| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, Volume VII (1882) : A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, Volume VII (1882) : A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology" ***
BULLETIN
OF THE
NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB:
=A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology.=
VOLUME VII.
=Editor.=
J. A. ALLEN.
=Associate Editors.=
S. F. BAIRD AND ELLIOTT COUES.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.:
PUBLISHED BY THE CLUB.
1882
_W. H. Wheeler, Printer,
15 & 17 Brighton Street, Cambridge, Mass.
1882._
CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.
NUMBER I.
PAGE.
ON AN APPARENTLY NEW HERON FROM FLORIDA. By _Robert Ridgway_. 1
LIST OF BIRDS OBSERVED AT HOUSTON, HARRIS CO., TEXAS, AND
VICINITY, AND IN THE COUNTIES MONTGOMERY, GALVESTON, AND FORD
BEND. By _H. Nehrling_. 6
ON THE SESAMOID AT THE FRONT OF THE CARPUS IN BIRDS. By _F. Amory
Jeffries_. 13
NOTES ON SOME OF THE BIRDS OBSERVED NEAR WHEATLAND, KNOX CO.,
INDIANA, IN THE SPRING OF 1881. By _Robert Ridgway_. 15
NOTES ON THE HABITS AND CHANGES OF PLUMAGE OF THE ACADIAN OWL
(_Nyctale acadica_), WITH SOME ADDITIONAL RECORDS OF ITS
BREEDING IN MASSACHUSETTS. By _William Brewster_. 23
DESCRIPTION OF A NEW RACE OF _Peucæa ruficeps_ FROM TEXAS. By
_Nathan Clifford Brown_. 26
ON KENNICOTT’S OWL AND SOME OF ITS ALLIES, WITH A DESCRIPTION OF
A PROPOSED NEW RACE. By _William Brewster_. 27
A RECONNOISSANCE IN SOUTHWESTERN TEXAS. By _Nathan Clifford
Brown_. 33
RECENT LITERATURE.
Memorial Volume of Garrod’s Scientific Papers, 43; Shufeldt’s
Osteology of the North American Tetraonidæ, 44; Illustrations
of Ohio Nests and Eggs, 45; Shufeldt’s “The Claw on the Index
Digit of the Cathartidæ,” 46; Papers on Minnesota Birds, 47;
Freke on the Birds of Amelia County, Virginia, 48; Langdon’s
Field Notes on Louisiana Birds, 48; Krider’s Field Notes, 49;
Langdon’s Zoölogical Miscellany, 50; Hoffman on the Birds of
Nevada, 51.
GENERAL NOTES.
The Tufted Titmouse on Staten Island, N. Y., 52; Nesting of the
White-bellied Wren (_Thryothorus bewicki leucogaster_), 52; An
Erroneous Record of the Orange-crowned Warbler (_Helminthophaga
celata_) in New Hampshire, 53; On the Generic Name
_Helminthophaga_, 53; _Dendræca palmarum_ again in
Massachusetts, 54; _Ampelis cedrorum_ as a Sap-sucker, 54;
Capture of _Plectrophanes lapponicus_ in Chester, S. C., 54;
Occurrence of _Coturniculus lecontei_ in Chester County, South
Carolina, 54; The Sharp-tailed Finch in Kansas, 55; Note on
_Mitrephanes_, a New Generic Name, 55; Nesting of _Empidonax
minimus_ and _Helmintherus vermivorus_ in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey, 55; Cuckoos laying in the Nests of other Birds, 56;
_Melanerpes erythrocephalus_ about Boston, 57; The Barn Owl in
Maine; a Retraction, 58; The Snowy Owl at Fort Walla Walla, W.
T., 58; Capture of the Golden Eagle in Crawford County,
Pennsylvania, 58; The Swallow-tailed Kite in Dakota, 59; A
Remarkable Specimen of the Pinnated Grouse (_Cupidonia
cupido_), 59; Wilson’s Plover (_Ægialites wilsonius_) in New
England, 59; Capture of Baird’s Sandpiper on Long Island, N.
Y., 60; An Addition to the Maine Fauna, 60; Capture of _Larus
leucopterus_ near Boston, 60; The Great Black-backed Gull
(_Larus marinus_) from a new Locality, 60; The Snake-bird in
Kansas, 61; Capture of the Sea Dove 150 Miles from the Sea, 61;
Additions to the Catalogue of North American Birds, 61; Notes
on Some Birds of the Belt Mountains, Montana Territory, 61;
Remarks on Some Western Vermont Birds, 63.
ERRATUM 64
NUMBER II.
ON A COLLECTION OF BIRDS LATELY MADE BY MR. F. STEPHENS IN
ARIZONA. By _William Brewster_. 65
NOTES ON THE OS PROMINENS. By _Frederic A Lucas_. 86
A LIST OF BIRDS FROM THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY, OBSERVED
DURING THE SUMMER OF 1881, WITH BRIEF NOTES. By _O. P. Hay_. 89
IMPRESSIONS OF SOME SOUTHERN BIRDS. By _William Brewster_. 94
NOTES ON SOME OF THE RARER BIRDS OF SOUTHERN NEW BRUNSWICK. By
_Montague Chamberlain_. 104
NOTES ON THE SUMMER BIRDS OF THE UPPER ST. JOHN. By _Charles F.
Batchelder_. 106
RECENT LITERATURE.
Dr. Coues’ New Check List and Dictionary, 111; Nests and Eggs of
Ohio Birds, 112; Professor Macoun’s Report of Exploration, 113;
Knowlton’s Revised List of the Birds of Brandon, Vermont, 113;
Krukenberg on the Coloring Matter of Feathers, 114; Minor
Ornithological Papers, 115.
GENERAL NOTES.
Description of a Nest of the Water Ouzel, 118; The Short-billed
Marsh Wren in New Hampshire, 118; Early Arrival of the Yellow
Rump in Southern Maine, 119; Late Stay (probable Wintering) of
_Dendrœca pinus_ in Massachusetts, 119; The Hooded Warbler in
Western New York, 119; Breeding of the Pine Grosbeak (_Pinicola
enucleator_) in Lower Canada, 120; _Coturniculus lecontei_, _C.
henslowi_, and _Cistothorus stellaris_ in Florida, 121;
_Ammodramus caudacutus_—a somewhat Inland Record on the
Atlantic Coast, 122; The White-throated Sparrow in Winter near
Worcester, Mass., 122; _Peucæa ruficeps eremœca_, 122; The
Canada Jay at Portland, Maine, 122; The White-throated Swift
breeding on Belt River, Montana, 122; Capture of the Golden
Eagle (_Aquila chrysaëtus canadensis_) near Columbus, Ohio,
123; The Little Blue Heron in Maine, 123; Baird’s Sandpiper on
Long Island, N. Y.—a Correction, 123; _Pelidna subarquata_ on
the Maine Coast, 124; The King Rail in New England, 124; Purple
Gallinule (_Ionornis martinica_) in Rhode Island, 124; Note on
the Habits of the Young of _Gallinula galeata_ and _Podilymbus
podiceps_, 124; _Rhynchops nigra_—an Early Record for the
Massachusetts Coast, 125; Notes on the Habits of the Kittiwake
Gull, 125; _Sterna forsteri_ breeding off the Eastern Shore of
Virginia, 126; Note on the Foot of _Accipiter fuscus_, 126;
Supplementary Notes on two Texas Birds, 127; Addenda to the
Preliminary list of Birds ascertained to occur in the
Adirondack Region, Northeastern New York, 128.
ERRATA 128
NUMBER III.
THE COLORS OF FEATHERS. (_Plate I._) By _J. Amory Jeffries_ 129
ON A COLLECTION OF BIRDS LATELY MADE BY MR. F. STEPHENS IN
ARIZONA. By _William Brewster_ 135
NOTES ON THE SUMMER BIRDS OF THE UPPER ST. JOHN. By _Charles F.
Batchelder_ 147
A SKETCH OF THE HOME OF _Hylocichla aliciæ bicknelli_, RIDGWAY,
WITH SOME CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE ALLIES OF THIS NEW RACE. By
_Eugene P. Bicknell_ 152
SHORT NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF BAYOU SARA, LOUISIANA. By _Charles
Wickliffe Beckham_ 159
LIST OF BIRDS OBSERVED AT HOUSTON, HARRIS CO., TEXAS, AND IN THE
COUNTIES MONTGOMERY, GALVESTON, AND FORD BEND. By _H. Nehrling_ 166
RECENT LITERATURE.
Bailey’s Index to Forest and Stream, 175; Chamberlain’s Catalogue
of the Birds of New Brunswick, 176; Krukenberg on the Coloring
Matter of Feathers, Second Part, 177; Stejneger’s Nomenclatural
Innovations, 178; Ingersoll’s Birds’-Nesting, 179.
GENERAL NOTES.
Note on _Mimus polyglottus_, 180; The Nest of the House Wren,
180; Remarkable plumage of the Orchard Oriole, 181; The Nest
and Eggs of _Perisoreus canadensis_, 181; Notes on the Plumage
of _Nephæcetes niger borealis_, 182; Plumage of the Young of
_Eclectus polychlorus_, 183; An Owl’s Egg laid in Confinement,
183; _Buteo brachyurus_—a Correction, 184; The Turkey Buzzard
in New Hampshire, 184; Rapacious Birds in Confinement, 184;
Note on _Mareca americana_, 185; Destruction of Birds by the
Cold Wave of May 21st and 22d, 185; More Definite Statistics
needed in regard to the Abundance of Birds, 186; Remarks on
Five Maine Birds, 189; Maine Notes, 190; Stray Notes from
Lookout Mountain, Tenn., 191.
ERRATA 192
NUMBER IV.
ON A COLLECTION OF BIRDS LATELY MADE BY MR. F. STEPHENS IN
ARIZONA. By _William Brewster_ 193
NOTES UPON THE OSTEOLOGY OF _Cinclus mexicanus_. By _R. W.
Shufeldt_ 213
LIST OF BIRDS OBSERVED AT HOUSTON, HARRIS CO., TEXAS, AND IN THE
COUNTIES MONTGOMERY, GALVESTON, AND FORD BEND. By _H. Nehrling_ 222
NOTES ON SOME BIRDS COLLECTED BY CAPT. CHARLES BENDIRE AT FORT
WALLA WALLA, WASHINGTON TERRITORY. By _William Brewster_ 225
LIST OF BIRDS ASCERTAINED TO OCCUR WITHIN TEN MILES FROM POINT DE
MONTS, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, CANADA, BASED CHIEFLY UPON THE NOTES
OF NAPOLEON A. COMEAU. By _C. Hart Merriam_ 233
RECENT LITERATURE.
The Coues Check List and Ornithological Dictionary, 242; Gentry’s
Nests and Eggs of Birds of the United States, 246.
GENERAL NOTES.
_Dendræca palmarum_ at Sing Sing, N. Y., 249; Nest and Eggs of
_Setophaga picta_—a Correction, 249; The Summer Tanager
(_Pyranga æstiva_) in New Brunswick, 249; The Evening Grosbeak
in New York, 250; The Black-throated Bunting in Florida, 250;
Distribution of the Fish Crow (_Corvus ossifragus_), 250; The
Swallow-tailed Kite (_Elanoïdes forficatus_) taken in Southern
Michigan, 250: _Garzetta candidissima_ at Nantucket,
Massachusetts, 251; The Snow Goose (_Chen hyperboreus_) at Sing
Sing, N. Y., 251: Note on the Long-tailed Duck, 251; _Lomvia
arra brünnichi_ and _L. troile_ in New England, 251; Rare
Warblers in Massachusetts, 252; The Unusual “Wave” of Birds
during the Spring Migration of 1882, 252; Birds new or rare in
the District of Columbia, 253; Notes on some Birds and Eggs
from the Magdalen Islands, Gulf of St. Lawrence, 253; Second
Addendum to the Preliminary List of Birds ascertained to occur
in the Adirondack region, Northeastern New York, 256; List of
Additions to the Catalogue of North American Birds, 257.
INDEX 259
BULLETIN
OF THE
NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB.
VOL. VII. JANUARY, 1882. NO. I.
ON AN APPARENTLY NEW HERON FROM FLORIDA.
BY ROBERT RIDGWAY.
The following facts in relation to an apparently hitherto unnoticed
large Heron found in Southwestern Florida, I am kindly permitted to lay
before the readers of the Nuttall Bulletin, by Mr. Charles W. Ward, of
Pontiac, Michigan, who spent several weeks at the breeding grounds of
the bird in question, and was thus enabled to make many very interesting
observations on its habits, etc. Mr. Ward’s memoranda are especially
interesting in connection with the question of _Ardea occidentalis_ Aud.
and _A. würdemanni_ Baird, but unfortunately the matter, in the light of
the evidence which he adduces, becomes involved in greater obscurity
than before.
Under date of September 3 (1881), Mr. Ward writes as follows:—
“My observations of the Herons during the past season do not correspond
with those of Mr. N. B. Moore, as recorded on page 232 of your
article[1], in regard to their feeding habits. I found them generally
living in communities, roosting, nesting, and feeding together, like
Pigeons, and often observed flocks of the Little White, Reddish, and
other Egrets, feeding together like Teal Ducks. Two specimens of _A.
occidentalis_ were seen feeding quietly within twenty feet of one of the
Herons procured by me [_A. wardi_, nobis]. They were feeding on a mud
bar at low tide. I was once concealed in the low brush near a small pool
watching three Louisiana Egrets chasing minnows, when two of them making
for the same minnow squared off for a knock-down, while the third coolly
appropriated the prize, leaving the combatants situated like complainant
and defendant at the close of a law suit. In all my observations of the
Herons I have seen nothing to lead to a conclusion that one of these
birds held any particular antipathy against its own species while
feeding. In the many squabbles between Herons on their feeding grounds
the encounters occurred quite as often between different species as
members of the same species. It may be that during the breeding season
they are more friendly than at other times. In order that you may
understand my opportunities for observing these birds, I enclose a rough
map of Mound Key and surroundings, my camping place from January 20 till
April 10. As you will see by the figures marked ... it was in the midst
of their feeding grounds, these places being mud- and sand-bars, bare at
low tide. Regarding the Reddish Egret, among many thousands of them I
saw only one in the pure white plumage, and no white young; but one of
my dark specimens has white feathers on the head and in the tail, while
one of the secondary quills has the outer web chiefly white. My
companion of last winter’s Florida trip reports that he saw no Reddish
Egrets with white except on the secondaries.
“Regarding the large Herons [_i.e._, _A. wardi_], I am much inclined to
think them a geographical variety ... the specimens being very uniform
in color.... I examined some thirty nests at least, fifteen of which
contained young, all being dark colored, _with one exception_. These
birds are common in Southwestern Florida, and their nests are frequently
found along the coast. From all the information at my command, connected
with my own observations, I am almost convinced that the bird in
question is separate and distinct from _A. occidentalis_ and _A.
würdemanni_, and the fact that Audubon found the former in immense
numbers among the mangrove islands of Eastern Florida is strong evidence
that he happened in the vicinity of one of their rookeries. As you will
observe by examining the diagram of my camping place and noting the
rookeries of large Herons ... these birds were quite common in that
vicinity, while I saw only a few specimens of _A. occidentalis_. The
white bird found in the nest with the blue might have come there from an
adjoining empty nest, some 30 or 40 feet distant, as it could easily
have done, being nearly full-grown. This surmise is strengthened by the
circumstance that I saw a large white Heron on the island marked ‘*,’
and my companion killed a similar, if not the same, specimen on the
large island marked ‘2,’ which he threw away, supposing it to be a
common White Egret [_Herodias egretta_]. These I now believe to have
been _A. occidentalis_; the other [_H. egretta_] was then laying its
eggs, while the description of _A. occidentalis_ corresponds to my
recollection of the bird he killed. At the time, I was not familiar with
the description of _A. occidentalis_.
“In the Little Blue Heron [_Florida cærulea_] and Reddish Egret
(_Dichromanassa rufa_), where dichromatism appears to be an established
fact, each species presents different phases and mixtures of both
colors, especially the Little Blue, which shows almost every variety of
curious markings of blue and white; while in the Reddish Egret, one
specimen shows white on the head, tail, and wings, and others reported
by Mr. Adams show white on the wings.
“As before said, I believe the bird to be a geographical variation of
_A. herodias_, residing permanently and breeding in South Florida. I
think that further search and observation will develop more evidence
concerning _A. occidentalis_ and _A. würdemanni_, which may result in
confirming your theory of their being one and the same species. You will
pardon my opposing your opinion, but my convictions are so strong that
only the finding of white birds with blue young and more cases of blue
parents with white young, or adults showing mixtures of both phases,
would overcome them.”
Assuming that the large white birds observed by Mr. Ward were really a
white phase of the dark-colored birds obtained by him, and which were so
numerous in the locality, it certainly appears strange that so few of
the former were seen. The case of the Reddish Egret, which he cites,
affords, however, an exact parallel, and it is now considered
established beyond question that “Peale’s Egret” (_Ardea pealei_
Bonap.—a pure white bird) is merely a white phase of this species. As to
the comparative rarity of these large white birds, in the locality where
observed by Mr. Ward, militating against any theory of their specific
identity with the dark-colored birds, it should be remembered that in
the case of nearly every dichromatic species of bird this condition is
more or less variable with locality. A pertinent example may be cited in
the case of _Demiegretta sacra_, a Heron of wide distribution in the Far
East. This species inhabits a considerable number of islands in the
Polynesian group, and it has been noticed and recorded by naturalists
who have visited that region, that on some islands all or nearly all the
birds of this species are dark colored, on others all or nearly all are
white, while on others still there may be a more equal proportion of the
two phases. It may be remarked that the two phases in this species are
even more distinct in coloration than in the case of _Dichromanassa
rufa_, the colored phase being darker than in the latter species. Upon
the whole, even admitting the possibility of the white young bird seen
by Mr. Ward having of its own volition taken up its abode in a nest
containing dark-colored young, I am strongly inclined to believe that it
belonged to the same species with the latter, the question of its
parentage (_i.e._, whether its parents were white or dark-colored birds)
being a comparatively unimportant consideration, as affecting the main
question. But in adopting the view of their specific identity a problem
arises which in the light of our present knowledge appears unsolvable,
and which may be briefly stated thus:—
The large “blue” Herons obtained by Mr. Ward are, in every respect as
regards size and proportions, identical with _Ardea occidentalis_ Aud.
and _A. würdemanni_ Baird; in coloration they agree exactly with the
latter, except only in the pattern of the head and tint of the neck,
which are precisely as in _A. herodias_. The bird in question is
apparently “dichromatic,” having a white phase; hence, assuming that _A.
occidentalis_ and _A. würdemanni_ are dichromatic phases of one species,
it necessarily follows that white individuals of the bird in question
would be _absolutely indistinguishable from white examples of A.
occidentalis_! Still, in view of the fact that the colored phase differs
from _A. würdemanni_ in its most essential feature of coloration,
_i.e._, the pattern of the head markings, it seems impossible to unite
them, unless it can be shown that the type of _A. würdemanni_ does not
represent the perfect colored phase of that species.[2] There are hence
several hypotheses which might be plausibly argued upon theoretical
grounds, and which may be stated as follows: (1) That _A. occidentalis_,
_A. würdemanni_, _A. wardi_, and _A. herodias_ all belong to a single
species, which reaches its extremes of variation in the first- and
last-named; (2) That these names include three distinct races or
species: _A. herodias_, which is never white; _A. occidentalis_, which
is dichromatic (having separate white and colored phases), and _A.
wardi_, also dichromatic, its white phase indistinguishable from that of
_A. occidentalis_, and its colored phase distinguishable from that of
the same species (_A. würdemanni_) by the different pattern and color of
the head and neck alone; and (3) that there are two species, _A.
occidentalis_ and _A. herodias_, which in Florida hybridize on an
extensive scale, producing the intermediate specimens which have been
distinguished as _A. würdemanni_ and _A. wardi_.
Of these hypotheses I have, after careful consideration of them all,
concluded to adopt the second as being most consistent with known facts,
and accordingly propose for the bird in question the name
=486* Ardea wardi= _Ridgw._
WARD’S HERON.
With the following characters:—
CH.—Colored phase exactly like _A. würdemanni_ (= dark phase of _A.
occidentalis_?), but with the head colored as in _A. herodias_.
Differing from _herodias_ in much larger size (culmen 6.50–7.00
inches, tarsus, 8.50–9.00 inches), lighter general coloration, and (in
dried skin) light brown instead of black legs. Dichromatic; the white
phase being indistinguishable from that of _A. occidentalis_ (?).
_Adult_ ♂ (No. 82,329, U. S. Nat. Mus., Oyster Bay, Florida, March,
1881; Chas. W. Ward): Head white, with the sides of the crown and
entire occiput (including the lengthened plumes) deep black;[3] neck
lavender-gray (much lighter than in the type of _würdemanni_), the
fore-neck white thickly streaked with black for the lower two-thirds;
jugular plumes chiefly white, their lengthened tapering portion
entirely so. Upper surface uniform bluish plumbeous, the lengthened
scapular plumes hoary whitish or pale silvery gray. Upper breast
uniform black; abdomen and lower breast white, rather indistinctly
streaked with dark gray; anal region mixed black and white, in
longitudinal dashes (the black rather predominating); crissum
immaculate pure white. Tibiæ uniform light cinnamon; edge of the wing
(especially near the bend) deeper cinnamon, but this much mixed with
white toward the bases of the quills; lining of the wing, axillars,
sides, and flanks, uniform plumbeous. Bill, apparently, entirely
olivaceous-yellow; naked portion of tibiæ very pale brown (evidently
yellowish or flesh-colored in life); tarsi light brown (olivaceous in
life?), darker in front; toes light brown. Wing, 20.50: culmen, 6.75;
depth of bill through nostril, 1.10; tarsus, 8.75; middle toe, 5.10;
naked portion of tibiæ, 5.50.
Mr. W. H. Collins, of Detroit, who kindly presented the specimen
described above to the National Museum, has sent me measurements of two
other specimens, one in his own possession, the other mounted for Mr.
Ward. As may be seen below they agree closely in dimensions with the
type, their measurements being, respectively, wing 20.00–20.50; culmen
6.50–7.00; depth of bill through nostril, 1.25; tarsus, 8.75–9.00;
middle toe, 5.25–5.45; naked portion of tibia, 5.75–6.00.
LIST OF BIRDS OBSERVED AT HOUSTON, HARRIS CO., TEXAS AND VICINITY AND IN
THE COUNTIES MONTGOMERY, GALVESTON AND FORD BEND.
BY H. NEHRLING.
1. =Turdus migratorius=, _L._ ROBIN.—Very common in the woods from
November to April. Very shy and retiring during their stay; only a few
have been observed in the larger gardens of Houston. Feeds abundantly on
the berries of the holly (_Ilex opaca_) and the myrtle-holly (_Oreophila
myrtifolia_). About the 15th of April all have departed for the North.
2. =Turdus mustelinus=, _Gmel._ WOOD THRUSH.—Arrives from the North
early in October when the aromatic berries of the _Magnolia grandiflora_
are ripe, on which they eagerly feed. On account of this food the flesh
is very delicate and large numbers are killed by pot hunters, who call
them “Grassets.” In the winter months they appear not to be common and
inhabit swampy thickets and bottom woods.
3. =Turdus fuscescens=, _Steph._ WILSON’S THRUSH.—Only a few observed
during the fall migration.
4. =Turdus swainsoni=, _Cab._ OLIVE-BACKED THRUSH.—Not rare during the
migrations.
5. =Mimus polyglottus=, _Boie_. MOCKINGBIRD.—A very abundant resident.
Only a few remain to winter, in protected localities; the majority
migrate further south. They arrive from their winter quarters early in
March and are by the end of that month again common. Nest-building
commences usually in the middle of April. Many are killed by farmers and
gardeners on account of their fondness for ripe figs and grapes. Besides
insects, they feed eagerly on the berries of the poke (_Phytolacca
decandra_), the elder (_Sambucus canadensis_), and the Mexican mulberry
(_Callicarpa americana_). In winter the berries of the myrtle-holly
(_Oreophila myrtifolia_) and those of the mistletoe (_Phoradendron
flavescens_) are their principal food.
6. =Mimus carolinensis=, _Gray_. CATBIRD.—I first observed a single
specimen of this bird April 25, 1879. It was then my opinion that this
bird must be a very rare migrant, as I did not meet with another that
year. It was this year (1881), May 5, when I wandered through the thick
underbrush in the woods on Spring Creek that I heard the peculiar cry of
the Catbird, and a few minutes after I discovered the nest, which was
built in a young oak sapling, about ten feet above the ground. They are
not the familiar and confident birds of the Northern States, but
extremely shy and retiring in their habits. They kept a good distance
from me when I took the nest.
7. =Harporhynchus rufus=, _Cab._ BROWN THRUSH.—Common during the winter
months in the thick underbrush of the woods near Spring Creek, in the
northern part of Harris County. Very silent and extremely shy.
8. =Sialia sialis=, _Hald._ BLUEBIRD.—A very abundant winter sojourner
and a common summer resident; but not so abundant as in the Northern
States, and not so familiar. Commences to breed as early as February 15.
I found a nest March 6, which contained newly hatched young. A nest
discovered April 29 contained four pure white eggs.
9. =Regulus calendula=, _Licht._ RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET, and
10. =Regulus satrapa=, _Licht._ AMERICAN GOLDEN-CRESTED KINGLET.—Both
are common during the winter months, when, in company with Titmice, they
inhabit the pine woods near Houston. Are to be observed during the whole
winter in the mountain cedars (_Juniperus occidentalis texanus_), which
are common in the gardens of the city.
11. =Polioptila cærulea=, _Sclat._ BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER.—Common in the
heavy wooded bottom lands on the Brazos, Spring Creek, and San Jacinto,
and especially abundant on Buffalo Bayou when the magnificent _Magnolia
grandiflora_ is in bloom. Almost with the agility and grace of a
Hummingbird, it flies around the showy flowers in pursuit of insects.
Nest-building commences early in May. This beautiful little domicile is
built very high, in small branches of elms, swamp oaks (_Quercus
palustris_) and other densely leaved forest trees.
12. =Lophophanes bicolor=, _Bon._ TUFTED TITMOUSE.—A very common bird
and resident throughout the year, even in the city gardens, where it is
exceedingly tame and confiding. Breeds as early as the beginning of
March. Nests in deserted Woodpeckers’ holes, in old stumps, in
cedar-posts, in hollow branches, etc.
13. =Parus carolinensis=, _Aud._ SOUTHERN CHICKADEE.—Very common and
familiar. Resident throughout the year. April 15 I discovered a nest of
this diminutive bird in an old fence-post; it contained six nearly
fledged young. The cavity was filled up about nine inches with soft
mosses, cow’s hair, and the fur of smaller animals. Usually the nest is
built in the hollow of a branch.
14. =Thryothorus ludovicianus=, _Bon._ CAROLINA WREN.—Very common in all
low wooded localities with dense underbrush. Thickets of smilax,
blackberry bushes, snowball (_Viburnum molle_ and _V. dentatum_),
_Rhamnus carolinianus_, _Bumelia lanuginosa_, intermixed with a few
larger trees (oaks or elms), which are commonly overgrown by the
mustang-grape and the grotesque forms of the supple jack (_Berchemia
volubilis_), are its favorite resorts. In a few instances I have known a
pair to build their nest in a bird-box near a dwelling.
15. =Thryothorus bewicki=, _Bonap._ LONG-TAILED HOUSE WREN.—Abundant in
all suitable localities and very familiar, breeding in bird-boxes,
stables, corn-cribs, and even in houses over doors, etc. One pair built
their nest in the pocket of an old coat, hanging out doors.
16. =Troglodytes aëdon=, _Vieill._ HOUSE WREN.—Only a winter visitant,
occurring in considerable numbers in secluded localities.
17. =Cistothorus palustris=, _Baird_. LONG-BILLED MARSH WREN.—Rare
during the migrations.
18. =Cistothorus stellaris=, _Cab._ SHORT-BILLED MARSH WREN.—Observed so
late as May 2 in the marshy prairie districts in the northern part of
Harris County, and in September in the sugar-cane fields on the Brazos
in Ford Bend County. Probably breeds.
19. =Anthus ludovicianus=, _Licht._ AMERICAN PIPIT; TITLARK.—Very common
during winter, from the middle of November to the second week in April.
Comes fearlessly in the streets of the city and in the door-yards.
20. =Neocorys spraguei=, _Sclat._ MISSOURI SKYLARK.—Observed small
flocks early in November on the prairies near Houston. They were often
associated with _Passerculus savanna_, and in habits resembled very
closely the Titlark. All disappeared soon.
21. =Mniotilta varia=, _Vieill._ BLACK-AND-WHITE CREEPER.—Not uncommon
during the migrations. Noted first March 22. At the 15th of April the
majority depart for the north, only few remaining to breed.
22. =Parula americana=, _Bon._ BLUE YELLOW-BACKED WARBLER.—This
beautiful little Warbler is rather common during the migrations in all
wooded portions, especially in the river bottoms, where almost every
tree is covered with the long gray Spanish moss (_Tillandsia
usneoides_). Some remain to breed, as I have seen the parents feeding
the young in July and August.
23. =Protonotaria citrea=, _Bd._ PROTHONOTARY WARBLER.—A not uncommon
summer resident in marshy localities on Spring Creek and in Ford Bend
County in the Brazos bottom, where so-called lakes are abundant. It
breeds in hollows of trees, deserted Woodpeckers’ holes, and in stumps
standing in the water. I usually met with this bird in localities where
the Little Blue Heron (_Florida cærulea_) and the Snowy Heron (_Garzetta
candidissima_) were common. I can add nothing to the unsurpassable life
history of this bird given by Mr. William Brewster in this Bulletin,
Vol. III, pp. 153–162.
24. =Helmintherus vermivorus=, _Bon._ WORM-EATING SWAMP WARBLER.—A few
seen April 6, 1881, in a flowering plum tree in a city-garden.
25. =Helminthophaga chrysoptera=, _Cab._ GOLDEN-WINGED WARBLER.—Common
during the migrations, in October and April.
26. =Helminthophaga peregrina=, _Cab._ TENNESSEE WARBLER.—Not uncommon
during migrations.
27. =Helminthophaga celata=, _Bd._ ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER.—Seen only
during migrations and very rare.
28. =Dendrœca æstiva=, _Bd._ SUMMER YELLOW BIRD.—Very abundant during
migrations. Not a very common summer sojourner, but quite regularly
distributed.
29. =Dendrœca coronata=, _Gray._ YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER.—The most common
of all the Warblers from November to April. Winters abundantly in this
region and numbers visit the gardens, even those in the interior of the
city.
30. =Dendrœca maculosa=, _Bd._ BLACK-AND-YELLOW WARBLER, and
31. =Dendrœca blackburniæ=, _Bd._ BLACKBURNIAN WARBLER, are both, so far
as I observed, exceedingly rare during migrations.
32. =Dendrœca pennsylvanica=, _Bd._ CHESTNUT-SIDED WARBLER.—Somewhat
common in the latter part of April and early in May.
33. =Dendrœca castanea=, _Bd._ BAY-BREASTED WARBLER.—This elegant
Warbler is one of the most common of its family during the spring
migration. I observed small flocks of from eight to ten so late as May
5.
34. =Dendrœca striata=, _Bd._ BLACK-POLL WARBLER.—Transient; arrives
from winter quarters late in April, when the host of Warblers pass
northward. Tolerably common.
35. =Dendrœca virens=, _Bd._ BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER.—Abundant
during migrations. Moves in flocks of from four to ten.
36. =Dendrœca dominica albilora=, _Ridg._ YELLOW-THROATED WARBLER.—A
very rare summer resident and very difficult to observe in the high
moss-grown forest trees of the river bottoms. The song resembles that of
_Dendrœca æstiva_, but is louder and more varied. I think it is almost
impossible to discover a nest of this bird in the high trees, so densely
covered with _Tillandsia._
37. =Dendrœca pinus=, _Bd._ PINE WARBLER.—Winters in small companies in
the woods in the northern part of Harris County, near Spring Creek.
I did not find so many Warblers as I expected, although I kept a
diligent lookout. I did not observe _D. palmarum_, _D. canadensis_, _D.
discolor_, or _D. cærulea._
38. =Siurus auricapillus=, _Sw._ GOLDEN-CROWNED THRUSH.—Transient and
not common.
39. =Siurus nævius=, _Coues_. WATER THRUSH.—Not uncommon in suitable
localities during migrations.
40. =Oporornis formosa=, _Bd._ KENTUCKY WARBLER.—A common summer
resident; exceeding in numbers even the Maryland Yellow-throat, with
which it occupies the same localities. Common in wet fields with patches
of low bushes, and in the dense undergrowth near water. Visits
frequently the country gardens. Very abundant on Spring Creek, in the
northern part of Harris County, and in Montgomery County. Arrives about
April 21. Commences nest-building early in May. Nest very difficult to
find.
41. =Geothlypis trichas=, _Cab._ MARYLAND YELLOW-THROAT.—Arrives about
April 15, from its winter quarters. A common summer sojourner. Like the
preceding species, most common in grassy localities with thickets
interspersed. On a farm near Houston is a wet piece of land containing
about two acres, where I found three pairs breeding. Through this runs a
ditch and the whole ground is covered with high broom-grass (_Andropogon
macrurus_) with briar patches, thickets of water oak. _Viburnum
dentatum_, black haw (_V. pruneifolium_), etc. The field is surrounded
by an almost impenetrable hedge of Cherokee roses (_Rosa lævigata_).
Here the Yellow-throats occur with Kentucky Warblers, White-eyed Vireos,
Yellow-throated Vireos, Painted Finches, and Blue Grosbeaks, all living
in harmony. Two broods are raised yearly in this latitude. In almost
every nest of this bird, and also of the Kentucky Warbler, eggs of the
Cow Bird are to be found.
42. =Geothlypis philadelphia=, _Bd._ MOURNING WARBLER.—Transient and
rather rare.
43. =Icteria virens=, _Bd._ YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT.—A common summer
resident, arriving from its winter quarters about April 15. Many winter
in sheltered places. Its most favorable resorts are brier-patches in
fields, thickets on the edge of woods, myrtle-holly thickets overgrown
with tangled Smilax laurifolia, and similar localities. Nest in the
interior of thickets near the ground; it has some resemblance to the
Catbird’s, and is built of nearly the same material.
44. =Myiodioctes mitratus=, _Aud._ HOODED WARBLER.—This beautiful
species is common during migrations. Arrives from the South in the last
part of April, when the host of Warblers migrate northward. I never
observed the bird during the summer months and do not think that any
remain to breed.
45. =Myiodioctes canadensis=, _Aud._ CANADIAN FLYCATCHING WARBLER.—Not
very common during the spring migration.
46. =Myiodioctes pusillus=, _Bon._ BLACK-CAPPED WARBLER.—I consider this
the most common species of the genus during migrations.
47. =Setophaga ruticilla=, _Sw._ AMERICAN REDSTART.—Moves northward late
in April and early in May, when the throng of Warblers migrate to their
summer quarters in high northern latitudes.
48. =Vireosylvia olivacea=, _Bon._ RED-EYED VIREO.—A common summer
resident in all the deciduous woods.
49. =Vireosylvia gilva=, _Cass._ WARBLING VIREO.—Evidently a rare
species, even during the migrations.
50. =Lanivireo flavifrons=, _Bd._ YELLOW-THROATED VIREO.—Abundant and
breeding. The first nest, beautifully constructed, I discovered April 28
in a high blackberry-bush about four feet above the ground, near
Houston. It contained four fresh eggs and one of the Dwarf Cowbird
(_Molothrus ater obscurus_). Nest and eggs in my collection. Many more
nests were discovered during the months of May and June, and many
contained one and two eggs of the Cowbird.
51. =Lanivireo solitarius=, _Bd._ SOLITARY VIREO.—Rare during
migrations.
52. =Vireo noveboracensis=, _Bon._ WHITE-EYED VIREO. A common summer
resident in localities where _Viburnum dentatum_, _V. molle_, _V.
pruneifolium_, _Rhamnus carolinensis_, _Cornus florida_, laurel-oaks
(_Quercus imbricaria_), and elms are growing, especially on the borders
of woods, in open thickets, peach gardens, etc.
53. =Vireo belli=, _Aud._ BELL’S VIREO.—A common summer sojourner. A not
quite finished nest was discovered April 15 on a horizontal branch of a
_Viburnum dentatum_ on the edge of a thicket, about five feet above the
ground. It contained three fresh eggs. The nests of this Vireo are more
purse-shaped and deeper than any other Vireo nests I am acquainted with.
54. =Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides=, _Coues_. WHITE-RUMPED SHRIKE.—A
generally dispersed summer resident, but not abundant. Prefers to build
in the hedges of the osage orange.
55. =Ampelis cedrorum=, _Vieill._ CEDAR BIRD.—Abundant migrant. Observed
flocks of from thirty to fifty as late as May 6. None remain to breed.
56. =Progne subis=, _Bd._ PURPLE MARTIN.—Abundant summer resident.
Arrives March 1 from the South. Breeds in large numbers under the wooden
awnings of sidewalks, even in the business part of Houston and
Galveston. Abundant also in the country where bird-boxes are put out for
its convenience. Two broods are commonly raised in this latitude.
57. =Petrochelidon lunifrons=, _Lawr._ CLIFF SWALLOW.—Seen in great
numbers during September, but does not breed in this region.
58. =Hirundo erythrogastra=, _Bodd._ BARN SWALLOW.—Large numbers seen in
the latter part of August, but not found breeding.
59. =Tachycineta bicolor=, _Cab._ WHITE-BELLIED SWALLOW.—Common during
migrations. A few observed in summer on the borders of woods.
60. =Cotyle riparia=, _Boie_. BANK SWALLOW.—A few pairs remain to breed
in such localities as the banks of Buffalo Bayou and Galveston Bay.
61. =Stelgidopteryx serripennis=, _Bd._ ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW.—A very
abundant summer resident. Often nests under the roofs of sidewalks and
on old buildings in Houston, but is more a companion to the preceding on
the high banks on Buffalo Bayou and Galveston Bay.
62. =Pyranga rubra=, _Vieill._ SCARLET TANAGER.—A moderately common bird
during the migrations. Arrives from the South about April 15 and passes
without lingering to its more northern breeding range.
63. =Pyranga æstiva=, _Vieill._ SUMMER REDBIRD.—A common summer
resident, particularly in oak woods. It is an elegant species, as are
all the members of this family, but is more retired in its habits and
quicker and more restless in its motions than the preceding. The song is
more varied, louder, and wilder. The nest is usually built on the
horizontal branch of an oak, from seven to twenty feet above the ground.
It is a very open-worked inartificial structure, and the eggs cannot
with certainty be distinguished from those of the Scarlet Tanager.
64. =Astragalinus tristis=, _Cab._ GOLDFINCH.—A very abundant winter
sojourner. Feeds almost entirely on the seeds of the sycamore or
button-wood (_Platanus occidentalis_).
65. =Chrysomitris pinus=, _Bon._ PINE FINCH.—A somewhat rare winter
sojourner.
66. =Passerculus savanna=, _Bon._ SAVANNA SPARROW.—Common resident
throughout the year. Breeds on the low grassy prairies, but the nest is
difficult to find.
67. =Poœcetes gramineus=, _Bd._ GRASS FINCH.—Only to be found during
migrations. None remain, so far as I know, to winter or to breed.
68. =Coturniculus passerinus=, _Bon._ YELLOW-WINGED BUNTING.—Seen
occasionally during the winter months.
69. =Ammodromus caudacutus=, _Sw._ SHARP-TAILED FINCH.—Observed near the
coast of the Gulf of Mexico and Galveston Bay. Doubtless breeds.
70. =Chondestes grammicus=, _Bon._ LARK FINCH.—This interesting, lively
bird is the most common of its family in all suitable localities, that
is, on the prairies, near woods. Departs for the South late in September
and early in October; arrives from his winter quarters again in April.
Breeds in May, June, and July, and two or even three broods are raised
yearly. Nests in gardens on mulberry-trees, in the corners of
rail-fences, in cotton fields on the ground, but most commonly on a low
horizontal branch of an oak densely covered with _Tillandsia_, on the
borders of woods, where they are exceedingly difficult to discover.
After breeding-time the birds assemble in large flocks.
71. =Zonotrichia albicollis=, _Bon._ WHITE-THROATED SPARROW.—Rare and
occurs only in winter.
72. =Zonotrichia leucophrys=, _Sw._ WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW.—Abundant in
winter.
73. =Zonotrichia gambelli intermedia=, _Ridg._ GAMBEL’S FINCH.—Not
uncommon in winter.
74. =Spizella socialis=, _Bon._ CHIPPING BIRD.—Abundant in October and
November, and again in March.
75. =Spizella pallida=, _Bon._ CLAY-COLORED BUNTING.—Abundant in winter
near thickets and in fields with brier-patches.
76. =Spizella pusilla=, _Bon._ FIELD SPARROW.—Not uncommon during
winter.
77. =Junco hiemalis=, _Sclat._ COMMON SNOWBIRD.—Abundant winter visitor.
78. =Melospiza fasciata=, _Scott._ SONG SPARROW.—Common during the
winter months.
79. =Melospiza lincolni=, _Bd._ LINCOLN’S SPARROW.—Common in winter in
the thick undergrowth on the borders of woods.
80. =Peucæa cassini=, _Bd._ CASSIN’S FINCH.—A common summer resident on
the open grassy prairies. It runs like a mouse through the grass, and is
very shy and difficult to observe. A nest I never discovered.
81. =Pipilo erythrophthalmus=, _Vieill._ GROUND ROBIN.—A rare summer
resident. A few pairs breed in the woods on Spring Creek.
82. =Calamospiza bicolor=, _Bon._ LARK BUNTING.—Abundant in winter on
the prairies.
83. =Euspiza americana=, _Bon._ BLACK-THROATED BUNTING.—A common summer
resident. Breeds abundantly in all the prairie districts.
84. =Cardinalis virginianus=, _Bon._ CARDINAL GROSBEAK.—This well-known
bird is the most abundant of the family and resident throughout the
year.
85. =Guiraca cærulea=, _Sw._ BLUE GROSBEAK.—Regularly distributed summer
resident, but nowhere abundant. Nests discovered always in brier-patches
in fields, on roadsides, and on the border of woods.
86. =Cyanospiza ciris=, _Bd._ PAINTED FINCH.—Inhabits with the preceding
similar localities. Very common from April to October. Nest usually in
blackberry-bushes, but always well hidden and not easy to find. These
birds are very shy and exceedingly quick in all their motions.
87. =Cyanospiza cyanea=, _Bd._ INDIGO BIRD.—Observed only during the
migrations. None I think remain to breed.
(_To be concluded._)
ON THE SESAMOID AT THE FRONT OF THE CARPUS IN BIRDS.
BY J. AMORY JEFFRIES.
In the Bulletin for October, 1881, is a paper by Dr. Shufeldt entitled
“On the Ossicle of the Antibrachium as found in some of the North
American Falconidæ,” in which the author describes the sesamoid ossicle
at the distal end of the radius in the Marsh Hawk (_Circus hudsonius_)
as a new bone. Dr. Shufeldt says: “It does not seem possible that a bone
the size of one which I am now about to describe could have been
entirely overlooked by ornithologists, yet after a careful perusal of
such parts of the works of the most prominent writers, as refer to the
skeletology of the upper extremity I fail to discover the barest mention
as to the existence of any such an one.” Now this bone was figured, as
it occurs in _Aquila fucsa_, by Milne-Edwards in his famous work on the
Fossil Birds of France, the publication of which began in 1866, so that
the bone as it occurs in the _Falconidæ_ can scarcely be considered
unknown to anatomists. The “os prominens” as it occurs in the
_Falconidæ_ is a modification of the sesamoid ossicle which very often
occurs in the tendon of the tensor petagii longus where it passes over
the carpus;[4] its function here being that of a simple sesamoid over
the carpus. In many of the _Falconidæ_[5] this sesamoid becomes bound to
the distal end of the radius, and lengthened out at right angles to the
long axis of that bone, as figured by Dr. Shufeldt. By this means the
function of the ossicle becomes very much altered. It no longer slides
over the carpus, but serves, since the tendon of the extensor petagii
longus includes only its free end, to keep that tendon off the carpus,
thus avoiding friction at the joint. Again, since the ossicle attains
considerable length,—6 centimeters (millimeters?) according to Dr.
Shufeldt in _Circus_,—it materially alters the action of the extensor
petagii longus so that it tends much more to extend the hand and draw
the thumb away from the index. In this way the extensor petagii longus
seems to antagonize the slip of the flexor longus digitorum sublimis,
and since its tendon is elastic, owing to the amount of yellow fibrous
tissue in it, the action must be to a considerable degree automatic.
My views of the functions of this ossicle are, it will be seen, very
different from those of Dr. Shufeldt, who considers it to protect the
carpus and greatly increase the area of the wing. This bone, standing up
as it does on the anterior edge of the wing, would seem to be
particularly liable to injury, sufficient, we should think, to offset
the amount it may protect the compact carpals below. The extra area
covered by the wing on account of the ossicle is easily measured. It is
simply the area of a triangle, which has for its base the difference in
altitude between the process of the metacarpus and the sesamoid ossicle,
3 millimeters say, and for its altitude the distance between the carpus
and the origin of the extensor petagii longus, say 2.5 decimetres.
Absolute measurements cannot be given since no Hawks are to be got in
Boston at present. So the entire increase of area would be 3.75 square
centimetres, and this increase is at the base of the wing, where it
would least increase the resistance of the wing. This difference becomes
quite small in the ratio (√2 _a_)/(∛weight) where _a_, the area of one
wing, represents hundreds of square centimeters. Yet the ratio is that
of the supporting power of the wing to the weight of the body, other
things being equal. In the above calculation it is assumed that Dr.
Shufeldt meant millimeters not centimeters,[6] when giving the
dimensions of the “os prominens.”
To sum up, the bone serves: (1) To keep the friction of the extensor
petagii longus muscle off the carpus. (2) To increase the power of that
muscle to abduct the thumb. (3) To slightly increase the supporting
power of the wing. (4) To protect the carpus (?).
Here it may not be improper to state that during the winter of 1880–81,
the writer _showed a specimen_ of the carpus of _Accipiter fuscus_, and
explained his views as here stated of the function of the “os
prominens,” at a meeting of the Nuttall Ornithological Club.
NOTES ON SOME OF THE BIRDS OBSERVED NEAR WHEATLAND, KNOX CO., INDIANA,
IN THE SPRING OF 1881.
BY ROBERT RIDGWAY.
Monteur’s Pond, situated about ten miles east of Vincennes and two miles
west of the village of Wheatland, on the O. & M. R. R., is of
considerable extent, being about nine miles long by a mile in average
width. It is rather a swamp, however, than a pond, probably less than
half its area being open water, the remainder filled with trees, chiefly
willows (_Salix nigra_) averaging 50–60 feet high, mixed in places with
a larger growth, chiefly ashes (_Fraxinus americana_, _F. sambucifolia_
and _F. pubescens_), red maple, and swamp cottonwood (_Populus
heterophylla_), the latter chiefly around the margin of the pond, where
grow also swamp, white, and water oaks, sweet-gums, and an occasional
catalpa (_C. speciosa_). The surrounding country, where not cleared,
consists chiefly of original forest of various oaks and hickories,
“poplar” (_Liriodendron_), beech, elm, and other trees in great variety,
coniferous species being wholly absent.
The pond is never very deep, probably nowhere or at anytime exceeding
four feet, and in seasons of drouth becomes absolutely dry, then forming
an excellent pasturage for the stock of the neighboring farmers. Even
when filled with water, the latter is, in the season of vegetable
growth, entirely hidden by a luxuriant growth of aquatic plants,
rendering the passage of a boat, of any description, impossible, while
numerous muskrat holes and the intricate submerged stems render wading
difficult and fatiguing in the extreme. For these reasons the pond was
but slightly explored, while it was wholly neglected after the use of a
boat became out of the question. I am therefore quite ignorant as to
what species may have been breeding in the recesses of the pond, my
investigations having been wholly confined to the surrounding fields and
woodland, the northern portion of the pond and its immediate vicinity
having been the scene of my ornithological investigations from April 15
to May 27.
Notwithstanding the very unusual lateness of the season I found on my
arrival (April 15) that many of the migratory birds had preceded me, but
subsequent arrivals were carefully noted up to May 6, and are presented
herewith.
April 15. Prairie Warbler (_Dendrœca discolor_).
April 17. Yellow-throated Warbler (_Dendrœca dominica albilora_),
Yellow-throated Vireo (_Lanivireo flavifrons_), Least Flycatcher
(_Empidonax minimus_).
April 18. Prothonotary Warbler (_Protonotaria citrea_), Canada
Flycatching Warbler (_Myiodioctes canadensis_), Blue Yellow-backed
Warbler (_Parula americana_), Scarlet Tanager (_Pyranga rubra_),
Summer Redbird (_P. æstiva_), Lark Finch (_Chondestes grammica_),
Summer Yellowbird (_Dendrœca æstiva_), Maryland Yellow-throat
(_Geothlypis trichas_), White-eyed Vireo (_V. noveboracensis_), Wood
Thrush (_Hylocichla mustelina_), Black-throated Green Warbler
(_Dendrœca virens_), Indigo Bird (_Passerina cyanea_).
April 19. Great-crested Flycatcher (_Myiarchus crinitus_), Kingbird
(_Tyrannus carolinensis_), Catbird (_Galeoscoptes carolinensis_),
Pine-creeping Warbler (_Dendrœca pinus_).
April 20. Golden-crowned Thrush (_Siurus auricapillus_), Kentucky
Warbler (_Oporornis formosa_).
April 21. Red-eye Vireo (_Vireosylvia olivacea_), Tawny Thrush
(_Hylocichla fuscescens_).
April 22. Yellow-breasted Chat (_Icteria virens_).
April 23. Blue-winged Yellow Warbler (_Helminthophaga pinus_).
April 24. Warbling Vireo (_Vireosylvia gilva_), Ruby-throated Humming
Bird (_Trochilus colubris_), Baltimore Oriole (_Icterus galbula_),
Chestnut-sided Warbler (_Dendrœca pennsylvanica_), Worm-eating Warbler
(_Helminthotherus vermivorus_), Nighthawk (_Chordeiles popetue_).
April 25. Rose-breasted Grosbeak (_Zamelodia ludoviciana_[7]), Blue
Warbler (_Dendrœca cærulea_[7]), Hooded Warbler (_Myiodioctes
mitratus_), Yellow-billed Cuckoo (_Coccyzus americanus_).
April 26. Black-throated Bunting (_Spiza americana_), Yellow-winged
Sparrow (_Coturniculus passerinus_), Wood Pewee (_Contopus virens_),
Oak-woods Sparrow (_Peucæa æstivalis illinoensis_).
April 30. Bay-breasted Warbler (_Dendrœca costanea_), Long-billed
Marsh Wren (_Telmatodytes palustris_).
May 2. Black-throated Blue Warbler (_Dendrœca cærulescens_),
Black-and-yellow Warbler (_D. maculosa_), Chestnut-sided Warbler (_D.
pennsylvanica_), Red-poll Warbler (_D. palmarum_).
May 3. Blackburnian Warbler (_D. blackburniæ_).
May 6. Nashville Warbler (_Helminthophaga ruficapilla_), Cape May
Warbler (_Perissoglossa tigrina_), Mourning Warbler (_Geothlypis
philadelphia_).
May 7. Tennessee Warbler (_Helminthophaga peregrina_).
Among the migratory species which had already arrived by the 15th were
the Large-billed Water Thrush (_Siurus motacilla_), numbers of which
were heard singing in the swamp, the Black-and-white Creeper (_Mniotilta
varia borealis_), Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (_Polioptila cærulea_), and a
few others.
The nesting season began much later than usual, as the following list,
of the earliest date on which the eggs of any species were obtained,
will show.[8]
April 27. Yellow-crowned Night Heron (_Nyctherodius violaceus_).
April 30. Hairy Woodpecker (_Picus villosus_), two sets; Grass Finch
(_Poœcetes gramineus_).
May 2. Field Sparrow (_Spizella pusilla_), Chewink (_Pipilo
erythrophthalmus_).
May 9. Redbird (_Cardinalis virginianus_).
May 18. Red-eyed Vireo (_Vireosylvia olivacea_).
May 19. Prothonotary Warbler (_Protonotaria citrea_), Wood Thrush
(_Hylocichla mustelina_).
May 20. Acadian Flycatcher (_Empidonax acadicus_).
May 22. Yellow-breasted Chat (_Icteria virens_), Maryland
Yellow-throat (_Geothlypis trichas_), Indigo Bird (_Passerina
cyanea_), Black-billed Cuckoo (_Coccyzus erythrophthalmus_).
May 24. Green Heron (_Butorides virescens_).
Although situated about 20 miles north and the same distance east of Mt.
Carmel, the bird-fauna was entirely the same, allowing for differences
in the character of the country, the environs of Wheatland being much
less varied, and therefore not such as to attract so great a variety of
species. Nearly all the characteristic summer birds found further south
were abundant near Wheatland, however, even _Peucæa illinoensis_
occurring there. Among the more numerous species were the Cerulean,
Blue-winged Yellow, Kentucky and Prothonotary Warblers, all of which
were quite as numerous as near Mt. Carmel. At the time of my arrival,
the most abundant bird was probably the Cardinal Grosbeak, it being no
unusual sight to see several males at one time along the railroad track,
picking up grain dropped from passing cars, while the swamp and
surrounding woods were filled with their sweet but monotonous
whistlings. Later in the season, however, other species became rather
more numerous, it being difficult to decide between the Redstart and
Red-eyed Vireo, as to first rank in point of numbers. Other species
almost as well represented as those mentioned, were the Red-headed
Woodpecker, Tufted Titmouse, Blue Jay, and Red-winged Blackbird, and,
for a brief season, the Rose-breasted Grosbeak and Cedarbird. Hawks were
very plentiful, especially the Red-shouldered and Red-tailed, and on one
occasion eight of the former (all adults) were observed soaring about,
near together, uttering their clamorous cries. Barred Owls were
exceedingly numerous among the trees growing in the swamp, and at night
afforded much amusement by their “family squabbles.” Ducks and Geese
which had been very plenty on the pond during the winter, had gone
northward prior to the middle of April, except a few Mallards,
Shovellers, and Blue-winged Teal, which remained until about the end of
the month, as did also multitudes of Coots (_Fulica americana_).
The following list of course includes only a small proportion of the
total number of species observed.
GRAY-CHEEKED THRUSH (_Hylocichla aliciæ_).—The exact date of arrival
of this species was not noted, but was somewhere near the 20th of
April. During the last week of April and the first three weeks of May
it was very common, perhaps more so than any other of the small
Thrushes. Specimens were shot May 23, and others were observed as late
as the 28th of that month, the date of my departure.
TAWNY THRUSH (_Hylocichla fuscescens_).—Arrived April 21 and remained
until toward the last of May. Less common than _H. aliciæ_ but
frequenting the same localities and having nearly identical manners.
BEWICK’S WREN (_Thryomanes bewicki_).—Rather common, found only about
the out-buildings of farms and in the village.
HOUSE WREN (_Troglodytes aëdon_).—Less common than Bewick’s Wren, and
noticed only about brush-heaps and along old fences.
PROTHONOTARY WARBLER (_Protonotaria citrea_).—Very abundant among the
“elbow-brushes” (_Cephalanthus occidentalis_) and willows in the pond,
nesting in hollows of the latter.
BLUE-WINGED YELLOW WARBLER (_Helminthophaga pinus_).—Very abundant
among the undergrowth in thick woods, chiefly in the bottoms.
GOLDEN-WINGED WARBLER (_Helminthophaga chrysoptera_).—Not uncommon for
a few days during the early part of May.
TENNESSEE WARBLER (_Helminthophaga peregrina_). As usual, very
numerous for several days, arriving May 7.
NASHVILLE WARBLER (_Helminthophaga ruficapilla_).—Rather rare during
the middle portion of May, arriving about the 6th.
CAPE MAY WARBLER (_Perissoglossa tigrina_). Probably not uncommon,
four specimens being obtained, all shot from the top branches of tall
trees, and not recognized until after being shot.
BLACK-AND-YELLOW WARBLER (_Dendrœca maculosa_).—Much the most abundant
of the migratory species.
BAY-BREASTED WARBLER (_Dendrœca castanea_).—Rather common for a few
days.
BLUE WARBLER (_Dendrœca cærulea_).—Very abundant summer resident,
first noticed about the 25th of April. Diligent search failed to
discover a single nest, though pairs evidently having nests were met
with on every hand through the woods.
YELLOW-THROATED WARBLER (_Dendrœca dominica albilora_).—Unaccountably
rare, only two having been obtained, and one or two others heard. I am
at a loss to account for the scarcity of this species, unless it be
the rarity of sycamore (_Platanus_) trees in the locality under
consideration.
Since there is evidently a general misapprehension of the characters
distinguishing this race from true _D. dominica_, it may be as well to
state here that the latter is larger, with a _constantly and very
decidedly longer bill_, while the yellow over the lores is _never
absent_. Var. _albilora_ frequently has the yellow over the lores
almost as distinct as in typical _dominica_, but the bill is always
much smaller, and somewhat differently shaped.
PINE-CREEPING WARBLER (_Dendrœca pinus_).—Rather rare.
PRAIRIE WARBLER (_Dendrœca discolor_).—Heard singing among the bushes
in an old field on the day of my arrival, and frequently afterward.
CONNECTICUT WARBLER (_Oporornis agilis_).—Not uncommon about the
middle of May, but very shy. Frequented the borders of the swamp, and
escaped into the thick button-bushes when surprised.
KENTUCKY WARBLER (_Oporornis formosa_).—One of the most abundant of
the summer residents.
MOURNING WARBLER (_Geothlypis philadelphia_).—Became suddenly very
common May 6. Frequented chiefly brush-piles and old fences. Most of
the specimens observed were males in fine plumage.
BLACK-CAPPED YELLOW WARBLER (_Myiodioctes pusillus_).—Rare during
migration.
CANADA FLYCATCHING WARBLER (_Myiodioctes canadensis_).—One of the most
numerous of the migratory species; first noted April 18, but not
common until a week later.
HOODED WARBLER (_Myiodioctes mitratus_).—Rather common in deep woods,
but much less so than in the vicinity of the Cypress swamp, further
south.
SOLITARY VIREO (_Lanivireo solitarius_).—Rare.
CEDARBIRD (_Ampelis cedrorum_).—Exceedingly numerous among the willows
in the swamp, where feeding upon the larvæ of _Diabrotica 12–maculata_
infesting these trees.
SUMMER REDBIRD (_Pyranga æstiva_).—Rather common, but owing to the
comparative absence of high, dry woods, much less so than near Mt.
Carmel. A female, killed at the same shot with her mate, resembled the
male except in the tint of the red, which was of a brick-red rather
than vermilion, the male also being in the parti-colored plumage of
the immature bird, the red occupying, in both male and female,
one-half or more of the plumage. The ovaries of the female were well
developed.
GRASS FINCH (_Poœcetes gramineus_).—Common in the meadows, a nest with
four eggs being taken April 30.
LARK FINCH (_Chondestes grammica_).—Rather common, chiefly in fields
near roadsides.
WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW (_Zonotrichia leucophrys_).—Became common about
the middle of May.
WHITE-THROATED SPARROW (_Zonotrichia albicollis_).—Very abundant up to
the middle of May, and a female was started among some bushes near the
edge of the swamp about the 27th or 28th of the month, her actions and
notes strongly suggesting a nest in the vicinity, but I was unable to
discover one.
FIELD SPARROW (_Spizella pusilla_).—A very common bird. Remarkable
variations were noticed in the song of this species, several
individuals repeating the usual song three times without stopping.
Another had such peculiar notes that it was followed and shot for a
strange bird.
OAK-WOODS SPARROW (_Peucæa æstivalis illinoensis_).—Rare, and observed
only on one occasion, on the 26th of April. The locality was a “woods
pasture,” about one-half cleared of trees, with occasional old logs
and brush-piles on the open portion, and plenty of dead standing
trees, the ground high and rolling. Immediately upon sighting the
locality I thought of this bird, and at almost the same instant heard
one sing. This one was shot, as he sat upon a brush-pile. Two or three
others were heard at a distance, but I failed to discover them.
LINCOLN’S SPARROW (_Melospiza lincolni_).—Very abundant about
brush-piles in swampy clearings.
CARDINAL GROSBEAK (_Cardinalis virginianus_). By far the most numerous
of the resident _Fringillidæ_, and one of the most abundant of all
birds. It was a very common thing to hear several males singing at the
same time, and I once saw three males and two females near together on
the railroad track, picking up grain scattered from the cars.
ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK (_Zamelodia ludoviciana_).—Exceedingly common
during the greater part of the month of May. The first were seen April
25. They were most numerous among the willows in the swamp, engaged in
feeding upon a small green beetle (_Diabrotica 12–maculata_) which
infested the trees. They were also common in the sugar-maple groves,
and were in full song during their stay.
BLUE GROSBEAK (_Guiraca cærulea_).—A single specimen seen but not
obtained (date forgotten).
BRONZED GRACKLE (_Quiscalus purpureus æneus_).—Very numerous, breeding
among the willows in the swamp. The “love note” of this bird is
decidedly more metallic and more musical than that of _Q. purpureus_.
RED-HEADED WOODPECKER (_Melanerpes erythrocephalus_).—Much the most
numerous of the Woodpeckers.
BARRED OWL (_Strix nebulosa_).—Exceedingly numerous, the swamp
resounding at night with their hootings.
COOPER’S HAWK (_Accipiter cooperi_).—Common, breeding.
RED-SHOULDERED HAWK (_Buteo lineatus_).—Much the most numerous of the
Hawks. On one occasion eight adults were observed circling together
overhead, all uttering their clamorous cries.
MOURNING DOVE (_Zenaidura carolinensis_).—Abundant. All the specimens
shot had the ends of the toes frozen off, showing that they had
remained during the past severe winter.
WILD TURKEY (_Meleagris gallopavo americana_).—Common. Scarcely a day
but what one or more were seen, and on one occasion a flock of
fourteen was met with. When surprised they fly into the swamp, where,
alighting on the trees, they are secure from pursuit. The inhabitants
pay no attention whatever to the game laws, and it is owing entirely
to the safe retreat afforded by the swamp that the Turkeys have not
been more nearly exterminated.
VIRGINIA QUAIL (_Ortyx virginiana_).—Almost exterminated by the severe
winter of 1880–81.
GREEN HERON (_Butorides virescens_).—Abundant. A small colony had
their nests in a second-growth thicket, some distance from the swamp.
The nests (seven in number) were placed in saplings at 12–15 feet from
the ground, and, with two exceptions, contained five eggs each.
YELLOW-CROWNED NIGHT HERON (_Nyctherodius violaceus_).—Abundant, a
colony of perhaps a hundred pairs having their nests among the tall
ash and sweet-gum trees in a creek bottom, near the edge of the pond.
The nests were mostly at a considerable height, and few of them
readily accessible. They had just begun to lay, and were frightened
away from the locality during a “wet spell” by squirrel hunters. A
female was shot from her nest April 27, and a perfect egg cut from her
oviduct. Several fine specimens of the bird were secured, and it was
noticed that the delicate, almost luminous, yellowish buff of the
forehead very soon faded.
AMERICAN WOODCOCK (_Philohela minor_).—Common, breeding.
SOLITARY SANDPIPER (_Rhyacophilus solitarius_).—Common, and
undoubtedly breeding, about small ponds in the woods.
SORA RAIL (_Porzana carolina_).—Common among the sedges in the swamp.
FLORIDA GALLINULE (_Gallinula galeata_).—Probably common in the swamp.
A fine specimen with its neck broken was picked up on the railroad
track near the depot in Vincennes, having been killed by flying
against the telegraph wires.
AMERICAN COOT (_Fulica americana_).—Exceedingly numerous in the swamp
during latter half of April and early part of May, but toward the last
of the latter month the greater part had disappeared.
MALLARD (_Anas boscas_).—Very numerous at the time of our arrival and
for a week or two afterward. A few pairs are said to breed in the
swamp.
SHOVELLER DUCK (_Spatula clypeata_).—Much the most numerous of the
Ducks at the time of my arrival (April 15).
BLUE-WINGED TEAL (_Querquedula discors_).—Abundant, even up to the
latter part of May, and undoubtedly breeding.
SUMMER DUCK (_Aix sponsa_).—Common and breeding in the swamp.
HOODED MERGANSER (_Lophodytes cucullatus_).—More common than _A.
sponsa_, breeding, like that species, in hollow trees in the swamp.
THICK-BILLED GREBE (_Podilymbus podiceps_).—Very common in the swamp,
where it was breeding.
At the time of my arrival the Ducks had mostly departed for the North,
while the Geese had entirely disappeared. Both had passed the winter
in the swamp, in immense numbers. A thorough exploration of the swamp
would no doubt have added largely to the list of Water Birds, but I
could not afford the time and labor necessary to accomplish even a
partial exploration after the birds had begun breeding.
NOTES ON THE HABITS AND CHANGES OF PLUMAGE OF THE ACADIAN OWL (_NYCTALE
ACADICA_), WITH SOME ADDITIONAL RECORDS OF ITS BREEDING IN
MASSACHUSETTS.
BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.
In the Bulletin for July, 1881, I gave an account of the breeding of the
Acadian Owl at Tyngsboro’, Massachusetts, with a description of a set of
eggs taken there by Mr. Perham on April 5. Early in June of the same
season Mr. Perham sent me a brood of four young Saw-whets which he had
taken from the nest about the 15th of the preceding month. They were all
in the plumage of _N. “albifrons,”_ and showed little individual
variation, save in respect to size, the two females being slightly
larger than their brothers. In their fresh, silky feathering they were
beautiful little creatures, the warm sepia-brown of the upper parts
harmonizing well with the rich fulvous beneath, and their white
foreheads showing in strong contrast with both. Nor were their manners
less engaging than their plumage, for, unlike most Owls, they were
perfectly gentle from the first, never attempting to bite or scratch
those who handled them. With each other they were really affectionate,
often going through a caressing performance with their bills, and
showing a mutual forbearance at meal-times which was very pleasing. They
eat all kinds of meat with avidity, but seemed especially fond of mice.
The latter were invariably skinned and the flesh torn in shreds and
devoured, the skins being swallowed afterwards as dessert. I often saw
them eject those peculiar pellets of bones, fur, and other indigestable
fragments which all Owls and many Hawks are in the habit of depositing
about their haunts. The operation was a peculiar one. The Owl would gape
several times, then the head would be violently shaken sideways, and
finally the pellet, coated with mucous, would shoot forth, frequently
falling several inches in front of the spot where the bird was sitting.
After it was all over the little fellow assumed an expression of relief
and contentment which was very comical.
Although not less grave and solemn than other Owls, their movements were
much more animated and restless. They were continually flying or hopping
from place to place, even in the day-time, and they had a frequent habit
of oscillating the head, at the same time lengthening and shortening the
neck. This was apparently done for the purpose of fixing the exact
position of some distant object, as afterwards the bird usually flew to
the top of some door or book-case towards which its eyes had evidently
been directed. Their only cry at this time was a shrill bat-like
squeaking, which was frequently given by all four at once. Altogether
they were unusually interesting pets and when the time came for
preparing three of them as specimens, I found it very hard to break up
the affectionate and attractive little family.
I believe it is now generally admitted by ornithologists, that the so
called “_N. albifrons_” is simply the young of _N. acadica_. Indeed, Mr.
Ridgway satisfactorily settled this point when he cited[9] the testimony
of Dr. J. W. Velie of Chicago who kept a live “_albifrons_” “until it
moulted and became a fine specimen of _Nyctale acadica_.” But as no one
seems to have published a detailed account of the transition it may be
worth while to briefly record some observations made on the survivor of
the brood just mentioned.
This bird was placed in a large cage where it had abundant room to fly
about, and was kept well supplied with food. Through June and July there
was absolutely no change in its plumage, but on August 1 I noticed a few
medially spotted feathers pushing their way through the uniformly brown
ones of the fore part of the crown. Through the next two weeks they
gradually increased and developed until the full-face aspect of the head
was that of an adult Saw-whet. At this stage there was no indication of
any second plumage on the other parts, but about August 15 a few
streaked feathers appeared along the central line of the breast and
abdomen, while a little later the moult began over the back and wings
and quickly became general. Through the last two weeks of the month the
new plumage gained daily, and by Sept. 1 the final stage was perfected
and the bird had become a remarkably beautiful Saw-whet Owl. From this
it appears that the “_albifrons_” condition is simply the first plumage,
which in the Saw-whet is apparently better defined (as contrasted with
the earlier downy stage and later autumnal plumage), as well as longer
worn, than in most other Owls.
The specimen just mentioned is still (at the date of this writing, Dec.
1) alive and well. It has become rather wilder and less gentle than
formerly, and lately has acquired a habit of swelling its plumage and
snapping the bill when closely approached. Shortly after the moult it
began a new cry, which is now frequently heard at night and occasionally
also in the day-time. This utterance consists of a series of five or six
low, chuckling but nevertheless whistled calls, which remind one of that
peculiar, drawling soliloquy sometimes indulged in by a dejected hen on
a rainy day. I cannot reconcile these notes with descriptions of the
saw-filing ones which are supposed to have given the species its name,
but they perhaps represent the unfinished performance of a young bird.
The bat-like squeaking was discontinued before the bird began to
whistle, and has never since been heard.
At the time of writing the article already referred to I received the
impression that the nest then mentioned was the only one that Mr. Perham
had found. But I have since learned that, including the two taken the
present season, he has actually examined no less than seven during the
past ten years, all of which occurred in or near the township of
Tyngsboro’. Most of these nests were, however, broken up by red
squirrels before the full complement of eggs was laid. The nesting
places were usually of the artificial sort which I have already
described, but occasionally use was made of a deserted Flicker’s hole.
Mr. Perham frequently hears the notes of Saw-whets during the month of
March, and believes that many pairs breed about Tyngsboro’ every season.
The region is a heavily wooded one and apparently offers exceptional
attractions to all kinds of Raptorial birds.
DESCRIPTION OF A NEW RACE OF _PEUCÆA RUFICEPS_ FROM TEXAS.
BY NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN.
=Peucæa ruficeps eremœca.=[10] General aspect dull gray. Dorsal region
grayish-ash, the feathers brownish centrally and with their shafts
almost black. Top of head rufous, much admixed with grayish. A black
frontlet, divided at the culmen by a white line, as in _ruficeps_ and
var. _boucardi_. Breast and sides clear gray. Abdomen whitish. Crissum
and flanks tinged with fulvous. A black maxillary stripe. Length of
fresh specimen, 6.25; extent, 8.62; wing and tail about 2.75. Sexes
alike.
The above description characterizes a bird very unlike _Peucæa ruficeps_
both in size and in coloration. It is much larger and entirely lacks the
peculiar rufous tint of the upper parts seen in _P. ruficeps_. Var.
_boucardi_, which is simply a larger race of _ruficeps_, the present
form therefore resembles only in size and in the distribution of its
markings. Indeed it is so unlike both described races that, but for
thorough investigations by Mr. Robert Ridgway which fail to justify such
a procedure, I should urge the claims of the new form to specific rank.
Mr. Ridgway has with great kindness made a careful comparison of several
of my specimens with all accessible material bearing upon the matter,
and writes me that he finds the former insufficiently differentiated
from _ruficeps_, through _boucardi_, to stand as a species. An
interesting fact, incidentally brought to light by Mr. Ridgway, is that
of the few Mexican examples upon which Dr. Sclater based his
_Zonotrichia boucardi_, those from Orizaba are apparently referable to
the race I have named _eremœca_. The National Museum possesses one of
the three original Orizaba skins.
The specimens above described were taken, during the months of Dec.,
1879 and Jan., Feb., and March, 1880, at Boerne, Kendall Co., Texas.
Some account of their habits may be found on another page of the present
number of the Bulletin.
ON KENNICOTT’S OWL AND SOME OF ITS ALLIES, WITH A DESCRIPTION OF A
PROPOSED NEW RACE.
BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.
Since the date of its first description in 1867, Kennicott’s Owl (_Scops
asio kennicotti_) has remained a very rare bird, and ornithologists have
gained but little additional knowledge regarding either its distribution
or variations of color. The prominent characters of Elliot’s type were
its large size and tawny or umber-brown plumage, and as the few
specimens subsequently recognized have closely resembled it, this
peculiar coloring has come to be regarded as constant and diagnostic.
But not long since Capt. Bendire sent me a Screech Owl from Fort Walla
Walla, Washington Territory, which, although equaling _kennicotti_ in
size and resembling it in some other respects, was colored more nearly
like _S. asio_ in its gray dress. Being unable to reconcile the
peculiarities of this bird with any of the standard descriptions, I set
to work, at Capt. Bendire’s request, to bring together a sufficiently
large number of specimens to determine its identity or relationship. In
this I have at length succeeded, thanks to the kind assistance of
Professor Baird and Mr. Ridgway of the National Museum, Mr. Allen of the
Cambridge Museum of Comparative Zoölogy, Capt. Charles Bendire, U. S.
A., Mr. H. W. Henshaw, Mr. Purdie and several other friends, all of whom
have been most generous in placing their material at my disposal.
The series now before me comprises about fifty specimens, and includes
representatives of all the known North American forms of _Scops_ except
_S. flammeolus_. Among the number are two typical _kennicotti_, a fine
suite of _asio_, illustrating its numerous variations of plumage, and no
less than nine examples referable to the large gray form already
mentioned as coming from Fort Walla Walla. A comparison of the latter
with _asio_ and _kennicotti_ shows that while a few of the grayer
specimens bear a strong superficial resemblance to _asio_ in its
corresponding condition, the evidence of the series as a whole points to
a stronger affinity with _kennicotti_. In regard to size, they are fully
up to the standard of the latter, the difference from _asio_ in this
respect being so decided that the smallest male of the series is
considerably larger than any female which I have from the East.
Moreover, the purely gray style is represented by only a small
proportion of the number, the majority being more or less tinged with
tawny-rufous, in this as well as some other respects indicating evident
approaches to the supposed typical characteristics of _kennicotti_. In
short, the intermediate character of several of these specimens is so
unmistakable that, although the transition is not completely shown, they
furnish ample evidence that the gray form actually does intergrade with
brown _kennicotti_.
The bearing of this testimony is not doubtful. Geographical
considerations preclude our regarding the two birds as allied races, for
one of the most typical examples of _kennicotti_ comes from Idaho (No.
59,068 Coll. Nat. Mus., Dr. Whitehead), while I have a specimen
referable to the gray condition from the coast of Oregon (Portland,
Capt. Bendire), thus showing that they cannot be assigned different
habitats. Clearly, then, the only alternative remaining is the
assumption that _kennicotti_, like _asio_, is dichromatic, the purely
gray birds from Fort Walla Walla representing the extreme of one phase,
as the tawny brown type probably does that of the other. And considered
in connection with its bearing on similarly variable allied forms, the
hypothesis of dichromatism certainly offers a very easy and natural way
out of the difficulty. Nor is there anything inconsistent in the fact
that one or the other style apparently predominates in many sections of
their mutual range, and in some is perhaps the exclusive representative,
for a similar state of affairs is well known to obtain with other
dichromatic members of this genus.[11]
Assuming the preceding conclusions to be granted, the gray condition of
_kennicotti_ may be characterized as follows:—
=Scops asio kennicotti.= Gray phase; adult (♀, no. 6456 author’s
collection, Fort Walla Walla, W. T., October 22, 1881, Capt. Bendire).
Ground-color above brownish-ash, darkest on the head, palest on the
wings, with confused, often nearly obsolete transverse mottling and
shaft-stripes of dull black, broadest and most numerous on the crown.
Outer webs of scapulars and alula-coverts cream-color, the former
tipped and narrowly margined with black. Secondaries and inner webs of
primaries crossed by from six to seven bars of pale reddish-brown.
Outer webs of primaries with broad, quadrate spots of brownish-white.
Tail regularly but faintly barred with light reddish-brown. Feathers
of the sides of head and neck thickly but minutely mottled with dusky
upon a lighter ground. Lores nearly pure white. A somewhat broken
facial-circle of black or chestnut spots and blotches. Beneath
ashy-white, lightest on the abdomen, with numerous fine, regular,
transverse bars of black and coarse shaft-stripes of the same color;
the only immaculate space being that along the middle of the abdomen.
Lining of wings and concealed silky plumage of sides under the wings,
pale ochraceous. Tarsi, dull chestnut. Wing, 7.10; culmen, .61;
tarsus, 1.77; tail, 4.10; middle toe, .75; ear-tufts, 1.45.
The above description is of a specimen representing the extreme grayish
phase so far as shown by the series before me. Six others from the same
locality vary a good deal in color and markings, some of them being very
dark with coarse shaft-stripes, both above and below, while one or two
have the dorsal surface nearly like that of _asio_ in its corresponding
condition. In all, however, the plumage of the under parts is somewhat
different from that of _asio_, the transverse bars being usually much
finer and more regular and the ground-color ashy instead of clear white.
These differences seem to be most strongly marked in the purely gray
specimens which otherwise afford the nearest approaches to _asio_.
Among the darker birds are three which may be considered as about
intermediate between the extreme brown and gray phases. The first, from
Mr. Henshaw’s collection (Fort Walla Walla, Nov. 7, 1880, Capt. Bendire)
has the dorsal plumage dark brown with an umber cast, while the tibiæ,
lining of wings, outer webs of scapulars, and numerous pairs of rounded
spots forming a band or collar across the nape, are tawny-ochraceous of
nearly as deep a shade as in typical brown birds. The dark shaft-stripes
in this specimen are broader and blacker than in any of the others and
the usual ashy cast beneath is replaced by an ochraceous one. The
remaining two birds are similarly characterized but to a less marked
degree. All three combine the gray and brown coloring of the respective
extreme phases, precisely as do many of the eastern specimens before me,
the gray and red conditions of _S. asio_.
The Portland specimen already mentioned, although in some respects an
intermediate, is on the whole nearer the gray than the brown condition.
Its general coloring is essentially similar to that of Mr. Henshaw’s
bird, but the ground shade above is darker and the scapular spots are
confined to the edges of two or three of the outer feathers, while the
ochraceous wash beneath occurs only on the sides, lining of the wings,
and tibiæ, the ground-color of the under parts being otherwise clear
ashy-white.
An unusually large female from Hellgate, Montana (No. 18,299, Nat.
Mus.), which Mr. Ridgway very naturally treated as _asio_ in the “Birds
of North America” (Vol. III, p. 50), agrees closely with Capt. Bendire’s
specimens and with them must now be referred to _kennicotti_.
In the light of the present evidence it becomes necessary to rearrange
the typical characters of this Owl. I accordingly offer the following
diagnosis:—
=Scops asio kennicotti.= Wing, 6.40 to 7.60. Dichromatic, assuming
either a gray or a tawny brown condition. Gray phase similar to that
of asio, but with the plumage beneath thickly barred and streaked
along the median line. Brown phase characterized by a general
dusky-umber or tawny-ochraceous coloring unlike that of any other
North American form.[12]
The following table includes the most essential measurements of all
the specimens of _kennicotti_ which I have examined, together with
some taken at second hand, of Elliot’s type of the race.
_Gray and Intermediate._
_Wing._ _Tail._
6457, W. B. ♂ ad. Ft. Walla Nov. 20, 1881. 7.50 4.07
Walla, W.T.
6458, W. B. ♂ ad. „ „ Apr. 25, 1881. 7.07 4.05
82,330, Nat. Mus. ♂ ad. „ „ Dec. 22, 1880. 7.06 4.25
6459, W. B. ♂ juv. John Day Aug. 6, 1881. 6.92 3.65
River. Ore.
30,624, C. Mus. ♂ ad. Ft. Walla Feb. 12, 1881. 7.00 4.22
Walla. W.T.
H. W. H. ♀ ad. „ „ Nov. 7, 1880. 7.05 _wanting_
6456, W. B. ♀ ad. „ „ Oct. 22, 1881. 7.10 4.10
18,299, Nat. Mus. ♂ ad. Hellgate, 7.60 4.10
Mon.
6466, W. B. ad. Portland, 6.40 3.82
Oregon.
_Brown._
4.530, Nat. Mus. Washington 6.80 4.07
Ter.
59,068, Nat. Mus. Idaho. 6.67 3.65
59,847, Nat. Mus. ♂ ad. Sitka, March, 1866. 7.40 4.00
Alaska.
During the course of the preceding investigation I had occasion to
compare a large number of Eastern specimens of _Scops asio_ with some
California examples from Nicasio and Alameda County. Somewhat to my
surprise, I detected several apparently constant differences which,
taken in connection with the pretty definitely settled fact that the
California bird is not, like asio, subject to dichromatism, seem to me
to warrant the varietal separation of the two. I accordingly propose a
new race as follows:—
=Scops asio bendirei=,[13] var. nov.
CALIFORNIA SCREECH OWL.
CH. SP. Similis _S._ asioni, sed auribus brevioribus; colore subtus
magis cinerario, transversis lineis tenuioribus, pallidioribus, ac in
medio haud interruptis. Nulla rubra conditione cognita.
Adult ♀ (No. 1,546, author’s collection, Nicasio, California, April
24, 1877, C. A. Allen). Above essentially similar to _asio_ in its
gray dress. Beneath ashy-white, every where thickly barred and
streaked with black; the transverse bars being fine, numerous and
regular, the shaft-stripes coarse and generally distributed from the
throat to the crissum, both markings occurring as thickly on the
median line of the breast and abdomen as along their sides. Wing,
6.20; tail, 3.30; tarsus, 1.50; culmen, .60; ear-tufts, 1.15.
Another adult from the same locality (♀, May 18, 1878, Coll. H. A.
Purdie), measures: wing, 6.22; tail, 3.18; ear-tufts, 1.05: while
seven unsexed specimens from Alameda county furnish the following
extremes: wing, 6.01–6.52; tail, 3.22–3.72, ear-tufts, 1.05–1.25.
The above detailed characters, so far as my series goes, are sufficient
to distinguish the California specimens from any gray examples of _asio_
taken in the Eastern States. The chief difference is in the ground-color
and markings of the plumage beneath. In _asio_ the central line of the
breast and abdomen is nearly always immaculate, while there is
frequently a broad, entirely unspotted gular space: in _bendirei_ these
parts are as thickly barred and streaked as are the sides, while the
ashy tinge of the entire lower surface and the much finer character of
the transverse pencilling gives the plumage a clouded appearance which,
although difficult of description, is very characteristic. The
ear-tufts, also, are usually shorter than those of _S. asio_.
Among the nine examples before me there is remarkably little individual
variation, much less in fact than with any equal number of _asio_ which
I have ever examined. The Alameda County specimens as a rule are rather
more finely and faintly barred than the Nicasio ones and the
ground-color beneath is of a slightly different shade, inclining more to
clayey than ashy-white. In one bird the under surface is decidedly dull
clay-color, which is so generally and evenly distributed that there is
positively no approach to clear white even on the throat, lores,
forehead or abdomen. But the essential characters already given are so
well maintained on the whole that the description of the one chosen as
the type will apply nearly as well to them all. This uniformity is
doubtless largely owing to the absence in this race of any tendency to
dichromatism, for much of the variation among the dichromatic ones can
be traced to the combination in varying degrees of the colors of both
phases, purely colored birds of either style being, at least in some
sections, of comparatively rare occurrence. It is of course to be
expected that larger suites of specimens will furnish occasional
aberrant ones some of which may approach _asio_; but, so far as the
present material is concerned, the tendency of variation is rather
towards _kennicotti_ and “_tricopsis_.” Indeed, as will be seen by
comparing my diagnoses, the general coloring and markings of _bendirei_
are so nearly like those of _kennicotti_ in its extreme gray phase, that
were it not for their wide difference in size it might be difficult to
separate some of the specimens. That _bendirei_ grades into the larger
bird at the point where their respective habitats meet is shown by a
specimen (No. 16,027, Nat. Mus.) from Fort Crook, Northern California,
which is almost exactly intermediate in size, although more nearly like
_kennicotti_ in color and markings. As to our bird of the Southwest
border, I believe that Mr. Ridgway is still undecided whether it really
represents the _tricopsis_ of Wagler or not, but he writes me that
however this may turn out, he is now convinced that it intergrades with
the form found over California at large and must hence be reduced to a
variety of _Scops asio_. After a careful comparison of specimens I can
unhesitatingly endorse this opinion, my Arizona examples of
“_tricopsis_” differing from some of the more faintly barred _bendirei_
only in the purer ash and sharper streaking of their dorsal plumage.
Save in cases where this fresh material has thrown new light on old
data, I have deemed it unnecessary to go over any of the ground trodden
by Mr. Ridgway in his elaborate and invaluable monograph of the genus
_Scops_,[14] but the bearing of some of the present testimony has proved
so far reaching that I venture, in concluding, to suggest the following
rearrangement of the North American Screech Owls belonging to the _S.
asio_ group.
_Dichromatic: erythrismal phase bright rufous._
_Scops asio._ Habitat, United States north of the Gulf States and east
of the Rocky Mountains.
_Scops asio floridanus._ Habitat, Florida and Southern Georgia.
_Scops asio maccalli._ Habitat, Highlands of Guatemala, Eastern
Mexico, and Valley of the Lower Rio Grande in Texas.
_Dichromatic: erythrismal phase tawny or reddish-brown._
_Scops asio kennicotti._ Habitat, Northwest Coast from Sitka to Oregon
and eastward across Washington Territory into Idaho and Montana.
_Non-dichromatic: always gray in color._[15]
_Scops asio bendirei._ Habitat, Coast region of California.
_Scops asio tricopsis?_ Habitat, Western Mexico and the extreme
southwestern border of the United States.
_Scops asio maxwellæ._ Habitat, Mountains of Colorado.
A RECONNOISSANCE IN SOUTHWESTERN TEXAS.
BY NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN.
The village of Boerne in Southwestern Texas, with its environing
country, was the field of my ornithological labors between December 21,
1879 and April 4, 1880. Boerne is situated about thirty miles northwest
of San Antonio, and less than that distance westerly from New Braunfels,
where Messrs. Werner and Ricksecker made their collection, a few years
ago.[16] It lies in a country of hills and “flats,” scantily watered and
largely unproductive, beyond which timber and general vegetation rapidly
disappear, as the westward-bound traveller nears the desolation of the
Great Plains. Live-oak grows in scattering groves, the postoak in more
compact clusters, and cedar occurs in small “brakes” of some density.
There are also, along the creek to which the village owes its existence,
two or three small oases of deciduous trees admixed with vines, no one
of them, perhaps, an acre in extent. The mesquite, which is so common on
the prairies to the south and east, is not seen, but is replaced by a
small variety of live-oak growing in the form of _chaparral_. Throughout
my stay in it, the country had a very inhospitable and dreary aspect, on
account of the almost total lack of grass of any kind; and by its
absence the number of the local birds is of course materially
diminished.
In presenting a list of the birds observed in this locality, I wish to
call especial attention to the curious admixture of geographical races
found here. Among the species which are subject to climatic variation,
several are represented by two distinct varieties and with them confused
and indeterminable intermediate forms. In others but one constant form
is found. And in a third class the bird occurs in a varying,
transitional phase of plumage which, however, occasionally becomes
typical of some described race.
1. =Hylocichla unalascæ= (_Gm._) _Ridg._ DWARF THRUSH.—Uncommon
resident. Not heard to sing. Several of my specimens very closely
approach the variety _auduboni_. I saw nothing of the eastern
_pallasi_, which I have received from Mr. Geo. H. Ragsdale, of
Gainesville.
2. =Merula migratoria propinqua=, _Ridg._ WESTERN ROBIN.—Irregularly
abundant.
3. =Mimus polyglottus= (_Linn._) _Boie._ MOCKINGBIRD.—Rare resident.
4. =Sialia sialis= (_Linn._) _Haldem._ BLUEBIRD.—Comparatively common
during the winter. All of my specimens were in most beautiful plumage.
Not one male in a dozen showed the slightest brownish edging to the
feathers of the back. I was particularly struck with this in view of
the fact that almost every individual in a large series collected in
Alabama, in the winter of 1878, exhibited more or less of this
brownish edging.
5. =Sialia arctica=, _Swains._ ROCKY MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD.—Abundant
winter visitor. Generally in dull plumage.
6. =Polioptila cærulea= (_Linn._) _Scl._ BLUE-GRAY
GNATCATCHER.—Apparently a common summer resident. Arrived March 8.
7. =Regulus calendula= (_Linn._) _Licht._ RUBY-CROWNED
KINGLET.—Abundant up to the last week in March.
8. =Regulus satrapa=, _Licht._ GOLDEN-CRESTED KINGLET.—Not common.
Last seen about March 22.
9. =Lophophanes atrocristatus=, _Cassin_. BLACK-CRESTED TIT.—Very
abundant resident.
10. =Parus carolinensis=, _Aud._ CAROLINA CHICKADEE.—Uncommon during
my stay. Usually seen in pairs.
11. =Certhia familiaris rufa= (_Bartr._) _Ridg._ BROWN CREEPER.—Rare.
Only two individuals observed: one Jan. 16, the other Jan. 29.
12. =Salpinctes obsoletus= (_Say_) _Cab._ ROCK WREN.—I obtained a
single female on March 4, in a cañon of the Cibalo Creek. It was very
shy and was secured with difficulty.
