Chapter III: Part 3

We cannot of course go into any examination of these papers in an editorial notice like the present, or even adduce the leading results of the author. It must suffice to say that among them is an entirely new classification of birds, primarily based upon the ambiens. Among the more important papers we may mention those on the carotid arteries; on certain muscles of the leg (Garrod’s _pièce de resistance_); on the anatomy of Pigeons, of Parrots, and of Passerine Birds; and on the trachea in _Gallinæ_. All these are of general import, bearing on broad questions of taxonomy, as distinguished from minor papers, however valuable, in which special points are examined. The editor has done well to preserve the original pagination of the text and numeration of the illustrations for facility of citation, and the plates are said to be faithfully reproduced.—E.C.

SHUFELDT’S OSTEOLOGY OF THE NORTH AMERICAN TETRAONIDÆ.[27]—This osteological memoir is, so far as we know, the most complete of any on American birds of one group. In general the descriptions, with the aid of the numerous plates, can be easily understood. In treating of the skull Dr. Shufeldt adopts the old theory that it is nothing but the modified end of the back bone, and gives a diagramatic figure of the skull of _Centrocercus_ much like that given by Owen of the Ostrich. This view will of course be rejected by all who do not consider the membrane and cartilage bones of the skull to be from the same source. The use of “hyoid arch” when speaking of all the tongue bones is, we think, liable to lead many young students astray; we would suggest “hyobranchial arches,” or “hyoid arches.”

A point of considerable interest is a small ossicle which occurs at the inner side of the II metacarpal—III metacarpal of Dr. Shufeldt’s homologies of the hand—near its base. This bone is compared to the pisiform bone of the Mammalia by the author. Besides this, two proximal and two distal carpal bones are found, just as in the chick. Thus the chick and the young _Centrocercus_ have the same structure of the hand except the presence of a IV metacarpus in the first and a “pisiform” in the second. We notice that the “index” is described as being composed of only one phalanx; this we believe to be an oversight of the author; at all events most of the European Gallinæ have two phalanges, the last one bearing a claw. On reference to fig. 57 it will be seen that the distal end of the first phalanx in _Centrocercus_ is very large and looks as if there should be another joint. As regards the tarsus, Dr. Shufeldt has been able to demonstrate the existence of a fibulare, tibiale, and intermedium, which ultimately become anchylosed with the tibia. Dr. Shufeldt also states that as a whole the different parts of this skeleton in _Centrocercus_ are slow to anchylose, thus rendering the bird an extremely favorable one for the study of the separate elements of the skeleton.

The description of the osteology of _Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides_,[28] by the same author, is short, concise, and may be summed up in the statement that the skeleton of this bird is strictly Passerine.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF OHIO NESTS AND EGGS.[29]—We are glad to record the progress of this great work, of which we have had former occasions to speak so highly. The ninth fascicle is the last which has reached us, carrying the number of plates to twenty-seven, each with its sheet or so of letter-press. The high standard of the work is on the whole maintained, although, to our eye at least, the plates lack somewhat of the peculiar attractiveness that the earlier ones had for us. It may, however, be only the charm of novelty that we miss; and there is certainly no falling off in the conscientious endeavor to unite fidelity to nature with artistic excellence in depicting these beautiful objects. Should the project be carried to completion, the work will certainly become a standard of reference. It deserves to be better known and more widely circulated than it appears thus far to have become, and we trust that time will serve to make its merit fully appreciated.

The following are the plates of the two parts before us. (In No. 8) Pl. 22, _Cardinalis virginianus_ (the eggs shown in their remarkable extremes of size and coloring); Pl. 23, fig. 1, _Vireo gilvus_ and fig. 2, _V. olivaceus_; Pl. 24, _Zenaidura carolinensis_; (in No. 9) Pl. 25, fig. 1, _Trochilus colubris_, fig. 2, _Polioptila cærulea_ (and one is interested to see that these nests are of identical orders of architecture and ornamentation, however different in materials); Pl. 26, _Spizella socialis_; Pl. 27, _Butorides virescens_.

The text continues as heretofore to consider the subjects under the formal heads of—Locality—Position—Materials—Eggs—Differential Points—Remarks; the latter head usually covering the most matter. We are glad to see that the authors now fill, as a rule, their sheets of letter-press—there is certainly enough to be said on the subject for that! The pagination of the letter-press reaches p. 104 with the end of No. 9.

It is never untimely to suggest that when works published in this manner come to be bound, especially if the parts are made up in any other order than sequence of publication, the original cover-titles should be preserved; there being no intrinsic evidence, either in the text or on the plates, of dates of publication or of contents of Parts; and it may not be too early to suggest to the authors that explicit indication of these points should be given with the permanent title, contents, etc., of the finished work.—E. C.

