER.—In May, 1894, I found a 
nest in a eucalyptus grove, about seven feet from the ground. It was 
partly lined with horse manure, which I was told the birds often used in 
their nests in the vicinity. The Road-runner is so protectively colored 
that when crossing a bare field it does not attract the eve, but when it 
stops and raises its long neck and tail, it looks like two sticks in the 
meadow. 

Melanerpes formicivorus bairdi. CALIFORNIA WooprECKER.— May 
12, 1894, I found a pair of the Woodpeckers nesting. June 16 I heard the 
weak voices of young. July 6 the old Woodpeckers were found dead and 
Thad the young taken trom the nest, apparently just about ready to fly. 
The old birds were very shy at the nest, but at their hunting ground, 
nearly half a mile away, where they went to get food for the young, 
they were indifferent to spectators. They perched on a sycamore limb 
and made sallies over the alfalfa or out in the air. They also hunted 
from the posts of the wire fence. They seemed to light indifferently on 
top of the posts or against their sides, and I often saw them perch ona 
horizontal limb of the sycamore. They seemed more like Flycatchers 
than Woodpeckers, they spent so much time on the wing catching insects. 
In general habits they closely resemble our eastern Melanerpes erythro- 
cephalus. ‘Vheir cries and calls are almost identical. 

Edwin Merriam told me that the Woodpeckers excavate nests a foot and 
a half to two feet deep, often making several elbows, changing the angle 
to the excavation to follow the soft wood. He said the birds seem to 
prefer the white oak for building, as for storing acorns; and use the 
same hole year after year, for the outer shell of the white oak — unlike 
the live oak —is very durable. The century plant grows wild on the 
ridges of the hills near the San Luis Rey mission, and he has found the 


118 MeERRIAM, Some Birds of Southern California. Apa 
Woodpeckers filling their stalks with acorns, from six to fifteen feet up. 
As there were no oaks within five miles, the tall stalks of the agaves 
were the most convenient storehouses for the birds. In the Julien 
Mountains he found the pines and the dead deciduous oaks girdled with 
holes. The Flickers at one time made holes in the thin walls of a 
neighbor’s honey house, and the Woodpeckers used the holes for their 
acorns. Mr. Merriam was at work in the house one day when they 
came, and the acorns dropped on the bench by his side. Dozens were 
also lying on the floor. . 

Colaptes cafer. RED-SHAFTED FLICKER. 


April 8 and 18, 1889, I 
found Flickers excavating nests in sycamores. June 20, 1894, a pair were 
brooding in a charred hollow of a small oak. One of the sycamore nests 
was in the under side of a branch that slanted at an angle of forty-five 
degrees. The Flicker hung with claws planted in the hole, and with its tail 
braced at an angle under it, leaned forward to excavate. Using its feet asa 
pivot, it gradually swung in farther and farther; and when it had gone so 
far that it had to reach back to throw out its chips, it swung in and out on 
its feet like an automatic toy wound up for the performance. When it 
had been building for a week, only the tip of its tail protruded from the 
nest hole as it worked. 

One September Mr. Merriam found Flickers storing acorns in the 
Julien Mountains. He says they often tried several holes before they 
found one that the nut would fit. 

Trochilus alexandri. BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD. — March 23, 
1889, I found a nest in an oak with nearly fledged young. April 2, 1889, 
found a Hummingbird building in a sycamore, about ten feet from the 
ground. April 29, 1889, found one building near the tip of a hanging 
oak branch, about five feet from the ground. April 3, 1894, found nearly 
grown young in an oak nest fifteen feet above the ground. April 28, 
1894, found a Hummingbird feeding young —just hatched—in a nest 
three to four feet high. May 17, 1894, found one brooding in an oak 
fifteen to twenty feet from the ground. May 22, 1894, found a nest just 
begun in an oak four to five feet from the ground. May 26, 1894, found 
a bird brooding on a nest in a eucalyptus. grove, six or seven feet up. 
June 2, 1894, found a nest being built at the end of an oak spray three to 
four feet from the ground. June 20, 1894, found a Hummingbird feeding 
young out of the nest in a eucalyptus grove. The oak nests were in low, 
hanging, drooping branches or in oak tops. They were made of yellow, 
spongy down from the under side of sycamore leaves, and when built 
among green oak leaves had flakes of light green lichen on the outside. 
The eucalyptus nests did not have the lichen. One of them was fastened 
on the curve of a drooping branch, and to make it set true was deepened 
on the lower side so that it measured an inch and three quarters. 

The peculiar feature of the building was the quivering motion of the 
bird in moulding. When the material was placed she moulded the nest 
like a potter, twirling tremulously around against the sides, sometimes 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


MeERRIAM, Some Birds of Southern California. 1m fe) 
pressing so hard she ruffled up the feathers of her breast. She shaped 
the cup as if it were a piece of clay. To round the outside she would sit 
on the rim and lean over, smoothing the sides with her bill, often with the 
same tremulous motion. When she wanted to turn around in the nest 
she lifted herself by whirring her wings. 


May 24, 1894, I saw a female Hummingbird sit on an oak twig, while 
Y 24 4 s 


g, 
a male, with the sound and regularity of a spindle in a machine, swung 
back and forth in an arc less than a yard long. He never turned around, 
but threw himself back at the end of the line by a quick spread of the 
tail. 

May 19, 1894, I saw two ditferent males go through a similar perform- 
ance, though I could not discover the females. They flew backwards and 
sidewise, not turning around. They dove with gorgets puffed out and 
tails spread, making a loud whirring sound. April 26, 1889, while riding 
along the chaparral, | stopped.a few moments and a Hummingbird shot 
down at my horse, darted up in the air and shot down again about a 
dozen times. It stopped itself in going up by suddenly closing its 
wings, then it turned around, opened its wings and darted down, “all 
sound.” When hovering around oak trunks and feeding trom flowers, 
I have seen the birds throw themselves up by giving a toss with their tails. 

Selasphorus rufus. Rurous Hummincsirp.—In April, when the 
wild gooseberry bushes are in bloom, they are fairly alive with the Rufous 
Hummingbirds, who find food in the red tubular blossoms. The whizzing 
and whirring lead you to the bushes from a distance and as you approach, 
the birds dart out, shoot up into the sky, sweep down and, pell mell, chase 
after each other through the air. The Rufous Hummingbirds must have 
been migrants at Twin Oaks, for they disappeared entirely. 

Tyrannus vociferans. CaAssin’s KinGBirp.— April 28, 1889, I found 
a Flycatcher’s nest ina sycamore. The birds also built in the oaks near 
the house, making a bulky untidy nest, with string dangling from its sides. 
May 30, 1894, a pair were still building in a sycamore. Mr. Merriam 
told me that when he was plowing and the Blackbirds were following 
him, two or three of the ‘Beebirds,’ as he called them, would take up 
positions on stakes overlooking the flock; and when one of the Black- 
birds got a worm that he could not gulp right down, a Beebird would 
dart after him and fight for it, chasing the Blackbird till he got it away. 
For the time the Flycatchers regularly made their living off the Black- 
birds as the Eagles do from the Fish Hawks. 

Myiarchus cinerascens. ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER.— Seen in the 
chaparral and in the orchards hunting low for insects. Their calls closely 
resemble those of the eastern Great-crest, JZ crénitus. Some are like 
qguirr’r, quirp' and quirr-rhea'. The birdalso says hzp!, hip', ha-wheer’, 
the £74 emphasized with a vertical flip of the tail, the weer, with a side- 
wise dash. The Flycatcher has besides a low call of 4zf and ha-whzp. 
Mr. Merriam told me that the birds nest in old Woodpecker holes, and 
line their nests with hair. 


120 MERRIAM, Some Birds of Southern California. pene 

Sayornis nigricans. BLAck PHasr.— April 30, 1889, I found three 
eggs in the nest of a Black Phaebe five teet down in a deserted well. 
Before the eggs hatched,a pump was put down the well and water pumped 
up every day, but the birds did not desert the nest. In 1894 a pair of 
Phcebes built inside a whitewashed lath chicken house. The nest, made 
of large pellets of mud like a Swallow’s, was plastered against a board in 
the peak of the chicken house. 

Contopus richardsonii. WESTERN Woop PEWEE.—June 29, 1894, a 
Wood Pewee was brooding in a small oak, having moved from its first at- 
tempted nest in the top of a high oak, probably driven away by Blue Jays. 

Aphelocoma californica. CALIFORNIA JAy.—The flight of these Jays 
is often undulating. Mr. Merriam told me that he had frequently seen 
them carrying acorns. One year they took them from the oaks by the 
house to a side cafion half or three-quarters of a mile distant. Forty or 
fifty of them were at work, straggling along a few at a time, all day long 
for a period of a week or more. Sometimes they had two acorns in their 
bills. In Moosa Cafion the Jays carried the nuts from the bottom of the 
canon to the sides of the hills above; and at another place, near Ocean- 
side, they carried them four miles, from the oaks of the valley to the 
chaparral of a mesa. 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus. YELLOW-HEADED BLacKBirD.— I 
saw large flocks of them on the mustard seven miles west of the valley, 
and found one in the vineyard with Brewer’s Blackbirds and Redwings. 

Icterus cucullatus nelsoni. ARIZONA HoopED OrIoLE.— April 23, 1889, 
a pair were building in an oak beside a ranch-house. They made their 
entire nest of the orange-colored parasitic vine, the dodder of the meadows. 

Scolecophagus cyanocephalus. BREWER’s BLACKBIRD.—They usually 
began building about March 25. They nested familiarly in the oaks 
beside a house and also in sycamores. When the vineyard was being 
cultivated, all the Blackbirds of the valley, both Brewer’s and Redwings, 
assembled to follow the plow. 

Mr. Merriam told me that he had seen flocks of perhaps five hundred 
Blackbirds, of both species, fly down and light upon the backs of a band 
of grazing sheep. At such times a few of the birds would pick out wool 
for their nests, bracing themselves on the backs of the sheep and pulling 
where the wool had been loosened by the scab. He had also seen the 
birds ride hogs, horses and cattle, but he said the horses usually switched 
them off. 

Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis. HousrE Firncu.— The commonest 
bird in the valley, building about the houses more familiarly than Robins. 

Chondestes grammacus strigatus. LARK SPARROW.— Seen frequently 
in the orchards. Its song resembles that of the Song Sparrow, but is 
richer and hasa purring quality that characterizes it. Saw one carrying 
building materials, April 9, 1889. 

Habia melanocephala. BLACK-HEADED GROSBEAK.—The Grosbeak 
has a marked habit of song flight. At its best, with the exception of the 


hte MeRRIAM, Some Birds of Southern California. Ta 
Thrush, his song excels that of any bird I have ever heard. It is 


singular in its exquisite finish, and remarkable for its rich musical quality. 
It is a long song, greatly varied. It begins with the ordinary Grosbeak 
swinging pendulum phrase which is followed by a soft low measure, after 


which the pendulum and the low phrase are repeated. Then come a 
series of thrills preluding the most beautiful part of the song —a clear 


tender whistle, each note of which is drawn out so slowly and is so liquid 
and well rounded that it seems as if the bird were consciously perfect- 


ing it. Sometimes after this the Grosbeak, with a grace note, goes on to 


< 


a final low trill and whistle; and then, after a momentary pause, begins all 
over again. 

Passerina amcena. LazuLi BuNTING.— April 30, 1894, I found a pair 
building in the mallows. May 12, the female was brooding. May 29, the 
male was feeding the young. May 30 the nest was empty. June, 1894, 
I found a Lazuli’s nest, made largely of oat stalks, in a tree in a 
eucalyptus grove, a great contrast to the gray nest in the weeds out in 
the fields. 

Petrochelidon lunifrons. CLiIrrF SwALLow.—Saw a large number ot 
them getting mud from a temporary pond early in April, 1889. 

Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides. WHITE-RUMPED SHRIKE.— April 
10, 1889, there was one egg ina nest made in aclump of willows. June 
1, 1894, a pair were feeding young in a nest made in a ball of mistletoe in 
the top of an oak. June 16, I found a family of young being ted in the 
chaparral. 

Helminthophila celata lutescens. LUTESCENT WARBLER. 
quiet minute workman, hunting among the golden tassels of the oaks 


AL very 


with whose color it harmonizes perfectly. It will lean over the tip ot 
an oak bough to examine a tassel, stretch up to reach a blossom hanging 
over its head, hop along a twig, and then flit up to cling head down to a 
spray of leaves, or flutter like a Hummingbird under a yellow tassel. 
Dendroica auduboni. \wpuBON’s WARBLER.— One of the most abun- 
dant birds in March. It is as restless and active as the eastern D. coronata. 
Harporhynchus redivivus. CALiIrorNIA THRASHER.— April 29, 1889, 
I found a family of young, three quarters grown. In song and general 
habits the Thrasher is much like our eastern HZ. rufus. The bird uses 
its curved bill most skilfully. Instead of scratching with its feet as the 
Chewinks and Sparrows do, it uses its bill almost exclusively. I once 
watched one hunt tor food. It cleared a space by scraping the leaves 
away, moving its bill through them rapidly from side to side. ‘Then it 
made two holes in the earth, probing deep with its long bill, and after 
taking what it could get from the second hole returned to examine the 
first one as if to see if anything had come to the surface there. 
Thryothorus bewickii spilurus. ViGors’s WreN.— April 18, 1859, a 
pair of these Wrens had young in an old nose bag hanging on a peg ina 
shed. April 23 a Linnet’s nest with one egg was in the nose bag on top 


of the dead nestling Wrens. 


16 


22 MerRRIAM, Some Birds of Southern California. ree 


Troglodytes aédon aztecus. WESTERN House WreEN.— April, 1889, 
I found a number of nests in sycamore holes and about buildings. One 
was in a grape crate, and twigs were strewn loosely over one end of the 
box, covering a space nearly sixteen inches square. The compact high 
body of the nest measured eight by ten inches, and came so near the top 
of the crate that the birds could just creep in under the slats. Some of 
the twigs were ten inches long. April 28, 1894, I found a pair of Wrens 
carrying twigs toa sycamore hole. June 4 the young were being fed 
rapidly; but the birds did not leave the nest till June 16. Both the old 
birds had a striking habit of moving their wings tremulously at their 
sides, and sometimes the male, when singing to his mate, would raise 
his quivering wings till they almost met over his back. 

Parus inornatus. PLAIN TrrmousEe.— March 24, 1889, I found a pair 
building; on May 12, they were feeding the young in the nest. June 15, 
1894, I saw a pair feeding young out of the nest. The nests I found were 
in the crack of an oak, about four feet from the ground, and in the under 
side of a decayed branch, fifteen or twenty feet above the ground. When 
hunting, the birds flattened their high crests to small points at the back 
of the head. 

Chameza fasciata henshawi. WRrReEN-TIT.— April 3, 1889, I saw two 
Wren-tits carrying material, but could not find their nest. June 8, 1894, 
I saw a family of young in the brush. The birds live in the cover of the 
chaparral. Their long tails tilt up and down as they fly, and sometimes 
rise over their backs when they light. In looking for food the Wren-tits 
often hold their tails up and hunt in the careful way of the Wrens. 
Their scold, which is a loud chatter, is also wrennish in character. 

The song is the most striking thing about the Wren-tit. From it the 
people of the valley call him the ‘scale bird.’ He is not seen unless you 
go to the brush to look for him, but wherever you are you will hear the 
clear ringing voice running down the scale, the bell-like tones now 
coming from the chaparral of the valley, now from the bowlder-strewn 
hillsides above. The Wren-tit seems timid about singing in sight and it 
was a long time before I connected the quiet obscure bird with the loud 
beautiful voice. But one day when watching a Wren-tit it puffed up 
its throat till its feathers stood out in layers, and brought out the 
slow distinct notes of the descending scale, its tail shaking with each 
note. . 

Although the general character of the song remains the same, it varies 
somewhat in the notes and their relative rapidity. I have heard the whole 
song given on one note, the first four uttered very slowly, the last four 
faster, but acommoner form has nine notes, the last five running down the 
scale. At times the first four notes are given alone, as keep, keep, keep, 
keep; at others, as two syllables, keep!-t, keep!-ct, keep'-it — three repeti- 
tions of the same note. A common form is a scale of seven two-syllabled 
notes — ¢¢p!-ct, tép'-it, tip'-¢t, tip'-tt, tip'-zt, tip'-zt, tép'-ct. Again one hears 
a combination of the one and two-syllabled notes, the first four on one 


——— 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Merriam, Some Birds of Southern California. 123 
note, the rest going down the scale, as keep, keep, keep, keep, keep'-tt, 
keep!-it, keep'-it. There is also a rapid run with a rolled r. 

The Wren-tits are hard birds to study because it is so difficult to pene- 
trate the brush where they live; but one gets occasional glimpses of them 
outside. I once saw one break up a Gnatcatcher’s nest in an oak on the 
edge of the chaparral, and afterwards came on one that was persistently 
feeding the fledgling of a Lazuli Bunting, although both parent birds were 
on the spot. 

Psaltriparus minimus californicus. CALIFORNIA BusH-T1T.— In March 
and April, 1889, and April, 1894, I found a number of the birds building. 
One of the nests I was watching pulled down of its own weight, closing in 
the entrance. Its wall, made of fine gray moss and oak blossoms, was half 
an inch toan inch thick, and had a wadding of feathers inside. I counted 
three hundred, and there were a great many more. There must have been 
several dozen chicken feathers, each from two to three inches in length. 
The builders profited by experience in an interesting way. Their second 
nest, to begin with, was not nearly so long as the first one, although that 
may have been from the additional labor the extra length would entail. 
They hung the nest between the forks of a twig whose cross twig could 
support the top. At first they put the entrance about half an inch below 
this supporting cross twig, but afterwards moved it up above the twig so 
that the roof could not possibly close the hole as it had done in the first 
nest. This time the hole itself, which was usually the girth of the bird, 
was made much larger than in the old nest. The birds used the materials 
of the deserted nest to make the new one. In building, they began at the 
top of the open pocket —at the cross twig — leaving the roof till the last, 
though they made the first entrance while the lower part of the nest 
merely hung in loose fibres — was not formed at all. In making the body 
ot the pocket they would light on the cross twig and swing themselves 
down inside, hanging by their claws while they placed their material and 
moulded and shaped the pocket from the inside. When the nest was 
completed it had a quantity of brown oak tassels around the entrance, 
which was finished neatly with lichen. 

The Bush-tits are rapid workers. I found a nest begun one day, only 
a filmy spot in the leaves, and the next day it had grown to be a gray 
bag over eight inches long, though I could still see daylight through it. 
The birds work together and give their fine call of schrzt, schrit, as they 
go and come about the nest. Their long tails give them a long tilting 
flight. The Bush-tits are very abundant at Twin Oaks. I have often 
found two of their nests in one oak. In 188g I found eight nests in oaks, 
from seven to fifteen feet from the ground, but none in ‘low bushes.’ 
Mr. Merriam told me that out of dozens of nests, he had found only one 
inabush. He thought the live oak nests averaged from eight to nine 
feet from the ground. He said the birds often weighted the nests with 
sand and sometimes built a projecting roof over the entrance. 

Polioptila czrulea obscura. WESTERN GNATCATCHER.— April 29, 


124 THAYER ox Protective Coloration. re 


1889, I found a nest in a small oak, containing two eggs. May 4, 1894, 
I found a pair brooding. May 16, a pair were building in an oak, fifteen 
to twenty feet above the ground. May 28, the birds seemed to be through 
building and were flitting about warbling and apparently taking a rest 
before time to begin brooding. May 31, after a Blue Jay had created an 
excitement in the oak, the Gnatcatchers began taking their nest to pieces, 
and went to work putting it up in a low oak afew rods away. June 7 the 
birds were still building. June 11 they were brooding, changing places 
in the nest. June 25 the young were being fed. July 4 the young were 
out, being fed in the brush. From May 16, or more accurately May 14— 
for the nest had been begun at least two days before I found it— from 
May 14 to July 4, those birds were working to get one brood launched. 
The first nest took them two weeks, the second one about tendays. Their 
method of work was interesting. The nest was laid on a horizontal 
branch. Their plan seemed to be twofold, to make the walls compact and 
strong by using only fine bits of material and packing them tightly 
together— drilling them in—and at the same time to give the walls form 
and keep them trim and shipshape by moulding inside and smoothing 
the rim and the outside. Sometimes the builder would smooth the brim 
with its neck and bill like a Redstart, as a person sharpens a knife on a 
whetstone, a stroke one way and then a stroke the other. The birds 
usually got inside to work, but there was a twig beside the nest that 
served for scatfolding, and they sometimes stood on that to work on the 
outside. They both worked, flying rapidly back and forth with material. 
The second nest rested lightly on a horizontal limb, but was supported 
mainly by two twigs which forked so as to enclose it. It was a beautiful 
nest, covered with lichen and lined with feathers. The birds were not 
at all shy. They let me come so near that I saw the black lines bordering 
the blue forehead of the male. 

Sialia mexicana occidentalis. WersTERN BLUEBIRD.— Mr. Merriam 
told me he had seen the Bluebirds build in the mud nests of Swallows in 
trees; but most frequently in knot holes and in the abandoned nests of 
the small Woodpeckers. 


THE LAW -WHICH. “UNDERELES SPROTECTIVE 
COLORATION. 
BY ABBOTT H. THAYER. 


‘Tuts article is intended to set forth a beautiful law of nature 
which, so far as I can discover, has never been pointed out in 
print. It is the law of gradation in the coloring of animals, and 


Vol. XIII 


1896 THAYER ox Protective Coloration. I 25 


is responsible for most of the phenomena of protective coloration 
except those properly called mimicry. 

Naturalists have long recognized the fact that the coloring of 
many animals makes them difficult to distinguish, and have called 
the whole phenomenon protective coloration, little guessing how 
wonderful a fact lay hidden under the name. 

Mimicry makes an animal appear to be some other thing, whereas 
this newly discovered law makes him cease to appear to exist at all. 
The following are some examples of true mimicry. The Screech 
Owl, when startled, makes himself tall and slim, and with eyes 
shut to a narrow line simulates a dead stub of the tree on which 
he sits. “Certain Herons stretch their necks straight upward, and 
with head and green beak pointed at the zenith, pass themselves 
off for blades of sedge grass. Certain harmless snakes spread 
their heads out flat, in imitation of their poisonous cousins, and 
rattle with their tails in the leaves. Many butterflies have stone 
or bark-colored under sides to their wings, which make them 
look like a bit of bark or lichen when they sit still on a stone or 
tree trunk with wings shut over their backs. 


The newly discovered law may be stated thus: Animals are 
painted by nature, darkest on those parts which tend to be most 
lighted by the sky’s light, and zzce versa. 


The accompanying diagram illustrates this statement. Animals 
are colored by nature as in A, the sky lights them as in B, 
and the two effects cancel each other, as in C. The result is 
that their gradation of light and shade, by which opaque solid 


2 6 THAYER on Protective Coloration. Apal 


objects manifest themselves to the eye, is effaced af every point, 
the cancellation being as complete at one point as another, as in 
Fig. C of the diagram, and the spectator seems to see right 
through the space really occupied by an opaque animal. 

Fig. 1 of a Ruffed Grouse shows this arrangement of color and 
light. This bird belongs to the class in which the arrangement is 
found in its simplest form, the color making a complete gradation 
from brown above to silvery white beneath, and conforming to 
every slightest modelling ; for instance, it grows light under the 
shelving eyebrow, and darker again on the projecting cheek. 

When he stands alive on the ground, as in Fig. 2, his oblitera- 
tion by the effect of the top light is obvious. 

Writers say ‘the is so nearly like the color of his surroundings 
that you cannot see him.” Fig. 3 is to show that they ascribe 
the concealment to the wrong cause. I merely took the bird 
shown in Fig. 2, and accurately tinted his under parts with brown 
to match his back, and in less degree tinted his sides, till I had 
reduced him to uniformity of color all over; but I did not, of 
course, change his upper surfaces at all. In short, I extended 
his ‘ protective ’ colors all over him. 

Now observe the effect on replacing him in a life-like position. 
Ele: 1s ‘completely unmasked. The reader has but to compare 
the distance at which he can distinguish a bird in No. 2 and in 
No. 3 respectively, to see whether simple ‘ protective coloration,’ 
as ordinarily defined, is the true cause of this concealment, or 
whether this compound gradation of color and light is the true 
cause. 

Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show that his colors are powerless to conceal 
him in any position except the upright one which he holds when 
alive, and Figs. 6 and 7 do the same for the Woodcock. 

In Figs. 5 and 6, notwithstanding the fact that we have even the 
strongest ‘protective’ colors towards us, the bird is by no means 
concealed. 

The Woodcock series corresponds to that of the Ruffed Grouse. 
Fig. 8 shows a female on her nest, very difficult to find. In Fig. 9 
the bird has been treated exactly as I treated the Ruffed Grouse 
in Fig. 3. Observe that she is essentially more conspicuous, 
though not a feather of her upper parts has been artificially painted. 


Fic. t- SipE ViEW or DEAD GROUSE TO SHOW COLOR GRADATION. 


“HAIT NI SV (NOU) ANE NO GaAsO,, as VOL) 16 Disk 


i 
v 


f ae 

r PEL ety 
; BAN Bae Pret aed 
4 . Wy Nal ; a y PNY ae KA iB NK 


Ware 
0 


ree 
ain 
Ss) Tay! Ai 


i , 7 ) a) : ey 
fh alka A he at ate aa 
Mat is « ch Sede ei Aree bine ites an ites a eke fil! 


i ep! i 


I I VUE ) aN fe oS S cs +C ec 
.g Vv 2 ; C ; M+) « OT 
f ie SV Gasod asnows 
°¢ y if ig HI.LIAA LL « Oly N 
} OPN NOILVAVeL) YOTO- 
‘LAO GAULNIV, 


GROUSE ON SIDE, EXPOSiNG BREAST. 


GROUSE ON SIDE, EXPOSING BACK. 


Fic.6. WoopcockK ON SIDE, EXPOSING BACK. 


Fic. 7. Woopcock 


. 


ih 


te oe 7 


ry 


tt aL 


. 
\ 
ioxs 
on 


fe 


FrG.6: Woopcock ON NESD: 


Fic.g. Woopcock oN Nest, CoLrork GRADATION PAINTED OvT. 


7 rele 
fo = =f 
i a) 


~ 


rt 
ay 
7 > 


Vol. XIII 


1896 THAYER oz Protective Coloration. 127 


The reason of her visibility is that I have artificially extended 
her top colors down her sides, thereby destroying her counter- 
gradation and forcing her solidity to manifest itself. 

The reader, I think, must try these experiments for himself 
before he can believe that in Fig. 3 and Fig. g I tinted the 
under surfaces exactly as dark as the upper, and no darker. But 
I beg him to look at any horizontal branch in the woods which 
is either on the level of his eye or below it. He will see that 
although it has exactly the color of its surroundings, it is not in 
the least concealed, because, being of uniform color above and 
below, like the birds after I had painted their under sides, it 
wears that universal attribute of a solid, namely, a gradation of 
shading from its light side to its dark side. 

_I leave to the reader the pleasure of discovering for himself 
that this principle of gradation in color is almost universal in the 
animal kingdon. In certain classes of birds and of flying insects, 
however, the principle gives place, more or less, to the device 
pointed out by Bates; namely, the employment of strong arbitrary 
patterns of color which tend to conceal the wearer by destroying 
his apparent continuity of surface. This makes, for instance, the 
Mallard’s dark green head tend to detach itself from his body, 
and to join the dark green of the shady sedge; or the ruby of the , 
Hummingbird to desert him and to appear to belong to the 
glistening flower which he is searching. Yet many other cases 
of color applied apparently at random conform essentially to the 
law stated above. The dark patches are on top, the light ones 
beneath.t The dark breast-mark, so widely used by nature on 
birds, usually has the effect of putting out a conspicuous and 
shining rotundity of some bright or light color, as in the Meadow- 
lark and the Flicker; because it comes just where the breast, in 
its usual position, rounds upward and faces the sky. The dark 
collars of the males of most species of Duck are absolute 
counter-shading to the light from the sky, when the birds sit 
in their characteristic positions. For most female Ducks 


'T have proved, by experiments with painted decoys, that even brilliant top- 
colors, however strongly contrasted to surroundings, scarcely tend to betray 
the wearer, if his ensemble be a gradation from dark above to light below. 


128 THayer on Protective Coloration. onl 
nature uses the complete gradation, like that of Grouse and 
Sandpipers. Ground birds in general, such as Grouse, Sand- 
pipers and Sparrows, are usually clothed throughout in colors 
graded according to this principle. But the males of many 
species of Pheasant are notable exceptions to this last state- 
ment. 

Now there is still one more very beautiful phenomenon to 
record. If the animal itself is obliterated by this mechanism of 
nature, for what useful purpose beyond considerations of sexual 
selections do his markings exist, since /¢/#ey are not obliterated? 
The answer is that the markings on the animal become a 
picture of such background as one might see if the animal were 
transparent. ‘They help the animal to coalesce, in appearance, 
with the background which is visible when the observer looks 
past him. In many birds, for instance, those colors, which 
would be'seen by an enemy looking down upon them, are laid 
on by nature in coarser and more blotchy patterns than are the 
colors on their sides, so that when you look down on them you see 
that their backs match the mottled ground about them; whereas, 
when you assume a lower point of view nearer their level, and 
see more and more of their sides, you find them painted to match 
the more intricate designs of the vegetation which is a little 
farther off, and which, from this new stand-point of the observer, 
now forms the background. In this latter position, the head of 
the animal, being the highest part of its body, is seen against 
the most distant part of the background, whose details are still 
more reduced by perspective. ‘To correspond with this reduction 
of strength in the more distant background, the details on the 
sides of the animal’s head are likewise reduced in their emphasis, 
and like the more distant details are smaller in pattern. 

It is a most significant fact that throughout the animal king- 
dom the highest development of the arrangement of color and 
light described in this article, and the highest development of the 
habit of standing or crouching motionless in full daylight to avoid 
discovery, seem to coincide very closely. For instance, Gallina- 
ceous. birds, most Waders, and the Cat tribe have both the color 
arrangement and the standing or the crouching habit highly 
developed. Contrasted with these, for example, are the skunks 


a BisHop, New Birds from North Dakota. 129 


and the bears. Neither of these quadrupeds has the gradation 
of color, nor the standing or crouching habit. They are both noc- 
turnal, and therefore do not need either gradation or crouching 
for concealment. 

It is plain, then, that while nature undeniably completes the 
concealment of animals by pitching their whole color-gradation in 
a key to match their environment, the real magic lies in the gra- 
dation itself from darkest above to lightest below, wherever this 
gradation is found. This is why it is so hard to see the Partridge 
in the tree, the Sandpiper on the mud, or the tiger crouching in 
the jungle. 


DESCRIPTIONS OF A NEW HORNED LARK AND 
A NEW SONG SPARROW, WITH REMARKS 
ON SENNETT’S NIGHTHAWK. 


BYe weOULSi ba) BlsrlOlk, 


THE birds upon which this paper is based were collected by 
Mr. W. H. Hoyt and myself in Towner and Rolette Counties, 
North Dakota, during the spring and summer of 1895. Both 
counties belong to the prairie region, are practically treeless, cul- 
tivated only partially, and dotted with lakes and sloughs of vary- 
ing extent. The Turtle Mountains, part of which lie in the 
northern part of Rolette County, and through which passes the 
Manitoba boundary, are utterly different in character. They con- 
sist of hills rising a few hundred feet above the rolling prairie, 
contain numberless small lakes and ponds, and are covered with 
a dense growth of deciduous trees. 

My thanks are due to Mr. Hoyt for the use of his series of 
skins of the races described, and to Dr. Allen and Mr. Chapman 
of the American Museum of Natural History, and to Mr. Ridgway 
of the Smithsonian Institution, for the privilege of comparing my 
birds with the collections of the respective museums. 


17 


130 Bisnop, New Birds from North Dakota. ren 


Otocoris alpestris hoyti, new subspecies. Hoyt’s HorNED 
LARK. 


Subspecific characters.— Similar to Otocoris alpestris but with the upper 
parts generally paler and more gray, the posterior auriculars gray rather 
than brown, and the yellow of the head and neck replaced by white, ex- 
cepting the forehead, which is dirty yellowish-white, and the throat, which 
is distinctly yellow, most pronounced toward the center. 

Type, & ad. (No. 1447, collection of L. B. Bishop), Cando, Towner 
County, North Dakota, April 22, 1895; L. B. B. 

Length, 7.35; wing, 4-54; tail, 3.01; bill from nostril, .41; tarsus, .89. 

The adult female in spring plumage (No. 1529, collection of L. B. Bishop, 
Rock Lake, Towner County, North Dakota, May 1, 1895) differs in a 
similar manner from the female of @/festrzs, but in the female of Zoyt7 the 
yellow on the throat is much paler than in the male. 


Two forms of Horned Larks are common in Towner County, 
North Dakota, in April: a small, pale variety most nearly allied 
to O. a. arenicola, which is already breeding, and a larger, darker 
bird found in flocks with the Snowflakes and Lapland Longspurs, 
whose reproductive organs are only slightly enlarged. ‘This latter 
bird disappears early in May, and is apparently heretofore unde- 
scribed. From /euco/ema it may be separated by the darker upper 
parts and yellow throat, characters constant in all the specimens 
I have seen. The black of the malar region is broader than in 
skins of alfestris, but this difference may not always obtain. In 
size and color this form is intermediate between a/festris and /eu- 
colema, or rather between alpestris, which bounds its probable 
breeding-range on the east, praticola on the southeast, arenicola 
on the southwest, and /eucolema on the west (¢ Dr. Dwight, 
Auk, VII, p. 144, line 14 et seq.). It can be distinguished from 
arenicola by its larger size and darker upper parts, and from 
praticola chiefly by its size, although in the latter the black mark- 
ings of the jugulum and malar region are generally if not always 
more widely separated. 

Ten adult males in breeding plumage from Towner County 
agree very closely with the type, differing only slightly in the 
intensity of the yellow on the throat, the purity of the white on 
the forehead, and the extent and prominence of the dark mark- 
ings on the posterior part of the breast. One bird shows an 


ie 


Bisnop, New Birds from North Dakota. 


| 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Hiheo— | (oeP QE egg" | Ge" “ge [eens | Set | OF | tok | Sr look 
er iiatetom WN ofeo Neier Il fore) (Ge i Clore I) Sopa Gene | peeen2 |) Waves || Ager 
OMS |v | EOr" || 16g" 1! 165 "067 | se6"a tore) | Toe \oesh lage). yea 
eran Eo) es OR Ts OR all O° OO" S862 a GOre. || -OGTe. mae: Sivan iesicalk 
Bee eerie esate ale ch eal ean erent elie 
Sh: 2 q =u » 3 3 2 3 5 2 3 
es eS. g z. eB 5 5 ts x 2 E- ‘ 
‘PIAJSONT UMOAL 210 ‘SMSAD 21D TULA 


1ghoy stagsag]V §14030JQ) AO 


SLINANAMAS VAI 


‘ouLids “BIOYVC, YON 3 + 
“TOPUL AMA “eIOYLC YIAION iP F 
“surids ‘puvysy yodaq {2 z 
“surtds "BJOYLC YIAON te fo 
: ES 
5 
& 
~ 
‘UOSDIS 72] DI0T XS) gy 
| 8 


AO ATAV I 


Ll 


132 Bisuop, Mew Birds from North Dakota. Peal 
approach to a/festris in a yellow tinge to the supraorbital line 
and auriculars. The dark centers of the scapulars and _ inter- 
scapulars are also slightly more conspicuous in some specimens 
than in others. 

Two adult male Horned Larks in worn breeding plumage in 
my collection, said to have been taken by George Comer, at 
Depot Island, Hudson Strait, in May 1894, differ from the type 
of hoyti chiefly in having the yellow of the throat a trifle paler, 
and the posterior auriculars browner and _ slightly yellowish. 
They are much nearer this form than to a/festris, and probably 
mark its eastern limit. 

Four Horned Larks (probably males) taken at Cando, February 
13, 1891, for which I am indebted to Mr. EK. T. Judd, differ from 
spring birds in the following particulars: the yellow of the throat 
is paler,— in one specimen hardly perceptible,— the gray tips of 
the feathers longer, quite concealing the white and black of the 
forehead, and partially the black crescent on the chest, and the 
scapulars and interscapulars browner with more conspicuous dark 
centers. These birds might possibly be referred to /eucolema, 
as has been done with similar specimens by Dr. Dwight (Auk, 
Vol. VII, p. 143), but I am inclined to consider them representa- 
tives of the winter plumage of Aoy//, principally on account of 
their dark upper parts, and somewhat smaller size. 

I am very glad to have the opportunity of naming this race in 
honor of my friend Mr. William H. Hoyt of Stamford, Connecticut. 


Melospiza fasciata juddi, new subspecies. DAKOTA SONG 
SPARROW. 


Subspecific characters.— Similar to Melospiza fasctata but with the 
ground color of the upper parts paler, especially the superciliary streak 
and sides of neck, and the white of the lower parts clearer; the interscap- 
ulars with the black center broader, the reddish-brown portions narrower, 
and the gray edgings paler; the dark markings on the breast restricted, 
and more sharply defined against the ground color. 

Type, & ad. (No. 1674, collection of L. B. Bishop), Rock Lake, Towner 
County. North Dakota, May 11, 1895; L. B. B. 

Length, 6.75; wing, 2.62; tail, 2.78; tarsus, 81; culmen, .51; bill from 
nostril, .36; depth of bill, .31. 


ae Bisuop, New Birds from North Dakota. 1:33 

A small series of Song Sparrows taken in ‘Towner and Rolette 
Counties, North Dakota, during the spring and summer of 1895, 
may be separated from the eastern bird by the above characters. 
In general measurements, and in size and shape of the bill, this 
form is indistinguishable from JZ. fascvata, and shows no approach 
to MW. . montana in these respects, or in coloring. In general 
appearance it is characterized by a marked contrast between the 
light and dark portions of the plumage, most conspicuous in the 
interscapular region, while in /wsc/afa the colors are more softly 
blended. From = samuelis and Aeermanni— perhaps its nearest 
allies after fasciafa —it can easily be distinguished by a much 
paler ground color and less intense dark markings. Song Spar- 
rows in the collection of the American Museum of Natural History, 
taken near Fort Snelling, Minnesota, during the spring, are inter- 
mediate between the Dakota bird and that inhabiting the Atlantic 
coast, but more closely resemble the latter. 

In habits the Dakota Song Sparrow resembles the eastern bird, 
living in the brush which grows along the banks of the ‘ coulées.’ 
It arrives in Towner County the latter part of April, but is by no 
means common on the prairie. One or two pairs nested at Rock 
Lake on a small island, which was covered with a tangled growth 
of willows, hawthorns and rose-bushes. We found it, however, 
quite common during June and July in the ‘Turtle Mountains, 
inhabiting both the brush of the clearings and the reed-grown 
margins of retired lakes. The song is quite different from that 
of fasciata, being clearer, sweeter and more powerful. The first 
one I heard singing I could not believe was a Song Sparrow until 
I had the bird in my hand. 

Two nests were found in the Turtle Mountains: the first on 
June 14, containing three young, one egg, and one egg of the 
Cowbird. ‘This nest was composed of grass, and completely con- 
cealed in some high, dry and matted grass, on the borders of a 
small and secluded lake. The other nest was taken by Mr. Hoyt 
on July 11, and, thanks to his kindness, three of the four eggs 
which it contained are now in my collection. This nest was 
similar to the other, and hidden inthe high grass of a hay slough. 

The eggs, which average .75 in. in length by .60 in. in breadth, 
show a tendency to a sub-pyriform outline—a shape certainly 


134 Bisuorp, New Birds from North Dakota. reel 
unusual in fasciafa: otherwise, with their greenish-white ground 
color and profuse markings of reddish-brown, they are indistin- 
guishable from eggs of the latter. 

I take pleasure in naming this form in honor of Mr. Elmer T. 
Judd of Cando, North Dakota, to whom the success of our trip 
was largely due. 

Average measurements (with extremes) of ten specimens (6 4, 
4 9): length, 6.54 (5.75-6.75); wing, 2.66 (2.49-2.8r) ; tail, 2.78 
(2.69-2.91) ; tarsus, .81.(.77—.87) ; culmen, .51 (.49-.55)3 bill from 
nostril, .35 (.32—.37)3 depth of bill, .30 (.28-31). 


Chordeiles virginianus sennetti. SENNETI’s NIGHTHAWK. 


A series of ten adult male Nighthawks from Towner and Rolette 
Counties, N. D., serve at least as an argument in favor of the 
validity of this subspecies. All closely resemble the type speci- 
men (No. 4927, collection of George B. Sennett), now in the 
American Museum of Natural History, and differ from each other 
only slightly in the amount of buff or ochraceous, which replaces 
the white irregularly in different portions of the plumage. In all 
buff replaces the white to some extent, but no one of this series 
could be mistaken for Zenryz. The general pallor of the plumage 
is the chief characteristic of these birds, and serves to distinguish 
them from wrginianus at a glance. 

Three females from the same locality taken in June and July 
—one of them a breeding bird taken with a typical male and 
two eggs —are similar but with the upper parts darker and the 
entire lower parts tinged with buff, which becomes ochraceous- 
buff on the throat. Two other female Nighthawks from the same 
region, one taken on June rr, and the other with two eggs on 
June 24, are quite different, the prevailing tint of ‘the entire 
plumage, except the greater wing-coverts, wings and tail, being 
ochraceous-buff. ‘These birds might readily be referred to henryz, 
but all the males taken or seen during the breeding season were 
unmistakably sexnedt7. Two males of virginzanus were taken by 
Mr. Hoyt during the migration in the latter part of May, but none 
were seen during the breeding season. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 CHERRIE, A Mew Chordeiles from Costa Rica. 135 


Two downy young taken by Mr. John Schaler from the same 
nest at Rock Lake,on July 17, have an interrupted black bar 
across the breast, black at the base of the mandible, and the entire 
upper parts mottled with black, but while the ground color of one 
is pure white, that of the other is pale ochraceous-buff, becoming 
white only in the center of the abdomen. This difference may 
be one of sex, or, taken in connection with the ochraceous females 
mentioned, connect sexnefti with henryz. 

Wherever we went about the prairies we found this bird a rather 
common summer resident, especially in the neighborhood of water. 
It arrives the last week in May, and begins laying about the 
twentieth of June. The pale colors of the male protect him 
admirably, harmonizing with the dull gray of the fences and rocks, 
perched on which he passes the day, while the darker colors of the 
female render her less conspicuous when seated over her eggs on 
the black soil. Six eggs in my collection from Towner County 
average 1.67 in. in length by .88 in. in breadth, and are perhaps 
a trifle paler with somewhat smaller markings than eggs of wé- 
ginianus. 

Average measurement (with extremes) of thirteen specimens 
(10 @, 3 @): length, 9.53 (9.25-9.81); wing, 7.61 (7.08—-7.87) ; 
tail, 4.68 (4.53-4.79): 


AN APPARENTLY NEW CHORDETZLES FROM COSTA 
RICA. 


BY GEO. K. CHERRIE. 


Ir is with much hesitation that I present the following as char- 
acterizing a new Nighthawk of the C. vrginianus group,— that 
is, the species or subspecies in which the white wing-patch is 
posterior to the tips of the secondaries. 


136 Cuerrik, 4 New Chordetles from Costa Rica. ri 


Chordeiles virginianus aserriensis,! subsp. nov. 


Type, No. 4261, collection Geo. K. Cherrie, San José, Costa Rica, 
Nov. 2, 1893. Smaller and much lighter colored (both above and below) 
than the true viérginianus. Above, grayish predominating; decidedly 
dusky in center of back where feathers are mostly blackish basally, tipped 
and edged with grayish and crossed by irregular broken subterminal 
bands of the same color. Scapulars blackish basally, the edges with gray- 
ish mottlings and buffy blotches. Wiaing-coverts grayish, finely mottled 
with dusky. Below, upper breast grayish irregularly barred with narrow 
blackish bands. Lower breast, sides and flanks lightly buffy whitish 
regularly barred with blackish, the white and black bands being of about 
equal width. Center of abdomen immaculate white; under tail-coverts 
slightly buffy, the longer ones showing imperfect blackish bands. 

Length (skin), 8.40; wing, 6.96; tail, 4.40. 


This bird agrees with C. v. chapmani in size and in the white 
unmarked abdomen,’ but differs greatly in color above, as it does 
from a large series of wrgzntanus and from examples of wrgin- 
ianus henry? with which it has been compared. 

The type is a male bird, but the tail does not show the broad 
white band near the tip found in the males of other species of 
Chordetles, but has exactly the same tail as the females. 

Whether this be constant or not, or whether in the male possess- 
ing a tail marked like that of the female it is a character of imma- 
turity, | am not in a position to state with certainty. One of the 
specimens received for examination from the National Museum? 
(No. 128,373, U. S. N. M., Escondido River, Nic., Oct. 28, 1892, 
Chas. W. Richmond) apparently pertains to this new race. It is 
a male and has the tail markings similar to those of the type. 
However, in this example the terminal white band on the third 
pair of rectrices, from the outside, is wider than on the other 
feathers. In this specimen the general color above is consid- 
erably darker than in the type, approaching much nearer to C. 
virginianus proper. 


‘From the valley of the River Aserri, San. José, C. R. 
*Comparison is made with the type of chafmani, recently acquired by the 


Field Museum as a donation from Prof. C. B. Cory. 


3 T am indebted to the authorities of the Smithsonian Institution and to those 
of the American Museum of Natural History for the loan of specimens used 
in the preparation of this paper. 


Vol. XIII z age é : 
° 1896 ALLEN, Giithe’s ‘Heligoland. Lay 


GATKE’S ‘HELIGOLAND.’! 
BY J. A. ALLEN. 


Herr Girke’s ‘ Heligoland’ is beyond question a remarkable 
book. Its author and the island from which it takes its name are 
both unique in the annals of ornithglogical literature. It is not 
therefore surprising that the work has been received with almost 
unexampled interest by bird lovers and bird students the world 
over. ‘ Heligoland’ was originally published in German in 1892, 
and has now received the compliment of being made accessible 
to English readers. 

Heligoland is a smal] island at the mouth of the Elbe in the 
North Sea, about fifteen miles distant from the mainland. It is 
triangular in outline, slightly over a mile in length, but much less 
than a square mile in area. Being treeless and almost destitute 
of shrubbery, it affords slight chance of concealment for the birds 
which visit it, often in enormous numbers. But its bird popula- 
tion is mainly transient, only one species of land bird, the ever- 
present House Sparrow, being a regular breeder in any numbers. 
The island is thus a resting place merely —‘ Die Vogelwarte 
Helgoland,’ to borrow the expressive German title of Herr Giitke’s 
book —- for migrants, that make it a temporary place of refuge 
in their lang journeys, in most cases tarrying for only a few 
hours. It also lies at the intersection of two prominent lines of 
migration, the one a north and south route, the other an east and 
west route. Here Herr Gatke for fifty years, aided by fowlers, 
taxidermists, and bird catchers of all sorts, has kept an incessant 
watch upon the ever-fluctuating bird population of this ‘‘ bare and 
rugged isle,” with the result of chronicling as visitants to Heligo- 
land not less than 398 species, including a large number of waifs 
and strays from distant and in some instances most unexpected 
quarters of the globe. As a result, as already said, Heligoland 
and Herr Giitke have long been famous in the annals of orni- 


1 Heligoland as an Ornithological Observatory, the Result of Fifty Years’ 
Experience. By Heinrich Gatke. Translated by Rudolph Rosenstock. Edin- 
burgh: David Douglas. 1895. Svo, pp. xii, 599. 


18 


138 ALLEN, Gitke’s ‘Heligoland.’ pee 
thology. Hence it is natural that his book of over 600 pages, 
giving a detailed record of his observations and experiences, and 
of his views on bird migration, its causes and methods, should be 
hailed with delight by a wide circle of ornithological readers. As 
Herr Giitke has been awarded honorary membership in all of the 
leading ornithological societies of the world, it is perhaps not 
strange that his utterances on the ‘mysterious’ problems of 
bird life should be accepted as little short of oracular, and his 
statements taken at nearly their face value, without special scru- 
tiny or criticism, by a large majority of his readers. 

Indeed, ‘ Heligoland’ has been pronounced by an ornitholo- 
gist of high standing to be “one of the most original, most 
remarkable, and most valuable books ever written about birds.” 
That it is original and remarkable no one will deny; as to its 
value there is easily room for difference of opinion. Herr Giitke’s 
observations, it may be well to remember, have been limited to 
an almost barren island of less than a square mile in extent, with 
conditions necessarily exceptional, but of such a character as to 
give highly favorable opportunities for the study of certain features 
of the migratory movements of birds. But the fact that the con- 
ditions are unusual, and the field extremely limited, renders it 
questionable whether or not the conclusions of a single observer 
based thereon should outweigh the sum of all other observations 
made elsewhére, and the inferences and hypotheses of hundreds 
of excellent observers who have investigated the subject in other 
lands. Yet if we take Herr Giitke at his own estimate, observa- 
tions made outside of Heligoland are to be discredited as in 
some way faulty or erroneous, if they fail to agree with those of 
the Oracle of Heligoland. At least, as one of his admirers puts it, 
‘the most conspicuous result of his insistence upon the facts in 
the case is rank iconoclasm. He smashes our idols right and left ; 
he leaves us at the mercy of our fables, helpless for lack of gods 
to supplicate, for he sets up none of his own in their places” 
(Auk, XII, p. 343). In other words, on most points he takes 
issue with what may be termed the general consensus of opinion 
of ornithologists, affirming that they are wrong while he must be 
right, or else declaring that all previous opinions and hypotheses 
are not only without foundation, but the point at issue is a riddle 


Pe, ALLEN, Githe’s ‘Heligoland. 139 


beyond the power of man to solve. Hence we are led to a rather 
close scrutiny of evidence and arguments so universally icono- 
clastic. 

‘Heligoland’ is indeed a remarkable book, and an important 
contribution, from many points of view, to the literature of orni- 
thology ; but it contains much that is set forth as fact which 
on close examination proves to be mere conjecture. On many 
points which Herr Giitke treats with great positiveness his knowl- 
edge is obviously as limited as the little field which has been the 
scene of his life-long labors. 

Herr Giitke’s book consists of three parts, entitled respectively 
‘Migration of Birds’ (pp. 3-148), ‘Changes in the Color of the 
Plumage of Birds without Moulting’ (pp. 149-164), and ¢ Account 
of the Birds observed in Heligoland’ (pp. 165-588). Part I is 
divided into eleven chapters or sections, relating to as many 
phases of the general subject of bird migration. ‘The first chapter 
treats of the ‘ Course of Migration generally in Heligoland,’ and 
gives a history of bird movements at the island chronologically by 
months from January to December. In style of treatment it is 
not unlike accounts that have been given of many other localities 
by various local observers, being a sort of calendar of the bird 
year at Heligoland. Its special interest is therefore due to the 
peculiar nature and geographic position of the island in relation 
to the migration routes of birds, and the long period of observa- 
tion on which the account is based. 

Chapter II (pp. 24-45) treats of the ‘Direction of Flight.’ 
Here his observations and conclusions are quite at variance with 
those of most observers at other points. He scouts the idea of 
‘Zugstrassen, or restricted lines of migration, or concentrated 
migration by favorite routes, and affirms that “the migratory 


” 


movement is performed by a broad front,’’ which corresponds to 
the breadth of the breeding area. He says, for example: “ The 
view, much discussed in recent years, that migrants follow the 
direction of ocean coasts, the drainage area of rivers, or depres- 
sions of valleys as fixed routes of migration, can hardly be main- 
tained. Too many facts are directly at. variance with this 
assumption” (p. 24). In proof of his view he cites the east and 


west migration of many species which, breeding in northeastern 


140 ALLEN, Gdtke’s ‘Heligoland. | Awe 


Asia, pass Heligoland, and later turn southward to reach their 
winter quarters in southwestern Europe, crossing in their west- 
ward autumnal journey, nearly at right angles, all the principal 
mountain chains and rivers of northern Asia and Europe. River 
valleys being ‘“ generally endowed with a very varied vegetation 
and a rich insect life” are consequently “ welcomed by the 
majority of migrants as most desirable feeding-places,” and they 
are hence used as halting stations for “rest, food, or water,”’— 
which fact, Giitke claims, has given rise to the idea, in the minds 
of superficial observers, that the migrants here met with are fol- 
lowing the courses of the streams. 

Herr Giitke recognizes at Heligoland two distinct lines of 
autumnal migration,—one from east to west, and another, of 
equal importance, from north to south (p. 37). The spring migra- 
tion. in the case of the east to west migrants, differs markedly 
from the autumnal movement, in that the spring journey is much 
more rapid and made along the shortest line between the winter 
quarters and the breeding stations, whereas in the fall migration 
it describes two sides of a triangle,— namely, from eastern Asia 
to the coast of central Europe and thence abruptly south to 
northern Africa. It is further affirmed that ‘“ birds perform the 
journey from their winter quarters to the breeding stations, if 
possible, in one uninterrupted flight.” ‘Phat such is not the case 
in North America is amply proven, were there no other evidence, 
by the data given in Cooke and Merriam’s ‘ Bird Migration in the 
Mississippi Valley,’ where the daily progress of some sixty species 
has been traced from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada and has been 
found to be only from about fifteen to thirty miles per day, accord- 
ing to the species, and whether the species is an early or a late 
migrant. ‘This seems much better evidence than the avowed 
basis of Herr Giitke’s assumption, namely, ‘observations made 
here [at Heligoland] incidentally during the capture of birds at 
night at the lighthouse ” (p. 44). 

Chapter III (pp. 46—62) is devoted to ‘ Altitude of the Migra- 
tion Flight.’ On this point, in speaking of ‘ migration proper,” 
or “those large, extensive movements” which on the one hand 
conduct our migrants from their breeding homes to or very near 
their winter quarters in one uninterrupted flight, and on the other 


Rote ALLEN, Géithe’s ‘Heligoland. 141 


hand, in spring, convey them in the opposite direction from their 
winter quarters to their breeding haunts,— the uninterrupted con- 
tinuity of the flight being still more marked in this latter phase of 
the migratory phenomenon,’— he says: “* Observations extending 
_ over many years have led me to the conclusion that, as long as 
migration proceeds under normal conditions, this elevation is, in 
the case of by far the larger number, so great as to be completely 
beyond the powers of human observation ; while we must regard 
as disturbances and irregularities of the migration movement 
proper, due to meteorological influences, such portions of it as 
are brought within our notice” (p. 46). Apparently he would 
place the height of the migration flight as high as 15,000 to 
30,000 feet, and brings forward evidence to show that some 
birds attain at will a height of even 35,000 to 40,000 feet. He 
might have brought much stronger evidence to support his con- 
clusion than any he cites had he been more familiar with the 
literature of the subject, for the observations made repeatedly 
in this country with telescopes directed toward the disk of the 
full moon during migration nights, demonstrating the fact that 
birds reach an altitude of from one to three miles in their migra- 
tory flights, is not mentioned.! Inthis connection he dwells upon 
the fact that birds must be very differently constituted from man 
or any other warm-blooded creature to be able to sustain life in 
such rarefied air-strata and under the low temperature of such 
elevations. He also comments at length on the ability possessed 
by many birds to vary apparently the specific gravity of their 
bodies, as in the case of various diving birds, and as must also be 
the case with birds that rise to great altitudes in flight. 

The main purpose of the high altitude of the migration flight, 
he believes, is that these high strata of the air offer, for the time 
being, the most favorable conditions for migration, and render the 
migrating hosts independent of the numerous meteorological dis- 
turbances that affect the lower regions of the atmosphere, but that 
also the rarefied air of the upper regions presents less resistance 
to their progress. 


1See Scott and Allen, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, VI, 1881, pp. 97-100, 188; 
Chapman, Auk, V, 1888, pp. 37-39. 


142 ALLEN, Gdtke’s ‘Heligoland. foal 


In Chapter IV (pp. 63-73) the ‘Velocity of the Migration 
Flight’ is considered. On this subject there is unfortunately very 
little positive information; hence the field is a tempting one for 
conjecture and inference, and Herr Gitke has not neglected to 
make use of it. The actual data bearing on the subject which he 
is able to cite does not by any means favor the high rate of speed 
he assigns to migrating birds; namely, 180 to 240 geographical 
miles per hour, not for a single hour but for many hours consecu- 
tively! The character of his proof of this proposition is fairly 
shown by the following. His crucial test, and the main basis of 
his assumption, is the spring migration of the Red-spotted Blue- 
throat (Cyanecula suecica), a bird which winters in Egypt and the 
neighboring countries and breeds mainly north of the 6oth parallel 
in northern Europe. On the negative evidence that it has not 
been recorded as occurring anywhere in numbers in_ spring 
between the Nile Valley and Heligoland, it is assumed as beyond 
question that the majority of the individuals of this species, “ under 
normal conditions, and in the absence of meteorological influences 
of a disturbing nature, accomplish their migration in one uninter- 
rupted nocturnal flight, . . . thus accomplishing a distance of at 
least 1600 geographical miles within the space of nine hours” 
(pp. 65, 266), hence maintaining an average rate of speed of 180 
miles an hour. ‘The Bluethroat is cited as positive proof that other 
birds having the same winter quarters and breeding range must 
also migrate in the same way (p. 67). But he goes even further 
than this, citing as “the most striking and incontestable proof” of 
his assumption the American Golden Plover (Charadrius domin- 
icus), which, he affirms, migrates in autumn from Labrador to 
northern Brazil in a single uninterrupted flight, over a distance of 
3000 geographical miles. He says, ‘‘we may probably assume 
fifteen hours as the longest spell during which a bird is able to 
remain on the wing without taking sustenance of any kind”; and the 
velocity of flight of these birds would, on this assumption, “amount 
to 212 geographical miles per hour” (p. 69). Even this astonish- 
ing rapidity of flight he believes is not to be regarded as “ either 
exceptional or isolated,’ and that the same birds “may be able 
to accomplish even greater feats during the spring migration.” 
Indeed, recurring again to the Bluethroat, he believes that those 


ae ea ALLEN, Giithe's ‘Heligoland” 143 
individuals which pass on from Africa to the Scandinavian penin 
sula, including the majority of the representatives of the species, 
“accomplish during the same May night a distance of 2000 to 
2400 geographical miles. This would,” he adds, “of course, 
give as a result a velocity of four miles a minute,’ or 240 miles 
an hour! 

Whatever the Bluethroat may really do, the kind of migration 
ascribed to it is not that well known to characterize the majority 
of birds during the spring migration; indeed, Herr Gitke finds it 
necessary to explain away the observations of others, or to dis- 
regard such of their testimony as may be known to him, as of no 
special importance when weighed in the scale with his own “ fifty 
’ on the little island of Heligoland. Thus he 
says: “It has been supposed that birds are in the habit of break- 


years’ experience’ 


ing their migration journey without any very powerful disturbing 
cause both in autumn and spring, at the former season on reaching 
latitudes not.so far south as those of their normal winter quarters, 
and in spring before they have arrived at their breeding stations. 
With this assumption, however, my own experiences on this island, 
accumulated for many years, ave at variance.’ This quotation, 
especially the portion here italicized, shows the attitude and spirit 
in which Gitke approaches the many general questions he dis- 
cusses,—his own little island of a few acres in extent, nearly 
woodless and barren, and his own experiences limited thereto, 
being placed in opposition to the accumulated experience of 
thousands of observers scattered over the greater part of the earth. 

It is quite possible that many birds, the Plovers among them, 
attain not unfrequently a speed of roo to 150 miles per hour, and 
are able to maintain that rate for a number of consecutive hours, 
but that birds as a rule fly at this rate, or make the journey 
between their winter stations and breeding grounds ‘in one unin- 
terrupted flight” is not by any means the rule, if indeed it be 
the case in any instance. To marshal the well-known proof of 
this would be almost to insult the intelligence of the experienced 
ornithologist. Let it suffice to say that where trustworthy obser- 
vations have been made regarding the ordinary flight of Ducks, 
Pigeons, Hawks, and some other species, the rate of speed has 
been rarely found to exceed 35 to 60 miles per hour. 


144 ALLEN, Géithe’s ‘Heligoland.’ aval 


Again, in regard to the American Golden Plover, which he 
believes makes the journey from Labrador to northern Brazil “ in 
one uninterrupted flight,” it may be worth while to mention that 
this species is a well-known autumn migrant all along the Atlantic 
coast of the United States, and in the West Indies, during a 
period of from four to six weeks, varying in abundance, and in the 
length of stay of any particular flock, according to the weather, 
being common at numerous well-known points for from a few 
hours to a few days, in the case of heavy easterly storms, and rare 
during continued fair weather.!- Because there is a record of flocks 
passing the Burmudas without stopping, it does not follow that 
these flocks may not afterwards have stopped at some of the many 
islands of the West Indies, or that flocks that pass the Massachu- 
setts coast without stopping may not halt at points on the coast 
further south ; for, as said above, the species is of frequent occur- 
rence as an autumnal visitor all along the Atlantic coast from 
New England to Florida and in the West Indies. 

Chapter V (pp. 74-99) considers the ‘ Meteorological Condi- 
tions which influence Migration,’ as the force and direction of 
the winds, the state of the atmosphere as regards moisture, 
cloudiness, temperature, etc., all of these influences being intelli- 
gently discussed, and their effects illustrated by reference to the 
author’s experiences at Heligoland. 

In Chapter VI (pp. too-113), on the ‘Order of Migration 
according to Age and Sex,’ the author’s dogmatism and disregard 
of whatever occurs outside of Heligoland stands prominently 
forth. ‘*The question,” says Giitke, ‘‘as to the order of age and 
sex in which migrants take up their annual journeys is one on 
which, up to the most recent time, there have prevailed more 
serious errors than on any problem connected with the migration 
phenomenon. It was generally supposed that the old birds acted 
as the leaders, teachers, and guides of the young ones on their 
migrations; and although this view was not based on any obser- 
vations whatsoever in Nature, it seemed so natural and reasonable 
that it was accepted in pure good faith, without subjecting it to 


' See Mackay, Auk, VIII, 1891, pp. 17-24 — record of the autumn migration 
of this species in Massachusetts for thirty years. J/ézd., IX, 1892, p. 199; X, 
1893, p- 79; XI, 1894, p. 753 XII, 1895, p. 78; XIII, 1896, pp. 89-92, passim, 


Vol. XIII 


1396 ALLEN, Gdtke's ‘Heligoland.’ 145 
the test of observation and experiment [p. roo]... . But this 
representation . . . is really nothing more than a plausibly sound- 


ing fable, in which — quite after the manner of a fable — the old 
and wise individuals represent the teachers and guides of simple 
youth: In reality, however, this explanation of the question not 
only lacks all support of actual facts, dut zs entirely at variance 
with every observation hitherto made in Nature’’(p 102). While 
there is perhaps a taint of the fabulous in the case as here put, 
if taken too literally — namely, that the young are led and guided 
by the old and experienced —it is difficult to understand the 
arrogance and dogmatism of the portion of the above extract here 
printed in italics, since numberless observers of the widest expe- 
rience and utmost trustworthiness take the opposite view from 
Herr Gitke on this matter. While Giitke’s experience may 
exceed that of most other observers as regards length of time, 
it is confined to a minute locality and to exceptional conditions, 
whereas the published evidence he so loftily declares not to exist 
is based on the experiences of observers whose field of research 
includes vast areas and more normal conditions. 

Speaking of Heligoland, he thus summarizes the ‘‘ incontestable 
result of all the numerous phenomena ” there observed as follows : 
“yz. That under normal conditions in the case of the 396 species 
occurring here, with the exception of a single one [the Cuckoo], 
the autumn migration is initiated by the young birds, from about 
six to eight weeks after leaving their nests. 2. That the parents 
of these young individuals do not follow till one or two months 
later. 3. That of these old birds again, the most handsome old 
males are the last to set out on the migratory journey. In spring 
this order is inverted” (p. 102). 

This explicit statement that in the case of these 396 species 
(with the one exception noted), ‘“‘the autumn migration is initiated 
by the young birds, from about six to eight weeks after leaving 
their nests,” seems at first sight to carry great weight, and we 
naturally turn to Part [II of the book to learn what these species 
are and their status as Heligoland birds. An examination of the 
list soon reveals the fact that over 200 of the 396 species must be 
classed as merely stragglers to Heligoland,! more than one half of 


1See Coues, ‘The Auk,’ Vol. XII, 1895, pp. 322-346. 


146 ALLEN, Gdtke’s ‘Heligoland.’ rea 


which have been detected in Heligoland only once each, ina 
period of fifty years, and half of the remainder but twice each! 
Furthermore that in many instances these records are spring 
records, the species having never been taken in Heligoland in 
autumn. <A further examination of the list shows that not more 
than one-third of these 396 species are really in evidence as regards 
the autumnal migration. Notwithstanding this misleading state- 
ment as to the extent of the evidence, we cannot suppose that 
Gitke is mistaken in regard to the order of appearance of the old 
and young birds at Heligoland after the breeding season in the 
case of such familiar species as the Starling, the Wheatear, the 
Pied Flycatcher, the Whinchat, the Redstart, Willow Warbler, the 
Ortolan Bunting, etc., the young of which are reported as appear- 
ing in Heligoland from the last of June or early part of July 
onward till September, weeks in advance of the old birds. As 
these birds all breed commonly on the adjoining mainland, it is 
doubtful whether these early visits of young birds indicate any- 
thing more than local movements of young birds prior to the 
season of true migration. As only one land bird, the ubiquitous 
House Sparrow, breeds regularly in numbers on this little unfor- 
ested island, any visitors from the neighboring mainland after the 
breeding season appear to be entered in Mr. Giitke’s list of fall 
migrants. Indeed it is evident that these young birds, only a 
few weeks from the nest, must be many of them still in nestling 
plumage, and hence unfitted to start on their regular autumnal 
migration. 

The case, however, is different with the young Golden Plovers 
(Charadrius pluvialis) recorded as arriving at Heligoland the first 
week in July, since the breeding grounds are more distant. It 
goes to show, however, that allied (congeneric) species of birds 
may behave very differently at different places, for it is a well 
established fact that on the eastern coast of North America the 
adult birds arrive first in the case of the American Golden 
Plover.! Also it is almost the uniform testimony of our best 
American observers that as a rule, among song birds as well as. 


‘See especially Mackay, Auk, XIII, 1896, pp. 90-92; also Feilden, Ibis, 
1889, p. 491. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 ALLEN, Gdtke’s ‘Heligoland, 147 


shore birds, the adults precede the young in the autumnal 
migration. 

In Chapter VII (pp. 114-130), under the head of ‘ Excep- 
tional Migration Phenomena,’ are grouped many facts of interest 
_ respecting the season and character of occurrence and sources 
of origin of the numerous waifs and strays, or chance visitors, 
which have been taken or observed on Heligoland. 

Chapter VIII (pp. 131-142) is devoted to a consideration 
of the question ‘What Guides Birds during their Migrations?’ 
and Chapter IX (pp. 143-148) to ‘The Cause of the Migra- 
tory Movement.’ ‘These are principally made up of destructive 
criticism of the theories and suggestions of previous writers, his 
conclusion being that the former question ‘‘presents to the 
savants of our day as great a riddle as it did tothe first ob- 
server in ages before the dawn of history” (p. 132). He con- 
cludes Chapter VIII by saying: “Having thus examined the 
many various: attempts made to explain the wonderful faculty 
possessed by migrants of discovering the right path of their 
migration, and shown how insufficient most of them are when 
confronted with actual facts, observed directly in nature, in the 
course of more than fifty years’ investigations and at a spot so 
favoured as Heligoland, I cannot say that I feel encouraged to 
add further to the number of such attempts by others of my 
own” (p. 142). As he has during the previous chapters advanced 
theories of his own to explain the various phenomena of migra- 
tion, usually in direct opposition to those of other students of 
the subject, and has not hesitated to reject as not worth con- 
sidering observations made elsewhere if they do not tally with 
his “fifty years’ investigations” on his “favoured little isle of 
Heligoland,” it seems almost remarkable that he should content 
himself in the present case —after proving (to his own satis- 
faction) everybody else wrong — with this modest confession of 
inability to explain this old-time riddle. He discards the idea 
of definite routes of migration; of topographic featureS of the 
landscape,— coast lines, river courses, and mountain chains,— 
serving as landmarks; and discredits the possibility of a heredi- 
tary transmission of knowledge derived from experience. He 
erroneously assumes that because birds migrate principally by 


148 ALLEN, Géthe’s ‘/Teligoland. eel 


night it is impossible for them to distinguish the nature of the 
country beneath them, and that hence if they were possessed 
of a highly developed local sense of direction it would be of no 
service to them on such journeys. 

In regard to the “immediate cause of the departure of birds 
on their migrations,” he believes ‘we are confronted with a 
riddle which has hitherto defied every attempt at a solution, 
and which indeed we may hardly expect will ever be likely to 
receive a final explanation. . . . In thus abstaining from setting 
forth new theories, I have been guided by the conviction, ren- 
dered firmer with increasing knowledge of the phenomena, that 
what at present has been ascertained in reference to the migra- 
tion of birds furnishes us with no clue, by the aid of which we 


” 


are enabled to penetrate the depths of this wondrous mystery 
(p. 148). } 

In reality, great light has unquestionably been thrown upon 
the causes of migration, the manner of its performance, the con- 
ditions which influence it, and the factors that aid in guiding 
birds on their migrations, by the systematic observations so 
extensively carried on in Europe and in America, during espe- 
cially the last ten or twelve years. Yet the love of mystery is 
so inherent in the popular mind, and the habit of viewing the 
migration of birds as the “mystery of mysteries” in bird life is 
so firmly fixed, that it is perhaps not strange that a reasonable 
explanation of all the principal phenomena of the subject should 
be received as unwelcome iconoclasm on the part of one who 
clings tenaciously to life-long modes of thought. The “several 
very ingenious and plausible hypotheses,” resulting from “long 
and profound study,” find no favor with Herr Giitke, though 
favorably received by the newer school of migration observers,, 
who consider the subject as no longer invested in “impenetrable 
mystery.” 

In Part II (pp. 151-164) he takes up the subject of ‘ Changes 
in the Colour of the Plumage of Birds without Moulting,’ in the 
discussion of which the author displays a depth of ignorance and 
a misapprehension of simple facts that ill comports with his claim 
of “having for many years devoted the most unremitting atten- 
tion” to the subject. He evidently knows little about the way birds 


ee ALLEN, Gdtkhe's ‘Heligoland. 149 
moult, or he would not, as on page 110, consider it ‘singular how 
such a bird [as the Hooded Crow] could lose so many of the flight 
feathers of 40/2 wings” at the same time, or fail to recognize a 
spring moult in so many of the species he cites as changing to the 
breeding dress without any renewal of the plumage. 

He says: “ The change from the winter plumage to the breeding 
dress zwthout moulting is accomplished in three different ways. 
The simplest of these consists in the shedding of the edges of the 
feathers of the winter plumage.” This he correctly describes, 
citing numerous species in which it is exemplified,—a change 
well known to intelligent ornithologists the world over. ‘The 
second method, he says, ‘‘ consists, so far as I have been able to 
determine without the help of a microscope, in a peeling off of 
the separate barbs of the feathers, whereby these are stripped of 
a thin inconspicuously coloured envelope, so that the purer and 
finer colour previously concealed beneath the latter becomes 
exposed” (p. 152). In reality this is in part a less marked 
wearing off of the edges of the feathers mentioned under his first 
method of change, and in part a slight alteration of colour due to 
the exposure of the plumage to the influence of the elements. 
The “ peeling’’ process is an original discovery of Herr Gitke, 
and doubtless exists largely, if not solely, in his fertile imagination. 

‘The last and most wonderful process in the colour changes of 
the plumage of birds, not attended by a renewal of the feathers 
themselves, consists in an actual, complete, and very striking 
change in the colour of the feathers, without such alteration 
being brought about, or even assisted, by any change in their 
texture. As illustrating the climax of this process,’’ he continues, 
‘* we may probably point to the change from pure snow-white to 
an intense glossy black or blackish brown” (p. 153), as he avers 
occurs in the head and neck of the Little Gull and in the fore-neck 
and upper breast of the White and Pied Wagtails, and in the 
heads and necks of Guillemots and Auks. The manner of this 
change he describes with a minuteness that seems to bar all cavil 
at its correctness, were it not for the utter improbability of the 
case, and the known fact that in the same or allied American 
species this spring change from white to black is due to moult and 
a complete renewal of the plumage of the parts involved! 

His remarks on the changes of colour in various species of 


150 ALLEN, Gatke’s ‘Heliguland- Anti 


Limicolz, and especially in the Sanderling and Golden Plover, is 
equally absurd and erroneous, although the changes are described 
with a minuteness of detail that would seem to imply a careful 
examination of specimens. In fact, he seems to have made such 
examinations, as he says his observations are based ‘‘on fresh 
examples, in which, by examination of the inner cutaneous sur- 
face, it was possible to determine with certainty whether moulting 
actually took place or not... . Where the change of colour 
proceeds by gradational stages in this manner, the bird under 
examination completely gives one the impression of being fully in 
the moulting state, and, in fact, examples of this kind have been 
sent me by ornithologists of repute in proof of a moulting process. 
A close and exact examination, however, at once reveals the fact 
that all these scattered and ‘newly coloured feathers are of per- 
fectly normal size ; nor do we find among them any others of half 
or more than half their full growth, still within the dermal quill 
[sheath], as would be the case if one were dealing with a moulting 
individual” (p. 163). On this point it must be said that Gitke 
was very unfortunate in selecting his material, or very careless in 
his observations; as ordinarily it is by no means difficult to find 
in such specimens as he describes plenty of feathers in all stages 
of growth. How he could have failed to discover them is hard 
to conceive. His interpretation of the markings and changes he 
so minutely describes must be due to so strong a preconceived 
notion of what ought to occur that he was blinded to the real facts 
in the case. Indeed, according to Giitke, in speaking of the 
Sanderling, not only does the color of the feathers change but 
‘at the same time the serrated indentations [due to wear] of the 
worn posterior flight feathers, the abraded tips of the barbs which 
formed the light lateral markings” are restored. ‘When this 
[transformation] is complete, the feathers are of a dusky black 
colour, the large triangular spots at their margins nearly white, 
the serrated indentations of the edges of the feathers are filled 
out, and the whole plumage has the appearance as if it had 


9 


just been renewed by moulting,’’ — which, in fact, is just what 


has happened! ! 


1In this connection see ‘The Changes of Plumage in the Dunlin and Sander- 
ling,’ by Frank M. Chapman (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., VIII, 1896, pp. 1-8), 
written with special reference to Gitke’s remarkable statements. 


Tce ALLEN, Gitke’s ‘Heligoland.’ 15 J 


If his statements are true, not only does an old, long-worn 
feather receive an influx of pigment, but has its worn and ragged 
edges restored by the addition of new growths to the edges,— 
‘“a restoration of the worn and blunted barbs to their previous 
entirety.” In other words, we must suppose that a feather after 
months of wear is capable of rejuvenation to the extent of not only 
developing a system of circulation for the transmission of pigment 
through the shaft and out into the ultimate divisions of the barbs, 
but also solid matter for the restoration of the structural parts of 
the feather which have been worn away by abrasion! Thus, in 
speaking of the Spotted Redshank, the Marsh and Wood Sand- 
pipers, he says the light triangular spots on the margins of the 
flight feathers and larger feathers of the upper. parts “are so 
little able to stand wear, that by the end of the winter they have 
almost or entirely disappeared, as a result of which the remain- 
ing portions of the feathers have acquired jagged edges something 
like the cutting edge of a saw. It is this edge which, in the 
course of the colour changes, is restored ”’ (p. 157). 

That such statements can be made seriously by any intelligent 
ornithologist, and still more be quoted with approval by promi- 
nent authorities on bird matters (see Auk, XII, p. 346, and Ibis, 
Jan., 1896, p. 142), is almost beyond belief. In short, it would 
be hard to find a greater amount of error in an equal space than 
is crowded into Herr Giitke’s fifteen pages on ‘Change in Colour 
of the Plumage of Birds without Moulting,’ or more astonishingly 
absurd statements.! 

If this is the result of “the most unremitting attention for 
to this subject at Heligoland, which ‘“ supplies us 


’ 


’ 


many years’ 
with an abundance of material for observation,” we may perhaps 
reasonably fer’»a little distrust of some of Herr Gitke’s observa- 
tions and conclusions based on “fifty years of investigation ”’ at 


‘It may be added here that this chapter was published in substance by 
Herr Gitke in 1854, in the ‘Journal fiir Ornithologie,’ pp. 321-327, in an 
article entitled ‘ Einige Beobachtungen iiber Farbenwechsel durch Umfarbung 
ohne Mauser.’ 

For further comment on this paper of Giatke’s, and on others of similar 
character by other authors, see Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., VIII, 1896, pp. 


13-44. 


152 ALLEN, Giithe’s ‘Heligoland. rer 
this favored island on the general subject of migration, when, as 
is so often the case, they run counter to the observations of orni- 
thologists at large, with more favorable opportunities for getting at 
the general facts of migration as displayed over wide areas. It is 
not an agreeable task to pick flaws in a work received in many 


quarters. almost as oracular,—a work, moreover, so pleasantly 
written, and apparently with such sincerity of purpose, and con- 
taining so much of real value; yet to let such errors pass unchal- 
lenged is not the way to promote truth, or to advance the science 
of ornithology. 

Part III (pp. 167-588) gives an ‘Account of the Birds 
observed in Heligoland.’ These number 396 (+ 1 added at p. x 
= total 397),— an extraordinarily large number for a locality of 
such limited area. A careful synopsis of the list (see Coues, 
Auk, XII, 1895, pp. 324-342), however, shows that fully one-half 
are stragglers. Thus, during fifty years, 97 species have been 
taken or observed only once each; 33 species, only twice each; 
and 70 species, three times or more. About 130 species are 
regular migrants either in spring or fall or during both seasons, 
while about 50 are more or less regular winter residents. Some 
16 species have been known to breed, but some of them in only - 
one or two instances, the others, except one, more or less 
irregularly. 

Among the stragglers, the occurrence of fifteen exclusively 
North American species is recorded, which Herr Giitke shows 
(p. 124) most probably in nearly every instance reached Heligo- 
land by a journey across the North Atlantic. Other stragglers 
are casual visitors from the far North; many others, from the far 
East, and others still from the South, are species which have far 
overstepped their usual boundaries. 

In commenting on the large number of * casual visitants’ that 
have been taken on the little island of Heligoland, Herr Giitke 
considers that their appearance in such numbers on so small an 
area is proof that an incomparably larger number must annually 
pass across Europe. If, he says ‘“ twenty, fifty, or even a hundred 
examples of Richard’s Pipit occur here in one day |of course an 
exceptional occurrence], these numbers can only represent a 
minute fraction of the quite incomputable quantity of these birds 


Vol. XIII 


1396 STONE, North American Horned Owls. 153 


which are travelling at the same period from Datiria to Western 
Europe.” 

Giitke’s list is copiously and interestingly annotated, the annota- 
tions often occupying several pages, the records being in most 
instances very fully and satisfactorily given. The nomenclature, 
however, is antiquated, being for the most part that of Naumann, 
and hence dating almost from Giitke’s boyhood. In the English 
translation the equivalent modern names are given in footnotes, 
when different from those used in the text, as is usually the case. 
In a few instances the identifications may be open to question, 
especially in some of the few cases where the species was only 
observed and not actually taken. 

