Chapter VII: Part 7

NOTE ON THE FOOT OF ACCIPITER FUSCUS.—On the plantar surfaces of each foot of the Sharp-shinned Hawk two papillae may be noticed, which differ from the others, more properly described as pads, in their greater length and more symmetrical form. These pads are placed at the second phalangeal joint of the third toe, and at the third phalangeal joint of the fourth toe, that is, at the bases of the penultimate phalanges of the third and fourth toes. These papillae are shown to be modified pads, the same as those at the other two joints, by the less developed papillae of _Circus_, _Astur_, and others. This transition can readily be traced in the sketches of the feet given in the systematic works on Hawks, though the special prominence of the papillae in the Sharp-shinned Hawk does not seem to be particularly noted. On removing the skin, however, a marked difference at once comes in view. While all the pads are nearly obliterated, the papillae still remain as solid cones of connective tissue (?), having much the same shape and sizes as the entire papillae. These cones or cores are internally connected with the superficial fascia of the toes and seem to straddle the flexor tendons running below.

On noting the structural difference, the cause or function of these papillae at once becomes a point of interest. Why have these two pads been modified into long papillae (.12 inch in a dried specimen), and provided with a solid core? Now the foot of _Accipiter_ is so constructed that the first toe opposes the second toe, and their claws move in nearly parallel arcs. This is not the case with the third and fourth toes, which are longer and not opposable to one another. Thus the claws can be opposed to nothing except the middle portions of the toes to which they belong. But when the claw is thus flexed a small space well adapted for grasping twigs and feathers is formed by the papillae, the penultimate phalanx and the claw, the point projecting beyond resembling the feet of certain crustacea and lice. Hence the function of the papillae would seem to be to aid the third and fourth claws in grasping small objects, and it is an interesting point to notice that the foot of _Accipiter fuscus_ is thus drawn in North American Birds, by Baird, Brewer and Ridgway.

How far the same considerations hold in other species I cannot say, but as mentioned above, allied forms seem to possess the character to a less degree.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES, _Boston, Mass._

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON TWO TEXAS BIRDS.—In a recent paper[64] on a collection of birds made in southwestern Texas, I referred a series of _Hylocichla unalascæ_ to the restricted form, with the remark that several specimens closely approached var. _auduboni_. Upon reading the article, an esteemed correspondent wrote me that one of these aberrant examples, which had passed into his hands, appeared to him to be true _auduboni_. In this opinion, after a reëxamination of the specimen, I concur. The bird in question has a wing of 3.82 inches, which, though decidedly under the average of _auduboni_, is more than should be allowed _unalascæ_ proper.[65] Here, then, is another species, besides those previously cited, which is represented by two distinct varieties in the tract of country explored.

The single specimen of _Coturniculus passerinus_ taken in the same locality represents the western variety _perpallidus_, under which, by an oversight, it was not included.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland, Me._

ADDENDA TO THE PRELIMINARY LIST OF BIRDS ASCERTAINED TO OCCUR IN THE ADIRONDACK REGION, NORTHEASTERN NEW YORK.[66]—

178. =Dendrœca striata= (_Forst._) _Baird_. BLACK-POLL WARBLER.—In the collection of the late A. Jenings Dayan (of Lyons Falls, N. Y.) is a female of this species that he killed in the town of Lyonsdale in Lewis Co., May 23, 1877.

179. =Dendrœca pinus= (_Wilson_) _Baird_. PINE-CREEPING WARBLER.—Mr. Dayan took a full-plumaged male _D. pinus_ at Lyonsdale, Lewis Co., May 8, 1877. I have never observed the species within the limits of the Adirondack Region, and it must be regarded as a rare bird here.

180. =Asio accipitrinus= (_Pallas_) _Newton_. SHORT-EARED OWL.—I have seen two specimens of the Short-eared Owl that were taken within the limits of the Adirondack Region, in Lewis County. They were both killed east of the Black River Valley—one in the town of Greig, and the other in Lyonsdale.

181. =Nyctiardea grisea nævia= (_Bodd._) _Allen_. NIGHT HERON.—I have seen a Night Heron that was shot at Crown Point (in Essex Co.) on Lake Champlain. There were two of them together, and both were killed.

182. =Calidris arenaria= (_Linn._) _Illig._ SANDERLING.—On the 5th of October, 1881 Mr. O. B. Lockhart killed, from a flock, four Sanderlings at Lake George, in Warren Co. (Dr. A. K. Fisher.)

183. =Chen hyperboreus= (_Pallas_) _Boie_. SNOW GOOSE.—Dr. A. K. Fisher writes me that he saw a flock of one hundred and fifty or two hundred Snow Geese on Lake George (in Warren County) Nov. 19, 1881. In company with Mr. O. B. Lockhart he rowed out to within a hundred yards of them, when they were frightened by another boat and took flight, showing plainly the black tips of their primaries as they left.

184. =Phalacrocorax dilophus= (_Sw. and Rich._) _Nuttall_. DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT.—Mr. F. H. Knowlton, from Brandon, Vermont, writes me: “I shot, on September 24, 1879, at St. Regis’ Lake [Franklin County], two miles from Paul Smith’s, a young female example of _Graculus dilophus_. The bird was not wild and was easily shot from the shore.”

185. =Dytes auritus= (_Linn._) _Ridgway_. HORNED GREBE.—On Little Tuppers Lake (Hamilton Co.), Oct. 22, 1881. Dr. A. K. Fisher and I saw about eight Horned Grebes and I killed one of them. While crossing Raquette Lake, the same day, Dr. Fisher shot another. At Big Moose Lake (in Hamilton and Herkimer Counties) we saw this species every day from Oct. 26 to Nov. 8, 1881. Nov. 5 I shot one out of a flock of nine. They were all in the plain fall dress, so that the size alone enabled us to distinguish young from old. In all the iris was of a bright orange red. They are excellent divers and can remain under water an astonishingly long period.—C. HART MERRIAM, M.D., _Locust Grove, N. Y._

ERRATA.

In Vol. VII, page 26, line 6, for “An indistinct, dusky” read “A black.” Same page, foot note, for “οὐκέω” read “οἰκέω.”