SHUFELDT’S “THE CLAW ON THE INDEX DIGIT OF THE CATHARTIDÆ.”[30]—We regret being obliged to make unfavorable criticisms, but this paper contains such important errors, both in regard to the structure of birds and the literature of the subject, that some rectification seems necessary. Dr. Shufeldt describes the claw at the end of the first finger of _Catharista atrata_ as a new discovery, considering that claws outside the Ostrich groups have not hitherto been described, and also states that it is a point of distinction between the Old and New World Vultures. Unfortunately Nitzsch[31] long ago described the claw on the first finger of birds in the following words: “Die Analogie, welche die Flügel der Vögel mit den Vorderfüssen der Säugthiere und Reptilien haben, zeigt sich auch in den Spuren von Nägel- oder Klauenbildung, welche an den Finger jener Glieder oftmals gefunden werden. Dieser Bildung macht es zugleich wahrscheinlich, dass die Urform der Flügel in der Fussform, oder doch in einer, dieser sehr ähnlichen, bestand; denn die Nägel gehören den Füssen an, sie haben im Kreise der Flügelfunkzion keine Bedeutung, und sind da wohl nur durch zweckloses Nachahmen und Ueberbleiben der Fussform.” Farther on he describes the skeleton of the hand as follows: “Die Hand der Vögel hat drei Finger, 1) den Daumen, welcher (ohne das Nagelglied) aus einem Stücke, 2) den grossen Finger, der (ohne das Nagelglied) aus zwei Stücken oder Gliedern, und 3) den kleinen Finger, der stets nur aus einen Stücke besteht.” Since Nitzsch’s memoir was written his observations have been extended, and mentioned by many anatomists, as Meckel, in his Anatomy, by Blainville, by Selenka in Bronn’s “Thiereichs,” by myself in this Bulletin for 1881, by Professor Morse in the “Anniversary Memoirs” of the Boston Society of Natural History. Accordingly the claw on the first finger is anything but an unknown object. It is constantly demonstrating its existence to practical ornithologists by pricking their fingers while measuring bird’s wings. That the claw is absent in the Old World Vultures is also an error if we may trust the high authority of Nitzsch, who wrote as follows: “Unter den Raubvögeln einiges Geier, Adler, Falken; aber nicht die Eulen—Am _Vultur percnopterus_ ist sie ziemlich stark, ungefähr einen halb Zoll long zugespitzt und bräunlich vom Horne.” In fact, a claw on the first finger is of very common occurrence, and is found, according to the authorities given above, in the _Accipitres_, _Herodiones_, _Palamedeæ_, _Anseres_, _Gallinæ_, _Fulicariæ_, _Alectorides_, _Limicolæ_, _Gaviæ_, _Pygopodes_, _Crypturi_, and _Struthiones_.

Here it may not be out of place to add that a claw has also been found on the end of the second finger, by myself and Professor Morse, in certain of the Winter Birds, and perhaps in some embryo Hawks: and that as a rule the claws are much more conspicuous in young than in adult birds.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.

PAPERS ON MINNESOTA BIRDS.[32]—Although the report containing these papers was not generally circulated in 1881, a copy reached us in December of that year. Dr. Hatch contributes a list of 281 species briefly annotated—usually with only a line or two to each species respecting the manner and character of its appearance in the State. In explanation of its cursory style the author states that, as we regret to learn, the original copy was destroyed by fire, “and it has been impossible to give its re-writing the measure of carefulness which the first manuscript received.” The most interesting entry is that of _Querquedula cyanoptera_, which thus appears far from its recognized range.

Mr. Roberts’ article treats much more fully of 52 species known to occur in the State in winter, divided into the categories of “permanent residents” (23), “winter visitants” (14), “half hardy” species (9), and “accidental” ones (6), the information given conveying a good idea of the bird-fauna at that season of the year. Doubtless owing to circumstances for which neither author is responsible, each paper bristles with typographical errors, few of which are corrected in the accompanying erratum slip. We understand that a full list will accompany the volumes as finally published.—E.C.

FREKE ON THE BIRDS OF AMELIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA.[33]—Our knowledge of the birds of Eastern Virginia is so largely inferential that Mr. Freke has done good service in publishing the results of six years’ observations in Amelia County, at a point “about thirty miles south of Richmond.” His list, which is freely annotated, includes 112 species. The Barn Swallow is catalogued as a spring and fall migrant; the Tree Sparrow (_Spizella montana_), as a rather uncommon winter visitor; the Field Sparrow, as resident but most common in winter; the Chipping Sparrow as arriving from the south late in March and as leaving during November; the Song Sparrow as wintering but not breeding; the Blue Grosbeak as not uncommon during the latter part of April and early in May, but, rather unaccountably, as not being found in summer; the Ruffed Grouse as plentiful in the mountains but not common in the low country, although a few regularly nest there in thick pine woods.

The author has evidently fallen into some confusion regarding the spotted-breasted Thrushes of the genus _Turdus_. Thus _T. “pallasi”_ is characterized as a “resident species, apparently not migrating even in the most partial manner.” In view of our very definite knowledge of the Hermit’s distribution, such a statement by itself would be open to the gravest suspicion, but when we add that Mr. Freke does not mention the Wilson’s, Olive-backed, or Wood Thrushes as occurring at _any season_, it is quite plain that the Hermit (_verus_) did duty as the winter bird, the Olive-backed or Wilson’s Thrush filled the gap during the migrations, and the Wood Thrush was the species that “builds its clay-lined nest in the fork of some cedar or dogwood bush, at the height of eight or ten feet from the ground, and there lays its blue eggs.” The statement that _Dendræca coronata_ “is one of the commonest warblers in the district, and spends [a] great part of the year there,” is not so easily explained: but despite the still more explicit assurance that “they come about the end of April, or the beginning of May, and remain until very late in the autumn,” we cannot help thinking that some mistake was made in the identification of the individuals seen in summer.

Save in the last-named instances, however, there is no reason to doubt that the author’s commendable practise of “verifying my observations, as far as possible, by securing specimens and preserving skins” was conscientiously carried out, and his paper will be read with interest, not only as an exponent of the ornithology of a previously unworked section, but also as embodying a foreigner’s pleasantly told impressions of many of our familiar birds.—W. B.

LANGDON’S FIELD NOTES ON LOUISIANA BIRDS.[34]—These notes comprise “a record of ornithological observations and collections made by the writer during the month ending April 17th, 1881, at ‘Cinclaire’ plantation, situated in the parish of West Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on the right bank of the Mississippi, one hundred and twenty-seven miles by river above New Orleans.”

The locality is described as “flat and uninteresting.... The cultivated grounds are mainly comprised in a strip ranging from one to three miles in width, along the rivers and principal bayous, the remainder of the state being chiefly occupied by extensive forests and swamp lands.”