With all its imperfections ‘ Heligoland’ is a book of great 
interest and value, Part III being a particularly useful contribu- 
tion to the literature of ornithology. It is also a work that is 
likely to do much harm, for it is its sensational and inaccurate 
parts especially that find their way into the current literature of 
the day, and particularly into magazines and books devoted to 
the popularization of natural history. 


A REVISION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN HORNED 
OWLS WITH DESCRIPTION OF A 
NEW SUBSPECIES. 


BY WITMER STONE. 


Ir is not a pleasant task to overthrow a scientific name long im 
use, but under certain circumstances it seems unavoidable, and 
the case of Bubo virginianus subarcticus (Hoy) is an instance of 
this kind. 

Some years ago while engaged in cataloguing the Owls in the 
collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia I 
found the type specimen of “ Abo subarcticus Hoy.” The bird 
was mounted, and on the under side of the stand were written the 


20 


154 Stone, North American Horned Owls. ee 
following data in the hand of John Cassin: “ Bubo subarcticus 
Hoy, Racine, Wisconsin. Original specimen described by Dr. 
Hoy and presented by him 1853. J.C.’ The description is in 
the ‘ Proceedings’ of the Academy for 1852, p. 211, and evidently 
refers to the specimen in question. 

This specimen at once struck me as being much lighter in color 
than any examples of swbarcticus that I had examined; in fact it 
seemed nearer to the description of avcfzcus as given in the books. 
Not having any specimens of undoubted arcticus for comparison, 
and the figure of this form in ‘ Fauna Boreali-Americana’ being 
still lighter than the specimen in hand, I let the matter stand 
until I had an opportunity to make direct comparison. 

Recently I showed the specimen to Mr. Leverett M. Loomis, 
who agreed with me that it must be very close to arcticus. A few 
days later, while together in Washington, we examined Specimens 
of arcticus in the National Museum Collection and concluded that 
the type of swbarcticus was identical with them. 

To make matters sure, however, I sent the type specimen to 
Mr. Robert Ridgway, on my return to Philadelphia, and after 
making a careful comparison, he writes me: “The bird is un- 
questionably referable to avcticus Swainson, agreeing closely with 
specimens in our collection from Winnipeg. It is darker than the 
specimen described and figured in the ‘Fauna Boreali-Americana,’ 
which seems to have been an exceptionally light-colored example.” 

As a result of this investigation the name ‘“ Audo subarcticus 
Hoy ” will have to become a synonym of Audbo virginianus arcticus 
(Swainson), leaving the form from the Great Plains and south- 
western United States, which was formerly known as Aube virgin- 
zanus subarcticus (Hoy), to be renamed. So far as I can ascertain, 
the only other name that has been proposed for the western 
Horned Owl is facéficus Cassin, ‘ Illustrations of the Birds of Cali- 
fornia, Texas,’ etc.> p. 178. 

Cassin here recognizes three varieties of Bubo virginianus,— 
(1) atlanticus, the eastern bird, (2) paceficus, the western, and (3) 
arcticus Swains., the northern form. He very properly suggests 
that subarcticus Hoy is a synonym of arcticus Swains., which 
suggestion has been ignored by subsequent writers. The names 
atlanticus and pacificus were here proposed for the first time. The 


ee STONE, North American Horned Owls. P55 


former is of course a synonym pure and simple of B. virginianus 
(Gmel.), while under facificus he apparently intended to include 
all western Horned Owls known to him and not coming under 
arcticus Swains. The diagnosis of pacificus, however, clearly 
applies to the light-colored owls. Mr. Ridgway apparently 
noticed this fact, and although he had at first used pacificus Cass. 
for the dark owl of the Northwest and Rocky Mountain region, he 
afterwards proposed the name sa¢uratus for this form. 

According to the laws of nomenclature pacificus Cass. cannot be 
ignored, and while its application to the light-colored western 
Horned Owls seems sufficiently clear, the separation of the dark 
western bird as saturatus Ridgw. emphasizes it still more. 

Just here, however, there is another point to consider, 7.¢., 
whether there are not two well marked races of these light-colored 
birds included under the old “ subarcticus.” 

I have for some years past noticed that the Horned Owls from 
southern California differed from the light-colored examples from 
farther east in their uniformly smaller size and the increased 
mottling on the feathers of the tarsus. These differences I think 
are sufficiently well marked to warrant the separation of the two 
forms. 

The name facificus Cass. (Dwarf Horned Owl) I would restrict 
to the small southern California subspecies, as Cassin calls 
particular attention to the general small size of examples of this 
variety, and furthermore had California specimens in the series 
that he studied. For the large form from the Great Plains I 
would propose the name 


Bubo virginianus occidentalis. WeresrerN HorNnep OwL. 


The several races would then be distinguished as follows, 
using in part the phraseology of Ridgway’s ‘ Manual.’ 


a'. Color darker, with dusky markings more extensive or more numer- 
ous. Plumage much mixed with tawny or ochraceous. 
5'. Moderately dark, face mostly rusty and plumage with an excess 
of tawny rufous. . : : Bubo virginianus (Gmel.). 
6'', Extremely dark, face usually sooty brown mixed with whitish, 
plumage with less tawny, sometimes none. 
B. virginianus saturatus Ridgw. 


Auk 


I 56 | Recent Literature. April 


a''. Color lighter, gray and buff tints predominating over the darker 
markings; lower parts whiter. 
6'. General aspect above grayish with more or less buffy admixture ; 
dark markings below distinct. 
c'. Size small, w. 13 in., tarsi, strongly mottled. 
; B. virginianus pacificus Cass. 
c''. Size large, w. 16 in., tarsi with mottling much less dis- 
tinct. ‘ B. virginianus occidentalis subsp. nov. 
6'', General aspect above white, ground color faded, beneath pure 
white with dark markings restricted. 
B. virginianus arcticus (Swains.). 

A specimen of 4. wrginianus pacificus Cass. before me (No. 
27905, coll. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., San Bernardino, Cal., April, 
1887, ¢, coll. by R. B. Herron) measures: wing, 12.95 ; culmen, 
1.48; tarsus (to insertion of hind toe), 1.80; middle claw to 
sheath, .g5. 

The type of &. zvrginianus occidentalis (No. 26435, coll. Acad. 
Nat. Sci. Phila., Mitchell Co., Iowa, winter, 1880, coll. W. L. 
Abbott), probably a female, measures: wing, 16; culmen, 1.80; 
tarsus (to insertion of hind toe), 2.50; middle claw to sheath, 
20: 

The markings of Aacificus, especially beneath, seem to average 
darker than in occidentalis, in such specimens as I have seen. 
The exact range of the two I cannot ascertain without examin- 
ing a larger series. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


The ‘Birds’ of ‘The Royal Natural History.’!— The last half of 
Volume ITI of ‘The Royal Natural History’ is devoted to Birds, Volumes 


‘The Royal | Natural History | Edited by | Richard Lydekker, B. A., 
F. R. S., Etc. | With Preface by | P. L. Sclater, M. A., Ph.D., F. R. S., Ete. | 
Secretary of the Zodlogical Society of London | Illustrated with | Seventy- 
two Coloured Plates and Sixteen Hundred Engravings | by W. Kuhnert, 
F. Specht, P. J. Smit, G. Miitzel,; A. T. Elwes, J. Wolf, | Gambier Bolton, 
F. Z.S., and many others | Vol. III. | London | Frederick Warne & Co. | 
and New York | 1894-95 | [All Rights Reserved.] Super Royal 8vo. Birds, 
Vol. III, pp. 289-576, Vol. IV, pp. 1-192 (et seq.). 


ey Recent Literature. 15 7 


I and II and the first half of Volume II being given to Mammals. The 
work is issued in fortnightly parts, consisting of about 100 pages of text, 
two colored plates, and numerous text figures. The birds begin with 
No. 16 (No. 4 of Vol. III), of which Nos. 16 (Dec. 15, 1895) to 20 (Feb. 
15, 1896) are now before us for notice. The bird matter thus far includes 
pp. 289-576 of Vol. III. and pp. 1-192 of Vol. IV, and beginning with the 
Passeres, extends to about half way through the Diurnal Birds of Prey, 
and is divided into twelve chapters. Chapters II to VI (Vol. III, pp. 
305-544), which include the order Passeres, are by H. A. Macpherson, 
with some assistance from the editor, Mr. Lydekker, in Chapter II (see 
footnote to p. 374). Chapters VII to IX (Vol. III, pp. 545-576, and Vol. 
IV, pp. 1-99), embracing ‘The Picarians,’, are by R. Bowdler Sharpe. 
The authorship of Chapter I, ‘General Characteristics,— Class Aves’ 
(Vol. III, pp. 289-3043, Chapter X, ‘ The Parrot Tribe,— Order Psittaci ’ 
(Vol. IV, pp. 91-139), Chapter XI, ‘The Owls and Ospreys,— Orders 
Striges and Pandiones’ (Vol. IV, pp. 140-173), and Chapter XII, ‘The 
Diurnal Birds of Prey, or Accipitrines,— Order Accipitres’ (Vol. IV, pp. 
174-192, et. seq.) is thus far not indicated. As is easily noticeable, the 
style of treatment varies in the different parts of the work, as regards 
symmetry, accuracy, and familiarity of the author with his subject. 

The work is to be considered of course from the standpoint of a gen- 
eral popular treatise on the class Aves, with the limitations as to space 
necessarily entailed by such an undertaking. Hence a minimum of tech- 
nicalities is to be expected, with perhaps a very unequal allotment of 
space in proportion to the numerical size of the groups treated. Yet, 
considering the high scientific standing of the editor, we have reason to 
expect at least accuracy, if not fullness and uniformity of treatment of 
the groups that must be marshalled in review. Judged by these standards 
the work, as a whole, well stands the test, and in general merits the gen- 
erous patronage of the public. Many of the groups are admirably treated 
and indicate the work of a practiced hand, as especially the varied assort- 
ment of tamily groups here arrayed under the general term of ‘The Pica- 
rians.’ The same is true, in large measure, for the Parrots and the Birds 
of Prey. 

The great group of Passeres presents greater difficulties, owing to their 
diversity and numerical abundance, in comparison to the other orders of 
the class, so that the question of what groups to mention and what to 
pass unnoticed with so limited a space for their treatment, is obviously 
one of great embarrassment, and the selection would here severely tax 
the skill of the expert. Yet it is easy to perceive that the author often 
finds himselt in unaccustomed fields. 

The introductory chapter is quite too brief for the satisfactory treat- 
ment of the generalities of the subject, but is fortunately supplemented to 
a considerable extent by the introductory paragraphs to the orders in the 
body of the work. Yet we think the general reader would have been 
profited by a few additional paragraphs on feathers,— giving something 


I 58 feecent Literature. aa 


for instance about their development, pigmentation, their coloration, and 
especially their structure in its relation tocolor. In regard to their nature 
and development we have only the absolutely erroneous statement (Vol. 
II, p. 290) that feathers correspond “in essextiéal structure to hairs,” and 
that they are “similarly developed,” etc., which is also untrue. There is 
also looseness of statement (p. 299) regarding the barbules and hooklets, 
due perhaps to excessive effort at condensation of treatment, while the 
case is a little overdrawn (p. 291) in the statement that “it is impossible 
to killa winged bird by compressing its windpipe.” We regret also to 
see the Gatkean ideas introduced under the head of ‘ Migration’ (p. 302), 
to the effect that “the configuration of continents and oceans” must be 
invisible to migrating birds, even in the daytime, owing to the great height 
at which they travel. 

The classification followed is essentially that propounded some fifteen 
years ago by Dr. Sclater, on the ground that, owing to the present diver- 
sity of views on the subject, it is probably as good as any for a popular 
work like the present,—a statement we have no desire to controvert. In 
regard to the Passeres, the arrangement of Dr. Sharpe is adopted, which 
places the Corvide at the head,— an arrangement which at present seems 
to meet with wide approval. 

It is of course easy to find fault with a popular work of this general 
character, however good it may be or however conscientiously prepared. 
Yet we may perhaps be pardoned for pointing to a few errors of state- 
ment or omission that would hardly be anticipated in the present connec- 
tion. Thus (p. 309) the reference to Nazxthura fails to indicate that this 
brilliant genus of tropical American Jays is remarkable for its yellow and 
green colors rather than for its blue and black markings. In speaking of 
the Siberian Jay (Perdsoreus infaustus) as “acharacteristic bird of the most 
northern parts of the Old World,” it seems strange no reference is made 
to the fact that the genus Percsoreus is even more characteristic (as 
regards number of species) of the northern parts of North America. 
Again trom the account of the Crossbills, one might infer that all were 
so closely related as to be probably referable to one species, no reference 
being made to the group with white wing-bars. In referring to the dis- 
tribution of the Pipits (p. 432), the omission to note the occurrence of a 
considerable number of species in South America, taken with the refer- 
ence to North America, leads to the inference that they are absent from 
that continent. ; 

In speaking of the Baltimore Oriole (p. 357) there is either a bad jum- 
ble of the text of the two paragraphs headed respectively ‘ Cassiques’ and 
‘The True Hangnests,’ or else a most unpardonable lapse, for the Balti- 
more does not “build in large companies,” nor have as many as forty 

nests on a single tree, nor breed in November, but these statements might 
well apply to some of the South American Cassiques. In the next para- 
graph we have the erroneous statement that the Bobolink “ winters in 
Central America and the West Indies,” whereas it merely passes through 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


PRecent Literature. 159 
these regions on its way to and from South America. That some species 
of Cowbirds (p. 358) “seize upon the nests of others birds, and having 
driven away the rightful possessors, proceed to rear their own young in 
their new home,” must be a new discovery in the economy of these birds. 

Weaver-Birds (Ploceide) are said to ditfer from Finches (Fringillide) 
in that some of the former undergo a partial spring moult; the fact being 
that many genera of Finches also moult in the spring. Indeed, in many 
families of birds, in genera closely allied, some have a spring moult and 
others do not. 

Of the Rose-breasted Grosbeak (p. 381), its summer range, it is said, 
“extends to Labrador.” We will not, however, dwell on the inevitable 
slips in a work of this nature. Among Passeres those inhabiting Europe 
and especially the British Islands, naturally receive the most attention, 
many of the more prominent species being noticed at considerable length ; 
on the other hand, those of the two Americas receive little attention, even 
those of North America coming in for slight notice, and generally only 
when they belong to genera common also to the Old World. Thus of 
the great American Family Tyrannide, only two of the 400 species are 
distinctively mentioned, and only one member of the great Family For- 
micariidz, the family itself, as a group, being unnoticed. Nor is there any 
reference to the interesting Family Pteroptochide, although the little 
group of Plant-cutters (Phytotomide) receives nearly a page. Of the 
great number of Sparrows inhabiting North and South America, only 
one is specially mentioned (that is, exclusive of so-called ‘ Buntings’ and 
Finches, allied for the most part to Old World forms) ; and this in such 
a way as to be unrecognizable to American readers, except for the techni- 
cal name given in parenthesis. Thus, says Mr. Macpherson, under the 
heading ‘ Allied Genera’ (p. 416): “The Sparrow-bunting (Zonotrichia 
albicollis) belonging to a group of genera in which the tail is longer than 
the wing,” etc.—four lines in all. 

When North American birds are mentioned it is hard to understand 
why, by both Mr. Macpherson and Dr. Sharpe, vernacular names are 
given to them which no American reader would recognize, nor any 
ornithologist, if the technical names were omitted,— names apparently 
coined to suit the whim of the writer, regardless of the fact that the birds 
already have book names almost as distinctive and as stable as the tech- 
nical names of the systematists. Why our White-throated Sparrow 
should be given the meaningless title of ‘Sparrow Bunting,’ or our 
Grackles be dubbed ‘ Troupials,’ or our White-throated Swift be called 
‘Pied Swift,’ to cite a few representative cases, it is hard to conceive. 

While the text of Dr. Sharpe’s portion of the work is generally much 
more free from lapses than that relating to the Passeres, there is a curious 
error on p. 43 (Vol. IV) where in speaking of different species of Night 
Jars he says: “And a fourth, the one represented in the accompanying 
figure (C. virgintanus) tells you to whip-poor-will! whip-poor-will! in 
tones wonderfully clear and startling.” A glance at the cut, labeled ‘ Vir- 


160 _LRecent Literature. ree 
ginian Nightjar, shows at once that it is the Night-hawk ( Chordecles 
virginianus) and not the Whip-poor-will, as Dr. Sharpe seems to have 
supposed. As figures of both species are given in the work from which the 
figure is taken, it is evident that the wrong figure was accidently selected. 

As already said, the work as a whole is well worthy of the patronage of 
the public, for if it fails to tell all there is to know about birds, it gives a 
vast amount of interesting and trustworthy information in a small com- 
pass. The illustrations add greatly to its value and usefulness, but they 
are for the most part old acquaintances that have previously seen service 
repeatedly in other connections.— J. A. A. 


Saunders and Salvin’s Catalogue of the Gavie and Tubinares. — 
Volume XXV of the British Museum Catalogue of Birds! contains the 
Gavie, or the Terns, Gulls, and Skuas, by Mr. Howard Saunders, and the 
Tubinares, or the Petrels and Albatrosses, by Mr. Osbert Salvin. The 
authorities of the British Museum have thus been fortunate enough to 
secure the two leading specialists on these difficult orders of birds for their 
elaboration. 

The Gavi, or the Longipennes of the A. O. U. Check-List, of which 115 
species are here recognized, are arranged in twenty genera and two 
families — Laridwe and Stercorariide, the Rynchopide being treated as 
a subfamily of Laridz and placed between the Terns and Gulls. It is not 
clear why the name Gavi, proposed by Bonaparte in 1850 for a rather 
extensive and heterogeneous group, should be preferred to Longipennes, 
as restricted and defined by Nitzsch in 1840, or forty years before the term 
Gavie was narrowed down to its present signification. Neither is it evi- 
dent why the Skimmers should be interposed between the Terns and 
Gulls, especially as it is admittedly a difficult matter to draw a satisfactory 
dividing line between the Terns and Gulls. Yet we have in the present 
work a subfamily Sterninz separated froma subfamily Larine by a group 
so distinct from either of these really coalescing groups as to be often of 
late given the rank of a distinct family. 

Passing to details of special interest to American ornithologists, we note 
the following: /H/ydrochelidon surinamensis is separated specifically from 
Hl. nigra, on the ground probably that Mr. Saunders does not recognize 
subspecies; forms that are regarded as entitled to recognition being 


"Catalogue | of the | Gaviaze and Tubinares | in the | Collection | of the | 
British Museum. | — | Gavie | (Terns, Gulls, and Skuas) | by | Howard Saun- 
ders. | Tubinares (Petrels and Albatrosses) | by | Osbert Salvin. | London : 
Printed by order of the Trustees. 


Sold by | Longmans & Co., 39 Paternoster 
Row; | B. Quaritch, 15 Piccadilly; Dulau & Co., 37 Soho Square, W.; | 
Kegan Paul & Co., Paternoster House, Charing Cross Road; | and at the | 
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, S. W. | 1896. = Cata- 
logue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXV. 8vo, pp. i-xv, 1-475, 
pil. i-viii. : 5 


ere ; Recent Literature. 161 


treated as tull species. Gelochelidon anglica (Montague, 1813) is pre- 
ferred to nélotica Hasselq., 1762 (this edition of Hasselquist, by the way, 
is not cited), apparently because the date of zzlotica is prior to 1766, since 
no names appear to be countenanced that antedate the 12th (1766) edition 
of Linné’s ‘Systema Nature. Sterna fluviatilis Naum., 1819, is pre- 
ferred to S. Aérundo Linn., 1758, and S. macrura Naum., 1819, to S. par- 
adisea Briinnich, 1764, probably for a similar reason. Cabot’s Tern is 
regarded as not separable trom the Old World form, for which Mr. Saun- 
ders prefers the name cantéaca to the earlier saxdvicens’s. The American 
Herring Gull is also considered as not entitled to separation from the Euro- 
pean; but Mr. Saunders’s remarks on the subject are not likely to change 
the opinions of those who hold toa ditferent view, since no new points are 
adduced, and the fact of an average and tairly constant difference between 
the two forms is admitted. Larus barrovianus Ridgw. is referred to ZL. 
glaucus, but the other recently described North American species of 
Larus have passed the present ordeal unscathed. The case is somewhat 
different with /e7ssa, of which only two species, 7. trédactyla and 
R. brevirostris, are recognized; the slight differences in size and the 
relative development of the diminutive hind-toe being found inconstant 
for the two other forms that have sometimes been recognized as hotzebeut 
and folicarzs. 

Among the little group of North American Skuas the changes in 
nomenclature are contusing and disheartening. For reasons already 
given, in place of Megalestris skua (Briinn., 1764) we have AZ. catarrhactes 
(Linn., 1766); in Stercorarzus the Long-tailed Jaeger receives the name 
parasiticus Linn., while crepidatus Banks is applied to the parasiticus of 
the A. O. U. Check-List. This of course is in accordance with views 
long held by Mr. Saunders on the subject, but against the’general concen- 
sus of opinion. 

Passing now to the Tubinares, Mr. Salvin divides them into four 
families, — Procellariide, Puffinide, Pelecanoidide, and Diomedeidaw,— 
their constituents being fairly indicated by the names employed. The 
109 species recognized are arranged under 25 genera. The three gen- 
era most numerously repfesented are Oceanodroma, with 12 species, 
Puffinus with 20 species, and .#sfrelata with 30 species. The following 
three species are described as new : Oceanodroma tristram? (ex Stej- 
neger, MS., p. 354), Pelecanoides exsul (p. 438), Diomedea chionoptera 
(p- 443), and Thalassogeron layard? (p. 450). 

As regards North American species, we note several important changes 
of nomenclature. Thus Puffnus gravis (O'Reilly, 1818) supercedes 
P. major (Faber, 1822); Puffnus borealis Cory is treated as a pure 
synonym of P. kuhl?; P. opisthomelas Coues replaces P. gavia, which is 
considered as restricted to ‘* New Zealand and Australian Seas”; on the 
other hand, P. audubon? is regarded as not separable from P. obscurus. 
Puffinus strickland? Ridgway is reterred to Procellaria grisea Gmelin, and 
hence becomes Pufinus griseus, the Atlantic and Pacific birds being con- 


21 


162 Recent Literature. - resi 
sidered as not separable. Préocella is raisedto a full genus. Fulmarus 
glacialis rogersii and fF. g. gluptscha are given the rank of full species, 
while F. g. minor is referred as a pure synonym to J. glacialis. 

The volume as a whole, despite the few criticisms of nomenclature in 
which we have indulged, easily takes its place as among the best of this 
admirable series, and for which ornithologists cannot be too grateful.— 
aveks ING 


Salvadori’s Catalogue of the Chenomorphe, Crypturi, and Ratitz.!— 
According to the arrangement adopted by Count Salvadori, the order 
Chenomorphe consists of three suborders, Palamede, Phcenicopteri, and 
Anseres. The first, embracing the Screamers, consists of only two genera 
and three species, all South American. The second, containing the Flam- 
ingoes, includes three genera and six species, of which four species are 
American, one only extending northward to Florida. Hence the great 
bulk of the Chenomorphe belong to the Anseres, consisting of the single 
family Anatide, here subdivided into 11 subfamilies and 64 genera. The 
total number of species recognized is 196. Among the Ducks, Chawle. 
lasmus, Mareca, Nettion and Querquedula are recognized as full genera 
Of the larger genera, Anas contains 17 species, Weftzon 15, and Quer- 
guedula 5. The following new genera are recognized: Asarcornis, type 
Anas scutulata S. Miill. (p. 59); Pteronetta, type Querquedula hartlaubt 
Cassin (p. 63); Mesochen, type Anser sandvicenis Vigors (p. 126); Elas- 
monetta, type Anas chlorotis G. R. Gray (p. 287). Also three new species, 
— Erismatura equatorialis, Ecuador (p. 450); Merganetta frenata, Chili 
(p- 458); Merganser comatus, Central Asia (p. 475). 

As regards the treatment of North American species, it may be noted 
further that Cygnus is substituted for Olor for the Swans; Chen hyfer- 
boreus nivalis is given the rank of a full species; Azser albtfrons gambeli 
is kept separate from A. a/lbifronus, although “ scarcely different” ; under 
the genus Branta, hutchins¢, occidentalis and minima stand as full species, 
The same is true of Azas maculosa Sennett. Myroca is adopted in place 
ot Aythya ; both date from 1822, but Ay¢hkya is here ruled out as a nomen 
nudum. Fuligula stands as a full genus; and Aythya marila nearctica is 
referred to /. marzla, with the following remark: “According to Dr. 
Stejneger, the American form (vearctica) has the primaries, from the 


' Catalogue | of the | Chenomorphe | (Palamedez, Phcenicopteri, Anseres), 
| Crypturi, | and | Ratitee | in the | Collection | of the | British Museum. | 
3y T. Salvadori. | London: | Printed by order of the Trustees. | Sold by | 
Longmans & Co.,'39 Paternoster Row; | B. Quaritch, 15 Piccadilly; Dulau & 
Co., 37 Soho Square, W.; | Kegan Paul & Co., Paternoster House, Charing 
Cross Road; | and at the | British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, 
S. W. | 1895. = Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XXVII. 

8vo, pp. i-xv, I-636, pll. i-xix. 


, ace - Recent Literature. I 63 


fourth quill, with a greyish — not white —area on the inner web. I must 
confess that I have been unable to appreciate the difference.” 

Clangula again replaces Glaucton, to which both Glaucéonetta and 
Charttonetta Stejn. are referred as synonyms. The American form 
of the Golden-eye (americana) is not considered separable from true 
clangula (here called glaucton). Of course Harelda is used in place of 
Clangula for the Old-squaw; and, as specific names published earlier 
than 1766 are not recognized, Azemadlrs Linn., 1758, is ignored for glacialis 
Linn., 1766; so that the species stands as Harelda glacialis. By what 
rule Hestrzonicus Lesson, 1828, is set aside for Cosmonessa Kaup, 1829, 
is not evident, unless it be to avoid the terrible tautology of H¢strc- 
ontcus histrtonicus! Somateria mollissima borealis is not separated from 
S. mollissima. 

If our author is right, our Ruddy Duck must stand as Erismatura 
Jamatcensts (Gmelin, 1788), instead of, as universally heretofore, Z. 
rubida (Wilson, 1814). 

Two species not included in the A. O. U. Check-List are attributed 
to North America, namely: (1) Mergus albellus, which, on p. 467, is 
said to occur “occasionally in North America,” partly apparently on 
old records now discredited, but also positively on the basis of a speci- 
men in the British Museum, entered (p. HES) peasect uO mad astemNe 
America, Hudson’s Bay Co.” (2) Ocdemia carbo (Pall.), of which a 
specimen (p. 412) is thus doubtfully recorded from Alaska, “g. (?) Juv. 
sk. St. Michael’s, Alaska, Oct. (E. W. Nelson). Salvin-Godman Coll.” 
Also: “ ? Northwestern America, south in winter to California,” with 
the following remark: “There are no adult specimens from Alaska in 
the British Museum, so that [ am unable to decide Alaskan birds really 
belong to G@. carbo.” 

The Crypturi, forming Order XX of the Carinate Birds in the system 
of the British Museum Catalogue, constitute a single family, with 9 
genera and 65 species, of which latter 14 are here described for the 
first time. The group ranges trom Mexico to Paraguay, and the 
species are exceedingly difficult to discriminate. 

The volume concludes with the Ratite Birds, forming four orders and 
five families, but numbering only about 27 species. 

As noted above, many changes from current nomenclature are intro- 
duced, most of which would have been needless if the author could have 
permitted himself to accept the 1oth instead of the 12th edition of Linné’s 
‘Systema Nature’ as his starting point for specific names. This is the 
more to be regretted, since the 1oth edition is now almost universally 
accepted as the starting point for binomial names in zodlogical nomen- 
clature. We also observe certain lapses from consistency in the use of 
names in a specific sense which have also been adopted as generic names. 
Thus unless Fuligula fuligula (p. 363) is a lapsus, it would seem proper, 
in accordance with good modern usage, to employ also Cygnus cygnus in 
place of Cygnus musicus (p. 26); Coscoroba coscoroba instead of Coscoroba 


I 64 FRecent Literature. res 


candida (p. 42); Anser anser instead of Axnser ferus (p. 89); Tadorna 
tadorna instead of Tadorna cornuta (p. 171); Casarca casarca instead of 
Casarca rutila (p. 177); Querquedula querquedula instead of Querque- 
dula circta (p. 293), and especially in this case where Queguedula is often 
considered as not generically separable from Azas; Nyroca nyroca instead 
of Myroca africana (p. 345); Clangula clangula instead of Clangula 
glaucion (p* 376); Merganser merganser instead of Merganser castor (p. 
472); Casuarius casuartus instead of Casuarius galeatus (p. 592). Through 
some unexplained exception to the author’s evident rule, in the case of 
Rhea americanus, Linné is taken at 1758 instead of 1766, which otherwise 
would give us also Rhea rhea (p. 578). Although Brisson’s genera are 
in some instances taken, Brisson’s Axkima is rejected for the later 
Pulamedea of Linné (p. 2). 

Count Salvadori has expended an enormous amount of labor on this 
thick volume of nearly 600 pages. The bibliographical references are 
exceedingly full; the references to the anatomy are separated from the 
others, as are also the references to hybrids, which among the Ducks are 
so numerous as to form a striking feature of the bibliography. While” 
the part of the work relating to the Anseres will prove so immensely 
valuable to the general student, the author’s revision of the Crypturi 
will be hailed as a special godsend by those brought into relation with 
this exceedingly troublesome and difficult group.—J. A. A. 


Chapman on Changes of Plumage in the Dunlin and Sanderling.! — 
There is no uncertain ring about the present paper. It boldly challenges 
certain statements of an eminent European authority, Herr Gitke, and 
proves them erroneous, not by any theoretical arguments advanced to 
nicely fit the case, but by a simple statement of facts which leave no room 
for doubt. An interesting chapter of Giitke’s book ‘ Die Vogelwarte Hel- 
goland’ is devoted to the long mooted question of changes taking place 
in feathers without moult, and much stress is laid upon repigmentation 
and renewal of abraded contour as important factors in the process of 
passing from the winter to the summer plumage of many species. The 
Dunlin (Zringa alpina) and the Sanderling (Calidris arenaria) are 
two of the species in which the gradual change is described with great 
minuteness of detail. One can almost see the black color spreading over 
the gray feathers of the back and the worn tips blossoming, so to speak, _ 
into new feathers by a “restoration of the worn and blunted barbs to 
their previous entirety,” but unfortunately for this theory Mr. Chapman 
has examined no less than fifty-seven specimens of the former species 
(including the suspecies pactfica) and ninety-seven of the latter which 
show conclusively that a complete moult takes place in both, except in the 
rectrices and remiges of the Dunlin. Twelve specimens of the Dunlin 


"The Changes of Plumage in the Dunlin and Sanderling. By Frank M. 
Chapman. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., VIII, art. I., pp. 1-8 (March 4, 1896). 


bey _ Recent Literature. I 65 


taken between April 2 and May 22 show various stages of the moult. 
“Many of these new black or rufous and black feathers are half grown, 
while a few are fully grown and their unworn edges are in strong contrast 
to the ragged borders of the gray winter plumage.” In one specimen, 
‘* one cannot raise the plumage of any part of the body without discover- 
ing numbers of growing new feathers wrapped in their dermal sheaths.” 
Twenty specimens of the Sanderling likewise show a moult in progress 
during March, April and May. Mr. Chapman has also seen moulting 
spring specimens of the Golden Plover, Knot and others of the Limicolie, 
in which group Gatke states that color changes without moult frequently 
occur. That no moulting birds should have fallen into this ornithologist’s 
hands is most surprising, and yet on hardly any other assumption can we 
understand his reaffirmation of the old idea of a color change in worn 
feathers with restoration by a new growth of the ragged edges. Inasmuch 
as this theory, resting as it does, upon a most unphysiological basis, is 
overset in the case of two of the species cited by Gatke in its support, 
what grounds have we for believing it will apply to any of the others? 
He asserts almost dogmatically that a number of species acquire their 
summer dress without spring moult and Mr. Chapman shows us specimens 
of two ot these very species in the midst of a moult at the time when 
Gitke declares they are simply growing new barbs on the old feathers 
and providing in them a fresh influx of new pigment. Can there be any 
doubt as to who isinerror? If fifty years’ experience with the birds of 


Heligoland leads to such deductions as these we may well wonder on what | 


sort of material they are based and hope for more light upon the other 
species which Giatke has deprived of the normal way of changing their 
plumage by a moult. To Mr. Chapman we are indebted for the valuable 
contribution he makes to a subject which has long vexed those who have 
been readier with strange theories to fit obvious facts than with material 
to substantiate their theories. —J. D., JR. 

Chapman on the Plumage of the Snowflake.'— The gradual change 
from the brown tinged winter plumage of the Snowflake into its abraded 
black and white summer dress is clearly demonstrated to occur without 
the loss of a single feather. Diagrams show ata glance that the dorsal 
feathers of the male during the winter gradually lose their brownish 
margins and by June ‘‘in place of the rounded outline of the brown- 
tipped feather we have lett only its pointed black base. The rest of the 
plumage undergoes a similar alteration which in some places is evidently 
assisted by fading.” The knowledge of this change without moult is not 
new, although among our early writers Wilson and Audubon do not seem 
to have been aware of it. Richardson and Swainson in ‘ Fauna Boreali- 


‘On the Changes of Plumage in the Snowflake (P/ectrophenax nivalis). By 
Frank M. Chapman. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., VIII, Art. II., pp. 9-12 
(March 5, 1596). 


166 Recent Literature. ree 
Americana,’ 1831, and Nuttall in his ‘Manual,’ 1832, describe it, but not 
as if they considered it new. Mr. Chapman, however, goes further and 
would explain why the dorsal feathers wear only down to the black bases- 
He says that microscopical examination ‘‘shows that at their apical 
portion the barbs are separated and that the barbules do not become fairly 
interlocked until the black basal part is reached.” The black area is 
therefore more protected and furthermore it is asserted that the black 
pigment by virtue of its density adds strength to the feather. The fact 
that the female never entirely wears away the brownish border and the 
fact that the ‘‘ interlocking ” of the barbules in many cases does zof corres- 
pond with the black area, both militate against Mr. Chapman’s theory 
and suggest other factors to explain the deciduous feather tips. 

Incidentally a new and valuable point of difference between the plum- 
ages of the two sexes is brought out. ‘‘ The male has the feathers of the 
head, nape and rump basally white, while in the female they are basally 
black,” — this difference holding at all seasons of the year. The Snow- 
flake is one of the interesting species that undergo but one moult in the 
year.—J. D., Jr. 


Allen on Alleged Changes of Color in the Feathers of Birds without 
Moulting.'—It is small wonder that this paper should bristle with 
exclamation points. It is a summary and criticism of the work of some 
of the more important writers upon the subject of color changes in 
feathers without moult, and it deals unsparingly with those who have 
asserted as possible the complete rejuvenation of an abraded feather. 
Beginning apparently with the Rev. John Flemming, there have been 
many writers of greater or less repute, even down to the present day, who 
have advanced various theories to account for color changes in plumage 
otherwise than by moult. The most radical of them have assumed that a 
recoloration of the individual feathers takes place and even a renewal, by 
a new growth of barbs, of the ragged edges of worn feathers. After 
stating that this “delusion” ‘‘ forms a most instructive chapter in the 
general history of the origin and persistence of error,” Dr. Allen proceeds 
to sketch this history and demonstrate the worthlessness of most of the 
evidence presented in its support. He maintains that, almost without 
exception, the hypotheses advanced are not supported by facts and that 
if moulting specimens of birds had not been so generally discarded in 
making collections, speculation upon supposed color changes would not 
have run riot. In brief, ‘‘the inventors of these diverse theories have 
assumed and attempted to explain conditions that in nine cases out of ten 
had no existence; namely, a color change demonstrately due — normally 
at least — to molt, which they have supposed must happen in some other 


' Alleged Changes of Color in the Feathers of Birds without Molting. By 
J. A. Allen. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. WITLI, Art. Ill, pp: 13-44 
(March 18, 1896). 


ee Recent Literature. 16 7 


way.” This is the matter in a nutshell. Moulting birds have not fallen 
into the hands of some of the older observers and they have jumped to 
the conclusion that no moult had taken place. Even so, it is not easy to 
understand why the observations of Bachman, Homeyer, Brehm and 
others who have traced the various stages of moult in many species should 
have had so little weight against the opinions of Ord, Yarrell, Schlegel, 
Fatio, Gatke, and the other delusionists. But since we find the latter 
still supported by reputable writers of to-day, the present paper is all the 
more welcome, and ought to stimulate further investigations; for if it 
can be proved that a certain species acquires by moult the plumage that it 
theoretically should acquire by recoloration and rejuvenation, theory 
begins to totter. This is exactly what Dr. Allen does, and he cites a 
number of species in his support, so that the theories for the most part 
become respectable ruins. The fact seems to be that few observers have 
had sufficient material on which to build, and if the time devoted to 
inventing theories to fit the material had been intelligently spent in 
accumulating such specimens as were needed, the many fanciful and 
superfluous hypotheses now current would not have arisen. It is hardly 
profitable to dwell upon them and they may be read in the paper now 
under discussion. Neither is a microscope necessary to controvert them. 
When, for example, Severtzof by aid of this instrument describes a color 
bearing fluid ascending in the old feather by capillarity, exuding from the 
broken barbs, or depositing its pigment in successive layers on the cell 
walls, what do such observations mean if the feather is really renewed by 
a moult? Dr. Allen, by proving the delusionists wrong in part, believes 
them wrong in all their conclusions and gives adherence to the opinion 
ot Bachman who, in 1839, said: “If the feathers in birds, then, which have 
been long stationary in their growth, are capable of receiving a new set of 
secretions, and of assuming opposite colors, we must seek for some new 
law of nature not hitherto discovered.” —J. D., JR. 


The Mockingbird and Yucca aloifolia.— The sixth annual report of the 
Missouri Botanical Garden! contains one paper of especial interest to 
ornithologists. It is entitled ‘Studies on the Dissemination and Leaf 
Reflexions of Yucca alo¢foléa and other Species,’ by Herbert J. Webber, 
and the facts it brings to light are strikingly illustrative of the close 
relations which economic ornithology and botany may have for each 
other. The fruit of this species of yucca has an edible sticky pulp, in 
which the seeds are imbedded without a core. Mr. Webber finds that the 
Mockingbird is particularly fond of this fruit and is an important agent 
in the dissemination of the seeds. In eating the pulp some of the seeds 
stick to the bill and are shaken off, falling at a suitable distance from 
the plant to allow of germination and growth. But in their haste and 


1 Missouri Botanical Garden. Sixth Annual Report. St. Louis, Mo. Pub- 
lished by the Board of Trustees, 1895. 


168 Recent Literature. ree 
greediness the birds swallow many of the seeds. Mr. Webber experi- 
mented with a captive Mockingbird and found that the seeds were 
readily swallowed with the fruit and were evacuated in from fifteen 
minutes to an hour in good condition for germination. During about 
four hours the bird ate and evacuated fifty-one seeds. A number of these 
were planted, and a tair proportion grew into healthy young plants. ‘The 
Mockingbird is also responsible for a third method of dissemination. It 
will readily be seen that, as the bird feeds, many of the seeds drop directly 
down. Some of them fall into the crown of upturned leaves immediately 
beneath the fruit-stalk and stick there. After the cluster has ripened all 
its fruit, a lateral branch develops and shoots up beside the fruit-stalk, 
bearing a new crown of leaves and thus prolonging the trunk, while the 
old leaves reflex and point downwards. With the reflexion of these leaves, 
the seeds, now dry, roll or slide down the inclined plane thus formed and 
are shot out to a safe distance from the parent plant. Those seeds which 
originally fall between the leaves of the crown naturally reach the ground 
in the same way by the reflexed blades of the previous leat-cluster. This 
yucca has in the larva of a moth another aid to dissemination, but that is 
a story for the entomologist. — F. H. A. 


Loomis on California Water Birds.'— The present paper gives the re- 
sults of Mr. Loomis’s observations made off Monterey, California, from 
Dec. 11, 1894, to Jan. 13, 1895. Forty-three species are formally noticed, 
of which 11 are Gulls of the genus Larus — probably a number not ex- 
ceeded on any coast, at this or any other season. The annotations relate 
generally to the manner of occurrence of the various species, but in sev- 
eral cases include descriptions of little-known phases of plumage. The 
Ancient Murrelet (Syvthiiborhamphus antiqguus) is reported as common, 
wintering in considerable numbers on the coast of Calitornia, although pre- 
viously recorded as a California bird, as Mr. Loomis observes, apparently 
from only a single specimen taken off Monterey in January, 1874. Mr. 
Loomis also reports the Mew Gull (Larus canus) as apparently common 
on the California coast in winter, although its distribution in the second 
edition of the A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ is stated to be ‘‘ Europe and Asia; 
accidental in Labrador?.”’ Mr. Loomis calls attention, however, to a 
former record tor California by Mr. Henshaw (Auk, II, p. 232). 

Preceding the annotated list (pp. 2-14) Mr. Loomis presents and 
discusses the general facts of migration as observed in respect to the 
water birds of the California coast in winter. He brings into special 
prominence the evidence of a southward migration in winter to breeding 
grounds in the southern hemisphere of certain species of Shearwaters, and 


‘California Water Birds, No. II. Vicinity of Monterey in Midwinter. By 
Leverett M. Loomis, Curator of the Department of Ornithology in the Califor- 
nia Academy of Sciences. Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci., Ser. 2, Vol. VI, 1896, pp. 
I-30, with Map. (Feb. 21, 1896.) 


eee 8 OF Recent Literature. I 69 


from this proceeds to discuss the causes of migration in general, and the 
means by which birds are guided in their long migratory journeys. He 
discredits the possession by birds of a ‘“ mysterious sense of direction,” 
believing they are guided by natural phenomena. 

This paper is an excellent counterpart of his former paper, giving an 
account of his observations at the same locality during midsummer, 1894, 
the two together adding greatly to our knowledge of the movements, 
habits and relative abundance of the water birds of the California coast. 
ee Ne 


Publications Received. — Allen, ]. A. (1) The Origin and Relations 
of the Floras and Faunas of the Antarctic and adjacent Regions. Verte- 
brata of the Land; Birds and Mammals. (Science, III, No. 61, Feb. 28, 
1886.) (2) Alleged changes of Color in the Feathers of Birds without 
Molting. (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., VIII, 1896, pp. 13-44.) 

Bocage, J. V. Barboza du. (1) Subsidios para a fauna da Ilha de 
Fernao do Po — Vertebrados terrestres. (Jorn. de Scien. Math., Phys. e 
Nat. da Acad. real das Sci. de Lisboa, IV, No. 13, Dec., 1895, pp. 1-15.) 
(2) Aves de Benguella da Exploragao Anchieta. (/é/d., pp. 21-23.) 

Cherrie, George K. Exploraciones Zoologicas efectuadas en el Valle 
del Rio Naranjo en el afio de 1893, Aves. (Anales del hist. fis-geogr. 
nac., VI, 1893. Also separate, Svo, pp. 19.) 

Chapman, Frank M. (1) The Changes of Plumage in the Dunlin and 
Sanderling. (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., VIII, 1896, pp. 1-8.) (2) On 
the Changes of Plumage in the Snowtlake (Plectrophenax nivalis.) (Lbid., 
pp- 9-12.) (3) Handbook of Birds of Eastern North America. Third 
Edition. 

Cory, C. B. Hunting and Fishing in Florida, including a Key to the 
Water Birds known to occur in the State. Sm. 4to, pp. 304. Numerous 
illustrations. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1896. 

Dubois, Alph. Les Animaux nuisibles de la Belgique. Mammifeéres, 
Oiseaux et Reptiles. S8vo, pp. viii, 203. Bruxelles, 1893. 

D’Urban, W.S. M., and Murray A. Mathew. The Birds of Devon, 
Supplement. Svo, pp. 32. London, R. H. Porter, 1895. 

Finsch, O. (1) Zum Schutz des Wasserschwatzers (Céxclus aqguaticus). 
(2) Charakteristik der Avifauna Neu-Seelands als zoo-geographische 
Provinz in ihren Veranderungen und deren Ursachen. (Globus, LXIX, 
No: 2-4. 

Harvie-Brown, J. A. The Tufted Duck in Scotland — its increase and 
distribution. (Ann. Scottish Nat. Hist., Jan., 1895.) 

Jacobs, J. Warren. Eggs of Native Pennsylvania Birds. A World’s 
Fair Collection. S8vo, pp. 10, with photographic illustrations. 1895. 

Knowlton, F. H. The Great Auk. An Extinct Bird of much Renown. 
(The Feather, I, No. 4, Jan., 1896.) 

Loomis, Leverett M. California Water Birds, No. II. Vicinity of 


22 


fe ih : Auk 
I 70 Recent Literature. April 


Monterey in Midwinter. (Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci., ser. 2, VI, pp. 1-30, 
Feb., 1896.) 

Lydekker, Richard (editor). Warne’s Royal Natural History, Nos. 16- 
20, Dec. 15, 1895-Feb. 15, 1896. Birds. Super Royal 8vo. Frederick 
Warne & Co., 3 Cooper Union, New York. Published in fortnightly 
Parts, 50 cents each. 

Meyer, A. B., and L. W. Wiglesworth. (1) Bericht tiber die 5-7 Vogel- 
sammlung der Herren Dr. P. und Dr. F. Sarasin aus Celébes. (Abh. und 
Ber. d. K6nigl. Zoolog. u. Anthr.-Ethn. Mus. zu Dresden, 1896-97, No. 1, 
pp. 1-16.) (2) Eine Vogelsammlung von Nordost Celébes und den Inseln 
Peling und Banggai. (/d7d., No. 2, pp. I-20.) 

Richmond, Charles W. Description of a New Species of Plover from 
the east coast of Madagascar. (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. X, 1896, pp. 53, 54-) 

Salvadori, T. (1) Catalogue of the Chenomorphe (Palamedee, Phee- 
nicopteri, Anseres), Crypturi, and Rattite in the Collection of the 
British Museum. 8vo, pp. xv, 636, pll. i-xix, = Brit. Mus. Cat. Birds, 
Vol. XXVII, 1895. (2) Note on Axas erythrophthalma Wied. (Ibis, Jan., 
1896, pp. 99-101.) (3) Uccelli raccolti da Don Eugenio Dei Principi 
Ruspoli durante l’ultimo suo Viaggio nelle regioni dei Somali e dei Galla. 
(Ann. del Mus. Civ. di Storia Nat. di Genova, Ser. 2, XVI, pp. 43-46.) 

Schalow, Herman. Henry Seebohm. (Orn. Monatsb. IV, No. 2, 1896, 
Pp- 17-23-) 

Actes de la Société Scientifique du Chili. Tome V, Livr. 1-3, Dec.,; 
1895. 

American Journ. Sci., Jan—March, 1896. 

American Naturalist, Jan._March, 1896. 

Annals of Scottish Nat. Hist., Jan., 1896. 

Aquila, II, Nos. 3, 4, Dec., 1895. 

Bulletin British Ornithologists’ Club, Nos. 31, 32, 1896. 

Forest and Stream, XLVI, Nos. 1-13, 1896. 

Medical Age, XIII, No. 24, XIV, Nos. 1-4, 1896. 

Naturalist, The, Month. Journ. Nat. Hist. for North of England, Jan.— 
March, 1896. 

Nidologist, The, III, Nos. 6, 7, 1896. 

Observer, The, VII, Jan.—March, 1896. 

Oregon Naturalist, The, II, No. 12, III, Nos. 1, 2. 

Ornithologische Jahrbuch, VII, No. 1, 1896. 

Ornithologische Monatsberichte, IV, Nos. 1-3, 1896. 

Ottawa Naturalist, The, IX, Nos. 10, 12, 1896. 

Our Animal Friends, XXIII, Nos. 5-7, 1896. 

Proceedings of the Natural Science Association of Staten Island, N. Y., 
V, No. 2. 

Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, pt. 3, Oct.—Dec., 1895. 

Report U. S. Secretary Agriculture, 1895. 

Shooting and Fishing, XIX, Nos. 11-20, 1896. 

Zodlogist, The, Nos. 229-231, 1896. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 General Notes. I 7 r 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Briinnich’s Murre at Cape Charles, Virginia.— Mr. Geo. S. Morris has 
in his collection a male Briinnich’s Murre (Ura lomvia) taken Dec. 31, 
1890, at Cape Charles, Va.,and I have a female taken by myself at the 
same place on Dec. 14, 1895. As Ido not find this bird in the Virginia 
list, these captures may be of interest, as it extends the range of this 
winter visitor. There had been a northeast storm for five days, and 
the specimen I took was either very tame or else exhausted, as it was 
shot without any trouble. The stomach was entirely empty and there 
was no fat on the body. Both of these specimens were fully identified by 
Mr. Witmer Stone of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences.— 
I. N. DEHAVEN, Ardmore, Montgomery Co., Pa. 


The Parasitic Jaeger near Cleveland, Ohio. — Last November, while on 
a shooting trip to Sandusky Bay, I was told by a friend, Mr. A. E. Kelly, 
a local shooter, of two birds which he described as “ web-footed hawks” 
that he had seen pursuing the Gulls and Terns. One of the pair he had 
already shot and sent to the Smithsonian Institution; the other he shot 
and sent to me a few days later, when I found it to be a female Parasitic 
Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus). Mr. Ridgway also found the specimen 
sent him to be of the same species. 

This species is not included in Dr. Wheaton’s list of Ohio birds in the 
report of the Geological Survey, but I find in the Proceedings of the 
Cleveland Academy of Science, in a paper read by Dr. Kirtland in 
November, 1857, an account of a bird taken near the mouth of Rocky 
River, Lake Erie, which he considers as probably of this species. 

The specimen sent me had a minnow and a quantity of dark feathers in 
its stomach. Its skin is now in the collection of Case School of Applied 
Science. — F. M. Comstock, Cleveland, Ohio. 


Puffinus tenuirostris, off San Diego, California.—On Jan. 9, 1896, 
while collecting sea birds about three miles west of Point Laura Light- 
house, a number of dark Shearwaters were seen, that seemed to me to be 
much too small for P. griseus. They were usually single birds, though 
several times loose companies of from three or four to a half a dozen 
sailed by. They were very shy and after several ineffectual attempts to 
get a shot I gave them up. Just as I was starting for home, however, two 
birds appeared from opposite directions and lit near my boat, one on 
either side; both were secured and one proved to be an undoubted P. 
tenutrostris. 

This species has not before been recorded on the Eastern Pacific south 
ot British Columbia, although it extends along the coast of China to 
Australia on the Western Pacific. Several years ago I felt reasonably 
sure that I had seen P. ¢tenuzrostris along thecoast of Southern California, 


Auk 
April 


172 General Notes. 
but as all of the dark specimens of Pufinus that I secured proved to be 
griseus, | had about concluded that I was mistaken. 

I am now convinced that I was correct, and that the Slender-bil'ed 
Shearwater, if not of regular occurrence, is periodically common along our 
Southwestern coast to Lower California. — A. W. ANTHONY, San Diczo, 
Cal. 


The Skullof the Young Cormorant. —The rapidity with which changes 
take place in growing birds has often been noted, and a remarkable 
instance of this is found in the Cormorants. 

As is well known, Cormorants are among the best examples of 
desmognathous birds, premaxillaries, anterior palatines, and maxillo- 
palatines being completely fused. There is also no trace of narial 
openings in the adult and no hint of basi-pterygoid processes. Yet the 
nestling of Phalacrocorax urile is schizognathous and _holorhinal, the 
narial openings being large, while the sphenoid bears good-sized basi- 
pterygoid prominences. 

Any one who has the good fortune to be located near a Cormorant 
rookery has a splendid chance to ascertain just when the narial openings 
close, or, if he be charitably inclined, he might collect for the United 
States National Museum, which would furnish alcohol and a can, a series 
of young taken at short intervals from the time of hatching to the time of 
leaving the nest.— F. A. Lucas, United States National Museum, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 


Clangula hyemalis at San Diego, California. —On January 13, Mr. 
L. Belding handed me a fine specimen of the Old-squaw that he had shot 
in the harbor of San Diego, but a few hours previously. Ile informed me 
that the bird was alone near one of the city wharves, no other ducks of 
any species being in the immediate vicinity. 

This record somewhat extends the range of the species on the Pacific 
Coast, there being but few records for the State and none from south of 
Santa Cruz Island, where Mr. Belding informed me that a specimen was 
taken several years ago and recorded in Wheeler’s Surveys West 1ooth 
Meridian. — A. W. AnrHony, San Diego, Cal. 


Occurrence of Great White Heron at Escondido, California. — A little 
while ago I accepted an invitation to see a Heron, which had been killed 
and mounted fora parlor ornament. I was told that the bird had been 
killed during April, 1895. It proved to be a fine specimen of the Ardea 
occidental?s. — J. Maurice Harcu, Escondido, Cal. 


Note on the Flexor hallucis brevis in the Night Heron (WVycticorax 
nycticorax nevius)— While dissecting the muscles of the foot of a Night 
Heron I was surprised to find that the #exor hallucts brevis was perforated 
at its insertion by the fexor hal. longus, thus becoming a flexor perfora- 
tus dig. I, similar to the fexores perforati dig. II, ITI, IV. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


General Notes. I 73 

This perforation of the flexor h. brevis seems to be of a rather rare 
occurrence since Hans Gadow, in his great work on birds, forming part 
of Brown’s ‘Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-reich’s,’ mentions only 
three genera, with this perforation of said muscle, namely, Talegalla, 
Crex and Bucorvus. 

Though he refers to the fact that he found this muscle (fl. h. b.) 
exceedingly well developed in /é¢s, Grus and Czconza, he does not men- 
tion any perforation of said muscle, which he surely would have done, 
had he found it to be so. 

In my specimen this muscle arises from about the proximal half of the 
tarso-metatarsus. In the middle of the tarsus it divides into ¢wo branches, 
or tendons which completely unite before their insertion on the phalanx! 
of the hallux. The flexor h. longus, which perforates the short flexor, is 
connected by a small vinculum with the ‘flexor profundus’ as in the 
majority of Ardeide. It certainly would be interesting to examine these 
flexores of the hallux in the other genera of the Ardeidee— ARTHUR 
Res ter, Baltimore, Md. 


Porzana noveboracensis near Ottawa, Canada.—On the 22d of October, 
1895, I shot a male Yellow Rail in a marsh some twenty-four miles from 
this city. This I think is the first specimen obtained in this vicinity. — 
Geo. R. Wuite, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 


Crymophilus fulicarius in Maine.— It seems worth while to make a note 
of the capture of some recent specimens of the Red Phalarope (Crymo- 
philus fulicarius) on the southwestern coast of Maine, not only because 
the bird is uncommon there, but because data as to the exact time of its 
occurrence are not at all full. An adult female in fine plumage was taken 
on Peak Island, Portland Harbor, on May 17, 1892, and is now in my col- 
lection. Two other specimens were sent to me in the flesh from York 
Beach, May 8, 1893.— Henry H. Brock, Portland, Me. 


Crex crex in Maine.— The occurrence of Cvrex crex near Portland, Me., 
was noted in an editorial paragraph of the ‘ Ornithologist and Odlogist,’ 
Vol. XV, p. 30, as follows: ‘‘H. H. Brock reports a specimen of the 
European Corn Crake (Crex crex) killed by John Whiting in Falmouth, 
Me., about four miles from Portland. Another was shot at the same 
time, but was so mutilated that it was thrown away.” 

I feel that the importance of this capture demandsa more detailed state- 
ment, especially in view of the fact that the above notice seems to have 
been often overlooked. The bird is an unquestionable Crex crex in 
extremely fine plumage and of typical coloration. It not only agrees 
closely with printed descriptions, but with the several European speci- 
mens with which I have compared it. The date of its capture was Octo- 
ber 14, 1889, and the locality the ‘Dyke’ Marsh in Falmouth, where so 
many other rare waders have been taken. It was shot by Mr. John Whit- 


I 7 4 General Notes. reat 


ney, — not ‘‘ Whiting.” It came into my hands at once, was preserved by 
myself, and is now in my collection. Great importance should not, of 
course, be attached to the closing sentence of the paragraph above quoted, 
which was based on the statements of a gunner not skilled in identifying 
birds, though undoubtedly truthful.— Henry H. Brock, Portland, Me. 


Baird’s Sandpiper in Michigan. —On August 20, 1895, Mr. Leon J. 
Cole and myself collected a female Baird’s Sandpiper (7rizga bairdiz) 
in Ottawa County, Michigan. This is the second or third, if not the first 
record of this bird’s occurrence in the State. —W. E. MuLLIKEN, Grand 
Rapids, Mich. 


Western Sandpiper (reunetes occidentalis) more abundant than the 
Semipalmated (Z. puszllus).— On Two-mile Beach, Cape May County, 
New Jersey, from the ist to the 15th of September, 1895, I tound both 
varieties of Hreunetes quite abundant in large flocks; and out of thirty- 
five specimens taken, twenty were unquestionably occ¢dentalis and fifteen 
pusillus. The birds were all carefully measured and the colors noted. 
The bills of the so-called western variety varied from .87 to 1.07, males and 
females, ten measuring over 1.00, and the back of each was uniformly 
colored with a very reddish tinge. 

The bills of the fifteen Semipalmated measured from .63 to .78, and 
were uniformly gray on the back, excepting three which had a slight tinge 
of red. I have never met with the western variety before, that is, to my 
knowledge, for it was only of late that I learned the difference, which is 
probably the excuse of many of us who otherwise might have found the 
bird just as common as I did. In the spring migration, and perhaps in 
the fall, I hope to look for it again. 

Mr. Brewster mentions in ‘The Auk’ ( Jan., 1889, p. 69) that a number 
of these birds (occédentalis) were taken by Mr. J. C. Cahoon on Monomoy 
Island, Mass., during July, August and September, 1888, and it may 
be that the bird is not nearly so accidental as it has been heretofore 
supposed. — Wo. L. Batty, Philadelphia, Pa. 


Woodpeckers’ Tongues —a Plea for Aid. —The tongues of our North 
AmericanWoodpeckers are, as the readers of ‘The Auk’ well know, mostly 
barbed at the tip. Unless they have devoted some attention to the subject 
they may not, however, know that the tongue of young Woodpeckers are 
barbless, and that it is an interesting question just when the barbs make 
their appearance. The tongue of a full-fledged nestling of Dryobates 
villosus, a species whose tongue is remarkably well armed when adult, 
bears only fine reflexed hairs along the edge, and just at present no 
specimens are available to show when the barbs make their appearance. 
I should be greatly obliged to any readers of ‘The Auk’ who may collect any 
young Woodpeckers during the year, especially such as are about to leave, 
or have recently left the nest, if they will kindly send me the tongues. It 


Vol. XIII Se aa ne rs 
Hg6 General Notes. I 75 
is an easy matter to save them when making a skin, and no preparation is 
necessary other than to allow the tongue to dry, as a little soaking will 
restore the tongue nearly to its fresh condition. —F. A. Lucas, U.S. 
National Museum, Washington, D. C. 


Pinicola enucleator in Westchester County, N. Y.—Some two miles 
northeast from Sing Sing, N. Y., on February 12, 1896, I shot a male 
Pine Grosbeak in high plumage. The bird was in one of a few pine 
trees in a considerable grove of cedars. Careful search in the vicinity 
failed to reveal others. — L. S. Foster, New York City. 


The Pine Grosbeak at Poughkeepsie, N. Y.—The Pine Grosbeaks 
(Pinicola enucleator) have been very numerous in the grounds surround- 
ing Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, this winter. They were attracted per- 
haps by the large number of spruce trees growing there which seem to 
offer them very palatable food. They have created quite a havoc among 
these trees. Early in the winter as I was walking among the evergreens, 
I found the snow literally carpeted with tips of the spruce trees and frag- 
ments of buds and seeds. On examining the twigs I found that the buds 
were eaten and that there were indications of pecking at the points of 
separation. I had never seen the ground so covered, and perceived at once 
that there was some unusual cause for such devastation. I looked about 
among the trees but saw only a pair of Kinglets, and I could not in con- 
science charge them with such wholesale destruction. I therefore sus- 
pected the Pine Grosbeaks, and my suspicion was later confirmed by my 
catching them in the very act. This flock has consisted almost entirely of 
young males and females, as is usually the case. One red male was noted 
early in January feeding with the flock, and later another was found 
dead. 

The weather has not been continuously severe, and the ground has not 
been covered with snow more than a week at a time. The Grosbeaks are 
still here, March 13. 

A Red-breasted Nuthatch (S7z¢#ta canadensis) has also been seen this 
winter. It is an uncommon visitant in this vicinity— CAROLINE E. 
FurNEsS, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 


The Pine Grosbeak (P. enucleator) in New Jersey.—On Sunday, 
March 8, 1896, while driving through Wortendyke, about two miles west 
from here, I saw two birds of this species in a fir tree by the roadside. 
There was no possibility of a mistake as I was within twenty feet and had 
a good view of them. They were either females or young males, and 
their thick bills and white wing bars were very noticeable. About an 
hour later, while in Allendale, I saw another of the same species in a 
small tree, bare of leaves, in a field adjoining the highway. Although I 
went over the same ground the two next following days I did not meet 
with any Pine Grosbeaks.— DELAGNEL BERIER, Ridgewood, N. F. 


I 76 General Notes. fal 


Abnormal Plumage of a Pine Grosbeak.—On the 30th ot December, 
1895,I took a specimen of the female Pine Grosbeak (Prxzcola enucleator ) 
at Shelburne, N. H. On looking the bird over carefully I noticed an un- 
broken ring of feathers, like those of the upper back in color and texture, 
extending over the lett shoulder, where the band measures .75 of an inch 
in width, and continuing across the breast and terminating on the right 
shoulder, its width having decreased .20 of an inch. The band is com- 
posed of thirty-three feathers, that is, beginning to count as soon as they 
are out of their normal position on the back, and are of much deeper slate 
color than those above or below them; the centre of each feather is tinged 
with crome yellow and they are longer than the surrounding ones, stand- 
ing out almost like a rutt. The flesh of the neck was perfectly normal 
and the bird apparently had never been injured. I have the specimen 
now in my collection. — REGINALD HEBER Howe, JR., Longwood, Mass. 


The American Crossbill at Sea.— Early on the morning of February 
26, 1896, an American Crossbill (Loxdéa curvirostra minor), a temale or 
dull-colored male, was found on the deck of the steamer ‘ Trinidad’ 
bound for New York from the Bermudas. I saw the bird, which was in 
an exhausted condition, at eight o’clock, and was told that it had come 
aboard some time before that hour. The American coast must then have 
been about three hundred miles distant. 

When the ‘ Trinidad’ left Grassy Bay, late in the afternoon of Febru- 
ary 24, there was little wind, nor was there much until noon of the day 
following, when it began to blow from the northeastward, treshening 
constantly, and developing into a gale before the bird came aboard.— JOuUN 
CLIFFORD Brown, Portland, Me. 


Harris’s Sparrow in Spring Dress in Autumn.— While out shooting on 
Noy. 1, 1895, I shot a Harris’s Sparrow (Zonotrichia querula) in full 
spring plumage. It is a male bird of the vear. It was in a large flock ot 
Harris’s Sparrows, but was the only one in spring plumage, all the outers 
being in fall dress.— SipNEY S. WiLson, St. Foseph, Mo. 


A Brown Thrasher (Harpforhynchus rufus) in Massachusetts in 
Winter.— On December 15, 1894, I discovered. a Brown Thrasher in 
Arlington, Mass. I made my identification as sure as possible without 
shooting the bird, because I knew that the middle of December was later 
than this bird usually remains in Massachusetts. A few days after I first 
saw him, Mr. Walter Faxon, to whom I had reported my observations, 
again found the bird in almost exactly the same spot. 

From Dec. 15 until Christmas, the bird was visited regularly, and he 
seemed to be able to supply himself with food; but on Dec. 27, there 
came the first heavy snowstorm of the winter, covering the ground with 
from four to five inches of snow, on top of which was a crust strong 


ee General Notes. ry 


enough to bear a man’s weight. With this snow on the ground, it seemed 
probable that the Brown Thrush would be unable to get food enough to 
keep alive. Consequently, from Dec. 27 till March, we took food to him 
regularly, at least as often as twice a week. We gave him yellow corn meal 
soaked in water or milk for his staple diet. This food we sometimes varied 
with bread, pieces of meat cut fine, meal-worms, etc. He always ate what- 
ever we gave him with a good appetite, as soon as we were a few yards off. 
By March 5, the snow had melted sway in many spots, and we saw the 
bird for the last time on that day. 

When at rest, he carried his left wing lower than the right. For this 
reason we supposed that he had been wounded in the wing, and so 
prevented from making the long autumnal migration. Whether or not he 
would have been able to take care of himself without outside help we have 
no means of knowing; but he ate what we brought him so eagerly, and 
so soon after we offered it to him, that it seemed probable that he got very 
little other food after the first heavy snowfall. — ARTHUR ScoTT GILMAN, 
Cambridge, Mass. 


A Few Notes from Maine.— Accipiter velox.—On Aug. 17, whileat 
Jackman, Me,, I noticed a large flock of at least 150 Sharp-shinned Hawks 
flying southwards. The birds composing the flock were distributed over 
an area of perhaps three miles, and were not flying steadily along when 
seen. Some were flying, while others would light on the tops of trees 
along a roadside which ran in the general direction in which they were 
flying. After resting a few minutes they would resume their flight, 
passing other members of the flock that were resting, so that some of the 
birds were constantly onthe wing. As it was very difficult to count them, 
I am sure that I underestimated rather than overestimated their numbers. 
It seems odd that they should have been flying southward so early in the 
season, and in such a large body. 

Pinicola enucleator.— ‘The Pine Grosbeaks are at present to be seen 
daily in the vicinity of Bangor, Me., and I believe they are present this 
winter in even greater numbers than were here three years ago in 1892— 
1893. The proportion of red males seems to be about one to every ten dull- 
colored birds. What is remarkable is the extremely early date at which I 
saw the first birds this fall. On Oct. 26, while hunting at Mud Pond, about 
ten miles from Bangor, 1 saw a flock of ten or fifteen Grosbeaks. To 
make doubly sure I shot two of them, but found, on coming to skin them, 
that they were moulting, and their feathers were so loose that it was im- 
possible to save the skins. On dissection they proved to be young males. 
Their stomachs contained a mass of fir buds and seeds. They were next 
seen on Nov. 10, near Orono, about nine miles from Bangor, and presum- 
ably belonging to a different flock, as they were about five miles from the 
locality where the birds were previously seen. After this they were seen 
every few days, but I did not see any in the city of Bangor until the last 
week in December. From that time up tothe present date, Feb. 17, [have 


23 


17 8 General Notes. awh 


seen them in the city nearly every day. Their chief food seems to be the 
seeds of crab-apples, and mountain ash berries. 

Phalacrocorax dilophus.— This species is not uncommon along the 
Maine coast, but it is rare in the interior of the State. We have in the 
Maine State College collection a specimen of the Double-crested Cormor- 
ant which was shot at Kingman, Penobscot County, Me., about Nov. 18, 
1895, and presented to the college by Rev. J. W. Hatch. —O. W. KniGur, 
Bangor, Maine. 


Three Winter Notes from Longwood, Massachusetts. —I noted a flock 
of nineteen White-throated Sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis) on the 8thof 
December, 1895, and again on the 21st, when three specimens were taken, 
one adult and one immature male and one adult female. This flock 
remained in the locality of an old dump, among tree trunks and general 
rubbish,— a protected spot. I have noted this flock since the 8th and 21st 
on the following dates: December 22 and 25; January 2, only eight 
being then in the flock; January 19, three of the flock noted in a snow 
storm ; three again on the 25th, and since this latter date they have 
entirely disappeared from the locality, the weather having not become, 
however, any more severe. 

On the 16th of November I noted in the same locality a Winter Wren 
(Troglodytes htemalis) and on the 25th shot, I think, the same bird. This 
is another record of the wintering of this species near Boston, Mass. 

On the 25th of December, 1895, I also noted a male Chewink (Pifclo 
erythrophthalmus) in company with a flock of White-throats, mentioned 
above. He flew from a thicket and perched for a moment in the top of a 
pear tree, called skewznk several times and disappeared. This is the first 
record I believe of P7¢pzlo erythrophthalmus in Massachusetts during the 
winter. One was recorded at Portland, Connecticut, in January. Since 
writing the above I have learned from Mr. Brewster that a female Chewink 
was sent to him which was shot on January 2, in Bedford, Mass., some ten 
miles to the northwest of here. — REGINALD HEBER Howe, Jr., Loug- 
wood, Mass. 

Bird Notes from Erie County, New York.— Among the rarer summer 
birds found near Springville, New York, may be mentioned the American 
Egret (Ardea egretta). A young bird of the year was taken on the Cat- 
taraugus Creek on August 10, 1881, by Mr. Depew of Long Island. 
The specimen is now in my collection. 

The Horned Lark and State-colored Junco have been found to be regular 
breeders in this vicinity. The Larks lay their eggs about the first week in 
April and the Juncos build their nests the last of May. In the middle 
of June, 1895, the writer found the Junco breeding on the mossy slope of 
a woodland ravine only a few rods from the home of the Chewink, Rose- 
breasted Grosbeak, Indigo Bunting, and Scarlet Tanager; all these birds 
at the same time protesting against his invasion of their peaceful realm. 


Vol, 2c General Notes. 179 


Further on in this favored woodland where the trees were scattered, but 
the underbrush dense, a pair of Mourning Warblers ( Geothlypis philadel- 
phia) were feeding their young; not far distant another pair had a nest 
full of fresh eggs concealed among the blackberry bushes and ferns beside 
a moss-covered log. 

Near Springville the Hooded Warbler (Sylvania mitrata) was common. 
Nest and eggs of this species were taken here and at East Hamburg. 
The Black-throated Blue Warbler, Black-throated Green Warbler, Black- 
burnian Warbler, and Black and Yellow Warbler were all found in full- 
breeding dress and song. The nest and eggs of Sylvania canadensis were 
taken on the 5th of June; also a pair of the old birds and a young bird in 
full plumage the last of June, 1895.— ELAN Howarp Eaton, Cazan- 
daigua, N. Y. 


Virginia Notes. — My notes of a visit to Southwestern Virginia in the 
spring of 1895 — April 24 to May 9— contain three or four items which 
may be worthy of record. 

Chondestes grammacus. — On April 28, at Pulaski, I found a bird of 
this species feeding in grass-land, where it allowed me to watch it at my 
pleasure. Dr. Rives reports a single Virginia specimen as having been 
taken in Washington, and in ‘The Auk’ for January, 1896, Mr. William 
Palmer records a second specimen taken in August, 1895. 

Helminthophila chrysoptera.— Of the species Dr. Rives mentions a 
single Virginia specimen, taken near Washington by Dr. Fisher. At 
Pulaski, I saw tour or more individuals April 28 to May 1. On my last 
morning there (May 1), in a hurried visit of afew minutes to the edge of 
the woods near the hotel, I found two Golden-wings among a bevy of 
new arrivals of different species. The Warbler migration was still only 
beginning, and I had then-little doubt that a longer stay would show the 
species to be pretty common. All my birds were males. 

Dendroica czrulea.— This species marked by Dr. Rives as “accidental 
or very rare,” seemed to be moderately common at Natural Bridge, where it 
frequented exclusively the tops of hills covered with old deciduous forest. 
I saw it first on May 4. Two days later a female was seen gathering nest 
materials, but a long hunt failed to find the nest itself. The males sang 
with the utmost freedom. On May 61 found them thus engaged on four 
hilltops. 

It may be worth adding that Red Crossbills (Loxta curvirostra minor) 
were seen or heard on four dates at Pulaski and Natural Bridge, and 
that I found a flock of five birds feeding at Arlington, in the national 
cemetery, on May 12.— BRADFORD TorRREy, Wellesley Hills, Mass. 


On Birds reported as rare in Cook County, Il]. — Porzana novebora- 
censis.—In Ridgway’s Birds of Illinois, this species is given as not 
uncommon, but from the observations of Mr. J. G. Parker and myself the 
Yellow Rail is a quite common resident of Cook County. I have had no 


180 General Notes. te 
difficulty in taking or seeing a number each spring at South Chicago 
along the Calumet River, and at Worth, Illinois, on the Feeder of the 
Des Plaines River. 

While Mr. Chas. Roby and myself were collecting on his grounds at 
South Chicago, in the spring of 1890, his dog caught two Yellow Rails in 
less than one hour’s time, bringing them to us between his lips alive and 
with not a feather ruffled. 

Macrorhamphus griseus. — I have found this bird in Cook County when 
the season has been a very dry one, the favorite feeding grounds being 
Mud Lake, a small lake one mile south of Grand Crossing, IIl., a small 
pond at 126th Street, South Chicago, along the Calumet River, and on the 
Sag, at Worth, Ill. The bulk arrive in the months of July and August 
after the breeding season is over, in company with flocks of Yellow-legs, 
Pectoral, Least, and Semipalmated Sandpipers. The Dowitchers gener- 
ally fly in flocks of from three to ten, and as a rule are young birds. 

I have two specimens in the rich red plumage that I shot at South 
Chicago, May-6, 1893. This is the only instance that I can find of this 
bird in Cook County, prior to July. In the Chicago Academy of Sciences 
are two birds in the light plumage taken at Mud Lake, Aug. 12, 1893. 
Mr. J. G. Parker, Jr., has frequently taken AZ. griseus at Mud Lake. 

Macrorhamphus scolopaceus. — I have two specimens of this bird in the 
breeding plumage, which I bought from a market shooter at South 
Chicago, May 6, 1893, on the same day that I shot my specimens of 
M. griseus. 

Micropalama himantopus.—I have observed a large number of this 
species, and can positively say that they are a rare spring migrant, and 
a common fall visitant. It is very hard to distinguish them in the fall 
plumage from the young of Totanus flavipes. I have one in the breeding 
plumage taken at South Chicago, on the Calumet River, in April, 1890; 
also one in the light plumage taken at Mud Lake, Sept. 23, 1893. Mr. 
J. G. Parker, Jr., has a bright female taken from a flock of four at Mud 
Lake, July 25, 1893; also a young bird from the same locality. 

On August 24, 1895, Mr. J. F. Ferry, of Lake Forest, Ills., and myself 
shot four Stilt Sandpipers from a flock of fifty or more at Libertyville, 
Ill., a pair of which are in the collection of the Chicago Academy of 
Sciences. 

Tringa maritima.— I have a specimen of this bird taken at South 
Chicago in June, 1895. This with Dr. J. W. Velie’s specimen, taken 
November 7, 1891, are the only records I can find of the Purple Sandpiper 
in Cook County. 

Tringa bairdii. — Mr. J. G. Parker, Jr., has one of these birds taken at 
Mud Lake, August 22, 1893. 

Symphemia semipalmata. — Mr. J. G. Parker, Jr., and myself have seen 
this bird on several occasions in Cook County but have failed to shoot one. 

Tryngites subruficollis.—In the spring of 1890 I shot one of these 
birds from a flock of Golden Ployvers at Worth, Ill. The specimen is in 


bee General Notes. en | 


the Museum of the Cook County Normal School. There is also one bird 
in the Chicago Academy of Sciences which I shot at Mud Lake, Sept. 18, 
1893. 

Numenius longirostris.—I observed one of this species at South 
Chicago, Ill., in June, 1890. It was in company with the flock of 
C. squatarola from which I shot my specimens. I have one bird which I 
obtained at Liverpool, Ind., about fifteen miles from South Chicago. Mr. 
J. G. Parker, Jr., saw a pair of Long-billed Curlews feeding on the lake 
shore at Woodlawn Park. 

Charadrius squatarola. — In June, 1890, I shot two fine old males in full 
breeding plumage, from a flock of about fifteen, at South Chicago, one of 
which is in the collection of the State at Springfield, Ill. J havea tine 
large bird in the young plumage from Mud Lake, Oct. 29, 1893. Mr. J.G. 
Parker, Jr., and myself observed three of this species at Hyde Lake, IIL, 
in November, 1891. 

Arenaria interpres. — On a number of occasions I have seen this bird at 
South Chicago, the Sag at Worth, Ill., and at Mud Lake. I shot a fine 
specimen at the latter place, Sept. 18, 1893. Mr. J. G. Parker records one 
from the beach of Lake Michigan at Woodlawn Park. It was in company 
with a flock of Sanderlings—— FRANK M.WoopruFr, Academy of Sciences, 
Chicago, Ill. 


Additions to the Avifauna of Tennessee. — The following species not 
included in the annotated list of Tennessee birds recently published by me 
in the ‘Proceedings’ of the Academy of Natural Sciences,'! have come to 
notice. They comprise some which have been recorded in other publica- 
tions of a non-scientific or inaccessible character. Further additions to 
this list will be gratefully acknowledged and recorded by the author. I 
am indebted to Mr. H. C. Oberholser for some of these references. 

1. Larus delawarensis. RING-BILLED GULL.— Numerous at Open 
Lake, Landesdale County, in November 1895, where Mr. B. C. Miles 
procured a specimen, sending me the head and foot for identification. 

2. Otocoris alpestris subsp.? HorNep LARK. —A skin of this bird is 
recorded in the ‘ First Annual [1893] Report’ of the Museum of the Illinois 
Wesleyan University, page 16. It evidently belonged to a collection of 
bird-skins presented to the University by Prof. G. S. Thompson, of Nash- 
ville, Tenn., as announced on page § of the report. 

3. Spizella monticola. TREE SpARROw.—A specimen is recorded on 
page 17 of the above-mentioned ‘ Report’ and itis probably from the same 
source as the preceding. 

4. Dendroica castanea. BAyY-BREASTED WARBLER. — This and the fol- 
lowing two species were observed by Mr. Bradford Torrey near Chatta- 
nooga and recorded in the ‘ Atlantic Monthly. His first record for the 


‘Contrib. Zool. Tenn., No. 2, Proc. A. N.S. 1895, pp. 463--501. 


182 General Notes. poe 
Bay-breast is from Lookout Mountain (1. c., 1895, p. 547) where he 
observed it May 7, 1895. 

5. Dendroica palmarum. PALM WARBLER. — /dézd., p.547. Mr. Torrey 
considered the birds seen by him to be typical falmarum. 

6. Dendroica tigrina. CAPE MAy WARBLER. — /d7d., p. 547. Cameron 
Hill and Lookout Mountain. 

7. Cistothorus stellaris. SHORT-BILLED MARSH WREN.— A skin from 
Tennessee is in the Illinois Wesleyan University collection (‘ Report,’ 
IB (Gn5 Do LODE 

8. Turdus alicia. GRAY-CHEEKED THRUSH.— Mr. Torrey saw this 
bird on Walden’s Ridge in Hamilton County (l.c., p. 610). — SAMUEL N. 
Ruoaps, Philadelphia, Pa. 


Sundry Notes.— New London, Prince Edwards Island, Sept. 1, 1872. 
Mr. William Everett of Dorchester, Massachusetts, saw to-day a flock of 
about fifty Eskimo Curlew (Vumenzus borealis) which had that day landed 
in a field where a man was ploughing. This man informed him that they 
were véry tame and had been following the furrows picking up and eating 
earth-worms. ‘This Mr. Everett saw them do, after which he shot fifteen 
by walking up to them. On examination he found that all those shot 
were poor, having no fat. 

Billingsgate, Cape Cod, Mass., April 27, 1895. Three Black-bellied 
Plovers, C. sgwatarola, the first this spring, noted to-day. On May 13, 
about one hundred seen all in one flock. 