BULL. NUTT. ORNITH. CLUB., VOL. VII., NO. 3. PLATE 7.

Jeffries & Blake, del. _The Heliotype Printing Co. 211 Tremont
St. Boston_
]

BULLETIN
OF THE
NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB.
VOL. VII. JULY, 1882. No. 3.

THE COLORS OF FEATHERS.

BY J. AMORY JEFFRIES.

Feathers have been studied from the earliest days of the microscope, indeed long before the modern microscope came into existence. Malpighei, Hooke and Leeuwenhoek all wrote on the subject, and not a little of our knowledge dates from their time. Since then authors have constantly written on feathers and their colors, until the papers on the subject may be counted by hundreds. Accordingly little that is new can be expected from this short article, nor even a history of the literature of the subject. My only object is to give an idea, so far as is known, how the colors of feathers are produced, the literature of the subject being out of the track of most American ornithologists.

Color may be the result of any one or more of the following causes: a pigment, interference and diffraction of light in their various phases, fluorescence, and phosphorescence. Of these causes only three have been called upon to explain the colors of feathers, the last two apparently playing no part. The fluorescence noted by Dr. Krukenberg in solutions of certain feather-pigments probably plays no part, or at most an insignificant one, in the colors of feathers. Pigments act by absorbing all rays of light but those which enter into their color, that is turn them into heat.

Interference acts in several different ways, all of which are based on the same principle, and so films may be taken as an example. If a beam of light, _xy_ (figure 1), is allowed to fall on any thin plate, or film, part of the rays will be reflected in the direction _yz_, the angles _byx_ and _ayz_ being equal. The rest of the rays will pass through the film to the other surface, being slightly refracted in their course. Here part will be reflected, and being again refracted at the first surface, will emerge in a line _wz′_ nearly coincident with _yz_, the balance passing out into the air. Now the waves composing the white light of two beams _yz_ and _wz′_ will run together and partially obliterate each other, after the manner of ripples on water. Accordingly certain waves will be obliterated, and since white light is due to the blending of waves of the different colors, the light reflected from the film will be that of the colors not interfered with, the waves thus obliterated depending upon their length and the thickness of the film traversed. So as we look at the film from different points the conditions vary, and with them the resultant color.

Interference may also produce colored light by means of fine particles diffused through another substance, as milk in water, the particles in the air, and the like. Colored light produced in this way is known as opalescent, the transmitted light tending to the red end of the spectrum, and the reflected to the other portions. This result can be obtained by mixing black and white grains, an experiment which all have tried as school boys, by soaking chalk in ink, the result being a bluish color.

Diffraction acts apparently by bending the light rays different amounts, and thus spreading out the spectrum. Explanations of the various phenomena of this sort are difficult, and need not be entered into here.

Feathers are classed, according to their appearance, into ordinary, metallic and iridescent, the peculiarities of which are well known and so need not delay us.

The ordinary feathers are colored by simple pigments, by contrast of light and darkness and mechanically, as in the case of the Bluebird (_Sialia sialis_). Pigments of various colors are known to occur in feathers, and have received special names, as turacin, zoönerythrin, zoöfulvin, zoöxanthin, zoöchlorin, zoömelanin. These evenly distributed, as turacin, zoönerythrin, and zoöfulvin, or in patches, as zoömelanin, impart their respective colors to the feather parts in which they exist.[67] The color of the mass of the feather may, however, owing to various colors in the small feather parts, be different from that of any part.

Of these pigments none seem to be peculiar except turacin. This pigment is altered by wetting the feathers, and comes from the feathers into the water in which the birds bathe, a fact of considerable interest, since the birds maintain their normal color, thus necessitating a new supply of pigment.

White feathers are the result of the light being reflected as a whole from the finely divided feather parts. Some grays are the result of small black nodes in the barbules, which nodes are of considerable size, and do not disperse the light, being distributed along the barbules. Other grays are the result of a small quantity of black pigment.

Yellow feathers colored with zoöfulvin receive their hue from this pigment, which is pretty evenly distributed through the texture like a dye.

Red feathers, as those of the Flamingo, Cardinal Bird, and the like, are so colored by a red pigment similar to the yellow one. Brown feathers are colored by a brown pigment in the feathers, which is for the most part collected in patches within the cells of the feather.

Violet pigments are said by some to exist, while others have never been able to extract them, so the causes of this color still remain in doubt.

Green feathers owe their color to various causes. In some it is due to a green pigment, as Turacoverdin or zoöchlorin, in others it is said to be due to a mixture of yellow and blue dots. The olive-greens are sometimes produced by a yellow pigment overlying a dark brown or black.

All the above pigments seem to be blended and used in gaudily colored birds much after the manner of paints by artists. So that a great variety of colors may be produced from a few pigments by the skilful hand of nature.

Metallic feathers, properly speaking, are those which partake of the characters shown by the red crests of the Woodpeckers. The metallic appearance is limited to the barbs, the barbules not showing this peculiarity, and being quickly shed. If a feather from the crest of a Woodpecker, say _Picus pubescens_, be examined, it will at once be noticed that the red barbs have few if any barbules, and that the barbs themselves are enlarged. Such barbules as are present, are not red but black, and only serve to diminish the effects of the red parts. They would seem accordingly to be properly classed among useless hereditary organs. That the red color is due to a pigment is proved by dissolving it out and by its persistence when examined by transmitted light. But what causes the brilliancy which has led to their being called metallic? This is due to the extreme smoothness of the barbs, the horn-cells of which they are composed being fused together and solid. Thus the unabsorbed rays of the beam of light which strikes them are reflected as a whole, instead of being sent in every direction by the walls of the cells as in most cases. The metallic feathers differ from ordinary feathers in the same way that window or glass paintings differ from ordinary pictures. They simply give off much more light, and thus produce more marked effects on our eyes.

The colors of metallic feathers seem to be limited to the red end of the spectrum, the colors varying from yellow or orange to red; blue, green or purple feathers constructed on this principle do not seem to abound.

So far we have only had to deal with pigments, and all has been plain sailing, but the various accidental colors shown by feathers are far more difficult of explanation. Not only are the parts extremely small, but the entire subject of accidental colors as regards organic structures has been in large part dealt with from a theoretical point of view. The question has not been how is the feather part made, but what kinds of structures will produce such color effects. Accordingly divers opinions have been expressed on the subject, the most probable of these we shall now endeavor to sketch out.