13. =Catherpes mexicanus conspersus=, _Ridg._ WHITE-THROATED
WREN.—About three pairs were resident in the cañon above referred to.
They lurked almost constantly in the interstices of the rocks, and had
it not been for their delightful song would many times have entirely
escaped observation.
14. =Thryothorus ludovicianus= (_Gm._) _Bp._ CAROLINA WREN.—Uncommon
resident.
15. =Thryomanes bewicki leucogaster=, _Baird._ TEXAN BEWICK’S
WREN.—Very common resident. Sang throughout the winter.
16. =Anthus ludovicianus= (_Gm._) _Licht._ TITLARK.—Abundant winter
visitor. Became uncommon towards the last of March.
17. =Neocorys spraguei= (_Aud._) _Scl._ MISSOURI SKYLARK.—Mr. Sennett
having detected this species at Galveston,[17] it was, of course, to
have been expected in the present locality. Since, however, I observed
no examples until the 16th of March, it is to be inferred that the
bird’s winter habitat lies much farther to the south than has been
supposed. I met with specimens up to within a few days of my
departure, but never in abundance and, I believe, all upon one “flat”
containing about twenty acres.
While according to Dr. Coues[18] the manners and habits of this bird
and the Titlark agree so closely during the breeding season, they were
quite unlike at the time of my own observations. At Boerne the flight
of the Skylark was peculiarly characteristic, being made slowly, at a
height of but a few inches from the ground and with the regular,
undulating movement of the Goldfinch. When several birds were
associated together—as was usually the case—they were invariably much
scattered about upon the ground, and in flight never closed ranks
sufficiently to form anything like a flock. The Titlarks, on the
contrary, as I have also found them at the North, were birds of
erratic and more rapid flight, frequently ascending to a considerable
height and always preserving the semblance of a flock, however
straggling their order.
18. =Mniotilta varia= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ BLACK-AND-WHITE
CREEPER.—Rather common after March 13.
19. =Helminthophaga ruficapilla= (_Wils._) _Bd._ NASHVILLE
WARBLER.—Two specimens,—March 30 and April 1.
20. =Helminthophaga celata= (_Say_) _Bd._ ORANGE-CROWNED
WARBLER.—Arrived the first week in March and thereafter was the most
abundant of the Warblers. One of my specimens is a partial albino, the
first, I believe, that has been detected in this peculiar phase of
plumage.
21. =Parula americana= (_Linn._) _Bp._ BLUE YELLOW-BACK.—Rare migrant.
Arrived March 20 in full song.
22. =Dendrœca coronata= (_Linn._) _Gray._ YELLOW-RUMP.—An abundant
winter visitor, seen throughout my stay.
23. =Dendrœca blackburnæ= (_Gm._) _Bd._ BLACKBURNIAN WARBLER.—A single
male taken March 31.
24. =Dendrœca dominica albilora=, _Bd._ WHITE-BROWED
YELLOW-THROAT.—Uncommon migrant, first seen on March 19. The song of
this variety is very different from that of its eastern analogue, and
is a close reproduction of the Field Sparrow’s familiar chant, without
his _decrescendo_ termination.
25. =Dendrœca chrysoparia=, _Scl. and Salv._ GOLDEN-CHEEKED
WARBLER.—Previous to the capture of my Boerne specimens, there were
only about seven[19] skins of this elegant Warbler in existence. It
was a rare bird at Boerne, and my own series was not brought up to a
total of seven without special exertion. The first individual made his
appearance on March 12. Within forty-eight hours from that time, under
the influence of a biting norther, the mercury sank to 29° and hovered
about that figure for several days. So that in his semi-tropical
habitat this little bird is sometimes called upon to endure pretty
severe weather. The remaining examples were taken at intervals up to
March 24, after which I saw none. I found them usually in cedar
brakes; never more than a few rods distant from them. They were
sometimes very shy, at other times easily approached, but almost
always pursued their various avocations rather silently. I did not
hear the song at all, until by this I was attracted to the last
specimen that I procured. The notes were an exact counterpart of the
song of _Dendrœca discolor_, as I heard it in Alabama, and, indeed,
for the utterances of that bird I mistook them.
By the few examples of this species hitherto existing in cabinets, the
plumage of the adult male has been represented with much green on the
back. Four of my five males conform to this pattern of coloration, but
the fifth is in a much more beautiful dress, undoubtedly showing the
male bird in full perfection. In this specimen the back is deep black,
glossy and continuous. Upon close examination, faint and irregular
traces of greenish are perceptible, but in much too slight a degree to
materially affect the groundwork. This high state of plumage greatly
enhances the bird’s beauty and renders its wearer one of the
handsomest of the _Sylvicolidæ_.
26. =Dendrœca virens= (_Gm._) _Bd._ BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER.—An
uncommon migrant, first seen on March 13. Found in hardwood growth and
never in company with the preceding species. On March 25 I heard a
male singing the plaintive song so familiar in northern woods.
27. =Siurus motacilla= (_Vieill._) _Coues._ LARGE-BILLED WATER
THRUSH.—A single male taken, March 25, in one of the “oases” of the
creek.
28. =Lanivireo flavifrons= (_Vieill._) _Bd._ YELLOW-THROATED VIREO.—A
pair taken on March 25.
29. =Vireo atricapillus=, _Woodh._ BLACK-CAPPED VIREO.—One specimen,
March 27. Could I have remained a few days later, other specimens
would have undoubtedly been detected.
30. =Vireo noveboracensis= (_Gm._) _Bp._ WHITE-EYED VIREO.—Common
summer resident, first seen on March 13.
31. =Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides= (_Sw._) _Coues._ WHITE-RUMPED
SHRIKE.—Of irregular and uncommon occurrence. I obtained one specimen
of _ludovicianus_ proper.
32. =Ampelis cedrorum= (_Vieill._) _Bd._ CEDAR BIRD.—Very irregular in
its occurrence, and never common.
33. =Progne subis= (_Linn._) _Bd._ PURPLE MARTIN.—Common summer
resident. Arrived from the south, Feb. 17.
34. =Petrochelidon lunifrons= (_Say_) _Lawr._ EAVE SWALLOW.—Common
summer resident. Arrived about March 20. The cañon, to which I have
several times alluded, contained many nests of this bird.
35. =Hirundo erythrogastra=, _Bodd._ BARN SWALLOW.—Common summer
resident. A single individual seen on March 4, but no others noticed
until the 10th of the month when there was a general arrival.
36. =Stelgidopteryx serripennis= (_Aud._) _Bd._ ROUGH-WINGED
SWALLOW.—But two observed,—March 3 and 4.
37. =Pyranga æstiva= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ SUMMER REDBIRD.—One specimen
taken in April.
38. =Astragalinus tristis= (_Linn._) _Cab._ GOLDFINCH.—Rather common
winter visitant.
39. =Centrophanes ornatus= (_Towns._) _Cab._ CHESTNUT-COLLARED
LONGSPUR.—This and the following species apparently do not winter
here. I first met with them in the second week of February. They were
often associated together, sometimes with the addition of a few Horned
Larks. The present species, though not common, was the more numerous
and lingered later, being taken up to March 2.
40. =Rhynchophanes maccowni= (_Lawr._) _Bd._ MCCOWN’S
LONGSPUR.—Uncommon migrant, taken between Feb. 11 and 21.
41. =Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus= (_Bp._) _Ridg._ WESTERN
SAVANNA SPARROW.—Common, throughout my stay, in cultivated fields.
42. =Poœcetes gramineus confinis=, _Bd._ WESTERN GRASS FINCH.—Abundant
in cultivated fields and less common elsewhere, throughout my stay.
Several specimens were taken in plumage intermediate between this and
the eastern form; and one which can hardly be referred to anything but
_gramineus_ proper.
43. =Coturniculus passerinus= (_Wils._) _Bp._ YELLOW-WINGED SPARROW.—A
single specimen, Feb. 14.
44. =Chondestes grammica= (_Say_) _Bp._ LARK FINCH.—Rare during the
winter. A general arrival on March 11, after which it was common.
45. =Zonotrichia querula= (_Nutt._) _Gamb._ HARRIS’S
SPARROW.—Excepting two specimens taken by Mr. Dresser near San
Antonio, this species has no Texas record. I found it very abundant
during the winter, and in smaller numbers up to within a few days of
my departure.
46. =Zonotrichia leucophrys= (_Forst._) _Sw._ WHITE-CROWNED
SPARROW.—Uncommon winter visitor.
47. =Zonotrichia gambeli intermedia=, _Ridg._ RIDGWAY’S SPARROW.—More
common than the preceding, tarrying into March, if not later.
48. =Spizella domestica arizonæ= (_Coues_) _Ridg._ WESTERN CHIPPING
SPARROW.—Rare during the winter. More numerous after Feb. 13. This
form is new to the State.
49. =Spizella breweri=, _Cass._ BREWER’S SPARROW.—One specimen, March
5, amongst sterile hills. Doubtless is not rare in suitable
localities, of which there are none in the immediate vicinity of the
village.
50. =Spizella pusilla= (_Wils._) _Bp._ FIELD SPARROW.—Common during my
stay.
51. =Junco hyemalis= (_Linn._) _Scl._ BLACK SNOWBIRD.—Common during my
stay.
52. =Junco oregonus= (_Towns._) _Scl._ OREGON SNOWBIRD.—Uncommon. In
addition to the specimens typical of the two Juncos here given, I
acquired a series of very puzzling examples intermediate between the
two. Such connecting links between the accepted species are perhaps
best accounted for under Mr. Ridgway’s theory[20] of hybridization,
until it can be decisively shown that they are an effect of climatic
causes.
53. =Peucæa ruficeps eremœca=,[21] _Brown_. ROCK SPARROW.—This
beautiful Sparrow was uncommon though apparently resident at Boerne. I
found it altogether in rocky localities, usually in close proximity to
the creek, but occasionally upon barren hills, a mile or more from
water. It has the same shy, skulking habits which are familiar in
other species of the genus, rarely taking wing, on the approach of an
intruder, so long as rock, bush or weed affords a hiding place. The
male’s song, which I first heard on Feb. 25, is a pretty warble, not
strongly accentuated, and quite unsparrowlike,—equalling neither in
sweetness nor in quality of music, the beautiful chant of _P.
æstivalis_. Before becoming thoroughly familiar with it, I more than
once attributed it to some unknown Warbler. The call-note is extremely
fine and sharp, suggesting the _eep_ of _Ampelis cedrorum_.
54. =Melospiza fasciata= (_Gm._) _Scott_. SONG SPARROW.—Rare
throughout my stay. Specimens are not typical of this form, but are
not referable to any of the western varieties.[22]
55. =Melospiza lincolni= (_Aud._) _Bd._ LINCOLN’S FINCH.—Arrived March
4; common thereafter.
56. =Passerella iliaca= (_Merrem_) _Sw._ FOX SPARROW.—Two or three
individuals met with. This species was detected in the valley of the
Brazos by Mr. L. Kumlien,[23] but is not included in the papers of
other Texas collectors.
57. =Pipilo maculatus megalonyx= (_Bd._) _Coues._ SPURRED TOWHEE.—To
this form I refer a large series of Pipilos, which is by far the most
remarkable of the many curious series from this locality. The relation
of some specimens to restricted _maculatus_ and the variety _arcticus_
is indicated in the extract from Mr. Ridgway’s letter, under _M.
fasciata_. Other examples are links in the chain of evidence that is
gradually accumulating against the specific distinctness of _Pipilo
erythrophthalmus_. Indeed, I am not sure that they may not be
considered as establishing the intergradation between that form and
the _maculatus_ group. The extreme approach to the eastern bird is
seen in a single specimen, in which the white spotting, partially
concealed, appears upon the outer scapulars alone, and there only in
very slight measure.
58. =Cardinalis virginianus= (_Briss._) _Bp._ CARDINAL.—Abundant
resident. In a series of fifty specimens, two or three are typical,
the remainder exhibiting to a greater or less degree the characters of
both _virginianus_ as restricted and var. _igneus_. In one specimen
the black band across the culmen is hardly perceptible, but in none
does the red of the forehead reach completely to the bill.
59. =Calamospiza bicolor= (_Towns._) _Bp._ LARK BUNTING.—One specimen,
in a scattering grove of post oaks, March 24.
60. =Molothrus ater= (_Bodd._) _Gray_. COWBIRD.—A few females shot out
of flocks of the following variety, in March.
60 _b_. =Molothrus ater obscurus= (_Gm._) _Coues_. DWARF COWBIRD.—On
Jan. 20 I shot the first females that I had observed, after which they
soon became common. No males were detected until Feb. 25, but from
that time both sexes were found in abundance.
61. =Agelæus phœniceus= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ RED-WINGED
BLACKBIRD.—Abundantly represented, during the winter, but by females
only, so far as my observations went. The males are said by the
villagers to occur rarely.
62. =Sturnella neglecta=, _Aud._ WESTERN FIELD LARK.—Abundant during
my stay.
63. =Icterus spurius= (_Linn._) _Bp._ ORCHARD ORIOLE.—One individual
seen in April.
64. =Scolecophagus cyanocephalus= (_Wagl._) _Cab._ BREWER’S
BLACKBIRD.—Found throughout my stay; in great abundance up to the
middle of March.
65. =Corvus corax carnivorus= (_Bartr._) _Ridg._ RAVEN.—Uncommon.
Usually solitary, but on Jan. 28, I noticed a flock of a dozen.
66. =Corvus frugivorus=, _Bartr._ CROW.—Rare.
67. =Eremophila alpestris chrysolæma= (_Wagl._) _Coues_. MEXICAN
HORNED LARK.—Abundant up to the first week of March, after which none
were seen until March 27. From this time occasional individuals only
were observed.
68. =Milvulus forficatus= (_Gm._) _Sw._ SCISSOR-TAIL.—Arrived March
24, and became at once common.
69. =Myiarchus crinitus= (_Linn._) _Cab._ GREAT-CRESTED
FLYCATCHER.—One specimen taken March 30.
70. =Sayornis fuscus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ PEWEE.—Found rather uncommonly
throughout my stay.
71. =Caprimulgus vociferus=, _Wils._ WHIP-POOR-WILL.—One specimen
taken April 2.
72. =Picus scalaris=, _Wagl._ TEXAS WOODPECKER.—An abundant resident.
73. =Sphyrapicus varius= (_Linn._) _Bd._ YELLOW-BELLIED
WOODPECKER.—Rare and irregular.
74. =Centurus carolinus= (_Linn._) _Bp._ RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER.—The
rarest species of this family: but three seen.
75. =Centurus aurifrons=, _Wagl._ GOLDEN-FRONTED WOODPECKER.—Uncommon
resident. Unlike Mr. Sennett,[24] I found it always very shy.
76. =Colaptes auratus hybridus= (_Bd._) _Ridg._ HYBRID
FLICKER.—Uncommon and of irregular occurrence. This form does not
appear to have been met with in Texas limits before. The present
locality is at all events exceptionally southern.
76 _b_. =Colaptes auratus mexicanus= (_Sw._) _Ridg._ RED-SHAFTED
FLICKER.—One specimen, taken Jan. 2. Others doubtless occurred amongst
the shy Flickers which escaped my gun.
77. =Ceryle alcyon= (_Linn._) _Boie_. BELTED KINGFISHER.—A pair seen
on Feb. 18, one of which was shot by a friend on Feb. 21.
78. =Geococcyx calfornianus= (_Less._) _Bd._ CHAPARRAL COCK.—Though
said by the inhabitants to be usually numerous, I found it rare during
my stay.
79. =Tinnunculus sparverius= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ SPARROW HAWK.—Common
winter visitant.
80. =Accipiter fuscus= (_Gm._) _Bp._ SHARP-SHINNED HAWK.—Common winter
visitant.
81. =Cathartes aura= (_Linn._) _Illig._ TURKEY BUZZARD.—Common
resident.
82. =Catharista atrata= (_Wils._) _Less._ BLACK VULTURE.—Common
resident.
83. =Zenaidura carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Bp._ CAROLINA DOVE.—In great
numbers throughout my stay.
84. =Meleagris gallopavo=, _Linn._ MEXICAN TURKEY.—The Boerne Hotel
occasionally favored its guests with Wild Turkey obtained of ranchmen
from the surrounding country, but I did not meet with the bird myself.
85. =Ortyx virginiana texana= (_Lawr._) _Coues_. TEXAS QUAIL.—Uncommon
resident. Nearly all of my specimens lack the outer one or two joints
of all the toes,—a result, perhaps, of excessive cold.
86. =Ardea herodias=, _Linn._ GREAT BLUE HERON.—Occasionally observed.
87. =Charadrius dominicus=, _Müll._ GOLDEN PLOVER.—Uncommon after
March 9, which was the date of its arrival.
88. =Oxyechus vociferus= (_Linn._) _Reich._ KILLDEER.—Abundant
resident.
89. =Podasocys montanus= (_Towns._) _Coues_. MOUNTAIN PLOVER.—Occurs
uncommonly in the migrations. A flock of about twenty individuals
encountered on Jan. 2; two specimens taken on March 15; and a flock of
a dozen or more seen on March 17. They were very tame, but, from some
peculiar constitutional trait, difficult to kill. This Plover was not
procured in southern Texas by Mr. Sennett nor by Dr. Merrill. It was,
however, met with by Mr. Dresser,[25] and two specimens obtained in
the State by other collectors are catalogued in the ninth volume of
Pacific Railroad Reports.
90. =Gallinago media wilsoni= (_Temm._) _Ridg._ WILSON’S SNIPE.—In the
course of the winter I met with perhaps a dozen individuals, at one
particular spot in the bed of the creek, where a little grass afforded
partial cover. Specimens which I shot are exactly similar to eastern
examples in plumage, but when freshly killed all agreed in having
pale, flesh-colored legs and feet—those of the female being tinged
with greenish-yellow. So far as my own experience goes, this is a
peculiarity never seen in eastern Snipe, in which the legs and feet
are olivaceous.
91. =Actodromas maculata= (_Vieill._) _Coues_. GRASS-BIRD.—One
specimen, March 21.
92. =Actodromas bairdi=, _Coues_. BAIRD’S SANDPIPER.—One specimen,
March 16. A Sandpiper seen on Feb. 18, and two small flocks seen in
March were also probably of this species.
93. =Totanus melanoleucus= (_Gm._) _Vieill._ GREAT YELLOW-LEGS.—One
seen, Jan. 1; three others observed in the last week of March.
94. =Rhyacophilus solitarius= (_Wils._) _Cass._ SOLITARY
SANDPIPER.—One specimen, March 25.
95. =Bartramia longicauda= (_Bechst._) _Bp._ UPLAND PLOVER.—First seen
on March 22, and but few noted subsequently.
96. =Numenius longirostris=, _Wils._ SICKLE-BILLED CURLEW.—Two
observed, Dec. 21.
97. =Numenius borealis= (_Forst._) _Lath._ ESQUIMAUX CURLEW.—Rather
common migrant, first seen on March 9.
98. =Grus canadensis= (_Linn._) _Temm._ SANDHILL CRANE.—Solitary
individuals occasionally noted.
99. =Anas obscura=, _Gm._ BLACK DUCK.—Small flocks rather unfrequently
found in the creek.
100. =Chaulelasmus streperus= (_Linn._) GRAY GADWALL.—I did not detect
this species until March 25, after which I found it uncommonly.
101. =Nettion carolinensis= (_Gm._) _Bd._ GREEN-WINGED TEAL.—Rare.
First seen Feb. 6.
102. =Fulix collaris= (_Donov._) _Bd._ RING-BILLED BLACK-HEAD.—One of
three shot, Feb. 27.
103. =Mergus merganser americanus= (_Cass._) _Ridg._ GOOSANDER.—Small
flocks observed in January.
104. =Plotus anhinga=, _Linn._ SNAKE-BIRD.—A female shot by a friend,
on March 24.
To the foregoing list of species actually taken or identified beyond
question, are to be added six others which I was unable to fix
decisively. These are a Hawk, believed to have been _Ictinia
subcærulea_, seen in pursuit of a Buzzard, on March 4; a red-tailed
_Buteo_ of which I saw a pair, Feb. 26; a shy, black _Buteo_, almost
undoubtedly _Buteo abbreviatus_, frequently observed about the
village; an Owl, apparently _Strix nebulosa_, several times scared up
in an unusually dense grove of deciduous trees; a Hummer, noted a few
times towards the close of my stay; and a beautiful _Larus_ which
hovered over the stage as it forded the creek, on my return journey to
San Antonio.
=Recent Literature.=
MEMORIAL VOLUME OF GARROD’S SCIENTIFIC PAPERS.[26] Garrod’s work is
apparently not so well known in this country as it must eventually
become, forming as it does a permanent way-mark in the progress of the
science, and contributing indispensable material for the solving of the
most vexed problem in ornithology—we mean a sound, rational
classification of birds, based on morphological data according to the
theory of genetic relationship, and as such one which any considerable
number of ornithologists can agree to adopt and stand by. As is well
understood, those of us who have no classification of our own to
advance, fall back upon some convention as make-shift, practically
waiving the points at issue. As far as taxonomy is concerned, the
present attitude of ornithology is thoroughly iconoclastic; but, while
we agree that much of what has been set up must be upset, few claim to
know what ought to replace the broken images, and fewer still agree on
that point. There is nevertheless a large amount of material at hand,
the soundness and utility of which no one questions; and of late years
Garrod has been both indefatigable and successful in setting bricks and
mortar. Of the anatomical papers in the present volume, some 73 in
number, more than half relate to birds, describing conditions of the
osseous, muscular, respiratory, vascular, digestive and nervous systems
which appear to promise most of value in taxonomy, and discussing in
candid and scientific spirit, from a vantage-ground of long experience,
the bearing of the anatomical points upon classification. Of the
accuracy and high rate of reliability of these papers there can be no
question; they are sufficiently lucid to shine with their own light, and
there is a certain “finish” about them which is truly admirable. This is
seen when the author is drawing the comparisons which his extensive
knowledge enables him to adduce, and summing his conclusions. These are
always clean-cut and luminous, so that we know exactly where to find
Garrod, whether we like him and agree with him or not. It is scarcely
possible that he has been exempt from the all but inevitable tendency of
the mind’s eye to magnify the particular subjects there focussed for the
time, and so get them more or less out of perspective of the whole range
of vision; but he seems to have known and guarded against this most
scrupulously, unless, perhaps the “ambiens” muscle proved too much for
him. On the whole, we do not think that even the warm praise of the
editor, his personal friend and admirer, is too much to say, and we
quote with pleasure:
“Of his zoölogical papers indeed, the ornithological ones must probably,
on account of their more novel character, and as affording entirely new
data for the solution of the various problems connected with the
classification of Birds, which he revolutionized, be considered of the
greater importance. No future worker in that group can neglect the facts
or ideas concerning it that we owe to Garrod, and they alone suffice to
put his name in the very first rank of those who have ever studied these
creatures, and to stamp his work on Birds as truly ‘Epochmachende.’ „
Garrod’s numerous papers, covering the period of 1871–79, are scattered
through various periodicals; and it is a subject for congratulation that
they have been collected in one convenient volume, under careful
editorship. At a meeting of the Zoölogical Club to consider the wish of
friends to possess some permanent memorial of Garrod, it was decided,
with wisdom and good taste which none can impugn, “that the most
appropriate and desirable one would be the publication, in a collected
form, of all the papers published by Garrod in various scientific
journals and periodicals, with a portrait and memoir of the author.”
This decision has been ably carried into effect by Mr. Forbes, whose own
contributions to the same subject already prove him to be one on whom
the mantle may fittingly descend. We wish there were more work of this
kind, even if not of the same highest quality, done by our own
countrymen; but at present no one of them seems especially interested
excepting Dr. Shufeldt, whose studies thus far possess much value and
give still more promise. Noticing only two or three American names on
the list of subscribers, we venture to hint that the work may be
procured by others in the usual way.
We cannot of course go into any examination of these papers in an
editorial notice like the present, or even adduce the leading results of
the author. It must suffice to say that among them is an entirely new
classification of birds, primarily based upon the ambiens. Among the
more important papers we may mention those on the carotid arteries; on
certain muscles of the leg (Garrod’s _pièce de resistance_); on the
anatomy of Pigeons, of Parrots, and of Passerine Birds; and on the
trachea in _Gallinæ_. All these are of general import, bearing on broad
questions of taxonomy, as distinguished from minor papers, however
valuable, in which special points are examined. The editor has done well
to preserve the original pagination of the text and numeration of the
illustrations for facility of citation, and the plates are said to be
faithfully reproduced.—E.C.
SHUFELDT’S OSTEOLOGY OF THE NORTH AMERICAN TETRAONIDÆ.[27]—This
osteological memoir is, so far as we know, the most complete of any on
American birds of one group. In general the descriptions, with the aid
of the numerous plates, can be easily understood. In treating of the
skull Dr. Shufeldt adopts the old theory that it is nothing but the
modified end of the back bone, and gives a diagramatic figure of the
skull of _Centrocercus_ much like that given by Owen of the Ostrich.
This view will of course be rejected by all who do not consider the
membrane and cartilage bones of the skull to be from the same source.
The use of “hyoid arch” when speaking of all the tongue bones is, we
think, liable to lead many young students astray; we would suggest
“hyobranchial arches,” or “hyoid arches.”
A point of considerable interest is a small ossicle which occurs at the
inner side of the II metacarpal—III metacarpal of Dr. Shufeldt’s
homologies of the hand—near its base. This bone is compared to the
pisiform bone of the Mammalia by the author. Besides this, two proximal
and two distal carpal bones are found, just as in the chick. Thus the
chick and the young _Centrocercus_ have the same structure of the hand
except the presence of a IV metacarpus in the first and a “pisiform” in
the second. We notice that the “index” is described as being composed of
only one phalanx; this we believe to be an oversight of the author; at
all events most of the European Gallinæ have two phalanges, the last one
bearing a claw. On reference to fig. 57 it will be seen that the distal
end of the first phalanx in _Centrocercus_ is very large and looks as if
there should be another joint. As regards the tarsus, Dr. Shufeldt has
been able to demonstrate the existence of a fibulare, tibiale, and
intermedium, which ultimately become anchylosed with the tibia. Dr.
Shufeldt also states that as a whole the different parts of this
skeleton in _Centrocercus_ are slow to anchylose, thus rendering the
bird an extremely favorable one for the study of the separate elements
of the skeleton.
The description of the osteology of _Lanius ludovicianus
excubitorides_,[28] by the same author, is short, concise, and may be
summed up in the statement that the skeleton of this bird is strictly
Passerine.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.
ILLUSTRATIONS OF OHIO NESTS AND EGGS.[29]—We are glad to record the
progress of this great work, of which we have had former occasions to
speak so highly. The ninth fascicle is the last which has reached us,
carrying the number of plates to twenty-seven, each with its sheet or so
of letter-press. The high standard of the work is on the whole
maintained, although, to our eye at least, the plates lack somewhat of
the peculiar attractiveness that the earlier ones had for us. It may,
however, be only the charm of novelty that we miss; and there is
certainly no falling off in the conscientious endeavor to unite fidelity
to nature with artistic excellence in depicting these beautiful objects.
Should the project be carried to completion, the work will certainly
become a standard of reference. It deserves to be better known and more
widely circulated than it appears thus far to have become, and we trust
that time will serve to make its merit fully appreciated.
The following are the plates of the two parts before us. (In No. 8) Pl.
22, _Cardinalis virginianus_ (the eggs shown in their remarkable
extremes of size and coloring); Pl. 23, fig. 1, _Vireo gilvus_ and fig.
2, _V. olivaceus_; Pl. 24, _Zenaidura carolinensis_; (in No. 9) Pl. 25,
fig. 1, _Trochilus colubris_, fig. 2, _Polioptila cærulea_ (and one is
interested to see that these nests are of identical orders of
architecture and ornamentation, however different in materials); Pl. 26,
_Spizella socialis_; Pl. 27, _Butorides virescens_.
The text continues as heretofore to consider the subjects under the
formal heads of—Locality—Position—Materials—Eggs—Differential
Points—Remarks; the latter head usually covering the most matter. We are
glad to see that the authors now fill, as a rule, their sheets of
letter-press—there is certainly enough to be said on the subject for
that! The pagination of the letter-press reaches p. 104 with the end of
No. 9.
It is never untimely to suggest that when works published in this manner
come to be bound, especially if the parts are made up in any other order
than sequence of publication, the original cover-titles should be
preserved; there being no intrinsic evidence, either in the text or on
the plates, of dates of publication or of contents of Parts; and it may
not be too early to suggest to the authors that explicit indication of
these points should be given with the permanent title, contents, etc.,
of the finished work.—E. C.
SHUFELDT’S “THE CLAW ON THE INDEX DIGIT OF THE CATHARTIDÆ.”[30]—We
regret being obliged to make unfavorable criticisms, but this paper
contains such important errors, both in regard to the structure of birds
and the literature of the subject, that some rectification seems
necessary. Dr. Shufeldt describes the claw at the end of the first
finger of _Catharista atrata_ as a new discovery, considering that claws
outside the Ostrich groups have not hitherto been described, and also
states that it is a point of distinction between the Old and New World
Vultures. Unfortunately Nitzsch[31] long ago described the claw on the
first finger of birds in the following words: “Die Analogie, welche die
Flügel der Vögel mit den Vorderfüssen der Säugthiere und Reptilien
haben, zeigt sich auch in den Spuren von Nägel- oder Klauenbildung,
welche an den Finger jener Glieder oftmals gefunden werden. Dieser
Bildung macht es zugleich wahrscheinlich, dass die Urform der Flügel in
der Fussform, oder doch in einer, dieser sehr ähnlichen, bestand; denn
die Nägel gehören den Füssen an, sie haben im Kreise der Flügelfunkzion
keine Bedeutung, und sind da wohl nur durch zweckloses Nachahmen und
Ueberbleiben der Fussform.” Farther on he describes the skeleton of the
hand as follows: “Die Hand der Vögel hat drei Finger, 1) den Daumen,
welcher (ohne das Nagelglied) aus einem Stücke, 2) den grossen Finger,
der (ohne das Nagelglied) aus zwei Stücken oder Gliedern, und 3) den
kleinen Finger, der stets nur aus einen Stücke besteht.” Since Nitzsch’s
memoir was written his observations have been extended, and mentioned by
many anatomists, as Meckel, in his Anatomy, by Blainville, by Selenka in
Bronn’s “Thiereichs,” by myself in this Bulletin for 1881, by Professor
Morse in the “Anniversary Memoirs” of the Boston Society of Natural
History. Accordingly the claw on the first finger is anything but an
unknown object. It is constantly demonstrating its existence to
practical ornithologists by pricking their fingers while measuring
bird’s wings. That the claw is absent in the Old World Vultures is also
an error if we may trust the high authority of Nitzsch, who wrote as
follows: “Unter den Raubvögeln einiges Geier, Adler, Falken; aber nicht
die Eulen—Am _Vultur percnopterus_ ist sie ziemlich stark, ungefähr
einen halb Zoll long zugespitzt und bräunlich vom Horne.” In fact, a
claw on the first finger is of very common occurrence, and is found,
according to the authorities given above, in the _Accipitres_,
_Herodiones_, _Palamedeæ_, _Anseres_, _Gallinæ_, _Fulicariæ_,
_Alectorides_, _Limicolæ_, _Gaviæ_, _Pygopodes_, _Crypturi_, and
_Struthiones_.
Here it may not be out of place to add that a claw has also been found
on the end of the second finger, by myself and Professor Morse, in
certain of the Winter Birds, and perhaps in some embryo Hawks: and that
as a rule the claws are much more conspicuous in young than in adult
birds.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.
PAPERS ON MINNESOTA BIRDS.[32]—Although the report containing these
papers was not generally circulated in 1881, a copy reached us in
December of that year. Dr. Hatch contributes a list of 281 species
briefly annotated—usually with only a line or two to each species
respecting the manner and character of its appearance in the State. In
explanation of its cursory style the author states that, as we regret to
learn, the original copy was destroyed by fire, “and it has been
impossible to give its re-writing the measure of carefulness which the
first manuscript received.” The most interesting entry is that of
_Querquedula cyanoptera_, which thus appears far from its recognized
range.
Mr. Roberts’ article treats much more fully of 52 species known to occur
in the State in winter, divided into the categories of “permanent
residents” (23), “winter visitants” (14), “half hardy” species (9), and
“accidental” ones (6), the information given conveying a good idea of
the bird-fauna at that season of the year. Doubtless owing to
circumstances for which neither author is responsible, each paper
bristles with typographical errors, few of which are corrected in the
accompanying erratum slip. We understand that a full list will accompany
the volumes as finally published.—E.C.
FREKE ON THE BIRDS OF AMELIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA.[33]—Our knowledge of the
birds of Eastern Virginia is so largely inferential that Mr. Freke has
done good service in publishing the results of six years’ observations
in Amelia County, at a point “about thirty miles south of Richmond.” His
list, which is freely annotated, includes 112 species. The Barn Swallow
is catalogued as a spring and fall migrant; the Tree Sparrow (_Spizella
montana_), as a rather uncommon winter visitor; the Field Sparrow, as
resident but most common in winter; the Chipping Sparrow as arriving
from the south late in March and as leaving during November; the Song
Sparrow as wintering but not breeding; the Blue Grosbeak as not uncommon
during the latter part of April and early in May, but, rather
unaccountably, as not being found in summer; the Ruffed Grouse as
plentiful in the mountains but not common in the low country, although a
few regularly nest there in thick pine woods.
The author has evidently fallen into some confusion regarding the
spotted-breasted Thrushes of the genus _Turdus_. Thus _T. “pallasi”_ is
characterized as a “resident species, apparently not migrating even in
the most partial manner.” In view of our very definite knowledge of the
Hermit’s distribution, such a statement by itself would be open to the
gravest suspicion, but when we add that Mr. Freke does not mention the
Wilson’s, Olive-backed, or Wood Thrushes as occurring at _any season_,
it is quite plain that the Hermit (_verus_) did duty as the winter bird,
the Olive-backed or Wilson’s Thrush filled the gap during the
migrations, and the Wood Thrush was the species that “builds its
clay-lined nest in the fork of some cedar or dogwood bush, at the height
of eight or ten feet from the ground, and there lays its blue eggs.” The
statement that _Dendræca coronata_ “is one of the commonest warblers in
the district, and spends [a] great part of the year there,” is not so
easily explained: but despite the still more explicit assurance that
“they come about the end of April, or the beginning of May, and remain
until very late in the autumn,” we cannot help thinking that some
mistake was made in the identification of the individuals seen in
summer.
Save in the last-named instances, however, there is no reason to doubt
that the author’s commendable practise of “verifying my observations, as
far as possible, by securing specimens and preserving skins” was
conscientiously carried out, and his paper will be read with interest,
not only as an exponent of the ornithology of a previously unworked
section, but also as embodying a foreigner’s pleasantly told impressions
of many of our familiar birds.—W. B.
LANGDON’S FIELD NOTES ON LOUISIANA BIRDS.[34]—These notes comprise “a
record of ornithological observations and collections made by the writer
during the month ending April 17th, 1881, at ‘Cinclaire’ plantation,
situated in the parish of West Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on the right bank
of the Mississippi, one hundred and twenty-seven miles by river above
New Orleans.”
The locality is described as “flat and uninteresting.... The cultivated
grounds are mainly comprised in a strip ranging from one to three miles
in width, along the rivers and principal bayous, the remainder of the
state being chiefly occupied by extensive forests and swamp lands.”
The author considers the list “of quite as much interest for what it
does _not_ include, as for what it _does_,” and comments on the apparent
absence of the Catbird, Long-billed Marsh Wren, Black-and-white Creeper,
Yellow-rumped, White-browed, Black-throated Green, Yellow Red-poll, and
Kentucky Warblers, Large-billed Water Thrush, Redstart, Song Sparrow,
and Common Pewee; to which he might with equal propriety have added the
Prothonotary and Blue-winged Yellow Warblers and the Acadian Flycatcher.
But we cannot believe with him that the non-occurrence, on the present
occasion, of most of these species has any special significance, either
as affecting their general distribution in, or usual migration through,
the region of which the paper treats. The country about “Cinclaire” may
have been unsuited to the habits of some of them, while the early date
of Dr. Langdon’s departure, taken in connection with the exceptional
lateness of the season, will sufficiently explain his failure to detect
a number of the migratory ones which have been found near the mouth of
the Mississippi by Mr. Henshaw, and which are well known to extend over
the Mississippi valley at large only a few hundred miles further to the
northward.
Dr. Langdon’s thoroughness and energy as a field collector are, however,
so well known through the medium of his valuable papers on Ohio birds,
that we may rest assured that his work at “Cinclaire” was well done, and
the paper will be welcomed as an acceptable contribution to our
knowledge of a region which has been nearly a _terra incognita_ to
ornithologists since the days of Audubon.—W. B.
KRIDER’S FIELD NOTES.[35]—In an unpretending little pamphlet of some
eighty odd pages Mr. Krider has “endeavored to describe and give the
history of only those species of birds of the United States” which he
has “collected and mounted,” and whose nests have come under his
personal observation. Had this plan been carried out with only ordinary
forethought and intelligence it could scarcely have failed to result in
a valuable contribution to our knowledge of North American birds, for
Mr. Krider’s long experience as a field collector must have afforded
unusual opportunities for original investigation and observation. But a
casual glance through the pages of his work is enough to show that these
opportunities have been sadly neglected. Important records are given
without dates and often with only a vague or inferential assignment of
locality, while improbable statements and palpable errors are of
frequent occurrence. In short, it is only too evident that Mr. Krider’s
“Notes” are the offspring of a fading memory rather than the carefully
kept data of a systematic worker. Moreover, the author writes from a
standpoint at least twenty-five years behind the times, and consequently
ignores all the various developments affecting classification and the
relationship of allied species and races. From all this chaff it is of
course possible to separate some sound grain, but most of the really
important records were published long ago by Turnbull, Cassin, and other
writers. Of the literary execution of the present work we can say
nothing favorable. It is to be regretted that the author could not have
recognized his unfitness in this respect, and, as on a former occasion,
have secured the services of a competent editor.—W. B.
LANGDON’S ZOÖLOGICAL MISCELLANY.[36]—In the last issue of its well-known
“Journal,” the Cincinnati Society of Natural History publishes the first
of a series of articles entitled “Zoölogical Miscellany,” the aim and
scope of which are thus tersely defined by the editor, Dr. F. W.
Langdon:—
“Under the above caption it is proposed to bring together from time to
time such facts as may be deemed worthy of record, respecting the
structure, the life history, or the geographical distribution of the
various species of animals constituting the Ohio Valley Fauna.”
The part before us includes sections on mammalogy, ornithology,
herpetology, ichthyology, conchology, and entomology. In general terms,
it may be said that all of these are well sustained, but in the present
connection we have to do only with the one relating to birds. This
contains a number of interesting notes, a large proportion of which are
from the editor’s pen, although a few are signed by Mr. E. R. Quick, Mr.
A. W. Butler, Dr. Howard E. Jones, and other more or less well-known
names. Most of these notes relate chiefly to the local presence or
distribution of certain birds within the Ohio Valley, but one or two
possess a wider interest. Among the latter we notice an announcement by
Dr. Langdon of the detection of the Oak-woods Sparrow (_Peucæa æstivalis
illinoensis_, Ridgway) near Bardstown, Nelson County, Kentucky, “about
one hundred miles southwest of Cincinnati.” The specimen was taken April
28, 1877, by Mr. C. W. Beckham, who referred it to Dr. Langdon for
identification.
In addition to his numerous notes, the editor contributes a short but
useful paper on the “Introduction of European Birds.” From this it
appears that “during the years 1872, ’73 and ’74, about nine thousand
dollars were expended in the purchase and importation of European birds,
their average cost to import being about four dollars and fifty cents a
pair. According to this estimate some four thousand individuals were
introduced.” This great outlay was borne by the “Acclimation Society of
Cincinnati” and we believe that most of the birds were turned out in the
neighborhood of that city; but, according to Dr. Langdon, the experiment
has practically proved a failure.
If the present instalment of “Zoölogical Miscellany” may be taken as a
fair criterion of future issues, its favorable reception by naturalists
is a matter of no uncertainty, and under Dr. Langdon’s able editing we
look to see its popularity widely extended, even though its field be
restricted to the Ohio Valley.—W. B.
HOFFMAN ON THE BIRDS OF NEVADA.[37]—In the present paper Dr. Hoffman has
done good service to ornithology by tabulating the two hundred and fifty
species and varieties of birds which he considers are entitled to a
place in the avi-fauna of Nevada. The list is based partly upon the
writer’s personal experience in the field during the season of 1871, but
mainly upon the previously published reports of Mr. Ridgway, Mr. Henshaw
and Dr. Yarrow, and Dr. J. G. Cooper. It hence partakes largely of the
nature of a compilation, although the author’s original notes are by no
means few or uninteresting.
The paper begins with a pertinent chapter entitled “Remarks on the
distribution of vegetation in Nevada as affecting that of the avi-fauna”
and closes with a bibliographical list of the chief publications
relating to the region considered, and an excellent map of the state.
The list proper is freely annotated and the numerous and often extended
quotations are always apt and interesting. The work, generally, has been
so well done that we find few points open to adverse criticism. There is
however an evident tendency on the author’s part to swell the number of
species and varieties by the enrollment of many which have been taken or
observed near the borders of the state but not as yet actually within
its limits. We are aware that Dr. Hoffman has some high authority for
adopting this course but we are none the less inclined to deprecate it,
believing that it is time enough to catalogue a species when it has
actually been found within the limits treated. In the present case,
however, it must be admitted that there are good grounds for supposing
that most of these extra-limitals will eventually turn up in Nevada.
Dr. Hoffman’s paper ranks easily among the higher class of publications
to which it belongs and should find a place in the hands of every
working ornithologist.—W. B.
=General Notes.=
THE TUFTED TITMOUSE ON STATEN ISLAND, N. Y.—I shot a specimen of this
species (_Lophophanes bicolor_) on the 24th of August, 1881, in a thick
wood, a few miles south of Port Richmond, a small town on the north
shore of Staten Island, N. Y.—DANIEL E. MORAN, _Brooklyn, N.Y._
NESTING OF THE WHITE-BELLIED WREN (_Thryothorus bewicki
leucogaster_).—This Wren is abundant in Northern Arizona, where I saw it
and heard it singing most constantly, during the month of June, while
traveling from Fort Whipple to view the Grand Cañon of the Colorado. The
birds were particularly numerous in the vicinity of cañons and arroyos,
and in the patches of red cedar and piñon pine that stretch away from
mountain sides to the valley ground of the Colorado Plateau. At a
water-hole about midway on my journey, it so happened that my tent was
pitched beneath a cedar where, as I was soon satisfied by their vehement
scolding, a pair of the Wrens were protesting against such intrusion
upon their privacy. In a little while, however, finding themselves
unmolested they quieted down, resumed their song at intervals, and were
soon after busily engaged in bringing insects to their family. Having
explored a deserted Woodpecker’s hole, only to find it empty, I at
length saw one of the birds disappear in the hollow end of a blasted
horizontal bough about eight feet from the ground. The entrance was too
narrow to admit my arm, but by breaking away some of the rotten wood I
at length got a glimpse of the nest, and could just put a finger over
the edge of it far enough to feel the little birds. I should have
despoiled the household had there been eggs; but as it was I refrained,
and for a day or two was much interested in watching the happy, devoted
pair, bubbling over with joyous music as they assiduously cared for
their little family, now coming and going undisturbed by the group of
men who shared the luxury of this fragrant cedar shade. This was June 7;
returning a week afterward, the pretty spot was a “banquet hall
deserted”; so that I did not hesitate to break into the bough and remove
the nest. It contained two dead young ones, upon which a troop of ugly
carrion-beetles were rioting and feasting. The nest was quite unlike
what a House Wren’s would have been under the same circumstances, having
none of the trash with which these queer birds would have surrounded it;
it rested upon the horizontal floor of the cavity, upon a bed of
wood-mould and cedar-berries, about a foot from the ragged entrance of
the hollow. It was a neat structure, about 4 inches across outside, by
half as much in internal diameter, cupped to a depth of an inch and a
half. Outside was a wall of small cedar twigs interlaced, and next came
a layer of finely frayed inner bark strips from the same tree; but the
bulk of the nest consisted of matted rabbit-fur stuck full of feathers,
among which those of the Carolina Dove were conspicuous. These latter
birds are extremely abundant all over Arizona and in the dry season they
are often at such straits for water as to congregate in immense flocks
at the water-holes, few and far between, which alone render it possible
to traverse some parts of the unblest Territory. On the morning of which
I write, reveille was sounded by the clapping and whistling of a
thousand eager wings, now venturing near, then frightened from the
coveted water where men and animals were crowding. In other times, the
Dove brought tidings of dry land; in Arizona now, where everything goes
by contraries, river-sites are many, but the sight of a Dove is a surer
sign of water.—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._
AN ERRONEOUS RECORD OF THE ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER (_Helminthophaga
celata_) IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.—In Vol. III, pp. 96, 97 of this Bulletin, Mr.
John Murdoch recorded the capture of an Orange-crowned Warbler at the
Isles of Shoals, New Hampshire, by the Messrs. Bangs of Boston. I have
lately had an opportunity of examining this specimen and find it to be a
Tennessee Warbler (_Helminthophaga peregrina_), in the ordinary autumnal
plumage. It is but just to the Messrs. Bangs to state that they are not
to be held responsible for this blunder, the bird having been submitted
by them to an ornithologist of some standing, one in whose determination
they placed perfect confidence. Nor can Mr. Murdoch (who I believe took
all his facts at second hand) be blamed for accepting the same supposed
good authority.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
ON THE GENERIC NAME _Helminthophaga_.—The change of a generic name,
especially one long established, is in any case unfortunate, and in the
present instance seems particularly so; yet the plain rules of
zoölogical nomenclature leave no alternative. The generic name
_Helminthophaga_, proposed in 1850 by Cabanis for a well-known group of
American Warblers, was used in a sub-generic sense about forty-seven
years previously, by Bechstein, who, in 1803 (Taschenbuch, p. 548),
included under this name the Nightingale and Redbreast of Europe
(_Luscinia philomela_ and _Erithacus rubecula_); in consequence of which
(no other name having, apparently, been proposed for the group in
question) it becomes necessary to rename the genus so long called
_Helminthophaga_. In proposing a new name, which I am very reluctant to
do, I have selected the term _Helminthophila_, on account of its
similarity to the one so long in use. It is proper to state here that my
attention was called to this point by Dr. L. Stejneger, the eminent
Norwegian ornithologist.
Leaving out _H. lawrencei_ and _H. leucobronchialis_, which Mr. Brewster
has pretty clearly proven to be hybrids of _H. pinus_ and _H.
chrysoptera_, the known species of this genus are as follows:—
1. _Helminthophila bachmani_ (Aud.).
2. _Helminthophila chrysoptera_ (Linn.).
3. _Helminthophila pinus_ (Linn.).
4. _Helminthophila ruficapilla_ (Wils.).
5. _Helminthophila virginiæ_ (Baird).
6. _Helminthophila celata_ (Say).
7. _Helminthophila peregrina_ (Wils.).
8. _Helminthophila luciæ_ (Cooper).—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._
_Dendrœca palmarum_ AGAIN IN MASSACHUSETTS.—The first capture of
_Dendrœca palmarum_ in Massachusetts was that of a single bird taken by
Mr. Arthur Smith at Brookline, about the middle of October, 1878. (See
note by Mr. Ruthven Deane, Bull. Nutt. Club, Vol. IV, page 60.) I have
the pleasure of announcing the capture of two additional specimens. The
first was taken at Cambridge, September 13, 1880, and was shot on an
apple tree while in company with several other Warblers. The second was
shot at Belmont, September 7, 1881, from the top of a yellow pine. The
marked difference in the intensity of the yellow of the breast and under
tail-coverts first attracted my attention to this bird. Never having met
with _D. palmarum hypochrysea_ in the autumn, I thought both birds to be
of this variety until quite recently, when my friend Mr. William
Brewster identified them for me and found them to be genuine _D.
palmarum_.—HENRY M. SPELMAN, _Cambridge, Mass._
_Ampelis cedrorum_ AS A SAP-SUCKER.—The Cedar, or Cherry-Bird seems
never to be very abundant in this section of the State; but early in the
spring, when the birds first arrived from the south, I saw quite a large
number of them, and observed what was to me a new habit. They resorted
to the maple trees for the purpose of gathering the sap flowing from
wounds made by the ice in the bark of the smaller branches. The birds
would grasp a branch or twig with their claws, and partially swing
themselves under it and drink the sap where it hung in drops. For a week
or more these birds were so plentiful and so intent upon their
sap-gathering that one was almost certain to find a flock wherever there
was a group of maples. I took considerable pains to ascertain if this
habit was shared by any other bird, but did not observe a single
instance. In the Eastern States I have often seen squirrels drinking sap
from the branches in this way, but never before saw it done by a
bird.—F. E. L. BEAL, _Ames, Iowa_.
CAPTURE OF _Plectrophanes lapponicus_ IN CHESTER, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Mr.
Leverett M. Loomis writes me that on January 1, 1881, he shot a single
individual of this species from a small flock of Shore Larks, which were
feeding upon offal in a barnyard. There appears to be no previous record
of the occurrence of this species in South Carolina.—J. A. ALLEN,
_Cambridge, Mass._
OCCURRENCE OF _Coturniculus lecontei_ IN CHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH
CAROLINA.—Near the town of Chester, S. C., on the dividing ridge between
the Broad and Catawba Rivers, there is an “old field” of some two
hundred acres that has been lying out, until recently, for a number of
years. Here and there are patches of newly-sown grain, but the greater
portion is now in broom-sedge and weedy stubble and corn land. Near the
middle there is a small “wet-weather branch,” which empties into a large
creek a mile distant. November 11, 1881, in this locality, in the weedy
stubble, my first specimen of Le Conte’s Bunting was secured. Nov. 16, a
second was taken in the broom-sedge near the same spot. Nov. 17, a third
was shot, and several others were seen. Dec. 3, three more were
captured; two in the broom-sedge, and the remaining one in the swamp
grass bordering the “branch.” Dec. 10, my last visit to the field, six
additional specimens were taken, and as many more were seen. I am not
aware that the species has hitherto been reported as occurring so far
east as South Carolina—LEVERETT M. LOOMIS, _Chester, S. C._
THE SHARP-TAILED FINCH IN KANSAS.—Col. N. S. Goss, of Neosho Falls,
Kansas, wrote me under date of Oct. 17, 1881, that he had killed what he
thought was a male Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Finch. Two days later he shot
another, which he kindly sent me. The bird proved to be, as Mr. Goss
supposed, _Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni_. The birds were killed “at the
edge of a slough, on the low bottom lands of the Neosho River, about two
miles from Neosho Falls.” This discovery is of special interest as
indicating that the Sharp-tailed Finch, formerly supposed to be strictly
maritime in its distribution, may be found locally over a wide range in
the interior.—J. A. ALLEN, _Cambridge, Mass._
NOTE ON _Mitrephanes_, A NEW GENERIC NAME.—The name _Mitrephorus_ of
Sclater, P. Z. S., 1859, p. 44, is preoccupied in Coleoptera by
_Mitrephorus_, Schönh., 1837, emended _Mitrophorus_, Burm., 1844. It may
therefore be changed to _Mitrephanes_; type _Mitrephanes phæocercus_
(Scl.); including _Mitrephanes aurantiiventris_ (Lawr.), if not also
_Mitrephanes fulvifrons_ (Grd.), and its var. _pallescens_
(Coues).—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._
NESTING OF _Empidonax minimus_ AND _Helmintherus vermivorus_ IN
PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY.—Although instances of the breeding of the
Least Flycatcher within the limits of Pennsylvania and New Jersey have
been affirmed by Turnbull and one or two other authorities, a precise
record cannot perhaps be found that will prove it to breed as far south
as Philadelphia. Having found a nest and clutch of eggs belonging to
this species, June 1, 1881, and satisfactorily identified the parent
birds by shooting them, it is thought that this notice may prove of
interest as perhaps removing doubts as to the accuracy of Turnbull’s
statement. _E. minimus_ escaped the notice of the writer till the spring
of 1880, when two pairs were noticed in June in the suburbs of
Philadelphia, but any nests which may have existed escaped my
observation. The present year (1881) I first noticed them in Delaware
County, Pa., two pairs taking up their abode in an orchard surrounding
the house. Here the above mentioned nest was found, placed on a drooping
branch of an apple tree fifteen feet above the ground. The species was
seen and heard singing about six miles west of Camden, New Jersey, in
June, and again in July at the same place; is it not just therefore to
suppose this pair had a nest near the spot?
Worm-eating Warblers were noticed in full song in the vicinity of
Marple, Delaware County. Pa., as early as the last week in April, and
whilst on a collecting trip in May I procured three males and a female
in southern Chester County, and on dissecting the latter I was surprised
to find in her oviduct a partly shelled egg. On the 16th of June, 1881,
a ramble in the woods resulted in finding a brood of young of this
species scarcely able to fly; one of them is now in my collection and
another just missed the same claim to immortality. The old birds were
exceedingly solicitous but so wary that three shots failed to procure
either of them.
Near Camden, New Jersey, I procured a female Worm-eating Warbler in the
latter part of July, 1880; its actions and the time of year caused me to
infer it had young near by.—SAMUEL N. RHOADS, _Haddonfield, N. J._
CUCKOOS LAYING IN THE NESTS OF OTHER BIRDS.—As far as my knowledge
extends, there are only four instances known, in which the eggs of
_Coccygus americanus_ have been found in other bird’s nests, namely, the
two given by Nuttall, in nests of Catbird and one by Langdon in Robin’s,
and that mentioned by Ridgway in _Coccygus erythrophthalmus_. I was not
a little astonished to find last Saturday, June 4. 1881, an egg of the
Yellow-billed Cuckoo in a Catbird’s nest, and near by another one in the
nest of a Black-billed Cuckoo. The Catbird’s nest contained only one egg
of its rightful owner; another Catbird’s egg was found broken on the
ground. The Cuckoo’s egg was fresh, but the Catbird’s egg was incubated.
The nest of the Black-billed Cuckoo contained besides the parasitic egg,
which was fresh, two eggs, both incubated, but one much more than the
other, the embryo being fully developed. The parent bird (_Coccygus
erythrophthalmus_) was sitting, but left when the tree was ascended and
stationed itself on a near tree to watch our movements.
The circumstances attending the discovery of these two eggs make me
think that such cases of parasitic Cuckoo’s eggs might not be so very
exceptional and still evade the watchful eye of the collecting oölogist
or of the observing ornithologist. I went out to look for nests of
_Empidonax acadicus_. I took my nephew, a lad of fifteen, with me to
assist in taking down nests from trees. In passing a thicket by the
wayside, he looked in and immediately called out, “a big nest, blue
eggs.” Judging from the surroundings, I replied without taking the
trouble to look at the thing, “a Catbird’s nest; let it alone.” We
passed on and after a little while a Catbird crossed our way. He saw the
bird and I told him that this was the Catbird whose nest he had just
found. He wondered that a bird of this size lays such large eggs.
Inquiring how large the egg was, he showed the size with thumb and
index. I smiled and said it was not exactly that big, but he insisted,
and I concluded to walk back and look at the eggs, when the discovery
was made. Who cares to look into each of the dozen of Catbird’s nests we
find in the course of a season? We are satisfied to know that this is
the nest of the Robin, the Wood thrush, the Catbird; but we do not think
of taking the trouble to look every time at their eggs or young.
Still more likely to elude discovery would the strange egg be in the
other Cookoo’s nest. In this neighborhood at least are the Cuckoo’s
nests generally amidst such a terribly entangled mass of wild vine that
we do not care to go up for mere pleasure. I do not know how regular
egg-collectors go to work; other ornithologists may operate differently.
My case may be no measure. I give it only to draw attention to the
matter, and I have made up my mind to despise no more Catbirds’s nests
in future.—O. WIDMAN, _St. Louis, Mo._
[Mr. Widman has overlooked a note which appeared in an early number of
this Bulletin (Vol. II, p. 110), where three instances of the laying of
our Cuckoos in other bird’s nests are given. Years ago when I used to
take many Cuckoo’s nests each season in the apple orchards about
Cambridge it was no uncommon thing to find an egg of the Black-billed
species in a clutch of the Yellow-bills, and on more than one occasion,
but less often, the situation would be reversed. An instance of the
latter kind came under my notice in 1878, when at Belmont, Mass., I
found a nest of the Black-billed Cuckoo which contained, besides two
eggs of the rightful proprietor, a single one of the Yellow-bill.
Speaking from memory, and without consulting my notes on the subject, I
should say that at least ten per cent of the Cuckoo’s nests that I have
found contained eggs of both species. But in no case have I ever seen
the eggs of either kind in the nests of other birds.—WILLIAM BREWSTER.]
_Melanerpes erythrocephalus_ ABOUT BOSTON.—Massachusetts, at least the
extreme eastern part, has shared in the flight of Red-headed Woodpeckers
that has been reported as visiting Southern Connecticut last fall.[38]
During the latter part of September, through October and into November,
the oak groves in the suburbs of Boston were tenanted by numbers of
these truly handsome birds. I should judge that about one third were in
full plumage, and their conspicuous dress attracting attention many were
shot. Twelve years ago the individual occurrence of this species among
us was thought worthy of record. Of late years, during the months above
named, it has become a more frequent though irregular visitor, but never
in such numbers as have recently shown themselves. In spring or summer
it is rarely seen, yet an instance of its nesting in Brookline is given
me by Mr. H. K. Job, who early in June, 1878, found five eggs in the
hole of an apple tree. According to Dr. C. Hart Merriam, this Woodpecker
is a common resident of Lewis County, N. Y.[39] May not our _visitors_
have come from that direction?—H. A. PURDIE, _Newton, Mass._
THE BARN OWL IN MAINE: A RETRACTION.—In the Bulletin for January, 1877,
p. 28, I added the Barn Owl (_Aluco flammeus americanus_) to the
catalogue of Maine birds, basing the record upon a specimen, which I had
examined, in the possession of a taxidermist then of Portland. I very
much regret to say that I now believe the account given me of this
bird’s capture within our state limits to have been false. Several other
statements in relation to ornithology have since been made me by the
same man, of a character so improbable and with such contradictory
details that they can only be regarded as wilfully and utterly untrue.
Their author has recently left the city under circumstances which dispel
any doubts which may previously have existed as to the reliability of
his word. I cannot longer be responsible for a statement emanating from
such a source, and wish to formally withdraw the name of the Barn Owl
from the list of birds known to occur in Maine.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN,
_Portland, Maine_.
THE SNOWY OWL AT FORT WALLA WALLA, W. T.—On November 10, 1881, one of my
men shot here a female of this species (_Nyctea scandiaca_), which I
have made into a fine skin. I reported the capture of one on December 1,
1880 (see this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 128), and these two are the only
records known to me for the Pacific coast. The occurrence of this
species here seems to be much rarer than in the Eastern States.—CHARLES
BENDIRE, _Fort Walla Walla, W. T._
CAPTURE OF THE GOLDEN EAGLE IN CRAWFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—A Golden
Eagle (_Aquila chrysaëtus canadensis_) was shot in Rookdale Township
this (Crawford) County on December 10, under the following
circumstances. A farmer, by the name of Hull, early one morning saw the
bird fly from a carcass in his field to the woods some distance off. He
conceived the idea that it would return to the carrion and at once made
a blind of the rails of a fence near by. The following morning he
repaired to the blind long before daylight with gun in hand, and,
although he was well concealed and waited patiently until nearly noon,
no bird put in an appearance. Nothing daunted, however, he repeated the
watching on the second morning, and about eight o’clock was rewarded by
the return of the bird, which he shot. The eagle was purchased by Mr.
Roe Reisinger of our city and is now mounted. It is the first recorded
specimen, I believe, of this species taken in this county. The sex I
could not ascertain, as the entire contents of the bird’s body were
drawn by Mr. Hull before bringing it to town, but from the following
dimensions I should judge it to be a young female: Extent, 83 inches;
wing, 24.50 inches; tail, 15 inches. Tail about two-thirds white. The
black terminal zone was about four inches deep on outer quills and about
one and one-half inches deep on the centre ones. The general color of
the bird is brown, with wings almost deep black. The hood extends well
down on the nape and is of a light tawny brown, approaching the golden
hue probably as much as any of them do. The tarsus is well covered with
feathers to the toes. On the whole it is a very clean and perfect
specimen.—GEORGE B. SENNETT, _Meadville, Pa._
THE SWALLOW-TAILED KITE IN DAKOTA.—On November 14, 1881, when a short
distance west of Jamestown, Dakota Territory, I saw several
Swallow-tailed Kites (_Elanoïdes forficatus_) flying around apparently
in search of food. The day was clear and the Kites were much separated;
one even was seen alone skimming along an alkali lake, showing every
indication of searching for food. On November 17, farther to the west,
about midway between Jamestown and Bismark, near the line of the
Northern Pacific Railroad, I saw some fifty more of these beautiful
birds, but this time in a flock, and each movement being common with
them all it was a glorious sight. The weather had changed from that of
the 14th, and was now cloudy with a brisk wind from the northwest,
accompanied at times by a slight shower of rain, but this change they
seemed to enjoy. So easily did they ride the storm, so beautiful were
their evolutions, so much at home did they appear in mid-air, that when
they had passed out of sight I was pained, for in this northern latitude
such a sight is of very rare occurrence.—D. H. TALBOT, _Sioux City, Ia._
A REMARKABLE SPECIMEN OF THE PINNATED GROUSE (_Cupidonia cupido_).—While
overhauling some Grouse in the Boston markets a few years since I came
across a specimen which exhibits the following peculiarities of plumage:
Adult ♂ (No. 2691, author’s collection, Boston Markets, February 27,
1873—said to have come from Iowa). Ground-color above warm,
brownish-cinnamon. Shorter neck-tufts or pinnate coverts, bright
reddish-brown. Breast, reddish-chestnut, becoming almost clear chestnut
anteriorly. A band or collar of broad, stiff feathers extends
continuously around the neck in front and across the lower portion of
the jugulum about in a line with the neck-tufts. These feathers although
less stiff than the longest ones in the neck-tufts, are nevertheless
quite as much so as the shorter ones. They make a conspicuous ruff which
is mainly black mixed with a good deal of reddish-chestnut. The latter
color on the shorter and overlapping feathers occurs in the form of
narrow central stripes, which in some cases are nearly orange in tint;
on the longer ones as a more or less broad, lateral margining.
I offer the above description solely for the purpose of calling
attention to this remarkable specimen for I am entirely at a loss to
account for its peculiarities. Several who have seen it have suggested
that it may be a hybrid between the Prairie Hen and the Ruffed Grouse,
but this hypothesis seems hardly a probable one, inasmuch as none of the
combined characters which would be expected in such an offspring are
here presented. The ruff does indeed remotely suggest that of _Bonasa_,
but otherwise the bird shows all the well-marked structural characters
of _Cupidonia_. To simply say that it is abnormal will hardly satisfy
the numerous investigators of this pushing age of inquiry.—WILLIAM
BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
WILSON’S PLOVER (_Ægialites wilsonius_) IN NEW ENGLAND.—Mr. W. A.
Stearns sends me a letter from Mr. Arthur S. Fiske, dated Gurnet, Conn.,
Aug. 22, 1877. “This morning I shot a bird of this species on the beach
at the south of the hotel. It was alone, though there were several
flocks of other Plovers near at hand. In note and actions it closely
resembled the Piping Plover, but was larger and lighter colored. Capt.
Hall called it the ‘Pale Ring-neck,’ and said he had seen it at the
Gurnet before.” The description given by Mr. Fiske (length 7.75 inches;
bill fully 1 inch, black, etc.) leaves no doubt that the bird was
Wilson’s Plover.—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._
CAPTURE OF BAIRD’S SANDPIPER ON LONG ISLAND.—On September 22, 1880, I
shot a specimen of _Tringa bairdi_ on Montauk, Long Island. The bird was
in a flock of “Peeps” (_Ereunetes pusillus_), feeding on the beach of
Great Pond, a brackish lake often in communication with the Sound. It so
closely resembled the “Peeps” that I only noticed it on account of its
larger size. The skin I preserved, though badly cut by the shot.—DANIEL
E. MORAN, _Brooklyn, N. Y._
[This is apparently the first known occurrence of this species on the
Atlantic Coast south of New England.—EDD.]
AN ADDITION TO THE MAINE FAUNA.—On October 8, 1881, I received from Mr.
Alpheus G. Rogers, of Portland, an immature specimen of _Rallus
elegans_, the King Rail, which he shot on Scarborough Marsh, on the
morning of that day. This species is new to the State of Maine, and has
occurred in New England only about half a dozen times.
Its previous New England record is as follows: (1) Stratford, Conn.,
breeding, Linsley, Am. Jour. Sci. and Arts, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, p. 267.
(2) Portland. Conn., one specimen: (3) Saybrook, Conn., one specimen,
Merriam, Rev. Birds Conn., p. 115. (4) Nahant, Mass., one specimen,
Purdie, this Bulletin, Vol. II. p. 22. (5) Sudbury Meadows, Mass., one
specimen, Purdie, this Bulletin, Vol. III, p. 146.—NATHAN CLIFFORD
BROWN, _Portland, Maine_.
CAPTURE OF _Larus leucopterus_ NEAR BOSTON.—In November last Mr. Charles
I. Goodale showed me an immature specimen of _Larus leucopterus_ in the
flesh, which he stated was shot near Boston. The bird is now in my
collection.—CHARLES B. CORY, _Boston, Mass._
THE GREAT BLACK-BACKED GULL (_Larus marinus_) FROM A NEW LOCALITY.—Mr.
Howard Saunders, in his excellent synopsis of the _Larinæ_ (P. Z. S.,
1878, pp. 155–212), p. 180, in defining the known range of this species,
says that there is “no record from the American side of the Pacific,”
but that he had “examined undoubted specimens from Japan,” this being
considered “a very great extension of its previously known range.”
During the present year the National Museum has received specimens of
this species, in alcohol, from Herald Island, in the Arctic Ocean,
northwest of Behring’s Straits, and from Port Clarence on the American
side of the Straits, the former collected by Captain C. M. Hooper, of
the U. S. Revenue Cutter “Corwin,” the latter by Dr. T. H. Bean, of the
National Museum.—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._
THE SNAKE-BIRD IN KANSAS.—Prof. F. H. Snow, of the University of Kansas,
writes as follows: “I have the pleasure of informing you of the capture
of a specimen of the Snake-bird, _Plotus anhinga_, in the Solomon Valley
in Western Kansas. It was taken in August of this year by C. W. Smith,
Esq., of Stockton, and the skin is now in my possession.”—ELLIOTT COUES,
_Washington, D. C._
CAPTURE OF THE SEA DOVE 150 MILES FROM THE SEA:—On November 8th, 1881, a
Sea Dove (_Alle nigricans_), was shot in the Hudson River, at
Lansingburg, by Alfred Benjamin of that village. The bird was mounted by
William Gibson of the same place, and is in his collection.—AUSTIN F.
PARK, _Troy, N. Y._
ADDITIONS TO THE CATALOGUE OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS.—The following list
includes all the species that have been added to the North American
fauna since the publication of the “Nomenclature of North American
Birds.” The numbers given these additional species indicate their
position in the list; and I would suggest that any author publishing a
species new to our fauna do the same, so that collectors and others may
know its number.
440.* =Buteo fuliginosus= _Scl._ LITTLE BLACK HAWK.
440.** =Buteo brachyurus= _Vieill._ SHORT-TAILED HAWK; WHITE-FRONTED
HAWK.
708.* =Puffinus borealis= _Cory_. NORTHERN SHEARWATER.
717.* =Œstrelata gularis= (_Peale_) _Brewster_. PEALE’S PETREL.—ROBERT
RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._
NOTES ON SOME BIRDS OF THE BELT MOUNTAINS, MONTANA TERRITORY.—The
following observations were made in the southern range of the Belt
Mountains, latitude about 46° 30′, some miles to the west and south of
the head-waters of the Musselshell, from which the land, intersected by
frequent smaller streams, gradually rises to the foot of the low
mountains, which are mostly forest-clad and of some 6,000 feet
elevation. The streams have little or no timber save in the mountains or
among the foot-hills where scattering firs appear; but willows grow in
dense thickets along the bank, striving apparently by numbers to make up
for any lack in size.
The notes extend from June 22 to July 3, 1880, three days excepted, when
the writer was absent. All the birds were found within an area of a
square mile, perhaps less, but the locality was unusually favorable,
including several patches of burnt timber, a large open tract stretching
up the mountain side to almost the summit, and two streams flowing in
rather open cañons with clumps of willows on either bank.
Several interesting birds which were sought for unsuccessfully at this
time I have since found in the Belt Range, viz. _Cinclus mexicanus_,
_Cyanocitta stelleri_ (_macrolopha?_) and _Tetrao canadensis franklini_.
Skins of most of the species mentioned were preserved.
1. =Turdus migratorius propinquus.=—Common. A bird nesting June 25.
2. =Turdus fuscescens.=—Found only in the cañons. Common.
3. =Sialia arctica.=—Nesting in deserted Woodpecker’s holes.
4. =Regulus calendula.=—Everywhere among the firs.
5. =Parus montanus.=—Common. It never whistles more than two successive
notes, at least I have never heard it.
6. =Sitta carolinensis aculeata.=—One pair found breeding in the
knot-hole of a large fir. Young hatched on or shortly before the 25
June.
7. =Neocorys spraguei.=—A pair breeding on a high, grass-covered knoll
just outside the timber. The male was often observed flying high
overhead, constantly shifting his position, but keeping at about the
same elevation while uttering his song—a rather monotonous carol, unless
one is sufficiently near to hear the wonderful resonance of the blended
notes.
8. =Dendrœca auduboni.=—Common.
9. =Pyranga ludoviciana.=—Rather common. A female observed nest-building
June 26, the male meantime singing in a neighboring treetop. July 3 the
nest was apparently completed but without eggs. It was built in a fir
some thirty feet from the ground and about midway on a small horizontal
limb where several twigs projected out on either side.
10. =Cotyle riparia.=—Swallows apparently of this species were seen
flying high overhead. Their homes were found lower down on the streams.
11. =Vireo gilvus swainsoni.=—A common bird in the cañons.
12. =Carpodacus purpureus.=—Two individuals observed.
13. =Chrysomitris pinus.=—A flock of these restless little creatures
appeared almost daily, uttering their querulous notes.
14. =Poœcetes gramineus confinis.=—Common on the grassy slopes.
15. =Melospiza fasciata fallax.=—Occasional among the willows of the
streams.
16. =Junco oregonus.=—Apparently this form was not uncommon.
17. =Spizella socialis.=—Abundant in the patches of dead timber.
18. =Cyanospiza amœna.=—Not uncommon but confined to the willows etc.
along the streams.
19. =Sturnella magna neglecta.=—Breeding on the grassy hillsides.
20. =Picicorvus columbianus.=—Occasional. Much commoner lower down among
the scattered firs of the _coulées_.
21. =Perisoreus canadensis capitalis.=—A single bird shot July 2. It was
almost full-grown, but in the “fluffy” plumage peculiar to young birds.
22. =Contopus borealis.=—One bird seen.
23. =Contopus virens richardsoni.=—Common.
24. =Chordiles virginianus henryi.=—In dead timber, common.
25. =Picus villosus.=—Young of perhaps a week old were found on the 25th
of June.
26. =Picoides arcticus.=—Rather common.
27. =Picoides americanus dorsalis.=—Two or three specimens noted.
28. =Melanerpes erythrocephalus.=—One bird observed.
29. =Colaptes mexicanus.=—Common. The young of this species doubtless
hatching on June 28, as an old bird was seen carrying out and dropping,
a hundred or two yards from the nest, the fragment of an egg shell at
that time.
30. =Buteo borealis.=—Hawks apparently of this species occasionally
observed.
31. =Bonasa umbellus umbelloides.=—Not common. Is mostly found in the
cottonwood timber of the valleys.
32. =Tetrao obscurus richardsoni.=—Not as common here as in some other
localities of the Belt Mountains. They prefer rough and rocky ledges
with only a moderate growth of fir to denser forests. Occasionally one
finds them outside of the mountains, but only among the scattered clumps
of fir growing on the high bluffs of some of the streams. Their
“tooting” is a low, muffled sort of cooing, uttered without vigor, or
any visible effort on the bird’s part, which may be squatting on some
rock at the time.
33. =Tringoides macularius.=—Found on the streams.—R. S. WILLIAMS,
_Benton, W. T._
REMARKS ON SOME WESTERN VERMONT BIRDS.—The Red-headed Woodpecker
(_Melanerpes erythrocephalus_, Sw.), is a strangely erratic species. Mr.
C. S. Paine has taken but a single specimen in the eastern part of the
State, and five years ago it was a very rare species about here
(Brandon). Now they are nearly as abundant as the common Golden-wings.
At Orwell, only ten miles to the west, they outnumber the Golden-wings,
and appear to be on the increase. Dr. C. H. Merriam mentions (Bull.
Nutt. Ornith. Club, Vol. III, No. 3, p. 124) their remaining in Northern
New York during some of the severest winters known. I have never
observed them in this vicinity later than the 2d of October, except in
one instance (January 7, 1879), when I took a single specimen. At
Rutland, sixteen miles south of Brandon, Mr. Jenness Richardson informs
me that they are a resident species, being as abundant in winter as in
summer. They were particularly abundant about here during August and
September, 1879, being attracted, no doubt, by the great abundance of
black cherries (_Prunus serotina_), which they appear to relish greatly.
I have frequently observed this species to employ the same nest for
several successive seasons.
The Pileated Woodpecker (_Hylotomus pileatus_, Bd.), is by no means as
rare as might be expected in so thickly populated a section. Not a year
passes but that from one to five specimens are taken. I have notes of at
least fifteen specimens, taken during the last four or five years, all
of which occurred from the month of September to May, inclusive; the
last record being the capture of two young females, September 28, 1881.
Of the remaining _Picidæ_, _Sphyrapicus varius_ is a rather rare summer
visitant; _Picoides arcticus_, a very rare winter visitant: while _Picus
pubescens_ and _P. villosus_ are resident species, the former being by
far the most abundant.
During the winter of 1880–81, no less than seven specimens of the little
Acadian Owl (_Nyctale acadica_) were taken, all within a few days’ time.
Two specimens of the Snowy Owl (_Nyctea scandiaca_) were also taken at
the same time. During the fall of 1879, a fine specimen of the American
Raven (_Corvus corax carnivorus_) remained in this immediate vicinity
for nearly a month, but successfully eluded capture. A single specimen
of the Canada Jay (_Perisoreus canadensis_) was taken in December, 1874.
Although the recorded instances of the breeding of the Loggerhead Shrike
(_Lanius ludovicianus_) in New England are rather numerous, the
following notes may not be entirely devoid of interest. One rainy day
last season (June 5, 1880) as I was seated on the porch of a neighbor’s
house, my attention was attracted by a Shrike flying past several times.
I watched the bird and saw it fly to the top of an old apple tree. The
tree was not more than _two rods_ from the house, and was densely
overrun with a large grape vine. I climbed the tree, and, about twenty
feet from the ground, found the nest, and, much to my disappointment,
found no eggs, but four nearly fledged young. The old birds were very
tame, and flew about within a few feet of my head.
This season I visited the locality May 16, and was fortunate enough to
find a nest and four fresh eggs. The nest was in an apple tree, perhaps
three rods from the nest of last year; was composed of coarse sticks and
weeds, very deeply hollowed, and lined with wool and twine. I took both
parent birds with the nest, thus rendering the identification positive.
A few days after this (May 23, 1881) some boys told me they had found a
“Cat Bird’s” nest in an apple tree about a mile from the vicinity of the
other nests. They had climbed the tree, and said “the old bird flew at
them, and snapped her bill _hard_!” I knew this to be a Shrike, and,
when I visited the place, had the pleasure of securing another nest,
containing six eggs, with the female parent. The nest was much like the
other, but was perhaps deeper, and lined entirely with feathers.
The Great Northern Shrike (_Lanius borealis_) is a rather rare species,
being most frequently observed in spring.
The Scarlet Tanagers (_Pyranga rubra_) first made their appearance about
here in the summer of 1875, when a single pair nested. Since then they
have gradually increased until probably twenty pairs nested the past
season. Strange as it may seem, I have never taken the common Titlark
(_Anthus ludovicianus_) during the spring migrations, although they are
usually abundant in the fall.—F. H. KNOWLTON, _Brandon, Vt._
ERRATUM.—In Vol. VI, p. 199, lines 9 and 10. for “centimeters” read
millimeters.
BULLETIN
OF THE
NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB.
VOL. VII. APRIL, 1882. NO. 2.
ON A COLLECTION OF BIRDS LATELY MADE BY MR. F. STEPHENS IN ARIZONA.
BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.
Early in 1881 I wrote to Mr. Stephens asking him to get me some Arizona
birds during the following spring and summer. He replied that he was on
the point of starting by wagon for California, but that being provided
with a camping outfit, and feeling under no necessity of hurrying by the
way, he was willing to give his whole attention, for several months at
least, to collecting in my interest. It was accordingly arranged that
the journey should take in as great a variety of country as possible,
and, that the most productive points should be thoroughly worked. The
energy, intelligence, and conscientiousness with which this plan was
carried out are sufficiently attested by the material results upon which
the present paper is based.
The route traversed was substantially as follows: Leaving Galeyville on
March 3, Mr. Stephens drove southward to Cave Creek, where a few days’
collecting yielded a limited number of birds. At the end of this time he
retraced his steps to Galeyville, and continuing northward, passed Camp
Bowie, and crossed to the western side of the Chiricahua Mountains. Here
a halt was made at Morse’s Mill, after a journey of seventy miles by
wagon-road from Cave Creek, although the distance is less than twelve
miles in an air line. This place is described in the notes as being at
the head of a cañon, in a sort of basin, elevated about seven thousand
feet above the sea, and encircled by mountains which rise from two to
three thousand feet higher.
From some further remarks on the general character of the range, I quote
the following: “The Chiricahua Mountains are situated in the southeast
corner of Arizona, some of the foot-hills even reaching the line of New
Mexico and the Mexican state of Sonora. Several small streams run east
and west from their summits, those of the former division emptying into
the San Simon Valley; of the latter into the Sulphur Spring and San
Bernardino Valleys. The first two water-sheds are comprised in the Rio
Gila system, while the San Bernardino Valley stretches southward, and
water from it flows into the Pacific near Guaymas.”
“These valleys are usually grassy plains, but there are scattering
bushes, mostly mesquite, in some of them. The scrub oaks begin with the
foot-hills; they are evergreen, the leaves being insensibly replaced
with new ones in May. A little higher the juniper (called ‘cedar’ by the
people here) comes in. Still higher, on the north side of the hills,
there is a little piñon and scrub pine, while the summits are heavily
timbered with red and black pines. In the gulches some fir grows, and on
the hillsides, mostly near the summits and facing the north, occasional
patches of aspen.”
At Morse’s Mill three weeks were very profitably spent, and on April 1 a
start was made for Tucson, the next objective point. The route led
through Sulphur Spring Valley, Tombstone, and Cienega Station, and at
all these places, as well as at some intermediate points, a longer or
shorter stay was made for the purpose of collecting. These delays
consumed so much time that Tucson was not reached until April 18.
The country lying about this town and the neighboring station, Camp
Lowell, proved so rich in desirable birds that it engaged Mr. Stephens’
attention for nearly the whole of the two succeeding months, during
which, however, a brief visit was paid to the Santa Rita Mountains,
where some important observations were made.
The season practically ended with June, for the wagon-journey, begun on
the 29th of that month, across the arid plains and scorching deserts of
middle and western Arizona, was attended with such privations, and often
positive suffering, that little attention could be paid to birds. Mr.
Stephens arrived at Yuma on July 15, and by August 1 reached his final
destination, Riverside, California.
The entire trip yielded about six hundred and fifty skins besides a
fairly large number of nests and eggs. Under the terms of our agreement
I had all the birds, a representative series of the nests and eggs, and
the field notes relating to both. This collection, embracing the results
of four months’ uninterrupted work in a region as yet only imperfectly
known, seems to me too complete in itself to be merely skimmed of its
_cream_. Accordingly in preparing the following paper I have included
every species which is represented among the specimens or mentioned in
the collector’s notes. It should be understood, however, that the latter
were not kept with reference to this plan, and it is not unlikely that
certain common birds, which are known to occur in Arizona, were
inadvertently omitted. For similar reasons, the number of specimens
obtained can seldom be taken as an exponent of the relative abundance of
the species to which they belong, as a decided preference was given to
the rarer kinds. Three species new to the “North American” fauna have
already been announced (this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 252.).
A few technical points require explanation. The catalogue numbers are
usually those of the collector’s field-book, but in certain cases—as of
specimens taken as types, or with birds obtained by Mr. Stephens before
starting on the present trip—I have used my own numbers, either alone or
in connection with the original ones. This double system need cause no
confusion, however, for the field-numbers never reach 700, while those
of my general catalogue are always above 5,000. Of the measurements, the
length and stretch were taken in the field, the others from the dry
skins. The biographical matter is of course based on Mr. Stephens’
notes, which are sometimes paraphrased, sometimes literally quoted, as
convenience dictates. The frequent quotations of Mr. Henshaw’s
experience or opinions are always, unless otherwise stated, from his
Report in Volume V of “Explorations and Surveys West of the One
Hundredth Meridian.”
1. =Turdus unalascæ= _Gmel._ DWARF THRUSH.—The only Hermit Thrush in the
present collection is unmistakably referable to var. _unalascæ_. In fact
it gives nearly the same measurements as the smallest extreme in the
large series examined by Mr. Henshaw.[40] Mr. Stephens marks it as the
first which he has seen in Arizona where, however, it was found
sparingly by Mr. Henshaw in October, 1873.
283, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 6.40; extent, 10.10; wing. 3.26;
tail, 2.61; culmen, .52. “Bill dark brown, yellowish at base of lower
mandible; legs pale brownish; iris brown.”
2. =Turdus ustulatus= _Nutt._ RUSSET-BACKED THRUSH.—Under this heading I
include with some hesitation, a Thrush killed May 17, in the Santa Rita
Mountains. The specimen unfortunately was one of three or four which
were accidentally destroyed while in the collector’s possession, but Mr.
Stephens is positive that it was referable to the above variety. As he
is perfectly familiar with _ustulatus_, having previously met with it in
California, there can, I think, be little doubt of the correctness of
his determination. This record, if accepted, will make the first for
Arizona.
397, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 17. Length, 6.90; extent, 10.70;
“Iris dark brown; bill black, brownish at base of lower mandible; legs
very pale brown.”
3. =Turdus migratorius propinquus= _Ridgw._ WESTERN ROBIN.—Robins were
met with only in or near the Chiricahua Mountains, where perhaps a dozen
individuals were seen. The one mentioned below is typical of the
slightly differentiated, but still apparently constant western race.
75, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 20. Length, 10; extent, 16.40; wing,
5.38; tail, 4.36. “Iris dark brown.”
4. =Oreoscoptes montanus= (_Towns._) _Baird._ MOUNTAIN MOCKINGBIRD.
There is no mention of this species among the notes made during the late
trip.
6313 (author’s coll.), ♀ ad., San Pedro River, Dec. 25, 1880. Length,
8.90; extent, 12.40.
5. =Mimus polyglottus= (_Linn._) _Boie_. MOCKINGBIRD.—“Generally
distributed and common, but not as abundant as in Southern California”
(Camp Lowell). “Common in the valleys; they are found but a short
distance up the foot-hills of the mountain ranges” (near Tombstone).
181, ♀ ad., near Tombstone, April 8. Length, 9.80; extent, 13.10;
wing, 4.30; tail, 5.03.
550, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 20. Length, 10.20; extent, 14.10; wing,
4.40; tail, 5.20. “Iris golden brown; bill and legs black.”
6. =Harporhynchus bendirei= _Coues_. BENDIRE’S THRASHER.—Mr. Stephens’
notes contain few references to this species, and judging from the
limited number of specimens which he obtained, it must be less abundant
in Arizona than either _H. crissalis_ or _H. curvirostris palmeri_, a
status which is in strict accordance with Mr. Henshaw’s experience.
About half of the skins collected during the past season are labeled
either Camp Lowell or Tucson, while the remainder were taken at various
points directly north or south of the latter place, and not over
twenty-five miles distant in either direction. Outside the limits of
this desert region the bird was not anywhere met with, although it was
common at Phœnix in February, 1880.
A nest taken June 16 near Tucson, and identified by the capture of one
of the parent birds, was placed in a “cat-claw mesquite” at a height of
about five feet from the ground. It is a deeply-hollowed, smoothly-lined
structure, composed of fine grasses and soft, hemp-like vegetable
fibres, which are protected externally, in a manner common to the nests
of nearly all Thrashers, by a bristling array of interlaced twigs and
thorny sticks. The interior cup measures two inches in depth by three in
width. The two eggs which it contained, like those described by Dr.
Coues, are readily separable from eggs of _H. palmeri_ by their
grayish-white instead of dull green ground-color. They are faintly
marked with reddish-brown and lavender, the spots being confined chiefly
to the larger ends, where many of them assume the character of blotches
or dashes of color. These eggs measure respectively 1.02 × .79 and .96 ×
.79. The greatest number of eggs found in any of the several nests
examined by Mr. Stephens was three, but two seemed to be the usual
complement.
Of the birds before me four are in first plumage, a stage which, if I am
not mistaken, has never been previously examined. The first of these
(No. 426, twenty-five miles south of Tucson, May 22) was unable to fly,
and was taken from the nest. It differs from the adult in the following
particulars: The upper parts, with nearly the same ground-color, have a
tinge of reddish-brown which, on the rump, wing-coverts, and tips and
outer webs of the primaries and secondaries, shades into
brownish-chestnut. The sprouting rectrices are also tipped with the same
color. The under parts generally are warm fulvous, which becomes nearly
pure cinnamon on the sides and crissum, and along the median line pales
to fulvous-white. The breast and abdomen are everywhere thickly but
finely spotted with dull _black_, these markings becoming finer and
fainter where they border on the anal region. The remaining three (Nos.
538, ♀; 539, —; and 540, ♂: twenty-five miles north of Tucson, June 16)
have the wings fully developed, and were all out of the nests when shot.
They are apparently of about the same respective ages, but nevertheless
exhibit a good deal of individual variation. No. 538 has the breast and
sides finely spotted with dark brown, but a central space extending
forward along the abdomen nearly to the breast is entirely unmarked. No.
535 has large, rounded, but indistinct blotches of light brown, thickly
and evenly distributed over the entire under parts, excepting the
throat, anal region and crissum. No. 539 has a cluster of faint,
sagittate spots on the centre of the breast, but otherwise is entirely
immaculate beneath. All three are essentially similar above, and differ
from No. 426 in having the crown, nape, back, wing-coverts and outer
webs of the secondaries pale reddish-brown, which, on the rump, is only
tinged with chestnut. The primaries are dark brown edged with hoary; the
rectrices, dull black with a terminal band of pale reddish-chestnut
crossing both webs of all the feathers, but most broadly those of the
outer pairs.
The adults making up the rest of this series vary a good deal with the
season at which they were taken. A specimen killed in February is clear
grayish-brown above, with the breast and abdomen thickly spotted; and
one or two others shot early in May are nearly as deeply colored and
distinctly marked. But most of the breeding birds are either entirely
immaculate beneath, or with only a few faint specks scattered here and
there upon the abdomen. Several of the latter are nearly as pale as my
specimens of _H. lecontei_, and equally devoid of any special markings.
This condition apparently is due mainly to the wearing off of the tips
of the feathers, although the continued action of the sun’s rays
doubtless lends its aid, and still further bleaches the plumage.
453, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, May 30. Length, 10.30; extent, 13.30.
4987, (author’s coll.) ♂ ad., Tucson, Feb. 28, 1880. Wing, 4.25; tail,
4.84; culmen (chord), .99.
423, ♂ ad., twenty-five miles south of Tucson, May 21. Length, 10.40;
extent, 14.20; wing, 4.30; tail, 4.92; culmen, 1.06.
425, ♂ ad., same locality, May 22. Length, 10.30; extent, 13.10; wing,
4.01; tail, 4.96; culmen, 1.05.
455, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, May 30. Length, 10.18; extent, 13.30; wing,
4.20; tail, 4.96; culmen, 1.05.
537, ♂ ad., twenty-five miles north of Tucson, June 16. Length, 10.10;
extent, 12.70; wing, 4.14; tail, 4.78; culmen, 1.01.
583, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 24. Length, 10.50; extent, 13; wing, 3.99;
tail, 4.95; culmen, 1.05.
454, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, May 30. Length, 10.10; extent, 12.70; wing,
3.95; tail, 4.43; culmen, 1.
529, ♀ ad., twenty-five miles north of Tucson, June 16. Length, 10.20;
extent, 12.10; wing, 3.63; tail, 4.50; culmen, 1.01. “Iris yellow; legs
dull bluish.”
557, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 21. Length, 10; extent, 13.20; wing, 4.10;
tail, 4.60; culmen, .95.
426, ♀ juv. first plumage, twenty-five miles south of Tucson, May 22.
Length, 6.10; extent, 9.40; “Iris light gray; bill dark brown, lighter
below; legs pale bluish.” Taken from the nest; wings and tail only
partly developed.
538, ♀ juv. first plumage, twenty-five miles north of Tucson, June 16.
