Chapter IX: Part 9

120. =Melanerpes erythrocephalus= _Sw._ RED-HEADED WOODPECKER.—The
most abundant of its family in and near Houston; breeds commonly in
the city in sycamores, water and swamp oaks, and in magnolias along
Buffalo Bayou. Very confiding and tame; hammers often on houses and
stables, on church towers, telegraph posts, etc. Two broods are raised
each season. I have seen, late in August, young just from the nest.
Once I discovered the nest in a sycamore in a street, about fifteen
feet from the ground, the tree standing only a few yards from a house.
Resident throughout the year. Many are killed by negro boys with
so-called “nigger-shooters,” and not only this species, but also
numberless other birds are thus destroyed by them.

121. =Colaptes auratus= _Sw._ GOLDEN-WINGED WOODPECKER;
“FLICKER.”—Rare during the breeding season, abundant in the winter
months. Frequently seen in pairs and small companies of from four to
ten, and even more. Spends its time during this season mostly on the
ground, where it searches for food. The first companies arrive late in
October, and they steadily increase in numbers till December, when
they are exceedingly abundant. They begin to migrate northward late in
February.

122. =Ceryle alcyon= _Boie_. BELTED KINGFISHER.—Seen only
occasionally. In the western part of Texas, where the rivers and
creeks have clear water, the bird is evidently more common.

123. =Coccyzus americanus= _Bonap._ YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO.—Common
summer sojourner; breeds abundantly in the thickets on the edges of
woods, and is in this part of our country a very unsuspicious bird, as
it is not only often seen in gardens, but sometimes breeds in them, in
pomegranate bushes, in _Banksia_ and Cherokee-rose thickets, etc. The
first nests I found late in April, the last, July 5. This, a typical
nest for this region, was placed in a young sweet-gum tree
(_Liquidambar styraciflua_), about ten feet above the ground, and was
almost hidden among _Smilax laurifolia_, with which the tree was
overgrown. It was built of sticks, fragments of leaves, Spanish moss
and a few grass-stems lined with the leaves of the loblolly pine
(_Pinus tæda_). It contained two eggs, one somewhat advanced in
incubation, the other quite fresh. I think two broods are, in many
cases, reared each season.

124. =Coccyzus erythrophthalmus= _Bd._ BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO.—Common
during the middle of April, but I do not think that any remain to
breed.

125. =Strix flammea americana= _Coues_. AMERICAN BARN OWL.—More or
less common in all suitable localities. Breeds usually in hollow
stumps, but last year (May 6, 1881) I discovered a nest in the side of
a high bank of a “gully” near Spring Creek. The nest was about two
feet from the entrance and nearly horizontal; a few feathers were the
only lining. Eggs, three in number, dirty white.

126. =Brachyotus palustris= _Gld._ SHORT-EARED OWL.—Not uncommon late
in autumn and during winter near thickets and marshes, where many
little birds associate, on which it feeds almost entirely. Very shy,
and not easily secured.

127. =Syrnium nebulosum= _Gray._ BARRED OWL; “HOOT OWL”; “BOTTOM
OWL.”—Very common, especially in all the bottom woods and in the thick
woods bordering Buffalo Bayou. Their curious notes are heard every
night from the dusk of evening till dawn, and also in dark cloudy and
rainy days. These notes are easily imitated, and often three or four
of the birds may be thus attracted. During night time they come
fearlessly near farm houses, and, with their loud, laughing, unearthly
sounds, make a terrible noise. I have often heard four or five at one
time near a house. Their flight is easy and quick. In Texas where the
hens, turkeys, etc., roost on trees, this Owl is very destructive.
They do not kill old poultry, but like half-grown chickens, and soon
depopulate a whole poultry-yard. The nest is usually built high up in
trees, mostly in pin oaks (_Quercus palustris_) and elms, sometimes
also in pines, of strong twigs and sticks, without a lining. They also
use old Crow’s and Hawk’s nests, which they repair a little.

128. =Scops asio maccalli= _Ridgw._ TEXAN SCREECH OWL.—This little Owl
seems to be quite common. If they are disturbed, they hide in the
hollow of a tree or stump. All their movements are exceedingly quick
and elegant, and the flight gliding and noiseless. I have never had an
opportunity to examine a nest.

129. =Bubo virginianus= _Bonap._ GREAT HORNED OWL.—Common; resident;
breeds. Nests abundantly in all the large woods; especially common in
dense bottom woods. Their loud cries are to be heard not only during
the nights, but also in the day-time, when the weather is cloudy and
rainy. They are very destructive to the poultry; they, like the Barred
Owls, come near the farm houses and commence their ludicrous cries
about nine o’clock in the evening; they utter their cries only during
the breeding season; later they are almost silent. The flight is very
quick and easy. The nest is placed from thirty to seventy feet from
the ground in the top of a large forest tree; it is composed of sticks
and twigs, and is sometimes lined with a bunch of Spanish moss, but
this may be accidental.

130. =Speotyto cunicularia hypogæa= _Ridgw._ BURROWING OWL.—This
little Owl is every year increasing in numbers. Breeds in the higher
prairies, and also in waste fields, in holes. They also breed in the
burrows of the salamander, a species of _Geomys_, probably _Geomys
pinetis_. I have not seen their eggs.

131. =Falco mexicanus polyagrus= _Coues_. PRAIRIE FALCON.—This noble
bird is resident on the borders of woods near prairies, but it is by
no means a common bird. Its flight is graceful, but always low; its
food is said to consist especially of Prairie Chickens and domestic
fowl.

132. =Æsalon columbarius= _Kaup_. PIGEON HAWK.—Common in fall and
winter, as soon as the large flocks of Blackbirds and different
Finches appear from the north, among which it makes great havoc. None
remain to breed. They disappear quite early, usually in the first days
of March.

133. =Tinnunculus sparverius= _Vieill._ SPARROW HAWK.—Common in fall
and winter, but never observed during the breeding season. This bird
also does great harm among our small birds.