Blue colors seem to be accidental, that is, the result of other causes than pigments. Not only have all efforts to extract the pigments failed, but blue feathers appear gray when examined by transmitted light. Again, no blue can be found in transverse sections of blue feather parts. This method of studying the colors of feathers is worthy of more extended use than it has yet had. By this means all physical effects of the outer coat are avoided, and the exact position of the pigments can be seen. Sections are quickly prepared by fastening the feather on to a piece of pith with collodion, and mounting sections pith and all. The pith keeps the sections on end, a result otherwise difficult to obtain.

Gray-blues, such as those seen in _Dendrœca cœrulescens_, are due to opalescence. The feather is full of fine granules of black or darkish pigment, which in a manner already described produces a blue color.

Brilliant blues, as those shown by _Sialia sialis_, _Cyanospiza cyanea_, _Cœreba lucida_, and the like, do not seem to be susceptible of a like explanation. The color is too intense and pure to be produced in such a small space by opalescence. So most authors have simply ascribed it to some other form of interference, as a thin outer plate, which would seem on examination to be the true cause. Figure 2, drawn from a section of a Bluebird’s barb enlarged about one thousand diameters, will give an idea of the structure found in such cases. The central cells are full of some dark pigment, probably zoömelanin, while the surface is bounded by a transparent layer of horn varying from ¹⁄₃₀₀₀₀ to ¹⁄₁₀₀₀₀ of an inch in thickness. Thus we have a contrivance not ill adapted to the production of interference colors, the black pigment absorbing all rays which are not reflected by the horn coat on the outside. Yet there are decided difficulties in this view. Thin as it is, the outer horn coat is thick compared to the length of light waves, and again the blue color is constant. However, in spite of these objections, the color must be ascribed to the action of the outer coat of cells. The structure of other bright blue feathers is much the same, though differences in minutiae exist. Thus the outer layer of cells, the external walls of which form the outer coat of the barb, are devoid of pigment in the Blue Jay. (Fig. 3.)

Here it is of interest to note that the barbs of the brown female Indigo bird differ but slightly from the bright blue barbs of the male. In the female the pigment is more diffuse, and the outer horny coat is thicker and less dense and lustrous.

The above feathers with their smooth outer coat are connected with true iridescent feathers by an intermediate group. I refer to the highly-colored blue and green feathers of such birds as _Chlorophanes atrocristatus_ (Fig. 2) and _Cœreba lucida_. In these the ends of the barbs are enlarged and the barbules reduced to a minimum, after the manner of the Woodpeckers; unlike them, however, the surface is rough, each cell being rounded out. When examined under a microscope such barbs appear as if covered with a mosaic of gems. Sections show, whatever may be the shape of the barb, that the walls of the iridescent parts are extremely thin, so thin that exact measurements cannot be made with the instruments at my disposal. The thickness got when reduced to fractions of an inch, is approximately ¹⁄₁₀₀₀₀₀₀ of an inch, a film sufficiently thin for all purposes of interference. Many of these feathers when magnified show that the color is not uniform, but that all the colors contribute their quota to the final color. The figure of a section of a barb of _Chlorophanes atrocristatus_ will give some idea of such a feather. In this case the final color seems to be the result of mixing the light reflected from the dark end with that from the yellow triangular part.

We now naturally come to the true iridescent feathers, of which the Peacock may be taken as an example. The iridescent barbules are made up of flat, wonderfully thin cells, arranged end to end, as shown in figure 5. When examined with transmitted light, they are seen to be films full of a brownish pigment more or less evenly dispersed through the mass. When cut in sections and looked at on edge they resemble, even under quite high powers, the edge of a piece of paper. Here we have the most admirable contrivance for the production of iridescent light, the plates being fully thin enough, and all white light which may get through the walls being taken up by the brown pigment within. All the parts of the eye are constructed on the same plan, and only provided with brownish pigments, hence the color must be due to variations in the thickness. Here it is well to notice that the colors are quite constant.

The brilliant colors of these feathers have often been ascribed to irregularities of surface, the traces of the cell cavities being mistaken for pits on the surface. That this is an error is at once shown by examining a section.

Before leaving the subject I cannot refrain from calling attention to the wonderful diversity of means employed, as well as their complexity in the production of feather colors. Among the Parrots we have the most skilful painting combined with accidental colors. Yet all ornithologists base specific differences on slight variations of color, and this in spite of the fact that birds may change their color according as they are wet or dry, owing to the nature of their food, or to slight differences in the quantity of pigment.

In this they are no doubt often right, but when we come to varieties based on the very faintest distinctions of color and form, we may well pause till more is known of avian physiology.

EXPLANATION OF PLATE I.

_Fig. 1._ Diagramatic representation of the effect of a film on light.

_Fig. 2._ Transverse section of a barb of _Chlorophanes
atrocristatus_; Hartnack 3–9 im. the light part yellow, the dark part
dark brown.

_Fig. 3._ Transverse section of a barb of _Cyanocitta cristata_. Hart.
3–9 im.

_Fig. 4._ Same of _Cyanospiza cyanea_ ♂.

_Fig. 5._ Two sections of a barbule of a Peacock.

_Fig. 6._ Section of barb of _Sialia sialis_ much magnified.

ON A COLLECTION OF BIRDS LATELY MADE BY MR. F. STEPHENS IN ARIZONA.

BY WILLIAM BREWSTER.

(_Continued from p. 94._)

33. =Peucedramus olivaceus= (_Giraud_) _Coues_. OLIVE-HEADED WARBLER.—The Olive-headed Warbler, one of Giraud’s famous “sixteen” Texas species, has found an unquestioned place in our fauna only on the strength of three Arizona specimens, taken by Mr. Henshaw at Mount Graham, in September, 1874. Accordingly, the acquisition of the fine series catalogued below can scarcely fail to be a matter of much interest. As will appear from the accompanying data, Mr. Stephens met with the bird in only a single locality in the Chiricahua Mountains where it was apparently not uncommon in March: but he writes of a previous specimen (an adult male) taken among the Santa Catarina Mountains, in February, 1880, a date which seems to imply that the species winters in the latter range. His observations throw no light on its still unknown breeding haunts.