Mr. Frank Brown, of Chelsea, Mass., who sojourned at Charlotte Harbor, 
situated on the west coast of Florida, during the winter of 1888, informs 
me that there is in that neighborhood a smallisland on which are several 
dead trees, around the bases of which-she noticed large heaps of good 
sized conch shells. Some of these heaps he should think were ten or 
twelve feet square. A portion of these shells appeared as if they had been 
there for years, while others were fresh looking. Inquiring of his boat- 
man who was a resident of the place as to the cause, he was informed that 
the Eagles brought them there, ‘pulled out the meat which they ate, 
dropping the shells. 

Anas obscura. — Ponkapog Pond, Massachusetts, October 21, 1895. The 
first flock of migratory Black Ducks (eighteen in number) of the season 
came into the pond to-day, thirteen of which were killed. —GrorRGE H. 
Mackay, Wantucket, Mass. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Correspondence. I 83 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Some Questions of Nomenclature. 


EpitTors oF ‘ THE AUK’: — 


Dear Sirs,— Those of us who have to deal with fine points of scientific 
nomenclature will always be duly thankful to the A. O. U. Committee on 
Nomenclature for the ‘Code’ which was the result of their first labors, 
and which has now become the standard not only of our ornithologists 
and mammalogists but of most other American zodlogists and botanists 
as well. 

Occasionally, however, knotty questions present themselves for which 
we find no ruling in the Code, and each author is compelled to decide 
for himself, which results in great diversity of opinion. On some of 
these questions a careful study of the ‘ Check-List’ shows that the A. O.U. 
Committee did form their decision, but unfortunately did not include the 
reasons theretor in the Code, nor give us any of the arguments in the case. 

I therefore wish to call especial attention to one or two points in the 
hope that we may come to a little more definite understanding of them 
and perhaps elicit an explanation from the A. O. U. Committee giving the 
reasons for their rulings. 

The first question is in regard to the quotation of authorities for 
manuscript names. 

For instance, an author, Smith, discovers a new bird for which he 
proposes a name and prepares a description, then finding that another 
author, Jones, is about to publish a paper on allied birds, he sends his 
manuscript for Jones to incorporate in his paper. Or perhaps Smith 
merely sends a specimen bearing the new name which he would propose 
and calls attention to its most distinctive characters, leaving Jones to 
prepare the description in his own words. In either case Jones gives 
Smith credit for the new species by placing his name after the scientific 
name as authority for it. Now the question is, are we in quoting the 
name to cite Smith, the author of the species, or Jones the publisher of it, 
as our authority. 

Those who would quote Jones claim that the first one to publish a 
diagnosis of the species is the author to be quoted, because until the 
description is published the name is a xomen nudum, and that the author 
of the manuscript name is not authority for the description published by 
the other. Furthermore, by quoting the author of the MS. name we give 
no clue to the place of publication, which is one of the principal reasons 
for quoting an authority. 

On the other hand, it is claimed that we have no right to ignore the 
author of the MS. name, as he really recognized the species as new and 
deserves the ‘ credit’; moreover, the author who published the description 


~ Auk 
Apn. 


I 84 Correspondence. 
(Jones) distinctly disclaimed credit for the species by quoting ‘Smith’ 
along with the scientific name at the head of the description. 

The mere question of ‘credit’ is of but little importance to my mind, 
for more real ‘credit’ belongs to the man who prepares a good monograph 
of a group whether he hands his name down to posterity asa sort of 
caudal appendage to a lot of new species or not. A form warranting 
description should be described by all means, but this is not the end of 
zoOlogical science, as some seekers after new species seem to think. 

If both sides were consistent in the above argument we might decide in 
favor of one or the other, but they are not. 

So far as my experience goes representatives of both sides recognize two 
classes of MS. names. (1) In which Smith prepares the entire diagnosis 
as well as proposes the name and Jones prints the whole bodily in his 
paper. (2) Where Smith has merely attached his new name to a speci- 
men and called attention to some of its characters, leaving Jones to prepare 
the diagnosis. 

In case (2) the advocates of the publisher as the authority to, be cited 
quote Jones, but in case (1) I find most of them would quote Smith. 

Now for my part I fail to see how we can in practice draw a line between 
these two classes of MS. names, and how we are to tell which author had 
the most to do with framing a description. 

Moreover, inclined though Iam to the citing of the publisher of the 
name, I do not think that the MS. author can be wholly ignored where all 
the work is his and where the publisher has merely acted as editor tor 
him, and distinctly disowns the species as his own. Such action would 
cause the greatest overthrow of authorities in invertebrate zodlogy where 
MS. names are much more frequent. 

The clearest way out of the difficulty seems to me to be the quotation of 
both authors in all cases thus: ‘‘Smith” Jones,’ which indicates exactly 
the status of the authority and is very little more trouble to write. This 
practice, too, will be much more likely to be generally adopted than the 
citation of either name separately, especially in view of the great diversity 
of opinion which now exists among zoOlogists in general. 

The action of the A. O.U. Committee in regard to this question is 
interesting and further illustrates the diversity of opinion, at the same time 
showing how unstable the authorities quoted in our list are likely to be. 
In the first edition of the Check-List there are some twenty instances 
of ‘MS.’ names; in tour of these the Committee decided to adopt as 
authority the name of the author who published the description, while 
in all the rest they ruled in favor of the author of the MS. name. The 
latter seemed to be their general rule while the first four cases were 
regarded as pure zomzna nuda before the descriptions appeared. In some 


'T do not claim any originality in suggesting this form of citation, as I am 
well aware that it has been often used. I merely advocate this form as prefer- 
able to either name separately or to such a form as, Smith MS. Jones. 


Teieee k " Correspoudence. I 55 
of the latter, however (especially Aeadlus saturatus “ Wensh.”’), it is hard 
to see where the author of the MS. name had any claim over those of the 
first four cases. 

In the Supplements to the Check-List the Committee continued to rule 
in favor of the author of the MS. name, but in the new edition which has 
just appeared they reversed their ruling, changing the authorities for a 
number of names, and have almost universally ignored the MS. author 
and quoted the publisher.’ In two instances, however, the ‘ MS. author’ 
still receives recognition, e.g, Prpilo chlorurus (VYowns.) and Ofocor?s 
alpestrts pallida Townsend. 

The first of these is described as Friugilla chlorura in Audubon’s Orn. 
Biog., V, p. 336. The entire description is a quotation from a letter of 
Dr. J. K. Townsend, but the name is not credited to him and is not in 
quotation marks: it is clearly Audubon’s and without it the description 
would have no status. Ord, in Guthrie’s ‘Geography,’ gave names to 
descriptions in the History of Lewis and Clarke’s Expedition, and we do 
not quote Lewis and Clarke; so far as I see the two cases are parallel. 

Otocorts alpestris pallida was discovered, described and named by Mr- 
C. H. Townsend, and I presume his manuscript was in the U. S. Govern- 
ment Printing Office early in 1890, or perhaps before. Ilowever, Mr. 
Townsend lent his type to Dr. Dwight when he was preparing his mono- 
graph of the American Horned Larks, and another description was pre- 
pared and printed in Dr. Dwight’s paper (Auk, April, 1890, p. 154). 

Mr. Townsend’s description did not appear till September, 1890 ( judg- 
ing trom the date on which the paper was distributed). Dr. Dwight very 
properly disclaimed any credit for the name and gave it as ‘* Townsend 
MS.,” and in the A. O. U. Check-List it is credited to Townsend. 

The reference, moreover, is that of Townsend’s publication (Proc. U.S. 
Nat. Mus., 1890, p. 138), and Dr. Dwight’s apparently earlier publication 
is ignored. While I do not begrudge Mr. ‘Townsend his Lark, and would 
still give him full credit for it on the plan advocated above, I fail to see 
why the Committee should make this special ruling. 

While discussing the rulings in the new Check-List I would like to call 
attention to one or two instances which I take to be typographical errors, 
though perhaps there may be some reasons for them that I have over- 
looked. 

No. 134. Fratercula arctica glactal’s (Yemm.) is printed identically in 
the two editions, but the reference to Temmink’s work is omitted in the 
new edition, and Stephens, Gen. Zool. 1826, given as the place of original 
publication ; should not the authority be changed to Stephens? 

An exactly similar case is 766a@. Svalia stalis azurea, still credited to 
“ Swains.,” though the place of original publication is changed to “ Baird, 
Rev. Am. B., July, 1884, p. 62,” and no reference to Swainson appears. 


'This makes Gambel the authority for Cad/ipepla gambelii or indicates that 
he named the bird after himself, which he certainly did not intend to do! 


23 


186 Correspondence. res 


Another point is in regard to quoting the authority for species described 
in the ‘ Fauna Boreali-Americana.’ 

The A. O. U. Committee has evidently decided to quote the author 
whose initials appear at the head of the description immediately following 
the scientific name instead of the two authors jointly. Ozdemta americana, 
however, is still credited to ‘‘ Sw. and Rich.,” although it is Swainson’s 
species and no reference to Richardson occurs in connection with it. Two 
other species, Lagopus leucurus and Larus franklinit, credited to ‘* Sw. and 
Rich.,” are still regarded as of joint authorship though both could easily 
be credited to Richardson without stretching rulings applied in other 
Cases. 

The other main point to which I wish to call attention is one of priority. 
‘Two names are proposed in the same volume for the same animal, one 
having priority of nineteen pages. Several specialists claim that in such 
a case the next writer to revise the group to which the animal belongs has 
the right to adopt either name he chooses, and subsequent writers should 
follow him. I should like to know if such a ruling is in accordance with 
views of the A. O. U. Committee. To me the priority of a few pages 
seems to warrant the adoption of the first name just as much as priority 
of afew years, or, as it has been happily put, ‘in case of twins, primo- 
geniture rules.” 

I was impelled to call especial attention to the main points discussed in 
this letter by the question of the proper name for the Polar Hare recently 
agitated by Mr. S. N. Rhoads (see Amer. Nat., 1896, p. 251), and I am 
indebted to this gentleman for the use of some letters from specialists 
bearing upon the matter.! 

The citation of this case, with the opinions of various specialists, will 
further illustrate the different views that are held in regard to these ques- 
tions. Ross published a description of the Polar Hare in his ‘ Voyage,’ 
Appendix IV, p. 151, giving it the name “Lefus arcticus Leach,” implying 
that Dr. Leach had recognized the species as new and had proposed this 
name for it. Farther on in Appendix No. IV is a more minute account by 
Dr. Leach of the animals collected; here (p. 170) he describes the Polar 
Hare, giving it the name Lefus glacialis, having apparently changed his 
mind as to what he would call it since communicating with Ross. 

Sabine, Baird and others chose to adopt Lefus glaczalis Leach for the 
animal, but now Mr. Rhoads advocates Lefus arcticus on account ot 
priority and would quote as authority “Leach” Ross in accordance with 
the suggestion given above in this letter. 

In answer to inquiries the following gentlemen have given their 
opinions as below in regard to which name and authority they would 
quote. 


1 The permission to publish their opinions was courteously granted by the 
gentlemen mentioned below, to whom I am also indebted. 


Vee Correspondence. I 87 


Lepus arcticus Ross. Lepus glactalis Leach. 
Dr. L. Stejneger. Dr. C. Hart Merriam. 
Dr. T. S. Palmer. Mr. Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. 


Lepus arcticus Leach, Ross. 
Dr. Theo. Gill. 


Lepus arcticus “ Leach” Ross. 
Prof. H. A Pilsbry. 
Mr. S N. Rhoads. 
Mr. Witmer Stone. 


If only one authority is to be quoted Dr. Gill and Prof. Pilsbry would 
adopt Lepus arcticus Leach, and Mr. Miller, if deciding the case first hand 
(without regard to Baird, Sabine, etc.), would adopt Lefus arcticus Ross. 

Finally, I must apologize for using so much of your valuable space, 
but feel that these questions should be brought into prominent notice, 
for while they do not appeal to the field ornithologist, they must have 
presented themselves to every systematist who has had occasion to discuss 


points of nomenclature. 
Very truly yours, 
WITMER STONE. 


Acad. Nat. Sctences, Phita., 
March 3, 1896. 


[Mr. Stone, in a private letter accompanying the above, has kindly 
suggested my following his communication with such remarks as may 
seem to me pertinent. In doing so I wish to be understood as writing 
for myself alone and not in behalf of or by the authority of the A. O. 
Committee on Nomenclature, although what I say in reference to the 
points raised by Mr. Stone is, I believe, strictly in line with the decisions 
of the Committee. 

First in regard to MS. names, or Mr. Stone’s ‘Smith and Jones’ case. 
As Mr. Stone has shown, there are two well-defined classes of manuscript 
names. There are also cases which do not clearly come under either. 

1. Under class 1 we may place (a2) names borne on the label of a 
museum specimen, or (4) transmitted by means of a labelled specimen 
from one naturalist to another. Out of courtesy, or for some other rea- 
son no more obligatory, Jones, the publishing author, adopts Smith’s 
name and writes after it ‘Smith MS.’ In this case Jones is the authority 
for the name, and Smith gets his ‘credit’ for his discovery, which will 
appear to the end of time in every full citation of the bibliography of the 
species. 

The justness of this is easily demonstrated. Jones is the responsible 
party in the case. He is the arbiter as to whether Smith’s supposed new 
species is really tenable. In case he finds it a ‘ good species’ he is at 


I 88 Correspondence. treet 


liberty to adopt Smith’s name or not, as he chooses. If he finds Smith’s 
species is not a ‘good species’ it is his duty to suppress it altogether, 
thus doing Smith the kindness of concealing his mistake, and benefiting 
science by suppressing a synonym. 

2. Under class 2 we may place MS. names, transmitted from one 
naturalist to another, accompanied with a diagnosis. Jones, the publish- 
ing author, receives from Smith not only a labelled specimen, but a 
diagnosis of the new species it is supposed to represent. Jones publishes 
the name and the diagnosis as inedited matter, credited to Smith, with 
such additional comment as he sees fit, endorsing or discrediting the 
species as-his judgment may dictate. In this case Smith is the author 
and Jones merely the vehicle of publication, and the citation will be 
“Smith, in Jones, etc.” (= title of the publication). Or, as sometimes ° 
happens, instead of transmitting specimens, Smith may send merely the 
name and diagnosis for incorporation in Jones’s monograph; in which 
case, or in either case, Jones’s responsibility for Smith’s species extends 
only so tar as relates to his good judgment in accepting Smith’s matter 
for publication. 

On this supposition, Jones publishes Smith’s diagnosis as well as his 
name, and both in such a way as to indicate Smith’s authorship Should 
Jones tail to do this, and their is nothing to show Smith’s claim, we can 
recognize only the ostensible author; the equity of the case is purely a 
personal matter between Smith and Jones. 

In certain cases one may have reason to suppose that the author of the 
MS. name furnished something more than a MS. name attached to a 
specimen,— in fact in rare instances many know this to be the case: but 
it would be fatal to stability in the matter of authorities for names if we 
allowed such knowledge or conviction to supercede what the record shows 
on its face, since this alone is the evidence open equally to every one. 

All cases of MS. names should be placed under one or the other of the 
two classes already defined, but the decision may be less easy in some 
cases than in others. An instance in point is the case of “ Fringilla chlo- 
rura Towns., in Aud. Orn. Biog.,” etc., cited above by Mr. Stone. It is 
evident that all Audubon knew of the bird was derived from the account 
furnished him in a letter by Mr. Townsend; the whole account, except 
the name, is given as a quotation from Townsend. ‘Townsend may have 
given it the name also, but of this there is no proof. ‘The name as it 
stands is ostensibly Audubon’s. Yet all subsequent writers have attrib- 
uted it to Townsend, and apparently the A. O. U. Committee followed 
custom without subjecting the case to special scrutiny. Now that my 
attention is specially drawn to it, Isee no way of escaping the decision 
that, in strict accordance with the rule applied in other cases in the 
revised edition of the Check-List, the name is Audubon’s, and the citation 
should be #rzngilla chlorura Audubon. 

In the case of ‘‘ Otocoris alpestris pallida Vownsend,” it seems unavoid- 
able to accept Mr. Stone’s correction, as Dr. Dwight’s paper was published 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Correspondence. - I 89 
about April 1, 1890, and Mr. Townsend's, as shown by the official list of 
dates of publication of the articles in Vol. XIII of the Proceedings of the 
U.S. National Museum (see p. viii of this volume), not until Sept. 9, 
1890. Yet Dr. Dwight says Mr. Townsend “has recently described a race 
from Lower California and kindly permitted me to examine his type,” 
being under the impression, doubtless, that Mr. Townsend’s paper was 
already in press. The facts in the case as now developed render it evi- 
dent that the correct citation is: Ofocorts alpestris pallida Dwight (ex 
Townsend MS.), Auk, VII, April, 1890, p. 154. 

In the first edition of the A. O. U. Check-List, as Mr. Stone has pointed 
out, there was lack of uniformity in the treatment of MS. names, as also 
in a few other nomenclatural matters, defects it was sought to remedy in 
the second edition; but, as in all things of human origin, there is lack of 
perfection even in the revised edition, but the inconsistencies are few 
and wholly accidental. 

The case of ** Fraterculu arctica glactal’s (Yemm.),” as it appears in 
the revised edition, is a puzzle. Obviously if the amended reference is 
correct, “ Stephens” should replace “Temm.,” as the authority for the 
name glactal’s. On reinvestigation, however, it turns out that the change 
introduced in the revised edition was uncalled for and erroneous, the 
original edition being correct.! 

As regards * Svalia azurea Swain.,” the name as used by Swainson * is 
a complete xomen nudum” (cf. Ridgw., Man. N. Am. Birds, p. 581, first 
footnote), and was first coupled with a description by Baird in 1864. 
Therefore the authority is Baird and not Swainson. 

In regard to the ‘Fauna Boreali,Americana, it was the ruling of the 
Committee that the author of the species, whether Swainson or Richard- 
son, or the two authors jointly, should be cited as the authority for the 
name, each case to be determined on its merits by the evidence afforded 
by the text. But the evidence is not always clear, so that different 
authorities might decide the same case differently. In the case of new 
species either Richardson’s or Swainson’s name is usually given as the 
authority. In the case of Lagopus leucurus, ‘“ Swains.” is given as the 


authority for the name, but the description is signed ‘‘R.” So it was 
deemed proper to cite both Swainson and Richardson as the authority. 


The authority for Larus franklini is ‘‘ nobis”; the text is signed *R,” 


'Temminck says: * On doit observer de ne pas confondre notre Aarmon 
Jratercula [= Fratercula arctica (Linn.)] avec une espéce propre aux cétes 
septentrionales d’Amerique, dont le plumage est absolument semblable, mais 
qui a la bec beaucoup plus haut, elle a surtout la mandibule inférieure trés- 
arquée ; cette espéce nouvelle est indiquée par le docteur Leach, sous le nom 
de Mormon glacialis” (Man. d’Orn. sec. éd., II, 1820, p. 933) - On reference 
to Stephens it becomes evident that Dr. Leach’s name was merely a museum 
manuscript name, whence both Temminck and Stephens obtained it. 


I go : Correspondence. nen 


> 


but one of the footnotes is signed “ Sw.,” and the diagnosis is not. signed 
(as it is in some other cases, but not in all). 

In the case of ‘* Ofdemia americana Sw.and Rich.,” the proper authority 
is obviously Swainson, and that it was not so printed in the revised 
Check-List is clearly due to oversight. a 

In regard to the priority of names published in the same volume, Mr. 
Stone will find this point treated under Canon XVII of the A. O. U. 
Code, to the effect that of names of equal pertinency, ‘‘ that is to be per- 
ferred which stands first in the book.” 

As to the case of Lepfus arcticus, 1 should agree with Mr. Rhoads and 
write Lepus arcticus Ross, or, in making a full or formal citation, Lepus 
arcticus “‘Leach” Ross. Lepus glactalis is clearly untenable, arcticus 
having precedence of 19 pages in the same volume. Even if Leach 
imparted the name avcé/cus to Ross, he had no right to change it later on 
the ground that he preferred elacral/s, since “an author has no right to 
change or reject names of his own proposing, except in accordance with 
rules of nomenclature governing all naturalists” (cf A. O- U. Code, 
Canon XXXV). Thecase of Lepus arcticus Ross, therefore, rests entirely 
on the adequacy of Ross’s accompanying description, which, if sufficient 
(I have not the description at hand), clearly renders the name glacalis 
untenable.'— J. A. ALLEN. | 


A Question of Nomenclature. 


To THE Epirors oF ‘THE AUK’ :— 


Dear Siys,—The publication by Mr. Anthony, in the January number 
of ‘The Auk,’ of a new subspecies of Dryobates, under the appellation 
Dryobates villosus montanus, involves a principle of nomenclature in 
regard to which it may be profitable to invite the opinions of systematists, 
and upon which a decision by the A. O. U. Committee seems desirable. 

Picus montanus of Brehm (V6gel Deutschlands, 1831, p. 189) is now 
relegated tothe synonymy ot Dexdrocopos (= Dryobates) major (Linn.) ; 
and the question arises whether or not the specific term monfanus is avail- 
able for further employment in the genus Dryodates. Canon XXXII of 
the A. O. U. Code, which is presumed to provide for such contingencies 


iad 


reads: a specific or subspecific name is to be changed when it 


has been applied to some other species of the same genus, or used preyi- 


1 Professor Baird (Mam. N. Am, 1857, p. —) says he does not see why the 
name arcticus Ross is not tenable, having priority, but not being able to con- 
sult the work in question he follows Sabine in the use of g/acéalzs Leach. . I 
find that in 1877, with the work before me, I gave precedence to arcticus Ross. 


Vol. XIII Ae a 
1896 ; Correspondence. IgI 


ously in combination with the same generic name.” If the first clause 
above quoted be not subject to ambiguous interpretation, it seems evident 
that a new name will be required for the form now known as Dryodates 
villosus montanus Anthony. 

Since, however, it is maintained by some that absolute identity of both 
generic and specific terms is considered necessary for the rejection of a 
scientific name as a synonym, in other words, that a distinction is to be 
made between the genus of nomenclature and the genus of zodlogy, it is 
hoped that there may be elicited from members of the A. O. U. Com- 
mittee statements of their views respecting the rule to be applied in 
cases like the present. 


Very truly yours, 


HIArRyY C. OBERHOLSER. 
Washington, D. C. 


[Mr. Oberholser having kindly invited me to give my opinion on the 
above case, I take the liberty of submitting the following, as merely my 
individual ruling on the question. 

According to my interpretation of Canon XXNIII of the A. O. U. 
‘Code, there is no conflict between Anthony's name Dryodates villosus 
montanus and Brehm’s Picus montanus, tor the simple reason that they 
are not homonyms. A species name necessarily consists of two elements, 
a generic and a specific, both being essential components of the name. 
This is explicitly stated in Canon X of the A. O. U. Code, which affirms 
that the two names, the specific and the generic, “together” constitute 
the “technical name of any specifically distinct organism.” ‘That this 
view was in the mind of the Committee in framing Canon XXNXIII is 
evident from the argument and illustrations given under it in favor of 
extending the maxim “ Once a synonym [or homonym] always a synonyin 
[or homonym]” to specific and subspecific names. 

Yo pursue further the case cited by Mr. Oberholser, Pécus montanus 
Brehm is a pure synonym of Prcus major Linn., and the name montaunus 
had never been coupled with Dryodutes prior to Mr. Anthony’s combina- 
tion of the two terms,—that is, so far as we know, and for the sake of 
the illustration, let it be granted that they have not. These names are 
then not homonyms, and can never come in conflict. But let us suppose 
that Preus montanus Brehm really represents a good species, authors 
hitherto to the contrary notwithstanding, and that it is referable to the 
genus Dryobates. In that case whoever restores the species must adopt 
for itthe name Dryobates montanus (Brehm), and Anthony’s name, having 
been given later, must be replaced by a new name; but the change is not 
to be made until the necessity therefor arises. In nine cases out of ten, 
like this of Anthony and Brehm, it is safe to say the necessity for a change 
would never arise. Hence it would be highly unwise to adopt a rule, in 
view of the constantly changing limits and values of genera. that would 


Auk 


TQ2 Correspondence. April 


require the specific element of a species name to be changed whenever, 
under the vicissitudes of name shifting, it was brought under the same 
generic name as an earlier similar specific element of a species name 
which had never been combined with the same generic element. To be 
obliged to be constantly on the alert tor homonyms is bad enough, but 
this is a triviality in comparison to the task of hunting out all previous 
combinations that might possibly associate the specific element of a name 
with other and entirely different generic combinations, to say nothing of 
the enormous element of uncertainty it would introduce into the matter 
of stability of names through the purely personal element that is con- 
stantly operative in changing the limits of genera. Finally, I know of 
no code of nomenclature that provides for or requires a change of a 
species name under conditions like those cited by Mr. Oberholser.— 


JA. ALLEN] 


‘Ord’s ZoGlogy’ Again. 


To THE Epirors or ‘THE AuK’:— 


Dear Sirs,—In the Introduction to my Reprint of *Ord’s Zodlogy’ 
(1894, p. viii) it is stated that the only copy of this part of the second 
American (1815) edition of Guthrie’s ‘Geography’ previously known to 
authors had mysteriously disappeared from the library of the Academy ot 
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. While searching for some references 
ina bound volume (No. I@) of General Natural History Tracts at the 
Academy, I lately chanced upon this missing copy of a rare and historic 
bit of literature. The separate is the last (No. xvii) of this volume of 
Tracts. On the upper margin ot the first page of the brochure (p. 291) 
is written in lead pencil the autograph signature, “ George Ord,” and in 
lead pencil, apparently in another person’s! writing, “from Guthrie's 
Geography, Phil. Edition.” In ink, in Cassin’s hand, follow the words, 
“Guthrie Geog. Philada. 1815.” The separate probably had originally 
attached to it, page 290, containing the introductory paragraph, and the 
last leaf containing page 261, on which Ord’s contribution ends, but 
neither of these leaves are preserved. Owing to some oversight the 


” 


““author’s ” reference to this tract in our card catalogue contained no data 
to indicate anything further than its former existence in the library, and 
misled by this, it was supposed, after a fruitless search, that it had been 
irretrievably lost. On finding the tract, however, it was discovered that 
the full reference and data had been entered in the ‘ subject’ catalogue 
under ‘* Natural History of the United States” and so it escaped notice. 


'Dr. E. J. Nolan declares this to be the handwriting of John Cassin, and a 
careful comparison with Cassin’s letters strongly supports this view. 


Vol. XI114 
1896 


Notes and News. 193 
It is due the librarian of the Academy to state that the irregularity in cata- 
loguing resulted naturally from the absence of Ord’s name on the separate 
as the authoritative author and to the tact that the main page heading of 
the tract reads ‘‘ United States of America.” 


SAMUEL N. RHOADs. 
Acad. Nat, Sct. Phila., 
March 3, 1896. 


Chen hyperborea and C. nivalis. 


ho THE Epirors of °“TLan AuK*:— 


Dear Sirs,—1 am desirous of ascertaining the status of Chen hyper- 
borea et nivalis east of the Mississippi River, and therefore request 
that all members of the Union and readers of ‘The Auk’ that have 
specimens of these forms in their collections from the territory in 
question will favor me with the following data: locality where taken, 
date, sex and measurement,— length and wing. 


WILLIAM DUTCHER. 
525 Manhattan Ave., 
New York City. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Dr. WILLARD LORRAINE Maris, an Associate Member ot the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, died at the German Hospital in Philadelphia, 
December t1, 1895. Dr. Maris was a graduate of the University of Michi- 
gan, and shortly before his death, from typhoid fever and pneumonia, 
was appointed resident physician at the hospital where he died. He was 
a young man of fine education and exceptional abilities, and was much 
interested in natural history, devoting special attention to ornithology. 
He was a son of Prof. L. Maris of Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. 


THE DELAWARE VALLEY ORNITHOLOGICAL CLuB held its annual 
meeting at the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, on January 2, 
1896. The annual reports showed a continuance of the prosperous con- 
dition of the Club as reported last year, while the membership list 
shows a decided increase. Among the communications of the past year 


25 


194 ; Notes and News. ual 


may be mentioned the following: ‘Food Birds of the Eskimo, Dr. Wm. 
E. Hughes; ‘Summer Birds of the Pennsylvania Coal Region,’ R. T. 
Young; ‘Nesting Habits of the Parula Warbler in Cape May Co., N. J.,’ 
M. L. C. Wild; ‘Ornithological Notes from the Diary of William Bar- 
tram,’ Witmer Stone; ‘ Birds of Tennessee, S. N. Rhoads; ‘ Winter Birds 
of Cape Charles, Va., G. 5. Morris; ‘Some Notes on the Extermination 
of the Wild Pigeon, Wm. L. Baily. 

The officers of the Club for the ensuing year are President, Dr. Wm. 
E. Hughes; Vice-President, I. Norris De Haven; Secretary, Charles J. 
Rhoads; Treasurer, Wm. L. Baily. 


THE MIcHIGAN ORNITHOLOGICAL CLuB held three meetings during the 
last quarter. January 12, Mr. A. B. Durfee read an interesting paper on 
the Short-billed Marsh Wren (Czesfothorus stellarzs), based on nearly halt 
a century’s experience; and Mr. W. E. Mulliken presented a paper on 
Evolution. .February 14, Mr. L. J. Cole read a paper entitled ‘Winter 
Experiences, and Mr. Mulliken gave a talk on Migration. March 13 Mr. 
T. L. Hankinson presented a paper entitled ‘Winter Notes, and Mr. H. F. 
Jones a paper on the Prairie Horned Lark. A neatly printed Constitution 
has been issued and a copy sent to all observers in the State. At the 
meeting of February 14, a committee composed of L. Whitney Watkins, 
W. Earle Mulliken, and Thos. L. Hlankinson, was appointed to prepare a 
migration schedule and to take up the study of bird migrations in Michi- 
gan. The blanks (similar to those used by the Department of Agriculture) 
have been printed and a copy sent to every observer in the State or near 
its borders. The membership of the Club now numbers forty, and is 
evenly distributed over the State. Persons interested in the work of the 
Club should address the Secretary, W. Earle Mulliken, at 191 First Ave., 
Grand Rapids, Mich., for particulars. 


THe publishers, the J. B. Lippincott Company of Philadelphia, 
announce a “second edition, thoroughly revised,’ of Mr. Ridgway’s 
‘Manual of North American Birds.’ The prospectus states that this new 
edition of the ‘ Manual’ ‘‘ has been carefully revised to the close of 1895, 
and includes the characters of over one hundred species and six genera 
which have been added to the North American fauna since 1887. Various 
errors in the first edition have been corrected, several of the analytical 
keys having been entirely rewritten.” Directions are given for the use 
of the keys, and marginal references in the body of the work refer to the 
additional matter in the appendix. 


D. APPLETON AND Company ot New York have brought out a third 
edition of Mr. Chapman’s ‘ Handbook of Birds of Eastern North America.’ 
A few errors that escaped rectification in the second edition are here 
corrected, but no essential changes are introduced. 


Hel RI Notes and News. 195 


WE HAVE received Vol. I, No. 4, Jan. 1896, of ‘The Feather,’ a monthly 
journal devoted to “ Poultry, Pigeons, Birds, etc.,” published by George 
E. Howard & Co., Washington, D. C. It has a department devoted to 
“Cage Birds and Wild Birds,” conducted by Dr. F. H. Knowlton of the 
U.S. National Museum. The January issue contains several pages of 
ornithological miscellany, contributed by Dr. Knowlton, including an 
article on ‘The Great Auk, an Extinct Bird of much Renown,’ illustrated 
with cuts of the bird, its skeleton, and its egg. 


IN AN article in ‘ Nature’ (Feb. 20, 1896), Dr. R. Bowdler Sharpe gives 
an account of ‘The Seebohm Collection’ of birds received by the British 
Museum as a bequest from the late Mr. Henry Seebohm. Incidentally 
Dr. Sharpe sketches the growth of the Ornithological Department of the 
British Museum during the last twenty-five years, from a collection of 
about 40,000 specimens to its present status of the ‘“ finest in the whole 
world.” The principal accessions are enumerated. and their distinctive 
features stated. These are the Wallace, Gould, Sclater, Shelley, and 
Sharpe collections; the magnificent Hume collection; the Tweeddale 
collection; and the great Salvin-Godman American-collection. Nearly 
all have been donations from their former public-spirited and distinguished 
owners. ‘Until the reception otf the Seebohm collection, the birds of 
Europe and northern Asia were poorly represented. ‘‘ By the splendid 
bequest of Mr. Seebohm,” says Mr. Sharpe, ‘‘ this vacuum in our 
Palearctic collections has been filled, though there is no one in the 
Museum who does not feel that this addition to the strength of its 
ornithological section has been attained only through the loss of one of 
the truest friends of the institution which his dying wishes have enriched. 
There has not yet been time to register and incorporate the specimens of 
the Seebohm collection, but we know that we have now received the 
principal collection of Palearctic birds of modern times.” Some years 
since Mr. Seebohm presented to the British Museum his collection of 
eggs. This latest gift includes ‘‘the Swinhoe collection of Chinese birds, 
the Prior collection of Japanese birds, the series of specimens obtained by 
Holst in the Bonin and Loo-Choo Islands, and Formosa: and last but 
not least, his own European and Siberian collections, the result of his 
travels in all parts of Europe, and of his expeditions to the valleys of the 
Petchora and the Yenesei.” Also his great collections of Charadriidz 
and Thrushes, the former the basis of his work on the ‘ Geographical 
Distribution of the Charadriidie,’ the latter of his contemplated ‘ Mon- 
ograph of the Turdide, or Family of Thrushes.’ It is certainly pleasant 
to know that the ornithological treasures accumulated by Mr. Seebohm 
have been deposited where they will be not only duly appreciated but 
will contribute so effectively to the progress of ornithological research. 


Auk 
April 


196 Notes and News. 

Tue Fretp CoLtumBraAn Museum has sent a Natural History Expedi- 
tion into Central Africa, under the leadership of the Curator of Zodlogy, 
Mr. D. G. Elliot. Mr. Elliot sailed from New York about the last of Feb- 
ruary, and the details of his plans ~- the particular part of the country to 
be visited, etc.— were to be determined by information and advise 
obtained in London. As he takes with him the skilled taxidermist col- 
lector, Mr. E. Akeley, as his chief assistant, and is well provided with 
funds and necessary equipments, it may be naturally expected that the 
expedition will secure an ample harvest. Mr. Elliot will make special 
efforts to secure as many species of the Antelopes, many of which are 
rapidly nearing extinction, and other large South African mammals; 
not neglecting of course to gather in ornithological material when pos- 
sible to obtain it. Mr. Elliot expects to remain in the field till December. 


Mr. FRANK M. CHAPMAN is spending a two months’ vacation in 
Yucatan, where he finds that the ancient Aztec ruins rival in interest 


the mammals and birds. 


As this page goes to press several ornithological publications have come 
to hand, some of which it seems desirable to mention. We have received, 
for instance, Part XIII of Mr. Nehrling’s ‘ Birds of North America.’ Also 
Mr. Cory’s ‘ Hunting and Fishing in Florida’ which should have plenty 
of interest for both the sportsman and naturalist, and particularly the 
ornithologist, as the latter half is devoted to a formal account of the 
Water Birds of Florida and very fully illustrated with cuts prepared 
especially for the work. 


CINNVINGHAd SAdOOVT) NVOINGVLd SNNVAGHAd 


ibe WOAL Miby a ET 


ie LL: 


Ae Our ATR TE Roky LOU RNA (Or 


ORIN FRPOLOGY. 


ViOSa.) MILs (ULN, 4ESo6:. | NO. 3. 


tak DUCKS OF PEYMOUTE ‘COUNTY, MASSACEU=S 
SETTS. 


BY HERBERT K. JOB. 


WHATEVER may be the claims of other sections of New England, 
it is certain that Plymouth County, Mass., especially the southern 
half, is notably a favorite resort of the Ducks. Every one of the 
twenty-eight species attributed to New England has been noted 
within the last ten years. 

The topographical conditions are specially favorable for their 
occurrence and capture. The county has an extended and varied 
coast-line, with good feeding grounds. Of the latter there are 
two specially notable,— Plymouth Bay on the east, and Buzzard’s 
Bay on the south. Another minor feeding ground is in the south- 
west corner of Cape Cod Bay, where the townships of Plymouth 
and Bourne adjoin,— the South Plymouth resort. A few miles 
south of Plymouth Bay isa projection called Manomet Point, one 
of the finest spots for sea shooting on the whole New England 
coast. Vast hordes of ducks go by here in the autumn into Cape 
Cod Bay. The number is less in the spring, as the greater body, 
flying north, is deflected seaward by the convex side of Cape Cod, 
while in the flight south they suddenly find themselves hemmed in 
by the up-curving arm of the Cape. 


Auk 


198 Jos, Ducks of Plymouth Co., Mass. aaly 


Inquiry is often made as to the further course of those fowl that 
fly into this great bay from the north. I am unable at present to 
say how many of them follow the curve of the Cape back around 
Provincetown. But I know that a great many do wot go around, 
but fly over the peninsula, notably at the narrows adjoining 
Buzzard’s Bay, at Barnstable, and at Orleans into Chatham Bay. 
On clear days and moonlight nights they fly high, but it is other- 
wise in thick or stormy weather, when they are shot in transit 
from elevated spots, such as ‘ Shoot-flying Hill,’ West Barnstable. 
In the spring flight many that do not go around the Cape enter 
Buzzard’s Bay, and, crossing at the ‘ Narrows,’ fly up the Ply- 
mouth shore past Manomet. 

On the coast the autumn flight is observed to begin the last of 
August with the Scoters, the tide of migration increasing grad- 
ually to its height, which is from about October 20 to early Nov- 
vember. By the last of the month the migration is about over. 
In the spring the return movement is noted by the last of March, 
the period of greatest abundance being early April, perhaps from 
the 5th to the roth. The several Scoters are the last of the 
Fuliguline, lingering into May, sometimes collecting in great 
‘beds’ to feed protractedly. Such a case was noted off Plymouth 
Harbor, April and May, 1894, when several thousand Scoters 
were estimated to be feeding on those flats. 

Some account must now be given of the fresh water resorts. 
Southern Plymouth County is well termed the ‘ Lake Region of 
Massachusetts.’ It is full of ponds, and is drained mainly by 
the Taunton River and its tributaries. The largest bodies of 
fresh water in the State are found here. Assowompsett Pond, 
the greatest in area, is a broad oval sheet, shallow, three miles 
long by two across. The next is Long Pond, close by, four miles 
long by over a mile in width. These and a number of others 
comprise a distinct group, known as the Lakeville Ponds. FEast- 
ward, in the southern part of old Plymouth town, a region of 
veritable wilderness, is another large group. ‘Then, north and 
west, in Kingston, Halifax and vicinity, is still another group, the 
largest being Monponsett Pond and Silver Lake, the latter a noted 
spot for shooting geese. Many of the Fuliguline daily enter 
these ponds lying near the coast to obtain fresh water and to feed. 


ee Jos, Ducks of Plymouth Co., Mass. 199 

Last, but not least, apart from others of considerable size, in 
the town of Bridgewater, is Nippenickett Pond, about two miles 
long, shallow, irregular, excellent feeding ground, and in every 
way adapted to the purposes of the ‘stand gunner.’ One stand 
secured over 200 ducks in the autumn of 1895. Ducks of at 
least twenty species are taken here nearly every year. I am 
much indebted to Mr. J. E. Bassett, who owns the above stand, 
a careful and intelligent observer of the water-fowl, for statistics 
of the occurrence of the various ducks in this pond, and for 
many fine specimens in the flesh. From the abundance of ducks 
in this pond, it might be surmised that it is located in some 
special highway of migration, perhaps from Boston to Narra- 
gansett Bays, it being nearly in the direct line. 

The influx of ducks in these ponds begins about the middle of 
September with the Dusky Duck, and continues until the ice 
forms, the whole of October being a period especially fruitful. 
Many of the Fuligulinae frequent the ponds during the last 
half of the season. Large numbers of ducks pass over on 
clear nights, often without stopping. On clear, cold days, with 
heavy northwest wind, especially in October, great numbers of the 
various Anatinz keep passing in large flocks. 

In the spring flight very little is seen of the Anatine. They 
evidently pass much more quickly than in autumn, as well as 
more inland. Moreover, as they are not then decoyed and shot, 
to any extent, it is next to impossible to observe them, flying as 
they do by night, and being so exceedingly shy. 

A brief résumé of the different species and their occurrence 
will now be in order. 

Of all the Anatinz, the Dusky Duck (Azas obscura) is by far 
the most abundant. A number linger in winter on the coast. 
Many of these late birds, probably a northern race, are very large 
and finely plumaged, with deep red tarsi, and are popularly 
regarded as a distinct species. Quite a few remain to breed in 
the meadows and swamps adjoining the Taunton River and some 
of the ponds. 

The Wood Duck (Azx sfonsa) is, of course, very abundant, 
frequenting the streams and smaller ponds, breeding in suitable 


localities. 


200 Jos, Ducks of Plymouth Co., Mass. fay 

Probably the Pintail (Da/fi/a acuta) is next in abundance among 
the Anatinz. It is quite a common bird in autumn in the ponds, 
coming often in flocks as large as forty. Most are in immature 
plumage. The main flight is from the last of September to the. 
middle of October. 

Aside from the Blue-winged Teal, I would rank the Mallard 
(Anas boschas) next in comparative abundance. It is a much 
commoner bird in this section than is generally known. It regu- 
larly visits all the larger ponds, mostly in small bunches, or strag- 
glers with flocks of the Dusky Duck, yet not infrequently in good 
sized flocks. ‘The only exact figures of its capture to which I can 
refer are from Mr. Bassett, at Nippenickett. This year the stand 
took eight, singles or from small bunches, seeing a number more 
that escaped, and also a flock of twelve that would not decoy, but 
were accurately observed through field glasses. In 1894 nine 
were taken, and inthe autumn of 1593 about twenty, when they 
were unusually abundant. Mr. C. C. Wood, the Superintendent 
of the Plymouth Rock Trout Company, a taxidermist and collector, 
who has had long experience with the ducks in the Plymouth ponds, 
regards the Mallard as “a common straggler,” occurring every 
fall. In general, it isa regular and by no means uncommon species. 

The American Widgeon (J/areca americana) occurs much as 
does the Mallard, though perhaps rather less commonly. For the 
past three autumns it has been much scarcer than usual, yet even 
then it appeared in small numbers in most of the ponds. Mr. 
Bassett has not infrequently shot into flocks of as many as twenty. 
Mr. Wood has, until within three years, found single ones in 
flocks of the Dusky Duck. He has noted no large flocks in the 
Plymouth ponds, such as are seen in Nippenickett. 

Both species of Teal occur, mostly early in the fall, yet some- 
times lingering late. In the past season I saw a Green-wing on 
Nov. 26. The Blue-wing is much the commoner of the two, 
though rapidly becoming scarce. Not many years ago large 
flocks were common, whereas now it occurs mostly singly or in 
small bunches. The Green-wing is quite scarce. Some of the 
stands have not taken them, until the past autumn, for many 
years. There was seemingly an irruption of this species in the 
fall of 1895. At Nippenickett they were taken five or six times, 


ea Jos, Ducks of Plymouth Co., Mass. 201 
and seen several times more. No large flocks occurred there. 
At Assowompsett a considerable flock was shot into, and a num- 
ber secured. 

The Shoveller (Spatula clypeata) is now one of our rarer ducks, 
and becoming more and more so. _ I[ have not been able to find it 
myself. Mr. Bassett has not taken it in Nippenickett in his 
twenty years’ experience. Mr. Wood saw one captured in the 
fall, about 1881, taken from a flock of tame ducks, at the outlet of 
Billington Sea, Plymouth. He also knows of six or eight being 
shot at Great South Pond about five years ago. Dr. W. C. Wood- 
ward, of Middleboro, has taken the species occasionally in some 
of the Kingston ponds, until within ten years, since which he has 
not seen one. 

The Gadwall (Anas strepera) is liable to be confounded with 
the Widgeon and Pintail. As I have not met with it myself, it is 
hard to find undoubted instances of its occurrence. Mr. Wood is - 
the only one from whom I have obtained reliable information 
regarding it. He says that Gadwalls are “taken as stragglers 
with flocks of Black Duck during the fall migration at Billington 
Sea, rarely the past five years.” 

Passing now to the Fuligulina, and not attempting any classifi- 
cation as to abundance, the Red-head (4Ay‘Aya americana) may 
first be mentioned. It is found both on the coast and in the 
ponds. In numbers it is somewhat intermittent from year to 
year, though it occurs regularly each fall. From two to a dozen 
are said by one of the U. S. L. S. S. men to be taken off Manomet 
Point each season. Several at least are annually taken in Nip- 
penickett, some years quite a number. In 1893 it was particularly 
numerous. On Oct. ro, eleven were secured from a flock of 32. 
I secured a specimen, adult male, at Chatham, Jan. 1, 1885, which 
shows that they sometimes winter. Mr. Wood has found them 
scarcer in the Plymouth ponds than I have a little further inland. 

The only undoubted instance of the occurrence of the Canvas- 
back (Aythya vallisneria) which comes to my knowledge is re- 
ported by Mr. Wood. He has had in his possession one speci- 
men, a lone bird that was decoyed and shot at Billington Sea, 
about 1885, in the autumn. A few other instances are reported, 
but cannot be proven beyond doubt. 


26 


202 Jos, Ducks of Plymouth Co., Mass. july 


The Scaup Ducks occur both on the coast and in the ponds. 
A. marila is much more abundant than 4. affnis, and is one of 
the most common species in the larger ponds, next so, perhaps, 
to Anas obscura. Each autumn, from the middle of October 
until the ice forms, there is in Assowompsett a great gathering 
of these ducks, maré/a predominating, very shy, flying from one 
pond to the other, when pursued. 

The closely related Ring-neck Duck (4. co//avis) occurs but 
rarely. I noted two this fall, a pair, Nov. 23, which swam in 
to the decoys at the Nippenickett stand and were secured. 
Mr. Wood has noted several captures in the last ten years. 

The Golden-eye (Glaucionetta clangula americana) 1s common 
on the coast and in the ponds in fall and winter. Its miniature, 
the Buffle-head (CZaritonetta albeala), though not so common, is 
often seen in autumn both on salt and fresh water, and in-the 
winter is quite frequent on the coast. In October and November 
they appear in the ponds in small flocks or singly, and are often 
surprisingly tame. 

A single instance of the capture of Barrow’s Golden-eye (C. 
tslandica) is given me by Mr. Wood. A fine male was sent to 
him to be mounted, in the autumn of (about) 1885, shot in 
Plymouth, whether in fresh water or on the coast not being 
stated. 

The Long-tailed Duck ( C/angula hyemalis), that prince of flyers, 
is a familiar sight as it goes scaling past the points. It often 
comes into the ponds in autumn, in flocks or bunches. Mr. 
Bassett and I shot nine out of a flock of eleven in Nippenickett, 
Noy. 12, 1894, following them up in a row-boat. They could 
not be driven from the pond. 

Three specimens of the Harlequin Duck (/fstrionica histri- 
onica) were taken off Manomet Point, Nov. 3, 1894. One of 
these is in my collection. This is the only record for this 
county with which I am acquainted. The species is common at 
Cape Sable, Nova Scotia, where it is known as the ‘ Rock Duck.’ 

One of the few ducks never as yet known to occur in our ponds 
is the Eider (Somateria mollissima dresseri). It is notably a ma- 
rine bird, being commonly known as the ‘Sea Duck.’ Com- 
paratively few come into Cape Cod Bay, most of them keeping 


Co rcert Jos, Ducks of Plymouth Co., Mass. 203 
off outside the Cape. At Chatham it is abundant. Early in 
April thousands can be seen well off shore, flying north in long 
lines, or double lines. 

The rare King Eider (.S. sfectadi/is) has recently occurred at 
Manomet Point. Mr. W. H. Cleveland, of the Manomet Life- 
Saving Station, a careful and conscientious student of birds, 
is the authority. A single specimen was shot while flying 
past the Point, Nov. 15, 1895. Thick fog prevailed, and the 
day is remembered by many for the unusual number of Brant 
then taken. Another specimen was taken in the autumn of 
1888, swimming alone in the cove south of the Point, thought 
perhaps to have been crippled while flying past the line of boats. 
This specimen, mounted, is at present in the possession of Mr. 
Cleveland’s brother. Both of the above were males in full 
plumage. Still another specimen, said by the Station men to 
be of this species, was taken some years before this last, but 
Mr. C. cannot vouch for its identity. 

Bare mention may be made, in passing, of the three Scoters, 
Oidemia americana being the least abundant of the three. They 
all occur in the ponds, though the one just mentioned is not so 
often seen there. 

The tame little Ruddy Duck (Z27¢smatura rubida), though 
sadly slaughtered, is not yet exterminated. I should call it far 
from uncommon, some years occurring in considerable numbers 
in some of the ponds. Flocks of as many as two dozen occasion- 
ally appear in October. Sometimes there is an irruption of them 
for a few days, and then all suddenly disappear. The past season 
they were scarcer than usual, only a few scattering ones being 
taken in Nippenickett. But in the previous autumn they were 
taken a number of times. About the middle of October a flock 
of twenty or more came into the pond, and not one got out alive. 

The list closes with the Mergansers. The Red-breasted (JZer- 
wanser serrator) is much the commonest, being the one usually 
taken on the coast, though common in the ponds. The Goosan- 
der (AZ. merganser) is popularly known as the ‘ Pond Sheldrake,’ 
a term which describes its predilection for fresh water. The 
Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) is not common, but 
occurs regularly in the ponds, singly or in small flocks. 


204 Faxon, Abbot’s Drawings of Georgia Birds. fae 

According to general testimony, the diminution of late years 
in the numbers of the ducks is very marked. Mr. Bassett, how- 
ever, sees and takes in Nippenickett a larger number and greater 
variety of ducks of late years than ever before. The causes of 
the change in this case are not known, and it may be left to the 
reader to speculate upon them. 

In all there are 28 species of ducks attributed to Massachusetts. 
We of course do not consider the Labrador and St. Domingo 
Ducks as occurring in the State. All of these 28 have occurred 
within comparatively recent years in Plymouth County. Twenty- 
four of them have been taken on fresh water. Barrow’s Golden- 
eye would doubtless be added to this list, were the facts known, 
leaving only three of the ducks which, when with us, are strictly 
maritime, the two Eiders and the Harlequin. Of the 28 I should 
class seven only as decidedly rare,—the Ring-neck, Gadwall, 
Shoveller, Harlequin, King Eider, Barrow’s Golden-eye, and 
Canvas-back. 


JOHN ABBOT’S DRAWINGS OF THE BIRDS OF 
GEORGIA. 


BY WALTER FAXON. 


Joun Apsot’s illustrations of the Lepidoptera of Georgia, 
edited by Sir James Edward Smith and published in two folio 
volumes at London in 1797, have made his name familiar to 
entomologists, but few ornithologists are aware that Abbot, 
during his sojourn in Georgia, made a series of colored drawings 
of the birds of that State. The Boston Society of Natural 
History has long possessed many of Abbot’s unpublished drawings 
of Georgian insects!, and there has lately come to light, in the 


1 These are bound in two volumes, one comprising 174 plates given to the 
Society by Asa Gray who received them from J. E. Gray of the British 
Museum, the other comprising 193 plates purchased of Dr. Oemler of 
Georgia. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Faxon, Abbot's Drawings of Georgia Birds. 205 


library of the Society, a set of 181 water-color drawings of birds. 
This series of plates is accompanied by the following entry in 
the handwriting of the late Miss L. Foster!: ‘ Drawings of the 
Birds of Georgia, by John Abbot,” but no~record of how or 
when the collection came into the possession of the Society has 
yet been found. The plates are classified and numbered by 
Abbot himself from 1 up to 200, but nineteen are lost from the 
set. The names of the birds appear in most cases at the bottom 
of each plate, written in pencil the nomenclature being chiefly 
that of Wilson. One of the plates alone bears the inscription 
in ink, “J. Abbot delin. ad vivum, r81o,’’ but the character of 
the drawings themselves as well as the considerable amount of 
Abbot’s well known autograph on the backs of the plates leaves 
no doubt as to their origin. 

The notes on the backs of the plates consist of memoranda in 
pencil relating to the dimensions of the birds drawn, often 
followed by the date (day of the month, but in no case the 
year) and notes on the colors and on the time of arrival of 
migratory species. ‘These memoranda have in most cases been 
erased and replaced in many instances by the names of the 
birds in the writing of Dr. T. M. Brewer, through whose hands 
the whole lot of drawings must have passed. Fortunately, 
Abbot’s notes can still be deciphered with time and patience. 

We are chiefly indebted to Swainson? and S. H. Scudder? 
for the few facts that are known concerning Abbot’s life. 
Coming to America in the interest of several of the leading 
entomologists of England, probably about the year 1790, he 
soon settled in the State of Georgia, where he remained till as 
late as 1810. Here he mainly devoted himself to collecting, 
rearing, and drawing the insects of the State, together with the 
plants upon which they feed. The drawings published by 
Smith and those in the possession of the Boston Society of 


‘Miss Foster was Assistant in the Library from 1868 to 1885. 


? Taxidermy, with the Biography of ZoOlogists, and Notices of their Works. 
By William Swainson. Lardners’s Cabinet Cyclopedia, Vol. CX XVI, 1840. 


John Abbot, the Aurelian. By Samuel H. Scudder. Canadian Entomol- 
ogist, XX, 1888, 150. 


206 Faxon, Abbot’s Drawings of Georgia Birds. an 


Natural History form but a small part of what he produced. 
Seventeen bound volumes of unpublished entomological draw- 
ings in the British Museum bear witness to his zeal and activity.? 

The place of Abbot’s residence during his stay in Georgia has 
been barely rescued from oblivion by the late Col. Charles C. 
Jones? the historian of the State. From 1797 to 1847 the county 
seat of Screven Co., Ga. was the little town of Jacksonborough, 
situate some sixty or seventy miles N N W of Savannah and a 
few miles west of the Savannah River. It was here, according to 
Colonel Jones, that Abbot lived and wrought. After the removal 
of the public buildings from Jacksonborough to Sylvania in 1847, 
the old town was abandoned, its dwellings quickly fell to decay, 
and now a few shards of common pottery. scattered over the 
surface of the soil alone serve to mark the place where it once 
stood. . 

From this region it is probable that most of the birds portrayed 
by Abbot came. Yet the considerable number of shore and sea 
birds included amongst the drawings would seem to show that 
the artist had recourse to the sea for some of his material. 

Nineteen plates, as before said, are lost from the series. But if 
the remaining plates be arranged according to the numbers put 
upon them when the set was still unbroken their sequence 
will suggest the subjects of many of the missing numbers. Thus 
it is pretty safe to assume that Plate 16 was the male Red-winged 
Blackbird, 23 the Baltimore Oriole, 27 the male Boat-tailed 
Grackle, 29 the Purple Grackle, 31 the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, 44 
the male Southern Hairy Woodpecker, 80 the Nonpar@l, and so 
following. In this way we can, with some approach to precision, 
estimate the number of species included in the original set of 200 
plates at about 160,— thirteen species being allowed for the nine- 
teen missing numbers. <A goodly number this, when one consid- 
ers the period when the work was accomplished, the remoteness 
of the artist’s residence from the sea, and the fact that ornithologi- 
cal pursuits were aside from the main purpose of his visit to 


' See W. F. Kirby, in Can. Entomol., XX, 1888, 230. 


* The Dead Towns of Georgia. By Charles C. Jones. p. 240. Coll. Georgia 
Hist. Soc., IV, 1878. 


abhor Faxon, Abbot's Drawings of Georgia Birds. 207 


America. Some sixty years before Abbot came to Georgia, Mark 
Catesby was similarly engaged in illustrating the local fauna on 
the other side of the Savannah River, with special reference to 
the birds. Although Catesby had the advantage of a year’s resi- 
dence on the sea-board before he went up the Savannah River to 

live at Fort Moore, the number of Carolinian birds described and 
figured by him amounts to only go against Abbot’s 160. Yet 
Catesby followed the pursuit with such ardor that he did not 
hesitate to affirm that few birds except aquatic species could 
have escaped him. 

On looking through the Abbot bird-portraits several arrest the 
eye from their historic interest. Plate 68 is a good representa- 
tion of Swainson’s Warbler, drawn at least a quarter of a century 
before this species was described and named by Audubon. On 
the reverse of the plate is the following autograph note by Abbot : 
“LL. 6. May 8. Swamp.— Swamp Worm-eater.” 

Swainson’s Warbler was first described and figured by Audubon 
in 1834,” from specimens secured by John Bachman near Charles- 
ton, S. C., in 1832. Its second introduction to public notice was 
in the role of a bird of Georgia, in White’s list of Georgia birds 
published by Alexander Gerhardt in 1855.2 The next record like- 
wise relates to a'Georgia specimen from Liberty County.* But 
little was known concerning the habits of Swainson’s Warbler until 
1885, when Mr. William Brewster published a narrative of his 
experience in the bird’s haunts near Charleston in the summer of 
1884.° It is now known to be a summer visitor to certain parts 
of North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisi- 
ana, Texas, Southeastern Missouri, and the Dismal Swamp of 
Virginia. 


'The following species found among the Abbot drawings are not included 
in White’s very full list of the birds of Georgia, published in ‘ Naumannia,’ 
1855, 382: Myctea nyctea, Loxia leucoptera, Ammodramus leconteti, Otocoris 
alpestris, Dendroica tigrina, Grus mexicana, Guara rubra, Totanus melanoleu- 
cus, Porzana carolina, Larus delawarensis. 

2 Orn.\ Biog., II, 563. 

3 Naumannia, 1855, 382. 


‘Baird, Birds of North America, 1858, p. 253. 
° Auk, II, 1885, 65. 


208 Faxon, Abbot's Drawings of Georgia Birds. aie 

Plate 97.— Leconte’s Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii). ‘This 
bird .also was known to Abbot and drawn by him about forty 
years before it was described by Audubon. The next observer 
after Abbot who had the luck to meet with it was Maximilian, 
Prince of Wied, during his journey up the Missouri River in 1833. 
It was not until 1858, however, fourteen years after the species 
was described by Audubon, that Maximilian’s account was pub- 
lished.! After a careful description of the specimen obtained, the 
Prince adds the following story of its capture, which gives one 
such a vivid idea of the elusive habits of the bird as to merit quo- 
tation: “I obtained a single specimen of this northern species 
near the middle course of the Missouri. The way in which the 
little bird crept about, just like a mouse, in the grass and under 
the bushes was remarkable. In fact, several of our party mistook 
it fora mouse. It was surrounded; yet, though unable to escape, 
it could not be forced to fly. It slipped quickly from one cover to 
another, while we all strove to catch it. When this was finally 
accomplished, I found that the supposed mouse was a little bird 
unknown to me.” ? 


Ten years after Maximilian’s capture of this specimen Audubon 
rediscovered the species on the upper Missouri and for the first 
time described and figured it in the seventh volume of the ‘ Birds 
of America,’ p. 338, 1844.2 A quarter of a century then elapsed 
without further tidings of Leconte’s Sparrow. Audubon’s type 
was lost, Maximilian’s was on the other side of the Atlantic, and 
the record of it overlooked. Certain ornithologists even began to 
doubt the existence of Leconte’s Sparrow. Then a single speci- 
men (a very bad one) came to light in the Smithsonian Institution, 


' Journal fiir Ornithologie, VI, 1858, 340. 


* This specimen is now with the Maximilian collection in the American 
Museum of Natural History of New York, according to Mr. J. A. Allen (Auk, 
ILI, 1886, 490), who does not appear to be aware that it was described by 
Maximilian in 1858. 

* Audubon’s type specimen was shot on the 24th of May by Mr. J. G. Bell of 
New York, who accompanied Audubon on his Yellowstone Journey. Maximil- 
ian, through a curious misunderstanding of Audubon’s narrative, says that 
Ammodramus leconteii has been taken 7x the State of New Vork in the month of 
May ! 


pea Faxon, Abbots Drawings of Georgia Birds. 209 
obtained in Washington Co., Texas, by Dr. Lincecum in 1869, 
but not recorded till 1872, in Coues’s ‘ Key to North American 
Birds,’ p. 137. Soon after, Dr. Coues himself had the pleasure of 
securing several examples of the discredited species in Dakota, in 
1873.!_ But not until 1878, about seventy years after Abbot drew 
the portrait of Leconte’s Sparrow in Georgia, was this bird redis- 
covered east of the Mississippi — in winter-quarters at Coosada, 
Ala.,— by N. C. Brown.? Finally, in 1881, Mr. C. J. Maynard ® 
detected it in Florida, and Mr. L. M. Loomis‘ in Chester Co., 
South Carolina. 

Further on we come to No. 161, the Scarlet Ibis. Most of 
the records of the Scarlet Ibis as a bird of the United States 
rest upon rather questionable evidence. Wilson? supposed that 
it was found in the extreme southern part of Carolina, and in 
Georgia and Florida. The best Audubon could do was to get 
a glimpse of three, flying over the tops of the trees near Bayou 
Sara, La., in July, 1821.6 A fragment of a specimen was 
examined by Dr. Coues on the Rio Grande at Los Pinos, New 
Mexico, in June, 1864.7. One has been recorded as shot in Custer 
Co., Colorado, in May, 1876.5 Mr. Brewster? found an old faded 
and moth-eaten specimen in the museum of the College of 
Charleston, labelled “Florida.” Finally, to end this strange, if 
not very eventful history, Mr. W. E. D. Scott!® says that one was 
seen in Florida in 1888 by a plume-hunter in whom he has perfect 
confidence.!! 


‘Amer. Nat. VII, 1873, 748. Birds of the Northwest, 1874, 134. 

? Bull. Nuttall Orn. Club, IV, 1879, 8. 

3 Bull. Nuttall Orn. Club, VII, 1882, 121. 

4Bull. Nuttall Orn. Club, VII, 1882, 54. 

° American Ornithology, VIII, 1814, 41. 

5 Orn. Biog., V, 1839, 62. 

7 Key to North American Birds, 1872, 264; zd., 1887, 651. 

S Auk, XI, 1894, 324. 

® Bull. Nuttall Orn. Club, VIII, 1883, 185. 

10 Auk, VI, 1880, 15. 

"HH. B. Bailey, in ‘ Forest and Stream Bird Notes,’ 1881, p. 78, indexes under 
bis rubra a note in ‘Forest and Stream,’ III, 58, relating to some “ Pink 
Curlews ” killed by sportsmen at St. Augustine, Fla., in 1874. These “ Pink 
Curlews ” were without doubt Roseate Spoonbills. 


27 


210 Faxon, Abbot's Druwings of Georgia Birds. jus 

The presence of the Scarlet Ibis among Abbot’s drawings of 
the birds of Georgia establishes, to my mind, a better record 
for the United States than some of those above mentioned. It 
is highly improbable that he received a specimen from Central 
or South America and still more unlikely that he would have 
interpolated a foreign bird in this series of drawings. For we 
know from the whole tenor of his work in Georgia that it was 
his purpose to illustrate the local fauna. 

Of the rarer birds for the latitude of Georgia that are included 
in the collection may be mentioned the Snowy Owl, the White- 
winged Crossbill, and the Horned Lark (O¢ocoris alpestris). 
The White-winged Crossbill has never to my knowledge been 
reported from so far south as Georgia. The arctic race of the 
Horned Lark, athough noted by Catesby! as frequenting the 
sand-hills along the shore of South Carolina in winter, has 
within a few years been recorded as a novelty from that coast.” 

A very remarkable Woodpecker is represented on Plate 48. 
It is like the male Dryodbates borealis except that the red ‘cock- 
ades’ are enlarged so as to form one continuous bright red 
patch, extending across the nape, as in D. nuttalli, D. villosus, 
etc. The normal male and female D. borealis are figured on 
Plates 46 and 47 under Wilson’s name of /cuws guerulus. Plate 
46°48 inscribed. **A%cuvs ni s.?’?. Both “Mr. Brewster’ and Mz; 
Ridgway assure me that they have never seen the like of this 
bird. I take it to be a ‘sport’ of Dryobates borealis,— the 
manifestation of a tendency normally latent in this species, but 
commonly expressed in allied members of the genus. It is the 
converse of the condition sometimes seen in ZY. ve//osus, when 
the red occipital band is broken into a pair of spots, — right 
and left. 

With regard to the period when the drawings were made, we 
have no evidence beyond the term of Abbot’s residence in 
Georgia, the date 1810 in the legend under the figure of the 
Bald Eagle, and the manufacturer’s water-marks which appear 
on the paper used. According to Mr. Scudder, Abbot came 


1 Nat. Hist. Carolina, I, 1731, 32, Pl. XXXII. 
2A. T. Wayne, Auk, X, 1893, 205. 


ieee Faxon, Abbots Drawings of Georgia Birds. Del 


to America about 1790 and returned to England about 1810. 
This accords with the water-mark dates, which include various 
years from 1791 to 1810 inclusive. The extreme dates occur 
on the insect plates in the Boston Society of Natural History. 
The water-marks in the set of bird drawings are three: “J. 
Whatman, 1801” (22 plates), ‘“Edmeads and Pine, 1802” (22 
plates), and “S C, 1804” (8 plates). It is pretty certain, 
therefore, that the birds were drawn between 1800 and 181o. 
The final arrangement, enumeration, and identification of the 
figures were somewhat later, as is proved by citations of the 
sixth volume of Wilson’s Ornithology, which was not published 
till 1812. 

From an artistic point of view, these plates, although not so 
exquisitely elaborated as Abbot’s insect drawings, are admirable. 
While the accessories are rather quaint and old-fashioned, the 
birds themselves, though unequal in finish, are for the most part 
accurately drawn and skilfully colored. In the simplicity and 
even monotony of the postures they recall Wilson’s work rather 
than the more spirited figures of Audubon. In many ways 
these drawings evince Abbot’s remarkable keenness of observa- 
tion. Sexual and seasonal phases of plumage, so diverse as to 
be mistaken for specific differences by the earlier ornithologists, 
were understood by Abbot. Thus, on Plate 112 the male 
Black-throated Blue Warbler is joined with his sober-suited 
mate, although Wilson and many of his followers put them 
asunder. In other cases, nice subspecific distinctions, not 
recognized till lately by ornithologists, are unmistakably indi- 
cated in these drawings. Doubtless Abbot supposed them to 
be diversities of sex or age, but they bear witness all the same 
to his close discrimination. In only one instance is the artist 
guilty of a flagrant error. Plate 171 represents a Sanderling 
with a hind toe! It is inconceivable to anyone who has care- 
fully studied the whole collection of drawings that Abbot him- 
self was responsible for such a blunder. Swainson says that 
Abbot found it expedient to employ one or two assistant artists, 
whose copies he retouched. I am disposed to think that an 
assistant living on the sea-coast made color sketches of some 
of the shore and sea birds and that Abbot reproduced these 


Faxon, Abbot's Drawings of Georgia Birds. aay 


212 
sketches. It was Abbot’s wont to note the dimensions of the 
birds that he drew from life, in the form of memoranda 
entered on the reverse of the plates. This is done for most of 
the land birds, but it is a noteworthy fact that very few of the 
portraits of sea birds are so endorsed. Whoever drew the 
Sanderling decreed that this bird, being a Sandpiper, should 
not be liable, like the three-toed Waders in Gilbert White’s 
speculation, to ‘‘ perpetual vacillations”’! 

If Abbot Vieillot — had 
secured the speedy publication of this remarkable collection. of 


a contemporary of Wilson and 
drawings, with a suitable accompaniment of text, his name 
would be famous in the annals of American ornithology. 
“Many are poets who have never penned their inspiration.” 
So, in the light of the work here reviewed, Abbot appears to 
have been an ornithologist — but without the name. 

A catalogue of these drawings is appended — Abbot’s ‘local 
list,’ made during the opening decade of the century now draw- 
ing to a close. 


PLATE 18. Agelaius phoeniceus (L777. ). 
1. Cathartes aura (Lzzz.). 
2. Catharista atrata (Bartr.). 


3. Halizetus 


Young male. 
19. Agelaius phoeniceus (L7n.). 


leucocephalus Albino. 


(Zzzn.). Full plumage. 

4. Buteo lineatus (Gme/.). 

5 OY & ‘“« Young. 
6. Accipiter cooperii (Bonap.). 
7. Circus hudsonius (L¢nz.). 
Male in winter plumage. 

8. Falco sparverius. Zznxn. Male. 

g. [ Missing. ] 

10. Nyctea nyctea (Lzzz.). 

Il. Syrnium 
Ridgw. 

12. [Missing. ] 


nebulosum  alleni 


66 


13. 
14. Corvus americanus Awd. 
15. Cyanocitta cristata (Lzn7.). 
6. [ Missing. ] 


17. Agelaius phceniceus (Lzz7.). 


Female. 


20. Scolecophagus carolinus 
(Mull.) Spring plumage. 

21. Scolecophagus carolinus 
(Aqul7.). Autumn plumage. 

22. Molothrusater (Bodd.). Male. 

23. [Missing. ] 

24. Icterus spurius (Zzxzz.). Adult 
male. 

25. Icterus spurius (Lzzz.).  Fe- 
male. 

26. Icterus spurius (Zzxzn.). Male 
of second year. 

27. [ Missing. ] 

28. Quiscalus major Vee7zd/. Fe- 
male. 

29. [Missing. ] 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


32. Coccyzus erythrophthalmus 


( Wils.). 

33. Campephilus principalis 
(Linn.). Male. 

34. Campephilus principalis 
(Linn.). Female. 


35. Ceophleeus pileatus (L777.). 
Male. 

36. Ceophleeus pileatus (Lzzz.). 
Female. 

37- Colaptes 
Male. 

38. Colaptes auratus (Zzzz.). Fe- 
- male. 

39. Melanerpes carolinus (L7zz.). 
Male. 

40. Melanerpes carolinus (Zzz7.). 
Female. 


auratus (L7nz.). 


41. Melanerpes 
(Linn.). : 

42. Sphyrapicus varius (Lzzz.). 
Male. 

43. Sphyrapicus 
Female. 

44. [Missing. ] 

45. Dryobates villosus audubonii 
(Swazns.). Female. 

46. Dryobates borealis (V7ecd/.). 
Male. 

47. Dryobates borealis ( Vzecd/.). 
Female. 

48. Dryobates borealis ( Vez¢/.) ? 
Male. 

49. Dryobates pubescens (Lznzn.). 
Male. 

50. Dryobates pubescens (Linn.). 
Female. 

51. [ Missing. ] 

52. Sitta carolinensis La¢h. 


erythrocephalus 


varius (Lzzz.). 


‘ 


53 “canadensis Lenz. 
54. “ pusilla Lazh. 
55. Certhia familiaris americana 


56. Trochilus colubris Zzzz. Male 
and female. 
57. Sturnella magna (Lzzz.). 


Faxon, Abbot's Drawings of Georgia Birds. 


213 


58. Mimus polyglottos (Zzzz.). 
59. Harporhynchusrutus (ZLznz.). 
60. Turdus mustelinus Gmel. 


61. “ — fuscescens Steph. 

62. « aonalaschke pallasii 
(Caéb.). 

63. Seiurus aurocapillus (Lzzz.). 

64. ‘* noveboracensis ( Gmel.). 
Two figs. Upper one S. n. no- 


tabilis Rzdgw. 

65. Merula migratoria 
Male. 

66. Merula migratoria (Zzz.). 
Female. 

67. Helmitherus 
( Gmel.). 

68. Helinaia swainsonii Azd. 

69. Ampelis cedrorum ( Vee77/.). 


(Linn.). 


vermivorus 


70. Guiraca cerulea (Lzzz.). 
Male. 
71. Guiraca cerulea (Ln.). 
Female. 


72. Cardinalis cardinalis (Zzzz.). 
Male. 

73. Cardinalis cardinalis (Zzz.). 
Female. 

74. Loxia leucoptera Gmel. Male. 


75. Dolichonyx oryzivorus 


(Linn.). Male. 

76. Dolichonyx oryzivorus 
(Linn.). Female. 

77. Pipilo erythrophthalmus 
(Linn.). Male. 


78. Pipilo erythrophthalmus 
(Linn.). Female. 
79. Passerina 
Male and female. 
80. [ Missing. ] 
Sr. Junco 


cyanea (Lznz.). 


(Linn.). 
Male and female or male in winter. 


hyemalis 


82. Spinus tristis (Zzzz.). Male 
and female. 

83. Passerina cyanea (Lzuz.). 
Young. 

84. Piranga rubra (Lznm.). Male. 

85. ss es + Kemaile: 


214 


86. Piranga erythromelas 
Male. 

87. Carpodacus 
(Gmel.). Male. 

88. Carpodacus 
(Gmel.). 

89. Passerella 


purpureus 


purpureus 
Female. 
iliaca  (Merr.). 
Two figs. 

go. Poocetes gramineus (Gmel.). 

91. Zonotrichiaalbicollis( Gme/.). 
Adult and immature. 

sandwichensis 
Two figs. 


g2. Passerculus 
savanna (Wels.). 

93: Melospiza 

94. [Missing.] 


fasciata (Gmel.). 


95- + 

96. 

97- Ammodramus leconteii(Azd.). 

98. Spizella  socialis (Wels.). 
Adult and immature. 

99. Spizella pusilla ( Wits.). 


Two figs. 
100. [ Missing. ] 
1o1. Galeoscoptes 
(Linn.). 
102. Contopus virens (Lzz7.). 


carolinensis 


103. Vireo olivaceus (Zzzz.). 
solitarius (Wills. ). 


noveboracensis( Gwe/.). 


104. es 

WO Fexig 9 2 
Two figs. Lower one looks like V. 
n. maynardi, Brewst?. 

106. Setophaga ruticilla (Zzzm.)- 
Male and female. 

107. Icteria virens (Lzzz.). 

108. Otocoris alpestris (Zzuzz.). 


10g. Anthus pensilvanicus 


(Lath.). 
110. Sialia sialis (Zzzn.). Male. 
Tyee. ae “  (Linn.). Female. 


112. Dendroica cerulescens 
(Gmel.). Male and female. 

113. Dendroica vigorsii (Azd.). 
Male and female. 


114. Dendroica palmarum 
(Gmel.) and D. p. hypochrysea 
Ridgw. 


Faxon, Abbot's Drawings of Georgia Birds. 


Viecll. 


Auk 
July 


115. Dendroica tigrina ( Gmel.). 
Male in autumnal plumage. 

116. Dendroica coronata (Lézm.). 
Two figs. 

117. Dendroica striata (forsz.). 
Male in spring and young first 
autumn. 

118. Dendroica tigrina (Gmel.). 
Female. 

119. Silvania 
Male and female. 


mitrata (Gmel.), 

120. Geothlypis trichas (Lznzn.). 

121. Protonotaria citrea (Bodd.). 
Two figs. 

122. Dendroica xstiva (Gmel.). 
Male and female. 

123. Dendroica discolor (Veezdl.). 
Male and female. 

124. Compsothlypis americana 
(Linn.). Male and female. 

125. Dendroica dominica (Lizz.). 
Male and young first autumn. 

126. Thryothorus 
(Lath). Two figs. 
127. Troglodytes aédon V7e7v/. 

128, Cistothorus stellaris(Zchz. ). 

129. Regulus calendula (Lznz.). 
Male and temale. 

130. Regulus satrapa Licht. Male 
and female. 

131. Mniotilta 
Two figs. 


ludovicianus 


varia (Lznn.). 
132. Parus bicolor Lexx. 
iis) “carolinensis Aud. 
134. Polioptila cerulea (Lexn.). 
Male anc female. 
135. Progne subis (Zzzz.). Male. 
13 i ap 2 
127 Shelxdom 
(Bodd. ). 
138. [ Missing. ] 
139. Chetura pelagica (Leuz.). 
140. Stelgidopteryx 
(Aud.)? 
141. Antrostomus 
(Gmel.). Male. 


> 


Female. 
erythrogastra 


serripennis 


carolinensis 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


142. Chordeiles 
(Gmel.). Male. 

143. Ectopistes 
(Linn.). Male. 

144. Zenaidura macroura (L7zz.). 
Male. 

145. Columbigallina 
terrestris Chapm. Male. 

146. Colinus virginianus (Zézz.). 

147. Grus mexicana (JZi7/.). 


virginianus 


migratorius 
passerina 


148. Botaurus lentiginosus (Mon- 


149. Nycticorax violaceus (Linz). 
150. “¢ eS Young. 
1. Ardea egretta Gmel. 

152. Nycticorax nycticorax nie- 
vius (Bodd.). Adult. 

53. Ardea tricolor  ruficollis 
(Gosse). Adult. 

154. Ardea tricolor  ruficollis 


5 
5 


(Gosse). Young. 
155. Ardea cerulea Zzvnz. Blue 


phase 
156. Ardeacerulea Zzzn. White 
phase 
157- Ardea virescens Linn. 
1s8. oc ‘ 
159. Guara alba (Lzzn.). Young. 
160 “ es es Adult. 


1éz.  ** rubra (Lzznz.). Adult. 

162. Numenius longirostris W7/s. 

163. Limosa fedoa (Linn.). 
Young. 

164. Gallinago delicata (Ord). 

165. Philohela minor (Gwmedl.). 

166. Symphemia semipalmata 
inornata Brewst. Winter plumage. 

167. Totanus 
(Gmel.). 

168. Totanus flavipes ( Gwe/.). 

169. [ Missing. ] 

170. Totanus solitarius ( W77s.). 

171. Calidris arenaria (Lzzz.). 
Winter plumage. 

172. Actitis macularia (Lzzz.). 
Adult. 


melanoleucus 


Faxon, Abbot's Drawings of Georgia Birds. 215 


173. Actitis macularia (Linz.). 
Young. 

174. Tringa minutilla Veec?7. 

175. ‘Egialitis vocifera (Lénn.). 

176. Hematopus palliatus Temm. 

177- Rallus elegans Aud. 

178. Porzana carolina (Linn.). 
Young. 

179. Porzana carolina (Lnn.). 
Adult. 

180. Ionornis martinica (Linn.). 

181. Gallinula galeata (Liché.). 

182. Rynchops nigra Linzn. 

183. Hydrochelidon nigra surina- 
mensis (Gmel.). Young. 

184. Podilymbus podiceps(Zcvz.). 
Winter plumage. 

185. Larus delawarensis Ord. 
Young. 

186. Larus atricilla Zézx. Win- 
ter plumage. 

187. Gelochelidon nilotica (Has- 
selq.). 

188. Merganser serrator (Zcnxm.). 
Male. 

189. [ Missing. ] 

190. Lophodytes cucullatus 
(Linn.). Male. 

191. Lophodytes 
(Linn.). Female. 

192. Spatula clypeata (Liévm.). 
Male. 

193. Aix sponsa (Lrzz.). Male. 

194. Aythya collaris (Doznov.), 
Male. 
195. Aythyaaffinis (£yz.). Male. 
196. ue oe peer cule: 

197- Clangula clangula americana 
(Bonap.). Female. 

198. Charitonetta albeola(Zznm.). 
Male. 

199. Charitonetta albeola( Lzvz. ). 
Female. 

200. Anas’ carolinensis Gmed. 
Male. 


cucullatus 


Auk 


216 WIDMANN, Wenter Home for Birds in Missouri. quly 


THE PENINSULA OF MISSOURI AS A WINTER HOME 
FOR ‘BIRDS. 


BY O. WIDMANN. 


A ist of 47 species of birds, found around Cardwell, the 
present terminus of the Buffalo Island R. R., Dunklin Co., Mo., 
January 14-18, 1896, not only reflects the woodland character of 
the region, but also illustrates the great advantages of heavily 
timbered lowland for the winter sojourn of certain birds in a com- 
paratively cold climate. 