The author considers the list “of quite as much interest for what it does _not_ include, as for what it _does_,” and comments on the apparent absence of the Catbird, Long-billed Marsh Wren, Black-and-white Creeper, Yellow-rumped, White-browed, Black-throated Green, Yellow Red-poll, and Kentucky Warblers, Large-billed Water Thrush, Redstart, Song Sparrow, and Common Pewee; to which he might with equal propriety have added the Prothonotary and Blue-winged Yellow Warblers and the Acadian Flycatcher. But we cannot believe with him that the non-occurrence, on the present occasion, of most of these species has any special significance, either as affecting their general distribution in, or usual migration through, the region of which the paper treats. The country about “Cinclaire” may have been unsuited to the habits of some of them, while the early date of Dr. Langdon’s departure, taken in connection with the exceptional lateness of the season, will sufficiently explain his failure to detect a number of the migratory ones which have been found near the mouth of the Mississippi by Mr. Henshaw, and which are well known to extend over the Mississippi valley at large only a few hundred miles further to the northward.

Dr. Langdon’s thoroughness and energy as a field collector are, however, so well known through the medium of his valuable papers on Ohio birds, that we may rest assured that his work at “Cinclaire” was well done, and the paper will be welcomed as an acceptable contribution to our knowledge of a region which has been nearly a _terra incognita_ to ornithologists since the days of Audubon.—W. B.

KRIDER’S FIELD NOTES.[35]—In an unpretending little pamphlet of some eighty odd pages Mr. Krider has “endeavored to describe and give the history of only those species of birds of the United States” which he has “collected and mounted,” and whose nests have come under his personal observation. Had this plan been carried out with only ordinary forethought and intelligence it could scarcely have failed to result in a valuable contribution to our knowledge of North American birds, for Mr. Krider’s long experience as a field collector must have afforded unusual opportunities for original investigation and observation. But a casual glance through the pages of his work is enough to show that these opportunities have been sadly neglected. Important records are given without dates and often with only a vague or inferential assignment of locality, while improbable statements and palpable errors are of frequent occurrence. In short, it is only too evident that Mr. Krider’s “Notes” are the offspring of a fading memory rather than the carefully kept data of a systematic worker. Moreover, the author writes from a standpoint at least twenty-five years behind the times, and consequently ignores all the various developments affecting classification and the relationship of allied species and races. From all this chaff it is of course possible to separate some sound grain, but most of the really important records were published long ago by Turnbull, Cassin, and other writers. Of the literary execution of the present work we can say nothing favorable. It is to be regretted that the author could not have recognized his unfitness in this respect, and, as on a former occasion, have secured the services of a competent editor.—W. B.

LANGDON’S ZOÖLOGICAL MISCELLANY.[36]—In the last issue of its well-known “Journal,” the Cincinnati Society of Natural History publishes the first of a series of articles entitled “Zoölogical Miscellany,” the aim and scope of which are thus tersely defined by the editor, Dr. F. W. Langdon:—

“Under the above caption it is proposed to bring together from time to time such facts as may be deemed worthy of record, respecting the structure, the life history, or the geographical distribution of the various species of animals constituting the Ohio Valley Fauna.”

The part before us includes sections on mammalogy, ornithology, herpetology, ichthyology, conchology, and entomology. In general terms, it may be said that all of these are well sustained, but in the present connection we have to do only with the one relating to birds. This contains a number of interesting notes, a large proportion of which are from the editor’s pen, although a few are signed by Mr. E. R. Quick, Mr. A. W. Butler, Dr. Howard E. Jones, and other more or less well-known names. Most of these notes relate chiefly to the local presence or distribution of certain birds within the Ohio Valley, but one or two possess a wider interest. Among the latter we notice an announcement by Dr. Langdon of the detection of the Oak-woods Sparrow (_Peucæa æstivalis illinoensis_, Ridgway) near Bardstown, Nelson County, Kentucky, “about one hundred miles southwest of Cincinnati.” The specimen was taken April 28, 1877, by Mr. C. W. Beckham, who referred it to Dr. Langdon for identification.

In addition to his numerous notes, the editor contributes a short but useful paper on the “Introduction of European Birds.” From this it appears that “during the years 1872, ’73 and ’74, about nine thousand dollars were expended in the purchase and importation of European birds, their average cost to import being about four dollars and fifty cents a pair. According to this estimate some four thousand individuals were introduced.” This great outlay was borne by the “Acclimation Society of Cincinnati” and we believe that most of the birds were turned out in the neighborhood of that city; but, according to Dr. Langdon, the experiment has practically proved a failure.

If the present instalment of “Zoölogical Miscellany” may be taken as a fair criterion of future issues, its favorable reception by naturalists is a matter of no uncertainty, and under Dr. Langdon’s able editing we look to see its popularity widely extended, even though its field be restricted to the Ohio Valley.—W. B.

HOFFMAN ON THE BIRDS OF NEVADA.[37]—In the present paper Dr. Hoffman has done good service to ornithology by tabulating the two hundred and fifty species and varieties of birds which he considers are entitled to a place in the avi-fauna of Nevada. The list is based partly upon the writer’s personal experience in the field during the season of 1871, but mainly upon the previously published reports of Mr. Ridgway, Mr. Henshaw and Dr. Yarrow, and Dr. J. G. Cooper. It hence partakes largely of the nature of a compilation, although the author’s original notes are by no means few or uninteresting.

The paper begins with a pertinent chapter entitled “Remarks on the distribution of vegetation in Nevada as affecting that of the avi-fauna” and closes with a bibliographical list of the chief publications relating to the region considered, and an excellent map of the state.

The list proper is freely annotated and the numerous and often extended quotations are always apt and interesting. The work, generally, has been so well done that we find few points open to adverse criticism. There is however an evident tendency on the author’s part to swell the number of species and varieties by the enrollment of many which have been taken or observed near the borders of the state but not as yet actually within its limits. We are aware that Dr. Hoffman has some high authority for adopting this course but we are none the less inclined to deprecate it, believing that it is time enough to catalogue a species when it has actually been found within the limits treated. In the present case, however, it must be admitted that there are good grounds for supposing that most of these extra-limitals will eventually turn up in Nevada.

Dr. Hoffman’s paper ranks easily among the higher class of publications to which it belongs and should find a place in the hands of every working ornithologist.—W. B.