The specimens obtained during the past season were found in pine woods on the mountain sides at an elevation of from ten to twelve thousand feet. Although individuals often occurred not far from one another, two were rarely seen in actual companionship. The only exception to this is noted under date of March 24, when a small flock was met with on a steep slope near the summit of one of the mountains. In their actions these Warblers reminded Mr. Stephens of _Dendrœca occidentalis_. They spent much of their time at the extremities of the pine branches where they searched among the bunches of needles for insects, with which their stomachs were usually well filled. Occasionally one was seen to pursue a falling insect to the ground, where it would alight for a moment before returning to the tree above. The only song heard consisted of “a few low notes” which were rarely uttered, but a peculiar “_cheerp_” was repeated at frequent intervals.

The examples before me illustrate a fact which I do not find mentioned by previous writers, viz., that during the first year the males wear a plumage similar to that of the females. I have three in this condition; two of them, although in unworn dress, are absolutely undistinguishable from adults of the opposite sex; the third (No. 77), however, has the throat appreciably tinged with the brownish-saffron of the adult male. The females show some variation in respect to the dusky patch on the side of the head. In most of them it is confined to the auriculars, and even there is much mixed with yellow; but No. 46 has a continuous, dull-black stripe extending from the bill through the eye, and spreading over the auriculars in a broad, well-marked patch. Nos. 94 and 101 differ from the others in having the crown so slightly washed with olive-green that the whole upper surface is nearly uniform, a condition which I take to be the immature one of this sex. The adult males show but little individual variation. Both sexes and all ages have the basal half of the lower mandible light brown.

44. ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 14, Length, 5.10; extent, 9; wing, 3.12; tail, 2.35; culmen, .56; tarsus, .72.

45, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.40; extent, 9.20; wing, 3.16; tail, 2.55; culmen, .55; tarsus, .69. Iris dark brown.

72, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 19. Length, 5.40; extent, 8.90.

91, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 5.40; extent, 9; wing, 3.08; tail, 2.50; culmen, .55; tarsus, .75.

92, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.90.

102, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.80; wing, 3.10; tail, 2.44; culmen, .56; tarsus, .75.

77, ♂ im., Morse’s Mill, March 20. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.90; wing, 3.03; tail, 2.37; culmen, .55; tarsus, .77. In plumage of the ♀.

90, ♂ im., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.85; tail, 2.30; culmen, .56; tarsus, .71. Same remarks.

103, ♂ im., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.33; culmen, .57; tarsus, .67. Same remarks.

46, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 14. Length, 5.20: extent, 8.50; wing, 2.93; tail, 2.35; culmen, .56; tarsus, .73.

47, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent, 8.30; wing, 2.87; tail, 2.18; culmen, .58; tarsus, .73.

81, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 21. Length, 5; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.76; tail, 2.35; culmen, defective; tarsus, .72.

93, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 24. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.80.

94, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent, 8.20: wing, 2.84; tail, 2.18; culmen, defective; tarsus, .71.

101, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 25. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.50: wing, 2.87; tail, 2.22; culmen, .58; tarsus, .75.

34. =Dendrœca æstiva= (_Gmel._) _Baird_. YELLOW WARBLER.

210, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 5; extent, 7.50; wing,
2.75; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .74. “Iris dark brown; bill dark horn color
above, lighter below; legs pale brown. Common in the migrations.”

35. =Dendrœca coronata= (_Linn._) _Gray_. YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER.—Chiricahua Mountains; a single specimen, taken March 26.

From its general dispersion over North America, the Yellow-rumped Warbler was of course to be expected in Arizona, at least as a visitor, but I cannot learn that it has been previously detected within the limits of that Territory. Mr. Stephens, however, sends me an adult female which must be referred to _coronata_, although it is in some respects peculiar, if not intermediate between that species and _auduboni_. The wing-bands are as distinctly separated as in _coronata_ (with females and immature males of both species this character is not always well-defined), and the throat, generally, is equally white, but on its left side, adjoining the maxillary line, there is a small patch of the faintest possible yellow. The light superciliary stripes, which should be at least indicated in female _coronata_, are also entirely wanting.

114, ♀ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 26. Length, 5.50; extent, 8.70; wing, 2.98; tail, 2.52. “Iris brown.”

36. =Dendrœca auduboni= (_Towns._) _Baird_. AUDUBON’S WARBLER.

343, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 5.80; extent, 9.52; wing, 3.05;
tail, 2.75. “Iris dark brown; bill and legs black.”

37. =Dendrœca nigrescens= (_Towns._) _Baird_. BLACK-THROATED GRAY
WARBLER.—On April 1, Mr. Stephens secured five males of this species
among the Chiricahua Mountains. The only additional specimens in the
collection are two females taken late in the season (No. 203, ♀ ad.,
Cienega Station, April 15. No. 357, Santa Rita Mountains, May 12.).

38. =Dendrœca townsendi= (_Nutt._) _Baird_. TOWNSEND’S WARBLER.

2.98, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 28. Length, 5.10; extent, 7.70; wing, 2.45.
“Iris dark brown; bill and legs black; soles of the feet yellow. Among
mesquites.”

373, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 13. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.10;
wing, 2.64.

374, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 4.90; extent, 7.40; wing,
2.44. “Iris dark brown; soles of feet yellowish. Water oaks of
foot-hills; very fat.”

Even the most adult males of this species seem to have the
throat-patch slightly sprinkled with yellow. At least I have yet to
see one with the black absolutely pure and unmixed.

39. =Siurus nævius= (_Bodd._) _Coues_ NORTHERN WATER THRUSH.—A single specimen taken May 4, at Tucson. It was among willows on the borders of a stream.