134. =Polyborus cheriway= _Cab._ CARACARA EAGLE; MEXICAN EAGLE;
“MEXICAN BUZZARD.”—Regularly distributed, but in this part of Texas is
not so common as farther in the interior. It is a very showy bird, and
the flight is extremely elegant and quick. Although it is very shy and
not easily to be approached, it often builds its nest in trees not far
from farm houses. The farmers say they are as harmless as Turkey
Buzzards. The nest is usually from twenty-five to thirty feet above
the ground and is built of sticks, sometimes lined with bits of cotton
and Spanish moss; the cavity is shallow. Often the birds, commonly
single individuals, are to be observed with Vultures feeding together
on carrion.

135. =Elanoïdes forficatus= _Ridgw._ SWALLOW-TAILED KITE; FORK-TAILED
KITE.—Abundant summer sojourner from the first part of March to
October. A beautiful bird, and one of the most characteristic species
of this locality. Especially abundant in the bottom woods near
prairies or fields. Nest very high in slender trees in the river and
creek bottoms; it is built of sticks and Spanish moss. I never had an
opportunity to collect eggs of this bird as the nests, in almost every
case, were out of reach. In August and September the birds are often
seen in cotton fields, where they feed on cotton worms and other
insects. They are particularly fond of small snakes, such as
_Leptophis_, _Rhinostoma coccinea_, lizards (_Anolius carolinensis_
and _Ameiva sex-lineata_). I never have seen them take a bird or a
small quadruped.

136. =Elanus glaucus= _Coues_. WHITE-TAILED KITE.—This rare and
beautiful bird I have seen several times sailing over cotton fields.
Its flight is easy and graceful, but not rapid; sometimes it stops a
few moments and then descends with great velocity to the ground to
capture a lizard or a snake. It is not shy, and is easily recognized
by its white tail.

137. =Ictinia subcærulea= _Coues_. MISSISSIPPI KITE.—Not a common
summer resident, and very shy and retiring in its habits. It is
generally found in the same localities with _Elanoïdes forficatus_.
Its sailings are extremely beautiful and sometimes the bird is so high
in the air as to be almost invisible. Like the Swallow-tailed Kite, it
is often seen about cotton fields, where it feeds on the cotton worms
and on small snakes and lizards. I have a few times seen the nest high
up in the top of gigantic pines, pin oaks and sycamores, entirely out
of my reach.

138. =Circus hudsonius= _Vieill._ MARSH HAWK.—Common resident in the
marshy prairies in the northern part of Harris County; also common
near the sugar-cane fields on the Brazos. It is very destructive to
all the smaller prairie birds, but it also feeds on snakes, frogs and
lizards. I never found a nest.

139. =Accipiter cooperi= _Bonap._ COOPER’S HAWK.—This very common and
impudent robber is the most destructive of the Raptores to the
barnyard fowls; in a short time all the young chickens, turkeys, and
ducks are killed by it. It is so bold as to seize the poultry before
the farmer’s eyes, and in only few cases can the bird be punished, as
it is very difficult to shoot. The flight is easy, very quick, and
usually low. Nests found in April had already half-grown young. They
were similar to Crows’ nests, built of twigs in the tops of middle
sized trees, and lined with bunches of _Tillandsia_.

140. =Accipiter fuscus= _Bonap._ SHARP-SHINNED HAWK.—Common in winter.

141. =Buteo pennsylvanicus= _Bonap._ BROAD-WINGED HAWK.—Not uncommon
during the winter months, and a few remain to breed, nesting in the
high trees near the rivers and creeks.

142. =Buteo swainsoni= _Bonap._ SWAINSON’S HAWK.—Not uncommon during
the breeding season; often seen on the prairies near woods. Many are
killed, as they commit great havoc among the poultry. The nest is
built in the tallest trees, in an almost inaccessible position.

143. =Haliaëtus leucocephalus= _Savig._ BALD EAGLE; WHITE-HEADED
EAGLE.—This is not a common bird, but is known to breed in certain
parts of this region. They build their nests in the tallest trees of
the river bottoms. Two young, taken out of a nest in the spring of
1880, became very tame pets.

144. =Cathartes aura= _Illig._ TURKEY BUZZARD.—Very abundant, and
resident throughout the year. Nests on the ground.

145. =Catharista atrata= _Less._ BLACK VULTURE; CARRION CROW.—Common
but not abundant; about one-twentieth as common as the Turkey Buzzard.
Breeds on the ground in the grassy prairies.

146. =Ectopistes migratoria= _Sw._ PASSENGER PIGEON.—Occasionally
common during the migrations. In September and October, 1881, I saw
immense numbers in the post oak woods, where they were feeding on
acorns.

147. =Zenaidura carolinensis= _Bonap._ MOURNING DOVE.—Very abundant,
and resident throughout the year. In very cold winters many migrate
farther south. They raise, at least in this part of the country, three
broods yearly. On the prairies the nest is not unfrequently placed
upon the ground.

148. =Chamæpelia passerina= _Sw._ GROUND DOVE.—A rare summer
sojourner. Have never seen more than two together.

149. =Meleagris gallopavo= (=americana= _Coues?_). WILD TURKEY.—I can
not state with certainty whether the Wild Turkey under consideration
is the _Meleagris gallopavo americana_ or _M. gallopavo_, but I think
it is the first-named variety. I have found the bird abundant in all
the heavily wooded districts, especially common in the thick woods
with much underbrush near Spring Creek. Eggs are often put under a
tame hen, but the young are not easily domesticated; as soon as they
are grown they become very wild, and many go off again to their
favorite woods. Early in May I have seen the mother bird with about a
dozen young ones, but they were so extremely wild that they suddenly
disappeared among the almost impenetrable thickets of blackberries
(_Rubus villosus_) and Smilax (_Smilax laurifolia_ and _S.
lanceolata_). When the pecans are ripe, they assemble in flocks of
from ten to twenty and even thirty, and feed particularly on these
nuts. Later in the season they feed on several kinds of acorns, and in
winter when food becomes scarce, they eat the berries of the
myrtle-holly (_Oreophila myrtifolia_) and other berries.

150. =Cupidonia cupido= _Bd._ PRAIRIE HEN.—Common resident on all the
flat grassy prairies. Is becoming scarcer every year.

