Chapter II: Part 2

Here is a vivid picture of a situation well calculated to stir the imagination and excite the enthusiasm of this twenty-five year old easterner on his first visit to the virgin West, and thoughts of ornithological discoveries were no doubt reserved for the future. Nuttall could not have been so distracted by the excitement incident to the departure of this wild cavalcade, since he had had several previous experiences of the wilderness, was an older man, and was by nature “shy, solitary, contemplative, and of abstract manner.” At all events he set the ornithological pace immediately at the start of the journey by discovering a new bird. Townsend’s silence in his ‘Narrative’ regarding this important event was of course due to courtesy to the discoverer who had not yet given his species to science.

In my account of Nuttall’s discovery of his “Mourning Finch,” I have assumed that the specimen he took in Jackson County is the type. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that in the absence of any definite knowledge regarding the type specimen it is presumed from his description that the specimen here taken was the type. The description referred to was published in the second edition of his Manual (the volume on water birds being a reprint of the first edition) which did not appear until 1840. It will thus be seen that this important species was allowed to remain in obscurity for six years while twenty-four other new species subsequently discovered on the trip had been described, as well as sixteen figured by Audubon in the Great Work, prior to the appearance of Townsend’s Narrative in 1839. Nuttall’s published description of the bird is merely the briefest possible outline of salient specific characters, no measurements whatever being given.

On his return to the East, two years in advance of Townsend, Nuttall had in his possession a quantity of the latter’s material for delivery to the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, which Institution had helped substantially in financing the travelers. It was this material that Audubon sought so eagerly to possess, that his great work then nearing completion might not lack the new species.[5] Audubon had called on Nuttall, in Boston, in the hope of assistance from that quarter, and was promised duplicates of all the new species in his possession. It is said that five species were here secured, but the Mourning Finch was not included. Nuttall had reserved this discovery for his own book, and not only was posterity thereby deprived of an Havell engraving of the largest and handsomest of our Sparrows, but Audubon, being kept in the dark, was himself to later publish the bird as the discovery of his friend Edward Harris.[6]

On the same day that Townsend and Nuttall were so picturesquely entering the Indian country, Maximilian, Prince of Wied, who had spent the previous year on the upper Missouri, was making his way down-stream on his return to civilization. On May 13, 1834, when but a few miles from the northern boundary of Missouri, his hunters took specimens of a bird new to him. In the second volume of his published journal,[7] he says: “It was toward eight o’clock in the cool morning of May 13 (1834) that we stopped on the right bank of the river and landed on a fine, green prairie, beset with bushes and high isolated trees.... We found many beautiful birds, among which _Icteria viridis_ and the handsome Grosbeak with red breast _Fringilla ludoviciana_.... At noon we reached Belle-Vue, Major Dougherty’s Agency.... To the naturalist the surroundings of Belle-Vue were highly attractive. The beautiful wooded hills had shady ravines and small wild valleys.... Many, and some of them beautiful, birds animated these lovely thickets, the Cuckoo, the Carolina Dove, the Red-breasted Grosbeak, _Sialia wilsoni_, several Finches, among which _Fringilla cyanea_ and _erythropthalma_, and of about the same size a new species which at least in Audubon’s Synopsis of the year 1839 is not enumerated and which I called _Fringilla comata_ (2)”[8] The (2) in the text refers to a note at the end of the chapter where a description of the Harris’s Sparrow is given in great detail, and where the statement is made that “this bird nests in thickets along the shore of the Missouri River in the neighborhood of the mouth of La Platte River.” The first volume of Maximilian’s journal, containing the record of his trip up the Missouri, was published in 1839, while volume two, covering the period when the Sparrow was taken, did not appear until 1841. Had he published both volumes simultaneously in 1839, his specific name _comata_ would of course be current. It is interesting to note that though he took his first specimen just fifteen days after Nuttall had taken the type, and at a time when the bulk of the migrants had passed north, he had overlooked an opportunity of being the actual discoverer during the previous April, when he had been in the direct migratory path of the Sparrow at the season of its greatest abundance there.

Nuttall himself had overlooked an opportunity of discovering the bird twenty-four years earlier, and had his attention at that time been directed to birds as well as plants, he would no doubt have become acquainted with the species. Referring to the Journal of his companion,[9] John Bradbury, an English botanist, it is found that they passed through this region during the spring migration of 1810, and while Nuttall’s absent-minded preoccupation in collecting plants was a standing joke among the voyageurs, Bradbury was somewhat more alive to ornithological possibilities, and has left many entertaining, and a few valuable notes on the better known birds. They had spent April 8th and 9th at Fort Osage, now Sibley, Jackson County, Missouri; and the writer knows of no more certain place to find Harris’s Sparrows in early April than in the timber and thickets of this bottom land.

The Lewis and Clark party had passed through this region in June, 1804, and again early in September, 1806, and Thomas Say of the Long Expedition had been here in August, 1819. Maximilian was therefore the first ornithologist to enter the range of this species while the birds were in transit.

The last “discoverer” was Edward Harris, in whose honor Audubon gave the bird its vernacular name. The memorable voyage of Audubon and Harris, together with Bell, Sprague, and Squires, up the Missouri River in 1843 is too well known to require comment. A few quotations will serve in connection with the story of the Sparrow. On May 2 the party passed the point in Jackson County, Missouri, where Nuttall and Townsend had left the river nine years previously. Early the next morning they reached Fort Leavenworth. After leaving this post the boat was stranded on a sand-bar from 5 o’clock in the evening until 10 the next morning, giving the naturalists considerable time to do some collecting in the neighborhood. In his famous journal[10] of the voyage, Audubon says under date of May 4: “Friend Harris shot two or three birds which we have not yet fully established.... Caught ... a new Finch.” And on the next day he states: “On examination of the Finch killed by Harris yesterday, I find it to be a new species, and I have taken its measurements across this sheet of paper.” In volume seven of the octavo edition of his ‘Birds of America,’ where the new species taken on the trip are described, the remarks under the Sparrow are as follows: “The discovery of this beautiful bird is due to my excellent and constant friend Edward Harris, who accompanied me on my late journey to the upper Missouri River, &c., and after whom I have named it, as a memento of the grateful feelings I will always entertain towards one ever kind and generous to me.”