This example differs from New England ones in being darker above and less yellowish beneath. In these respects, as well as some minor ones, it resembles a rather peculiar style from West Virginia to which I once called attention.[68] Mr. Ridgway kindly furnishes the following opinion regarding its relationship with _S. notabilis_. “The _Siurus_ from Tucson is very different in proportions from the type of _notabilis_, with which I have compared it, but it may be a small individual of that form. The wing is about the same length, but the bill and tail are very much shorter, and the tarsi more slender. The color above is grayer, the streaks beneath much narrower, and the spots on the throat much smaller.” _Notabilis_, based as it is on a single specimen, and instituted in a species which varies to an unusual degree in size, color and markings, seems to me, however, to be, at best, a very doubtful race.

329, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 4. Length, 6.20; extent, 9.50; wing, 3.10; tail, 2.32; tarsus, .85; culmen, .64. “Iris brown; bill black above, brown below; legs light brown. Very fat. Stomach contained insects.”

40. =Geothlypis macgillivrayi= (_Aud._) _Baird_. MACGILLIVRAY’S WARBLER.—Two specimens collected at Tucson (♀ April 20, ♂ June 8). “I have not found it common in either Arizona or New Mexico.”

41. =Geothlypis trichas= (_Linn._) _Caban._ MARYLAND YELLOW-THROAT.—Mr. Stephens found this species “abundant along streams,” an experience at variance with that recorded by Mr. Henshaw, who met with it but twice while in Arizona.

The only specimen taken agrees closely with some examples from the Truckee River, Nevada, and differs from my eastern representatives, in having the upper parts yellowish-olive instead of olive-green; the crown-band much broader and creamy white in color; the wings and tail longer; the yellow beneath richer, and extending more over the abdomen. Mr. Ridgway has already called attention[69] to some of these differences which, as he now writes me, would be enough to warrant the varietal separation of the western bird, were it not that specimens from both sections of the country occasionally vary in such a manner as to invalidate any characters that could at present be proposed. With the acquisition of better series, however, it is probable that the representatives of two regions, as yet undefined, will be found to present sufficiently constant characteristics to deserve distinctive names.

219, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 5.40; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.16; tail, 2.40; culmen, .55. “Iris brown; bill black, bluish beneath; legs pale brown.”

42. =Icteria virens longicauda= (_Lawr._) _Coues_. LONG-TAILED CHAT.—This bird was observed only in the vicinity of Tucson. The first specimen was taken April 30, and it soon afterwards became abundant.

310, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 30. Length, 7.50; extent, 9.40; wing, 3.12;
tail, 3.52. “Bill and legs black.”

318, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 3. Length, 7.70; extent, 9.60; wing, 3.05;
tail, 3.61.

335, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 5. Length, 7.30; extent, 9.70; wing, 3.12;
tail, 3.45.

521, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 11. Length, 7.10; extent, 9.40; wing, 3.15;
tail, 3.36.

43. =Myiodioctes pusillus pileolatus= (_Pall._) _Ridgw._ PILEOLATED WARBLER.

Although Mr. Henshaw referred all his Arizona Black-capped Flycatchers to _pusillus_, mine are absolutely typical of _pileolatus_; in fact they are brighter than some specimens from Nicasio (California), the yellow below being richer, and the upper surface more yellowish, while the bill is equally

narrow and several shades lighter in color. Compared with eastern
examples they of course present an even greater contrast. Dr. Coues
was undoubtedly right in saying (Birds of the Colorado Valley, p. 327)
that _pileolatus_ “is not confined to the Pacific coast region”; but I
cannot agree with him in thinking it an inconstant form. On the
contrary, I find its characters, as proposed by Mr. Ridgway, so well
maintained that any one of my western birds can be separated at a
glance when placed in a series of twenty-one specimens from the
Atlantic States.

221, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 4.70; extent, 6.80;
wing, 2.17; tail, 2.23; width of bill below nostrils, .12. “Iris
brown; bill dark above, pale brown below. Common here in willows and
underbrush along streams.”

257, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.90; extent, 7; wing 2.27;
tail, 2.30; width of bill below nostrils, .12.

44. =Setophaga picta= _Swains._ PAINTED REDSTART.—During the past season this beautiful species was met with only among the Chiricahua and Santa Rita Mountains, but in 1876 Mr. Stephens found it in New Mexico, a Territory from which I believe it has not previously been reported. In the Chiricahua Mountains it was not uncommon after March 21, and many specimens were taken near Morse’s Mill, at an elevation of fully seven thousand feet. They occurred most numerously among pines, in a cañon where they had been previously observed in April, 1880. This experience, it will be observed, differs somewhat from that recorded by Mr. Henshaw, who says: “It appears not to inhabit the high mountains nor the extreme lowlands, but to occupy an intermediate position, and to find the rocky hills covered with a sparse growth of oak most congenial to its habits.”

In the Santa Rita Mountains, where it was rather common in May, Mr. Stephens had the good fortune to find its previously unknown nest and eggs. The nest, which is now before me, is large, flat and shallow. It is composed of bark, coarse fibres from weed-stalks, and fine, bleached grasses, the latter, with a few hairs, forming a simple lining. The cup measures 2.10 inches in width by 1 inch in depth; while the external diameter of the whole structure is rather more than 5 inches, and its depth about 1.50. The eggs, which were three in number, measure respectively .64×.51; .64×.50; and .66×.49. They are clear, dead white, delicately spotted with light reddish-brown, the markings being sparsely distributed over the general surface of the egg, and handsomely wreathed about its larger end. Neither nest nor egg resembles that of _S. ruticilla_. But a greater surprise is the character of the nesting-site, which was “under a projecting stone, in a bank near a small stream.” This position is so unexpected that, from an unproved collector, I should hesitate to accept the accompanying evidence of identification, which is a simple statement that the parent was sitting, and was distinctly seen. But knowing as well as I do Mr. Stephens’ unusual accuracy and conscientiousness in such matters I cannot doubt the correctness of his determination, especially as the Painted Redstart is a bird of such striking colors and markings that it could not possibly be mistaken by one who is so familiar with its appearance in life.[70] After all the case is not more peculiar than that presented among _Helminthophilæ_ by Lucy’s warbler which, as has just been shown, departs from the normal nesting habits of the genus and builds in holes, behind loose bark and in all sorts of unexpected places. The nest above described was taken May 18, when the eggs were sufficiently advanced in incubation to show that the clutch was complete.