Length, 10.10; extent, 12.50; wing, 3.77; tail, 4.59; culmen, .96.
539, — juv. first plumage, same locality and date. Length, 9.80; extent,
12.70; wing, 3.92; tail, 4.67; culmen, .92.
540, ♂ juv. first plumage, same locality and date. Length, 10; extent,
12.80; wing, 3.90; tail, 4.55; culmen, .95.
7. =Harporhynchus curvirostris palmeri= _Ridgw._ PALMER’S
THRASHER.—During the present trip this Thrasher was met with at various
points in the desert region about Tucson and Camp Lowell, where it was
one of the most abundant and characteristic summer birds. Its favorite
haunts were barren wastes covered with cactuses and stunted mesquites;
but, like many other desert species, it occasionally visited the more
fertile valleys to drink at the springs and water-holes. At these latter
places specimens were obtained without much difficulty, but on all other
occasions they were exceedingly shy and wary. In February, 1880, Mr.
Stephens found Palmer’s Thrasher at Phœnix, and he also took winter
specimens along the San Pedro River.[41]
Numerous nests were taken. The one before me was placed in a cholla at a
height of about seven feet. It is composed outwardly of large twigs, and
is lined with bleached grasses. Although by no means a rude structure,
it suffers by comparison with the nest of _H. bendirei_, its
construction being simpler, and all the materials much coarser. The
three eggs which it contained were only slightly incubated on June 14.
They measure respectively 1.05×.82, 1.09×.82, and 1.08×.83. They are
pale greenish-blue, finely and very evenly spotted with brown and
lavender. The number of eggs making up this set was not exceeded in any
of the others examined by Mr. Stephens.
The series of skins embraces no less than twenty-two examples, and very
fully illustrates all the variations of age and season. Among the number
are several in the hitherto undescribed first plumage. The
youngest of these (No. 480, ♂?, Camp Lowell, June 2), although well
feathered, has the wings and tail undeveloped, and was taken from the
nest. Its entire upper plumage is rusty brown with a chestnut tinge
which deepens on the rump and outer webs of the secondaries to decided
chestnut brown. The general coloring of the under parts is pale
fulvous with a strong tinge of rusty chestnut across the breast, along
the sides, and over the anal region and crissum. The breast is
obsoletely spotted, but the plumage elsewhere, both above and below,
is entirely immaculate. An older bird (No. 577, Camp Lowell, June 23)
with the wings and tail fully grown out, differs in having the back
(excepting a narrow anterior space bordering on the nape), with the
exposed webs and coverts of the wings, and a broad tipping on the tail
feathers, bright rusty;—while in a third of about the same age (No.
614, ♂, Camp Lowell, June 28), the rusty color, although paler, is
uniformly distributed over the entire upper surface save upon the
wings and tail feathers, which are only edged and tipped with that
color. This last example is so faintly marked beneath that the plumage
at first sight appears immaculate; but a closer inspection reveals a
few spots here and there among the central feathers of the breast. A
fourth (No. 487, Camp Lowell, June 3), although apparently no older,
has the breast and sides spotted more sharply than in any of the
adults, while the rusty tinge above is chiefly confined to the rump,
posterior half of the back, and the outer webs of the wing feathers.
Several of these young birds are so nearly similar to specimens of _H.
bendirei_ in corresponding stages that they can be separated only with
great difficulty. The stouter bill and entirely black lower mandible
of _palmeri_ may, however, always be depended upon as distinguishing
characters; and, moreover, the pectoral spotting of _bendirei_ is
usually (but not invariably) finer and sharper, and the rusty tinge
above paler and less extended.
The adults present a good deal of variation, most of which is
apparently seasonal. Winter specimens have the lower abdomen, with the
anal region and crissum, rich rusty-fulvous, while the markings
beneath are similar in character to those of true _curvirostris_, and
the spots equally distinct, numerous and widely distributed. With the
advance of the season, and the consequent wear and tear of the
plumage, the spots gradually fade or disappear. Indeed some of the
June specimens are absolutely immaculate beneath, although most of
them, like Mr. Ridgway’s types, have a few faint markings on the
abdomen. In this condition the general coloring is also paler and
grayer, and the fulvous of the crissum and neighboring parts often
entirely wanting.
But although the evidence of this series tends to demolish several of
the characters upon which _palmeri_ has been based, enough remain to
separate it from its ally the true _curvirostris_ of Mexico and the
Rio Grande Valley in Texas. The best of these, perhaps, is to be found
in the different marking of the tail feathers. In _curvirostris_ the
three outer pairs are broadly tipped with pure white which, on the
inner web, extends twice as deep, basally, as on the outer one, and
has its boundaries everywhere sharply defined; in _palmeri_ the outer
rectrices are, at the most, barely tipped with pale brown, which
either extends squarely across both webs, or fades insensibly into the
darker color of the feather. The bill of _palmeri_, also, is usually
longer and more curved than that of _curvirostris_.
8. =Harporhynchus lecontei= _Bonap._ LECONTE’S THRASHER.—The great
rarity of Leconte’s Thrasher, even in the heart of the desolate regions
where alone it has so far been found, is still further attested by Mr.
Stephens’ experience during the past season, for although he searched
for it carefully in all suitable places between Camp Lowell and
Riverside (California), he met with only two individuals. These occurred
about fifteen miles west of Maricopa, Arizona, in a locality which the
accompanying notes describe as follows: “Near the middle of
‘Forty-five-mile Desert,’ between Maricopa Wells and Gila Bend. No
chollas or other cactuses in the immediate neighborhood, but some giant
cactuses about a mile away in the hills; a few mesquites and much
scattering low brush in the vicinity; nearest water twenty miles away.”
Dr. Cooper is said to have found the species “rather common” in the
desert between Fort Mohave and the San Bernardino Mountains, California,
but Mr. Stephens has thrice traversed this route without seeing a single
specimen. In a recent number[42] of the American Naturalist, however,
Mr. E. Holterhoff, Jr., speaks of seeing the bird “on the Colorado
desert, at a station called Flowing Wells,” and gives an interesting
description of a nest and set of eggs taken there. “The nest was placed
in a palo verde tree, and was a very bulky affair, measuring externally
nine inches in depth and six in width; the hollow of the nest was fully
three inches in depth. It was so awkwardly situated that much of the
base of the nest had evidently been filled in to firmly support the
structure. The two eggs were somewhat smaller than those of _H.
redivivus_, lighter in color, and marked all over with finer reddish
spots, thicker at the larger end.”
I am inclined to consider the Maricopa specimens above referred to as
adults, although this is not so clear in the case of the male, portions
of whose plumage suggest that of a young bird. Both are in worn, ragged
condition, but there is no indication of any moult, save upon the wings
and tail, where many of the feathers have been replaced by new ones
which are conspicuous among the others by their fresher coloring.
On a former occasion[43] I urged the specific distinctness of this
Thrasher from _H. redivivus_, and to this conviction I still hold,
although a comparison of additional specimens of both species inclines
me to believe with Dr. Coues that Leconte’s Thrasher is, on the whole,
more nearly related to _redivivus_ than to any other United States form.
616, ♂ ad., near Maricopa Wells, July 5. Length, 10.80; extent, 12.30;
wing, 3.85; tarsus, 1.27; tail, 5.35; culmen (chord), 1.30; bill from
nostrils, .91; width below posterior angle of nostrils, .23.
617, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 10.60; extent, 12; wing,
3.78; tarsus, 1.32; tail, 4.91; bill (chord of culmen), 1.32; bill from
nostril, .94; width below posterior angle of nostril, .24. “Iris
reddish-brown; bill black; legs nearly black. Stomach contained a small
species of katydid and some ants.”
9. =Harporhynchus crissalis= _Henry_. CRISSAL THRASHER.—Not uncommon
near Tombstone, Tucson and Camp Lowell.
Dr. Coues, comparing this species with Le Conte’s, Palmer’s, and
Bendire’s Thrashers, concludes:[44] “and we are led to infer that when
the ‘topography’ of the other three species is fully determined, it will
be found no less extensive. For there is nothing peculiar in the economy
or requirements of any one of the four in comparison with the rest.”
This view, however, is hardly supported by the testimony of observers
who have had the best opportunities of studying these birds. The Crissal
Thrasher, according to Captain Bendire,[45] “appears to prefer damp
localities near water-courses, and confines itself principally to spots
where the wild currant is abundant.” Mr. Henshaw says: “According to my
experience, it is not a bird of the plains, but inhabits by preference
the rough sides of rocky cañons or the hillsides covered with broken
_débris_, interspersed with straggling bushes.” Mr. Stephens’ evidence
is not less explicit. He found the Crissal Thrasher in copses in
valleys, and along streams. It was especially fond of well-shaded
undergrowth, and spent much of its time on the ground, searching for
food under the bushes. It never occurred among cactuses, and the only
place where he saw it actually associating with Bendire’s and Palmer’s
Thrashers, was at Camp Lowell, where the latter species, with other
desert birds, came to drink at a water-hole and thus occasionally
mingled with the Crissal Thrashers which inhabited the neighboring
thickets. The contrast which these traits afford when compared with the
ones characterizing the other three species named by Dr. Coues, is
sufficiently apparent.[46]
A nest received from Mr. Stephens is precisely similar to those found by
Captain Bendire. The three eggs which it contained measure respectively,
1.14×.76, 1.14×.75, and 1.08×.77. Like all the specimens which have been
previously reported they are entirely unspotted, and both in size and
color closely resemble eggs of the common Robin.
_Juv., first plumage_ (♀, No. 546, Camp Lowell, June 20). Above
dull reddish-brown. Rump and a broad tipping on the tail,
brownish-chestnut. Under parts nearly uniform, brownish-fulvous.
Crissum chestnut, of nearly the same shade as in the adult.
Maxillary stripes dusky brown. No trace of spots or other dark
markings either above or beneath.
Five other young birds in the series are essentially similar and call
for no special comment. I cannot find any description of the first
plumage of either _H. redivivus_ or _H. lecontei_, but with the
exception of these, _H. crissalis_ is the only North American species
in the sub-family _Miminæ_ whose young are entirely unmarked beneath.
It is interesting to note that with respect to the color of the upper
parts, especially that of the rump, they resemble the young of both
_H. bendirei_ and _H. palmeri_.
The individual variation presented by the adults before me is chiefly
confined to the relative length and curvature of the bill, the general
coloring of all being nearly uniform, although the breeding birds are
slightly paler than those taken early in the season.
166, ♂ ad., near Tombstone, April 5. Length, 12.10; extent, 12.30;
“Iris light brown. Stomach contained insects and a _small lizard_.”
251, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 12.60; extent, 12.60; wing,
4.11; tail, 6.25; chord of culmen, 1.56. “Iris light gray,—almost
white.”
278, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 12.10; extent, 12.50; wing,
3.84; tail, 6.20; culmen, 1.47.
309, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 30. Length, 11.70; extent, 12.70; wing,
4.05; tail, 5.85; culmen, 1.53.
434, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 25. Length, 11.20; extent, 12.30; wing, 4.02;
tail, 5.52; culmen, 1.43.
503, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 8. Length, 11.40; extent, 12.10; wing, 3.85;
tail, 5.85; culmen, 1.46.
578, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 23. Length, 11.60; extent, 12.60; wing,
4.05; tail, 5.75; culmen, 1.45.
437, ♂ juv., first plumage, Tucson, May 26. Length, 11.30; extent,
12.40; wing, 3.92; tail, 5.50; culmen, 1.18.
595, ♂ juv., first plumage, Camp Lowell, June 25. Length, 11.60;
extent, 12.50; wing, 3.84; tail, 6.18; culmen, 1.35.
596, ♂ juv., first plumage, Camp Lowell, June 25. Length, 11.80;
extent, 12.60; wing, 3.86; tail, 6.12; culmen, 1.40.
436, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 25. Length, 11.80; extent, 12.40; wing, 3.90;
tail, 5.90; culmen, 1.55. Parent of No. 435.
435, ♀ juv., first plumage, same locality and date. Length, 11.30;
extent, 12.20; wing, 4.02; tail, 5.55; culmen, 1.20.
546, ♀ juv., first plumage, Camp Lowell, June 20. Length, 11.60;
extent, 12.40; wing, 4.95; tail, 6.02; culmen, 1.38.
555, ♀ juv., first plumage, Camp Lowell, June 21. Length, 11.30;
extent, 12.20; wing, 3.73; tail, 5.65; culmen, 1.42.
10. =Cinclus mexicanus= _Swains._ AMERICAN WATER OUZEL.—The following
notes relate to the only specimen met with:
“My attention was called to the song of some bird which came from the
mountain brook running past camp. There was a steep, rocky wall on the
further side, and the notes echoing from it, and mingling with the
purling of the water, sounded exquisitely sweet. On looking for the
author, I noticed some ripples rolling out from behind the willows that
fringed the nearer shore, and soon discovered an Ouzel dabbling in the
shallow water. My shot wounded the bird, but did not disable its wings,
for it repeatedly dived, using them as propelling agents when beneath
the surface. The sun shining on the air-bubbles that clung to its
plumage made it look like a ball of silver flying through the water. On
the surface it paddled along very much in the manner of a Phalarope.”
79, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 20. Length, 7.90;
extent, 12.10; wing, 3.85; tail, 2.50. “Iris hazel. The flesh was dark
and tough with a fishy smell. The inside of the skin looked like that
of a small Wader. Stomach contained insects.”
11. =Sialia mexicana= _Swains._ WESTERN BLUEBIRD.—A single pair, taken
in the Chiricahua Mountains in March, are accompanied by the note,
“abundant in all kinds of timber.”
12. =Sialia arctica= _Swains._ ARCTIC BLUEBIRD.—This species is noted as
“rare in the low valleys” among the Chiricahua Mountains. A small flock
was also seen near Galeyville on “grassy plains,” where “they flew from
one weed-stalk to another.” They were “restless and rather shy.” The
single specimen obtained was shot on this latter occasion.
13. =Myiadestes townsendi= (_Aud._) _Caban._ TOWNSEND’S SOLITAIRE.—Three
specimens were obtained in the Chiricahua Mountains, where they occurred
sparingly among piñons. “They are rather tame, and have a habit of
sitting perfectly still for several minutes at a time. Flight slow. Food
insects.” A fourth, taken May 13, in the Santa Rita Mountains, completes
the series.
14. =Phaïnopepla nitens= (_Swain._) _Scl._ BLACK-CRESTED FLYCATCHER.—The
life history of this singular bird has been so fully given by Dr. Coues
in “Birds of the Colorado Valley,” that there is little chance of adding
anything new. Most of the specimens obtained by Mr. Stephens are from
Camp Lowell and Tucson, but he did not find it abundant at either of
these points. He speaks of it as having “a sweet but not loud song,” and
remarks on its known fondness for mistletoe berries. “Iris red.”
15. =Polioptila cærulea= (_Linn._) _Scl._ BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER.—Eight
specimens, representing the following localities: Chiricahua Mountains
(two ♂, two ♀, April 1–6); Tombstone (♂, April 5); Cienega Station (♂,
April 16); Tucson (♂, April 20); Santa Rita Mountains (♂, May 20).
16. =Polioptila plumbea= _Baird_. BLACK-CAPPED GNATCATCHER.—This
Gnatcatcher was observed at Tucson, Camp Lowell, and near Yuma,
specimens being taken in all these localities. A female shot at the
first-named point on April 23 had evidently finished laying, but a nest
found June 27 near Camp Lowell contained a perfectly fresh egg, while
another taken at Yuma, July 15, had a single egg of its owner and one of
the Dwarf Cowbird. These dates indicate that the species breeds at least
twice during the season.
The Yuma nest, although a delicate structure, will not compare with that
of _P. cærulea_. It entirely lacks the exterior coating of lichens so
effectively employed by the commoner bird, and in its general appearance
closely resembles the Redstart’s well-known domicile, being similarly
felted of soft bark strips and hemp-like vegetable fibres. It is lined
with down from plants, a few feathers, and the hair of some small
quadruped. Externally it measures 2.25 in width by 1.55 in depth;
internally 1.45 by 1. The egg is pale greenish-blue, coarsely and very
evenly spotted with reddish-brown. Its measurements are .53×.42. This
nest was placed in a bunch of mistletoe, at a height of about eight feet
from the ground. It is accompanied by the male parent, who revealed its
position by repeatedly entering the mistletoe. and showing other signs
of anxiety respecting its contents. The position of the Camp Lowell nest
is not mentioned.
_Juv., first plumage_, ♀ (No. 619, Yuma, July 15). Crown pale
cinereous; rest of upper parts faded brown. The wings are uniform with
the back, but all the primaries and secondaries have a broad white
edging on their outer webs. The tail is dull black, with white areas
on the outer rectrices corresponding in extent and purity with those
of the adult. Beneath, pale ashy-white.
A study of the large series of Gnatcatchers collected during the past
season confirms the views which I lately advanced (this Bulletin, Vol.
VI, p. 101) regarding the affinity of _P. plumbea_ and _P.
“melanura,”_ and also affords additional evidence of the assumed
specific distinctness of _P. californica_. The Yuma examples of _P.
plumbea_ are quite as typical as those taken at Tucson and Camp
Lowell, while seven specimens of _californica_, collected at Riverside
after Mr. Stephens’ return to that place, still further attest the
constancy of most of the characters which I assigned to the latter
bird. That relating to the brown edging of the secondaries will,
however, have to be abandoned, for _plumbea_ proves to be similarly
characterized when in worn breeding dress; the supposed shorter tail
of _californica_ also is now shown to be an inconstant feature. All of
the three young males taken at Riverside have black lateral
crown-stripes like those of immature _plumbea_.
267, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 4.60; extent, 5.80; wing, 1.85;
tail, 2.15; bill (from nostril) .25; tarsus, .67. “Iris dark brown;”
lores ashy mixed with black; eyelids white.
500, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 7. Length, 4.60; extent, 5.80; wing, 1.81;
tail, 2.12; bill (from nostril), .25; tarsus, .65. Lores ashy mixed
with black; upper eyelid white.
564, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 22. Length, 4.55; extent, 5.80; wing,
1.84; tail, 2.19; bill (from nostril), .25; tarsus, .70. Lores black;
both eyelids white.
567, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 22. Length, 4.40; extent, 5.60; wing,
1.84; tail, 2.16; bill (from nostril), .26; tarsus, .70. Lores and
superciliary line white mixed with black.
581, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 24. Length, 4.40; extent, 5.80; wing,
1.98; tail, 2.20; bill (from nostril), .28; tarsus, .70. Lores ashy.
618, ♂ ad., Yuma, July 15. Length, 4.40; extent, 5.80; wing, 1.90;
tail, 2.15; bill (from nostril), .26; tarsus, .68. Lores, with broad
superciliary lines meeting across the forehead, white.
621, ♂ juv., first plumage, Yuma, July 16. Length, 4.40; extent, 5.60;
wing, 1.76; tail, 2.13; bill (from nostril), .26; tarsus, .72. Sides
of head ashy-white; ill-defined, black, lateral crown-stripes
partially concealed.
272, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 4.50; extent, 5.50; wing, 1.78;
tail, 2.21; bill (from nostril), .27; tarsus, .68. “Had just finished
laying.”
458, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, May 31. Length, 4.50; extent, 5.50; wing,
1.86; tail, 2.13; bill (from nostril), .26; tarsus, .68.
601, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 27. Length, 4.60; extent, 5.50; wing,
1.74; tail, 2.18; bill (from nostril), .27; tarsus, .70. “Taken with
the nest and one fresh egg.”
619, ♀ juv., first plumage, Yuma, July 15. Length, 4.40; extent, 5.60;
wing, 1.86; tail, 2.12; bill (from nostril), .26; tarsus, .70.
566,—juv., first plumage, Camp Lowell, June 22. Length, 4.40; extent,
5.60; wing, 1.85; tail, 2.22; bill (from nostril), .27; tarsus, .68.
For comparison I add measurements of the seven specimens of _P.
californica_ above mentioned.
656, ♂ juv., fall plumage, Riverside, Sept. 16. Length, 4.55; extent,
5.70; wing, 1.67; tail, 2.20; bill (from nostril), .29; tarsus, .75.
658, ♂ juv., fall plumage, same locality and date. Length, 4.70;
extent, 5.80; wing, 1.89; tail, 2.21; bill (from nostril) .26; tarsus,
.75.
688, ♂ juv., fall plumage, Riverside, Sept. 23. Length, 4.50; extent,
5.90; wing, 1.73; tail, 2.11; bill (from nostril), .30; tarsus, .75.
657, ♀ juv., fall plumage, Riverside, Sept. 16. Length, 4.60; extent,
5.80; wing, 1.85; tail, 2.14; bill (from nostril), .30; tarsus, .72.
686, ♀ juv., fall plumage, Riverside, Sept. 23. Length, 4.45; extent,
5.90; wing, 1.92; tail, 2.17; bill (from nostril), .30; tarsus, .75.
687, ♀ juv., fall plumage, same locality and date. Length, 4.50;
extent, 5.80; wing, 1.85; tail, 2.20; bill (from nostril), .28;
tarsus, .70.
655, ♀ juv., fall plumage, Riverside, Sept. 16. Length, 4.45; extent,
5.75; wing, 1.86; tail, 2.15; bill (from nostril), .28; tarsus, .75.
17. =Regulus calendula= (_Linn._) _Licht._ RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET.—“Common
among the Chiricahua Mountains, especially in deciduous timber. I think
a few summer and breed.” The following specimens are identical with
eastern ones:
28, ♂ ad., Cave Creek, Chiricahua Mountains, March 8. Length, 4.60;
extent, 6.50; wing, 2.32.
122, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 28. Length, 4.20; extent, 6.90; wing,
2.38.
18. =Lophophanes inornatus= (_Gamb._) _Cass._ PLAIN TITMOUSE.—Mentioned
in Mr. Stephens’ notes as rare on the foot-hills of the Chiricahua
Mountains, but no specimens are included in his collection.
19. =Lophophanes wollweberi= _Bonap._ WOLLWEBER’S TITMOUSE.—This species
was abundant in the Chiricahua Mountains, where a fine series was
collected. They were usually seen in flocks of six or eight, and often
associated with other small birds. They were rarely met with excepting
in the groves of “scrub oaks,” but their food appeared to be wholly
insects. A single pair taken in the Santa Rita Mountains in May are
unaccompanied by any special remarks.
20. =Parus meridionalis= _Scl._ MEXICAN CHICKADEE.—In a late number of
the Bulletin (Vol. VI, p. 252) I briefly announced this important
addition to the North American fauna. The series obtained by Mr.
Stephens comprises nine specimens, all of which were taken near Morse’s
Mill. They occurred upon the sides or summits of the surrounding
mountains, at elevations varying from seven to ten thousand feet, and
were usually found in pairs, although they not unfrequently associated
with other birds, among which are mentioned _Psaltriparus plumbeus_,
_Lophophanes wollweberi_, _Sitta pygmæa_, and _Peucedramus olivaceus_.
They were for the most part silent, but occasionally uttered a
“_chee-wee-wee_,” as well as notes resembling those of _P. montanus_.
Previous writers have compared this species with _P. atricapillus_, but
to me it seems nearer related to _P. montanus_. With the latter it
agrees in certain peculiarities of size and proportions, while the
general coloring and markings of the two are so similar that almost the
only appreciable points of difference are presented by the white
forehead and head-stripes of _montanus_. These characters are, of
course, enough to instantly separate the birds, but their importance is
somewhat weakened by the fact that one of my specimens of _meridionalis_
(No. 124) possesses a head-stripe which, though ill-defined and
considerably shorter, is nevertheless similar in appearance and position
to that of _montanus_. While it would be rash to argue any varietal
affinity on the strength of this single specimen, the outcropping of
such a well-marked characteristic certainly shows a close relationship
between the two species, unless indeed No. 124 be regarded as a hybrid.
65, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 18. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.50; wing,
2.74; tail, 2.60. “Iris dark brown. Stomach contained insects.”
82, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 21. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.10; wing,
2.73; tail, 2.62.
83, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50; wing,
2.90; tail, 2.69.
99, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 4.70; extent, 7.90; wing,
2.63; tail, 2.42.
100, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.60; wing,
2.76; tail, 2.65.
104, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.30; wing,
2.75; tail, 2.40.
105, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.20; wing,
2.66; tail, 2.56.
124, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 29. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.70; wing,
2.85; tail, 2.68.
125, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent, 8.20.
21. =Psaltriparus plumbeus= _Baird_. LEAD-COLORED TIT.—Of the eight
specimens of this species which are included in the collection, seven
were taken in the Chiricahua Mountains, the remaining one being from the
Santa Rita Mountains. Mr. Stephens does not appear to have found it
elsewhere, and in his notes characterizes it as rather uncommon. It was
oftenest seen among the oaks of the foot-hills, where it associated with
Wollweber’s Titmouse, the Ruby-crowned Kinglet, and several other small
birds.
22. =Auriparus flaviceps= (_Sundev._) _Baird_. YELLOW-HEADED TIT.—Mr.
Henshaw while in Arizona met with but few specimens of this curious
little species. He attributed their apparent rarity to the lateness of
the season at which his observations were made, and doubtless this
explanation is the true one; for during the past spring Mr. Stephens
found them in abundance both at Cienega Station and Tucson. Nevertheless
it is probable that some individuals pass the winter in Arizona, for one
of my specimens is dated November 29, and another was killed early in
March. A nest taken at Tucson contained three fresh eggs on April 20.
23. =Sitta carolinensis aculeata= (_Cass._) _Allen_. SLENDER-BILLED
NUTHATCH.—This Nuthatch was common in the pine forests of the Chiricahua
Mountains, but the notes do not mention its occurrence elsewhere.
24. =Sitta pygmæa= _Vig._ PYGMY NUTHATCH.—Equally common with the
preceding species in the same locality.
25. =Certhia familiaris mexicana= (_Gloger_) _Ridgw._ MEXICAN
CREEPER.—Various writers have attributed the Mexican Creeper to our
fauna, either on purely inferential grounds, or from a misconception,
which at one time prevailed, regarding the relationship of the form
found in California; for up to the present time no undoubted specimens
of _mexicana_ have been taken within our boundaries. It accordingly
gives me much pleasure to announce the actual occurrence in Arizona of
this well-characterized race, of which the specimen mentioned below is
perfectly typical. It is the only Creeper which Mr. Stephens met with
during the past season, but in the previous year two others, which I
have not examined, but which he considers identical with this, were
taken in the same locality. All the Arizona specimens obtained by Mr.
Henshaw were referred to our eastern form.
66, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 18. Length, 4.80;
extent, 7.10; wing, 2.45; tail, 2.25; culmen, .50. “Iris dark brown.”
26. =Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus= (_Lafr._) _Gray_. CACTUS WREN.—I
notice little of special interest among the notes accompanying the eight
skins which Mr. Stephens collected. He found the bird abundant in all
suitable localities, and took several nests and sets of eggs. The
unsophisticated young were easily shot, but the adults, even when
breeding, were shy and hard to secure.
27. =Salpinctes obsoletus= (_Say_) _Caban._ ROCK WREN.—Mr. Stephens
makes no mention of finding this species in Arizona during the past
season, but he sends me a single specimen taken December 25, 1880, on
the San Pedro River.
28. =Thryomanes bewicki leucogaster= _Baird._ WHITE-BELLIED WREN.—The
collection includes five specimens of this form, which was apparently
met with only in the Chiricahua Mountains and about Tucson. In the
former locality it was common along the banks of streams where, however,
it kept so closely hidden among the weeds and brush that it was oftener
heard than seen. The examples before me are typical.
29. =Troglodytes aëdon= _Vieill._ HOUSE WREN.—The only House Wren taken
is absolutely indistinguishable from many of my Massachusetts specimens,
and I accordingly refer it here. Furthermore, I fail to find the
characters supposed to distinguish var. _parkmani_, in any of the
several California specimens included in my series. If the latter form
really possesses any _constant_ differential characters, I believe they
have yet to be defined.
169, ♀, near Tombstone, April 6. Length, 4.80; extent, 6.40; wing,
2.10. “Iris dark brown. Shot among low brush. Not common.”
30. =Anthus ludovicianus= (_Gm._) _Licht._ AMERICAN TITLARK.
271, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 6.50; extent, 10.60. “Bill
brown, paler at base below; legs brown.” Several seen in marshes along
the stream.
31. =Helminthophila luciæ= (_Coop._) _Ridgw._ LUCY’S WARBLER.—Although
this diminutive _Helminthophila_ has been known to ornithologists for
nearly twenty years, few specimens have found their way into the
cabinets of private collectors, and up to the present time the species
has remained a very rare one. On this account the acquisition of a good
series of skins was among the main objects of Mr. Stephens’ trip, and
the success which rewarded his labors is very gratifying.
The first specimen was shot April 15 at Cienega Station, where, during
the succeeding three days, six more were obtained. They frequented large
willows along the banks of a stream and, like Kinglets, spent much of
their time searching for food at the extremity of the branches. Although
active and restless, they were not at all shy. The only note heard here
was a sharp “_tseep_.” On April 18 Mr. Stephens reached Tucson, where
almost the first birds met with were Lucy’s Warblers. During the early
part of his stay they were more abundant among the mesquites than any
other species, and their “_tseeping_” could be heard on every side. They
were continually in motion, flying from tree to tree, and occasionally
visiting some low brush in the vicinity. By the 28th their numbers
became perceptibly diminished, but many remained to breed in the
surrounding country. The presence of the species at Camp Lowell is
attested by a single young specimen, barely large enough to fly, which
was taken there on June 1st, but which is unaccompanied by any special
remarks. An adult male from the Santa Rita Mountains, however, comes to
me with the following comments, under date of May 19:—“This is the only
one of the species which I have seen here. It was near the banks of a
stream below the mouth of a cañon, where there were a few mesquites
interspersed among the oaks. I watched it for some time. It lingered
among the mesquites, seeming to prefer them to the oaks, in which,
however, it occasionally alighted for a moment.”
In addition to the above, Mr. Stephens’ notes supply some very important
information regarding the previously doubtful nesting habits of this
species. A female taken April 25, proved on dissection to be about to
lay, but no eggs were actually taken until May 8, when a full set of
five was found near Tucson. After that date many nests containing either
eggs or young were examined. Their sites were variable; the
characteristic place, like that of the specimen discovered by Captain
Bendire, was behind the loosened bark of a large tree, but use was
frequently made of old Woodpeckers’ nests, knot-holes, and in short all
sorts of crevices. A brood of nearly fledged young (one of which is
before me) was actually taken from the deserted domicile of a
Yellow-headed Titmouse, which had been appropriated by the new tenant
without any apparent repairs or alterations. Among _Helminthophilæ_ this
Wren-like mode of nidification is, I believe, peculiar to this species.
I have the Tucson nest just alluded to. It is composed outwardly of
twigs and weed-stalks; inwardly of hemp-fibres; while there is a scanty
lining of horse-hairs and feathers. Like most _hole_ nests it is rather
flat, and the rim is thin in places where the walls of the cavity
encroached on the space within. The eggs are white, handsomely wreathed
about the larger ends with reddish-brown and umber spots, a few of which
are also scattered over their general surfaces. They measure
respectively .58×.46; .58×.46; .62×.46; .60×.47. The notes accompanying
this set are as follows:—“Nest about six feet above the ground in a
crevice nearly covered by bark. The bottom of the hole contained an old
nest; over this were droppings of wood-rats, and the whole filled the
cavity nearly to its top. The tree (a mesquite) stood within twenty feet
of a frequented road. Female sitting. Eggs fresh; one had been broken
and crowded in behind the nest by the parent bird.” None of the other
sets found by Mr. Stephens contained more than three eggs and the
present clutch is probably an exceptionally large one.
_Juv., first plumage_ (♀ No. 471, Camp Lowell, June 1).—Wing-coverts
and inner secondaries broadly tipped and edged with pale
brownish-fulvous. Primaries and rectrices edged and tipped with hoary
white. Rump and upper tail-coverts yellowish-chestnut. No chestnut on
the crown. Otherwise colored like the adult.
Among a number of adults before me the range of individual variation
is very limited, and is chiefly confined to the females. While it is
true that some of the latter are indistinguishable from the brightest
males, the majority have the rump and crown-patches considerably
duller, the chestnut being either diluted in shade, or mixed with the
color of the back. In No. 206 the crown-patch is concealed, the
chestnut being restricted to the basal portion of the feathers.
225, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 18. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.70.
229, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.80.
231, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.40; extent, 7; wing, 2.35;
tail, 1.93.
232. ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.80; wing, 2.35;
tail, 1.95.
253, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.21;
tail, 1.87.
254, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.21;
tail, 1.95.
255, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.50; extent, 7.10; wing, 2.23;
tail, 1.93.
280, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 4.40; extent, 7; wing, 2.25;
tail, 1.95.
299, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 28. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.70.
326, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 4. Length, 4.30; extent, 7; wing, 2.20; tail,
1.93.
340, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 4.40; extent, 7; wing, 2.21; tail,
1.93.
410, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 19. Length, 4.10; extent, 6.90;
wing, 2.22; tail, 1.82.
516, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 10. Length, 4.30; extent, 7; wing, 2.12;
tail, 1.85.
524, ♂ juv., first plumage, Tucson, June 11. “Taken from nest, which
also contained a young _Molothrus ater obscurus_.”
197, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. Length, 4.10; extent, 6.40;
wing, 2.12; tail, 1.78. “Iris dark brown; bill black above, bluish
beneath; legs black.”
206, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.50;
wing, 2.17; tail, 1.80.
208, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 4.20; extent, 6.60;
wing, 2.09; tail, 1.82.
217, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70;
wing, 2.21; tail, 1.84.
218, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 4.10; extent, 6.60;
wing, 2.10; tail, 1.85.
228, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.10;
tail, 1.85.
230, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.07;
tail, 1.84.
256, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.20; extent, 6.60.
260, ♀ ad., Tucson. April 22. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.60; wing, 2.08;
tail, 1.85.
261, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 22. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.25;
tail, 1.92.
279, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.10;
tail, 1.82. “About to lay.”
433, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 25. Length, 4.50; extent, 6.50. “With nest and
three eggs; set completed.”
449, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 29. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.11;
tail, 1.77. “With nest and three eggs; set completed.”
439, ♀ juv., first plumage, Tucson, May 26. Nearly feathered, but
unable to fly. “Taken from a deserted nest of _Auriparus flaviceps_.”
471, ♀ juv., first plumage, Camp Lowell, June 1. Length, 4.20; extent,
6.60; wing, 2.10; tail, 1.71. Fully feathered.
32. =Helminthophila celata lutescens= _Ridgw._ WESTERN ORANGE-CROWNED
WARBLER.—A few were seen late in April near Tucson.
Although not perfectly typical of _lutescens_, both of the
Orange-crowned Warblers obtained by Mr. Stephens are clearly referable
to that race. They are not quite as yellow beneath as Nicasio
(California) specimens, but they come within a shade of it, and are
brighter by many shades than any of the same sex among my eastern
examples; while in the vividness of the olive-green on the upper parts,
they fully equal any of the California females. The supposed difference
in the tail markings of these races does not hold in the series before
me, for a male from Nicasio has the edging on the inner webs of the
rectrices quite as broad and pure as that of any of the Florida ones.
The loss of this character, however, would be of little consequence, as
the two forms could be readily separated by the wide difference in their
general coloring. Mr. Henshaw considers his Arizona specimens true
_celata_, and _lutescens_ is now for the first time announced from that
Territory.
290, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 26. Length, 5; extent, 7.30; wing, 2.45; tail,
2.10. “Iris dark brown; bill black, lighter at base below; legs dark
brown. Not common.”
291, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 4.70; extent, 7.10; wing,
2.37; tail, 2.09. Same remarks.
(_To be continued._)
NOTES ON THE OS PROMINENS.[47]
BY FREDERIC A. LUCAS.
My attention was first directed to this bone by Dr. Shufeldt’s article
in this Bulletin for October, 1881, and subsequently by Mr. Jeffries’
paper in the number for January, 1882. With the view of ascertaining in
what birds the os prominens is present, and what is its use, I have
since examined quite an extensive series of birds. Lack of time has
prevented as extended an examination as could be wished for; and as
regards discovering any special use for this sesamoid, it must be
confessed that the results of the investigation are not wholly
satisfactory, being rather negative than positive in their character.
But such as they are, they are submitted, in the hope that they may
prove of service to some better skilled physiologist.
Through a lack of good material Dr. Shufeldt failed to discover the
existence of the os prominens in any of the Owls, but it would seem to
be specially characteristic of the _Bubonidæ_, since it is present in
one particular shape, and with a constant mode of articulation, in the
following species of that family: _Ketupa ceylonensis_, _K. javanensis_,
_Bubo ignavus_, _B. bengalensis_, _B. virginianus_, _Scops brasilianus_,
_S. asio_, _Nyctea scandiaca_, _Ninox albigulare_, _Asio otus_, _Syrnium
nebulosum_, and _S. uralense_. It is not present in _Strix flammea_ or
_S. perlata_, and should it prove to be present in other genera of the
_Bubonidæ_ than those noted above, it may serve as an additional, though
trivial, point of distinction between the families _Bubonidæ_ and
_Strigidæ_.
[Illustration:
Left wing of _Bubo virginianus_, from below (reduced one third).
_r_, radius; _u_, ulna; _c_, cuneiform; _s_, scapho-lunar; _os p_,
os prominens; _epa_, tendon of extensor patagii longus.
]
The accompanying cut, drawn from a fresh specimen of _B. virginianus_,
explains the form and position of the os prominens.
It will be noticed that it is situated on the anterior surface of the
distal end of the radius, and runs almost parallel with that bone,
instead of standing erect as in the _Falconidæ_. The radial portion of
the tensor patagii longus terminates in the os prominens, and is not
continued to the first metacarpal.
Apart from the Owls above noted, this bone has been found in _Otogyps
calvus_, _Heterospizias meridionalis_, _Buteo melanoleucus_, _B.
pennsylvanicus_, _B. lineatus_, _Circus gouldi_, _Asturina pucherani_,
and _Haliæetus albicilla_.
[Illustration:
A. Os prominens of _Otogyps calvus_, full size.
B. Os prominens of _Bubo virginianus_, seen from above to show
articulation with radius, full size.
]
It is absent in _Polyborus tharus_, _Milvago chimango_, and the
following peculiar forms which were examined to see if they would throw
any light upon the subject: _Nyctibius_, _Strigops_, _Nestor_,
_Megapodius_, _Ocydromus_, and _Atagen_. Neither was any trace of it to
be found in two specimens of _Pandion haliæetus_ from N. Africa and the
Duke of York group. Dr. Shufeldt’s theory that the os prominens is for
the purpose of extending the wing area struck me, as it did Mr.
Jeffries, as being untenable, from the fact that the increase of surface
thus obtained was too slight to be of any value.[48]
The first proposition of Mr. Jeffries’ summary is that the bone serves
to keep the friction of the extensor patagii longus from the carpus.
Were this the case it ought surely to be present in the Albatross and
Gull, birds which in a fresh breeze are continually flexing and
extending their wings according to the direction of their flight and the
varying force of the wind. But in both these birds the os prominens is
absent,[49] and moreover, as we see in the Owls, it may be so situated
as not to prevent the friction of the ulnar portion of the tendon.
Second, that it serves only to a limited extent to increase the power of
the extensor patagii longus to abduct the thumb, is shown by the fact
that in the majority of cases that tendon is inserted in the first
metacarpal. The exceptions to this, so far observed by me, are in
_Otogyps calvus_ and _Haliæetus albicilla_, where there is a strong
tendon running from the os prominens to the first phalanx of the thumb.
The third proposition has already been considered, and the fourth (that
it protects the carpus) must be rejected, both for the reason given by
Mr. Jeffries, and because as we see it in Owls it frequently does not
lie over the carpus at all. Only in _Otogyps calvus_ does the os
prominens seem to exist as a simple sesamoid, and in that bird it is
imbedded in the tendon of the extensor patagii longus, and glides over
the scapho-lunar. Were I to venture a suggestion it would be that by its
serving as a point of attachment for the tensor patagii longus, that
tendon is freed from all duties save that of “puckering up” the anterior
margin of the wing; but, as stated before, that theory is by no means
entirely satisfactory to me.
A LIST OF BIRDS FROM THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY, OBSERVED DURING THE
SUMMER OF 1881, WITH BRIEF NOTES.
BY O. P. HAY.
During the summer of 1881 the writer and two companions spent a little
more than a month in the South, especially in the State of Mississippi,
travelling and studying its zoölogy. Our primary object was to collect
fresh water fishes; and to this we devoted the greater part of our time
and efforts. Incidentally, however, we collected and made observations
on other animals. Hence this list of birds and the few notes concerning
them. I did not intend to publish this list until I had opportunity to
make additions to it; but the recent publication by Dr. F. W. Langdon of
his field notes on birds observed by him, early in the spring, at a
point a little farther south, has made it seem proper that I should
contribute my little toward making known the ornithology of this region.
Our observations and collections were made of course under difficulties,
and no attempt was made to secure nests and eggs, or, in any special
manner, notes on the breeding habits of birds. Still, on account of the
season when our trip was made, this list may be of some value as
indicating that the birds observed are summer residents. The number of
species recorded is not large, but I include only birds that I am
reasonably sure were seen. In nearly all cases the birds were shot, and
identified by means of descriptions. Others were seen, but as they were
not identified with certainty, they are not included in the list.
The birds noted as found at Memphis, Tenn., were really seen in Arkansas
just across the river from Memphis. Most of our other notes were
obtained at Vicksburg and Jackson, Miss.
The nomenclature adopted is that of Mr. Robert Ridgway, issued by the U.
S. National Museum, 1881.
1. =Hylocichla mustelina= (_Gmel._) _Baird_. WOOD THRUSH.—This species
was seen and specimens were shot at Memphis and at Vicksburg. Its song
was frequently heard; and it would appear to be quite common.
2. =Mimus polyglottus= (_Linn._) _Boie_. MOCKINGBIRD.—Very abundant at
all points visited. At the time we were at Vicksburg, July 1, the
young had not yet left the nest, as negro boys were offering them
captured in their nests for sale. In the “History of N. A. Birds” Dr.
Brewer has stated that the Mockingbird in the South nests early in
April, and that the young birds appear a month later. If this is the
case these birds must remain in the nest six weeks or two months. I
was informed that a law in Mississippi prohibits the keeping of these
birds in confinement.
3. =Galeoscoptes carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Caban._ CATBIRD.—This bird
was quite common at Memphis. I did not note it at any point farther
south.
4. =Harporhynchus rufus= (_Linn._) _Caban._ BROWN THRUSH.—A single
specimen seen at Jackson.
5. =Sialia sialis= (_Linn._) _Haldem._ BLUEBIRD.—Seen in considerable
numbers at Memphis, Vicksburg, and Jackson.
6. =Lophophanes bicolor= (_Linn._) _Bonap._ TUFTED TITMOUSE.—Specimens
of this species were obtained at Memphis and at Jackson. It may be
worth noting here that it occurs as far north as Indianapolis, and I
have seen it here during the present winter.
7. =Parus carolinensis= _Aud._ CAROLINA CHICKADEE.—Seen only at
Memphis.
8. =Thryothorus ludovicianus= (_Gm._) _Bonap._ CAROLINA WREN.—We
observed this active bird at Memphis and at Jackson, at both of which
places it appeared to be very abundant.
9. =Mniotilta varia= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ BLACK-AND-WHITE
CREEPER.—Observed at Memphis and Jackson. It will probably be found to
breed at both these points.
10. =Protonotaria citrea= (_Bodd._) _Baird_. PROTHONOTARY
WARBLER.—Specimens of this species were shot at Memphis, and others
were seen at Jackson.
11. =Parula americana= (_Linn._) _Bp._ BLUE YELLOW-BACKED
WARBLER.—This was found to be one of the most common of the smaller
birds at Memphis, Vicksburg, and Jackson. We were constantly shooting
them while hunting for other species. In the “History of N. A. Birds”
it is said to be nowhere abundant; but a day’s hunt in the Mississippi
lowlands would, I think, convince any ornithologist that this is an
error. I have no doubt whatever that it breeds all through the South,
although we found no nests. Audubon was probably correct in saying
that it breeds in Louisiana, however much he may have erred in regard
to the structure of the nest.
12. =Oporornis formosa= (_Wils._) _Baird_. KENTUCKY WARBLER.—This
sprightly little bird was observed, and specimens were handled, at
both Vicksburg and Jackson.
13. =Geothlypis trichas= (_Linn._) _Caban._ MARYLAND YELLOW-THROAT.—A
specimen was shot at Memphis; others were seen.
14. =Myiodioctes mitratus= (_Gmel._) _Aud._ HOODED WARBLER.—Specimens,
male and female, of this bird were obtained at Jackson. It appeared to
be moderately common.
15. =Setophaga ruticilla= (_Linn._) _Swains._ AMERICAN
REDSTART.—During our stay at Hopefind, Ark., opposite Memphis, a
number of specimens of the Redstart were seen. Afterwards, while at
Jackson, about July 10, a male and a female were killed. Their
presence so far south at this season, and in such numbers, would
indicate that they breed here. Up to this time I am not aware that it
is known to breed south of the Potomac River and Illinois. The finding
of the nest and eggs in Mississippi may be expected.
16. =Vireosylvia olivacea= (_Linn._) _Bonap._ RED-EYED VIREO.—Very
abundant at all the stations visited. Its clear, musical notes could
be heard everywhere in the deep forests. A specimen was shot at
Vicksburg, which had apparently just become fledged. Memphis,
Vicksburg, Jackson.
17. =Vireo noveboracensis= (_Gmel._) _Bonap._ WHITE-EYED
VIREO.—Specimens of this Vireo were obtained at Memphis and at
Jackson.
18. =Lanius ludovicianus= _Linn._ LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE.—A specimen of
Shrike was seen at Jackson; but, as it was not shot, I am unable to
say whether it belongs to this variety or to _excubitorides_.
19. =Progne subis= (_Linn._) _Baird_. PURPLE MARTIN.—Common about
Vicksburg.
20. =Hirundo erythrogastra= _Bodd._ BARN SWALLOW.—This species was
observed to be quite common about Jackson together with the next.
21. =Tachycineta bicolor= (_Vieill._) _Caban._ WHITE-BELLIED
SWALLOW.—Seen flying about the outskirts of Jackson.
22. =Cotile riparia= (_Linn._) _Boie_. BANK SWALLOW.—Seen at various
points along the Mississippi River near Memphis.
23. =Pyranga æstiva= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ SUMMER REDBIRD.—A male of
this species was shot at Memphis, another at Vicksburg, and a male and
a female at Jackson. It is apparently a very common bird.
24. =Spizella pusilla= (_Wils._) _Bonap._ FIELD SPARROW.—A single
specimen of this species was shot at Jackson. Its occurrence there at
that season was hardly to be expected. This individual may have been
left behind in its winter quarters by its migrating comrades; or it
may be that the species will be found to breed even as far south as
Jackson.
25. =Cardinalis virginianus= (_Briss._) _Bonap._ CARDINAL
GROSBEAK.—One of the most conspicuous birds at every point visited.
26. =Passerina cyanea= (_Linn._) _Gray._ INDIGO BUNTING.—The Indigo
Bird was observed at Memphis, and again at Jackson.
27. =Passerina ciris= (_Linn._) _Gray._ PAINTED BUNTING.—This
beautiful bird was seen at the crossing of the Vicksburg and Meridian
R. R. over the big Black River, and again at Jackson. Females were
shot at both places, but the males eluded capture. They seem to be
quite common.
28. =Spiza americana= (_Gm._) _Bonap._ BLACK-THROATED BUNTING.—Seen in
the lowlands along the river in Louisiana opposite Vicksburg.
29. =Agelæus phœniceus= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ RED-WING BLACKBIRD.—Very
abundant in the swamps in the vicinity of Vicksburg.
30. =Sturnella magna= (_Linn._) _Swains._ MEADOW LARK.—Not many were
seen. One specimen at Vicksburg, and another along the railway while
_en route_ to Jackson.
31. =Icterus spurius= (_Linn._) _Bonap._ ORCHARD ORIOLE.—Many of these
were observed, and some shot, in Louisiana opposite Vicksburg.
32. =Icterus galbula= (_Linn._) _Coues_. BALTIMORE ORIOLE.—Quite
common at Memphis and at Vicksburg.
33. =Quiscalus purpureus= (_Bartr._) _Licht._ PURPLE GRACKLE.—Common
at Memphis and at Vicksburg.
34. =Corvus frugivorus= _Bartr._ COMMON CROW.—Seen at Memphis,
Vicksburg, and at several intermediate points along the river.
35. =Cyanocitta cristata= (_Linn._) _Strickl._ BLUE JAY.—A common bird
at Memphis and Vicksburg.
36. =Tyrannus carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Temm._ KINGBIRD.—A very common
bird at Memphis and Vicksburg.
37. =Myiarchus crinitus= (_Linn._) _Caban._ GREAT CRESTED
FLYCATCHER.—Seen at all points visited. Apparently more common than at
the North.
38. =Contopus virens= (_Linn._) _Caban._ WOOD PEWEE.—This bird was
found to be quite common at Memphis and at Jackson.
39. =Empidonax acadicus= (_Gmel._) _Baird_. ACADIAN FLYCATCHER.—A
specimen was shot at Jackson.
40. =Trochilus colubris= _Linn._ RUBY-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD.—A single
specimen was shot at Vicksburg.
41. =Chætura pelasgica= (_Linn._) _Baird_. CHIMNEY SWIFT.—Seen flying
about at Jackson.
42. =Chordeiles popetue= (_Vieill._) _Baird_. NIGHT HAWK.—Observed at
Jackson.
43. =Campephilus principalis= (_Linn._) _Gray._ IVORY-BILLED
WOODPECKER.—No specimens of this species were seen, but their
existence in the denser and less frequented forests in the
neighborhood of Vicksburg and at other points, was confirmed by
hunters and trappers. It is possible that the bird referred to here is
the Logcock (_Hylotomus pileatus_), but as special mention was made by
my informant, a professional hunter, of the white bill, I think the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker must have been seen. Doubtless the other bird
also occurs.
44. =Picus pubescens= _Linn._ DOWNY WOODPECKER.—A single individual of
this species was obtained at Vicksburg.
45. =Melanerpes erythrocephalus= (_Linn._) _Sw._ RED-HEADED
WOODPECKER.—This Woodpecker is apparently not so common as at the
North, but it was observed at Memphis, Vicksburg, and Jackson.
46. =Colaptes auratus= (_Linn._) _Sw._ YELLOW-SHAFTED FLICKER.—A not
uncommon bird about Vicksburg.
47. =Ceryle alcyon= (_Linn._) _Boie_. BELTED KINGFISHER.—Quite common.
Seen at Memphis and Vicksburg and intermediate points along the river.
48. =Coccyzus americanus= (_Linn._) _Bonap._ YELLOW-BILLED
CUCKOO.—Apparently common. A specimen was secured at Vicksburg.
49. =Conurus carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Kuhl._ CAROLINA PARAKEET.—None
were seen by ourselves. Inquiry concerning this rapidly disappearing
species was made of various persons, and especially of hunters. It is
still occasionally seen; but, for the most part, it maintains itself
in the dense cane-brakes and forests, away from contact with man. I
heard of its having been seen recently along the Mississippi River,
about half-way down the state of Mississippi; also that it had been
seen in southeastern Arkansas. A gentleman in Jackson stated that he
had, within a year or two, seen a flock of Parakeets pass over that
city. These items, together with the information obtained by Dr. F. W.
Langdon, communicated in his recent paper, would indicate that this
bird has not yet disappeared from the Mississippi Valley.
50. =Scops asio= (_Linn._) _Bonap._ LITTLE SCREECH OWL.—A single
individual of this species, in the shabbiest of plumage, was shot
along the Big Black River between Vicksburg and Jackson.
51. =Buteo lineatus= (_Gm._) _Jard._ RED-SHOULDERED HAWK.—A specimen
of this hawk was shot and brought to me by a hunter at Jackson.
52. =Cathartes aura= (_Linn._) _Illig._ TURKEY BUZZARD.—A common bird
everywhere. Seen in great numbers at Jackson in company with the next.
53. =Catharista atrata= (_Wils._) _Less._ CARRION CROW.—Not observed
at any place but Jackson, although doubtless common everywhere.
Readily distinguished from the Turkey Buzzard by its smaller size and
its manner of flight.
54. =Zenaidura carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Bonap._ MOURNING DOVE.—Common
everywhere. Memphis, Vicksburg, Jackson.
55. =Meleagris gallopavo americana= (_Bartr._) _Coues_. WILD
TURKEY.—None were seen, but hunters stated that they were quite
abundant, even in the immediate vicinity of the city of Jackson. In
the spring of 1880 I saw a fine gobbler that had been shot by a party
of hunters in the pine woods of Kemper County, near the eastern border
of the State.
56. =Ortyx virginiana= (_Linn._) _Bonap._ BOB WHITE.—The call notes of
these birds were frequently heard as we passed down the river. At
Vicksburg they appeared to be abundant in the bottom lands. We were
extremely sorry that we could procure none of their skins.
57. =Ardea herodias= _Linn._ GREAT BLUE HERON.—Several of these birds
were seen flying about in the swamps near Vicksburg.
58. =Herodias alba egretta= (_Gmel._) _Ridgw._ AMERICAN EGRET.—A
number of this snow-white species were observed in the swamps across
the “lake” from Vicksburg. One was shot, and was found to have the
long dorsal train of plumes.
59. =Oxyechus vociferus= (_Linn._) _Reich._ KILLDEER.—Observed only at
Vicksburg. Will probably be found to breed here.
60. =Philohela minor= (_Gmel._) _Gray._ AMERICAN WOODCOCK.—One
specimen was shot at Vicksburg.
61. =Sterna antillarum= (_Less._) _Coues_. LEAST TERN.—This beautiful
little Tern was very abundant on a sandy point across the “lake,” or
old bend of the river, opposite Vicksburg. We were told that these
birds lay their eggs on the bare sand, and that these eggs hatch in an
extraordinarily short time.
IMPRESSIONS OF SOME SOUTHERN BIRDS.
BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.
Looking back on my first winter in the South I can recall no pleasanter
experience than that of a stay of some four weeks at St. Mary’s, a town
situated on the very border line of Southern Georgia. This place was
then scarcely known to Northerners, although the crowded Florida
steamers, on their way across Cumberland Sound, passed within sight of
it and occasionally even touched at its wharf for some chance freight or
a supply of fuel. But the village still retained a primitive quiet and
simplicity that was all the more restful from its contrast with the
bustling world outside. Now there are rumors of a railroad and daily
trains from Savannah, with all the accompanying desecrations. It is a
pity that the march of modern improvements cannot spare a few such
peaceful spots, but the “levelling process” seems universal and
inevitable.
A Northerner passing his first spring in the South will miss the marked
distinction between the seasons upon which he has been accustomed to
rely. The vegetation does indeed take a partial rest during the winter
months, but it is checked rather than suppressed, and the reign of
summer begins without that interval of preparation which we call spring.
Most of the trees are evergreen, but some of them, curiously enough,
assume bright autumn tints and cast their leaves in April. This at least
is true of the live-oaks and magnolias: during my stay at St. Mary’s one
of the latter, a remarkably fine tree which I often passed in my daily
walks, was at one time nearly denuded, while the ground beneath was
strewn with scarlet and orange-tinted leaves.
By the middle of April the fields and forests wore that mature
appearance which we associate with August and early September. At
noonday cicadas shrilled in the sultry woods, and crickets chirped all
night long in the shrubbery about the house. Yet few birds had begun to
nest, and many of the northern ones still lingered. I saw Yellow-rumped
Warblers, Blue Yellow-backed Warblers and Cedar Birds nearly to the end
of April, and a White-throated Sparrow as late as May 2. Many of the
Blue Yellow-backed Warblers remained to breed, or rather _were
breeding_, for long before this (on April 9) I had found a nearly
finished nest. The local birds, however, did not mingle with the
strangers, the former being found in pairs, and only where the trees
were hung with Spanish moss; while the latter occurred in all kinds of
timber, and in flocks made up largely of Redstarts, Kinglets, Black-poll
Warblers and other northern species. The same was true of the Catbirds,
Brown Thrushes, Pine Warblers, Towhees and several others. It was
especially marked in the case of the Towhees, for the resident
individuals belonged to a different and readily recognizable race.
One needed but to pass the boundaries of St. Mary’s to be fairly in the
country, for the village had not then overflowed its limits, and the few
outlying plantations were scarcely less wild and unkempt than the woods
which surrounded them. One of my favorite haunts was the “Bay-gall” (I
could never learn the origin of this name), a tract of swampy forest
less than a quarter of a mile distant from the house at which we were
staying. This place was sure to be alive with birds, and I rarely
entered it without making some pleasing discovery. My first visit was on
April 6, the day after our arrival. As I approached the woods a
Red-bellied Woodpecker started from a solitary tree within a few feet of
my head, and alighting at the base of one near by scrambled hurriedly
up, dislodging the scales of loose bark in his ascent. He was
immediately joined by his mate and the two began a game of hide-and-seek
around the trunk and among the branches, uttering a rolling
_wor’r’r’roo_ very like that of a Flicker.
Forcing my way through the brambly outskirts, I entered the swamp and
paused a moment to look around. Grand old wateroaks and sweet-gums
thickly hung with Spanish moss cast a dense shade over the ground
beneath, and the few sunbeams that struggled through flickered in the
gloom like dying torches. There was little undergrowth, and the eye
could penetrate far in every direction. In the branches above Blue
Yellow-backed Warblers were singing incessantly, and occasionally the
note of a Great-crested Flycatcher echoed sharply among the trees. There
were other sounds; the rolling tapping of Woodpeckers, the shrill cry of
the Blue Jay; and, from the clearing outside, pleasantly softened by
distance, the songs of Mockingbirds and Cardinal Grosbeaks.
Passing deeper into the forest I came to an opening where the morning
sun lay warm on a thicket of bushes that surrounded a shallow pool. Here
I found an interesting little company of tired migrants resting after
the fatigues of their last night’s journey and preparing for that still
before them. There were six or eight Hooded Warblers, all males in full
spring livery, a number of Worm-eating Warblers, a female Prothonotary
Warbler, and several Ruby-crowned Kinglets and Redstarts. All were
busily engaged in catching insects, but occasionally one of them would
pause to sing a few notes in a listless undertone. The Prothonotary was
the first that I had ever met with, and it was the only one that I saw
at St. Mary’s. The Hooded and Worm-eating Warblers were common for a
week or more afterwards, when all departed for some more northern
breeding-ground.
During subsequent visits to the “Bay-gall” I met many interesting birds,
several of which were new to me. Occasionally I would startle a
Chuck-will’s-widow from its noonday slumbers on some mossy knoll, and if
a chance shot through the leaves succeeded in stopping its erratic,
bat-like flight, there was the pleasure of smoothing its soft plumage
and admiring the rich brown coloring before consigning the bird to the
paper wrapper that formed its temporary tomb. I believe I never shot one
without indulging myself in this way. There is much to be learned, too,
from the examination of a freshly-killed bird. For instance, I had never
known the wonderful beauty of this Goat-sucker’s eye until I held the
bird in my hand, and the size of its mouth would hardly be suspected
from the examination of a dried skin.
On April 17 the Acadian Flycatchers arrived. I was first made aware of
their presence by their emphatic _queep’ éep_ which so closely resembled
that of Traill’s Flycatcher that I immediately suspected the identity of
the singers, although it was some time before I could get a sight at
one. They had another note also which was much like the whistling of
wings. I afterwards satisfied myself that this sound was a vocal one.
I never left the “Bay-gall” without reluctance in the days when I was
perhaps the only invader of its secret recesses; and now, in recalling
it, the feeling is scarcely less strong. But the country about St.
Mary’s held other attractions which must not be neglected. The open
space surrounding the town was bordered on the north by a pine forest
that stretched an indefinite number of miles into the interior, and my
walks often tended in this direction. Following some grass-grown road
that wandered aimlessly among the trees, I often paused to watch the
gambols of the Brown-headed Nuthatches which fairly swarmed in these
woods. They are exceedingly social little birds, and it was no uncommon
thing, even in the middle of their breeding season, to see five or six
rollicking together. In their motions they closely resemble _Sitta
canadensis_, and they have the same habit of exploring the ends of the
pine branches and hanging head downward, like Titmice, among the tufts
of pine needles. But they are decidedly more active, and their notes are
shriller, more varied and altogether unlike those of either the Red or
White-bellied species. _Whick-whick-whee’e’e’ whick-whicker-whicker_ is
the usual utterance, but when several come together their shrill excited
piping altogether baffles description. These little companies were by no
means wholly composed of Nuthatches, but usually included a more or less
numerous escort of Pine Warblers, Bluebirds, Titmice and Woodpeckers. As
the motley troop rambled through the woods, its members were continually
chasing one another from tree to tree, chirping, calling and singing as
their various moods dictated. I noticed that the Bluebirds usually led
the van, while the Woodpeckers invariably brought up the rear.
Unlike the Red-bellied, Downy, Hairy and Golden-winged species, which
inhabited all sorts of timber, the Red-cockaded Woodpecker was
exclusively a bird of the pines. It was not common about St. Mary’s and
I had difficulty in getting as many specimens as I wanted. Its notes to
my ear almost exactly resembled those of _Sitta pusilla_. On the 1st of
May I started a female from her nesting-hole, which was about thirty
feet above the ground in a large and apparently perfectly sound pine. I
was unable to climb the tree but the bird acted as if her eggs had
already been laid.
The pine lands of the South have an open park-like character that is a
continual surprise to one accustomed only to New England forests. The
trees rarely stand in close proximity to one another, and they are often
so widely scattered that the general effect is that of an opening rather
than a forest. Unless a hummock interrupts the view, the eye may
sometimes roam for half a mile in every direction over a perfectly level
plain, interspersed with occasional trees whose tufted heads throw
waving shadows upon the bright green beds of saw-palmetto that cover
most of the ground beneath. Were it not for the half-wild cattle that
range at will through the country, the palmetto would probably usurp
every inch of ground; but these creatures keep it within reasonable
limits, and many spaces of closely cropped grass and stunted blueberries
intervene. About such places I used to find the Bachman’s Finch, a
retiring little bird which might easily be overlooked by one
unacquainted with its habit of skulking among the herbage and lying
concealed until nearly trodden on. But no one with the slightest ear for
bird music can long remain in ignorance of its presence after the
breeding season has set in, for the male possesses vocal powers of a
very rare order. His song is a prolonged, leisurely chant composed of
several distinct bars or sets of notes, with brief pauses between, as if
the bird stopped to take breath. The final notes of each bar have
sometimes a rising, sometimes a falling, inflection, and the tone is
varied in the most subtle manner. Now it has a full bell-like ring that
seems to fill the air around; next it is soft and low and inexpressibly
tender; now it is clear again, but so modulated that the sound seems to
come from a great distance. The whole performance is very simple and I
hardly know the secret of its charm. To be fully appreciated it should
be heard in the soft twilight of an April evening, when the still woods
are filled with dusky shadows. At such times it has moved me more deeply
than I care to confess.
The male always sings from an elevated perch, usually a dead twig close
to the trunk of a southern pine. He sits perfectly motionless and is
unaccountably hard to see. I have often stood directly beneath one for
several minutes, vainly straining my eyes in the direction from whence
the sound came, and perhaps finally discovered him within ten feet of my
head in plain view. The ventriloquous character of many of his notes
increases this difficulty. If disturbed in the midst of his song, he
pitches to the ground beneath and at once seeks shelter in the grass.
Another characteristic inhabitant of these grassy openings was the
Meadow Lark. It was much tamer than our northern bird, and its notes had
a wild, ringing inflection that harmonized well with the surroundings.
In the thicker groves I often heard the voice of the Summer Tanager
(_Pyranga æstiva_). His song is rich, flowing, and not unlike that of
the Rose-breasted Grosbeak, although some of its notes recall those of
the Robin. The call-note used by both sexes is a peculiar
_chuck’l-chuckl’ut_. The bright colors of the male make him a
conspicuous object among the branches of the southern pine which, at
least in Georgia, is his favorite tree.
The Yellow-throated Warbler also was sure to be met with in these walks.
His song to my ear has a far-a-way sound, even when the bird is near at
hand. It is simple and monotonous, but nevertheless sweet and plaintive.
This bird has all the habits of the Pine Warbler, with which it often
associates.
A totally different phase of bird life was presented when, as was often
the case, I visited the plantations. The fields themselves rarely
offered anything more attractive than Yellow-winged Sparrows, Grass
Finches and, late in April, migratory troops of Bobolinks that settled
among the last year’s weeds for a moment before resuming their northward
journey with rollicking snatches of song. But the fence corners and
similar neglected places around the outskirts of the cultivated lands
were filled with bushes over which trailed Cherokee roses, trumpet-vines
and other luxuriant creepers. In these places I was sure to find
Mockingbirds, Cardinals, Catbirds, Brown Thrushes, White-eyed Vireos and
the brilliant little Painted Buntings.
Next to the always self-assertive Mockingbird the White-eyed Vireo was
perhaps the most conspicuous inhabitant of such thickets. Not that he
was often seen, but at almost any time of the day one might hear his
emphatic, jerky little strain, coming from half a dozen points at once.
I noticed that the note varied considerably from that which we hear in
New England, and, moreover, scarcely two of the southern birds sang
exactly alike. Some individuals even seemed to have a talent for
mimicry. One that I remember imitated the note of the Loggerhead Shrike
so closely that I was completely deceived. The nest of this bird is a
wonderfully delicate and beautiful structure. One that I got at St.
Mary’s contained its complement of four eggs on April 26. I discovered
it twelve days previously when the birds were busily employed on the
framework. The male took an equal part in this task and it was amusing
to see him try to sing with his bill full of moss or bark.
The Painted Buntings or Nonpareils, as they are universally called by
the townspeople, arrived April 23 and through the remainder of the month
were abundant. I used to find them in flocks about the openings where
they spent much of their time on the ground. They were timid rather than
shy, flying to the thickets upon the slightest alarm, but when once
conscious of being pursued, it was difficult to get a shot at one. The
brilliant plumage of the adult male makes him a conspicuous object
either on the ground or in green foliage, but it is no easy matter to
see one among the flowers of the trumpet-vine where they often seek
refuge, apparently fully conscious of the protection afforded by the
clusters of scarlet blossoms. The young males during the first year are
colored precisely like the females. They sing, and for aught I know,
breed, while in this condition. The song is a low, pleasing warble very
un-Finch-like in character. I should compare it to that of the Canada
Flycatcher, but the notes are less emphatic, though equally
disconnected. The bird almost invariably sings in the depths of some
thicket, and its voice ceases at the slightest noise. Both sexes have a
sharp chirp of alarm which closely resembles that of the Indigo Finch.
Most of the Nonpareils left St. Mary’s by May 1, but a few pairs
remained up to the time of my departure, when they were apparently
preparing to breed. Another familiar inhabitant of these thickets was
the Towhee Bunting. Two distinct races of this bird were to be met with
during the same walk, but never, so far as my observation went, actually
in company. The Red-eyed or northern form, _erythrophthalmus_ proper,
apparently occurred only as a winter visitor, while var. _alleni_
represented the resident or local race. The latter was chiefly a bird of
the oak scrub, although it was also to be found in open pine woods where
it haunted the beds of saw-palmetto. Its note differed widely from that
of _erythrophthalmus_; the “_chewink_” was shorter and harsher, and in
addition to this cry, both sexes occasionally uttered a sharp, clear
whistle that sounded like a sportsman’s call to his dog. I am not sure
that I heard the song, or at least identified it. These Towhees were
hard to obtain, for they were shy and retiring, rarely venturing far
from their secure retreats. The irides of all the specimens that I
examined were brownish-yellow or dull, opaque amber; never white, as is
said to be the case with examples from Southern Florida.
It would be difficult to find a plantation in the South that did not
have one or more pairs of Mockingbirds. About St. Mary’s they were
especially abundant, and nowhere more so than in the gardens of the
village. Here they were half-domesticated, building their nests in the
shrubbery that surrounded the houses, and hopping about, like Robins,
upon the grass-plats and gravelled walks. An orange tree directly in
front of the windows of my room was appropriated by a remarkably fine
singer. There is a noticeable difference in the performances of most
males, but the voice of this bird possessed a compass and perfection of
tone that I have never heard equalled. His repertoire included the notes
of nearly all the birds of the surrounding region besides many of the
characteristic village sounds, and most of the imitations were simply
perfect. Moreover he was continually adding to his accomplishments. An
interesting instance of this occurred one afternoon, when several of us
were sitting on the veranda. A Greater Yellow-leg passing over the town
was attracted by my answering whistle, and circled several times above
the house reiterating his mellow call. The Mockingbird up to this time
had been singing almost uninterruptedly, but at the sound of these
strange notes he relapsed into silence and retreated into the thickest
foliage of his favorite tree; after a while we heard him trying them in
an undertone. The first note came pretty readily, but the falling
inflection of the succeeding three troubled him. Whenever I ventured to
prompt he would listen attentively, and at the next attempt show an
evident improvement. Finally he abandoned the task, as we thought in
despair, and at sunset that evening for the first and only time during
my stay his voice was missing in the general chorus. But at daylight the
next morning the garden rang with a perfect imitation of the
Yellow-leg’s whistle. He had mastered it during the night, and ever
afterwards it was his favorite part. The discomfiture of the rival males
in the neighborhood was as amusing as it was unmistakable. Each in turn
tried it, but not one of them succeeded.
Another frequenter of the village shrubbery was the Orchard Oriole. His
flute-like voice, which bears some resemblance to that of the Fox
Sparrow, could be heard almost any time after April 10. Our garden
offered especial attractions to these Orioles, for the hedge of wild
olive trees that bordered it on two sides was overrun with Cherokee
roses and trumpet-vines among which they found a congenial shelter. They
were fond, too, of sipping the honey from the trumpet-flowers, and it
was no uncommon thing to see half a dozen collected about a single
cluster. In this occupation they were almost invariably joined by
numerous Hummingbirds;—and such a group, with its setting of green
leaves and scarlet and white blossoms, formed the prettiest picture
imaginable.
To our garden also came the Blue Jays; bold, familiar birds very
different in bearing from the outcast that boys and would-be sportsmen
pursue so relentlessly in the northern woods. Everywhere at the South
this Jay is as much an inhabitant of the cultivated grounds as of the
forests, and if not actually encouraged, it is universally tolerated. In
Jacksonville I have heard them screaming among the live-oaks that shade
the busiest streets, and at St. Mary’s they were scarcely less tame and
confiding than the Mockingbirds.
The average Georgian is indifferent to the shooting of most of the birds
that inhabit his plantation; but it is little short of a crime in his
eyes to take the life of either a Turkey Buzzard or a Mockingbird. The
killing of one of the former is considered an offence against the State,
which protects them on account of their services as scavengers. But the
Mockingbirds are treasured as personal property, and any interference
with them is sure to be promptly resented. The natural result of this
sentiment is that both species are universally abundant and familiar.
The Buzzards, especially, are ubiquitous. At all hours of the day, in
every kind of weather, they float over the cities, villages,
plantations, pine woods, hummocks, cypress swamps, salt marshes and even
the beaches of the Sea-islands. Go where you will, it is almost
impossible to look upward without seeing the picturesque forms drifting
about in the sky. Some are soaring almost beyond the reach of human
vision. Others at a lower elevation cross and recross each other in
interminable mazy lines; while still others glide across the landscape
passing just above the tops of the trees. Both species occurred at St.
Mary’s, but the Black Vulture was much the less common. It associated
freely with the Turkey Buzzards, among which it could be recognized at
almost any distance by its different color, shape and manner of flying.
The tail is so short as to be altogether out of proportion with the body
and wings, while its square tip gives it the appearance of having been
cut off. This bird’s flight is heavy, awkward and generally straight
forward, although it occasionally soars. The wings are flapped every few
seconds in a hurried, nervous manner that seems to betoken a lack of
power or confidence. The flight of the Turkey Buzzard, on the contrary,
is a picture of repose in motion. The bird rarely moves its wings, save
to alter their inclination, and its dark form drifts through miles of
space without the slightest perceptible effort. The impression of entire
freedom from exertion which its movements convey, is curiously in accord
with the general enervating influence of southern life and its
surroundings. Its impassive flight may perhaps be regarded as the most
characteristic feature of a southern landscape, as it certainly is one
of the most attractive. But the observer who would keep this impression
untarnished will be wise to refrain from looking too closely into the
_useful_ side of the bird’s character.
The Buzzard’s flight will not bear comparison however with that of the
Swallow-tailed Kite. The latter is equally easy and graceful of wing,
and, in addition, its movements are characterized by a certain dash and
energy of purpose that one looks for in vain in the calm, emotionless
flight of the Vulture. I hardly know a more attractive sight than that
presented by one of these Kites playing about an opening in the woods.
For a moment it floats motionless, as if suspended by an invisible wire;
the next, it glides close over the ground crossing and recrossing every
yard of space. The long, thin wings, firmly set, cleave the air like
knife-blades and the forked tail, spread to its fullest, is inclined to
one side or the other as the bird changes its swift course. When it
turns, the snowy head and breast are contrasted against the green
background and its steel blue back glances in the sunlight. Finally
rising to a level with the tree-tops it is gone as it came, like a
beautiful vision.
But my space is exhausted, although many interesting birds remain to be
mentioned. Perhaps at some future time I may take up the threads where
this sketch leaves them.
NOTES ON SOME OF THE RARER BIRDS OF SOUTHERN NEW BRUNSWICK.
BY MONTAGUE CHAMBERLAIN.
1. =Sialia sialis.= BLUEBIRD.—About the middle of March, 1877, Mr.
Harold Gilbert saw one at Mount Pleasant, a suburb of St. John. Some
time early in June, 1879, Mr. J. W. Banks saw one at Milledgeville,
with food in its mouth, apparently for its young. On April 26, 1881,
Mr. Henry Gilbert shot one at Rothesay, nine miles north of St. John.
2. =Dendrœca pennsylvanica.= CHESTNUT-SIDED WARBLER.
3. =Dendrœca castanea.= BAY-BREASTED WARBLER.
4. =Dendrœca blackburnæ.= BLACKBURN’S WARBLER.—These three species are
but rarely found here. In my note-book is a record of one of each
taken during the summer of 1881, and I can learn of none others having
been seen or heard.
5. =Vireo noveboracensis.= WHITE-EYED VIREO.—Mr. Harold Gilbert shot
one specimen of this bird at South Bay, a few miles northwest from St.
John, on May 24, 1877, and this is the only known instance of its
occurrence in this vicinity.
6. =Pyranga rubra.= SCARLET TANAGER.—I saw an adult male of this
species sitting on a fence in the suburbs of St. John on June 20,
1879, and have examined two specimens taken near Hampton during the
summer of 1880.
7. =Ammodromus caudacutus.= SHARP-TAILED FINCH.—On June 21, 1881, five
individuals of this species were taken by Mr. H. A. Purdie, Mr. Fred.
W. Daniel and myself, on a marsh near Hampton. This marsh is watered
by the Kenebecasis, a tributary of the St. John, and lies some
twenty-five miles up the former river. The junction of the two rivers
takes place about five miles from the mouth of the St. John. The marsh
is some twenty miles, air line, from the nearest point on the Bay of
Fundy shore, and at the time we visited it, the water running past it
did not taste in the least brackish.[50]
8. =Pipilo erythrophthalmus.= TOWHEE.—A specimen, now in the
collection of the Natural History Society of St. John, was shot at
Irishtown on May 8, 1881, by Mr. J. Belyea.
9. =Zamelodia ludoviciana.= ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK.—I have examined
the skin of one of this species taken near Hampton in June, 1879.
10. =Passerina cyanea.= INDIGO BUNTING.—There is a skin in the
collection of James McGivern, Esq., said to have been taken about six
miles north of St. John in June, 1880. I can learn of no other
occurrence of this bird near here, though I have frequently seen
specimens taken on the western, or Bay of Fundy shore of Nova Scotia.
11. =Zenaidura carolinensis.= MOURNING DOVE.—This bird has been but
rarely met with here; one taken at Hampton in June, 1880, one at
Rothesay on September 30, 1881, and one at Milkish on October 17,
1881, are the only specimens I have heard of.
12. =Ardetta exilis.= LEAST BITTERN.—Between the spring of 1877 and
the fall of 1880 there were five individuals of this species taken on
the Bay of Fundy shore, about ten miles to the eastward of St. John.
13. =Micropalama himantopus.= STILT SANDPIPER.—The only known
occurrence of this bird in this vicinity is of three seen by Mr. F. W.
Daniel on the sand flats back of St. John on September 8, 1881. He
secured one of them, which is now in the museum of the Natural History
Society.
14. =Recurvirostra americana.= AVOCET.—Mr. William Ellis of St.
Martins, a village on the shore of the Bay of Fundy, says he has shot
one or more of these birds each year for the last five years, usually
meeting two together. A specimen taken by him in 1880 is in the museum
of the Natural History Society.
15. =Himantopus mexicanus.= BLACK-NECKED STILT.—I procured one of this
species in September, 1880, from Mr. John Ellis of Mace’s Bay, an arm
of the Bay of Fundy, lying some thirty miles to the westward of St.
John, and was told by Mr. Ellis that several had been taken there
during former years.
16. =Ionornis martinica.= PURPLE GALLINULE.—Since obtaining the male,
announced by Mr. Wm. Brewster in this Bulletin for July, 1881, I have
had the good fortune to get possession of a female which was shot near
Gagetown, a village on the St. John River, about forty miles from its
mouth. The bird was taken in the early part of September, 1880.
17. =Chen hyperboreus.= SNOW GOOSE.—One of these birds was taken at
Gagetown in December, 1880, and sent by me to Mr. E. O. Damon of
Northampton, Mass.
18. =Anas boscas.= MALLARD.—A pair in the museum of the Natural
History Society were shot near Hampton by the late Col. Otty some
fifteen years ago. The only late occurrences of this species are of
one mounted by J. H. Carnell, taxidermist, and a flock of some six or
eight seen by Mr. Henry Gilbert on the Kenebecasis River in August,
1880, from which he obtained a male and female.
19. =Æthyia vallisneria.= CANVAS-BACK.—Carnell has mounted one of this
species taken within the Province, and E. C. Sutton, Esq., of Sutton,
who is familiar with their appearance, saw a flock on the St. John
River, about four miles from the city, several times during the fall
of 1879.
20. =Pelecanus erythrorhynchus.= AMERICAN WHITE PELICAN.—One of these
birds in the collection of the Natural History Society was shot on the
shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence near Pt. du Chene by Mr. Robert
Bustin, and I have very good authority for announcing the occurrence
of another at Cape Spencer, some five miles east of St. John, during
the first week in April, 1881.
NOTES ON THE SUMMER BIRDS OF THE UPPER ST. JOHN.
BY CHARLES F. BATCHELDER.
During the spring of 1879 Messrs. W. A. Jeffries and J. Amory Jeffries
spent some time at Grand Falls, New Brunswick, collecting and studying
the birds of that neighborhood; and at about the same time Mr. J.
Dwight, Jr., and myself were similarly engaged at Fort Fairfield,
Aroostook Co., Maine.
Owing to the limited time of our stay the number of species observed was
not large, but as it included almost all the commoner summer
residents,—the species really characteristic of the fauna of the
region—it has been thought worth while to lay the results of our
observations before the public, especially as the fauna is in some
respects peculiar. One might be led to expect, from the latitude of the
region, that the fauna would be thoroughly Canadian in its character.
Our experience shows, however, that it has a strong tinge of the
Alleghanian.
Grand Falls is situated on the right bank of the St. John River at about
N. Lat. 47° 03′, and W. Long. 67° 50′. The river below the falls runs
through a narrow valley, almost all of which is under cultivation. On
the higher land above the falls and about the town are farms devoted
chiefly to hay, potatoes and buckwheat. The country is hilly, and is
scantily watered, the few rapid streams and brooks draining directly
into the river. There are no lakes or ponds, except a few insignificant
puddles, although there are occasional cedar swamps and “barrens.” The
tributary streams below the falls have cut narrow*, steeply walled
ravines in their passage to the river. These were cold and damp, and
apparently without birds.
In some places forests of hard woods exist, tall maples, elms and
birches that have no doubt stood there for ages. There is but little
underbrush in these woods, and they have a rather park-like aspect. The
second growth and the woods on the low lands along the river consist of
firs, spruces and hemlocks of all sizes, and often have an almost
impenetrable underbrush. Where fires have spread large tracts are
stripped of their woods, and are covered with fallen trunks overgrown
with vines, with here and there tall dead “stubs” still standing.
Mr. W. A. Jeffries’ observations extended from May 21 to June 19. He was
joined by his brother on the 9th of June. During the ten days following
this latter date the weather was cold—there was a frost June 15, and
rain fell every day except the 9th and the 15th.
Fort Fairfield is twenty miles south of Grand Falls. It is situated on
the Aroostook River, about five miles in an air line west of its
junction with the St. John. It is in a rolling country containing but
few ponds and swamps, and watered merely by small brooks which empty
into the Aroostook River. The river itself is broad, with a rapid
current, and flows between banks which though not very high, are yet
never swampy. Much of the original forest has been removed, especially
in the neighborhood of the town and along the river, where the stretches
of wooded land are interspersed with clearings, pastures and cultivated
fields, large crops of buckwheat and potatoes being raised on the
fertile soil. The woods are mostly evergreen—the several species of
_Abies_ and the arbor vitae—intermingled, of course, with a few yellow
birches and an occasional maple, but few tracts being wholly covered by
deciduous trees.
Our collecting was done mostly within two or three miles of the town.
Our notes were made between June 14 and July 1. On our arrival we found
the trees by no means in full leaf, and were told that the season was
very backward, and had been very wet. Heavy frosts occurred on the 15th
and 19th of the month.
The nights were generally cold, the days warm—even hot during the latter
part of our stay.
Fort Fairfield is 415 feet above the sea, and has a mean annual
temperature of 38.11° F.
Through the kindness of Mr. H. A. Purdie I have been enabled to
supplement our observations by extracts from some manuscript notes on
the birds occurring at Houlton, Maine, made by Mr. Robert R. McLeod.
These notes were written in 1877, and are based on his experience during
a residence of four years at Houlton.
This town is in the southeastern part of Aroostook County, on the
Meduxnekeag River about twelve miles from its junction with the St.
John. It is forty-five miles south of Fort Fairfield, its Latitude being
46° 8′. I quote the following from Mr. McLeod’s notes: “The country
round about is well watered with lakes and streams. Much of the land is
under cultivation, but where it is not, the old forests are standing in
great tracts of many miles in extent. The first snow falls about the
10th of November, and it generally remains on the fields till the middle
of April, and in the woods until the last of May.”
At each locality several species, that would doubtless have been much
more abundant had local conditions been favorable, were absent or
represented by but few individuals.
All statements are given on the authority of both the observers at the
locality to which they refer, except in some few cases, in which the
initials of the observer are appended. All references to Houlton are,
unless otherwise stated, on the authority of Mr. McLeod.
1. =Turdus migratorius= _Linn._ ROBIN.—Rather common at Fort
Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was abundant everywhere.
2. =Turdus fuscescens= _Steph._ WILSON’S THRUSH.—Rare at Grand Falls.
On June 16 a nest with four fresh eggs was found on top of a stump.
Not met with at Fort Fairfield. Mr. McLeod says that it appears at
Houlton by May 15, and by the 10th of June becomes common. Breeds.
3. =Turdus pallasi= _Caban._ HERMIT THRUSH.—Common. One nest taken May
30 at Grand Falls was about three feet from the ground in a small fir
tree.
4. =Turdus ustulatus swainsoni= (_Caban._) _Coues_. OLIVE-BACKED
THRUSH.—Common at Grand Falls, especially in the hard woods and more
open fir woods. At Fort Fairfield it appeared to be rather common,
though seldom seen. Common and breeding at Houlton.
5. =Mimus carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Gr._. CATBIRD.—At Houlton “very
rare. A pair has bred in this vicinity each year since I have been
here” (R. R. McL.). Not met with at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.
6. =Sialia sialis= (_Linn._) _Hald._ BLUEBIRD.—At Grand Falls they
were frequently seen, as many as seven or eight in the course of a
day. Apparently not common at Fort Fairfield. At Houlton “very rare,”
one pair breeding.
7. =Parus atricapillus= _Linn._ BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE.—At Grand Falls
it was not uncommon. Some days four or five pairs would be seen, on
others none at all. At Fort Fairfield it was not very common, though
seen occasionally. At Houlton “very common.”
8. =Parus hudsonicus= _Forst._ HUDSONIAN CHICKADEE.—About half a dozen
were seen at Grand Falls, mostly in hardwood brush or small woods. It
was not seen at Fort Fairfield.
9. =Sitta carolinensis= _Gmel._ WHITE-BELLIED NUTHATCH.—Common in the
hard woods at Grand Falls. Breeding.
10. =Sitta canadensis= _Linn._ RED-BELLIED NUTHATCH.—One shot at Fort
Fairfield. Both species are said to be common at Houlton.
11. =Certhia familiaris= _Linn._ BROWN CREEPER.—Seen occasionally at
Fort Fairfield. Breeds. Rare at Grand Falls. “Common” at Houlton.
12. =Troglodytes aëdon= _Vieill._ HOUSE WREN.—At Grand Falls one pair
was noticed which had a nest in the frame work of a barn.
13. =Anorthura troglodytes hyemalis= (_Vieill._) _Coues_. WINTER
WREN.—This species is common at Houlton,[51] and no doubt occurs
throughout this region; it was seen and heard at Grand Falls, but not
observed at Fort Fairfield.
14. =Mniotilta varia= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ BLACK-AND-WHITE CREEPER.—We
saw several at Fort Fairfield. Not seen at Grand Falls.
15. =Helminthophaga ruficapilla= (_Wils._) _Bd._ NASHVILLE
WARBLER.—Apparently not very common at Fort Fairfield. It was not
observed at Grand Falls.
16. =Dendrœca æstiva= (_Gmel._) _Bd._ YELLOW WARBLER.—Rather common at
Fort Fairfield. Not met with at Grand Falls.
17. =Dendrœca cærulescens= (_Linn._) _Bd._ BLACK-THROATED BLUE
WARBLER.—Rather common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was common
in hard woods where the underbrush was thick.
18. =Dendrœca coronata= (_Linn._) _Gray_. YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER.—It
was common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was rare during May.
All had left before the 9th of June.
19. =Dendrœca maculosa= (_Gm._) _Bd._ BLACK-AND-YELLOW
WARBLER.—Common.
20. =Dendrœca pennsylvanica= (_Linn._) _Bd._ CHESTNUT-SIDED
WARBLER.—Common.
21. =Dendrœca blackburnæ= (_Gm._) _Bd._ BLACKBURNIAN WARBLER.—This
bird was seldom seen while we were at Fort Fairfield, and was not met
with at Grand Falls.
22. =Dendrœca virens= (_Gm._) _Bd._ BLACK-THROATED GREEN
WARBLER.—Rather common at Fort Fairfield. Not met with at Grand Falls.
23. =Dendrœca tigrina= (_Gm._) _Bd._ CAPE MAY WARBLER.—I shot a male
at Fort Fairfield, June 23, in a thick second growth of spruces on the
edge of a path.
24. =Siurus auricapillus= (_Linn._) _Swains._ GOLDEN-CROWNED
THRUSH.—Rather common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was seen
only in the hard woods, where it was not common.
25. =Siurus nævius= (_Bodd._) _Coues_. WATER THRUSH.—Breeding at Fort
Fairfield, but not very common. It was not met with at Grand Falls.
26. =Geothlypis philadelphia= (_Wils._) _Bd._ MOURNING WARBLER.—Common
in suitable places. It was almost sure to be found in “burnt lots,”
where the fallen trunks lay, half hidden by a luxuriant growth of tall
weeds, or thickly overrun with vines. Under the shelter thus afforded
they undoubtedly nested, safely screened from the most searching eyes.
27. =Geothlypis trichas= (_Linn._) _Caban._ Maryland
YELLOW-THROAT.—Common.
28. =Myiodioctes pusillus= (_Wils._) _Bp._ WILSON’S BLACK-CAP.—At Fort
Fairfield this bird was common. We usually found them in thickets of
willow bushes, often in rather wet places. The birds were apt to go in
companies of three or four or more. June 23 Mr. Dwight caught a young
bird, just able to fly two or three yards at a time. The nest was no
doubt close at hand, but the ground among the willow bushes was
covered so deeply with brush that a diligent search for the nest
showed nothing—except that it was not built in the bushes. The
youngster showed in the most marked way the energy of disposition and
restless activity that characterize the adults. The species was not
common at Grand Falls.
29. =Myiodioctes canadensis= (_Linn._) _Aud._ CANADA FLYCATCHING
WARBLER.—Rare at Grand Falls, but common at Fort Fairfield.
30. =Setophaga ruticilla= (_Linn._) _Swains._ REDSTART.—This species
was exceedingly abundant at Grand Falls wherever there were hard
woods. It was a common bird at Fort Fairfield.
31. =Hirundo erythrogastra= _Bodd._ BARN SWALLOW.—Common.
32. =Tachycineta bicolor= (_Vieill._) _Caban._ WHITE-BELLIED
SWALLOW.—At Grand Falls it was common in suitable localities. None
were seen about the town. It was abundant at Fort Fairfield.