=General Notes.=

THE TUFTED TITMOUSE ON STATEN ISLAND, N. Y.—I shot a specimen of this species (_Lophophanes bicolor_) on the 24th of August, 1881, in a thick wood, a few miles south of Port Richmond, a small town on the north shore of Staten Island, N. Y.—DANIEL E. MORAN, _Brooklyn, N.Y._

NESTING OF THE WHITE-BELLIED WREN (_Thryothorus bewicki leucogaster_).—This Wren is abundant in Northern Arizona, where I saw it and heard it singing most constantly, during the month of June, while traveling from Fort Whipple to view the Grand Cañon of the Colorado. The birds were particularly numerous in the vicinity of cañons and arroyos, and in the patches of red cedar and piñon pine that stretch away from mountain sides to the valley ground of the Colorado Plateau. At a water-hole about midway on my journey, it so happened that my tent was pitched beneath a cedar where, as I was soon satisfied by their vehement scolding, a pair of the Wrens were protesting against such intrusion upon their privacy. In a little while, however, finding themselves unmolested they quieted down, resumed their song at intervals, and were soon after busily engaged in bringing insects to their family. Having explored a deserted Woodpecker’s hole, only to find it empty, I at length saw one of the birds disappear in the hollow end of a blasted horizontal bough about eight feet from the ground. The entrance was too narrow to admit my arm, but by breaking away some of the rotten wood I at length got a glimpse of the nest, and could just put a finger over the edge of it far enough to feel the little birds. I should have despoiled the household had there been eggs; but as it was I refrained, and for a day or two was much interested in watching the happy, devoted pair, bubbling over with joyous music as they assiduously cared for their little family, now coming and going undisturbed by the group of men who shared the luxury of this fragrant cedar shade. This was June 7; returning a week afterward, the pretty spot was a “banquet hall deserted”; so that I did not hesitate to break into the bough and remove the nest. It contained two dead young ones, upon which a troop of ugly carrion-beetles were rioting and feasting. The nest was quite unlike what a House Wren’s would have been under the same circumstances, having none of the trash with which these queer birds would have surrounded it; it rested upon the horizontal floor of the cavity, upon a bed of wood-mould and cedar-berries, about a foot from the ragged entrance of the hollow. It was a neat structure, about 4 inches across outside, by half as much in internal diameter, cupped to a depth of an inch and a half. Outside was a wall of small cedar twigs interlaced, and next came a layer of finely frayed inner bark strips from the same tree; but the bulk of the nest consisted of matted rabbit-fur stuck full of feathers, among which those of the Carolina Dove were conspicuous. These latter birds are extremely abundant all over Arizona and in the dry season they are often at such straits for water as to congregate in immense flocks at the water-holes, few and far between, which alone render it possible to traverse some parts of the unblest Territory. On the morning of which I write, reveille was sounded by the clapping and whistling of a thousand eager wings, now venturing near, then frightened from the coveted water where men and animals were crowding. In other times, the Dove brought tidings of dry land; in Arizona now, where everything goes by contraries, river-sites are many, but the sight of a Dove is a surer sign of water.—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._

AN ERRONEOUS RECORD OF THE ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER (_Helminthophaga celata_) IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.—In Vol. III, pp. 96, 97 of this Bulletin, Mr. John Murdoch recorded the capture of an Orange-crowned Warbler at the Isles of Shoals, New Hampshire, by the Messrs. Bangs of Boston. I have lately had an opportunity of examining this specimen and find it to be a Tennessee Warbler (_Helminthophaga peregrina_), in the ordinary autumnal plumage. It is but just to the Messrs. Bangs to state that they are not to be held responsible for this blunder, the bird having been submitted by them to an ornithologist of some standing, one in whose determination they placed perfect confidence. Nor can Mr. Murdoch (who I believe took all his facts at second hand) be blamed for accepting the same supposed good authority.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._

ON THE GENERIC NAME _Helminthophaga_.—The change of a generic name, especially one long established, is in any case unfortunate, and in the present instance seems particularly so; yet the plain rules of zoölogical nomenclature leave no alternative. The generic name _Helminthophaga_, proposed in 1850 by Cabanis for a well-known group of American Warblers, was used in a sub-generic sense about forty-seven years previously, by Bechstein, who, in 1803 (Taschenbuch, p. 548), included under this name the Nightingale and Redbreast of Europe (_Luscinia philomela_ and _Erithacus rubecula_); in consequence of which (no other name having, apparently, been proposed for the group in question) it becomes necessary to rename the genus so long called _Helminthophaga_. In proposing a new name, which I am very reluctant to do, I have selected the term _Helminthophila_, on account of its similarity to the one so long in use. It is proper to state here that my attention was called to this point by Dr. L. Stejneger, the eminent Norwegian ornithologist.

Leaving out _H. lawrencei_ and _H. leucobronchialis_, which Mr. Brewster has pretty clearly proven to be hybrids of _H. pinus_ and _H. chrysoptera_, the known species of this genus are as follows:—

1. _Helminthophila bachmani_ (Aud.).

2. _Helminthophila chrysoptera_ (Linn.).

3. _Helminthophila pinus_ (Linn.).

4. _Helminthophila ruficapilla_ (Wils.).

5. _Helminthophila virginiæ_ (Baird).

6. _Helminthophila celata_ (Say).

7. _Helminthophila peregrina_ (Wils.).