Mr. Henshaw comparing the sexes, says: “The adult plumage of the sexes differs little, though the coloration in the female is quite perceptibly duller throughout. The black is less lustrous; the wings are blackish brown instead of pure black; the white on the wing confined to the coverts, and only just visible on the edges of the secondaries.” These differences, however, are not always maintained for one of the two adult females before me is quite as bright as the average male, while the black is not less lustrous, and the white edging on the secondaries is even broader. The other is more like those examined by Mr. Henshaw, but seems to be peculiar in having the sides, with a broad collar across the nape, fine stone-gray.

45. =Vireo gilvus= (_Vieill._) _Bonap._ WARBLING VIREO.—Found among all the well-timbered mountains visited, but nowhere as a common bird.

Of the several characters which are said to distinguish var. _swainsoni_ from _gilvus_ proper, I can appreciate only the slightly different shape of the bill. The relative length of the wing-quills is an absolutely inconstant characteristic with birds from any of the localities represented in my series, while I do not find that western specimens—at least California and Arizona ones—are either paler or grayer than many we get in the Atlantic States. Indeed, nearly the darkest one in my whole suite comes from Arizona. In view of these facts I cannot regard _swainsoni_ as worthy of varietal recognition.

46. =Vireo solitarius cassini= (_Xantus_) _Ridgw._ CASSIN’S VIREO.—Common among the foot-hills of the mountains.

Mr. Henshaw has so satisfactorily defined[71] the characters which respectively distinguish the Cassin’s and Plumbeous Vireos from _solitarius_ proper, as well as from each other, that there is no room for any further remarks on what, previous to his examination, was a very tangled problem. The specimens mentioned below are all unmistakably referable to cassini, although one or two of them present slight approaches to _plumbeus_. It is a singular fact that Mr. Stephens did not meet with any typical examples of the latter race.

209, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 5.40; extent, 8.70. “Iris brown; bill dark horn-color above, lighter below; legs dark bluish.”

214, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.60; extent, 9.10; wing, 3; tail, 2.44.

236, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.70; wing, 2.89; tail, 2.41.

316, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 2. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.50; wing. 2.71; tail, 2.26.

346, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 5.30; extent, 9; wing, 2.76; tail, 2.23. “Very fat. Would not have laid for a long time.”

354, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 11. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.80; wing, 2.82; tail, 2.27. “Iris brown; bill nearly black, bluish at base below; legs lead-color.”

47. =Vireo huttoni stephensi= _var. nov._ STEPHENS’ VIREO.

CH. SP.—♂ ♀ Similis _V. huttoni_ sed rostro robustiori, alis
longioribus. Supra griseo-cinereus, infra fusco-albidus. Uropygio et
marginibus caudæ sordide virenti-olivaceis. Alis albo bifasciatis;
remigibus albo-marginatis. Loris et orbe circum-oculari (macula
fusco-brunnea in palpebra superiori excepta), cinereo-albis.

Adult ♂ (No. 5,728, author’s collection—collector’s No. 41—Chiricahua
Mountains, Arizona, March 14, 1881. F. Stephens). Bill stout; wings
from .30 to .40 inches longer than tail. Above grayish-ash; the crown,
vertex and sides of head and neck nearly pure; the back faintly tinged
with olive; the rump and an edging on the tail feathers, dull
olive-green. Wings with two nearly confluent bands on the coverts, and
the outer edges of the inner secondaries, broadly white; outer quills
edged more narrowly with the same color. Beneath brownish or
smoky-white, with a mere wash of yellowish on the sides and crissum.
Upper eyelid dusky brown; remainder of orbital region, with the lores,
ashy-white in decided contrast with the nearly clear cinereous of the
head generally. Lining of wings white.

_Dimensions._ Length, 5.20; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.25;
culmen, .50.

_Habitat._ Arizona and New Mexico.

Four additional specimens offer no variations affecting any of the
characters above detailed.

In its generally dull, grayish coloration, with little trace of olive
or yellow shades, this Vireo is curiously like _V. pusillus_, but the
under parts are obscured with brownish, while the differences in size
and proportions are too evident to require detailed comparison. From
the smaller, much brighter-colored _V. huttoni_, which is unmistakably
its nearest United States relative, it may be distinguished by the
following diagnoses.

_V. huttoni._—Wing, 2.28 to 2.37. Olive-green above and
olivaceous-yellowish beneath. No clear white anywhere.

_V. huttoni stephensi._—Wing, 2.55 to 2.90. Grayish-ash above with no
decided olive-green excepting on the rump and tail. Beneath
brownish-white, untinged with yellowish excepting on the sides and
crissum. Wing-bands pure white and nearly confluent.

It will be observed that the above differences are closely parallel to
those which separate _Vireo belli_ and _V. pusillus_, while they are
in no respect less important. Indeed were I disposed to emphasize
certain peculiarities presented in the wing-formula of my type, it
would not be difficult to make out an equally good case of specific
distinctness, but unfortunately, the relative length of the
wing-quills (including the spurious primaries) proves to be quite as
variable in _V. huttoni_ and its Arizona race, _stephensi_, as I find
it to be in _V. pusillus_ and _V. belli_, and, I might add, in all
closely allied species which I have so far studied. In short, I am
convinced that this feature, if ever of any diagnostic value, is so
with only a small proportion of the birds to which it has been so
freely and confidently applied.

In naming this Vireo after its discoverer, Mr. F. Stephens, I have
paid but a deserved compliment to that gentleman’s zeal and energy as
a field ornithologist. He notes the bird as “not uncommon in scrub
oaks” among both the Chiricahua and Santa Rita Maintains. He also
writes me that he has taken specimens in New Mexico, where, near Fort
Bayard, a nest with four eggs was obtained in 1876. In both
Territories it seems to be confined to the mountain ranges, where it
undoubtedly breeds in all suitable localities.

41, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 14. Length, 5.20;
extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .73; culmen, .50; depth
of bill at nostrils, .15. “Iris brown.”

50, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 16. Length, 4.90; extent, 8; wing,
2.55; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .73; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.

118, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 28. Length, 5; extent, 7.90; wing,
2.68; tail, 2.30; tarsus, .70; culmen, .50; depth of bill at nostrils,
.15.