151. =Ortyx virginiana= _Bonap._ AMERICAN QUAIL; “BOB WHITE.”—Very
abundant resident. Two broods are raised yearly. They are exceedingly
tame and confiding, breeding sometimes in close proximity to the
habitations of men. In winter from fifty to one hundred are usually
seen in cotton and sugar-cane fields.

(_To be continued._)

=Recent Literature.=

BAILEY’S INDEX TO FOREST AND STREAM.[81]—The newspaper thus indexed as to the bird-matter contained in its first twelve volumes has always given much space to ornithological articles, which have become of late years more valuable from a scientific standpoint than newspaper pieces generally are, being authenticated by the signatures of the writers instead of some silly pen-name, and being on the whole scarcely below or not below the grade of the bird notes that one finds in periodicals of professed technical character. No one who has had any experience in hunting for what he wants through the scantily indexed pages of a weekly issue can fail to appreciate the good office Mr. Bailey has rendered us all; and every one upon whom the bibliographical blight has descended knows what an immense amount of industry that curse entails. The author has our hearty sympathy in the latter, and our best thanks for the former. His work is more than a mere alphabetical list of names, followed by reference figures; for it includes, as the title says, a summary of each article indexed—often giving just the points wanted, thus rendering it unnecessary to look up the reference. The Index also includes authors’ names, and among these the authorship of many pseudonyms and initial-signatures are for the first time properly exposed. The summation of the bird-matters seems to be quite complete, and is certainly extensive, in the cases of some common game birds occupying several pages. We presume the work is not free from faults and errors of all sorts, because nothing of the kind can be; but we have found it more reliable than its mechanical execution would lead one to expect. Considering how great a favor Mr. Bailey has conferred upon the publishers, and how much good his Index will do the paper, by “setting it up” in the estimation of working ornithologists higher even than it was before, his work might have been better dressed.—E. C.

CHAMBERLAIN’S CATALOGUE OF THE BIRDS OF NEW BRUNSWICK.[82]—As many of our readers are doubtless aware, Mr. Montague Chamberlain has been engaged, for some time past, in investigating the bird fauna of New Brunswick, and an interesting result of his labors is now before us in the form of a catalogue of the birds of that Province. This paper, which forms by far the most important one in the publication of which it is a part, comprises some forty-three pages which are divided into two sections; “Section A” being restricted to “species which occur in St. John and King’s Counties”; while “Section B” embraces “species which have not been observed in Saint John or King’s Counties but which occur in other parts of the Province.”

The former division treats of a region to which the author has evidently paid special attention, and the text, being mainly based on his personal observations or investigations, includes many interesting and several important notes and records. From these we gather that the rather marked Alleghanian tinge which is known to pervade the bird-fauna of the entire coast region of Maine, as far as Eastport and Calais, extends still further eastward. Thus the Catbird, White-eyed Vireo, Towhee Bunting, Cowbird, Meadow Lark, Baltimore Oriole, Carolina Dove, Least Bittern, Florida Gallinule, and a few others scarcely less characteristic of the more southern fauna, have been found within the area treated by the present paper, but all are marked as rare, and the greater number as merely accidental visitors. Many of the more important records have already been published elsewhere.

The annotations in this section are often full and always interesting. The author writes clearly and simply and his style is characterized by a modest frankness that is very attractive. We fear, however, that some of his views respecting the distribution of races are hardly orthodox. Thus he thinks that “two races of Loon spend the summer in New Brunswick, and breed here. They have plumage of similar colors and markings, but one is smaller than the other, being some six inches less in length. The larger bird is common on the lakes and rivers in all sections of the Province, seldom seeking the salt water until the rivers freeze over, while the smaller is rarely found away from the sea shore”; and again that a light form of the Ruffed Grouse “resembling the descriptions given of _umbelloides_” occurs with typical _umbellus_ and that it is “not improbable that both the Brown and Gray varieties are represented here, with numerous hybrids”; a condition of affairs which, if true, is certainly deplorable.

“Section B” is almost wholly compiled, the authorities mainly drawn on being Boardman, Herrick, and Dr. A. Leith Adams. Several of the records left by the latter writer are, in the light of our present knowledge, of very doubtful value.

Mr. Chamberlain’s work, so far as it has gone, has evidently been done carefully and well, a fact which makes it the more to be regretted that the publication of his report could not have been longer delayed, for in many respects it lacks the completeness that is desirable in a paper of its kind. Any adequate exploration of a region so extensive as that embraced within the limits of New Brunswick cannot be accomplished in one or two seasons only. It is rather the task of a lifetime. But we must bear in mind that the present “Catalogue” is offered simply as a “starting point,” to be “supplemented by additions and revisions as opportunity for further investigation occurs”; and considered from this standpoint it is in every way a highly creditable production. That its author is qualified to carry out an undertaking which he has so satisfactorily begun can be a matter admitting of no doubt, and we shall look for many interesting developments in the field which he has chosen.—W. B.

KRUKENBERG ON THE COLORING MATTER OF FEATHERS. SECOND PART.[83]—Turacoverdin, a green pigment which occurs in the green feathers of the _Musophagidæ_ is first considered. This pigment is soluble in alkalies, such as soda and the like, but is insoluble in acids, chloroform, ether and the alcohols. Concentrated sulphuric acid added to the pigment in solution turns it violet red. Turacoverdin in solution emits a weak red fluorescent light, and when examined by the spectroscope shows an absorption band near D. It contains a considerable quantity of iron, but little copper or manganese, and probably, like Turacin, lacks sulphur and nitrogen. A point of considerable interest is its identity with a green pigment procured by Church by boiling a solution of Turacin for a long time.

Zoörubin, a red-brown pigment occurring in _Cicinnurus regius_ is next described. In solubility it much resembles the preceding, but has no absorption band, though all of the spectrum beyond D is absorbed. When treated with a very small quantity of copper-sulphate, Zoörubin instantly becomes cherry-red, a characteristic reaction. This pigment occurs in the brown female paradise bird though not in other brown birds, as _Strix flammea_ and _Alcedo ispida_. As regards the colors of _Eclectus polychlorus_, where green, blue, red, yellow and brown may all be found, the author has brought out some very interesting points. The blue and green are mechanical, or rather the blue is mechanical and the green is the result of a yellow pigment overlying a brown one. The true pigments of the feathers are brown, yellow, and red. If the feathers be blackened on their under surfaces with lampblack or sepia, they become blue. If the yellow feathers are treated in a similar way, they become green. The yellow pigment is Zoöfulvin, the red probably Zoönerythrin.