8. _Helminthophila luciæ_ (Cooper).—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._

_Dendrœca palmarum_ AGAIN IN MASSACHUSETTS.—The first capture of _Dendrœca palmarum_ in Massachusetts was that of a single bird taken by Mr. Arthur Smith at Brookline, about the middle of October, 1878. (See note by Mr. Ruthven Deane, Bull. Nutt. Club, Vol. IV, page 60.) I have the pleasure of announcing the capture of two additional specimens. The first was taken at Cambridge, September 13, 1880, and was shot on an apple tree while in company with several other Warblers. The second was shot at Belmont, September 7, 1881, from the top of a yellow pine. The marked difference in the intensity of the yellow of the breast and under tail-coverts first attracted my attention to this bird. Never having met with _D. palmarum hypochrysea_ in the autumn, I thought both birds to be of this variety until quite recently, when my friend Mr. William Brewster identified them for me and found them to be genuine _D. palmarum_.—HENRY M. SPELMAN, _Cambridge, Mass._

_Ampelis cedrorum_ AS A SAP-SUCKER.—The Cedar, or Cherry-Bird seems never to be very abundant in this section of the State; but early in the spring, when the birds first arrived from the south, I saw quite a large number of them, and observed what was to me a new habit. They resorted to the maple trees for the purpose of gathering the sap flowing from wounds made by the ice in the bark of the smaller branches. The birds would grasp a branch or twig with their claws, and partially swing themselves under it and drink the sap where it hung in drops. For a week or more these birds were so plentiful and so intent upon their sap-gathering that one was almost certain to find a flock wherever there was a group of maples. I took considerable pains to ascertain if this habit was shared by any other bird, but did not observe a single instance. In the Eastern States I have often seen squirrels drinking sap from the branches in this way, but never before saw it done by a bird.—F. E. L. BEAL, _Ames, Iowa_.

CAPTURE OF _Plectrophanes lapponicus_ IN CHESTER, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Mr. Leverett M. Loomis writes me that on January 1, 1881, he shot a single individual of this species from a small flock of Shore Larks, which were feeding upon offal in a barnyard. There appears to be no previous record of the occurrence of this species in South Carolina.—J. A. ALLEN, _Cambridge, Mass._

OCCURRENCE OF _Coturniculus lecontei_ IN CHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Near the town of Chester, S. C., on the dividing ridge between the Broad and Catawba Rivers, there is an “old field” of some two hundred acres that has been lying out, until recently, for a number of years. Here and there are patches of newly-sown grain, but the greater portion is now in broom-sedge and weedy stubble and corn land. Near the middle there is a small “wet-weather branch,” which empties into a large creek a mile distant. November 11, 1881, in this locality, in the weedy stubble, my first specimen of Le Conte’s Bunting was secured. Nov. 16, a second was taken in the broom-sedge near the same spot. Nov. 17, a third was shot, and several others were seen. Dec. 3, three more were captured; two in the broom-sedge, and the remaining one in the swamp grass bordering the “branch.” Dec. 10, my last visit to the field, six additional specimens were taken, and as many more were seen. I am not aware that the species has hitherto been reported as occurring so far east as South Carolina—LEVERETT M. LOOMIS, _Chester, S. C._

THE SHARP-TAILED FINCH IN KANSAS.—Col. N. S. Goss, of Neosho Falls, Kansas, wrote me under date of Oct. 17, 1881, that he had killed what he thought was a male Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Finch. Two days later he shot another, which he kindly sent me. The bird proved to be, as Mr. Goss supposed, _Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni_. The birds were killed “at the edge of a slough, on the low bottom lands of the Neosho River, about two miles from Neosho Falls.” This discovery is of special interest as indicating that the Sharp-tailed Finch, formerly supposed to be strictly maritime in its distribution, may be found locally over a wide range in the interior.—J. A. ALLEN, _Cambridge, Mass._

NOTE ON _Mitrephanes_, A NEW GENERIC NAME.—The name _Mitrephorus_ of Sclater, P. Z. S., 1859, p. 44, is preoccupied in Coleoptera by _Mitrephorus_, Schönh., 1837, emended _Mitrophorus_, Burm., 1844. It may therefore be changed to _Mitrephanes_; type _Mitrephanes phæocercus_ (Scl.); including _Mitrephanes aurantiiventris_ (Lawr.), if not also _Mitrephanes fulvifrons_ (Grd.), and its var. _pallescens_ (Coues).—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._

NESTING OF _Empidonax minimus_ AND _Helmintherus vermivorus_ IN PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY.—Although instances of the breeding of the Least Flycatcher within the limits of Pennsylvania and New Jersey have been affirmed by Turnbull and one or two other authorities, a precise record cannot perhaps be found that will prove it to breed as far south as Philadelphia. Having found a nest and clutch of eggs belonging to this species, June 1, 1881, and satisfactorily identified the parent birds by shooting them, it is thought that this notice may prove of interest as perhaps removing doubts as to the accuracy of Turnbull’s statement. _E. minimus_ escaped the notice of the writer till the spring of 1880, when two pairs were noticed in June in the suburbs of Philadelphia, but any nests which may have existed escaped my observation. The present year (1881) I first noticed them in Delaware County, Pa., two pairs taking up their abode in an orchard surrounding the house. Here the above mentioned nest was found, placed on a drooping branch of an apple tree fifteen feet above the ground. The species was seen and heard singing about six miles west of Camden, New Jersey, in June, and again in July at the same place; is it not just therefore to suppose this pair had a nest near the spot?

Worm-eating Warblers were noticed in full song in the vicinity of Marple, Delaware County. Pa., as early as the last week in April, and whilst on a collecting trip in May I procured three males and a female in southern Chester County, and on dissecting the latter I was surprised to find in her oviduct a partly shelled egg. On the 16th of June, 1881, a ramble in the woods resulted in finding a brood of young of this species scarcely able to fly; one of them is now in my collection and another just missed the same claim to immortality. The old birds were exceedingly solicitous but so wary that three shots failed to procure either of them.

Near Camden, New Jersey, I procured a female Worm-eating Warbler in the latter part of July, 1880; its actions and the time of year caused me to infer it had young near by.—SAMUEL N. RHOADS, _Haddonfield, N. J._

CUCKOOS LAYING IN THE NESTS OF OTHER BIRDS.—As far as my knowledge extends, there are only four instances known, in which the eggs of _Coccygus americanus_ have been found in other bird’s nests, namely, the two given by Nuttall, in nests of Catbird and one by Langdon in Robin’s, and that mentioned by Ridgway in _Coccygus erythrophthalmus_. I was not a little astonished to find last Saturday, June 4. 1881, an egg of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in a Catbird’s nest, and near by another one in the nest of a Black-billed Cuckoo. The Catbird’s nest contained only one egg of its rightful owner; another Catbird’s egg was found broken on the ground. The Cuckoo’s egg was fresh, but the Catbird’s egg was incubated. The nest of the Black-billed Cuckoo contained besides the parasitic egg, which was fresh, two eggs, both incubated, but one much more than the other, the embryo being fully developed. The parent bird (_Coccygus erythrophthalmus_) was sitting, but left when the tree was ascended and stationed itself on a near tree to watch our movements.