33. =Petrochelidon lunifrons= (_Say_) _Lawr._ EAVE SWALLOW.—Common at
Grand Falls. Abundant at Fort Fairfield.
34. =Cotile riparia= (_Linn._) _Boie_. BANK SWALLOW.—Common.
35. =Progne subis= (_Linn._) _Bd._ PURPLE MARTIN.—Common, breeding in
martin-houses at Fort Fairfield. This bird seems to be generally
distributed throughout eastern Maine and the adjoining parts of New
Brunswick, where there are settlements. While on our way to Fort
Fairfield we noticed it at a number of places between Bangor and
Woodstock, N. B., as well as at various points along the St. John
River between Fredericton, N. B., and Fort Fairfield. It is also
common at Houlton.
36. =Ampelis cedrorum= (_Vieill._) _Bd._ CEDARBIRD.—It was not
uncommon at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield we found it common.
37. =Vireo olivaceus= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ RED-EYED VIREO.—Common.
38. =Vireo philadelphicus= _Cass._ PHILADELPHIA VIREO.—Taken only at
Grand Falls in May, singing in the hard woods.
39. =Vireo solitarius= _Vieill._ SOLITARY VIREO.—This species was
apparently not very common at Fort Fairfield. It was not seen at Grand
Falls. Mr. McLeod gives it in his notes as “quite common” at Houlton.
40. =Pyranga rubra= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ SCARLET TANAGER.—Not rare in
the hard woods at Grand Falls. The people there call them “war-birds.”
We did not see them at Fort Fairfield, though we have reason to think
that they occur. At Houlton Mr. McLeod says they are “rare. They
arrive May 29. I have not found the nest, but have a young one taken
here. They remain all summer.”
=Recent Literature.=
DR. COUES’ NEW CHECK LIST AND DICTIONARY.[52]—Judging from advance
sheets lately received, this new treatise by Dr. Coues will occupy a
previously unclaimed place among ornithological works; for, as its title
indicates, it is much more than a catalogue of North American birds. Its
novel feature is a dictionary of etymology, orthography and orthoëpy of
scientific names, to which is devoted the lower portion of each page of
the running list. In this department the generic, specific and varietal
names—duplicated from the text above with the addition of the
diacritical marks for quantities, accents and division of syllables—are
exhaustively treated; their derivation and meaning being explained,
their construction scrutinized, their spelling revised, and their
applicability in each particular case carefully considered. The
erudition and scholarly research involved in this undertaking must be
apparent to the most casual reader. The practical value of the work is
equally plain, and perhaps it is not too much to say that it calls for a
fuller measure of gratitude on the part of ornithologists than anything
which its versatile author has hitherto produced.
A detailed consideration of the Check List proper must necessarily be
deferred until the appearance of the complete work; pending this, we may
simply say that the plan followed by Dr. Coues is essentially to make a
second edition of his original list, with all the required additions and
corrections to date, and such revision of nomenclature as seemed
desirable and practicable. Ten species are subtracted, and one hundred
and twenty added, while names are changed for various reasons in
probably more than a hundred cases. A simple system of reference numbers
forms a concordance of the present and original edition, as well as with
Baird’s list of 1858 and Ridgway’s of 1880. The total number of species
and varieties enumerated is eight hundred and eighty-eight.
It should be mentioned that the introductory portion of the work
includes an analysis of the present list as compared with that of 1874,
and an important chapter entitled “Remarks on the use of names.” The
latter is devoted to a general consideration of the technique of Greek
and Latin scientific names and the principles governing their
derivation, spelling and pronunciation.
The book ends with a catalogue complete to date of the author’s
ornithological publications. We understand that the edition will be
offered to the public before the close of the present month. May it meet
with the cordial reception which it so richly merits.—W. B.
NESTS AND EGGS OF OHIO BIRDS.—It is always a pleasure to record the
progress of this notably meritorious work—a pleasure which we trust will
be ours until the completion of the design which the authors have thus
far carried out so successfully. As we have before remarked, there has
been nothing since Audubon in the way of pictorial illustration of
American Ornithology to compare with the present work—nothing to claim
the union of an equal degree of artistic skill and scientific accuracy.
We have no knowledge of the financial aspects of the case; but, as such
a work is necessarily expensive, we can only trust that it continues to
receive the support it so richly deserves. It is, we believe, sold only
by subscription. The last number which has reached us is a double one,
being parts 10 and 11, dating Oct. 1881 and Jan. 1882, containing Plates
XXVIII-XXXIII, and pages 107–118. Plate 18 is perhaps the first in which
the authors have introduced a bird—being the head of the Purple Martin
protruding from the orifice of the C gourds so frequently put up in the
South for its accommodation. This figure shows that Mrs. Jones can draw
and paint a bird as well as its nest and eggs—and we should not be
surprised if other birds appeared with their nests in future numbers.
The temptation thus to enlarge upon the original plan of the work must
be at times almost irresistible. Plate 29 is _Euspiza americana_, the
simple nest of which gives less scope for the artist’s skill than the
elaborately finished surroundings of the Song Sparrow’s nest of Plate
30. The extremes of size and coloring of the eggs of _Melospiza_ are
well portrayed, as are those of the Thrasher, the rough exterior of
whose nest fairly bristles on Plate 31. One of the most artistic
pictures of the whole series is the lowly nest of _Helminthophaga pinus_
(Plate 32), with its characteristic surroundings at the foot of a slight
bush clump. It is interesting to note in this case the curious
“protective mimicry” by which the nest resembles a bunch of dead leaves
and dried bark strips blown and caught among the roots of a bramble. One
would have sharp eyes who would at first glance see it was something
else. The last plate (33) represents the nest of the Summer Tanager,
furnishing a good illustration of a “saddled” nest—by which we mean one
placed directly upon a large horizontal bough, only confined by a few
slight upright twigs. The text consists, as usually heretofore, of a
folio to each plate, and continues to be prepared by Dr. Howard E.
Jones. We find it to be a perfectly reliable account of the objects
represented. The authors evidently have spared no pains or expense in
maintaining the high standard of excellence they set for themselves at
the beginning.—E. C.
PROF. MACOUN’S REPORT OF EXPLORATION.[53]—We hear so seldom from our
friends of the Dominion, as far as ornithology is concerned, that the
present contribution would be welcome as an index of their activity,
even were it of less importance than we find it to be. It is difficult
to cite the brochure correctly, as it has no title-page and bears no
date or place of publication, and may be an “extra” of a portion of some
more extensive government publication. However this may be, the pamphlet
which reaches us through Professor Macoun’s kind attentions is the
report of the Surveyor General to the Minister of the Interior,
consisting chiefly (pp. 8–40) of Professor Macoun’s own report of his
explorations during the summer of 1880 of that portion of the Souris
River Valley lying within British Territory and of the adjoining region
to the west and north—that is to say, north of our territories of Dakota
and Montana. The region is one seldom examined even incidentally in the
interests of ornithology, and the present paper possesses decided value,
as the observer appeared to have paid special attention to the
distribution of birds in the wide area traversed. After a résumé of the
leading ornithological features of the region is presented an annotated
list of the species secured, 109 in number. This list may be profitably
examined in connection with the article on the birds observed along the
parallel of 49° by the Northern Boundary Commission in 1873 and 1874. We
feel at liberty to call attention to some manuscript alterations made by
the author in our copy. For _Coturniculus passerinus_ read _Zonotrichia
albicollis_; for _Myiarchus crinitus_, read _Tyrannus verticalis_; for
_Archibuteo lagopus_, read _A. ferrugineus_, the range of which is thus
carried beyond any point hitherto given; for _Tringa canutus_ read _T.
bairdi_; for _Podilymbus podiceps_, read _Podiceps californicus_. We
could wish the report were better printed; but poor presswork is the
usual fate of public documents, English or American.—E. C.
KNOWLTON’S REVISED LIST OF THE BIRDS OF BRANDON, VERMONT.[54]—This is a
briefly annotated list of 149 species occurring in the immediate
vicinity of Brandon. The author says: “A few more species doubtless
occur, especially among the Waders and Swimmers, but as they have never
been actually noted, they have been rigidly excluded.” An examination of
the List shows that, with perhaps one or two exceptions, he has
succeeded in adhering to this principle, the result being a very
reliable list as far as it goes. The further application of this rule
doubtless accounts for the fact that many of the species are not stated
to breed that yet no doubt do so.
The chief interest of the List lies in its bearing upon the extent of
the Alleghanian fauna in the Champlain valley. The breeding of such
species as _Dendrœca striata_ and _Zonotrichia leucophrys_, the
occurrence of _Perisoreus canadensis_ and _Picoides arcticus_, and the
absence of _Ortyx virginiana_ and one or two other species, are almost
the only exceptions to an otherwise strictly Alleghanian fauna.
A number of species, especially among the migrants, would seem, from
what the writer says, to be by no means numerous at this locality, and
no doubt his statements are strictly in accordance with his experience.
We have reason to believe, however, that a more thorough search might
reveal greater numbers of some of these species.
It is to be regretted that Mr. Knowlton’s List could not have appeared
elsewhere than in the columns of a newspaper, both for the sake of
giving it a more permanent form, and of avoiding the typographical
errors inevitable under such circumstances. It may be worth while here
to mention that by a slip of the pen Mr. Knowlton has recorded Wilson’s
Plover (_Ochthodromus wilsonius_) instead of Wilson’s Snipe.—C. F. B.
KRUKENBERG ON THE COLORING MATTER OF FEATHERS.[55]—This paper, the first
of a series, seems to be the product of more careful work than previous
publications on the subject. The author first states positively that the
color may change after growth, the feather becoming lighter or darker as
the case may be, but postpones deciding whether the change is the result
of external or internal causes. Judging from the effects of stimulants
upon Canaries with _fully_ grown feathers, I have no doubt that internal
changes play an important part. At least, almost white Canaries will
become very yellow, gray sometimes appearing, if properly fed.
Turacin, a red or purple-violet pigment, found in the feathers of the
_Musophagidæ_ is first considered. Attention was first called to this
pigment by Verreaux, who found that the purple-violet in the wing
feathers of _Corythaix albicristatus_ was destroyed by wetting, but
returned on drying. Later it was observed that the water in which these
birds bathed became colored dark red. Facts worthy of consideration by
all systematic ornithologists. Turacin is soluble in weak alkalies,
insoluble in acids, and slightly soluble in water, especially if warm.
It may be precipitated as an amorphous red powder by the action of
acids. In solution the spectrum of Turacin is marked by two absorption
bands, between D and E, much resembling those of oxyhemoglobin. Carbon
dioxide and oxygen, however, have no effect on the color or the
spectrum. As to its chemical composition the author differs from his
predecessors in that he denies the presence of nitrogen, though copper
and iron are both present in considerable quantities. By the action of
concentrated sulphuric acid two products are formed, named α Turaceïn
and β Turaceïn by the author.
Zoönerythrin, another red pigment of much wider distribution, is found
in red feathers, as those of the Flamingo and the Cardinal Grosbeak. It
is soluble in alcohol, ether, bisulphide of carbon, and the like, from
which it can be precipitated by evaporation. The solution of this
pigment is often favored by first digesting the feather in a trypsin or
pepsin solution. Unlike Turacin, Zoönerythrin has no absorption bands,
but all is absorbed beyond E.
Zoöfulvin, a yellow pigment of much the same solubility as the
preceding, occurs in the yellow feathers of the European Oriole, the
Canary, and the like. The spectrum has two bands between F and G which
vary in position according to the solvent used.
As yet Dr. Krukenberg has been unable to extract any green, blue, or
purple pigment from feathers, so that he agrees with Bogdanon that blue
feathers have no pigment as proved by transmitted light. Of this any one
can at once convince himself by holding the feather of a Bluebird
immersed in water between himself and a window.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.
MINOR ORNITHOLOGICAL PAPERS.—161. _The Ruddy Duck_ (_Erismatura
rubida_). By Spencer Trotter, _Chicago Field_, Vol. XIII, p. 23.—Brief
general account, including reference to their occasional great abundance
in Chesapeake Bay.
162. _Bibliographical Manuals of American Naturalists. Chapter II. Dr.
Elliott Coues, U. S. A._ By William Hosea Ballou. _Ibid._, XIII, pp. 92,
103, 123, 189, 205, 221.—Rather more than 400 titles of papers and
works, relating mainly to ornithology.
163. _Nomenclature of the North American Grouse._ By Spencer Trotter.
_Ibid._, XIII. pp. 314, 315.—Common and scientific names of North
American Grouse, with their principal synonymy and habitats.
163. _The California Quails in Missouri._ By H. Clay Ewing. _Ibid._
XIII, p. 413.—Six or seven pairs, turned out near the junction of the
Missouri and Osage Rivers in March 1879, raised broods the following
season near where they were liberated.
164. _Bibliographical Manual of American Naturalists Chapter III. The
Literature of Prof. Edward D. Cope._ By Wm. Hosea Ballou. _Ibid._ XIV,
pp. 19, 20.—Contains a few ornithological titles.
165. _Can the Pinnated Grouse be successfully propagated?_ By H. W.
Merrill. _Forest and Stream_, XVI, Feb. 10, 1881, p. 28.—Believes they
can be “successfully propagated” with proper “regard to cover, food and
range.”
166. _Pine Grosbeak_ (_Pinicola enucleator_, L., V.) and _Robin_
(_Turdus migratorius_, L.) _in Winter_ [_in Nova Scotia_]. By. J.
Matthews Jones. _Ibid._, XVI. March 13, 1881, p. 86.—The former “quite
common”; small flocks of the latter frequent the spruce woods every
winter, in Point Pleasant Park, Halifax peninsula.
167. _The “Crane’s Back.”_ By J. C. Merrill. _Ibid._, XVI, March 10,
1881, p. 105.—A Cree Indian account of the _napite-shu-utle_, a bird
said to migrate by taking passage on the backs of Cranes. The bird is
believed to be a Grebe.
168. _A Hawk new to the United States._ By Robert Ridgway. _Ibid._, XVI,
Apr. 14, 1881, 206.—From Oyster Bay, Fla., provisionally referred to
_Buteo fuliginosus_. (See this _Bull._, VI, Oct. 1881, p. 207.)
169. _The Pine Grosbeak._ By Chas. E. Ingalls. _Ibid._, XVI. Apr. 14,
1881, pp. 206, 207.—Observations on its habits in winter in
Massachusetts.
170. _Our unique Spoon-billed Sandpiper_, _Eurinorhynchus pygmæus_
(Linn.). By Tarleton H. Bean. _Ibid._, XVI, Apr. 21. 1881, p. 225.—Brief
general history of the species, with record of its capture at Plover
Bay, Eastern Siberia, and Point Barrow, Alaska.
171. _Domesticated Quail._ By Henry Benbrook. _Ibid._, XVI, May 5, 1881,
p. 266.—_Ortyx virginianus_ successfully reared in captivity to the
third generation. Believes that under favorable circumstances they could
be bred “as easily as Turkeys.”
172. _Great Carolina Wren._ By William Dutcher. _Ibid._, XVI, July 14,
1881, p. 473.—Record of its capture at Greenville, N. J., within four
miles of New York City.
173. _The Rail we shoot._ [By George B. Grinnell.] _Ibid._. XVII, Sept.
22, 1881, pp. 146, 147.—Classification, diagnoses and habitats of the
_Rallidæ_ of the United States.
174. _Range and Rotary Movements of Limicolæ._ By W. Hapgood. _Ibid._,
XVII, Oct. 20, 1881, pp. 225–228.—An important and suggestive paper on
the migrations and range of American _Limicolæ_. The greater part of the
species of this group are noticed at length. The paper relates
especially to the winter haunts of these birds, and the conclusion is
pretty fairly sustained that many of them pass beyond the tropics to
winter in the Southern Hemisphere.
175. _Migration of Shore Birds._ By M. H. Simons. _Ibid._, XVII, Nov.
10, 1881, p. 288.—Apropos of Mr. Hapgood’s paper (see No. 174). the
writer calls attention to the fact that many kinds of Shore Birds winter
in Florida and the other Gulf States. “Didymus.” under the same caption,
has some pertinent suggestions in reference to Mr. Hapgood’s paper.
176. _The Herring Gull and the Ring-bill on Georgian Bay._ By Rev. J. A.
Langille. _Ibid._, XVII, Nov. 17, 1881, p. 307.—On the habits, etc., of
these species at their breeding haunts in Georgian Bay.
177. _Beechnuts and Woodpeckers._ By C. Hart Merriam, M.D. _Ibid._,
XVII, Dec. 1, 1881, p. 347.—A reply to several pseudonymous articles in
previous numbers of this journal (_Forest and Stream_) in reference to
the Red-headed Woodpecker’s habit of eating beechnuts. Other notes on
the same subject, by various contributors, follow in this and succeeding
numbers.
178. _The Enemies of Game Birds._ By Adolphe B. Covert [and others].
_Ibid._, XVII, Dec. 8, 1881, p. 366, Dec. 22, p. 407, and Dec. 29, p.
428.—Various enemies are mentioned, among whom the Red Squirrel is
prominent.
179. _Habits of Woodpeckers._ By W. Beeke [and others]. _Ibid._, XVII,
Dec. 15, 1881, p. 387.—In reference to their laying up stores of
beechnuts for winter use, particularly refers to the Red-headed
Woodpecker.
180. _Inquiries about the Snow Grouse_ [lege Goose]. By William Dutcher.
_Ibid._, XVII, Dec. 22, 1881, p. 407.—In reference to the distribution
of _Anser hyperboreus_ on the Atlantic coast, and to the change of
plumage in the Blue Goose (_A. cærulescens_) in captivity.
181. _The Sparrow Curse in Australia._ _Ibid._, XVII, Dec. 22, 1881, pp.
407, 408.—Abstract of a “progress report” of a government commission
appointed to investigate “alleged injuries caused to fruit growers,
gardeners, farmers and others by [the imported] Sparrows.” The analysis
of the testimony taken is suggestive reading in its bearing upon the
“Sparrow Pest” of our own country.
182. _The Snow Goose and Blue Goose._ By C. S. Wescott. _Ibid._, XVII,
Jan. 5, 1882, p. 447.—Respecting their specific diversity, and on the
occurrence of the Snow Goose in Delaware Bay. This is followed by a
communication (under the same caption) from Arthur Edward Brown, who
states that seven Blue Geese have lived seven years in the Philadelphia
Zoölogical Garden without showing any material change of color.
183. _Der Schwalbenweih_ (_Nauclerus forficatus_). Von H. Nehrling.
_Ornithologisches Centralblatt_, VI. No. 2, 15 Jan. 1881, pp. 9,
10.—Account of its habits, etc., as observed in Texas.
184. _Der Gelbkopfstärling oder Gelbkopftrupial_ (_Xanthocephalus
icterocephalus_ Baird). Von H. Nehrling. _Ibid._, VI, No. 11. 1 Juni,
1881, pp. 81–84, No. 13, 1 Juli, 1881, pp. 97, 98.—General history.
185. _Die Wandertaube_ [_Ectopistes migratorius_]. Von Chas L. Mann.
_Ibid._, VI, No. 21, 1 Nov. 1881, pp. 164–166. (Aus: _Jahresber. des
Naturhist. Vereins in Wisconsin 1880–81_.)—On the great numbers
destroyed by pigeon hunters for the market. Contains interesting
statistics of the slaughter and the manner in which it is prosecuted.
186. _Zwei amerikanische Prairiefinken._ Von H. Nehrling. _Monatsschrift
des Deutschen Vereins zum Schuke der Vogelwelt_, VI Jahrg., No. 3, März,
1881, pp. 58–64.—General account of the “Lerchenfink (_Chondestes
grammica_ Bp.)” and the “Savannenfink (_Passerculus savanna_ Bp.).”
187. _Ornithologische Beobachtungen aus Texas._ II. Von H. Nehrling.
_Ibid._, VI, No. 5, Mai, 1881, pp. 111–121. (See this Bulletin, VI, p.
109.)
188. _Nordamerikanische Vögel im Freileben geschildert._ Von H.
Nehrling. _Die gefiederte Welt. Zeitschrift für Vogelliebhaber, -Zuchter
und -Händler_, X Jahrg., 1881.—Under this title Dr. Nehrling contributes
a series of well-written popular articles on various North American
birds. In the present volume are the following: (1) Das
Rubingoldhähnchen (_Regulus calendula_ Lichtst.), _l. c._ pp. 14–16,
24–26. (2) Der blauköpfige oder Brewer’s Stärling, _Scolecophagus
Breweri_, Nehrl. (_S. cyanocephalus_ Cab....) pp. 44–46, 57, 58. (3) Der
Kentuckysänger oder Buschsänger (_Sylvia-Opornis_ [sic.]—_formosa_
Wils. ...), pp. 100–102. (4) Die Einfiedlerdrossel (_Turdus Pallasi_
Cab. ...), pp. 173, 174. (5) Der Gold- oder Kukukspecht (_Colaptes
auratus_ Swns. ...), pp. 228–230, 240, 241, 251–253, 265, 266. (6) Der
Scherentyrann, Scheren- oder Gabelschwanz (_Milvulus forficatus_,
Swains. ...), pp. 325, 326, 333–335. (7) Der blaugraue Fliegenfänger
oder Mückenfänger (_Polioptila cærulea_ Scl.), pp. 368–370, 380, 381,
393. (8) Der Satrap oder das Gelbkrongoldhähnchen (_Regulus satrapa_,
Lichsts. ...), pp. 435, 436. (9) Die Bergdrossel (_Oreoscoptes montanus_
Brd. ...), pp. 528–530.
189. _Rocky Mountains-Hüttensänger oder Steinschmätzer_ (... _Sialia
arctica_ Swns.) _Eine Vogelstudie aus den Felsingebergen_. Von Fr.
Trefz. _Ibid._, p. 81.
=General Notes.=
DESCRIPTION OF A NEST OF THE WATER OUZEL.—The nest of the Water Ouzel
(_Cinclus mexicanus_) is perhaps not so well known as to make the
following description of one wholly uninteresting. The nest when found
was in good condition, and had evidently been used the past season. It
was built under a slightly overhanging wall of limestone, on a ledge
projecting seven or eight inches from the wall, and about four feet
above low-water mark, the deepest part of a swift mountain stream
flowing directly beneath. The material of construction was a bright
green moss, forming a rather conspicuous object for some distance along
the opposite bank. The nest has a nearly spherical interior seven inches
in diameter. The entrance is triangular, one side of the triangle
forming the top and being three and one-half inches across and three
inches above the lower angle. The most exposed side of the nest varies
from three to four inches in thickness, the top and remainder being only
an inch and a half through. At time of finding, the interior of the nest
was perfectly clean, but outside, just below the opening, the rock was
discolored for some distance by excrement of the birds. Side by side
with this nest was an older one partially destroyed, and I fancied I
could see traces of still another on the same ledge not far off. The
birds had evidently lived in the locality for some time.—R. S. WILLIAMS,
_Gold Run, Montana_.
THE SHORT-BILLED MARSH WREN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.—On the 24th of August,
1881, while investigating the recesses of a fresh water marsh at Rye
Beach, N. H., I found a colony of Short-billed Marsh Wrens (_Cistothorus
stellaris_) in a small meadow about a mile from the sea. One bird was
shot, and five or six others seen and heard.
Mr. Wm. Brewster in 1872 found this bird in the same vicinity, but in a
locality about five miles farther inland.
These two records extend the northern range of the Short-billed Marsh
Wren, and give it a place among the birds of New Hampshire.—HENRY M.
SPELMAN, _Cambridge, Mass._
EARLY ARRIVAL OF THE YELLOW-RUMP IN SOUTHERN MAINE.—This morning—March
21, 1882—I found a solitary Yellow-rumped Warbler (_Dendræca coronata_)
flitting about in a straggling growth of spruces, on Cape Elizabeth. His
arrival is unprecedentedly early for this vicinity. The Yellow-rumps
usually reach Portland in the last week of April, sometimes not until
after May 1, and up to to-day I have never seen one before April 21,
which was the date of their appearance in 1879. My little friend of this
morning was probably only an accidental and temporary visitor. Snow
still lies from two to three feet deep in the woods, and much
blustering, wintry weather must be expected, before the earliest
Warblers come to us in earnest.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland,
Maine_.
LATE STAY (PROBABLE WINTERING) OF DENDRŒCA PINUS IN MASSACHUSETTS.—A few
individuals of the Pine-creeping Warbler remained so late with us the
last season, that their courage deserves a record. I found four of them
on December 5, 1881, in company with Chickadees, in a rocky run thickly
set with maples and alders. There were no pines, but a small bunch of
them not far away. I shot one, according to rule, to make sure of the
species. Being desirous of ascertaining if they proposed to spend the
winter in that cheerful company, on January 1, 1882, I sent a young
friend, who is well posted and a good observer, to the locality, and he
reported seeing two of the Warblers so near at hand, perhaps twenty
feet, as to make the identification positive. I intended to look for
them again in February, but was unable to do so.—F. C. BROWNE,
_Framingham, Mass._
THE HOODED WARBLER IN WESTERN NEW YORK.—From various points in the dense
forest, on the balmy days of May, comes the common and familiar song of
the Hooded Warbler,—_che-reek, che-reek, che-reek, chi-dì-eê_, the first
three notes with a loud bell-like ring, and the rest in very much
accelerated time, and with the falling inflection. Arriving early in
May, this is one of our common summer residents throughout the dense
upland forests, occupying the lower story of the woodland home, while
the Cœrulean Warbler occupies the upper. Here let me say that in
addition to its alarm note, a sharp whistling or metallic _chip_ which
is very clearly characterized, the Hooded Warbler has two distinct
songs, as different as if coming from different species. Never shall I
forget how I was once puzzled by this trick. I was strolling in a thick
forest, near the corner of a slashing, in an evening twilight in June,
when I was surprised by a strange whistling melody.—_whee-reeh,
whee-ree-eeh_—with a marked emphasis on the second syllable, and a still
more marked one on the last. Part of the time this utterance was
somewhat varied, a few notes being sometimes added, and again a few
being dropped. My curiosity was greatly excited, for I had supposed
myself familiar with the voices of all the birds in the neighborhood;
but it became too dark to identify the bird. For nearly a week I went to
that spot every day, always hearing the song, but never being able to
get a clear sight of the bird. It seemed exceedingly shy. In vain did I
crawl on hands and knees among the undergrowth to get near to it; for
just as I would seem about to gain a good view of it the song would
cease at the point under observation and come from one more distant.
Just as I was about to give the matter up one evening, down came the
singer, stage by stage through the thick foliage, and alighting within a
few feet of me and in clear sight, gave the full effect of his whistling
song. I have since heard the same song a number of times and in
different places from the Hooded Warbler. So I conclude that in the case
of this species there are, occasionally at least, two distinct and
altogether different songs.
The Hooded Warbler is one of those which make their home on or near the
ground. Here it keeps itself for the most part well concealed among the
foliage of the thick undergrowth, having a rather slow and dignified
movement for a bird of its kind.
It builds its nest from a foot to eighteen inches from the ground,
generally in the upright or somewhat leaning fork of a little bush. I
once found it on a beech limb, lying on the ground, but still retaining
the dry leaves. It is somewhat bulky, but quite neat, the lower part
being of dry or skeleton leaves, the upper part, especially the high and
well-defined rim, of long fibrous bark, as that of the grape vine, ash,
basswood, or elm, laid almost as nicely as coiled cords, the whole
structure being bound together by a webby material, and lined with fine
grasses, bark-fibres, and horse-hair. In location, material, and
structure, it is quite unique, and, like most other birds’ nests, is a
much more certain means of identification than the eggs themselves.
These, two to four in number, varying from .63×.52 to .75×.50, are clear
white, delicately specked and spotted, sometimes even blotched, with
reddish, brown, and lilac. In form and coloration the eggs are very
variable. They may be found fresh from the last week in May till the
middle of June. A second set may be found in July. The male aids in
incubation.
Confined to the eastern part of the United States, and barely entering
the southern part of New England, Western New York, and Central New York
where it is quite common, must be about the northern limit of this
species.—J. H. LANGILLE, _Knowlesville, Orleans Co., N. Y._
BREEDING OF THE PINE GROSBEAK (_Pinicola enucleator_) IN LOWER
CANADA.—Last summer I had the rare good fortune to accompany, as his
guest, the Hon. Judge H. E. Taschereau (Chief Justice Supreme Court of
Canada) on his annual salmon fishing excursion to the Godbout River,
which empties into the St. Lawrence from the north, about six miles from
the Pointe des Monts where the river widens into the Gulf.
One rainy afternoon about the middle of July, while the Judge was
catching salmon at the famous “Upper Pool” on the Godbout, Mr. Nap. A.
Comeau and I climbed a high and densely wooded hill that rises from the
western border of the pool, and when near the summit saw a Pine
Grosbeak, in the slate and golden plumage, hopping about amongst the
branches of a large Balsam (_Abies balsamea_). I was within twenty feet
from the bird, but having only a rifle was unable to secure it. Mr.
Comeau, who lives at the mouth of the Godbout, told me that this species
was by no means rare here, and that he regarded it as a resident. He has
since written me that he shot several after I left, and that “the bird
is quite common here both summer and winter.” Although he has never
taken its nest, he says “I have no doubt they breed here, and I have
often seen them in the early part of the fall while out trapping. They
seem to be fond of keeping near streams and lakes.”
Dr. Coues found the Pine Bullfinch breeding on the Labrador Coast, and I
have no doubt that it breeds all along the north shore of the Gulf of
St. Lawrence, and perhaps extends even as far west as the Saguenay,
along the north shore of the St. Lawrence River. It is asserted, on high
authority, that it breeds in some parts of Northern New England.—_C.
Hart Merriam, M.D., Locust Grove, N. Y._
COTURNICULUS LECONTEI, C. HENSLOWI, AND CISTOTHORUS STELLARIS IN
FLORIDA.—Mr. C. J. Maynard has kindly placed at my disposal the
following notes made during his recent trip to Florida. In November,
1881, he spent three weeks collecting at Rosewood, a small settlement on
the northern edge of the Gulf Hummock, about eighteen miles northeast of
Cedar Keys. Around the outskirts of this town were a number of old
fields, grown up to rank grass and tall weeds, but nevertheless
perfectly dry. Here he found Leconte’s Buntings, Henslow’s Buntings,
Yellow-winged Sparrows, and Short-billed Marsh Wrens, associating
together in comparative numbers ranking in the order in which their
names are mentioned. The first _C. lecontei_ was shot November 4.
Shortly afterwards they became so abundant that as many as twenty were
sometimes seen in a day, but notwithstanding their numbers, it was by no
means easy to obtain specimens. The chief difficulty arose from their
excessive tameness, for they could rarely be forced to take wing, while
in the long grass it was impossible to see them at a greater distance
than a few yards. Indeed so very fearless were they that on several
occasions Mr. Maynard nearly caught them in his insect net. All four
species were apparently established for the winter.
The detection of Leconte’s Bunting at Coosada, Alabama, by Mr.
Brown,[56] and more recently in Chester County, South Carolina, by Mr.
Loomis,[57] has prepared us to expect it almost anywhere in the Southern
States, but I believe that this is its first Florida record. The
occurrence of Henslow’s Bunting is also of importance, as confirming
Audubon’s more or less discredited statement that it wintered numerously
in Florida; while that of the Short-billed Marsh Wren is interesting
from the exceptional character of the locality and the distinguished
society in which the little bird was found.—WILLIAM BREWSTER,
_Cambridge, Mass._
AMMODRAMUS CAUDACUTUS.—A SOMEWHAT INLAND RECORD ON THE ATLANTIC
COAST.—On June 21, 1881, in company with my friends Messrs. Chamberlain
and Daniel, of St. John. N. B., I found a few pairs of Sharp-tailed
Finches in the tall grassy marshes bordering the Kenebecasis River at
Hampton, which is about twenty miles to the north of the above named
city and the Bay of Fundy, and about at the head of tide water. The
birds were singing, and undoubtedly breeding, but a severe hunt for
their nests was unsuccessful. Although a closely allied variety
(_nelsoni_) is known to occur in certain western States, I think our
maritime form has not before been observed away from the immediate coast
on the Atlantic seaboard. It might however be looked for up our rivers
and creeks as far as or a little above the flow of tide water. See this
Bulletin. II pp. 27, 28; III, pp. 48, 98; V, p. 52.—H. A. PURDIE,
_Newton, Mass._
THE WHITE-THROATED SPARROW IN WINTER NEAR WORCESTER, MASS.—I saw
White-throated Sparrows (_Zonotrichia albicollis_) at different dates
during December, 1879. I also saw some on January 1, 1880. I, myself,
had not observed it before, though possibly it may not be uncommon.—J.
A. FARLEY, _Worcester, Mass._
PEUCÆA RUFICEPS EREMŒCA.—In Gillespie County, Texas, which adjoins
Kendall Co. on the north, where Mr. Nathan C. Brown’s specimens were
taken, I collected on April 24, 1878, a pair of Sparrows which Mr. J. A.
Allen identified as _Peucæa ruficeps_. From the fact that Mr. Brown
collected no typical _ruficeps_ it is more than likely that my specimens
were var. _eremæca_.
My specimens were sent to the late Greene Smith, Esq., Peterboro, New
York, and are Nos. 961 and 962 in his Museum.—G. H. RAGSDALE,
_Gainesville, Texas_.
THE CANADA JAY AT PORTLAND, MAINE.—A specimen of the Canada Jay
(_Perisoreus canadensis_) was killed in Scarborough on October 15, 1880,
by Mr. Luther Redlon, of Portland, and delivered into my hands a few
hours after its capture. The specimen is worth noting from its being the
first that I have ever known to occur in the vicinity of Portland,
although its kind is said by Professor Verrill (Proc. Ess. Inst., Vol.
III, p. 151) to winter commonly at Norway, Maine, only forty miles
farther north.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland, Maine_.
THE WHITE-THROATED SWIFT BREEDING ON BELT RIVER, MONTANA.—About the
middle of last July, while hunting on Belt River, I happened to approach
the edge of the high limestone cliffs which rise above the stream for
several miles after leaving the mountains. Watching the Violet-green and
Crescent Swallows, which were abundant, for some time, I was about to
leave, when I noticed a Swift evidently flying directly towards me. It
passed only a few yards overhead, displaying at the same time the
extensive white throat-patch of _Cypselus saxatilis_. Further search
revealed some half a dozen altogether. A small opening in the rock which
a bird of this species was seen to enter and reappear from several
times, I approached, near enough to hear a vigorous twittering at each
visit of the parent bird, from which I presume the young were well
advanced. This is the only species of Swift I have yet seen in the
Territory.—R. S. WILLIAMS, _Gold Run, M. T._
CAPTURE OF THE GOLDEN EAGLE (_Aquila chrysaëtus canadensis_) NEAR
COLUMBUS, O.—December 13, 1881, I received a male specimen of the Golden
Eagle, killed five miles west of the city.
This bird, according to information which I have gathered from various
sources, had caused the farmers in the neighborhood in which it was
killed a great amount of annoyance. A reward was offered, and published
in our city papers, for the capture of a “Bald Eagle” (as they called
it), which had killed several young calves. By further inquiry I
ascertained that the bird was seen eating at two of the calves, but was
not seen in the act of killing them.—OLIVER DAVIE, _Columbus, O._
THE LITTLE BLUE HERON IN MAINE.—During the summer of 1881 a small white
Heron took up his abode in a dense swamp bordering the eastern side of
Scarborough Marsh. He foraged regularly about the neighboring ponds and
rivers, and before autumn had been seen and unsuccessfully shot at by
many covetous gunners. In September, however, he fell captive to the
wiles of Mr. Winslow Pilsbury, and now reposes in the cabinet of Mr.
Chas. H. Chandler, of Cambridge, Mass. Upon writing Mr. Chandler, to
ascertain the species represented by his specimen, I learned that Mr.
Henry A. Purdie[58] had seen the bird and pronounced it the Little Blue
Heron (_Florida cærulea_). No previous instance of its occurrence in
Maine is on record.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland, Maine_.
BAIRD’S SANDPIPER ON LONG ISLAND, N. Y.—A CORRECTION.—In the Bulletin
for January, 1882, p. 60, it is stated that the record of a specimen of
this species from Long Island is apparently its first from any point
south of New England. A note to the editors from Dr. E. A. Mearns calls
attention to a previous record of the species for Long Island in an
article by Newbold T. Lawrence, entitled “Notes on Several Rare Birds
Taken on Long Island, N. Y.,” published in “Forest and Stream,” Vol. X,
No. 13, p. 235, May 2, 1878, as follows:—
“_Tringa bairdii_, Baird’s Sandpiper.—Four specimens taken at Rockaway.
The first two in September, 1872, shot on a small piece of meadow, out
of a flock of _Tringa minutilla._ The third was taken August 26, 1873,
while snipe shooting on a low strip of sand that separates the ocean and
bay. My attention was first called to it by hearing a peculiar
long-drawn whistle, and soon after I perceived a small snipe flying very
high. The next moment it darted down and settled among my decoys, where
I secured it. The fourth was taken in the same locality as the first
two, September 20, 1874. Three of the above specimens were males.”—EDD.
PELIDNA SUBARQUATA ON THE MAINE COAST.—I have to thank Mr. C. H.
Chandler of Cambridge, for allowing me to view a mounted specimen of the
Curlew Sandpiper, which he shot on the beach at Pine Point, Scarborough,
Cumberland Co., on September 15, 1881. The plumage is immature—probably
a bird of the year. It was in company with Peeps, but its larger size
and lighter coloration were noticed, hence this visit to American shores
is registered. The species is new to the Maine fauna, at least this is
the first instance of actual capture within the limits of that
State.[59]—H. A. PURDIE, _Newton, Mass._
THE KING RAIL IN NEW ENGLAND.—It seems that in making up the New England
record of the King Rail (_Rallus elegans_)[60] I overlooked a note on
this species, published in “Forest and Stream” of March 11, 1880. In
this note Mr. Jno. H. Sage announces the capture of a female specimen at
Portland, Conn., September 19, 1879.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland,
Maine_.
PURPLE GALLINULE (_Ionornis martinica_) IN RHODE ISLAND.—Mr. Newton
Dexter states that some years ago Mr. P. W. Aldrich showed him a fine
Purple Gallinule just received in the flesh from Westerly, R. I. Mr.
Dexter bought, and now has the bird. He is not able to give the exact
year, but thinks it was in 1857.—FRED. T. JENCKS, _Providence, R. I._
NOTE ON THE HABITS OF THE YOUNG OF GALLINULA GALEATA AND PODILYMBUS
PODICEPS.—Mr. N. R. Wood, who collected quite a number of young Grebes
and Gallinules this summer at Montezuma Marsh, near Clyde, N. Y., tells
me that the little Gallinules use the thumb to aid them in moving about.
The thumb in the young of this bird is quite long and sharp, and the
nestlings, when unable to walk, hook it into any yielding substance, and
drag themselves along. The young Grebes are more vigorous than the
Gallinules, and progress by little hops.—FREDERIC A. LUCAS, _Rochester,
N. Y._
RHYNCHOPS NIGRA.—AN EARLY RECORD FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS
COAST.—Champlain,[61] while cruising along the sandy shores of Cape Cod
on a voyage of exploration in July, 1605, makes mention of the Black
Skimmer, as his narration, p. 87, shows.
“We saw also a sea-bird with a black beak, the upper part slightly
aquiline, four inches long and in the form of a lancet; namely, the
lower part representing the handle and the upper the blade, which is
thin, sharp on both sides, and shorter by a third than the other; which
circumstance is a matter of astonishment to many persons, who cannot
comprehend how it is possible for this bird to eat with such a beak. It
is of the size of a pigeon, the wings being very long in proportion to
the body, the tail short, as also the legs, which are red; the feet
being small and flat. The plumage on the upper part is gray-brown, and
on the under part pure white. They go always in flocks along the
seashore, like the pigeons with us.”
That this species was found on our shores early in this century is
proved by the older natives of the Cape telling me, since the bird’s
recent occurrence, that “them cutwater or shearwater birds used to be
with us summer times.” Also Mr. Brewster informs me that Nantucket
fishermen assert that Skimmers bred on Muskegat Island fifty years
ago.—H. A. PURDIE, _Newton, Mass._
NOTES ON THE HABITS OF THE KITTIWAKE GULL.—Some fishermen whom I lately
employed to get a few Kittiwake Gulls on the winter fishing grounds off
Swampscott, Massachusetts, gave me the following interesting account of
the habits of this species, and the way in which my specimens were
procured.
A number of small schooners sail from Swampscott every winter morning,
and reach the fishing banks, which are some twelve miles off shore,
about daybreak. The men then take to their dories, and buckets of
bait—generally cod-livers or other refuse—are thrown out to attract the
fish to the spot. Of this custom the Kittiwakes—or “Pinny Owls,” as
these men invariably call them—are well aware, and swarms of them
quickly collect around the boats to pick up the morsels before they
sink. They are very tame, and if one of the flock is shot the others
hover over it as Terns will do on similar occasions. The usual way of
taking them, however, is with hook and line, the bait being allowed to
float off on the surface, when it is quickly seized by one of the greedy
horde. In this manner great numbers are annually taken by the fishermen,
who either skin and stew them or use the flesh for bait. I was assured
that a “Pinny Owl” stew is by no means an unpalatable dish.
After the morning fishing is at an end the vessels start for their
anchorage in Swampscott harbor, and the fish are dressed on the way.
This gives the Gulls another chance which is not neglected, for the
entire flock follows closely in their wake. When the catch has been a
large one, and the work of cleaning the fish is continued at the
anchorage, they remain about the spot for hours picking up this offal
directly under the sides of the vessels. Here again the poor birds are
often mercilessly slaughtered by city gunners who shoot them for sport
or practice, leaving the dead and wounded to float out to sea with the
ebbing tide. The fishermen admit that their numbers have greatly
diminished of late years, but they are said to be still very abundant
through the winter months.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
STERNA FORSTERI BREEDING OFF THE EASTERN SHORE OF VIRGINIA.—An
impression seems to prevail among ornithologists that Forster’s Tern
breeds only in the interior of North America. At least I cannot learn
that Dr. Coues’ comparatively recent ruling[62] to that effect has been
publicly corrected, or that it is generally known that the bird nests on
the Atlantic Coast.[63] On this account it may be worth while to state
that during a visit to Cobb’s Island, Va., in July, 1880, I found
Forster’s Terns breeding in moderate numbers on all the neighboring
islands. They nested apart from the other Terns, but often in company
with Laughing Gulls, on the salt marshes or on marshy islets, where
their eggs were almost invariably laid on tide-rows of drift-weed that
fringed the muddy shores. The largest colony seen in any one place
comprised perhaps twenty-five pairs, but it was more usual to find from
six to a dozen mingled with a countless number of Gulls. I was late for
the eggs, but secured a few far advanced in incubation, besides several
downy young and many adult birds in full nuptial dress.—WILLIAM
BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
NOTE ON THE FOOT OF ACCIPITER FUSCUS.—On the plantar surfaces of each
foot of the Sharp-shinned Hawk two papillae may be noticed, which differ
from the others, more properly described as pads, in their greater
length and more symmetrical form. These pads are placed at the second
phalangeal joint of the third toe, and at the third phalangeal joint of
the fourth toe, that is, at the bases of the penultimate phalanges of
the third and fourth toes. These papillae are shown to be modified pads,
the same as those at the other two joints, by the less developed
papillae of _Circus_, _Astur_, and others. This transition can readily
be traced in the sketches of the feet given in the systematic works on
Hawks, though the special prominence of the papillae in the
Sharp-shinned Hawk does not seem to be particularly noted. On removing
the skin, however, a marked difference at once comes in view. While all
the pads are nearly obliterated, the papillae still remain as solid
cones of connective tissue (?), having much the same shape and sizes as
the entire papillae. These cones or cores are internally connected with
the superficial fascia of the toes and seem to straddle the flexor
tendons running below.
On noting the structural difference, the cause or function of these
papillae at once becomes a point of interest. Why have these two pads
been modified into long papillae (.12 inch in a dried specimen), and
provided with a solid core? Now the foot of _Accipiter_ is so
constructed that the first toe opposes the second toe, and their claws
move in nearly parallel arcs. This is not the case with the third and
fourth toes, which are longer and not opposable to one another. Thus the
claws can be opposed to nothing except the middle portions of the toes
to which they belong. But when the claw is thus flexed a small space
well adapted for grasping twigs and feathers is formed by the papillae,
the penultimate phalanx and the claw, the point projecting beyond
resembling the feet of certain crustacea and lice. Hence the function of
the papillae would seem to be to aid the third and fourth claws in
grasping small objects, and it is an interesting point to notice that
the foot of _Accipiter fuscus_ is thus drawn in North American Birds, by
Baird, Brewer and Ridgway.
How far the same considerations hold in other species I cannot say, but
as mentioned above, allied forms seem to possess the character to a less
degree.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES, _Boston, Mass._
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON TWO TEXAS BIRDS.—In a recent paper[64] on a
collection of birds made in southwestern Texas, I referred a series of
_Hylocichla unalascæ_ to the restricted form, with the remark that
several specimens closely approached var. _auduboni_. Upon reading the
article, an esteemed correspondent wrote me that one of these aberrant
examples, which had passed into his hands, appeared to him to be true
_auduboni_. In this opinion, after a reëxamination of the specimen, I
concur. The bird in question has a wing of 3.82 inches, which, though
decidedly under the average of _auduboni_, is more than should be
allowed _unalascæ_ proper.[65] Here, then, is another species, besides
those previously cited, which is represented by two distinct varieties
in the tract of country explored.
The single specimen of _Coturniculus passerinus_ taken in the same
locality represents the western variety _perpallidus_, under which, by
an oversight, it was not included.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland,
Me._
ADDENDA TO THE PRELIMINARY LIST OF BIRDS ASCERTAINED TO OCCUR IN THE
ADIRONDACK REGION, NORTHEASTERN NEW YORK.[66]—
178. =Dendrœca striata= (_Forst._) _Baird_. BLACK-POLL WARBLER.—In the
collection of the late A. Jenings Dayan (of Lyons Falls, N. Y.) is a
female of this species that he killed in the town of Lyonsdale in Lewis
Co., May 23, 1877.
179. =Dendrœca pinus= (_Wilson_) _Baird_. PINE-CREEPING WARBLER.—Mr.
Dayan took a full-plumaged male _D. pinus_ at Lyonsdale, Lewis Co., May
8, 1877. I have never observed the species within the limits of the
Adirondack Region, and it must be regarded as a rare bird here.
180. =Asio accipitrinus= (_Pallas_) _Newton_. SHORT-EARED OWL.—I have
seen two specimens of the Short-eared Owl that were taken within the
limits of the Adirondack Region, in Lewis County. They were both killed
east of the Black River Valley—one in the town of Greig, and the other
in Lyonsdale.
181. =Nyctiardea grisea nævia= (_Bodd._) _Allen_. NIGHT HERON.—I have
seen a Night Heron that was shot at Crown Point (in Essex Co.) on Lake
Champlain. There were two of them together, and both were killed.
182. =Calidris arenaria= (_Linn._) _Illig._ SANDERLING.—On the 5th of
October, 1881 Mr. O. B. Lockhart killed, from a flock, four Sanderlings
at Lake George, in Warren Co. (Dr. A. K. Fisher.)
183. =Chen hyperboreus= (_Pallas_) _Boie_. SNOW GOOSE.—Dr. A. K. Fisher
writes me that he saw a flock of one hundred and fifty or two hundred
Snow Geese on Lake George (in Warren County) Nov. 19, 1881. In company
with Mr. O. B. Lockhart he rowed out to within a hundred yards of them,
when they were frightened by another boat and took flight, showing
plainly the black tips of their primaries as they left.
184. =Phalacrocorax dilophus= (_Sw. and Rich._) _Nuttall_.
DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT.—Mr. F. H. Knowlton, from Brandon, Vermont,
writes me: “I shot, on September 24, 1879, at St. Regis’ Lake [Franklin
County], two miles from Paul Smith’s, a young female example of
_Graculus dilophus_. The bird was not wild and was easily shot from the
shore.”
185. =Dytes auritus= (_Linn._) _Ridgway_. HORNED GREBE.—On Little
Tuppers Lake (Hamilton Co.), Oct. 22, 1881. Dr. A. K. Fisher and I saw
about eight Horned Grebes and I killed one of them. While crossing
Raquette Lake, the same day, Dr. Fisher shot another. At Big Moose Lake
(in Hamilton and Herkimer Counties) we saw this species every day from
Oct. 26 to Nov. 8, 1881. Nov. 5 I shot one out of a flock of nine. They
were all in the plain fall dress, so that the size alone enabled us to
distinguish young from old. In all the iris was of a bright orange red.
They are excellent divers and can remain under water an astonishingly
long period.—C. HART MERRIAM, M.D., _Locust Grove, N. Y._
ERRATA.
In Vol. VII, page 26, line 6, for “An indistinct, dusky” read “A black.”
Same page, foot note, for “οὐκέω” read “οἰκέω.”
[Illustration:
BULL. NUTT. ORNITH. CLUB., VOL. VII., NO. 3. PLATE 7.
Jeffries & Blake, del. _The Heliotype Printing Co. 211 Tremont
St. Boston_
]
BULLETIN
OF THE
NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB.
VOL. VII. JULY, 1882. No. 3.
THE COLORS OF FEATHERS.
BY J. AMORY JEFFRIES.
Feathers have been studied from the earliest days of the microscope,
indeed long before the modern microscope came into existence. Malpighei,
Hooke and Leeuwenhoek all wrote on the subject, and not a little of our
knowledge dates from their time. Since then authors have constantly
written on feathers and their colors, until the papers on the subject
may be counted by hundreds. Accordingly little that is new can be
expected from this short article, nor even a history of the literature
of the subject. My only object is to give an idea, so far as is known,
how the colors of feathers are produced, the literature of the subject
being out of the track of most American ornithologists.
Color may be the result of any one or more of the following causes: a
pigment, interference and diffraction of light in their various phases,
fluorescence, and phosphorescence. Of these causes only three have been
called upon to explain the colors of feathers, the last two apparently
playing no part. The fluorescence noted by Dr. Krukenberg in solutions
of certain feather-pigments probably plays no part, or at most an
insignificant one, in the colors of feathers. Pigments act by absorbing
all rays of light but those which enter into their color, that is turn
them into heat.
Interference acts in several different ways, all of which are based on
the same principle, and so films may be taken as an example. If a beam
of light, _xy_ (figure 1), is allowed to fall on any thin plate, or
film, part of the rays will be reflected in the direction _yz_, the
angles _byx_ and _ayz_ being equal. The rest of the rays will pass
through the film to the other surface, being slightly refracted in their
course. Here part will be reflected, and being again refracted at the
first surface, will emerge in a line _wz′_ nearly coincident with _yz_,
the balance passing out into the air. Now the waves composing the white
light of two beams _yz_ and _wz′_ will run together and partially
obliterate each other, after the manner of ripples on water. Accordingly
certain waves will be obliterated, and since white light is due to the
blending of waves of the different colors, the light reflected from the
film will be that of the colors not interfered with, the waves thus
obliterated depending upon their length and the thickness of the film
traversed. So as we look at the film from different points the
conditions vary, and with them the resultant color.
Interference may also produce colored light by means of fine particles
diffused through another substance, as milk in water, the particles in
the air, and the like. Colored light produced in this way is known as
opalescent, the transmitted light tending to the red end of the
spectrum, and the reflected to the other portions. This result can be
obtained by mixing black and white grains, an experiment which all have
tried as school boys, by soaking chalk in ink, the result being a bluish
color.
Diffraction acts apparently by bending the light rays different amounts,
and thus spreading out the spectrum. Explanations of the various
phenomena of this sort are difficult, and need not be entered into here.
Feathers are classed, according to their appearance, into ordinary,
metallic and iridescent, the peculiarities of which are well known and
so need not delay us.
The ordinary feathers are colored by simple pigments, by contrast of
light and darkness and mechanically, as in the case of the Bluebird
(_Sialia sialis_). Pigments of various colors are known to occur in
feathers, and have received special names, as turacin, zoönerythrin,
zoöfulvin, zoöxanthin, zoöchlorin, zoömelanin. These evenly distributed,
as turacin, zoönerythrin, and zoöfulvin, or in patches, as zoömelanin,
impart their respective colors to the feather parts in which they
exist.[67] The color of the mass of the feather may, however, owing to
various colors in the small feather parts, be different from that of any
part.
Of these pigments none seem to be peculiar except turacin. This pigment
is altered by wetting the feathers, and comes from the feathers into the
water in which the birds bathe, a fact of considerable interest, since
the birds maintain their normal color, thus necessitating a new supply
of pigment.
White feathers are the result of the light being reflected as a whole
from the finely divided feather parts. Some grays are the result of
small black nodes in the barbules, which nodes are of considerable size,
and do not disperse the light, being distributed along the barbules.
Other grays are the result of a small quantity of black pigment.
Yellow feathers colored with zoöfulvin receive their hue from this
pigment, which is pretty evenly distributed through the texture like a
dye.
Red feathers, as those of the Flamingo, Cardinal Bird, and the like, are
so colored by a red pigment similar to the yellow one. Brown feathers
are colored by a brown pigment in the feathers, which is for the most
part collected in patches within the cells of the feather.
Violet pigments are said by some to exist, while others have never been
able to extract them, so the causes of this color still remain in doubt.
Green feathers owe their color to various causes. In some it is due to a
green pigment, as Turacoverdin or zoöchlorin, in others it is said to be
due to a mixture of yellow and blue dots. The olive-greens are sometimes
produced by a yellow pigment overlying a dark brown or black.
All the above pigments seem to be blended and used in gaudily colored
birds much after the manner of paints by artists. So that a great
variety of colors may be produced from a few pigments by the skilful
hand of nature.
Metallic feathers, properly speaking, are those which partake of the
characters shown by the red crests of the Woodpeckers. The metallic
appearance is limited to the barbs, the barbules not showing this
peculiarity, and being quickly shed. If a feather from the crest of a
Woodpecker, say _Picus pubescens_, be examined, it will at once be
noticed that the red barbs have few if any barbules, and that the barbs
themselves are enlarged. Such barbules as are present, are not red but
black, and only serve to diminish the effects of the red parts. They
would seem accordingly to be properly classed among useless hereditary
organs. That the red color is due to a pigment is proved by dissolving
it out and by its persistence when examined by transmitted light. But
what causes the brilliancy which has led to their being called metallic?
This is due to the extreme smoothness of the barbs, the horn-cells of
which they are composed being fused together and solid. Thus the
unabsorbed rays of the beam of light which strikes them are reflected as
a whole, instead of being sent in every direction by the walls of the
cells as in most cases. The metallic feathers differ from ordinary
feathers in the same way that window or glass paintings differ from
ordinary pictures. They simply give off much more light, and thus
produce more marked effects on our eyes.
The colors of metallic feathers seem to be limited to the red end of the
spectrum, the colors varying from yellow or orange to red; blue, green
or purple feathers constructed on this principle do not seem to abound.
So far we have only had to deal with pigments, and all has been plain
sailing, but the various accidental colors shown by feathers are far
more difficult of explanation. Not only are the parts extremely small,
but the entire subject of accidental colors as regards organic
structures has been in large part dealt with from a theoretical point of
view. The question has not been how is the feather part made, but what
kinds of structures will produce such color effects. Accordingly divers
opinions have been expressed on the subject, the most probable of these
we shall now endeavor to sketch out.
Blue colors seem to be accidental, that is, the result of other causes
than pigments. Not only have all efforts to extract the pigments failed,
but blue feathers appear gray when examined by transmitted light. Again,
no blue can be found in transverse sections of blue feather parts. This
method of studying the colors of feathers is worthy of more extended use
than it has yet had. By this means all physical effects of the outer
coat are avoided, and the exact position of the pigments can be seen.
Sections are quickly prepared by fastening the feather on to a piece of
pith with collodion, and mounting sections pith and all. The pith keeps
the sections on end, a result otherwise difficult to obtain.
Gray-blues, such as those seen in _Dendrœca cœrulescens_, are due to
opalescence. The feather is full of fine granules of black or darkish
pigment, which in a manner already described produces a blue color.
Brilliant blues, as those shown by _Sialia sialis_, _Cyanospiza cyanea_,
_Cœreba lucida_, and the like, do not seem to be susceptible of a like
explanation. The color is too intense and pure to be produced in such a
small space by opalescence. So most authors have simply ascribed it to
some other form of interference, as a thin outer plate, which would seem
on examination to be the true cause. Figure 2, drawn from a section of a
Bluebird’s barb enlarged about one thousand diameters, will give an idea
of the structure found in such cases. The central cells are full of some
dark pigment, probably zoömelanin, while the surface is bounded by a
transparent layer of horn varying from ¹⁄₃₀₀₀₀ to ¹⁄₁₀₀₀₀ of an inch in
thickness. Thus we have a contrivance not ill adapted to the production
of interference colors, the black pigment absorbing all rays which are
not reflected by the horn coat on the outside. Yet there are decided
difficulties in this view. Thin as it is, the outer horn coat is thick
compared to the length of light waves, and again the blue color is
constant. However, in spite of these objections, the color must be
ascribed to the action of the outer coat of cells. The structure of
other bright blue feathers is much the same, though differences in
minutiae exist. Thus the outer layer of cells, the external walls of
which form the outer coat of the barb, are devoid of pigment in the Blue
Jay. (Fig. 3.)
Here it is of interest to note that the barbs of the brown female Indigo
bird differ but slightly from the bright blue barbs of the male. In the
female the pigment is more diffuse, and the outer horny coat is thicker
and less dense and lustrous.
The above feathers with their smooth outer coat are connected with true
iridescent feathers by an intermediate group. I refer to the
highly-colored blue and green feathers of such birds as _Chlorophanes
atrocristatus_ (Fig. 2) and _Cœreba lucida_. In these the ends of the
barbs are enlarged and the barbules reduced to a minimum, after the
manner of the Woodpeckers; unlike them, however, the surface is rough,
each cell being rounded out. When examined under a microscope such barbs
appear as if covered with a mosaic of gems. Sections show, whatever may
be the shape of the barb, that the walls of the iridescent parts are
extremely thin, so thin that exact measurements cannot be made with the
instruments at my disposal. The thickness got when reduced to fractions
of an inch, is approximately ¹⁄₁₀₀₀₀₀₀ of an inch, a film sufficiently
thin for all purposes of interference. Many of these feathers when
magnified show that the color is not uniform, but that all the colors
contribute their quota to the final color. The figure of a section of a
barb of _Chlorophanes atrocristatus_ will give some idea of such a
feather. In this case the final color seems to be the result of mixing
the light reflected from the dark end with that from the yellow
triangular part.
We now naturally come to the true iridescent feathers, of which the
Peacock may be taken as an example. The iridescent barbules are made up
of flat, wonderfully thin cells, arranged end to end, as shown in figure
5. When examined with transmitted light, they are seen to be films full
of a brownish pigment more or less evenly dispersed through the mass.
When cut in sections and looked at on edge they resemble, even under
quite high powers, the edge of a piece of paper. Here we have the most
admirable contrivance for the production of iridescent light, the plates
being fully thin enough, and all white light which may get through the
walls being taken up by the brown pigment within. All the parts of the
eye are constructed on the same plan, and only provided with brownish
pigments, hence the color must be due to variations in the thickness.
Here it is well to notice that the colors are quite constant.
The brilliant colors of these feathers have often been ascribed to
irregularities of surface, the traces of the cell cavities being
mistaken for pits on the surface. That this is an error is at once shown
by examining a section.
Before leaving the subject I cannot refrain from calling attention to
the wonderful diversity of means employed, as well as their complexity
in the production of feather colors. Among the Parrots we have the most
skilful painting combined with accidental colors. Yet all ornithologists
base specific differences on slight variations of color, and this in
spite of the fact that birds may change their color according as they
are wet or dry, owing to the nature of their food, or to slight
differences in the quantity of pigment.
In this they are no doubt often right, but when we come to varieties
based on the very faintest distinctions of color and form, we may well
pause till more is known of avian physiology.
EXPLANATION OF PLATE I.
_Fig. 1._ Diagramatic representation of the effect of a film on light.
_Fig. 2._ Transverse section of a barb of _Chlorophanes
atrocristatus_; Hartnack 3–9 im. the light part yellow, the dark part
dark brown.
_Fig. 3._ Transverse section of a barb of _Cyanocitta cristata_. Hart.
3–9 im.
_Fig. 4._ Same of _Cyanospiza cyanea_ ♂.
_Fig. 5._ Two sections of a barbule of a Peacock.
_Fig. 6._ Section of barb of _Sialia sialis_ much magnified.
ON A COLLECTION OF BIRDS LATELY MADE BY MR. F. STEPHENS IN ARIZONA.
BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.
(_Continued from p. 94._)
33. =Peucedramus olivaceus= (_Giraud_) _Coues_. OLIVE-HEADED
WARBLER.—The Olive-headed Warbler, one of Giraud’s famous “sixteen”
Texas species, has found an unquestioned place in our fauna only on the
strength of three Arizona specimens, taken by Mr. Henshaw at Mount
Graham, in September, 1874. Accordingly, the acquisition of the fine
series catalogued below can scarcely fail to be a matter of much
interest. As will appear from the accompanying data, Mr. Stephens met
with the bird in only a single locality in the Chiricahua Mountains
where it was apparently not uncommon in March: but he writes of a
previous specimen (an adult male) taken among the Santa Catarina
Mountains, in February, 1880, a date which seems to imply that the
species winters in the latter range. His observations throw no light on
its still unknown breeding haunts.
The specimens obtained during the past season were found in pine woods
on the mountain sides at an elevation of from ten to twelve thousand
feet. Although individuals often occurred not far from one another, two
were rarely seen in actual companionship. The only exception to this is
noted under date of March 24, when a small flock was met with on a steep
slope near the summit of one of the mountains. In their actions these
Warblers reminded Mr. Stephens of _Dendrœca occidentalis_. They spent
much of their time at the extremities of the pine branches where they
searched among the bunches of needles for insects, with which their
stomachs were usually well filled. Occasionally one was seen to pursue a
falling insect to the ground, where it would alight for a moment before
returning to the tree above. The only song heard consisted of “a few low
notes” which were rarely uttered, but a peculiar “_cheerp_” was repeated
at frequent intervals.
The examples before me illustrate a fact which I do not find mentioned
by previous writers, viz., that during the first year the males wear a
plumage similar to that of the females. I have three in this condition;
two of them, although in unworn dress, are absolutely undistinguishable
from adults of the opposite sex; the third (No. 77), however, has the
throat appreciably tinged with the brownish-saffron of the adult male.
The females show some variation in respect to the dusky patch on the
side of the head. In most of them it is confined to the auriculars, and
even there is much mixed with yellow; but No. 46 has a continuous,
dull-black stripe extending from the bill through the eye, and spreading
over the auriculars in a broad, well-marked patch. Nos. 94 and 101
differ from the others in having the crown so slightly washed with
olive-green that the whole upper surface is nearly uniform, a condition
which I take to be the immature one of this sex. The adult males show
but little individual variation. Both sexes and all ages have the basal
half of the lower mandible light brown.
44. ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 14, Length, 5.10;
extent, 9; wing, 3.12; tail, 2.35; culmen, .56; tarsus, .72.
45, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.40; extent, 9.20; wing,
3.16; tail, 2.55; culmen, .55; tarsus, .69. Iris dark brown.
72, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 19. Length, 5.40; extent, 8.90.
91, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 5.40; extent, 9; wing, 3.08;
tail, 2.50; culmen, .55; tarsus, .75.
92, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.90.
102, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.80; wing,
3.10; tail, 2.44; culmen, .56; tarsus, .75.
77, ♂ im., Morse’s Mill, March 20. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.90; wing,
3.03; tail, 2.37; culmen, .55; tarsus, .77. In plumage of the ♀.
90, ♂ im., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50; wing,
2.85; tail, 2.30; culmen, .56; tarsus, .71. Same remarks.
103, ♂ im., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50; wing,
2.90; tail, 2.33; culmen, .57; tarsus, .67. Same remarks.
46, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 14. Length, 5.20: extent, 8.50; wing,
2.93; tail, 2.35; culmen, .56; tarsus, .73.
47, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent, 8.30; wing, 2.87;
tail, 2.18; culmen, .58; tarsus, .73.
81, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 21. Length, 5; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.76;
tail, 2.35; culmen, defective; tarsus, .72.
93, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.80.
94, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent, 8.20: wing, 2.84;
tail, 2.18; culmen, defective; tarsus, .71.
101, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50: wing,
2.87; tail, 2.22; culmen, .58; tarsus, .75.
34. =Dendrœca æstiva= (_Gmel._) _Baird_. YELLOW WARBLER.
210, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 5; extent, 7.50; wing,
2.75; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .74. “Iris dark brown; bill dark horn color
above, lighter below; legs pale brown. Common in the migrations.”
35. =Dendrœca coronata= (_Linn._) _Gray_. YELLOW-RUMPED
WARBLER.—Chiricahua Mountains; a single specimen, taken March 26.
From its general dispersion over North America, the Yellow-rumped
Warbler was of course to be expected in Arizona, at least as a visitor,
but I cannot learn that it has been previously detected within the
limits of that Territory. Mr. Stephens, however, sends me an adult
female which must be referred to _coronata_, although it is in some
respects peculiar, if not intermediate between that species and
_auduboni_. The wing-bands are as distinctly separated as in _coronata_
(with females and immature males of both species this character is not
always well-defined), and the throat, generally, is equally white, but
on its left side, adjoining the maxillary line, there is a small patch
of the faintest possible yellow. The light superciliary stripes, which
should be at least indicated in female _coronata_, are also entirely
wanting.
114, ♀ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 26. Length, 5.50; extent, 8.70;
wing, 2.98; tail, 2.52. “Iris brown.”
36. =Dendrœca auduboni= (_Towns._) _Baird_. AUDUBON’S WARBLER.
343, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 5.80; extent, 9.52; wing, 3.05;
tail, 2.75. “Iris dark brown; bill and legs black.”
37. =Dendrœca nigrescens= (_Towns._) _Baird_. BLACK-THROATED GRAY
WARBLER.—On April 1, Mr. Stephens secured five males of this species
among the Chiricahua Mountains. The only additional specimens in the
collection are two females taken late in the season (No. 203, ♀ ad.,
Cienega Station, April 15. No. 357, Santa Rita Mountains, May 12.).
38. =Dendrœca townsendi= (_Nutt._) _Baird_. TOWNSEND’S WARBLER.
2.98, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 28. Length, 5.10; extent, 7.70; wing, 2.45.
“Iris dark brown; bill and legs black; soles of the feet yellow. Among
mesquites.”
373, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 13. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.10;
wing, 2.64.
374, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 4.90; extent, 7.40; wing,
2.44. “Iris dark brown; soles of feet yellowish. Water oaks of
foot-hills; very fat.”
Even the most adult males of this species seem to have the
throat-patch slightly sprinkled with yellow. At least I have yet to
see one with the black absolutely pure and unmixed.
39. =Siurus nævius= (_Bodd._) _Coues_ NORTHERN WATER THRUSH.—A single
specimen taken May 4, at Tucson. It was among willows on the borders of
a stream.
This example differs from New England ones in being darker above and
less yellowish beneath. In these respects, as well as some minor ones,
it resembles a rather peculiar style from West Virginia to which I once
called attention.[68] Mr. Ridgway kindly furnishes the following opinion
regarding its relationship with _S. notabilis_. “The _Siurus_ from
Tucson is very different in proportions from the type of _notabilis_,
with which I have compared it, but it may be a small individual of that
form. The wing is about the same length, but the bill and tail are very
much shorter, and the tarsi more slender. The color above is grayer, the
streaks beneath much narrower, and the spots on the throat much
smaller.” _Notabilis_, based as it is on a single specimen, and
instituted in a species which varies to an unusual degree in size, color
and markings, seems to me, however, to be, at best, a very doubtful
race.
329, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 4. Length, 6.20; extent, 9.50; wing, 3.10; tail,
2.32; tarsus, .85; culmen, .64. “Iris brown; bill black above, brown
below; legs light brown. Very fat. Stomach contained insects.”
40. =Geothlypis macgillivrayi= (_Aud._) _Baird_. MACGILLIVRAY’S
WARBLER.—Two specimens collected at Tucson (♀ April 20, ♂ June 8). “I
have not found it common in either Arizona or New Mexico.”
41. =Geothlypis trichas= (_Linn._) _Caban._ MARYLAND YELLOW-THROAT.—Mr.
Stephens found this species “abundant along streams,” an experience at
variance with that recorded by Mr. Henshaw, who met with it but twice
while in Arizona.
The only specimen taken agrees closely with some examples from the
Truckee River, Nevada, and differs from my eastern representatives, in
having the upper parts yellowish-olive instead of olive-green; the
crown-band much broader and creamy white in color; the wings and tail
longer; the yellow beneath richer, and extending more over the abdomen.
Mr. Ridgway has already called attention[69] to some of these
differences which, as he now writes me, would be enough to warrant the
varietal separation of the western bird, were it not that specimens from
both sections of the country occasionally vary in such a manner as to
invalidate any characters that could at present be proposed. With the
acquisition of better series, however, it is probable that the
representatives of two regions, as yet undefined, will be found to
present sufficiently constant characteristics to deserve distinctive
names.
219, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 5.40; extent, 6.90; wing,
2.16; tail, 2.40; culmen, .55. “Iris brown; bill black, bluish beneath;
legs pale brown.”
42. =Icteria virens longicauda= (_Lawr._) _Coues_. LONG-TAILED
CHAT.—This bird was observed only in the vicinity of Tucson. The first
specimen was taken April 30, and it soon afterwards became abundant.
310, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 30. Length, 7.50; extent, 9.40; wing, 3.12;
tail, 3.52. “Bill and legs black.”
318, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 3. Length, 7.70; extent, 9.60; wing, 3.05;
tail, 3.61.
335, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 5. Length, 7.30; extent, 9.70; wing, 3.12;
tail, 3.45.
521, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 11. Length, 7.10; extent, 9.40; wing, 3.15;
tail, 3.36.
43. =Myiodioctes pusillus pileolatus= (_Pall._) _Ridgw._ PILEOLATED
WARBLER.
Although Mr. Henshaw referred all his Arizona Black-capped Flycatchers
to _pusillus_, mine are absolutely typical of _pileolatus_; in fact they
are brighter than some specimens from Nicasio (California), the yellow
below being richer, and the upper surface more yellowish, while the bill
is equally
narrow and several shades lighter in color. Compared with eastern
examples they of course present an even greater contrast. Dr. Coues
was undoubtedly right in saying (Birds of the Colorado Valley, p. 327)
that _pileolatus_ “is not confined to the Pacific coast region”; but I
cannot agree with him in thinking it an inconstant form. On the
contrary, I find its characters, as proposed by Mr. Ridgway, so well
maintained that any one of my western birds can be separated at a
glance when placed in a series of twenty-one specimens from the
Atlantic States.
221, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 4.70; extent, 6.80;
wing, 2.17; tail, 2.23; width of bill below nostrils, .12. “Iris
brown; bill dark above, pale brown below. Common here in willows and
underbrush along streams.”
257, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.90; extent, 7; wing 2.27;
tail, 2.30; width of bill below nostrils, .12.
44. =Setophaga picta= _Swains._ PAINTED REDSTART.—During the past season
this beautiful species was met with only among the Chiricahua and Santa
Rita Mountains, but in 1876 Mr. Stephens found it in New Mexico, a
Territory from which I believe it has not previously been reported. In
the Chiricahua Mountains it was not uncommon after March 21, and many
specimens were taken near Morse’s Mill, at an elevation of fully seven
thousand feet. They occurred most numerously among pines, in a cañon
where they had been previously observed in April, 1880. This experience,
it will be observed, differs somewhat from that recorded by Mr. Henshaw,
who says: “It appears not to inhabit the high mountains nor the extreme
lowlands, but to occupy an intermediate position, and to find the rocky
hills covered with a sparse growth of oak most congenial to its habits.”
In the Santa Rita Mountains, where it was rather common in May, Mr.
Stephens had the good fortune to find its previously unknown nest and
eggs. The nest, which is now before me, is large, flat and shallow. It
is composed of bark, coarse fibres from weed-stalks, and fine, bleached
grasses, the latter, with a few hairs, forming a simple lining. The cup
measures 2.10 inches in width by 1 inch in depth; while the external
diameter of the whole structure is rather more than 5 inches, and its
depth about 1.50. The eggs, which were three in number, measure
respectively .64×.51; .64×.50; and .66×.49. They are clear, dead white,
delicately spotted with light reddish-brown, the markings being sparsely
distributed over the general surface of the egg, and handsomely wreathed
about its larger end. Neither nest nor egg resembles that of _S.
ruticilla_. But a greater surprise is the character of the nesting-site,
which was “under a projecting stone, in a bank near a small stream.”
This position is so unexpected that, from an unproved collector, I
should hesitate to accept the accompanying evidence of identification,
which is a simple statement that the parent was sitting, and was
distinctly seen. But knowing as well as I do Mr. Stephens’ unusual
accuracy and conscientiousness in such matters I cannot doubt the
correctness of his determination, especially as the Painted Redstart is
a bird of such striking colors and markings that it could not possibly
be mistaken by one who is so familiar with its appearance in life.[70]
After all the case is not more peculiar than that presented among
_Helminthophilæ_ by Lucy’s warbler which, as has just been shown,
departs from the normal nesting habits of the genus and builds in holes,
behind loose bark and in all sorts of unexpected places. The nest above
described was taken May 18, when the eggs were sufficiently advanced in
incubation to show that the clutch was complete.
Mr. Henshaw comparing the sexes, says: “The adult plumage of the sexes
differs little, though the coloration in the female is quite perceptibly
duller throughout. The black is less lustrous; the wings are blackish
brown instead of pure black; the white on the wing confined to the
coverts, and only just visible on the edges of the secondaries.” These
differences, however, are not always maintained for one of the two adult
females before me is quite as bright as the average male, while the
black is not less lustrous, and the white edging on the secondaries is
even broader. The other is more like those examined by Mr. Henshaw, but
seems to be peculiar in having the sides, with a broad collar across the
nape, fine stone-gray.
45. =Vireo gilvus= (_Vieill._) _Bonap._ WARBLING VIREO.—Found among all
the well-timbered mountains visited, but nowhere as a common bird.
Of the several characters which are said to distinguish var. _swainsoni_
from _gilvus_ proper, I can appreciate only the slightly different shape
of the bill. The relative length of the wing-quills is an absolutely
inconstant characteristic with birds from any of the localities
represented in my series, while I do not find that western specimens—at
least California and Arizona ones—are either paler or grayer than many
we get in the Atlantic States. Indeed, nearly the darkest one in my
whole suite comes from Arizona. In view of these facts I cannot regard
_swainsoni_ as worthy of varietal recognition.
46. =Vireo solitarius cassini= (_Xantus_) _Ridgw._ CASSIN’S
VIREO.—Common among the foot-hills of the mountains.
Mr. Henshaw has so satisfactorily defined[71] the characters which
respectively distinguish the Cassin’s and Plumbeous Vireos from
_solitarius_ proper, as well as from each other, that there is no room
for any further remarks on what, previous to his examination, was a very
tangled problem. The specimens mentioned below are all unmistakably
referable to cassini, although one or two of them present slight
approaches to _plumbeus_. It is a singular fact that Mr. Stephens did
not meet with any typical examples of the latter race.
209, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 5.40; extent, 8.70. “Iris
brown; bill dark horn-color above, lighter below; legs dark bluish.”
214, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.60; extent, 9.10; wing, 3;
tail, 2.44.
236, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.70; wing, 2.89;
tail, 2.41.
316, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 2. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.50; wing. 2.71; tail,
2.26.
346, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 5.30; extent, 9; wing, 2.76; tail,
2.23. “Very fat. Would not have laid for a long time.”
354, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 11. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.80;
wing, 2.82; tail, 2.27. “Iris brown; bill nearly black, bluish at base
below; legs lead-color.”
47. =Vireo huttoni stephensi= _var. nov._ STEPHENS’ VIREO.
CH. SP.—♂ ♀ Similis _V. huttoni_ sed rostro robustiori, alis
longioribus. Supra griseo-cinereus, infra fusco-albidus. Uropygio et
marginibus caudæ sordide virenti-olivaceis. Alis albo bifasciatis;
remigibus albo-marginatis. Loris et orbe circum-oculari (macula
fusco-brunnea in palpebra superiori excepta), cinereo-albis.
Adult ♂ (No. 5,728, author’s collection—collector’s No. 41—Chiricahua
Mountains, Arizona, March 14, 1881. F. Stephens). Bill stout; wings
from .30 to .40 inches longer than tail. Above grayish-ash; the crown,
vertex and sides of head and neck nearly pure; the back faintly tinged
with olive; the rump and an edging on the tail feathers, dull
olive-green. Wings with two nearly confluent bands on the coverts, and
the outer edges of the inner secondaries, broadly white; outer quills
edged more narrowly with the same color. Beneath brownish or
smoky-white, with a mere wash of yellowish on the sides and crissum.
Upper eyelid dusky brown; remainder of orbital region, with the lores,
ashy-white in decided contrast with the nearly clear cinereous of the
head generally. Lining of wings white.
_Dimensions._ Length, 5.20; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.25;
culmen, .50.
_Habitat._ Arizona and New Mexico.
Four additional specimens offer no variations affecting any of the
characters above detailed.
In its generally dull, grayish coloration, with little trace of olive
or yellow shades, this Vireo is curiously like _V. pusillus_, but the
under parts are obscured with brownish, while the differences in size
and proportions are too evident to require detailed comparison. From
the smaller, much brighter-colored _V. huttoni_, which is unmistakably
its nearest United States relative, it may be distinguished by the
following diagnoses.
_V. huttoni._—Wing, 2.28 to 2.37. Olive-green above and
olivaceous-yellowish beneath. No clear white anywhere.
_V. huttoni stephensi._—Wing, 2.55 to 2.90. Grayish-ash above with no
decided olive-green excepting on the rump and tail. Beneath
brownish-white, untinged with yellowish excepting on the sides and
crissum. Wing-bands pure white and nearly confluent.
It will be observed that the above differences are closely parallel to
those which separate _Vireo belli_ and _V. pusillus_, while they are
in no respect less important. Indeed were I disposed to emphasize
certain peculiarities presented in the wing-formula of my type, it
would not be difficult to make out an equally good case of specific
distinctness, but unfortunately, the relative length of the
wing-quills (including the spurious primaries) proves to be quite as
variable in _V. huttoni_ and its Arizona race, _stephensi_, as I find
it to be in _V. pusillus_ and _V. belli_, and, I might add, in all
closely allied species which I have so far studied. In short, I am
convinced that this feature, if ever of any diagnostic value, is so
with only a small proportion of the birds to which it has been so
freely and confidently applied.
In naming this Vireo after its discoverer, Mr. F. Stephens, I have
paid but a deserved compliment to that gentleman’s zeal and energy as
a field ornithologist. He notes the bird as “not uncommon in scrub
oaks” among both the Chiricahua and Santa Rita Maintains. He also
writes me that he has taken specimens in New Mexico, where, near Fort
Bayard, a nest with four eggs was obtained in 1876. In both
Territories it seems to be confined to the mountain ranges, where it
undoubtedly breeds in all suitable localities.
41, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 14. Length, 5.20;
extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .73; culmen, .50; depth
of bill at nostrils, .15. “Iris brown.”
50, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 16. Length, 4.90; extent, 8; wing,
2.55; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .73; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.
118, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 28. Length, 5; extent, 7.90; wing,
2.68; tail, 2.30; tarsus, .70; culmen, .50; depth of bill at nostrils,
.15.
140, ♂ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 31. Length, 5.10; extent,
8.40; wing, 2.65; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .73; culmen, .49; depth of bill
at nostrils, .15.
353, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 11. Length, 5; extent, 8.10;
wing, 2.74; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .70; culmen, .48; depth of bill at
nostrils, .15.
Seven California specimens of _V. huttoni_ measure as follows:—
1443, ♂, Nicasio. Wing, 2.35; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .75; culmen, .50;
depth of bill, .11.
1445, ♂, Nicasio. Wing, 2.31; tail, 2.15; tarsus, .76; culmen, .51;
depth of bill, .11.
1444, ♀, Nicasio. Wing, 2.35; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .76: culmen, .49;
depth of bill, .10.
1446, ♀, Nicasio. Wing, 2.32; tail, 2.28; tarsus, .74; culmen, .50;
depth of bill, .14.
6800, ♂, Berkeley Co. Wing, 2.37; tail, 2.30; tarsus, .75; culmen,
.46; depth of bill, .11.
6801, ♀, Berkeley Co. Wing, 2.28; tail, 2.15; tarsus, .75; culmen,
.51; depth of bill, .11.
6339, ♀, Riverside. Wing, 2.34; tail, 2.14; tarsus, .75; culmen, .52;
depth of bill, .14.
48. =Vireo pusillus= _Coues_. LEAST VIREO.—An abundant summer species
frequenting willows along streams and, near Tucson, thickets of
mesquites. “It is active, restless and very noisy.”
Numerous nests were taken. The only one sent me is a shallower, but
nevertheless rather more elaborate structure, than that of _V. belli_ to
which, however, it bears a strong resemblance. It is mainly composed of
fibrous shreds, apparently obtained from the stalks of some herbaceous
plant. The lining is of delicate, bleached grasses, which are very
neatly arranged. The eggs are white with a cluster of small black spots
about the larger ends. The clutch comprised three, a number which was
not exceeded in any of the other nests. The notes relating to this set
are as follows: “Tucson, June 11. Nest pensile between the forks of a
small mesquite branch, about five feet from the ground, in a thicket of
weeds and brush. Incubation commenced. Female shot. This species seems
to abandon a nest if it is found before any eggs are laid.”
205, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. Length, 5; extent, 7.10; wing,
2.21; tail, 2.25. “Iris dark brown; bill dark above, light below; legs
dark.”
235, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.10; extent, 7.30; wing, 2.23;
tail, 2.25.
262, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 22. Length, 6; extent, 7.10; wing, 2.28;
tail, 2.34.
275, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 5; extent, 7; wing, 2.21; tail,
2.25.
276, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 4.90; extent, 6.90; wing,
2.18; tail, 2.25.
282, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent. 7.10; wing,
2.30; tail, 2.30.
461, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, May 31. Length, 5; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.21;
tail, 2.25. “Laying.”
499, ♀ ad., Tucson, June 7. Length, 5; extent, 6.90. Skin lost.
589, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 24. Length, 4.80; extent, 6.80; wing,
2.21; tail, 2.25.
49. =Vireo vicinior= _Coues_. GRAY VIREO.—The only individuals met with
were a male and female—apparently a mated pair—which were taken at
Tucson, on April 26. “They were in low brush and were very shy.”
286, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 26. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.20; wing, 2.63;
tail, 2.67; tarsus, .80.
287, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.30; wing,
2.58; tail, 2.70; tarsus, .80. “Iris dark brown; bill plumbeous,
darkest above; legs light plumbeous.”
50. =Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides= (_Sw._) _Coues_. WHITE-RUMPED
SHRIKE.—“Common and generally distributed.”
It is unfortunate that so much prominence has been given to the white
rump of _excubitorides_ as a distinguishing character, for I have yet to
see a good series of Shrikes from any Western locality, excepting,
possibly, Arizona, which did not afford a considerable percentage of
dark-rumped birds; and conversely, it is by no means difficult to find
light-rumped specimens in the East. The same instability also affects
most of the other characters which have been assigned to
_excubitorides_, as is sufficiently shown by the various conflicting
rulings of the authorities regarding the precise definition and limits
of distribution of this troublesome race. The only differential points
which seem to me to hold good with any number of specimens, are the
lighter, purer ash of the upper parts as compared with those of
_ludovicianus_, and the smaller and very much weaker bill. But if these
alone are to be depended upon, it becomes necessary to limit the
distribution of _ludovicianus_ proper to the Gulf States, Georgia and
the Carolinas, if not strictly to Florida, and to refer all
representatives from the United States at large, east of California, to
_excubitorides_: and this course, I believe, will ultimately have to be
adopted. The proper position of the dark California form which is so
curiously like _ludovicianus_ remains to be satisfactorily determined.
51. =Ampelis cedrorum= (_Vieill._) _Baird_. CEDAR WAXWING.—Met with but
once, at Galeyville, where on January 12, 1881, several were shot from a
small flock. Mr. Henshaw took a single specimen near Camp Apache, in
September, 1873.
52. =Progne subis= (_Linn._) _Baird_. PURPLE MARTIN.—“Common.”
438, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 26. Length, 7.6; extent, 15.7; wing, 5.45.
“Iris dark brown; bill black; legs blackish.”
53. =Petrochelidon lunifrons= (_Say_) _Lawr._ CLIFF SWALLOW.—At Yuma.
“They were breeding abundantly along a bluff above the town.”
54. =Tachycineta bicolor= (_Vieill._) _Caban._ WHITE-BELLIED
SWALLOW.—“Common in the migrations.”
195, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. “Iris dark brown; bill black;
legs brown.”
55. =Tachycineta thalassina= (_Swains._) _Caban._ VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW.
“Common.”
212, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. “Iris dark brown; bill and legs
black.”
56. =Stelgidopteryx serripennis= (_Aud._) _Baird_. ROUGH-WINGED
SWALLOW.—Common. Breeds.
211, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. “Iris and legs dark brown.”
57. =Pyranga ludoviciana= (_Wils._) _Bp._ LOUISIANA TANAGER.—Santa Rita
Mountains. “They frequent oaks, and are not very common.”
408, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 18. Length, 7.30; extent, 7.60;
wing, 3.80; tail, 3.17. “Iris dark brown; bill blackish horn-color
above, greenish-yellow below.”
58. =Pyranga hepatica= _Swains._ LIVER-COLORED TANAGER.—This Tanager was
not uncommon in the Santa Rita Mountains, where the first specimen was
taken on May 12. “They range from the foot-hills, through the oaks to
the lower pines on the mountains.”
359, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 12. Length, 7.80; extent, 12.10;
wing, 3.75. “Bill black above, bluish horn-color below; legs
lead-color; iris brown.”
377, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 14. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.70;
wing, 4.20.
380, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 14. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.40;
wing, 4.07. “This bird would have laid in about ten days.”
386, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 15. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.80;
wing, 4.10.
59. =Pyranga æstiva cooperi= _Ridgw._ COOPER’S TANAGER.—Mr. Stephens
found this bird rather common at a point about five miles south of
Tucson, where it frequented the cottonwoods along a small river. He also
informs me that in May, 1875, he took several specimens on the Rio
Grande River, between Albuquerque and Mesilla, and some others on the
Gila, in New Mexico, during May and June.
227, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.40; wing, 3.83;
tail, 3.50. “Iris brown; bill pale horn-color; legs pale brown. Skin
very tender. The first seen this season.”
268, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.40.
297, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 27. Length, 7.90; extent, 12.20; wing, 4;
tail, 3.60.
515, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 10. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.85;
tail, 3.60.
522, ♂ im. Tucson, June 11. Length, 8; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.78;
tail, 3.46. In mixed yellow and red plumage.
526, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.50; wing,
3.89; tail, 3.45.
579, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 23. Length, 8; extent, 11.60; wing,
3.99; tail, 3.58.
339, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 7.90; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.75;
tail, 3.39.
NOTES ON THE SUMMER BIRDS OF THE UPPER ST. JOHN.
BY CHARLES F. BATCHELDER.
(_Concluded from page 111._)
41. =Carpodacus purpureus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ PURPLE FINCH.—Common.
42. =Astraga1inus tristis= (_Linn._) _Cab._ GOLDFINCH.—Common. Though
somewhat beyond the limits of my subject, I quote the following from
Mr. McLeod’s notes: “This winter [1876–77] they have been abundant,
although the season is very severe. I have seen them at this time of
year but once before.” The Goldfinch has been supposed not to winter
north of Massachusetts.
43. =Chrysomitris pinus= (_Wils._) _Bp._ PINE FINCH.—Seen in May at
Grand Falls. Mr. H. A. Purdie tells me that he observed it at Houlton
in June, 1878.
44. =Passerculus sandwichensis savanna= (_Wils._) _Ridgw._ SAVANNA
SPARROW.—Common in the pastures at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it
was common. It was found in grassy fields, especially along the
roadsides.
45. =Poœcetes gramineus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ GRASS FINCH.—Common at Fort
Fairfield. Some seen in the open fields at Grand Falls.
46. =Melospiza fasciata= (_Gm._) _Scott._ SONG SPARROW.—Abundant at
Grand Falls. It was common at Fort Fairfield.
47. =Melospiza palustris= (_Wils._) _Bd._ SWAMP SPARROW.—“Not common”
at Houlton. Not found at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.
48. =Junco hyemalis= (_Linn._) _Scl._ BLACK SNOWBIRD; “BLUEBIRD.”—Very
common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was very abundant
everywhere.
49. =Spizella socialis= (_Wils._) _Bp._ CHIPPING SPARROW.—This bird
was quite abundant at Grand Falls. The nests found were not the loose
structures they are in Massachusetts, but were well lined with hair.
It was rather common at Fort Fairfield.
50. =Zonotrichia albicollis= (_Gm._) _Bp._ WHITE-THROATED
SPARROW.—Very abundant at Grand Falls wherever there was dead wood on
the ground. At Fort Fairfield also it was very abundant; this bird and
_Junco hyemalis_ were the commonest species. The nests were apt to be
in a clearing near the edge of woods, and frequently were in damp
places. They were often under a fallen branch, or at the foot of a
sapling, and were but slightly concealed.