Lastly the author describes the yellow pigment, Coriosulfurin, found in the tarsus of the birds of prey. This substance is unlike any known to occur in feathers. It has three absorption bands between F and G.—J. A. J.

STEJNEGER’S NOMENCLATURAL INNOVATIONS.[84]—Proposing to use “the oldest available name in every case,” the author shows that many of our current names must give way if the “inflexible law of priority” is to be observed. For ourselves, we believe that the surest way out of the nomenclatural difficulties that beset us is to be found in some such simple rule as this, and that to upset every name that can be upset according to any recognized principle is really the shortest road to that fixity of nomenclature for which we now all sigh like furnaces. Still such a paper as this makes us wish, as so many others have done, that some counteractive “statute of limitation” could come into operation, by which a bird resting in undisturbed enjoyment of its name for, say, a century or half a century, should not be liable to eviction under the common law of priority. Human welfare and happiness on the whole is the final cause of all law, and in the case of titles to real estate it is we believe statutory that undisturbed possession for a certain period shall exempt property-holders from litigation on account of any adverse claim, however otherwise sound, which is not presented within a certain number of years. This seems to be necessary for the security of any title and to proceed upon the theory that if owners don’t take the trouble to make good their title in due time they ought to forfeit it. The logic of a bird’s right to its name and a possessor’s right to any other property is the same in theory, and might properly be carried into effect. Fifty years of unchallenged usage might do, and a hundred certainly would suffice, to eliminate the factor of “contemporaneous courtesy,” and the shades of a few departed greatnesses might not be offended by being invited to yield a point now and then for the benefit of the many whom natural selection has not yet eliminated from the struggle for existence.

Stejneger’s points seem to be well taken in the main; and though we have not yet had opportunity of verifying them, we presume the restitutions and substitutions he proposes are available if not indeed necessary under the priority statute. But has he in all cases taken up names which rest upon diagnosis? Does indication of a type-species make a generic name valid? Some other objections might also be raised. We pass no judgment, _pendente lite_, but simply note the following propositions advanced:—_Phænicurus_ Forst., 1817, for _Ruticilla_ Naum., 1822.—_Cinclus merula_ Schäff., 1789, for _C. aquaticus_ Bechst.—_Regulus cristatus_ V., 1807, for _R. satrapa_ Licht., 1823.—_Chelidon_ Forst., 1817, for _Hirundo_ L. et auct. (_rustica_, etc.).—_Hirundo_ L., 1758, for _Chelidon_ Boie, 1822.—_Clivicola_ sive _Riparia_ Forst., 1817, for _Cotile_ Boie, 1822.—_Calcarius_ Bechst., 1803, for the birds now commonly called _Centrophanes_, and _Plectrophenax_, g. n., for _“Plectrophanes” nivalis_.—_Otocoris_ Bp., 1839, for _Eremophila_, preocc. in botany, and by _Eremophilus_ in ichthyology.—_Archibuteo norvegicus_ Gunnerus, 1767, for _A. lagopus_ Gm. (but there is _A. lagopus_ Brünn, 1764).—_Morinella_ M. & W., 1810, for _Strepsilas_ Ill., 1811.—_Vanellus capella_ Schäff., 1789, for _V. cristatus_ M. & W., 1803.—_Ægialitis alexandrinus_, L., 1758, for _Æ. cantianus_ Lath., 1790.—_Gallinago cælestis_ Freuzel, 1801, for _G. media_ Leach, 1816.—_Totanus nebularius_ Gunnerus, 1767, for the Greenshank.—_Pavoncella_ Leach, 1816, for _Machetes_ Cuv., 1817.—_Tadorna dameatica_ Hasselq., 1762, for _T. cornuta_ Gm., 1788.—_Harelda hyemalis_ L., 1758, for _H. glacialis_ L., 1766.—_Eniconetta_ Gray, 1840, for _Polysticta_ Eyt., 1836, preocc. by _Polysticte_ Smith, 1835, and for “_Stellaria_”! Bp., 1838, preocc. in botany.—_Gavia_ Boie, 1822, for _Pagophila_ Kaup, 1829, and the species _G. alba_ (Gunn., 1767, for _P. eburnea_) Phipps, 1774.—(_Larus hyperboreus_ Gunnerus, 1767, for _L. glaucus_ Brünn, 1764.)—_Hydrochelidon nigra_ (L., 1758, p. 137) for _H. lariformis_ (Ibid., p. 153).—The short and long-tailed Jägers to be respectively _Stercorarius parasiticus_ (L., 1758, p. 136), and _S. longicaudatus_ (V., 1819).—_Urinator_ Cuv., 1799, for _Colymbus_ auct., nec Briss., 1760; _U. immer_ (Brünn, 1764, p. 38) instead of _U. torquatus_ (id., ibid., p. 41) and _U. lumme_ Brünn, 1764, for _C. septentrionalis_ L., 1766.—E. C.

INGERSOLL’S BIRDS’-NESTING.[85]—This little book is intended for a guide to the beginner, and as such it will no doubt be of service. The book may be summarized as a readable account of the various modes of collecting birds’ eggs and nests. There are, however, a few points which we regard with suspicion, as the contrivances for descending cliffs; such things in careless hands would become instruments of self-destruction. A long account of the various paraphernalia for blowing and marking eggs is given. To the novice such things may be amusing, but are sure sources of disaster. A keen eye, accuracy of hand and a mind to govern, not patent scissors and forceps, are the requisites for blowing eggs.

The list of unknown nests, which does not claim to be free from faults of omission, contains faults of admission, though these are not numerous. Finally, we would heartily indorse all advice for absolute identification of eggs and the avoidance of gummed labels.—J. A. J.