The circumstances attending the discovery of these two eggs make me think that such cases of parasitic Cuckoo’s eggs might not be so very exceptional and still evade the watchful eye of the collecting oölogist or of the observing ornithologist. I went out to look for nests of _Empidonax acadicus_. I took my nephew, a lad of fifteen, with me to assist in taking down nests from trees. In passing a thicket by the wayside, he looked in and immediately called out, “a big nest, blue eggs.” Judging from the surroundings, I replied without taking the trouble to look at the thing, “a Catbird’s nest; let it alone.” We passed on and after a little while a Catbird crossed our way. He saw the bird and I told him that this was the Catbird whose nest he had just found. He wondered that a bird of this size lays such large eggs. Inquiring how large the egg was, he showed the size with thumb and index. I smiled and said it was not exactly that big, but he insisted, and I concluded to walk back and look at the eggs, when the discovery was made. Who cares to look into each of the dozen of Catbird’s nests we find in the course of a season? We are satisfied to know that this is the nest of the Robin, the Wood thrush, the Catbird; but we do not think of taking the trouble to look every time at their eggs or young.

Still more likely to elude discovery would the strange egg be in the other Cookoo’s nest. In this neighborhood at least are the Cuckoo’s nests generally amidst such a terribly entangled mass of wild vine that we do not care to go up for mere pleasure. I do not know how regular egg-collectors go to work; other ornithologists may operate differently. My case may be no measure. I give it only to draw attention to the matter, and I have made up my mind to despise no more Catbirds’s nests in future.—O. WIDMAN, _St. Louis, Mo._

[Mr. Widman has overlooked a note which appeared in an early number of this Bulletin (Vol. II, p. 110), where three instances of the laying of our Cuckoos in other bird’s nests are given. Years ago when I used to take many Cuckoo’s nests each season in the apple orchards about Cambridge it was no uncommon thing to find an egg of the Black-billed species in a clutch of the Yellow-bills, and on more than one occasion, but less often, the situation would be reversed. An instance of the latter kind came under my notice in 1878, when at Belmont, Mass., I found a nest of the Black-billed Cuckoo which contained, besides two eggs of the rightful proprietor, a single one of the Yellow-bill. Speaking from memory, and without consulting my notes on the subject, I should say that at least ten per cent of the Cuckoo’s nests that I have found contained eggs of both species. But in no case have I ever seen the eggs of either kind in the nests of other birds.—WILLIAM BREWSTER.]

_Melanerpes erythrocephalus_ ABOUT BOSTON.—Massachusetts, at least the extreme eastern part, has shared in the flight of Red-headed Woodpeckers that has been reported as visiting Southern Connecticut last fall.[38] During the latter part of September, through October and into November, the oak groves in the suburbs of Boston were tenanted by numbers of these truly handsome birds. I should judge that about one third were in full plumage, and their conspicuous dress attracting attention many were shot. Twelve years ago the individual occurrence of this species among us was thought worthy of record. Of late years, during the months above named, it has become a more frequent though irregular visitor, but never in such numbers as have recently shown themselves. In spring or summer it is rarely seen, yet an instance of its nesting in Brookline is given me by Mr. H. K. Job, who early in June, 1878, found five eggs in the hole of an apple tree. According to Dr. C. Hart Merriam, this Woodpecker is a common resident of Lewis County, N. Y.[39] May not our _visitors_ have come from that direction?—H. A. PURDIE, _Newton, Mass._

THE BARN OWL IN MAINE: A RETRACTION.—In the Bulletin for January, 1877, p. 28, I added the Barn Owl (_Aluco flammeus americanus_) to the catalogue of Maine birds, basing the record upon a specimen, which I had examined, in the possession of a taxidermist then of Portland. I very much regret to say that I now believe the account given me of this bird’s capture within our state limits to have been false. Several other statements in relation to ornithology have since been made me by the same man, of a character so improbable and with such contradictory details that they can only be regarded as wilfully and utterly untrue. Their author has recently left the city under circumstances which dispel any doubts which may previously have existed as to the reliability of his word. I cannot longer be responsible for a statement emanating from such a source, and wish to formally withdraw the name of the Barn Owl from the list of birds known to occur in Maine.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland, Maine_.

THE SNOWY OWL AT FORT WALLA WALLA, W. T.—On November 10, 1881, one of my men shot here a female of this species (_Nyctea scandiaca_), which I have made into a fine skin. I reported the capture of one on December 1, 1880 (see this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 128), and these two are the only records known to me for the Pacific coast. The occurrence of this species here seems to be much rarer than in the Eastern States.—CHARLES BENDIRE, _Fort Walla Walla, W. T._

CAPTURE OF THE GOLDEN EAGLE IN CRAWFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—A Golden Eagle (_Aquila chrysaëtus canadensis_) was shot in Rookdale Township this (Crawford) County on December 10, under the following circumstances. A farmer, by the name of Hull, early one morning saw the bird fly from a carcass in his field to the woods some distance off. He conceived the idea that it would return to the carrion and at once made a blind of the rails of a fence near by. The following morning he repaired to the blind long before daylight with gun in hand, and, although he was well concealed and waited patiently until nearly noon, no bird put in an appearance. Nothing daunted, however, he repeated the watching on the second morning, and about eight o’clock was rewarded by the return of the bird, which he shot. The eagle was purchased by Mr. Roe Reisinger of our city and is now mounted. It is the first recorded specimen, I believe, of this species taken in this county. The sex I could not ascertain, as the entire contents of the bird’s body were drawn by Mr. Hull before bringing it to town, but from the following dimensions I should judge it to be a young female: Extent, 83 inches; wing, 24.50 inches; tail, 15 inches. Tail about two-thirds white. The black terminal zone was about four inches deep on outer quills and about one and one-half inches deep on the centre ones. The general color of the bird is brown, with wings almost deep black. The hood extends well down on the nape and is of a light tawny brown, approaching the golden hue probably as much as any of them do. The tarsus is well covered with feathers to the toes. On the whole it is a very clean and perfect specimen.—GEORGE B. SENNETT, _Meadville, Pa._

