Chapter XII: Part 12

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.