=General Notes.=

NOTE ON MIMUS POLYGLOTTUS.—In the summer of 1879 I found on the Platte River, about a mile west of Fort Fetterman, Wyoming, in Lat. 42° 23′ 35″ N. and Long. 105° 21′ 4″ W., a pair of Mockingbirds (_Mimus polyglottus_) breeding; the nest was placed in a low cottonwood, very near the river bank. In the following year these birds, undoubtedly the same pair, returned and reared a brood in identically the same place. This time I secured the male bird; and the specimen is now in my private collection.

In the “Birds of the Colorado Valley” Dr. Coues tells us, when referring to the limits of _Mimus_, that “the northermost records generally quoted fix the limit in Massachusetts; but Dr. Brewer speaks of a single individual seen near Calais, Me., by Mr. George A. Boardman. Another record from an extreme point, given by Dr. P. R. Hoy, is above quoted; the extension of the bird to Wisconsin, as there indicated, has been commonly overlooked. Other States in which the bird is known to have occurred are New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, and Kansas. The parallel of 40° N. has been named as its usual or normal limit.”

In view of these facts, and what I have learned from other ornithologists, it seems to me that this case is entitled to record, as another interesting instance, extending the limits of this bird.—R. W. SHUFELDT. _Washington, D. C._

THE NEST OF THE HOUSE WREN.—Some writer speaks of the well known habit of the House Wren of filling up any cavity within which it builds its nest with sticks and rubbish, as a “survival” of an old habit for which there would seem to be no present use. I think I have seen this statement in some of the writings of Dr. Elliott Coues, though I cannot refer to the book or page. Possibly it may have been stated by some one else. But it is a generally recognized fact that if a box holds half a peck the little birds will fill it up full! It seems to me, however, that while this may be really a “survival,” it is still a most useful habit. When a hole or space is so filled the nest proper is generally built on the side of the mass of rubbish opposite to the entrance and as far as possible from it. Manifestly there is a clear purpose in this—viz: that of protection from any enemy seeking an entrance. I have observed many nests, in large cigar boxes, and in the majority find this state of things to exist. The interior space will be filled with sticks, leaving a little passage way over the top, through which the bird can reach the nest on the back side of the rubbish. It seems to me that this is clearly a defensive habit, necessary at this time. When they build a nest in the skull of a horse or ox, it will be found that they follow the same rule, and that it will be very difficult to get at the nests.

But their practices are sometimes varied. If a box is not too large, and the hole is only large enough to admit of the passage of the birds, they will often carry in only just enough material to build the nest, leaving the space all open above. I have often known them to pursue this course in building in a cigar box where a small hole had been made at the middle of one of the sides. But if the box is a large one with a large hole cut through the end near the top, as it is suspended on a tree or the side of a building, then they will carry in “fully a peck of rubbish,” and build the soft nest down on the side opposite the entrance.—CHARLES ALDRICH, _Webster City, Iowa_.

REMARKABLE PLUMAGE OF THE ORCHARD ORIOLE.—There is in the collection here a very curiously marked specimen of the Orchard Oriole (_Icterus spurius_) from Columbia, Pa. It is evidently a male bird in the transition stage of plumage from young to that of the adult. Young males of this species usually exhibit “confused characters of both sexes,” but in this case the male plumage is confined to the right side of the bird, and the female plumage to the left side, the two colorations uniting on median lines above and below. So distinctly is this peculiarity marked, that a bilateral section of the bird would divide the phases about equally. The left side, however, shows very slight traces of black and chestnut, yet not so distinct as to lessen the general yellowish-olive appearance of the female. There is more of the white on the coverts of the left wing than usual.—CHARLES H. TOWNSEND, _Acad. Nat. Science, Philadelphia, Pa._

THE NEST AND EGGS OF PERISOREUS CANADENSIS.—The nest upon which the following description is based was found by Mr. P. S. Glasier on April 7th, 1881, twenty-three miles from Grand Falls, New Brunswick. It was built in a small fir tree with few branches, about ten feet from the ground. The tree was in “mixed land” beside a brook, on the south side of a hill and near a lumber camp. From the men in the camp it was learned that the bird built the nest about the middle of March, and had been sitting for ten days. The parent bird was found on the nest, shot, and forwarded to me, so that there can be no doubt of identity.

The nest is rather a large structure, between nine and ten inches in diameter and five inches deep. The cavity is slightly oval, measuring three and six-tenths by three and two-tenths, and is two inches deep.

The bottom is formed of large pieces of rotten wood, which must have been torn from some neighboring stump, while the sides are supported by a scraggy structure of long twigs. The walls are formed of strips of bark and the subjacent rotten wood, apparently of cedars, cocoons, the remains of wasp nests, lichens and the like. All this material is closely packed together, but not woven, so that were it not for the outer coat of twigs the whole would quickly fall apart. On one side, snarled up among the twigs, is a long piece of white twine, which shows that the neighboring camp was called upon to pay its tribute. The lining is quite thick, and offers a decided contrast to the walls. Rootlets of various kinds form the greater part, though grass and the remains of wasp nests form the floor. A few feathers are scattered throughout the structure and about as many more are to be found inside. By far the greater part of these are from the Jays themselves, and they might be regarded as of accidental occurrence were it not for a few from some species of Grouse. As a whole the nest is a substantial structure, admirably adapted to keep the eggs and nestlings warm.

The eggs were three in number, and are of about the same size and form as those of the Blue Jay. Their ground-color is a light green of much the same color as the Field Sparrow’s egg. Two of the eggs are thickly covered with fine spots of lavender and light brown, the spots being most abundant at the large end. The third has less lavender and more brown, while the spots are of considerable size and evenly distributed.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES, _Boston, Mass._

NOTES ON THE PLUMAGE OF NEPHŒCETES NIGER BOREALIS.—An examination of ten birds of this species, taken at Howardsville, Colorado, in 1880 and 1881, leads me to believe that four years are necessary for them to acquire their complete plumage. A young male of the year, taken Sept. 17, was marked as follows. General color dull black, every feather tipped with white, scarcely appreciable on upper back and throat, broader on upper tail-coverts and rump. Crissum almost pure white. In birds of the second year the general plumage has a brownish cast; feathers of back tipped with brown, the head whitish, belly feathers yet broadly tipped with white. The third year the color is black, with a very faint edging of white on under tail-coverts. In the fourth year pure black, forehead hoary, neck with a brownish wash. Feathers bordering the black loral crescent whitish.