Every winter snow covers the ground to a depth of several inches 
for a whole fortnight, and all the watercourses, including the St. 
Francis River itself, are closed for a like period with an ice sheet 
several inches think. The mercury is pretty sure to go as lowas 
10°, and in severe winter even falls to —10°, butas arule the cold 
squalls last only a few days. | 

With the exception of a narrow ridge, called Grand Prairie, 
which separates the Little River from the St. Francis basin, the 
whole region is covered with original forest, and farming is done 
in clearings and deadenings, situated within this forest. On the 
railroad line saw mills have been erected, and the best lumber, 
especially oak, is now being cut out; but ina region like this, where 
lumber is so abundant, only the most valuable part of a tree is 
sawed off and taken to the mill; all the rest is left to decay where 
it fell. Many trees, having been cut green, retain the dry foliage 
throughout the winter. 

In their slow decay the huge treetops, covering several square 
rods of ground and thus keeping off the browsing cattle, allow the 
weeds, briars and blackberry brambles to grow in profusion. Rich 
soil, combined with an abundance of moisture and sunlight, form 
in a few years the most impenetrable thickets, whose depths are 
accessible to hardly anything else but small birds, and for these 
they afford an unexcelled resort at night and in inclement weather, 
providing safety, shelter and food. The heavy cover protects not 
only birds, but also vegetation and lower animal life, and the 
carpet of green grasses, ferns and a variety of hardy piants, which 


Vol. XIII 


1896 WIDMANN, Winter Home for Birds tn Missourt. 217 


is spread over the floor of the forest, is much richer under these 
treetops. 

Such is an’ outline of the locality where numberless flocks of 
several kinds of Fringillidz spend their winter in pleasing harmony 
and apparently in the best possible state of mind and body. Even 
when the rain is coming down in a continuous drizzle all day long 
the birds in these woods are not only busy and active, but also 
contented and happy; and on a day, which to ordinary persons 
seemed the gloomiest possible “we” and the birds were the 
happiest crowd. 

Especially the Fox Sparrow (V/asserella iliaca) deserves the 
highest praise for exhibiting the most undisturbable good humor ; 
all day long, and more than ever in the dusk of evening, his 
melodious voice goes through the leafless woods. It is not their 
full whistle, which we hear in spring, but enough of it to show how 
happy they are and enough to make others happy, too. 

It is a common thing to see a couple of Peabody-birds (Zono- 
trichia albicollis) take up the thread of musical notes where the 
other lets it drop, hold it up for others who spin it out for quite a 
while, until the stentorian voice of Mr. Pipilo falls in and cuts it 
short with his /ow/ees. 

All these birds are never so cheerful where only a few are 
together. They feel much safer and easier in a crowd, because 
the trying work of constant vigilance is divided among so many, 
and there is no doubt that they really enjoy the company of others 
of their kind, and of birds with similar habits, though of different 
genera, and even other families. 

The most abundant member of the Sparrow family in these 
woods is undoubtedly the White-throated Sparrow or Peabody-bird. 
It does not occur in small parties of half a dozen or so, as it does 
in the counties bordering the Missouri River, 250 miles farther 
north. ‘Though there may be only a few chirps in the underbrush 
when you pass by, enter their recesses and you will see them rise 
from all sides, and you may count 50 before you get through. It 
is a phlegmatic bird, not easily alarmed, and keeps sitting in the 
trees and bushes to give you time for your arithmetic. The Fox 
Sparrows are second in numbers and very often go up with the 
White-throats, but as a rule they are more partial to moist ground. 


28 


218 WIDMANN, Winter Home for Birds in Missourt. fy 


At the other side, on the higher levels, where corn and cotton 
fields occupy a part of the ground, the immense flocks of Juncos 
(Junco hyemalis) join those of the Peabody-birds, and they in turn 
are often flanked by jolly troops of Tree Sparrows (Spzzel/a montz- 
cola) and Goldfinches (Spinus tristis). 

The numerous Pipilos (2%f7/o erythrophthalmus) associate with 
the Fox Sparrows and Peabody-birds in the woods, but the Cardi- 
nals (Cardinals cardinalis) keep company to all; they are in the 
deep woods along the sloughs, as well as in the openings along the 
fences. Their loud song is familiar to all; it wakes the sleepers 
at the earliest dawn and falls unexpectedly upon the ear in seem- 
ingly deserted regions. 

The Song and Swamp Sparrows (Melospiza fasciata and MM. 
georgiana) do not form flocks by themselves, but are scattered in 
small parties and help to swell the throng of kindred souls. 

It is a blessed region where we can listen to the sweet notes of 
all these songsters in deepest winter, in rain, in sleet and snow ; 
and the dreaded, season has lost its terrors of loneliness and deso- 
lation, where such true friends of song and happy companionship 
have made their winter home. 

Though the Sparrow family forms the gross of the camping 
army in the woods, we are every now and .then reminded of the 
fact that we are in a country, with a climate which the Thrasher 
(Harporhynchus rufus) finds not too cold to endure winter’s long- 
est nights and on food rich enough to find a sufficiency in its 
shortest days. Although he does his best to elude the gaze of 
the intruder, his conspicuous size does not admit of much success 
in this endeavor, and we must class him among the best known 
birds of the region at this season. Happy he who gets a chance 
to hear the great composer tune his latest thoughts at half-voice 
in the bushes; his Easter cantata is not ready yet, but long 
before spring has come to northern climes the Peninsula Thrasher 
will mount his favorite perch and proclaim in his exquisitely melo- 
dious way that within himself the hope for an early resurrection 
of love’s sweet season is growing with each day. 

A unique sight met my eye on Jan. 15: a Thrasher with a 
pure white nape, an area about one and a half inches wide, but 
running to a point on the side of the neck, almost encircling it. 


eer aaa WIDMANN, Wenter Home for Birds tn Missourt. 2 19 


At this same day and place another rarity was found: a Cat- 
bird (Galeoscoptes carolinensis), feeding quietly among the leaves 
on the ground, and after a while flying up into a hackberry tree 
to partake of a few berries. Besides the white-naped Thrasher 
its nearest neighbors were the usual congregation of Fox Sparrows, 
Pipilos, Cardinals, Song Sparrows, etc. 

Two other members of the Wren family constitute an important 
ingredient of the bird fauna of this region, and, though of small 
and even diminutive size, contribute greatly to the enjoyment of 
the visitor by their sprightly actions, confiding ways and pleasing 
notes. I mean the Carolina Wren (Zhryothorus ludovicianus) and the 
Winter Wren (Zroglodytes hiemalis). While the former, as a 
native of the soil, is the real owner of the ground and tells all who 
come and at all times of day and year that his title is as good as 
any title on decaying logs and debris ever was, he leases part of 
his domain to his little cousin from the north, who takes it regu- 
larly for just six months, from October r to April r. 

Though it seems liberal enough to thus divide an old estate with 
a distant relative, the lord and owner of the ground takes care to 
keep the higher levels for himself, and our little brownie has to 
put up with the watery regions of the slough and overflow. Here 
he is, during all his stay, as much at home as in his northern 
woods insummer. He, who knows him only from his flying visits, is 
most agreeably surprised to see he has a voice not only fora 
scold, but also for a praise, a rich, long song which is in perfect 
harmony with his surroundings. With this song he announces 
his arrival in October and gives it with increased vigor long before 
he leaves in spring. He is on friendly terms with his solemn 
neighbor, the Hermit Thrush (Zurdus aonalaschke pallasit) who, 
like him, has a predilection for the overflow, and who, like him, 
is silent when away from home. He must regard this region as a 
kind of home, since he greets it with his most tender strains on 
his return in the fall, and sings aloud before he leaves it for the 
north. 

In spite of near relationship the Robin (leru/a migratoria) is an 
entirely different sort of winter boarder in this region. He does 
not hide from morning until night; nor does he look about for 
ages before he takes a heart to speak out what he thinks. You 


PLINO) WIDMANN, Winter Home for Birds in Missourt. an 
can hear him when he comes, and he does not come alone; nor 
does he stay in one particular place until he becomes a bore; he 
comes in jolly troops, feeds, sings and goes. 

While the Wrens and Thrushes keep company to the scratching 
Sparrows on the ground, the Paride and Picidz populate the trees 
from root to highest tip. 

Of Woodpeckers there are seven species in these woods, the 
Downy (Dryobates pubescens), the Hairy (D. vil/osus), the Flicker 
(Colaptes auratus), the Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), the Red- 
belly (Melanerpes carolinus), the Redhead (MZ. erythrocephalus), 
and the Pileated (Ceophlehus pileatus). 

Though the Redheads are oftener seen in the deadenings than 
in the deep forest, all seven species are so plentifully and 
thoroughly distributed over the woods that it has actually 
occurred that all seven species were together on near trees in 
front of me at one and the same moment. 

As arule the Sapsuckers are by far the least, the Redbellies 
the most talkative of the family, but all are making some noise, 
hammering or calling, and there is not a minute throughout the 
day when one or the other cannot be heard. 

Less scattered, and therefore not quite so omnipresent, are 
the Paride. They are, besides, more under the influence of 
the weather. For some reasons, probably best known to their 
dressmaker, they dislike damp weather, which makes them 
somewhat morose; but they are quick to respond to the exhil- 
arating effect of a high barometer with its bright skies and 
frosty mornings. 

As usual the three Paridae, Parus bicolor, P. carolinensis, and 
Sitta carolinensis, are mostly found associated with a few repre- 
sentatives of kindred folks, especially Certhia familiaris americana 
and Regulus satrapa, both of which are common winter sojourners 
in these beautiful woods. 

Only once observed was Sitta canadensis, apparently a stranger 
to the region; but a bird, whose abundance at this time was not 
expected, is the Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula), which 
was found in all places visited and in all sorts of company, sev- 
eral times with Yellow-rumps (Dendroica coronata). There is not 
much poison ivy growing in these woods, but wherever there 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


WIDMANN, Weuter Home for Birds tin Missouri. NON 
is some, we hear the chuck of the Yellow-rump and see a few of 
the sprightly, restless birds. 

Not a single Crow was to be seen in this country, and Blackbirds 
were among the rarities. The barnyard is the only place where a 
troop of Rusties (Scolecophagus carolinus) is likely to be seen on a 
midwinter’s day and a few stray Redwings (Agelazus phaniceus) 
may be encountered in the clearings. 

Though not very numerous here in summer the Bluejay (Cyano- 
citta cristata) is now one of the most abundant and conspicuous 
birds. They seem to have come from the north in search of 
health; they go about their work singly, but hold frequent meet- 
ings for sundry purposes and may often be seen gesticulating and 
complimenting each other on their good appearance and healthy 
looks, and truly they seem to feel uncommonly well. 

The Bobwhite (Colmus virginianus) also is an inmate of the 
woods where he has his favorite resting places under fallen tree- 
tops. 

The Wild Turkey (Afe/eagris gallopavo) is still a pretty common 
bird in this comparatively wild region, where cornfields, black- 
berry thickets and cypress-swamps join each other in all directions. 
In the cornfield he finds some of his food, in the thickets a retreat, 
and in the swamps a roost. He is not known to roost anywhere 
else but above water and if the weather is not too bad he retires 
to the higher branches. 

Ducks are unusually rare in the region this winter and three 
Hooded Mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus) were all the Water 
Birds met with. 

The total absence of Ducks is generally accounted for by lack 
of food and superabundance of water. One of the main articles 
of their diet is the seed of smartweed, but the crop of the high 
southern smartweed (Polygonum densiflorum) has been an entire 
failure. The plant came up slowly last summer, probably in con- 
sequence of the unusually severe winter of 1894—95, and it was in 
full bloom when the frosts of the first October days visited the 
region. ‘Though no bad effect was visible at the time, the frost 
seems to have checked fructification. 

The clearings and deadenings, enclosed as they are by the 
forest, do not change the character of the country greatly, but 


Auk 


DQ: WIDMANN, Winter Home for Birds in Missouré. uly 


they harbor a few species which are not found in the forest 
itself, and the Hawks and Owls resort to them for preying upon 
the rodents, which infest the corn and cotton fields. 

In such clearings we have repeatedly heard the cheerful carols 
of Bluebirds (.Sca/a statis) and in view of our experience with 
the species last spring, we are doubly glad to hear them. Does 
not each note contain a promise of extraordinary value? Is it 
not as if a real treasure, already given up as lost, is to be restored 
to us again? 

On a solitary tree in the field sits a solitary Shrike, and higher 
up on top of an old stump a male Sparrow Hawk; he is busy- 
ing himself with something, but fearing approach he leaves and 
takes with him his prey—a woodrat. On a distant tree an old 
Redshoulder (uteo lineatus) holds a look-out for the benefit of 
the farmer and over a particularly odoriferous spot six Turkey 
Vultures (Cathartes aura) are drawing closer and closer circles, 
apparently intent on an early descent upon the remains of one of 
the farmer’s special pets. 

A small troop of Meadowlarks (.Sturnella magna) is changing its 
field of labor to another part of the big cornfield, and from the old 
rail fence comes a harsh, shrike-like, note: it is the expression of 
surprise on the part of a Mockingbird. Before we turn to leave we 
get a glimpse of the only Purple Finch (Carfodacus purpureus) 
met with in this region, and following the fence a flock of at least 
one hundred small birds is seen going up from the cornfield as if 
at a word of command. ‘They are mostly Juncos and Goldfinches, 
but we also identify a few Field Sparrows (Spzze//a pusilla), a 
species which we found only at three or four places and in small 
numbers. 

Still watching the host of frightened Fringillidz we learn the 
cause of the stampede, a Barred Owl (Syrnzum nebulosum), abroad 
in the middle of the afternoon, but apparently occupied with 
thoughts of a defensive, rather than of an offensive nature. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 ANTHONY ox the Black-vented Shearwater. 223 


THE BLACK-VENTED SHEARWATER (PUFFINUS 
OPISTHOMELAS). 


BY A. W. ANTHONY. 


Mr. Leverett M. Loomis has recently published in the 
Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences (Ser. 2, Vols. 
V, VI), a series of notes on the Water Birds of Southern Cali- 
fornia treating largely on the migration of certain species. 

It is not my intention to criticise the above papers nor to in 
any way throw discredit upon the published observations of the 
writer, but, as the subject is one to which I have paid especial 
attention for a number of years, to place on record a few of my 
notes on one of the species observed by Mr. Loomis, as they 
are in some respects at variance with the conclusions arrived 
at by that writer. 

In his ‘California Water Birds’ (No. II, p. 2), Mr. Loomis 
says: “Winter migration in birds nesting in the Northern 
Hemisphere is a well-known fact, there being continual move- 
ment southward and northward as the zone of snow and ice 
advances and retreats, but migration southward in the Northern 
Hemisphere in winter to breeding grounds appears to have 
escaped the observations of ornithologists. Such a migration 
exists in the Black-vented Shearwaters.” And again (l.c., p. 7): 
‘“The Black-vented Shearwaters at Monterey were undoubtedly 
migrating to a breeding habitat farther South. While their desti- 
nation may have been north of the equator it seems highly 
probable that they did not stop short of the Southern 
Hemisphere.” 

That the Black-vented Shearwater is a resident on the coast 
of California, nesting on several of the islands of the peninsula 
and coast of Southern California at least, I have known for 
several years. Just how far north their breeding habitat extends 
I am unable to say but have found the species not uncommon 
on several occasions off the Columbia River during the summer 
months and in November and January. 

As very little has been published regarding this Shearwater, 
and as almost nothing is known of its nesting habits, I will take 


224 “ANTHONY on the Black-vented Shearwater. july 
this opportunity of giving some of my notes in detail, while 
establishing its claim to a position among our breeding birds. 

On May 15, 1892, in company with Messrs. Charles H. Town- 
send and Clark P. Streator, I reached Guadalupe Island from 
San Diego and anchored under the high cliffs of lava at the North 
Head, about the middle of the afternoon. 

Guadalupe lies about 220 miles south of San Diego, and about 
65 miles from the nearest mainland, Punta Baja, on the Penin- 
sula. The island is entirely of volcanic matter, huge cliffs of 
lava rising often 3000 feet from the sea. These are honey-combed 
by thousands of holes and miniature caves, offering unexcelled 
nesting sites for Cassin’s Auklet, Xantus’s Murrelet and other 
burrowing species, including the Black-vented Shearwater. 
Shortly after dark I was called on deck to listen to and identify 
some bird notes that came from the crags almost over our little 
schooner. ‘The outcry soon increased to a moderate uproar, and 
was immediately recognized as the breeding notes of Pufinus 
opisthomelas, which I had several times heard in January and Feb- 
ruary while the birds were mating off the coast of San Diego 
County. 

It would be impossible to describe accurately these notes. 
They were a series of gasping wheezy cries, resembling somewhat 
the escape of steam through a partly clogged pipe, uttered in a 
slightly varied key and repeated from four or five, to ten times. 
During calm weather in January, February, and March flocks of a 
dozen to several hundred of these Shearwaters often collect on 
the water well off shore and at such times I have heard the same 
notes from two or more birds as they chased each other, half 
running, half flying over the water. From the notes that came from 
the cliffs I thought that the birds were chasing one another, and a 
little later many of them came down to the water and were 
occasionally seen as they flashed by within the circle cast by our 
anchor light. After an hour or so the outcry somewhat subsided 
and I think most of the birds went off shore to feed, returning 
before daylight, for during nearly two weeks spent in cruising about 
the island only one flock of Shearwaters was seen in the daytime. 

The cliffs about the North Head are all inaccessible, rising 
directly from the water, from a few hundred, to nearly or quite 


Vol. XIII 


1896 ANTHONY on the Black-vented Shearwater. 225 


three thousand feet, so that nothing could be learned of their 
nesting at that point. Three days later, however, we dropped 
anchor in Wheeler’s Bay, at the southern end of the island, where 
the land is somewhat lower, and here a colony was found near the 
water. The burrows were in every instance either under a huge 
block of lava or in a crevice, where they were as much out of our 
reach as they were in the cliffs. A few of the burrows might have 
been opened possibly had we been provided with crowbars and 
suitable tools for wedging apart the blocks of lava, but after sev- 
eral ineffectual attempts with the tools nature provided we gave 
up and set a few steel traps at the mouths of some of the bur- 
rows in order to establish beyond dispute the identity of the 
species. 

The next morning one or two Black-vented Shearwaters were 
taken from the traps and one of them, when hauled from the bur- 
row, gave vent to his feelings in the gasping cry which we had 
heard every night since our arrival at the island. Two females 
were found by Mr. Streator in a crevice between two blocks of 
lava and secured, but no eggs or sign of nest was to be found. 
From this I thought that perhaps they were through with their 
nesting but had not yet abandoned the burrows during the day. 
The specimens prepared by me had evidently bred, and doubtless 
had at that time well grown young. Burrows were several times 
found two or three miles from the beach and as high as 4,000 feet 
altitude, and the mutilated bodies of freshly killed birds were 
often found where cats had left them. These felines, the descend- 
ants of domestic animals, introduced by the Mexicans, fairly 
infest the island and have made very serious inroads on the 
feathered inhabitants of Guadalupe. threatening some species with 
ultimate extermination. 

A night was spent in a cypress grove three miles from the 
water and over 4,000 feet in altitude. Several times during the 
night I heard Shearwaters chasing each other through the grove 
and it is not impossible that a few were nesting there. 

Major Chas. E. Bendire writes me that there are four eggs of 
this species in the National Museum collection, collected in 1873 
on Santa Barbara Island by Capt. C. M. Scammon. I have never 
explored the Northern Islands of the Santa Barbara group, but I 


29 


“Auk 


226 ANTHONY on the Black-vented Shearwater. July 


am satisfied that Shearwaters do not nest on either San Clemente 
or Santa Catalina Islands. From information obtained from a 
reliable source I am inclined to think they are not uncommon on 
two or more of the smaller outlying islands. 

During February and March of the current year ninety-eight 
per cent. of the Black-vented Shearwaters observed off San Diego 
were flying northward and the reproductive organs of those taken 
late in February indicated that the nesting season was very near 
at hand. They would have bred within two or three weeks I 
think; since then none have been shot, so I am unable to carry 
the data further. ; 

The presence of this species along the coast of Southern and 
Lower California seems to be governed very largely by the food 
supply. They are common at any time, less so during the 
breeding season, when many are in the burrows during the 
day,—and vastly more abundant in late July, August, and 
September when they follow the large schools of herring and 
other small fish that come in shore at that season. 

They are often seen in flocks of several thousands where fish 
are plenty. On one occasion I met with a flock on the coast of 
Lower California that I estimated contained not less than 50,000 
Shearwaters. Many were so gorged with herring that they could 
not rise from the water, but flapped along the surface in advance 
of the steamer until nearly overtaken when they would dive. 
They would usually come up near enough to the vessel to be, 
if anything, more frightened than before, but could not take 
wing until they had disgorged a quantity of half digested 
fish, after which they flew off with apparent ease. It is only 
during very calm weather that this species is seen resting on the 
water. At such times they collect in very compact flocks, cover- 
ing the water till there is but little room left within the circle 
that they almost invariably form. The first gentle breeze will 
start them on their journey again, and I have learned to have 
confidence in a breeze that starts them flying, for as far as my 
observations go they only rise if the wind is to be continuous, 
and will pay no attention to a gentle puff that will die out ina 
few minutes. 

None of our Pacific coast seabirds adhere so closely to 


Vol. XIII 


1896 ANTHONY on the Black-vented Shearwater. 227 


established fly lines! as do the three species of Pufinus; even 
when flying fifty miles or more from land the first flock that 
passes will, with almost absolute certainty, mark the line which 
the next will follow, even though they be an hour behind. And 
I have long since discovered that in order to secure specimens 
of these shy species the boat must be placed in their fly lines. 
A flock will, on encountering a skiff, directly in their path, 
either divide and pass on either side or all swerve slightly to 
one side, immediately resuming their line of travel in either case. 
At times, however, they are easily turned from their course. 

On January 23, I was drifting in a skiff off Point Loma, watch- 
ing the Black>vented Shearwaters which were flying south along 
the western edge of an extensive bed of kelp. A garbage scow 
had sailed out through the kelp an hour before, leaving a broad 
oily ‘slick’ a hundred yards in width, extending two or three miles 
westward, at right angles to the course taken by the Shearwaters, 
which were passing in small flocks of four or five to a dozen every 
ten or fifteen minutes. Each flock turned sharpiy about when 
at a distance of a hundred yards from the oily water, and keeping 
at about that distance and to the windward, hurried on toward the 
west. Vot one bird did I see cross contaminated water. I could 
detect no odor from the oil nor could the birds, had any existed, 
for they were flying down the wind. 

I have never seen Black-vented Shearwaters pay any attention 
to bait or refuse thrown from the ship’s galley, though Dark- 
bodied, Pink-footed, and Slender-billed Shearwaters will light to 
pick up floating garbage. 

Though all of our Shearwaters prefer to keep rather well off 
shore, they will at times follow schools of smail fish into shoal 
water. I once saw a flock of one or two hundred Black-vented 
Shearwaters feeding in the surf at Cape Colnett. Hovering over 
the advancing breaker they followed it to the beach, returning to 
meet the next, plunging repeatedly into its foamy crest for some 
species of small fish. They evidently did not feel at home so 
near land, for after a few minutes fishing they hurried out to sea 
again. 


1Tn this connection see Mackay on ‘ Fly Lines,’ Auk, Vol. X, p. 245. 


Auk 


228 ANTHONY ow the Black-vented Shearwater. aly, 


A complete molt of all the feathers occurs in July and August in 
this species (P. ofzsthome/as) ,— and a more or less complete molt 
of the feathers of the head and body takes place in January and 
February. PP. griseus and P. creatopus also, I think, undergo a 
complete molt in July and August, but whether they share with 
opisthomelas a partial molt in early spring, I am unable to say from 
lack of material taken in proper season. 

At times when I have found a pronounced flight of Shearwaters 
near shore I have usually if not always found a flight in the oppo- 
site direction farther at sea. This habit of flying in circles or 
advancing ina series of loops, is very noticeable when the birds 
are quartering the sea for small fish. ‘Their circles are then often 
small enough to enable one to see the entire circuit. I recently 
made mention of this habit in a letter to Mr. Chase Littlejohn and 
his reply, which lies before me, will bear quoting from.’ He says: 
“During the summer there are untold thousands of them in 
Alaska and they are not rare in winter. Your remarks about 
the direction the Shearwaters flew interested me very much, 
and bring to mind facts that I had not thought of for some 
time. I think had it been possible for you to have followed a 
flight for a few hours you would have found yourself back where 
you started, for my belief is that /ocks almost always, if not invaria- 
bly, fly in circles, moving for hours, and even days in the same 
vicinity ; and then again, travelling in a given direction, but still 
in circles. I have many times been at or near the center of a ring 
when it was just possible to see the birds in any direction, and 
from that down to circles only a few hundred yards in diameter. 
When we know that they fly in circles as far as the eye can see, 
is it not reasonable to think that they might extend it for a much 
greater distance and move south in-shore while, as you say, they 
were going north off-shore.”’ 

Mr. Littlejohn’s notes on the Alaskan birds refer to the Slen- 
der-billed Shearwater, but are pertinent as I have found the flight 
very similar in all of our species. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Norton, The Harlequin Duck in Maine. 229 


RECENT OBSERVATIONS ON 2/S7TRIONICUS ATS— 
TRIONICUS: IN’ MAINE. 


BY ARTHUR H. NORTON. 


In THE month of February, 1894, the writer spent several days 
on some of the outermost islands of Penobscot Bay, for the sole 
purpose of observing and collecting winter birds, and more 
especially to observe this species in life. I was accompanied by 
Mr. Fred Rackliff, a man admirably qualified for the work before 
us, he being an expert surfman, thoroughly acquainted with the 
region we had chosen, and a skilful ornithological collector. 
Had I been otherwise attended, my efforts in this connection 
would have been futile, owing to the sudden and violent changes 
_ of weather and sea on this coast in winter, and to the distance 
and roughness of the islands where we were to perform our labors. 

Our departure was made from the main on Feb. 2 at 2 P. M., 
with a light westerly wind and smooth sea, we arriving at our first 
station about sunset. This was an island two miles in length, 
reduced by the seato a ledge. At this place we had little hope of 
finding Harlequins, as I was told that there was but a single ‘ gut- 
ter’ here, where the birds had been found with any regularity. 
Our objective point was an islet lying half a mile away which I 
was assured was the chief resort of these birds in this vicinity 
ten years earlier, when they could always be found, in winter 
around a particular arm of water or gutter, formed at low stages 
of the tide, on the outermost and roughest part of the islet. 

For several days following we were greatly hampered in our 
movements by stormy weather, and not until the morning of Feb. 6 
did we see our first Harlequins. On this morning the wind and 
sea were quite calm, the tide at about one hour of flood at sunrise 
making the little niche alluded to a steep-sided, narrow cove into 
which the sea was but gently breaking. Very shortly after sun- 
rise we saw a flock of eight Harlequins heading for it, witha swift, 
straight flight, and without a pause they dropped into the surf near 
it. We had already left the place, and witnessed this flight from 
a distance, but we quickly returned, and fastening our boat crept 
forward over and among the ragged rocks until we saw them 


Auk 


230 Norton, The Harlequin Duck tn Maine. uly 


plainly, when we paused to watch them. They were well into the 
gutter, ina compact group and evidently had just finished feeding, 
as they now commenced drifting out, resting on the water as lightly 
as gulls. One would rise on its tail to flap its wings and settle 
back to shake its plumage, when the act would be repeated by 
another, the whole flock turning around and around, in a leisurely 
way, with such perfect ease that no effort was appreciable. 

Before we were within gun-shot, a Black-backed Gull came 
high in the air, and as quickly as his sharp eye beheld us, he 
gave two or three gutteral notes, whereupon every duck leaped 
to wing and without a pause flew directly back over the route 
by which they came, fading from view in the distance. From 
the course they had followed we had no doubt, that they had 
been driven from an isolated ledge lying two and a half miles 
to sea, by a lobster man whom we saw, and that they returned 
to it. And from the fact, that we found none of them around 
these islands, and that the lobstermen living here and passing 
the islet several times each week had seen but one flock of 
seven birds during the winter, I am confident that they were 
located at this ledge. On account of its exposed position, and 
lack of good landing places, we may hope that they are secure 
for some time to come. 

The day was so calm that we decided to move to the next 
islands, two ledgy masses lying five miles to the eastward. Both 
were destitute of trees and shrubs, the largest, about seventy 
acres in extent, being the headquarters of two parties of lobster- 
fishers, whose hospitalities we were glad to accept, as there was 
no shelter for our tent. Shortly after noon the wind breezed 
from the southwest and increased steadily throughout the 
afternoon. The following morning we found a gale blowing 
from the same point, and the sea breaking a hundred yards 
from the tide mark. Just above the demolishing force of the 
waves great windrows of sea froth, charged with a gray slime 
were heaped, often rolling before the wind, or breaking into 
fragments and flying. Several times I was buried to the shoulders 
in the driven mass. When this reached the snow line, the water 
was quickly absorbed leaving the scum at the surface. A few 
hundred yards from the windward shore of the ‘Big Island’ 


Vol. XII1 


1896 Norton, The Harlequin Duck tn Maine, 23 I 


was a ledge submerged at high water, but at low stages of the 
tide connected with the island by a line of rocky reef. Thus a 
small bay was formed, several acres in extent, having at high 
tide a considerable depth, except at its edges, where its great 
billows were breaking during the period of high water. 

At about g A. M. we saw a flock of not less than thirty Harle- 
quins in this bay. Though they were beyond gunshot of the 
shore, I had ample opportunity to watch them, as they remained 
until about 3.30 Pp. M., when the tide was so lowthat the sea broke 
before entering the bay. Near at hand were numbers of Eiders 
and Scoters, rendering comparison easy. 

The Harlequins were attracted to the largest billow, one which 
surged high and sharp, and broke about fifty yards from the reef 
where its force was spent. For considerable intervals the ducks 
would sit facing the wind, but not advancing, slightly removed 
from the fury of the breaker. Then drawing nearer to it they 
would dive to feed. Frequently all would be under at once, but 
this diving seemed to depend slightly on the action of the sea, as 
a portion of the flock, apparently not ready to dive on being 
threatened by a breaker, would plunge into it, only to rise after 
some time had elapsed. After a few plunges they would rest on 
the surface of the water, usually in the path of the great breaker, 
apparently in mere wantonness. Now they were in little groups 
scattered parallel with the length of the wave, awaiting the rush- 
ng flood. From my position I could not observe the slightest 
sign of concern in them as it approached. As it rushed over the 
inequalities of the bottom its crest began breaking at correspond- 
ing intervals. High above them it topped, and as its crest broke 
in white foam, the little ducks plunged headlong into its front, 
almost instantly reappearing in its train, while perhaps others a 
few feet from them, with unerring calculations, would ride over an 
unbroken part as lightly as bubbles. It was here that this beauti- 
ful lightness of body was shown to be an important feature in 
their economy. 

In all the time that I watched them none plunged into the 
breaker until its crest was foaming. At this pastime they spent 
considerably more time than they had in feeding, and when seem- 
ingly satisfied they swam to a smooth position to rest facing 


232 Norton, The Harlequin Duck in Maine. Taly 


the wind, or a few would pay a visit of inspection to the Eiders 
and Scoters, quickly returning to their own kind. Then all would 
return to feed or frolic in the breaker. 

The following day the wind and sea were sufficiently moderated 
to make landing on the little island possible, an opportunity which 
we improved early in the day. ‘This island, I was told, formerly 
afforded the birds a favorite resort, and many crevices were 
pointed out to me as their old-time haunts. On this occasion 
we found but a single flock of nine birds, resting idly on the 
water, off the mouth of one of these crevices. We waited for 
some time, but they drifted farther out. 

The next morning, February 9, was very calm and we went to 
a large off-lying ledge a mile away and set decoys for ducks. 
Shortly after sunrise a pair of ‘ Ladies’ came and lit in a shallow 
cave, where they paused but a moment, and then flew away. 
About half an hour later a grand flock of thirty or forty came 
in sight heading for us, but when about a hundred yards away, 
for some cause they sheered off to the west, disappearing in the 
distance, not stopping at either of the islands. As they passed 
us away from the sun, the light was perfect, making the adult 
males, which constituted a good portion of the flock, very con- 
spicuous. The flock was compact, the birds moving swiftly, 
about ten feet above the water, with very quick wing strokes, 
their dashing manner and lightness of flight suggesting Pas- 
serine birds. 

Shortly before noon of the same day we went to the little 
island and again found the nine birds at the same place where 
they had been observed the day before, this time very close to 
the gutter. They were warned of our presence by a Black- 
backed Gull, not, however, before we were within a very long 
shot of them and five fell at a single discharge. All appeared 
to be young males, in changing plumage. An example now at 
hand has the worn and faded feathers of the old dress, and the 
fresh, bright ones of the new showing in various parts of it, but 
most conspicuously in the upper tail-coverts and the tail, where 
the contrast is great. The two middle tail-feathers and upper 
tail-coverts, except three feathers scattered among the new, are 
of the new plumage, unworn and of a glossy blackish, while the 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Norton, The Harlequin Duck tn Maine. 233 


rest of the tail and the rump are of the old plumage, worn and 
faded to a dull, grayish brown shade. 

Compared with the other ducks of this coast, with which their 
habits often throw them in life, the combination of small size, 
dark color and buoyancy, in air or water, is distinctive. Soma- 
teria and Ozdemia are heavy, at rest or in flight, though none but 
small examples of O. americana approach /fistrionicus in size. 
The color is at once sufficient to distinguish it from Clingula 
Ahyemalis, when they are together on this coast. 

Mr. Rackliff pointed out numerous gutters, where he said that 

when a youth he had seen the ‘Sea-mice’ crowding in, when sad 
havoc was often made among them by the boy gunners. The 
older gunners seldom made effort to take them, as they were of 
small value. They were very easily plucked of their feathers, a 
fact which made them an object of playful contests at the pluck- 
ing of the day’s gunning. 

In speaking of these birds he commonly called them Sea-mice ; 
and in answer to my question, said that they made a squeaking 
note like mice, and thus received that name among the gunners 
of that vicinity. He also said that they were very playful in their 
actions, frequently flying in to a chosen resort to drop into the 
water and, without a decided stop, resume their flight to another 
quarter ; or they would fly in and dive from the air, reappearing 
on the wing and away again. (For another note on their playful- 
ness, see Dutcher, Auk, Vol. III, p. 434.) 

The birds are known to fly to a great height. (See Pennant, 
Latham, and Wilson.) This is a habit probably not observed on 
this coast in winter, and might be doubted by those observing 
only the winter birds; fortunately, however, Audubon has shown 
that this is a habit in flying over the land, under which conditions 
they were probably observed by Pennant or his observers. 

That the species is gregarious under favorable conditions is 
ably attested. (Andubon, Elliot, and Stejneger.) I believe that 
I am correctly informed concerning its voice, at least during its 
abode on this coast. 

As to its breeding on the coasts of Maine and Nova Scotia in 
early days I have no more evidence than other ornithologists, 
but as regards the subject of breeding and family cares, I regard 


30 


“Auk 


234 DEANE, The Passenger Pigeon in Confinement. uly 


Audubon’s account of this species as delightfully accurate. Of 
published information relating to this species in Maine, that of 
‘“W. B.” appears to be the most comprehensive, namely: ‘ The 
Harlequin Duck is regularly common in winter on the coast of 
Maine, where, however, its distribution seems to be very local.” 
(Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, VIII, p. 163.) To which I would add: 
Common only to the eastern half of the coast, where it is 
steadily but slowly decreasing. 

Finally, I believe that there are three things favorable to this 
bird’s holding its range: (1) The lateness and severity of the 
season when it is here. (2) The roughness and inaccessability of 
the places to which it is now restricted. (3) The abundance and 
vigilance of the Gulls. . 


SOME NOTES ON THE PASSENGER PIGEON (4£C70- 
PISTES MIGRATORIUS) IN CONFINEMENT. 


BY RUTHVEN DEANE. 


In THE ‘American Field’ of December 5, 1895, I noticed a 
short note, stating that Mr. David Whittaker of Milwaukee, Wis., 
had in a spacious enclosure, a flock of fifty genuine Wild Pigeons. 
Being much interested of late in this bird, I at once wrote to Mr. 
Whittaker, asking for such information in detail regarding his 
birds as he could give me, but owing to absence from the city, he 
did not reply. Still being anxious to learn something further 
regarding this interesting subject, I recently wrote to a correspon- 
dent in Milwaukee, asking him to investigate the matter. In due 
time I received his reply, stating that he had seen the Pigeons, 
but that the flock consisted of fifteen instead of fifty birds, and 
inviting me to join him, and spend a few hours of rare pleasure. 

On March 1, 1896, I visited Milwaukee, and made a careful 
inspection of this beautiful flock. I am greatly indebted to Mr. 
Whittaker, through whose courtesy, we saw and heard so much of 


wee DEANE, The Passenger Pigeon in Confinement. 235 


value and interest, not only in regard to his pet birds, but also 
about his large experience with the Wild Pigeon in its native 
haunts ; for being a keen observer of nature, and having been a 
prospector for many years among the timber and mining regions 
of Wisconsin, Michigan and Canada, his opportunities for obser- 
vation have been extensive. In the fall of 1888, Mr. Whittaker 
received from a young Indian two pairs of Pigeons, one of adults 
and the other quite young. They were trapped near Lake Shawano, 
in Shawano County in northeastern Wisconsin. 

Shortly after being confined, one of the old birds scalped itself by 
flying against the wire netting, and died — the other one escaped. 
The young pair were, with much care and watching, successfully 
raised, and from these the flock has increased to its present 
number, six males and nine females. The enclosure, which is 
not large, is built behind and adjoining the house, situated on a 
high bluff overlooking the Milwaukee River. It is built of wire 
netting, and enclosed on the top and two sides with glass. 
There is but slight protection from the cold and the Pigeons 
thrive in zero weather as well as in summer. A few branches and 
poles are used for roosting, and two shelves, about one foot wide 
and partitioned off, though not enclosed, are where the nests are 
built and the young are raised. It was several years before Mr. 
Whittaker successfully raised the young, but by patient experi- 
menting with various kinds of food, he has been rewarded. The 
destruction of the nest and egg, at times by the female, more often 
by others of the flock, and the killing of the young birds, after 
they leave the nest, by the old males, explains in part the slow 
increase in the flock. When the Pigeons show signs of nesting, 
small twigs are thrown on to the bottom of the enclosure, and 
on the day of our visit, I was so fortunate as to watch the opera- 
tions of nest building. There were three pairs actively engaged. 
The females remained on the shelf, and at a given signal which 
they only uttered for this purpose, the males would select a twig 
or straw, and in one instance a feather and fly up to the nest, 
drop it and return to the ground, while the females placed the 
building material in position and then called for more. In all 
of Mr. Whittaker’s experience with this flock he has never 
known of more than one egg being deposited. Audubon in his 


Auk 


236 DEANE, The Passenger Pigeon in Confinement. jane 


article! on the Passenger Pigeon says: ‘A curious change of 
habits has taken place in England in those Pigeons which I pre- 
sented to the Earl of Kirby in 1830, that nobleman having 
assured me that ever since they began breeding in his aviaries, 
they have laid only one egg.” The eggs are usually laid from 
the middle of February to the middle of September, some 
females laying as many as seven or eight during the season, 
though three or four is the average. 

The period of incubation is fourteen days, almost to a day, and 
if the egg is not hatched in that time, the birds desert it. As in 
the wild state, both parents assist in incubation, the females sit- 


9 


ting all night, and the males by day. As soon as the young are 
hatched the parents are fed on earth worms, beetles, grubs, etc., 
which are placed in a box of earth, from which they greedily feed, 
afterwards nourishing the young in the usual way, by disgorging 
the contents from the crop. At times the earth in the enclosure is 
moistened with water and a handful of worms thrown in, which soon 
find their way under the surface. The Pigeons are so fond of these 
tidbits, they will often pick and scratch holesin their search, large 
enough to almost hide themselves. 

When the birds are sitting during cold weather, the egg is 
tucked up under the feathers, and the primaries of one wing are 
drawn under the body as though to support the egg in its position. 
At such times the Pigeon rests on the side of the folded wing 
instead of squatting on the nest. During the first few days, after 
the young is hatched, to guard against the cold, it is, like the egg, 
concealed under the feathers of the abdomen, the head always 
pointing forward. In this attitude, the parents, without changing 
the sitting position or reclining on the side, feed the squab by 
arching the head and neck down, and administering the food. 
The young leave the nest in about fourteen days, and then feed 
on small seeds, and later with the old birds subsist on grains, 
beech nuts, acorns, etc. 

The adults usually commence to molt in September and are 
but a few weeks in assuming their new dress but the young in the 
first molt are much longer. At the time of my visit the birds 


‘The Birds of America, original edition, Vol. V, 1842, p. 32. 


Dae PRENTIss, Birds of Bermuda. 237 


were all in perfect plumage. The young in the downy state are a 
dark slate color. 

The Pigeons are always timid, and ever on the alert when 
being watched, and the observer must approach them cautiously 
to prevent a commotion. They inherit the instincts of their 
race in a number of ways. On the approach of a storm the old 
birds will arrange themselves side by side an the perch, draw 
the head and neck down into the feathers and sit motionless 
for a time, then gradually resume an upright position, spread 
the tail, stretch each wing in turn, and then, as at a given signal, 
they spring from the perch and bring up against the wire netting 
with their feet as though anxious to fly before the disturbing 
elements. Mr. Whittaker has noticed this same trait while 
observing Pigeons in the woods. 

It was with a peculiar sense of pleasure and satisfaction that 
I witnessed and heard all the facts about this flock, inasmuch 
as but few of us expect to again have such opportunities with 
this Pigeon in the wild state. It is to be hoped that, if Mr. 
Whittaker continues to successfully increase these birds, he will 
dispose of a pair to some of our zodlogical gardens, for what 
would be a more valuable and interesting addition than an aviary 
of this rapidly diminishing species. 


NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF BERMUDA. 


BY D. WEBSTER PRENTISS. 


BULLETIN 25 of the United States National Museum, on the 
Natural History of Bermuda, contains some remarks on Bermu- 
dian Birds. Since its publication in 1884 two species have been 
added to the Bermudian Fauna, namely the Mockingbird and the 
European Goldfinch. 

1. Mimus polyglottos.— Six pairs of the American Mockingbird were 
liberated at St. George’s in 1893, by Capt. Myers, the German Consul. I 
have not seen any of them in the neighborhood of Walsingham, but from 


238 PrENTISS, Birds of Bermuda. jus 


the climate, and habits of the bird, there seems to be no reason why in 
a few years, it should not be as abundant as its near relative, the Catbird, 
now the most abundant bird on the island, except the English Sparrow. 

2. Carduelis carduelis. The EuROPEAN GoLDFINCH.—A number of 
these birds escaped from a vessel at St. George’s in 1893, and have multi- 
plied rapidly, until now they are quite common about Walsingham and 
Poynter’s Vale. Have seen a flock of twenty-five or thirty. They make 
a very attractive addition to the Bermudian Fauna. 


It may be of interest to note the six common resident birds of 
Bermuda, which include about the only birds seen in the winter. 


1. Vireo noveboracensis. WHITE-EYED VIREO.—Called “ Chick of 
the Village.” Very common and very familiar, coming about the house 
on the rose-bushes and arbors, as also do the Catbirds. A ‘Chick’ flew 
into my room through the open door a few days since, and I caught it at 
the window. It seemed quite fearless and pecked at my finger, as I 
smoothed it before giving it its liberty. They are in full song during the 
winter. 

2. Cardinalis cardinalis.— Very common and fearless. They come into 
the chicken yard when the chickens are fed and contest with the Sparrows 
for a portion of the meal. 

It is a beautiful sight to see them hopping about the green lawn, 
together with Bluebirds and Catbirds, and would be still more attractive 
but for the presence of the ubiquitous English Sparrows. The Redbirds 
began calling about the middle of February, and now, March 1, are heard 
in all directions. The note is a little different from that of birds about 
Washington, D.C., being less robust. There are two distinct whistles 
—the Wee-do, wee-do, wee-do, and the Phee-a, phee-a—the latter quite 
plaintive. 

3. Sialia sialis— The Bluebird is also very abundant, but I am told not 
so much so as formerly. No reason is known for the decrease in num- 
bers unless it is that their nests are broken up and the young destroyed 
by the English Sparrows. It is possible also that the tree rats (Mus 
tectorum), which build their nests in trees may destroy the eggs and 
young of the Bluebirds. The notes of the Bluebird also ditfer from 
those in the States. They have a general similitude but are not so low, 
are plaintive and more varied. 

I am told by Mr. U. S. Peniston that the Bluebird gives notice of the 
approach of a hawk by a peculiar long drawn whistle, and that chickens 
hearing it scurry to shelter. The Bluebirds seem rather smaller than in 
the States, and the colors deeper. 

4. Galeoscoptes carolinensis.—The Catbird is everywhere ;—along 
the roads, in the gardens, coming fearlessly to the porches; in the 
myrtle thickets —in short, ubiquitous. It is not so much of a favorite 
as the others mentioned, perhaps on account of its sober colors, but 


eee Prentiss, Birds of Bermuda. 239 
more because of its depredations on small fruits, especially the Loquot 
plum. Its note, the ‘ mew,’ is also less vigorous than that of the Ameri- 
can bird—is more quiet and subdued. They are not yet in song 
(March 1). 

5. Columbigallina passerina.— The Ground Dove is also very abun- 
dant, being constantly seen feeding along the roads. It is more timid 
than the birds previously mentioned, but when feeding in the old fields, 
one can walk quite close to them without their taking alarm. 

6. Passer domesticus.— The English Sparrow is as aggressive, offen- 
sive and despised here as in the States. They were introduced some 
years ago and in a climate without winter, propagate prodigiously. An 
attempt was made to check their increase by a bounty for the birds and 
their eggs of six pence a dozen, but it cost the government so much, 
£800 in one year, that it was abandoned, while its destruction apparently 
made no difference in the number. They are most cordially hated by the 
Bermudians for several reasons : —they foul the eaves and verandahs of 
the houses, eat up the chicken feed, destroy the fruit — especially grapes 
and the Loquot, and last but not least, antagonize the native birds. I have 
been told of instances of their taking possession of the hole occupied by 
Bluebirds and destroying the rightful occupants. 

Fortunately the Sparrows do not rest much on the roofs of houses, or 
they would pollute the water supply. The Bermudians depend entirely 
upon rain water for their supply. The houses are tiled with thin slabs 
of stone and kept white-washed to secure pure water. Birds frequenting 
the roofs would be very objectionable. 

I have seen no domestic pigeons here though I believe there are a few 
in Hamilton. 

7. As another nuisance ornithologically may be mentioned the Crow — 
introduced some twenty years since. They became very numerous and 
did so much damage to the crops, especially the Indian corn, and by kill- 
ing young ducks and chickens, that a bounty of half a crown (60 cts.) 
was put on their heads. This has almost exterminated them—a small 
flock of five in the neighborhood of Walsingham being all that remains. 

8. The Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) presents a familiar and handsome 
appearance, especially around the shores of Harrington Sound. The bird 
however is not a favorite. The squid is the best bait for fishing and are 
very scarce. I heard a fisherman charge the scarcity to the Kingfishers — 
they being especially fond of squid. So also in the Aquarium of beauti- 
ful fish —angel fish, turbot, parrot fish, etc., at Mrs. Allen’s at Flatt’s 
Village. Many young fish of these species were added, but were said to 
be eaten by the Kingfishers. Perhaps the latter, however, were not 
wholly to blame, for one morning a Blue Heron was found perched 
reflectively over the pond. 

g. Lastly permit me to mention the picturesque Tropic Bird (Phaéthon 
flavirostris), a prominent and interesting feature of the landscape, from 
the first of March until October, with its single long tail feather, dashing 


Auk 
July 


240 Recent Literature. 
and wheeling over the waters. They were formerly greatly more abun- 
dant, but from the wanton destruction both of the birds and eggs, their 
numbers are much reduced. Now, however, the destruction of both 
birds and eggs is forbidden by law, and it is to be hoped they will again 
become numerous. This year the advance guard arrived February 28,— 
rather earlier than usual. On this date I saw them for the first time at 
the ‘Ferry’ between the islands of Hamilton and St. George; forty or 
fifty were circling around and examining the rocky cliffs as though 
selecting their breeding places. The Tropic Bird is popularly called the 
‘Bo’sin Bird.’ 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Stone'on the Molting of Birds.!—In this paper the author has given 
the results of considerable personal work and experience. The paper 
consists of two parts, the first being ‘‘a general account of the methods 
of plumage change,” and the second, ‘‘ brief accounts of the molts and 
seasonal plumages of most of the smaller land birds of eastern North 
America, from the Cuckoos through the Passeres in the order of the 
American Ornithologists’ Union Check List.” The trouble attending 
the bringing together of even an incomplete series, and consequent 
difficulty in determining the exact changes occurring in many plumages, 
are duly set forth, and our author is careful to state that ‘‘no doubt 
alterations will have to be made in my accounts of the molt in several 
species, in the light of future investigations.” Under ‘Change of Color 
by Abrasion,’ and ‘ Direct Change of Color in Feathers,’ the results of 
investigations made with the assistance of Dr. A. P. Brown are given, 
with illustrations. The changes of plumage in the Snow Bunting, 
Dunlin and Sanderling are pointed out and commented on, this work 
having been done without knowledge of Mr. Chapman’s recent efforts in 
the same line. The views of Mr. Chapman are fully indorsed and those 
of Herr Giitke correspondingly disproved. The only instance known 
to our author “of an actual change of color in the plumage, except by 
fading, is in the case of certain delicate pink tints on the breasts of 
gulls.” Certain opinions of Drs. Stejneger and Sharpe regarding the 
changes of color in Motactlla lugens and Zanthopygia narcissina and 


‘The Molting of Birds with Special Reference to the Plumages of the 
Smaller Land Birds of Eastern North America. By Witmer Stone. Proc. 
Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1896, pp. 108-167, pll. iv and v. 


vol sr Recent Literature. 241 


Z. tricolor are also given, commented on, and to some extent 
controverted. 

The bulk of this paper of 59 pages is taken up with statements and dis- 
cussions of the plumage conditions and molts of 135 species belonging to 
22 families of our commoner land birds. In some, a line or two suffices 
for the purpose, to others considerable space is devoted, while in the 
cases of the Rose-breasted Grosbeak and Scarlet Tanager, several pages for 
each are given up to original and extremely interesting descriptions of 
the various plumage phases assumed by these birds. Under ‘Order of 
Molt’ the sequence of the growth of new feathers and also the wearing, 
are not only well discussed but are well illustrated by seventeen figures 
in two plates. 

Mr. Stone tabulates the results of his investigations under six general- 
izations as follows:—“I. The annual molt at the close of the breeding 
season is a physiological necessity and is common to all birds. II. The 
spring molt and striking changes of plumage effected by abrasion are not 
physiological necessities and their extent is dependent upon the height of 
development of coloration in the adult plumage, and does not necessarily 
bear any relation to the systematic relationships of the species. III. The 
amount of change effected in the plumage at any particular molt varies 
considerably in different individuals of the same species and sex. IV. 
Some species which have a well marked spring molt in their first and 
second years may discontinue it afterwards, when the adult plumage has 
once been acquired. And, on the other hand, some individuals may con- 
tinue to molt in the spring, while others of the same species cease to do 
so. V. The remiges are molted less frequently than any other part of the 
plumage. As arule, they are only renewed at the annual molt (exception, 
Dolichonyx). VI. Variability in the order of molt in the remiges and 
presence or absence of molt in the flight feathers at the end of the first 
summer are generally family characters,’ etc. Objections might be 
made to some of the above. Thus, Sfznus trist’és and Ammodramus sand- 
wichensis savanna are equal, in the adults at least, in the extent of the 
spring molt, but the change is hardly “ dependent upon the height of 
development of coloration in the adult plumage,” for in one a total change 
of color takes place, whereas in the other there is little more than a 
replacement of feathers by others of the same color. Again, has our 
author seen a sufficient number of specimens of molting second year 
birds of undoubtedly correctly determined age, to warrant the statement 
that they have a “ well marked spring molt?” Also, when some indi- 
viduals of a species molt in the spring and others do not, is it not because 
the former are immature and the latter adult ? 

With such an extensive self-imposed task and the necessarily large 
amount of material and conditions examined, it would be perhaps too 
much to expect that our author would always ‘ hew to the line,’ but the 
lapses detract little from the merits of this important paper on a hitherto 
almost neglected branch of American ornithology. Most of those that do 


31 


242 Recent Literature. [ jay 


occur are due to lack of complete series showing all grades of changes 
and which in many cases were not seen by the writer, or still remain to 
be collected before one can be sure of knowing how and when changes 
occur. If collectors would save their worn and molting specimens 
instead of throwing them away as ‘ worthless,’ changes of plumage would 
be far better known. 

Our author’s selection of the words, ‘‘ first winter, and nuptial,” to indi- 
cate certain conditions of plumage seems unfortunate, for several reasons. 
In some cases ‘‘nuptial” indicates a plumage condition and colors, 
obtained wholly by wearing, in others the same word designates plumages 
obtained partly or entirely by molt, and again in others by a combination 
of molt and wear. All birds have these seasonal changes, yet differ in 
the process and time of changing; therefore it would seem that a better 
formula is necessary by which to designate those instances where the 
same seasonal comparative conditions are obtained by entirely different 
physiological processes. These words are used for such birds as SAzuus 
tristts which has a double molt, and also for Plectrophenax nivalis which 
has but one; also for Junco hyemalis, Melospiza fasctiata, Scolecophagus 
carolinus, Cistothorus palustris, and others, which differ considerably 
not only, in the nature and extent of the molt, but also as to the time of 
plumage change; and the matter is further complicated by the fact that 
the immature birds of many species molt at different times from the 
adults, some in the fall, others in the spring, even differing as to the 
parts of the plumage affected. For instance, the young Song Sparrow 
obtains a new tail in the fall. One specimen taken Sept. 13, another 
taken Nov. 6, have new central feathers, and I have watched a live one 
completely renew its tail. A C7stothorus palustr’s on April 15, is molting 
all except the remiges and the tail is half grown. A Savanna Sparrow, 
May 6, is similar, but the outer rectrices are still in place and most of the 
secondaries and tertials have been renewed. Two Henslow’s Sparrows, 
same date, have the central tail-feathers just appearing; in one ten, in the 
other seven old feathers are still in place. Two Indigos, Sept. 1, and Oct. 
2, have not only molted their tail-feathers but have also nearly completed 
the new wing feathers. All the above are immature birds, and the Hen- 
slow’s are molting nothing except the tail. It is hardly safe to say that 
these nestling rectrices were lost by accident. 

No mention is made of the spring molt of immature Agelazus pheniceus. 
In the female this is one of the least extensive of our birds, being con- 
fined to the throat, around the eyes and along the superciliary stripe. 
Under Dendroica cerulescens occurs a lapsus calamt, where our author 
speaks of the white edging of the throat feathers of “fall adults.” 
These are birds of the year, as is readily proved by their osteology. 

Much work remains to be done before we can understand the changes 
and conditions of even our most common birds; the difficulty is great 
and success uncertain, owing chiefly to the fact that no individuals as 
such are resident with us but migrate extensively. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Recent Literature. 243 

Mr. Stone deserves great credit for the present paper, which is a good 
basis on which to build a better knowledge of plumage changes. Such 
work is tending rapidly to disprove the many guesses formerly so 
common but now gradually being displaced by the results of unbiased, 
systematic study.— W, P. 


Stone on Birds collected in North Greenland.'— Mr. Stone gives an 
annotated list of the birds “obtained by the Peary party during their 
sojourn in North Greenland from July, 1891, to August, 1892, and also of 
those collected by the Relief Expedition of 1892.” They consist of 122 
specimens, besides numerous nests and eggs, part of which were collected 
by Mr. Langdon Gibson in the vicinity of Peary’s winter quarters, and 
the remainder by Mr. Charles E. Hite, at various points from Disko to 
Cape York. The two collections number 19 species each, and collectively 
represent 28 species, only a part of the species being common to both 
collections. The annotations give the localities, and generally the dates, 
of the specimens obtained, with occasionally further notes of interest. 
No species are added to the Greenland fauna, but the breeding grounds of 


Chen hyperborea nivalis appear to be for the first time here made known. 
—J. A.A. 


Schalow on a Collection of Birds from West Greenland.?— In 1892 the 
Geographical Society of Berlin sent an expedition to West Greenland, 
under the direction of Dr. von Drygalski, which was accompanied by 
Dr. VanhOffen as naturalist. The region explored extends from latitude 
69° to 73°, and the expedition remained in the field from May, 1892, to 
October, 1893. The birds collected number 29 species, of which 12 are 
represented only by eggs. Dr. Schalow, in his report upon this col- 
lection, includes also notices of a number of additional Greenland birds’ 
eggs contained in the collection of Major Kriiger-Velthusen; some 35 
species are thus formally noticed, with passing remarks on a number of 
others. Many field notes are given, apparently extracted from Dr. Van- 
hOffen’s previously published observations,* with many technical notes 
on various species. While the collection gathered by Dr. Vanh6ffen added 
no species to the Greenland fauna he reports seeing a skin of Tadorua 
casarca [=Casarca casarca (Linn.)] in a small collection of bird’s skins 
made at Augpalartok, in the District of Upernavik, which was collected 


1 List of Birds collected in North Greenland by the Peary Expedition of 
1891-92 and the Relief Expedition of 1892. By Witmer Stone. Proc. Acad. 
Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1895, pp. 502-505. 


2 Ueber eine Vogelsammlung aus Westgronland. Von Herman Schalow. 
Joum. fiir Orn., Oct., 1895, pp. 457-481. 


3 Fyiihlingsleben in Nord-Gronland (Verhandl. Ges. fiir Erdkunde zu 
Berlin, XX, 1893, pp. 454—469).” 


244 Recent Literature. Tae 
in that vicinity in 1892. Dr. Schalow thinks it could not have been 
derived by exchange from any foreign source. Besides, in that same 
year several specimens of this southeastern species were taken in Iceland; 
it has also been taken repeatedly in Sweden and Norway, and there seems 
to be also still another record for North Greenland.! 

Dr. Schalow also incidentally notes the fact of the occurrence of Axser 
segetum [=Anser fabalis (Lath.) Salvad.] in North Greenland, as 
recorded by Winge,” who reports a Greenland specimen as existing in the 
Zodlogical Museum of Copenhagen. This adds two Old World species 
to the Greenland fauna in addition to those given in the A. O. U. Check- 
List—J. A. A. 


Rotzell’s Birds of Narberth, Pa. and Vicinity.;— This is a briefly 
annotated list of 108 species. It does not profess to be a complete list of 
the birds of the limited area of which it treats, but is excellent as far 
as it goes, giving briefly just the information most desired in a local list. 
It includes only such species as have been personally noted by the writer, 
and forms a good point of departure for further additions, which -the 
author solicits aid in making. He says that he has ‘‘refrained from 
recording any except those that are well authenticated, preferring that 
future observations should add to the list rather than take from it” —a 
rule compilers of local lists would do well to always follow. The list is 
printed with good taste and presents an attractive appearance.—J. A. A. 


Rhoads’s List of Tennessee Birds.*— Mr. Rhoads’s list is not limited 
to the species observed by him during his recent trip through the State 
(in May and June, 1895; see Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1895, pp. 376- 
380), but is intended to comprehend all the birds of which we have any 
record as now inhabiting or formerly occurring in the State.” The liter- 
ature bearing on the subject is scanty, consisting chiefly of Dr. W. H. 
Fox’s two papers, recording 116 species, a fragmentary list by Dr. F. W. 
Langdon, and some notes on the birds of the Great Smoky Mountains by 
‘Lemoyne,’ numbering altogether 134 species and sub-species. This 
number is increased by Mr. Rhoads to 215, of which “10 are of doubtful 
record or identity, although they all belong to the Tennessee fauna.” 


‘Winge, Vidensk. Meddel. naturh. Foren. Kjobenhavn, 1895 (p. 63 of 
author’s separata). 


2 Thid. 


3 Birds of Narberth, Pa., | and Vicinity. | — | By | W. E. Rotzell, M.D. | 
— | 1895. 800, pp. 8. 


* Contributions to the Zodlogy of Tennessee, No. 2. Birds. By Samuel N. 
Rhoads. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1895, pp. 463-501. (December 
II, 1895.) 


Vol. XIII ge 2 
RSG Recent Literature. 245 


Although the list includes no species whose occurrence in Tennessee is 
improbable, it is to be regretted that Mr. Rhoads should not have been 
content to record not only the “10 of doubtful record,” but a few others 
also, as species of probable occurrence, without including them and num- 
bering them as a part of his list. He could have given the evidence in 
_ such cases ‘for what it may be worth, and thus have saved giving to his 
list, to say the least, a very unscientific flavoring. So many such inclu- 
sions render it very far from a ‘ hard-and-fast’ list. In fact we are sur- 
prised to see a writer of Mr. Rhoads’s scientific ability and experience 
setting such a bad example in the matter of a local list.—J. A. A. 


Short’s Birds of Western New York.'— Mr. Short’s former list (see 
Auk, XI, 1894, p. 168), published in 1893, contained 207 species, one of 
which is here omitted, and to which 23 are now added, giving a total of 
229 species in the present edition. The annotations respecting the rarer 
species are brought down to date. The typographical execution has been 
greatly improved, the list being for the most part neatly arranged and 
printed ; towards the close the compositor seems to have run short of type, 
supplying the deficiency, in certain letters, from a smaller font. The list 
has evidently been prepared with care, and may doubtless be regarded as 
a trustworthy enumeration of the birds of the region to which it relates. 
—jJj.A.A. 


A List of Nebraska Birds.°—This paper is primarily designed to give 
the residents of Nebraska some knowledge of the distribution, compara- 
tive numbers, and economic value of the birds which occur in their State. 
An opening chapter, ‘Remarks about Birds in general,’ treats of their 
relation to man and of their economic and esthetic importance. The 
list proper includes brief annotations on distribution and manner of 
occurrence, with, in some cases, remarks on the bird’s food and its value 
to the agriculturist. Herein are recorded 415 species and subspecies. 
Of these Nema sabinii, Sterna paradisea,. Tantalus loculator, Ammo- 
dramus caudacutus nelsoni, Sitta pusilla and Merula migratoria propin- 
gua, seem to have been introduced on insufficient evidence, while 
Quiscalus qutscula, Acanthis linaria rostrata, Junco hyemalis oregonus, 
Lantus ludovictanus, Seturus noveboracensts are included as a result of 
evident misidentifications. Subtracting these eleven birds and we have 


' Birds of Western New York. With Notes. By Ernest H. Short. Second 
Edition, 1896. Frank H. Lattin, Publisher, Albion, N. Y. 8vo, pp. 20. 


2Some Notes on Nebraska Birds. A List of the Species and Subspecies 
Found in the State, with notes on their distribution, Food-Habits Etc. 
Corrected to April 22d, 1896. By Lawrence Bruner, Professor of Entomol- 
ogy and Ornithology, University of Nebraska. Rep. Nebraska State Horti- 
cultural Society, 1896, Lincoln, Neb. pp. 48-178, 51 cuts in the text. 


Auk 
July 


246 Recent Literature. 
left at least 400 species and subspecies, a larger number than has been 
recorded from any other State, except California, and nearly three- 
fourths of the total number of birds known from the Mississippi Valley. 
This unusually rich avitauna, as Professor Bruner remarks, is due 
both to the faunal position of Nebraska and to its diversified topography. 
—-F.M.C. 


Cory’s ‘Hunting and Fishing in Florida, with ‘a Key to the Water 
Birds of the State.’'— The strictly ornithological portion of the work, 
or the ‘ Key,’ consists of pages 133-304, and is limited to a consideration of 
the Water Birds of Florida, beginning with the Grebes and ending with 
the Plovers. It is profusely illustrated with process cuts in the text, 
most of them very effective and pleasing, but a few show that they were 
made from specimens that were detective in respect to taxidermy. The 
key proper consists of a cut of the head (and sometimes of other parts, 
as the foot) of each genus treated with a few lines of text to each species, 
in which the distinctive characters are emphasized by the use of heavy 
type, followed by a reference to the page where the bird is later more 
fully described. What may be called the key proper, with its accompany- 
ing cuts and diagrams, occupies about fifty pages, and is followed bya 
descriptive list of the species, consisting of a brief but apparently suffi- 
cient diagnosis of each, and a short paragraph on the character of its 
occurrence in Florida. Nearly every species mentioned is illustrated with 
a cut of the head, often of both male and female where the sexes differ, 
or by a full-length figure, all original and prepared expressly for the 
present work. Says the author: “ In preparing the present Key, I have 
striven to make it as simple and non-technical as possible, my object being 
to enable any one totally unfamiliar with birds to identify with compara- 
tive ease any species of Florida water-bird.” Apparently his effort to 
make the way easy, even for the novice, should be successful. 

Preceding the bird part is a chapter devoted to the snakes of Florida, 
in the form of a copiously annotated list. There is also an anno- 
tated list of the mammals of the -State, evidently prepared with much 
care, in which we note that the Florida panther is characterized as a 


Hunting and Fishing | in | Florida, | including a|Key to the Water 
Birds | known to occur in the State. | By | Charles B. Cory. | Curator of the 
Department of Ornithology in the Field Columbian Museum, Chicago; 
Fellow of the | Linnzan and Zodlogical Societies of London ; Member of the 
American Ornithologists’ | Union; of the British Ornithologists’ Union; 
Honorary Member of the | California Academy of Sciences, etc., etc. | Author 
of | “The Beautiful and Curious Birds of the World,” “The Birds | of the 
Bahama Isiands,” “The Birds of Haiti and San | Domingo,” “ The Birds of 
the West Indies,” “ A Naturalist in the Magdalen Islands,” etc., etc. | For 
sale by | Estes & Lauriat, | Boston, Mass. | 1896. Sm. 4to, pp. 304, 2 photo- 
gravure plates, and about 200 cuts in the text. 


ey _ Recent Literature. 247 


new sub-species, under the name Felis concolor Jloridana. About 
twenty-five pages are devoted to an account of the Seminole Indians, 
and about one hundred pages to hunting and fishing in Florida. Vari- 
ous hunting and fishing trips are described, with numerous appropriate 
illustrations. This portion of the book has an important bearing on 
many points in natural history, and will doubtless be of special inter- 
est to the hunter and tourist. The work is beautifully printed and is 
altogether an elegant sample of book-making.—J. A. A. 


Howe’s ‘Every Bird.’'— This is another attempt to render the identifi- 
cation of bird easy, whether the birds bein the bush or inthe hand. The 
scope of the volume is limited to “one hundred and seventy-three species 
of birds most often met with in New England, and the Appendix contains 
nearly all other birds known to occur within these states.” The text is 
reduced to a minimum, the author depending largely on the outline draw- 
ings of head and foot as an aid to the student. A line or two is given to 
dates of arrival, distribution (in New England), haunts, and song under 
each species. About a page of space is allotted to each species, including 
the cuts. They are divided according to their haunts into ‘ Woodland 
Birds,’ ‘ Marsh and Swamp Birds,’ ‘ Beach Birds,’ ‘Ocean Birds,’ etc. The 
book, however, lacks both a table of contents and an index.—J. A. A. 


Artistic and Scientific Taxidermy.’— Any work which will aid in more 
clearly defining the difference between the art of taxidermy and the trade 
of taxidermy is to be welcomed. Of manuals containing elementary 
instructions in ‘stuffing’ we have had enough. The case of effigies over 
the drawing-room mantel may serve a decorative purpose, but its maker is 
no more worthy the name of taxidermist than the caster of plaster images 
is deserving of the title of sculptor. 


1« Every Bird” | A Guide to the Identification of | the Birds of Woodland 
| Beach and Ocean. | With | one hundred and twenty-four line illustrations | 
by the author | Reginald Heber Howe, Jr. | [Associate] Member of the 
American Ornithologists’ Union, Member of the Nuttall | Ornithological Club. 
| Boston: | Bradlee Whidden, | 1896. Sm. 8vo, | pp. viii, 192. Price, $1.00. 


’ 


° Artistic and Scientific | Taxidermy and Modelling | A Manual of Instruc- 
tion in the Methods of Pre- | serving and Reproducing the Correct | Form of 
all Natural Objects | Including a Chapter on | The Modelling of | Foliage | 
By | Montagu Browne, F. G. S., F. Z. S., etc. | Curator of the Leicester Cor- 
poration Museum and Art Gallery; | Author of ‘ Practical Taxidermy,’ The 
Vertebrate Animals of Leicestershire | and Rutland, etc. | With 22 Full-page 
Illustrations and 11 Illustrations in Text | London | Adam and Charles Black 
1896. [New York, Macmillan & Co., $6.50] 8vo. pp. viii + 463. 


248 Recent Literature. fuls 

It is only within recent years that publishers have felt warranted in 
giving the taxidermist an opportunity to adequately state his case, and 
the present work is one of the largest and most expensive that has 
appeared on this subject. The author hasa respect for his art born of an 
evident appreciation of its possibilities. Furthermore his gifts as a writer 
enable him to present his methods clearly and we opened this sumptuous 
volume with a hope that it would prove a source of both information and 
inspiration to the taxidermic artist. But we were grievously disappointed. 
Mr. Browne claims originality for his methods, and doubtless no one will 
care to dispute him, but the conservatism which makes him so indepen- 
dent has prevented him from availing himself of the latest advances in his 
art. As a result his work is, in many respects, several years behind the 
times. For instance, the aid rendered the taxidermist by photography 
he considers ‘‘usually a great mistake”; for, he asks, with singular nar- 
rowness, ‘ Would any taxidermist attempt to reproduce ‘ Animals in rapid 
motion’ as shown by instantaneous photography?” Nevertheless as 
specimens of his own work he gives plates of a group of fighting tigers, 
and a Kestrel in the air, presumably about to strike its prey. ° 

Arsenic is considered ‘ quite useless ” as a preservative and as a substi- 
tute we are given three formule, the first of which includes chalk, soap, 
chloride of lime and tincture of musk; the second, which is incidentally 
recommended ‘‘as an efficient substitute for snuff,” contains tannin, red 
pepper, camphor, and burnt alum ; while the third consists of alum and 
saltpetre. Finally, and fortunately, a thorough external dressing with 
alcohol and bichloride of mercury is insisted upon. 

The chapter on collecting mammals and birds is doubtless addressed to 
the sportsman for not one word do we find on the modern methods of 
trapping which have practically revolutionized the study of mammals, 
while instead of the convenient and effective auxilliary barrels now used 
by all our collectors, we are told to secure two rifles and two shot-guns 
of ditferent calibres. 

Pages 107-160 are devoted to the skinning, casting and mounting of 
mammals, but the methods here recommended of mounting the skin on 
a cast made from the dead body, the relaxed muscles of which give any- 
thing but an accurate reproduction of the animal’s form in life, is one that 
no scientific taxidermist will endorse, while the manner of inserting 
the tail-wire in the mannikin is, to say the least, primitive. Chapter VI 
(pp. 166-211) treats of “the skinning and setting-up of birds by various 
methods.” According to our dogmatic author there is but one way of 
skinning a bird and that is ‘‘ from under the wing”; to make the opening 
on the abdomen is denounced as the ‘‘ practice of some primeval butcher.” 
No absorbent is used while skinning, but plaster, a substance which should 
never be put on skins designed for study, is employed as a drier after 
washing. Collectors who, when in the field, are accustomed to shoot and 
make up from twenty to thirty birds daily, will be interested in Mr. 
Browne’s method of making ‘skins.’ Each ‘skin’ should have the skull 


Vol. XIII 


foe Recent Literature. 249 


filled with chopped tow, and the skull should be afterwards ‘“ thinly 
plastered over with soft clay.” ‘‘ The hollow bags of the wings ” should 
also be filled with cut tow and the leg-bones wrapped with the same 
material. A false body of tow and wire should now be made, and when, 
after a complicated process, this has been introduced into the skin, the 
latter should be placed in a trough, or a paper band or strip may be used, 
a plan which is considered superior to wrapping in cotton. Of mammal 
skins, by the way, Mr. Browne has apparently never heard, for we do not 
find them mentioned in his work. 

In mounting birds from skins no mention is made of the most impor- 
tant part of the whole process, that of scraping and separating the shafts of 
the feathers from the inside whereby the plumage regains much ef its 
former fluffiness. For the rest the author mounts his birds much as do 
other taxidermists. 

The chapters on casting and modelling reptiles, amphibians, and fishes | 
and on the reproduction of certain invertebrates, contain information 
which has not previously appeared in works on taxidermy, though the 
methods given are in use in similar or improved form by our leading 
taxidermists and modellers. 

Chapter IX, on casting and modelling from natural foliage, flowers, 
etc., is largely based on the methods of Mr. J. H. Mintorn and Mrs. E. S. 
Mogridge, whose work is so well and so favorably known in this country. 
As such it will be welcomed by all taxidermists who appreciate the value 
of a proper setting for their work. 

The excellence of this chapter gives us reason to regret that Mr. Browne 
did not avail himself of the discoveries of his fellow workers in other 
branches of his art, for while his book may stand as a complete exposition 
of his own methods and ideas, it can by no means be considered as an 
adequate treatise on artistic and scientific taxidermy.— F. M. C. 


Witchell’s ‘Evolution of Bird-Song.’ !— Says the author: ‘‘ However 
novel or otherwise may be the theories stated in this book, I can at least 
claim that, so far as I am concerned, they are absolutely original, all of 
them having been committed to writing, though in some instances, not 
under their present titles, before I consulted any person, or any book, in 
regard to them.” ‘The subject is treated in ten chapters, under the follow- 
ing headings: The origin of the voice; alarm-notes; the influence of 
combat; the call-note; the simplest songs; noticeable incidents con- 
nected with bird-song; the influence of heredity in the perpetuation of 
the cries of birds; variation in bird-voices, its cause and effects; the 
influence of imitation in relation to bird-song. Anappendix gives ‘ Tran- 


‘The | Evolution of Bird-Song | with | Observations on the Influence of 
Mimicry and Imitation | By | Charles A. Witchell | Author of the Fauna of 
Gloucestershire | London | Adam and Charles Black | 1896 [New York: 
Macmillan & Co. Price, $1.75.] 8vo, pp. x, 253. 


22 2 
32 


east Auk 
25 oO Recent Literature. Tals 


scripts of music sung by Blackbirds, Thrushes, and Skylarks,’ and a bibli- 
ography. 

The ‘evolution of bird-song’ is a subject that easily lends itself to spec- 
ulation; while there is ample basis of fact for the discussion of many 
phases of the subject, in some respects the field is open for the free use of 
the imagination. Our author in the main has held himself in good 
restraint, but of course many of his suggestions are necessarily founded 
on conjecture. 

After recounting some of the facts regarding the vocal and other 
sounds emitted by nearly voiceless animals, such as newts, young frogs, 
serpents and tortoises, and Darwin’s theory that voice originated in the 
involuntary contraction of muscles, through the excitement of fear or 
anger, he reaches the conclusion that we may consider ‘‘ the voice to 
have been evolved from a toneless puffing, indicative of anger, or from 
snorts or grunts accidentally caused.” 

Alarm-notes are produced by the anticipation of danger, while further 
development of the voice is due to the influence of combat, developing 
notes of defiance or triumph. ‘‘ The first call-notes of birds were prob- 
ably mere adaptations of alarm-cries””; the simpler songs of many species 
were at first mere repetitions of call-notes. Proof of heredity is found in 
the family resemblances between the notes of allied birds, as the call-notes 
and songs of thrushes, etc., at points geographically widely separated. 
‘“‘Tt is probable that, speaking generally, the cries of birds which have 
limited voices are inherited, and that those of what are commonly called 
‘ singing-birds’ are perpetuated through the agency of mimicry” — not 
only of other birds’ notes but of sounds produced by ‘the elements, as 
“the moaning of the wind in hollow trees,” ‘‘ the murmurs and gurgles 
of rippling streams,” and the sounds made by insects and quadrupeds. 
These are, in brief, the principal conclusions presented by the author of 
‘Evolution of Bird-Song.’ 

Mr. Witchell is beyond question a keen observer of birds in life, and 
has given a large amount of time to the subject he here attempts to 
elucidate. The book is well written, and abounds in interesting and 
suggestive facts derived from the close study of birds in their natural 
haunts. Here and there, however, a speculative remark or suggestion 
might well have been omitted, as either too far-fetched or superfluous 
to his subject. The ‘bibliography of the subject’, is quite too general 
and incomplete to be satisfactory, and we miss from it a number of 
titles one would naturally expect to find in such a list. A reference like 
the following, for example —“ Zoologist, The. A monthly publication, 
London” —is hardly the kind of bibliography one will be likely to com- 
mend who is in search of special papers relating to the ‘Evolution of 
Bird-song.’ He appears to have quite overlooked Mr. Samuel N. Rhoads’s 
paper, entitled ‘The Mimetic Origin and Development of Bird Language’ 
(Am. Nat. XXIII, March, 1889, pp. 91-103), where he will find his theories 
and many of his conclusions anticipated by Mr. Rhoads.— J. A. A. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Recent Literature. 2 5 I 

Harvie-Brown and Buckley’s ‘A Vertebrate Fauna of the Moray 
Basin.’'— These two attractive volumes are a credit to any publisher 
in the excellence of their illustrations and in their typographical exe- 
cution, while the matter they contain is well worthy of the elegant 
setting. The first half of Volume I is taken up with a very detailed 
account of the boundaries, ‘water-sheds’, and other physical features 
of the region, and their influence upon ‘migration lines,’ with numer- 
ous full-page photogravure illustrations of beautiful stretches of natural 
scenery. The next sixty pages are devoted to the Mammals of the 
region. The Birds naturally come in for a large share of space, occupying 
pp- 214-306 of Vol. I and pp. 1-228 of Vol. II, or rather more than 
half of the entire work. There is a colored plate of the chick of Pallas’s 
Sand Grouse (Syrrhaptes paradoxus), from a specimen taken in the 
region under consideration, and various text and full-page photogravure 
plates, appropriately illustrate this part of the work. Then follows an 
account of the Reptiles (4 species), and of the Amphibians (5 species). 
There is also a chapter (Vol. II, pp. 235-286) on ‘The Extinct Vertebrate 
Animals of the Moray Firth Area,’ by Dr. R. H. Traquair, illustrated by 
a number of text figures and nine plates. The work concludes with an 
‘Analysis of the Mammalian and Avian Fauna, to which are added 
Notes received since the Lists were printed off’ (pp. 288-299). There 
is also a large colored map of the Moray Basin, and several bird’s-eye 
sketches of the topography of the mountainous districts. 

From the ‘Analysis’ we learn that of the 81 species of mammals found 
in Great Britain, 42 have been recorded from the Moray Basin area. 
Of 360-370 species of birds found in Great Britain, 255 are included in 
the present volumes, which in the ‘ Analysis’ are divided into the various 
categories of ‘residents’, regular summer visitants, regular winter visi- 
tants, regular autumn and spring visitants, occasional visitants, etc. 
Of the total of 255 species, 26 are admittedly “recorded on insufficient 
evidence,” but they are distinguished from the others by the entries 
being bracketed. 

The work is evidently the result of much patient research, and the 
careful sifting of records, many of them MS. notes from more or less 
well-known local observers, not before published. The subjects have the 
appearance of being treated exhaustively, and the nature of the presence 
of many species, which are known to have varied much in abundance and 
in extent of range within the area in question, is given historically in 
detail. Thus some twenty-five pages are given to the Osprey, and six to 
a dozen to various other species. 