THE SWALLOW-TAILED KITE IN DAKOTA.—On November 14, 1881, when a short distance west of Jamestown, Dakota Territory, I saw several Swallow-tailed Kites (_Elanoïdes forficatus_) flying around apparently in search of food. The day was clear and the Kites were much separated; one even was seen alone skimming along an alkali lake, showing every indication of searching for food. On November 17, farther to the west, about midway between Jamestown and Bismark, near the line of the Northern Pacific Railroad, I saw some fifty more of these beautiful birds, but this time in a flock, and each movement being common with them all it was a glorious sight. The weather had changed from that of the 14th, and was now cloudy with a brisk wind from the northwest, accompanied at times by a slight shower of rain, but this change they seemed to enjoy. So easily did they ride the storm, so beautiful were their evolutions, so much at home did they appear in mid-air, that when they had passed out of sight I was pained, for in this northern latitude such a sight is of very rare occurrence.—D. H. TALBOT, _Sioux City, Ia._

A REMARKABLE SPECIMEN OF THE PINNATED GROUSE (_Cupidonia cupido_).—While overhauling some Grouse in the Boston markets a few years since I came across a specimen which exhibits the following peculiarities of plumage:

Adult ♂ (No. 2691, author’s collection, Boston Markets, February 27, 1873—said to have come from Iowa). Ground-color above warm, brownish-cinnamon. Shorter neck-tufts or pinnate coverts, bright reddish-brown. Breast, reddish-chestnut, becoming almost clear chestnut anteriorly. A band or collar of broad, stiff feathers extends continuously around the neck in front and across the lower portion of the jugulum about in a line with the neck-tufts. These feathers although less stiff than the longest ones in the neck-tufts, are nevertheless quite as much so as the shorter ones. They make a conspicuous ruff which is mainly black mixed with a good deal of reddish-chestnut. The latter color on the shorter and overlapping feathers occurs in the form of narrow central stripes, which in some cases are nearly orange in tint; on the longer ones as a more or less broad, lateral margining.

I offer the above description solely for the purpose of calling attention to this remarkable specimen for I am entirely at a loss to account for its peculiarities. Several who have seen it have suggested that it may be a hybrid between the Prairie Hen and the Ruffed Grouse, but this hypothesis seems hardly a probable one, inasmuch as none of the combined characters which would be expected in such an offspring are here presented. The ruff does indeed remotely suggest that of _Bonasa_, but otherwise the bird shows all the well-marked structural characters of _Cupidonia_. To simply say that it is abnormal will hardly satisfy the numerous investigators of this pushing age of inquiry.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._

WILSON’S PLOVER (_Ægialites wilsonius_) IN NEW ENGLAND.—Mr. W. A. Stearns sends me a letter from Mr. Arthur S. Fiske, dated Gurnet, Conn., Aug. 22, 1877. “This morning I shot a bird of this species on the beach at the south of the hotel. It was alone, though there were several flocks of other Plovers near at hand. In note and actions it closely resembled the Piping Plover, but was larger and lighter colored. Capt. Hall called it the ‘Pale Ring-neck,’ and said he had seen it at the Gurnet before.” The description given by Mr. Fiske (length 7.75 inches; bill fully 1 inch, black, etc.) leaves no doubt that the bird was Wilson’s Plover.—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._

CAPTURE OF BAIRD’S SANDPIPER ON LONG ISLAND.—On September 22, 1880, I shot a specimen of _Tringa bairdi_ on Montauk, Long Island. The bird was in a flock of “Peeps” (_Ereunetes pusillus_), feeding on the beach of Great Pond, a brackish lake often in communication with the Sound. It so closely resembled the “Peeps” that I only noticed it on account of its larger size. The skin I preserved, though badly cut by the shot.—DANIEL E. MORAN, _Brooklyn, N. Y._

[This is apparently the first known occurrence of this species on the Atlantic Coast south of New England.—EDD.]

AN ADDITION TO THE MAINE FAUNA.—On October 8, 1881, I received from Mr. Alpheus G. Rogers, of Portland, an immature specimen of _Rallus elegans_, the King Rail, which he shot on Scarborough Marsh, on the morning of that day. This species is new to the State of Maine, and has occurred in New England only about half a dozen times.

Its previous New England record is as follows: (1) Stratford, Conn., breeding, Linsley, Am. Jour. Sci. and Arts, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, p. 267. (2) Portland. Conn., one specimen: (3) Saybrook, Conn., one specimen, Merriam, Rev. Birds Conn., p. 115. (4) Nahant, Mass., one specimen, Purdie, this Bulletin, Vol. II. p. 22. (5) Sudbury Meadows, Mass., one specimen, Purdie, this Bulletin, Vol. III, p. 146.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland, Maine_.