Tail in young of first year, rounded; in second year, slightly rounded; in third year slightly emarginate, feathers becoming more acute. In adult, forked, outer feathers three-eighths of an inch longer than inner.

I do not know when they come—some time late in June—but they remain until long after the Violet-green Swallows leave. They always hunt in flocks, range far above 13,000 feet and breed up to at least 11,000 feet. Those I have shot have had their crops filled with _Ephemeridæ_, and it is only when a cloud of insects is discovered low down that the birds come within gunshot range. Often one will sweep down almost to the earth and, swinging on in the same ellipse, soar far up entirely out of sight.

Measurements from dried skins of eight specimens give an average length of six and seven-sixteenths inches, with extremes of seven and one-half inches—an adult male, and five and seven-eighths inches—a young female; and an average wing of six and five-sevenths inches, with extremes of six and seven-eighths and six and three-eighths inches.—FRANK M. DREW, _Bunker Hill, Ill._

PLUMAGE OF THE YOUNG OF ECLECTUS POLYCHLORUS.—Dr. A. B. Meyer in the P. Z. S. for 1877, p. 801, says in an article on _Eclectus polychlorus_: “Formerly I discussed the question whether the young bird in both sexes is plain green or not; but I now believe that it is red in both sexes, _i.e._ bears the dress which the female keeps during its whole life.” This conclusion would seem to be incorrect, since among a series of these birds in the possession of Prof. H. A. Ward, there is one bird so young as not to be fully fledged, but which is nevertheless of the same bright green color as the adult males. This substantiates the statement of the Rev. George Brown that the young birds have the same colored plumage as the adults.—F. A. LUCAS, _Rochester, N. Y._

[This is a large Parrot found in the Malacca and Papuan Islands. The occurrence of “young red-and-blue birds” has already been recorded (see Ibis for 1878).—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.]

AN OWL’S EGG LAID IN CONFINEMENT.—The history of my Acadian Owl, given in a late number of this Bulletin,[86] has an interesting sequel. On February 4, 1882, the bird (then but nine months old) astonished its friends—and perhaps itself as well—by laying an egg in the bottom of its cage. This, when first brought to me, was of normal size and shape, but soft and leathery to the touch, like the egg of a turtle. One side was fractured; and soon afterward the shell around the edges of the hole began to curl inward until, in a short time, the whole egg became shrivelled and distorted. Finally, in the course of a day or two, the shell crumbled and scaled off in small fragments leaving only the half-dried yelk and albumen.

Of course more eggs were looked for, and in anticipation, the floor of the cage was lined with saw-dust and a hollow stump even supplied to serve as a nesting-place. But despite these attentions the bird obstinately refused to gratify our hopes. For several days after the removal of her egg she was restless and irritable, continually flying from perch to perch, and fiercely attacking any one who ventured to approach her. Indeed, it was two or three weeks before she recovered her wonted gentleness.

I cannot now recall an instance of the breeding of Owls in confinement, but the present occurrence would apparently indicate that it might be accomplished with Saw-whets, which, as captives, seem to be more animated and cheerful than most of the members of their sedate family.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._

BUTEO BRACHYURUS—A CORRECTION.—An inaccuracy, comparatively so unimportant that I have hitherto neglected to call attention to it, will be found in the paper “On a Tropical American Hawk to be added to the North American Fauna” (this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 207). The Hawk in question was shot Feb. 22., 1881—not Feb. 1, as stated in the article referred to. I was at Palatka at the time, and saw the bird in the flesh the day it was shot. It was secured on the outskirts of the town, early in the morning, by a young taxidermist, Mr. Wm. Dickinson, since deceased. We could not determine the species, and he would not part with the specimen, a very fine one, but “set it up” for himself. A short time afterwards he presented it to Mr. G. A. Boardman.—J. DWIGHT, JR., _New York City_.

THE TURKEY BUZZARD IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.—A specimen of _Cathartes aura_ was shot this spring near Hampton Falls, N. H., by Mr. Frank Percell. The bird was killed April 6th or 7th. and received by Mr. C. I. Goodale on the 8th. When I examined it on the 10th it was still quite fresh.—CHARLES B. CORY, _Boston. Mass._

RAPACIOUS BIRDS IN CONFINEMENT.—In the winter of 1874 I spent several months with a friend who had a number of rapacious birds in confinement. There were a couple of Barred Owls, a Great Horned Owl, and a Rough-legged Hawk, living together upon excellent terms in one apartment; in another, half a dozen Mottled Owls; and in another a superb Bald Eagle. Most of these birds became quite tame after a short period of captivity, tolerating our presence in their quarters, taking food from our hands, and even submitting to caresses. One little _Scops_ developed especial docility. My friend, who was a taxidermist, used to place it upon a perch at his side and copy strigine attitudes from nature. The accommodating bird would sit content for half an hour at a time, and never objected to any sort of gentle handling. One of its brethren. however, was vicious and untameable. He nipped our fingers whenever occasion offered, snapped and spat if even approached, and finally sealed his own doom by decapitating his gentle associate.

We did not succeed in cultivating a spirit of great tractability in the Eagle. Aside from the amusement he occasionally afforded in tackling living quarry, generally some superfluous cat, he was a rather uninteresting captive. One morning we omitted his breakfast, but in the course of the forenoon introduced a kitten into his apartment. He eyed her sharply for a few moments, then persistently ignored her and in the evening she was removed unscathed. Upon this we instituted upon the royal bird a brief course of starvation, and then submitted the unfortunate kitten again. This time her reception was very different. At sight of her he manifested great excitement, and in a very few minutes left his perch with a jump and a flop, and seized the poor beast in his talons. He struck her very nicely, pinning fore paws and head together with one foot, the hind paws together with the other, thus preventing the slightest resistance. My remorse at this stage of the proceedings was somewhat alleviated by the fact that the kitten did not even quiver, having apparently been instantly killed by the force of the blow. However, the Eagle at once put an end to what little life may have been left by breaking her spine with his beak. He thereupon tore a hole in her abdomen, and cast the intestines daintily aside. The contents of the stomach were examined and, with the exception of a single tid-bit which appeared to be a piece of bread, rejected. The rest of the body was then rapidly devoured. On the following morning a full-grown tom-cat was turned loose in the cage. The Eagle attacked him several times but was valiantly repelled, and up to the end of the third day, when he made his escape, Thomas remained master of the situation. Dissatisfied with this experiment, my friend subsequently introduced the cat in a half-stunned condition, and after getting well scratched the Eagle succeeded in overcoming him.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN, _Portland, Maine_.