The White-crowned Sparrow is probably only a migrant through this
section. With regard to its abundance, however, I quote the following
from Mr. McLeod’s notes: “These Sparrows make their first appearance
from May 10th to 18th. Some seasons they are very abundant, scores of
them at a time feeding in my garden. By June 1 they have disappeared.
In the autumn I have seen but one flock of them.”
51. =Zamelodia ludoviciana= (_Linn._) _Coues_. ROSE-BREASTED
GROSBEAK.—Common in low hard woods at Grand Falls. Rather common at
Fort Fairfield, apparently more so than in eastern Massachusetts.
Rather common at Houlton.
52. =Dolichonyx oryzivorus= (_Linn._) _Swains._ BOBOLINK.—Apparently
not rare at Fort Fairfield. Found in grassy fields and meadows near
the river. Not observed at Grand Falls. At Houlton “arrives by the
25th of May, common by June 15.” July 2, on our return from Fort
Fairfield, Mr. Dwight and I saw them at several places along the St.
John River above Fredericton.
53. =Agelæus phœniceus= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ RED-WINGED
BLACKBIRD.—“Quite common at Eel River, ten miles from Houlton” (R. R.
McL.). It does not occur at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.
54. =Quiscalus purpureus æneus= _Ridgw._ CROW BLACKBIRD.—Common at
Fort Fairfield, in the town, along the river, and about a small pond
back in the woods. At Grand Falls it was not uncommon about the town.
“Very common” at Houlton.
55. =Corvus corax= _Linn._ RAVEN.—Rare at Grand Falls. Not met with at
Fort Fairfield. “Very rare” at Houlton.
56. =Corvus americanus= _Aud._ CROW.—Common.
57. =Cyanocitta cristata= (_Linn._) _Strickl._ BLUE JAY.—Common at
Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was rather common, but shy and
seldom seen.
58. =Perisoreus canadensis= (_Linn._) _Bp._ CANADA JAY.—At Houlton:
“very common. These birds do not often appear in the thickly settled
part of the town, but are very abundant around the lumber camps in
this vicinity.” This no doubt explains the fact that the species was
not seen by any of us at Grand Falls and Fort Fairfield.[72]
59. =Tyrannus carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Bd._ KINGBIRD.—Rather common at
Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls several were seen, but it was not
common.
60. =Myiarchus crinitus= (_Linn._) _Caban._ GREAT CRESTED
FLYCATCHER.—In June, 1878, Messrs. H. A. Purdie and Ruthven Deane
observed a pair nest-building at a point in New Brunswick about six
miles east of Houlton.
61. =Sayornis fuscus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ PEWEE.—One was observed at Fort
Fairfield, June 28. “Very rare” at Houlton.
62. =Contopus borealis= (_Swains._) _Bd._ OLIVE-SIDED
FLYCATCHER.—Common in the woods at Grand Falls. This species was
rather common at Fort Fairfield. We usually saw them perched on the
tops of tall dead trees in clearings. They were rather shy.
63. =Contopus virens= (_Linn._) _Caban._ WOOD PEWEE.—At Fort Fairfield
it appeared to be not uncommon. It was not met with, however, at Grand
Falls.
64. =Empidonax flaviventris= _Bd._ YELLOW-BELLIED FLYCATCHER.—At Fort
Fairfield this species was rather common in wet evergreen woods,
especially in those that had small streams flowing through them. It
was not observed at Grand Falls. Messrs. Purdie and Deane found it
rather common at Houlton in June, 1878.[73]
65. =Empidonax trailli= (_Aud._) _Bd._ TRAILL’S FLYCATCHER.—Not common
at Grand Falls. They were to be found mostly where there were
scattered dead trees. We did not find it at Fort Fairfield. Mr. H. A.
Purdie informs me that it was not uncommon at Houlton in June, 1878.
66. =Empidonax minimus= _Bd._ LEAST FLYCATCHER.—Very abundant in hard
woods at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was rather common.
67. =Caprimulgus vociferus= _Wils._ WHIP-POOR-WILL.—Mr. McLeod notes
that there are a few at Houlton during the summer. The species was
neither seen nor heard at Fort Fairfield and Grand Falls.
68. =Chordeiles popetue= (_Vieill._) _Bd._ NIGHTHAWK.—Very abundant at
Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was common; they frequented burnt
lands.
69. =Chætura pelasgica= (_Linn._) _Bd._ CHIMNEY SWIFT.—At Fort
Fairfield they were common, breeding both in chimneys and in hollow
trees. Common in the burnt country at Grand Falls. Not many were
breeding in chimneys, the people disliking to have them there.
70. =Trochilus colubris= _Linn._ RUBY-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD.—Common at
Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was apparently rather common—we saw
several.
71. =Ceryle alcyon= (_Linn._) _Boie_. BELTED KINGFISHER.—Rather common
at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was to be seen wherever there was
good fishing ground.
72. =Picus villosus= _Linn._ HAIRY WOODPECKER.—Common.
73. =Picus pubescens= _Linn._ DOWNY WOODPECKER.—At Fort Fairfield this
species was much less common than _P. villosus_. It was not uncommon
at Grand Falls.
74. =Picoides arcticus= (_Swains._) _Gray._ BLACK-BACKED THREE-TOED
WOODPECKER.—Common at Grand Falls in burnt cedar swamps. At Fort
Fairfield we shot two, all we saw.
75. =Sphyropicus varius= (_Linn._) _Bd._ YELLOW-BELLIED
WOODPECKER.—Common—the commonest Woodpecker—at Fort Fairfield. They
were generally found about recent clearings, or in the more open mixed
woods. At Grand Falls they were common in hard woods.
76. =Hylotomus pileatus= (_Linn._) _Bd._ PILEATED WOODPECKER.—At Grand
Falls half a dozen pairs were seen. Probably there is too little of
the heavy forest left in the immediate neighborhood of Fort Fairfield
to suit their tastes, as we did not meet with them. “Common” at
Houlton.
77. =Colaptes auratus= (_Linn._) _Sw._ GOLDEN-WINGED
WOODPECKER.—Rather common at Fort Fairfield. Not common at Grand
Falls.
78. =Coccyzus erythrophthalmus= (_Wils._) _Bd._ BLACK-BILLED
CUCKOO.—Mr. McLeod records this bird in his notes, but without
comments. It was not seen at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.
79. =Strix nebulosa= _Forst._ BARRED OWL.—“Very common” at Houlton. We
were shown a mounted specimen by Mr. Frank P. Orcutt at Fort
Fairfield. He considered it the commonest Owl.
80. =Nyctale acadica= (_Gm._) _Bd._ SAW-WHET OWL.—This bird is not
uncommon at Houlton. Mr. Frank P. Orcutt told us that it was tolerably
common at Fort Fairfield.
81. =Bubo virginianus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ GREAT HORNED OWL.—“Very common”
at Houlton. Mr. Orcutt said it was rather common at Fort Fairfield.
82. =Circus hudsonius= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ MARSH HAWK.—Rare at
Houlton. One seen at Fort Fairfield.
83. =Accipiter cooperi= _Bp._ COOPER’S HAWK.—Not common at Grand
Falls. Not observed at Fort Fairfield or Houlton.
84. =Accipiter fuscus= (_Gm._) _Bp._ SHARP-SHINNED HAWK.—“Not common”
at Houlton.
85. =Falco sparverius= _Linn._ SPARROW HAWK.—Commonest Hawk at Grand
Falls. Not met with at Houlton or Fort Fairfield, though Mr. Orcutt
considers it common at the latter place.
86. =Buteo borealis= (_Gm._) _Vieill._ RED-TAILED HAWK.—Not common at
Grand Falls. Not observed at Fort Fairfield. “Common” at Houlton.
87. =Buteo pennsylvanicus= (_Wils._) _Bp._ BROAD-WINGED HAWK.—Not
common at Grand Falls. It was found breeding at Houlton, but not met
with at Fort Fairfield.
88. =Haliæetus leucocephalus= (_Linn._) _Savig._ BALD EAGLE.—“Not
common” at Houlton.
89. =Ectopistes migratorius= (_Linn._) _Sw._ WILD PIGEON.—Breeding at
Grand Falls, but not common.
90. =Canace canadensis= (_Linn._) _Bp._ SPRUCE PARTRIDGE.—At Houlton
“mostly found in the deep fir thickets, or in the swamps of firs and
cedars.” Not met with at Fort Fairfield and Grand Falls, though of
course it occurs there.
91. =Bonasa umbellus= (_Linn._) _Steph._ RUFFED GROUSE.—Rather common
at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls only a few were seen—in the hard
woods.
92. =Ardea herodias= _Linn._ GREAT BLUE HERON.—“Common” at Houlton.
93. =Nyctiardea grisea nævia= (_Bodd._) _Allen_. NIGHT HERON.—“Not
common” at Houlton.
94. =Botaurus lentiginosus= (_Montag._) _Steph._—BITTERN.—“Common” at
Houlton. One seen at Grand Falls.
95. =Philohela minor= (_Gm._) _Gray._ WOODCOCK.—One seen on Little
River Flats near Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield we saw a specimen in
the collection of Mr. Frank P. Orcutt, who considered it rare in that
neighborhood. “A few breed in the vicinity” of Houlton.
96. =Rhyacophilus solitarius= (_Wils._) _Cass._ SOLITARY SANDPIPER.—At
Grand Falls some were seen along the river June 9 (J. A. J.).
97. =Tringoides macularius= (_Linn._) _Gray._ SPOTTED SANDPIPER.—At
Fort Fairfield it was very numerous along the Aroostook River, and was
also noticed in one or two other places. It was abundant along the
rivers at Grand Falls. At Houlton too it was very common.
98. =Porzana carolina= (_Linn._) _Bd._ CAROLINA RAIL.—One seen at Fort
Fairfield, June 20, in a wet meadow partly grown up with alder bushes
(J. D.).
99. =Anas obscura= _Gm._ BLACK DUCK.—“Very common, breeding” at
Houlton.
100. =Aix sponsa= (_Linn._) _Boie_. WOOD DUCK.—“Quite common” at
Houlton.
101. =Clangula glaucium americana= (_Bp._) _Ridgw._ GOLDEN-EYE.—A few
seen at Grand Falls.
102. =Mergus merganser americanus= (_Cass._) _Ridgw._ SHELDRAKE.—Not
uncommon at Grand Falls.
103. =Mergus serrator= _Linn._ RED-BREASTED MERGANSER.—“Very common,
breeding,” at Houlton.
104. =Larus argentatus smithsonianus= _Coues_. HERRING GULL.—At
Houlton it is common on the neighboring lakes, where it breeds.
105. =Podilymbus podiceps= (_Linn._) _Lawr._ PIED-BILLED GREBE.—Rare,
breeds, Houlton.
A SKETCH OF THE HOME OF _HYLOCICHLA ALICIÆ BICKNELLI_, RIDGWAY, WITH
SOME CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE ALLIES OF THIS NEW RACE.
BY EUGENE P. BICKNELL.
That there remained unrecognized at this late day a bird regularly
inhabiting one of the must populous portions of our country; or, indeed,
that a species of eminently boreal habitat during its breeding season,
and not known to occur at all at such time within the limits of the
United States, should have a representative race regularly breeding in
our midst, are facts for which we were little prepared. Mr. Ridgway’s
recent paper[74] announcing these facts being necessarily of a technical
nature, and confined to a formal description of the new Thrush, it has
been thought well on the present occasion to allude more particularly to
the character of the locality inhabited by the bird, and to some of its
associates there, in connection with other sequential considerations. As
the general physical character of the Catskill Mountains and the faunal
features of the region will be treated by the writer elsewhere, it will
be unnecessary to extend the range of the present relation from the
summit of Slide Mountain in Ulster Co.,[75] where the new race was
discovered.
On June 15, 1881, nearing the summit of this mountain, the forests of a
more northern latitude were forcibly suggested. A shower had fallen
during the ascent, and the sun was still obscured, while a sharp wind
from the northwest piercing the wet woods and sighing among the balsams,
blasted and weather beaten, heightened an impression of remoteness and
desolation. The evergreens, constituting the principal arboreal growth,
extended off on all sides, clothing the rocky and moss-grown slopes, and
presenting the striking contrast of a young and fragrant second growth
clustering about the branchless and spiny trunks of their sires
tottering in decay; or, with tangled and matted branches outlined here
and there, as we approached the summit, against a gray and cheerless
sky. Owing to the comparatively short life of these trees, that high
portion of the mountain where their tribe had pitched was brought into
grim contrast with its surroundings. Old age and death, continually
present invading their ranks, had everywhere left their traces;
flourishing clusters had been stricken in their fellowship, groups and
gatherings had been divided and scattered, and like a contagion the
destroyer had spread among their hosts. But the younger generations are
continually forming their associations, and with green and fragrant
grouping filling in deserted chambers and screening the devastation that
has gone before, although only to furnish material for its continuance
in the future. All this, with an occasional undergrowth of greater or
less luxuriance, gave a diversified and somewhat open character to the
surroundings, entirely dissimilar to that of the environing forest;
conditions, which, in conjunction with humidity and elevation, have
brought this mountain top into some relation with the swampland of a
more northern region.
Reaching a more elevated portion of the ridge where the ground was more
level and the surface less rocky, that north-woods tree, the Paper Birch
(_Betula papyracea_) occasionally appeared, and more abundantly the
Mountain Ash. Almost the only remnant of the dense mountain forests
below was the Yellow Birch (_Betula lutea_) which, joining the
undergrowth, persisted with small and stunted stature to the summit. On
all sides were to be seen the white blossoms of _Viburnum lantanoides_
which, though also found in the valley woodlands, had there long since
flowered and was now bearing green fruit. Another characteristic shrub
was _Amelanchier canadensis oligocarpa_; lower down had been found the
var. _botryapium_, but here, the northern form was well marked, seeming
almost specifically distinct. In the deep, damp moss, covering and
filling in the rocks beneath the balsam growth, and relieving the
ruggedness of the slopes, northern plants were growing in greater or
less profusion. The Dwarf Cornel (_Cornus canadensis_) grew in such
close luxuriance in congenial spots, that its snowy bracts imparted an
almost uniform whiteness to whole beds. With, or near it, blossomed the
Wood Sorrel (_Oxalis acetosella_) with delicately violet-veined petals,
and the appropriately-named Gold-thread (_Coptis trifolia_) of
evanescent bloom but shining evergreen leaves, and the little Star
Flower (_Trientalis americana_) were often also associates. Excepting
the pale yellow bells of _Clintonia borealis_, and the purplish tinge,
or veining, of the blossoms of several other species, all the plants
noticed in bloom at this time upon the mountain bore flowers of some
shade of white. The more open ground about our course along the ridge
supported a luxuriant and graceful growth of that lovely fern _Aspidium
spinulosum_, and with it, in openings about the summit, grew abundantly
the Mountain Golden-rod (_Solidago thyrsoidea_) which, although yet many
weeks from bloom, heralded a royal emblem to light the mountain’s brow
ere the white locks of winter should again possess it.
At the elevation where these plants first appeared the trees nowhere
attained more than a medium stature, those which seemed best to have
surmounted the difficulties of their situation, the Balsam and the Paper
Birch, never rising to a height of more than, perhaps, twenty-five feet.
This growth completely encompassed the range of vision, but an
occasional scantiness in the foliage permitted glimpses of surrounding
mountains rolling off like huge green billows into the blue distance.
From these evergreens came the leisurely call of the Canada Nuthatch
(_Sitta canadensis_), and on closer approach the low, plaintive notes of
the little Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (_Empidonax flaviventris_). The
brief warble of the Black-and-Yellow Warbler (_Dendrœca maculosa_) told
of the presence of its unseen author in the surrounding trees, while
among the undergrowth the less frequent, but louder and more sustained
song of the Mourning Ground-warbler (_Geothlypis philadelphia_) showed
that this species, which had been left at the foot of the mountain, had
here reappeared. At intervals, faintly mingling with these songs, from
some hidden fastness below, came the _fantasia_ of the Winter Wren, a
melody that seemed to pass from the spirit of unclaimed nature, voicing
some mystery of the mountains. The clamor of a party of Blue Jays
occasionally arose and died away in the forest, but here, in this
mountain solitude, their screams seemed more subdued than in less
primitive regions, and lacked that suggestion of consciousness which
individuals constantly within human hearing, seem to acquire. Busily
roaming Chickadees (_Parus atricapillus_) at times came about our path,
and the Snowbird (_Junco hyemalis_) was present with its simple song.
Olive-backed Thrushes (_Hylocichla ustulata swainsoni_) too, were
constantly to be heard, and finally, guided by its near song, one was
followed up and secured. A moment later another Thrush darted across the
path, and disappearing through a young balsam growth, immediately began
to sing a few rods off. The song was different from that of the bird
which had just been shot, so much so, in fact, as to be remarked even by
my guide. It seemed to be more uniform in character, with less variation
and definition of the notes; as I wrote in my note-book at the time—more
suggestive of the song of _H. fuscescens_. A conspicuous point of
difference was that it was more subdued in tone, in fact of a somewhat
ventriloquous nature. On examining the bird, in hand, although I had
thought myself familiar with all our eastern _Hylocichlæ_, I must
confess to having been puzzled. It was obviously neither the
Olive-backed nor the Hermit Thrush, the only species of our own smaller
Thrushes which from the distribution of their group (as then understood)
could possibly be expected to occur. I at once noted its general
resemblance to the Gray-cheeked Thrush, but it seemed impossible that
this Hudsonian bird could be found so far south at this season; and
though a second specimen pointed more strongly toward it, it was not
until I had reached home and made actual comparisons, that I could feel
satisfied that its true relationship was with that species. I had long
noticed certain somewhat constant differences between examples of
_aliciæ_ occurring at New York on their migrations, and incited by these
specimens went carefully over my series of seventeen examples and found
them separable into two forms, characterized by slight differences in
coloration and a notable difference in size. The examples from the
Catskills were more closely allied to the smaller of the two forms, and
these, with, subsequently, my entire series, were submitted to Mr.
Ridgway, the result being the recognition of a new bird, belonging to
our eastern fauna.
But to return to the mountain. It would hardly be justifiable to make a
positive statement about a difficult song that had been but once
identified, but I feel positive that the Thrushes which were last heard
that evening about our camp on the extreme summit of the mountain were
of the new form. Night was rapidly falling, and the valleys were in
darkness, when one sang several times near the camp, and for some time
afterwards a single call-note was occasionally heard, and the varying
distance of the sound showed that the birds were still active. Excepting
these sounds, the last bird notes heard were those of the Yellow-bellied
Flycatcher.
The sharp northwest wind continued late, and the night became clear and
cold. Shortly after midnight the bright moon showed the temperature, by
a thermometer which I had hung beside the camp, to be 35°, and at
sunrise it stood at 32°. Before daylight I was standing on a boulder of
conglomerate on the dim mountain’s brow listening for the awakening of
the birds. The first songs heard were those of the Hermit Thrush,
Snowbird, and Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, which began almost
simultaneously, followed a little later by those of the Olive-backed
Thrush and the Mourning Warbler, but _H. bicknelli_ was not heard, or at
least not near enough to be distinguished among the other species.
The increasing light upon the mountain seemed to attract the birds from
below, whither, perhaps, they had retired for the night, and soon many
different notes were to be heard about the camp; not, however, in that
boisterous chorus with which the day is often announced about our homes,
in which the notes of many individuals of many species are blended in
such confused medley that separate voices are almost indistinguishable,
but simply the association of a few vocalists, the very isolation of
whose position endowed their voices with an additional interest and
charm.
After those already mentioned the Black-poll Warbler (_Dendrœca
striata_) began its unpretending notes, which always to me suggest a
short dotted line, and this song, with that of the Black-and-Yellow
Warbler, occasionally alternated about us in agreeable contrast. Now and
then a Canada Nuthatch, on its morning tour, tarried to inspect some
dead trunk or thinly clothed tree, upon the projecting apex of which, or
that of some companion, a solitary Purple Finch occasionally alighted,
and with a few wild fugitive notes was gone, to other mountain tops or
the forests of the descending slopes.
But to revert to the Thrushes. The two specimens of the new form which
were obtained were both males, and were unquestionably breeding,[76]
though no nest known to belong to their species was found.
It remains to briefly consider some facts furnished by the birds’
occurrence as narrated. These facts bear directly on the long contested
question of the relationship which _H. aliciæ_ and _H. swainsoni_ bear
to one another, and it can scarcely be denied that the present evidence
on this point is conclusive. Not only have we representatives of both
birds preserving their respective identities at the same locality, under
identical conditions of environment, but examples of each taken under
these circumstances, display, except in size, even a greater
dissimilitude than those which occur together on their migrations. There
is but one tenable interpretation of these facts: the birds—_Hylocichla
aliciæ_ and _H. ustulata swainsoni_—are wholly and entirely distinct.
Any theory of dichromatism which might be advanced, aside from its
extreme unlikelihood, would be shown inadequate by the relative
differences in proportions of parts which the two birds exhibit. These
differences, as well as those of color are illustrated by the Catskill
birds. A specimen of _H. swainsoni_ taken at the top of Slide Mountain
was in every way typical of its species, and conspicuously unlike the
examples of _bicknelli_ taken at the same time. Aside from differences
in the proportions of parts, the two birds were strikingly different in
color, the decided grayish olive tinge of the superior surface of
_swainsoni_ contrasting strongly with the much darker brownish cast of
its congener. One example of the latter instead of showing indications
of a buffy tinge about the sides of the head and on the breast, which
under the circumstances we should expect to be the case, were it in any
way specifically related to _swainsoni_, has absolutely no indications
whatever of this shade about the sides of the head, and actually less on
the breast than any specimens of true _aliciæ_ that I have seen, and
this little most evident low down where the corresponding shade in
_swainsoni_ begins to pale. It seems probable that this newly recognized
race of _aliciæ_ is responsible for much of the ambiguity which the
discussion of both species by different writers has occasioned. Indeed,
it seems to occupy the same position relative to _aliciæ_ proper which,
by some, _swainsoni_ was supposed to hold, viz., the more southern-born
individuals of the species, but that it represents a link specifically
connecting the two, the facts already presented refute. As it occurs
with true _aliciæ_ on the autumn migration most specimens of the new
form are paler and more brownish in color above, and their general size
is nearly that of _swainsoni_,[77] and these differences may be regarded
by some as approaches towards the latter species. In both species there
is a wide individual variation, but the closest approach of each towards
the other never exceeds that limit within which each may vary without
its specific distinctness being compromised. I have yet to see a
specimen of either which would admit of the slightest question as to its
identity. I speak thus of adult birds. In such closely related species
the young must almost necessarily approximate, and to these we must
appeal for light on the things that have been—on the question of
origin—whether one has been derived from the other, or both species from
a common ancestor. Such obscure insight into this point as I have been
permitted seems to indicate that the latter alternative will be found to
be the more correct, but, for the present, from lack of the necessary
data this important subject is proscribed.
It is unnecessary here to repeat the diagnosis of the new form of
_Hylocichla aliciæ_ given by Mr. Ridgway in the paper before cited. As
this writer states, the race breeds “probably in other mountainous
districts of the northeastern United States” than the single locality
where it was discovered, and it seems very singular that up to the
present time we have no knowledge of its occurrence in the summer season
elsewhere, even in regions where the two congeneric species with which
it was here associating—_H. nanus_[78] and _H. swainsoni_—are well known
to be common summer residents. The occurrence of a representative of _H.
aliciæ_ in the United States at all during its breeding season is a
matter of surprise, especially when we recollect the boreal distribution
of the typical form during that period, and read[79] that so far towards
the north as the Yukon and the Great Slave Lake it occurs “only as a
bird of passage to and from more northern breeding grounds.” Additional
information respecting the distribution of the new race will be awaited
with great interest.
SHORT NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF BAYOU SARA, LOUISIANA.
BY CHARLES WICKLIFFE BECKHAM.
As the avian fauna of the lower Mississippi Valley is now receiving some
attention,[80] it seems well that I should contribute my mite of
information to the general fund.
Bayou Sara and the adjoining town of St. Francisville, in the parish of
West Feliciana, are situated on the east bank of the Mississippi River,
170 miles above New Orleans by that stream and about 80 miles in an air
line northwest of it. It is 30 or 40 miles north of Baton Rouge, near
which place Dr. Langdon made his observations in April, 1881. The
following notes were made principally on and near “Wyoming,” two miles
from the river, the plantation of Ex-Gov. R. C. Wickliffe, a place
possessing peculiarly agreeable ornithological associations on account
of its former owner, Gen. Dawson, having entertained Audubon as his
guest for several months. It will be remembered that the type specimen
of _Buteo harlani_ was captured here.
The topography is much more interesting, and is quite different from
that farther south and that immediately opposite on the west side of the
river. A level plateau, 100 feet above the levee, begins about a quarter
of a mile from the river and extends back into the State of Mississippi.
This plateau is deeply cut by numerous creeks and ravines, the banks of
which are generally densely wooded, with water oak, sweet-gum, cedar,
prickly ash, magnolias, etc. All of the level ground on top is in a
state of cultivation; cotton being the principal crop. A few miles
farther up the high ground does not extend so near the river, the
intervening space being occupied by several small lakes and swamps—a
great resort for water birds of all kinds. On account of the high water
I did not have an opportunity of visiting this interesting field.
My observations extended only over a period of five days from April 15th
to 19th, 1882, inclusive, but a great deal of ground was canvassed in
that time; nearly the whole of each day being spent in the field. A good
many birds were shot, but few were preserved, as taxidermy was
necessarily subordinated to field-work. Dr. Langdon in his interesting
paper particularly remarks the absence of the Catbird, Black-and-White
Creeper, White-browed Yellow-throat, Kentucky Warbler, Large-billed
Water Thrush, and the Redstart, but I found all of these at “Wyoming,”
together with many others not noted by either him or Mr. Hay, the
Catbird and Kentucky Warbler being particularly abundant.
The writer was greatly assisted in his work by Mr. Robert Wederstraudt
of “Wyoming,” a young man whose unusually close and accurate
observations of birds and bird life rendered his help peculiarly
valuable. Many of the following notes are credited to him entirely. I
have followed the nomenclature of the Smithsonian list of 1881.
1. =Hylocichla mustelina= (_Gm._) _Bd._ WOOD THRUSH.—Common in
woodland, and several seen in the yard near the house.
2. =Merula migratoria= (_L._) _Sw. and Rich._ AMERICAN ROBIN.—Not
observed. They appear here in large numbers early in February to feed
on the fruit of the “wild peach,” and hundreds are shot for the table.
They leave early in March.
3. =Mimus polyglottus= (_L._) _Boie_. MOCKINGBIRD.—Very abundant, both
in the town about gardens and yards, and in the country. Frequenting
open ground exclusively. Four sets of eggs were taken; two perfectly
fresh, and two about half incubated. Mr. Wederstraudt called my
attention to a curious foraging habit of this bird. We noticed one
hopping along the ground in an open grassy place, pausing at every
three or four hops to extend and close its wings. It repeated this
several times until a grasshopper was flushed, when the bird
immediately “reached” for it, and having captured it, made off to a
neighboring bush to eat it. Mr. Wederstraudt says that he has observed
this interesting performance many times.
4. =Galeoscoptes carolinensis= (_L._) _Cab._ CATBIRD.—Abundant in the
shrubbery in the creek bottoms. None were seen near the dwellings.
5. =Harporhynchus rufus= (_L._) _Cab._ BROWN THRASHER.—Abundant in
same places as the last. Three clutches of three eggs each were taken,
in one of which incubation was very far advanced, and on the 19th a
nest was found containing two young nearly able to fly.
6. =Sialia sialis= (_L._) _Haldem._ BLUEBIRD.—Observed several pairs
in town and in the country. Not as common as in Kentucky.
7. =Polioptila cærulea= (_L._) _Scl._ BLUE-GRAY GNATCATCHER.—A common,
and, on account of its active and noisy habits, conspicuous bird.
8. =Lophophanes bicolor= (_L._) _Bp._ TUFTED TITMOUSE.—Not very
common. Frequenting principally the tops of trees.
9. =Parus carolinensis= _Aud._ CAROLINA CHICKADEE.—But few observed. A
pair bred in a hole in a cedar post within twenty yards of the house
last year.
10. =Thryothorus ludovicianus= (_Gm._) _Bp._ CAROLINA WREN.—Very
abundant everywhere. A clutch of three eggs was taken on the 19th from
a nest in a small recess formed by the junction of several timbers,
under the piazza, which was frequented at all times of the day. The
nest was empty on the 16th, one egg was deposited on the 17th, one on
the 18th, and one on the 19th. I saw neither of the old birds about
the place at all, and it was only by capturing the female on the nest
at night, that the eggs were positively identified. A pair have bred
about this piazza for many years, I am informed.
11. =Mniotilta varia= (_L._) _V._ BLACK-AND-WHITE CREEPER.—A male, the
only one seen at all, was captured in a dense wood on the 17th.
12. =Parula americana= (_L._) _Bp._ BLUE-YELLOW-BACKED WARBLER.—Very
abundant. A persistent but weak vocalist.
13. =Dendrœca æstiva= (_Gm._) _Bd._ SUMMER YELLOWBIRD.—Common in open
places.
14. =Dendrœca blackburniæ= (_Gm._) _Bd._ BLACKBURNIAN WARBLER.—Common
in large trees about open ground.
15. =Dendrœca dominica albilora= _Bd._ WHITE-BROWED-YELLOW-THROATED
WARBLER.—A male, the only one seen, was shot out of a magnolia tree on
the 10th. In all of my Kentucky specimens of this bird the anterior
portion of the superciliary line has a trace of yellow. In this one no
yellow is perceptible.
16. =Dendrœca pinus= (_Wils._) _Bd._ PINE-CREEPING WARBLER.—Apparently
not uncommon. Preferring open ground. In song.
17. =Siurus auricapillus= (_L._) _Sw._ GOLDEN-CROWNED THRUSH.—One
specimen captured in a thicket on the 15th.
18. =Siurus motacilla= (_V._) _Coues_. LARGE-BILLED WATER
THRUSH.—Heard one singing in a densely wooded ravine on the 17th. Mr.
Wederstraudt has often seen them in pairs along the smaller
water-courses.
19. =Oporornis formosa= (_Wils._) _Bd._ KENTUCKY WARBLER.—One of the
most abundant inhabitants of the dense growth along the ravines. Two
or three were often heard singing at the same time.
20. =Geothlypis trichas= (_L._) _Cab._ MARYLAND
YELLOW-THROAT.—Abundant in the usual places.
21. =Icteria virens= (_L._) _Bd._ YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT.—Very abundant.
In full song.
22. =Myiodioctes mitratus= (_Gm._) _Aud._ HOODED WARBLER.—Found in
same places, and almost as abundant as the Kentucky Warbler. An
inhabitant of the undergrowth principally. In song; its note being
uttered at intervals of 15 or 20 seconds as it hops from branch to
branch in pursuit of insects.
23. =Setophaga ruticilla= (_L._) _Sw._ REDSTART.—A single specimen, a
male, captured in a swamp. It was in company with a female.
24. =Vireosylvia olivacea= (_L._) _Bp._ RED-EYED VIREO.—Very abundant
everywhere.
25. =Vireosylvia gilva= (_V._) _Cass._ WARBLING VIREO.—Heard one
singing in a shade tree in Bayou Sara on the 15th.
26. =Vireo noveboracensis= (_Gm._) _Bp._ WHITE-EYED VIREO.—Very
abundant and voluble everywhere.
27. =Lanius ludovicianus= _L._ LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE.—Not observed. Mr.
Wederstraudt says that they are not uncommon here in the fall. He once
saw one kill and _devour_ a small bird in a thorn tree.
28. =Ampelis cedrorum= (_V._) _Bd._ CEDAR WAXWING.—Observed several
small flocks. Said to be very abundant here in winter when numbers are
shot for the table. Known here as the “ortolan”—the fourth bird, I
believe, embraced under that comprehensive name.
29. =Progne subis= (_L._) _Bd._ PURPLE MARTIN.—Common about Bayou Sara
and St. Francisville.
30. =Stelgidopteryx serripennis= (_Aud._) _Bd._ ROUGH-WINGED
SWALLOW.—Very abundant. Beginning to breed. Several holes examined but
no eggs found. One was shot out of a dead tree.
31. =Pyranga æstiva= (_L._) _V._ SUMMER REDBIRD.—Abundant about
dwellings and open ground. In song.
32. =Passerculus sandwichensis savanna= (_Wils._) _Ridgw._ SAVANNA
SPARROW.—Common in old wet fields. One individual captured, a female,
had a very large tumor on the bill and several smaller ones on the
toes.
33. =Zonotrichia albicollis= (_Gm._) _Bp._ WHITE-THROATED
SPARROW.—Abundant in parties of six or eight in the undergrowth about
open places in the low lands.
34. =Peucæa æstivalis illinoensis= _Ridgw._ OAK-WOODS SPARROW.—Two
specimens of this interesting form were taken; both males. One was
shot from the top of a small bush near the edge of an old corn field;
the other from the top of an isolated pine on the edge of a cotton
field. Both were singing when shot. No others were observed. This, I
believe, is the most southeasterly “record” of the form.
35. =Melospiza palustris= (_Wils._) _Bd._ SWAMP SPARROW.—Not uncommon
in the usual places.
36. =Pipilo erythrophthalmus= (_L._) _V._ CHEWINK; TOWHEE.— Abundant.
Locally known as the “Joree.”
37. =Cardinalis virginianus= (_Briss._) _Bp._ CARDINAL GROSBEAK.—Very
abundant. Took a set of three fresh eggs on the 17th. Nest as usual.
38. =Passerina cyanea= (_L._) _Gray._ INDIGO BUNTING.—Rather common
about open places, but very shy. Not in song.
39. =Passerina ciris= (_L._) _Gray._ PAINTED BUNTING; NONPAREIL.—First
seen on the 16th. A male in full song captured on the 19th—the only
two seen. Mr. Wederstraudt, who has trapped them, using a captive male
as a decoy, says that the same individual is always to be found within
a few hundred feet of the place where first observed. I saw several
males in confinement in New Orleans, and observed that the red of the
underparts was heavily blotched and obscured by yellow, and attributed
it to immaturity, but was informed that it was due to the confinement.
They are called “Pops” here, the derivation of which name I could not
make out.
40. =Agelæus phœniceus= (_L._) _V._ RED-AND-BUFF-SHOULDERED
BLACKBIRD.—Abundant in swampy places.
41. =Sturnella magna= (_L._) _Sw._ MEADOW LARK.—Common in old fields.
Their note seemed to me to be different from that of the Kentucky
bird.
42. =Icterus spurius= (_L._) _Bp._ ORCHARD ORIOLE.—Common about open
ground.
43. =Icterus galbula= (_L._) _Coues_. BALTIMORE ORIOLE.—Observed
several singing in shade trees in Bayou Sara and St. Francisville.
44. =Quiscalus purpureus= (_Bartr._) _Licht._ PURPLE GRACKLE.—A common
Grackle about the river and bayou at Bayou Sara is referred to this
form, as the one found forty or fifty miles down the river is
according to Dr. Langdon the Purple, and not the Bronzed Grackle.
45. =Corvus frugivorus= _Bartr._ COMMON CROW.—Common.
46. =Cyanocitta cristata= (_L._) _Strickl._ BLUE JAY.—Common.
47. =Tyrannus carolinensis= (_L._) _Temm._ KINGBIRD; BEE
MARTIN.—Common.
48. =Myiarchus crinitus= (_L._) _Cab._ GREAT-CRESTED FLYCATCHER.—A
common and conspicuous inhabitant of yards and orchards.
49. =Contopus virens= (_L._) _Cab._ WOOD PEWEE.—Common in dense
timber.
50. =Empidonax acadicus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ ACADIAN FLYCATCHER.—Common in
same places as last.
51. =Trochilus colubris= _L._ RUBY-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD.—Very abundant
about cultivated ground.
52. =Chætura pelasgica= (_L._) _Boie_. CHIMNEY SWIFT.—Common.
53. =Antrostomus carolinensis= (_Gm._) _Gould_.
CHUCK-WILL’S-WIDOW.—Heard but one, on the night of the 19th, near the
house, but I am told that they are quite common.
54. =Chordeiles popetue= (_V._) _Bd._ NIGHT HAWK.—Saw one about dusk
on the evening of the 19th, high in air, giving the peculiar call
common to the males during the breeding season.
55. =Picus pubescens= (_L._) DOWNY WOODPECKER.—Only two individuals
were observed during my visit.
56. =Hylotomus pileatus= (_L._) _Bd._ PILEATED WOODPECKER.—Not
observed, but it is said to be common in heavy timber along the
borders of the swamp.
57. =Centurus carolinensis= (_L._) _Bp._ RED-BELLIED
WOODPECKER.—Rather common. At the time of my departure a pair had
begun digging a hole for their nest in a large china tree within
thirty yards of the house.
58. =Melanerpes erythrocephalus= (_L._) _Sw._ RED-HEADED WOODPECKER—A
familiar and common bird here; preferring open to densely wooded
country.
59. =Colaptes auratus= (_L._) _Sw._ YELLOW-SHAFTED FLICKER.—Not
observed. Mr. Wederstraudt and others pronounce it an abundant bird
here.
60. =Ceryle alcyon= (_L._) _Boie_. BELTED KINGFISHER.—Common in open
places along Alexander’s Creek and its branches. A clutch of six fresh
eggs was taken from a hole in a perpendicular bank on the 16th. The
orifice was about thirty-five feet from the bottom, and three and a
half from the top of the bank. The hole extended horizontally into the
bank for a distance of six feet. The old birds circled around a few
times after we began digging for the eggs, and then flew off,
apparently unconcerned at our operations.
61. =Coccyzus americanus= (_L._) _Bp._ YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO.—One
individual observed on the 19th in a large live-oak near the house. In
song.
62. =Conurus carolinensis= (_L._) _Kuhl._ CAROLINA PARAKEET.—Not seen
by me. Gov. Wickliffe says that twenty years ago it was quite common
here at times in large flocks, and Mr. Wederstraudt has several times
observed it within the last few years, but never more than two or
three together at a time. About eighteen months ago he saw one in an
orchard near “Wyoming.”
63. =Scops asio= (_L._) _Bp._ LITTLE SCREECH OWL.—Found here,
according to Mr. Wederstraudt.
64. =Bubo virginianus= (_Gm._) _Bp._ GREAT HORNED OWL.—Given as a
common inhabitant by Mr. Wederstraudt.
65. =Pandion haliaëtus carolinensis= (_Gm._) _Ridgw._ AMERICAN OSPREY;
FISH HAWK.—Often seen here, according to the natives.
66. =Haliaëtus leucocephalus= (_L._) _Savig._ BALD EAGLE.—Said to
occasionally occur here.
67. =Cathartes aura= (_L._) _Illig._ TURKEY BUZZARD.—Common.
68. =Catharista atrata= (_Wils._) _Less._ BLACK VULTURE; CARRION
CROW.—Very abundant. I flushed thirty or forty, one day, from the
carcass of a dead horse.
69. =Zenaidura carolinensis= (_L._) _Bp._ MOURNING DOVE.—Abundant
about open places. I took a clutch of two fresh eggs on the 19th from
a nest on a horizontal limb of a water oak, eight feet from the
ground.
70. =Ortyx virginianus= (_L._) _Bp._ BOB WHITE; AMERICAN
QUAIL.—Abundant in pairs about cultivated ground. They are not much
hunted here as the shooting is very difficult, for when flushed they
immediately make for the thickets.
71. =Ardea herodias= (_L._) GREAT BLUE HERON.—One was seen on the 19th
flying towards the swamp
72. =Herodias alba egretta= (_Gm._) _Ridgw._ AMERICAN EGRET.—A flock
of eight was observed on the 19th flying towards the swamp.
73. =Butorides virescens= (_L._) _Bp._ GREEN HERON.—A common bird
about the creeks and ponds.
74. =Oxyechus vociferus= (_L._) _Reich._ KILLDEER.—Saw a party of
eight on the creek. They were very tame.
75. =Philohela minor= (_Gm._) _Gray._ AMERICAN WOODCOCK.—Not observed.
Said to be common here in the fall, when they are hunted in the cotton
fields at night with torches.
76. =Gallinago media wilsoni= (_Temm._) _Ridgw._ WILSON’S SNIPE.—Not
observed, but said to be common here in early spring.
77. =Rhyacophilus solitarius= (_Wils._) _Cass._ SOLITARY
SANDPIPER.—Two individuals were several times noted about a pond of
stagnant water.
78. =Tringoides macularius= (_L._) _Gray._ SPOTTED SANDPIPER.—Several
times observed along the creeks.
79. =Rallus elegans= _Aud._ RED-BREASTED RAIL.—One several times seen
in a small pond thickly overgrown with small trees, water-lillies etc.
80. =Rallus virginianus= _L._ VIRGINIA RAIL.—One seen in same place as
the last. Both eluded capture.
81. =Fulica americana= _Gm._ AMERICAN COOT.—Not observed, but said to
be common here in fall and early spring. Known here by the Creole name
of “Poulette d’Eau.”
82. =Anas boschas= _L._ MALLARD.—Not observed, but it is said to be
common here during the migrations.
83. =Querquedula discors= (_L._) _Steph._ BLUE-WINGED TEAL.—Two were
shot out of a flock of eight on the 16th on Alexander’s Creek.
84. =Aix sponsa= (_L._) _Boie_. WOOD DUCK; SUMMER DUCK.—Not observed,
but common in the swamp, I am informed.
85. =Pelecanus fuscus= (_L._) BROWN PELICAN.—Said to breed in the
lakes above Bayou Sara.
86. =Podilymbus podiceps= (_L._) _Lawr._ THICK-BILLED GREBE.—Not
observed, but well known here.
LIST OF BIRDS OBSERVED AT HOUSTON, HARRIS CO., TEXAS, AND IN THE
COUNTIES MONTGOMERY, GALVESTON AND FORD BEND.
BY H. NEHRLING.
(_Continued from p. 13._)
87. =Molothrus ater= _Gray._ COWBIRD.—Very abundant throughout the
year. They come in large flocks into the streets of the city in the
winter months to search for food; they also associate at that season
with _Scolecophagus cyanocephalus_ Cab. I have never seen anywhere
else such numbers of these birds as here, and in the breeding season
most of the nests of our small birds contain eggs of this parasite.
87_a_. =Molothrus ater obscurus= _Coues_. DWARF COWBIRD.—A common bird
during the breeding season. It is smaller than its near relative, and
quicker in its motions. Moves usually in flocks of from two to ten. I
first observed the bird when it was just leaving the nest of
_Lanivireo flavifrons_ Bd., and found its egg in it, besides four of
the Vireo’s. The egg is smaller and not so thickly sprinkled as that
of the common Cowbird.
88. =Xanthocephalus icterocephalus= _Bd._ YELLOW-HEADED
BLACKBIRD.—Very common in marshy localities from the latter part of
October to March and April. I think some remain to breed, as I
observed small flocks during May in the low prairie districts
overgrown with reeds and other water plants. The best opportunity I
ever had to study the breeding habits of this beautiful but very
locally distributed Blackbird was in the Calumet Marshes near
Kensington, about eighteen miles south of Chicago, where I discovered
in a single day about fifty nests among the reeds. During the winter
months they associate with _Molothrus ater_, _Agelæus phœniceus_, and
_Scolecophagus cyanocephalus_; many migrate further south, and in cold
winters only a few remain near Houston.
89. =Agelæus phœniceus= _Vieill._ RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD.—Common in
swamps, but not so abundant as I have found these birds to be in
Wisconsin and Illinois. May 6, 1881, I discovered a nest in a somewhat
strange position, in a blackberry-bush (_Rubus villosus_) on the edge
of a thicket; there was no swamp within a mile. This was in the
northern part of Harris County. Only a few remain to winter, the
greater part migrating farther south.
90. =Sturnella magna= _Swains._ MEADOW LARK.—Common summer sojourner,
and very abundant during winter; many thousands are killed in the
latter season by pot hunters. During summer the Meadow Lark is
strictly a prairie bird, always to be looked for on the open grassy
savannas; I never found the bird breeding in a cotton field or corn
field. In winter, however, they change their habits, and in large
flocks visit the sugar-cane, cotton, and corn fields.
91. =Icterus spurius= _Bp._ ORCHARD ORIOLE.—Common during migrations.
91_a_. =Icterus spurius affinis= _Coues_. SOUTHERN ORCHARD
ORIOLE.—Very common summer sojourner; breeds in all suitable
localities, especially in peach gardens. The bird is decidedly smaller
than the northern variety; it is also more active and quicker in its
motions. The song is much more varied, and louder, quicker and more
beautiful, reminding one of the song of the Baltimore Oriole. The nest
is smaller, but it is built of the same materials—green grasses, lined
with cotton. May 8, 1881, I discovered a very curious but not quite
finished nest near Spring Creek, only a few yards from a dwelling. For
several days I had observed a pair of these birds carrying fresh green
grasses to a laurel oak (_Quercus imbricaria_), that was densely
covered with large hanging bunches of Spanish moss (_Tillandsia
usneoides_); they disappeared every time into a bunch of moss, yet I
could see no nest. At last, on taking down the bunch of moss, I was
surprised to find a beautiful structure in my hands. The grasses and
moss were all woven firmly together; the entrance was on the side.
92. =Scolecophagus ferrugineus= _Swains._ RUSTY BLACKBIRD.—Very rare.
A few seen in March, 1881, among flocks of the following species.
93. =Scolecophagus cyanocephalus= _Cab._ BREWER’S BLACKBIRD.—During
winter the most common of the family _Icteridæ_. They are very
abundant in Houston from the early part of November to April, when
they disappear for the north; by the end of that month only a few
remain to breed in suitable localities. I found several nests May 5,
1881, in thick, small oaks near the Rose Hill Post Office in the
northern part of Harris County. They were built in the tops of young
post oaks (_Quercus obtusiloba_), about twelve to fifteen feet from
the ground, and contained from two to five eggs each. The nests were
composed exteriorly of strong slender plant stems and coarse grasses,
and were lined with fine grasses. These birds are very unsuspicious
and bold during winter, running about in even the most crowded city
streets, and also frequenting door-yards. On cold days they are easily
caught. I had a pair over a year in a cage; they soon became
reconciled to confinement, and were lively, interesting pets.
94. =Quiscalus purpureus æneus= _Ridgw._ BRONZED GRACKLE.—The most
abundant of all the Blackbirds during the breeding season, arriving
from their more southern winter quarters early in March. None remain,
so far as my observations go, during winter. They breed abundantly in
the larger gardens of Houston, especially in the mountain cedars
(_Juniperus occidentalis texana_), and the live and water oaks
(_Quercus virens_ et _Q. aquatica_). In the thick young oak grove near
Rose Hill Post Office I found a large colony of about two hundred
pairs breeding and in their company also the Boat-tailed Grackles
(_Quiscalus major_) and Brewer’s Blackbirds (_Scolecophagus
cyanocephalus_), but each species had its own limited nesting range.
Every nest was built in the top of a slender oak and all the nests
examined were neat, strong, and large structures; they were
constructed of plant stems, slender grasses, fragments of corn-husks,
intermingled with sheep’s wool, and lined with finer grasses. In some
nests a layer of mud was also to be found.
95. =Quiscalus major= _Vieill._ BOAT-TAILED GRACKLE.—Quite regularly
distributed over the coast region of Texas. I found the birds breeding
in the colonies of the Little Blue Heron (_Florida cærulea_) and the
Snowy Heron (_Garzetta candidissima_), on the button bushes
(_Cephalanthus occidentalis_) standing in the water. May 6, 1881, I
observed a colony of about twenty pairs near Rose Hill Post Office.
They were all busily engaged in building their nests in the tops of
young oaks. Only a few nests were finished, and only one contained
eggs, four in number. Nest composed of weed-stalks, grasses and
sheep’s wool, lined with finer grasses; cavity very shallow if
compared with nests of _Quiscalus purpureus æneus_ and _Scolecophagus
cyanocephalus_. The male has a few very fine songlike notes, different
from those of every other Blackbird.
96. =Corvus frugivorus= _Bartr._ COMMON CROW.—In winter numbers are to
be observed on Galveston Bay, near bayous, and on the sugar cane
fields near the Brazos. In spring they scatter over the country,
breeding in all suitable localities, but they are then nowhere common
in the coast region.
97. =Cyanocitta cristata= _Strickl._ BLUE JAY.—A very common resident;
breeds abundantly in all woody localities; also often in gardens on
mountain cedars and sometimes on the beautiful Japan medlars
(_Eriobotrya japonica_). Very bold and tame when well treated, coming
then into door-yards and even into houses.
98. =Milvulus forficatus= _Sw._ SCISSOR-TAILED FLYCATCHER; “TEXAN BIRD
OF PARADISE”; “FORK-TAIL.”—Very common summer sojourner; breeds
frequently in the “bosquets” on the prairies, on the borders of woods,
on isolated trees in the fields, and even in gardens. As the nest in
this part of Texas is in most cases placed in trees, densely covered
with Tillandsia, it is almost impossible to discover it. These
beautiful birds are not at all retiring in their habits; in many
instances they are so tame as to breed in close proximity to
dwellings. They arrive from their winter quarters late in March,
sometimes in the first days of April. Very often two broods are raised
yearly. I found fresh eggs as late as July 4. The nests in the coast
region are built partly of grasses but especially of gray Spanish
moss. In September, after the breeding season, they gather in large
flocks, visiting the cotton fields, where multitudes of cotton worms
(_Aletia argillacea_) and their moths abound, on which they, with many
other small birds, eagerly feed; early in October they depart for the
South.
99. =Tyrannus carolinensis= _Temm._ KINGBIRD.—Common summer resident.
Arrives from the South late in March or early in April, when the
beautiful native yellow jessamine (_Gelsemium sempervirens_) fills the
air with its pleasant odor. Nests commonly in the honey locust
(_Gleditschia triacanthos_) and also in the common locust (_Robinia
pseudacacia_). In many cases two broods are raised yearly.
100. MYIARCHUS CRINITUS _Cab._ GREAT-CRESTED FLYCATCHER.—Common summer
sojourner, even in Houston, where it sometimes breeds in bird-boxes,
but more commonly in knot-holes of the cedar and sycamore (_Platanus
occidentalis_) and in old Woodpeckers’ holes. Their loud whistling
cries are almost always to be heard from early April till the latter
part of August; departs for winter quarters early in October. It is
not a shy bird, but knows well how to escape danger. They are, with
Kingbirds and other species, very busy during the time the _Magnolia
grandiflora_ is in bloom, about which millions of various insects
abound.
101. =Sayornis fuscus= _Bd._ PHOEBE BIRD; PEWEE.—Common in winter,
from December to March, especially in the gardens of Houston. The
common notes I heard were quite different from their familiar _pewee_,
sounding like _tsip, tsip, tsip, zewee_. None remain to breed.
102. =Sayornis sayus= _Brd._ SAY’S PEWEE.—This Pewee I have observed
only in April, on the borders of thickets and in the shrubbery near
woods, and always singly.
103. =Contopus virens= _Cab._ WOOD PEWEE.—Common summer sojourner in
open woods, particularly in the “post oak,” where its loud
characteristic notes can be heard throughout the summer. Although this
bird is common, I did not succeed in finding a nest. Arrives early in
April; departs early in October.
104. =Empidonax acadicus= _Bd._ ACADIAN FLYCATCHER.—Common summer
resident, and the only one of this attractive genus that breeds in
this part of Texas. They are common in all the woods, particularly
where a beautiful light green lichen (_Usnea barbata_) hangs from the
trees. In all the deciduous woods of Harris County, and also in the
mixed bottom woods near Spring Creek, they are common, but I was not
so fortunate as to discover the nest, although I always kept a
diligent lookout for it.
105. =Empidonax trailli= _Bd._ TRAILL’S FLYCATCHER.—Common during
migrations, but none, I think, remain to breed.
106. =Empidonax minimus= _Bd._ LEAST FLYCATCHER.—Common during
migrations in April and October.
107. =Trochilus colubris= _Linn._ RUBY-THROATED HUMMINGBIRD.—Very
common summer sojourner. I observed them from early April to the
middle of October. Very abundant when the _Wistaria chinensis_,
_Lonicera japonica_, _Gardenia florida_, _Pittosporum tobira_,
_Cydonia japonica_, etc., are in flower.
I have several times seen another species of Hummingbird, but I did
not succeed in securing it.
108. =Chætura pelasgica= _Bd._ CHIMNEY SWIFT.—On August 20, 1880, I
saw numbers on the borders of woods near Spring Creek. During May,
June and July I have seen only a few pairs.
109. =Antrostomus carolinensis= _Gld._ CHUCK-WILL’S-WIDOW.—Common
during the breeding season in dry woods, with much undergrowth.
Arrives late in April from its winter quarters; the time of departure
I do not know. They remain silent during day-time, and commence their
peculiar cries soon after dusk of evening. The eggs are laid on the
bare ground in dry places, and are commonly well hidden by thick
shrubbery. In the dry woods near Spring Creek they are common, but not
in the wet wooded tracts near Houston.
110. =Chordiles popetue= _Bd._ NIGHTHAWK.—Seen in very large numbers.
I saw thousands during a cloudy, rainy day in the early part of May,
near the borders of woods. They all soon disappeared.
111. =Chordiles acutipennis texensis= _Ridgw._ TEXAN NIGHTHAWK.—A
regular but somewhat rare summer sojourner. Differs from the preceding
in many respects. They are more retiring in their habits; they also
sail very low over ponds and pools of water, where myriads of insects,
especially mosquitoes, abound. Four to six are often seen together,
flying quite near each other. I never heard them utter a sound, and do
not know where they breed, but I think they have their nests on the
shrubby borders of woods, where they are most commonly to be observed
when flying. They are readily distinguishable from their near
relatives, our familiar northern Nighthawk, by their peculiar, low,
and quiet sailing, and also by their smaller size.
112. =Campephilus principalis= _Gray._ IVORY-BILLED WOODPECKER.—Very
rare; I have found it only in the large and dense pine forests in the
northern part of Harris County and in Montgomery County far from human
habitations. Very shy and not easy to approach.
113. =Picus villosus= _Linn._ HAIRY WOODPECKER.—Frequently seen during
winter, but only a few times during the breeding season.
114. =Picus scalaris= _Wagl._ TEXAS WOODPECKER.—This beautiful little
Woodpecker is quite numerous in all wooded districts; it comes often
during winter into the gardens of Houston, and is then very
unsuspicious. I can give no particulars about its nesting habits, as I
have never found a nest.
115. =Picus pubescens= _Linn._ DOWNY WOODPECKER.—Common; breeds in all
wooded districts, but is by no means so abundant as I have found it to
be in Wisconsin.
116. =Picus borealis= _Vieill._ RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER.—The _Picus
querulus_ of Wilson is resident in all the large pine woods; it is
very shy, restless, and noisy. The male is very wary during the
breeding season, and every pair has its own limited breeding range. I
discovered a nest in an old high pine stump, but it was out of reach.
These birds are not rare in heavily wooded districts. I never have
seen one in the deciduous woods.
117. =Sphyropicus varius= _Bd._ YELLOW-BELLIED WOODPECKER.—Winter
resident from November to March, and then not uncommon. Always seen
singly.
118. =Hylotomus pileatus= _Bd._ PILEATED WOODPECKER.—Common resident
in all the wooded tracts, in the “post oak” as well as in the bottom
and pine forests. A very noisy species; its drumming is almost as loud
as that of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. It is not a shy and retiring
species, but, on the contrary, is very often seen near farm houses.
Especially abundant where during the previous winter or spring many
trees have been cut down; these they search for worms, and very soon
have all the bark hammered away from them. They often excavate a hole
for their nest in a post oak, in a sycamore, and also in elms, often
at a considerable height. The cavity is from 10 to 20 inches deep and
so large that a man can easily put his hand into it. The eggs, from
four to six, are of a brilliant white color. Only one brood is raised,
and the young follow their parents till late in the fall.
119. =Centurus carolinus= _Bonap._ RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER.—Another
very common Woodpecker. Its loud, harsh croaks, sounding like
_crirrk_, are almost continually to be heard in the woods. Prefers
deciduous woods. It is resident throughout the year, and is not shy or
of retiring habits, but often visits the larger gardens. In the winter
months I have often observed them on the ground searching for insects,
but it can not walk as easily as _Colaptes auratus_. Breeds usually on
the borders of woods, and raises only one brood yearly.
120. =Melanerpes erythrocephalus= _Sw._ RED-HEADED WOODPECKER.—The
most abundant of its family in and near Houston; breeds commonly in
the city in sycamores, water and swamp oaks, and in magnolias along
Buffalo Bayou. Very confiding and tame; hammers often on houses and
stables, on church towers, telegraph posts, etc. Two broods are raised
each season. I have seen, late in August, young just from the nest.
Once I discovered the nest in a sycamore in a street, about fifteen
feet from the ground, the tree standing only a few yards from a house.
Resident throughout the year. Many are killed by negro boys with
so-called “nigger-shooters,” and not only this species, but also
numberless other birds are thus destroyed by them.
121. =Colaptes auratus= _Sw._ GOLDEN-WINGED WOODPECKER;
“FLICKER.”—Rare during the breeding season, abundant in the winter
months. Frequently seen in pairs and small companies of from four to
ten, and even more. Spends its time during this season mostly on the
ground, where it searches for food. The first companies arrive late in
October, and they steadily increase in numbers till December, when
they are exceedingly abundant. They begin to migrate northward late in
February.
122. =Ceryle alcyon= _Boie_. BELTED KINGFISHER.—Seen only
occasionally. In the western part of Texas, where the rivers and
creeks have clear water, the bird is evidently more common.
123. =Coccyzus americanus= _Bonap._ YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO.—Common
summer sojourner; breeds abundantly in the thickets on the edges of
woods, and is in this part of our country a very unsuspicious bird, as
it is not only often seen in gardens, but sometimes breeds in them, in
pomegranate bushes, in _Banksia_ and Cherokee-rose thickets, etc. The
first nests I found late in April, the last, July 5. This, a typical
nest for this region, was placed in a young sweet-gum tree
(_Liquidambar styraciflua_), about ten feet above the ground, and was
almost hidden among _Smilax laurifolia_, with which the tree was
overgrown. It was built of sticks, fragments of leaves, Spanish moss
and a few grass-stems lined with the leaves of the loblolly pine
(_Pinus tæda_). It contained two eggs, one somewhat advanced in
incubation, the other quite fresh. I think two broods are, in many
cases, reared each season.
124. =Coccyzus erythrophthalmus= _Bd._ BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO.—Common
during the middle of April, but I do not think that any remain to
breed.
125. =Strix flammea americana= _Coues_. AMERICAN BARN OWL.—More or
less common in all suitable localities. Breeds usually in hollow
stumps, but last year (May 6, 1881) I discovered a nest in the side of
a high bank of a “gully” near Spring Creek. The nest was about two
feet from the entrance and nearly horizontal; a few feathers were the
only lining. Eggs, three in number, dirty white.
126. =Brachyotus palustris= _Gld._ SHORT-EARED OWL.—Not uncommon late
in autumn and during winter near thickets and marshes, where many
little birds associate, on which it feeds almost entirely. Very shy,
and not easily secured.
127. =Syrnium nebulosum= _Gray._ BARRED OWL; “HOOT OWL”; “BOTTOM
OWL.”—Very common, especially in all the bottom woods and in the thick
woods bordering Buffalo Bayou. Their curious notes are heard every
night from the dusk of evening till dawn, and also in dark cloudy and
rainy days. These notes are easily imitated, and often three or four
of the birds may be thus attracted. During night time they come
fearlessly near farm houses, and, with their loud, laughing, unearthly
sounds, make a terrible noise. I have often heard four or five at one
time near a house. Their flight is easy and quick. In Texas where the
hens, turkeys, etc., roost on trees, this Owl is very destructive.
They do not kill old poultry, but like half-grown chickens, and soon
depopulate a whole poultry-yard. The nest is usually built high up in
trees, mostly in pin oaks (_Quercus palustris_) and elms, sometimes
also in pines, of strong twigs and sticks, without a lining. They also
use old Crow’s and Hawk’s nests, which they repair a little.
128. =Scops asio maccalli= _Ridgw._ TEXAN SCREECH OWL.—This little Owl
seems to be quite common. If they are disturbed, they hide in the
hollow of a tree or stump. All their movements are exceedingly quick
and elegant, and the flight gliding and noiseless. I have never had an
opportunity to examine a nest.
129. =Bubo virginianus= _Bonap._ GREAT HORNED OWL.—Common; resident;
breeds. Nests abundantly in all the large woods; especially common in
dense bottom woods. Their loud cries are to be heard not only during
the nights, but also in the day-time, when the weather is cloudy and
rainy. They are very destructive to the poultry; they, like the Barred
Owls, come near the farm houses and commence their ludicrous cries
about nine o’clock in the evening; they utter their cries only during
the breeding season; later they are almost silent. The flight is very
quick and easy. The nest is placed from thirty to seventy feet from
the ground in the top of a large forest tree; it is composed of sticks
and twigs, and is sometimes lined with a bunch of Spanish moss, but
this may be accidental.
130. =Speotyto cunicularia hypogæa= _Ridgw._ BURROWING OWL.—This
little Owl is every year increasing in numbers. Breeds in the higher
prairies, and also in waste fields, in holes. They also breed in the
burrows of the salamander, a species of _Geomys_, probably _Geomys
pinetis_. I have not seen their eggs.
131. =Falco mexicanus polyagrus= _Coues_. PRAIRIE FALCON.—This noble
bird is resident on the borders of woods near prairies, but it is by
no means a common bird. Its flight is graceful, but always low; its
food is said to consist especially of Prairie Chickens and domestic
fowl.
132. =Æsalon columbarius= _Kaup_. PIGEON HAWK.—Common in fall and
winter, as soon as the large flocks of Blackbirds and different
Finches appear from the north, among which it makes great havoc. None
remain to breed. They disappear quite early, usually in the first days
of March.
133. =Tinnunculus sparverius= _Vieill._ SPARROW HAWK.—Common in fall
and winter, but never observed during the breeding season. This bird
also does great harm among our small birds.
134. =Polyborus cheriway= _Cab._ CARACARA EAGLE; MEXICAN EAGLE;
“MEXICAN BUZZARD.”—Regularly distributed, but in this part of Texas is
not so common as farther in the interior. It is a very showy bird, and
the flight is extremely elegant and quick. Although it is very shy and
not easily to be approached, it often builds its nest in trees not far
from farm houses. The farmers say they are as harmless as Turkey
Buzzards. The nest is usually from twenty-five to thirty feet above
the ground and is built of sticks, sometimes lined with bits of cotton
and Spanish moss; the cavity is shallow. Often the birds, commonly
single individuals, are to be observed with Vultures feeding together
on carrion.
135. =Elanoïdes forficatus= _Ridgw._ SWALLOW-TAILED KITE; FORK-TAILED
KITE.—Abundant summer sojourner from the first part of March to
October. A beautiful bird, and one of the most characteristic species
of this locality. Especially abundant in the bottom woods near
prairies or fields. Nest very high in slender trees in the river and
creek bottoms; it is built of sticks and Spanish moss. I never had an
opportunity to collect eggs of this bird as the nests, in almost every
case, were out of reach. In August and September the birds are often
seen in cotton fields, where they feed on cotton worms and other
insects. They are particularly fond of small snakes, such as
_Leptophis_, _Rhinostoma coccinea_, lizards (_Anolius carolinensis_
and _Ameiva sex-lineata_). I never have seen them take a bird or a
small quadruped.
136. =Elanus glaucus= _Coues_. WHITE-TAILED KITE.—This rare and
beautiful bird I have seen several times sailing over cotton fields.
Its flight is easy and graceful, but not rapid; sometimes it stops a
few moments and then descends with great velocity to the ground to
capture a lizard or a snake. It is not shy, and is easily recognized
by its white tail.
137. =Ictinia subcærulea= _Coues_. MISSISSIPPI KITE.—Not a common
summer resident, and very shy and retiring in its habits. It is
generally found in the same localities with _Elanoïdes forficatus_.
Its sailings are extremely beautiful and sometimes the bird is so high
in the air as to be almost invisible. Like the Swallow-tailed Kite, it
is often seen about cotton fields, where it feeds on the cotton worms
and on small snakes and lizards. I have a few times seen the nest high
up in the top of gigantic pines, pin oaks and sycamores, entirely out
of my reach.
138. =Circus hudsonius= _Vieill._ MARSH HAWK.—Common resident in the
marshy prairies in the northern part of Harris County; also common
near the sugar-cane fields on the Brazos. It is very destructive to
all the smaller prairie birds, but it also feeds on snakes, frogs and
lizards. I never found a nest.
139. =Accipiter cooperi= _Bonap._ COOPER’S HAWK.—This very common and
impudent robber is the most destructive of the Raptores to the
barnyard fowls; in a short time all the young chickens, turkeys, and
ducks are killed by it. It is so bold as to seize the poultry before
the farmer’s eyes, and in only few cases can the bird be punished, as
it is very difficult to shoot. The flight is easy, very quick, and
usually low. Nests found in April had already half-grown young. They
were similar to Crows’ nests, built of twigs in the tops of middle
sized trees, and lined with bunches of _Tillandsia_.
140. =Accipiter fuscus= _Bonap._ SHARP-SHINNED HAWK.—Common in winter.
141. =Buteo pennsylvanicus= _Bonap._ BROAD-WINGED HAWK.—Not uncommon
during the winter months, and a few remain to breed, nesting in the
high trees near the rivers and creeks.
142. =Buteo swainsoni= _Bonap._ SWAINSON’S HAWK.—Not uncommon during
the breeding season; often seen on the prairies near woods. Many are
killed, as they commit great havoc among the poultry. The nest is
built in the tallest trees, in an almost inaccessible position.
143. =Haliaëtus leucocephalus= _Savig._ BALD EAGLE; WHITE-HEADED
EAGLE.—This is not a common bird, but is known to breed in certain
parts of this region. They build their nests in the tallest trees of
the river bottoms. Two young, taken out of a nest in the spring of
1880, became very tame pets.
144. =Cathartes aura= _Illig._ TURKEY BUZZARD.—Very abundant, and
resident throughout the year. Nests on the ground.
145. =Catharista atrata= _Less._ BLACK VULTURE; CARRION CROW.—Common
but not abundant; about one-twentieth as common as the Turkey Buzzard.
Breeds on the ground in the grassy prairies.
146. =Ectopistes migratoria= _Sw._ PASSENGER PIGEON.—Occasionally
common during the migrations. In September and October, 1881, I saw
immense numbers in the post oak woods, where they were feeding on
acorns.
147. =Zenaidura carolinensis= _Bonap._ MOURNING DOVE.—Very abundant,
and resident throughout the year. In very cold winters many migrate
farther south. They raise, at least in this part of the country, three
broods yearly. On the prairies the nest is not unfrequently placed
upon the ground.
148. =Chamæpelia passerina= _Sw._ GROUND DOVE.—A rare summer
sojourner. Have never seen more than two together.
149. =Meleagris gallopavo= (=americana= _Coues?_). WILD TURKEY.—I can
not state with certainty whether the Wild Turkey under consideration
is the _Meleagris gallopavo americana_ or _M. gallopavo_, but I think
it is the first-named variety. I have found the bird abundant in all
the heavily wooded districts, especially common in the thick woods
with much underbrush near Spring Creek. Eggs are often put under a
tame hen, but the young are not easily domesticated; as soon as they
are grown they become very wild, and many go off again to their
favorite woods. Early in May I have seen the mother bird with about a
dozen young ones, but they were so extremely wild that they suddenly
disappeared among the almost impenetrable thickets of blackberries
(_Rubus villosus_) and Smilax (_Smilax laurifolia_ and _S.
lanceolata_). When the pecans are ripe, they assemble in flocks of
from ten to twenty and even thirty, and feed particularly on these
nuts. Later in the season they feed on several kinds of acorns, and in
winter when food becomes scarce, they eat the berries of the
myrtle-holly (_Oreophila myrtifolia_) and other berries.
150. =Cupidonia cupido= _Bd._ PRAIRIE HEN.—Common resident on all the
flat grassy prairies. Is becoming scarcer every year.
151. =Ortyx virginiana= _Bonap._ AMERICAN QUAIL; “BOB WHITE.”—Very
abundant resident. Two broods are raised yearly. They are exceedingly
tame and confiding, breeding sometimes in close proximity to the
habitations of men. In winter from fifty to one hundred are usually
seen in cotton and sugar-cane fields.
(_To be continued._)
=Recent Literature.=
BAILEY’S INDEX TO FOREST AND STREAM.[81]—The newspaper thus indexed as
to the bird-matter contained in its first twelve volumes has always
given much space to ornithological articles, which have become of late
years more valuable from a scientific standpoint than newspaper pieces
generally are, being authenticated by the signatures of the writers
instead of some silly pen-name, and being on the whole scarcely below or
not below the grade of the bird notes that one finds in periodicals of
professed technical character. No one who has had any experience in
hunting for what he wants through the scantily indexed pages of a weekly
issue can fail to appreciate the good office Mr. Bailey has rendered us
all; and every one upon whom the bibliographical blight has descended
knows what an immense amount of industry that curse entails. The author
has our hearty sympathy in the latter, and our best thanks for the
former. His work is more than a mere alphabetical list of names,
followed by reference figures; for it includes, as the title says, a
summary of each article indexed—often giving just the points wanted,
thus rendering it unnecessary to look up the reference. The Index also
includes authors’ names, and among these the authorship of many
pseudonyms and initial-signatures are for the first time properly
exposed. The summation of the bird-matters seems to be quite complete,
and is certainly extensive, in the cases of some common game birds
occupying several pages. We presume the work is not free from faults and
errors of all sorts, because nothing of the kind can be; but we have
found it more reliable than its mechanical execution would lead one to
expect. Considering how great a favor Mr. Bailey has conferred upon the
publishers, and how much good his Index will do the paper, by “setting
it up” in the estimation of working ornithologists higher even than it
was before, his work might have been better dressed.—E. C.
CHAMBERLAIN’S CATALOGUE OF THE BIRDS OF NEW BRUNSWICK.[82]—As many of
our readers are doubtless aware, Mr. Montague Chamberlain has been
engaged, for some time past, in investigating the bird fauna of New
Brunswick, and an interesting result of his labors is now before us in
the form of a catalogue of the birds of that Province. This paper, which
forms by far the most important one in the publication of which it is a
part, comprises some forty-three pages which are divided into two
sections; “Section A” being restricted to “species which occur in St.
John and King’s Counties”; while “Section B” embraces “species which
have not been observed in Saint John or King’s Counties but which occur
in other parts of the Province.”
The former division treats of a region to which the author has evidently
paid special attention, and the text, being mainly based on his personal
observations or investigations, includes many interesting and several
important notes and records. From these we gather that the rather marked
Alleghanian tinge which is known to pervade the bird-fauna of the entire
coast region of Maine, as far as Eastport and Calais, extends still
further eastward. Thus the Catbird, White-eyed Vireo, Towhee Bunting,
Cowbird, Meadow Lark, Baltimore Oriole, Carolina Dove, Least Bittern,
Florida Gallinule, and a few others scarcely less characteristic of the
more southern fauna, have been found within the area treated by the
present paper, but all are marked as rare, and the greater number as
merely accidental visitors. Many of the more important records have
already been published elsewhere.
The annotations in this section are often full and always interesting.
The author writes clearly and simply and his style is characterized by a
modest frankness that is very attractive. We fear, however, that some of
his views respecting the distribution of races are hardly orthodox. Thus
he thinks that “two races of Loon spend the summer in New Brunswick, and
breed here. They have plumage of similar colors and markings, but one is
smaller than the other, being some six inches less in length. The larger
bird is common on the lakes and rivers in all sections of the Province,
seldom seeking the salt water until the rivers freeze over, while the
smaller is rarely found away from the sea shore”; and again that a light
form of the Ruffed Grouse “resembling the descriptions given of
_umbelloides_” occurs with typical _umbellus_ and that it is “not
improbable that both the Brown and Gray varieties are represented here,
with numerous hybrids”; a condition of affairs which, if true, is
certainly deplorable.
“Section B” is almost wholly compiled, the authorities mainly drawn on
being Boardman, Herrick, and Dr. A. Leith Adams. Several of the records
left by the latter writer are, in the light of our present knowledge, of
very doubtful value.
Mr. Chamberlain’s work, so far as it has gone, has evidently been done
carefully and well, a fact which makes it the more to be regretted that
the publication of his report could not have been longer delayed, for in
many respects it lacks the completeness that is desirable in a paper of
its kind. Any adequate exploration of a region so extensive as that
embraced within the limits of New Brunswick cannot be accomplished in
one or two seasons only. It is rather the task of a lifetime. But we
must bear in mind that the present “Catalogue” is offered simply as a
“starting point,” to be “supplemented by additions and revisions as
opportunity for further investigation occurs”; and considered from this
standpoint it is in every way a highly creditable production. That its
author is qualified to carry out an undertaking which he has so
satisfactorily begun can be a matter admitting of no doubt, and we shall
look for many interesting developments in the field which he has
chosen.—W. B.
KRUKENBERG ON THE COLORING MATTER OF FEATHERS. SECOND
PART.[83]—Turacoverdin, a green pigment which occurs in the green
feathers of the _Musophagidæ_ is first considered. This pigment is
soluble in alkalies, such as soda and the like, but is insoluble in
acids, chloroform, ether and the alcohols. Concentrated sulphuric acid
added to the pigment in solution turns it violet red. Turacoverdin in
solution emits a weak red fluorescent light, and when examined by the
spectroscope shows an absorption band near D. It contains a considerable
quantity of iron, but little copper or manganese, and probably, like
Turacin, lacks sulphur and nitrogen. A point of considerable interest is
its identity with a green pigment procured by Church by boiling a
solution of Turacin for a long time.
Zoörubin, a red-brown pigment occurring in _Cicinnurus regius_ is next
described. In solubility it much resembles the preceding, but has no
absorption band, though all of the spectrum beyond D is absorbed. When
treated with a very small quantity of copper-sulphate, Zoörubin
instantly becomes cherry-red, a characteristic reaction. This pigment
occurs in the brown female paradise bird though not in other brown
birds, as _Strix flammea_ and _Alcedo ispida_. As regards the colors of
_Eclectus polychlorus_, where green, blue, red, yellow and brown may all
be found, the author has brought out some very interesting points. The
blue and green are mechanical, or rather the blue is mechanical and the
green is the result of a yellow pigment overlying a brown one. The true
pigments of the feathers are brown, yellow, and red. If the feathers be
blackened on their under surfaces with lampblack or sepia, they become
blue. If the yellow feathers are treated in a similar way, they become
green. The yellow pigment is Zoöfulvin, the red probably Zoönerythrin.
Lastly the author describes the yellow pigment, Coriosulfurin, found in
the tarsus of the birds of prey. This substance is unlike any known to
occur in feathers. It has three absorption bands between F and G.—J. A.
J.
STEJNEGER’S NOMENCLATURAL INNOVATIONS.[84]—Proposing to use “the oldest
available name in every case,” the author shows that many of our current
names must give way if the “inflexible law of priority” is to be
observed. For ourselves, we believe that the surest way out of the
nomenclatural difficulties that beset us is to be found in some such
simple rule as this, and that to upset every name that can be upset
according to any recognized principle is really the shortest road to
that fixity of nomenclature for which we now all sigh like furnaces.
Still such a paper as this makes us wish, as so many others have done,
that some counteractive “statute of limitation” could come into
operation, by which a bird resting in undisturbed enjoyment of its name
for, say, a century or half a century, should not be liable to eviction
under the common law of priority. Human welfare and happiness on the
whole is the final cause of all law, and in the case of titles to real
estate it is we believe statutory that undisturbed possession for a
certain period shall exempt property-holders from litigation on account
of any adverse claim, however otherwise sound, which is not presented
within a certain number of years. This seems to be necessary for the
security of any title and to proceed upon the theory that if owners
don’t take the trouble to make good their title in due time they ought
to forfeit it. The logic of a bird’s right to its name and a possessor’s
right to any other property is the same in theory, and might properly be
carried into effect. Fifty years of unchallenged usage might do, and a
hundred certainly would suffice, to eliminate the factor of
“contemporaneous courtesy,” and the shades of a few departed greatnesses
might not be offended by being invited to yield a point now and then for
the benefit of the many whom natural selection has not yet eliminated
from the struggle for existence.
Stejneger’s points seem to be well taken in the main; and though we
have not yet had opportunity of verifying them, we presume the
restitutions and substitutions he proposes are available if not indeed
necessary under the priority statute. But has he in all cases taken up
names which rest upon diagnosis? Does indication of a type-species
make a generic name valid? Some other objections might also be raised.
We pass no judgment, _pendente lite_, but simply note the following
propositions advanced:—_Phænicurus_ Forst., 1817, for _Ruticilla_
Naum., 1822.—_Cinclus merula_ Schäff., 1789, for _C. aquaticus_
Bechst.—_Regulus cristatus_ V., 1807, for _R. satrapa_ Licht.,
1823.—_Chelidon_ Forst., 1817, for _Hirundo_ L. et auct. (_rustica_,
etc.).—_Hirundo_ L., 1758, for _Chelidon_ Boie, 1822.—_Clivicola_ sive
_Riparia_ Forst., 1817, for _Cotile_ Boie, 1822.—_Calcarius_ Bechst.,
1803, for the birds now commonly called _Centrophanes_, and
_Plectrophenax_, g. n., for _“Plectrophanes” nivalis_.—_Otocoris_ Bp.,
1839, for _Eremophila_, preocc. in botany, and by _Eremophilus_ in
ichthyology.—_Archibuteo norvegicus_ Gunnerus, 1767, for _A. lagopus_
Gm. (but there is _A. lagopus_ Brünn, 1764).—_Morinella_ M. & W.,
1810, for _Strepsilas_ Ill., 1811.—_Vanellus capella_ Schäff., 1789,
for _V. cristatus_ M. & W., 1803.—_Ægialitis alexandrinus_, L., 1758,
for _Æ. cantianus_ Lath., 1790.—_Gallinago cælestis_ Freuzel, 1801,
for _G. media_ Leach, 1816.—_Totanus nebularius_ Gunnerus, 1767, for
the Greenshank.—_Pavoncella_ Leach, 1816, for _Machetes_ Cuv.,
1817.—_Tadorna dameatica_ Hasselq., 1762, for _T. cornuta_ Gm.,
1788.—_Harelda hyemalis_ L., 1758, for _H. glacialis_ L.,
1766.—_Eniconetta_ Gray, 1840, for _Polysticta_ Eyt., 1836, preocc. by
_Polysticte_ Smith, 1835, and for “_Stellaria_”! Bp., 1838, preocc. in
botany.—_Gavia_ Boie, 1822, for _Pagophila_ Kaup, 1829, and the
species _G. alba_ (Gunn., 1767, for _P. eburnea_) Phipps,
1774.—(_Larus hyperboreus_ Gunnerus, 1767, for _L. glaucus_ Brünn,
1764.)—_Hydrochelidon nigra_ (L., 1758, p. 137) for _H. lariformis_
(Ibid., p. 153).—The short and long-tailed Jägers to be respectively
_Stercorarius parasiticus_ (L., 1758, p. 136), and _S. longicaudatus_
(V., 1819).—_Urinator_ Cuv., 1799, for _Colymbus_ auct., nec Briss.,
1760; _U. immer_ (Brünn, 1764, p. 38) instead of _U. torquatus_ (id.,
ibid., p. 41) and _U. lumme_ Brünn, 1764, for _C. septentrionalis_ L.,
1766.—E. C.
INGERSOLL’S BIRDS’-NESTING.[85]—This little book is intended for a guide
to the beginner, and as such it will no doubt be of service. The book
may be summarized as a readable account of the various modes of
collecting birds’ eggs and nests. There are, however, a few points which
we regard with suspicion, as the contrivances for descending cliffs;
such things in careless hands would become instruments of
self-destruction. A long account of the various paraphernalia for
blowing and marking eggs is given. To the novice such things may be
amusing, but are sure sources of disaster. A keen eye, accuracy of hand
and a mind to govern, not patent scissors and forceps, are the
requisites for blowing eggs.
The list of unknown nests, which does not claim to be free from faults
of omission, contains faults of admission, though these are not
numerous. Finally, we would heartily indorse all advice for absolute
identification of eggs and the avoidance of gummed labels.—J. A. J.
=General Notes.=
NOTE ON MIMUS POLYGLOTTUS.—In the summer of 1879 I found on the Platte
River, about a mile west of Fort Fetterman, Wyoming, in Lat. 42° 23′ 35″
N. and Long. 105° 21′ 4″ W., a pair of Mockingbirds (_Mimus
polyglottus_) breeding; the nest was placed in a low cottonwood, very
near the river bank. In the following year these birds, undoubtedly the
same pair, returned and reared a brood in identically the same place.
This time I secured the male bird; and the specimen is now in my private
collection.
In the “Birds of the Colorado Valley” Dr. Coues tells us, when referring
to the limits of _Mimus_, that “the northermost records generally quoted
fix the limit in Massachusetts; but Dr. Brewer speaks of a single
individual seen near Calais, Me., by Mr. George A. Boardman. Another
record from an extreme point, given by Dr. P. R. Hoy, is above quoted;
the extension of the bird to Wisconsin, as there indicated, has been
commonly overlooked. Other States in which the bird is known to have
occurred are New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, and
Kansas. The parallel of 40° N. has been named as its usual or normal
limit.”
In view of these facts, and what I have learned from other
ornithologists, it seems to me that this case is entitled to record, as
another interesting instance, extending the limits of this bird.—R. W.
SHUFELDT. _Washington, D. C._
THE NEST OF THE HOUSE WREN.—Some writer speaks of the well known habit
of the House Wren of filling up any cavity within which it builds its
nest with sticks and rubbish, as a “survival” of an old habit for which
there would seem to be no present use. I think I have seen this
statement in some of the writings of Dr. Elliott Coues, though I cannot
refer to the book or page. Possibly it may have been stated by some one
else. But it is a generally recognized fact that if a box holds half a
peck the little birds will fill it up full! It seems to me, however,
that while this may be really a “survival,” it is still a most useful
habit. When a hole or space is so filled the nest proper is generally
built on the side of the mass of rubbish opposite to the entrance and as
far as possible from it. Manifestly there is a clear purpose in
this—viz: that of protection from any enemy seeking an entrance. I have
observed many nests, in large cigar boxes, and in the majority find this
state of things to exist. The interior space will be filled with sticks,
leaving a little passage way over the top, through which the bird can
reach the nest on the back side of the rubbish. It seems to me that this
is clearly a defensive habit, necessary at this time. When they build a
nest in the skull of a horse or ox, it will be found that they follow
the same rule, and that it will be very difficult to get at the nests.
But their practices are sometimes varied. If a box is not too large, and
the hole is only large enough to admit of the passage of the birds, they
will often carry in only just enough material to build the nest, leaving
the space all open above. I have often known them to pursue this course
in building in a cigar box where a small hole had been made at the
middle of one of the sides. But if the box is a large one with a large
hole cut through the end near the top, as it is suspended on a tree or
the side of a building, then they will carry in “fully a peck of
rubbish,” and build the soft nest down on the side opposite the
entrance.—CHARLES ALDRICH, _Webster City, Iowa_.
REMARKABLE PLUMAGE OF THE ORCHARD ORIOLE.—There is in the collection
here a very curiously marked specimen of the Orchard Oriole (_Icterus
spurius_) from Columbia, Pa. It is evidently a male bird in the
transition stage of plumage from young to that of the adult. Young males
of this species usually exhibit “confused characters of both sexes,” but
in this case the male plumage is confined to the right side of the bird,
and the female plumage to the left side, the two colorations uniting on
median lines above and below. So distinctly is this peculiarity marked,
that a bilateral section of the bird would divide the phases about
equally. The left side, however, shows very slight traces of black and
chestnut, yet not so distinct as to lessen the general yellowish-olive
appearance of the female. There is more of the white on the coverts of
the left wing than usual.—CHARLES H. TOWNSEND, _Acad. Nat. Science,
Philadelphia, Pa._
THE NEST AND EGGS OF PERISOREUS CANADENSIS.—The nest upon which the
following description is based was found by Mr. P. S. Glasier on April
7th, 1881, twenty-three miles from Grand Falls, New Brunswick. It was
built in a small fir tree with few branches, about ten feet from the
ground. The tree was in “mixed land” beside a brook, on the south side
of a hill and near a lumber camp. From the men in the camp it was
learned that the bird built the nest about the middle of March, and had
been sitting for ten days. The parent bird was found on the nest, shot,
and forwarded to me, so that there can be no doubt of identity.
The nest is rather a large structure, between nine and ten inches in
diameter and five inches deep. The cavity is slightly oval, measuring
three and six-tenths by three and two-tenths, and is two inches deep.
The bottom is formed of large pieces of rotten wood, which must have
been torn from some neighboring stump, while the sides are supported by
a scraggy structure of long twigs. The walls are formed of strips of
bark and the subjacent rotten wood, apparently of cedars, cocoons, the
remains of wasp nests, lichens and the like. All this material is
closely packed together, but not woven, so that were it not for the
outer coat of twigs the whole would quickly fall apart. On one side,
snarled up among the twigs, is a long piece of white twine, which shows
that the neighboring camp was called upon to pay its tribute. The lining
is quite thick, and offers a decided contrast to the walls. Rootlets of
various kinds form the greater part, though grass and the remains of
wasp nests form the floor. A few feathers are scattered throughout the
structure and about as many more are to be found inside. By far the
greater part of these are from the Jays themselves, and they might be
regarded as of accidental occurrence were it not for a few from some
species of Grouse. As a whole the nest is a substantial structure,
admirably adapted to keep the eggs and nestlings warm.
The eggs were three in number, and are of about the same size and form
as those of the Blue Jay. Their ground-color is a light green of much
the same color as the Field Sparrow’s egg. Two of the eggs are thickly
covered with fine spots of lavender and light brown, the spots being
most abundant at the large end. The third has less lavender and more
brown, while the spots are of considerable size and evenly
distributed.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES, _Boston, Mass._
NOTES ON THE PLUMAGE OF NEPHŒCETES NIGER BOREALIS.—An examination of ten
birds of this species, taken at Howardsville, Colorado, in 1880 and
1881, leads me to believe that four years are necessary for them to
acquire their complete plumage. A young male of the year, taken Sept.
17, was marked as follows. General color dull black, every feather
tipped with white, scarcely appreciable on upper back and throat,
broader on upper tail-coverts and rump. Crissum almost pure white. In
birds of the second year the general plumage has a brownish cast;
feathers of back tipped with brown, the head whitish, belly feathers yet
broadly tipped with white. The third year the color is black, with a
very faint edging of white on under tail-coverts. In the fourth year
pure black, forehead hoary, neck with a brownish wash. Feathers
bordering the black loral crescent whitish.
Tail in young of first year, rounded; in second year, slightly rounded;
in third year slightly emarginate, feathers becoming more acute. In
adult, forked, outer feathers three-eighths of an inch longer than
inner.
I do not know when they come—some time late in June—but they remain
until long after the Violet-green Swallows leave. They always hunt in
flocks, range far above 13,000 feet and breed up to at least 11,000
feet. Those I have shot have had their crops filled with _Ephemeridæ_,
and it is only when a cloud of insects is discovered low down that the
birds come within gunshot range. Often one will sweep down almost to the
earth and, swinging on in the same ellipse, soar far up entirely out of
sight.
Measurements from dried skins of eight specimens give an average length
of six and seven-sixteenths inches, with extremes of seven and one-half
inches—an adult male, and five and seven-eighths inches—a young female;
and an average wing of six and five-sevenths inches, with extremes of
six and seven-eighths and six and three-eighths inches.—FRANK M. DREW,
_Bunker Hill, Ill._
PLUMAGE OF THE YOUNG OF ECLECTUS POLYCHLORUS.—Dr. A. B. Meyer in the P.
Z. S. for 1877, p. 801, says in an article on _Eclectus polychlorus_:
“Formerly I discussed the question whether the young bird in both sexes
is plain green or not; but I now believe that it is red in both sexes,
_i.e._ bears the dress which the female keeps during its whole life.”
This conclusion would seem to be incorrect, since among a series of
these birds in the possession of Prof. H. A. Ward, there is one bird so
young as not to be fully fledged, but which is nevertheless of the same
bright green color as the adult males. This substantiates the statement
of the Rev. George Brown that the young birds have the same colored
plumage as the adults.—F. A. LUCAS, _Rochester, N. Y._
[This is a large Parrot found in the Malacca and Papuan Islands. The
occurrence of “young red-and-blue birds” has already been recorded (see
Ibis for 1878).—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.]
AN OWL’S EGG LAID IN CONFINEMENT.—The history of my Acadian Owl, given
in a late number of this Bulletin,[86] has an interesting sequel. On
February 4, 1882, the bird (then but nine months old) astonished its
friends—and perhaps itself as well—by laying an egg in the bottom of its
cage. This, when first brought to me, was of normal size and shape, but
soft and leathery to the touch, like the egg of a turtle. One side was
fractured; and soon afterward the shell around the edges of the hole
began to curl inward until, in a short time, the whole egg became
shrivelled and distorted. Finally, in the course of a day or two, the
shell crumbled and scaled off in small fragments leaving only the
half-dried yelk and albumen.