CAPTURE OF _Larus leucopterus_ NEAR BOSTON.—In November last Mr. Charles I. Goodale showed me an immature specimen of _Larus leucopterus_ in the flesh, which he stated was shot near Boston. The bird is now in my collection.—CHARLES B. CORY, _Boston, Mass._

THE GREAT BLACK-BACKED GULL (_Larus marinus_) FROM A NEW LOCALITY.—Mr. Howard Saunders, in his excellent synopsis of the _Larinæ_ (P. Z. S., 1878, pp. 155–212), p. 180, in defining the known range of this species, says that there is “no record from the American side of the Pacific,” but that he had “examined undoubted specimens from Japan,” this being considered “a very great extension of its previously known range.” During the present year the National Museum has received specimens of this species, in alcohol, from Herald Island, in the Arctic Ocean, northwest of Behring’s Straits, and from Port Clarence on the American side of the Straits, the former collected by Captain C. M. Hooper, of the U. S. Revenue Cutter “Corwin,” the latter by Dr. T. H. Bean, of the National Museum.—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._

THE SNAKE-BIRD IN KANSAS.—Prof. F. H. Snow, of the University of Kansas, writes as follows: “I have the pleasure of informing you of the capture of a specimen of the Snake-bird, _Plotus anhinga_, in the Solomon Valley in Western Kansas. It was taken in August of this year by C. W. Smith, Esq., of Stockton, and the skin is now in my possession.”—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._

CAPTURE OF THE SEA DOVE 150 MILES FROM THE SEA:—On November 8th, 1881, a Sea Dove (_Alle nigricans_), was shot in the Hudson River, at Lansingburg, by Alfred Benjamin of that village. The bird was mounted by William Gibson of the same place, and is in his collection.—AUSTIN F. PARK, _Troy, N. Y._

ADDITIONS TO THE CATALOGUE OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS.—The following list includes all the species that have been added to the North American fauna since the publication of the “Nomenclature of North American Birds.” The numbers given these additional species indicate their position in the list; and I would suggest that any author publishing a species new to our fauna do the same, so that collectors and others may know its number.

440.* =Buteo fuliginosus= _Scl._ LITTLE BLACK HAWK.

440.** =Buteo brachyurus= _Vieill._ SHORT-TAILED HAWK; WHITE-FRONTED HAWK.

708.* =Puffinus borealis= _Cory_. NORTHERN SHEARWATER.

717.* =Œstrelata gularis= (_Peale_) _Brewster_. PEALE’S PETREL.—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._

NOTES ON SOME BIRDS OF THE BELT MOUNTAINS, MONTANA TERRITORY.—The following observations were made in the southern range of the Belt Mountains, latitude about 46° 30′, some miles to the west and south of the head-waters of the Musselshell, from which the land, intersected by frequent smaller streams, gradually rises to the foot of the low mountains, which are mostly forest-clad and of some 6,000 feet elevation. The streams have little or no timber save in the mountains or among the foot-hills where scattering firs appear; but willows grow in dense thickets along the bank, striving apparently by numbers to make up for any lack in size.

The notes extend from June 22 to July 3, 1880, three days excepted, when the writer was absent. All the birds were found within an area of a square mile, perhaps less, but the locality was unusually favorable, including several patches of burnt timber, a large open tract stretching up the mountain side to almost the summit, and two streams flowing in rather open cañons with clumps of willows on either bank.

Several interesting birds which were sought for unsuccessfully at this time I have since found in the Belt Range, viz. _Cinclus mexicanus_, _Cyanocitta stelleri_ (_macrolopha?_) and _Tetrao canadensis franklini_. Skins of most of the species mentioned were preserved.

1. =Turdus migratorius propinquus.=—Common. A bird nesting June 25.

2. =Turdus fuscescens.=—Found only in the cañons. Common.

3. =Sialia arctica.=—Nesting in deserted Woodpecker’s holes.

4. =Regulus calendula.=—Everywhere among the firs.

5. =Parus montanus.=—Common. It never whistles more than two successive notes, at least I have never heard it.

6. =Sitta carolinensis aculeata.=—One pair found breeding in the knot-hole of a large fir. Young hatched on or shortly before the 25 June.

7. =Neocorys spraguei.=—A pair breeding on a high, grass-covered knoll just outside the timber. The male was often observed flying high overhead, constantly shifting his position, but keeping at about the same elevation while uttering his song—a rather monotonous carol, unless one is sufficiently near to hear the wonderful resonance of the blended notes.

8. =Dendrœca auduboni.=—Common.

9. =Pyranga ludoviciana.=—Rather common. A female observed nest-building June 26, the male meantime singing in a neighboring treetop. July 3 the nest was apparently completed but without eggs. It was built in a fir some thirty feet from the ground and about midway on a small horizontal limb where several twigs projected out on either side.

10. =Cotyle riparia.=—Swallows apparently of this species were seen flying high overhead. Their homes were found lower down on the streams.

11. =Vireo gilvus swainsoni.=—A common bird in the cañons.

12. =Carpodacus purpureus.=—Two individuals observed.

13. =Chrysomitris pinus.=—A flock of these restless little creatures appeared almost daily, uttering their querulous notes.

14. =Poœcetes gramineus confinis.=—Common on the grassy slopes.

15. =Melospiza fasciata fallax.=—Occasional among the willows of the streams.

16. =Junco oregonus.=—Apparently this form was not uncommon.

17. =Spizella socialis.=—Abundant in the patches of dead timber.

18. =Cyanospiza amœna.=—Not uncommon but confined to the willows etc. along the streams.

19. =Sturnella magna neglecta.=—Breeding on the grassy hillsides.

20. =Picicorvus columbianus.=—Occasional. Much commoner lower down among the scattered firs of the _coulées_.

21. =Perisoreus canadensis capitalis.=—A single bird shot July 2. It was almost full-grown, but in the “fluffy” plumage peculiar to young birds.

22. =Contopus borealis.=—One bird seen.

23. =Contopus virens richardsoni.=—Common.

24. =Chordiles virginianus henryi.=—In dead timber, common.

25. =Picus villosus.=—Young of perhaps a week old were found on the 25th of June.

26. =Picoides arcticus.=—Rather common.

27. =Picoides americanus dorsalis.=—Two or three specimens noted.

28. =Melanerpes erythrocephalus.=—One bird observed.

29. =Colaptes mexicanus.=—Common. The young of this species doubtless hatching on June 28, as an old bird was seen carrying out and dropping, a hundred or two yards from the nest, the fragment of an egg shell at that time.

30. =Buteo borealis.=—Hawks apparently of this species occasionally observed.

31. =Bonasa umbellus umbelloides.=—Not common. Is mostly found in the cottonwood timber of the valleys.