NOTE ON MARECA AMERICANA.—I shot at Wayland, Mass., October 1, 1881, a young male Widgeon (_Mareca americana_). It was flying in company with a flock of twelve others, apparently of the same species.—A. THORNDIKE, _Brookline, Mass._

DESTRUCTION OF BIRDS BY THE COLD WAVE OF MAY 21ST AND 22ND.—It seems worthy of note that, judging from indications in this vicinity, the destruction of bird life by the recent cold wave must have been very considerable.

On the morning of May 21st, a specimen of _Helminthophila peregrina_ was picked up so nearly chilled to death that it died shortly afterwards. The same was also true of a specimen of _Dendræca pennsylvanica_ On the morning of May 22nd, three other specimens of the following species were picked up here which had apparently died of cold: _Dendrœca maculosa_, _Myiodioctes pusillus_, and _Empidonax minimus_.

These facts suggest that the abundance of bird life may, to a considerable extent, be influenced by sudden extreme changes of temperature, as well as by heavy gales.—F. H. KING, _River Falls, Wis., May 24, 1882_.

A “TIDAL WAVE” OF BIRDS IN WASHINGTON.—In the twenty-five years during which I have paid more or less attention to birds hereabouts I have never seen anything like the “wave” that rolled up in the second and third weeks of May of this year. The highest spring “season” is usually the month from April 20 to May 20, at which latter date the tide has usually ebbed equably from its greatest height at the middle of May. This year the birds seemed to be held back by the cold and wet, and such an accumulation has seldom if ever been seen before. The streets and parks were _full_ of the birds, and the daily papers all had their say upon the unwonted apparition. In the Smithsonian Grounds, for example, I saw one day a _flock_ of a hundred or more Orchard Orioles, mixed with Baltimores. There were flocks of Scarlet Tanagers, Rose-breasted Grosbeaks, etc., and any quantity of Thrushes, Vireos, Flycatchers and Warblers—among the latter the rare beauty _Dendrœca tigrina_. Of the latter Dr. Prentiss took several—the only ones we have known to be captured here for many years. The cause of this gathering of the clans was doubtless the cold wave Mr. King speaks of in the preceding paragraph.—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._

MORE DEFINITE STATISTICS NEEDED IN REGARD TO THE ABUNDANCE OF BIRDS.—It is deeply to be regretted, it seems to me, that we have so little specific information in regard to the abundance of birds in the various portions of the United States from which lists of species have been published.

Such terms as “common”, “not common,” “abundant,” “rare,” “rather rare,” etc., may have such different values in the minds of different observers, as to render them of but little value for any but the most general considerations. They are absolutely valueless in the discussion of such economic questions as, Can birds ever become abundant in thickly settled districts? and, What birds, if left to themselves, are likely to become most abundant in thickly settled sections?

The table given below indicates the character and kind of information which is much needed in the discussion of many important ornithological questions.

The first four columns are compiled from notes made in Jefferson County, Wisconsin, between July 31 and August 7, 1877; those in the last four columns are from notes taken in the vicinity of Ithaca, N. Y., in 1878.

In each column, opposite the name of the species, is given the number of individuals which were observed in travelling the distance indicated near the foot of each column. The item, “birds seen or heard but not named.” includes those individuals which were known to exist in the territory passed over, but which for various reasons could not be identified with certainty.

The salient features of the two localities, briefly stated, are these:—

In the vicinity of Ithaca, there is a long, deep, and narrow valley, having somewhat rolling, glen-cut sides: in it lies Cayuga Lake, deep and weedless, stretching, like a broad river, to the northward. Its east and west banks are abrupt and rocky and cut, at intervals, by deep wooded glens. A small grass swamp, bearing a few trees, at the south end of the lake and running up into the city, is about the only low land in the vicinity. Formerly a mixed deciduous and evergreen forest covered the hills. Now, mere remnants stand near together upon small closely packed farms on both sides of the valley. The houses are numerous, the orchards large, and there are few fields not having some trees standing in them.

In the portion of Jefferson County where the notes were taken, the country is nearly level, with gentle undulations, and is traversed by Bark and Rock Rivers. The streams make a sharp line between prairies and openings on one side and heavy hard and soft-wood timber on the other. Marshes trend along the streams, and shallow reedy ponds are common. Compared with the vicinity of Ithaca, the farms are larger, the houses less numerous, the orchards smaller, the woods and groves larger, and but few trees stand in the fields.

Route 1 led from a point about half a mile north of Bark River out across cultivated fields. Routes 2 and 3 each led east from Rock River, north of Jefferson, alternately through pieces of heavy timber and across dry cultivated fields. Route 4 led from the Crayfish west upon the prairie southwest of Aztelan, traversing dry treeless fields and leading through two small groves. Route 5 led from the University buildings west across the valley, leading through a pasture, through the north end of the city, through the swamp, and up the railroad, bordered on one side by cultivated fields, and by tangled thickets on the other. Route 6 led directly east from the campus to Varna, and then southwest along the railroad. On this trip only cultivated fields were crossed and one small piece of woods traversed. Route 7 led up the valley from Ithaca along the east side, and then across to Enfield Falls. On this tramp we passed in turn along the railroad, bordered with small scattering thickets on both sides, across the inlet through low fields, and then past cultivated fields and small pieces of woods. Route 8 lay ten miles east of Ithaca, and led from McLean off to the southeast of Dryden, and then through Dryden to Freeville. A branch of Fall Creek was crossed twice, and, with the exception of a small marsh near Freeville, only cultivated fields and small pieces of wood were passed.