140, ♂ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 31. Length, 5.10; extent,
8.40; wing, 2.65; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .73; culmen, .49; depth of bill
at nostrils, .15.

353, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 11. Length, 5; extent, 8.10;
wing, 2.74; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .70; culmen, .48; depth of bill at
nostrils, .15.

Seven California specimens of _V. huttoni_ measure as follows:—

1443, ♂, Nicasio. Wing, 2.35; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .75; culmen, .50;
depth of bill, .11.

1445, ♂, Nicasio. Wing, 2.31; tail, 2.15; tarsus, .76; culmen, .51;
depth of bill, .11.

1444, ♀, Nicasio. Wing, 2.35; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .76: culmen, .49;
depth of bill, .10.

1446, ♀, Nicasio. Wing, 2.32; tail, 2.28; tarsus, .74; culmen, .50;
depth of bill, .14.

6800, ♂, Berkeley Co. Wing, 2.37; tail, 2.30; tarsus, .75; culmen,
.46; depth of bill, .11.

6801, ♀, Berkeley Co. Wing, 2.28; tail, 2.15; tarsus, .75; culmen,
.51; depth of bill, .11.

6339, ♀, Riverside. Wing, 2.34; tail, 2.14; tarsus, .75; culmen, .52;
depth of bill, .14.

48. =Vireo pusillus= _Coues_. LEAST VIREO.—An abundant summer species frequenting willows along streams and, near Tucson, thickets of mesquites. “It is active, restless and very noisy.”

Numerous nests were taken. The only one sent me is a shallower, but nevertheless rather more elaborate structure, than that of _V. belli_ to which, however, it bears a strong resemblance. It is mainly composed of fibrous shreds, apparently obtained from the stalks of some herbaceous plant. The lining is of delicate, bleached grasses, which are very neatly arranged. The eggs are white with a cluster of small black spots about the larger ends. The clutch comprised three, a number which was not exceeded in any of the other nests. The notes relating to this set are as follows: “Tucson, June 11. Nest pensile between the forks of a small mesquite branch, about five feet from the ground, in a thicket of weeds and brush. Incubation commenced. Female shot. This species seems to abandon a nest if it is found before any eggs are laid.”

205, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. Length, 5; extent, 7.10; wing,
2.21; tail, 2.25. “Iris dark brown; bill dark above, light below; legs
dark.”

235, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.10; extent, 7.30; wing, 2.23;
tail, 2.25.

262, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 22. Length, 6; extent, 7.10; wing, 2.28;
tail, 2.34.

275, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 5; extent, 7; wing, 2.21; tail,
2.25.

276, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 4.90; extent, 6.90; wing,
2.18; tail, 2.25.

282, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent. 7.10; wing,
2.30; tail, 2.30.

461, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, May 31. Length, 5; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.21;
tail, 2.25. “Laying.”

499, ♀ ad., Tucson, June 7. Length, 5; extent, 6.90. Skin lost.

589, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 24. Length, 4.80; extent, 6.80; wing,
2.21; tail, 2.25.

49. =Vireo vicinior= _Coues_. GRAY VIREO.—The only individuals met with were a male and female—apparently a mated pair—which were taken at Tucson, on April 26. “They were in low brush and were very shy.”

286, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 26. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.20; wing, 2.63;
tail, 2.67; tarsus, .80.

287, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.30; wing,
2.58; tail, 2.70; tarsus, .80. “Iris dark brown; bill plumbeous,
darkest above; legs light plumbeous.”

50. =Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides= (_Sw._) _Coues_. WHITE-RUMPED SHRIKE.—“Common and generally distributed.”

It is unfortunate that so much prominence has been given to the white rump of _excubitorides_ as a distinguishing character, for I have yet to see a good series of Shrikes from any Western locality, excepting, possibly, Arizona, which did not afford a considerable percentage of dark-rumped birds; and conversely, it is by no means difficult to find light-rumped specimens in the East. The same instability also affects most of the other characters which have been assigned to _excubitorides_, as is sufficiently shown by the various conflicting rulings of the authorities regarding the precise definition and limits of distribution of this troublesome race. The only differential points which seem to me to hold good with any number of specimens, are the lighter, purer ash of the upper parts as compared with those of _ludovicianus_, and the smaller and very much weaker bill. But if these alone are to be depended upon, it becomes necessary to limit the distribution of _ludovicianus_ proper to the Gulf States, Georgia and the Carolinas, if not strictly to Florida, and to refer all representatives from the United States at large, east of California, to _excubitorides_: and this course, I believe, will ultimately have to be adopted. The proper position of the dark California form which is so curiously like _ludovicianus_ remains to be satisfactorily determined.

51. =Ampelis cedrorum= (_Vieill._) _Baird_. CEDAR WAXWING.—Met with but once, at Galeyville, where on January 12, 1881, several were shot from a small flock. Mr. Henshaw took a single specimen near Camp Apache, in September, 1873.

52. =Progne subis= (_Linn._) _Baird_. PURPLE MARTIN.—“Common.”

438, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 26. Length, 7.6; extent, 15.7; wing, 5.45.
“Iris dark brown; bill black; legs blackish.”

53. =Petrochelidon lunifrons= (_Say_) _Lawr._ CLIFF SWALLOW.—At Yuma. “They were breeding abundantly along a bluff above the town.”

54. =Tachycineta bicolor= (_Vieill._) _Caban._ WHITE-BELLIED SWALLOW.—“Common in the migrations.”

195, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. “Iris dark brown; bill black;
legs brown.”

55. =Tachycineta thalassina= (_Swains._) _Caban._ VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW. “Common.”

212, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. “Iris dark brown; bill and legs
black.”

56. =Stelgidopteryx serripennis= (_Aud._) _Baird_. ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW.—Common. Breeds.

211, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. “Iris and legs dark brown.”

57. =Pyranga ludoviciana= (_Wils._) _Bp._ LOUISIANA TANAGER.—Santa Rita Mountains. “They frequent oaks, and are not very common.”

408, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 18. Length, 7.30; extent, 7.60;
wing, 3.80; tail, 3.17. “Iris dark brown; bill blackish horn-color
above, greenish-yellow below.”