‘A Vertebrate Fauna of the Moray Basin. By J. A. Harvie-Brown, F. R. 
S: E., F. Z. S., etc. and IT. E) Buckley, B. A., F. Z. S., ete. David Douglas, 
Edinburgh, 1895. Two Vols., sm. 4to. Vol. I, pp. i-xiv, 1-306; Vol. II, 
pp: 1-309. Map and numerous photogravure and other plates, one colored. 


252 Recent Literature. hus 

In view of the recent introduction of the Starling into this country, the 
following respecting this bird, which has of late greatly extended its 
range in the Moray Basin, may be of interest to American readers: ‘‘ Gen- 
eral favorite though he be, it is, in our opinion, a question whether his 
good qualities may not be found wanting in the balance of good and evil, 
a result following upon the force of his numbers and degree of assertive- 
ness ” (Vol. II, p. 4). 

“ A Fauna of the Moray Basin” is a model work of its kind, and a 
most valuable contribution to Scottish natural history.—J. A. A. 


The ‘ Birds’ of the Royal Natural History.— Since our previous notice 
of this work,! Parts 21-24 (March 1-April 15) have appeared, completing 
the portion relating to birds, which occupies pp. 289-576 of Vol. III and 
the whole of Vol. IV (pp. 1-576). Of Vol. IV there is yet to appear the 
title page, contents and index, which will be issued with Part 25, otherwise 
devoted to reptiles. 

Chapter XII, ‘The Diurnal Birds of Prey, or Accipitrines;— Order 
Accipitres,’ occupies pp. 174-275 of Vol. IV, the one hundred pages 
devoted to this group sufficing to give a quite full and satisfactory account 
of these birds. Chapter XIII (pp. 276-288), treats of ‘The Cormorant 
Group,— Order Steganopodes.’ Chapter XIV (pp. 289-319) gives an 
account of the ‘ Herons, Storks, and Ibises,— Order Herodiones’ ; Chapter 
XV (pp. 320-362) is devoted to the ‘ Flamingoes, Ducks, and Screamers,— 
Orders Odontoglossi, Anseres, and Palamedee’; Chapter XVI (pp. 363- 
392), to ‘The Pigeons and Sand-Grouse,— Order Columbe’; Chapter 
XVII (pp. 393-450), to ‘ The Game-Birds and Rails,— Orders Galline and 
Fulicarie’ ; Chapter XVIII (pp. 451-469), to the ‘ Bustards, Thicknees and 
Cranes,— Order Alectorides’; Chapter XIX (pp. 470-518), to ‘The 
Plovers, Sandpipers Jacanas, and Gulls,— Orders Limicole and Gavie’; 
Chapter XX (pp. 519-550), to ‘ The Tube-nosed Birds, Diving Birds, and 
Penguins,— Orders Tubinares, Pygopodes, and Impennes’; Chapter XXI 
(pp- 551-576), to ‘ The Tinamus, Flightless Birds, ete.— Groups Crypturi, 
Stereornithes, Ratite, Odontornithes, Saurure,’ concluding the work. 
Chapter XII is by Dr. R. Bowdler Sharpe and Chapters XVI and XVII 
are by W. R. Ogilvie Grant; the authorship of the other chapters here 
under notice is not as yet disclosed, but is apparently by the editor, Dr. 
Lydekker. 

The commendation bestowed upon the earlier bird parts of this great 
work is equally well-merited by these concluding numbers, which give 
in small compass a vast amount of information on the groups treated. 
The illustrations are excellent and abundant, although only in small part 
new, yet none the less appropriate and instructive. The relationships 
and distinctive characteristics of the higher group are briefly considered, 


"See Auk, XIII, 1896, pp. 156-160. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Recent Literature, 253 
and the various extinct types are also mentioned. As a popular treatise 


on the Class Aves, the work as a whole is entitled to generous patronage. 
—Jj. A.A. 


Publications Received.— Allen, J. A. ‘Progress in American Orni- 
thology. 1888-1895.’ (Science, May 22, and June 5, 1896.) 

Bruner, Lawrence. Some notes on Nebraska Birds. A list of the 
Species and Subspecies found in the State, with notes on their distri- 
bution, Food-habits, etc. (Rep. Nebraska State Hort. Soc., 1896, pp. 
48-178.) 

Biittikofer, J. On Pkastanus tgnitus and its nearest Allies. (Notes 
from the Leyden Museum, XVII, pp. 169-196. ) 

Dury, Charles. Note on the Chachalaca, Ortalis vetula mccallé Baird. 
(Journ. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist. XVIII, pp. 201-202.) 

Hartert, Ernst. Preliminary Descriptions of some new Birds from the 
Mountains of Southern Celebes. (Nov. Zool. III, pp. 69-71, 1896.) , 

Harvie-Brown. J. A. The Tufted Duck in Scotland: its Increase and 
Distribution. (Proc. Roy, Phys. Soc. Edinburgh, XIII, pp. 144-160.) 

Harvie-Brown, J. A., and T. E. Buckley. A Vertebrate Fauna of the 
Moray Basin. 2 Vols., small 4to. Edinburgh. David Douglas, 1895. 
Price, 42 shillings net. 

Howe, Reginald Heber, Jr., “ Every Bird” — A Guide to the identifica- 
tion of the Birds of Woodland, Beach and Ocean. Sm. 8vo, pp. viii, 192. 
Boston: Bradley Whidden, 1896. 

Lydekker, Richard (editor). Warne’s Royal Natural History, Nos. 
21-24, Feb. 15-April 15, 1896. Birds. Super Royal 8vo. Frederick 
Warne & Co., 3 Cooper Union, New York. Published in fortnightly 
parts, 50 cents each. 

Miller, Olive Thorne. Four-handed Folk. 16mo. Houghton, Mifflin 
& Co., Boston, and New York. $1.25. 

Montgomery, Thomas H., Jr. Extensive Migration in Birds as a Check 
upon the Production of Geographical Varieties. (Am. Nat., June, 1896, 
Pp- 458-464.) 

Noska, Max, und Victor Ritter von Tschusi zu Schmidhoffen. Das 
kaukasische Kénigshuhn, 7etraogallus caucassicus (Pall.). Eine mono- 
graphische Studie. (Orn. Jahrb., VII, 1896.) 

Richmond, Charles W. Description of a New Species of Plover from 
the East Coast of Madagascar. (Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, X, pp. 53, 
54:) 

Ridgway, Robert. (1) Description of a New Species of Ground Warb- 
ler from Eastern Mexico, (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. XVIII, No. 1045, pp, 119, 
120.) (2) Preliminary Descriptions of some New Birds from the Galo- 
pagos Archipelago. (/é/d., No. 1067.) (3) Description of a New Sub- 
species of the Genus Peucedramus Coues. Ibid, No. 1074.) 

Rothschild, Walter, and Ernst Hartert. Contributions to the Orni- 
thology of the Papuan Islands. (Nov. Zool., III, pp. 8-20, pl. i, March, 
1896. ) 


25 4 feecent Literature. quly 


Salvadori, Tommaso. Uccellidella Nuova Guinea meridionale-orientale. 
(Ann. del Mus. Civ. di Stor. Nat. di Genova, Ser. 2, XVI, pp. 55-120.) 

Saunders, Howard, and Osbert Salvin. Catalogue of the Gavie and 
Tubinares in the British Museum. 8vo, pp. xv, 475, pll. 8. 

Short, Ernest H. Birds of Western New York, with Notes. Second 
Edition. 1896. 8vo, pp. 20. Frank H. Lattin, Publisher, Albion, N. Y. 

Shufeldt, R. W. Progress in American Ornithology, 1886-1895. (Am. 
Nat., May, 1896, pp. 357-372, and Science, June 5, 1896.) 

Stone, Witmer. The Molting of Birds with special reference to the 
Plumages of the smaller Land Birds of Eastern North America. (Proc. 
Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1896, pp. 108-167, pll. iv, v.) 

Witchell, Charles A. The Evolution of Bird-Song, with observations 
on the influence of Heredity and Imitation. London: Adam and Charles 
Black. New York: Macmillan & Co. 1896. 8vo, pp. x, 253. Price, $1.75. 

American Journ. Sci. April-June, 1896. 

American Naturalist. April-June, 1896. 

Annals of Scottish Nat. Hist., April, 1896. 

Bulletin British Ornithologists’ Club, Nos. 33-36, 1896. 

Canadian Record of Science, VI, Nos. 3-8, 1894-96. 

Forest and Stream, XLVI, Nos. 14-26, 1896. 

Iowa Ornithologist, II, Nos. 2, 3, 1896. 

Medical Age, XIV, Nos. 5-10, 1896. 

Memoirs of the California Acad. Sci., II, No. 2, Feb, 1896. 

Naturalist, The, Month. Journ. Nat. Hist. for North of England, April— 
June, 1896. 

Nidiologist, The, III., Nos. 8, 9, 1896. 

Observer, The, VII., April-June, 1896. 

Oregon Naturalist, The, II, Nos. 3-5, 1896. 

Ornithologische Jahrbuch, VII, No. 2, 3, 1896. 

Ornithologische Monatsberichte, IV, Nos. 4-6, 1896. 

Ottawa Naturalist, The, X, 1-3, 1896. 

Our Animal Friends, XXIII, Nos. 8-10, 1896. 

Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 1896, pt. 1, Jan—March. 

Proceedings California Acad. Sci., V, pt. 2, 1896. 

Records of the Australian Museum, II, No. 7, Jan., 1896. 

Report Park Commissioners, Springfield, Mass. 

Science, New Ser., III, Nos. 53-76, 1896. 

Shooting and Fishing, XIX, Nos. 21-26; XX, Nos. 1-8, 1896. 

Zodlogist, The, Nos. 232-234, 1896. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 General Notes. 25 5 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Name of the Large-billed Puffin. The A. O. U. Committee (Check- 
List N. A. Birds, No. 13 @) seems to have been misled in quoting Tem- 
minck in connection with this bird, and also in citing Stephens, 1826, 
for the original description. The bird appears to have been first named 

- by Naumann, Isis, 1821, p. 782, pl. 7, fig. 2, credited to Leach. Stephens’s 
Continuation of Shaw’s Gen. Zool., as quoted of 1826, XIII, p. 40, I 
have not verified, but believe the correct citation to be 1825, XIII, p. 
40, pl. 4, fig. 2—ELLiotr CoueEs, Washington, D. C. 

[Cf Auk, XIII, p. 189, April, 1896.— Epp. ] 


Record of a Fourth Specimen of the European Widgeon (Awas pene- 
lope) in Indiana—A fine adult male of this Duck was killed on the 
marshes of the English Lake Shooting and Fishing Club at English 
Lake, Indiana, by Mr. John E. Earle of Hinsdale, Ill., on the 23d of 
March, 1896. It was flying in company with a small flock of Baldpates 
when shot. Mr. Earle has had it mounted and it is now in his possession. 
This specimen makes the eighth record for the interior, including the 
one cited by Mr. Frank S. Wright of Auburn, N. Y., in the ‘ Ornithologist 
and Oodlogist,’ Vol. VU, p. 133, as taken on Lake Cayuga, N. Y., in May, 
1880. This record I had previously overlooked. Ina recent letter from 
Mr. Wright he informs me that he still has this Duck in his possession.— 
RUTHVEN DEANE, Chicago Jil. 


Recent Occurrence of the Florida Gallinule in Southern Maine.— Two 
immature male specimens of the Florida Gallinule (Gadlinula galeata) 
have recently been taken on the ‘Dyke’ marsh in Falmouth, near Port- 
land. The first was shot on September 20, 1894, and is preserved in 
the collection of Mr. W. H. Rich, of Portland. The second was shot 
on September 30 of the same year, and is in my own collection. Both 
of these birds were seen by me before they were preserved.— HENRY 
H. Brock, Portland, Me. 


Baird’s Sandpiper in Michigan.—In ‘The Auk’ for April (Vol. XIII, 
p- 174) I find mention made of the taking of Trimga bairdit, Baird’s 
Sandpiper, at Grand Rapids, Michigan, the writer stating that it was the 
second or third, or perhaps the first ever taken in the State. During the 
past few months a number of letters have reached me, making inquiries 
in regard to this bird, to which I wish to make the following reply 
through ‘The Auk.’ 

In ‘Birds of Michigan’ by A. J. Cook (second edition), page 59, I find 
the following: “ 7rznga bairdi. Baird’s Sandpiper. This species is 
embraced in Covert’s ‘ Birds of Michigan.’ ” 


256 General Notes. ne 


Where the author, editor, or compiler got authority for the above 
statement is to mea question. In 1876 I published a list of Michigan 
birds; it is not included in this list. In 1878 I prepared a MSS. list; 
it is not in this list. In 1881 I published my last list, and it is not in this. 
Will some one tell me where the aforesaid author found his authority for 
the above statement? Now the fact is, I did kill Zrénga barrdit, in 
Michigan, on Aug. 15, 1893,—a male bird, at ‘ The Over-flow,’ four miles 
east of Ann Arbor, which specimen was presented to Michigan Univer- 
sity Museum, and can be seen there at any time.— ADOLPHE B. Covert, 
Ann Arbor, Mich. 


The Belted Piping Plover in Massachusetts.— During a trip to Marsh- 
field, Mass., on April 20, 1896, I started two small Ployers from a sandy 
beach. They were very wild and difficult to approach but after several 
attempts I managed to secure one of them. : 

The bird proved to be a male Belted Piping Plover (#gzalitis meloda 
circumcincta), the band across the breast being very dark and well 
marked. This is the first time I have met with this bird in the spring, 
although it occasionally occurs during the fall migration.— FosTER H. 
BRACKETT, Boston, Mass. 


Discovery of the Eggs of the Belted Piping Plover As I am not 
aware that the nest and eggs of this species (#g7alit?’s meloda circum- 
cincta) have been previously recorded, perhaps the following notes will 
be of interest to odlogists. 

Mr. Oliver Spanner of Toronto after reading ‘Bird Nesting in North 
West Canada’ decided to make a trip to Lake Manitoba and while there 
secured eggs of this species. On June 19, 1895, he found a nest on Birch 
Island near the west shore of Lake Manitoba. The nest consisted of a 
depression in the sand lined with bits of drift weed, and contained three 
eggs which are similar to those of the common Piping Plover; the ground 
color is pale buff and they are finely spotted with black and purple gray, 
averaging in size 1.25 X 1.00. Both eggs and skin of the parent are now 
in my collection. Mr. Spanner also obtained young birds in the down 
at the same time, and as he saw several pairs of these Plovers, together 
with solitary Sandpipers, no doubt these were nesting in the vicinity. 
—W. RAINE, Joronto, Canada. 


Recent Capture of the Golden Eagle near Portland, Maine.— The 
Golden Eagle (Aguzla chrysaétos) is so rare in the neighborhood of Port- 
land that a recent capture should be recorded. I have an adult male 
specimen, sent to me in flesh, which was shot at Duck Pond, Windham, 
October 14, 1891.— Henry H. Brock, Portland, Me. 


Golden Eagles in Virginia.—Mr. David N. McCadden, taxidermist at the 
Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, received three Golden Eagles 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


General Notes. 25 7 
from Looney, Craig Co., Va., December 18, 1895, two of which were 
shipped alive. Mr. J. B. Ruble, who secured the birds, writes the follow- 
ing particulars concerning their capture: “Mr. John Myers, who lives 
near the top of the mountain here, saw the Eagles feeding on a dead 
sheep ; he set a trap and caught four of them from the one sheep. There 
are more Eagles in this county than I ever saw before. Mr. John Looney 
told me that about a week ago he saw thirteen in one flock, and there 
have been eight or ten in all taken in Craig County this winter.” In 
answer to further inquiry Mr. Ruble writes that he considers that all the 
Eagles were of the same kind. Gentlemen who have been going down 
to Craig County for deer, for a number of years past, say that they never 
heard of any Golden Eagles there before, and Dr. Rives, in his ‘ Birds of 
the Virginias,’ only gives a few records for this species. The occurrence 
of the bird in such numbers therefore seems to be well worth recording.— 
WITMER STONE, Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Pa. 


Nidification of the Dusky Horned Owl.— According to the few records 
of the eggs of Bubo virginianus saturatus in Bendire’s ‘ Life Histories 
of North American Birds,’ it appears that the eggs of this species are very 
rare and that none have been obtained for many years. Capt. Bendire 
records a set of two eggs that were taken by Kennicott in Alaska, April 
16, 1862, and also another egg taken by H. Connelly in Labrador in 1863. 

I therefore have pleasure in recording a set of two eggs that were taken 
recently. Although I have once or twice received eggs from the North 
supposed to belong to this species, it was not until last season that I was 
able to obtain the parent with the eggs. The nest was found by my col- 
lector at Sandwich Bay, Labrador, April 17, 1895, and the label says: 
«The nest was built ina spruce 15 feet from the ground, and made of twigs 
and coarse grass.” The female was shot as she left the nest and is an 
exceptionally dark specimen. Both eggs with the parent are now in the 
collection of R. S. Sharples, Esq., of Elgin, I1l— W. Ratner, Toronto, 
Canada. 


Four Winter Records of the Short-eared Owl on the Massachusetts 
Coast.— I have a female Short-eared Owl (Aszo acczpitrinus) in my collec- 
tion which was taken at Orleans, near Chatham, Mass., on February 23, 
1896, by Mr. Charles J. Paine, Jr.; and I also know of a female (?) taken 
at Ipswich, Mass., on December 31, 1895, by Mr. Ralph W. Gray; and 
amale taken at the same locality by Mr George C. Shattuck on January 
1, 1896; also a female taken at the same locality on February 12, 1896, 
by Mr. W. S. Townsend. 

I also know of a number of specimens taken at Middletown, near New- 
port, R. I., in winter.— REGINALD HEBER Howe, JR., Longwood, Mass. 


The Roadrunner as a Rat-killer— This forenoon (May 7, 1896), I came 
suddenly upon a Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) that had just 


33 


258 General Notes. hus 
finished despatching a woodrat (Meotoma). The bird reluctantly withdrew 
as I came upon the scene, leaving the rat, which I found to be quite dead. 
A post-mortem disclosed a bad contusion on the side directly over the heart, 
and another on the spine between the shoulders, while the skull was 
crushed by a blow behind the ear, although the skin was nowhere broken.— 
A. W. Antuony, San Diego, Cal. 


The Redheaded Woodpecker in Eastern Massachusetts.—It is so 
seldom that a Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) is 
seen in eastern Massachusetts that its occurrence is worthy of note. On 
Sunday noon, March 8, 1896, while taking a walk through a grove of 
mixed elm, maple and pine trees in the section of Boston known as 
Dorchester, I came across a beautiful bird of this species, lazily climbing 
about on a partially decayed stump and apparently searching for food. 
The bird was very tame, allowing me to follow it closely as it flew from 
tree to tree and to approach to within ten or fifteen yards on several 
occasions. After watching it for some fifteen minutes and thinking 
from its tameness and from its partiality to a particular stump that it 
might be wintering in the locality I quietly withdrew. A thorough 
search of the woods the next morning failed to discover the bird again 
and I concluded it was probably a temporary visitor. 

On May 8, 1896, while walking early in the morning in Dorchester 
District, my attention was attracted by the loud calling of a Red-headed 
Woodpecker. After a short search the bird was located in a clump of 
tall oak trees and was shot. It proved to be a male in full plumage, and 
was very fat. This is probably,the same bird noticed by me on March 8, 
1896, as recorded above, as it was shot within one hundred yards of where 
it was previously observed. 

I have seen this species in Massachusetts only once before, the first 
time being on May 19, 1878.— Foster H. BRACKETT, Boston, Mass. 


Pyrocephalus rubineus mexicanus in Los Angeles County, Cal.— 
During recent winters numerous duck-hunters in the San Gabriel River 
bottom have observed a ‘‘ fiery red” bird among the willow trees. On 
Dec. 8, 1895, I secured an adult male which, as I expected, proved to be 
the Vermillion Flycatcher. On Feb. 8, 1896, I again shot a specimen, an 
adult female in the same locality. Thus it appears that Pyrocephalus 
rubineus mexicanus is a regular winter visitant to the river bottoms in 
Southern California west of the Sierra Madre Mountains.— Horace A- 
GAYLORD, Pasadena, Cal. 


Intergradation in Song of Sturnella magna and S. m. neglecta in Mis- 
souri—In Dr. Coues’s ‘The Birds of the Northwest,’ Mr. Tripp notes 
that he had never observed any intergrading of the songs of Sturnella 
magna and S. m. neglecta. Some seven or eight years ago while 
creeping on some ducks in Audrain County, Mo., I heard a very pecu- 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


General Notes. 259 
liar lark song, but was unable to investigate the matter. Later I wrote 
Mr. Vernon Bailey and Mr. B. H. Dutcher, both of whom had been 
observing the intergradations of plumage and habits in Kansas of these 
two birds, and I asked of them if they had observed any birds with a 
blended voice. Neither had; and Mr. Bailey was kind enough to ask 
other ornithologists at the Smithsonian Institution concerning the 
matter. None had noticed any intergrading. 

But recently (March 9, 1896) I was in the same region of my former 
duck hunt and heard distinctly a Western Lark’s song. It was fairly 
typical but too highly pitched. A mile away I heard another that was 
deeply liquid and gurgling—in fact quite typical of S. m. neglecta, 
but only a fourth of a mile away I heard one whose song was that of SS. 
magna except that it had near the middle a rather highly pitched gurgle. 
It did not have, in its many repetitions, any downward ending as the 
other two birds had. Neither was the entire song so highly pitched as 
that of the typical S. magna — scores of which were singing around it. 

To my mind here was a distinct intergradation—perhaps the result 
of hybridism. The region was in Audrain County, Mo., about fifteen 
miles southwest of Mexico, Mo., and about one fourth of a mile north 
of the divide between the water-sheds of the Missouri and Mississippi 
Rivers. 

I had shot the S. m. neglecta once before in this county further 
eastward. 

This is the only region near me where S. m. neglecta is found so far 
as I know, though it comes into Southwest Missouri. I might add 
that Iam well acquainted with the song of S. m. xeglecta, having heard 
it in Kansas, Colorado and S$. Dakota.—JAMEs NEwrTon BASKETT, 
Mexico, Mo. 


Pinicola enucleator at Worcester, Mass.— A flock of sixteen Pine 
Grosbeaks, containing a few bright males, was reported in the northern 
part of this city Jan. 15, 1896. For a little over a month the Grosbeaks 
were seen in different parts of the city, one or two ora half dozen at a 
time, feeding upon mountain-ash berries and seeds of maple and Scotch 
elm. The last seen was on Feb. 21. But few bright males were seen, 
the largest number being reported on Feb. 19, when a flock of fifteen con- 
— HELEN A. BALL, Worcester, 


, 


tained ‘‘ several brilliant specimens.’ 
Mass. 


Evening Grosbeak in Southern Wisconsin.— On January 21, 1896, while 
passing an old, deserted cemetery on the outskirts of Delavan (Wis.), 
I heard lively chattering among the large ‘evergreen’ trees within the 
graveyard and knew at once that it was the note of some bird new to 
me. On watching closely I soon saw a beautiful male Grosbeak (Cocco- 
thraustes vespertinus) appear on the outside of the tree, and later a 
couple more and two or three of the plainer clothed females. There 


260 General Notes. ty 


must have been at least a dozen in the tree. They were seen every day 

in good numbers up to about the middle of March, and throughout the 

remaining part of the winter a small flock of ten or a dozen were constant 

residents of the immediate vicinity of the above mentioned cemetery: 

This flock was last seen on March 30. It is their first occurrence in this 

locality to my knowledge, and I find no one who ever remembers seeing 

the bird here before. Pine Grosbeaks (Przicola enucleator) were also 

observed in the county during December last.— N. HoLvisTer, Delavan, | 
Wisc. 


Zonotrichia albicollis and Mniotilta varia at Pasadena, Cal.— On Novy. 
21, 1894, while collecting sparrows in a large blackberry patch just inside 
the western limits of Pasadena I shot an immature female White-throated 
Sparrow from a flock of Z. coronata, thus adding another record for this 
species from California. 

Early in the morning of Oct. 8, 1895, I shot an immature female Black- 
and-white Warbler in the Arroyo Seco just west of Pasadena. The bird 
was at the time alone, and apparently as much at home in Southern Cali- 
fornia as she would have been east of the Rocky Mountains. So far as 
I can ascertain this is the second record of this species from California.— 
Horace A. GAYLORD, Pasadena, Cal. 


The Wintering of the Towhee at Longwood, Massachusetts.— I am 
glad to be able to report the following information in regard to the 
Towhee (Prfilo erythrophthalmus) noted December 25, 1895, at Longwood 
(see Auk, Vol. XIII, p. 178). 

Mr. Henry Vose Greenough, who saw the Towhee with me on Christ- 
mas Day, reported to me having seen on March 23, 1896, a male Towhee 
about a brush pile, some one hundred and fifty yards from the spot where 
we had noted the one in December. On March 24 I went with him to this 
place and in a neighboring hemlock hedge we found Pipilo. 

The brush pile is on the edge of an estate, only a few hundred feet from 
a stable, pig-sty and hen yard, where food and protection from the win- 
ter weather were easily accessible. When we started the Towhee on the 
24th he flew straight for the hen yard and then being pursued, to another 
hemlock hedge leading us in a circuit back to the brush pile. 

I believe there can be little doubt that this is our Christmas Towhee, 
which had wintered here, for the following reasons, viz.: Protection and 
food supply at hand; a male bird, as was the former one; in practically 
the same locality, and because it is exceedingly unlikely that a single bird 
would migrate northward fully a month in advance of its fellows. 

We have not noted this bird during January and February, though we 
both have covered the neighboring ground almost daily, because the place 
is just on the edge of this little patch of woodland and the Towhee evi- 
dently never wandered far from his brush pile and the farm yard. 


Vol. XIII ss 7 
Tiee6 General Notes. 261 


Since the 23d and 24th of March we have noted the Towhee on the fol- 
lowing dates,— March 25, 28, April 2, 4, 7, 9 (singing), 10, 12, 13 and 16, 
when he disappeared. 

The occurrence of this Towhee here makes a valid record of the win- 
tering of this species in Massachusetts, and the female that was taken at 

_ Bedford, Mass., on January 2, 1896, and the specimen taken at Portland, 
Conn., would seem to show that this bird can stand the rigors of a New 
England winter, and that we may look for further records of the winter- 
ing of this species in the future.— REGINALD HEBER Howe, Jr., Long- 
wood, Mass. 


The Nonpariel at Longwood, Massachusetts.—On June 5, 18096, Henry 
V. Greenough brought me a male Painted Finch (Passeréza ciris) which 
he had shot at about 8 A.M. The bird was in perfect plumage, its wings 
and tail showing apparently no cage wear and its feet in perfect condition. 

I examined its stomach which contained white gravel, suggesting cage 
gravel (although the bird had been seen upon a gravel walk where I found 
the same kind of gravel), a white worm, a small amount of dark gravel 
and a few seeds (not canary seed), and the bird was also quite fat. Its 
testes were very much enlarged. 

The bird uttered only a few notes on alighting and when started, like 
chit-chit. We was seen the day before, and although fairly tame at first, 
became quite wild from being watched. 

The probability of course is strongly in favor of this being an escaped 
cage bird, but at the same time, the weather having been fair and warm 
for a week, this bird might have strayed from southern climes.—REGINALD 
HeBER Howe, Jr., Longwood, Mass. 


Peculiar Traits of Some Scarlet Tanagers.— Scarlet Tanagers (Piranga 
erythromelas) are not common in this vicinity (Ridgewood, N. J.) ; for 
many years I saw only two or three during spring migrations. Within, 
the last few years a few pairs have bred in this locality, generally on the 
outskirts of woods; so I was surprised to see a pair nesting in a Norway 
spruce, on a branch only about ten feet from the corner of my house, 
and about the same distance from the ground. In all my ornithological 
experience I never knew a pair of birds to live and nest so near my house 
with such secretiveness. 

One of my family first saw the birds from an upper window that looked 
down on the nest. The nest building appeared to be all done by the 
female. The male bird was seen usually in the morning, apparently 
inspecting the work or noting its progress, but was seldom seen during 
the rest of the day. Both birds when approaching their nest alighted 
near the top of this high tree and descended through the branches to 
the nest, which was flat, very evenly built, like a cup of basket work, 
beautifully woven of material resembling the color of the bark of the 


Auk 
July 


262 General Notes. 
tree. Taken with the greenish color of the female, it was a remarkable 
instance of color illusion; every time I wanted to see the nest, knowing 
the branch it was on, I had to run my eye along the branch till it met 
the nest before I could see it; the shallow nest and the greenish female 
were remarkably inconspicuous. Only the female took part in the 
duties of incubation. She would remain on the nest even when one 
passed closely, but if anyone stopped to look at her, she would glide off 
the nest through the tree in the opposite direction, so quietly as to almost 
make one doubtful of her presence. The birds became quite accustomed .- 
to seeing one of my family sitting at the window close by. I did not go 
very near the nest for fear of disturbing the birds. 

When the young. were hatched another peculiarity was noticed, these 
birds differing much from most birds in the manner of feeding their 
young. I watched several evenings for an hour or more at a distance 
from the tree, but could clearly see the nest with my field glass. Still 
I did not once see the female feed her young. Most birds feed their 
young often just before sunset, and I think the female Tanager must 
have known she was watched, for one evening I watched as long as I 
could see the nest and no mother appeared. I thought some harm must 
have happened to her, but next morning she was at home. My business 
did not allow me to watch them much during the day; one afternoon 
the bright male Tanager put in an appearance in the upper part of 
the tree, but seeing me he made off without coming near the nest. 

Soon the downy backs of the nestlings showed above the rim of the 
basket house, when the hen seldom brooded them unless it was wet 
weather. These youngsters were perfectly quiet, never clamoring for 
food, like so many other nestlings. Before they were big enough to 
project conspicuously above their flat nest they left it and went higher 
up the tree. This was on the 3d of July. Their color being greenish, it 
was very hard to distinguish them in the upper branches where they were 
secreted and fed by the parents. 

A few days before leaving the nest a violent tempest passed over the 
vicinity; trees were thrown down and scattered over the ground in all 
directions; many nests of different birds were tossed or knocked out of 
the trees by wind or hailstones. I thought it impossible for my Tanagers 
to escape harm, but they were all right after the storm, which showed 
how the faithful mother must have covered them. The young birds and 
mother remained about for several weeks, but the male was absent, if his 
scarlet was still worn. 

I took down the deserted nest. It was composed of long fine brown 
rootlets, fine thin stems of running blackberry, with a little grass and 
string evenly woven; it was thinly lined with a fine yellowish brown, 
thread-like fibre, as fine as horsehair. The whole structure can be seen 
through yet it is strong. 

Had I expressed an opinion on the habits of the Scarlet Tanager from 
that year’s observation I should have said the male bird was very shy, 


pom General Notes. 263 


giving as a reason that his conspicuous dress was a target for his 
enemies ; which is the usual way we try to make other people think we 
know something. So I will now describe the following year’s events, 
which was 1895. A female Scarlet Tanager came and built exactly on 
the same spot where the previous year’s nest was; hence I infer it was 
the same female. But what of her gay lord, was he the same male? If so 
he must have undergone a great change of character, for he showed 
himself about the tree frequently and sang on the next tree very often 
during the day. But the most remarkable thing of all was, he spied a 
nest of Chippy Sparrows (Sf7zella socialis) with young ones. To my 
surprise he kept going to the nest and fed the baby Chippys, much to 
the disgust of their parents, who kept hovering around with food in their 
mouths which the little things could not take, after being fed so often 
by their gorgeous foster father. This was continued for a number of 
days. When his own precious young burst their shells and required 
attention he then left the Chippys to their rightful parents, which were 
now outgrowing their narrow domicile, being duly cared for. Mr. 
Tanager now paid as faithful attention to his own family, feeding them 
very frequently and singing his sweet song between feeding and collecting 
food. Seldom was he away, near sunset, longer than ten or fifteen 
minutes. SolIam ata loss to account for the shyness shown the pre- 
vious year, unless this was a second husband of the same female Tana- 
ger; and then the extraordinary fact of his feeding other birds’ young 
ones is one of the exceptions that make the study of birds a pleasant 
recreation. — HENRY HALEs, PRidgewood, N. Y. 


The Occurrence in Nebraska of Vireo flavoviridis.— A specimen of the 
Yellow-green Vireo, Vzvreo flavoviridis, shot at Long Pine, Brown County, 
has just been received by the Curator of the Museum of the University of 
Nebraska. This is the first one reported in this State. It is a rare Vireo 
for the entire United States having been reported, as far as the author can 
learn, from Texas, California, and Canada only. 

The specimen was shot and donated by the Rev. J. M. Bates of Long 
Pine, who has already done a great deal to further the knowledge of our 
native birds. 

This adds one more to Prof. Lawrence Bruner’s List of Nebraska Birds, 
recently published by the Nebraska State Horticultural Society. The total 
number of species and sub-species for the State is now 418.—ERwIN H. 
Barsour, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr. 


Helminthophila rubricapilla vs. Helminthophila ruficapilla.— The 
A. O. U. Committee appear to have ignored their rule “Once a synonym 
always a synonym,” in the case of the Nashville Warbler. The West 
Indian Dendroica ruficapilla was called Sylvia ruficapilla by Latham in 
1790 (Ind. Orn., II, 540). Wilson applied the same name to the Nash- 
ville Warbler in 1811 (Amer. Orn., III, 120). Whether by design or by 


264 General Notes. iE 


inadvertence, the name was altered to S. rubricapilla ina later volume 
of Wilson (Amer. Orn., VI, 1812, 15) and this appears to be the earliest 
eligible name for the Nashville Warbler. Under the A. O. U. Code. Nos. 
645 and 645a of the ‘Check-List’ should therefore stand as Helmintho- 
phila rubricapilla (Wils.) and Helminthophila rubricapilla gutturalis 
(Ridgw.).— WALTER Faxon, Museum of Comparative Zoblogy, Cam- 
bridge, Mass. 


Bachman’s Warbler (Helminthophila bachmani) in Greene County, 
Arkansas.— Very early on the morning of May 7, 1896, while in the com- 
pany of Mr. O. C. Poling, I heard among the score of voices a song which 
was new to me. It suggested a relationship to Helminthophila pinus, 
but it had several more notes to it. Neither was it a Parula song. After 
a little search we found the singer, a small yellow bird with conspicuous 
black throat and black crown, perched twelve feet above dry ground on 
the lower branch of a medium-sized tree surrounded by a heavy growth 
of blackberry and other bushes. It did not take me long to identify the 
bird, nor did it take Mr. Poling long to secure it. 

Two days afterwards, May 9, we found and secured in the same manner 
a second male, only a few rods from where we took the first, but circum- 
stances, among them, two very dead hogs, prevented a thorough search 
for the nests and females in the vicinity. The highly developed testes 
showed that they were breeding. The black of the throat extends from the 
chin to the breast. The locality is in the region of the peninsula of Mis- 
souri, on Boland Island, on the Arkansas side of the St. Francis River, 
and therefore in Greene County, Arkansas.— O. WIpMANN, Old Orchard, 
Mo. 


Second Occurrence of the Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher in Maine.— On the 
morning of April 18, 1896, while driving past a farm-yard on Cape Eliza- 
beth, about three miles from Portland, I heard the nasal call-note of a 
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Poloftcla cerulea). In another moment I saw 
the bird fly from an old oak to an orchard close at hand. Here I watched 
him at my leisure. He was very active, but not at all shy, coming sev- 
eral times within eight or ten feet of me, constantly calling, often singing, 
and repeatedly, of course, displaying his characteristic form and colors. 
There was no bird of any kind with him. An hour later, I drove past the 
farm-yard again, and found him still in the neighborhood, having simply 
crossed the highway. He was still entirely alone. I drove within a few 
feet of him, and watched him for several minutes,— until he again flew 
off into the orchard. 

The weather throughout New England was almost summer-like for a 
week preceding April 18, and to this fact, perhaps, was due the bird’s long 
journey from the usual haunts of his kind. 


2 se General Notes. 26 5 


The Blue-gray Gnatcatcher has not been seen in Maine before in spring, 
and has been positively identified in the State but once before.! — 
NATHAN CLIFFORD Brown, Portland, Me. 


Southern California Bird Notes.— The following notes on birds observed 
in the vicinity of San Bernardino, Cal., have been kindly furnished me by 
my friend Mr. R. B. Herron of Ferndale, Cal. 

Callipepla californica vallicola+C. gambeli deserticola Sv/efhens.— 
Mr. Herron has recently received a fine pair (g and @ ) of hybrids between 
the above two species. They were shot near Hesperia, Cal., about Dec. 
20, 1895, out of a flock of seven or eight, presumably the same brood. Mr. 
Herron some time since took a pair of hybrids in the Colorado Desert 
which were described by Mr. Henshaw in the Nuttall Bulletin; he also 
shot a mated pair at Palm Springs, Cal., in the Colorado Desert, of which 
the male was deserticola and the female vad/icola; these were nesting. 
The following is a description of the male hybrid: Crown brown as in 
deserticola ;, .eck-feathers with heavy shaft-lines as in vallrcola but no 
white dotting, ; fore part of breast with faint shaft-lines like deserticola: 
pectoral spot very light buff—lighter than in vad/icola —with faint 
scalings. Spot on belly small and light brown, feathers with heavy 
scalings. Sides and flanks as in deserticola. 

Syrnium occidentale.— My friend, Mr. E. F. Lane of Azusa, Cal., took a 
fine female in Little Tejunga Cafion, Cal., in June, 1888. Mr. Herron 
shot a pair near Banning, Cal., in September, 1895. No less than five 
specimens were taken in 1894 and 1895 in the cafions back of Pasadena, 
Cal. 

Icterus parisorum.— Mr. Herron shot a fine male in Reche Cafion, six 
miles from San Bernardino, Cal., April 1, 1895. 

Pipilo chlorurus—— A number of these birds wintered in the low lands 
along the Santa Ana River near San Bernardino; specimens were taken 
in January and February by Mr. H. E. Wilder. 

Phainopepla nitens.— A small flock of these birds also passed the 
winter in the Santa Ana River bottom.—E. C. THurBER, Alhambra, 
Cal. 


Merrem’s Work.— This is a rare book, which can hardly if at all be 
found in this country; it is usually quoted at second hand, as in the 
instance of Passerella tliaca, in the new A. O. U. Check-List, where the 
title is given in German, with the date “1786-87.” I handled the Latin 
edition in London in 1884. The full title and collation are as follows: 

1786. MERREM, B.— Aviym | rariorvm et minvs cognitarvm | Icones 
et Descriptiones | collectae | et e Germanicis Latinae factae | a Blasio 
Merrem, | Ph.D. Phys. et Math. in Reg. Dvisbvrgensi Acad. P. P. O. | 
Soc. R. Scient. Gotting. Litterar. Commerc. ivncto. | — | Fascicvlvs 


1See Bulletin Nutt. Orn. Club, V, pp. 236-37. 


34 


266 General Notes. Tee 


Primvs [Secvndys]. | — | Lipsiae, | ex bibliopolio Io. Godofr. Miilleri- 
ano CIO IDCCLXXXVI. 1 vol. folio. Title 1 1.; dedication backed by 
preface, 1 l., pp. 1-20, 1 1. (title of Fasc. II), 21-45, pll. col’d 1-vi, vii-xii. 

The work treats extensively of the following birds: Cotinga rubra, 
p. 1, pl. i, fig. 1. Cicuprea, p.5, pl. 1,f.2. Gracula nobilis, p. 7, pliz- 
G. chrysoptera, p. 10, pl. 3. Mellisuga coccinea, p. 14, pl. 4. Merops 
spiza, p. 16, pl. 5. Musctcapa ferruginea, p. 19, pl. 6. Aguila glaucopis, 
p. 21, pl. 7. Lantus atricapillus, p. 26, pl. 8—TROGONUM genus, mono- 
graph of, in Linnean style, pp. 28-36, treating of : Trogon hemorrhotda- 
Us. vcurucet, p.- 33 (pi. 9)5: 2- strigdatus, 2. ferrusineus, p= 34st 
flammeus, T. viridis, p. 35.— Fringilla tliaca, p. 37, pl. 10. Penelope tacu- 
pema, p. 39, pl. 11. P. leucolophos, p. 43, pl. 12. 

The work consists of two fasciculi, separately full-titled and probably 
issued apart; and the title of Fascicvlvs Secvndvs is literally different 
from that of Fascicvlvs Primvs. But both bear the same date, 1786, and 
are bound as one volume in the copy examined in the library of the 
Zodlogical Society. The pagination and numeration of the plates are con- 
tinuous; so that it is not necessary to cite the work by fasciculi. The 
first 20 pages and 6 plates belong in Fasc. I., the rest in Fasc. I].—ELuiiorr 
CovEs, Washington, D. C. 


Mandt’s Inaugural Dissertation.— This is a scarce tract, which I have 
never seen cited in full, and which is seldom so cited as to give any satis- 
factory idea of what it may be. The following is the title: 

Observations in Histo- | riam Naturalem et Ana- | tomiam comparatam 

in | itinere Groenlandico | factae. | — | Dissertatio | In auguralis | quam 
| consensu et auctoritate | gratiosi medicorum ordinis | in | Universitate 
Literaria Berolinensi | ut | summi in medicina et chirurgia | honores rite 
sibi concedantur | die XXII. M. Iulii A. MDCCCXXII | H. L. Q. S. | 
publice defendet | auctor | Martinus Guilelmus Mandt | Beyenburgensis | 
— | [ete., 4lines.] | -— | Formis Brueschckianis. 1 vol., sm. 8vo., 4 prel. 11. 
pp: 1-40. 

A list of birds occupies pp. 3, 4; and on p. 30 is described Uréa mandtzz, 
Licht., sp. n.— ELLiotT Cours, Washington, D. C. 


Correction.— In the Auk, Vol. XIII, No. 2, for April, page 176, under 
‘ Abnormal Plumage in a Pine Grosbeak,’ “its width having decreased .20 
of an inch” should read “ its width having decreased to .20 of an inch.” 
On page 178, the paragraph on the Winter Wren, under ‘ Three Winter 
Notes from Longwood, Massachusetts,’ “and on the 25th shot, I think, 
the same bird” should read ‘‘ and on the 25th of December shot, I think 
the same bird.””— REGINALD HEBER Howe, Jr., Longwood, Mass. 


Vol. XIII r 
pres Notes and News. 267 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


THE TEXT relating to Plate III, in the present number of ‘ The Auk,’ 
will be found in the January number of this volume (XIII, pp. 25, 26). 


Dr. JUAN GuNDLACH, an Honorary Member of the American Ornith- 
ologists’ Union, died in Havana, Cuba, March 14, 1896, at the age of 
85 years. Dr. Gundlach was born at Marburg, Germany, in 1811, where 
he was educated, and in 1839 went to Cuba, where he resided during the 
remainder of his life. For nearly fifty years he was a recognized 
authority on the ornithology of Cuba. Some of his earlier papers 
appeared in the Boston Journal of Natural History (1857) and the 
Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York (1858), in which 
he described various new species of Cuban birds. His principal contribu- 
tions to Cuban ornithology, entitled ‘ Beitriige zur Ornithologie Cubas, ’ 
and ‘Neue Beitriige zur Ornithologie Cubas, nach eignen 30 jahrigen 
Beobachtungen zusammengestellt,’ were published in the ‘Journal fiir 
Ornithologie’ (the first, 1854, pp. Ixxvii-Ixxxvii, 1855, pp. 465-480, 1856, 
pp- 1-16, 97-112, 337-352, 417-432, 1857, pp, 225-242 [see also, 1859, pp. 
294-299, 347-351]; and the second, 1871, pp. 265-295, 353-378, 1872, pp- 
401-432, 1874, pp. 113-166, 286-303, 1875, pp. 293-340, 353-407). He also 
published ‘Beitrag zur Ornithologie der Insel Portorico’, in the same 
journal (1874, pp. 304-315), and ‘Neue Beitrage zur Ornithologie der 
Insel Portorico’ (1878, pp. 157-194). He also published in Spanish an 
elaborate paper on the birds of Porto Rico, under the title ‘ Apuntes para la 
Fauna Puerto-Riquefia’ (Anal. de la Soc. Esp. de Hist. Nat. VII, 1878, 
Aves, pp- 141-422), and papers on the mammals of Cuba and Porto Rico, 
besides various minor papers on the ornithology of these islands. 

His researches and writings, however, were not restricted to mammals 
and birds, his entomological publications being quite extensive, and he 
published also on other branches of natural history. 

Dr. Gundlach was a friend and correspondent of Baird, Brewer, and 
Lawrence, and was. known through correspondence or personally to 
many of the younger American ornithologists. He was a naturalist in 
the fullest sense of the word, and retained his enthusiasm for his 
favorite pursuits to the last.'| His extensive collections in all depart- 
ments of Cuban natural history he deposited sometime since in the 


Havana Institute. 


CLARENCE A. SMITH, an Associate Member of the American Ornithol- 
ogists’ Union, died in New York City, May 6, 1896, at the age of twenty- 
two years. ‘Though he had published but little on ornithology he was a 
keen observer and an expert collector, and was possessed of an extended 


1See Auk, IX, 1892, pp. 471-473. ‘In Cuba with Dr Gundlach,’ by 
Charles B. Cory. 


o 


268 Notes and News. ae 


knowledge of birds derived from his field experiences in various parts of 
the United States and Mexico. His valuable collection of exceptionally 
well-prepared bird skins and eggs has been presented to the American 
Museum of Natural History. 


TurouGu the enterprise of Mr. Charles B. Cory, Palm Beach, Florida, 
has a museum of Natural History, devoted especially to the fauna of 
Florida. At the suggestion of Mr. H. M. Flagler, the erection of a 
building for this purpose was begun some two years ago, and was soon 
ready for occupation, the building being a wooden structure, 40 by 100 
feet, and two stories in height. It already contains all of the Florida 
mammals but two, and a nearly complete collection of the birds of 
Florida, mounted after approved modern methods. It includes ten large 
groups, devoted to the Panther, Alligators and Crocodiles, a Heron 
rookery, and various other characteristic Florida birds. While the 
Museum is devoted primarily to the Vertebrate Zodlogy of Florida it 
will also include the insects and shells, the intention being to bring 
together a complete representation of the animal life of Florida. / 
prominent feature is a collection of the implements and costumes of the 
present Seminole Indians. It is proposed to add later an Aquarium, 
devoted mainly to the fresh-water fishes of the State. At present the 
Museum is open free to the public during certain hours each day, but 
when completed will be free only on certain days, a small admittance 
fee being charged on other days. 


We have received the prospectus of a new monthly illustrated ornitho_ 
logical journal, ‘The Osprey’, published by the Osprey Company, Gales- 
burg, Ill., under the editorship of Walter A. Johnson, Dr. A. C. Murchison 
and Chester Barlow. 


‘THe NipioLoGist’ has again changed its place of publication, having 
returned to its former home, Alameda, California, after a short but suc- 
cessful career in New York City. We trust the change will not detract 
from its future usefulness, or diminish the interest of its pages. 


By A recent Act of Congress the name of the Division of Ornithology 
and Mammalogy of the United States Department of Agriculture, under 
the direction of Dr. C. Hart Merriam, as Chief of the Division, has been 
changed to the much more descriptive and appropriate title of ‘ Biological 
Survey,’ the change of name to go into effect July 1, 1896. It is gratify- 
ing to have the character of the important work Dr. Merriam has for 
some years been conducting so successfully recognized officially by the 
Congress. 


RESPECTING Mr. D. G. Elliot’s expedition to Africa, mentioned in a 
former number of ‘ The Auk’ (XIII, p. 196) we quote the following from 
the June issue of ‘The National Geographic Magazine’ (VII, p. 219) ; 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Notes and News. 269 
“Consul Masterson reports that Prof. D. G. Elliot and Messrs. Akeley 
and Dodson arrived at Aden, April 14, where they procured 70 Somalis, 
80 camels, and 20 horses and mules. A week later they crossed to Ber- 
bera, on the Somali coast. An absence of 10 months is planned, during 
which they will cross Somali into Gallaland and pass to the south of the 
Juba River. The main object of the journey is the collection of mammals, 
but no effort will be spared to make the zoOlogical collection varied and 
complete.” 


Tue Epitor of ‘Natural Science,’ in commenting (Nat. Sci., April, 
1896, p. 218) on the discussion on zodlogical nomenclature held by the 
Zoological Society of London at its meeting of March 3 last, observes: 
‘“The discussion turned chiefly upon the following questions :— First, 
may the same generic names ever be used for both animals and plants? 
Secondly, may the same term be used for the generic and trivial name 
of a species, as in the well-known instance of Scomber scomber 2 
Thirdly, are we to adopt as our starting-point the tenth edition of 
Linné’s Systema Nature in preference to the twelfth edition? These 
questions are answered in the affirmative by the German code, and in 
the negative by the original Stricklandian. We do not propose to dis- 
cuss them here: it is natural that there should still be found, especially 
among the older zoologists of this country, many to support the old- 
established British practices; in this, as in all other matters of nomen- 
clature, convenience, not principle, is concerned, and it cannot be gain- 
said that the general usage of zoologists, at all events in other parts of 
the world, becomes daily more and more in harmony with the rules 
adopted by the German Society.” 

He advocates the preparation of a complete and correct list of the names 
of all animal species, fossil as well as recent, and adds, “then it would 
at all events be perfectly possible for the zoologists of the world to 
accept that list, and to say, ‘Whether these names be right or wrong 
according to this or that code of nomenclature, we do not know and we 
do not care; but we bind ourselves to accept them in their entirety, 
and we hereby declare that the date when this list was closed for the 
press shall henceforward be the date adopted as the starting-point for 
our nomenclature.’ 

‘“We have” he continues, “put this proposition in a broad manner; 
there are, of course, numerous minor points to be taken into considera- 
tion. The preparation of a mere list would be an enormous undertak- 
ing: we learn from Dr. David Sharp and the workers on the Zoological 
Feecord that there are 386,000 recent species; no one has reckoned the 
number of extinct species. Some such work as the ‘Index generum et 
specierum animalium,’ now being compiled with a minimum of support 
and under constant difficulties by Mr. Charles Davies Sherborn, must 
form the basis of any such synopsis as that here proposed. The first 
duty of naturalists is to help Mr. Sherborn, who works at the British 


2 7 @) Notes and News. irae 


Museum under a Committee of the British Association. We also have 
to consider what is to be done when our list is completed. First of all, 
it must constantly be kept up to date. It seems to us that some restric- 
tion will have to be laid upon the place and manner of publication of 
new specific names, and we would suggest that, when the time comes, 
no specific name should be recognized unless it be entered by the author 
at some central office, together with a properly published copy of the 
work in which the description appears. The name would then be 
checked, dated, and placed at once in the Index.” 

‘This is very good, except the suggestion that ‘‘some restriction 
will have to be laid upon the place and manner of publication of 
new specific names,” etc., which we consider both unwise and im- 
practicable; for an author publishing in well-known scientific journals 
and the proceedings, etc., of scientific societies should not, and indeed 
could not, be deprived of recognition simply because, through accident 
or carelessness, or even disinclination, he should fail duly to report 
at “some central office,” of record, without overthrowing. the hitherto 
universally recognized rules regarding what constitutes proper publica- 
tion.’ It is enough that he conform to these, although for his own inter- 
est, he might well send copies of his publications to designated offices of 
record. 

In the May number of the same publication (Nat. Sci., May, 1896, p. 
302), the editor has the following judicious comment, in reply to a corre- 
spondent, respecting the ‘ Law of Priority. ‘ Obviously,” he says, ‘‘some 
such law is a necessity, if we are to avoid the multiplication of synonyms 
or to have any attempt at a world-wide set of names. The difficulties in 
the application of the law are of two kinds. First, is it to be retrospective? 
and, if not, where is the line to be drawn, and who is-to draw it? Secondly, 
when authors have published unintelligible or doubtful descriptions, who 
is to be the judge? These matters cannot be left to the individual caprice 
of naturalists, even so distinguished as Mr. Cunningham. It is for this 
reason that we made the proposal published in our last number. We 
say,— let the Law of Priority work! in most cases it will answer. Then 
let the doubtful cases be adjudicated on by specialists appointed ad hoc, 
and let their decision be accepted. Fixity of nomenclature of course is 
not anticipated, for that could be the result only of the stagnation of 
systematic zoology. Nevertheless, the acceptance of our proposal would 
do away with the changeableness that depends on mere whim, or on litera- 
ture rather than on fact. We realize, indeed we have insisted, that the 
full carrying out of our ideas cannot be yet; the index to all published 
names must first be completed.” 


CORRESPONDENTS may be interested to know that the editor of ‘The 
Auk’ will be absent on a European tour till about September 1. Letters 
concerning ‘The Auk’ may be addressed to the Assistant Editor, Mr. 
Frank M. Chapman. 


adow!y)24 ‘SNSNeIOY4II] Og uaoH y 


MOUEVdS NVICVOV 


MOUNVdS SNOSTEN 


Al BLVid 


TUe LOAN SGI eo) 


THE AUK: 


PaO ke Pa Lay, jrOt KINA I Orr 


ORNITHOLOGY. 


Ole. XE. OCTOBER, 1896. NO. 4. 


THE SHARP-TAILED SPARROW (4MMODRAMUS 
CAUDACUTUS) AND ITS GEOGRAPHICAL 
RACES. 


BY JONATHAN DWIGHT, JR. 
Plate IV. 


THE SHARP-TAILED SPARROW is a bird that can boast of con- 
siderable antiquity among North American species and it has 
been figured more than once by early writers, but the two geo- 
graphical races that have been described of late years are now 
figured for the first time on the accompanying plate. The spe- 
cific name dates from 1788, when the bird was called by Gmelin 
Oriolus caudacutus (Gmelin, Syst. Nat. I, pt. i, 1788, 394). 
His description, however, is practically a translation into Latin 
of Pennant’s description of a bird he calls the Sharp-tailed Ori- 
ole (Pennant, Arctic Zodl., II, 1785, 261), which Latham also 
describes (Latham, Synop. Birds, I, pt. 2, 1782, 448, pl. xvii), 
giving a fairly recognizable colored plate and stating that he is 
indebted to Pennant for the drawing of the bird as well as for the 
description. Neither Pennant nor Latham made use of any 
scientific name and therefore Gmelin becomes the authority for 


272 _Dwicut, The Sharf-tailed Sparrows. ae 
a name that still survives. That it is applicable to true caudacutus, 
and not to either of the subspecies, becomes most probable when 
we read Gmelin’s description in conjunction with Latham’s plate, 
both based on the same material, a specimen from New York in 
Mrs. Blackburn’s collection. We read, “ pectus, femora et crissum 
pallide flavescentia, maculis fuscis,’’ a statement which seems to 
indicate the paler buff and distinct streaking of caudacutus as 
compared with ze/son7, and other parts of the description contrib- 
ute to show that pale swdvirgatus was not the bird in hand,— these 
being the three forms to which the old description might apply. 

Wilson, apparently unaware of previous recognition, figured and 
described an undoubted caudacutus, which he named /ringilla 
caudacuta, Sharp-tailed Finch (Wilson, Amer. Orn., IV, 1811, 70, 
pl. xxxiv, f. 3), and Audubon also figured and accurately described 
the species (Audubon, Orn. Biog., II, 1834, 281, pl. cxlix, V, 
1839; 499; Birds Am. III. 3, 1841, 108, pl. clxxliv,). It is 
again poorly figured by DeKay (Zo6dl. N. Y., pt. il, 1844, 164, 
pl. 67, £.154) and from him received the curious name of ‘ Quail- 
head,’ so called from a fancied resemblance to the markings of 
the Bob-white. 

The name caudacutus, once applied, seems to have been adopted 
by all later writers, save Nuttall (who saw fit to call the bird 
Fringilla littoralis for reasons best known to himself), and conse- 
quently the bird has not been burdened with the multiplicity of 
names that so often fall to the lot of early described species. 

In 1875 a smaller, brighter colored race was separated under 
the name ze/sond (Allen, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., xvii, March, 
1875, 293) on the evidence of a number of specimens obtained 
by Mr. Edward W. Nelson and others on the Calumet Marshes 
near Ainsworth, Illinois, in September and October, 1874. This 
has proved to be the inland representative of its strictly littoral 
relatives. 

In 1887 I describeda race from the marshes of New Brunswick, 
Canada (Dwight, Auk, IV, July 1887, 233) to which I applied the 
name subvirgatus. It is a comparatively pale race that seems to 
have closer affinities with ve/sonzd than with its nearer breeding 
neighbor caudacutus, and its recognition raises interesting ques- 
tions of distribution yet to be solved. 


ear Dwicut, The Sharp-tatled Sparrows. 273 


~ 


In 1891 a race called decki was described from California 
(Ridgway, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XIV, 1891, 483) on the strength 
of a single specimen. This proved to be a straggling me/sond so 
that deck became a mere synonym. 

I have briefly sketched the history of the Sharp-tailed Sparrow 
and its races and only touched upon a few essential points, because 
it is beyond the scope of the present paper to treat the subject 
exhaustively. It is rather my purpose to emphasize by collation 
the facts of which we are already possessed and call attention to 
the gaps in our knowledge of these birds, well-known as they may 
seem to be. 


PLUMAGE. 


First of all let us grasp the characters by which the three forms 
may be distinguished. I went over them at some length in my 
early article and to-day, after a lapse of nine years, having examined 
fully five times as much material as was originally before me, I find 
that there is little to modify the conclusions then reached. 

Ammodramus caudacutus is, at all seasons, so distinctly streaked 
below with black, that seldom does a specimen present itself that 
can for a moment be confounded with either of the other races, 
when once this difference is appreciated by specimens in hand. 
Besides, the birds are large, with large bills and are richly colored 
when in unworn plumage, although with all the members of this 
genus the feathers are rapidly and extensively abraded. There 
is considerable individual variation, and, it may be noted, winter 
specimens from South Carolina are as a rule richer in color and 
more heavily streaked than northern birds. 

Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni is a small form, this being most 
readily apparent in the bill and length of wing. In coloration it 
is very similar to caudacufus, though usually richer in browns and 
buffs, especially the ochraceous, buffy yellow wash of the breast 
and flanks. The streaking below is obscure, the lines dusky, 
suffused and narrow as compared with the other forms. In 
spring plumage, and occasionally in the fall, the lines are more 
definite yet characteristically narrow. 

Ammodramus caudacutus subvirgatus is intermediate in size 
between caudacutus and nelsoni. It lacks the distinct streaking of 

35 


274 Dwicnt, The Sharp-tatled Sparrows. ae 
the former and the bright colors of the latter, being a pale grayish 
looking bird, and the edgings of the back feathers are ashy or 
pearl-gray, according to season, instead of pure white, as in we/sonz. 
The accompanying plate is intended to show these differences, and 
on it are figured the type of sudvirgatus (No. 1261 @ adult, Hills- 
borough, New Brunswick, July 19, 1886, J. Dwight, Jr.), and a 
breeding male ze/sonz taken by Dr. Louis B. Bishop in ‘Towner 
Co., North Dakota, July 5, 1895 (L. B. B. No. 2071). It seems 
preferable to thus compare two breeding males rather than figure 
the type of me/sonz which, taken in the autumn, is very possibly a 
migrant. ‘The coloring is most excellent save in the tarsus and 
foot of me/sonz, which should be of a purplish flesh color. The 
bills do not show the differences in size that usually are obvious. 

In order to bring out as definitely as possible the points of 
difference (appreciable at any season in all birds, save those in 
first plumage) between these allied races I will present them in 
parallel columns : 


caudacutus. | nelsoni. subvirgatus. 
Lateral crown stripes. | Deep brown. | Deep, rich brown. Paler, greenish brown. 
Nape and back. Browns prevail. Browns prevail. Grays prevail. 
Outer coer back Ashy or buffy. White and conspicuous. Ashy CR aces Sd and 


Edgings of secondaries F 
ard tertiavies. Rusty. Bright, rusty buff. Paler. 
Breast and sides of} Buffy and ochraceous | Buffy and ochraceous nts pale 
head. tints intense. tints more intense. pac 


Breast. and _ flank} Distinct black andj] Obscure, or suffused | Obscure, or suffused 


streaks. broad. and narrow. and medium width. 
Abdomen. Clear white. Clear white. Dingy white. 
Bill. Large and long. Small and short. Medium. 
Measurements. Largest size. Smallest size. Medium size. 


+ 


Typical birds are easily recognized when birds of like season 
are compared, but difficulties arise in determining certain fall 
migrants or winter birds (of which there are a large number in 
collections) that show intergradation between ze/sonz and sudvir- 
gatus, They are taken on the Atlantic coast at various points. 


ge ome Dwicut, The Sharp-tatled Sparrows. 275 


and we can only suppose they come from unknown breeding 
grounds. When we realize that we/sonz has not been recorded as 
breeding east of about 87° W. long. while swdvirgatus has not 
been found west of about 70° W. long., there is ample ground for 
such supposition. 


DISTRIBUTION. 


Ammodramus caudacutus is restricted in the breeding season to 
the salt marshes of the Atlantic coast from Virginia to Massachu- 
setts. North of the latter named State, in the limited marshes 
of the New Hampshire and Maine coasts, it is probable that 
subvirgatus would be found. In fact a few stragglers have been 
secured that, singularly enough, approach more nearly to me/sond 
than to caudacutus as would naturally be expected. One speci- 
men is from Cambridge, Mass., May 31, another from Revere, 
Mass., June 7, and a third from North Madison, Conn., June 9. 
These birds may have been late migrants but the probability is 
they were breeding. It is obvious therefore that breeding speci- 
mens from the Maine coast are greatly to be desired. A few 
caudacutus linger through the winter as far north as New Jersey 
(Stone, Birds E. Pa. and N. J., 1894, 114), the bulk passing to 
the South Atlantic States and even reaching Tarpon Springs, 
Florida, on the Gulf coast (Scott, Auk, VI, 1889, 322). 

A. c. nelsoni has been sparingly found during the breeding sea- 
son in Northern Illinois, in Wisconsin, in Minnesota, in Kansas, 
in the Dakotas, and in Manitoba. It seems to be a compara- 
tively rare species and spring records are few and far between. 
Large numbers of migrants are found, however, at many points 
on the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts to South Carolina, they 
have been taken at Corpus Christi, Texas (Chapman, Bull. Am. 
Mus. N. H., III, No. 2, 223), and a straggler to the vicinity of 
San Francisco, California, was described as a new race, to which 
reference has already been made. It is probable that the birds 
found at Galveston (Nehrling, Bull. N. O. C., VII, 1882, 12) 
were of this race and not caudacutus as recorded, and the same 
may be true of the record of caudacutus for Ottawa, Ontario (E. E. 
Thompson, Auk, VI, 1889, 204). 


276 Dwicut, The Sharp-lailed Sparrows. ea 


A. ¢. subvirgatus is peculiar to the fresh and salt water marshes 
of the Maritime Provinces of Canada, especially those bordering 
on the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Strangely 
enough it has never been taken in Nova Scotia, although it 
undoubtedly occurs there, for I have observed it within two or 
three miles of the boundary line when rambling over the mead- 
ows of the Petitcodiac River in New Brunswick, not far from the 
type locality. Since my discovery of the birds about ten years 
ago I have found them breeding at Tignish, Prince Edward 
Island, where they were recorded as caudacutus long before szd- 
virgatus was separated (Brewster, Bull. N. O. C., II, 1877, 28), at 
Bathurst, N. B., and at Riviére du Loup, Quebec, on the south 
shore of the St. Lawrence. They have also been found a few 
miles west of the last named place at Kamouraska (Dionne, 
Oiseaux de Quebec, 1889, 82). West of this I have not found 
them, neither at L’Islet nor on the marshes between the city of 
Quebec and Ste. Anne de Beaupré. Consequently there appears 
to be a wide gap between the headquarters of this form and 
those of we/sonz,—over one thousand miles. In migration the 
birds pass as far south as South Carolina (Brewster, Auk, VII, 
1890, 212) mingling with the true caudacutus and nelsont when 
Massachusetts is reached. I have already spoken of three birds 
of this race that apparently were stopping to breed in southern 
New England. One was recorded as we/soni (Henshaw, Auk. III, 
1886, 486) and it might well be compared with some of the pale 
nelsont from the west, but I can absolutely match it with occasional 
specimens from the type locality of swdvzrgatus, which themselves 
approach very close to exceptionally pale we/sonz. ‘This is to be 
expected in any large series of birds, especially those which are 
split into races, but if it should be proved that sudvirgatus regu- 
larly breeds on the same ground as caudacutus, the question of 
considering we/sonz as a separate species with swbvirgatus as its 
eastern race may be seriously discussed. 


HApiIits. 


A few words about the habits of these birds may not be amiss 
although there is little to add to what has already been written 


ce Dwicut, The Sharp-tailed Sparrows. 277 


by numerous observers. The three races are very much alike in 
habits and their chief trait is secretiveness. True caudacutus may 
be found on salt marshes hiding successfully under the sheets of 
sea-weed and drift brought by the tide and left to dry on the 
banks of the ditches, or nimbly racing through the short grass 
and weeds peculiar to such localities. Their wheezy gasp of a 
song may be heard from tussock, stake or block of drift wood 
and on the least alarm, the birds vanish, generally preferring not 
to take wing. During the migration they are more reckless in 
exposing themselves and often cling to tall reeds or perch on 
them when pursued. They usually go in small bands associated 
with the other races and with Ammodramus maritimus, a species 
that is a bosom friend at all seasons. The nests are hidden in 
drift or protected by a tussock of grass, 

Of nelsonz little seems to be known. Mr. E. W. Nelson has a 
littie to tell of their habits and even states that they “ utter a short 
unmusical song” in the autumn (Nelson, Bull. Essex Inst., VII, 
1877, 107). He found them abundant on the Calumet Marshes, 
near Chicago, Illinois, and observed a few in June, probably breed- 
ing. Hitherto no nest has been taken, although a correspondent 
writes that he secured one some years ago in this very locality. 
As he sold the nest and eggs, and has lost all the data, and I have 
been unable to trace the purchaser, I think it best to say no more 
about it and wait for an authentic set to be secured, before 
attempting a description. A brief account is given of this race by 
Goss (Birds of Kansas, 1891, 449) and he speaks of the song as 
“‘a short weak unmusical twittering warble.’’ He observed two 
young in first plumage, of which no specimens have as yet been 
taken, so far as I know. 

Since my description of sazbvirgatus was published nine years ago 
I have had opportunity nearly every summer to study this bird and 
yet there is but little to add to my original observations. The 
birds are scattered rather abundantly in the breeding season over 
immense tracts of meadow land along the Petitcodiac River in New 
Brunswick. I have traced them for twenty miles and notice that 
they most frequent certain damp spots and utilize the narrow 
ditches as highways. These meadows are diked off from the tide, 
and are in no sense salt marshes where the tide creepsat will. A 


278 YounG, Birds of the Coal Regions of Pennsylvania. ae 


luxuriant growth of grass covers them and, as I have before stated, 
the Bobolink and Savanna Sparrow are next door neighbors to 
subvirgatus. Quite different are the salt marshes of Prince Edward 
Island and of the St. Lawrence where the birds have been found. 
There short grass, bogs and few ditches are the rule, though the 
birds seem equally at home. ‘They may fly considerable distances 
when disturbed, but are more likely to dive into the grass and 
defy all efforts to again flush them. Their flight is much steadier 
than that of the Savanna Sparrow and lacks the jerky undulations 
peculiar tothat bird. I have already made two attempts to discribe 
the song (Auk, IV, 1887, 239; Chapman’s Birds E. N. A. 1895, 
297), which varies little from that of caudacutus and much resem- 
bles the choking gasp of Ammodramus maritimus. 

All my efforts to secure a nest have proved unsuccessful in spite 
of having devoted much time to the task. The difficulties of sys- 
tematic search are many and, so far, chance has not favored me. 

In closing I may say that the study of the Sharp-tails is beset 
with many difficulties and necessitates excursions devoted almost 
exclusively to their pursuit. ‘Their exasperating shyness is another 
factor to baffle the bold observer who, regardless of mud and 
mosquitoes, invades their stronghold ; but perseverance must win 
in the end and it is to be hoped only a few more years will be 
required before we are in possession of the facts now wanting to 
complete our knowledge of these marsh-loving birds. 


SUMMER BIRDS OF THE ANTHRACITE COAL 
REGIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA. 


BY R. T. vouNG.! 


THE study of the birds which breed in the anthracite coal belt 
of Schuylkill, Carbon, and Luzerne Counties, Pa., is one of much 
interest to the ornithologist. 

The fauna of this region is Alleghanian with, however, traces 
of the Carolinian fauna. Passing to the south of the Blue Mt., 


‘Read before the Delaware Valley Ornithological Club of Philadelphia. 


ee aed | YounG, Birds of the Coal Regions of Pennsylvania. 279 
from Schuylkill into Berks County, the fauna merges gradually 
into the Carolinian, while in the northern portion of Luzerne 
County the Canadian element is found. 

This region then, may be looked upon as intermediate between 
the Carolinian fauna on the south, and the Canadian on the north, 
which, together with the fact that ornithologists have given far 
more attention to the country farther north among the higher 
Alleghanies than they have to this section, makes it a field well 
worth studying. 

The intermingling of Canadian and Carolinian species is well 
illustrated by the occurrence of the Junco near Penn Haven 
Junction, Carbon County, and the presence of the Yellow-breasted 
Chat at MHarvey’s Lake, as recorded by Mr. Witmer Stone 
(Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., 1891, p. 431). 

The notes from which this paper is written were gathered dur- 
ing June and July, 1895, while I was staying at Pottsville, Schuyl- 
kill County. Although I covered a considerable range of territory 
on various trips, the notes obtained are far from complete, as I 
had very little time to devote to collecting, and consequently my 
visits to many places were extremely brief. 

The bulk of my time was spent in the near vicinity of Pottsville 
and in the neighborhood of Hazleton, Luzerne County, short trips 
being made to Hamburg, Berks County; Rock Glen, Lumber Yard, 
Nescopeck and Harvey’s Lake, Luzerne County ; while some work 
was done at Delano, Schuylkill County; Mt. Carmel, Columbia 
County, and along the Black Creek from Weatherly to Penn 
Haven Junction in Carbon County. 

The appearance of the country throughout the coal-fields is bleak 
and uninviting. The general altitude varies from rooo to 1800 
feet; in no case I believe exceeding 2000 feet. 

At Pottsville the Schuylkill River turns abruptly to the east and 
follows a pleasant farming valley for about twenty miles to Tam- 
aqua. ‘This valley is the southeastern boundary of the coal beds. 
To the northwest of it from near Mauch Chunk on the east to 
some distance west of Pottsville, the country is hilly and broken; 
ridge succeeding ridge with long narrow valleys between, the 
ridges rising usually not more than roo to 200 feet above the 
valleys. The barren, rocky soil is covered with a scanty growth 


280 YounG, Birds of the Coal Regions of Pennsylvania. Rona 


of chestnut and oak in some places, which in others gives way to 
the pitch pine, while scrub oaks and blueberry vines form a thick 
undergrowth. 

In many places dead trees and stumps form convenient nest- 
ing-sites for House Wrens, Crested Flycatchers and Flickers. 
These birds are more numerous in such localities than elsewhere, 
the merry song of the House Wren in particular being heard on 
every side, while the Towhee and Chestnut-sided Warbler are 
also most characteristic species. 

Besides the Schuylkill River the principal streams of the region 
visited are Black and Nescopeck Creeks. The former, which is 
a stream of thirteen miles in length, has its source in the mine 
streams of Hazelton and empties into the Lehigh River at Penn 
Haven Junction, falling in its course 800 or tooo feet. From 
Weatherly the stream flows through a deep, narrow gorge with 
the hills rising almost perpendicularly on either side, some 300 
feet. Some little hemlock growth covers these hills while along the 
stream are found a few wild cherry trees together with some pine, 
aspen, and birch. 

From Tomhicken the Nescopeck Creek flows to the west join- 
ing the east branch of the Susquehanna at Nescopeck. Along the 
hills between which it flows there is also a considerable growth of 
hemlock and a few white pines. There is also some little hem- 
lock near Pottsville. 

Along the edges of the streams in the lower parts of the coun- 
try, as at Pottsville and Weatherly, the rhododendron grows in 
wild profusion in the denser woods, in some places forming almost 
impenetrable thickets, while the laurel seems more abundant on 
the open hillsides and is not restricted so much to the lower 
valleys. 

One of the most characteristic birds of these rhododendron 
thickets near Pottsville is the Hooded Warbler, which may be 
heard singing occasionally quite late in August. The distribution 
of this species seems worthy of note. Occurring as a common 
summer resident in the swamps of southern New Jersey, it is 
not found, so far as I know, anywhere in the vicinity of Philadel- 
phia, except as a rare migrant, and then appears rather com- 
monly along the Blue Ridge and near Pottsville. 


Rees | Younec, Birds of the Coal Regions of Pennsylvania. 281 


List OF SPECIES OBSERVED. 


My time was too short to enable me to give a complete list of 
birds at each locality I visited, so I have endeavored merely to 
give as comprehensive a list as possible of the species observed 
within the limits of the coal-fields. 


1. Ardea virescens. GREEN HERON.—This was the only Heron noted, 
one being seen at Hamburg and one family at Pottsville. 

2. Actitis macularia. Sporrep SANpDPIPER.— While fairly common 
along the Schuylkill at Hamburg and the Susquehanna at Nescopeck, I 
did not observe this bird anywhere through the coal country during the 
breeding season, although I thought I distinguished its note at Lumber 
Yard on one or two occasions. 

Isaw Spotted Sandpipers on Tumbling Run dam on or about August 
4, a point I had not visited about Pottsville during the breeding season. 

3. A®gialitis vocifera. KiLLDEER PLover.— The Killdeer does not 
seem to extend north of the Blue Ridge; a few at Hamburg being the 
only ones I noted. 

4. Bonasa umbellus. Rurrep GRousE.— Occurs at Nescopeck, just 
north of the coal region but I did not find it anywhere to the south. 

5. Colinus virginianus. Bos-wHire.—A Quail was heard whistling 
once or twice at Lumber Yard. 

6. Zenaidura macroura. Dovre.— Doves, while pretty generally dis- 
tributed, seemed rather scarce through the mountains. 

7. Falco sparverius. SPARROW HAwk.— One or two noticed for sev- 
eral days along Black Creek above Penn Haven Junction and I have no 
doubt they breed there. 

Of the other rapacious birds which may breed throughout this region, 
I know but little. I did not see any Owls and the three or four large 
Hawks which I noticed I failed to identify positively. 

8 and g. Coccyzus americanus et erythrophthalmus.— Both species of 
Cuckoo were observed but as to their comparative abundance I cannot 
say. ‘They seemed rather more common at Pottsville than elsewhere. 

10. Ceryle alcyon. KINGFISHER.— One was seen at Nescopeck and 
about the end of August I saw one several times at Tumbling Run, bu. 
cannot say as to whether it bred near there or not. 

11. Dryobates villosus. Hairy WoopPpECKER.— One was seen at 
Lumber Yard and also at Rock Glen. 

12. Dryobates pubescens. Downy WooppECKER.— Seen at Rock 
Glen. 

13. Colaptes auratus. FLICKER.— Flickers seemed rather scarce 
throughout the region, a few being recorded near Hazleton and Penn 
Haven Junction. 


282 Youn, Birds of the Coal Regions of Pennsylvania. as 


14. Antrostomus vociferus. Wurp-POOR-wILL.—I recorded but one 
Whip-poor-will,— at Tumbling Run near Pottsville. 

15. Chordeiles virginianus. NIGHTHAWK.— Quite common and pretty 
generally distributed. 

16. Chetura pelagica. CHIMNEY SwiFtT.— Occurs commonly through- 
out the region, seeming rather more abundant in the towns than on the 
mountains. 

17. Trochilus colubris. Hummincpirp.— A nest with two full-fledged 
young was found at Black Creek Junction, July 24. 

Passing by the spot a few days previous my attention was attracted by 
the vicious attack of a Hummer on the head of a defenseless Catbird. This 
led to the discovery of the nest, situated on the branch of a pine tree 
about twelve feet from the ground. The only other points at which I 
observed this species were Hamburg and Harvey’s Lake. 

18. Tyrannus tyrannus. KINGpirp.— Kingbirds were quite common 
throughout the region. I found a nest with three eggs at Pottsville, on 
June 30. 

19. Myiarchus crinitus. Crestep FLrycatcuer.— More or less local 
in distribution, being more common around Delano and Hazleton where 
dead trees are plentiful. At Pottsville I did not see them, though I noted 
several at Hamburg. 

20. Sayornis pheebe. PHasr.—I have one record of the Phcebe from 
near Penn Haven Junction, where I saw one or two and during August. 
I also saw several near Audenried, in the western point of Carbon County. 

21. Contopus borealis. OLive-sipep FLYCATCHER.— My most inter- 
esting find of the summer was a set of two eggs of the Olive-sided 
Flycatcher at Lumber Yard, five miles east of Hazleton, on July 4; con- 
stituting, so far as I can ascertain, the first positive record of the breed- 
ing of this species in the State. 

I first noticed this species at Delano on June 18, when I heard its note 
but failed to identify it. After I had taken the nest and eggs and shot 
the female, on July 6, the male still stayed in the same locality for sev- 
eral days, uttering its loud note and seeming particularly troubled when 
I came near. The last I saw of it was at Delano, on July 27. When I 
was securing the nest both birds were particularly bold, especially the 
female, coming near me and protesting vociferously against my intru- 
sion. 

22. Contopus virens. Woop PEWwEE.— Generally distributed but not 
common in the mountains. 

Empidonax minimus. LrAsT FLYCATCHER.— One heard at Hazle- 
ton and one at Mt. Carmel. At Hamburg I saw two or three pairs, and 
on June 4 took a nest from an apple tree about twenty feet from the 


VET 


5 


mel 


w * 


ground. 

24. Cyanocitta cristata. BLure JAy.— Two or three seen near Penn 
Haven Junction, and one pair at Weatherly, and two or three at Rock 
Glen. During August I found them near Audenried. 


| YouneG, Birds of the Coal Regions of Pennsylvania. 283 


25. Corvus americanus. Crow.—Fairly common throughout the 
region. As their breeding season was pretty well over when I was there, 
they seemed rather unsettled in their movements. 

26. Molothrus ater. Cowsirp.— Several seen at Hamburg, June 16, 
and a flock of four or five at Pottsville, July 11. North of this I did not 

. find them, very likely because the country was not to their taste. 

27. Sturnella magna. MErADOWLARK.— Not found north of Schuyl- 
kill Haven, except at Nescopeck, where I saw one. 

28. Icterus galbula. BALTIMORE ORIOLE.— One seen at Lumber Yard 
early in June, but as it was seen only once I do not consider it a breeder 
there. This species was common at both Hamburg and Nescopeck. 

29. Quiscalus quiscula. PURPLE GRACKLE.— Quite scarce all through 
the mountains, being noted at Hazleton, Pottsville and Nescopeck, where, 
however, but a few were seen. 

30. Carpodacus purpureus. PuRPLE FINcH.— Quite generally distrib- 
uted and fairly common on the mountains. 

31. Spinus tristis. GoLprincH.— While common at Pottsville and also 
noted at Rock Glen and Nescopeck, this species was not seen elsewhere in 
the coal regions. 

2. Poocetes gramineus. VESPER SPARROW.— Several seen at Potts- 
ville and Hamburg but none farther north. 

33. Ammodramus sandwichensis savanna. SAVANNA SPARROW.— 
Occurs commonly at Hamburg anda few at Pottsville where I found a 
nest with four half-fledged young and one unfertile egg on July 21. 