═══════════════════════════════════════╤═══════════════════════════════ NAME. │ ROUTES. ───────────────────────────────────────┼───┬───┬───┬───╥───┬───┬───┬─── │ 1 │ 2 │ 3 │ 4 ║ 5 │ 6 │ 7 │ 8 ───────────────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───╫───┼───┼───┼─── Turdus migratorius │ 11│ │ │ 3║ 20│ 13│ 31│ 44 Turdus fuscescens │ │ │ │ ║ 2│ │ 2│ 4 Mimus carolinensis │ 2│ 8│ 3│ 2║ 12│ │ 25│ 7 Sialia sialis │ 1│ 2│ │ ║ 2│ 8│ 5│ 17 Parus atricapillus │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ 9│ Sitta carolinensis │ 3│ 7│ 2│ ║ │ 1│ 2│ 3 Troglodytes aëdon │ │ │ │ ║ │ 1│ │ 5 Eremophila alpestris │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ 3 Cistothorus stellaris │ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ │ Dendrœca æstiva │ │ │ │ ║ 1│ 2│ 5│ 5 Geothlypis trichas │ │ │ 1│ 3║ │ │ │ Setophaga ruticilla │ 2│ 15│ 5│ ║ 2│ │ │ Pyranga rubra │ 1│ 3│ │ ║ │ │ │ Hirundo horreorum │ 5│ 5│ │ ║ │ 12│ 7│ 20 Tachycineta bicolor │ │ 2│ │ ║ │ │ │ Petrochelidon lunifrons │ │ │ │ ║ 2│ 12│ 10│ 55 Cotyle riparia │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ 13 Progne purpurea │ 2│ │ │ 1║ │ │ │ Ampelis cedrorum │ │ │ 8│ ║ 4│ 7│ 12│ 4 Vireo olivaceus │ 1│ 13│ 13│ ║ │ │ 1│ Vireo gilvus │ 1│ │ │ 3║ │ │ │ Vireo flavifrons │ │ │ 10│ 4║ │ │ │ Lanius excubitorides │ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ │ Chrysomitris tristis │ 9│ 27│ 5│ 4║ 6│ 28│ 32│ 44 Poœcetes gramineus │ 5│ │ │ 10║ │ 16│ 19│ 28 Melospiza melodia │ 6│ 5│ 8│ 17║ 7│ 33│ 23│ 73 Melospiza palustris │ │ │ 1│ ║ │ │ │ Spizella socialis │ 3│ 1│ 1│ ║ 7│ 33│ 17│ 36 Spizella pusilla (shot) │ │ │ │ 2║ │ │ │ Cyanospiza cyanea │ │ 5│ │ ║ │ 2│ 3│ 3 Pipilo erythrophthalmus │ │ 3│ 3│ ║ │ │ │ Dolichonyx oryzivorus │ │ 18│ 3│ ║ │ 5│ 22│ 52 Molothrus pecoris │ │ │ │ ║ 2│ │ │ 10 Agelæus phœniceus │ │ 1│ │ ║ 12│ │ 10│ 12 Sturnella magna │ 1│ 2│ │ ║ 2│ 8│ 5│ 11 Icterus baltimore │ │ │ │ ║ 7│ 11│ 5│ 3 Quiscalus purpureus │ │ │ │ ║ │ │ │ 2 Corvus americanus │ 1│ 2│ │ ║ 3│ 10│ 8│ 28 Cyanurus cristatus │ │ │ │ 1║ │ │ │ Tyrannus carolinensis │ 8│ │ │ 10║ 4│ 4│ │ 8 Sayornis fuscus │ 2│ │ │ 4║ 2│ │ 22│ 11 Contopus virens │ 3│ 20│ 15│ 4║ │ │ 2│ 4 Empidonax minimus │ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ │ Chætura pelasgica │ │ │ │ ║ 4│ 3│ 13│ 12 Trochilus colubris │ 1│ 5│ 1│ 1║ │ 1│ 1│ Ceryle alcyon │ 2│ 7│ │ ║ │ │ │ Coccyzus erythrophthalmus │ │ │ │ ║ 2│ │ 1│ Picus villosus │ 2│ │ 1│ ║ │ │ │ Picus pubescens │ │ 1│ │ ║ │ │ │ Sphyrapicus varius │ 1│ 2│ 4│ ║ │ │ │ Melanerpes erythrocephalus │ 4│ 2│ │ ║ │ 2│ │ 3 Colaptes auratus │ 7│ │ │ 6║ 2│ │ 2│ 1 Circus hudsonicus │ │ │ │ 5║ │ │ │ Falco sparverius │ │ │ │ ║ 1│ │ │ Hawk │ │ 2│ │ ║ │ │ 2│ Zenaidura carolinensis │ 5│ │ │ ║ │ │ 4│ 1 Bonasa umbellus │ │ │ 10│ ║ │ │ │ Ægialites vociferus │ 17│ 2│ │ ║ │ │ │ Tringoides macularius │ 1│ 11│ │ ║ │ │ 4│ 3 Actiturus bartramius │ 2│ │ │ ║ │ │ │ Ardea herodias │ 2│ │ │ ║ │ │ │ Ardea virescens │ 2│ 3│ │ ║ │ │ │ Rallus virginianus │ 1│ │ │ ║ │ 1│ 1│ Podilymbus podiceps │ 1│ │ │ ║ │ │ │ Birds seen or heard, but not named │ 20│ 36│ 18│ 15║ 20│ 69│100│101 ───────────────────────────────────────┼───┼───┼───┼───╫───┼───┼───┼─── Total number of birds observed │137│141│112│ 95║127│282│405│626 Number of miles traveled │ 4│ 5│ 3│ 3║ 2¼│ 5│ 7│ 11 Average number of birds per mile │ 34│ 28│ 37│ 32║ 56│ 56│ 58│ 57 Total number of species │ 35│ 27│ 18│ 17║ 23│ 22│ 31│ 32 ═══════════════════════════════════════╧═══╧═══╧═══╧═══╩═══╧═══╧═══╧═══

Total average number of birds per mile in Jefferson County is about thirty-three.

Total average number per mile in the vicinity of Ithaca is about fifty-seven.

The notes from which these tables are prepared were obtained by walking continuously over the routes named, without retracing steps in any case. When a bird was observed a record was made in the form of a dot placed against the name of the bird. The dots were placed for convenience in groups of five each separated by straight lines.