Chapter II: Part 2

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.