34. Spizella socialis. CHIPPING SPARROW.— Common throughout the 
region. 

35. Spizella pusilla. Firtp SpARRow.— Common throughout the 
region. 

36. Junco hyemailis. JuNco.—A pair were observed at Black Creek 
Junction about the middle of July. 

37- Melospiza fasciata SONG SPARROwW.— Common everywhere. 

38. Pipilo erythrophthalmus. TowHErE.—Common throughout the 
mountains, but I did not observe it at Pottsville during June or July. I 
saw them, however, in August in a spot not before visited, so they 
probably bred there. 

39 Passerinacyanea. INDIGO BUNTING.— One of the commonest birds 
of this region. A nest with three fresh eggs, found July 14, at Pottsville 
seems a rather late record. 

40. Piranga erythromelas. ScARLET TANAGER.— Several seen at 
Weatherly and near Penn Haven Junction, also one at Rock Glen. 

41. Progne subis. PurpLE MArrin.—I observed one pair several 
times in Hazleton. 

42. Chelidon erythrogaster. BARN SwALLow.— Pretty generally dis- 
tributed, though not very common in the mountains, this being probably 
due to the few good breeding sites available. 

43. Clivicola riparia. BANK SwALLow?—On one occasion I saw three 


36 


284 Younc, Birds of the Coal Regions of Pennsylvania. ae 


. 


or four Bank, or Rough-winged Swallows on the Black Creek near Penn 
Haven Junction. I cannot say which species they were, however, I also 
saw them at Nescopeck, but failed to procure specimens there either. 

44. Ampelis cedrorum. CEDARBIRD.— Very common throughout the 
region. I saw a flock of fifty or sixty of this species at Delano, on June 1, 
and observed them flocking again early in August. 

45. Vireo olivaceus. RED-EYED ViREO.— Generally common. 

46. Vireo gilvus. WARBLING VIREO.— Several seen at Nescopeck, but 
at no other point. 

47. Mniotilta varia. BLAcK AND WHITE WARBLER.— Observed at 
nearly every place visited. I found this species with large young at 
Harvey’s Lake, on June 9, while at Pottsville, on July 7, I found a nest 
of four young just ready to fly. 

48. Helmitherus vermivorus. WoRM-EATING WARBLER.— Noticed at 
Pottsville on August 11, in company with a flock of Black and White 
Warblers and Chickadees. 

49. Compsothlypis americana. PARULA WARBLER.— A few at Har- 
vey’s Lake, on June 9. A nest which I found was suspended something 
over, twenty feet from the ground, very like a Vireo’s nest, from a crotch 
in a branch. The moss must have been gathered by the birds as there 
seemed to be but little of it on the tree where the nest was. It contained 
one egg. 

50. Dendroica zestiva. YELLOW WARBLER.— Several were seen in 
Pottsville and one or two in Hazleton. I heard them singing steadily till 
about the end of July, when they ceased and were no more in evidence. 

51. Dendroica maculosa. MAGNOLIA WARBLER.—I found one family 
at Pottsville. 

52. Dendroica pensylvanica. CHESTNUT-SIDED WARBLER.— Much 
commoner on the top of the mountains than lower down. At Delano I 
found it breeding in the scrub oaks, and at Harvey's Lake I found a nest 
in the laurel. 

53. Dendroica virens. BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER.— Pretty 
generally distributed throughout the coal belt. I found it breeding at 
Pottsville and saw one or two families near Penn Haven Junction. I also 
saw it at Mt. Carmel and near Audenried, and found three or four at 
Rock Glen. 

A nest, which I found at Pottsville on June 23, was situated on the limb 
of a chestnut tree about thirty feet up and was covered by grape vines. 

54. Seiurus aurocapillus. OveN-Birp.— Pretty common throughout 
the region. 

55. Seiurus motacilla. LARGE-BILLED WATER-THRUSH.—On June 16, 
at Hamburg, I found a nest of this species containing four young but a 
few days old. It was situated in a bank by a stream of running water. 

This record is of some interest as bearing out the experience of others 
in finding the Water-Thrush breeding well up along our principal rivers 
at Delaware Water Gap and one or two other points. 


ee | Jupp, Food of the English Sparrow and Crow. 285 


56. Geothlypis trichas. MaryLAND YELLOW-THROAT.— A common 
resident throughout, the region being perhaps more common on the 
mountains than lower down. 

57. Icteria virens. YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT.— Found at Hazle Creek 
Junction, Hazleton, Morea and Mt. Carmel. 

58. Sylvania mitrata. Hoopep WarBLER.— Rather common at both 
Hamburg and Pottsville, but not extending north of the latter place. 

59. Sylvania canadensis. CANADIAN WARBLER.—A pair seen at 
Delano, on June 29, and another at Hazle Creek Junction, June 19. Both 
pairs were seen in low damp ground and were feeding their young. 

60. Setophaga ruticilla. RerpsTART.— One family was seen at Potts- 
ville and several individuals at Harvey’s Lake. 

61. Galeoscoptes carolinensis. CATBIRD.— Common throughout the 
region. 

62. Harporhynchus rufus. BrowN THRASHER.— Generally disturb- 
uted, but not common. 

63. Troglodytes aédon. Hous—E WRrREN.— Generally common, especially 
around Delano and Hazleton in the dead trees. I did not see them about 
Penn Haven Junction. 

64. Sitta carolinensis. WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH.— Saw three or 
tour at Mt. Carmel and one at Rock Glen. 

65. Parus atricapillus. BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE.— A few seen at 
Pottsville, Hazleton and Penn Haven Junction. 

66. Turdus mustelinus. Woop THrRusH.— While pretty generally dis- 
tributed, the Wood Thrush was rather more common at Pottsville and 
Rock Glen than further up the mountains. 

67. Turdus aonalaschke pallasii. Hrermir THrusH.— A pair observed 
near Pottsville and one also heard at Rock Glen, but I did not secure any 
specimens. 

68. Merula migratoria. Rospin.— Rather scarce all through the coal- 
fields. 

69. Sialia sialis. BLUEBIRD.— On July 22 I heard three or four Blue- 
birds near Hazleton. 


FEEDING HABITS OF THE ENGLISH SPARROW AND 
CROW. 


BY SYLVESTER D. JUDD. 


In ‘ The English Sparrow in America’ (Bull. U. S. Department 
of Agriculture) Prof. W. B. Barrows has shown what a pest the 
Sparrow is. I wish to comment upon several of the hundreds of 


286 Jupp, Food of the English Sparrow and Crow. oe 
interesting facts that Prof. Barrows has presented in such admira- 
ble form. First I shall speak about the destruction of dandelion 
seeds. In May, 1894, at Cambridge, Mass., and during the last 
two springs here in Washington, Sparrows have been observed 
eating dandelion seeds. 

After the yellow petal-like corollas have disappeared, the flower 
presents an elongated, egg-shaped green body with a downy tuft 
atthe upper end. It is in this stage of the flower cycle, that the 
dandelion suffers from the attacks of the English Sparrow. The 
bird removes several of the scales of the inner involucre by a 
clean cut close to the receptacle, thus exposing the plumed seeds, 
or, more properly speaking, achenes. He seizes a mouthful of 
them between the plume and seeds, and then by a cut of the bill 
the plumes are lopped off, while the seeds are swallowed. In 
many cases, especially when hunger presses, the trouble of remov- 
ing plumes is not taken. The Sparrow generally drops a score of 
seeds in tearing open a flower, and usually leaves the few seeds 
that cling to the periphery of the receptacle. The mutilation 
caused by the Sparrow’s beak can be detected until the flower 
stalk dries and falls. 

On the 29th of last April, I picked every dandelion flower 
stalk from a circle six feet in diameter on the grounds of the 
U. S. Department of Agriculture, where the lawn had a week pre- 
vious been yellow with the flowers. One hundred and thirty-five 
of the stalks showed the unmistakable mark of the Sparrow’s bill. 
More than half of the dandelions that bloomed in April on the 
lawns of the U. S. Department of Agriculture were damaged by 
Sparrows. 

Later in the séason, Sparrows feast upon the seeds of crab grass 
(Panicum sanguinale), which grows in profusion about Washington. 
The seeds of another crab grass (#/euwsine), not included in Prof. 
Barrow’s list, were taken from a stomach in June, 1895. In early 
spring the Sparrow often may be seen eating the first tender 
blades of grass. I have also seen it eating the leaves of Chel- 
donium majus. In Cambridge and Washington the Sparrows often 
subsist to quite an extent upon the seeds of chickweed (Sée//aria 
and Cerastium). 

Along with hundreds of other observers I have seen Sparrows 


aaa Jupp, Food of the English Sparrow and Crow. 287 


causing heavy losses in oat and wheat fields, pulling elm and 
peach blossoms to pieces, and flocking into the horticulturists’ 
precincts to feast upon cherries, grapes, raspberries, and other 
fruits. Like most of our common birds the Sparrow derives a 
_ part of its sustenance from the animal world. Prof. Barrows has 
shown that insects of several orders, representing dozens of fami- 
lies, and hundreds of species, have been eaten by the Sparrow. 
Insects that fly in a zigzag course are more liable to escape birds 
than those that fly straight away. During August, 1895, in Wash- 
ington, I have seen on several occasions a Sparrow pursue, capture, 
and eat piecemeal a cicada, which is a swift insect that takes 
a beeline course. On the other hand it is only after many unsuc- 
cessful attempts that a moth or flying grasshopper is caught in 
its hither and thither course. Common flies and wasps dodge an 
enemy. ‘The same is true of the dragonfly (Zzbel/ula). I remem- 
ber seeing a Sparrow dart from above and then from below, and 
then flutter up at one of these insects on the‘ College yard’ in 
Cambridge. Finally, after five minutes of fruitless attempts, the 
Sparrow, more by chance than skill, struck the dodging insect 
which fell disabled to the ground. 

The Washington Sparrow finds it more profitable to breakfast 
on the insects that have been killed or disabled by electric lights. 
In the early morning during April and May he comes to the lamps 
to eat May beetles, and small predaceous ground beetles (Cara- 
bida). The entomologist, who visits the lamps after the Sparrows, 
finds only the hard wing covers (elytra) of the beetle he had 
hoped to collect. In spite of the insectivorous habits the Sparrow 
is branded a nuisance, because he pillages crops, disfigures build- 
ings, and disturbs the peace by his never flagging, monotonous 
chirp. 

Prof. Barrows, beside exposing the true character of the English 
Sparrow, has also dealt with the Crow in an economic manner. 
On page 22 of Bull. 6, U. S. Department of Agriculture, he 
describes a ‘roost’ at Arlington, Va., where every winter night 
over 100,000 Crows sleep. About their lodgings were found pel- 
lets which had been disgorged. ‘These pellets consisted of seeds 
held together by sand. The most common of these seeds were,— 
dogwood, sour-gum, smilax, red-cedar, poison ivy, poison sumach, 


288 Jupp, Food of the English Sparrow and Crow. aa 
and harmless sumach. The Crow takes a large proportion of 
corn during the winter, and may often be seen in large flocks 
visiting corn stacks. The quantity of insects eaten during the 
winter is small, for the Crow during the cold weather subsists 
principally upon vegetable matter. 

Being anxious to learn how Crows glean a living when the ground 
is snow-covered, I went to Arlington, Va., on the 15th of last 
December. A flock of fifteen Crows was on the ground at the 
edge of the wood on the south side of a hill, where the snow had 
melted enough to leave bare spots aslarge as saucers. The dusky 
fellows were busily overturning leaves, and picking up something. 
They arose as Icame quite near, and the several that cawed were 
Common Crows (Corvus americanus). The ground where the 
birds had been looked as though it had been raked. Beside 
turning over the leaves, the Crows had picked into the earth. 
Upon turning over some leaves that had not been disturbed, I 
found berries of dogwood and sour-gum, and living insects. The 
berries at this time of year do not hang on the trees. Although 
no insects were found where the Crows had searched, under sev- 
eral leaves that had not been disturbed I found several spiders 
(Drossus), leaf-hoppers (Proconia), ants (Camponotus malleus), a 
ladybird (Coccinella 9-punctata), a harlequin cabbage bug (Murgantia 
histronica), and several smaller bugs. If the Crow were less wary 
it would be much easier to learn how it obtains insect food in 
winter. This same day I saw dozens of Crows in red cedar trees 
feeding upon the berries. 

On March 15 I had another opportunity of seeing how Crows 
find food when the ground is covered with snow. On the south- 
ern side of the Washington ‘ Zoo,’ which is a picturesque depression 
among rugged hills, was a field with several snow capped manure 
heaps which the crows had been making tracks about. In many 
places the snow, which was two inches deep, had been brushed 
away, and a shallow excavation dug in the frozen manure. Here 
apparently the only food was a large number of plump oat seeds 
which were filled with a soft white mass. I hope next winter to 
watch Crows at meal times when the ground is covered with a foot 


or more of snow. 
There is much to be done in the study of the feeding habits 


eee BaiLy, Birds of Northern Elk County, Pa. 289 


of our commonest birds. Every one knows in general what birds 
eat during the winter, but few can tell you whether the Junco 
takes any insects on the warmer days of January or not, or just 
what the Chickadee is eating when he hangs head downward from 
a lichen-grayed branch. We need more observers who go out: 
with the spirit of the writer of ‘The Brown Thrush in Eastern 
Massachusetts.’ 


SUMMER BIRDS OF NORTHERN ELK COUNTY, PA. 
BY WILLIAM L. BAILY. 


PUBLISHED lists of the summer birds of Elk, McKean, and Potter 
Counties, Pa., are so limited!, it is hoped that the following report 
may be of some aid for comparison in our recent efforts to estab- 
lish more accurately the breeding ranges of the birds of Pennsyl- 
vania, which must be based principally upon a series of careful 
lists and notes taken during the breeding season in localities 
scattered all over the State. 

Few of us seem to have had the opportunity of visiting, for any 
length of time, these counties, and although two weeks was the 
limit of my stay, from the 18th of June to the 2d of July, 1894, I 
was enabled, on account of fair weather, to give almost my entire 
time to field work, so that my list ought to be fairly representative. 
John Reese was with me on most of my trips and proved a most 
useful guide and companion. 

The table-land which spreads over a large portion of north- 
western Pennsylvania, and especially that of McKean, Elk, and 
Potter Counties, is on an average almost as high as the crests of 
the mountains running diagonally across the State, the great 
topographical difference being that the table-land, which is sepa- 
rated from the mountains principally by the west branch of the 


1«Tist of Birds observed near Bradford [McKean Co., Pa.]” by James A. 
Teulon, Quarterly Journal Boston ZoOdlogical Soc., 1883, p. 47. 


37 


290 Baity, Birds of Northern Elk County, Pa. an 


Susquehanna, is generally flat, depressed by streams winding 
through it, not as a rule over 600 feet deep, while in the Appala- 
chian system the valleys are rolling and the mountains rise in peaks 
and ridges high above them. Hence we find the fields, pastures, 
and orchards occupying the lowlands in the mountainous district, 
while in the northwestern part of the State they are on the high 
ground almost on a level with the ridges of the Appalachian 
Mountains. Such a marked difference in the contour of the two 
localities in question is sufficient for considerable faunal variation. 

As to temperature, the severe weather continues so late in the 
spring that frost occurs sometimes well into May, and in 1894, on 
the first of June, the apple crop was so nipped that it was rendered 
practically useless. This condition is unfavorable to the advance- 
ment of many of the southern birds, which, however, venture far 
up into the mountains. 

On the northern border of Elk County, about 2,200 feet above 
sea level, one of the highest points of the table-lands west of the 
Alleghanies, yet among fields, orchards, and pasture-land, is the 
enviable home of Captain A. G. Clay, from early May to the end 
of November, and in his hunting years, not many snows ago, his 
fires were kept burning far into the winter months as well. In this 
very vicinity the Wild Pigeon (/ctopistes migratorius) bred for the 
last time in any great numbers, and only a scattered few, to the 
Captain’s knowledge, have been observed during the past thirteen 
years. 

Twenty years ago the hunting in Elk County was worth speaking 
of, but railroads for the purpose of developing the oil, coal, and 
lumber are multiplying every year and the great hemlocks are fast 
disappearing, though not materially on the Captain’s land of several 
square miles. 

Within one hundred yards of his house is a pond not 200 feet 
long, the only one in the locality, and during migrations nearly 
every eastern species of Duck that flies overland, besides a variety 
of Gulls, Herons, Rail and Snipe, drop to rest and feed on this 
pond. The Captain gave me a list of 74, mainly game birds, 
most of which he has taken on or near this pond. 

‘Upland,’ the name of Captain Clay’s property, adjoins the 
McKean County line within half a mile of his house, and only a 


as Batty, Birds of Northern Elk County, Pa. 291 


few hundred feet beyond is Williamsville, about 550 feet lower in 
altitude and at the junction of Five and Seven Mile Runs, tribu- 
taries of the east branch of the Clarion River. I covered most 
of the high ground for a mile or two around the house, and made 
numerous trips on Five and Seven Mile Runs, on the east branch 
of the Clarion into McKean County, up Straight Creek four miles 
to the southeast, and on Rocky Run, a feeder of the west branch 
of the Clarion, five miles to the southwest, not far from Wilcox. 
At least two-thirds of the high ground was cleared and largely 
cultivated, just the place for Larks, Savanna, and Grass Finches. 
The Catbird, Indigo Bunting, Chewink, Chestnut-sided Warbler, 
and their friends occupy the brush and raspberry patches on the 
edge of the woods; and the Kingbirds, Goldfinches, and Cedarbirds 
abound in the apple orchards, which are adjuncts of every farm. 

Most of the streams rising on high ground descend gradually 
into sheltered wooded ravines, Straight Creek being especially 
darkened by tall hemlocks, beech and maples, making it one of 
the coldest and most beautiful streams in the neighborhood. Here 
the Winter Wren, Solitary Vireo, Blackburnian and Canada War- 
blers, Water Thrush, Hermit Thrush and other typical Canadian 
species were most numerous. 

But one swamp was met with, at about 2,000 feet; there the 
Red-wings, Woodcocks, and Song Sparrows revelled, and where 
it extended into the woods, Warblers and Woodpeckers were 
common. Here also were found the Saw-whet Owls. ‘There 
seems to have been quite a migration between July 25 and 27, a 
Field Plover, Summer Yellow-legs, anda Green Heron being taken 
by John Reese between these dates. A Spotted Sandpiper and a 
few Woodcocks were the only breeding water birds that came under 
our notice. 

With regard to the trees, the hemlocks in their primzeval state 
are still plentiful, and, when they are in great numbers, harbor 
many a cool spot, almost entirely excluding the sun, and must 
afford considerable encouragement to the Canadian element. 
Sugar maples, black and white birch are very common; there are 
only a few white pines here and there, but beeches are abundant, 
serving in days gone by as the principal food of the Wild Pigeon, 
the young being fed almost entirely on the curd of the beech-nut. 


292 BaiLy, Birds of Northern Elk County, Pa. ae 


The avifauna of Elk and McKean Counties seems to have a 
decided touch of the Canadian element, judging not simply from 
the occurrence of certain northern types, but on account of the 
number of the birds of each species, the first eight of the following 
list being abundant; /unco hyemalis, Dendroica cerulescens, Dend- 
rowa maculosa, Dendroica blackburnie, Seiurus noveboracensis, 
Troglodytes hiemalis, Turdus aonalasthke pallasit, Sylvania cana- 
densis, Vireo solitarius, Certhia familiaris americana. 

All but the first and last of the following ten were, I think, 
generally more common than they are in the Alleghanies : Vycta/e 
acadica, Sphyrapicus varius, Empidonax minimus, Carpodacus 
purpureus, Ammodramus sandwichensis savanna, Habia ludoviciana, 
Dendroica pensylvanica, Dendroica virens, Parus atricapillus, Turdus 
SJuscescens. 

Another feature in support of my remark, was the apparent 
absence of all of the typical Carolinian, and more southern 
species, many of which are occasional or common in the Alle- 
ghanies, such as Dove, Quail, Acadian Flycatcher, Orchard and 
Baltimore Orioles, Cardinal, Louisiana Water-Thrush, Chat, Black- 
capped Titmouse, Brown Thrasher, Carolina Wren and others. 

I should not omit to note as an additional Canadian element 
the common occurrence of Limenitis arthemis, a butterfly more 
common in the Adirondacks of New York. 

As the title of this paper indicates, I shall only include in the 
appended list the birds which came under my personal observation 
unless especially noted otherwise. Following is the complete 
list : 


(One Ardea virescens, the Green Heron, was taken July 25 by John 
Reese and may have been migrating. There were very few suitable 
places for Herons.) 

1. Philohela minor. Woopcock.— Several in an open grass swamp 
close to the road; were said to have been plentiful several years ago. 

2. Actitis macularia. SporrepD SANDPIPER.— One on July 8 taken by 
John Reese on Seven Mile Run; identified. 

3. Bonasa umbellus. RurFFED GRousE.— One cock, and June 30, a 
hen with her brood were seen. Grouse are getting fewer every year. 

(Wild Turkeys, I was informed, had not been seen since 1891, when 
one or two were taken in the fall. Quail have been taken but are very 
rare. The Wild Pigeon has not been seen since 1882, except one or two 


et Batty, Birds of Northern Elk County, Pa. 293 


at a time. Elk, McKean, Forrest, and Potter Counties are noted for 
their beech trees and no doubt there was no place in Pennsylvania where 
the Wild Pigeon bred in greater numbers.) 

4. Accipiter cooperi. Cooprer’s HAwxk.— Only one was seen. 

5. Buteo borealis. RED-TAILED HAwKk.— Several; one nest in a large 
black birch about 70 feet from the ground. 

6. Falco sparverius. SpARROW HAwxk.— One seen June 19. 

7. Syrnium nebulosum. BARRED OwL.— One taken July g by John 
Reese; specimen identified. 

8. Nyctala acadica. SAW-wHET OwL.— There are very few breeding 
records in Pennsylvania of this bird. Two were taken, both in the young 
‘Kirtland’ plumage, one June 28, roosting about 18 inches above the 
ground in a small hemlock in a rather open swamp. The other was 
taken a week or so later in the same locality. 

g. Bubo virginianus. GREAT HoRNED OwL.— Five, in a secluded 
spot on Straight Creek, young and old together. 

10. Coccyzus erythrophthalmus. BLACK-BILLED CucKoo.— One only 
seen, close to the road on the edge of the hemlocks. 

11. Ceryle alcyon. KINGFISHER.— One on the Clarion, and several 
on Straight Creek. 

12. Dryobates villosus. Hairy WoopPECKER.— Common; especially 
in the tall open wood where the hemlocks had been cut off. There is 
plenty of food and shelter for the Woodpeckers in the abundance of 
dead stumps, both standing and lying on the ground. 

13. Dryobates pubescens. DowNy WoopPprEcKER.— Common. 

14. Sphyrapicus varius. YELLOW-BELLIED SAPSUCKER.— Fairly com- 
mon; several were taken, generally in open woods among the fallen logs, 
and close to the streams. 

15. Melanerpes erythrocephalus. RED-HEADED WOODPECKER.— Sey- 
eral seen in same woods with the Yellow-bellied on the Clarion, and in 
one or two other places. 

16. Colaptes auratus. FLICKER.— Common. 

17. Chetura pelagica. CHIMNEY SwirT.— Common; said to build 
in barns on rafters, and roost in trees in this locality during migration. 

18. Trochilus colubris. RuBy-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD.— Common 
around houses and in the deep woods (reported to have been seen, fifty at 
a time, when the orchards are in bloom). 

19. Tyrannus tyrannus. KiINGBIRD.— Common as I ever saw it any- 
where, in the orchards and along the roads. : 

20. Sayornis pheebe. PuHa@sBE.—Common; especially around the 
house. 

21. Contopus virens. Woop PEWEE.— Common in open woods 
stripped of the hemlocks. 

22. Empidonax minimus. LEAstT FLYCATCHER.— Very common 
among birch, maple, and beech. Three nests were found, varying con- 
siderably in their construction and position, and a female was so tame 


294 Batty, Birds of Northern Elk County, Pa. an 


that I stood talking within eighteen inches of the bird on the nest for fully 
five minutes. 

23. Otocoris alpestris praticola—— PRAIRIE HORNED LARK.—A very 
common, almost abundant breeder. Seen along roads and fences and 
ploughed fields. 

24. Cyanocitta cristata. BLuE JAy.— Common; principally on the 
edges of the woods or in open timber. 

25. Corvus americanus. Crow.— Only a few pairs were seen, partly, 
perhaps, on account of the scarcity of grain. 

(Dolichonyx oryzivorus, the Bobolink, was seen by John Reese July 17, 
and one or two were taken a few days later, probably migrating.) 

26. Agelaius pheeniceus. RED-wINGED BLACKBIRD.— Common; sev- 
eral were,found near the pond breeding. 

27. Sturnella magna. MrapoOwLArRK.— Noticeably less numerous than 
in the east. 

28. Quiscalus quiscula eneus. BRONzED GRACKLE.— Common, but 
not in large numbers ; several nests in tall pines in front of Captain’s 
house; flocking about June 30. 

29. Carpodacus purpureus. PuRPLE Frncu.— Several males, singing 
in low maples, especially on edge of woods, and one, showing anxious 
discontent, caused me to waste considerable time vainly looking for his 
nest. 

30. Spinus tristis. GoLpFrincH.— Common; several nests found, in all 
cases close to civilization. 

31. Poocetes gramineus. GRrAss Frncu.— Abundant; found at least 
six nests in open, dry fields. 

32. Ammodramus sandwichensis savanna. SAVANNA SPARROW.— 
Abundant in the fields near barns. I hunted many times in vain for their 
nests. 

33. Ammodramus savannarum passerinus. GRASSHOPPER SPARROW. 
— Observed in two different fields, about two miles apart, near farm 
houses. 

34. Spizella socialis. CuHippInc SPARROw.— Abundant; a number of 
nests found; some in orchard trees and three were found in one thorn tree 
with two Kingbirds’ nests. 

35. Spizella pusilla. FreLp SparRow.— Common; several nests, 
generally about three feet from ground, in raspberry bushes. 

36. Junco hyemalis. SNowsirp.— Very common in the open woods, 
but more generally on the edge of the woods. A number of nests were 
found, all on low road-side banks, three to five feet high, in the moss or 
beside a root. 

37. Melospiza fasciata. SoNG SPARROW.— Abundant; five or six nests, 
both on ground and in bushes. 

38. Pipilo erythrophthalmus. CHEWINK.—Common only in a few 
spots where several pairs seemed to associate in large open clearings 
covered with a tangle of underbrush and brambles. 


Nive Batty, Birds of Northern Elk County, Pa. 295 

39. Habia ludoviciana. ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK.— Rather com- 
mon; several pairs seen in tree-cleared places where there were plenty of 
tangles'and a small maple now and then to perch upon. 

40. Passerina cyanea. INDIGO BuNTING.— Very few were noted, not 
more than three during the whole two weeks. 

41. Piranga erythromelas. ScARLET TANAGER.— Several single birds 
and one pair in tall maple and beech grove. Not seen among the 
hemlocks. 


42. Chelidon erythrogastra. BARN SwaLLow.—The only Swallow 
seen; common around houses, six nests under outside eaves of the 
Captain’s house, scattered, however, and not in colonies as the Eave 
Swallows build. A singular fact came to note, viz.: A female was found 
dead on her nest resting in a most natural position and was probably 
frozen during the frost on the 1st of June. The skin was dry and hard. 

(One Petrochelidon luntfrons, Cliff Swallow, was taken by John Reese 
August 3; specimen identified; possibly a migrant. Breeds in Columbia 
County. — R. Kester.) 

43. Ampelis cedrorum. CEDAR Brirp.— Abundant; several nests all 
built unusually low; one, one and one-half inches in diameter, built of 
beard moss (Usnea), was five feet high in a birch. 

44. Vireo olivaceus. REb-EYED VirEo.— Abundant; singing in the 
woods everywhere except in the primeval hemlock, where the woods are 
very quiet. 

45. Vireo solitarius. SoLiTARy ViREo.— One pair with young just out 
of nest, on the edge of the deep hemlock at the mouth of Straight Creek. 
Found abundant by Dr. Dwight on North Mountain (Auk, IX, 1892, p. 
138), and I should have expected it to be more common here- 

46. Mniotilta varia. BLAcK AND WHITE WARBLER.— Uncommon; 
only two or three were seen in second growth of hemlock, maple, etc. 
From several records it appears that the bird is common or abundant in 
the second hemlock growth of the Alleghanies (Stone, Dwight, and 
Todd). 

47. Compsothlypis americana. PARULA WARBLER.— One female with 
one young bird, seen among small trees on a stream. 

48. Dendroica zstiva. SUMMER WARBLER.— Several seen; one pair 
building in the orchard. This bird does not seem to venture much into 
the woods. 

49. Dendroica czrulescens. BLACK-THROATED BLUE WARBLER.— 
Common in the woods where hemlock had been cut, as well as on 
the edges of the deep hemlock woods. It was very evident that the 
females were keeping close to their nests, as a great many males were 
seen, always singing, as if to assure their better halfs that they were near 
at hand. The same could be said of the next four varieties, only one 
female being seen to ten males. 

50. Dendroica maculosa. MAGNOLIA WARBLER.— Common; more so 
if anything than the preceeding. One nest was found in a tiny wild 


296 BaiLy, Birds of Northern Elk County, Pa. eae 


cherry, about 3 feet high, at the side of a log road in a deep wood of 
birch, maple, and oaks, and some second growth hemlocks. The female 
sat so close that I touched the tree before she flew. This little bird, as it 
covered an almost invisible nest of hairlike grass, was one of the prettiest 
pictures in my experience. 

51. Dendroica pensylvanica. CHESTNUT-SIDED WARBLER.— Com- 
mon; more females of this species were seen than either of the preced- 
ing two, but nearly always in overgrown, open places. 

52. Dendroica blackburnie. BLACKBURNIAN WARBLER.— Common; 
principally high up in the hemlocks near the streams; only one female 
noted. The males were almost invariably singing. 

53- Dendroica virens. BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER.— Com- 
mon; generally in the same environment as the last species. 

54. Seiurus aurocapillus. OveNsIRD.—Common in the dry upper 
woods. 

55. Seiurus noveboracensis. WATER-THRUSH.— Common; especially 
on the clear streams not poisoned by the chemical works or tanneries, 
where only one was observed. One nest with eggs under the root of 
a tree, and a number of just fledged birds were seen. This bird begins to 
get common just west of the Alleghanies. 

56. Geothlypis trichas. MARYLAND YELLOW-THROAT.— Common in 
its usual haunts. 

57. Sylvania canadensis. CANADIAN WARBLER.— Common; singing 
constantly; seen less among the hemlocks than elsewhere, except on 
Straight Creek. 

58. Setophaga ruticilla. ReEDsTART.— Only one was seen, this on the 
Clarion, and it was not observed in the mountains by either Messrs. 
Dwight, Stone, or Todd, but Warren speaks of it as being most common 
in the higher mountain regions, mentioning especially McKean, Potter, 
Sullivan, Centre, Blair, Lycoming, Crawford and Erie Counties. I found 
it common and several nests in very open places at Point Pelee, on the 
warm, flat Canadian shore of Lake Erie where the Summer Warbler, 
Baltimore Oriole, Brown Thrasher, and five Swallows, were abundant, 
a much more mild environment. 

59. Galeoscoptes carolinensis. CATBIRD..— Very common, a number 
of nests being found. There happens to be a number of places on the 
southeastern slopes of some of the rolls, covered with raspberry bushes, 
well adapted for some of the more southern varieties, but few of them 
seem to take advantage of the fact. 

60. Troglodytes aédon. House WrrEN.— Common in cleared woods 
as well as around houses. 

61. Troglodytes hiemalis. WINTER WREN.— Abundant in the tall 
open woods as well as in the cool hemlocks near the streams; most 
common on Straight Creek, which is by far the coolest in the locality. 

62. Certhia familiaris americana. BROWN CREEPER.— Not common ; 
only about three seen, which were very hard to locate, and it may be 


vita HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. 297 


that we missed others, as they should be common here if anywhere. I 
found a nest at Eaglesmere, Sullivan County, Pa., in 1890. 

63. Sitta carolinensis. WHITE-BELLIED NuTHATCH.— A few pairs, one 
near the house. 

64. Parus atricapillus. BLAcK-cAPpPpED CHICKADEE.— Abundant in 
all kinds of open woods and in trees along the road. 

65. Turdus mustelinus. Woop THrusH.—Not seen at all the first 
few days where the Hermit was abundant. One was taken on Straight 
Creek, apparently very much out of place, where the wood was quite 
dense and damp. A few others were seen. 

66. Turdus fuscescens. WILSON’s THRUSH.— Only one on the hillside 
above Straight Creek, acting very much as though a nest was near. 

67. Turdus aonalaschke pallasii. Hermit THrusH.— Abundant; 
four or five nests, three on mossy banks at the side of the road; two 
I discovered from a wagon. 

68. Merula migratoria. Rosin.—Very common all over the open 
upland and near the clearings in the valleys. 

69. Sialia sialis. BLuesirp.— Common around the farms. 


SUMMER BIRDS (JULY 1s-AUG. 13, 1894) OF THE 
RHINE. 


BY RALPH HOFFMANN. 


THE interest and pleasure which most naturalists experience in 
making field observations is often a reward for their somewhat 
tedious labors in other branches of the science to which they may 
devote their time. Especially when one is so fortunate as to carry 
his opera-glass into fresh woods and pastures new, the increased 
interest and heightened pleasure amply repay him for the discom- 
forts of the journey. To me, in my capacity of amateur ornithol- 
ogist, there has come a rather large share of these lighter labors, 
so that my slight connection with ornithology has proved, ina 
way, to be all play and no work. I hoped, therefore, when I 
looked forward last spring to a summer in Germany, to note 
down something which might be of interest to the members of the 


1 Read before the Nuttall Ornith. Club, Cambridge, Mass., Dec., 1894. 
38 


298 HorrMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. aos 


Club, and as I look back now to the excitement and delight which 
accompanied the study of so many new birds, I trust that I can 
share these pleasures in some degree with those whose recitals 
of labors in other fields have so often interested me. 

In order to give a degree of coherence to the notes which I 
have to present, I shall try to group them about the stream which 
most travellers ascend for other study than that of its fauna, but 
first I shall sketch briefly the characteristics of twelve or fifteen 
birds which formed the staple diet, the daily food, so to speak, of 
my field observations. These sketches are slight, as I have made 
very little attempt to supplement my own notes by consulting the 
books; I hope, however, they will add a little color to the subse- 
quent pages. 


Blackbird (Zurdus merula). 


When Bottom sings in the enchanted wood, 
“ The ouzel-cock so black of hue 
With orange-tawny bill, 
The throstle with his note so true, 
The wren with little quill,” 

he enumerates the familiar songsters of England, and heads his list 
with the Blackbird. From the time of Shakspeare the Blackbird, 
the Wren, and the Redbreast are the familiar birds of English 
literature, so that with the exception of the Lark, the Nightingale 
and the Cuckoo, there were no birds I was more anxious to see. 

July, however, is an even more inauspicious month in Europe 
than here; so many of the birds are early breeders. The Cuckoo 
and the Nightingale were silent, and to me invisible, and still 
remain mere names. With the Blackbird or Black Thrush, as the 
Germans call him, I was more fortunate. He was, if not so 
numerous as our Robin, quite as ubiquitous, whistling. from the 
gardens and parks of the cities, and from the hillsides and glens of 
the country. His length is the same as that of his cousin, our 
Robin, and he suggests this bird in many ways. He has the same 
way of running forward, and then drawing himself up, and he plants 
his feet and pulls at an angle-worm in precisely the same way. He 
scratches more in the leaves than our bird, showing in this his 


— 


ee HorrMaNn, Summer Birds of the Rhine. 299 
turdine affinities, and he has the Hermit Thrush’s trick of raising 
his tail sharply after alighting. The young have brown backs and 
reddish streaked breasts, so that they suggest the Robin still 
more strongly. 

_ The Blackbird’s song is bright and invigorating; I heard it 
more from single birds than from choruses. Sometimes as the 
singer sat on the spray of some tree on the hillsides, the discon- 
nected and vigorous phrasing suggested the song of the Brown 
Thrasher. The nest is placed in bushes instead of in trees, and 
the bird is more truly resident in Germany than the Robin is in 
Massachusetts, the northern birds joining their brethren of Cen- 
tral Europe for the winter. 


Black Redstart (Auticilla fitys). 


One of the most characteristic and familiar birds of Germany 
is the Redstart, a bird related, not to its American namesake, 
which it resembles very slightly, but to our Bluebird. In the 
domestic economy of German Nature, it seems to take the place 
of the Bridge Pewee (Sayornis phebe). In Germany I found the 
Black Redstart by far more common than the Black-throated, the 
commoner British species, though I saw the latter not infre- 
quently. It may be of interest to hear, on the authority of 
Mr. Saunders, that the male acquires his black breast by the 
wearing off of the gray tips to his feathers, as in the case of 
the Bobolink. 

The Redstart haunts gardens and yards, flying constantly to 
the garden walls or house roofs, where it bobs at intervals like a 
Winter Wren. Its food consists of insects, which it pursues on 
the wing with considerable dexterity. 

The Redstart arrives and breeds early and I failed to hear the 
song, which to the German villagers heralds the advent of spring. 

A nest of this bird was shown me, on a shelf over some cellar 
stairs. To reach it the bird had to fly from the garden through 
the back door, which the occupants of the house kept open for it. 

The German name, ‘ Rothschwiinzchen’, or Red-tail, corresponds 
to the English, Redstart, from the A. S. s/eor?, a tail. 


300 HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. aoe 


Redbreast (“rithacus rubecula). 


This bird, so endeared to the British heart, rears his brood 
in clearings and in thickets; he is retiring rather than shy, and 
several that I saw were in yards and about dwellings, to which, 
as is well known, the bird resorts in winter for crumbs and broken 
meat. Ina garden in Heidelberg I saw one frequently, hopping 
about among the tables disputing with Chaffinches for the fallen 
crumbs. 

The Red-breast keeps to the ground much more than his rela- 
tives, the Redstarts, but like them he has a trick of flirting his tail 
and courtesying when observed. 


The Dits. (Claus). 


Europe is fortunate in the abundance of these cheerful and 
familiar birds. We are thankful all winter for our Chickadee, 
but in Germany, I was assured, it was no uncommon sight to see, 
in winter, four species, all picking at the same bone or candle, 
suspended for their use. I found six species in all, four of which 
were generally distributed and common. 

The commonest was the Blue Tit (?. cevuwleus), a charming and 
lovable bird, richly colored and active as a squirrel. I found an 
apple tree on one occasion, which was, so to speak, infested with 
Blue Tits; they hung to the smaller twigs, pecked at the leaves, 
and gleaned along the branches. 

Two other species, which are often associated, are the Coal Tit 
(P. ater), and the Swamp Tit (P. palustris). These two and the 
Blue Tit, are smaller than our Chickadee, hardly larger in fact 
than Kinglets. In winter they are everywhere, but in summer 
the Coal Tit seems to prefer coniferous woods. These species are 
nimble and noisy, prying out insects from the bark, hammering 
aspen seeds, and convoying through the woods flocks of Kinglets, 
Creepers and other birds. 

The longest and most sedate of the family is the Great Titmouse 
(Parus major), half an inch larger than our Chickadee. All four 
of these species are loquacious and their notes are numerous. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. 301 


Many of them suggest the Chickadee, especially his see, dee dee, 
and the ¢urre day notes, but I heard nothing resembling his song. 


Wren (Zroglodytes parvulus). 


In hedges and thickets, in fact in just such situations as a 
Winter Wren would choose on migration, skulks the Hedge-king, 
as the Germans call him. The Wren is a resident species; he 
was still singing freely in August, and I found the song hardly 
distinguishable from that of our Winter Wren. 


White Wagtail (MJotacilla alba). 


This is one of the most characteristic birds of Germany, and 
I suppose, of the Continent generally, and in England a 
closely allied form is a conspicuous member of the avi-fauna. 
In the fields, especially when ploughed, in the meadows and 
in the village streets, this bird walks daintily about, or takes 
a short quick run after his insect prey, his long tail nicely 
balanced and constantly oscillating. He flies often to the ridge- 
poles of houses, tops of posts or other conspicuous positions, 
and one whom I found on the Drachenfels, flew to the very top 
of the ruined tower. Nesting is early with, the Wagtail, and in 
July the young were following the parent birds about the streets, 
eager for food. The period of song is said to be very short, and 
I heard nothing but a few call or alarm notes. 

The Wagtails were flocking in August, but they remain in con- 
siderable numbers throughout the winter. 


Swallow (/irundo rustica). 


For any readers of Gilbert White no European birds possess 
more interest than the Hirundinidx, a term which, in his day, 
included the Swift. No suspicion crossed the good rector’s mind 
that, one day, the Hummingbirds would wage on the Swallow 
family fierce osteological war for the possession of this bird. 

The Swallow was one of the first land birds that I saw in 
Europe, and I hardly ever lost sight of him and his kindred. 
The call note, the low song, often given from the ridgepole, and 


302 HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Ihine. Auk 


the marvelous dexterity of the Swallow proper, the Country 
Swallow, to translate his Latin name, reminded me at every turn 
of the Barn Swallows, which I had left behind me. The specific 
name is, however, somewhat misleading, for the Swallows haunt 
not only the grassy meadows, but the smaller towns as well, 
where they are conspicuous in all the paved streets. They beat 
the squares and gutters as regularly as a Marsh Hawk does a 
meadow, flying up and down, sometimes hardly a foot above the 
stones, turning the corners and coming down the other side, in 
and out among the people and off at last to the nest. Swallows 
breed in any sheltered corner, often in chimneys, whence the Ger- 
man name, Smoke Swallow. I observed one passing to her nest 
through a hole ina shed door. 

They linger till September or October, and gather in great 
flocks utilizing the telegraph wires, as with us, till a favorable 
night for their departure. Their return in April has long been 
connected in proverb and song with the approach of warmer days. 


Martin (//irundo urbica). 


This is a characteristic bird of the towns wherever the eaves 
of buildings, preferably of stone, offer him a covering for his 
cupshaped nest. I found them also in the mountains, where 
there was too little grass-land for the Swallow. The Martin 
is gregarious, and the hotels fronting on the Rhine were often 
tenanted by colonies of one or two dozen. The birds avoided 
the street, however, and hawked over the river, where their 
glossy backs and white rumps flashed in and out among the 
plain brown backs of their cousins, the Bank Swallows. Their 
note is a single rough monosyllable, sfritz, suggesting that 
of the Cliff Swallow. ‘They were still feeding young in the nest, 
August 8, evidently the second brood. 


Chaffinch (/ringilla celebs). 


This handsome and confiding bird was as characteristic of 
the village street as either the Wagtail or the Redstart, and was 
also common in every bit of woodland. The parks and groves 
resounded, in early July, with his cheerful and vigorous song, 


Vol. XIII 


1396 HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. 303 


resembling, to a considerable degree, that of the Purple Finch, 
though perhaps a trifle stronger. In the streets and in the roads 
the Chaffinch picked up seeds, insects, or fallen refuse. 

In an open air restaurant at Heidelberg, I amused myself by 
_throwing crumbs to the Chaffinches, who approached often to 
within a foot or two of my chair, but their bread was often 
snatched from their mouths by the more vigorous, if less welcome 
Sparrows. 

At evening the parks or open spaces in the cities resounded with 
the call notes of this bird, fivk, fink, and a peculiar skree, skree. 
From their call note comes their German name, ‘ Finke’, and the 
English, Finch. 

They are resident, and for part of the winter the males sep- 
arate from the females. 


Yellow-hammer (Lmleriza citrinella). 


This is a bird of the fields and hillsides, especially in the 
neighborhood of farms. He feeds on insects and in winter on 
seeds. He is not shy, and not as restless as the Chaffinch. The 
Yellow-hammer was perhaps the freeest singer in July, and was 
still singing in August; in fact he reminded me of the Indigo-bird 
in his fondness for hot exposed situations, railroad embankments 
and even telegraph wires. Everywhere his deliberate song rose at 
regular intervals through the quivering air. The song is not loud 
but carries a surprising distance, and has something of the Grass- 
hopper Sparrow’s quality. It may be imitated by the syllables 
Bt, Bl, ot drah. 

The bird nests near the ground and raises two broods. He is 
a winter resident. 


Skylark (4/auda arvensis). 


The Lark and the Blackcap were still in full song in the middle 
of July, though both ceased singing in August. The grainfields 
of the Rhine and Neckar valleys stretched in what seemed to my 
New England eye a tremendous expanse of yellow waves. Among 
these, from morning till night, the Larks rose, sang and descended 


304 HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. a 
to their little domains in the wheat. The descent is gradual till 
the bird nears the ground, when he darts with great speed into the 
cover. When feeding, the bird walks slowly, and nods his head at 
each step. 

The Lark is one of the most numerous of European birds, but 
notwithstanding his two broads, that he withstands his thousand 
enemies is a mystery. His habit of nesting on the ground and in 
the cornfields exposes him to the attacks of many animals and to 
the mischance of an early harvest. During migration, which is 
accomplished in vast flocks, he suffers severe loss from netting, but 
holds his own and returns each March, at the first sign of spring, 
to his chosen field. 


Swift (Cypselus apus). 


The common Swift of Europe I found everywhere, from Holland 
to the interior of Germany, but especially abundant on the Rhine 
and in Nuremberg, where the fortress was besieged by a screech- 
ing multitude. The bird is an inch anda half longer than our 
species, and the presence of a well shaped tail, and the long 
recurved wings make him far more dexterous in the air. His 
flight is rapid, and he turns after his insect prey as swiftly as a 
Swallow. 

The note is a curious screech, fine and rasping, resembling a 
bat’s squeak. This the Swifts utter sharply, as they drive past in 
twos and threes, and sometimes, if they come close, the effect is 
startling. 

The Royal Palace at Amsterdam was a favorite breeding place 
of the Swifts, who had built their rude nests of straw in the stone 
gargoyles, or in niches along the sides of the building, nor had 
their excrement added anything to the appearance of the some- 
what unpretentious structure. In Nuremberg, the crevices in the 
ruined wall surrounding the fortress were full of nests, and at 
evening as I walked along the wall, the moat was full of screech- 
ing ‘devillings’ as the English callthem. Their German nameis 
‘Mauer Schwalbe’ or Cliff Swallow. 

By August the Swifts had almost entirely left their breeding 
places, and a few stragglers alone remained along the Rhine. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. 305 


These then are the birds which on a summer day in Germany 
one cannot fail to see. How they are distributed, in what haunts, 
and in what numbers, how they and their rarer kindred enter into 
the pictures of Rhine scenery, I shall try to show by the following 
notes. 

My time on the Rhine was divided between two points on the 
upper Rhine, Bonn and St. Goar, and a short trip along the 
sluggish waters of its lower course. 

The first German soil that I trod, after I shook the dirt of 
Cologne off my shoes, was that of Bonn, where I spent Sunday and 
Monday, July 14 and 15. I was impatient to get into the fields, 
and taking a ferry Sunday morning, swung slowly across the 
stream, towards the opposite bank, where a low range of vineclad 
hills formed the outposts of the Siebengebirge. The familiar 
harsh note of the Bank Swallow, the skreeing of Swifts, and the cry 
of the Martins which I heard here, proved the constant attend- 
ants of my journey along the river. 

In the fields which lay along the opposite bank, my first Skylark 
flew to the ground almost at my feet, with a note which suggested 
that of the Shore Lark. A moment later I heard one singing 
overhead. The song reminded me in quality of a Bay-wing’s 
(Poocetes), but the singer’s height and the length of the perform- 
ance made it fairly inspiring. A slight disappointment which I 
felt at first, soon wore off and the song grew to have a great charm 
for me, before the gathered harvests made the singer a silent 
gleaner among the stubble. In a neighboring furrow, I made 
another acquaintance, destined to be an almost inseparable com- 
panion of my travels. This was a White Wagtail, who was 
picking his way over the upturned soil, walking with dainty steps, 
and balancing his long tail with a skill born of much practice. 

The chaussée lay white and hot under the fierce sun, so I 
turned off past a gravel-pit, where Bank Swallows were breeding, 
to a little hill, the ‘ Finkenberg’, formed, like the rest of the 
Rhine banks, of loose shingly stone, and covered with a sparse 
growth of small oaks. Here my scanty knowledge of European 
birds soon proved insufficient to identify the small restless crea- 
tures which eluded observation among the leaves, or to trace 
to their source the varied notes which issued from the thickets and 


39 


306 HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. aan 
coverts. One songster in particular led me a long and fruitless 
chase, but I was more fortunate when I heard him again the next 
morning. At the foot of the hill, when I descended on the other 
side, I found a garden and orchard through which ran a brook. 
This seemed a favorable place for observation and so it proved to 
be. Several Flycatchers darted from their perches, to return 
with their booty; Brown Creepers climbed the trunks of the 
apple trees, whispering to each other as stridently as they do 
here in winter, and differing apparently from ours only in the lack 
of a trinomial name. They were convoyed too, as ours are, by Tit- 
mice, larger and handsomer than the Chickadee, but very similar 
in habits. On the garden walls or on the roofs of the houses sat 
Redstarts, fine bluish gray birds with brick red tails, which they 
snapped like Phcebes. From the vineyards and from the hill- 
sides. came the fine, thin notes of the Yellow-hammer, and in 
the village on the river banks, Swallows flew close to the pave- 
ments, turning the sharp corners, and passing in and out among 
the people with surprising ease. 

The nearest of the Siebengebirge to the Rhine is the famous 
Drachenfels, which in fact rises from its banks, and is crowned 
with the most interesting ruin of the lower Rhine. This I climbed 
the next day, and was rewarded by the beauty of the foot-way 
and by the charming prospect from the top. A little larch and 
spruce grew on the rocky summit and here I found my second 
Titmouse, of the half-dozen which I saw in Germany. ‘This was 
the Swamp Tit, very like our Chickadee in color; he was holding 
a seed on alimb and opening it. Here, too, I heard again my 
elusive songster of the previous day. He was concealed in some 
shrubbery near the top of the crag, but his song was loud and 
wild and very fine; finally he came into view and proved to be 
the Blackcap, who among songbirds is rated very close to his 
cousin, the Nightingale. 

Near the restaurant by which every interesting spot is crowned, 
or infested, according as the traveller’s inclinations are prosaic 
or romantic, was a little yard where a bird was feeding, who 
at once attracted my attention by his fine colors and tame dispo- 
sition. He was a Chaffinch, the characteristic bird of the streets 
and yards, sharing with the House Sparrow the society and sup- 


Bietee t HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. 307 


port of man, but never, so far as I could find out, abusing his 
privileges. The Sparrow, I found, was disliked in Germany, 
almost as much as he is here. 

On descending the hill I came to a little town on the banks of 
_ the Rhine, where I waited for the return of the boat to Bonn. 
The trees inthe town gardens were gay with cherries and apri- 
cots, and here and there among them [I heard the whistle of a 
Blackbird, for he as well as his American cousin, the Robin, 
likes to sheathe his gold dagger of a bill in a juicy cherry. The 
houses along the river were the resort of Eave Swallows, Martins 
as the English call them, corresponding curiously to our Cliff 
Swallows. Their cup shaped nests of mud lined the eaves, and 
the white rumps of the birds flashed in the sunlight, as they flew 
up to feed their hungry young. 

At Coblenz, four hours above Bonn, the fortress of Ehrenbreit- 
stein marks the beginning of the highlands of the Rhine, through 
which the swift stream has cut a winding course between rugged 
banks, cut in their turn by tributary brooks. In the midst of 
the most picturesque portion of these hills, on a narrow strip 
of land at their base, lies the town, or street more properly, of St. 
Goar, a single line of houses directly under the bank. On the 
hill above it stands a mighty ruin, Ruine Rheinfels. The oppo- 
site strand is occupied by another line of houses, and above 
and below this, stand two fine ruins, Katz and Maus. A mile 
or so farther up, the Lorelie-rock rises so precipitously from the 
river that the railroad has to pass under it throughatunnel. The 
hills are flat topped as if the whole surface had once formed a 
plain, now cut down for a second time in all directions. 

In this charming town I spent July 18 and 19, and returning 
Aug. 11, spent another afternoon and morning on the hillsides 
and in the fields. The steep slope directly behind the town was 
almost entirely included ina large estate, through which I obtained 
permission to wander. The whole hillside was thickly wooded 
with a young growth of mixed timber, through which paths led in 
all directions. Here and there vistas had been cut, overlooking 
the swift stream below, or giving a distant view of the Ruine Katz 
on the opposite shore. This wood I visited twice and found in it 
each time a roving crew of small birds, constituted so like our 


308 HoFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. Auk 


woodland bands that I almost expected to hear the lazy trill of a 
Pine Warbler from the American pines which had been planted 
there. There were Titmice, not only the two acquaintances I had 
made among the Siebengebirge, but three other species as well; 
the Coal Tit, also resembling our species ; one individual of the 
strange Long-tailed Tit, his body smaller than a Kinglet’s with a 
tail three-fifths as long again; and the charming little Blue Tit. 
This Tit was rarely quiet and hardly ever right side up. Side by 
side with the Tits worked a Nuthatch, very closely resembling our 
Canadian species, though nearly as large as S7ffa carolinensis. In 
winter the company includes Kinglets, which breed, in Germany, 
in forests of spruce and fir. Instead of our Warblers and 
Vireos there were Wood Wrens and Willow Wrens, small birds 
related to the Kinglets. Chaffinches and a Flycatcher took the 
places of the Snowbirds and Phcebe, which might share our 
woodland with such a crew. Here and there in the wood were 
moist ledges where water dripped past nodding harebells into a 
small fishpond below; here I saw Redbreasts, shyer than I had 
expected, staring at me with large eyes which betrayed their 
kinship to Bluebird and Thrush. 

In the afternoon, I took a little tug which puffed across the swift 
current and landed me under the shadow of the Ruine Katz. A 
path led up the rocky ridge to the entrance of the ruin. My 
former experience warned me that I should have the company of 
a guide, if I entered that way, so I took the liberty of climbing the 
hill behind the castle and scaling the wall which protected the 
rear. The great court in the centre of the ruin was overgrown 
with bushes and trees; ladders led half way up the round tower 
which I climbed, but startled no Owls from their ruined retreats. 
A pair of fine Falcons, as large as the Peregrine, swept past me 
later, and I was told that they bred on the tower. A Buteo was 
circling in the sky and later I saw a small Hawk, perhaps a 
Kestrel, hovering over the river. Leaving the ruin, I climbed 
back with some difficulty. The hill, or Rhine bank, rose for 
about a hundred feet above the spur on which the ruin stood. 
The poverty of the soil lent an Alpine character to the vegeta- 
tion; the hill was bright with yellow sedums, pinks, various 
flowers of the gorse family, and the first purple blooms of the 


Vol. XIII 


1896 HOFFMANN, Summer Brrds of the Rhine. 309 


heather. A gold-green lizard slipped into a bush, and climbed it 
as nimbly asa snake. 

Here and there in a thorn bush, I found a Red-backed Shrike, 
or his plainer colored mate, and once the Great Gray Shrike slipped 
to a topmost spray, like our winter visitor. This is a rare bird in 
Germany, where he is persecuted for his murderous attacks on 
the smaller birds. From every side came the song of Yellow- 
hammers. Their lemon yellow heads, brown bodies, and white 
tail-feathers made them an easy mark for my opera glass. 

The vineyards were the resort of numerous fringilline birds. 
The vines are planted on a steep succession of sloping banks, 
separated by stone walls, which keep back the avalanche of loose 
scaly stones, which threaten to engulf them. Here I found 
another rare bird, a Bunting, with white stripes on his ashy fore- 
head ; Linnets, too, with reddish cap; and Goldfinches, brilliant 
and restless birds, painted by the Creator, as the Germans tell 
their children, from the leavings of all the paint pots used during 
the creation. 

It was with a feeling of surprise, when I had climbed the hillside, 
that I came on broad fields of grain, men and women reaping and 
binding, and Larks singing constantly overhead. The ascent was 
that of a mountain ; the summit was a smiling plain. Here I was 
never out of the sound of Larks; scarcely had one shot down into 
the grain, when another began his s&ree, skree. I timed one, and 
found he sang for two and a half minutes. According to the 
books, however, it is not an unusual thing for one to remain in the 
air for a quarter of an hour. When I visited the same spot a 
month later, no Larks were singing, but here and there one flew 
from the stubble. Wagtails were numerous, particularly after the 
stubble had been turned over, and, in one field, a Pipit followed 
me for some distance with signs of distress. Crows, in voice and 
aspect hardly distinguishable from ours, also frequented these 
fields. 

Here and there among the fields, or in the hollows between, 
clusters of trees had been left, and from among these the hoarse 
scream of the Jay startled me. It was some time before I dis- 
covered the author. Though so large a bird (he is five inches 
longer than the Blue Jay), he conceals himself with all the dex- 


SLO HoFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. awe 
terity of a thief, which no doubt he is. Finally I got a good view 
of one,— the white rump, as he flew, the rich brown of the back, 
and the fine steel blue patch on the wing, so much in demand for 
artificial flies. In these groves, too, the Turtle Doves took refuge, 
when I frightened them from the grain fields. Their rounded tails 
are tipped with white, as in our species. 

Beyond the grainfields, I often came to picturesque villages, the 
tiles of the houses slate-gray and the sides and ends covered with 
laths crossed in the plaster. 

After walking for some time, through the fields, in the direction 
of the Lorelei-rock which overhung the Rhine on my right, I 
heard the sound of water below me to the left. I passed through 
a belt of pines and climbed down the loose, shingly side of a steep 
hill, crossed two broad chaussées and after a steep descent found 
myself in a narrow wooded valley. A noisy brook ran over the 
stones under arching trees, among which a Bulfinch showed for 
a moment. Wood oxalis grew in the damp moss, and ferns 
and brambles formed a dense tangle. I descended the valley, 
which broadened from time to time to a strip of meadow, and 
at last a house appeared with a sluice and a mill wheel. The 
sides of the valley were steep and clothed with pine. The brook 
and the neighboring road wound continually, sometimes passing 
directly under jutting rocks; now and then I came to gray-tiled 
houses, each with a wheel to which the noisy waters could be 
bound. The Rhine with its steamers and long lines of heavy 
barges, seemed far away and when I found that this little valley 
was the “ Schweizer Thal,’ I thought the name most apposite. 

Blackcaps sang in the willows, a Hedge Sparrow scratched 
under the bushes that lined the stream, and from far up on the 
hillside came the wild whistle of the Blackbird. When I revisited 
this mountain glen (for so it seemed) in August, I found two 
interesting birds which I had not seen on my former walk, but 
which no doubt were regular residents. One was the Mountain 
Wagtail, who was leading his young over wet stones which blocked 
the brook, and the other was a Water Ouzel or Dipper. This 
strange bird, a Thrush who yet dives, swims and lives on fish, was 
standing near a mill wheel, up to his reddish belly in the foaming 
water. When he saw me, he flew swiftly along the stream, and 
disappeared under the arch of a small bridge. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 HOFFMANN, Summer Birds of the Rhine. ait 


Soon the valley turned towards the river, the Blackcap’s song 
and the Blackbird’s whistle sounded more faintly from the 
mountain side, and Redstarts flew from the walls to the houses, 
which now became more numerous. As I paused a moment to 
look back, the last gleam of sunlight fell on the rugged outlines of 
the hills. I heard once more the Blackbird whistling far up the 
glen, and then, stepping out into St. Goarshausen, came upon the 
busy Rhine flowing by as swiftly as it did when Casar bridged 
it. High in air was a multitude of birds, which also circled there 
no doubt in Cesar’s time, great crescent-shaped Swifts, Martins 
and Swallows, and low over the river Bank Swallows uttering their 
harsh notes. 

The Swifts and Swallows, as I have said before, are constant 
attendants of a Rhine journey in summer. From Mainz to 
Cologne they circled about the steamer, and at Arnheim, in Hol- 
land, where in August I took the boat for Rotterdam, I found them 
again. Above Bingen, before the river enters the Highlands, and 
at Coblenz where it escapes from them, there are broad expanses, 
where I was surprised to see not only Terns but Gulls, two hun- 
dred miles from the ocean; the Tern was our common species, 
and the Gull corresponded to our Bonaparte’s. Herons, too, 
frequented these upper reaches, and from the low islands the 
steamer’s wash drove Sandpipers, closely related to our Actitis. 

Below Arnheim the river is more sluggish, and for some distance 
before it reaches Rotterdam, it attains considerable breadth. 
Great barges ascend it here, or pass by one of the numerous 
canals and branches, to the River Maas. The country was here 
yery flat and fertile. The fields were full of sleek cattle, among 
whom, in July, Starlings innumerable had walked. Now they had 
all wandered off in one of those vast throngs which blacken the 
sky in Autumn. The Swifts too were very scarce, only now and 
then one showed his scimitar wings among the Swallows. Lap- 
wings and Curlews fed in the fields, which were intersected by 
countless ditches. When the boat disturbed the Lapwings, they 
rose and with shrill cries and nervous flight, mounted upward, 
their white rumps and bellies contrasting with their glossy backs. 
Quite as conspicuous and with the same contrasting colors, were 

he occasional Magpies, which flew up from the banks, flirting 


312 SHUFELDT, Cormorant Rookeries of the Lofoten Islands. Auk 


their handsome tails. The reedy shores of the river were the 
haunts, no doubt, of Ducks, two of which flew past us, and a Heron, 
gaunt and gray, gazed at the boat with uplifted leg. 

As we approached Rotterdam, Terns and Gulls grew more 
numerous and Cormorants became a characteristic feature of the 
river. Whether sitting on the water, in Loon-like posture, or 
flying with outstretched necks athwart the sky, or perched in un- 
gainly attitudes on the poles which rose from the narrow dikes, 
they were always conspicuous, and always ugly. The Gulls were 
the small black-headed species found before near Mainz, but near 
Rotterdam several Herring Gulls appeared. ‘The red-tiled vil- 
lages, too, became more frequent. ‘The incessant hammering of 
shipyards assailed the ears. Boats with high and decorated prows 
driven by dark, patched sails passed the steamer. Soon the masts 
of countless shipping appeared before us and the steamer made 
fast to her wharf in Rotterdam, leaving the Rhine and its summer 
birds far behind. 


THE CORMORANT ROOKERIES OF THE LOFOTEN 
ISLANDS. 


BY R. W. SHUFELDT, M. D. 


Our distinguished Corresponding Member, Professor Robert 
Collett of the Zodlogical Museum of Christiania, Norway, has for 
the past year or more been attempting the photography of the 
breeding sites of various species of Norwegian birds. Some of 
his recent results are very beautiful indeed, and last July (1895) 
when he was visiting the Lofoten Islands off the coast of Norway, 
he succeeded in obtaining some particularly good pictures of the 
breeding places of the Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo). One of 
these he has very recently sent me, to use as I see fit, and, as 
this species breeds upon our own North Atlantic coasts, 1 must 
believe that the reproduction of Professor Collett’s excellent pho- 
tograph, illustrating the present paper, will be of interest to our 


IPreNanrs: Wie 


OWE 


VuL. 


+ AUK, 


THE 


(og 


‘AuMION ‘dnoir) uajojo'y ‘purlsy waasiog 


{vo 


x 


Dd. 


10 


I0. 


(2D1DYq ) 


SINV 


UONNO 


e, 


2) 


NIG 


a 


auc 


Couns ; 
"7 


real SHUFELDT, Cormorant Rookertes of the Lofoten Islands. 3 ne 


own ornithologists. He writes me (11 Jan., 1896) that this view 
is of a rocky bay on the small island of Borgeve of the Lofoten 
group, and that about three thousand Cormorant eggs are collected 
there annually, “and eaten by the fishermen; the eggs you see in 
the picture, was the ¢#7rd set laid this summer (all the other 
eggs already taken). In the illustration are seen a number of the 
nests of the Cormorants in the foreground, containing from three 
to five eggs each; while in the distance nine or ten of the birds 
are in sight. Three or four of these are sitting on their eggs in 
the nests ; others are perched on the rocks, and one is standing on 
the edge of its nest. Mr. Ridgway in his ‘Manual of North 
American Birds’ gives the clutch of eggs for the Phalacrocoracide 
as 2-5, and the size of those of Ph. carbo as 2.50X1.61, being 
“ elongate-ovate, pale bluish green, with a more or less continuous 
white chalky crust”’ (pp. 77, 78). The present writer has exam- 
ined the eggs of this Cormorant in the collections of the U.S. 
National Museum, for which courtesy he is indebted to Major 
Bendire. The eggs of some species of Cormorants are wonder- 
fully like those of the Western Grebe (4chmophorus occidentalis), 
and not at alleasily distinguished from them. 

The Lofoten Islands are off the northwest coast of Norway 
between 67°30! and 69° 20! N. lat., and between 12° and 16° 35! 
E. long. Itisa large group and noted for its picturesqueness, and 
the location given also includes the Vesteraalen. We are told that 
the “extreme length of the group from Andenzs, at the north of 
Ando, to Rost, is about 130 English miles; the aggregate area 
amounts to about 1560 square miles, supporting a permanent 
population of about 20,000. The islands, which are all of 
granite or metamorphic gneiss, are precipitous and lofty; the 
highest peaks are in the Lofoten group, Vaagekallan on Ost- 
Vaag6o rising directly from the sea to a height of 3090 feet. The 
climate is not rigorous, and in summer the snow-line is at 3000 
feet. There is no wood upon these islands.” 

In the ‘Dictionary of Birds’ Professor Newton says: “The 
Cormorant, /. carvo, frequents almost all the seacoast of Europe, 
and breeds in localities at various stations most generally on 
steep cliffs, but occasionally on rocky islands as well as on trees. 
The nest consists of a large mass of seaweed, and, with the 


40 


314 OBERHOLSER, The Mexican Forms of Certhia. aed 


ground immediately surrounding it, generally looks as though 
bespattered with whitewash, from the excrement of the bird, 
which lives entirely on fish. The eggs, from four to six in 
number, are small, and have a thick, soft, calcareous shell, bluish- 
white when first laid, but soon becoming discolored. The young 
are hatched blind, and covered with an inky black skin. They 
remain for some time in the squab-condition, and are then highly 
esteemed for food by the northern islanders, their flesh being said 
to taste as well as a roasted hare’s. Their first plumage is of 
a sombre brownish-black above, and more or less white beneath. 
They take two or three years to assume the fully adult dress, 
which is deep black, glossed above with bronze, and varied in the 
breeding-season with white on the cheeks and flanks, besides 
being adorned by filamentary feathers on the head, and further 
set off by a bright yellow gape. The old Cormorant looks as 
big as a goose, but is really much smaller; its flesh is quite 
uneatable.” (Pt. I, p. 105, Cormorant.) 

It will be noticed, that Mr. Ridgway says the Cormorants, 
speaking generally of the family, lay from fwo to five eggs, while 
Professor Newton in the above account says from four to sex. 
When I printed my ‘Comparative Odlogy of North American 
Birds,’ I had apparently overlooked this discrepancy in the two 
authorities just quoted. In Professor Collett’s photograph the 
clutches of the nests in sight are evidently three to five each, but 
the number in the set here may have been influenced by the 
birds having been so often interfered with, and their nests so 
frequently robbed. 


CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE MEXICAN FORMS OF 
THE: GENUS, CZARTAZA: 


BY HARRY C. OBERHOLSER. 


TuarT there exist in Mexico two well defined races of the genus 
Certhia appears to have been first recognized by Count Hans von 
Berlepsch. He, in 1888, described! a new subspecies of the 


1 Auk V, 1888, 450. 


Vol. XIII 


aa56 OBERHOLSER, The Mexican Forms of Certhia. 3 15 


genus from Ciudad, Durango, northwestern Mexico, under the 
name Certhia mexicana albescens ; thus restricting mexicana proper 
to Guatemala and the more southern parts of Mexico. When, 
some years later, Mr. Gerritt S. Miller substituted! the name 
Certhia familiaris alticola for the preoccupied one of Certhia 
Jamiliaris mexicana (Gloger), he very evidently overlooked the 
name proposed by Berlepsch, and bestowed the subspecific desig- 
nation altcola upon “the Cerfhia inhabiting the mountains of 
Guatemala, Mexico and southern Arizona .... (No. 726a@ of 
the A. O. U. Check-List).” Since the term e/ficola was intended 
to simply replace that of mexzcana, and as it consequently may, 
with equal pertinence, apply to either of the Mexican forms, it 
seems best to retain it for the race to which Count von Berlepsch 
restricted the original appellation of the Mexican Creeper — zz., 
the bird occurring in southern Mexico and Guatemala. 

The race inhabiting northwestern Mexico and Arizona will, 
therefore, stand as 


Certhia familiaris albescens (Berlepsch). 4 


Certhia mexicana GLOGER, “ Handbuch, 1834, 381” (part). 

Certhia familiaris var. mexicana BAiRD, BREWER & RipGway, Hist. 
North Am. Birds, I, 1874, 128 (part). 

Certhia familiaris alticola Miter, Auk XII, April, 1895, 186 (part). 

Certhia mexicana albescens BERLEPSCH, Auk V, October, 1888, 450. 

CHARs. suBsP.— Certhia C. familiar?’ americanae similis, sed corpore 
supertore valde saturatiore, uropygto castaneo, nec fulvo, pectore abdomt- 
neque paulo canescentibus, nec pure albis, primo visu distinguenda. 

Al., 59-67 (63.8) mm.; caud., 55-64 (60.7) mm.; exp. culm., 13-15 (14.2) 
mm.; tars., 14--15 (14.2) mm. 

Hapsitat.— N. W. Mexico et Arizona. 

DeEscRIPTION.— Male, No. 56249, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.; Napolera, Sonora, 
Mexico, Dec. 12, 1890; F. Robinette. General color above clove brown, 
the rump and upper tail-coverts chestnut. Superciliary stripe, spots and 
bars on wings, together with streaks on head, cervix and back, nearly pure 
white; these markings being on head rather narrow, much broader and 
somewhat confluent on hind neck and back. Interscapulum with a very 
slight admixture of the color of the rump. Outer webs of tail-feathers 
with little or no ochraceous suffusion. Chin and upper throat pure white 


1 Auk XII, 1895, 185. 


316 OBERHOLSER, The Mexican Forms of Certhia. a 


crissum pale, tawny ochraceous, many of the feathers tipped with white ; 
remainder of lower parts grayish white with, posteriorly, an almost inap- 
preciable rusty tinge. 


This subspecies may, by its much darker color above, be at 
once distinguished from any of the other forms of Certhia occur- 
ring in the United States, and requires comparison with only 
C. familiaris alticola from southern Mexico and Guatemala. From 
this it differs most tangibly in its much less rufescent tint above, 
the ground color of the plumage being clove brown instead of 
sepia; the streaks on head and back are much more clearly 
white and more sharply defined, and on the former somewhat 
larger. All the other light markings are more nearly pure white, 
usually lacking in a large degree the rufescent tinge seen in 
alticola. The lower parts are much lighter in color, being pure 
white anteriorly, and light grayish posteriorly, instead of dull 
rufescent gray with an admixture of rusty. The color of the rump 
apparently does not present a constant character, as some speci- 
mens from Arizona have this part fully as light as the Guatemala 
birds. The length of the bill, which was mentioned by Count von 
Berlepsch as diagnostic, cannot be relied upon to separate the two 
races, as may be seen by reference to the measurements given in 
the present paper. 

Specimens of a/bescens from Chihuahua, Sonora, and Arizona 
are practically identical in coloration ; but none from other locali- 
ties have been examined. 


Certhia familiaris alticola (Jf/ler). 


Certhia mexicana GLOGER, ‘‘ Handbuch, 1834, 381” (part). 
Certhia familiaris var. mexicana BAIRD, BREWER & RipGway, Hist. 
North Am. Birds, I, 1874, 128 (part). 
Certhia familiaris aiticola MitteR, Auk XII, April, 1895, 186 (part). 
Cuars. sussp.— C. faumiliari albescenti affinis, sed capitis et nuchae 
strits angustioribus, corpore supra multo rufescentiori, subtus mags sor- 
dido, plus minusve ferrugineo tincto. 
Al., 58-67 (64.8) mm.; caud., 55-66 (61.2)' mm.; exp. culm. 12-16 
(14.2) mm,; tars., 14-16 (14-7) mm. 


1 Excludes five specimens which have the tail much worn or otherwise 
imperfect. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 ] OBERHOLSER, The Mexican Forms of Certhia. Ba 


HapiratT.— Mexico merid. et centr.; Guatemala. 

DEscRIPTION.— No. 69835, U. S. Nat. Mus.; Volcan de Fuego, Guate- 
mala, Nov. 18-20, 1873, 10200-12000 feet; Osbert Salvin. Ground color 
of the upper parts dark sepia brown, the rump and upper tail-coverts very 
dark tawny. Superciliary stripe, streaks on pileum, cervix and inter- 

- scapular region, bars and spots on wings, white, strongly suffused with 
rufous. The markings on head, hind neck,and back more indistinct than 
in albescens; those of the last mentioned portion somewhat confluent. 
Back with much infusion of tawny and chestnut; the outer webs of the 
tailfeathers with an edging of ochraceous. Chin and throat white, 
washed with ochraceous ; crissum very pale tawny ochraceous, mixed with 
white ; remainder of lower parts dull gray, suffused and somewhat mixed 
with rusty. 

A much richer, more fulvous tinge characterizes this race as 
distinguished from the preceding. The light markings upon the 
head and cervix are somewhat reduced both in number and size, 
and together with those of the interscapular region are strongly 
suffused with the prevailing rufescent tinge of the remainder of 
the plumage, being thereby rendered noticeably less conspicuous. 
The ochraceous or rufescent tinge below is quite marked in com- 
parison with typical a/bescens, though the amount of rusty admix- 
ture is decidedly variable. In some specimens, however, the 
throat is apparently without the ochraceous tint, being nearly as 
pure white as in a/bescens. The bird above described is perhaps 
an extreme specimen, as in all of the others the dorsal streaks are 
more grayish, often with a slight greenish tinge. 

In its most typical form this subspecies inhabits Guatemala and 
southern Mexico, but the birds from central Mexico should appar- 
ently be also here referred. Specimens of Certhia from Vera 
Cruz, Puebla and southern Jalisco, though approaching albescens 
in the rather lighter color of the markings on the upper parts, are 
much darker below, and altogether are much nearer a/ticola. 

The foregoing remarks have been based upon a series of eight- 
een specimens; five of the form here distinguished as Certhia 
Jamiliaris albescens, and thirteen of Certhia f. aéticola. Although 
more material would of course have been desirable, yet that which 
is now available seems sufficient to warrant the conclusions above 
reached. 

Acknowledgment should be made to Mr. F. M. Chapman for 
his kindness in permitting the writer to examine the series of 


Auk 


| 18 THAYER oz Protective Coloration. Oct 


Creepers contained in the American Museum of Natural History ; 
to Dr. C. Hart Merriam for the use of the specimens in the 
collection of the Department of Agriculture; and to Mr. Robert 
Ridgway for his courtesy in allowing similar access to the collec- 
tion of the National Museum. 


FURTHER REMARKS ON THE LAW WHICH UNDER- 
LLES PROTECTIVa *COLORALION: 


BY ABBOTT H. THAYER. 


SINCE writing my article on protective coloration in the April 
Auk (XIII, 1896, pp. 124-129), I have alighted on the means of 
still more complete ocular demonstration of the law of protective 
coloration. 

I made some wooden eggs about the size of a Woodcock’s body, 
and provided them with wire legs to poise them six inches above 
the ground. 

Most of these I colored in imitation of the color-gradation of a 
grouse or hare; earth-color above, to pure white beneath; while 
to two others I gave a coat of earth-color all over, above and 
below; then set the whole like a flock of ‘shore birds,’ on the 
bare ground in a city lot.! 

I then summoned a naturalist and let him begin at forty or fifty 
yards to look for them. He saw immediately the two mono- 
chrome ones; but although told exactly where to look, failed to 
find any of the others, until within six or seven yards, and even 
then only by knowing exactly where to look. 

I had also painted bright blue and red spots as big as a silver 
quarter of a dollar on the brown back of one of the graded eggs. 
These spots the naturalist saw, when we had come pretty near, 


'To give the gradation its complete effect, the painting of the wooden 
eggs should be done after they are placed on the ground and of course by an 
artist. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 THAYER on Protective Coloration. 319 


though they only passed for details of the ground beyond the 
egg. 

It was to this latter experiment that I alluded in a footnote 
(I. c., p. 127), when I said that brilliant top colors scarcely tend to 
interfere with the gradation’s power. ‘This statement does not 
apply, however, to creatures in which, as in a Blue Jay, the 
bright color so predominates as to form a silhouette shaped like 
the creature, but only when the bright pattern goes, as it were, its 
own way, not accompanying the animal’s form. 

Yet, even in the Jay’s case, his gradation down to white 
under throat and belly diminishes so greatly his conspicuousness 
in the dim forest shade, that he may be suspected of great 
indebtedness to this arrangement of color as he skulks among the 
leaves. He must often be much helped, also, by the fact that 
whenever his gradation works its charm and denies his substan- 
tiality, his blue is “e/y, at least, to appear to belong to whatever 
surface, far or near, forms his background for the beholder’s eye 
at the moment; as for instance a bit of blue distance seen 
through the leaves. And often when he is not concealed to this 
degree, his ghostly appearance still tends to cause the beholder 
to think him further off than he is, which may be sometimes 
equivalent to concealment. The reader should compare a graded 
blue egg with one blue all over, both seen in deep woods. Let 
me urge the reader to understand these color-phenomena, which 
are the open door into a new world of most charming study of 
special cases of protective coloration hitherto misunderstood. 

One must remember that by far the greater part of the objects 
he espies as he walks are first caught sight of out of the side of his 
eye; and it is this facut seeing against which all this facut appearing 
is so potent, in countless cases where the animal could not elude 
the direct eye. In my former article I omitted to emphasize the 
device of nature by which she accomplishes, in the only possible 
way, the bringing the top, sides, throat, and belly of an animal to 
the exact cofor of the surrounding earth, as well as to the same 
degree of darkness. 

The animal’s top is brown like the ground about him, and from 
this brown his color grades steadily colder till it becomes co/d 
white on his under surfaces. The latter being in shadow and 


320 THAYER on Protective Coloration. Cue 
bathed in a yellow reflection from the earth, has the exact color, 
as well as degree of darkness of his top. Since, obviously, earth- 
brown bathed in sky light, equals sky light (color of the animal’s 
belly) bathed in earth-yellow and shadow, 7. e. brown. 


aN 
Danese rl th Nafta aty fi 
i 

This grading to white under-surfaces is precisely what would 
result if daylight tended to brown animals’ coats, and its lack to 
bleach them. And, from this, one might fancy the whole phenom- 
enon to be the result of such browning and bleaching. But to 
those who believe in Natural Selection it must be obvious that the 
gradation’s protecting-power proves it a result of such selection. 
As to a bleaching and browning theory ; many facts suggest that 
light does not tend to darken the coats of animals: Notice for 
instance the pale inhabitants of treeless regions, such as sandy 
beaches, etc., compared with wood-dwellers. But this discussion 
is outside my present purpose. 

As an epigrammatic lash to my entire thesis on Protective 
Coloration, it is important to say that no other conceivable 
arrangement of light and dark colors could effect the intrinsic 
unsubstantiality of appearance guaranteed by the gradation 
therein set forth. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 CHADBOURNE on Individual Dichromatism. B20 


EVIDENCE SUGGESTIVE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF 
‘INDIVIDUAL DICHROMATISM’ IN 
MEGASCOPS ASTIO. 