Of course more eggs were looked for, and in anticipation, the floor of
the cage was lined with saw-dust and a hollow stump even supplied to
serve as a nesting-place. But despite these attentions the bird
obstinately refused to gratify our hopes. For several days after the
removal of her egg she was restless and irritable, continually flying
from perch to perch, and fiercely attacking any one who ventured to
approach her. Indeed, it was two or three weeks before she recovered her
wonted gentleness.
I cannot now recall an instance of the breeding of Owls in confinement,
but the present occurrence would apparently indicate that it might be
accomplished with Saw-whets, which, as captives, seem to be more
animated and cheerful than most of the members of their sedate
family.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
BUTEO BRACHYURUS—A CORRECTION.—An inaccuracy, comparatively so
unimportant that I have hitherto neglected to call attention to it, will
be found in the paper “On a Tropical American Hawk to be added to the
North American Fauna” (this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 207). The Hawk in
question was shot Feb. 22., 1881—not Feb. 1, as stated in the article
referred to. I was at Palatka at the time, and saw the bird in the flesh
the day it was shot. It was secured on the outskirts of the town, early
in the morning, by a young taxidermist, Mr. Wm. Dickinson, since
deceased. We could not determine the species, and he would not part with
the specimen, a very fine one, but “set it up” for himself. A short time
afterwards he presented it to Mr. G. A. Boardman.—J. DWIGHT, JR., _New
York City_.
THE TURKEY BUZZARD IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.—A specimen of _Cathartes aura_ was
shot this spring near Hampton Falls, N. H., by Mr. Frank Percell. The
bird was killed April 6th or 7th. and received by Mr. C. I. Goodale on
the 8th. When I examined it on the 10th it was still quite
fresh.—CHARLES B. CORY, _Boston. Mass._
RAPACIOUS BIRDS IN CONFINEMENT.—In the winter of 1874 I spent several
months with a friend who had a number of rapacious birds in confinement.
There were a couple of Barred Owls, a Great Horned Owl, and a
Rough-legged Hawk, living together upon excellent terms in one
apartment; in another, half a dozen Mottled Owls; and in another a
superb Bald Eagle. Most of these birds became quite tame after a short
period of captivity, tolerating our presence in their quarters, taking
food from our hands, and even submitting to caresses. One little _Scops_
developed especial docility. My friend, who was a taxidermist, used to
place it upon a perch at his side and copy strigine attitudes from
nature. The accommodating bird would sit content for half an hour at a
time, and never objected to any sort of gentle handling. One of its
brethren. however, was vicious and untameable. He nipped our fingers
whenever occasion offered, snapped and spat if even approached, and
finally sealed his own doom by decapitating his gentle associate.
We did not succeed in cultivating a spirit of great tractability in the
Eagle. Aside from the amusement he occasionally afforded in tackling
living quarry, generally some superfluous cat, he was a rather
uninteresting captive. One morning we omitted his breakfast, but in the
course of the forenoon introduced a kitten into his apartment. He eyed
her sharply for a few moments, then persistently ignored her and in the
evening she was removed unscathed. Upon this we instituted upon the
royal bird a brief course of starvation, and then submitted the
unfortunate kitten again. This time her reception was very different. At
sight of her he manifested great excitement, and in a very few minutes
left his perch with a jump and a flop, and seized the poor beast in his
talons. He struck her very nicely, pinning fore paws and head together
with one foot, the hind paws together with the other, thus preventing
the slightest resistance. My remorse at this stage of the proceedings
was somewhat alleviated by the fact that the kitten did not even quiver,
having apparently been instantly killed by the force of the blow.
However, the Eagle at once put an end to what little life may have been
left by breaking her spine with his beak. He thereupon tore a hole in
her abdomen, and cast the intestines daintily aside. The contents of the
stomach were examined and, with the exception of a single tid-bit which
appeared to be a piece of bread, rejected. The rest of the body was then
rapidly devoured. On the following morning a full-grown tom-cat was
turned loose in the cage. The Eagle attacked him several times but was
valiantly repelled, and up to the end of the third day, when he made his
escape, Thomas remained master of the situation. Dissatisfied with this
experiment, my friend subsequently introduced the cat in a half-stunned
condition, and after getting well scratched the Eagle succeeded in
overcoming him.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland, Maine_.
NOTE ON MARECA AMERICANA.—I shot at Wayland, Mass., October 1, 1881, a
young male Widgeon (_Mareca americana_). It was flying in company with a
flock of twelve others, apparently of the same species.—A. THORNDIKE,
_Brookline, Mass._
DESTRUCTION OF BIRDS BY THE COLD WAVE OF MAY 21ST AND 22ND.—It seems
worthy of note that, judging from indications in this vicinity, the
destruction of bird life by the recent cold wave must have been very
considerable.
On the morning of May 21st, a specimen of _Helminthophila peregrina_ was
picked up so nearly chilled to death that it died shortly afterwards.
The same was also true of a specimen of _Dendræca pennsylvanica_ On the
morning of May 22nd, three other specimens of the following species were
picked up here which had apparently died of cold: _Dendrœca maculosa_,
_Myiodioctes pusillus_, and _Empidonax minimus_.
These facts suggest that the abundance of bird life may, to a
considerable extent, be influenced by sudden extreme changes of
temperature, as well as by heavy gales.—F. H. KING, _River Falls, Wis.,
May 24, 1882_.
A “TIDAL WAVE” OF BIRDS IN WASHINGTON.—In the twenty-five years during
which I have paid more or less attention to birds hereabouts I have
never seen anything like the “wave” that rolled up in the second and
third weeks of May of this year. The highest spring “season” is usually
the month from April 20 to May 20, at which latter date the tide has
usually ebbed equably from its greatest height at the middle of May.
This year the birds seemed to be held back by the cold and wet, and such
an accumulation has seldom if ever been seen before. The streets and
parks were _full_ of the birds, and the daily papers all had their say
upon the unwonted apparition. In the Smithsonian Grounds, for example, I
saw one day a _flock_ of a hundred or more Orchard Orioles, mixed with
Baltimores. There were flocks of Scarlet Tanagers, Rose-breasted
Grosbeaks, etc., and any quantity of Thrushes, Vireos, Flycatchers and
Warblers—among the latter the rare beauty _Dendrœca tigrina_. Of the
latter Dr. Prentiss took several—the only ones we have known to be
captured here for many years. The cause of this gathering of the clans
was doubtless the cold wave Mr. King speaks of in the preceding
paragraph.—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._
MORE DEFINITE STATISTICS NEEDED IN REGARD TO THE ABUNDANCE OF BIRDS.—It
is deeply to be regretted, it seems to me, that we have so little
specific information in regard to the abundance of birds in the various
portions of the United States from which lists of species have been
published.
Such terms as “common”, “not common,” “abundant,” “rare,” “rather rare,”
etc., may have such different values in the minds of different
observers, as to render them of but little value for any but the most
general considerations. They are absolutely valueless in the discussion
of such economic questions as, Can birds ever become abundant in thickly
settled districts? and, What birds, if left to themselves, are likely to
become most abundant in thickly settled sections?
The table given below indicates the character and kind of information
which is much needed in the discussion of many important ornithological
questions.
The first four columns are compiled from notes made in Jefferson County,
Wisconsin, between July 31 and August 7, 1877; those in the last four
columns are from notes taken in the vicinity of Ithaca, N. Y., in 1878.
In each column, opposite the name of the species, is given the number of
individuals which were observed in travelling the distance indicated
near the foot of each column. The item, “birds seen or heard but not
named.” includes those individuals which were known to exist in the
territory passed over, but which for various reasons could not be
identified with certainty.
The salient features of the two localities, briefly stated, are these:—
In the vicinity of Ithaca, there is a long, deep, and narrow valley,
having somewhat rolling, glen-cut sides: in it lies Cayuga Lake, deep
and weedless, stretching, like a broad river, to the northward. Its east
and west banks are abrupt and rocky and cut, at intervals, by deep
wooded glens. A small grass swamp, bearing a few trees, at the south end
of the lake and running up into the city, is about the only low land in
the vicinity. Formerly a mixed deciduous and evergreen forest covered
the hills. Now, mere remnants stand near together upon small closely
packed farms on both sides of the valley. The houses are numerous, the
orchards large, and there are few fields not having some trees standing
in them.
In the portion of Jefferson County where the notes were taken, the
country is nearly level, with gentle undulations, and is traversed by
Bark and Rock Rivers. The streams make a sharp line between prairies and
openings on one side and heavy hard and soft-wood timber on the other.
Marshes trend along the streams, and shallow reedy ponds are common.
Compared with the vicinity of Ithaca, the farms are larger, the houses
less numerous, the orchards smaller, the woods and groves larger, and
but few trees stand in the fields.
Route 1 led from a point about half a mile north of Bark River out
across cultivated fields. Routes 2 and 3 each led east from Rock River,
north of Jefferson, alternately through pieces of heavy timber and
across dry cultivated fields. Route 4 led from the Crayfish west upon
the prairie southwest of Aztelan, traversing dry treeless fields and
leading through two small groves. Route 5 led from the University
buildings west across the valley, leading through a pasture, through the
north end of the city, through the swamp, and up the railroad, bordered
on one side by cultivated fields, and by tangled thickets on the other.
Route 6 led directly east from the campus to Varna, and then southwest
along the railroad. On this trip only cultivated fields were crossed and
one small piece of woods traversed. Route 7 led up the valley from
Ithaca along the east side, and then across to Enfield Falls. On this
tramp we passed in turn along the railroad, bordered with small
scattering thickets on both sides, across the inlet through low fields,
and then past cultivated fields and small pieces of woods. Route 8 lay
ten miles east of Ithaca, and led from McLean off to the southeast of
Dryden, and then through Dryden to Freeville. A branch of Fall Creek was
crossed twice, and, with the exception of a small marsh near Freeville,
only cultivated fields and small pieces of wood were passed.
═══════════════════════════════════════╤═══════════════════════════════
NAME. │ ROUTES.
───────────────────────────────────────┼───┬───┬───┬───╥───┬───┬───┬───
│ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 ║ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8
───────────────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───╫───┼───┼───┼───
Turdus migratorius │ 11│ │ │ 3║ 20│ 13│ 31│ 44
Turdus fuscescens │ │ │ │ ║ 2│ │ 2│ 4
Mimus carolinensis │ 2│ 8│ 3│ 2║ 12│ │ 25│ 7
Sialia sialis │ 1│ 2│ │ ║ 2│ 8│ 5│ 17
Parus atricapillus │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 9│
Sitta carolinensis │ 3│ 7│ 2│ ║ │ 1│ 2│ 3
Troglodytes aëdon │ │ │ │ ║ │ 1│ │ 5
Eremophila alpestris │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ 3
Cistothorus stellaris │ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ │
Dendrœca æstiva │ │ │ │ ║ 1│ 2│ 5│ 5
Geothlypis trichas │ │ │ 1│ 3║ │ │ │
Setophaga ruticilla │ 2│ 15│ 5│ ║ 2│ │ │
Pyranga rubra │ 1│ 3│ │ ║ │ │ │
Hirundo horreorum │ 5│ 5│ │ ║ │ 12│ 7│ 20
Tachycineta bicolor │ │ 2│ │ ║ │ │ │
Petrochelidon lunifrons │ │ │ │ ║ 2│ 12│ 10│ 55
Cotyle riparia │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ 13
Progne purpurea │ 2│ │ │ 1║ │ │ │
Ampelis cedrorum │ │ │ 8│ ║ 4│ 7│ 12│ 4
Vireo olivaceus │ 1│ 13│ 13│ ║ │ │ 1│
Vireo gilvus │ 1│ │ │ 3║ │ │ │
Vireo flavifrons │ │ │ 10│ 4║ │ │ │
Lanius excubitorides │ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ │
Chrysomitris tristis │ 9│ 27│ 5│ 4║ 6│ 28│ 32│ 44
Poœcetes gramineus │ 5│ │ │ 10║ │ 16│ 19│ 28
Melospiza melodia │ 6│ 5│ 8│ 17║ 7│ 33│ 23│ 73
Melospiza palustris │ │ │ 1│ ║ │ │ │
Spizella socialis │ 3│ 1│ 1│ ║ 7│ 33│ 17│ 36
Spizella pusilla (shot) │ │ │ │ 2║ │ │ │
Cyanospiza cyanea │ │ 5│ │ ║ │ 2│ 3│ 3
Pipilo erythrophthalmus │ │ 3│ 3│ ║ │ │ │
Dolichonyx oryzivorus │ │ 18│ 3│ ║ │ 5│ 22│ 52
Molothrus pecoris │ │ │ │ ║ 2│ │ │ 10
Agelæus phœniceus │ │ 1│ │ ║ 12│ │ 10│ 12
Sturnella magna │ 1│ 2│ │ ║ 2│ 8│ 5│ 11
Icterus baltimore │ │ │ │ ║ 7│ 11│ 5│ 3
Quiscalus purpureus │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ 2
Corvus americanus │ 1│ 2│ │ ║ 3│ 10│ 8│ 28
Cyanurus cristatus │ │ │ │ 1║ │ │ │
Tyrannus carolinensis │ 8│ │ │ 10║ 4│ 4│ │ 8
Sayornis fuscus │ 2│ │ │ 4║ 2│ │ 22│ 11
Contopus virens │ 3│ 20│ 15│ 4║ │ │ 2│ 4
Empidonax minimus │ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ │
Chætura pelasgica │ │ │ │ ║ 4│ 3│ 13│ 12
Trochilus colubris │ 1│ 5│ 1│ 1║ │ 1│ 1│
Ceryle alcyon │ 2│ 7│ │ ║ │ │ │
Coccyzus erythrophthalmus │ │ │ │ ║ 2│ │ 1│
Picus villosus │ 2│ │ 1│ ║ │ │ │
Picus pubescens │ │ 1│ │ ║ │ │ │
Sphyrapicus varius │ 1│ 2│ 4│ ║ │ │ │
Melanerpes erythrocephalus │ 4│ 2│ │ ║ │ 2│ │ 3
Colaptes auratus │ 7│ │ │ 6║ 2│ │ 2│ 1
Circus hudsonicus │ │ │ │ 5║ │ │ │
Falco sparverius │ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ │
Hawk │ │ 2│ │ ║ │ │ 2│
Zenaidura carolinensis │ 5│ │ │ ║ │ │ 4│ 1
Bonasa umbellus │ │ │ 10│ ║ │ │ │
Ægialites vociferus │ 17│ 2│ │ ║ │ │ │
Tringoides macularius │ 1│ 11│ │ ║ │ │ 4│ 3
Actiturus bartramius │ 2│ │ │ ║ │ │ │
Ardea herodias │ 2│ │ │ ║ │ │ │
Ardea virescens │ 2│ 3│ │ ║ │ │ │
Rallus virginianus │ 1│ │ │ ║ │ 1│ 1│
Podilymbus podiceps │ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ │
Birds seen or heard, but not named │ 20│ 36│ 18│ 15║ 20│ 69│100│101
───────────────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───╫───┼───┼───┼───
Total number of birds observed │137│141│112│ 95║127│282│405│626
Number of miles traveled │ 4│ 5│ 3│ 3║ 2¼│ 5│ 7│ 11
Average number of birds per mile │ 34│ 28│ 37│ 32║ 56│ 56│ 58│ 57
Total number of species │ 35│ 27│ 18│ 17║ 23│ 22│ 31│ 32
═══════════════════════════════════════╧═══╧═══╧═══╧═══╩═══╧═══╧═══╧═══
Total average number of birds per mile in Jefferson County is about
thirty-three.
Total average number per mile in the vicinity of Ithaca is about
fifty-seven.
The notes from which these tables are prepared were obtained by walking
continuously over the routes named, without retracing steps in any case.
When a bird was observed a record was made in the form of a dot placed
against the name of the bird. The dots were placed for convenience in
groups of five each separated by straight lines.
It seems a little remarkable that the four averages of the two
localities should so nearly coincide. The fact that they do coincide so
closely suggests that, unless we have here an unusual recurrence of
figures, the averages represent a tolerably definite factor of the bird
population of the two localities at the time the observations were made.
The statistics do not indicate the actual bird-population in the two
localities; but they do show, it seems to me, the relative abundance in
the two sections, and, to a large extent, the relative abundance of the
various species in each locality.
It is to be observed that the notes from the vicinity of Ithaca were
taken in June before many of the young birds were upon the wing, while
those from the other locality were made after the breeding season. The
two localities should not be compared, therefore, without taking this
fact into account. For instance, all the Bobolinks observed on trip 8
were, with two exceptions, males. Hence the figures probably show only
about one-half the number of birds of this species that existed in the
territory at the time of the visit.
In July, 1878, about the middle of the month, I went over route 5 and 6
a second time to see what effect upon the average the addition of the
young birds would have. The whole number of birds observed was a little
more than double that observed in June.
Perhaps some one will suggest a better method of obtaining the facts
recorded in this connection.—F. H. KING, _River Falls, Wis., May 24,
1882_.
REMARKS ON FIVE MAINE BIRDS.—It appears that no formal announcement of
the occurrence of the Gray-cheeked Thrush (_Hylocichla aliciæ_) in the
State of Maine has ever been made, though the course the bird is known
to pursue in its migrations renders such an announcement of slight
importance. It may be stated, however, for the benefit of compilers,
that this Thrush is a regular, not very common, spring and fall migrant
in southern Maine, reaching Portland in spring about the middle of May,
and in autumn about September 20.
_Apropos_ of Dr. Coues’ recent prediction[87] that the Titlark (_Anthus
ludovicianus_) will yet be ascertained to breed occasionally along the
Maine coast, is there anything but inferential evidence to indicate that
it occurs there at all in spring or summer? Being known to pass through
Massachusetts in spring and to occur on the island of Grand Manan[88] at
that season, it is fair to suppose that the Titlark also touches at
favorable points in Maine while _en route_ to its breeding grounds.
Nevertheless neither my own observations nor the records of other
observers substantiate this hypothesis.
The once prized Ipswich Sparrow (_Passerculus princeps_) must now take
its place among the common autumnal migrants of southern Maine, though
restricted, so far as I am aware, to the sea-coast. In spring, however,
it is uncommon if not rare. Since the capture of the first Maine
specimen,[89] March 20, 1875, I have seen but two other spring
specimens. These I found upon Old Orchard Beach, March 28, 1882, and one
of them is now in my collection. In their autumnal migration the birds
reach Cumberland County about Oct. 13, remaining at least until Nov. 6,
later than which I have never looked for them. Upon almost any day
between these dates the collector may find a dozen or more individuals
along the sandy shore between Scarborough Beach and the Saco River.
In the Proceedings of the Portland Society of Natural History for April,
1882, I spoke of the Ring-necked Duck (_Fulix collaris_) as having but
once been taken in the vicinity of the city within my experience. On the
very morning upon which my paper left the press, I found in one of the
city markets two adult males which were killed in the Presumpscot River,
March 31, 1882. On April 12 I found another male in the market; the next
day I purchased a pair from a sportsman in Deering; and on April 17
detected another male in the market. That the bird’s occurrence in such
numbers is very unusual there can be no doubt. In fact, so far as I have
been able to learn, our most experienced hunters of wild fowl either
knew the species only by tradition, before this year, or else were
wholly unacquainted with it.
Mr. Brewster has more than once advanced good evidence to the effect
that the Short-tailed Tern (_Hydrochelidon lariformis_) should be
considered a regular and not uncommon visitor to suitable localities on
the New England coast.[90] Specific records for Maine are,
notwithstanding, few as yet.[91] Two recent specimens should go on the
list. One of these was killed in Scarborough, the other at Wells Beach,
York County, in the autumn of 1881.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland,
Maine_.
MAINE NOTES.—=Oporornis agilis= (_Wils._) _Baird_. CONNECTICUT
WARBLER.—Mr. Nathan Clifford Brown, in a paper read before the Portland
Society of Natural History April 3, 1882, gives this bird for the first
time a place in the Maine fauna. He met with it Aug. 30, 1878, on Cape
Elizabeth. I would record a specimen which I took in August, 1879, at
Ebeme Lake. This makes the second record for this State.
=Hylocichla unalascæ pallasi= (_Caban._) _Ridgw._ HERMIT THRUSH.—These
birds breed commonly with us every year (Bangor). Their eggs are usually
taken early in June, but I find among my notes the record of a set taken
August 5, 1873, at Dedham, Maine, the eggs being but slightly incubated.
This would seem to be presumptive evidence for the belief that these
birds raise two broods in a season.
=Lomvia arra brünnichi= (_Scl._) _Ridgw._ BRÜNNICH’S GUILLEMOT; and
=Lomvia troile= (Linn.) Brandt. COMMON GUILLEMOT.—These birds are found
on our coast in the winter season, Brünnich’s Guillemot being quite
numerous, while the Common Guillemot is more rare. Some idea of their
comparative numbers may perhaps be obtained from the fact that during
the past two years I have procured some thirty specimens from different
points on our coast (from Grand Manan to South Bristol) and out of this
number only one was a representative of the Common Guillemot (_L.
troile._) The experience of Mr. N. A. Eddy of this city is exactly
similar, and out of about an equal number of specimens he has obtained
but a single example of troile. Other collectors in this vicinity who
have received numbers of Guillemots have not obtained a specimen of
Lomvia troile.
=Actodromas fuscicollis= (_Vieill._) _Ridgw._ BONAPARTE’S
SANDPIPER.—This bird is not given as a resident of our State in
Hamlin’s, Verrill’s or Maynard’s lists, but is still a not uncommon
autumnal migrant along our coast. They are seldom met with in the
interior, and the only records of their capture away from the coast, so
far as I can learn, are here given. Nathan C. Brown furnishes me the
first record from his notes as follows: “Oct. 16, 1876. During the past
two weeks our party has taken only three specimens of this bird at Lake
Umbagog. One was shot about Oct. 2, the two others upon Oct. 14.” On
October 23, 1881, I came upon a flock of four at a small pool near this
city (Bangor), and obtained three of them. Mr. N. A. Eddy afterwards
took one at the same place.—HARRY MERRILL. _Bangor, Maine._
STRAY NOTES FROM LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN, TENN.—The following notes were taken
on Lookout Mountain, Tenn., from March 17 to April 4, 1882. The
“Mountain,” so-called, is a ridge, some twenty miles or more in length,
extending nearly due north and south. Its altitude ranges from 2200 to
2450 feet above the sea, and from 1500 to 1750 feet above the Tennessee
River, which touches the base at its most northern point: its width, at
the top, is from half a mile to two miles. About two miles of its
northern end is in Tennessee, the rest being in Georgia. My collecting
was done mostly on the Tennessee portion, but occasionally I went into
Georgia, my longest trip into that State being five miles. The country
is, for the most part, heavily wooded, although towards the northern end
a great deal of the timber was destroyed during the late war and the new
growth is still quite small. There are numerous streams in the ravines,
along the banks of which laurels, blackberries, etc., grow luxuriantly.
On the east side of the ridge there are, for half a mile, huge boulders,
and the trees, principally pines, on and around them, were, I found, a
favorite resort for the smaller birds. The whole number of species noted
during my stay was fifty, but I give only such notes as may, perhaps, be
of general interest.
1. =Sitta canadensis= _Linn._ RED-BELLIED NUTHATCH.—Met with but once,
on March 29, in a partial clearing.
2. =Dendrœoa virens= (_Gmel._) _Baird_. BLACK-THROATED GREEN
WARBLER.—First seen March 19. Taken March 20. After this date it was not
at all uncommon, and could be heard singing at almost any hour of the
day.
3. =Peucæa æstivalis illinoensis= _Ridgw._ OAK-WOOD SPARROW.—First noted
April 3. Two males procured April 4, both in song. These were both
well-marked examples of _illinoensis_, one, indeed, carrying the
differentiation to an extreme degree. In this specimen the back was of a
reddish-brown color, entirely without streaks, and exactly resembled
extreme specimens from Illinois. The other had the back distinctly
streaked with black, and closely resembled a specimen from Alabama,
taken by Mr. N. C. Brown. I found these birds both in groves of small
pines and in open fields where there were plenty of brush-piles. They
seemed to be quite common, as I heard several singing, at the same time,
in different parts of the field. I was enabled to compare my specimens
with those of the Smithsonian Institution through the kindness of Mr. R.
Ridgway, and for this and many other favors I wish to tender him my
grateful thanks.
4. =Corvus corax carnivorus= (_Bartr._) _Ridgw._ AMERICAN RAVEN.—Quite
common. Said to breed on the cliffs. I have seen as many as eight or ten
chasing each other through the air at one time.
5. =Catharista atrata= (_Wils._) _Less._ CARRION CROW.—Quite common.
Breeds. They seem to keep in flocks more than Cathartis aura.
6. =Bonasa umbella= (_Linn._) _Steph._ RUFFED GROUSE.—Once seen and once
heard “drumming.” The local sportsmen report them as being quite
scarce.—W. H. FOX, _Washington, D. C._
ERRATA.
Vol. VII, page 119, line 8, for “struggling” read “straggling”; page
122, line 9 from bottom, for “Rellon” read “Redlon”; page 123, line 28,
for “Before” read “Upon.”
BULLETIN
OF THE
NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB.
VOL. VII. OCTOBER, 1882. No. 4.
ON A COLLECTION OF BIRDS LATELY MADE BY MR. F. STEPHENS IN ARIZONA.
BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.
(_Continued from p. 147._)
60. =Carpodacus frontalis= (_Say_) _Gray_. HOUSE FINCH.
571, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 22.
61. =Loxia curvirostra mexicana= (_Strickl._) _Baird_. MEXICAN
CROSSBILL.—Chiricahua Mountains; most numerous on the eastern side.
Young just able to fly were taken March 7.
All of the following specimens are referable to true _mexicana_.
16, ♂ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 6. Length, 7.10; extent, 11.90;
wing, 4; tail, 2.73; culmen, .87.
17, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 7.10; extent, 11.80; wing,
3.88; tail, 2.75; culmen, .85. “Iris dark brown. The jaw muscles were
extraordinarily developed on the side toward which the lower mandible
crossed.”
24, ♀ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 7. Length, 6.80; extent, 11.40;
wing, 3.70; tail, 2.52; culmen, .81.
25, ♀ juv., first plumage, same locality and date. This bird had been
out of the nest but a few days and the tips of the mandibles had not
begun to cross.
116, ♂ juv., first plumage, Chiricahua Mountains, March 26. Length,
6.90; extent, 12; wing, 4; tail, 2.75: culmen. .65. Wings and tail fully
grown; mandibles decidedly crossed.
62. =Chrysomitris psaltria= (_Say_) _Bp._ ARKANSAS GOLDFINCH.—“Common in
only a few localities. I have not found much difference among the
examples that occur here and have taken few that answered the
description of var. _arizonæ_. California specimens are almost identical
with those from New Mexico.”
130, ♂ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 30. Length, 4.50; extent,
7.80; wing, 2.65; tail, 1.90. “Iris brown.”
63. =Chrysomitris pinus= (_Wils._) _Bp._ PINE FINCH.—Common among the
Chiricahua Mountains.
20, ♂ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 7. Length, 5; extent, 8.90;
wing, 2.91; tail, 2.20.
128, ♂ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 29. Length, 4.90; extent,
8.60; wing, 2.96; tail, 2.14; “Iris dark brown.”
64. =Poœcetes gramineus confinis= _Baird_. WESTERN GRASS FINCH.—“Common
on prairies.”
The utility of recognizing this race of the Grass Finch seems to me
questionable, although the western bird certainly possesses slight
differential characters; these, however, are so largely comparative that
they are difficult of adequate description, and any one attempting to
determine examples by the books without the aid of large series of
specimens, will be likely to abandon the task in despair.
158, ♀ ad., Sulphur Spring Valley, April 4. Length, 6.20; extent, 10.20;
wing, 3.20; tail, 2.90.
164, ♂ ad., near Tombstone, April 5. Length, 6.40; extent, 10.80; wing,
3.35; tail, 3.04.
65. =Spizella socialis arizonæ= _Coues_. WESTERN CHIPPING SPARROW.—Noted
only at Cave Creek. “A large flock; they keep much among trees.”
11, ♂ ad., Cave Creek, March 5. Length, 5.50; extent, 8.90. “Iris dark
brown; bill dark flesh-color; legs pale brownish.”
66. =Spizella breweri= _Cass._ BREWER’S SPARROW.—Four specimens, all
taken April 5, near Tombstone. Eight were killed by one shot into a
flock which had gathered about a water-hole, but they were in such
ragged plumage, owing to the progress of the spring moult, that half of
them had to be thrown away.
67. =Junco oregonus= (_Towns._) _Scl._ OREGON SNOWBIRD.—A single
specimen obtained March 5, on Cave Creek.
68. =Junco cinereus caniceps=[92] (_Woodh._) _Coues_. GRAY-HEADED
SNOWBIRD.
10, ♂ ad., Cave Creek, March 5. Length, 6.20; extent, 9.20. Iris dark
brown; bill and legs flesh-color.
15, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 6.30; extent, 9.
141, ♀ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 31. Length, 6.10; extent,
9.30. Iris dark brown.
69. =Junco cinereus dorsalis= _(Henry) Henshaw_. RED-BACKED SNOWBIRD.
108, ♀ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 26. Length, 6.50; extent,
9.50; wing, 3.05; tail, 3.18. “Not as plenty here as _J. cinereus_.”
70. =Junco cinereus= (_Swains._) _Caban._ MEXICAN SNOWBIRD.—Nine
specimens, all taken during March, in the Chiricahua Mountains.
71. =Amphispiza bilineata= (_Cass._) _Coues_. BLACK-THROATED
SPARROW.—Mr. Stephens found this Sparrow on barren plains sparsely
covered with low bushes; he considers it a permanent resident in
Arizona.
_Juv., first plumage_ ♂ (No. 613, Camp Lowell, June 28). Crown, lores,
orbital region and sides of head generally, dull brownish-ash; a white
superciliary line as in the adult; back faded brown with shaft-stripes
of a darker shade on most of the feathers; wing-coverts and outer webs
of inner secondaries, reddish-buff; beneath dull white with the breast
and sides of the abdomen thickly but finely streaked with dull black.
In addition to the bird just mentioned the collection includes five
adults from the following localities: San Pedro River (♂, Dec. 25);
Sulphur Spring Valley (♂, April 4); Tucson (♀, May 3); Santa Rita
Mountains (♀, May 20); Camp Lowell (♂, May 30).
72. =Peucæa cassini= (_Woodh._) _Baird_. CASSIN’S SPARROW.—Although
special efforts were made to obtain specimens of this species, only one
was secured during the trip. “The song of the male is peculiar; about
midway it drops several notes and is finished on one key. Several others
seen. They were all very wild.”
159, ♀ ad., Sulphur Spring Valley, April 4. Length, 6.30; extent,
7.80; wing, 2.50; tail, 2.82. “Iris brown.”
73. =Peucæa carpalis= _Coues_. RUFOUS-WINGED SPARROW.—Found sparingly
about Tucson and Camp Lowell. It inhabited the mesquite thickets,
keeping closely hidden in the bunches of “sacaton” grass, from which,
when flushed, it flew into the branches above.
233, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.70; extent, 7.90; wing, 2.42;
tail, 2.82.
234, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.90; extent, 8; wing,
2.57; tail, 3. “Iris brown; bill dark brown above, paler below; legs
pale brown.”
432, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 25. Length, 5.80; extent, 7.80; wing, 2.46;
tail, 2.75. With nest and three eggs.
442, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 27. Length, 5.80; extent, 8; wing, 2.58; tail,
3.
582, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 24. Length, 5.90; extent, 8.20; wing,
2.55; tail, 2.91.
74. =Peucæa ruficeps boucardi= (_Scl._) _Ridg._ BOUCARD’S SPARROW.—These
Sparrows were met with at Cave Creek, near Morse’s Mill, and in the
Santa Rita Mountains. Among some notes taken at the first-named place I
find the following: “I saw five of these Sparrows to-day [March 4] but
two of them escaped me. They were in scrub oaks on rocky hillsides, and
were apparently mated. They acted somewhat like Wrens, hiding among the
rocks and flushing from the grass at a point some distance beyond where
I would mark them down. Two went into the low branches of the oaks, from
which I easily shot them. I have not found the species before in
Arizona, but I took several near Fort Bayard, New Mexico, in 1876.” A
specimen taken near the end of March was shot “on a ridge among thick
brush,” while two others, obtained in the Santa Rita Mountains in May,
occurred at a high elevation on similar ground.
1, ♂ ad., Cave Creek, March 4. Length, 6.60; extent, 8.30; wing, 2.80;
tail, 3.29.
2, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 6.40; extent, 7.90; wing,
2.60; tail, 3.02.
3, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 6.50; extent, 8.20. “Iris
brown; legs pale flesh-color; bill dark bluish slate-color.”
138, ♂ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 31. Length, 6.50; extent,
8.30; wing, 2.56; tail, 3.15.
387, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 16. Length, 6.10; extent, 8.10;
wing, 2.58; tail, 2.95. “Iris brown; bill blackish above, light bluish
below; legs pale flesh-color.”
413, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 20. Length, 6.30; extent, 7.80;
wing, 2.50; tail, 3.
The specimens enumerated above represent true _boucardi_ and are
readily separable from Texas examples by the characters which my
friend Mr. Brown has lately pointed out[93] in his diagnosis of the
new race, _eremœca_.
75. =Melospiza fasciata fallax= _Baird_. WESTERN SONG SPARROW.—Rather
common about Tucson where they haunted willow thickets and tall marsh
grass near water.
258, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 6.30; extent, 8.20; wing, 2.60;
tail, 2.98; culmen, .58. “Iris dark brown; bill dark above, light
below; legs light brown. With nest and three eggs.”
270, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 6.10; extent, 7.90; wing, 2.42;
tail, 2.86; culmen, .54.
319, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 3. Length, 6.30; extent, 8.40; wing, 2.60;
tail, 2.99; culmen, .55.
338, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 6. Length, 6.10; extent, 7.80; wing, 2.52;
tail, 2.97; culmen, .53. “With nest and three eggs: set completed.”
510, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 8. Length, 6.50; extent, 8.40; wing, 2.74;
tail, 3.16; culmen, .52.
76. =Melospiza lincolni= (_Aud._) _Baird_. LINCOLN’S FINCH.—“Common
along streams” in March. Two specimens (Cave Creek, March 5).
77. =Passerella townsendi schistacea= (_Baird_) _Coues_. SLATE-COLORED
SPARROW.—None were met with during 1881, but I have a specimen taken by
Mr. Stephens near Tucson, in February, 1880.
78. =Pipilo maculatus megalonyx= (_Baird_) _Coues_. SPURRED TOWHEE.—Two
males, Chiricahua Mountains, March 26 and 28. “Common in brush, usually
along streams. They have a variety of calls, some of which resemble
those of the Catbird. The song, uttered while the bird is sitting on a
tree, sounds like _jack-jacksonii_.”
The North American Towhees of the _maculatus_ group are at present
involved in much confusion. The trouble seems to be that each locality
furnishes a race of its own which either possesses certain slight
individual characteristics, or combines, in varying degrees, the
characters of two or more recognized forms. The case, however, is not
peculiar; for to a greater or less extent the same state of things
obtains among the Song Sparrows, Shore Larks, and several other species,
in which the forces of evolution are still actively working.
79. =Pipilo chlorurus= (_Towns._) _Baird_. GREEN-TAILED TOWHEE.—Several
specimens taken late in April. “Not common; usually found in low brush.”
80. =Pipilo fuscus mesoleucus= (_Baird_) _Ridgw._ CAÑON TOWHEE.—“Common
in rocky localities on plains, and in valleys.” A nest containing three
eggs was taken June 15 at a point about twenty-five miles north of
Tucson. The eggs are grayish-white with numerous, short, zigzag lines of
black about the larger end and occasional spots or dashes of brown and
dull lavender scattered over the general surface of the shell. They
measure respectively .91 × .69, .94 × .69, and .92 × .69. The nest,
which was placed about four feet above the ground in a “cat-claw”
mesquite, is firmly and rather compactly built of fibrous shreds from
the stalks of herbaceous plants, with a few twigs and whole stems
supporting the outside, and a scanty lining of horse-hair. Its external
diameter is about five inches; its depth two. The cavity is two inches
wide and one and a half deep. Both nest and eggs differ somewhat from
California examples of _crissalis_ in my collection, the eggs being
smaller and whiter, the nest softer and more compact.
177, ♂ ad., Tombstone, April 7. Length, 8.80; extent, 11.60. “Iris
light brown.”
186, ♀ ad., Tombstone, April 9. Length, 8.10; extent, 10.90; wing
3.50; tail, 4.15.
416, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 20. Length, 8.50; extent, 11.50;
wing, 3.73; tail, 4.45.
81. =Pipilo aberti= _Baird_. ABERT’S TOWHEE.—“I have found this species
common along the Colorado and Gila Rivers, and I took several on the San
Pedro in December, 1880. They appear to be restricted to the vicinity of
streams and usually to thick brush, although they frequent trees more
than most of the members of this genus. I have seen them hunting insects
in the bark of large trees in a manner similar to that of Wrens. They
are rather shy. The usual note is a sharp chirp. The song is difficult
to describe; it is rapid and near the middle rises to a higher key,
quickly falling again and ending on the initial note. The nest is rather
bulky; it is sometimes built in bushes near the ground, and again in
trees. I found one in a bunch of mistletoe at a height of at least
thirty feet.”
A nest found May 28, at Tucson, was built on the top of a mesquite
stump, where it was kept in place by the surrounding sprouts. It
contained three fresh eggs which measure respectively .91 × .72, .92 ×
.72, and .90 × .71. They are elliptical in shape, and in the character
and distribution of their markings they resemble the above described
eggs of _P. mesoleucus_ from which, however, they differ in having a
faint but decided bluish cast. The nest is large and loosely built. It
is composed mainly of broad strips or ribbons of bark with which are
mingled small, pliant twigs and the green stems and leaves of the
mesquite(?). The whole structure is homogeneous and, strictly speaking,
it has no lining, but the materials surrounding the cavity are rather
softer than the rest, while they are arranged with some regard to
smoothness. The external diameter of this nest is about seven inches;
its depth three. The cavity is three inches wide and two deep.
_Juv., first plumage_ (No. 520, Tucson, June 10). Above uniform light
brown; wing-coverts, outer edges of the inner secondaries and a narrow
tipping on the tail, brownish-ochraceous; beneath brownish-fulvous
with an ochraceous tinge on the throat, abdomen, and crissum, and a
broad band of coarse but obscure black spots extending across the
breast; head markings as in the adult, but duller.
Eight specimens were collected. “Iris light brown; bill brownish
horn-color above, bluish beneath; legs brown.”
82. =Cardinalis virginianus igneus= (_Baird_) _Coues_. SAINT LUCAS
CARDINAL.—Found only at Tucson, where it occurred sparingly in low
brush, usually near streams.
269, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 9.40; extent, 12.40; wing, 4.12;
tail, 4.92; longest feathers of crest, 1.35. “Iris dark brown; legs
brown.”
83. =Pyrrhuloxia sinuata= _Bonap._ TEXAN CARDINAL.—In the latter part of
April three of these Cardinals were taken near Tucson, and several
others were seen in the same place during March, 1880. They were found
among mesquites, along brush fences and in the shrubbery of an arroya.
“Iris dark brown; bill yellowish horn-color; legs pale brown. Food
seeds, green buds and insects.”
84. =Zamelodia melanocephala= (_Swains._) _Coues_. BLACK-HEADED
GROSBEAK.—Common at high elevations among the mountains.
367, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 13. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.90;
wing, 4.17; tail, 3.75. “Iris dark brown; legs light plumbeous.”
391, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 16. Length, 8.40; extent, 12.80;
wing, 4.28; tail, 3.70.
In addition to being considerably larger than any of my more northern
specimens, these examples are peculiar in having the interscapular
feathers so broadly edged with brownish-orange (brownish-yellow in the
♀) that the back appears to be about equally streaked with light and
dark color.
85. =Guiraca cœrulea= (_Linn._) _Swains._ BLUE GROSBEAK.—Only a few were
seen during the present trip, but Mr. Stephens found them common on the
Gila River in 1876. “They are late migrants.”
445, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 28. Length, 7.20; extent, 11.10; wing, 3.60;
tail, 3.27. “Iris dark brown; bill black above, bluish below; legs
black.”
86. =Passerina amœna= (_Say_) _Gray_. LAZULI BUNTING.—Two specimens,
obtained April 25, at Tucson, are noted as “the first ones seen.” One of
them, a male, has the blue almost completely obscured by rufous, which
forms a broad tipping on all the feathers of the upper parts. The
throat, however, remains nearly pure blue.
87. =Calamospiza bicolor= (_Towns._) _Bonap._ LARK BUNTING.—Several
large flocks were seen April 13, in the neighborhood of Tombstone. Most
of the males were in parti-colored dress, not above one per cent having
put on the black breeding-plumage. The stomachs of all which were killed
contained “buds and seeds.”
88. =Molothrus ater obscurus= (_Gmel._) _Coues_. DWARF COWBIRD.
277, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 7.30; extent, 12.40; wing, 4.02;
tail, 3.20. “Iris dark brown.”
417, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 20. Length, 7.10; extent, 12.10;
wing, 4.01; tail, 3.17.
89. =Agelæus phœniceus= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD.
511, ♀ ad., Tucson, June 8. Length, 8.10; extent, 13.20; wing, 4.22;
tail, 3.40.
90. =Icterus parisiorum= _Bonap._ SCOTT’S ORIOLE.—Although this Oriole
was oftenest seen among the foot-hills it occasionally occurred on the
most barren plains, where it seemed content with the scanty shelter
afforded by the cactus thickets. In the hill country it frequented the
oak belt, and was seldom observed at a high elevation. During the
breeding season it was seen near Tucson, as well as among the Santa Rita
Mountains, but no nests were found in either locality.
_Juv., first plumage_ (♀. No. 528, Tucson, June 14). Generally like
the adult, but with all the wing feathers edged and tipped with white,
the wing-bands yellowish, the tail tipped with yellow, the breast
obscured with brownish, and the yellow of the under parts paler and
greener.
Only a small proportion of the males collected by Mr. Stephens have
the adult plumage perfected. A female (No. 189, Tombstone, April 10)
has a black throat-patch extending from the chin to the breast, and
small, sagittate black spots on the crown.
“Iris dark brown; bill black, bluish at base below; legs dark bluish.
Food, insects.”
91. =Icterus cucullatus= _Swains._ HOODED ORIOLE.—An uncommon species,
found only in the valleys, where it seemed to prefer cottonwoods to
other trees.
The specimens taken are all adults, with the exception of a male which,
although evidently a bird of the previous year, differs from the females
only in having a black throat-patch and several concealed black spots on
the interscapulars. One of the females is also peculiar in having many
half-concealed black spots on the throat and jugulum. Some of the
richest-colored males have the interscapular feathers tipped with
yellow.
92. =Icterus bullocki= (_Swains._) _Bonap._ BULLOCK’S ORIOLE.—Only two
of these Orioles were taken during 1881: but in the previous summer Mr.
Stephens found them not uncommon in the foot-hills of the Chiricahua
Mountains.
93. =Corvus corax carnivorus= (_Bartr._) _Ridgw._ AMERICAN
RAVEN.—Incidentally mentioned as common about Tucson.
94. =Corvus cryptoleucus= _Couch_. WHITE-NECKED RAVEN.—A small
proportion of the Ravens seen about Tucson were recognized as belonging
to this species. Their notes differed widely from those of the common
Raven, and “at times sounded somewhat like the quacking of a Duck.”
324, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 4. Length, 19.90; extent, 40.70; wing, 14.06;
tail, 8.94. “Iris dark brown.”
95. =Cyanocitta stelleri macrolopha= (_Baird_) _Ridgw._ LONG-CRESTED
JAY.—Five specimens, Chiricahua Mountains, March 24 to 26. “These Jays
are common in the pines well up the mountain sides, but they are wary
and difficult of approach. When pursued they fly from one tree to the
lower branches of the next and jumping from limb to limb, take flight
again as soon as they reach the top. If one can follow fast enough to
get within range before the bird reaches the top of the tree he may
obtain a shot, but it is necessary to keep behind some object while
accomplishing this. They are noisy and have a variety of calls, some of
which are disagreeably harsh. I think they are shyer here than in other
localities where I have met with them.” One of Mr. Stephens’ specimens
(No. 106) has the crest strongly tinged with blue, thus approaching var.
_diademata_ of Mexico.
96. =Aphelocoma woodhousii= (_Baird_) _Ridgw._ WOODHOUSE’S JAY.—One
specimen, Galeyville. January 29, 1881.
97. =Aphelocoma sordida arizonæ= _Ridgw._ ARIZONA JAY.—Mr. Stephens met
with this Jay in the Chiricahua and Santa Rita Mountains, and judging
from the number of specimens obtained it must be rather abundant in both
ranges. “They go in flocks of from five to twenty, and are generally
seen in the foot-hills. They are restless, and in most localities shy,
but around mills, where they congregate to feed on the grain in horse
droppings, they become used to the presence of human beings and are more
easily approached. Their food is chiefly broken acorns.”
A nest found May 16, in the Santa Rita Mountains, is a bulky structure
composed chiefly of yellowish rootlets with some coarse dead twigs
protecting its exterior and a scanty lining of fine grasses. The female
was sitting on four eggs. which were on the point of hatching. The only
specimen saved measures 1.13 × .82. It is pale greenish-blue, absolutely
without markings, and closely resembles a Robin’s egg. “The others were
similar, as were three eggs of a set taken in 1876, and two of one found
in 1880.”
Of the fifteen specimens collected only four have the bill wholly black.
With all the others there is more or less flesh-color, which, although
usually confined to the base and tip of the lower mandible, sometimes
spreads over nearly the whole of the bill below as well as encroaching
on the maxilla at the tomia, and occasionally even occupies a narrow
central space along the ridge of the culmen above the nostrils. Mr.
Henshaw has remarked on this feature, which he considers peculiar to
young birds. If this view be correct it must require several years for
the bill to become unicolor.
98. =Eremophila alpestris chrysolæma= (_Wagl._) _Coues_. MEXICAN SHORE
LARK.—The only Shore Lark in the collection, a young bird in first
plumage, taken on the plains at the base of the Santa Rita Mountains,
has been referred by Mr. Ridgway to the above race.
99. =Tyrannus verticalis= _Say_. ARKANSAS FLYCATCHER.—Although this
species was much less numerous than the following, especially after the
spring migrants had gone, a few pairs were found breeding about Camp
Lowell, where a nest containing three slightly incubated eggs was taken
on June 20. The collection includes skins from Tucson and Camp Lowell.
100. =Tyrannus vociferans= _Swains._ CASSIN’S FLYCATCHER.—“Abundant in
summer. Neither _verticalis_ nor _vociferans_ winters in Arizona.”
Specimens were collected at Tombstone, Tucson, and among the Santa Rita
Mountains.
The peculiar attenuation of the primaries in this species has been
freely commented on by authors, but no one seems to have noticed that
this character, at least as applied in diagnoses, is to be found in only
the _male_ of _T. vociferans_. Nevertheless this is true of the somewhat
large series of specimens before me, among which there is a decided and
very constant sexual difference in the shape of the outer four primary
feathers. All the adult males have them abruptly and deeply notched on
the inner webs about half an inch from the tip, the emargination
extending more than half-way to the shaft and reducing the width of the
feather, terminally, to about .12 of an inch. In the females these
feathers show no well-defined notching, the tips being simply tapered,
usually with a slightly concave outline, although the outline is
sometimes actually rounded. A young male from Riverside, California (No.
6380, Sept. 19, 1881), taken during its first autumnal moult, has the
old primaries (1–2) almost without attenuation, their tips being only
slightly tapered, while the new ones (3–5) are as deeply notched as in
any of the adults. Hence it is probable that males in first plumage will
be found to have the primaries shaped like those of the female.
The sexes of _T. verticalis_ differ in a similar manner but less
markedly, for the first primary of the female, although broader than
that of the male, usually has the same falcate shape. I have one or two
females, however, which, by the wing characters alone, can with
difficulty be distinguished from females of _vociferans_.
101. =Myiarchus mexicanus cooperi=[94] (_Kaup_) _Baird_. COOPER’S
FLYCATCHER.—This large Myiarchus which, as I lately announced,[95] Mr.
Stephens has the credit of first finding within our boundaries, was
ascertained to be a common summer resident about Camp Lowell. Of its
occurrence in New Mexico, also, I now have positive evidence, a
previously undetermined specimen, taken by Mr. Stephens near the Gila
River, June 12, 1876, proving on comparison to be identical with the
Arizona ones.
The collector’s notes relating to the habits of this Flycatcher are
disappointingly brief. It frequented low mesquites and was tame and
rather noisy, having a variety of loud calls, some of which resembled
those of _M. cinerescens_, while others were “almost Thrasher-like.” Its
food seemed to consist largely of beetles. On June 27 a nest was found
at Camp Lowell. “Both parents were distinctly seen and positively
identified. The nest was in an old Woodpecker’s hole in a giant cactus
about eighteen feet from the ground. It was lined with soft, downy
weed-seeds, and contained two young just hatched and an addled egg.” The
egg, unfortunately, is so badly broken that accurate measurements are
impossible, but an approximation would be 1.04 × .74. In ground-color
and markings it closely resembles eggs of _M. crinitus_, the shell being
a dull clayey-buff over which are numerous longitudinal lines and dashes
of purplish-brown or lavender. These markings are pretty evenly
distributed, but are coarsest at the larger end of the egg.
462, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, May 31. Length, 9.90; extent, 14.10; wing,
4.40; tail, 4.40; culmen, 1.15. “Iris brown; bill and legs black.”
468, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 1. Length, 10; extent, 14.30; wing,
4.35; tail, 4.44; culmen, 1.10.
472, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 2. Length, 9.90; extent, 14.10; wing,
4.40; tail, 4.37; culmen, 1.27.
473, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 10; extent, 14.20; wing,
4.40; tail 4.60; culmen, 1.25.
491, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 4. Length, 9.60; extent, 14.20; wing,
4.40; tail, 4.40; culmen, 1.13.
492, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 9.80; extent, 14.30; wing,
4.38; tail, 4.49; culmen, 1.15.
558, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 21. Length, 9.80; extent, 14.30; wing,
4.37; tail, 4.47; culmen, 1.16.
592, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 25. Length, 9.80; extent, 13.80; wing,
4.23; tail, 4.35; culmen, 1.16.
463, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, May 31. Length, 9.60; extent, 13.70; wing,
4.12; tail, 4.34; culmen, 1.10.
464, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 9.50; extent, 13.60; wing,
4.16; tail, 4.32; culmen, 1.11.
493, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 4. Length, 9.60; extent, 13.70; wing,
4.16; tail, 4.16; culmen, 1.10.
559, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 21. Length, 9.40; extent, 13.40; wing,
4.04; tail, 4.10; culmen, 1.10.
591, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 25. Length, 9.40; extent, 13.60; wing,
4.15; tail, 4.10; culmen, 1.12.
102. =Myiarchus cinerescens= _Lawr._ ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER.—Specimens
were obtained at Tombstone, Tucson, and Camp Lowell. In the latter
locality the bird was common through June and was presumably breeding,
although no nests were actually found. At all the points in Arizona
where they were observed these Flycatchers frequented the timber in
valleys and along streams, none being seen among the denser forests of
the mountains.
103. =Myiarchus lawrencii= (_Giraud_) _Baird_. LAWRENCE’S
FLYCATCHER.—This pretty Myiarchus, scarcely larger than our common
Phoebe, was met with only among the Santa Rita Mountains, where it was
apparently not uncommon, although its distribution seemed to be very
local, most of Mr. Stephens’ specimens being taken in a single cañon.
They haunted the banks of streams, perching on dead limbs and taking
frequent flights after insects. The only note heard was a short,
mournful “_peeúr_.” No nests were found, but a female shot May 17 was
laying.
In my preliminary announcement[96] of the occurrence of this species in
Arizona I inadvertently gave the number of specimens as eight, whereas
nine were really obtained. These show little variation in color or
markings, but the females are slightly smaller than the males. The
characters which separate _M. lawrencii_ from its respective allies, _M.
tristis_ of Jamaica and _M. nigricapillus_ of Central America, are well
maintained in this series.
360, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 12. Length, 7.20; extent, 10.50;
wing, 3.25; culmen, .76; tail, 3.38. “Iris dark brown; bill and legs
black.”
361, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 7.20; extent, 10.30; wing,
3.25; culmen, .80; tail, 3.43.
364, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 7.30; extent, 10.30; wing,
3.20; culmen, .80; tail, 3.35.
400, ♂ ad., same locality, May 17. Length, 7.10; extent, 10.20; wing,
3.20; culmen, .77; tail, 3.36.
412, ♂ ad., same locality, May 19. Length, 7.30; extent, 10.50; wing,
3.26; culmen, .82; tail, 3.32.
388, ♀ ad., same locality, May 16. Length, 7.10; extent, 10; wing, 3.20;
culmen, .81; tail, 3.20.
401, ♀ ad., same locality, May 17. Length, 7; extent, 10; wing, 3.05;
culmen, .74; tail, 3.05.
402, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 7.10; extent, 10.
403, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 7; extent, 9.80; wing, 3.10;
culmen, .85; tail, 3.16. “Laying.”
104. =Sayiornis sayi= (_Bonap._) _Baird_. SAY’S PEWEE.—“Common on
prairies; usually found singly, perching on weed-stalks. They do not
frequent timber. Iris dark brown; bill and legs black.” Several
specimens collected.
105. =Sayiornis nigricans= (_Swains._) _Bonap._ BLACK PEWEE.—Found more
or less abundantly along streams, but rarely at a great elevation in the
mountains. “The nest is similar to that of _S. fusca_, and is built
under bridges or sometimes in deserted dwellings. Iris dark brown; bill
and legs black.” Several specimens taken.
106. =Contopus borealis= (_Swains._) _Baird_. OLIVE-SIDED
FLYCATCHER.—Two specimens were obtained in May in the Santa Rita
Mountains, where it was “not very common.”
107. =Contopus pertinax= _Caban._ COUES’S FLYCATCHER.
392, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 16. Length, 7.70; extent, 12.50;
wing, 4.12; tail, 3.30; culmen, .78. “Iris dark brown; bill black
above, yellow below with dusky tip; legs black.”
108. =Contopus virens richardsoni= (_Swains._) _Coues_. WESTERN WOOD
PEWEE.
371, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 13. Length, 6.40; extent, 10.70.
“Iris dark brown; bill black above, dusky below.”
109. =Empidonax flaviventris difficilis= _Baird_. WESTERN YELLOW-BELLIED
FLYCATCHER.
Both of the following specimens are more decidedly ochraceous than are
my California examples, the latter, like many Pacific Coast birds,
showing a closer approach to the eastern form. _Difficilis_, however,
seems to be a pretty strongly characterized race, if not, as Mr. Ridgway
has lately ranked it, a distinct species.
484, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 3. Length, 5.50; extent, 8.10; wing, 2.60;
tail, 2.46.
517, ♀ ad., Tucson, June 10. Length, 5.50; extent, 8.10; wing, 2.46;
tail, 2.52.
110. =Empidonax pusillus= (_Swains._) _Baird_. LITTLE FLYCATCHER.—A
common bird about Tucson, where it inhabited willow thickets near water.
Numerous nests were taken: the one sent me is a loosely woven structure
composed chiefly of dry grasses, with a neat lining of horse-hair. It
agrees closely with northern New England nests of _E. trailli_, and like
them differs widely from the compact, Yellow-Warbler-like nests which
_trailli_ builds in the region about Columbus, Ohio, and at St. Louis,
Missouri.[97]
The series of skins is a full one, and the specimens uniformly sustain
the characters ascribed to _pusillus_, a race which seems to me quite as
constant as many which have been regarded with less suspicion and
disfavor.
111. =Empidonax hammondi= (_Xantus_) _Baird_. HAMMOND’S FLYCATCHER.
172, ♀ ad., near Tombstone, April 12. Length, 5.40; extent, 8.90.
237, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.40; extent, 8.70.
363, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 12. Length. 5.30; extent, 8.30.
No. 237 has the outer web of the external rectrices as white as in
average specimens of _E. obscurus_. I have Colorado examples also
which cannot be separated from _obscurus_ by this character alone.
112. =Empidonax obscurus= (_Swains._) _Baird_. WRIGHT’S FLYCATCHER.—This
species was noted only in the vicinity of Tombstone, where a few were
found early in April among scattered clumps of trees.
The four specimens collected have the lower mandible pale orange.
passing into dusky at the tip, and in this respect differ from some
more northern ones in which the part is flesh-color.
113. =Empidonax fulvifrons pallescens= _Coues_. BUFF-BREASTED
FLYCATCHER.—A single specimen from the Santa Rita Mountains is
accompanied by the following remarks: “Rare here; more numerous in the
Chiricahua Mountains last season [1880]; and rather common near Fort
Bayard, New Mexico, in 1876. One of its notes is a chirp similar to a
Warbler’s.”
395, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 17. Length, 5.10; extent, 7.90.
“Iris dark brown; bill black, yellow below; legs black.”
114. =Pyrocephalus rubineus mexicanus= (_Scl._) _Coues_. VERMILION
FLYCATCHER.—This beautiful species was found at Cienega Station in
April; near Tucson and among the Santa Rita Mountains during May; and
about Camp Lowell in early June. In all these localities it was abundant
among undergrowth, usually near water. “Their motions resemble those of
other Flycatchers, excepting that they have a habit of poising over one
spot for several seconds at a time, maintaining their position by a
rapid fluttering of the wings very nearly in the manner of a Sparrow
Hawk.”
A nest taken April 25, at Tucson, was placed in the horizontal fork of a
stout mesquite branch to which it was attached in such a manner that its
upper surface was flush with that of the embracing supports. This nest
is composed outwardly of small twigs, and is lined with horse and cow
hair and a few feathers. It entirely lacks the exterior coating of
lichens spoken of by Dr. Merrill,[98] but in other respects it agrees
well with his description of the Fort Brown (Texas) specimen. The three
eggs which it contained are creamy white with rounded blotches of brown
and pale lilac wreathed about their larger ends. They measure
respectively .72 × .53, .71 × .53, .70 × .52. Mr. Stephens found other
nests similar in construction and position to the present one. He
considers three eggs the full complement.
_Juv., first plumage_, ♂ (No. 6153 (Coll.’s No. 466) Camp Lowell, June
1). Above similar to the adult female, but with the rump golden brown;
the wing-coverts and outer webs of the secondaries, brownish-fulvous;
and the feathers of the occiput, nape and interscapular region tipped
with brownish-white; beneath white with a tinge of lemon-yellow on the
sides and crissum; the breast and sides of the abdomen thickly marked
with rounded spots of clear brown.
The series of adults is a very full one and includes several
interesting styles of plumage. Some of the males have the brown of the
back mixed with ashy, which has a tendency to form a collar on the
nape, and gives the interscapular region a patched appearance. In
others the red of the under parts as well as that of the crown is
replaced by orange; while one specimen has a large patch of
lemon-yellow on the right side of the breast, which shows in striking
contrast with the otherwise clear carmine of the lower surface. These
variations present a curious analogy to certain similar ones which
occur in the Scarlet Tanager and Summer Redbird.
115. =Ornithium imberbe ridgwayi=, _var. nov._ RIDGWAY’S BEARDLESS
FLYCATCHER.
Ch. Sp. ♂ Similis _O. imberbi_, sed rostro robustiore; colore obscuriore
ac magis cinerario.
Adult ♂ (No. 6000, author’s collection—collector’s No. 313. Tucson, May
1, 1881. F. Stephens). Above ashy brown; crown nearly pure brown in
decided contrast with the back; rump pale brown with a faint olive
tinge; wings and tail brown, edged with ashy-white; greater and middle
wing-coverts tipped with fulvous, forming two wing-bars; edge of wing
and under wing-coverts pale lemon-yellow; lores and sides of head
posteriorly, ashy; a narrow frontal line continued backward above and
nearly around the eye, ashy-white; under parts ash, shading posteriorly
to ashy-white on the belly, and with the faintest possible lemon tinge
on the jugulum and crissum; bill stout; upper mandible much curved,
brown; under mandible slightly curved, brown at tip, brownish-orange at
base; commissure reddish-orange.
_Dimensions._ Length, 4.60; extent, 7.20; wing, 2.23; tail, 1.96;
culmen, .42; tarsus, .56; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.
Adult ♀ (No. 6133, author’s collection—collector’s No. 446. Tucson, May
28, 1881. F. Stephens). Smaller than the male, slightly more yellowish
below and with a faint tinge of olive on the back.
_Dimensions._ Length, 4.50; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.04; tail, 1.78;
culmen, .40; tarsus, .52; depth of bill at nostrils, .14.
_Juv., first plumage_, ♂ (No. 6138, author’s collection—collector’s No.
451. Tucson, May 29, 1881. F. Stephens). Crown plumbeous; back
olive-brown; wing and tail-coverts, outer edges of secondaries, and a
broad tipping on all the rectrices, dull brownish-chestnut; beneath
delicate ashy-buff, shading to yellowish-white on the belly and crissum;
bill orange, dusky at tip of upper mandible.
_Habitat_, Arizona.
The chief points of difference between the above race and _imberbe_
proper may be briefly expressed as follows:
_O. imberbe._—Depth of bill at nostrils, .11 to .13. Above
olivaceous-ash; entire under parts strongly tinged with lemon-yellow.
_O. imberbe ridgwayi._—Depth of bill at nostrils, .14 to .15. Above ashy
brown; beneath ash or ashy-white with scarcely any yellowish.
In the present connection I have examined seven specimens of _O.
imberbe_. Five of these, from the collection of the National Museum,
represent the following localities: Texas (Rio Grande Valley), Mexico
(Mazatlan and Tehuantepec) and Yucatan (Merida). The remaining two, in
my own cabinet, were taken at Lomita Ranch, Texas, in March, 1880. The
result of a careful comparison of this material is that the Texas
examples prove to be identical with those from Mexico and Central
America, while the Arizona birds differ very constantly from all the
others in respect to the points mentioned above. The entire series is,
of course, a small one, but its evidence seems sufficient to warrant the
varietal separation of the Arizona form.
The detection of this Flycatcher in Arizona is perhaps the most
interesting discovery resulting from Mr. Stephens’ late trip. _O.
imberbe_ has only recently been added to our fauna by Mr. Sennett, and
the locality of his single specimen—Lomita, Texas—was so far beyond the
previously known range of the species that its occurrence seemed hardly
likely to prove more than a mere accident. In 1880, however, Mr. M. A.
Frazar secured additional specimens at Lomita, and now an allied, but
apparently distinct race, turns up in Arizona.
Mr. Stephens found the curious little bird only at Tucson, where his
first specimen was taken April 28. Afterwards others were shot in the
same locality, but they were by no means common. The males had a habit
of perching on the tops of the tallest trees in the vicinity of their
haunts, and at sunrise occasionally uttered a singular song which Mr.
Stephens transcribes as “_yoop-yoop-yoopeédeedledeè_, the first half
given very deliberately, the remainder rapidly.” A commoner cry, used by
both sexes in calling to one another, was a shrill “_piér pièr pièr
pièr_, beginning in a high key and falling a note each time.” They were
very shy, and specimens were obtained only at the expense of much
trouble and perseverance. Their loud calls were frequently heard, but
when the spot was approached the bird either relapsed into silence or
took a long flight to resume its calling in another direction. In their
motions they resembled other small Flycatchers, but their tail was less
frequently jerked.
On May 28 Mr. Stephens met with a young bird which had but just left the
nest. It was accompanied by the female parent, who showed much
solicitude and frequently uttered her shrill cries, to which the
offspring responded in nearly similar tones. Both individuals were
secured, but neither the nest nor the remainder of the brood—if indeed
there were any more—could be found. On the following day this episode
was repeated, a second female being found in attendance on another young
bird of nearly the same age as that obtained on the previous occasion.
308, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 29. Length, 4.80; extent, 7.20; wing, 2.28;
tail, 2.04; culmen, .40; tarsus, .55. “Iris dark brown; bill black,
basal half of lower mandible reddish-brown; legs black. Contents of
stomach worms and insects.”
313, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 1. Length, 4.60; extent, 7.20; wing, 2.23;
tail, 1.96; culmen, .42; tarsus, .56.
446, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 28. Length, 4.50; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.04;
tail, 1.78; culmen, .40; tarsus, .52. Parent of the next.
447, ♂ juv., first plumage, same locality and date.
450, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 29. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.80. Parent of the
following.
451, ♂ juv., first plumage, same locality and date.
116. =Trochilus alexandri= _Bourc. & Muls._ BLACK-CHINNED
HUMMINGBIRD.—The first specimen met with was a female which, with a nest
and two eggs, was taken at Tucson on April 23. The species was also
found breeding among the Santa Rita Mountains, as well as near Camp
Lowell. At all these points it was decidedly the most abundant of the
Hummingbirds.
Six of the seven examples collected are females, and Mr. Stephens
remarks on the apparent absence of the males during the breeding season.
The nest just mentioned, and another obtained April 28 in the same
locality, are now in my possession. Both were built in willows, one
being saddled on a small branch, while the other rested lightly in the
fork of a slender twig. Their construction is homogeneous, the only
material used being a creamy-white down, probably from willow catkins.
One nest, however, has a few delicate, faded leaves attached to its
exterior. The eggs are indistinguishable from those of _T. colubris_.
The first set was fresh, the second slightly incubated.
117. =Calypte costæ= (_Bourc._) _Gould_. COSTA’S HUMMINGBIRD.
289, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 26. Length, 3.70; extent, 4.60. “Iris dark
brown; bill and legs black.”
294, ♂ im., Tucson, April 27. Length, 3.55; extent, 4.52. This
specimen lacks the ruffs of the adult male, but has a patch of violet
feathers on the centre of the throat.
118. =Selasphorus platycercus= (_Swains._) _Bonap._ BROAD-TAILED
HUMMINGBIRD.
366, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 13. Length, 4; extent, 5.50.
“Iris dark brown; bill black; feet black, their soles lighter.”
385, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 15. Length, 4.70; extent, 5.90.
119. =Iache latirostris= (_Swains._) _Elliot_. BROAD-BILLED
HUMMINGBIRD.—From the known fact of its occurrence among the Chiricahua
Mountains, as ascertained by Mr. Henshaw in 1874, it was of course to be
expected that this Hummer would eventually be found, under similar
conditions, in other parts of Arizona, a probability which Mr. Stephens
has confirmed by the capture of five specimens in the Santa Rita
Mountains. In addition to these, several others were seen at various
times during his short stay in that range, and I infer from his notes
that the birds were not uncommon there. They were always found near
water, and usually along the streams which flowed through cañons, high
among the mountains. They seemed to prefer sycamores to other trees, and
invariably perched on dead twigs where they could command an open view.
“Their notes were flat and differed from those of other Hummers.”
356, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 12. Length, 4.10; extent, 5.05;
wing, 2.11; bill, .91. “Iris dark brown; point of bill below, with
terminal third above, black; rest of upper mandible reddish-brown; of
lower, purplish-red; feet black.”
365, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 13. Length, 3.95; extent, 5.05;
wing, 1.98; bill, .92. “Bill above, and its tip below, black;
remainder of lower mandible reddish. Not near laying.”
382, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 14. Length, 4; extent, 5.02.
405, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 18. Length, 3.88; extent, 4.98;
wing, 1.99; bill, .88.
411, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 19. Wing, 2.03; bill, .90.
120. =Cypselus saxatilis= _Woodh._ WHITE-THROATED SWIFT.—In some notes
made at Cave Creek, under date of March 4, Mr. Stephens incidentally
refers to this Swift as follows: “We camped here last night chiefly for
the purpose of investigating some caves said to contain large quantities
of bird-droppings. I went to one of the largest of these to-day and
found the floor covered with _tons_ of _bat_ droppings as well as a
little from birds. There were also a few feathers (primaries and
rectrices) of _Cypselus saxatilis_ and some of _Falco sparverius_.”
121. =Antrostomus vociferus arizonæ= _Brewster_. STEPHENS’
WHIP-POOR-WILL.—During 1881 this Whip-poor-will was again met with in
Arizona among the Santa Rita Mountains, where, however, it was less
numerous than it had been in the Chiricahua range in 1880. The only
specimen obtained was an adult male which was shot, by moonlight, in
oaks near a stream.
Through Mr. Stephens’ kindness I am now enabled to present descriptions
of the female and egg alluded to in a letter quoted in connection with
the original description[99] of the race.
Adult ♀ (6309, author’s collection, Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona, July
4, 1880. F. Stephens). General coloring similar to that of the male, but
lighter, the ground tints more ochraceous; the white of the tail
replaced by reddish-fulvous which forms a narrow tipping on the outer
three pairs of rectrices; the tawny gular crescent continued around the
sides of the neck, the ends meeting behind and forming an uninterrupted
collar.
_Dimensions._ Length, 9.60; extent, 18.80; wing, 6.27; tail, 5.03;
culmen, .80; tarsus, .70; longest rictal bristle, 1.40.
This specimen differs even more widely from the female, than does my
type from the male of _A. vociferus_. The ochraceous of the lores,
superciliary-stripe, and neck-collar, spreads over the entire plumage
both above and beneath, giving it a tawny tinge which overlies and
obscures the usual dark markings. On the shoulders, breast, lores and
throat this color deepens to a fine reddish-chestnut, and elsewhere it
replaces the ashy, dirty white and other light tints of the eastern
birds. In its general coloring the plumage strikingly resembles that of
the brown phase of _Scops asio kennicotti_. The ochraceous neck-collar
is also present in the male from the Santa Rita Mountains, but it is
less distinctly defined, being somewhat obscured, especially on the
nape, by dusky mottling. In all other respects this example agrees
closely with my type.
The egg is white with a dull gloss. At first sight it appears to be
immaculate, but a closer inspection reveals a few faint blotches of the
palest possible purple, so faint indeed that they might pass for
superficial stains were it not for the fact that they underlie the
external polish. The absence of well-defined markings may probably be
explained by the assumption that the bird had laid one or more clutches
earlier in the season, thus exhausting her supply of coloring pigment.
The specimen measures 1.17 × .87.
355, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 11. Length, 9.90; extent, 18.70;
wing, 6.50; tail, 5.15; culmen, .76; tarsus, .70; longest rictal
bristle, 1.73.
(_To be continued._)
NOTES UPON THE OSTEOLOGY OF _CINCLUS MEXICANUS_.
BY R. W. SHUFELDT.
It has never been my good fortune to enjoy the opportunity of studying
the habits and manners of our American Dipper in its native haunts, but
this seems to have been due more to my ill-luck, than to any neglect on
my part to seize upon every chance to visit the localities where this
bird, one that I have so often longed to see alive, certainly should
have occurred; I refer to the rocky, mountain streams that course down
the gorges of the Big Horn Mountains and the Laramie Hills. Many a time
I have scrambled alone up through the rocky cañon that marked the bed of
one of these noisy, bounding torrents with the vain hope of finding
_Cinclus_, but, like many a naturalist before me, I was obliged to leave
the country where these birds undoubtedly occur without ever having seen
one of them. So that of my own personal experience I have nothing to
add, so far as its life history is concerned, to the many beautiful
descriptions of this bird given in our standard ornithologies, familiar
to all lovers of the science, and to those read in its literature.
Of skins of _Cinclus_ I have examined many a score, as has every one who
from time to time has gone through large collections, but the very
nearest, the most intimate acquaintance that I can boast of ever having
made with this little bird, was with a pair and three young that had
been stowed away by themselves in alcohol for several years in the large
collection at the Smithsonian Institution. Of this material I was kindly
allowed to avail myself, or of so much of it at least as was necessary
to develop the facts that I now have the pleasure of presenting to my
reader in this paper.
I did very little with the viscera, and this part of its anatomy has
been laid aside for some future study, my attention having been directed
more particularly to the skeleton, and to the extremely interesting
points that it presented for consideration. These I shall endeavor to
describe, as minutely and elaborately as the limits of this article will
permit, at the same time suppressing as many of the technicalities in
terms, as is compatible with exactness, and in accord with the tastes of
those who have not devoted themselves especially to anatomical reading
and work.
In studying the skeletons of birds, or of anything else for that matter,
the student must keep the fact ever present in his mind, that the great
value of such studies and the descriptions that may follow them, rests
almost entirely upon the comparisons that he makes; the more carefully
and minutely he compares the form he may have under consideration with
nearly related forms, the greater will be the value of his results; to
this end tend all the studies of biologists of the present day.
With respect to the skull of _Cinclus_, our space will not permit us to
enter upon the engaging part of the subject as to the mode of formation
of this part of the skeleton in the adult from the many segments found
in the cranium of the chick, it being enough for us to say that the
usual bones ossify, unite, and leave the ordinary ones free, as the
pterygoids, the ossa quadrata, and the lower jaw. The superior mandible
is drawn out into a sharp point, and the bony nostril on either side
occupies considerable space, being long and elliptical in outline; as in
all nearly related genera these apertures are not separated by a bony
partition or septum, but below we detect a delicate vomer in the median
plane.
The eye-cavities or orbits are well shut off from the nasal chambers
beyond them by broad bony walls composed of the usual elements, and here
each is of a quadrate figure, as seen in so many genera of birds. The
upper and outer angles of these osseous partitions are rounded. The
almost complete separation existing between the two cavities just
referred to by no means exists between the orbits themselves, for here
we find an extremely deficient septum, and a large aperture leading into
the brain-case at the usual site of the exit of the nasal nerves, the
openings for the optic nerves being circular and entire.
On the inferior aspect of the skull we find maxillo-palatines, of a more
or less spongy composition, existing between maxillaries and the
delicate palatines, which latter are slightly bent downwards from the
horizontal plane. The pterygoids are very slender, and articulate in the
usual manner with the quadrates and the palatines.
The external form of the brain-case is more or less globular, the
supra-occipital prominence being well developed behind. Above in the
median line a shallow furrow is carried forward as far as the
fronto-maxillary suture.
There is but little of interest to note in the lower mandible, to
illustrate the points we have in view.
From this slight sketch of this part of the skeleton we are prepared to
look a little into how _Cinclus_ compares with other forms of near kin.
The writer, to illustrate his remarks, offers the student the four
accompanying cuts of the superior aspects of the skulls of birds chosen
with the view of showing the comparable points.
[Illustration: A B C D]
A is of _Oreoscoptes montanus_, B of _Sialia mexicana_, C of _Cinclus_
itself, and D of _Siurus nævius_.
In the figures, the angle formed at _l_, _l′_, _b_, and _b′_ is due to
the lachrymal bone on that side; viewed from above in such forms as
_Sialia_, _Turdus grayi_, _Oreoscoptes_, _Hylocichla unalascæ_, and no
doubt _Merula_ and _Mimus_, less so in _Harporhynchus_, this projection
is markedly angular; while in _Siurus_, the Wrens, and rather less so in
_Anthus_, it is _rounded_, as shown in _Siurus_ and also in _Cinclus_
itself.
Of the forms we have examined, _Siurus_ appears to be closer to the
Dipper in this respect than any other genus, the Wrens (_Salpinctes_)
next, and _Anthus_ next. This also applies to the manner in which the
median furrow at the summit of the cranium approaches the
fronto-maxillary suture, also shown in C and D in the cuts, this feature
in the opposed forms mentioned above occupying a position between the
superior orbital margins.
There is still another very marked distinction among the birds we have
thus far compared, and that is in the general external form of the
brain-case proper. A and B show the form assumed by the genera we
mentioned above in connection with them; smooth, large, and globular,
all indicating the possession of a brain of no mean size as compared
with the owner. In _Cinclus_, _Siurus_, and the _Troglodytinæ_ the
prominence of the supra-occipital eminence causes depressions to exist
at _d_ and _d′_ that are not present in A and B at _c_ and _c′_.
With regard to this last characteristic the outline assumed by _Siurus_
seems to claim the nearer place, over the other forms mentioned.
So much for the skull, and the writer must reluctantly and with as good
grace as possible allow the student to observe other interesting points
of difference for himself, though he would be only too glad to assist
him in this part of the skeleton.
There are fourteen cervical vertebræ in _Cinclus_, the last two bearing
each a pair of free ribs, the ultimate pair possessing uncinate
processes; this arrangement holds good in _Siurus_ and _Salpinctes_, but
we remember that in _Eremophila_[100] we found only thirteen cervical
vertebræ; the number of ribs varied however. _Cinclus_ also possesses,
in common with the form mentioned, four dorsal ribs; these are connected
with the sternum by sternal ribs, the first sacral vertebra possessing
an additional pair, but its sternal ribs only articulate along the hind
border, on either side of the true sternal and last pair. This condition
obtains, we know, in very many birds.
If we do not include the pygostyle or last coccygeal vertebræ, we
observe that Cinclus has seven caudal vertebræ, _Siurus_ and
_Salpinctes_ each only _five_, _Oreoscoptes_ having _six_, so that the
number of these segments may vary more or less among the genera we have
quoted above.
The general pattern of the pelvis of the Dipper, the Wrens, the
Thrushes, and _Sialia_ is pretty much the same for all, that is it would
be very hard to point out decided differences among them upon casual
examinations; of course they are proportionate in size to that of their
respective owners, and we might, in extensive series of each, by
exceedingly careful measurements, detect relative differences. These
remarks cannot be applied to the genus _Harporhynchus_, as the pelvis
there has a very striking form, best expressed by saying that it is more
angular than the others cited, the processes are more pronounced and
sharper. In _Cinclus_, as in other forms noted, the bone is broad
across, with the distal extremities of the pubic bones and ischia
flaring well outwards; the ilio-neural canals open; the sacral vertebræ
very broad, with numerous foramina or openings existing among them.
What we have just said in regard to the pelvis applies with equal force
to the shoulder girdle and sternum; indeed, this latter bone is
singularly alike among the various genera that I have referred to; the
shape it assumes is that described by Professor Owen in his Anatomy of
Vertebrates, as the “Cantorial sternum,” it being the pattern allotted
to the vast majority of the class _Aves_. In front we find the manubrium
bifurcated, and supported upon a stout and produced base, directed
upwards and outwards. The body behind is 1–notched, the lateral
xiphoidal processes thus formed having dilated ends. The keel is deep,
convex below, sharp and concave in front, forming an acute cardinal
angle at the point of meeting. The costal processes are very lofty,
broad and directed forwards, having the facets for the sternal ribs
placed along their posterior borders, which meet on either side the
xiphoidal borders at a very obtuse angle. The “merry-thought” of
_Cinclus_ is delicately formed, having expanded upper extremities and a
median plate below.
Our subject has, in addition to the usual number of bones in the
pectoral limb, quite a sizable sesamoid, to be found at the back of the
elbow; this bonelet is likewise found in _Oreoscoptes_ and may be a
common character of other birds we have mentioned. The arm seems to be
completely non-pneumatic, indeed I have failed to find the apertures for
the entrance of air in any of the bones composing it. Several months ago
my attention was directed to a note, I think in the Proceedings of the
Zoölogical Society of London, in which some English observer says the
same of the European Dipper. This non-pneumatic condition of the long
bones, not only of the upper but also of the lower extremities, seems to
hold good among all the other forms and genera we have thus far referred
to in this article.
The proximal extremity of the _humerus_ is very much expanded, and
rather abruptly bent in the direction of the bird’s body, the member
being considered in a position of rest. The “crest” we know curls over
the usual site of the pneumatic fossa, which depression is divided by a
bony partition from a lesser cavity above. This characteristic is also
more or less strongly marked in the Rock Wren, _Siurus_, and others, and
is feebly shown in _Harporhynchus_.
The articular cavity of the shoulder joint is increased in the Dipper by
a good sized _os humero-scapalare_, a sesamoid that we are aware is to
be found among other orders.
We will present the reader here with a table showing the relative
lengths, etc., of some of the bones we have thus far examined, in order
that a study of their comparative development may be made. (The
measurements are given in centimeters.)
───────────────────────┬──────────────────┬────────┬──────┬─────┬──────
│ Sternum │ │ │ │
───────────────────────┼────────────┬─────┼────────┼──────┼─────┼──────
│Length from │ │ │ │ │ Long
│bifurcation │Depth│ │Radius│ │ axis
Species. │of manubrium│ of │Humerus.│ and │Hand.│ of
│ to end of │keel.│ │ulna. │ │skull.
│ body. │ │ │ │ │
───────────────────────┼────────────┼─────┼────────┼──────┼─────┼──────
_Cinclus mexicanus._ │ 2.7│ 0.8│ 2.2│ 2.6│ 2.6│ 4.4
_Siurus nævius._ │ 1.9│ 0.6│ 1.7│ 2.1│ 1.7│ 3.1
_Salpinctes obsoletus._│ 1.6│ 0.5│ 1.7│ 2.0│ 1.7│ 3.6
_Oreoscoptes montanus._│ 2.3│ 0.7│ 2.2│ 2.7│ 2.4│ 4.2
_Sialia mexicana._ │ 2.3│ 0.8│ 2.0│ 2.8│ 2.3│ 3.5
_Anthus ludovicianus._ │ 2.1│ 0.7│ 1.8│ 2.5│ 2.1│ 2.9
_Merula migratoria._ │ 3.4│ 1.1│ 2.9│ 3.4│ —│ —
_Hesperocichla nævia._ │ 3.0│ 1.6│ 2.5│ 3.1│ 3.1│ 4.6
───────────────────────┴────────────┴─────┴────────┴──────┴─────┴──────
A great many points of extreme interest and of the highest importance
reward the ornithotomist’s study of the pelvic limb of _Cinclus_; some
of these the writer has already remarked upon in papers now in press,
but he offers them here again, confident of the fact that they will be
of interest to ornithologists generally, particularly to those whose aim
it is to pursue the study more than “skin deep.”
In the adult Dipper the pelvic limb, as far as its skeleton is
concerned, is made up of the most usual number of bones; the thigh
having the _femur_, the leg the _tibia_ and _fibula_, a _patella_, the
tarsus the bone _tarso-metatarsus_, and finally a foot arranged upon the
plan of four toes, with first, second, third, and fourth digit composed
of 2, 3, 4, and 5 joints respectively.
I have already said that these bones are non-pneumatic, they are also of
lengths proportionate to the size of the bird, the claws being curved
about as much as they are in a typical Thrush. Anatomists have described
certain general points for examination on these long bones composing the
leg; many of these are present, but we shall only call the student’s
attention to a few of them, so as to make clear what we have to point
out hereafter. Nothing of striking variance marks the femur, as
distinguishing it from the common form of the bone among birds of this
class. The same might be said of the tibia, but we must note the two
large flaring processes at the anterior and upper end of this, the
larger bone of the leg; in this bone, too, the condyles are well
developed below. The _tarso-metatarsus_, or the bone of the tarsus, we
observe in the old bird, has rather a slender shaft, presenting for
examination at its upper end the usual dilatation, crowned by a smooth,
undulating surface to articulate with the tibia; behind this, at the
same end, we find a tuberous process that has given comparative
anatomists no little trouble to name; but we will speak of this further
on. The lower end of the tarso-metatarsus has the little lateral facet
for the diminutive first tarsal bone, and the three trochleæ for the
other toes.
Let us now, after this brief survey of the bones in the adult take up
the young of this species. We find first that the femur has grown in the
usual manner, its lower end bearing the two large condyles has been
formed by one epiphysis which included both of these articulate
surfaces. Nothing of particular interest is to be observed in the
development of the fibula or the small “splint bone” of the leg. The
superior end of the tibia has been formed by the epiphysis including the
two large processes that I spoke of above. These plates are called the
procnemial and the ectocnemial processes, the inner and outer one
respectively. They are turned slightly outwards, springing abruptly from
the shaft in the adult, very much as I figured them in _Lanius_.
Such of my readers as have read my account of the development of
_Centrocercus_ in the Osteology of the _Tetraonidæ_, will remember what
we had to say in regard to the lower end of the tibia and its growth,
and also all that Professor Morse has done for us in that direction. The
specimen we have of the young of _Cinclus_ does not admit of the
demonstration of the _intermedium_; the _fibulare_ and the _tibiale_
seem to ossify separately, however. We must admit, then, that in this
instance we are no nearer solving the problem of the homologies of the
avian tarsal segments than we were before, but a little light at least
is thrown on the subject when we come to examine the next bone, the
tarso-metatarsus.
In nearly all birds this bone has at the back part of its upper end a
tuberous process, amalgamated with the shaft in the adult, that assumes
various forms in different members of the class. This bony process has
long been regarded with suspicion, as to whether it was one of the ankle
or rather tarsal bones or not. Let us hear what a few of the authorities
have to say in this matter. Professor Owen tells us in Vol. II of his
Anatomy of the Vertebrates, when speaking in general terms of this
process, that: “One or more longitudinal ridges at the back of the upper
end of the metatarsal are called ‘calcaneal’; they intercept or bound
tendinal grooves which, in some instances, are bridged over by bone and
converted into canals; the ridges may be expanded and flattened.” This
would lead one to think that the Professor _might_ regard this process
as the homologue of the os calcis, a tarsal bone.
Professor Huxley, in his Anatomy of Vertebrated Animals, page 254, tells
us, in speaking of this process, that: “Again in most birds, the
posterior face of the proximal end of the middle metatarsal, and the
adjacent surface of the tarsal bone, grow out a process, which is
commonly, but improperly, termed “calcaneal.” The inferior surface of
this _hypo-tarsus_ is sometimes simply flattened, sometimes traversed by
grooves or canals, for the flexor tendons of the digits.”
Mivart says, when referring to birds: “Thus no projection corresponding
with the tuberosity of the os calcis exists in this compound bone.”
(Elementary Anatomy, p. 206.)
Coues, in his Osteology of _Colymbus torquatus_, leaves no doubt in our
mind how he regards this projection of the tarso-metatarsus; this author
says:—“The process of bone representing the _os calcis_, rises at the
superior end of the bone, on its posterior aspect, as a very conspicuous
crest.”
Professor Morse, in his Tarsus and Carpus of Birds (Ann. Lyc. Nat.
Hist., N. Y., Vol. X, 1872), speaks of the centrale, but not in
connection with this process.
In the chick of _Centrocercus_ I found that the _centrale did not
include this process_, consequently in my Osteology of the _Tetraonidæ_
(Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., Vol. VI) I declared that this process had
nothing whatever to do with the _os calcis_, and in the osteology of
_Lanius_, termed it the _tendinous_ process, from the fact that the
flexor tendons in so many birds either pass over or through it. Now our
young of _Cinclus mexicanus_, just before it leaves the nest, has its
metatarsal bones still ununited, and crowned by a _separate_ segment
that has apparently ossified from one single centre, a segment that not
only includes the _centrale_, but the entire process of which we have
been speaking. So between _Cinclus_ and _Centrocercus_ we must still
look for other forms to throw light upon this problem. The subject is an
extremely engaging one for the ornithologist to look into and
investigate.
The shaft of the tarso-metatarsus of this bird develops after the usual
rule set forth in works upon the subject, and the same may be said of
the phalanges.
The writer only hopes that his sketch, necessarily brief, and far from
being exhaustive, will have at least the tendency to induce other
ornithologists to record their observations upon this subject whenever
the opportunity offers.
Our studies, as far as we have carried them, seem to point pretty
conclusively to the fact that our American Dipper is quite closely
related to the genus _Siurus_, and not far removed from some of the
Wrens.
LIST OF BIRDS OBSERVED AT HOUSTON, HARRIS CO., TEXAS, AND IN THE
COUNTIES MONTGOMERY, GALVESTON AND FORD BEND.
BY H. NEHRLING.
(_concluded from p. 175._)
152. =Ægialites vociferus= _Bonap._ KILLDEER PLOVER.[101]—Common
resident throughout the year, but most abundant during the spring and
fall migrations.
153. =Ægialites semipalmatus= _Bonap._ SEMIPALMATED OR RING
PLOVER.—Rare and only observed during migrations.
154. =Ægialites wilsonius= _Ord._ WILSON’S PLOVER.—Common during the
breeding season, but I did not succeed in finding a nest.
155. =Strepsilas interpres= _Illig._ TURNSTONE.—Seen on Galveston Bay
and on the Gulf Coast.
156. =Recurvirostra americana= _Gmel._ AVOCET.—Winters, but not
noticed in summer.
157. =Gallinago wilsoni= _Bonap._ WILSON’S SNIPE.—Common during
migrations; arriving from the north usually in the middle of October,
sometimes earlier, sometimes later. I think none remain here to breed,
and all go farther south to winter. The time of arrival from their
winter quarters is unknown to me.
158. =Tringa maculata= _Vieill._ JACK SNIPE; GRASS SNIPE.—Common in
September and again in April. None remain to winter or to breed.
159. =Tringa minutilla= _Vieill._ LEAST SANDPIPER.—Not uncommon in
winter.
160. =Actiturus bartramius= _Bonap._ BARTRAMIAN SANDPIPER; UPLAND
PLOVER.—Abundant on the prairies during March and April and again in
October. None remain to breed or to winter.
161. =Limosa fœda= _Ord._ MARBLED GODWIT.—Rare; seen only in March and
October.
162. =Totanus semipalmatus= _Temm._ WILLET; TATTLER.—This well-known
bird is also common in this region in all suitable localities.
Resident throughout the year; breeds.
163. =Numenius longirostris= _Wils._ LONG-BILLED CURLEW.—Common during
migrations; occasionally seen during the breeding season.
164. =Tantalus loculator= _Linn._ WOOD IBIS.—This bird is common in
all marshy localities near the Gulf Coast. I have seen it frequently
in the marshes and ponds near Spring Creek and the Brazos, in company
with Herons and other water fowl.