58. =Pyranga hepatica= _Swains._ LIVER-COLORED TANAGER.—This Tanager was not uncommon in the Santa Rita Mountains, where the first specimen was taken on May 12. “They range from the foot-hills, through the oaks to the lower pines on the mountains.”

359, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 12. Length, 7.80; extent, 12.10;
wing, 3.75. “Bill black above, bluish horn-color below; legs
lead-color; iris brown.”

377, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 14. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.70;
wing, 4.20.

380, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 14. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.40;
wing, 4.07. “This bird would have laid in about ten days.”

386, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 15. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.80;
wing, 4.10.

59. =Pyranga æstiva cooperi= _Ridgw._ COOPER’S TANAGER.—Mr. Stephens found this bird rather common at a point about five miles south of Tucson, where it frequented the cottonwoods along a small river. He also informs me that in May, 1875, he took several specimens on the Rio Grande River, between Albuquerque and Mesilla, and some others on the Gila, in New Mexico, during May and June.

227, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.40; wing, 3.83;
tail, 3.50. “Iris brown; bill pale horn-color; legs pale brown. Skin
very tender. The first seen this season.”

268, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.40.

297, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 27. Length, 7.90; extent, 12.20; wing, 4;
tail, 3.60.

515, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 10. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.85;
tail, 3.60.

522, ♂ im. Tucson, June 11. Length, 8; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.78;
tail, 3.46. In mixed yellow and red plumage.

526, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.50; wing,
3.89; tail, 3.45.

579, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 23. Length, 8; extent, 11.60; wing,
3.99; tail, 3.58.

339, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 7.90; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.75;
tail, 3.39.

NOTES ON THE SUMMER BIRDS OF THE UPPER ST. JOHN.

BY CHARLES F. BATCHELDER.

(_Concluded from page 111._)

41. =Carpodacus purpureus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ PURPLE FINCH.—Common.

42. =Astraga1inus tristis= (_Linn._) _Cab._ GOLDFINCH.—Common. Though
somewhat beyond the limits of my subject, I quote the following from
Mr. McLeod’s notes: “This winter [1876–77] they have been abundant,
although the season is very severe. I have seen them at this time of
year but once before.” The Goldfinch has been supposed not to winter
north of Massachusetts.

43. =Chrysomitris pinus= (_Wils._) _Bp._ PINE FINCH.—Seen in May at
Grand Falls. Mr. H. A. Purdie tells me that he observed it at Houlton
in June, 1878.

44. =Passerculus sandwichensis savanna= (_Wils._) _Ridgw._ SAVANNA
SPARROW.—Common in the pastures at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it
was common. It was found in grassy fields, especially along the
roadsides.

45. =Poœcetes gramineus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ GRASS FINCH.—Common at Fort
Fairfield. Some seen in the open fields at Grand Falls.

46. =Melospiza fasciata= (_Gm._) _Scott._ SONG SPARROW.—Abundant at
Grand Falls. It was common at Fort Fairfield.

47. =Melospiza palustris= (_Wils._) _Bd._ SWAMP SPARROW.—“Not common”
at Houlton. Not found at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.

48. =Junco hyemalis= (_Linn._) _Scl._ BLACK SNOWBIRD; “BLUEBIRD.”—Very
common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was very abundant
everywhere.

49. =Spizella socialis= (_Wils._) _Bp._ CHIPPING SPARROW.—This bird
was quite abundant at Grand Falls. The nests found were not the loose
structures they are in Massachusetts, but were well lined with hair.
It was rather common at Fort Fairfield.

50. =Zonotrichia albicollis= (_Gm._) _Bp._ WHITE-THROATED
SPARROW.—Very abundant at Grand Falls wherever there was dead wood on
the ground. At Fort Fairfield also it was very abundant; this bird and
_Junco hyemalis_ were the commonest species. The nests were apt to be
in a clearing near the edge of woods, and frequently were in damp
places. They were often under a fallen branch, or at the foot of a
sapling, and were but slightly concealed.

The White-crowned Sparrow is probably only a migrant through this
section. With regard to its abundance, however, I quote the following
from Mr. McLeod’s notes: “These Sparrows make their first appearance
from May 10th to 18th. Some seasons they are very abundant, scores of
them at a time feeding in my garden. By June 1 they have disappeared.
In the autumn I have seen but one flock of them.”

51. =Zamelodia ludoviciana= (_Linn._) _Coues_. ROSE-BREASTED
GROSBEAK.—Common in low hard woods at Grand Falls. Rather common at
Fort Fairfield, apparently more so than in eastern Massachusetts.
Rather common at Houlton.

52. =Dolichonyx oryzivorus= (_Linn._) _Swains._ BOBOLINK.—Apparently
not rare at Fort Fairfield. Found in grassy fields and meadows near
the river. Not observed at Grand Falls. At Houlton “arrives by the
25th of May, common by June 15.” July 2, on our return from Fort
Fairfield, Mr. Dwight and I saw them at several places along the St.
John River above Fredericton.

53. =Agelæus phœniceus= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ RED-WINGED
BLACKBIRD.—“Quite common at Eel River, ten miles from Houlton” (R. R.
McL.). It does not occur at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.

54. =Quiscalus purpureus æneus= _Ridgw._ CROW BLACKBIRD.—Common at
Fort Fairfield, in the town, along the river, and about a small pond
back in the woods. At Grand Falls it was not uncommon about the town.
“Very common” at Houlton.

55. =Corvus corax= _Linn._ RAVEN.—Rare at Grand Falls. Not met with at
Fort Fairfield. “Very rare” at Houlton.

56. =Corvus americanus= _Aud._ CROW.—Common.

57. =Cyanocitta cristata= (_Linn._) _Strickl._ BLUE JAY.—Common at
Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was rather common, but shy and
seldom seen.

58. =Perisoreus canadensis= (_Linn._) _Bp._ CANADA JAY.—At Houlton:
“very common. These birds do not often appear in the thickly settled
part of the town, but are very abundant around the lumber camps in
this vicinity.” This no doubt explains the fact that the species was
not seen by any of us at Grand Falls and Fort Fairfield.[72]

59. =Tyrannus carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Bd._ KINGBIRD.—Rather common at
Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls several were seen, but it was not
common.