BY ARTHUR P. CHADBOURNE, M.D.1 


THE common Screech Owl and some of its varieties are typical 
examples of dichromatism, which may be defined as the occurrence 
of two distinct phases of color iz different individuals of the same 
species, entirely independent of age, sex, or season. It is evident 
that “*the occurrence of two distinct phases of color” 7 the same 
individual, if “independent of age, sex, or season,” must consti- 
tute an zzdividua/, as distinct from the sfecific form of dichroma- 
tism. The following account of a pair of Screech Owls shows 
that ‘individual dichromatism’ probably occurs in this species, 
though it is doubtless infrequent, and possibly found only under 
artificial or even diseased conditions. 

Two Screech Owls (AZlegascops asio), said to have been taken 
from the same brood late in the spring of 1894, were sent to me 
about Nov. 1, 1894. Both birds were in typical gray plumage, 
but a minute examination of the feathers was not made at the 
time, as the possibility of a change in phase had not been thought 
of, though, as an intermediate between the red and the gray 
plumage was wanted, it is safe to say that any reddish tint would 
have been noticed if present. The two Owls were in full 
autumn dress except for a few downy feathers near the so-called 
ears. 

The Owls were put in a large box cage, with the front of wire 
netting; anda hole at one side opened into a second box, thus 
making a dark retiring place, that was never used. Six times 
each week they were given all the raw beef or sheep’s liver that 
they wanted ; but the seventh day they fasted. Fresh water for 
drinking and bathing, and also gravel were put in the cage daily ; 
while in addition dead guinea pigs, and occasionally live mice, 
were to be had in the ‘animal room’ at the Medical School, where 


‘Read at the meeting of the Nuttall Ormithological Club, March 4, 1895. 


41 


Auk 


322 CHADBOURNE on Individual Dichromatism. Oct 


the cage had been placed. These ‘tid-bits’ were the cause of 
much trouble, and after the first trial I never put a mouse in 
the cage unless there was a second mouse for the other Owl, as a 
dangerous fight was sure to be the result. By day their sight was 
as keen as at dusk, but the birds were more restless after dark, 
though it was necessary to watch closely to prevent them from 
slipping out while the door of the cage was opened to give them 
daily food, and I doubt if a movement of any kind was often 
made that their sharp eyes did not notice. Like all ‘ Scops’ they 
were quickly tamed, and quite gentle unless frightened. Twice 
I heard the tremulous whou-hou-hou-hou-hou note, each time just 
after dusk when all was quiet and when no gas was lighted. Spit- 
ting, and a scolding rattle when disturbed, were the only other 
sounds that they were heard to utter. The ‘pellets’ were unlike 
those found near the familiar ‘owlholes’ and looked like 
uncooked sausage-meat minus the fat. No gravel was ever 
found in these castings, yet though more friable than those of 
the wild birds, they were always firm, well formed, and seemingly 
held together by a sticky coating that soon dried and looked like 
gelatine. 

Toward the last of November, nearly three weeks after arrival, 
the larger, and, as it proved, the female Owl, grew more and more 
red-brown in tint, until there was little pure gray to be found. 
This was followed by a constantly increasing amount of tawny 
red; while simultaneously the brownish tinge spread over the 
upper parts and tail-feathers, and the dark cross bars on the 
breast seemed to fade. The difference was so marked as to be 
spoken of by five different persons, who had seen the birds at 
first. Meanwhile the smaller Owl remained unchanged, so far as 
could be seen, although in the same cage and apparently under 
the same conditions as the other. 

From the first I searched the cage daily for cast-off feathers, as I 
wanted to know the number lost when the birds were not molting. 
During the three weeks and two days only twenty-four feathers 
were found; 15 of the ‘ first plumage ’, 3 tail-feathers and 6 mature 
feathers, or at least not those of the first plumage. The twelve or 
even twenty-four new feathers, which had doubtless replaced 
those lost, were evidently not the cause of the general alteration 


Vol. XIII 


1896 CHADBOURNE on Individual Dichromatism. 223 


in tint that could be seen in almost every feather of the female. 
On the other hand, it might perhaps be claimed that the total 
number of feathers composing the plumage had increased, and 
that the new phase was due to the freshly developed feathers 
mingling with the old that had been present from the first. The 
interest and importance of the change in tint of the female Owl 
was now realized and a thorough search for pin-feathers was 
made, but without success. Three of the feathers on the breast 
that seemed without a trace of red or brown in the ground color, 
were then marked with a pair of scissors to see if they would 
remain unchanged, but within the next week I found all three 
feathers on the floor of the cage; two feathers around which I 
tied a bit of hair, were also cast off or pulled out; and the same 
result followed with two feathers that were slightly marked with a 
solution of eosine and water ; and also with two that were marked 
with bi-chromate of potassium. There seemed to be only one 
way left in which to settle the question as to whether the gray 
feathers actually changed their tint; so having first ‘mesmerized ’ 
(2) the owl by laying her on her back and gently stroking her 
head until she was quiet, I carefully counted all the feathers hav- 
ing a dark median stripe, but without any red or brownish tinge 
in the ground color, beginning just below the whitish feathers of 
the throat and going as far as the under tail-coverts, and from 
the median line of the body to the unstreaked downy feathers 
under the wing; the result was forty gray feathers. Only three 
weeks later, on Dec. 21, I could not find more than nine feathers 
that were free from brownish tinge. It must, I think, be admitted 
(1) that an actual change from gray to red-brown took place in the 
individual feathers, and (2) that the red phase was not entirely, 
if at all, due to new feather growth in the present instance. 

Until December 22, the diet of beef liver was continued, but was 
occasionally varied by beef kidney, the other conditions remaining 
as before. The larger Owl continued to approach more and more 
nearly the red-brown phase, and on Dec. 21 had the general 
tawny-brown effect seen in specimens that do not show the bril- 
liant red, typical of extreme examples of this phase. Both birds 
seemed healthy and well; but the smaller Owl now also showed 
more or less signs of reddish-brown here and there, and some 


324 CHADBOURNE on Individual Dichromatism. Aue 


feathers taken from the breast on Dec. 21, were markedly tawny 
toward the base. From Nov. 1 until Dec. 21, a total of fifty-nine 
feathers had been lost by the two birds, but from this number, 
forty-two must be deducted— (g lost because of my effort to 
mark them, 4 tail-feathers, 15 feathers evidently of the younger 
plumage, and the remaining 14 lost in a fight between the Owls 
for the possession of amouse). ‘This leaves for each of the Owls 
a total loss of nine feathers during the change described above ; 
yet on one of the birds, as we have seen, the majority of the 
feathers were characteristic of the red-brown phase. 

On Dec. 22, the Owls were sent to some Owl-loving friends in 
the country, where they could have space to fly about, and we 
hoped to have some young Owlets later. At this time the liver 
was stopped and they were fed upon raw meat. Every cast-off 
feather was carefully preserved and labelled, and I heard often of 
my pets, but especially about the color of the plumage. There 
seemed to be rather a loss, than an increase of the red-brown 
effect as time went on, and this was very evident, or at least I 
thought so, on Jan. 17, when I saw the surviving Owl, which was 
the larger red-brown female. ‘The smaller and grayer bird had 
been killed and partly eaten by the other on Jan. 3. 

On Jan. 19, the other Owl was found dead in her cage. She 
was sent to me and is now in my collection, No. 4397. A careful 
examination showed that the organs were all healthy macroscopi- 
cally, but the bird was much emaciated, there being almost no fat 
about the kidneys and mesentery, and but little in the orbits. 
This was a marked contrast to the fatty degeneration from over- 
feeding which I believe is usual in captive Hawks and Owls. 
The condition of the bones of the skull proved that the bird was 
less than a year old. 

This ends the history of my two pets, which I have intentionally 
given at considerable length. It seems certain that in the larger 
female Owl there was (1) @ change from the typical gray to the 
characteristic, though not extreme phase of red; (2) and that this 
was neither caused, nor accompanied by appreciable ‘feather loss’ 
(so-called ‘ molt’); (3) nor can it have been wholly, if at all, depena- 
ent upon new feather growth ; and (4) tt ts also evident that there 
was a distinct change in the color of the individual feathers, which 
were apparently mature, as seen under the microscope. 


ee feecent Literature. 325 


It cannot be said with absolute certainty that the reddish phase 
was ‘entirely independent of age, sex, or season,’ and hence an 
example of ‘individual dichromatism’; but if due to such normal 
and universal laws as any of the above, the fact of a change of 
color in the individual could hardly have escaped the notice of 

ornithologists, while if caused by the ordinary conditions of cap- 
tivity it must have been recognized long since. ‘The evidence, 
therefore, seems to be almost conclusive that this Owl was an 
instance of what I have for convenience called ‘zudividual dichro- 
matism’,; and also that this condition is probably infrequent, and 
doubtless due to some unknown element, not common even in 
captivity. 


(Zo be concluded.) 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Sclater on Rules for Naming Animals.' — At the meeting of the Zodlog- 
ical Society of London, held March 6, 1896, the special topic assigned for 
discussion was the Code of Rules for Zodlogical Nomenclature adopted 
by the German ZoOlogical Society, or rather the discrepancies between 
these rules and those of the Stricklandian Code, with a view to their 
possible reconciliation. The discussion was opened by Dr. Sclater, who 
appears to have made the principal address of the evening, and who was 
followed by other speakers. 

The discussion, it may be remarked, was apropos of the new work 
planned by the German Zoological Society, called ‘Das Tierreich, which 
is to comprise the synonymy, the geographical range, and short’ descrip- 
tions of every known species of animal. It is, of course, of the highest 
importance in a standard work of this magnitude that the rules of 
nomenclature adopted shall be such as will command the respect of the 
greatest possible number of workers; for it is Utopian to expect that any 
code of rules can be devised at present, if ever, that will receive unani- 
mous endorsement. As preliminary to its work the German Zodlogical 


1 Remarks on the Divergencies between the “ Rules for naming Animals ” of 
the German ZoGlogical Society and the Stricklandian Code of Nomenclature. 
By P. L. Sclater. Proc. of the ZoGl. Soc. of London, 1896, pp. 306-319. 


Auk 


3 26 Recent Literature. One. 


Society adopted in 1894 a code of rules for zodlogical nomenclature,’ 
which, while differing quite radically in several important points from 
the British Association Code, is fortunately in essential accord with all 
other recent Codes, the tendency being toward unity on the few leading 
points in which the British Code differs from the later systems of rules. 
In respect to the German Code, it may be sufficient to say that in only one 
particular does it differ from the A. O. U. Code, namely, in permitting 
“purely orthographical correction when the word is, without doubt, 
wrongly written or incorrectly transcribed.” This is a minor point, in 
no way seriously affecting names.” As compared with the British Code, 
it (1) adopts the Xth edition of Linnzus’s ‘Systema Nature’ as the 
starting point for the law of priority; (2) it disclaims any relationship 
between the nomenclature of zodlogy and botany; (3) the same term may 
be used for the generic and specific name of a species when these names 
have priority. 

As Mr. Sclater points out, these are the three essential points of differ- 
ence between the German and British Codes, the latter adopting the Xth 
edition of Linnzus as its starting point for the law of priority, and hold- 
ing that the same generic name must never be used in botany and zoology, 
and that a new specific name must be given to a species when its old 
name has been adopted for a genus. 

On all these points Mr. Sclater upholds the British system. Respect- 
ing the first he says: ‘‘ Strickland, the founder of our modern Codes of 
Nomenclature, after deliberately considering the point, adopted the latest 
and most perfect edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ as his starting point. 
I think we should do unwisely to deviate from Strickland’s views on 
this subject. ... On the ground of priority, therefore, I claim that, 
as first decided by Strickland, we ought to adopt the twelfth and most 
perfect edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ as the basis of modern Nomen- 
clature.” This, as has been repeatedly shown, is a lame defense, hardly 
worthy of serious consideration. But are the statements regarding Strick- 
land quite correct? According to the ‘Revised Rules’ of the British 
Association: “In: Mr. H. E. Strickland’s original draft of these Rules 
and Recommendations the edition of Linnzeus was left blank, and the 
XIIth was inserted by the Manchester Committee.” There is, besides, 
evidence to show that Mr. Strickland considered the Xth edition as the 
starting point for binomial nomenclature.’ 


‘Regeln fiir die wissenschaftliche Benennung der Thiere zusammengestellt 
von der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig, 1894. 


>The A. O. U. Code (Canon XL) provides that “ The original orthography 
of a name is to be rigidly preserved, unless a typographical error is evident.” 
This, it must be admitted, has met with wide-spread disapproval, though 
advocated by De Candolle in 1883, and in favor of which, in the interest of 
absolute fixity of names, there is still much to be said. 


3 Cf. Auk, I, 1884, p. 400. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Recent Literature. ay 

Thus apparently Mr. Sclater concedes practically nothing in the interest 
of ‘* reconciling the differences between the German Rules and the Code of 
Nomenclature adopted by the British Association” ; he strenuously upholds 
the British Code on the three essential points wherein it differs trom 
the German Code, regardless of the fact that within the last ten years the 
_ whole world of zodlogists, outside of the British Islands, has gone over to 
the opposite view, and that a number of prominent British zodlogists have 
also recently joined the great and ever increasing majority against the 
British Code. We must say, with regret, that this looks like unwise 
conservatism, bordering on perversity; for the few British naturalists 
who still stick to the British rules can hardly expect the rest of the world 
to waive their better judgment in favor of insular sentiment and traditions. 

Mr. Sclater has much to say in favor of the German Code where it is in 
agreement with the British rules, and has even been willing to make con- 
cessions on one or two minor points. One of these is that ‘‘ the name of 
the author, if given, should follow the scientific name without intervening 
sign,” as is expressly provided in the A. O. U. Code and approved by the 
German zo6logists. It is with regret, therefore, that we have observed in 
certain publications in this country a tendency to insert a comma between 
the scientific name and the authority, and especially in the publications 
of our own National Museum, where, up to a few years ago, the contrary 
practice prevailed. 

We are glad also to see that Mr. Sclater here comes out squarely in 
favor of the use of trinomials for subspecies,— which, it is true, he has 
used quite freely for some years past. On this point he says: “That sub- 
species actually exist in nature cannot, I think, be denied by anybody who 
believes in the origin of species by descent. Nearly all forms of animal 
life, which have a wide distribution, show ditferences when individuals 
from the two extremes of the range of the species are compared... . 
‘Subspecies’ appears to me to be an excellent term todesignate the slight 
differences exhibited in these cases, far better than ‘climatic’ or ‘geo- 
graphical’ variety, which is often used for them. . . . The British forms 
of the Coal Tit and the Marsh Tit, which have been named Parus britan- 
nicus and Parus dresser’, appear to me to be good instances of subspecies. 
I should propose to call them Parus ater britannicus and Parus palustris 
dressert, while the corresponding forms of the continent should be termed 
Parus ater typicus and Parus palustris typicus when they are spoken of in 
the restricted sense only. In ordinary cases, however, it is sufficient to 
say Parus ater and Parus palustris without any reference to the subspecies. 
To give these slight and in some cases barely recognizable variations the 
same rank as is awarded to Turdus musicus and Turdus visctvorus seems to 
me highly undesirable, and the recognition of subspecies indicated by 
While of course 


” 


trinomials gives us an easy way out of the difficulty. 
all this has been said before, it is gratifying, as we recall the past in 
relation to trinomials, to see it restated in the present connection. 

As ‘Appendix I’ to his address, Mr. Sclater gives an English transla- 


2 S Recent Literature. ae 


tion of the ‘Rules,’ twenty-eight in number, adopted by the German 
Zoological Society for the scientific naming of animals, the explanations 
and comment accompanying the original rules being, however, omitted. 
‘Appendix II’ gives a convenient list of ‘Titles of the principal Modern 
Codes of Zodlogical Nomenclature,’ eleven in number. 

The discussion following Mr. Sclater’s paper included a communication 
from Graft Hans von Berlepsch, and remarks by Sir William Flower, Mr. 
Hartert, Professor Lankester, Mr. Elwes, Dr. D. Sharp, Mr. W. T. Bland- 
ford, Dr. H. O. Forbes, and Mr. W. F. Kirby. In the main their views 
are so inharmonious, aside from the three main points under discussion, as 
to discourage the hope of an immediate general agreement on principles 
of nomenclature. Some of the writers favored the Xth edition and 
others the XIIth edition of Linnzus as the starting point; some even 
seemed doubtful about taking either, but favored the selection of some 
much more recent period—some standard work for any branch of 
zo0logy where such a work is available, taking the names there given, 
whether right or wrong, and in defiance even of the law of priority. It 
was also suggested that International Committees be appointed, “ zo¢ to 
draw upa Code of rules, but to produce an authoritative list of names — 
once and for all—about which no lawyer-like haggling should hereafter 
be permitted”! Any attempt to combat such crude notions would 
evidently be a waste of energy! 

Professor Lankester, “ thought the XIIth edition of the ‘Systema Nature’ 
should be adopted as the starting point of Zodlogical Nomenclature, as a 
tribute of respect to Linnzeus, since it was the last edition of that work 
and contained Linnzeus’s revised list of genera and species” Mr. Hartert 
thought that the Xth edition of this work should be taken as the correct 
starting point, ‘‘ because in that edition Linneus first made use of the 
binary system of nomenclature; and as the question of justness had been 
mentioned he considered that it would be unjust to authors who created 
names between the dates of the two editions, if the twelfth were adopted ; 
he was, moreover, of opinion that if the XIIth edition were adopted, 
because it contained corrections and emendations of the older edition, it 
would make a bad precedent, and that any other author might, if so 
inclined, claim to alter his original names after he had created and pub- 
lished them, and so cause confusion.” We give this as the gist of the 
whole argument on the matter of the two editions, and commend Mr. 
Hartert’s clever reductio ad absurdum.—J. A. A. 


Swann’s Handbook of British Birds.— This little manual' is certainly 
what its title implies —a conzc’se handbook of British Birds, or, as 
claimed in the preface, “a handy textbook of reference,” small enough 


‘A Concise Handbook | of | British Birds | By | H. Kirke Swann | Editor 
of “The Ornithologist.” | — | London: | John Wheldon & Co., | 58, Great 
Queen Street, W. C. | 1896. 16 mo, pp. viii+-210. 


es II Recent Literature. 329 


to be easily carried in the pocket. In view of the many ‘ manuals’ and 
‘handbooks’ of British birds, its compact form and small size must be 
its main razson d’étre. There is no introductory matter beyond the 
preface, no diagnoses of the higher groups, no analytical keys, no 
general analysis of the avifauna as regards the manner of occurrence of 
the species, and, finally, no index! As 381 species and about a dozen 
additional subspecies are treated in the course of 208 pages, the descrip- 
tions are necessarily brief and the biographical matter is reduced to a 
minimum. Nevertheless it must serve as a ‘‘handy textbook of refer- 
ence” to those who have already some knowledge of British birds, but 
hardly as the most convenient form of a manual for the beginner. Some 
30 species usually included in British lists are ‘‘ provisionally excluded,” 
being relegated to a nominal list in the Appendix, on the ground that 
their “recorded occurrences are either insufficiently authenticated or 
somewhat improbable.” 

The classification and nomenclature is practically that of the B. O. U. 
List, ‘‘ but a number of necessary alterations have been made, particu- 
larly in the matter of adopting the specific names of the frs¢ describers 
as far as possible. An effort has also been made to allow specific rank to 
valid species only, while subspecies or races, instead of being nameless, 
are distinguished by sub-numbers and trinomials—after the American 
style.” Headds that he does not expect to “escape censure for adopt- 
ing the despised system, yet until some of our ornithologists can sug- 
gest some other way of allowing a name to a recognized race without 
giving it the rank of a species, I will adhere to trinomials.” He says 
further that with the exception of the late Henry Seebohm, “no British 
ornithologist appears to have openly avowed himself a trinomialist.” 
He is not, however, quite so destitute of good company as a trinom- 
ialist among his own countrymen as he seems to suppose, as witness 
the use of trinomials by numerous British naturalists, and their recent 
formal approval by Mr. Sclater (see above, p. 327) —J. A. A. 


Loomis on California Water Birds.'— Mr. Loomis continues his studies 
of the Water Birds of the Californian coast by a visit to South Farallon 
Island from July 8 to 16, 1896. Interesting notes are given on the habits 
of the ten species of Water Birds found nesting there, with remarks on 
four so-called ‘“‘ non-indigenous” species. 

Speaking of the wholesale robbery of Murres’ eggs to supply the San 
Francisco market, Mr. Loomis says: ‘‘It is apparent that unless this 
devastation is put an end to, the Farallon Murre rookeries will ere long 
belong to the past. A State law prohibiting the sale of eggs of wild birds 
and prompt action on the part of the lighthouse board will preserve this 


‘California Water Birds. No. III. South Farallon Island in July. By 
Leverett M. Loomis, Curator of the Department of Ornithology. Proc. Cal. 
Acad. Sci., Ser. 2, Vol. XI, pp.353-366, 2 maps. 

42 


330 Pecent Literature. Aa 


wonderful marine aviary — second to none of the natural features of 
California.” In 1884 it is said 300,000 eggs were gathered and the market 
was glutted, while the present year only 91,740 have been taken. Com- 
paratively few birds are allowed to breed and such merciless persecution 
can but result in extinction. The commercial value of these rookeries will 
doubtless prevent their protection from purely sentimental grounds, but 
if it can be shown that the present course will end in the destruction of 
the egg industry, it might be possible to secure the enactment of a law 
which would protect the birds for at least the latter half of the nesting 
season.— F. M. C. 


Ridgway on New Species and Subspecies of Birds'—In the three 
papers here cited, none of which bears date of publication, Mr. Ridgway 
describes Geothlypis faveolatus from near Tampico on the Gulf coast of 
Mexico, a form which, strangely enough, is most closely related to G. 
belding?t of Lower California; Geospfzza pachyryhuca, G. fatigata, Camar- 
hynchus bindloet, C. compresstrostris, and C. ¢acertus from the apparently 
exhaustless Galapagos, and Peucedramus olivaceus aurantiacus from 
Guatemala.— F. M. C. 


Oberholser on Two New Subspecies of Dryobates.2— Comparison of a 
series of 200 Downy Woodpeckers has impressed Mr. Oberholser with the 
difterences in size and color existing between specimens from the South 
Atlantic and Gulf States and those from Alaska and northern British 
America, and he therefore separates these extremes under the names 
Dryobates pubescens meridionalis (Swainson) and Dryobates pubescens 
nelsont (Oberholser) respectively, leaving Dryobates pubescens as a tran- 
sition form occupying the intervening region.— F. M. C. 


Richmond on Mexican Birds.*— This is a nominal list of 58 species, 
with the number of specimens of each, received by the National Museum 


'r. Description of a New Species of Ground Warbler from Eastern Mexico. 
By Robert Ridgway, Curator of the Department of Birds. Proc. U.S. Nat. 
Mus., XVIII, p. 1109. 

2. Preliminary Description of some New Birds from the Galapagos Archi- 
pelago. /bzd., p. 293. 

3. Description of a New Subspecies of the Genus Peucedramus, Coues. 
Lbid., p. 441. 

? Description of Two New Subspecies of the Downy Woodpecker, Dryobates 
pubescens (Linneus). By Harry C. Oberholser. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., X VIII, 
1895, Pp. 547- 

3 Partial list of Birds collected at Alta Mira, Mexico, by Mr. Frank B. Arm- 


strong. By Charles W. Richmond, Assistant Curator of the Department of 
Birds. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XVIII, 18096, pp. 627-632. 


Vol. X 
Boe Recent Literature. aaa 


from the collector. The one new species contained in the collection has 
been described by Mr. Ridgway as Geoth/ypis flavovelatus. (See antea, Dp: 
330).— F. M. C. 


Richmond on New Species of Birds. '— Mr. Richmond here describes 
Eegialitis thoracica, apparently most nearly related to 2. varia, and 
Phlegopsis saturata, a Nicaraguan representative of the Panama P. 
macleannant.— F. M. C. 


Dr. Abbott’s Collections from Asia.2— The two papers here cited are 
detailed lists of the birds collected by Dr. Abbott, giving the data of each 
specimen, including color of the irides, bill, and feet. The first paper 
is based on 746 specimens, referable to 188 species; the second, on 210 
specimens, representing 98 species. Cyanecula abbotti from Ladak, 
Merula merula intermedia from Eastern Turkestan, and gtalitis pamir- 
eusts from Pamir, are described as new.—F. M. C. 


Dr. Abbott’s Collections from the Seychelles and other Islands.?—This 
paper is an important contribution to our knowledge of the distribution of 
birds in these Madagascan islands. Sixteen land birds are recorded from 
the Seychelles group, eight from the Amirante group, four from Assump- 
tion Island, eight from Gloriosa Island, and twenty from Aldabra Island. 
Dr. Abbott's field-notes relate almost wholly to the birds of the last named 


‘rt. Description of a New Species of Plover from the East Coast of Mada- 
gascar. By Charles W. Richmond. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., X, March 14, 
1896, p. 53. 

2. Description of a New Species of Ant Thrush from Nicaragua. By Charles 
W. Richmond, Assistant Curator of the Department of Birds. Proc. U.S. 
Nat. Mus., XVIII, p. 625. 


=r. Catalogue of a Collection of Birds made by Dr. W. L. Abbott in 
Kashmir, Balistan and Ladak, with Notes on Some of the Species, and a 
Description of a New Species of Cyanecula. By Charles W. Richmond, 
Assistant Curator of the Department of Birds. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XVIII, 
1896, pp- 451-503. 

2. Catalogue of a Collection of Birds made by Dr. W. L. Abbott, in East- 
ern Turkestan, the Thian-Shan Mountains, and Tagdumbash Pamir, Central 
Asia, with Notes on Some of the Species. By Charles W. Richmond, Assist- 
ant Curator of the Department of Birds Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XVIII, 1896, 


Pp. 569-576. 
3 On Birds Collected by Doctor W. L. Abbott in the Seychelles, Amirantes, 
Gloriosa, Assumption, Aldabra, and Adjacent Islands, with Notes on Habits, 


etc., by the Collector. By Robert Ridgway, Curator of the Department of 
Birds. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XVIII, 1896, pp. 509-546. 


3 3 2 Pecent Literature. ae 


island. His observations on the flightless Rail (Dryolimnas aldabranus) 
are particularly interesting. 

Thirteen of the birds collected by Dr. Abbott in these islands have been 
previously described as new by Mr. Ridgway',and the name Turtur abbotti 
is here proposed for the Seychelles form of 7. picturatus. 

An Appendix gives a useful tabular list, showing the distribution of the 
212 birds known from the entire Madagascan group of islands, from 
Mauritius to Comoro, and a bibliography — F. M. C. 


Robinson’s Birds of Margarita.2—In 1876, when the Smithsonian 
Institution sent Mr. F. W. Ober to make collections of birds in the Lesser 
Antilles, there were only two of the larger islands of the Caribbean basin, 
Cuba and Jamaica, of whose avifauna we possessed anything approaching 
acomplete knowledge. It is an indication of the activity shown in orni- 
thological research during the past twenty years that the island visited by 
Lieut. Robinson was the only one in the whole West Indian and Carib- 
bean group which had not been more or less explored by ornithologists. 
Margarita, like Trinidad, is a continental island and has derived its 
avifauna from Venezuela, from which it is distant only seventeen miles. 
It is forty-two miles long and twenty and one-half miles wide in its 
greatest dimensions. The southern shore in the vicinity of Porlamar, 
where Lieut. Robinson landed, is ‘‘ flat or gently rolling” and grown 
with scrubby thorn trees, cacti, etc. ‘‘ About three miles inland foothills 
begin, which rise by leaps to a central peak, 3,240 feet in height,” a 
sufficient height to condense the moisture of the warm trade-winds, 
giving a rainfall which produces a heavy forest. 

Lieut. Robinson had only sixteen days’ collecting on Margarita, but the 
fact that he began half an hour after landing is good evidence that he 
made the most of this time. He worked both in the dry coast region and 
in the mountain forests, securing 200 specimens and recording 73 species. 

Of a number of these interesting biographical notes are given. Thus 
the calls of Eupsychortyx pallidus resemble those of our Bob-white, a 
marked instance of the stability of call-notes and suggesting common 
ancestry; Bucco bicenctus nests in holes in the dwellings of termites; the 
Buff-breasted Hummingbird feeds in part on fruit and has a song of 
decided character, and Myzarchus tyrannulus, like our own Myzarchus, 
uses a cast-off snake skin for home decoration, evidence of the antiquity 
of a habit which has doubtless persisted long after its cause has ceased to 


1 Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XVI, 1893, pp. 4, 597-599; XVII, 1894, 371-373; 
Auk, XI, 1894, 74. 


2An Annotated List of Birds Observed on the Island of Margarita, and at 
Guanta and Laguayra, Venezuela. By Wirt Robinson, First Lieutenant, 
Fourth U. S. Artillery, with Critical Notes and Description of New Species, 
by Charles W. Richmond, Assistant Curator, Department of Birds. Proc. 
U.S. Nat. Mus., XVIII, 1896, pp. 649-685, one map. 


eras Feecent Literature. 333 
be potent. Chordezles acutipennis is said to flit along the road at dusk and 
alight in front of the traveller; a rather unusual habit for a Nighthawk. 
Is it not possible the bird observed was Myctidromus? 

Mr. Richmond has made good use of Lieut. Robinson’s collection, add- 
ing numerous critical notes and describing no less than ten species as 
new, most of which are apparently pale island forms of mainland species ; 
they are the following: Butorides robinsoni, Eupsychortyx pallidus, 
Leptotila tnsularis, Scardafella ridgwayt, Speotyto brachyptera, Doler- 
omya pallida,’ Amazilia alicia,” Dendroplex longirostris, Quiscalus insu- 
laris, Cardinalis robinsoni,s and Hylophilus grisetpes. 

In conclusion lists of birds identified during a few days’ stay at Guanta 
and Laguayra are given.—F. M. C. 


Cherrie on San Domingo Birds.‘-— Of all the West Indian islands, San 
Domingo is least known ornithologically. Cuba, Jamaica, and Porto 
Rico, of the larger islands, have had resident naturalists who have made us 
acquainted with the fauna of their homes, while the smaller islands could 
be explored by an energetic collector during a few months’ visit. It may 
be safely said, therefore, that only in San Domingo and Hayti alone is 
there a probability of discovering birds new to science. Students of the 
West Indian avifauna will thus welcome this paper by Mr. Cherrie, 
whose ability as a collector has been proved in other fields. 

In an interesting introduction, descriptive of his travels in the island from 
January to May, 1895, there is abundant evidence that patience, experience, 
a fever-proof constitution, and enthusiasm were needed to carry the trip 
to the successful conclusion which the succeeding pages record, while a 
record of 210 bird-skins in five days’ collecting show that material results 
are not wanting. 

Mr. Cherrie’s list of only eighty-three species betrays the poverty of an 
insular avifauna, but of these we have numerous interesting observations 
on notes and habits. Dzulus dominicus is stated to build one large nest 
which is used by a number of females; Mesoctctes micromegas often 
resembles some Warblers in actions, while Chloronerfes striatus is a Sap- 
sucker. Our Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is probably a 
summer resident in San Domingo, a considerable extension of its known 
breeding range, which was previously supposed to be from Florida north- 


1 Previously described in ‘ The Auk,’ XII, 1895, 369. 
? Previously described in ‘The Auk,’ XII, 1895, 368. 
3 Previously described in ‘ The Auk,’ XII, 1895, 370. 


4 Field Columbian Museum. Publication ro. Ornithological Series, Vol. I, 
No. 1. Contribution to the Ornithology of San Domingo. By George K. 
Cherrie, Assistant Curator of Ornithology. Charles B. Cory, Curator of 
Department. Chicago, U.S. A., March, 1896. $8vo. pp. 26. 


ree 3 Auk 
3 3 4 Recent Literature. One 


ward. Five females with enlarged ovaries were taken and one contained 
an egg “that would have been deposited in one or two days.” 

The two new birds discovered have been described by Mr. Cory in this 
Journal (Vol. XII, 1895, p. 278). One, Elainea cherriet, is related to 
E. fallax of Jamaica, the other, Yyetornis feldz, is a very interesting addi- 
tion to this genus, which before contained only the Jamaican Ayetornis 
pluvialis—F. M. C. 


Warren’s ‘ Taxidermy’ and Bird-Laws.'!— Dr. Warren writes (Introduc- 
tion, p. 9): “This Bulletin has been prepared to enable earnest students of 
ornithological science, who have complied with all the requirements of 
the act of May 14, 1889 (page 55), to learn some facts concerning the 
collecting and preservation of birds and their eggs.” The object is a 
worthy one in so far as it relates to ‘‘earnest students of ornithological 
science,’ but we fear that the wholesale distribution of a pamphlet of 
this nature will awaken an interest in ‘bird-stuffing’ and result in the 
needless destruction of large numbers of birds. Birds mounted on 
“plush-covered panels” or “bamboo screens” are surely not in use for 
the ‘strictly scientific purposes” of the state law (p. 56), and sugges- 
tions for purely decorative work of this kind seem out of place in a 
treatise addressed to ‘‘ students of ornithological science.” 

We are surprised to see that in spite of Dr. Warren’s efforts Hawks 
and Owls are not protected by the Pennsylvania law.— F. M. C. 


Ridgway and Lucas on a New Family of Birds.2— In ‘The Auk’ for 
April, 1895, p. 186, Mr. Lucas states that ‘‘Mr. Ridgway has found it 
necessary to establish a new family for the reception of the genus Proc- 
nias but the diagnosis has only recently appeared, in addition to which 
Mr. Lucas gives in a separate paper the osteological and pterylographical 
characters. The group has hitherto held the position of a subfamily of 
the Tanagride; and no one familiar with these birds can have failed 
to notice their aberrant characters, as compared with other Tanagers. 
Mr. Lucas says, respecting the osteology, that the skull, ‘in spite of its 


1 Bulletin No. 6. Department of Agriculture. Division of Economic 
Zodlogy. Taxidermy. How to Collect, Skin, Preserve and Mount Birds. 
The Game and Fish Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Iliustrated. 
By B. HB. Warren, M: D5 State Zoodlogist, Harrisburg, Pa. Second edition. 
Clarence M. Busch, State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1896. 8vo. pp. 128, fig. xi. 


2Characters of a New American Family of Passerine Birds. By Robert: 
Ridgway, Curator of the Department of Birds. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., XVIII, 
No. 1076, pp. 449, 450. 

Osteological and Pterylographical Characters of the Procniatide. By F. A. 
Lucas, Curator of the Department of Comparative Anatomy. Jézd., No. 1077, 
Pp- 505-507, with 5 cuts. 


ee Recent Literature. 335 


superficial resemblance to that of a Swallow is structurally "more nearly 
like that of such a typical Tanager as Péranga erythromelas ; but in the 
characters of the palate, Procnéas departs so widely not only from the 
Tanagers but from the large majority of Passerine birds, as to warrant 
the establishment of a separate family for the members of the genus.” 
_ The pterylographical notes have been contributed by Mr. Hurbert L. 
Clark, who says that while the pterylosis of Procnzas is evidently passer- 
ine, it “shows no particular leaning to any group.” Figures are given 
of the palatal region of the skull, and otf the dorsal feather tracts, the 
former in comparison with a Swallow and a Tanager, and the latter with 
those of several species of Tanagers. —J. A. A. 


Montgomery on Migration as a Check upon Geographical Variation!.— 
The evidence is so clearly in favor of Mr. Montgomery’s proposition that 
few doubtless will question the correctness of his main conclusions. 
While we do not recall having seen the matter formally stated, doubtless 
the coincidences here stated have not failed of recognition on the part of 
many students of geographical variation. The author calls attention to 
the fact that birds which are non-migratory, or which migrate only to a 
limited extent, in case they have also a wide geographical distribution, are 
apt to become differentiated into more or less well-marked subspecies 
under the varying conditions of environment of the widely separated parts 
of their range, while birds that migrate extensively, say through 30° or 
more of latitude, even if widely dispersed during the breeding season, 
seldom show a tendency to become differentiated into subspecies. This 
he believes is due to the fact that “ the influence of the winter environment 
acts as a check upon the acquisition of adaptations suited alone to the 
summer environment.’—J. A. A. 


Contributions to Economic Ornithology.— The ‘ Yearbook of the U. S. 
Department of Agriculture for 1895’, recently issued, contains two note- 
worthy contributions to economic ornithology. Mr. Sylvester D. Judd 
reports on the food and general habits of the Catbird, Brown Thrasher, 
Mockingbird, and House Wren, each species being illustrated with an 
excellent full-length cut by Mr. J. L. Ridgway. The verdict is favorable 
to all, as they subsist largely upon injurious insects. The House Wren 


’ 


is “exclusively insectivorous”; the others live partly on fruits, some of 


which are cultivated. 


1 Extensive Migration in Birds as a Check upon the Production of Geograph- 
ical Varieties. By Thomas H. Montgomery, Jr., American Naturalist, June, 
1896, pp. 458-464. 

>Four Common Birds of the Farm and Garden. By Sylvester D. Judd, 


Assistant Ornithologist, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Yearbook of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture for 1595, pp. 405-418, with 4 cuts. 


33 6 Peecent Literature. j on 


Prof. F. E. L. Beal! writes of the Meadowlark and Baltimore Oriole, 
which species are also well figured. About 83 per cent of the Oriole’s food 
consists of insects, of which more than one-third are caterpillars. Despite 
a slight taste for green peas, and a propensity to puncture grapes, the 
farmer is counselled ‘‘ to hold his good opinion of the Oriole, and accord 
it the protection it so well deserves.” ‘The food habits of the Meadowlark 
are almost above reproach; “far from being injurious, it is one of the 
most useful allies to agriculture, standing almost without a peer as a 


” 


destroyer of noxious insects.” 

The ‘Report on the Gypsy Moth,’ by Mr. Edward H. Forbush and 
Prof. Charles H. Fernald,? recently published under the direction of 
the State Board of Agriculture of Massachusetts, contains 40 pages (pp. 
203-243) on ‘The Usefulness of Birds as Insect Destroyers,’ prepared by 
Mr. Forbush as a part of his chapter on the ‘ Natural Enemies of the 
Gypsy Moth.’ 

After several pages of introductory matter on the general subject of the 
utility of birds as insect destroyers, Mr. Forbush gives a list of 38 species 
of birds seen to feed on the gypsy moth, only about a dozen of which, 
however, seem to be especially useful as destroyers of this pest. These 
are mentioned specifically and in detail, there being a short report about 
each; then follow remarks about other useful birds, and many pages of 
field observations, showing how the birds are attracted to the infested 
localities and their methods of attacking the moth in its various stages of 
existence. These field notes on the various birds observed give striking 
evidence of the usefulness of birds as insect destroyers. With such facts 
before him it is natural that Mr. Forbush should urge better protection 
for our birds. As Massachusetts is much the same —at least no worse — 
than other parts of the country, we may well quote the following from 
Mr. Forbush’s appeal for the birds. “ While the present laws for the pro- 
tection of insectivorous birds are wise in the main, no adequate provision 


1The Meadow Lark and Baltimore Oriole. By F. E. L. Beal, Assistant 
Ornithologist, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Yearbook of the U. S. 
Department of Agriculture for 1895, pp. 419-430, with 2 cuts. 


2 The Gypsy Moth, Porthetria dispar (Linn.). A Report on the Work of 
destroying the Insect in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, together with an 
Account of its History and Habits both in Massachusetts and Europe. by 
Edward H. Forbush, Field Director in Charge of the work of destroying the 
Gypsy Moth, Ornithologist to the State Board of Agriculture, etc., and 
Charles H. Fernald, A. M., Ph.D., Professor of Zodlogy in the Massachusetts 
Agricultural College, Entomologist to the State Board of Agriculture, etc. 
Published under the direction of the State Board of Agriculture by Authority 
of the Legislature. Boston: Wright & Potter Printing Co., State Printers, 
18 Post Office Square. 1896, 8vo. pp. xii +495 +, with 5 maps, 65 plates, 
and numerous cuts. 


roe II Recent Literature. 337 


is made for their enforcement, and they are consequently a dead letter to 
certain classes of people. A great many birds are killed and many nests 
broken up by boys. In the fall the country swarms with gunners. 
Thousands of birds are killed for the milliners. The camps of Italians, 
where employees engaged on public works are quartered, furnish many of 
these gunners. These men will shoot birds of any kind, anywhere and 
on any man’s premises. Everything that wears feathers is considered by 
them as fair game.’ He advocates the appointment of officers to enforce 
the laws, and the education of children regarding the usefulness of birds, 
and holds that it should generally be considered a crime to destroy insect- 
eating birds. Laws, however good, will not execute themselves, and 
officers should certainly be provided to rigidly enforce the statutes for 
the protection of birds. 

Mr. Forbush has also recently published a paper on the economic status 
of the Crow,’ in which he treats of its migrations and general habits, 
especially in relation to its food. After commenting at length on 
previous reports on the food of the Crow, and giving many original 
observations of his own on the subject, he closes his paper without taking 
a very decided stand in regard to whether the Crow has been shown to be 
more useful than destructive to the intrests of the farmer, Finally, after 
weighing the evidence, pro and con, he says that “from what is now 
known about the Crow’s food we may conclude that, unless the birds 
become unduly numerous, they are likely to be of great service to the 
farmer. It will pay the farmer to sacrifice some portion of his products 
to the Crow, provided he uses care that the cunning bird does not over- 
reach him in the bargain.” 

A further excellent contribution to the literature of economic ornithol- 
ogy is a series of papers by Miss Florence A. Merriam in recent issues of 
‘Forest and Stream,’ under the title, ‘How Birds affect the Farm and 
Garden’, and since separately republished.?, The introductory pages treat 
of the losses caused by insects, and the usefulness of birds in holding the 
insect pests in check; some 40 species of North American birds are then 
dealt with formally, followed by ‘ Conclusion’, giving a list of some of 
the most formidable of our insect enemies and of the birds that have been 
proved to be their natural enemies. Speaking of the scientific investiga- 
tion of the food habits of birds, Miss Merriam says: ‘* So far as it has 
gone, the examination of the stomach contents of birds has proved that, 


'The Crow in Massachusetts. By E. H. Forbush, Ornithologist to the 
Board. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Board of Agriculture, Ser. of 1896, 
No. 4, August, 1896, pp. 24-40. 


2How Birds affect the Farm and Garden. By Florence A. Merriam. Forest 
and Stream, Vol. XLVII, 1896, No. 6, Aug. 8, pp. 103, 104; No. 7, Aug. 15, 
Ppp. 123, 124; No. 8, Aug. 22, pp. 144, 145. Also separate, under the same 
title, 16mo., pp, 32. 
43 


3 38 Recent Literature. aus 


except in rare cases, where individuals attack cultivated fruits and grains 
our native birds merely preserve the balance of nature by destroying 
weeds that plague the farmer and by checking the insects that destroy 
the produce of the agriculturist. The great value of birds is demonstrated. 
The question is first how to attract them where they have disappeared, 
and then how to protect the crops from their occasional depredations.” 

The English Sparrow comes in for severe condemnation. ‘‘ It has been 
shown to interfere with seventy kinds of our own birds, most of which nest 
about houses and gardens and are beneficial to the farm and garden.” Its 
extermination is advocated. ‘‘ Bounty laws cannot do this, for, as has 
been clearly demonstrated, they do more mischief than can be easily rem- 
edied, as money is usually spent on the heads of valuable birds that have 
been mistaken for the injurious ones. But the work might be effectively 
done by State boards or commissioners, who should hire trained assistants 
to destroy the birds and their nests.” 

Miss Merriam’s articles are illustrated with numerous cuts of the birds 
and insects especially mentioned, derived mainly from the recent publica- 
tions on these subjects by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.— 
Ifo Be Be 


Publications Received.— Alfaro, Anastasio. Museo Nacional de Costa 
Rica. Informe presentado al Sefior Secretario de Estado en el Despacho 
de Fomento por Anastasio Alfaro, Administrador del Museo. 4to, 1896, 
pp. iv +40. 

Allen, Francis H. Summer Birds of Willoughby Lake. (St. Johnsbury 
Caledonian (newspaper), Sept. 11, 1896.) 

Beal, F. E. L. The Meadowlark and Baltimore Oriole. (Yearbook 
U. S. Dept. of Agric. for 1895 (1896), pp. 419-430). 

Blasius, R. V.Berichte tiber das permanente internationale ornitholo- 
gische Comité fiir die Jahre 1891 bis 1895. Svo, pp. 27, 1896. 

Bocage, J. V. Barboza du. Mamiferos, Aves e Reptis da Hanha, no 
Sertao de Benguella. (Jorn. de Sci. math., phys. e nat. da Acad. real das 
Sci. de Lisboa, Ser. 2, IV, No. xiv, May, 1896.) 

Biittikofer, J. (1) On a probably new species of Cryfzturus. (Notes 
from the Leyden Museum, XVIII, pp. 1, 2.) (2) On the Genus Pyczon- 
otus and some Allied Genera, with enumeration of the specimens in 
the Leyden Museum. (J/é¢d., XVII, pp. 225-252) (3) Rectification of 
two Generic Names. (/é¢d., XVIII, p. 58.) (4) On a New Duck from 
the Island of Lumba. (/ézd., XVIII, pp. 59-62.) (5) Zoologische Skiz- 
zen aus der niederlféndischen Expedition nach Central Borneo. 
(Compte-rendu des Séances du Troisieme Congres international de 
Zoologie, Leyde, 16-21 Sept., 1895, pp. 212-227.) 

Cherrie, George K. Contributions to the Ornithology of San Domingo. 
(Field Columbian Mus., Orn. Ser., I, No. 1, pp. 1-26, 1896.) 

Fisher, A. K. Summer Roosts of Swallows and Red-winged Blackbirds. 
(The Observer, VII, July, 1896, pp. 382-384.) 


\ oe ae FRecent Literature. ; 23 9 


Forbush, Edward H., and Charles E. Fernald. The Gypsy Moth, Por- 
thetria dispar (Linn.). A report of the work of destroying the insect in 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, together with an account of its 
History and Habits, both in Massachusetts and Europe. Mass. State Board 
of Agriculture, Boston, 1896, 8vo, pp. xii + 496 + c, with numerous plates 
and cuts. 

Hartert, Ernst. On ornithological collections, made by Mr. Alfred 
Everett, in Celebes and on the islands south of it. (Novitates Zool., ITI, 
June, 1896, pp. 148-183. 

Holland, A. H. Field-notes on the Birds of the Estancia Sta. Elena, 
Argentine Republic.— Part III. With Remarks by P. L. Sclater. (Ibis 
July, 1896, pp. 315-318.) 

Homeyer, E. F. von. Museum Homeyerianum. Verzeichniss der orni- 
thologischen Sammlungen. S8yo, pp. 36. 

Judd, Sylvester D. Four Common Birds ot the Farm and Garden. 
(Year-book U. S. Dept. of Agric. for 1895, pp. 405-418.) 

Loomis, Leverett M. California Water Birds, No. III, South Farallon 
Island in July. (Proc. Cal. Acad. Sci., Ser. 2, Vol. VI. pp. 353-366.) 

Lucas, F. A. Osteological and Pterylographical Characters of the 
Procniatide. -(Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XVIII, No. 1077, pp. 505-507. ) 

Merriam, Florence A. How Birds affect the Farm andGarden. 16mo, 
Sept. 1896. Forest and Stream Publishing Company. Price 5 cts. 

Montgomery, Thomas H. Extensive migration in Birds as a check 
upon the production of Geographical Varieties. (Am. Nat., June, 1896, 
Pp: 458-464. ) 

Nehrling, H. North American Birds. Pts. XIV and XV. 

Oberholser, Harry C. Descriptions of two new Subspecies of the 
Downy Woodpecker, Dryobates pubescens (Linn.). (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 
XVIII, No. 1080, pp. 547-550.) 

Palmer, T.S. Bird Dayin Schools. (Circular No. 17, U.S. Dept. of 
Agriculture, Division of the Biological Survey. S8vo. pp. 4, July, 1896.) 

Ridgway, Robert. (1) Characters of a New American Family of Pas- 
serine Birds. (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XVIII, No. 1076, pp. 449, 450.) (2) 
On Birds collected by Dr. W. L. Abbott in the Seychelles, Amirantes, 
Gloriosa, Assumption, Aldabra, and adjacent Islands, with notes on 
Habits, etc., by the Collector. (/é¢d., No. 1079, pp. 509-546.) 

Richmond, Charles W. (1) Catalogue of a Collection of Birds made 
by Dr. W. L. Abbott in Kashmir, Baltistan and Ladak, with notes on some 
and a description of a new species of Cyunxecula. (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 
XVIII, No. 1078, pp. 451-503.) (2) Catalogue of a Collection of Birds 
made by Dr. W. L. Abbott, in Eastern Turkistan, the Thian-Shan Moun- 
tains, AW. Tagdumbash Pamir, Central Asia, with notes on some of the 
species. (/déd., No. 1083, pp. 569-576.) (3) Description of a New Species 
of Ant Thrush from Nicaragua. (/d¢d., No. 1090, pp. 625, 626.) (4) 
Partial List of Birds collected at Alta Mira, Mexico, by Mr. Frank B. 
Armstrong. (J/ézd., No. 1091, pp. 627-632. 


2 40 Feecent Literature. au 


Robinson, Wirt. An Annotated List of Birds observed on Margarita 
Island, and at Guanta and Laguayra, Venezuela. (J/ézd., No. 1093, pp. 
649-685.) 

Sclater, P. L. Remarks on the Divergencies between the “Rules for 
Naming Animals” of the German Zodlogical Society and the Strickland 
Code of Nomenclature. (P. Z. S., 1896, pp. 306-322. 

Shufeldt, R. W. On the Affinities of Harfagornis. (Trans. New 
Zealand Inst., XXVIII, p. 666.) 

Swann, H. Kirke. A concise Handbook of British Birds. Sm. 8vo, pp. 
vii + 210. London, 1896, John Wheldon & Co. Price, 3s. 6d. 

Warren, B. H. ‘Taxidermy. How to Collect, Skin, Preserve and 
Mount Birds, etc. (Bull. No.6, Dept. of Agric., State of Penna. 8vo, pp. 
128, 1896.) 

Wilson, Scott B. and A. H. Evans. Aves Hawaiienses: The Birds of 
the Sandwich Islands. Pt. VI, July, 1896. 

Actes de la Société Scientifique du Chili. V, 4e Livr., 1896. 

American Journ. Sci., July—Sept., 1896. 

American Naturalist, July—Sept., 1896. 

Anales del Museo nacional de Montevideo, IV, 1896. 

Annals of Scottish Nat. Hist., July, 1896. 

Aquila, III, Nos. 1, 2, 1896. 

Bulletin British Orn. Club, No. 37, 1896. 

Bulletin of the Wilson Orn. Chapter of the Agassiz Assoc., Nos. 
6-9, 1896. 

Forest and Stream, XLVII, Nos. 1-13, 1896. 

Medical Age, XIV, Nos. 11-17, 1896. 

Journal Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XIX, No. 1, 1896. 

Naturalist, The, Month. Journ. of Nat. Hist. for North of England, 
July—Sept., 1896. 

Nidologist, The, III, Nos. 10-12, 1896. 

Observer, The, VII, July—Oct., 1896. 

Oregon Naturalist, III, Nos. 6, 7, 1896. 

Ornis, VIII, Heft 4, 1896. 

Ornithologische Jahrbuch, VII, Hefte 4, 5, 1896. 

Ornithologische Monatsberichte, IV, Nos. 7-9, 1896. 

Osprey, The, I, No. 1, Sept. 1896. 

Ottawa Naturalist, X., Nos. 4, 5, 1896. 

Our Animal Friends, XX XIII, Nos. 10, 11, XXXIV, No. 1, 1896. 

Proceedings and Transactions of the Nova Scotia Institute of Science, 
IX, pt. 1, 1896. 

Science, New Ser., III, Nos. 77-90, 1896. 

Shooting and Fishing, XX, Nos. 9-21, 1896. 

Yearbook U.S. Dept. of Agriculture for 1895. 

Zodlogists, The, Nos. 235-237, 1896. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 General Notes. 341 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Occurrence of the Wood Ibis ( Zantalus loculator) in Bristol County, 
Massachusetts.— Mr. J. W. Critchley, of Providence, Rhode Island, writes 
me that “late in the afternoon of July 17, 1896, a woman came into the 
store with a Wood Ibis which her husband had shot that morning at a 
small mud pond in Seekonk, Massachusetts. It is a young bird but the 
primaries, secondaries and tail have the black and greenish brown of the 
adult. The rest of the wings with the back are white. The head is bald 
but the neck is covered with dark, downy feathers.” 

This specimen proved, on dissection, to be a male. Mr. Critchley has 
mounted it and I have just purchased it of him for my New England 
collection.— WILLIAM BREWSTER, Cambridge, Mass. 


Wilson’s Snipe in Nova Scotia in Winter.—During the months of 
January and February, 1896, I frequently flushed a pair of Wilson’s Snipe 
(Gallinago delicata) from a small fresh-water swamp near this town, 
known as Willow Hollow. This swamp is watered by many springs, 
situated in a well sheltered place, and remains open all winter. 

Is not this pretty far north for these birds to winter? The winter was 
severe with much snow.— HAROLD F. TuFrtTs, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. 


The Wild Pigeon at Englewood, N. J.— Mr. C. Irving Wood permits 
me to record his capture of a Wild Pigeon (Ecfofzstes migratorius) at 
Englewood, N. J., June 23, 1896. The bird was alone. It has been 
mounted by Mr. J. Ullrich, a local taxidermist, in whose possession I saw 
it. It isa young female molting from the first into mature plumage.— 
FRANK M. CHAPMAN, American Museum of Natural History, New York 
City. 


Recent Record of the Passenger Pigeon in Southern Wisconsin.— 
On September 8, 1896, I was fortunate enough to be presented with a 
beautiful immature male Passenger Pigeon (£c/fopistes migratorius ) 
which was killed that afternoon by a local hunter. It was a single bird 
and was shot from a dead tree near Delavan Lake; the crop was well 
filled with acorns and grasshoppers. This is the first record of the 
capture of the Wild Pigeon here in many years, and I consider myself 
extremely lucky in obtaining so fine a specimen.—N. Ho.ttister, Dela- 


van, Ws. 


The Turkey Vulture in the Catskills —— Dr. H. H. Rusby informs me 
that on September 1, 1896, he saw a Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) 
at Ulsterville, Ulster County, N. Y. The bird at one time was sailing 


342 General Notes. ace 


about within twenty yards of a number of observers, some of whom were 
familiar with the species in the South.— FRANK M. CHAPMAN, American 
Museum of Natural History, New Vork City. 


Buteo borealis harlani in Minnesota.—On April 12, 1893, I secured a 
beautiful specimen of this Hawk on the prairies of Lac Qui Parle 
County, near Madison, this State. Mr. Robert Ridgway has examined 
it and pronounced it not quite adult. He considers this the most 
northern capture of this species. The following are the data: No. 1500» 
Collection Albert Lano. Length, 22.50; extent, 54.00; wing, 21.00; tail, 
LO-COnmnches:  \Wietoht,, 2elbs: f20-2) oz. (Ovaries! (size oh mo. 4 Shor 
Stomach empty.— ALBERT LANO, A7tkin, Minn. 


A Note on Buteo borealis lucasanus Ridgway.— This form is usually 
cited as a ‘var.,’ and occurs as such in both the old and new A.O. U. 
Check-Lists, where it is based on “ Buteo borealis var. lucasanus Ridgw. 
in Coues’s Key, 1872, 216.” The only reference to this bird at the 
place cited is: “An unpublished variety from Cape St. Lucas is B. /uca- 
sanus Ridgway, Mss.” It will be noticed, first, that Dr. Coues names the 
form as a species; second, that the name is a manuscript one, hence 
under the new practice should be credited to Coues if otherwise correct ; 
third, there is no description, unless the words “ Cape St. Lucas ” be con- 
sidered such, which would hardly be justified under either of the three 
bases given in Canon XLIII of the Code. The correct citation appears to 
be, Ridgw. in Hist. N. Am. B. III, 1874, 258, 285.— WILLIAM PALMER, 
Washington, D. C. 


Feeding-habits of Purple Finches.— The following interesting obser- 
vations on the manner in which Purple Finches (Carfodacus purpureus) 
feed their young are communicated by Mrs. A. C. Davenport, of Brattleboro, 
Vt. She writes: ‘‘ During the time the young were in the nest the 
parents came continually to my window for hemp seed, eating rapidly 
for ten minutes at a time. They then usually sipped a little water, flew 
away, and returned in a few moments. 

“As soon as the young left the nest, they were brought to my window: 
and until they could care for themselves, or until anew brood was raised, 
were still fed by the food being ejected from the crops of the parent birds. 

“T never saw any live food given them, though I watched closely, but 
of course I cannot say decidedly of this. Neither did I see the old birds 
‘budding’ any during this period.’”— Frank M. CHAPMAN, American 
Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


First Occurrence of the Blue Grosbeak in New Hampshire.— On 
May 26,1894, an adult male Blue Grosbeak (Guiéraca cerulea), in full 
plumage, was seen near the house for about twenty minutes; I succeeded 
in getting within ten feet of the bird, so that I could see all the markings 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


General Notes. 343 
distinctly without the aid of a glass. I had no means of securing the 
specimen, but there can be, I think, no doubt as to the identification. 

The probability that this was an escaped cage bird at once suggests 
itself, but it is safe to say that the bird did not belong to anyone in this 
town or immediate neighborhood. Moreover, the feet and plumage 

. seemed in too good condition for a newly escaped captive..— MABEL C. 
Berry, Zast Derry, N. H. 


Solitary Vireo (J7%reo solitarius) nesting in Connecticut.—June 8, 
1894, I found a nest of this species suspended from an alder bush, seven 
feet from the ground, in a swamp, near West Simsbury, Conn. It con- 
tained four eggs.— C. M. Case, Hartford, Conn. 


Dendroica palmarum in New York City.— An individual of the Palm 
Warbler was seen by the writer, September 2, 1896, in West 129th Street, 
New York City, at the base of the prominence upon which stands the 
Claremont Hotel. The bird is not only rare in this vicinity but the 
record is an unusually early one. Three of the five recorded instances of | 
its occurrence are based on spring captures at Sing Sing (Fisher) and 
Riverdale (Bicknell). The two previous fall records are, Fire Island 
Light, L. I., Sept. 23, 1887 (Dutcher) and Red Bank, N. J., Sept. 28, 1889 
(Oberholser).— FRANK M. CHAPMAN, American Museum of Natural 
fTistory, New Vork City. 


Breeding of the Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica) in 
Virginia, near Washington.— Since 1889 (Auk, 1889, p. 339), this species 
has been frequently taken in Alexandria County in July and August. 
The writer has also taken it in Fairfax County, near Mount Vernon 
(May 13, 1894; June 4, 1893; June 11, 1893), and has often observed 
others. He has now to record that Mr. Stephan Rocyski, of Washington, 
took a set of five eggs on May 2, 1895, about a mile north of Mount 
Vernon. The nest was found on April 19, about one-fourth built, and 
was situated on a sloping branch on the south side of a cedar, twelve 
feet from the ground and forty feet from the south corner of a farmer’s 
porch. It is composed of bits of bark, old grass stems and leaves, 
small vine tendrils, pieces of string and masses of spider webs. The 
rim is made of grass stems and the opening is thickly studded with 
white and gray feathers, so that little of the cavity is seen. Exteriorly 
it is cup-shaped, four inches deep by three in diameter, and hollowed 
where it rested on the sloping branch. This is probably the most north- 
ern record for the nesting of this species. Mr. Rocyski secured the 
female and kindly presented it to me.— WILLIAM PALMER, Washington, 


LD NE 


‘Previous New England records are: Boardman (Proc. Boston Soc. N. H., 
IX, 1862, p. 127), near Calais, Me. ; Plummer (Bull. N. O.C., V, 1880, p. 184), 
Brookline, Mass.; and the Grand Menan, N. B., record by Herrick. 


344 General Notes. Ont 


The Louisiana Water-Thrush Breeding in Berkshire County, Mass. — 
On the eleventh of June, 1896, I found a pair of Louisiana Water- 
Thrushes (Sezwrus motacilla) feeding fledged young, near a clear moun- 
tain brook in Sheffield, Berkshire Co., Mass.— WALTER FAXoN, Aduseum 
of Comparative Zodlogy, Cambridge, Mass. 


The Mockingbird (Mimus folyglottos) in Canada.— A young Mocking- 
bird taken in the fall of 1894 and sent to me from Sable Island, Nova 
Scotia, constitutes the fifth record of this species for Canada. The other 
four are so scattered and have been so often incompletely quoted it seems 
worth while to review them here. They stand as follows: 

I. Strathroy, Ont. (Strathroy Age [newspaper], July 1, 1880; Forest 
and Stream, XV, Aug. 26, 1880, p. 67; Bull. N. O. C., VI, 1881, p. 112). 
A single bird was seen in the town but not captured. 

II. Chatham, Ont. (Morden and Saunders, Canadian Sportsman and 
Naturalist, II, Nov. 1882, p. 184; Chamberlain, Cat. Canadian Birds, 1887, 
p- 110; MclIlwraith, Birds of Ontario, revised ed., 1894, p. 388; Piers, 
Trans» N.S. inst. Nat. sci, Ly ser2, pt. iv, 1695,.p- 409) 

In point of time, 1860, this is the first Mockingbird taken in Canada. 
Mr. Edwin W. Sandys, who originally furnished the record, was recently 
seen by the writer, and he tells me the bird was secured by his father and 
is now in a collection of stuffed birds made by him. It was seen perched 
on the ridge pole of a barn one June morning just after a warm southerly 
gale, and its rich song was what first drew attention to it. 

Ill. Hamilton, Ont. (McIlwraith, Birds of Ontario, 1886, p. 284, revised 
ed., 1894, p. 388; Chamberlain, Cat. Canadian Birds, 1887, p. 110; Piers, 
Trans. N. S. Inst. Sci., I, ser. 2, pt. iv, 1895, p. 409). <A pair of birds 
spent the summer of 1883 at East Hamilton. 

IV. Truro, N. S. (McLennan, Orn. and OGl., XIV, Aug. 1889, p. 126; 
Piers, Trans. N. S. Inst. Nat. Sci., I, ser. 2, pt. iv, pp. 408-410). <A bird 
was wounded and caught alive July 1, 1889. It showed no signs of being 
an escaped cage bird. Then it was put in a cage, where it lived for three 
years when it died and was thrown away. 

V. Sable Island, N. S. This is a young bird in much worn first 
plumage, taken in the fall of 1894. I have been unable to obtain any 
information about the specimen except that it did not come to the island 
in a cage, and we can only assume it was carried thither by some resistless 
storm, perhaps from the mainland or more likely from some far more 
southern home.— JONATHAN DwiGHht?, JR., New Vork City. 


Thriothorus or Thryothorus?—I am interested in Mr. William 
Palmer’s ‘Thoughts on the New Check-List,’ which suggests some 
thoughts in me. One of these thoughts is, that Mr. Palmer’s criticisms 
are perfectly candid and sincere, and, therefore, should not be taken de 
haut en bas, but welcomed for anything they offer for the bettering of the 
Committee’s performance. Another thought suggested is, that sometimes 


. 


piaiiny II General Notes. 345 


Mr. Palmer is right, sometimes he is wrong, and sometimes he is just 
‘betwixt and between.’ Take the case of the genus whose name, in two 
forms, heads this paragraph. Mr. Palmer says truly that Vieillot wrote 
the word Tkhriothorus; for so it appears on p. 45 of my well-thumbed 
copy of his ‘ Analyse,’ 1816, though this is the page which the A. O. U. 
Committee cite for Thryothorus. But if Mr. Palmer had looked further 
into Vieillot’s ‘Analyse,’ he would have found Tkryothorus tucked away 
near the bottom of the right hand column of p. 70, in an alphabetical list 
of the new genera of the book, where the etymologies are given. There 
the etymon of the first element of the word is stated as ‘ Opvov, juzcus’ ; 
and as the correct form resulting is Zryothorus, 1 think the Committee 
can defend their use of it, though they may have to cite p. 70 instead of 
p- 45 for it. At the same time, it offers a nice case for hair-splitting ; 
for the previous Tzréothorus of p. 45 cannot be brushed aside as a “ typo- 
graphical error,” since Vieillot makes his intention clear by there writing 
‘THRIOTHORE, ZThriothorus” I commend the case to nomenclatural 
casuists. 

While on the genus 7Zryothorus, I may inquire further how it happens 
that we have changed the name of 7. bew?cki? leucogaster (Baird, 1864) to 
T. b. bairdé (Ridgway, 1885). The fact that there is a Troglodytes leuco- 
gastra, Gould, P. Z. S., 1836, p. 89 (which Baird mistook for the sub- 
species of Thryothorus bewickti which he named leucogaster in Rey. A. B., 
1864, p.127) does not affect the case one way or another. Gould’s bird is 
now Urofpsila leucogastra; it is also Cyphorhinus pusillus of Sclater, 
FHletorhina pusilla of Baird, etc., and this cannot outlaw the use of the 
name leucogaster in the genus Thryothorus. Bewick’s Wren has never 
been referred to the genus J7vog/odytes since one of its subspecies was 
called dewcogaster,and of course there is no rule of nomenclature, express 
or implied, which requires us to change a specific name in one genus 
for the reason that the same has been used in another genus. Parity of 
reasoning — or rather, of unreasoning —would require us to reject C7zstotho- 
rus martane, because there was a prior 7roglodytes mariane. I submit, 
theretore, that Zhryothorus bewickit baird’, No. 7196 of the A. O. U. Lists, 
1886 and 1895, should stand as 7. 6. leucogaster.— ELLIoT Cougs, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 


The Hudsonian Chickadee breeding in Southern Vermont.— On June 
29, 1895, I found two Hudsonian Chickadees (Parus hudsuvnicus) and one 
Black-poll Warbler (Dexdrorca striata) on the summit of Stratton Moun- 
tain in southern Vermont. According to the U.S. Geological Survey 
the altitude of Stratton Mountain is 3859 feet, and these birds were 
observed at an altitude of about 3800 feet. The latitude is about 43° 6/— 
26 miles north of the Massachusetts line. As far as I can learn, the 
Hudsonian Chickadee has never been recorded from as far south in the 
breeding season. The Black-poll Warbler has been found by Mr. Bick- 
nell and others in the Catskills, but I can find no other more southern 
record for it— Francis H. ALLEN, West Roxbury, Mass. 


346 General Notes. | ae 


The Hudsonian Chickadee (Parus hudsonicus), Red-breasted Nut- 
hatch ( S7¢ta canadensis), and Golden-crowned Kinglet (/egulus satrapa) 
in Plymouth County, Mass., in Summer.— While walking through some 
dense old-growth pine woods (Prxus strobus and P. r7gtda,) on June §, 
1896, 1 was greeted by the snarl chee-dé-e-e-e-e-ah of a Hudson Bay Tit- 
mouse. Jn afew moments the bird, which was apparently alone, alighted 
within a few feet of me on a dead pine, and spent some time in exploring 
the cavities of a broken limb, from which he drew several lively white 
larve, one of them so large that it was swallowed with seeming difficulty 
but evident relish. The characteristic note was frequently uttered while 
feeding, but was sometimes shortened to dee-e-e-e-yak. The bird then 
flew to a high pitch pine, and I did not see him again, though I heard him 
several times. 

The woods in which I saw the Chickadee were only a few rods from a 
large cedar swamp, said to be a couple of miles wide, which is seldom 
visited except by lumbermen in winter; and in many portions the original 
growth of huge white cedars (Cupressus thyotdes) and hemlock (Adézes 
canadensis) has never been cut. In this old timber one seems to be in 
northern Maine or New Hampshire, instead of in Massachusetts ;— the 
subdued half twilight of the damp cool forest, with its rocks and fallen 
trees, covered with a rich carpet of green moss and ferns might well tempt 
this and other northern birds to make it their summer home. 

I saw nothing more of the Chickadee however: but throughout June 
and July Brown Creepers (Certhia familiarts americana) were quite often 
seen in the swamp; the Hairy Woodpecker (Dryobates villosus) outnum- 
bered the smaller Downy (JD. pubescens); and at least two pairs of 
Golden-crowned Kinglets (/egulus satrafa) spent the summer, newly 
fledged young being noted during the first week in August. One, and I 
think several, pairs of Red-breasted Nuthatches (S7¢ta canadensis) evi- 
dently nested here also, though I failed to find the nest; and fresh ‘ peck- 
holes’, as well as the local lumbermen, testified to the presence of the 
Pileated Woodpecker (Ceophleus pileatus) during the past year'.—ARTHUR 
P. CHADBOURNE, M. D., Boston, Mass. 


1In Massachusetts, the Hudsonian Chickadee has been recorded only dur- 
ing the winter and early spring. 

Although the Browz Creeper, “has been twice found nesting in eastern 
Massachusetts and once at Springfield, its normal summer range is limited very 
strictly to the Canadian fauna. It breeds regularly on Mt. Graylock in western 
Massachusetts ”’ (Brewster, in Minot’s Birds of New England, second edition, 
1895, p. 66). 

Regulus satrapa has been found breeding “in the higher portions of Berk- 
shire and Worcester Counties, Massachusetts. A single well-authenticated 
nest has been taken at Lynn, Massachusetts ” (Brewster, loc. cit., p. 52). 

Sitta canadensis, like the Kinglet, breeds in ‘‘ Berkshire and Worcester 
Counties, Mass.” (Brewster, loc. cit., p. 64). 

The Pleated Woodpecker is now so unusual in eastern Massachusetts as to 
be almost a straggler. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 General Notes. 347 


/ 


The Western Martin and the California Cuckoo at Escondido, Calif. 
—On June 11, 1896, three or four pairs of black, swallow-like birds 
were seen flying swiftly about, and were seen to alight occasionally 
upon the eaves of the college building of that place. On June 12 I was 
fortunate enough to secure an adult female, which proved to be Progne 
subis hesperia. This bird had a soft-shelled egg in her oviduct. 

August 20, while out hunting for a Road-runner, I saw a bird that 
was new tome. It seemed very tame and had a long tail, similar to a 
Dove, but the flight was quite slow and resembled that of a Sparrow Hawk. 
It proved to be a fine male Coccyzus americanus occidentalis and meas- 
ured as follows: Length, about 12.50 inches; wing, 7.00; tail, 6.00; bill 
1.00. Iris hazel. This specimen was taken among sumac bushes on a 
foothill. On Aug. 22 another bird ot the same species was noted.—J. 
Maurice Harcu, Escondido, Calif. 


Bird Notes from Toronto, Canada.—Somateria spectabilis. KiNG 
E1per.— Nov. 18, 1895, I took an adult male of this species in the most 
perfect mature plumage I have ever seen. The bird was alone and very 
wild. Immature birds of this species are not uncommon late in the 
autumn on Lake Ontario, but adult birds are extremely rare. 

Porzana noveboracensis. YELLOW RaiL.— Sept. 12, 1894, I took a 
female in the marshes east of Toronto, and a male at the same place, Sept. 
4, 1895; alsoa specimen on Oct. 3, and still another on Oct. 15, of the 
same year. 

I have never succeeded in finding this species in the spring, nor in 
summer before the month of August. 

Cistothorus stellaris. SHORT-BILLED MARSH WREN.—On August 29, 
1891, I found and secured an adult female of this species in an old field 
north of Toronto, the bird was a long distance from any marsh or water. 
On June 7, 1895, I captured an adult male ina wet meadow east of 
Toronto. There were no rushes near this place but the grass was very 
rank.—C. W. Nasu, Zoronto, Canada. 


Iridescence of Feathers, as explained by an Old Author. The modern 
theory that the play of colors seen in some feathers is due to the 
action of minute irregularities on the surface of the barbs and _bar- 
bules, composing the vane, which, like a multitude of small prisms, 
split up the light into ditferently colored rays, was proposed more than 
two hundred years ago. 

In 1666, Robert Boyle, the chief instigator and one of the most active 
members of the Royal Society, published a book on ‘The Causes of 
Colors’! in which he treats the subject chiefly from a chemical and 


1 Experiments | and | Considerations | Touching | Colours]... . (Three 
lines). The | Beginning | Of An | Experimental History | Of | Colours.|| By 
the Honourable Robert Boyle, | Fellow of the Royal Society. |... (Motto), 
London, | Printed for Henry Herringman at the | Anchor in the Lower walk 
of the New | Exchange. MDCLXIV. 


348 Notes and News. ae 


physical standpoint. After ascribing the play of colors in various 
objects to the physical action of structural differences on the light, not 
to the coloring matter of the part, he speaks of the prismatic colors 
seen in certain feathers when examined against a strong light (p. 244, 
245); and also states that the wonderful revelations of the microscope, 
then in its infancy, would doubtless show in such feathers minute 
prism-like structures as the cause of the iridescence—an interesting 
prophecy in the light of our present knowledge.— ARTHUR P. CHAD- 
BOURNE, Boston, Mass. 


Birds Killed by a Storm.— About 11 o’clock P.M., on August 3, a 
terrific electric storm, accompanied by hail and wind, struck this city. 
Next morning the streets around the public parks and_ residence 
portions were literally covered with dead English Sparrows and a few 
Robins and other small birds. On one block in the residence portion 
of the city there were, by actual count, six hundred and twenty-two 
dead Sparrows, and one Robin. The nests containing eggs and young 
were blown down, and birds not killed by the fall were killed by the 
hail. Most of the old birds escaped, but the young, from just hatched 
to acouple of months old, were mostly killed, and had to be raked off 
the lawns and gathered up by street sweepers. A few more such storms 
would rid us of the detestable Sparrow.— WALTER I. MITCHELL, S?#. Paul, 
Minn. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Tuomas LyTTLETON, Lorp Li_rorpb, late President of the British 
Ornithologists’ Union, and Corresponding Member of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, died at Lilford Hall, Oundle, Northamptonshire, 
England, June 17, 1896, at the age of 63 years. He was one of the 
founders of the British Ornithologists’ Union, and a prominent con- 
tributor to the early volumes of ‘ The Ibis.” Among his larger works are 
his ‘Birds of Northamptonshire,’ and ‘Illustrations of British Birds.’ 
He was enthusiastically interested in Hawking and in the study of 
live birds, his extensive aviaries containing many different kinds of Birds 
of Prey, Storks, Ibises, Herons, and Water-fowl. ‘His loss,” says ‘The 
Zoologist, “will be deplored, not only by the learned societies of which 
he was so distinguished a member, but by a very large circle of friends 
and acquaintances to whom he had endeared himself by an unfailing 
kindness of heart and constant readiness to help.” 


Vol. XIII 2 
T8656 Notes and News. 349 


EUGENE CARLETON THURBER, an Associate Member of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, died at Alhambra, California, on September 6, 
1896, at the age of thirty-one years. Mr. Thurber will be known to the 
readers of ‘The Auk’ chiefly through his excellent ‘List of the Birds of 
Morris County, New Jersey,’ reviewed in the fifth volume of this journal 
(1888, p, 421). Shortly after its publication he removed to California, 
where he hoped to actively continue his ornithological pursuits. He was 
a careful observer and skilled collector, ever ambitious to win the esteem 
of his fellow-workers, but failing health so handicapped his efforts that 
he was never able to do justice to his own high aspirations. During the 
past two years he has lived an out-of-door life in the field, collecting birds 
and mammals, as his health would permit, and preserving to the end his 
love for-his favorite study. 


Dr. GEORGE BROWN Goopk, Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian 
Institution and Curator of the U.S. National Museum, died suddenly of 
pneumonia at his home in Washington on September 6, 1896, at the age 
of 45 years. Although Dr. Goode was not an ornithologist, through his 
position for nine years as Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institu- 
tion, in charge of the National Museum, ornithology, in common with 
other branches of natural history, is deeply indebted to him for his liber- 
ality in promoting its interests. As a personal friend and adviser, he 
was so well-known, not only to ornithologists, but to investigators in all 
branches of zodlogy, that a few words ¢z memoriam of this distinguished 
naturalist are particularly fitting in the pages of ‘The Auk. Dr. Goode 
was especially eminent as an ichthyologist, and is the author of a long 
list of important papers and standard works on the fishes and fishing 
industries of North America; his last work, ‘ Oceanic Ichthyology, 
written in conjunction with Dr. Tarleton H. Bean, was published only 
shortly before his death. He combined in rare degree administrative 
ability with talent as a scientific investigator, and a charming personality 
that easily smoothed the way to success in whatever he undertook. Asa 
museum director he was doubtless without a peer, and had justly a world- 
wide reputation as an expert in all matters of museum administration. 
Stricken down thus suddenly in the prime of life and at the height of his 
usefulness, his loss to science, and especially to the National Museum, 
with which he had been officially connected for twenty-three years, seems 
well-nigh irreparable. When his predecessor in office, the late Professor 
Baird, passed away, Goode proved to be the man pre-eminently fitted to 
take up his official duties and carry on his work. But where can be found 
a man so perfectly equipped to bear the mantle of Goode? 


THE question of establishing a Bird Day in the schools has been made 
the subject of a special circular (No. 17) by the Biological Survey of the 
Department of Agriculture. The plan suggested cannot be too heartily 
endorsed; its adoption throughout the land would be an inestimable 


350 Notes and News. ae 


benefit. Not alone would children learn to know something of the 
interest and pleasure attached to study of birds, and of their economic 
value, but they would be brought in touch with nature in a manner which 
could not fail to arouse their best instincts. 

The matter is very forcibly put in a letter from the Hon. J. Sterling 
Morton, Secretary of Agriculture. He writes: “ ... the study of birds 
tends to develop some of the best attributes and impulses of our natures. 
Among them we find examples of generosity, unselfish devotion, of the 
love of mother for offspring and other estimable qualities. Their 
industry, patience, and ingenuity excite our admiration; their songs 
inspire us with a love of music and poetry; their beautiful plumages and 
graceful manners appeal to our esthetic sense; their long migrations to 
distant lands stimulate our imaginations and tempt us to inquire into the 
causes of these periodic movements, and finally, the endless modifications 
of form and habits by which they are enabled to live under most diverse 
conditions of food and climate — on land and at sea — invite the student 
or nature into inexhaustible fields of pleasurable research.” 


Mr. JAMEs M. Soutuwick, well-known as a commercial naturalist, 
has recently been appointed Curator of the Museum of Natural History, 
lately established by the authorities of the city of Providence R. I., in 
Roger Williams Park. A building has been erected at a cost of $40,000, 
a portion of which will be devoted to museum purposes, as required. 

It is Mr. Southwick’s intention to make the collections under his care 
instructive, as well as attractive and popular. To this end he will devote 
especial efforts to securing representative collections of the local fauna 
and later to the formation of small loan collections which can be used by 
teachers in their classrooms. Much valuable material is already avail- 
able for general exhibition. 


Tue first number of ‘The Osprey, an Illustrated Monthly Magazine 
of Ornithology,’ bears date September, 1896. It is a royal octavo of 16 
pages, tastefully arranged and well printed, with numerous photographic 
illustrations, including a full-page half-tone plate of the nest of the 
Ferrugineous Rough-legged Buzzard, with papers by well-known ornithol- 
ogists. There is doubtless plenty of room for a journal like ‘The 
Osprey,’ and we trust it will meet with the cordial support its opening 
number so well merits. It is edited by Walter A. Johnson and Dr. A. C. 
Murchison, with the office of publication at 217 Main Street, Galesburg, 
Ill. 