165. =Platalea ajaja= _Linn._ ROSEATE SPOON-BILL.—Common in the
breeding season. Never seen in companies, but always singly,
associated with Herons, Ducks, etc. Particularly common on the prairie
ponds in the northern part of Harris County, Texas.
166. =Ardea herodias= _Linn._ GREAT BLUE HERON.—Quite regularly
distributed, but nowhere common; breeds on trees near ponds in the
woods.
167. =Herodias egretta= _Gray._ WHITE HERON; GREAT WHITE
EGRET.—Abundant summer resident; breeds. This beautiful bird is to be
observed in numbers in all the prairie ponds. They breed in
communities on bushes in swamps. The nests are bulky, built of sticks;
the nesting cavity is very flat; eggs three or four in number. The
birds begin to breed in the latter part of April.
168. =Garzetta candidissima= _Bonap._ SNOWY HERON; LITTLE WHITE
HERON.—Exceedingly abundant during a large part of the year. I have
seen these birds by thousands in the marshes near the Brazos River and
on the Gulf Coast. Large colonies breed in the marshes near Spring
Creek, where they build their nests on bushes, or, more frequently, in
the lower horizontal branches of forest trees, bordering ponds and
marshes. None remain to winter.
169. =Florida cœrulea= _Bd._ LITTLE BLUE HERON.—This beautiful bird is
exceedingly abundant in all suitable localities. Many are resident
throughout the year, but most migrate further south in winter. They
nest in large colonies in swamps and marshes overgrown thickly with
bushes. I have always found the nest in the top of button-bushes
(_Cephalanthus occidentalis_). Eggs three or four, in one case five,
in number. I have seen hundreds of nests in one pond. They are built
entirely of sticks without any lining. In the second week of May many
eggs were already hatched.
170. =Butorides virescens= _Bonap._ GREEN HERON.—Common summer
resident; breeds; never observed in flocks, but always in pairs or
singly.
171. =Hydranassa tricolor ludoviciana= _Ridgw._ LOUISIANA HERON.—One
specimen, shot May, 1880, on Spring Creek. Seems to be not very
common. Breeds in the swampy woods.
172. =Nyctiardea grisea nævia= _Allen_. BLACK-CROWNED NIGHT HERON.—Not
common and very shy. Breeds in the swamps where other Herons have
their nests.
173. =Botaurus lentiginosus= _Steph._ AMERICAN BITTERN.—Occurs during
migrations; none observed in the breeding season or in winter.
174. =Ardetta exilis= _Gray._ LEAST BITTERN.—Common during migrations;
rare in summer; breeds in the marshes of tule reeds and water shrubs,
such as _Cephalanthus occidentalis_ and _Pinckneya pubescens_, in
company with Herons and other water fowl.
175. =Grus americana= _Temm._ WHOOPING CRANE.—From November to the end
of March these beautiful birds are exceedingly abundant on all the low
prairies in the vicinity of Houston. Very shy.
176. =Grus canadensis= _Temm._ SANDHILL CRANE.—Even more abundant than
the preceding. Observed flocks of many hundreds on the low prairies in
the western and northern parts of Harris County. Very shy.
177. =Porzana carolina= _Bd._ CAROLINA RAIL; SORA.—Seen in summer,
breeds. but I have not discovered the nest.
178. =Porzana noveboracensis= _Cass._ LITTLE YELLOW RAIL.—Very rare
during migrations.
179. =Porzana jamaicensis= _Cass._ LITTLE BLACK RAIL.—One taken April
29, 1879.
180. =Gallinula galeata= _Bonap._ FLORIDA GALLINULE.—Common during the
breeding season in all marshes where reeds and bushes grow, but
especially so where the magnificent _Nymphæa odorata_ (Water-Lily)
opens its fragrant flowers, and where _Nuphar advena_ (Yellow Pond
Lily) and another beautiful aquatic, _Nelumbium luteum_ (Water
Chinquepin), are found; over the broad leaves of which plants the
little Florida Gallinule runs with exceeding quickness, searching for
water insects and other food.
181. =Fulica americana= _Gmel._ AMERICAN COOT; MUD HEN.—Decidedly more
numerous than the preceding. Especially common in the large prairie
swamps.
182. =Cygnus buccinator= _Rich._ TRUMPETER SWAN.—Every winter there
are large numbers on Galveston Bay and on the Gulf of Mexico near the
coast.
183. =Cygnus americanus= _Sharp._ AMERICAN or WHISTLING
SWAN.—Sometimes these birds winter abundantly on Galveston Bay.
184. =Anser hyperboreus= _Pall._ SNOW GOOSE; WHITE BRANT.—Exceedingly
abundant on Galveston Bay, also on the rivers and bayous near the Gulf
Coast in winter.
185. =Anser albifrons gambeli= _Coues_. AMERICAN WHITE-FRONTED
GOOSE.—This is the first Goose to arrive from the north in autumn, but
they all migrate farther south.
186. =Bernicla canadensis= _Boie_. CANADA GOOSE.—Exceedingly abundant
during winter. Large flocks are to be observed on the wet prairies in
company with Cranes.
187. =Anas boscas= _Linn._ MALLARD.—Very common during migrations and
in winter.
188. =Anas obscura= _Gmel._ BLACK DUCK; DUSKY DUCK.—Common during the
breeding season. A pair of these Ducks are seen in almost every pond
among Herons, Roseate Spoonbills, Anhingas, Gallinules, and Blackbirds
(_Agelæus phœniceus_).
189. =Dafila acuta= _Bonap._ PINTAIL DUCK.—Common during migrations.
190. =Chaulelasmus streperus= _Gray._ GADWALL.—Exceedingly abundant
during winter.
191. =Mareca americana= _Steph._ AMERICAN WIDGEON.—Common during
migrations.
192. =Querquedula carolinensis= _Steph._ GREEN-WINGED TEAL.—Very
common in autumn and spring, rather rare in winter.
193. =Querquedula discors= _Steph._ BLUE-WINGED TEAL.—Very common
during migrations but all pass further south.
194. =Querquedula cyanoptera= _Cass._ CINNAMON TEAL.—Not common during
migrations; none remain to winter.
195. =Spatula clypeata= _Boie_. SHOVELLER; SPOON-BILL DUCK.—Abundant
in winter.
196. =Aix sponsa= _Boie_. WOOD DUCK; SUMMER DUCK.—Common during
migrations; some remain to breed.
197. =Fulix marila= _Bd._ SCAUP DUCK.—Common in winter on Galveston
Bay.
198. =Fulix affinis= _Bd._ LITTLE BLACK-HEAD.—Very common in winter.
199. =Aythya vallisneria= _Boie_. CANVAS-BACK.—Abundant in winter on
Galveston Bay and on all marshy districts near the Gulf Coast.
200. =Bucephala albeola= _Bd._ BUTTER-BALL; BUFFLE-HEAD.—Abundant in
winter near the coast.
201. =Erismatura rubida= _Bonap._ RUDDY DUCK.—Very common during
migrations; none remain to winter, but many breed.
202. =Pelecanus erythrorhynchus= _Gmel._ AMERICAN WHITE
PELICAN.—Common during winter, especially near the coast.
203. =Pelecanus fuscus= _Linn._ BROWN PELICAN.—Common during the
breeding season on all the rivers, creeks, and bayous near the coast.
204. =Plotus anhinga= _Linn._ AMERICAN ANHINGA; SNAKE-BIRD; “WATER
TURKEY.”—Breeds in all marshy localities and is very common.
205. =Larus atricilla= _Linn._ LAUGHING GULL.—Abundant near the Gulf
Coast; breeds on the small sand islands in Galveston Bay.
206. =Sterna anglica= _Montag._ GULL-BILLED TERN.—Breeds abundantly on
the islands of Galveston Bay.
207. =Sterna regia= _Gambel._ ROYAL TERN.—Breeds in considerable
numbers on the islands of Galveston Bay.
208. =Sterna cantiaca acuflavida= _Ridgw._ CABOT’S TERN, and—
209. =Sterna forsteri= _Nutt._ FORSTER’S TERN.—These and a few other
Terns breed in abundance on the islands near the coast, especially on
the sand-bars of Galveston Bay, where they lay their eggs on the bare
sand. It was impossible for me to distinguish the eggs, as the birds
all leave the nests as soon as they are approached.
NOTES ON SOME BIRDS COLLECTED BY CAPT. CHARLES BENDIRE, AT FORT WALLA
WALLA, WASHINGTON TERRITORY.
BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.
The following paper is based on a collection of about two hundred and
fifty birds obtained in the immediate vicinity of Fort Walla Walla
during the autumn and winter of 1881–82, and submitted to me for
determination by Capt. Bendire, who has kindly consented to my
publishing any notes respecting them, that seem of sufficient interest.
As an exponent of the workings of geographical variation in species
easily modified by their surroundings, this material is especially
instructive. The region represented apparently constitutes a sort of
neutral ground between the Pacific and Middle Provinces and naturally
its fauna is a mixed one. Setting aside species not subject to
geographical modification, and migrants from the north which have only
an indirect bearing on the general question, we find the collection
divisible into three classes: (1) Forms identical with or most nearly
like Pacific coast types; (2) Forms about intermediate between
representatives inhabiting the Pacific and Middle Provinces; (3) Forms
to a certain extent intermediate between Pacific and Middle Province
representatives, but differing from both in certain original
characteristics. The locality seems to be nearly lacking in typical
representatives of the Middle Province; and its fauna, on the whole,
must be regarded as closely related to that of the coast region.
The third class, although least numerous, includes many of the most
interesting birds. The majority of these are resident forms, a fact
which sufficiently explains many of their peculiarities, for it is well
known that sedentary species are, of all others, the most subject to
local variation.
But while the philosophic bearing of this material is not doubtful,
there are certain systematic difficulties in the way of its satisfactory
presentation. I refer to the _naming_ of these intermediate forms. The
practice has been to use the name of the race to which the bird seems
most nearly related, and this I have been forced to adopt in default of
a better way. But the method obviously fails to meet the requirements of
such cases, while to a certain extent it is unscientific and inaccurate.
The evil, however, is not likely to be remedied, for it is difficult to
conceive of a system of nomenclature that would adequately designate the
numberless intermediate and local types.
In the present connection I would gratefully mention the assistance
received from my friend, Mr. Ridgway, who, during my study of the
collection, has given me every facility for examining the matchless
series in the National Museum, and to whom I am further indebted for
many valuable suggestions. My obligations to Capt. Bendire are greater
than I can adequately express, for, in addition to other kind
attentions, he has generously presented me with many valuable specimens
included among those about to be discussed.
List of Species and Varieties represented in the Collection.
1. _Turdus migratorius._[102]
2. _Turdus migratorius propinquus._
3. _Sialia arctica._
4. _Myiadestes townsendi._
5. _Regulus satrapa olivaceus._
6. _Parus atricapillus occidentalis._
7. _Telmatodytes palustris paludicola._
8. _Anthus ludovicianus._
9. _Lanius borealis._
10. _Ampelis garrulus._
11. _Ampelis cedrorum._
12. _Hesperophona vespertina._
13. _Chrysomitris tristis._
14. _Passerculus sandvicensis alaudinus._
15. _Zonotrichia gambeli intermedia._
16. _Spizella monticola ochracea._[103]
17. _Junco oregonus._
18. _Melospiza fasciata guttata._
19. _Pipilo maculatus megalonyx._[104]
20. _Agelæus phœniceus._
21. _Sturnella neglecta._
22. _Scolecophagus cyanocephalus._
23. _Corvus americanus._[105]
24. _Pica rustica hudsonica._
25. _Cyanocitta stelleri annectens._
26. _Eremophila alpestris._[106]
27. _Picus pubescens gairdneri._
28. _Melanerpes torquatus._
29. _Colaptes auratus hybridus._[107]
30. _Colaptes auratus mexicanus._
31. _Ceryle alcyon._
32. _Asio americanus._
33. _Asio accipitrinus._
34. _Scops asio kennicotti._[108]
35. _Bubo virginianus subarcticus._[109]
36. _Bubo virginianus saturatus._
37. _Nyctea scandiaca._
38. _Falco columbarius suckleyi._
39. _Falco richardsoni._
40. _Falco sparverius._
41. _Accipiter fuscus._
42. _Astur atricapillus._
43. _Astur atricapillus_ var. ——?[110]
44. _Buteo borealis calurus._
45. _Buteo swainsoni._
46. _Archibuteo lagopus sancti-johannis._
47. _Archibuteo ferrugineus._
48. _Zenaidura carolinensis._
49. _Bonasa umbella sabinii._
50. _Pediœcetes phasianellus columbianus._
51. _Charadrius dominicus._
SPECIES AND VARIETIES CALLING FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.
6. =Parus atricapillus occidentalis= (_Baird_) _Coues_. OREGON
CHICKADEE.—A series of six specimens furnishes satisfactory
proof—which I believe has been heretofore wanting—that _P.
occidentalis_ is simply a dark, geographical race of _P.
atricapillus_. One example is absolutely typical of _occidentalis_,
while the others grade evenly into a form that is essentially
undistinguishable from _atricapillus_. Indeed the lightest colored
specimen is so nearly like some Massachusetts birds taken at the same
season that I have been unable, after a most careful comparison, to
detect the slightest difference in either color or markings: the wing
of the Walla Walla skin, however, is slightly shorter. There are no
apparent approaches in this series to _P. septentrionalis_.
16. =Spizella monticola ochracea= var. nov. WESTERN TREE SPARROW.—Ch.
Subsp. ♂ ♀ Similis _S. monticolæ_, sed colore suprà dilutiore; strigis
dorsalibus rarioribus, angustioribus et magis acutè in tergo
pallidiore depictis; lateribus gulâque magis ochraceis; vertice, in
auctumnalibus quidem avibus, sæpissimè magis cinereo.
♂ (Fort Walla Walla, Washington Territory, Nov. 8, 1881. Capt.
Bendire.) Back and rump pale sandy-brown or brownish-ochraceous, the
back with sharply defined black streaks which, excepting on the
scapulars, have no chestnut bordering; crown invaded centrally, from
the nape, by a broad space of pale ash which tinges most of the
feathers to their bases and confines the usual chestnut to a small
area on the forehead and two narrow, lateral stripes; lores and sides
of head pale fulvous; entire under parts washed with warm ochraceous,
deepest on the sides and abdomen, palest on the throat where it only
partially conceals the ashy beneath. Otherwise similar to _S.
monticola_.
_Dimensions._ Wing, 2.94; tail, 2.73; culmen, .43.
_Habitat._ Western North America, east to Dakota, north to Arctic
Ocean: Alaska?
The specimen above described differs widely from its nearest
approaches among my eastern examples. The ground-color of the back is
decidedly paler, bringing out the dark streaks in sharper contrast,
which is heightened by the absence of their usual chestnut edging; the
ash of the throat and sides of the head is much fainter, and in many
places replaced by brownish-fulvous; the under parts, especially the
sides and abdomen, are more strongly ochraceous; and the broad, ashy
crown-patch gives the head a very different appearance.
Upon testing these characters by comparison with the extensive
material in the National Museum, I find the different ground-color and
markings of the back to be constant in western birds, while the
ochraceous tint of the throat and sides of the head, although most
conspicuous in fall and winter specimens, is also a good distinction;
the ashy hood is apparently confined to autumnal birds, and with these
is variable in extent, as well as sometimes wanting; but as it _never_
occurs in eastern examples it is not wholly lacking in diagnostic
value.
A comparison of measurements taken from a large number of specimens of
both races shows little average difference in size, although the
western birds usually have smaller and narrower bills.
18. =Melospiza fasciata guttata= (_Nutt._) _Ridgw._ RUSTY SONG
SPARROW.—The thirteen Song Sparrows sent me from Fort Walla Walla
represent a form very nearly intermediate between _fallax_ and
_guttata_. Most of these specimens are decidedly browner above and
more heavily streaked beneath than true _fallax_; but on the other
hand none of them are as dark as typical _guttata_, although several
closely approach that form. One of the lighter examples is even grayer
than a Utah skin, and, taken by itself would necessarily be referable
to _fallax_. But the series as a whole may perhaps best be referred to
_guttata_.
25. =Cyanocitta stelleri annectens= (_Baird_) _Ridgw._ BLACK-HEADED
JAY.—An interesting series of Jays collected by Capt. Bendire includes
five typical representatives of _annectens_, two nearly typical
_stelleri_ and four birds about intermediate between these forms. The
differential characteristics of the three styles may be briefly given
as follows: The first-named has a well-defined and conspicuous patch
of white over the eye; the second entirely lacks this marking; the
third has it merely indicated by a narrow gray line. In all, the crest
is glossy black; the rest of the head, with the breast anteriorly,
plumbeous-black; the back plumbeous-brown; and the throat streaked
with bluish-white. All have the head above more or less streaked with
blue, but the shade and extent of this marking bear no apparent
relation to the presence or absence of the white patch over the eyes.
Thus examples of each style have the forehead and crown, to a point
half an inch behind the eye, thickly marked with blue or bluish-white,
while with all there is a more or less complete gradation from this
pattern to one in which a few pale streaks are confined to the
forehead. Similarly, the greater wing-coverts are distinctly barred
with black, faintly crossed with fine dark lines, or entirely
immaculate, without regard to the character of the features already
mentioned.
The above evidence clearly goes to show that _annectens_ grades
directly into _stelleri_; but it does not necessarily preclude the
recognition of the former as a well-defined geographical race, for the
locality under consideration abounds in similarly intermediate forms.
33. =Asio accipitrinus= (_Pall._) _Newton_. SHORT-EARED OWL.—A female,
taken Oct 7, has the ground-color of the plumage, both above and
beneath, rich, almost rusty, ochraceous; the markings, also, are
unusually dark and broad. Three males represent the other extreme,
their coloring, especially beneath, being remarkably pale and almost
free from any ochraceous tinge.
36. =Bubo virginianus saturatus=[111] _Ridgw._ DUSKY HORNED
OWL.—During the autumn of 1881 Great Horned Owls were unusually
abundant about Fort Walla Walla, and Capt. Bendire secured no less
than fourteen specimens, of which twelve are now before me. In a
general way these are referable as follows: eight to _saturatus_, two
to _subarcticus_, and two to a form apparently about intermediate
between these races. Five of the representatives of _saturatus_ are
typical, while the remaining three grade into the intermediate form
which, in turn, approaches one of the light specimens referred to
_subarcticus_. The latter example is not typical, but its companion
differs from an Arizona skin only in having slightly darker dorsal
markings and a little stronger rufous cast about the face and across
the breast, the color and markings elsewhere being essentially the
same.
The occurrence of these three forms together is not remarkable, for
two of them may reasonably be regarded as migrants from distant and
probably widely separated regions. The third possibly represents a
resident type, but on this point I have no direct evidence.
38. =Falco columbarius suckleyi?= _Ridgw._ BLACK MERLIN.—A beautiful
adult male Pigeon Hawk, taken at Fort Walla Walla Oct. 18, 1881,
presents such a puzzling combination of characters that, after
carefully comparing it with all the material available, I am still
at a loss for a definite opinion regarding its precise identity or
relationship. It most closely resembles highly colored, autumnal
adults of _F. columbarius_, but the under parts, excepting the
throat and a small central space on the abdomen, are rich
rusty-ochraceous—almost orange-chestnut on the breast and tibiæ,
while the usual cinereous above is intensified on the back to a
nearly pure plumbeous; the markings of the under parts, also, are
unusually coarse and numerous. In these respects it agrees with a
bird in the National Museum from Santa Clara, California, but it
differs from this specimen, as well as from every other adult that I
have seen, in having the outer webs of all the primaries, excepting
the first two, conspicuously marked with rounded spots of pale
ochraceous.
With _F. richardsoni_ it cannot be consistently associated, for the
adult, as well as the young of that species, always has six distinct
light bars on the tail, while the example under consideration
possesses but five. Moreover, the adult male of _richardsoni_ is very
much lighter colored than the adult of _columbarius_, whereas the
present bird is decidedly darker. The adult of _suckleyi_ is unknown,
but we should expect to find it, like the young, with sparse,
inconspicuous spotting on the lining of the wings. In the Walla Walla
bird these markings are as numerous and well-defined as in
_columbarius_.
Taking all these considerations into account, and bearing in mind the
unstable character of so many of the types furnished by this locality,
it seems most reasonable to assume that Capt. Bendire’s specimen
represents the adult plumage of a form which, although referable to
_suckleyi_, is more or less intermediate between that race and true
_columbarius_. But additional material must be forthcoming before the
question can be definitely settled.
39. =Falco richardsoni= _Ridgw._ RICHARDSON’S MERLIN.—Of this
well-marked species the collection contains two immature females,
dated respectively Oct. 13 and Oct. 21, 1881. Neither of these calls
for any special comment, but I take the present opportunity to
characterize the adult plumage of the male, which apparently has not
been previously described.[112]
_Falco richardsoni_, adult ♂ (author’s collection, Colorado Springs,
Colorado, C. E. Aiken). Above pale ashy-blue, most of the feathers of
the back, as well as the inner secondaries and many of the scapulars,
with fine, black shaft-lines; crown tinged with ochraceous (probably
wanting in the highest conditions of plumage), the black shaft-lines
here very numerous, each feather being conspicuously marked; forehead
and sides of head light ochraceous, the former with narrow black
streaks, the latter with broader brownish ones; a well-defined nuchal
collar of rusty-ochraceous with darker mottling; secondaries and
primary coverts concolor with the back, but with light bars on their
inner webs; primaries plumbeous-brown, margined with bluish-white and
marked conspicuously on both webs with the same color, the markings on
the inner webs being pure white and extending in transverse bars from
the shaft to the edge of the feather, those of the outer webs
ashy-white and in the form of conspicuous, rounded or quadrate spots;
tail crossed by five dark and six light bars, the last of the latter
terminal and pure white, the others more or less bordered by pale
ashy-blue; all of the dark bars clear black excepting the basal two,
which, on the central rectrices, are nearly uniform with the back, but
decidedly darker than the light ones with which they alternate; throat
pure white and immaculate; remainder of under parts pale ochraceous,
deepest on the tibiæ and crissum, where it is decidedly tinged with
rusty; feathers of the breast, abdomen, flanks and sides with median
stripes of clear reddish-brown, these stripes broadest on the flanks
(where they are sometimes actually transverse), narrowest across the
anterior part of the breast, and everywhere with fine but
inconspicuous dark shaft-lines; crissum entirely unmarked; under
tail-coverts and tibiæ with conspicuous shaft-lines of dark brown;
edges of wings pale ochraceous; under wing-coverts white, barred with
reddish-brown; all the markings of the primaries showing distinctly on
their under surfaces. _Dimensions._ Wing, 8.21; tail, 5.18; culmen
(from cere), .50.
Were further proof wanting to establish this Falcon’s specific
distinctness from _F. columbarius_, the difference in the adult
plumage of the two would settle the question. The adult male of _F.
richardsoni_ has the mantle almost as light as that of a Herring Gull,
while the conspicuous ashy-white spots on the outer webs of the
primaries and the six light tail bands constitute equally well-marked
characters. The specimen above described is essentially similar to
five examples in the National Museum.
42. =Astur atricapillus= (_Wils._) _Bonap._ AMERICAN GOSHAWK.—The
present collection includes four Goshawks, one an adult male, the
remaining three young, or at least immature, birds in brown plumage.
The adult is absolutely identical with Massachusetts specimens, and
must be considered typical _atricapillus_. Two of the young agree well
with Mr. Ridgway’s description of young _striatulus_,[113] but the
third does not have the markings either darker or more extensive than
do several of my New England examples, and the dorsal feathers have an
even broader light (_ochraceous_) edging; the under parts, also, are
strongly ochraceous, while the stripes on the flanks are neither
cordate nor transverse. The latter characters, however, are probably
worthless for they occur in a Tyngsboro (Mass.) bird.
Without going further into details I may sum up my conclusions as
follows: (1) That two of Capt. Bendire’s specimens (the adult and the
young bird just mentioned) are undistinguishable from typical
_atricapillus_; (2) That the other two examples (both young or
immature) differ from eastern birds in having broader, more linear
black markings beneath and a narrower light edging on the feathers
above, and are probably referable to a form more or less distinct from
_atricapillus_; (3) That true _atricapillus_ ranges westward at least
to Fort Walla Walla, Washington Territory; (4) That _striatulus_, as
at present defined, is a doubtfully tenable variety.
I am not at liberty to pursue the subject further, for I understand
that Mr. Nelson is about to propose a new Pacific coast race which
occurs, at least as a migrant, in the Western United States, and upon
the young of which Mr. Ridgway apparently based his description of
young striatulus.[114]
49. =Bonasa umbella sabinii= (_Dougl._) _Coues_. OREGON RUFFED
GROUSE.—The series of Ruffed Grouse embraces twelve specimens, all
from the immediate vicinity of Fort Walla Walla. These birds
apparently represent a dark, or more properly speaking, non-rufescent
phase of _sabinii_, corresponding to the gray phase of _umbella_, and
bearing the same relation to typical _sabinii_ that the Walla Walla
_Scops_ does to what has been considered typical _S. kennicotti_. This
peculiar plumage may be characterized as follows:
Gray phase; adult ♂. Above with the ground-color clear, dark ash,
nearly uniform and unmixed with reddish even on the wings and tail;
throat and breast tinged with reddish-yellow; remainder of under parts
white, occasionally with a trace of ochraceous; markings as in typical
_sabinii_.
The above description is taken from a bird which probably represents
the extreme gray condition, all the others having more or less
reddish-brown on the upper parts, especially on the back and wings,
although the tail is usually clear ashy. Two specimens, however, show
a decided approach to what may now be called the _red_ phase of
_sabinii_, in having the breast, with the entire dorsal surface,
including that of the tail, strongly tinged with orange-chestnut which
is scarcely duller than in examples from the coast region. Some of the
grayer birds present a general resemblance to _umbelloides_, but the
ground tint of their plumage is always deeper, the dorsal markings
richer and blacker, and the under parts very much more thickly barred.
It is probable that this style of coloration will prove to be more or
less characteristic of all the Ruffed Grouse inhabiting the region
between the Coast Range and the Rocky Mountains.
50. =Pediœcetes phasianellus columbianus= (_Ord_) _Coues_. COMMON
SHARP-TAILED GROUSE.—Three specimens, taken at Fort Walla Walla,
differ considerably from eastern birds. The entire upper parts are
darker and duller, the usual rusty-ochraceous ground-color being
replaced by plain wood brown; the dorsal markings, also, are finer,
while those of the under parts are blacker and more generally
distributed, the only immaculate area being the centre of the abdomen.
These differences do not seem to indicate any approach to true _P.
phasianellus_, which is an altogether differently colored bird. They
probably have only a local significance, but the region in question is
so poorly represented by the material to which I have had access, that
I have not been able to form a definite opinion on this point.
LIST OF BIRDS ASCERTAINED TO OCCUR WITHIN TEN MILES FROM POINT DE MONTS,
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC, CANADA; BASED CHIEFLY UPON THE NOTES OF NAPOLEON A.
COMEAU.
BY C. HART MERRIAM, M. D.
Point de Monts is the southward termination of a high rocky promontory
that separates the river from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, on the north
shore. It is in latitude 49° 19′ north. The country is well wooded, the
forests consisting chiefly of spruce (both white and black) and balsam.
Scattered about are a few birches, poplars, cedars, and tamaracks; and
on a sandy terrace near the Godbout River is a quantity of the northern
scrub pine (_Pinus banksiana_) that here attains a height of thirty and
sometimes forty feet. The region is so far north that not only are the
oaks and hickories absent, but even the hardy beech and maple do not
grow here.
I visited this section of the coast in July, 1881, and again in July,
1882; and with the observations made at these times I have incorporated
the notes kindly placed at my disposal by Mr. Napoleon A. Comeau,
guardian of Godbout.
The nomenclature followed is that of the second edition of Dr. Coues’s
Check List of North American Birds.
1. =Turdus migratorius.= ROBIN.—A common summer resident. Arrives
about the first of May, and remains till late in November. Seen Dec.
22, 1879.
2. =Turdus unalascæ nanus.= HERMIT THRUSH.—Tolerably common; breeds.
3. =Turdus ustulatus swainsoni.= OLIVE-BACKED THRUSH.—Not uncommon;
breeds.
4. =Sialia sialis.= BLUEBIRD.—Extremely rare. During a residence of
many years at Godbout Mr. Comeau has seen but one pair of these birds;
they nested in a stump near his house in July, 1880.
5. =Regulus calendula.= RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET.—A male was shot June 4,
1882.
6. =Parus atricapillus.= BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE.—A common resident.
7. =Parus hudsonicus.= HUDSONIAN CHICKADEE.—A common resident, like
the last.
8. =Sitta canadensis.= RED-BELLIED NUTHATCH.—Tolerably common in
winter, but not observed in summer.
9. =Eremophila alpestris.= HORNED LARK.—First seen April 21, 1882,
after which they were common for about three weeks and then
disappeared. I found a young one, dead, at Godbout in July, 1881.
10. =Anthus ludovicianus.= TITLARK.—Tolerably common summer resident,
and doubtless breeds. I have seen flocks of them in July feeding on
the beach at low water. First seen May 7, 1882.
11. =Helminthophila peregrina.= TENNESSEE WARBLER.—A tolerably common
summer resident. First shot June 6, 1882.
12. =Dendrœca æstiva.= SUMMER WARBLER.—Not very common. First seen
June 6, 1882.
13. =Dendrœca virens.= BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER.—A tolerably
common summer resident.
14. =Dendrœca coronata.= YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER.—A rather common summer
resident. First seen May 29, 1882.
15. =Dendrœca blackburnæ.= BLACKBURN’S WARBLER.—Rather rare. Shot June
9, 1882.
16. =Dendrœca striata.= BLACK-POLL WARBLER.—Rare. Mr. Comeau shot a
male, June 7, 1882.
17. =Dendrœca maculosa.= BLACK-AND-YELLOW WARBLER.—The commonest
Warbler, breeding abundantly. Earliest seen May 29, 1882.
18. =Siurus nævius.= WATER THRUSH.—Rather rare. Shot June 6, 1882.
Others seen.
19. =Geothlypis trichas.= MARYLAND YELLOW-THROAT.—Not common. Saw two
in the clearing about Mr. Allan Gilmour’s camp on the Godbout.
20. =Myiodioctes pusillus.= BLACK-CAPPED YELLOW WARBLER.—Rather rare.
Shot June 9, 1882. Others seen.
21. =Myiodioctes canadensis.= CANADIAN FLYCATCHING WARBLER.—A
tolerably common summer resident.
22. =Setophaga ruticilla.= REDSTART.—Tolerably common. First seen June
9, 1882.
23. =Hirundo erythrogastra horreorum.= BARN SWALLOW.—Rare, and not
known to breed. Mr. Comeau shot one May 29, 1882.
24. =Iridoprocne bicolor.= WHITE-BELLIED SWALLOW.—Common; breeds
plentifully. First seen May 12, 1882.
25. =Petrochelidon lunifrons.= CLIFF SWALLOW.—A small colony nested in
the deserted Hudson’s Bay Trading Post at Godbout this year.
26. =Ampelis cedrorum.= CEDARBIRD.—A tolerably common summer resident.
27. =Lanius borealis.= GREAT NORTHERN SHRIKE.—Occurs, but is not known
to breed.
28. =Pinicola enucleator.= PINE GROSBEAK.—A tolerably common resident.
In autumn it feeds extensively upon the berries of the mountain ash. I
have already published a note on the breeding of this species at
Godbout.[115]
29. =Carpodacus purpureus.= PURPLE FINCH.—Not very common. First seen
April 26, 1882.
30. =Loxia leucoptera.= WHITE-WINGED CROSSBILL.—Tolerably common, but
somewhat irregular in appearance. I found this species to be very
abundant here in July, 1881, while in July, 1882, I did not see any.
31. =Ælgiothus linaria.= RED-POLL.—Very abundant in winter, large
flocks being seen nearly every day. They all seem to move in one
direction, following the shore westward.
32. =Chrysomitris pinus.= PINE LINNET.—Generally common, but somewhat
irregular.
33. =Astragalinus tristis.= AMERICAN GOLDFINCH.—Rather rare. I saw a
small flock in July, 1882.
34. =Plectrophanes nivalis.= SNOW BUNTING.—Very common in flocks in
winter. Seen as late as the middle of May.
35. =Centrophanes lapponicus.= LAPLAND LONGSPUR.—Large flocks of this
species appear on this part of the coast during the latter part of
April, remaining till about the middle of May. They are then very
abundant, occurring both alone and in flocks with the preceding.
36. =Passerculus sandvicensis savana.= SAVANNA SPARROW.—Tolerably
common, breeding on the thinly grassed sand-fields about the mouth of
the Godbout. Mr. Comeau shot one as early as April 21, 1882.
37. =Melospiza fasciata.= SONG SPARROW.—A rather common summer
resident in suitable places, arriving early in May. Particularly
numerous in the clearing about Allan Gilmour’s camp on the Godbout.
38. =Junco hiemalis.= BLACK SNOWBIRD.—Very common. First seen May 16,
1882.
39. =Zonotrichia albicollis.= WHITE-THROATED SPARROW.—The commonest
Sparrow, breeding everywhere. First seen May 14, 1882. This bird is
the “Nightingale” of the Canadians.
40. =Zonotrichia leucophrys.= WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW.—Breeds, but is
not common.
41. =Agelæus phœniceus.= RED-SHOULDERED BLACKBIRD.—Very rare. The only
one ever seen here was a female, and was shot by Mr. Comeau May 22,
1882.
42. =Xanthocephalus icterocephalus.= YELLOW-HEADED BLACKBIRD.—An
accidental straggler from the west. Mr. Comeau shot a male of this
species in his door yard, at Godbout, early in September, 1878.[116]
43. =Quiscalus purpureus.= CROW BLACKBIRD.—Rare. Sometimes seen in
flocks in spring.
44. =Corvus corax.= RAVEN.—A common resident. May 12, 1882, Mr. Comeau
found one of their nests on the face of a cliff about half-way between
Godbout and Point de Monts. It contained four full-fledged young that
must have been at least three or four weeks old.
45. =Corvus frugivorus.= CROW.—A common summer resident, sometimes
wintering. I have observed that the Crows here find much of their food
along the beach at low water.
46. =Cyanocitta cristata.= BLUE JAY.—Resident but not very common.
47. =Perisoreus canadensis.= CANADA JAY.—A tolerably common resident.
48. =Tyrannus carolinensis.= KINGBIRD.—Not rare. Earliest seen June 9,
1882.
49. =Empidonax flaviventris.= YELLOW-BELLIED FLYCATCHER.—I have seen a
specimen that Mr. Comeau shot June 15, 1882.
50. =Chordeiles popetue.= NIGHTHAWK.—A common summer resident. First
seen June 5, 1883. I saw Night-hawks flying about overhead nearly
every day while at Godbout, both in July, 1881, and July, 1882.
51. =Chætura pelasgica.= CHIMNEY SWIFT.—Generally tolerably common,
but not seen this year.
52. =Ceryle alcyon.= BELTED KINGFISHER.—A rather common summer
resident, arriving about the first of May. About June 13, 1882, Mr.
Comeau found three Kingfisher’s nests in a bank, and each contained
seven fresh eggs.
53. =Hylotomus pileatus.= PILEATED WOODPECKER.—Very rare. Mr. Comeau
has shot but one here.
54. =Picus villosus.= HAIRY WOODPECKER.—A tolerably common resident,
being particularly fond of the burnt-over scrub-pine barren near
Godbout.
55. =Picus pubescens.= DOWNY WOODPECKER.—A tolerably common resident,
like the last.
56. =Picoides arcticus.= BLACK THREE-TOED WOODPECKER.—Resident; not
rare.
57. =Colaptes auratus.= GOLDEN-WINGED WOODPECKER.—A tolerably common
summer resident. First seen May 14, 1882.
58. =Bubo virginianus.= GREAT HORNED OWL.—A rather common resident.
59. =Asio wilsonianus.= LONG-EARED OWL.—Rare. Mr. Comeau shot three in
May, 1877 or 1878.
60. =Asio accipitrinus.= SHORT-EARED OWL.—A rather rare summer
resident. Earliest seen May 9, 1882.
61. =Strix nebulosa.= BARRED OWL.—A tolerably common resident.
62. =Nyctea scandiaca.= SNOWY OWL.—Very irregular in appearance;
sometimes very abundant in winter, and sometimes not seen for several
years. Mr. Comeau shot one May 17, 1882, and Mr. Gregoire Labrie
killed one May 31, 1880. These are the latest dates at which they have
been seen in this section.
63. =Surnia funerea.= HAWK OWL.—Common in winter, generally appearing
in November and not remaining later than February.
64. =Nyctala tengmalmi richardsoni.= RICHARDSON’S OWL.—A common winter
resident, and very tame. This Owl has a low liquid note that resembles
the sound produced by water slowly dropping from a height; hence the
Montagne Indians call it _pillip-pile-tshish_, which means
“water-dripping bird.” These Indians have a legend that this was at
one time the largest Owl in the world, and that it had a very loud
voice. It one day perched itself near a large waterfall and tried not
only to imitate the sound of the fall but also to drown the roaring of
the torrent in its own voice. At this the Great Spirit was offended
and transformed it into a pygmy, causing its voice to resemble slowly
dripping water instead of the mighty roar of a cataract.
65. =Nyctala acadica.= SAW-WHET OWL.—Not very common. In winter Mr.
Comeau once saw one of these little Owls fly out from within the
carcass of a great northern hare that had been caught in a snare. The
Owl had eaten away the abdomen and was at work within the thoracic
cavity when frightened away.
66. =Circus cyaneus hudsonius.= MARSH HARRIER.—A tolerably common
summer resident. Three individuals were seen as early as May 5, 1882.
67. =Astur atricapillus.= GOSHAWK.—Not rare.
68. =Falco sacer obsoletus.= LABRADOR GYRFALCON.—Mr. Comeau has killed
several of these rare Falcons in the vicinity of Godbout.
69. =Falco columbarius.= PIGEON HAWK.—Not rare, and doubtless breeds.
70. =Falco sparverius.= SPARROW HAWK.—Rare. One shot May 5, 1882.
71. =Archibuteo lagopus sancti-johannis.= ROUGH-LEGGED
BUZZARD.—Breeds, and is rather common. The southward migration
commences about the last of September and continues into November.
During this period large numbers of these Hawks are constantly passing
over this part of the coast on the way to their winter quarters.
72. =Pandion haliaëtus.= FISH HAWK.—A few pairs of Fish Hawks breed in
this vicinity every year. They were first seen May 2, 1882. They
depart in November.
73. =Aquila chrysaëtus.= GOLDEN EAGLE.—Breeds, and is not particularly
rare. Mr. Comeau has shot three, and knows of half a dozen that were
caught in steel-traps.
74. =Haliaëtus leucocephalus.= WHITE-HEADED EAGLE.—Tolerably common;
breeds. They arrive in March, and remain till December or January. Mr.
Comeau found a nest, early in June, that contained three young about
the size of Crows.
75. =Ectopistes migratorius.= WILD PIGEON.—A rather rare and very
irregular visitor.
76. =Zenaidura carolinensis.= CAROLINA DOVE.—Of this southern species
Mr. Comeau has killed two at Godbout: the first, a male, he shot
October 10, 1881, and the second, a female, June 6, 1882.
77. =Canace canadensis.= SPRUCE GROUSE.—A resident species, but rather
rare.
78. =Bonasa umbella.= RUFFED GROUSE.—A resident, like the last, but
not common. This appears to be the northern limit of the Grouse on the
east coast, and I was unable to find any evidence of its presence
lower down along the north shore of the Gulf.
79. =Lagopus albus.= WILLOW PTARMIGAN.—Very abundant during the early
part of some winters, but during other years it does not occur at all.
They generally arrive about the first of December, and a few remain
till the first of May. They are always most abundant in December, and
Mr. Comeau once killed six hundred before Christmas! He has shot as
many as eighty-two in a single morning.
80. =Squatarola helvetica.= BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER.—Rather rare and
irregular in occurrence. Mr. Comeau has shot it in May and September.
81. =Charadrius dominicus.= GOLDEN PLOVER.—Tolerably common in
September, and sometimes seen in spring.
82. =Ægialites vociferus.= KILLDEER PLOVER.—Mr. Comeau says that this
species breeds and is not rare.
83. =Ægialites semipalmatus.= RING-NECK.—Occurs in spring.
84. =Strepsilas interpres.= TURNSTONE.—Tolerably common in September.
85. =Steganopus wilsoni.= WILSON’S PHALAROPE.—Mr. Comeau tells me that
this Phalarope occurs during the fall migration, but is not common.
86. =Phalaropus fulicarius.= RED PHALAROPE.—Not rare in September.
87. =Gallinago wilsoni.= SNIPE.—A rather rare migrant.—Earliest killed
May 9, 1882.
88. =Macrorhamphus griseus.= RED-BREASTED SNIPE.—Occurs during the
fall migration.
89. =Ereunetes pusillus.= SEMIPALMATED SANDPIPER.—Tolerably common.
First seen during the latter part of May, and common in August and
September.
90. =Actodromas minutilla.= LEAST SANDPIPER.—Rather common in spring
and fall.
91. =Actodromas maculata.= PECTORAL SANDPIPER.—Occurs in fall, but is
not common.
92. =Actodromas bonapartii.= WHITE-RUMPED SANDPIPER.—Mr. Comeau shot
one May 31, 1882.
93. =Calidris arenaria.= SANDERLING.—Occurs in the fall migration.
94. =Totanus melanoleucus.= GREATER TATTLER.—Common spring and fall.
Earliest shot May 9, 1882. Passes south in September.
95. =Totanus flavipes.= YELLOW-SHANKS.—Common during the migrations.
Occurs with the preceding.
96. =Rhyacophilus solitarius.= SOLITARY TATTLER.—Tolerably common,
breeding about the fresh water lakes and streams.
97. =Tringoides macularius.= SPOTTED SANDPIPER.—A tolerably common
summer resident.
98. =Numenius borealis.= ESKIMO CURLEW.—Common in August and
September.
99. =Numenius hudsonius.= HUDSONIAN CURLEW.—Rather rare. Mr. Comeau
has shot it in August.
100. =Ardea herodias.= GREAT BLUE HERON.—Rather rare, and generally
seen in September.
101. =Ardea egretta.= GREAT WHITE EGRET.—Accidental straggler from the
south. One seen June 9, 1882, on an island in Godbout River.
102. =Botaurus mugitans.= AMERICAN BITTERN.—Rare. Mr. Comeau has shot
several here, and tells me that they are common at Manacougan, thirty
miles west of Godbout.
103. =Cygnus= SP.—? A swan was shot at Point de Monts by an Indian in
1870.
104. =Chen hyperboreus.= SNOW GOOSE.—Rare. Mr. Comeau has shot it in
October.
105. =Bernicla brenta.= BRANT GOOSE.—Breeds, and is by no means rare.
Arrives in April, remaining into November and sometimes December.
106. =Bernicla canadensis.= CANADA GOOSE.—A common migrant, arriving
during the latter part of March and departing in November. They breed
at Natashquan, Western Labrador.
107. =Anas obscura.= BLACK DUCK.—A tolerably common summer resident,
breeding about the fresh water lakes.
108. =Dafila acuta.= PINTAIL.—The only one Mr. Comeau ever saw here he
shot June 7, 1882.
109. =Querquedula carolinensis.= GREEN-WINGED TEAL.—Rare here, but
they breed at Manacougan.
110. =Querquedula discors.= BLUE-WINGED TEAL.—Rare, but oftener seen
than the preceding. Has been shot early in May.
111. =Fuligula affinis.= SCAUP DUCK.—Tolerably common in October.
112. =Fuligula collaris.= RING-NECK DUCK.—Mr. Comeau has killed two in
spring.
113. =Clangula glaucium.= GOLDEN-EYE.—A resident species, and
tolerably common. Breeds on fresh water only. Remains throughout the
winter.
114. =Clangula islandica.= BARROW’S GOLDEN-EYE.—A common resident,
breeding, like the foregoing, on fresh water, and remaining on the
Gulf all winter.
115. =Clangula albeola.= BUTTER-BALL.—Rare. Has been shot in October.
116. =Harelda glacialis.= OLD WIFE.—Resident. Very abundant in winter,
the largest flocks being seen in December, January, and February. Mr.
Comeau took one in full summer plumage as early as April 23, 1882.
Tolerably common in summer, and supposed to breed.
117. =Histrionicus minutus.= HARLEQUIN DUCK.—Rare, and only seen
during the latter part of April and early in May. This year Mr. Comeau
saw two April 16, and shot one May 8, out of a flock of four.
118. =Somateria mollissima.= EIDER DUCK.—A permanent resident, but
rather rare.
119. =Somateria spectabilis.= KING EIDER.—Rare. Has been known to
breed.
120. =Œdemia americana.= BLACK SCOTER.—Common from early in April till
some time in November. They do not remain through the winter.
121. =Œdemia fusca.= VELVET SCOTER.—A common resident. The largest
flocks are seen in April and November, and the species is common all
the year round.
122. =Œdemia perspicillata.= SURF DUCK.—Very common from April to
November, but does not winter. The males greatly preponderate over the
females in this species, and Mr. Comeau tells me that the proportion
is always about seven males to one female.
123. =Mergus merganser.= SHELDRAKE.—Tolerably common, breeding about
the fresh water.
124. =Mergus serrator.= RED-BREASTED MERGANSER.—Very common,
frequenting both fresh and salt water.
125. =Sula bassana.= GANNET.—Occasional. I have found it breeding in
numbers at the west end of Anticosti, but do not think it nests
farther up in the Gulf.
126. =Phalacrocorax carbo.= COMMON CORMORANT.—Rare. but Mr. Comeau has
shot several here.
127. =Phalacrocorax dilophus.= DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT.—Mr. Comeau
shot a female May 19, 1882.
128. =Stercorarius pomatorhinus.= POMATORHINE JAEGER.—Rare.
129. =Stercorarius parasiticus.= PARASITIC JAEGER.—Rather rare. Mr.
Comeau shot six in one day about the middle of May, 1874.
130. =Larus glaucus.= GLAUCOUS GULL; ICE GULL.—Rather rare. Usually
seen in February, March, and April. I have a handsome male which was
shot by Mr. Comeau April 29, 1882.
131. =Larus leucopterus.= WHITE-WINGED GULL.—Not common. Commonly
appears and disappears with the last. Mr. Comeau has shot it as late
as May 1.
132. =Larus marinus.= GREAT BLACK-BACKED GULL.—Breeds, and is
tolerably common. It is absent only in January and February. July 17,
1882, I found one of their nests on Great Baule, one of the Seven
Islands. It consisted of a little coarse grass placed in a slight
depression in the rock, and was lined with a sort of pad, about four
inches in diameter, of beautiful soft down, on which reposed a single
egg. The egg had been incubated, but failed to hatch.
133. =Larus argentatus smithsonianus.= HERRING GULL.—Very abundant,
breeding plentifully on suitable rocks. Arrives about the middle or
latter part of April, remaining into November.
134. =Rissa tridactyla.= KITTIWAKE.—Breeds abundantly. Arrives late in
April or early in May, remaining into December. This and the preceding
are the commonest Gulls along this part of the coast, and are
constantly seen, both singly and in immense flocks. They follow the
receding tide and cover the sand flats that are exposed at low water,
feeding upon the molluscs and other marine animals that abound in such
situations. I have seen more than a thousand at one time.
135. =Pagophila eburnea.= IVORY GULL.—Very rare. Mr. Comeau shot a
male in April, 1877, at Point de Monts. The specimen was presented to
the Museum at Bersimis Mission, where it is now preserved.
136. =Chroïcocephalus philadelphia.= BONAPARTE’S GULL.—A tolerably
common summer resident, arriving late in May.
137. =Sterna macrura.= ARCTIC TERN.—Very abundant at certain places,
where it breeds. Mr. Comeau once killed sixteen at one shot, flying.
It arrives early in June.
138. =Cymochorea leucorrhoa.= LEACH’S PETREL.—Common in summer.
139. =Colymbus torquatus.= LOON.—Common. Breeds about the fresh water
lakes of the interior. I saw many, and heard others, in the Gulf, near
Point de Monts, in July. Earliest seen April 12, 1882.
140, =Colymbus septentrionalis.= RED-THROATED DIVER.—Common, breeding
with the last, but not arriving so early, usually coming in May.
141. =Podicipes griseigena holbœlli.= RED-NECKED GREBE.—Rare; one shot
in September.
142. =Podilymbus podicipes.= DAB-CHICK; HELL DIVER.—Not rare; killed
both spring and fall.
143. =Fratercula arctica.= PUFFIN; SEA PARROT.—Not common as far up as
Point de Monts, but very abundant on the Mingan Islands, where they
breed by thousands.
144. =Alle nigricans.= DOVEKIE.—Very abundant in flocks during some
winters, arriving early in December and remaining till some time in
February. During other winters it is rare or does not occur at all.
145. =Uria grylle.= BLACK GUILLEMOT; SEA PIGEON.—A common resident,
breeding not only here, but even on the islands off the mouth of the
Saguenay, an hundred and fifty miles farther up the St. Lawrence.
146. =Lomvia troile.= FOOLISH GUILLEMOT; MURRE.—Like the Dovekie, the
Murre is sometimes very abundant here in winter, while during other
winters it does not occur at all. It is not wary, and does not even
know enough to keep out of the way of dogs along the shore. It is well
named the “Foolish” Guillemot, for both its habits and appearance
deserve this appellation. In fact it looks like a perfect idiot,
swimming over on one side as if one leg were broken, and staring
vacantly at its enemies without attempting to escape. Its _tout
ensemble_ is stupid and gawky.
During the winter of 1875 they were so exceedingly abundant that Mr.
Comeau shot about a thousand for their feathers, and his dog caught
over fifty. They were all in very poor flesh, some being little more
than animated skeletons, and a great many died and were washed ashore.
147. =Utamania torda.= RAZOR-BILLED AUK.—Not common here, but breeds
on the Mingan Islands.
=Recent Literature.=
THE COUES CHECK LIST AND ORNITHOLOGICAL DICTIONARY.[117]—The April
number of the Bulletin contained (p. 111) a brief preliminary notice of
this work, prepared from advance proof sheets. It was not published
until June, and therefore too late for the appearance in our July number
of a satisfactory review. As stated in the title the work is a second
edition of the “Check List” which originally appeared in 1873 and was
reissued in 1874 in connection with “Field Ornithology,” as a reflex of
the classification and nomenclature of the “Key to North American Birds”
(1872), though containing a few additional species. The original List
gave 778 names; the present one gives 888, subtracting 10[118] and
adding 120.
“In revising the List,” says the author, “for the main purpose of
determining the ornithological _status_ of every North American bird,
the most scrupulous attention has been paid to the matter of
nomenclature,—not only as a part of scientific classification,
determining the technical relations of genera, species, and varieties to
each other, but also as involved in writing and speaking the names of
birds correctly. The more closely the matter was scrutinized, the more
evidences of inconsistency, negligence, or ignorance were discovered in
our habitual use of names. It was therefore determined to submit the
current catalogue of North American birds to a rigid examination, with
reference to the spelling, pronunciation, and derivation of every
name—in short, to revise the list from a philological as well as an
ornithological standpoint.”
“The purpose of the present ‘Check List’ is thus distinctly seen to be
two-fold: First, to present a complete list of the birds now known to
inhabit North America, north of Mexico, and including Greenland, to
classify them systematically, and to name them conformably with current
rules of nomenclature; these being ornithological matters of science.
Secondly, to take each word occurring in such technical usage, explain
its derivation, significance, and application, spell it correctly, and
indicate its pronunciation with the usual diacritical marks; these being
purely philological matters, affecting not the scientific status of any
bird, but the classical questions involved in its name” (pp. 3, 4).
The analysis of the two editions shows that of the 120 additions to the
old list the large majority are _bona fide_ species, and actual
acquisitions to the North American list, being birds discovered since
1873 in Texas, Arizona, and Alaska, together with several long known to
inhabit Greenland, which had never been formally included in the “North
American” list at the time Dr. Coues’s first Check List was issued,
though the Greenland Fauna, even then, was generally claimed and
conceded to be North American. Beside these, the increment is
represented by species or varieties named as new to science since 1873,
by a few restored to the list, and by two (_Passer montanus_ and
_Coturnix dactylisonans_) imported and now naturalized species.
The author states that the list includes the names of some twenty or
thirty sub-species which “my conservatism would not have allowed me to
describe as valid, and the validity of which I can scarcely endorse,”
but which are retained because “I preferred, in preparing a ‘Check List’
for general purposes, rather to present the full number of names in
current usage, and let them stand for what they may be worth, than to
exercise any right of private judgment, or make any critical
investigation of the merits of disputed cases.” In view of this
declaration, however, we fail to understand why such names as
_Carpodacus purpureus californicus_, _Chondestes grammicus strigatus_,
_Picus villosus leucomelas_, _Bubo virginianus subarcticus_, _Bubo
virginianus saturatus_, and _Oreortyx picta plumifera_ should have been
denied a place. Nor can we approve the exclusion of certain Audubonian
species “not since identified,” as well as some of Giraud’s, which there
is no good reason to doubt were actually taken in Texas. “A few Cape St.
Lucas birds have been so long in the ‘North American’ list that it is
not thought worth while to displace them”; but does not this
consideration apply with equal force to many of the Mexican species
which are excluded? Our present southern boundary is a political, not a
natural one, but this is all the more reason why it should be rigidly
adhered to if followed at all. As Dr. Coues remarks, however, it would
be far more satisfactory, from a scientific standpoint, to ignore the
present arbitrary line and include the whole “Nearctic Region,” thus
taking in the table lands of Mexico nearly to the Isthmus of
Tehuantepec.
To the analyses and comparisons succeed “Remarks on the use of Names,”
ten pages being devoted to the principles which have guided the author
in his philological researches so far as the etymology, orthography, and
orthoepy are concerned. This portion of the work has something more than
an indirect value, for it forms a condensed, readily available grammar
of the subject to which it pertains. The assistance here rendered by his
literary associate, Mrs. S. Olivia Weston-Aiken, is fittingly
acknowledged in the Introduction.
In the body of the Check List the names are printed in bold type, both
English and Latin, and are numbered 1 to 888. Sub-generic names are
entirely discarded, as is the sign of “var.” between specific and
subspecific terms. The nomenclature of sub-species is therefore
trinomial, without the slightest disguise. The technical name is
followed by the name of the original describer of the bird, and by that
of the authority for the particular combination adopted. The
“concordance of previous lists,” mentioned in the title, is effected by
referring by number to Baird’s List of 1858, Coues’s Check List of 1874,
and Ridgway’s Catalogue of 1880, in the case of every species.
On each page the names are duplicated in smaller type, divided into
syllables marked for quantity and accent, and their pronunciation
therefore shown, according to the system of orthoepy advocated. The most
important point secured, however, is the etymology or derivation of the
scientific words. “On the whole,” say the authors of this part of the
work, “it has not been our intention to go beyond a good fair definition
of these Greek and Latin words, considering that all practical purposes
are thus subserved.” The etymologies are really, however, traced far
back in many cases. “Nothing of the sort has been done before, to the
same extent at any rate, and it is confidently expected that the
information here given will prove useful to many who, however familiar
they may be with the appearance of the names on paper, have
comparatively little notion of the derivation, signification, and
application of the words, and who unwittingly speak them as they usually
hear them pronounced, that is to say, with glaring impropriety. No one
who adds a degree of classical proficiency to his scientific
acquirements, be the latter never so extensive, can fail to handle the
tools of thought with an ease and precision so greatly enhanced, that
the merit of ornithological exactitude may be adorned with the charm of
scholarly elegance” (p. 4).
The Check List proper is concluded with “a list of words defined,”
alphabetically arranged, and therefore serving as an index to the work.
The volume finishes with a chronological list of Dr. Coues’s writings on
ornithology.
Aside from modifications which affect the ornithological or scientific
_status_ of the “Check List,” the changes in nomenclature are numerous
and radical. Under our accepted, but in certain ways pernicious, system
of ornithological nomenclature most of these were probably necessary;
but we have little sympathy with the recent upheaval in this respect,
nor do we believe that the names at present advocated will prove more
stable than those which have preceded them. Stejneger has lately
shown[119] that neither Coues nor Ridgway reached the foundations; and
doubtless some one of an equally enquiring mind and with an imagination
still better adapted to interpreting ancient descriptions of uncertain
application, will yet come forward and work fresh havoc. The trouble
with this kind of investigation is that sufficient regard is rarely paid
to the rule that a description must be clearly defined, and that
“definition properly implies a distinct exposition of essential
characters.” We have not forgotten Mr. Allen’s eloquent protest against
the adoption of certain Bartramian names, and there can be no doubt that
his objections will apply equally well to the descriptions of many other
early authors. Moreover, while we distinctly disclaim any personal
application of such a thought, we cannot help believing that if _the
practice of giving the authority for the arrangement of names_ were
discontinued, there would be less of this meddling with nomenclature. At
all events the evil is a terrible one, and it must be stopped, even if
the whole code has to be thrown overboard and a new one instituted. So
extreme a course, however, is probably unnecessary, for some simple
statute of limitation can doubtless be devised which will answer all the
required ends. Dr. Coues’s recent suggestion,[120] that fifty years of
unchallenged usage shall fix a name forever, is an excellent one, but
the time of probation might, with advantage, be reduced to twenty-five
years. Such a provision, with one requiring all proposed changes to be
referred to a tribunal composed of not less than three prominent
ornithologists, who might meet for the purpose at intervals of say once
in four years, would effectually prevent any further tampering with a
system which should be sacred, but which has become a mere football.
With respect to genera we are sorry to notice that Dr. Coues has
abandoned certain old-time principles and adopted many of the
sub-divisions which he rejected in the edition of 1873. Chief among
these are _Actodromas_, _Arquatella_, _Pelidna_, and _Ancylochilus_, in
_Tringa_; _Symphemia_ and _Rhyacophilus_ in _Totanus_; _Herodias_,
_Garzetta_, _Hydranassa_, _Dichromanassa_, _Florida_, and _Butorides_ in
_Ardea_, and _Chroïcocephalus_ in _Larus_. _Turdus_, however, is
retained for all the Thrushes of the sub-family _Turdinæ_, and _Vireo_,
in its euphonious simplicity, stands for all the Vireos. While we would
not be understood as condemning all the above changes, we consider the
majority of them arbitrary, and hence uncalled for. The ever increasing
tendency to institute new genera on differences of structure which in
other classes of Vertebrates would be considered no more than
well-marked specific characters, is one of the banes of modern
ornithology. Our systematists seem to have lost sight of the uses for
which genera were primarily intended. Of this school, however, Dr. Coues
is perhaps among the more conservative members.
Having fulfilled our duty of critic by finding all possible fault with
the “Coues Check List” we turn to the much pleasanter task of mentioning
some of its many good qualities. Of its several departments the
introductory chapters may be characterised as terse, practical, and to
the point; the Check List proper as carefully and in the main wisely
framed; the “dictionary” as an exhaustive treatise of high scholarly
excellence and of unquestionable utility. Concerning the whole work we
can say nothing stronger than that it is in every way worthy of its
brilliant and distinguished author, who has evidently made it one of his
most mature and carefully studied efforts. Its favorable reception can
be a matter of no uncertainty, for it fills a field of usefulness
peculiarly its own, and one which need in no way conflict with that so
ably covered by Mr. Ridgway’s recent “Nomenclature.”[121]—W. B.
GENTRY’S NESTS AND EGGS OF BIRDS OF THE UNITED STATES.[122]—It is now
several months since the appearance of the twenty-fifth part, the final
number of this work, which was published by subscription. The text is
written by Mr. Gentry himself, while the plates were executed by Mr.
Edwin Sheppard, “subject to the suggestions and dictations of the
author.” The title is misleading, for instead of treating of all the
species found in the United States, it deals with but fifty—less than
one-fifth the number known to occur within this area.
The typography and press work are good, but the plates fall far short of
deserving the same praise. In the early numbers the nests and eggs were
generally figured alone, but the author soon acceded to the popular
demand and furnished colored representations of the birds on all plates
commencing with the seventh part; with the final number appeared four
extra plates, on which were shown the birds that were omitted in the
first six parts.
In a general way it may be said of most of the plates that the
perspective is very bad—if not absent altogether; that a large number of
the nests look as if temporarily balanced, like so many saucers, upon
the branches on which they rest, and from which they seem ready to
tumble on the slightest jar; and that nearly all have the appearance of
cheap chromo-lithographs, while none attain to the degree of excellence
essential to first-class workmanship. In order to give the subscribers
as much paint as possible for the money, the artist has endeavored to
supply backgrounds to many of the plates. Some of these seem intended to
represent distant mountains, but the greater number consist of dense,
and sometimes shapeless masses of solid green. At other times we are
treated to glimpses of the sky and ocean that rival, in depth and
intensity of color, the rich ultramarine-blue of the head of the
Nonpareil.
Turning now to the letter-press let us examine its claim to rank among
the contributions to ornithological literature. A few brief quotations
will suffice to show both the scope of the work and the author’s
estimate of its value. In the preface he says: “Especial pains have been
taken with the text. The aim of the author has been to present a short,
plain, and detailed account of the habits of each species described....
“Throughout the work, considerable prominence has been given to those
interesting and curious phases of bird life which are present during the
breeding period, and which have been the principal study of the author
for many years. Extraneous matter has been sedulously omitted, and
nothing permitted to appear about which there could be serious doubts of
accuracy.
“With these few preliminary remarks, we send this beautiful book out
into the world, trusting that it may meet with a cordial reception
everywhere.”
That the work does not contain anything approaching a complete “detailed
account of the habits” of a single species is evident from the most
cursory examination of the biographies. On the other hand, we are given
an amount of detail and exact data, concerning some of the most
inaccessible points connected with the breeding habits of birds, that
excite, first, admiration (for the author’s extraordinary acuteness of
observation); next, astonishment (at the possibility of attaining a
knowledge of certain peculiarities mentioned); and finally, incredulity
(regarding the reliability of the author’s statements).
To be more explicit: Not only does Mr. Gentry tell us the exact number
of days consumed in building the nest, in depositing the eggs, in
incubation, the period the young remain in the nest, and the length of
time they are afterwards fed by the parents; but he goes further and
states how much time is devoted to courting, gives the period of mating
and the duration of the honeymoon, and tells us how many days are spent
in the selection of a suitable and satisfactory site for the nest, not
omitting, in some cases, to mention which sex governs in making the
choice. A few citations, in the author’s own words, will suffice, to
demonstrate his unparalleled perspicacity in these matters.
Speaking of the Wood Pewee he says: “The assumption of matrimonial
relations, however, is not a matter that is entered into without more or
less consideration.... The ceremony of mating being over—which business
is ordinarily of short continuance, seldom lasting for a greater period
than two days—the newly-wedded pair now set out to discover a suitable
place for the building of a home. This is a matter of considerable
moment, often requiring the performance of long and extended tours of
observation and exploration. These reconnoissances generally last for a
week,.... The site being mutually agreed upon, the happy pair proceed
with all possible dispatch and diligence to construct a domicile: the
male to collect and bring in the necessary materials; the female to fix
them in their proper places.... Having finished their home, only a day
or so intervenes when oviposition becomes the controlling instinct. The
female now proceeds to deposit her complement of four eggs, which she
does on consecutive days, at the rate of a single egg daily. This is
followed, on the day succeeding the last deposit, by the trying duty of
incubation. Upon the female devolves this arduous and irksome labor.”
Of the nesting of the Catbird he tells us that “ordinarily a week or ten
days are spent in making a choice of locality.”
With the Orchard Oriole “Mating does not occur,” he says, till “more
than two weeks after the advent of the sexes.... The sexes having come
together in a wise and business-like way, with little or none of the
bluster that is customary on such occasions, a conference ensues, which
results in a temporary separation for mutual good; one bird going in one
direction and the other in an entirely opposite course. The selection of
a suitable spot for a home is the _vera causa_ of this divergence.... In
five or six days from the time of the assumption of matrimonial
relations the nest is started, and through the united efforts of both
birds for the period of a week is brought to completion.”
Of the Hummingbird he writes, “The sexes, tired as it were, of the
riotous and luxurious lives they have been leading, come together by
mutual agreement, and enter into matrimonial relations. This being
accomplished, they separate for a brief period, and each proceeds to
scour the country for miles around in quest of a suitable tree in which
to locate. When one is selected by either bird the other is summoned to
the spot to talk over, in true bird language, the merits thereof. Should
the parties differ as to the advantageousness of the site, no
quarrelling or bickering is indulged in, but, in the most friendly
manner, they separate and renew the search until one is found which
gives satisfaction.”
In his biography of the Chewink occurs the following: “The females
wholly entranced, yield to the persuasions of their would-be lords, and
conjugal relations are entered into.... But the happy couple are not yet
ready to begin nest-building. They must needs celebrate the occasion of
their marriage. Accordingly they set out on a wedding trip, so to speak,
visiting adjoining lots and thickets, and enjoying the delights and
scenes around them. This continues for four or five days, when the
lovers, thoroughly surfeited, return and quietly settle down to prosy
life.”
Such statements as the foregoing cast a shadow of suspicion upon remarks
that otherwise might be regarded as authentic, and attach to the work
the stigma of untrustworthiness.
The account of the nocturnal habits of the Virginia Rail, although the
wording is changed, savors strongly of the latter part of the 537th page
of Coues’s “Birds of the Northwest.”
Enough has been said to show that instead of becoming an authority,
worthy of place amongst the standard works on North American
ornithology, Mr. Gentry’s book on nests and eggs must inevitably find
its level alongside such unreliable and worthless productions as
Jasper’s “Birds of North America” and similar trash. In other words,
instead of a work of scientific value, we have a popular picture-book,
well-adapted for the amusement of children.—C. H. M.
=General Notes.=
DENDRŒCA PALMARUM AT SING SING, NEW YORK.—On April 29, 1882, while
collecting at this place, I killed a specimen of the true _D. palmarum_.
The bird is unusually yellow beneath, but Mr. Robert Ridgway, who kindly
compared it, says: “We have several specimens from Wisconsin and
Illinois which will match it.” It was busily engaged, when captured, in
catching winged insects in a low swampy thicket.—A. K. FISHER, M. D.,
_Sing Sing, N. Y._
NEST AND EGGS OF SETOPHAGA PICTA—A CORRECTION.—Mr. W. E. Bryant has
kindly called my attention to the fact that he described two nests and
sets of eggs of the Painted Redstart in Vol. VI of this Bulletin (pp.
176, 177). The clutch found by Mr. Stephens and mentioned by me in the
last number of the Bulletin (Vol. VII, July 1882, pp. 140, 141) is,
therefore, the third, instead of the first authentic one known. I take
this opportunity for correcting the mistake, and at the same time tender
my apology to Mr. Bryant for the inadvertent oversight of his
note.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
THE SUMMER TANAGER (_Pyranga æstiva_) IN NEW BRUNSWICK.—While staying at
Grand Manan, N. B., in June, last year, I saw in the possession of Mr.
J. F. C. Moses a Summer Tanager which had been taken there a few weeks
before. It was shot at North Head, Grand Manan, about the 12th on 14th
of May, 1881, by a boy who brought it in the flesh to Mr. Moses, by whom
it was mounted. The bird—which was undoubtedly a male, though dissection
had been neglected—was in full plumage, and showed no signs of previous
captivity. Indeed in that thinly settled region the capture of an
escaped cage bird would be an unlikely event. The specimen is now in the
collection of Mr. George A. Boardman.
This adds another case to the list of southern birds that have
occasionally found their way to the neighborhood of the Bay of Fundy.
The causes of their coming still remain hidden, and more light is needed
before the facts can be satisfactorily explained.—CHARLES F. BATCHELDER,
_Cambridge, Mass._
THE EVENING GROSBEAK IN NEW YORK.—Mr. Charles F. Earle writes me from
Syracuse, N. Y., July 11th, as follows: “On the 8th of the present month
I saw a male Evening Grosbeak (_Hesperophona vespertina_) near Marcellus
Station, Onondaga County, N. Y. Being engaged in fly-fishing at the
time, I was unable to secure the bird; but there is no question of the
identification, as I had a good view of it at reasonably close
quarters.”—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D.C._
THE BLACK-THROATED BUNTING IN FLORIDA.—Neither Professor Allen in his
“Winter Birds of East Florida,” nor Mr. Maynard in his work on the birds
of Eastern North America, includes the Black-throated Bunting (_Spiza
americana_) as an inhabitant of Florida; hence the following note of its
capture there may be worth recording. While walking along the fence row
of an old field near Fernandina on April 22d, 1881, looking for Shrikes
and Ground Doves, I heard the familiar note of this well-dressed Bunting
in a small tree near the fence. He was immediately secured, but although
I afterwards searched diligently for others, none were found.—C. W.
BECKHAM, _Bardstown, Ky._
DISTRIBUTION OF THE FISH CROW (_Corvus ossifragus_.)—During a recent
trip to Charlottesville, Albemarle Co., Virginia, I was much surprised
to find the Fish Crow exceedingly common—quite as numerous, in fact, as
the Common Crow (_C. frugivorus_). The locality in question is entirely
surrounded by mountains—Monticello and Ragged Mountains to the east and
south, the Blue Ridge only about twelve miles to the westward—and is
distant at least sixty miles from the nearest tide water.—ROBERT
RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._
THE SWALLOW-TAILED KITE (_Elanoïdes forficatus_) TAKEN IN SOUTHERN
MICHIGAN.—Two fine specimens, male and female, of the Swallow-tailed
Kite, were taken near this place, June 19, 1882, by Mr. Charles
Chittenden. When first discovered by him they were foraging about his
dove house, and causing a great commotion among the inmates.
The female was shot and instantly killed, while her mate, who was only
slightly wounded, was secured alive. The latter is now in the possession
of Dr. N. Paquette of Petersburg. They were properly identified by
comparison with a nicely mounted specimen in my collection, which came
from Georgia. As far as I am aware this is the first recorded capture of
this species within the State. Dr. Morris Gibbs in his List of the Birds
of Michigan, 1879, admits it on the authority of Hon. D. D. Hughes of
Grand Rapids, but cites no recorded example having been taken.—JEROME
TROMBLEY, _Petersburg, Munroe County, Michigan_.
GARZETTA CANDIDISSIMA AT NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS.—Visiting the
above-named island, Aug. 12, 1882, I saw in the shop of Mr. H. S. Sweet,
a mounted specimen of the Little White or Snowy Egret, which he said was
shot near the southwest shore, at Hummock pond, last March, by one of
the men of the Life-saving Station. A straggler to New England, the
species has occurred far less frequently than its larger relative the
White Heron (_Herodias egretta_), and this capture in early spring is
remarkable.—H. A. PURDIE, _Newton, Mass._
THE SNOW GOOSE (_Chen Hyperboreus_) AT SING SING, NEW YORK.—On the
morning of April 9th, 1882, a large flock of two or three hundred Snow
Geese visited this place. They alighted several times at the mouth of
the Croton, where it empties into the Hudson, but being disturbed by the
gunners, who were anxious for a shot at them, they at last flew farther
up the river. I examined them by the aid of a powerful field-glass, at a
distance of a few hundred yards, and being on elevated ground I could
look down upon the flock and easily distinguish the black wing-tips of
the adults as they flew. A few days previous I saw a single individual
flying, who seemed to be taking the lay of the country. I was informed
that the flock again passed down the river on the night of the 10th.—A.
K. FISHER, M. D., _Sing Sing, N. Y._
NOTE ON THE LONG-TAILED DUCK.—On February 5, 1881, one of my friends
procured a male specimen of the Long-tailed Duck (_Harelda glacialis_),
at Latrobe, Westmoreland Co., Pennsylvania. The bird was shot on the
only unfrozen spot noticed on the creek at the time—it was during the
coldest “snap” of the season—and was in a very emaciated condition. The
occurrence of this species so far inland (west of and near the
mountains) is noteworthy. It was altogether unknown to the gunners
thereabouts, and was brought to me for identification.—CHAS. H.
TOWNSEND, _Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia_.
LOMVIA ARRA BRÜNNICHI AND L. TROILE IN NEW ENGLAND.—Mr. Merrill’s note
on these birds in the July number of this Bulletin (p. 191) was a timely
correction of a long established error, for the common Murre found in
winter off the New England coast is, as he has stated, _Lomvia arra
brünnichi_, and not _L. troile_. At different times during the past ten
years I have examined specimens from various points along the shores of
Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, and all of the numerous birds
that have come under my notice have proved to be Brünnich’s Guillemots.
Indeed the example of _L. troile_ mentioned by Mr. Merrill is the only
New England one of which I have any knowledge. Dr. Coues says that the
young of _L. troile_ in their first winter plumage “are colored
precisely like the adults, but may be always distinguished by their much
shorter and slenderer bills which are in great part light colored
(yellowish).”[123] If the latter peculiarity be constant it will afford
a ready mark of distinction between young of the two species, for the
bill in young _brünnichi_, so far as I have seen, is invariably
black.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
RARE WARBLERS IN MASSACHUSETTS.—In the wonderful flight or bird wave,
especially of the _Mniotiltidae_, that took place with us May 21 and 22
last, and for some species continued during a few succeeding days, three
Mourning Warblers, all males, were shot near Fresh pond, Cambridge.
These, in the flesh, were kindly shown me by Mr. C. J. Maynard.
At Framingham,[124] on the above-named dates, Mr. Browne and myself
identified twenty species of Warblers—among them specimens of the Cape
May, Tennessee, and Bay-breasted; of the last two several were obtained
in Eastern Massachusetts. Among New England Warblers, collectors here
consider _Geothlypis philadelphia_ to be the rarest, and _Dendrœca
tigrina_ next in scarcity. _Helminthophila peregrina_ and _Dendrœca
castanea_ follow, though in the fall migrations this latter species
occurs in moderate numbers with more or less regularity.—H. A. PURDIE,
_Newton, Mass._
THE UNUSUAL “WAVE” OF BIRDS DURING THE SPRING MIGRATION OF 1882.—A note
by Dr. Coues in the July Bulletin[125] describes the remarkable “tidal
wave” of our smaller birds that occurred at Washington, D.C., during the
spring migration this year, and it may be worth while to throw a little
light upon its further course.
As Dr. Coues says, the vast number of birds was doubtless due to the
cold and rainy weather that prevailed, checking the progress of the
migration beyond the latitude of Washington. When the weather changed,
the gradually accumulated throng was let loose, and rushed in a great
wave towards the northern breeding grounds. In the vicinity of New York,
as I learn from my friend Mr. J. Dwight, Jr., after prolonged cold and
wet weather a change came on the morning of May 20, and with the
pleasant weather the rush of birds began. Almost all the Warblers and
Thrushes were in great numbers, and continued very abundant at least
throughout the following day. In the latitude of Boston birds had been
unusually scarce for some days. The change to clear and warmer weather
took place about noon of the 2lst, and before the rain ceased the rush
of birds had begun. All day long the smaller birds came in unheard of
numbers, stopping awhile to feed, and then hurrying on. The next morning
the host was even greater, and the trees fairly swarmed with Warblers.
Before noon of that day most of the birds had passed on, but for a day
or two afterward the number of loiterers was sufficient to be
noticeable, compared with ordinary migrations, though they seemed but a
few stragglers after the army that had swept over the country during the
previous days. Almost all the species of Warblers that occur in the
spring migration through New England were observed. Among the rarer ones
were _Helminthophila peregrina_, _Dendrœca tigrina_, _D. castanea_, and
_Geothlypis philadelphia_. A White-crowned Sparrow was also shot in
Cambridge.
Dr. Coues suggests that the cold wave spoken of by Mr. King[126] was the
cause of this accumulation of birds. Such could hardly have been the
case, as that occurred on the 21st and 22d, whereas by that time the
accumulated hosts had reached Massachusetts.
It would be interesting to hear further of the course and magnitude of
this “bird wave” as observed at other points.—CHARLES F. BATCHELDER,
_Cambridge, Mass._
BIRDS NEW TO OR RARE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
1. BEWICK’S WREN (_Thryomanes bewicki_). An adult ♂, taken at Arlington,
Virginia (immediately opposite Washington), April 10, 1882, by W.
Palmer, is in the collection of the U. S. National Museum (No. 86,218).
2. YELLOW-THROATED WARBLER (_Dendrœca dominica_). The National Museum
also possesses a fine young ♂ of this species, taken at Arlington by Mr.
Palmer, September 7th, 1881 (No. 84,858).
3. LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE (_Lanius ludovicianus_). Several specimens of this
irregularly distributed, and everywhere more or less local, species,
have within the last few years been taken in the vicinity of Washington,
and are now in the collection of the National Museum. Most if not all of
them were obtained in winter.
4. SHARP-TAILED FINCH (_Ammodromus caudacutus_). In the mounted
collection of the National Museum there is a fine adult of this species
labeled, “Washington City, September, 1862; C. Drexler.” (Nat. Mus.
Catal. No. 25,905.)—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._
NOTES ON SOME BIRDS AND EGGS FROM THE MAGDALEN ISLANDS, GULF OF ST.
LAWRENCE.—The following notes, made by Mr. M. A. Frazar during a
collecting trip to the Magdalen Islands in June and July, 1882, seem of
sufficient importance to merit publication, although many of them are
not absolutely new. Some of the points which they cover, however, have
been previously involved in more or less obscurity, while the others
will be none the worse for fresh data. The specimens described, and most
of those mentioned, are now in the writer’s collection, and the
descriptions are on his authority.
1. =Dendrœca striata.= BLACK-POLL WARBLER.—A set of three fresh eggs,
identified by the capture of the female parent, was taken June 23. The
nest was built in a low, thick spruce which stood on the edge of a
swamp, near a brook. It was placed on a horizontal branch at a height of
about three feet, and was well concealed by the clusters of
densely-imbricated needles above. Externally it measures 5 inches wide
by 2.50 inches deep; internally 1.80 by 1.50 inches. The walls in places
are 1.50 inches in thickness. The main body of the structure is composed
of Usnea moss, weed-stalks, and dry grasses, closely matted and
protected outwardly by coarser stalks and a few dead spruce twigs. The
lining is of slender, black moss-stems (which curiously resemble
horse-hair), cows’-hair, and a few feathers. The whole affair is
remarkably solid and bulky for a Warbler’s nest.
The eggs are white, with brown specks scattered over the general surface
of the shell and numerous spots and blotches of reddish-brown and
lavender about the larger end. They measure respectively .75 × .56, .76
× .56, and .75 × .57.
2. =Pinicola enucleator.= PINE GROSBEAK.—The Pine Grosbeak was
apparently rare among the Magdalens for Mr. Frazar met with only five
individuals, four of which were secured. The first pair, taken June 18,
on Amherst Island, evidently had a nest among some low spruces, for both
birds showed unmistakable signs of anxiety when the spot was approached,
and the female proved, on examination, to be incubating. The female of
the second pair, shot June 29, on Grindstone Island, had laid all her
eggs but one, which, although in the oviduct and of full size, was
unfortunately without a shell. Mr. Frazar searched long and carefully
for both nests but without success.
Our knowledge respecting the breeding of this Grosbeak, as found in
America, is so very imperfect that the above data are both interesting
and valuable. The inference is that the eggs are laid late in the
season, a fact which the analogy furnished by kindred species would
scarcely have suggested.
3. =Loxia leucoptera.= WHITE-WINGED CROSSBILL.—Mr. Frazar met with these
Crossbills on all the islands of the Magdalen group, where they were
among the most abundant of the land birds. At the time of his arrival
(June 6) they had already collected in large flocks which were composed
chiefly of young birds and females, a company of fifty or more often
containing only one or two males in red plumage. The latter were also
found singly, and from the fact that such individuals were often in full
song Mr. Frazar inferred that they might still be in attendance on
sitting mates, or unfledged young. The average development of the
numerous young birds collected would indicate, however, that the regular
breeding season was somewhat earlier, although none of them could have
been hatched much before the middle of May. Assuming, then, that the
past season was not an exceptionally late one, the proper time to look
for fresh eggs in this locality would be not far from May 1.
As I can find no detailed description of the first plumage of this
species I append the following:—
_Juv., first plumage_ (♀, Magdalen Islands, June 14, 1882. M. A.
Frazar). Entire plumage of head and body thickly streaked with dull
black on an ochraceous ground; greater and middle wing-coverts, with the
tertials, broadly tipped with fulvous-white; primaries and rectrices
black, edged with pale fulvous.
A male (June 26) somewhat older, but still in first plumage, differs
from the specimen just described in having the dark streaks broader and
blacker, the wing-bands nearly pure white, and the under parts less
strongly ochraceous.
4. =Ægiothus linaria.= COMMON RED-POLL.—In his list of the birds of the
Magdalen Islands,[127] Mr. Cory included this species “with great
hesitation,” a single specimen, so badly mangled that it could not be
positively identified, being the only one which came under his notice.
Mr. Frazar, however, found it abundant on both Amherst and Grindstone
Islands where many large flocks were seen feeding among the spruces.
Owing to lack of time and the pressure of other duties he secured only
two specimens, but as these are both in first plumage the breeding of
the species there may be considered assured. The following description
is taken from the younger of the two examples just mentioned.
_Juv., first plumage_ (♂, Magdalen Islands, June 29, 1882. M. A.
Frazar). Entire plumage of the head and body, excepting the throat,
cheeks, and abdomen, thickly and coarsely streaked with dull black on a
pale ochraceous or brownish-white ground; tips of the greater and middle
wing-coverts with the outer edges of the tertials, ochraceous-white;
throat black; cheeks brownish-ochraceous; center of the abdomen
brownish-white and immaculate; no red on the vertex.
5. =Falco columbarius.= PIGEON HAWK.—A set of four eggs from Amherst
Island was taken under the following circumstances: Mr. Frazar was
passing a spruce-clad knoll surrounded by a boggy swamp, when he noticed
a pair of Pigeon Hawks circling above the trees. Approaching, he quickly
discovered their nest, built in a dense spruce at the intersection of a
horizontal branch with the main stem and at a height of about ten feet.
As he climbed the tree the Hawks, now thoroughly alarmed for the safety
of their charge, dashed wildly about his head, frequently passing within
a few feet and uttering shrill screams of anger or dismay. After taking
the eggs he made a close examination of the nest, which was found to be
very bulky—in fact “as large as a Crow’s,” and composed chiefly of bark
with some coarse sticks surrounding the exterior, and a neat, soft
lining of finer bark and _horse-hair_. From its general appearance he
felt convinced that it was constructed by the Hawks themselves. This was
June 9; returning five days later he found both birds flying about the
knoll and their actions indicated that they had built another nest
somewhere near, but it could not be found. As he was then on the point
of leaving the island he shot the male, a fine adult specimen which
accompanies the eggs.
The latter, now before me, are almost perfectly elliptical in shape, and
measure respectively 1.57 × 1.27, 1.55 × 1.23, 1.59 × 1.24, and 1.56 ×
1.25. The ground-color, in three of them, is apparently pinkish-buff,
but this is almost wholly overlaid by numerous, nearly confluent
blotches of dilute chocolate and purplish-brown which, with a few black
spots and dashes, are uniformly spread over the entire surface of the
shell. The fourth specimen has some immaculate spaces of creamy-buff
about the smaller end, although the markings elsewhere are even denser
than in the other three. The general coloring of these eggs is extremely
rich and handsome and, excepting in size, they bear a close resemblance
to the notoriously beautiful egg of the Duck Hawk.—WILLIAM BREWSTER,
_Cambridge, Mass._
SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE PRELIMINARY LIST OF BIRDS ASCERTAINED TO OCCUR IN
THE ADIRONDACK REGION, NORTHEASTERN NEW YORK.[128]
186. =Telmatodytes palustris.= LONG-BILLED MARSH WREN.—Dr. A. K. Fisher
writes me that he took a nest and three eggs of this species at Lake
George, in Warren Co., August 2, 1882.
187. =Passer domesticus.= HOUSE SPARROW.—Common in the villages along
the outskirts of the wilderness, on both sides of the Adirondacks.
188. =Squatarola helvetica.= BLACK-BELLIED PLOVER.—Occurs along Lake
Champlain during the migration.
189. =Charadrius dominicus.= GOLDEN PLOVER.—Very common about Lake
Champlain during October in some seasons.
190. =Ægialites semipalmatus.= SEMIPALMATED PLOVER; RING-NECK.—Abundant
along Lake Champlain during the fall migration, arriving about the
middle of September.
191. =Tringa canutus.= KNOT; ROBIN SNIPE.—Occurs during the migrations.
192. =Actodromas minutilla.= LEAST SANDPIPER.—Very abundant about Lakes
George and Champlain during the fall migration.
193. =Pelidna alpina americana.= RED-BACKED SANDPIPER; AMERICAN
DUNLIN.—Occurs during the migrations.
194. =Limosa fœda.= MARBLED GODWIT.—Sometimes tolerably common about
Lake Champlain in October.
195. =Bartramia longicauda.= FIELD PLOVER.—Breeds in dry fields
bordering the Adirondacks, on both sides of the mountains.
196. =Numenius longirostris.= LONG-BILLED CURLEW.—A specimen was shot
near Plattsburg, on Lake Champlain, several years ago.
197. =Rallus virginianus.= VIRGINIAN RAIL.—Tolerably common about the
borders of the wilderness.
198. =Chaulelasmus streperus.= GADWALL.—Rare. Mr. Henry Prentiss shot
one on Lake Champlain in April, 1882.
199. =Dafila acuta.= PINTAIL.—Rather rare. Occurs both in spring and
fall.
200. =Mareca americana.= BALDPATE.—Rare along Lake Champlain.
201. =Fuligula marila.= SCAUP DUCK.—Occurs during the migrations, but is
not common.
202. =Fuligula affinis.= LITTLE BLACK-HEAD.—Tolerably regular fall
migrant. Taken on Lake Champlain.
203. =Fuligula vallisneria.= CANVAS-BACK.—Rare fall migrant.
204. =Fuligula americana.= REDHEAD.—Rare. Has been killed on Lake
Champlain in November.
205. =Larus glaucus.= GLAUCOUS GULL; ICE GULL.—I have seen a specimen of
this boreal species that was killed while feeding on carrion, in the
town of Bangor in Franklin Co., about two years ago.—C. HART MERRIAM,
M.D., _Locust Grove, N. Y._
LIST OF ADDITIONS TO THE CATALOGUE OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS.—In this
Bulletin for January, 1882 (page 61), there was published a list of
species of birds which had been added to the fauna of North America
since the publication of the last “Smithsonian” catalogue, or
_Nomenclature of North American Birds_. I now give a list of subsequent
additions for the benefit of those who, for various reasons, are not
able to “keep the run” of all the new discoveries; and a supplement with
each number of the Bulletin is contemplated, in order that all
interested may keep posted in the matter.
The number prefixed indicates the position of each species in the
catalogue in question.
2_a_. =Hylocichla fuscescens salicicola= _Ridgw._ WILLOW THRUSH.—Proc.
U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. IV, 1882, p. 374. (Rocky Mountain district of U.
S.)
3_a_. =Hylocichla aliciæ bicknelli= _Ridgw._ BICKNELL’S THRUSH.—Proc. U.
S. Nat. Mus., Vol. IV, 1882, p. 377. (Breeding on the Catskill Mts., New
York.)
35_a_. =Chamæa fasciata henshawi= _Ridgw._ PALLID GROUND TIT.—Proc. U.
S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, 1882, p. 13. (Interior of California.)
38_a_. =Lophophanes inornatus griseus= _Ridgw._ GRAY TITMOUSE.—Proc. U.
S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, 1882, p. 344. (Middle Province of U. S.)
55_b_. =Certhia familiaris montana= _Ridgw._ ROCKY MOUNTAIN
CREEPER.—Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, 1882, p. 114. (Middle Province
of North America.)
55_c_. =Certhia familiaris occidentalis= _Ridgw._ CALIFORNIA
CREEPER.—Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. Vol. V, 1882, p. 115. (Pacific coast of
U. S.)
59_b_. =Catherpes mexicanus punctulatus= _Ridgw._ PUNCTULATED
WREN.—Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V. 1882, p. 343. (California.)
69.* =Motacilla ocularis= _Swinh._ SWINHOE’S WAGTAIL.—_Cf._ Proc. U. S.
Nat. Mus., Vol. IV, 1882, p. 414. (La Paz, Lower California; straggler
from eastern Asia.)
93.* =Dendrœca vieilloti bryanti= _Ridgw._ CHESTNUT-HEADED YELLOW
WARBLER.—_Dendrœca vieilloti_ var. _bryanti Ridgw._, in Hist. N. Am. B.,
I, 1874, p. 218. Cf. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. IV, 1882, p. 414.
(Common at La Paz, Lower California.)
122.* =Geothlypis beldingi= _Ridgw._ BELDING’S YELLOW-THROAT.—Proc. U.
S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, 1882, p. 344. (San José del Cabo, Lower
California.)
144_a_. =Vireo huttoni stephensi= _Brewst._ STEPHENS’S VIREO.—Bull.
Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. VII, July, 1882, p. 142. (Arizona and New Mexico.)
230_b_. =Peucæa ruficeps eremœca= _Brown_. ROCK SPARROW.—_Brown_, Bull.
Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. VII, Jan. 1882, pp. 26, 38. (Kendall Co., Texas.)
297_c_. =Perisoreus canadensis nigricapillus= _Ridgw._ LABRADOR
JAY.—Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, 1882, p. 15. (Labrador.)