Tue GERMAN ZoGLOGICAL Society has undertaken the gigantic task 
of publishing a systematic work on zodlogy, under the title ‘ Das Tier- 
reich. Eine Zusammenstellung und Kennzeichnung der rezenten Tier- 
for men.’ This immense work, it isthought, will require nearly one hun- 


eee Notes and News. 351 


dred large Svo volumes of about 800 pages each. The general editorship 
has been undertaken by Prof. F. E. Schulze, of Berlin, and the publica- 
tion by Messrs. R. Friedlander and Son. According to the prospectus 
the Class Aves has been assigned to able hands. For example, it is 
announced that Graf Hans von Berlepsch will write the parts relating 
to the Icteride, Tanagridz, Dendrocolaptide, and Tyrannide ; Mr. Ernst 
Hartert, those relating to the Micropodide, Trochilide, Caprimulgide, 
and Podargide ; Mr. Ogilvie-Grant, the Phasianide ; Dr. Reichenow, the 
Sturnide, Ploceidz, and Psittacide; Mr. L. W. Rothschild, the Para- 
diseide ; Dr. R. B. Sharpe, the Vulturid, Falconide, and the Strigide. 

The work will comprise the synonymy, short descriptions, and geo- 
graphical range of every known species of animal, with diagnoses of 
the higher groups, etc. A ‘ Probe-Lieferung,’ by Dr. O. Biitschli, of the 
Heliozoa, has been issued. The arrangement of the matter, in respect 
to typography, is excellent, and the general make-up is very attractive. 
Orders for the work should be addressed to R. Friedliinder and Sohn, 
Carlstrasse, 11. Berlin, N. W. 


Miss FLoreNcE A. MERRIAM’s papers on ‘How Birds Affect the Farm 
and Garden,’ noticed in this issue, have been republished by the ‘ Forest 
and Stream’ Publishing Company as a 32-page pamphlet, which can be 
procured of the publishers (318 Broadway, New York City) at the nomi- 
nal price of five cents per copy; special prices being made to individuals 
or Bird Protection Societies, who may wish it in quantities for distribu- 
tion. 


WE LEARN that the concluding ‘ Part IV’ of Professor Alfred Newton’s 
excellent ‘Dictionary of Birds’ is already in press, and that its early 
publication may be expected. 


As WE go to press we are in receipt of Volume XXIV of the British 
Museum ‘ Catalogue of Birds,’ containing the Limicole, by Dr. R. Bowdler 
Sharpe. It forms a thick volume of over 800 pages, with seven colored 
plates. 


WE ARE also pleased to announce the appearance of the second part 
of Captain Bendire’s ‘Life Histories of North American Birds,—a vol- 
ume of 500 pages and seven plates, containing about 200 figures. It 
includes the species from the Parrots to the Grackles. 


INDEX TO VOLUME XIII. 


ACANTHIS linaria rostrata, 245. 

Acanthiza pusilla, 44. 

Accipiter cooperii, 212, 293. 

velox, 177. 
Actitis macularia, 215, 281, 292. 
Egialitis meloda circumcincta, 256. 
pamirensis, 331. 
thoracica, 331. 
vocifera, 215, 281. 

Agelaius phceniceus, 4, 212, 221, 242, 
294. 

Aix sponsa, 199, 215. 

Alauda arvensis, 303. 

Allen, Francis H., the Hudsonian 
Chickadee breeding in southern 
Vermont, 345. 

Allen, J. A., note on the taxono- 
mic value of the tongue in birds, 
114; Gatke’s ‘Heligoland’, 137; 
notice of his paper on ‘ Alleged 
Changes of Color in the Feathers 
of Birds without Molting’, 166; 
comment on ‘Some questions of 
Nomenclature’, 187; comment 
on‘ A question of Nomenclature ’, 
191; [zodlogical nomenclature], 
269. 

Amiazilia alice, 333. 

Ameghino, Florentino, notice of 
his ‘Sur les Oiseaux Fossiles de 
Patagonie’, 61. 

American Ornithologists’ 
Thirteenth Congress 
Check-List of North American 
Birds, Second Edition, noticed, 
69; Committee on Protection of 
Birds, report of, 98. 

Ammodramus caudacutus, 271, 275. 

caudacutus becki, 273. 

caudacutus nelsoni, 245, 272, 
2733) 270° 

caudacutus subvirgatus, 273, 
276. 

leconteii, 207, 208, 214. 


Union, 
of, 553 


45 


Ammodramus sandwichensis say- 
anna, 241, 283, 292, 2094. 
savannarum passerinus, 294. 
Ampelis cedrorum, 114, 213, 284, 
295- 
Anas boschas, 200. 
carolinensis, 215. 
chlorotis, 162. 
erythrophthalma, 170. 
maculosa, 162. 
obscura, 182, 199. 
penelope, 255. 
scutulata, 162. 
strepera, 201. 
Anser albifrons gambeli, 162. 
anser, 164. 
fabalis, 244. 
ferus, 164. 
sandvicensis, 162. 
segetum, 244. 

Anthony, A. W.,a new subspecies 
of the genus Dryobates, 31; Puf- 
finus tenutrostris ott San Diego, 
California, 171; Clangula hyema- 
dis at San Diego, California, 172; 
the Black-vented Shearwater (Puf- 
Jinus opisthomelas), 223 ; the Road- 
runner as a rat-killer, 257. 

Anthus pensilvanicus, 214. 

Antrostomus carolinensis, 214. 

vociferus, 282. 
Aphelocoma californica, 120. 
couchi, 36, 37. 
gracilis, 34. 
Aquila chrysaétos, 81, 82, 256. 
glaucopis, 266. 
Ardea ccerulea, 215. 
egretta, 178, 215. 
occidentalis, 172. 
tricolor ruficollis, 2 
virescens, 215, 281, 
Ardetta exilis, II. 
neoxena, II, 59, 79. 
Arenaria interpres, 181. 


1G. 
292. 


354 


Asarcornis, 162. 
scutulata, 162. 
Asio accipitrinus, 88, 257. 
Aythya, 162. 
affinis, 202, 215. 
americana, 201. 
collaris, 202, 215. 
marila, 202. 
marila nearctica, 162. 
vallisneria, 89, 201. 


Batty, Wn. L., Western Sandpiper 
(ELreunetes occidentalis) more 
abundant than the Semipalmated 
(2. pusillus), 174; summer birds 
of Northern Elk County, Pa., 
28 

Baker, Carl F., an important factor 
in the study of western bird-life, 
20. 

Ball, Helen A., Pex7cola enucleator 
at Worcester, Mass., 259. 

Barbour, Erwin H., the occurrence 
in Nebraska of Vereo favoviridis, 
263. 

Bartramia longicauda, 89. 

Basket, James Newton, intergrada- 
tion in song of Sturnella magna 
and S. m. neglecta in Missouri, 
258. 

Beal, F. E. L., notice of his paper 
on ‘ The Meadowlark and Balti- 
more Oriole’, 336. 

Beddard, Frank E., notice of his 
‘Text-book of Zodgeography’, 73. 

Belding, L., songs of the Western 
Meadowlark, 29. 

Bendire, Charles, notice of his paper 
on ‘The Cowbirds,’ 71. 

3erier, DeLagnel, the Pine Gros- 
beak in New Jersey, 175- 

Bernicla nigrescens, 4. 

Berry, Mabel C., first occurrence of 
the Blue Grosbeak in New Hamp- 
shire, 342. 

Bishop, Louis B., descriptions of a 
new Horned Lark and a new 
Song Sparrow, with remarks on 
Sennett’s Nighthawk, 129. 

Bittern, Cory’s Least, 11, 79. 

Least, II. 

Blackbird, 298, 307, 311. 
Brewer’s, 120. 
Red-winged, 4, 221, 294. 
Rusty, 221. 
Yellow-headed, 120. 

Blackcap, 306, 311. 


Index. 


Bluebird, 222, 238, 285, 297. 
Western, 124. 

Bluethroat, Red-spotted, 142. 

Bobolink, 158, 294. 

Bob-white, 221, 281. 

Bonasa umbellus, 281, 292. 

Botaurus lentiginosus, 215. 

Brackett, Foster H., the Belted Pip- 
ing Plover in Massachusetts, 256 ; 
the Re-dheaded Woodpecker in 
eastern Massachusetts, 258. 

Braislin, William C., the Golden 
Eagle in New Jersey, 81; notes 
on Long Island birds, 87. 

Brant, Black, 4. 

Branta canadensis, 92. 

Brewster, William, descriptions of 
a new Warbler and a new Song 
Sparrow, 44; occurrence of the 
Wood Ibis ( Tantalus loculator ) in 
Bristol County, Mass., 341. 

Brock, Henry H., the King Rail 
again in Maine, 79; Crymophilus 
fulicartus in Maine, .173; Crem 
crex in Maine, 173; recent occur- 
rence of the Florida Gallinule 
in southern Maine, 255; recent 
capture of the Golden Eagle 
near Portland, Maine, 256. 

Brown, Nathan Clifford, Baird’s 
Sandpiper in Maine, 80; the 
Ipswich Sparrow —a correction, 
84; the American Crossbill at 
sea, 176; second occurrence of 
the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher in 
Maine, 264. 

Browne, Montagu, notice of his 
‘Artistic and Scientific Taxi- 
dermy and Modelling,’ etc., 247. . 

Bruner, Lawrence, notice of his 
‘List of Nebraska birds,’ 245. 

Bubo arcticus, 154. 

pacificus, 154. 
subarcticus, 153- 
virginianus, 155, 293. 
virginianus arcticus, 156. 
virginianus occidentalis, 155. 
virginianus pacificus, 156. 
virginianus saturatus, 155, 
257: 

Bucco bicinctus, 332. 

Buckley, T. E., see Harvie-Brown, 
Mo Xe 

Bunting, Indigo, 283, 291, 295. 

Lazuli, 121. 

Bush-tit, Californian, 123. 

Buteo borealis, 212, 293. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Buteo borealis harlani, 342. 
borealis lucasanus, 342. 
lineatus, 222 


aase 


Butorides robinsoni, 333 


CALCARIUS lapponicus, 86. 
Calidris arenaria, 215. 
Callipepla californica vallicola, 81, 
116, 265. 
californica vallicola +C. gam- 
belii deserticola, 265. 
gambelii, 185. 
Callothrus robustus, 71. 
Camarhynchus bindloei, 330. 
compressirostris, 330. 
incertus, 330. 
Campephilus principalis, 213. 
Cardinal, 218, 238. 
Cardinalis cardinalis, 213, 218, 238. 
robinsoni, 333. 


Carduelis carduelis, 238. 
Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis, 
120. 
purpureus, 214, 222, 283, 291, 


a) Ain Slee 

Casarca casarca, 164, 243. 

rutila, 164. 

Case, C. M., Solitary Vireo ( Vireo 
solitartus) nesting in Connecti- 
cut, 343. 

Casuarius casuarius, 164. 

galeatus, 164. 

Catbird, 218, 238, 285, 296, 335- 

Cathartes aura, 116, 212, 222, 341. 

Catharista atrata, 212. 

Cedarbird, 283, 291, 295. 

Ceophleeus pileatus, 213, 220, 346. 

Certhia familiaris albescens, 315. 

familiaris alticola, 315, 316. 

familiaris americana, 213, 
220, 292, 206, 346. 

familiaris mexicana, 315, 316. 

mexicana, 315, 316. 

mexicana albescens, 315. 

Ceryle alcyon, 238, 281. 

Chadbourne, Arthur P., evidence 
suggestive of the occurrence of 
‘individual dichromatism’ in 
Megascops asto, 321 3 the Hudson- 
ian Chickadee (Parus hudsonicus), 
Red-breasted Nuthatch (Svz¢/a 
canadensis), and Golden-crowned 
Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) in Ply- 
mouth County, Mass., in sum- 
mer, 346; iridescence in feathers, 
as explained by an old author, 347. 


Index. 


Chetura pelagica, 82, 214, 282, 293. 

Chaftinch, 302, 306. 

Chamberlain, Montague, notice of 
his ‘Common Birds of Eastern 
Canada,’ 67. 

Chamea fasciata henshawi, 122. 

Chapman, Frank M., the standing 
of Ardetta neoxena, 11; notice of 
his paper on ‘The Changes of 
Plumage in the Dunlin and San- 
derling, 164; notice of his paper 
‘On the Changes of Plumage in 
the Snowflake (Plectrophenax 
nivalis ), * 165; the Turkey Vul- 
ture in the Catskills, 341; the Wild 
Pigeon at Englewood, N. J., 341; 
feeding habits of Purple Finches, 
342; Dendroica palmarum in New 
York City, 343. 

Charadrius dominicus, 

142. 

pluvialis, 146. 

squatarola, 181, 182. 
Charitonetta, 163. 

albeola, 202, 215. 

Chat, Yellow-breasted, 285. 

Chelidon erythrogaster, 4, 214, 

295: 

Chen hyperboreus, 193. 
hyperboreus nivalis, 161, 
nivalis, 193. 

Cherrie, George K., Ardetta neoxena 
from Wisconsin, 79; an appar- 
ently new Chordezles from Costa 
Rica, 135; notice of his ‘ Contri- 
bution to the Ornithology of 
San Domingo,’ 333. 

Chewink, 178, 291, 294. 

Chickadee, Black-capped, 220, 285, 

297- 

Hudsonian, 345, 346. 
Chloronerpes striatus, 333. 
Chondestes grammacus, 84, 179. 

grammacus strigatus, 120. 
Chordeiles acutipennis, BeBe 

virginianus, 159, 215, 282. 

virginianus asserriensis, 136. 

virginianus sennetti, 134. 
Cinclus aquaticus, 169. 

Circus hudsonius, 212. 

Cistothorus palustris, 242. 
stellaris, 194, 214, 347- 

Clangula, 163. 
clangula, 164. 
clangula americana, 
glaucion, 164. 
hyemalis, 164, 172, 202. 


So, 89, 91, 


283, 


243. 


215. 


356 ; 


Clivicola riparia, 283. 

Coccothraustes vespertinus, 259. 

Coccyzus americanus, 259, 281, 333- 
americanus occidentalis, 347. 
erythrophthalmus, 212, 281. 

293. 

ferrugineus, 75. 

Cocornis agassizi, 75. 

Colaptes auratus, 212, 220, 281, 293. 
cafer, 85, 118. 

Colinus virginianus, 215, 221. 

Collocalia, 83, 114. 

Columbigallina passerina terrestris, 

Pa ose 
Compsothlypis americana, 45, 214, 
283, 295. 
americana usnee, 44. 

Comstock, F. M., the Parasitic 
Jaeger near Cleveland, Ohio, 
7 Ws 

Contopus borealis, 85, 282. 

richardsonii, 120. 
virens, 214, 282, 293. 

Cook, A. J., food of Woodpeckers 
and Flycatchers, 85. 

Cormorant, 312. 

Double-crested, go. 
Corvus americanus, 212, 283, 288, 
294. 
corax principalis, $3. 

Cory, Charles B., notice of his 
‘Hunting and Fishing in Flor- 
ida’, etc., 246. 

Coscoroba candida, 163. 

coscoroba, 163. 
Cosmonessa, 163. 
Cotinga cuprea, 266. 

rubra, 266. 

Coues, Elliott, an early descrip- 
tion of Pkhalacrocorax dilophus, 
78; name of the Large-billed 
Puffin, 255; Merrem’s Work, 
265; Mandt’s Inaugural Disserta- 
tion, 266; Zhriothorus or Thryo- 
thorus, 344. 

Covert, Adolphe B., Baird’s Sand- 
piper in Michigan, 255. 

Cowbird, 283. 

Crake Corny 72% 

Creagrus furcatus, 75. 

Creeper, Brown, 306, 346. 

Mexican, 315. 
Crexictex,/72- 

Crossbill, American, 176, 179. 

White-winged, 210. 
Crow, 220, 283, 285, 337. 
Crymophilus; 65. 


Index. Auk 


Oct. 


Crymophilus fulicarius. 173. 
Cuckoo, Black-billed, 281, 293. 
California, 347. 
Yellow-billed, 281, 333. 
Curlew, Eskimo, 80, 89, 91, 182. 
Long-billed, 181. 
Pink, 209. 
Cyanecula abbotti, 331. 
suecica, 142. 
Cyanocitta cristata, 212, 221, 282, 
204. 
Cygnus cygnus, £63. 
musicus, 163. 
Cyphorinus pusillus, 345. 
Cypseloides, 83. 
Cypselus apus, 303. 


DAFILA acuta, 200. 

Davis, W. M., the soaring of birds 
and currents of air, 92. 

Deane, Ruthven, additional records 
of the Passenger Pigeon (£cfo- 
pistes migratorius) in Wisconsin 
and Illinois, 81; some notes on 
the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopzstes 
migratortus) in confinement, 234 ; 
record of a fourth specimen of 
the European Widgeon (Azas 
penelope) in Indiana, 255. 

De Haven, I. N., Briinnich’s Murre 
at Cape Charles, Virginia, 271. 
Delaware Valley Ornithological 

Club, 193. 
Dendrocopos montanus, Igo. 
Dendroica estiva, 214, 283, 295. 
auduboni, 121. 
aureola, 75. 
blackburniz, 292, 296. 
cerulea, 179. 
cerulescens, 214, 
295° 
castanea, 88, 181. 
coronata, 214, 220. 
discolor, 214. 
dominica, 214, 343. 
maculosa, 283, 292, 295. 
palmarum, 181, 214, 343. 
palmarum hypochrysea, 214. 
pensylvanica, 283, 292, 296. 
ruficapilla, 263. 
striata, 214, 345. 
tigrina, 84, 87, 181, 207, 214. 
vigorsii, 214. 
virens, 283, 292, 296. 
Dendroplex longirostris, 333. 
Diomedea chionoptera, 161. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Diver, Great Northern, 77. 
Doleromya pallida, BaR8 
Dolichonyx oryzivorus, 2 
Dove, Carolina, 281. 
Turtle, 310. 
Dowitcher, 180. 
Long-billed, 88, 18o. 
~ Dryobates borealis, 210, 213. 
major, 190. 
montanus, IQI. 
pubescens, 213, 281, 293, 330, 
346. 
pubescens meridionalis, 330. 
pubescens nelsoni, 330. 
villosus, 174, 281, 293, 346. 
villosus auduboni, 213, 
villosus harrisi, 34, 85. 
villosus hyloscopus, 34. 
villosus montanus, 32, 34, 190. 
Dryolimnas aldabranus, 332. 
Duck, Black, 182. 
Canvas-back, 90, 201. 
Dusky, 199. 
Harlequin, 78, 202, 229. 
Long-tailed, 202. 
Pintail, 200. 
ae 202. 
Ruddy, 20 
Scaup, 202 
Wood, 199. 

Dulus dominicus, 333. 

Dunlin, 150, 164. 

Dutcher, William, Chen hyperborea 
and C. niz valis, 193. 

Dwight, Jonathan, Jr., the Sharp- 
tailed Sparrow (Ammodramus 
caudacutus) and its geographical 
varieties, 271; the Mockingbird 
(Mimus polyglottos) in Canada, 


344- 


213, 294. 


EaAoLe, Golden, 256. 

Eaton, Elan Howard, bird notes 
from Erie County, N. Y., 178 

Ectopistes migratorius, 4, 81, 215, 

234, 200, 341. 

Egret, American, 178. 

Eider, American, 202. 

King, 203, 347: 
Elainea cherriei, 334. 
Elasmonetta, 162. 

chlorotis, 162. 

Elliot, D. G., in memoriam : George 
Newbold Lawrence, 1; descrip- 
tions of an apparently new species 
and subspecies of Ptarmigan from 


Index. 


ei | 


the Aleutian Islands, 24; notice 
of his monograph of the Pittide, 
60; notice of his North American 
Shore Birds, 64; notice of his 
African expedition, 196, 268. 
Emberiza citrinella, 303. 
Empidonax difficilis, 85. 
minimus, 282, 292, 293. 
pusillus, 85. 
Ereunetes occidentalis, 88, 174. 
pusillus, 174. 
Erismatura equatorialis, 162. 
jamaicensis, 163. 
rubida, 163, 203. 
Erithacus rubecula, 300. 
Eupsychortyx pallidus, 332, 333. 


FALCO sparverius, 88, 212, 281, 29 


sparverius deserticolus, 1 eo 


Faxon, Walter, John Abbot’s draw- 
ings of the birds of Georgia, 
204; Helminthophila  rubrica- 


pilla vs. Helminthophila rufica- 
pilla, 263; the Louisiana Water- 
Thrush in Berkshire County, 
Mass., 344. 
Ficedula ludoviciana, 44. 
Finch, Grass, 291, 294. 
House, 120. 
ark, 120: 
Lazuli, 120. 
Painted, 261. 
Purple, 222, 283, 294, 342. 
Fisher, A. K., notice of his ‘Hawks 
and Owls from the Standpoint of 
the Farmer,’ 73; 
Flicker, 280, 281, 293. 
Red-shafted, 118. 
Flycatcher, Ash-throated, 119. 
Crested, 280, 282. 
Least, 282, 293. 
Olive-sided, 282. 
Scissor-tailed, 83. 
Forbush, Edward H., notice of his 
remarks on ‘The usefulness of 
Birds as Insect Destroyers,’ 336; 


notice of his ‘The Crow in 
Massachusetts,’ 337- 

Foster, L. S., Pixicola enucleator 
in Westchester County, N. Y., 
175- 


Fratercula arctica, 189. 
arctica glacialis, 185, 189. 
Fringilla chlorura, 185, 188. 
caudacuta, 272. 
coeelebs, 302. 


358 ‘ 


Fringilla iliaca, 266. 
littoralis, 272. 
Fulmarus glacialis, 162. 
glacialis glupischa, 162. 
glacialis minor, 162. 
glacialis rodgersii, 162. 
Furness, Caroline E., the Pine Gros- 
beak at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 175. 


GADWALL, 201. 
Galeoscoptes carolinensis, 214, 219, 
238, 285, 296. 
Galeripitta, 60. 
cucullata, 60. 

Gallinago delicata, 215, 341. 

Gallinula galeata, 215, 

Gallinule, Florida, 255. 

Ganong, W. F., do young Loons 
eat fresh-water clams? 77. 

Gaylord, Horace A., Pyrocephalus 
rubineus mexicanus in Los Ange- 
les County, Cal.,258; Zonotrichia 
albicollis and Mniotilta varia at 
Pasadena, Cal., 260. 

Gelochelidon anglica, 161. 

nilotica, 161, 215. 
Geococcyx.californianus, 117, 257. 
Geospiza fatigata, 330. 

pachyrh ynca, 330. 
Geothlypis flaveolatus, 331. 

philadelphia, 179. 

trichas, 214, 285, 296. 

Gilman, Arthur Scott, a Brown 
Thrasher (Harforhynchus rufus) 
in Massachusetts in winter, 176. 

Glaucion, 163. 

Glaucionetta, 163. 

clangula americana, 163, 

islandica, 202. 
Gnat-catcher, Blue-gray, 264. 

Western, 123. 
Goldfinch, American, 283, 291, 294. 

European, 238, 

Golden-eye, 202. 

Barrow’s, 202. 

Goode, George Brown, notice of 
death of, 349. 

Goosander, 203. 

Goose, Canada, 92. 

Grackle, Bronzed, 294. 

Purple, 283. 

Rusty, 221. 

Gracula chrysoptera, 266. 

nobilis, 266. 

Grosbeak, Black-headed, 120. 

Blue, 213, 342. 


255: 


Index. 


Auk 
Oct. 


Grosbeak, Evening, 259. 
Pine}, 219) Soil Osis 
259, 266. 
Rose-breasted, 159, 241, 295. 
Grouse, Canadian Rutffed, 281. 
Ruffed, 126, 292. 
Grus mexicana, 68, 207, 215. 
Guara alba, 215. 
rubra, 207, 215. 
Guiraca cerulea, 213, 342. 
Gull, American Herring, 78, 88. 
Herring, 312. 
Laughing, 54. 
Little, 149. 
Mew, 168. 
Ring-billed, 182. 
Gundlach, Juan, biographical notice 
of, 267. 


Hasta ludoviciana, 292, 295. 

melanocephala, 120 
Hematopus palliatus, 215 
Hales, Henry, peculiar traits of 

some Scarlet Tanagers, 261. 

Halizeetus leucocephalus, 212. 
Harelda, 163. 

glacialis, 163. 
Harporhynchus redivivus, 121. 

TULUS, 176, 203, 206,286. 

Harvie-Brown, J. A., and T. E. 
Buckley, notice of their ‘A Ver- 
tebrate Fauna of the Moray 
Basin,’ 251. 

Hatch, J. Maurice, occurrence of 
the Great White Heron at Escon- 
dido, California, 172; the West- 
ern Martin and the California 
Cuckoo at Escondido, Cal., 347. 


Hawk, American Sparrow, 222, 293. 
Cooper's, 293. 
Desert Sparrow, 116. 
Red-shouldered, 222. 293, 


Sharp-shinned, 88, 281, 177. 
Headley, F. W., notice of his ‘The 
Structure and Life of Birds,’ 68. 
Helmitherus vermivorus, 213, 254. 
Helinaia swainsoni, 213. 
Helminthophila bachmani, 264. 
celata lutescens, 121. 
chrysoptera, 179. 
peregrina, 87. 
rubricapilla, 263. 
rubricapilla gutturalis, 264. 
ruficapilla, 263. 
Heron, Great White, 172. 
Green, 281, 291, 292. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Index. 


Heteractitis, 66. 

Heterorhina pusilla, 345. 

Hirundo puella, 114. 
rustica, 300. 
urbica, 302. 

Histrionicus, 163. 
histrionicus, 78, 202, 229. 

Hoffmann, Ralph, summer birds 
(July 15-Aug. 13, 1894) of the 
Rhine, 297. 

Hollister, N., Evening Grosbeak in 
southern Wisconsin, 259; arecent 
record of the Passenger Pigeon 
in Wisconsin, 341. 

Holzner, Frank Xavier, habits of 
the Valley Partridge, Sr. 

Howe, Reginald Heber, Jr., abnor- 
mal plumage of a Pine Grosbeak, 
176; three winter notes from 
Longwood, Mass., 178; notice of 
his ‘Every Bird, a Guide to the 
Identification of the Birds of 
Woodland, Beach and Ocean,’ 
247; four winter records of the 
Short-eared Owl on Massachusetts 
Coast, 257; the wintering of the 
Towhee at Longwood, Mass., 260 ; 
the Nonpariel at Longwood, 
Mass., 261; correction, 266. 

Hudson, W. H., notice of his ‘ British 
Birds,’ 7o. 

Hummingbird, Black-chinned, 118. 
Buftf-breasted, 332. 
Ruby-throated, 282, 293. 
Rufous, 119. 

Huxley, Thomas Henry, biographi- 

cal notice of, 93. 

Hydrochelidon nigra, 160. 
nigra surinamensis, 216. 
surinamensis, 160. 

Hyetornis fieldi, 334. 

Hylophilus griseiceps, 333. 


Isis rubra, 209. 

Ibis, Scarlet, 209. 
White-faced Glossy, 79. 
Wood, 341. 

Icteria virens, 214, 285. 

Icterus cucullatus nelsoni, 120. 
galbula, 283. 
parisorum, 265. 
spurius, 212. 

Insignipitta, 60. 
ellioti, 60. 
gurneyi, 60. 

Ionornis martinica, 215. 


Jo9 


JAEGER, Parasitic, 171. 
Jay, Blue, 221, 282, 294. 
California, 120. 

Job, Herbert K., the Ducks of Ply- 
mouth County, Mass., 197. ; 
Judd, Sylvester D., feeding habits 

of the English Sparrow and 
Crow, 285; notice of his paper 
‘Four common Birds of the Farm 
and Garden,’ 335. 
Junco hyemalis, 178, 213, 218, 242, 
283, 292, 294. 
hyemalis oregonus, 245. 
oregonus, 183. 
Junco, Slate-colored, 178, 218, 283. 
Kent Ornithological Club, 98. 
Killdeer, 215, 281. 
Kingbird, 282, 291, 293. 
Cassin’s, 119. 
Kingfisher, Belted, 239, 281, 293. 
Kinglet, Golden-crowned, 220, 346. 
Ruby-crowned, 220. 
Kirkwood, F. C.. notice of his ‘ List 
of the Birds of Maryland,’ 67. 
Knight, O. W., the Pine Grosbeak 
in captivity, 21; the Golden Eagle 
in Maine, 82; a few notes from 
Maine, 177; 
Knot, 86, 91. 


LAGOPUS evermanni, 25. 
leucurus, 186, 189. 
rupestris townsendi, 26. 

Lanius atricapillus, 266. 
ludovicianus, 245. 
ludovicianus excubitorides, 

121. 

Lano, Albert, Olor bucctnator in 
western Minnesota, 78; Buteo 
borealis harlanz in Minnesota, 342. 

Lapwing, 311. 

Lark, Horned, 181, 210. 

Hoyt’s Horned, 130. 
Meadow, 229. 
Prairie Horned, 294. 

Larus argentatus smithsonianus, 88. 
atricilla, 54, 215. 
Carrovianus, 161. 
canus, 168. 
delawarensis, 181. 
franklini, 186, 189, 207, 215. 

Lawrence, George N., biographical 
notice of, 1. 

Lawrence, Robert B., a new Long 
Island, N Y., record for the Red- 
bellied Woodpecker (Melanerfes 


carolinus), 82. 


360 


Leptotila insularis, 333. 

Lepus arcticus, 186, 190. 

glacialis, 186, 1go. 

Limosa fedoa, 215. 

Loomis, Leverett M., notice of his 
‘California Water Birds, No. II,’ 
168; do., No. III, 329. 

Loon, go. 

Lophodytes cucullatus, 203, 215, 220. 

Loxia curvirostra minor, 176, 179. 

leucoptera, 207, 213. 

Lucas, Frederic A., notice of his 
‘The Weapons and Wings of 
Birds,’ 72; the deltoid muscle in 
the Swifts, 82; the taxonomic 
value of the tongue in birds, 109; 
the skull of the young Cormor- 
ant, 172; Notice of his paper on 
‘Osteological and Pterylographi- 
cal Characters of the Procnia- 
tidze;, 334. 

Lydekker, Richard, notice of the 
‘Birds’ of the ‘Royal Natural 
History,’ edited by, 156, PS De 

Lyttleton, Thomas, Lord Lilford, 
notice of death of, 348. 


Mackay, George H., the Terns of 
Muskeget Island, Massachusetts, 
Part II, 47; ‘Gull Dick’ again, 
78; the 1895 migration of Chara- 
drius dominicus in Massachusetts, 
80; a correction, 86; Nantucket 
and Muskeget Island notes, 88; 
Giatke’s Birds of Heligoland, 89; 
sundry notes, 182 ; 

Macropteryx, 83. 

coronata, I1T4. 
Macrorhamphus griseus, 180. 
scolopaceus, 88, 180. 

Magpie, European, 311. 

Mallard, 200. 

Mareca americana, 200. 

Maris, Willard Lorraine, 
death of, 193. 

Marmon fratercula, 189. 

Martin, 302. 

House, 324 
Purple, 283. 
Western, 347. 

Meadowlark, 4, 222, 25 

335: 
Western, 29, 258. 

Megalestris catarrhactes, 161. 

skua, 161. 

Megascops asio, 321. 


notice of 


8, 283, 294, 


Auk 
Index. Ox: 


Melanerpes carolinus, 82, 213, 22 

erythrocephalus, 213, 220, 
258, 293. 

formicivorus bairdii, 85, 117. 

torquatus, 85. 

Meleagris gallopavo, 221. 

Mellisuga coccinea, 266. 

Melospiza fasciata, 114, 

242, 283, 294. 
fasciata juddi, 132. 
fasciata merrilli, 46. 
georgiana, 114, 218. 
lincolni, 87, 114. 

Merganetta froenata, 162. 

Merganser castor, 164. 
comatus, 162. 
merganser, 164, 203. 
serrator, 203. 

Merganser, Hooded, 203. 
Red-breasted, 203. 

Mergus albellus, 163. 
merganser, 220. 
serrator, 215. 

Merops spiza, 226. 

Merriam, Florence A., nesting 

habits of Phatnopepla nitens in 
California, 38; notes on some 
of the birds of Southern Cali- 
fornia, 115; notice of her ‘How 
Birds affect the Farm and 
Garden’, 337. 

Merula merula intermedia, Baie 
migratoria, 213, 219, 285, 297. 
migratoria propinqua, 245. 

Michigan | Ornithological Club, 194. 

Micropalama himantopus, 88, 150. 

Micropus, 83. 

Miller, Gerrit S.; Jr., description 

of a new Jay from Mexico, 34. 

Milvulus forficatus, 68, 83. 

Mimus polyglottos, 213, 

Mitchell, Walter I., 

a storm, 348. 
Mniotilta varia, 214, 260, 283, 295. 
Mockingbird, 167, 222, 237, 335, 344. 
Molothrus ater, 71, 212, 283. 
badius, 72. 
bonariensis, 71. 
rufoaxillaris, 72. 
Montgomery, Thomas H., notice 
of his paper on migration of 
birds as a check upon geographi- 
cal variation, 335. 

Mormon glacialis, 189. 

Morris. Robert O., rare visitors to 
the Connecticut River Valley in 
Massachusetts in 1895, 86; 


214, 


239; 344- 
birds killed by 


Vo). XIII 
1896 


Motacilla alba, 301. 
eques, 44. 
ludoviciana, 44. 
lugens, 240. 
pusilla, 44. 
torquata, 44. 

Mulliken, W. E., Baird’ 

in Michigan, 174. 

Murre, Briinnich’s, 171. 

Murrelet, Ancient, 168. 

Muscicapa ferruginea, 266. 

Myiarchus cinerascens, 85, 119. 
crinitus, 282. 
tyrannulus, 332. 


s Sandpiper 


Nasu, C. W., bird notes from 
Toronto, Canada, 347. 

Nesochen, 162. 

sandwichensis, 162. 

Nesoctites micromegas, 333. 

Nesotriccus ridgwayi, 75. 

Nighthawk, 160, 282. 

Sennett’s, 134. 

Nonpariel, 261. 

Norton, Arthur H., recent observa- 
tions on A¢strionicus histrionicus 
in Maine, 22 

Numenius borealis, 80, 

longirostris, 215. 

Nuthatch, Red-breasted, 84, 346. 

White-breasted, 285, 297, 346. 

Nyctala acadica, 292, 293. 

Nyctea nyctea, 207, 213. 

Ny cticorax nycticorax nevius, 215. 

violaceus, 215. 

Nyroca africana, 164. 

nyroca, 164. 


DoD. 


OBERHOLSER, Harry C., a question 
of nomenclature, 190; critical re- 
marks on the Mexican forms of 
the genus Cert#za, 314; notices 
of his paper on new subspecies of 
Dryobates pubescens, 330. 

Oceanodroma tristrami, 161. 

Oidemia americana, 89, 186, 189, 

203- 
carbo, 163. 
deglandi, 88, 89. 
Ps 8g. 

Olor buccinator, 

Opisthocomus ee TDs 

Oriole, Arizona Hooded, 120. 

Baltimore, 158, 283, 336. 

Oriolus caudacutus, 271. 


46 


Index. 


Ornatipitta, 60. 
boschi, 60. 
guaiana, 60. 
schwaneri, 60. 

Ortalis vetula mccalli, 253. 

Otocoris alpestris, 181, 207, 210. 
alpestris arenicola, 130. 
alpestris hoyti, 130. 
alpestris leucolema, 130. 
alpestris pallida, 185, 188. 
alpestris praticola, 130, 294. 

Ouzel, Water, 310. 

Ovenbird, 284, 296. 

Owl, American Barn, 117. 
Barred, 222, 293. 
Burrowing, 117 
Dusky Fiocnedt 257- 
Florida Burrowing, 99. 
Great Horned, 293. 
Saw-whet, 291, 293. 
Short-eared, 257. 
Screech, 321. 

Western Horned, 117. 


PALMER, William, the Scissor- 
tailed Flycatcher in Virginia and 
Maryland, 83; second occurrence 
of the Lark Sparrow in Virginia, 
84; on the Florida Ground Owl 
(Speotyto floridana), 99; a note 
on Buteo borealis lucasanus Ridg- 
way, 342; breeding of the Y ellow- 
throated Warbler (Dendroica 
dominica ) in Virginia, near Wash- 
ington, 343. 

Partridge, Valley, 81. 

Parus americanus, 44. 

ater, 300. 
ater britannicus, 3 
atricapillus, 285, 2 
bicolor, 214, 220. 
borealis, 336. 
britannicus, 327. 
carolinensis, 214, 220 
coeruleus, 300. 
dresseri, 32 
fringillaris, 44. 
hudsonicus, 345, 346. 
inornatus, 122. 
major, 300. 
palustris, 300, 327. 
palustris dresseri, 32 
Passer domesticus, I14. 
Passerculus sandwichensis savanna, 
214. 
Passerella iliaca, 214, 217, 265. 


= 
7° 
2 


92, 297. 


362 


Passerina amoena, 121. 
ciris, 261. 
cyanea, 213, 283, 295. 
Pavoncella pugnax, 68. 
Peabody-bird, 217. 
Peabody, P. B., White-faced Glossy 
Ibis breeding in Minnesota, 79. 
Pelecanoides exsul, 161. 
Penelope iacupema, 266. 
leucolophos, 266. 
Perisoreus intaustus, 158. 
Petrochelidon lunifrons, 121, 295. 
Peucedramus olivaceus aurantiacus, 


330: 
Pewee, Wood, 282, 293. 
Western Wood, 120. 
Phaéthon flavirostris, 239. 
Phainopepla nitens, 38, 265. 
Phalacrocorax carbo, 312. 
dilophus, 78, 8g, 90, 178. 
Eley ny2" 
Phalarope, Red, 173. 
Phalaropus, 65. 
Phasianus ignitus, 253. 
Philohela minor, 215. 
Phlegopsis saturata, 331. 
Pheebe, 282, 293. 
Black, 120. 
Phororhacos, 61, 62, 63. 
inflatus, 61. 
longissimus, 61. 
Picus montanus, 190, 191. 
Pigeon, Passenger, 4, 81, 234, 290, 
Bares 
Wild, 292, 341. 
Pinicola enucleator, 21, 58, 175, 176, 
177, 259: 
Pipilo chlorurus, 185, 265. 
erythrophthalmus, 178, 
218, 260, 283, 294. 
Piranga erythromelas, 214, 261, 283, 
294. 
rubra, 213. 
Pitta angolensis, 60. 
arcuata, 60. 
cucullata, 60. 
cyanonota, 60. 
forsteni, 60, 
inspeculata, 60. 
mackloti, 60. 
nympha, 60. 
oreas, 60. 
palliceps, 60. 
propinqua, 60. 
soror, 60. 
strepitans, 60. 
vigorsi, 60. 


213, 


Index. 


“Auk 
Oct. 


Plectrophenax nivalis, 165, 242. 
Plegadis guarauna, 79. 
Plover, American Golden, 80, 89, 
142. 
Black-bellied, 89, 181. 
Field, 291. 
Golden, 146. 
Killdeer, 281. 
Podilymbus podiceps, 215. 
Polioptila cerulea, 214, 264. 
cerulea obscura, 123. 
Poocetes gramineus, 214, 283, 294. 
Porzana carolina, 207, 215. 
noveboracensis, 173, 179, 347- 
Prentiss, D. Webster, notes on the 
birds of Bermuda, 237. 
Priocella, 162. 
Priotelus gracilis, 114. 
Procnias, 334. 
Procniatide, 344. 
Progne subis, 214, 283. 
subis hesperia, 347. 
Protonotaria citrea, 214. 
Psaltriparus minimus californicus, 
163. 
Pteronetta, 162. 
hartlaubi, 162. 
Publications Received, 76, 169, 253, 
338. 
Puffin, Large-billed, 255. 
Puffinus auduboni, 161. 
borealis, 161. 
creatopus, 228. 
fuliginosus, 341. 
gavia, 161. 
gravis, 161. 
griseus, 161, 228. 
kuhli, 161. 
major, 161. 
opisthomelas, 161, 22 
tenuirostris, 171. 
Pulchripitta, 60. 
iris, 60. 
Pyrocephalus rubineus mexicanus, 
258. 


Qualt, Valley, 116. 

Querquedula circia, 164. 
hartlaubi, 162. 
querquedula, 164. 

Quiscalus insularis, 333. 
major, 212. 
quiscula, 245, 283. 


Ratz, Clapper, 86. 
King, 78, 86. 


Vol. XIII 
1896 


Rail, Yellow, 173, 179,.347- 

Raine, W., discovery of the eggs of 
the Belted Piping Plover, 256; 
nidification of the Dusky Horned 
Owl, 257. 

Rallus crepitans, 86. 

elegans, 79, 86, 215. 

longirostris saturatus, 185. 

Raven, American, 83. 

Redbreast, 300. 

Redhead, 201. 

Redshank, 151. 

Redstart, 285, 296. 

Black, 299, 311. 

Regulus calendula, 214, 220. 

satrapa, 214, 220, 346. 

Resler, Arthur, note on the //exor 

hallucits brevis in the Night Heron 


(Nycticorax nycticorax nevtus), | 


172. 
Rhea americanus, 164. 
rhea, 164. 
Rhoads, Samuel N., additions to the 
avifauna of Tennessee, 181; 
‘Ord’s Zoology’ again, 192; 


notice of his List of Birds of 
Tennessee, 244. 

Richmond, Charles W., notice of 
papers by, on Dr. W. L. Abbott's 
collections of birds made in Cen- 
tral Asia, and in the Seychelles 
and other islands, 331; notice of 
papers by, on new species of birds 
331. See also Robinson, Wirt. 

Ridgway, R., notice of papers by, 
on new species of birds, 330. 


Ridgway, R.; and Lucas, F. A., 
notice of their papers on the 


family Procniatide, 334. 

Rissa brevirostris, 161. 

tridactyla kotzebeui, 161. 
tridactyla pollicaris, 161. 

Road-runner, 117, 257. 

Robin, 219, 285, 297. 

Robinson, Wirt, and Richmond, 
Charles W., notice of paper by 
on birds observed on the Island of 
Margarita, etc., 332. : 

Rotzell, W. E., notice of his ‘ Birds 
of Narberth, Pa., and Vicinity’, 
- 


244. 
Ruticilla titys, 299. 


SacE, John H., Thirteenth Con- 
gress of the American Ornitholo- 
gists’ Union, 55. 


Index. 


363 


Salvadori, T., notice of his Cata- 
logue of the Chenomorphe, 
Crypturi, and Ratitz, 162. 

Salvin, Osbert, notice of his Cata- 
logue of the Gavia, 161. 

Sanderling, 150, 181. 

Sandpiper, Baird’s, 174, 180, 255. 

Buit-breasted, 18o. 
Marsh, 151. 

Purple, 180. 
Semipalmated, 88, 180. 
Solitary, 88. 

Spotted, 281, 291, 292. 
Stilt, 180. 

Western, 88, 174. 
Wood, 151 

Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied, 293. 

Saunders, Howard, notice of his 
Catalogue of the Tubinares, 160. 

Sayornis nigricans, 85, 120. 

pheebe, 282, 293. 
saya, 140. 

Scardafella ridgwayi, 333. 

Sclater, P. L., notice of his re- 
marks on ‘Rules for Naming 
Animals,’ 325. 

Scolecophagus carolinus, 212, 221, 


PL NOD 


cyanocephalus, 120. 

Scolopax rusticola, 68. 

Scoters, 203. 

Scoter, American, 89. 
White-winged, 88. 

Seebohm, Henry, biographical no- 
tice of, 96; his collection of birds, 
195- 

Seiurus aurocapillus, 213, 284. 
motacilla, 86, 284, 296, 344. 
noveboracensis, 213, 245, 292, 
296. 

Selasphorus rufus, 119. 

Setophaga ruticilla, 214, 285, 296. 

Schalow, Herman, notice ot his 
‘Ueber eine Vogelsammlung aus 
Westgronland,’ 243. 

Shearwater, Black-vented, 223. 

Slender-billed, 171. 

Sheldrake, Pond, 203. 

Short, Ernest H., notice of his 
‘ Birds of Western New York,’ 245. 

Shoveller, 201. 

Shrike, Great Gray, 309. 
Red-backed, 309. 
White-rumped, 121. 

Shufeldt, R. W, the Cormorant 
Rookeries of the Lofoten Islands, 


312: 


364 


Sialia azurea, 189. 
mexicana occidentalis, 124. 


sialis, 214, 222, 285, 297. 
sialis azurea, oe 

Sitta canadensis, ete 213, 220, 346. 
carolinensis, co 2205 2855 


297- 
pusilla, 213. 
Skylark, 303 304, 306. 
Smith, Clarence A., notice of death 
of, 267. 

Snipe, Wilson’s, 341. 

Snowbird, 294. 

Snowflake, 165. 

Somateria mollissima borealis, 163. 
mollissima dresseri, 89, 202. 
spectabilis, 203, 347. 

Sparrow, Chipping 283. 

Dakota Song, 132. 

English, 239, 285, 294, 348. 

Field, 222, 283, 294. 

Fox, 217. 

Grasshopper, 294. 

Harris’s, <7 

Hedge, 310. 

House, 306. 

Ipswich, 84. 

Lark, 84. 

Leconte’s, 2c 

Lincoln’s, 87. 

Merrill’s, 

Savanna, 283, 291, 294. 

Song, 283, 291, 294. 

Tree, Tot: 

Vesper, 283 

White-throated, 159, 178, 217, 
260. 

Sparrow-bunting, 159. 

Spatula clypeata, 201, 215. 

Speotyto brachyptera, 333. 
cunicularia hypogva, 108, 117. 
floridana, 99. | 


Index. 


Sphyrapicus ruber, 85. | 
thyroideus, 85. | 
varius, 213, 220, 292, 293. 

Spinus tristis, 213, 218, 

283, 2 

Spizella monticola, 18t, 218. 
pusilla, 214, 222, 
socialis, 214, 283, 

Spoonbill, Roseate, 209. 

Sprague, U. A., the Dwarf Thrush 

in Colorado, 85. 

Squatarola, 65. 
helvetica, 65. 

Steganopus, 65. 


Stelgidopteryx serripennis, 214. 


Auk 
Oct. 
Sterna cantiaca, 161. 
dougalli, 49, 52. 
fluviatilis, 161. 
hirundo, 52, 161. 
macroura, 161. 
paradisea, 53, 161, 245. 
sandvicensis, I61. 
Stercorarius crepidatus, 161. 
parasiticus, 161, 171. 
Stone, Witmer, a revision of the 
North American Horned Owls, 


with description of anew subspe- 
cies, 153; some questions of no- 
menclature, 183; notice of his 
paper on ‘The Molting of Birds 
with special reference to the 
plumage of the smaller Land 
Birds of Eastern North America,’ 
240; notice of his paper on ‘ Birds 
collected in North Greenland,’ 
etc., 243; Golden Eagles in Vir- 
ginia, 256; 
Strix pratincola, 117. 
Sturnella magna, 5, 213, 
294. 
magna neglecta, 29, 258. 
Swallow, Bank, 283. 
Barn, 283, 295. 
Chit 121, 295% 
Eave, 307. 
White-bellied, 4. 
Swan, 79. 
Swann, H. Kirke, notice of his 
‘Handbook of British Birds,’ 328. 
Swift, 304. 
Chimney, 82, 282, 293. 
Pied, 159. 
White-throated, 159. 
Sylvia pusilla, 44. 
torquata, 44. 
Sylvania canadensis, 179, 285, 292, 
296. 
mitrata, 214, 285. 
Symphemia semipalmata, 85, 180. 
semipalmata inornata, 215. 
Synthliboramphus antiquus, 168. 
Syrnium nebulosum, 222. , 
nebulosum alleni, 212, 293. 
occidentale, 265. 
Syrrhaptes paradoxus, 251. 


Ae Asie 


TACHORNIS, 83. 
gracilis, 114. 
Tachycineta bicolor, 4, 114. 
Tadorna casarca, 243. 
cornuta, 164. 
tadorna, 164. 


Vol. XIII 


1896 Index. 


Tanager, Scarlet, 241, 261, 283, 295. 

Tantalus loculator, 245, 341. 

Taylor, H. H., the Carolina Wren 
in Connecticut, 84. 

Teal, Blue-winged, 200. 
Green-winged, 200. 

Tern, Arctic, 53- 

Roseate, 49, 52. 

Wilson’s, 51, 52. 
Tetraogallus caucassicus, 253. 
Thayer, Abbott H., the law which 

underlies protective coloration, 
125; further remarks on the 
law which underlies protective 
coloration, 318. 

Thrasher, Brown, 176, 218, 285, 335. 
Californian, 121. 

Thriothorus, 344. 

Thrush, Dwarf, 75. 

Gray-cheeked, 182. 

Hermit, 219, 285, 291, 297. 

Louisiana Water, 86. 

Water, 291, 296. 

Wilson’s, 297. 

Wood, 285, 297. 

Thryothorus bewickii, 344. 
bewickii bairdi, 344. 
bewickii leucogaster, 344. 
Judovicianus, 84, 214, 219. 

Thurber, E. C., Southern California 
bird notes, 265; notice of death 
of, 349. 

Tit, Blue, 300. 

Coal, 300, 308. 

Long-tailed, 308. 

Swamp, 300, 306. 

Titmouse, Great, 300. 

Plain, 122. 

Torrey, Bradford, Virginia notes, 

179. 

Totanus flavipes, 215. 
melanoleucus, 207, 215. 
solitarius, 88, 215. 

Towhee, 260, 280, 283. 

Anthony’s, 165. 

Townsend, C. H., notice of his 
‘Birds from Cocos and Malpelo 
Islands,’ etc., 75. 

Tringa alpina, 164. 

bairdi, 80, 174, 180, 255. 

canutus, 86, 91. 

maritima, 1So. 

minutilla, 215. 

Trochilus alexandri, 118. 
colubris, 282, 293. 

Troglodytes aédon, 214, 285, 296. 
aédon aztecus, 122. 


365 


Troglodytes hiemalis, 178, 219, 292, 


296. 
leucogaster, 345. 
mariane, 345. 
parvulus, 301. 
Trogon curucui, 266. 
ferrugineus, 266. 
flammeus, 266. 
hzmorrhoidalis, 266. 
strigilatus, 265. 
viridis, 262. 
Tryngites subruficollis, 180. 
Turdus alice, 182. 
aonalaschke, 85. 
aonalaschkee pallasi, 
285, 292, 297. 
fuscescens, 213, 292, 297. 
merula, 208. 
mustelinus, 213, 285, 297. 
Tufts, Harold F., Wilson’s Snipe 
in Nova Scotia in Winter, 341. 
Turkey, Wild, 292. 
Turtur abbotti, 332. 
Tyrannus tyrannus, 282, 293. 
verticalis, 85. 
vociferans, 85, 119. 


ZA 20 


Uri lomvia, 171. 
mandtii, 266. 

Urinator imber, 77, go. 

Uropsila leucogaster, 345. 


VAUGHAN, C.Wheaton, Baird’s Sand- 
piper at East Hampton, Long Is- 
land, N. Y., 8o. 

Vireo flavov iris, 263. 

gilvus, 87, 284. 
noveboracensis, 214, 238. 
olivaceus, 214, 284, 295. 
solitarius, 214, 295, 345. 

Vireo, Red-eyed, 283, 295. 

Solitary, 291, 205, 343- 
Warbling, 87, 283. 
White-eyed, 238. 
Yellow-green, oe 

Vulture, Turkey, L16, 222, 341. 


WAGTAIL, Mountain, 310. 
Pied, 149. 
White, 149, 304. 
Warbler, Audubon’s, 121. 
Bay-breasted, 181. 
Black-and-White, 260, 284, 
295. 
Black-and-Y ellow, 179. 
Blackburnian, 179, 291, 295. 
Black-poll, 345. 


366 


Warbler, Black-throated Blue, 179, 

2056 

Black-throated Green, 179, 
284, 295. 

Canadian, 285, 291, 295. 

Cape May, 84, 87, 182. 

Cerulean, 179. 

Chestnut-sided, 88, 280, 284, 
205- 

Golden-winged, 179, 285. 

Hooded, 179, 2S8o. 

Lutescent, 121. 

Magnolia, 284, 295. 

Mourning, 179. 

Northern Parula, 44. 

Palm, 182, 343. 

Parula, 284, 295. 

Summer, 295. 

Swainson’s, 207. 

Tennessee, 87. 

Worm-eating, 284. 

Yellow, 179, 284. 

Yellow-throated, 343. 

Warren, B. H., notice of his Taxi- 
dermy, etc., 334. 

Water-Thrush, Large-billed, 284. 

Louisiana, 344. 

Wayne, Arthur T., the Cape May 
Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) in 
the maritime portions of South 
Carolina, 84; the Red-breasted 
Nuthatch (S7t#/a canadensis) on 
Long Island, S. C., 84. 

Webber, Herbert J., notice of his 
paper on the Mockingbird and 
Yucca alotfolia, 167. 

Wharton, Henry T., notice of death 
of, 97. 

Whip-poor-will, 282. 

White, George R., Porzana nove- 
boracensis near Ottawa, Canada, 
173. 

Widgeon, European, 255. 

Widmann, O., the Peninsula of 
Missouri as a winter home for 
birds, 216; Bachman’s Warbler 


Errata. Auk 


Oct. 


(Helminthophila bachmani) in 
Greene County, Arkansas, 264. 

Willet, 88. 

Wilson, Sidney S , Harris’s Sparrow 
in spring dress in autumn, 176. 
Witchell, Charles A., notice of his 
‘The Evolution of Song,’ 249. 

Woodcock, 126, 292. 

Woodpecker, California, 117. 
Downy, 220, 281, 293, 346. 
Hairy, 220, 281, 293, 346. 
Pileated, 220, 346. 
Red-bellied, 82, 220. 
Red-headed. 220, 258, 293. 
Rocky Mountain, 32. 

Woodrutt, Frank M., the Raven in 

Illinois, 83; on birds reported as 
rare in Cook County, Ill., 179. 
Worthington, W. W., another Har- 
lequin Duck record for Long 
Island, 78. 

Wren, Carolina, 84, 219. 

House, 280, 285, 295, 335. 
Short-billed Marsh, 182, 347. 
Vigors’s, 121. 

Western House, 122. 

Winter, 178, 219, 295. 

Wren-tit, 122. 


XNANTHOCEPHALUS xanthocephalus, 
120. 

Xema sabinei, 245. 

Xenopicus albolarvatus, 85. 


Y ELLOW-HAMMER, 303, 305, 306, 309. 

Yellow-throat, Maryland, 285, 296. 

Young, R. T., summer birds of the 
Anthracite Coal Regions of Penn- 
sylvania, 278. 


ZANTHOPYGIA narcissina, 240. 
Zenaidura macroura, 215, 261. 
Zonotrichia albicollis, 159, 178, 214, 
217, 260. 
harrisi, 176. 


ERRATA. 


Page 161, line 21, for ‘ folzcarzs’ read ‘ follicaris.’ 


“cc 176, ce 
of an inch.’ 


7, for ‘decreased .20 of an inch’ read ‘decreased to .20 


“ 1478, line 21, for ‘on the 25th’ read ‘25th of December.’ 


oe if 
Bae: 


“ “ec “ 


15, for ‘cave’ read ‘cove.’ 
37, for ‘new’ read ‘old.’ 


“233, last line, for ‘as regards’ read ‘ beyond.’ 
#y 260, line 15 fon (Oct.3) read JOcta2:; 


a 


" 


oy 


“he 


PEN Pe Tes Pe ee 2 


“4 f 
A 
be 


| Series, 


‘t 


yy coma 
q a 


id CONTINUATION OF THE New 


BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB Tai 


Vol. XX| 


‘The Auk 


A Quarterly Fournal of Ornithology 


‘Vol. III —_ JANUARY, 1896 — Wo. 1 


PUBLISHED FOR 


American Ornithologists’ Union 


NEW YORK 


SASS 58 BSS a Bp ce Se 


CON CENT 6650 75 


- 2 PAGE 


In Memoriam: GeorGe Newsotp Lawrence. By D. G. Elliot, F.R.S.E. (Frontispiece.) . 1 
THE STANDING OF Ardetta neoxena. By Frank M. Chapman. (Plate 1.) . : A : 5 11 
An ImporTANT Factor IN THE STUDY OF WESTERN Birpv-Lire. By Carl. F. Baker. . oe 20 
Tue Pine GrosBEAK IN Captivity. By O. W. Knight. ; : 5 : : 5 : § Bite ; 
DESCRIPTIONS OF AN APPARENTLY NeW SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES OF PTARMIGAN FROM THE 

ALEUTIAN IsLANDs. By D. G. Elliot, F.R.S.E. (Plate Ill.) : : = . : c 24 
Soncs oF THE WESTERN MEADOWLARK. By L. Belding. 5 ; 3 ats ; 5 d 29 
A New Supsprcigs OF THE GENUS Dryobates. By A. W. Anthony. : : F eh iiss 
Description OF A New Jay FRom Mexico. By Gerrit S. Miller, Jr. : 2 fs if . 34 
Nestinc Hapitrs or Phainofepla nitens IN CALIFORNIA. By Florence A. Merriam. E 38 
Descriptions oF A New WarBLeR anp A New SonG Sparrow. By William Brewster. . 44° 
Tue Terns oF MuskeceT IstAND, MassacHusETTs. Part Il. By George H. Mackay. 5 47 
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ Unton. By John H. Sage. Cn 55 


Recent LiteratuRE— Elliot’s Monograph of the Pittide, 60; The Fossil Birds of Patagonia, 61; 
Elliot’s Limicola, 64; Some Canadian Birds, 67; Kirkwood on Maryland Birds, 67: The Structure 
: and Life of Birds, 68; The A. O. U. Check-List of North American Birds, Second Edition, 69 ; 
y Hudson's British Birds, 70; Bendire on the Cowbirds, 71; Lucas on the Weapons and Wings of 
Birds, 72; Fisher's Hawks and Owls from the Standpoint of the Farmer, 73; Beddard’s ‘ Text-book 
of Zodgeography,’ 73: Townsend on the Birds of Cocos Island, 75; Publications Received, 76. ~~ 


Grenerat Notes.— Do Young Loons eat Fresh-water Clams? 77; ‘Gull Dick’ Again, 78: An Early 
Description of Phalacrocorax dilophus, 78; Another Harlequin Duck Record for Long Island, 78; 
Olor buccinator in Western Minnesota, 78; White-faced Glossy Ibis Breeding in Minnesota, 79; 
Ardetta neoxena from Wisconsin, 79; The King Rail Again in Maine, 79; Baird’s Sandpiper in 
Maine, 80; The 1895 Migration of Charadrius dominicus in Massachusetts, 80; Habits of the Valley 
Partridge, 81; Additional Records of the Passenger Pigeon (Ectoféistes migratorius) in Wisconsin 
and Illinois, 81;°The Golden Eagle in New Jersey, 81; The Golden Eagle in Maine, 82; A New 
Long Island, N. Y., Record for the Red-bellied Woodpecker, 82; The Deltoid Muscle in the Swifts, 
82; The Scissor-tailed Flycatcher in Virginia and Maryland, 83: The Raven in Illinois, 83; The 
Ipswich Sparrow.— A Correction, 84; Second Occurrence of the Lark Sparrow in Virginia, 84; The _ 
Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) in the Maritime Portions of South Carolina, 84; The Caro- 
lina Wren in Connecticut, 84: The Red-breasted Nuthatch (Svt#ta canadensis) on Long Island, 
South Carolina, 84; The Dwarf Thrush in Colorado, 85; Food of Woodpeckers and Flycatchers, 
8s; Rare Visitors to the Connecticut River Valley in Massachusetts in 1895, 86 ; A Correction, 86 ; 
Notes on Long Island Birds, 87; Nantucket Island Notes. 88; Gatke’s Birds of Heligoland, 89. 


\ CoRRESPONDENCE.— The Soaring of Birds and Currents of Air, 92. 
: 


Norres aNb News.— Obituary, Thomas Henry Huxley, 93: Henry Seebohm, 96; Henry T. Wharton, 
97; Ornithological Lectures at Columbia Colleg2. 97; Kent Ornithological Club, 98; Protection 
of North American Birds, 98. i 


‘THE AUK,’ published as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ | 
UNIoN, is edited by Dr. J. A. ALLEN, with the assistance of Mr. F. M. CHAP- — 
MAN. 


Terms :— $3.00 @ year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Members, and to Active and Associate Members 
of the A.O.U. not in arrears for dues. 


Subscriptions and Advertisements should be addressed to the publisher, — 
L. S. FOSTER, 35 PINE SrreEET, NEw York, N. Y. Foreign Subscribers — 
may obtain ‘ THe AuK’ through GURNEY AND JACKSON, 1 PATERNOSTER 
Row, LONDON. 


: All articles and communications intended for publication, and all books and 
publications for notice, should be sent to Dr. J. A. ALLEN, AMERICAN MUSEUM ~ 
or NATURAL History, CENTRAL PARK, NEW YORK CITy. ; 


AUTHORS’ SEPARATES. 


Authors of general articles will receive 25 separates of their articles gratis. — 
. Additional copies may be ordered, if desired, but such orders must always — 
accompany the manuscript. The prices of separates are as follows : 


We SOF Number of pages of article. Covers 
: Se and 

copies 2 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16, |. 24 | 32 Title. 
50 $0.50 | $1.00 | $1.50 | $2.00 | $3.00 | $4.50 | $6.00 $0.50 
75 65 | ee TAS tac asae | gees | 5-00 6.50 +50 
100 .80 | 1.30 2.00 2.50 | 3-75 5-50 7.00 ee 


CONTINUATION OF THE | New 
BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB eee 
A Quarterly Fournal of Ornithology 
| Vol, XIII — APRIL, 1896— Wo. 2 


PUBLISHED FOR 


American Ornithologists’ 


NEW YORK 


spp SS ASI aay ade 


ite 


. 2 ¢ ; — 


ye CANE TD Sh Ce eee 


‘ ts 
; PAGE. 
On 1HE FLoRIDA GROUND OWL (Sfeotyto floridana). By William Palmer. (Plate Tl.) . 0G 
Tue Taxonomic VALUE OF THE TONGUE IN Birps. By Frederic A. Lucas. : _ 109 
Notes oN Some OF THE Brrps oF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. By Florence A. Merriam. . yooh Te 
Tue Law wuicw UNperiirs Prorecrive Cororation. By Adbédott H. Thayer. : i oa Yaa 
Descriptions OF A New Hornep LARK AND A NEW SONG SPARROW, WITH REMARKS ON ect 
Sennett’s NIGHTHAWK. By Louis B. Bishop. does ‘ ? 5 ; 129 
AN AppARENTLY New Chordeiles From Costa Rica. By George K. Cherrie. : : he iag 


GAtTKE’s ‘HELIGOLAND.” By /. A. Allen. . ; 2 : : : ae A ; F Pane 137; 
A Revision OF THE NoRTH AMERICAN HorNED OWLS, WITH DESCRIPTION OF A NEW~SuB- 


species. By Witmer Stone. 3 i : : ; é : : : : . : wr AER 
’ 


Recent Lrrerature— The ‘ Birds’ of ‘The Roval Natural History,’ 156; Saunders and Salvin’s ~ 
‘Catalogue of the Gavia and Tubinares,’ 160; Salvadori’s Catalogue of the Chenomorphe, Crypturi, 
and Ratitz, 162; Chapman on Changes of Plumage in the Dunlin and Sanderling, 164; Chapman 
on the Plumage of the Snowflake, 165; Allen on Alleged Changes of Color in the Feathers of Birds 
without Moulting, 166: The Mockingbird and Vacca aloifolia, 167; Woomis on California Water — 
Birds, 168: Publications Received, 169. 


Genera Nores.— Briinnich’s Murre at Cape Charles, Virginia, 171; The Parasitic Jaeger near Cleve- 
land, Ohio, 171; Puffinus tennirostris, off San Diego, California, 171; The Skull of the Young Cor- 
morant, 172; Clangula hyemalis at San Diego, California, 172; Occurrence of the Great White Heron 
at Escondido, California, 172: Note on the Flexor hallucis brevis in the Night Heron (Vyctécorax 
nycticorax nevius), 172; Porzana noveboracensis near Ottawa, Canada, 172; Crymophilus fule- 
carius in Maine, 173; Crex crex in Maine, 173; Baird’s Sandpiper in Michigan, 174; Western _ . 
Sandpiper (Hyveunetes occidentalis) more abundant than the Semipalmated (Z. puszlus), 174; Wood- 
peckers’ Tongues—a Plea for Aid, 174; Pénicola enucleator in Westchester County, N. Y.,.175: 
The Pine Grosbeak at Poughkeepsie, N. Y., 175; The Pine Grosbeak (7. exucleator) in New 
Jersey, 175; Abnormal Plumage of a Pine Grosbeak, 176; The American Crossbill at Sea, 176; 
Harris’s Sparrow in Spring Dress in Autumn, 176; A Brown Thrasher (Harforhynchus rufus) in 
Massachusetts in Winter, 176; A few Notes from Maine, 177 ; Three Winter Notes from Longwood, 
Mass., 178: Bird Notes from Erie County, New York, 178; Virginia Notes, 179; On Birds reported 
as rare in Cook County, Ill., 179; Additions to the Avifauna of Tennessee, 181 ; Suridry Notes, 182. 


P 5 
CORRESPONDENCE — Some Questions of Nomenclature, 183; A Question of Nomenclature, 190; ‘ Ord’s 
Zodlogy* Again, 192; Chen hyperborea and C. nivalis, 195 . 


Notes anp News.— Obituary, Dr. Willard Lorraine Maris, 193; The Delaware Valley Ornithological 
Club, 193; The Michigan Ornithological Club, 194; New Edition of Ridgway’s ‘ Manual of North— 
American Birds,’ 1yq: * The Feather,’ 195; The Seebohm collection of Birds, 195; The Field Col-_ 
umbian Museum Expedition to Africa, 196. ’ 


- 


‘TIIE AUK,’ published as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ 
Union, is edited by Dr. J. A. ALLEN, with the assistance.of Mr. F. M. CHap- 
MAN. i 


Terms :— $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Members, and to Active and Associate Members 
of the A.O.U. not in arrears for dues. "3 


Subscriptions and Advertisements should be addressed to the publisher, 
L. S. FOSTER, 35 PINE Street, NEw Yor«, N. Y. ~ Foreign Subscribers 
may obtain ‘THe AuK’ through GURNEY AND JACKSON, 1 PATERNOSTER 
Row, LonpDon. : sen 


All articles and communications intended for publication, and all books and 
publications for notice, should be sent to Dr. J. A. ALLEN, AMerIcAN MUSEUM 
oF NaTuRAL History. CENTRAL PARK, NEW YorRK CITY: 

AUTHORS’ SEPARATES. 

Authors of general articles will receive 25 separates of their articles gratis. 
Additional copies may be ordered, if desired, but such orders must always 
accompany the manuscript. The prices of separates are as follows: > 

ae 


= ™ VS 


: — SE, 


Neco? Number of pages of article. , Covers | 
ae Sisal REP =e \> aan 
copie: 2 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 ee oars | 32 Titles 
50 $0.50 $1.00 | $1.50 | $2.00 | $3.00 | $4.50 | $6.00 $0.50 
75 65 I 5 1.75 2.25 3.25 | 5.00 6.50 50 
100 80 1.30 2.00 2.50 | 3:75 |. 5:50 7.00 75 


CONTINUATION OF THE New 


oie aaah Series, | 
‘Vol. XXI BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB Vol. XIII 


The Auk 


A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 


Vol SIL JULY, 1s96— No.3 


PUBLISHED FOR 


The American Ornithologists’ Union 


NEW YORK 


GaSe OS Bre 


rp 3 
CON iON Ts; 
Tue Ducks or PLymoutH County, Massacuusetts. By Herbert K. Job: 
Joun Apsot’s DRAWINGS OF THE BriRDs OF GeEorGIA. By Walter Faxon. 
THE PENINSULA OF Missourt AS A WINTER Home For Birps. By O. Widmann. 
THE BLACK-VENTED SHEARWATER (Pufjinus opisthomelas). By A. W. Anthony. 


RECENT OBSERVATIONS ON AVistrionicus histrionicus IN MAINE. By Arthur H. Norton. ; 
Some Notes ON THE PASSENGER PIGEON (Zctofistes migratorius) IN CONFINEMENT. By ha 
Ruthven Deane. ; , 4 é : : 4 : : : : : : : 254 caren 4 
Notes ON THE Birvs OF BERMUDA. By D. Webster Prentiss. : : 3 3 ; P RS 5) . 
= 

ye 


Recent LireEkRATURE.— Stone on the Molting of Birds, 240; Stone on Birds collected in North Green- ; 4 
land 243; Shalow ona Collectioa of Birds from West Greenland, 243; Rotzell’s Birds of Narberth, 
Pa., and Vicinity, 244; Rhoads’s List of Tennessee Birds, 244; Short’s Birds of Western New York, = 
245; A List of Nebraska Birds, 245; Cory’s ‘ Hunting and Fishing in Florida,’ with ‘A Key to the c 
Water Birds of the State, 245; Howe’s ‘ Every Bird,’ 247; Artistic-and Scientific Taxidermy, 247 ; . i 
Witchell’s ‘ Evolution of Bird Song,’ 249; Harvie. Brown and Buckley's ‘ A Vertebrate Fauna of the 4 
Moray Basin,’ 251; The‘ Birds’ of the Royal Natural History, 252; Publications Received, 253. 


GenerAL Nores.— Name of the Large-billed Puffin, 255; Record of a Fourth Specimen of the Euro- 
pean Widgeon (Axzs penelope) in Indiana, 255; Recent Occurrence of the Florida Gallinule in Z 
Southern Maine, 255; Baird’s Sandpiper in Michigan, 255; The Belted Piping Plover in Massachu- 
setts, 256; Discovery of the Eggs of the Belted Piping Plover, 256; Recent Capture of the Golden 
Eagle near Portland, Maine, 256; Golden Eagles in Virginia, 256; Nidification of the Dusky Horned 
Owl, 257; Four Winter Records of the Short-eared Owl on the Massachusetts Coast, 257; The 
Roadrunner as a Rat-killer, 257; The Red-headed Woodpecker in Eastern Massachusetts, 258 ; 
Pyrocephalus rubineus mexicanus in Los Angeles County, Cal., 258; Intergradation in Song of 
Sturnella magna and S. m. neglecta in Missouri, 258; Picola enucleator at Worcester, Mass., 256; 
Evening Grosbeak in Southern Wisconsin, 259; Zonotrichia albicollis and Mniotilta varia at Pasa- $ 
dena, Cal., 260; The Wintering of the Towhee at-Longwood, Mass., 260;'The Nonpariel at Long- 


wood, Massachusetts, 261; Peculiar Traits of Some Scarlet Tamagers, 261; The Occurrence in 
Nebraska of Vireo flavoviridis 263: Helminthophila rubricapilla vs. Helminthophila rujficapilla, 
263; Bachman’s Warbler (Helminthophila bachmani) in Greene County, Arkansas, 264; Second 1 
Occurrence of the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher in Maine, 264; Southern California Bird Notes, 265; . 
Merrem’s Work, 265: Mandt’s Inaugural Dissertation, 266; Correction, 266. 3 
; 5 ey 
Notes AnpD News-—Obituary.— Dr. Juan Gundlach, 267; Clarence A. Smith, 267; The Palm 
Beach Museum, 268; ‘The Osprey,’ 268; ‘The Nidiologist,’ 268; U. S. Biological Survey, 268; 
Elliot’s African Expedition, 268 ; Zoological Nomenclature, 269. 


~ 


a 


‘THE AUK,’ published as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ 
UNION, is edited by Dr. J. A. ALLEN, with the assistance of Mr. F. M. Cuar-= 
MAN. 


Terms :— $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Members, and to Active and Associate Members 
of the A.O.U. not in arrears for dues. £5 


Subscriptions and Advertisements should be addressed to the publisher, 
L. S. FOSTER, 35 PINE STREET, NEw York, N. Y. Foreign Subscribers 
may obtain ‘ THe AuK’ through GURNEY AND JACKSON, 1 PaTERNOSTER 
Row, LONDON. 


All articles and communications intended for publication, and all books and 
publications for notice, should be sent to Dr. J. A. ALLEN, American MusEUM 
oF NATURAL HisTorY, CENTRAL PARK, New YorK CIty. 


AUTHORS’ SEPARATES. : x 


Authors of general articles will receive 25 separates of their articles gratis. 
Additional copies may be ordered, if desired, but such orders must always 
accompany the manuscript. ‘The prices of separates are as follows: 


- 


Wiss ok Number of pages of article. Covers 
. Sas ea cles ¥6 oe 
copies. 2 | 4 | Sas | Pe 6 | 16 24 | 32 Title. ~- 
50 $0.50 | $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 | $3.00 | $4.50 | $6.00 $0.50 
45 CO ina) cokes 1.75 DEON 3.25 5.00 6.50 .50 
100 $80 | SditegOcles 2 


| .0O 2.50 3-75 | 5-50 7-00 75. 


Bo! CONTINUATION OF THE uy 
|) series, eries, 
Vi vol. xxi | BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB | yo) xii 


‘The Auk 


Q Muarterly Journal of Ornithology 


| vol. XIII — OCTOBER, 1896— No. 4 


PUBLISHED FOR 


The American Ornithologists’ Union 


>. 


NEW YORK 


Ty. es ee SS Ea see, 


name 


Tue SHARP-TAILED SparRROw (A rmmodramus caudacutis) AND ITS GEOGRAPHICAL Races. By 
Jonathan, Dwight, Jr, (Plate IV.) ; “ = : 2 : 

SuMMER BirpDs OF THE ANTHRACITE COAL eciaNe OF DaNRSvia AREA. By R. we ene 

Ferpinc Hapits OF THE ENGLIsSii SPARROW AND Crow. By Sylvester D. Judd. 

SumMER Birps oF NorTHERN ELk County, Pa. By William L. Bailey. 

SumMMER Birps (Juty 15—AuG. 13, 1894) oF THE RHINE. By Ralph Hoffmann. ‘ 

THE CokMORANT ROOKERIES OF THE LOFOTEN IsLANDs. By A. W Shufeldt, M.D. (Plate a) 

CriticAL REMARKS ON THE! MEXICAN FORMS OF THE GENUS Certhia. By Harry C. Oberholser. 

FuRTHER REMARKS ON THE Law wnHicH UNDERLIES PROTECTIVE COLORATION. By A dbott 


Hf, Thayer. : : : : : ‘ . : : i { ; ; : % . 2 oad é 
EVIDENCE SUGGESTIVE OF THE Dsaiote oF ‘InpivipvuaL DicHROMATISM’ IN JMegascops = 
asio. By Arthur P. Chadbourne, M.D. c : 5 : ; : 4 ’ Z 5 oF ganas 


Recent LIreRaTuRE.— Sclater on Rules for Naming Animals, 325; Swann’s Handbook of British — 
Birds, 328; Loomis on California Water Birds, 329; Ridgway on New Species and Subspecies of 
Birds, 330; Oberholser on Two New Subspecies of Dryodbates, 330; Richmond on Mexican Birds, : 
330; Richmond on New Species of Birds, 331: Dr. Abbott’s Collections from Asia, 331; Dr. 
Abbott’s Collections from the Seychelles and other Islands, 331; Robinson’s Birds of Margarita, 
332; Cherrie on San Domingo Birds, 333; Warren’s ‘ Taxidermy’ and Bird-Laws, 334; Ridgway 
and Lucas on a New Family of Birds, 334; Montgomery on Migration as a Check upon Geographi- 
cal Variation, 335; Contrbutions to Economic Ornithology, 335; Publications Received, 338. a 


GENERAL Notes — Occurrence of the Wood Ibis (7antalus loculator) in Bristol County, Mass., 341; 
Wilson’s Snipe in Nova Scotia in Winter, 341; The Wild Pigeon at Englewood, N. J., 341; Recent 
Record of the Passenger Pigeon in Southern Wisconsin, 341; The Turkey Vulture in the Catskills, 
34; Buteo borealis harlani in Minnesota, 342; A Note on Buteo borealis lucasanus Ridgway; 342; 
Feeding Habits of Purple Finches, 342; First Occurrence of the Blue Grosbeak in New Hampshire, 
342; Solitary Vireo (l7reo solitarius) nesting in Connecticut, 343; Dendroica palniarum in New 
York City, 343; Breeding of the Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica) in Virginia, near 
Washington, 343; The Louisiana Water-Thrush breeding in Berkshire County, Mass., 344; 
Mockingbird (Minus polyglottos) in Canada. 344; Thriothorus or Thryothorus? 344: The Hud- 
sonian Chickadee breeding in Southern Vermont, 345; The Hudsonian Chickadee (Parus hud- 
sonicus), Red-breasted Nuthatch (Ste caxadensés), and Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 
in Plymouth County, Mass, in Summer, 346; The Western Martin and the Caiifornia Cuckoo at 
Escondido, Cal., 347: Bird Notes from Toronto, Canada, 347: Tridescence of Feathers, as explained 
by an Old Author, 347; Birds killed by a Storm, 348. 


Notes anp News.— Obituary.— Lord Lilford, 348; Eugene Carleton Thurber, 349; Dr. G. Brown ~ 
Goode, 349; Bird Day in Schools, 349; Museum of Natural History-at Providence, 350; ‘The 
Osprey,’ 350; ‘ Das Tierreich’, 350; New Ornithological Publications, 351. 


‘THE AUK,’ published as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNITHOLOQGISTS’ 
UNIon, is edited by Dr. Jf. A. ALLEN, with the assistance of Mr. F. M. CHap-= — 
MAN. 


Terms :— $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- ~ 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Members, and to Active and Associate Members 
of the A.O.U. net in arrears for dues. _ 


Subscriptions and Advertisements should be addressed to the publisher, 
L. S. FOSTER, 35 PINE SrrREET, NEw York, N. Y. Foreign Subscribers 
may obtain ‘ THe Auk’ through GURNEY AND JACKSON, 1 PATERNOSTER 
Row, Lonpon. 


All articles and communications intended for publication, and all books and 
publications for notice, should be sent to Dr. J. A. ALLEN, AMerIcAN MUSEUM _ 
or Natrurat History, CENTRAL Park, New York City 


Bi : AUTHORS’ SEPARATES. 
Authors of general articles will receive 25 separates of their articles gratis. 
Additional copies may be ordered. if desired, but such orders must always © 
Brean Pat the manuscr Lie The ee of separates are as follows: f 


segs 2 ere 


50 $0.50 | $1.00 $1.50 | $2.00 | $3.00 | $4.50 | $6.00 
75 O5> |S 50-15 |. bole paet 3.25 350 6.50 


.0O 2.50 3.75 5.50 


a. ae ee Ani An AaARAANR RRA: RA ARR ‘i sal Writ 
SRAAAA AMARA AAARAA Onn eee o* ‘Bab. on™, eh 
4) PA RRIARAAR AAA AANA soenaaeres Poe RA lay 


- i~ 
Age +e il tel Se Aa, A .\, are - 
. : : # Fi 54 Lie fs ne ld a ‘ta . Oca sanhAnannhana” 7 ' Sif | : ¥ a7 On DNAn~ eo . A 


. AAA A 
RAS aaa Se aaa ae Be AS 
NINN NR RASA RAEN a AR A AR AR aap RP ABA ADaaA ee PY 
NN NAARARRA a an OOS: aRR AZ A ARARE ARAL aime att 
Ay . as” sanity ra . a A Ap kant pL _ 


SP “Aer ape’. 2)... aa / ee Pall A 

a . . : “Se : ¥ ° we A imi A 
Manntnnnn Anan 0? aes ye es , mere..." abehe As 
Dane? pl ECE re ee 0 ) | ae © atl RANAN Tne, of aR p 


Resonate BAS. 


Ys ea aera OANA : 
Ana A ae eae 


AAA Naan eal Boner h F 


ve he j | il ns aR: a. A ARR ji 
a “ats A*RAAANNMO::