311_a_. =Myiarchus mexicanus cooperi= (_Baird_). COOPER’S
FLYCATCHER.—_Myiarchus cooperi_ Brewst. Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. VI,
Oct. 1881, p. 252. (Camp Lowell, Arizona.)
354_a_. =Caprimulgus vociferus arizonæ= (_Brewst._). STEPHENS’S
WHIP-POOR-WILL.—_Antrostomus vociferus arizonæ_ Brewst. Bull. Nutt. Orn.
Club, Vol. VI, April, 1881, p. 69. (Arizona.)
402_e_. =Scops asio bendirei= _Brewst._ CALIFORNIA MOTTLED OWL.—Bull.
Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. VII, Jan. 1882, p. 31. (California.)
452.* =Gyparchus papa= (_Linn._). KING VULTURE.—_Sarcorhamphus papa_
Coues, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol. VI, Oct. 1881, p. 248. (Rio Verde,
Arizona.)
475_a_. =Lagopus mutus reinhardti= (_Brehm._). GREENLAND
PTARMIGAN.—_Cf._ _Turner_, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, 1882, p. 229.
(Greenland and west side of Cumberland Gulf.)
475_b_. =Lagopus mutus atkhensis= _Turner_. ATKHAN PTARMIGAN.—Proc. U.
S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, 1882. p. 230. (Atkha Island, Aleutian chain.)
486.* =Ardea wardi= _Ridgw._ WARD’S HERON.—Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, Vol.
VII, Jan. 1882, p. 5. (Oyster Bay, West Florida.)
569.* =Rallus beldingi= _Ridgw._ BELDING’S RAIL.—Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus.,
Vol. V, 1882, p. 345. (Espiritu Santo Island, Gulf of California.)
701.* =Diomedea melanophrys= _Temm._ SPECTACLED ALBATROSS.—_Cf._ _Bean_,
Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. V, 1882, p. 170. (Off coast of California,
in lat. 40° 30′ N., long. 142° 23′ W.)—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D.
C._
INDEX TO VOLUME VII.
Accipiter cooperi, 21, 150, 174.
fuscus, 15, 41, 126, 151, 174, 227.
Actiturus bartramius, 188, 222.
Actodromas, 245.
bairdi, 42.
bonapartii, 239.
fuscicollis, 191.
maculata, 42, 239.
minutilla, 239, 256.
Ægialites alexandrinus, 179.
cantianus, 179.
semipalmatus, 222, 238, 256.
vociferus, 188, 222, 238.
wilsonius, 59, 222.
Ægiothus fuscescens, 242.
linaria, 235, 255.
Æsalon columbarius, 173.
Æthyia vallisneria, 106, 225.
Agelæus phœniceus, 18, 40, 92, 148, 163, 166, 188, 200, 224, 227, 236.
Agyrtria linnæi, 242.
Aix sponsa, 22, 151, 165, 225.
Albatross, Spectacled, 258.
Alcedo ispida, 178.
Aldrich, Charles, the nest of the House Wren, 180.
Alle nigricans, 61, 241.
Allen, J. A., capture of _Plectrophanes lapponicus_ in Chester, South
Carolina, 54;
the Sharp-tailed Finch in Kansas, 55.
Aluco flammeus americanus, 58.
Ammodramus caudacutus, 12, 104, 122, 253.
caudacutus nelsoni, 55, 122.
Ampelis cedrorum, 11, 18, 20, 37, 39, 54, 95, 110, 146, 162, 187, 227,
235.
garrulus, 227.
Amphispiza bilineata, 195.
Anas boschas, 19, 22, 105, 165, 224.
obscura, 42, 151, 224, 239.
Ancylochilus, 245.
Anhinga, 224, 225.
Anorthura troglodytes hyemalis, 109, 154.
Anser albifrons gambeli, 224.
cærulescens, 117.
hyperboreus, 117, 224.
Anthus ludovicianus, 8, 35, 64, 82, 189, 215, 218, 227, 234.
Antrostomus carolinensis, 96, 163, 169.
vociferus arizonæ, 211, 258.
Aphelocoma sordida arizonæ, 201.
woodhousii, 201.
Aquila chrysaëtus, 58, 123, 238.
chrysaëtus canadensis, 58, 123.
fusca, 14.
Archibuteo ferrugineus, 113, 227.
lagopus, 113, 179.
lagopus sancti-johannis, 184, 227, 237.
norvegicus, 179.
Ardea, 245.
egretta, 223, 239.
herodias, 3, 4, 5, 41, 93, 151, 165, 188, 223, 239.
occidentalis, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
pealei, 3.
virescens, 188.
wardi, 2, 5, 258.
würdemanni, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 242.
Ardetta exilis, 105, 176, 223.
Arquatella, 245.
Asio accipitrinus, 128, 227, 229, 237.
americanus, 227.
otus, 87.
wilsonianus, 237.
Astragalinus tristis, 12, 37, 147, 235.
Astur atricapillus, 227, 231, 237.
atricapillus striatulus, 232.
Asturina pucherani, 87.
Atagen, 88.
Auk, Razor-billed, 242.
Auriparus flaviceps, 81, 85.
Avocet, 105, 222.
Bailey, H. B., notice of his “‘Forest and Stream’ Bird Notes,” 175.
Baldpate, 256.
Bartramia longicauda, 42, 256.
Batchelder, Charles F., notes on the summer birds of the upper St.
John, 106, 147;
the Summer Tanager (_Pyranga æstiva_) in New Brunswick, 249;
the unusual “wave” of birds during the spring migration of 1882, 252.
Beal, F. E. L., _Ampelis cedrorum_ as a sap-sucker, 54.
Beckham, Charles Wickliffe, short notes on the birds of Bayou Sara,
Louisiana, 159;
the Black-throated Bunting in Florida, 250.
Bendire, Charles, the Snowy Owl at Fort Walla Walla, W. T., 58.
Bernicla brenta, 239.
canadensis, 224, 239.
Bicknell, Eugene P., a sketch of the home of _Hylocichla aliciæ
bicknelli_, Ridgway, with some critical remarks on the allies of
this new race, 152.
Bird, Chipping, 13.
Cow, 10.
Indigo, 13, 17, 18.
of Paradise, Texan, 168.
Paradise, 178.
Bittern, 151.
American, 223, 239.
Least, 105, 176, 223.
Blackbird, Brewer’s, 40, 167.
Crow, 149, 236.
Red-winged, 18, 40, 92, 148, 163, 166, 188, 200, 224, 227, 236.
Rusty, 167.
Yellow-headed, 166, 236.
Black-cap, Wilson’s, 110.
Black-head, Little, 225, 257.
Bluebird, 7, 34, 90, 97, 104, 109, 115, 130, 133, 148, 161, 234.
Arctic, 76.
Rocky Mountain, 35.
Western, 76.
Bobolink, 99, 148, 189.
Bob White, 93, 165, 175.
Bonasa umbella, 48, 59, 151, 177, 188, 192, 238.
umbella sabinii, 227, 232.
umbella umbelloides, 63, 177.
Botaurus lentiginosus, 151, 223.
mugitans, 239.
Brachyotus palustris, 172.
Brant, White, 224.
Brewster, William, notes on the habits and changes of plumage of the
Acadian Owl (_Nyctale acadica_), with some additional records of its
breeding in Massachusetts, 23;
on Kennicott’s Owl and some of its allies, with a description of a
proposed new race, 27;
an erroneous record of the Orange-crowned Warbler (_Helminthophaga
celata_) in New Hampshire, 53;
Cuckoos laying in the nests of other birds, 57;
a remarkable specimen of the Pinnated Grouse (_Cupidonia cupido_),
59;
on a collection of birds lately made by Mr. F. Stephens in Arizona,
65, 135, 193;
impressions of some Southern Birds, 94;
_Coturniculus lecontei_, _C. henslowi_, and _Cistothorus stellaris_
in Florida, 121;
notes on the habits of the Kittiwake Gull, 125;
_Sterna forsteri_ breeding off the eastern shore of Virginia, 126;
an Owl’s egg laid in confinement, 183;
notes on some birds collected by Capt. Charles Bendire, at Fort Walla
Walla, Washington Territory, 225;
nest and eggs of _Setophaga picta_—a correction, 249;
_Lomvia arra brünnichi_ and _L. troile_ in New England, 251;
notes on some birds and eggs from the Magdalen Islands, Gulf of St.
Lawrence, 253.
Brown, Nathan Clifford, description of a new race of _Peucæa ruficeps_
from Texas, 26;
a reconnoissance in southwestern Texas, 33;
the Barn Owl in Maine—a retraction, 58;
an addition to the Maine fauna, 60;
early arrival of the Yellow-rumped Warbler in southern Maine, 119;
the Canada Jay at Portland, Maine, 122;
the Little Blue Heron in Maine, 123;
the King Rail in New England, 124;
supplementary notes on two Texas birds, 127;
rapacious birds in confinement, 184;
remarks on five Maine birds, 189.
Browne, F. C., late stay (probable wintering) of _Dendrœca pinus_ in
Massachusetts, 119.
Bubo bengalensis, 86.
ignavus, 86
virginianus, 87, 150, 164, 172, 184, 237.
virginianus pacificus, 229.
virginianus saturatus, 227, 229, 243.
virginianus subarcticus, 227, 229, 243.
Bucephala albeola, 225.
Buffle-head, 225.
Bullfinch, Pine, 121.
Bunting, Black-throated, 13, 17, 92, 250.
Clay-colored, 13.
Henslow’s, 121.
Indigo, 91, 105, 163.
Lark, 13, 39, 200.
Lazuli, 199.
Le Conte’s, 55, 121.
Painted, 92, 99, 100, 163.
Snow, 235.
Towhee, 100, 176.
Yellow-winged, 12.
Buteo abbreviatus, 42.
borealis, 18, 63, 151.
borealis calurus, 227.
brachyurus, 61, 184.
harlani, 159.
fuliginosus, 61, 116.
lineatus, 18, 21, 87, 93.
melanoleucus, 87.
pennsylvanicus, 87, 151, 174.
swainsoni, 174, 227.
Butorides, 245.
virescens, 18, 22, 46, 165, 223.
Butter-ball, 225, 240.
Buzzard, Mexican, 173.
Rough-legged, 237.
Turkey, 41, 93, 102, 164, 173, 174, 184.
Calamospiza bicolor, 13, 39, 200.
Calcarius, 179.
Calidris arenaria, 128, 239.
Calypte costæ, 210.
Campephilus principalis, 92, 170.
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus, 82.
Canace canadensis, 151, 238.
Canary, 114, 115.
Canvas-back, 106, 225, 257.
Caprimulgus vociferus, 40, 149.
vociferus arizonæ, 258.
Cardinal, 39, 99, 131.
Saint Lucas, 199.
Texan, 199.
Cardinalis virginianus, 13, 18, 21, 39, 46, 91, 96, 99, 115, 131, 163.
virginianus igneus, 39, 199.
Carpodacus frontalis, 193.
purpureus, 62, 147, 157, 235.
purpureus californicus, 243.
Catbird, 7, 17, 49, 56, 90, 95, 99, 109, 160, 161, 176, 248.
Catharista atrata, 41, 46, 93, 103, 164, 174, 192.
Cathartes aura, 41, 93, 102, 164, 173, 174, 184, 192.
Catherpes mexicanus conspersus, 35.
mexicanus punctulatus, 257.
Cedar bird, 11, 18, 20, 37, 54, 95, 110, 235.
Centrocercus, 220.
Centronyx ochrocephalus, 242.
Centrophanes, 179.
ornatus, 37.
lapponicus, 235.
Centurus aurifrons, 40.
carolinus, 40, 95, 97, 164, 171.
Certhia familiaris, 35, 109.
familiaris mexicana, 81.
familiaris montana, 257.
familiaris occidentalis, 257.
familiaris rufa, 35.
Ceryle alcyon, 41, 93, 150, 164, 171, 188, 227, 236.
Chætura pelasgica, 92, 150, 163, 169, 188, 236.
Chamæa fasciata henshawi, 257.
Chamæpelia passerina, 175.
Chamberlain, Montague, notes on some of the rarer birds of southern New
Brunswick, 104;
notice of his “Catalogue of the birds of New Brunswick,” 176.
Chaparral Cock, 41.
Charadrius dominicus, 41, 227, 238, 256.
Chat, Long-tailed, 139.
Yellow-breasted, 10, 17, 18, 162.
Chaulelasmus streperus, 42, 224, 256.
Chelidon, 179.
Chen hyperboreus, 105, 117, 128, 224, 239, 251.
Cherry-bird, 54.
Chewink, 18, 163, 248.
Chickadee, 119, 155.
Black-capped, 109, 234.
Carolina, 35, 90, 161.
Hudsonian, 109, 234.
Mexican, 79.
Oregon, 228.
Southern, 8.
Chlorophanes atrocristatus, 134, 135.
Chondestes grammica, 12, 16, 20, 38, 117.
grammica striata, 243.
Chordeiles acutipennis texensis, 170.
popetue, 17, 92, 150, 164, 170, 236.
virginianus henryi, 62.
Chroïcocephalus, 245.
philadelphia, 241.
Chrysomitris pinus, 12, 62, 148, 194, 235.
psaltria, 194.
psaltria arizonæ, 194.
tristis, 188, 227.
Chuck-will’s-widow, 96, 163, 169.
Cicinnurus regius, 178.
Cinclus aquaticus, 179.
merula, 179.
mexicanus, 61, 76, 118, 213, 218.
Circus cyaneus hudsonius, 237.
gouldi, 87.
hudsonius, 14, 150, 174, 188.
Cistothorus palustris, 8.
stellaris, 8, 118, 121, 187.
Clangula albeola, 240.
glaucium, 240.
glaucium americana, 151.
islandica, 240.
Clivicola, 179.
Coccygus americanus, 17, 56, 93, 164, 171.
erythrophthalmus, 18, 56, 150, 172, 188.
Cœreba lucida, 133, 134.
Colaptes auratus, 63, 93, 97, 118, 150, 164, 171, 188, 237.
auratus hybridus, 40, 227.
auratus mexicanus, 41, 227.
mexicanus, 63.
Colymbus septentrionalis, 179, 241.
torquatus, 177, 179, 241.
Contopus borealis, 62, 149, 205.
pertinax, 205.
virens, 17, 92, 149, 163, 169, 188, 248.
virens richardsoni, 62, 206.
Conurus carolinensis, 93, 164.
Coot, American, 19, 22, 165, 224.
Cormorant, Common, 240.
Double-crested, 128, 240.
Corvus americanus, 149, 188, 227.
corax, 149, 236.
corax carnivorus, 40, 64, 192, 201.
cryptoleucus, 201.
frugivorus, 40, 92, 149, 163, 168, 188, 227, 236, 250.
ossifragus, 250.
Cory, Charles B., capture of _Larus leucopterus_ near Boston, 60;
the Turkey Buzzard in New Hampshire, 184.
Corythaix albicristatus, 114.
Cotile, 179.
riparia, 12, 62, 91, 110, 187.
Coturniculus henslowi, 121.
lecontei, 54, 121.
Coturniculus passerinus, 12, 17, 38, 99, 113, 121, 127.
passerinus perpallidus, 127.
Coturnix dactylisonans, 243.
Coues, Elliott, nesting of the White-bellied Wren (_Thryothorus bewicki
leucogaster_), 52;
note on _Mitrephanes_, a new generic name, 55;
Wilson’s Plover (_Ægialites wilsonius_) in New England, 59;
the Snake-bird in Kansas, 61;
a “tidal wave” of birds in Washington, 185;
notices of his “Check List and Ornithological Dictionary,” 111, 242;
the Evening Grosbeak in New York, 250.
Cowbird, 40, 166, 176.
Dwarf, 11, 40, 77, 166. 200.
Crane, Sandhill, 42, 223.
Whooping, 223.
Creeper, Black-and-white, 8, 17, 36, 49, 90, 109, 160, 161.
Brown, 35, 109.
California, 257.
Mexican, 81.
Rocky Mountain, 257.
Crossbill, Mexican, 193.
White-winged, 235, 254.
Crow, 40, 149, 236.
Carrion, 93, 164, 174, 192.
Common, 92, 163, 168, 250.
Fish, 250.
Cuckoo, Black-billed, 18, 56, 150, 172.
Yellow-billed, 17, 56, 93, 164, 171.
Cupidonia cupido, 59, 115, 175.
Curlew, Esquimaux, 42, 239.
Hudsonian, 239.
Long-billed, 222, 256.
Sickle-billed, 42.
Cyanocitta cristata, 18, 92, 96, 102, 133, 135, 149, 155, 163, 168,
188, 236.
stelleri, 229.
stelleri annectens, 227, 229.
stelleri diademata, 201.
stelleri macrolopha, 61, 201.
Cyanospiza amœna, 62.
ciris, 13.
cyanea, 13, 133, 135, 188.
Cyanurus cristatus, 188.
Cygnus americanus, 224.
buccinator, 224.
Cymochorea leucorrhoa, 241.
Cypselus saxatilis, 123, 211.
Dab-chick, 241.
Dafila acuta, 224, 239, 256.
Davie, Oliver, capture of the Golden Eagle (_Aquila chrysaëtus
canadensis_) near Columbus, O., 123.
Demiegretta sacra, 4.
Dendrœca æstiva, 9, 17, 109, 137, 161, 187, 234.
auduboni, 62, 137, 138.
blackburnæ, 9, 17, 36, 104, 109, 161, 234.
cærulea, 10, 17, 18, 19.
cærulescens, 10, 17, 109, 133.
canadensis, 10.
castanea, 9, 17, 19, 104, 110, 252, 253.
chrysoparia, 36.
coronata, 9, 36, 48, 49, 95, 109, 119, 137, 234.
discolor, 10, 16, 20, 36.
dominica, 20, 99, 253.
dominica albilora, 9, 16, 19, 20, 36, 49, 160, 161.
maculosa, 9, 17, 19, 109, 154, 156, 185, 234.
nigrescens, 138.
occidentalis, 136.
palmarum, 10, 17, 49, 54, 249.
palmarum hypochrysea, 54.
pennsylvanica, 9, 17, 104, 109, 185.
pinus, 9, 17, 20, 95, 97, 99, 119, 128, 161.
striata, 9, 95, 114, 128, 156, 234, 253.
tigrina, 17, 19, 110, 186, 252, 253.
townsendi, 138.
vieilloti bryanti, 257.
virens, 9, 17, 37, 49, 109, 192, 234.
Dichromanassa, 245.
rufa, 1, 2, 3, 4.
Diomedea melanophrys, 258.
Dipper, American, 213.
European, 217.
Diver, Red-throated, 241.
Dolichonyx oryzivorus, 99, 148, 188, 189.
Dove, Carolina, 41, 53, 176, 238.
Ground, 175.
Mourning, 21, 93, 105, 165, 174.
Sea, 61.
Dovekie, 241.
Drew, Frank M., notes on the plumage of _Nephæcetes niger borealis_,
182.
Duck, Black, 42, 151, 224, 239.
Dusky, 224.
Eider, 240.
Harlequin, 240.
Long-tailed, 251.
Pintail, 224.
Ring-billed Black-head, 42.
Ring-necked, 190, 239.
Ruddy, 115, 225.
Scaup, 225, 239, 256.
Shoveller, 22.
Spoon-bill, 224.
Summer, 22, 165, 225.
Surf, 240.
Wood, 151, 165, 225.
Dunlin, American, 256.
Dwight, J., Jr., _Buteo brachyurus_—a correction, 184.
Dytes auritus, 128.
Eagle, Bald, 151, 164, 174, 184.
Caracara, 173.
Golden, 58, 123, 238.
White-headed, 174, 238.
Eclectus polychlorus, 178, 183.
Ectopistes migratorius, 117, 151, 174, 238.
Egret, American, 94, 165.
Great White, 223, 239.
Little White, 1, 251.
Louisiana, 2.
Peale’s, 3.
Reddish, 1, 2, 3.
Snowy, 251.
White, 3.
Eider, King, 240.
Elanoïdes forficatus, 59, 103, 173, 174, 250.
Elanus glaucus, 173.
Empidonax acadicus, 18, 49, 56, 92, 97, 163, 169.
flaviventris, 149, 154, 156, 236.
flaviventris difficilis, 206.
fulvifrons pallescens, 207.
hammondi, 206.
minimus, 16, 55, 149, 169, 185, 188.
obscurus, 206.
pusillus, 206.
trailli, 149, 169.
Eniconetta, 179.
Eremophila, 179, 197.
alpestris, 187, 227, 234.
alpestris chrysolæma, 40, 202.
Ereunetes pusillus, 60, 238.
Erismatura rubida, 115, 225.
Erithacus rubecula, 53.
Eurinorhynchus pygmæus, 116.
Euspiza americana, 13, 112.
Falco columbarius, 173, 230, 237, 255.
columbarius suckleyi, 227, 230.
mexicanus polyagrus, 173.
richardsoni, 227, 230.
sacer obsoletus, 237.
sparverius, 41, 126, 151, 188, 211, 227, 237.
Falcon, Prairie, 173.
Farley, J. A., the White-throated Sparrow in winter near Worcester,
Mass., 122.
Finch, Bachman’s, 98.
Cassin’s, 13.
Gambel’s, 12.
Grass, 12, 18, 20, 99, 148.
House, 193.
Indigo, 100.
Lark, 12, 16, 20, 38.
Lincoln’s, 39, 197.
Nelson’s Sharp-tailed, 55.
Painted, 10, 13.
Pine, 12, 148, 194.
Purple, 147, 157, 235.
Sharp-tailed, 12, 104, 122, 253.
Western Grass, 38, 194.
Fisher. A. K., _Dendræca palmarum_ at Sing Sing, N. Y., 249;
the Snow Goose (_Chen hyperboreus_) at Sing Sing, N. Y., 251.
Flamingo, 115, 131.
Flicker, 171.
Hybrid, 40.
Red-shafted, 41.
Yellow-shafted, 93, 164.
Florida, 245.
cærulea, 3, 9, 123, 168, 223.
Flycatcher, Acadian, 18, 49, 92, 97, 163, 169.
Arkansas, 202.
Ash-throated, 204.
Black-capped, 139.
Black-crested, 77.
Buff-breasted, 207.
Canada, 100.
Cassin’s, 202.
Cooper’s, 203, 258.
Coues’s, 205.
Great-crested, 17, 40, 92, 96, 149, 163, 169.
Hammond’s, 206.
Lawrence’s, 204.
Least, 16, 55, 149, 169.
Little, 206.
Olive-sided, 149, 205.
Ridgway’s Beardless, 208.
Scissor-tailed, 168.
Traill’s, 149, 169.
Vermilion, 207.
Western Yellow-bellied, 206.
Wright’s, 206.
Yellow-bellied, 149, 154, 156, 236.
Fork-tail, 168.
Fox, W. H., stray notes from Lookout Mountain, Tenn., 191.
Fratercula arctica, 241.
Freke, P. E., notice of his “Birds of Amelia County, Virginia,” 48.
Fulica americana, 19, 22, 165, 224.
Fuligula affinis, 239, 257.
americana, 257.
collaris, 239.
marila, 256.
vallisneria, 257.
Fulix affinis, 225.
collaris, 42, 190.
marila, 225.
Gadwall, 224, 256.
Gray, 42.
Galeoscoptes carolinensis, 7, 17, 49, 56, 90, 95, 99, 109, 160, 161,
176, 248.
Gallinago cælestis, 179.
media, 179.
media wilsoni, 41, 165.
wilsoni, 41, 114, 165, 222, 238.
Gallinula galeata, 22, 124, 176, 224.
Gallinule, Florida, 22, 176, 224.
Purple, 105, 124.
Gannet, 240.
Garrod, A. H., notice of the memorial volume of his scientific papers,
43.
Garzetta, 245.
candidissima, 1, 9, 168, 223, 251.
Gavia, 179.
alba, 179.
Gentry. Thos. G., notice of his “Nests and Eggs of Birds of the United
States,” 246.
Geococcyx calfornianus, 41.
Geothlypis beldingi, 257.
macgillivrayi, 139.
philadelphia, 10, 17, 20, 110, 154, 156, 252, 253.
trichas, 10, 17, 18, 91, 110, 139, 162, 187, 234.
Gnatcatcher, Black-capped, 77.
Blue-gray, 7, 17, 35, 77, 161.
Godwit, Marbled, 222, 256.
Golden-eye, 151, 240.
Barrow’s, 240.
Goldfinch, 12, 37, 147, 235.
Arkansas, 194.
Goosander, 42.
Goose, American White-fronted, 224.
Brant, 239.
Canada, 224, 239.
Snow, 105, 117, 128, 224, 239, 251.
Goshawk, American, 231, 237.
Grackle, Boat-tailed, 167, 168.
Bronzed, 21, 167.
Purple, 92, 163.
Grass-bird, 42.
Grebe, Horned, 128.
Pied-billed, 152.
Red-necked, 241.
Thick-billed, 22, 165.
Greenshank, 179.
Grosbeak, Black-headed, 199.
Blue, 10, 13, 21, 48, 199.
Cardinal, 13, 18, 21, 91, 96, 115, 163.
Evening, 250.
Pine, 115, 116, 120, 235, 254.
Rose-breasted, 17, 18, 21, 99, 105, 148, 186.
Grouse, Common Sharp-tailed, 233.
Oregon Ruffed, 232.
Pinnated, 59, 115.
Ruffed, 48, 59, 151, 177, 192, 238.
Spruce, 238.
Grus americanus, 223.
canadensis, 42, 223.
Guillemot, Black, 241.
Brünnich’s, 191, 251.
Common, 191,
Foolish, 241.
Guiraca cærulea, 10, 13, 21, 48, 199.
Gull, Bonaparte’s, 241.
Glaucous, 240, 257.
Great Black-backed, 60, 241.
Herring, 116, 152, 241.
Ice, 240, 257.
Ivory, 241.
Kittiwake, 125.
Laughing, 126, 225.
Ring-bill, 116.
White-winged, 240.
Gyparchus papa, 258.
Gyrfalcon, Labrador, 237.
Haliæetus albicilla, 87, 88.
leucocephalus, 151, 164, 174, 184, 238.
Harelda glacialis, 179, 240, 251.
hyemalis, 179.
Harporhynchus, 215.
bendirei, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75.
crissalis, 69, 74.
curvirostris, 72.
curvirostris palmeri, 69, 71, 74, 75.
lecontei, 70, 73, 74, 75.
redivivus, 73, 74, 75.
rufus, 7, 90, 95, 99, 112, 161.
Harrier, Marsh, 237.
Hatch, P. L., notice of his “List of the Birds of Minnesota,” 47.
Hawk, Broad-winged, 151, 174.
Cooper’s, 21, 150, 174.
Fish, 164, 238.
Little Black, 61.
Marsh, 14, 150, 174.
Pigeon, 173, 230, 237, 255.
Red-shouldered, 18, 21, 93.
Red-tailed, 18, 151.
Rough-legged, 184.
Sharp-shinned, 41, 126, 151, 174.
Short-tailed, 61.
Sparrow, 41, 151, 173, 237.
Swainson’s, 174.
White-fronted, 61.
Hay, O. P., a list of birds from the lower Mississippi valley, observed
during the summer of 1881, with brief notes, 89.
Hell diver, 241.
Helmintherus vermivorus, 9, 17, 55, 56, 96.
Helminthophaga, 53.
celata, 9, 36, 53.
chrysoptera, 9, 19.
peregrina, 9, 17, 19, 53.
pinus, 17, 19, 112.
ruficapilla, 17, 19, 36, 109.
Helminthophila, 53.
bachmani, 53.
celata, 9, 36, 53, 54, 86.
celata lutescens, 85.
chrysoptera, 9, 19, 53.
lawrencei, 53.
leucobronchialis, 53.
luciæ, 54, 82.
peregrina, 9, 17, 19, 53, 54, 185, 234, 252, 253.
pinus, 9, 17, 18, 19, 49, 53, 112.
ruficapilla, 17, 19, 36, 54, 109.
virginiæ, 54.
Helminthotherus vermivorus, 17.
Hen, Mud, 224.
Prairie, 59, 175.
Herodias, 245.
alba egretta, 94, 165.
egretta, 3, 223, 251.
Heron, Black-crowned Night, 223.
Great Blue, 41, 93, 151, 165, 223, 239.
Green, 18, 22, 165, 223.
Little Blue, 3, 9, 123, 168, 223.
Little White, 223.
Louisiana, 223.
Night, 128, 151.
Snowy, 9, 168, 223.
Ward’s, 5, 258.
White, 223, 251.
Yellow-crowned Night, 18, 22.
Hesperocichla nævia, 218.
Hesperophona vespertina, 227, 250.
Heterospizias meridionalis, 87.
Himantopus mexicanus, 105.
Hirundo, 179.
erythrogastra, 11, 37, 48, 91, 110.
erythrogastra horreorum, 235.
horreorum, 187.
Histrionicus minutus, 240.
Hoffman, W. J. notice of his list of the birds of Nevada, 51.
Hummingbird, 102, 248.
Black-chinned, 210.
Broad-billed, 211.
Broad-tailed, 211.
Costa’s, 210.
Ruby-throated, 17, 92, 150, 163, 169.
Hydranassa, 245.
tricolor ludoviciana, 223.
Hydrochelidon lariformis, 179, 190.
nigra, 179.
Hylocichla aliciæ, 19, 155, 157, 158, 159, 189.
aliciæ bicknelli, 152, 156, 157, 158, 257.
fuscescens, 17, 19, 155.
fuscescens salicicola, 257.
mustelina, 17, 18, 90, 160.
unalascæ, 34, 127, 215.
unalascæ auduboni, 34, 127.
unalascæ nanus, 158.
unalascæ pallasi, 34, 127, 190.
ustulata swainsoni, 155, 157, 158, 159.
Hylotomus pileatus, 63, 92, 150, 164, 170, 236.
Iache latirostris, 211.
Ibis thalassina, 242.
Ibis, Wood, 222.
Icteria virens, 10, 17, 18, 162.
virens longicauda, 139.
Icterus baltimore, 188.
bullocki, 201.
cucullatus, 200.
parisiorum, 200.
galbula, 17, 92, 163, 176, 186, 188.
spurius, 40, 92, 102, 163, 167, 181, 186, 248.
spurius affinis, 167.
Ictinia subcærulea, 42, 173.
Ingersoll, Ernest, notice of his “Birds’ Nesting,” 179.
Ionornis martinica, 105, 124.
Iridoprocne bicolor, 235.
Jaeger, Parasitic, 240.
Pomatorhine, 240.
Jay, Arizona, 201.
Black-headed, 229.
Blue, 18, 92, 96, 102, 133, 149, 155, 163, 168, 236.
Canada, 64, 122, 149, 236.
Labrador, 258.
Long-crested, 201.
Woodhouse’s, 201.
Jeffries, J. Amory, on the sesamoid at the front of the carpus in
birds, 13;
note on the foot of _Accipiter fuscus_, 126;
the colors of feathers, 129;
the nest and eggs of _Perisoreus canadensis_, 181;
plumage of the young of _Eclectus polychlorus_, 183.
Jencks, Fred. T., Purple Gallinule (_Ionornis martinica_) in Rhode
Island, 124.
Jones and Shulze, notices of their “Illustrations of the Nests and Eggs
of the Birds of Ohio,” 45, 112.
Joree, 163.
Junco cinereus, 195.
cinereus caniceps, 194.
cinereus dorsalis, 195.
hyemalis, 13, 38, 148, 155, 156, 235.
oregonus, 38, 62, 194, 227.
Ketupa ceylonensis, 86.
javanensis, 86.
Killdeer, 94, 165.
King, F. H., destruction of birds by the cold wave of May 21st and 22d,
185;
more definite statistics needed in regard to the abundance of birds,
186.
Kingbird, 17, 92, 149, 163, 168, 169, 236.
Kingfisher, Belted, 41, 93, 150, 164, 171, 236.
Kinglet, 95.
American Golden-crested, 7, 35.
Ruby-crowned, 7, 35, 79, 81, 96, 234.
Kite, Fork-tailed, 173.
Mississippi, 173.
Swallow-tailed, 59, 103, 173, 174, 250.
White-tailed, 173.
Kittiwake, 241.
Knot, 256.
Knowlton, F. H., remarks on some Western Vermont birds, 63;
notice of his “Revised List of the Birds of Brandon, Vt.,” 113.
Krider, John, notice of his “Forty Years’ Notes of a Field
Ornithologist,” 49.
Krukenberg, C. Fr., notices of his “Die Farbstoffe der Federn,” 114,
177.
Lagopus albus, 238.
mutus atkhensis, 258.
mutus reinhardti, 258.
Lampornis mango, 242.
Langdon, F. W., notice of his “Field Notes on Louisiana Birds,” 48;
notice of his “Zoölogical Miscellany,” 50.
Langille, J. H., the Hooded Warbler in Western New York, 119.
Lanius borealis, 64, 227, 235.
excubitorides, 188.
ludovicianus, 37, 64, 91, 145, 162, 253.
ludovicianus excubitorides, 11, 37, 45, 145.
Lanivireo flavifrons, 11, 16, 37, 166.
solitarius, 11, 20.
Lark, Horned, 234.
Meadow, 92, 99, 163, 166, 176.
Mexican Horned, 40.
Mexican Shore, 202.
Shore, 197.
Western Field, 40.
Larus, 245.
argentatus smithsonianus, 152, 241.
atricilla, 126, 225.
delawarensis, 116.
dominicanus, 88.
glaucus, 88, 179, 240, 257.
hyperboreus, 179.
leucopterus, 60, 240.
marinus, 60, 241.
Limosa fœda, 222, 256.
Linnet, Pine, 235.
Logcock, 92.
Lomvia arra brünnichi, 191, 251.
troile, 191, 241, 251.
Longspur, Chestnut-collared, 37.
Lapland, 235.
McCown’s, 38.
Loomis, Leverett M., occurrence of _Coturniculus lecontei_ in Chester
County, South Carolina, 54.
Loon, 177, 241.
Lophodytes cucullatus, 22.
Lophophanes atrocristatus, 35.
bicolor, 8, 18, 52, 90, 161.
inornatus, 79.
inornatus griseus, 257.
wollweberi, 79, 80, 81.
Loxia curvirostra mexicana, 193.
leucoptera, 235, 254.
Lucas, Frederic A., notes on the os prominens, 86;
note on the habits of the young of _Gallinula galeata_ and
_Podilymbus podiceps_, 124;
plumage of the young of _Eclectus polychlorus_, 183.
Luscinia philomela, 53.
Machetes, 179.
Macoun, John, notice of his “Report of Exploration,” 113.
Macrorhamphus griseus, 238.
Mallard, 19, 22, 105, 165, 224.
Mareca americana, 185, 224, 256.
Martin, Bee, 163.
Purple, 11, 37, 91, 110, 112, 146, 162.
Megapodius, 88.
Melanerpes erythrocephalus, 18, 21, 57, 63, 93, 116, 117, 164, 171,
188.
torquatus, 227.
Meleagris gallopavo, 41, 175.
gallopavo americana, 21, 93, 175.
Melospiza fasciata, 13, 39, 48, 49, 112, 148, 197, 235.
fasciata fallax, 62, 196, 229.
fasciata guttata, 227, 229.
lincolni, 13, 21, 39, 197.
melodia, 188.
palustris, 148, 163, 188.
Merganser, Hooded, 22.
Red-breasted, 152, 240.
Mergus merganser, 240.
merganser americanus, 42, 152.
serrator, 152, 240.
Merlin, Black, 230.
Richardson’s, 230.
Merriam, C. Hart, breeding of the Pine Grosbeak, (_Pinicola
enucleator_) in Lower Canada, 120;
addenda to the preliminary list of birds ascertained to occur in the
Adirondack region, northeastern New York, 128;
list of birds ascertained to occur within ten miles from Point de
Monts, Province of Quebec, Canada; based chiefly upon the notes of
Napoleon A. Comeau, 233;
second addendum to the preliminary list of birds ascertained to occur
in the Adirondack region, northeastern New York, 256.
Merrill, Harry, Maine notes, 190.
Merula migratoria, 160, 215, 218.
migratoria propinqua, 34.
Micropalama himantopus, 105.
Milvago chimango, 88.
Milvulus forficatus, 40, 118, 168.
Mimus, 215.
carolinensis, 7, 109, 187.
polyglottus, 7, 34, 68, 90, 96, 99, 101, 102, 160, 180.
Minor ornithological papers, 115.
Mitrephanes, 55.
aurantiiventris, 55.
fulvifrons, 55.
fulvifrons pallescens, 55.
phæocercus, 55.
Mitrephorus, 55.
Mniotilta varia, 8, 36, 49, 90, 109, 160, 161.
varia borealis, 17.
Mockingbird, 7, 34, 68, 90, 96, 99, 101, 102, 160, 180.
Mountain, 68.
Molothrus ater, 40, 166, 176, 188.
ater obscurus, 11, 40, 77, 85, 166, 200.
pecoris, 188.
Momotus cœruleiceps, 242.
Moran, Daniel E., the Tufted Titmouse on Staten Island, N. Y., 52;
capture of Baird’s Sandpiper on Long Island, 60.
Morinella, 179.
Motacilla ocularis, 257.
Murre, 241, 251.
Myiadestes townsendi, 76, 227.
Myiarchus, cinerescens, 204.
crinitus, 17, 40, 92, 96, 113, 149, 163, 169.
lawrencei, 204.
mexicanus cooperi, 203, 258.
Myiodioctes canadensis, 10, 16, 20, 100, 110, 235.
mitratus, 10, 17, 20, 91, 96, 119, 162.
pusillus, 10, 20, 110, 139, 185, 235.
pusillus pileolatus, 139.
Nauclerus forficatus, 117.
Nehrling, H., list of birds observed at Houston, Harris Co., Texas, and
vicinity, and in the Counties Montgomery, Galveston, and Ford Bend,
6, 166, 222.
Neocorys spraguei, 8, 35, 62.
Nephœcetes niger borealis, 182.
Nestor, 88.
Nettion carolinensis, 42.
Nighthawk, 17, 92, 150, 164, 170, 236.
Texan, 170.
Ninox albigulare, 87.
Nonpareil, 100, 163.
Numenius borealis, 42, 239.
hudsonius, 239.
longirostris, 42, 222, 256.
Nuthatch, Brown-headed, 97.
Canada, 154, 156.
Pygmy, 81.
Red-bellied, 109, 192, 234.
Slender-billed, 81.
White-bellied, 109.
Nyctala acadica, 23, 64, 150, 183, 237.
albifrons, 23.
tengmalmi richardsoni, 237.
Nyctea scandiaca, 58, 64, 87, 227, 237.
Nyctherodius violaceus, 18, 22.
Nyctiardea grisea nævia, 128, 151, 223.
Nyctibius, 88.
Ochthodromus wilsonius, 114.
Ocydromus, 88.
Œdemia americana, 240.
fusca, 240.
perspicillata, 240.
Œstrelata gularis, 61.
Old wife, 240.
Oporornis agilis, 20, 190.
formosa, 10, 17, 18, 20, 49, 91, 118, 160, 162.
Oreortyx picta plumifera, 243.
Oreoscoptes montanus, 68, 118, 215, 218.
Oriole, Baltimore, 17, 92, 163, 176, 186.
Bullock’s, 201.
European, 115.
Hooded, 200.
Orchard, 40, 92, 102, 163, 167, 181, 186, 248.
Scott’s, 200.
Southern Orchard, 167.
Ornithium imberbe, 208.
imberbe ridgwayi, 208.
Ortyx virginiana, 22, 93, 114, 116, 165, 175.
virginiana texana, 41.
Osprey, American, 164.
Otocoris, 179.
Otogyps calvus, 87, 88.
Ouzel, American Water, 76, 118.
Owl, Acadian, 23, 64, 183.
American Barn, 58, 172.
Barred, 18, 21, 150, 172, 184, 237.
Bottom, 172.
Burrowing, 173.
California Mottled, 258.
California Screech, 31.
Dusky Horned, 229.
Great Horned, 150, 164, 172, 184, 237.
Hawk, 237.
Hoot, 172.
Kennicott’s, 27.
Little Screech, 93, 164.
Long-eared, 237.
Mottled, 184.
Richardson’s, 237.
Saw-whet, 23, 150, 183, 237.
Screech, 27.
Short-eared, 128, 172, 229, 237.
Snowy, 58, 64, 237.
Texan Screech, 172.
Oxyechus vociferus, 41, 94, 165.
Pagophila, 179.
eburnea, 179, 241.
Pandion haliæetus, 88, 164, 238.
Parakeet, Carolina, 93, 164.
Park, Austin F., capture of the Sea Dove 150 miles from the sea, 61.
Parrot, Sea, 241.
Partridge, Spruce, 151.
Parula americana, 8, 16, 36, 90, 95, 96, 161.
Parus atricapillus, 80, 109, 119, 155, 187, 234.
atricapillus occidentalis, 227, 228.
atricapillus septentrionalis, 228.
carolinensis, 8, 35, 90, 161.
hudsonicus, 109, 234.
meridionalis, 79.
montanus, 62, 80.
Passer domesticus, 117, 256.
montanus, 243.
Passerculus princeps, 190.
sandvicensis alaudinus, 38, 227.
sandvicensis savanna, 148, 162, 235.
savanna, 8, 12, 117.
Passerella iliaca, 39.
townsendi schistacea. 197.
Passerina amœna, 199.
ciris, 10, 13, 92, 99, 100, 163.
cyanea, 17, 18, 91, 100, 105, 163.
Pavoncella, 179.
Peacock, 134.
Pediœcetes phasianellus columbianus, 227, 233.
Pelecanus erythrorhynchus, 106, 225.
fuscus, 165, 225.
Pelican, American White, 106, 225.
Brown, 165, 225.
Pelidna, 245.
alpina americana, 256.
subarquata, 124.
Perisoreus canadensis, 64, 114, 122, 149, 181, 236.
canadensis capitalis, 62.
canadensis nigricapillus, 258.
Perissoglossa tigrina, 17, 19.
Petrel, Leach’s, 241.
Peale’s 61.
Petrochelidon lunifrons, 11, 37, 110, 123, 146, 187, 235.
Peucæa æstivalis, 39, 98.
æstivalis illinoensis, 17, 18, 21, 50, 162, 192.
carpalis, 195.
cassini, 13, 195.
illinoensis, 18.
ruficeps, 26, 122.
ruficeps boucardi, 26, 196.
ruficeps eremœca, 26, 38, 122, 196, 258.
Peucedramus olivaceus, 80, 135.
Pewee, 40, 149, 169.
Black, 205.
Common, 49.
Say’s, 169, 205.
Western Wood, 206.
Wood, 17, 92, 149, 163, 169, 248.
Phænicurus, 179.
Phaïnopepla nitens, 77.
Phalacrocorax carbo, 240.
dilophus, 128, 240.
Phalarope, Red, 238.
Wilson’s, 238.
Phalaropus fulicarius, 238.
Philohela minor, 22, 94, 151, 165.
Phoebe, 169.
Pica rustica hudsonica, 227.
Picoides arcticus, 62, 63, 114, 150, 236.
americanus dorsalis, 62.
Picicorvus columbianus, 62.
Picus borealis, 97, 170.
pubescens, 63, 92, 97, 132, 150, 164, 170, 188, 236.
pubescens gairdneri, 227.
querulus, 170.
scalaris, 40, 170.
villosus, 18, 62, 63, 97, 150, 170, 188, 236.
villosus leucomelas, 243.
Pigeon, Passenger, 174.
Sea, 241.
Wild, 151, 238.
Pinicola enucleator, 115, 116, 120, 235, 254.
Pintail, 239, 256.
Pipilo aberti, 198.
chlorurus, 197.
erythrophthalmus, 13, 18, 39, 95, 100, 105, 163, 188, 248.
erythrophthalmus alleni, 101.
fuscus mesoleucus, 197, 198.
maculatus arcticus, 39.
maculatus megalonyx, 39, 197, 227.
maculatus oregonus, 227.
Pipit, American, 8.
Platalea ajaja, 223, 224.
Plectrophanes lapponicus, 54.
nivalis, 179, 235.
Plectrophenax, 179.
Plotus anhinga, 42, 61, 225.
Plover, Black-bellied, 238, 256.
Field, 256.
Golden, 41, 238, 256.
Killdeer, 41, 222, 238.
King, 222.
Mountain, 41.
Semipalmated, 222, 256.
Upland, 42, 222.
Wilson’s, 59, 114, 222.
Podasocys montanus, 41.
Podicipes californicus, 113.
cristatus, 242.
griseigena holbœlli, 241.
Podilymbus podicipes, 22, 113, 124, 152, 165, 188, 241.
Polioptila cærulea, 7, 17, 35, 46, 77, 118, 161.
californica, 78.
melanura, 78.
plumbea, 77.
Polyborus cheriway, 173.
tharus, 88.
Polysticta, 179.
Poœcetes gramineus, 12, 18, 20, 38, 99, 148, 188.
gramineus confinis, 38, 62, 194.
Porzana carolina, 22, 151, 223.
jamaicensis, 224.
noveboracensis, 224.
Poulette d’Eau, 165.
Progne purpurea, 187.
subis, 11, 37, 91, 110, 112, 146, 162.
Protonotaria citrea, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 49, 90, 96.
Psaltriparus plumbeus, 80.
Ptarmigan, Atkhan, 258.
Greenland, 258.
Willow, 238.
Puffin, 241.
Puffinus borealis, 61.
Purdie, H. A., _Melanerpes erythrocephalus_ about Boston, 57;
_Ammodramus caudacutus_,—a somewhat inland record on the Atlantic
coast, 122;
_Pelidna subarquata_ on the Maine coast, 124;
_Rhynchops nigra_,—an early record for the Massachusetts coast, 125;
_Garzetta candidissima_ at Nantucket, Massachusetts, 251;
rare Warblers in Massachusetts, 252.
Pyranga æstiva, 12, 16, 20, 37, 91, 99, 113, 162, 249.
æstiva cooperi, 147.
hepatica, 146.
ludoviciana, 62, 146.
rubra, 12, 16, 64, 104, 111, 186, 187.
Pyrocephalus rubineus mexicanus, 207.
Pyrrhuloxia sinuata, 199.
Quail, American, 165, 175.
California, 115.
Texas, 41.
Virginia, 22.
Querquedula carolinensis, 42, 224, 239.
cyanoptera, 47, 224.
discors, 19, 22, 165, 224, 239.
Quiscalus major, 167, 168.
purpureus, 21, 92, 163, 188, 236.
purpureus æneus, 21, 149, 167, 168.
Ragsdale, G. H., _Peucæa ruficeps eremæca_, 122.
Rail, Belding’s, 258.
Carolina, 151, 223.
King, 60, 124.
Little Black, 224.
Little Yellow, 224.
Red-breasted, 165.
Sora, 22.
Virginia, 165, 249, 256.
Rallus beldingi, 258.
elegans, 60, 124, 165.
virginianus, 165, 188, 249, 256.
Raven, 40, 149, 236.
American, 64, 192, 201.
White-necked, 201.
Recurvirostra americana, 105, 222.
Redbird, 18.
Summer, 12, 16, 20, 37, 91, 162.
Redhead, 257.
Red-poll, 235, 255.
Redstart, 18, 49, 95, 96, 110, 160, 162, 235.
American, 11, 91.
Painted, 140, 249.
Regulus calendula, 7, 35, 62, 79, 81, 95, 96, 117, 234.
cristatus, 179.
satrapa, 7, 35, 118, 179.
satrapa olivaceus, 227.
Rhoads, Samuel N., nesting of _Empidonax minimus_ and _Helmintherus
vermivorus_ in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, 55.
Rhyacophilus, 245.
solitarius, 22, 42, 151, 165, 239.
Rhynchophanes maccowni, 38.
Rhynchops nigra, 125.
Ridgway, Robert, on an apparently new Heron from Florida, 1;
notes on some of the birds observed near Wheatland, Knox County,
Indiana, in the spring of 1881, 15;
on the generic name _Helminthophaga_, 53;
the Great Black-backed Gull (_Larus marinus_) from a new locality,
60;
additions to the Catalogue of North American Birds, 61;
distribution of the Fish Crow (_Corvus ossifragus_), 250;
birds new to or rare in the District of Columbia, 253;
list of additions to the catalogue of North American birds, 257.
Ring-neck, 238, 256.
Pale, 60.
Riparia, 179.
Rissa tridactyla, 125, 241.
Roberts, Thomas S., notice of his “The Winter Birds of Minnesota,” 47.
Robin, 6, 56, 108, 115, 160, 234.
Ground, 13.
Western, 34, 68.
Ruticilla, 179.
Salpinctes obsoletus, 35, 82, 215, 218.
Sanderling, 128, 239.
Sandpiper, Baird’s, 42, 60, 123.
Bartramian, 222.
Bonaparte’s, 191.
Curlew, 124.
Least, 222, 239, 256.
Pectoral, 239.
Red-backed, 256.
Semipalmated, 238.
Solitary, 22, 42, 151, 165.
Spoon-billed, 116.
Spotted, 151, 165, 239.
Stilt, 105.
White-rumped, 239.
Sayornis fuscus, 40, 49, 149, 169, 188.
nigricans, 205.
sayi, 169, 205.
Scissor-tail, 40.
Scolecophagus cyanocephalus, 40, 118, 166, 167, 168, 227.
ferrugineus, 167.
Scops asio, 27, 33, 87, 93, 164, 184.
asio bendirei, 31, 33, 258.
asio floridanus, 33.
asio kennicotti, 27, 28, 30, 33, 227.
asio maccalli, 33, 172.
asio maxwellæ, 33.
asio tricopsis, 32, 33.
brasilianus, 87.
Scoter, Black, 240.
Velvet, 240.
Selasphorus platycercus, 211.
Sennett, George B., capture of the Golden Eagle in Crawford County,
Pennsylvania, 58.
Setophaga picta, 140, 249.
ruticilla, 11, 17, 18, 49, 91, 95, 96, 110, 141, 160, 162, 187, 235.
Shearwater, Northern, 61.
Sheldrake, 152, 240.
Shoveller, 19, 225.
Shrike, Great Northern, 64, 235.
Loggerhead, 64, 91, 162, 253.
White-rumped, 11, 37, 145.
Shufeldt, R. W., notice of his “Osteology of the North American
Tetraonidæ,” 44;
notice of his “Osteology of _Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides_,” 45;
notice of his “The Claw on the Index Digit of the Cathartidæ,” 46;
note on _Mimus polyglottus_, 180;
notes upon the osteology of _Cinclus mexicanus_, 213.
Sialia arctica, 35, 62, 76, 118, 227.
mexicana, 76, 215, 218.
sialis, 7, 34, 90, 97, 104, 109, 130, 133, 135, 161, 187, 234.
Sitta canadensis, 97, 109, 154, 156, 192, 234.
carolinensis, 109, 187.
carolinensis aculeata, 62, 81.
pusilla, 97, 98.
pygmæa, 80, 81.
Siurus auricapillus, 10, 17, 110, 161.
motacilla, 17, 37, 49, 160, 161.
nævius, 10, 110, 138, 215, 218, 234.
nævius notabilis, 138.
Skylark, Missouri, 8, 35.
Snake-bird, 42, 61, 225.
Snipe, 238.
Grass, 222.
Jack, 222.
Red-breasted, 238.
Robin, 256.
Wilson’s, 41, 114, 165, 222.
Snowbird, 13, 155, 156.
Black, 38, 148, 235.
Gray-headed, 194.
Mexican, 195.
Oregon, 38, 194.
Red-backed, 195.
Solitaire, Townsend’s, 76.
Somateria mollissima, 240.
spectabilis, 240.
Sora, 223.
Sparrow, Black-throated, 195.
Boucard’s, 196.
Brewer’s, 38, 194.
Cassin’s, 195.
Chipping, 48, 148.
English, 88.
Field, 13, 18, 21, 38, 48, 91.
Fox, 39.
Harris’s, 38.
House, 256.
Ipswich, 190.
Lincoln’s, 13, 21.
Oak-woods, 17, 21, 50, 162, 192.
Ridgway’s, 38.
Rock, 38, 258.
Rufous-winged, 195.
Rusty Song, 229.
Savanna, 12, 148, 162, 235.
Slate-colored, 197.
Song, 13, 39, 48, 49, 112, 148, 197, 235.
Swamp, 148, 163.
Tree, 48.
Western Chipping, 38, 194.
Western Savanna, 38.
Western Song, 196.
Western Tree, 228.
White-crowned, 12, 20, 38, 148, 236, 253.
White-throated, 12, 20, 95, 122, 148, 162, 236.
Yellow-winged, 17, 38, 99, 121.
Spatula clypeata, 19, 22, 224.
Spelman, Henry M., _Dendræca palmarum_ again in Massachusetts, 54;
the Short-billed Marsh Wren in New Hampshire, 118.
Speotyto cunicularia hypogæa, 173.
Sphyropicus varius, 40, 63, 150, 170, 188.
williamsoni, 242.
Spiza americana, 13, 17, 92, 112, 250.
Spizella breweri, 38, 194.
domestica arizonæ, 38.
montana, 48.
monticola, 228.
monticola ochracea, 227, 228.
pallida, 13.
pusilla, 13, 18, 21, 38, 48, 91, 188.
socialis, 13, 46, 48, 62, 148, 188.
socialis arizonæ, 194.
Spoon-bill, Roseate, 222, 224.
Squatarola helvetica, 238, 256.
Steganopus wilsoni, 238.
Stejneger, Leonhard, notice of his nomenclatural innovations, 178.
Stelgidopteryx serripennis, 12, 37, 146, 162.
Stellaria, 179.
Stercorarius longicaudatus, 179.
parasiticus, 179, 240.
pomatorhinus, 240.
Sterna anglica, 225.
antillarum, 94.
cantiaca acuflavida, 225.
forsteri, 126, 225.
longipennis, 242.
macrura, 241.
pikii, 242.
regia, 225.
Stilt, Black-necked, 105.
Strepsilas, 179.
interpres, 222, 238.
Strigops, 88.
Strix flammea, 87, 178.
flammea americana, 172.
nebulosa, 18, 21, 42, 150, 184, 237.
perlata, 87.
Sturnella magna, 92, 99, 163, 166, 176, 188.
magna neglecta, 62.
neglecta, 40, 227.
Sula bassana, 240.
Surnia funerea, 237.
Swallow, Bank, 12, 91, 110.
Barn, 11, 37, 48, 91, 110, 235.
Cliff, 11, 146, 235.
Crescent, 123.
Eave, 37, 110.
Rough-winged, 12, 37, 146, 162.
Violet-green, 123, 146, 182.
White-bellied, 11, 91, 110, 146, 235.
Swan, American, 224.
Trumpeter, 224.
Whistling, 224.
Swift, Chimney, 92, 150, 163, 169, 236.
White-throated, 122, 211.
Symphemia, 245.
Syrnium nebulosum, 87, 172.
uralense, 87.
Tachycineta bicolor, 11, 91, 110, 146, 187, 235.
thalassina, 123, 146, 182.
Tadorna cornuta, 179.
dameatica, 179.
Talbot, D. H., the Swallow-tailed Kite in Dakota, 59.
Tanager, Cooper’s, 147.
Liver-colored, 146.
Louisiana, 146.
Scarlet, 12, 16, 64, 104, 111, 186.
Summer, 99, 113, 249.
Tantalus loculator, 222.
Tattler, 222.
Greater, 239.
Solitary, 239.
Teal, Blue-winged, 19, 22, 165, 224, 239.
Cinnamon, 224.
Green-winged, 42, 224, 239.
Telmatodytes palustris, 8, 17, 49, 256.
palustris paludicola, 227.
Tern, Arctic, 241.
Cabot’s, 225.
Forster’s, 126, 225.
Gull-billed, 225.
Least, 94.
Royal, 225.
Short-tailed, 190.
Tetrao canadensis franklini, 61.
obscurus richardsoni, 63.
Thorndike, A., note on _Mareca americana_, 185.
Thrasher, 112.
Bendire’s, 69, 74.
Brown, 161.
Crissal, 74.
Leconte’s, 73, 74.
Palmer’s, 71, 74.
Thrush, Bicknell’s, 258.
Brown, 7, 90, 95, 99.
Dwarf, 34, 67.
Golden-crowned, 10, 17, 110, 161.
Gray-cheeked, 19, 155, 189.
Hermit, 48, 67, 108, 155, 156, 190, 234.
Large-billed Water, 17, 37, 49, 160, 161.
Northern Water, 138.
Olive-backed, 7, 48, 108, 155, 156, 234.
Russet-backed, 68.
Tawny, 17, 19.
Water, 10, 110, 234.
Willow, 257.
Wilson’s, 7, 48, 108.
Wood, 6, 17, 18, 48, 90, 160.
Thryomanes bewicki, 19, 253.
bewicki leucogaster, 35, 82.
Thryothorus bewicki, 8.
bewicki leucogaster, 52.
ludovicianus, 8, 35, 90, 116, 161.
Tinnunculus sparverius, 41, 173.
Tit, Black-crested, 35.
Lead-colored, 80.
Pallid Ground, 257.
Yellow-headed, 81.
Titlark, 8, 35, 64, 82, 189, 234.
Titmouse, Gray, 257.
Plain, 79.
Tufted, 8, 18, 52, 90, 161.
Wollweber’s, 79, 81.
Yellow-headed, 83.
Totanus, 245.
flavipes, 239.
melanoleucus, 42, 101, 239.
nebularius, 179.
semipalmatus, 222.
Towhee, 95, 105, 163.
Abert’s, 198.
Cañon, 197.
Green-tailed, 197.
Spurred, 39, 197.
Townsend, Charles H., remarkable plumage of the Orchard Oriole, 181;
note on the Long-tailed Duck, 251.
Tringa, 245.
bairdi, 60, 113, 124.
canutus, 113, 256.
maculata, 222.
minutilla, 124, 222.
Tringoides macularius, 63, 151, 165, 188, 239.
Trochilus alexandri, 210.
colubris, 17, 46, 92, 102, 150, 163, 169, 188, 248.
Troglodytes aëdon, 8, 19, 82, 109, 180, 187.
aëdon parkmani, 82.
Trombley, Jerome, the Swallow-tailed Kite (_Elanoïdes forficatus_)
taken in Southern Michigan, 250.
Turdus, 245.
fuscescens, 7, 19, 48, 62, 108, 187.
grayi, 215.
migratorius, 6, 56, 108, 115, 160, 187, 227, 234.
migratorius propinquus, 34, 62, 68, 227.
mustelinus, 6, 17, 18, 48, 90, 160.
nanus, 127.
pallasi, 48, 67, 108, 118, 155, 156, 190, 234.
swainsoni, 7.
unalascæ, 67.
unalascæ nanus, 234.
ustulatus, 68.
ustulatus swainsoni, 7, 48, 108, 155, 156, 234.
Turkey, Mexican, 41.
Water, 225.
Wild, 21, 93, 175.
Turnstone, 222, 238.
Tyrannus carolinensis, 17, 92, 149, 163, 168, 169, 188, 236.
verticalis, 113, 202.
vociferans, 202.
Uria grylle, 241.
Urinator, 179.
immer, 179.
lumme, 179.
torquatus, 179.
Utamania torda, 242.
Vanellus capella, 179.
cristatus, 179.
Vireo, 245.
atricapillus, 37.
belli, 11, 143, 144.
flavifrons, 10, 11, 16, 37, 188.
gilvus, 11, 17, 46, 142, 162, 187.
gilvus swainsoni, 62, 142.
huttoni, 142.
huttoni stephensi, 142, 258.
noveboracensis, 10, 11, 17, 37, 91, 99, 104, 162, 176.
olivaceus, 11, 17, 18, 46, 91, 111, 162, 187.
philadelphicus, 111.
pusillus, 143, 144.
solitarius, 11, 20, 111, 142.
solitarius cassini, 142.
solitarius plumbeus, 142.
vicinior, 145.
Vireo, Bell’s, 11.
Black-capped, 37.
Cassin’s, 142.
Gray, 145.
Least, 144.
Philadelphia, 111.
Plumbeous, 142.
Red-eyed, 11, 17, 18, 91, 111, 162.
Solitary, 11, 20, 111.
Stephen’s, 142, 258.
Warbling, 11, 17, 142, 162.
White-eyed, 10, 11, 17, 37, 91, 99, 104, 162, 176.
Yellow-throated, 10, 11, 16, 37.
Vireosylvia gilva, 11, 17, 162.
olivacea, 11, 17, 18, 91, 162.
Vulture, Black, 41, 103, 164, 174.
King, 258.
Wagtail, Swinhoe’s, 257.
Warbler, Audubon’s, 138.
Bay-breasted, 9, 17, 19, 104, 252.
Black-and-yellow, 9, 17, 19, 109, 154, 156, 234.
Blackburnian, 9, 17, 36, 104, 109, 161, 234.
Black-capped, 10.
Black-capped Yellow, 20, 235.
Black-poll, 9, 95, 128, 156, 234, 253.
Black-throated Blue, 17, 109.
Black-throated Gray, 138.
Black-throated Green, 9, 17, 37, 49, 109, 192, 234.
Blue, 17, 19.
Blue-winged Yellow, 17, 18, 19, 49.
Blue Yellow-backed, 8, 16, 36, 90, 95, 96, 161.
Canada Flycatching, 10, 16, 20, 110, 235.
Cape May, 17, 19, 110, 252.
Chestnut-headed Yellow, 257.
Chestnut-sided, 9, 17, 104, 109.
Cærulean, 18, 119.
Connecticut, 20, 190.
Golden-cheeked, 36.
Golden-winged, 9, 19.
Hooded, 10, 17, 20, 91, 96, 119, 162.
Kentucky, 10, 17, 18, 20, 49, 91, 160, 162.
Lucy’s, 82, 141.
Macgillivray’s, 139.
Mourning, 10, 17, 20, 110, 154, 156, 252.
Nashville, 17, 19, 36, 109.
Olive-headed, 135.
Orange-crowned, 9, 36, 53.
Pileolated, 139.
Pine-creeping, 9, 17, 20, 95, 97, 99, 119, 128, 161.
Prairie, 16, 20.
Prothonotary, 9, 16, 18, 19, 49, 90, 96.
Red-poll, 17.
Summer, 234.
Tennessee, 9, 17, 19, 53, 234, 252.
Townsend’s, 138.
Western Orange-crowned, 85.
White-browed Yellow-throated, 36, 49, 160, 161.
Worm-eating, 9, 17, 56, 96.
Yellow, 109, 137.
Yellow Red-poll, 49.
Yellow-rumped, 9, 36, 49, 95, 109, 119, 137, 234.
Yellow-throated, 9, 16, 19, 99, 253.
Waxwing, Cedar, 146, 162.
Whip-poor-will, 40, 149.
Stephens’s, 211, 258.
Widgeon, 185, 224.
Widman, O., Cuckoos laying in the nests of other birds, 56.
Willet, 222.
Williams, R. S., notes on some birds of the Belt Mountains, Montana
Territory, 61;
description of a nest of the Water Ouzel, 118;
the White-throated Swift breeding on Belt River, Montana, 122.
Woodcock, American, 22, 94, 151, 165.
Woodpecker, Black-backed Three-toed, 150, 236.
Downy, 92, 97, 150, 164, 170, 236.
Golden-fronted, 40.
Golden-winged, 63, 97, 150, 171, 237.
Hairy, 18, 97, 150, 170, 236.
Ivory-billed, 92, 170.
Pileated, 63, 150, 164, 170, 236.
Red-bellied, 40, 95, 97, 164, 171.
Red-cockaded, 97, 170.
Red-headed, 18, 21, 57, 63, 93, 116, 117, 164, 171.
Texas, 40, 170.
Yellow-bellied, 40, 150, 170.
Wren, Bewick’s, 19, 253.
Cactus, 82.
Carolina, 8, 35, 90, 116, 161.
House, 8, 19, 82, 109, 180.
Long-billed Marsh, 8, 17, 49, 256.
Long-tailed House, 8.
Punctulated, 257.
Rock, 35, 82.
Short-billed Marsh, 8, 118, 121.
Texan Bewick’s, 35.
White-bellied, 52, 82.
White-throated, 35.
Winter, 109, 154.
Xanthocephalus icterocephalus, 117, 166, 236.
Yellowbird, Summer, 9, 16, 161.
Yellow-legs, Greater, 42, 101.
Yellow-shanks, 239.
Yellow-throat, Belding’s, 257.
Maryland, 10, 17, 18, 91, 110, 139, 162, 234.
Zamelodia ludoviciana, 17, 18, 21, 105, 148, 186.
melanocephala, 199.
Zenaidura carolinensis, 21, 41, 46, 93, 105, 165, 174, 188, 227, 238.
Zonotrichia albicollis, 12, 20, 95, 113, 122, 148, 162, 236.
boucardi, 26.
gambeli intermedia, 12, 38, 227.
leucophrys, 12, 20, 38, 114, 236, 253.
querula, 38.
ERRATA.
Vol. VI, page 199, line 10, for “centimeters” read “millimeters.”
„ VII, „ 9, „ 12, for “BLUE-WINGED YELLOW” read
“GOLDEN-WINGED.”
„ „ „ 26, „ 6, for “An indistinct, dusky” read “A
black.”
„ „ „ 26, foot note, for “οὐκέω” read “οἰκέω.”
„ „ „ 47, „ „ line 3, for “Water” read “Winter.”
„ „ „ 119, line 8, for “struggling” read “straggling.”
„ „ „ 122, „ 9, from bottom, for “Rellon” read “Redlon.”
„ „ „ 123, „ 28, for “Before” read “Upon.”
„ „ „ 164, „ 11, for “chince” read “china.”
„ „ „ 165, „ 31, for “‘Poulet Dean’” read “‘Poulette
d’Eau.’”
„ „ „ 178, „ 3, for “_Cincinnurus_” read “_Cicinnurus_.”
-----
Footnote 1:
_Cf._ Bull. U. S. Geol. Geog. Survey Terr. Vol. IV, No. 1, pp. 231,
232.
Footnote 2:
After many careful examinations of the type specimen, I am led to the
conclusion that it does represent the perfect colored phase, since no
combination, or division, of the markings of _A. herodias_ and _A.
occidentalis_—or, in other words, no partial development of the
head-pattern of the former—would give the peculiar markings which
distinguish _A. würdemanni_.
Footnote 3:
The pattern of coloration of the head exactly as in _A. herodias_, and
not at all like _A. würdemanni_.
Footnote 4:
This bone is described in Mivart’s “Lessons in Elementary Anatomy,” p.
320, fig. 289; and by Alix in his “Essai sur l’Appareil locomoteur des
Oiseaux,” p. 403. Being out of town fuller references cannot be given.
Footnote 5:
In his “Essai sur l’Appareil locomoteur des Oisseaux,” Alix figures
(pl. II. fig. 12) the carpus of a Kestrel with a simple sesamoid.
Footnote 6:
[See Erratum on p. 64 of this issue.—EDD.]
Footnote 7:
These all common on the date when first observed.
Footnote 8:
The difference between the season just passed in the arrival and time
of nesting of the birds, may be illustrated by the fact that in the
spring of 1880, _Setophaga ruticilla_ was noted near Wheatland April
1, while in the spring of 1878, eggs of _Protonotaria citrea_ were
obtained near Mt. Carmel April 27.
Footnote 9:
Baird, Brewer and Ridgway’s Birds N. Am., Vol. III, p. 45.
Footnote 10:
_Eremœca_ = ἔρημος + οἰκέω.
Footnote 11:
Mr. Ridgway has found that fully ninety-five per cent of the Screech
Owls of the Wabash Valley, in southern Illinois, are _red_.
Footnote 12:
The small quadrate spots on the primaries and the indistinct tail
bands, characters which have been held as diagnostic, are both shown
by my series to be inconstant and of no varietal significance.
Footnote 13:
As my material is not at present sufficiently comprehensive to enable
me to define the limits of distribution of this race I leave the
compilation of its synonymy to those who may have better opportunities
in this respect.
Footnote 14:
“Review of the American Species of the genus Scops.” Proc. U. S. Nat.
Mus., Vol. I, pp. 85–117.
Footnote 15:
This arrangement leaves a large portion of the Middle Province without
any characteristic representative, _maxwellæ_ being an Alpine form
apparently confined to the Rocky Mountains, while _kennicotti_ and
“_tricopsis_” respectively invade only its northern and southern
borders. Our knowledge of the subject is not as yet sufficiently
comprehensive to enable me to fill this gap, but all the available
evidence goes to show that _asio_, at least as above defined, is not
found to the westward of the Rocky Mountain range.
Footnote 16:
See Brewster, this Bull., Vol. IV, pp. 75–80 and 91–103.
Footnote 17:
See Orn. Lower Rio Grande, Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv., IV, No. 1, 1878, p.
10.
Footnote 18:
Birds Dak. and Mont., Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv., IV, No. 3, 1878, p. 561.
Footnote 19:
Four specimens were known before Mr. Werner explored Comal Co., in
1878. In his article on Werner’s Birds (this Bull., Vol. IV, p. 77),
Mr. Brewster does not state just how many were taken.
Footnote 20:
Hist. N. A. Birds, Vol. I, 1874, p. 579.
Footnote 21:
See _anteà_, p. 26.
Footnote 22:
Mr. Ridgway acquiesces in the identification made of my inconstant
examples of this species and _Pipilo maculatus_, in a letter from
which I here make an extract: “The Pipilos appear to be neither true
_arcticus_ nor true _megalonyx_, and are almost as near (one of them
at least) to _maculatus_ of Mexico. They are, however, less like
_arcticus_ than either.... You will notice that one of the specimens
has a very considerable admixture of _grayish_ on the upper parts.
Now, were this color more _olivaceous_, the specimen in question would
be exactly like _maculatus_. The Song Sparrows are about equally like
_M. fasciata_ and _M. fallax_, but in colors appear to me to be nearer
the former, as _fallax_ has the markings less sharply contrasted. The
specimens are, however, more like _fallax_ in the grayness of the
plumage. Upon the whole, I would say that they are nearer _fasciata_
than _fallax_.”
Footnote 23:
See Field and Forest, Feb. 1877, p. 131.
Footnote 24:
See Orn. Lower Rio Grande, Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., IV, No. 1, 1878,
p. 39.
Footnote 25:
See Ibis, 1866, p. 33.
Footnote 26:
In Memoriam. The Collected Scientific Papers of the late Alfred Henry
Garrod, M. D., F. R. S., etc. Edited, with a biographical memoir of
the author, by W.A. Forbes, B. A., etc. London: R. H. Porter: 6
Tenterden Street. 1881. 1 vol. 8vo. pp. xxvi, 538, pll. 33, frontisp.
(portrait), and many cuts in text.
Footnote 27:
Osteology of the North American Tetraonidæ. By Dr. R. W. Shufeldt,
U.S.A. Bull. U.S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. Territories, Vol. VI, No. 2,
pp. 309–350, pll. V-XIII.
Footnote 28:
Osteology of Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides. By Dr. R. W. Shufeldt,
U.S.A. Bull. U.S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. Territories, Vol. VI, No. 2,
pp. 351–359, pl. XIV.
Footnote 29:
Illustrations of the Nests and Eggs of the Birds of Ohio. Part VIII,
April, 1881 Part IX, July, 1881. Pll. xxii-xxvii. fol.
Footnote 30:
American Naturalist, Nov., 1881, pp. 906–908.
Footnote 31:
Osteografische Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Vögel. Ueber das
Nagelglieder der Flügelfinger, besonders der Daumen. Leipzig, 1811, S.
89.
Footnote 32:
A List of the Birds of Minnesota. By Dr. P. L. Hatch. Ninth Ann. Rep.
Geol. and Nat. Hist Surv. Minn., for 1880, 1881, pp. 361–372.
The Water Birds of Minnesota. By Thomas S. Roberts. _Op. cit._, pp.
373–383.
Footnote 33:
On birds observed in Amelia County, Virginia. By Percy E. Freke.
Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, Vol. III, Part
III. [Read Feb. 21st, 1881.]
Footnote 34:
Field Notes on Louisiana Birds. By Dr. F. W. Langdon. Jour. Cincinnati
Soc. Nat. Hist., July, 1881, pp. 145–155.
Footnote 35:
Forty Years’ Notes of a Field Ornithologist, by John Krider, Member of
the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences and author of Krider’s
Sporting Anecdotes, Philadelphia. Giving a description of all birds
killed and prepared by him. Philadelphia, 1879, 8vo. pp. i-xi, 1–84.
Footnote 36:
Zoölogical Miscellany, edited by Dr. F. W. Langdon. Jour. Cincinnati
Soc. Nat. Hist., Vol. IV, Dec., 1881, pp. 336–346.
Footnote 37:
Annotated List of the Birds of Nevada. By W. J. Hoffman, M. D. Bull.
U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the Territories, Vol. VI, No. 2, Sept.
19, 1881, pp. 203–256, and map.
Footnote 38:
Ornithologist and Oölogist, Vol. VI, pp. 78, 79.
Footnote 39:
This Bulletin, Vol. III, p. 123.
Footnote 40:
See this Bulletin, Vol. IV, p. 137.
Footnote 41:
Its distribution in Arizona is apparently limited to a comparatively
small area which, according to Mr. Stephens’ experience, is bounded on
the east by the valley of the San Pedro; on the west by a point “a few
miles east of the Hassayampa, on the desert between it and Salt
River.”
Footnote 42:
Vol. XV, No. 3, March, 1881.
Footnote 43:
This Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 67.
Footnote 44:
Birds of the Colorado Valley, p. 74.
Footnote 45:
Birds of the Colorado Valley, p. 75.
Footnote 46:
In a recent letter Mr. Stephens adds:—“From my own observations I
should characterize the respective haunts of the Arizona Thrashers as
follows: _H. lecontei_ is exclusively a bird of the deserts. _H.
bendirei_ is a desert bird approaching the valleys. _H. palmeri_
occurs along the edge of deserts, occasionally appearing in valleys.
_H. crissalis_ haunts valleys and broad cañons, seldom venturing into
the deserts.”
Footnote 47:
The name “os prominens,” proposed by Dr. Shufeldt, has been adopted by
me because it seems eminently proper that so large a sesamoid,
frequently equalling the patella in size, should receive a distinctive
appellation.
Footnote 48:
The English Sparrow, which is but an indifferent flyer, can be
deprived of one-half of the secondaries and one-fourth of the
primaries of both wings, in the long axis of the pinion, without
apparently impairing its flight. See Pettigrew.
Footnote 49:
I find that this statement must be modified in regard to Gulls, if not
retracted altogether, for since this paper was written I have found
the os prominens in _Larus glaucus_ and _L. dominicanus_. It is
present as a small, elongated, trihedral prism, imbedded in the tendon
of the extensor patagii longus, and playing over the flattened surface
of the scapho-lunar.
Footnote 50:
[See p. 122 of this issue.—EDD.]
Footnote 51:
For an account of its breeding at Houlton see this Bulletin, Vol. IV,
pp. 37–39.
Footnote 52:
The Coues Check List of North American Birds, revised to date and
entirely rewritten under direction of the author, with a Dictionary of
the Etymology, Orthography and Orthoëpy of the scientific names, the
Concordance of previous lists, and a Catalogue of his Ornithological
Publications. Boston: Estes and Lauriat. 1882. 1 vol. roy. 8vo. pp.
165.
Footnote 53:
Extract from a Report of Exploration by Professor John Macoun, M. A.,
F.L.S. Report of Department of Interior (n. d., n. p. Ottawa, 1881?
8vo, pp. 48.)
Footnote 54:
A Revised List of the Birds of Brandon, Vt. and vicinity. By F. H.
Knowlton. The Brandon Union (newspaper), February 10, 1882. See also,
by the same author:—A Partial List of the Birds of Brandon, Vt. The
Brandon Union, December 13, 1878.
Remarks on some Western Vermont Birds. Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club, Vol.
VII, January, 1882, pp. 63, 64.
Footnote 55:
Dr. C. Fr. W. Krukenberg. Die Farbstoffe der Federn, in Dessen
Vergleichendphysiologische Studien. I Reihe, V Abth., 1881, s. 72–92.
Plate III.
Footnote 56:
See this Bulletin, Vol. IV, p. 8.
Footnote 57:
See this Bulletin, Vol. VII, pp. 54–55.
Footnote 58:
It should be stated that Mr. Purdie, with characteristic courtesy,
declines to publish this note as, after discovering his prior
knowledge of the specimen, I requested him to do.
Footnote 59:
See Brewer, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. XVII, 1875, p. 446.
Footnote 60:
This Bulletin, Vol. VII, p. 40.
Footnote 61:
Voyages of Samuel de Champlain, translated from the French by Charles
Pomeroy Otis, Ph.D., with historical illustrations, and a Memoir, by
Rev. Edmund F. Slafter, A. M. Vol. II, 1604–1610, Boston, published by
Prince Society, 1878.
Footnote 62:
Birds of the Northwest, 1874, pp. 679, 680.
Footnote 63:
Mr. Sennett and Dr. Merrill found it breeding on the Lower Rio Grande
in Texas. (Sennett, B. Rio Grande, 1878, pp. 65, 66; Merrill, Ornith.
Southern Texas, 1878, p. 172.)
Footnote 64:
This Bulletin, Vol. VII, p. 33.
Footnote 65:
For an excellent review of the races of _H. unalascæ_, by Mr. H. W.
Henshaw, see this Bulletin, Vol. IV, p. 134. Several errors, perhaps
typographical, are apparent in the tables of measurements given in
this paper. For example, the bill of var. _pallasi_ is said to average
.53 inch, whereas the largest specimen of that form is afterwards
credited with a bill of only .51. Again, var. _nanus_ (_i.e._,
_unalascæ_) does not appear from the table of extreme measurements to
have been found with a smaller bill than .49, though it had previously
been said to average .48. The difference in length of bill exhibited
by the three races of this species is almost microscopic. A much more
tangible character, not mentioned by Mr. Henshaw, lies in the
disproportionate slenderness of the bill of the western varieties. In
a rather large (wing 3.67) example of _unalascæ_ before me, the bill
measured across the base of the culmen is but .20 wide, while in a
specimen of var. _pallasi_ of the same site it is .25 wide.
Footnote 66:
Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club, Vol. VI, pp. 225–235.
Footnote 67:
Descriptions of the various pigments may be found in:
Krukenberg, Dr. C. Fr. W.; Vergl.-phys. Studien, 1 R, v. Abth. 1881,
SS. 72–99, u. 2 R, 1 Abth., 1882, SS. 151–171.
Bogdanow, A., Note sur le pigment des touracos. Compt. rend., T. LIV,
1862, pp. 660–663. Études sur les causes de la coloration des Oiseaux.
Compt. rend T. XLVI, 1858, pp. 780, 781
Church, H. H., Researches on Turacine, an animal pigment containing
copper. Chemical News, vol. XIX, 1869, No. 496.
Blasius, W., A. D. Sitzungsb des Vereins f. Naturwiss, zur
Braunschweig. Braunschweigische Anzeigen, 1877, Nr. 29.
Footnote 68:
Annals N. Y. Lyceum Nat. Hist., Vol. XI, p. 136.
Footnote 69:
Hist. N. A. Birds, Vol. I, 1874, pp. 297–298.
Footnote 70:
A letter just received from Mr. Stephens contains the following very
satisfactory confirmation of the above evidence. “The identification
of your nest of _S. picta_ is _positive_. I saw the parent plainly,
and could easily have shot her. Indeed I should never have found the
nest had not my attention been called to it by the birds flying from
it as I brushed past almost within touching distance. When first
found, the nest contained three eggs. I thought it best to leave them
until next day to see if more might not be laid. * * * When I
returned, however, the bird was not at home and as it was a long,
rough walk to camp, I took the nest, their being no occasion to visit
the spot again. * * * The locality was a wide part of a cañon between
the two Santa Rita peaks, perhaps two miles from the top of the high
ridge connecting them. Up this cañon passed an old Mexican road to the
pine timber above. It had not been used for many years. In its course
it cut through an occasional projecting bank, and in one of these
places was the nest. It was under a small boulder in the side of a
nearly perpendicular bank, which was but two or three feet high. The
vicinity was heavily timbered with oak and sycamore. I regard the
position as exceptional: still, it may be the rule.”
Footnote 71:
U. S. Geol. Surveys W. 100 Merid., 1879, pp. 291–293.
Footnote 72:
For an account of the nesting of this species at Grand Falls, see this
Bulletin, Vol. VII, p. —.
Footnote 73:
For descriptions of the nesting of this species at Houlton and Fort
Fairfield see this Bulletin, Vol. III, pp. 166–168, and Vol. IV, pp.
241, 242.
Footnote 74:
“Descriptions of two new Thrushes from the United States.” Proceedings
U. S. National Museum, Vol. 374, pp. 374–9.
Footnote 75:
The highest peak of the Catskills,—4,205 feet altitude.
Footnote 76:
Both birds were carefully examined and the evidence on this point was
positive and unequivocal. A Thrush’s nest containing spotted eggs
discovered near the top of Slide Mountain may have been either that of
this form or of _swainsoni_, but as positive identification was
prevented, further allusion to it is, for the present, withheld.
Footnote 77:
Though averaging of greater length, in proportions this bird averages
smaller than _swainsoni_, and some specimens are much smaller than any
I have seen of the latter species. The wide difference from true
_aliciæ_ here implied may be illustrated by the following extreme
measurements given by the birds of my series:—
_aliciæ_, length, 8.00; extent, 13.12; wing, 4.35; tail, 3.40.
_bicknelli_, „ 6.55; „ 10.56; „ 3.40; „ 2.60.
Footnote 78:
See “The Coues Check List of North American Birds,” p. 24.
Footnote 79:
Birds of North America, p. 12.
Footnote 80:
Field Notes on Louisiana Birds. By Dr. F. W. Langdon. Journal of the
Cincinnati Society of Natural History, July, 1881, pp. 145–155. A List
of Birds from the Lower Mississippi Valley, Observed During the Summer
of 1881, with Brief Notes. By O. P. Hay. Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club,
Vol. VII, pp. 89–94.
Footnote 81:
“Forest and Stream” Bird Notes. An index and summary of all the
ornithological matter contained in “Forest and Stream,” Vols. I-XII.
Compiled by H. B. Bailey. New York: F. & S. Pub. Co., 39 Park Row.
1881. 8vo., paper, pp. iv, 195.
Footnote 82:
A Catalogue of the Birds of New Brunswick, with brief notes relating
to their migrations, breeding, relative abundance, etc. By Montague
Chamberlain. Bulletin of the Natural History Society of New Brunswick.
No. 1, pp. 23–68. Published by the Society. Saint John, N. B., 1882.
Footnote 83:
Dr. C. Fr. Krukenberg. Die Farbstoffe der Federn. 2 Mittheilung, in
Dessen Verg.—phys. Stud., 2 R., I. Abth., 1882, SS 151–171.
Footnote 84:
On some generic and specific appellations of North American Birds. By
Leonhard Stejneger. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., June, 1882, pp. 28–43.
Footnote 85:
Ingersoll, Ernest. Birds’-Nesting: A Handbook of Instruction in
Gathering and Preserving the Nests and Eggs of Birds for the Purposes
of Study. Salem, 1882.
Footnote 86:
Vol. VII, pp. 23–25.
Footnote 87:
N. E. Bird Life, p. 104, foot note.
Footnote 88:
See Herrick, Birds of Grand Manan, p. 6.
Footnote 89:
See Rod and Gun, Vol. VI, p. 65.
Footnote 90:
See especially this Bulletin, Vol. VI, pp. 124–25.
Footnote 91:
See this Bulletin, Vol. IV, p. 108, and Vol. V, p. 63.
Footnote 92:
In citing this and the next form as races of _cinereus_, I follow Mr.
Henshaw, with whose views respecting the affinity of the three birds I
fully agree.
Footnote 93:
This Bulletin, Vol. VII, p. 26.
Footnote 94:
The question of the relationship which _M. cooperi_, _M.
erythrocercus_, _M. mexicanus_ and _M. crinitus_ bear to one another,
and that of the respective names which should be used for each, has
been recently discussed at some length. (See Bull. U. S. Geolog.
Surv., Vol. IV, pp. 32–33; _ibid._, Vol. V, No. 3, pp. 402–404; Proc.
U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 1, p. 139; and _ibid._, Vol. 3, pp. 13–15.)
While I cannot claim to have personally investigated the points at
issue, I am at present inclined to follow Mr. Ridgway’s ruling, at
least so far as _M. cooperi_ is concerned.
Footnote 95:
This Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 252.
Footnote 96:
This Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 252.
Footnote 97:
See this Bulletin, Vol. I. pp. 14–17 and 75–76, and Vol. V, pp. 20–25.
Footnote 98:
Proceedings U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. I, p. 142.
Footnote 99:
This Bulletin, Vol. VI, pp. 69–72.
Footnote 100:
See Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., Vol. V, Art. 5.
Footnote 101:
Of _Grallatores_, _Lamellirostres_, etc., I can give only a very
incomplete list, as I have never had favorable opportunity to observe
these birds.
Footnote 102:
Typical; the occurrence of both forms seems at first thought
anomalous, but _migratorius_ may be a migrant from Alaska, where it is
the representative bird.
Footnote 103:
_Var. nov._ See page 228 of this number.
Footnote 104:
Nearly typical, but showing slight approaches to var. _oregonus_.
Footnote 105:
Typical, and not approaching var. _caurinus_ of the coast region.
Footnote 106:
Typical.
Footnote 107:
One specimen, with a complete red nuchal band.
Footnote 108:
See my late paper on this Owl (this Bulletin, Vol. VII, pp. 27–33).
Six examples in the present collection offer no new points affecting
the position there taken.
Footnote 109:
Slightly aberrant; see remarks under _B. saturatus_ (p. 230).
Footnote 110:
See remarks under _A. atricapillus_ (pp. 231, 232).
Footnote 111:
As Mr. Ridgway has lately pointed out, Cassin’s _pacificus_ was
clearly based on specimens of _subarcticus_, a very distinct race
first recognized by Hoy in 1852. Hence the name _pacificus_ must give
place to _saturatus_, proposed by Mr. Ridgway for “a northern littoral
form, of very dark colors.”
Footnote 112:
The supposed adult, described by Mr. Ridgway in the “History of North
American Birds” (Vol. III, p. 148), proves to be an immature bird in
its second year. The real adult, however, was figured in the second
edition of this work.
Footnote 113:
“Darker (brownish-black) markings prevailing in extent over the
lighter (nearly clear white) ones. Stripes beneath broad,
brownish-black; those on the flanks cordate and transverse.”
Footnote 114:
The type of the adult _striatulus_ has turned out to be merely a
light-colored, faintly marked example of _atricapillus_.
Footnote 115:
See this Bulletin, Vol. VII, pp. 120, 121.
Footnote 116:
See this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 246.
Footnote 117:
The Coues Check List of North American Birds. Second Edition, Revised
to Date, and entirely Rewritten, under Direction of the Author, with a
Dictionary of the Etymology, Orthography, and Orthoëpy of the
Scientific Names, the Concordance of previous Lists, and a Catalogue
of his Ornithological Publications. [Monogram.] Boston. Estes and
Lauriat. 1882. 1 vol. imp. 8vo. pp. 165.
Footnote 118:
The 10 species retired are: _Ægiothus fuscescens_; _Centronyx
ochrocephalus_; _Sphyropicus williamsoni_; _Lampornis mango_;
_Agyrtria linnæi_; _Momotus cœruleiceps_; _Ibis thalassina_; _Ardea
wuerdemanni_; _Sterna “longipennis”_ (_S. pikii_ Lawr.); _Podiceps
cristatus_. The list of added species (too long to print here) is
given on pp. 6–8 and 10 of the Check List.
Footnote 119:
Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., June, 1882, pp. 28–43.
Footnote 120:
This Bulletin, Vol. VII, pp. 178, 179.
Footnote 121:
While it is unfortunate that there should be two check lists of North
American birds, Dr. Coues’s right to publish his views in this form
was undeniably established when his first list was issued and
accepted. Moreover, we see no reason why others should be debarred
from the same privilege, and we fancy that a third list, representing
a different and more conservative school of thought, especially in the
matter of nomenclature, would have a large following. As regards a
choice of names, in the comparatively few cases where the present
authorities differ we should weigh well before accepting either. Many
persons, doubtless, have neither the time nor the inclination to do
this, and such, necessarily, must be guided by individual preferences
in favor of one or the other author. In all cases of publication,
however, a simple statement of the authority followed will be
sufficient to prevent any confusion or misunderstanding.
Footnote 122:
Illustrations of Nests and Eggs of Birds of the United States, with
Text, by Thos. G. Gentry. Philadelphia: J. A. Wagenseller, Publisher,
No. 23 North Sixth Street. Copyright by J. A. Wagenseller, 1881. [4to,
parts 1–25, pp. 1–300. 54 col. chromo-lithographs, and chromo-portrait
frontispiece of the author. Price, $25.00. 1880–82.]
Footnote 123:
“Monograph of the Alcidæ,” Proc. Phila. Acad., Vol. XX, 1868, p. 77.
Footnote 124:
See F. C. Browne, Forest and Stream, Vol. XVIII, June 15, 1882, p.
386.
Footnote 125:
Vol. VII, p. 185.
Footnote 126:
This Bulletin, Vol. VII, p. 185.
Footnote 127:
“A Naturalist in the Magdalen Islands,” p. 42.
Footnote 128:
See this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 225, and Vol. VII, p. 128.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in
spelling.
2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
3. Re-indexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end
of the last chapter.
4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
5. Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club, Volume VII (1882) : A Quarterly Journal of Ornithology" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.