“The first specimen seen was procured May 4, 1843, a short distance below the Black Snake Hills. I afterwards had the pleasure of seeing another whilst the steamer Omega was fastened to the shore, and the crew engaged in cutting wood.

“As I was on the look-out for novelties, I soon espied one of these Finches, which, starting from the ground only a few feet from me, darted on, and passed through the low tangled brushwood too swiftly for me to shoot on the wing. I saw it alight at a great distance, on the top of a high tree, and my several attempts to approach it proved ineffectual; it flew from one to another treetop as I advanced, and at last rose in the air and disappeared. During our journey up stream my friend Harris, however, shot two others, one of which proved a female, and another specimen was procured by Mr. J. G. Bell, who was also one of my party. Upon our return voyage, my friend Harris had the good fortune to shoot a young one, supposed to be a female, near Fort Crogan, on the fifth of October, which I have figured along with a fine male. The female differing in nothing from the latter.

“All our exertions to discover the nest of this species were fruitless, and I concluded by thinking that it proceeds further northward to breed.”

The work in which this supposed discovery was announced was published in 1844, four years after the second edition of Nuttall’s ‘Manual’ appeared. Since this manual was the first American work on ornithology, excepting Wilson’s, to go into a second edition, it was presumably widely known among ornithologists, and it is not easy to understand why Audubon and his coworkers were in ignorance of their lack of claim to Nuttall’s Mourning Finch.

During the twenty-five or thirty years following Audubon’s visit to the Missouri haunts of the Sparrow, practically nothing was learned of its life-history or distribution, and the few scattered specimens that were taken were all from the same general region. A specimen furnished by Lieut. Couch, taken at Fort Leavenworth on October 21, 1854, formed part of the material used by Prof. Baird in his epochal work in 1858, as did another taken at the same point on April 21, 1856, by Dr. Hayden, of Lieut. Warren’s Pacific Coast Surveys party. Dr. Hayden took three other specimens further up the river in the same year. Dr. P. R. Hoy, who collected in the type region in 1854, took a specimen on May 7, and on May 13 met with a troop of fifteen or twenty. There are a few other records from the Missouri Valley and one from Texas (Dresser, Ibis, 1865) prior to the numerous ornithological activities of the early seventies. Dr. J. A. Allen, collecting in the interest of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy, had his headquarters at Fort Leavenworth during the first ten days of May, 1871, and found Harris’s Sparrows exceedingly abundant in the bottom timber on the Missouri side of the river. He added a few field notes on behavior, appearance, etc, and took a series of specimens. Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway state that from the time of its discovery in 1834 up to 1872 but little information had been obtained in regard to the Sparrow’s general habits, its geographical distribution, or its mode of breeding, single specimens only having been taken at considerable intervals in the valley of the Missouri and elsewhere. In 1874 Dr. Coues brought together all the available data in his interesting article on the bird in ‘Birds of the Northwest,’ but was able to add nothing in determining the bounds of its habitat, which he gave as “Region of the Missouri. East to Eastern Iowa.”

It was not until ten years later that enough information had accumulated to warrant an attempt at defining the limits of its range and the periods of its migration. This was done by the painstaking and accurate Wells W. Cooke in the first volume of ‘The Auk,’ in 1884. In this article, ‘Distribution and Migration of _Zonotrichia querula_,’ he was able only in a very general and indefinite way to give the western and southern extent of the range, but the eastern limits remain practically as he defined them.

In 1913 Professor Cooke noted the interesting peculiarity of the migration of the Harris’s Sparrow in the interval that elapses after the first spring advance. He states[11] that the birds become common along the Missouri River in northwestern Iowa soon after the middle of March and yet it is not until early May that they are noted a few miles further north in southeastern South Dakota and southwestern Minnesota. He adds that the dates suggest the probability that these March birds have wintered unnoticed in the thick bushes of the bottomlands not far distant, and have been attracted to the open country by the first warm days of spring. This theory is borne out by the facts as observed by the writer in the Kansas City region. The birds are present in this vicinity during even the most severe winters, but keep to the dense shelter of the Missouri bottoms. During mild and open winters a few scattered flocks may even spend the entire season until spring in the hedges and weed patches of the prairie country.

This Sparrow has always attracted attention in the field by its large size and conspicuously handsome appearance, as well as by its sprightly and vivacious manner and querulous notes, but it has seldom been the subject of special notice in the literature of American birds. Its bibliography is chiefly confined to diagnostic listing in formal works on ornithology, brief annotations in faunal lists, and occasional mention in published field notes.

During the thirty-four years that have elapsed since Prof. Cooke’s article of 1884, the Sparrow, as a migrant, has become well known to ornithologists. Its narrow migration path, the center of which in the United States is approximately down the 96th meridian, has been worked out; the wide extent of territory covered by stragglers has been fully reported;[12] the food habits of the bird while on migration have been thoroughly investigated and the results published;[13] the nest has been seen once,[14] and young just out of the nest have been collected,[15] and the general region of the breeding ground itself is known to be where barren tundra meets the edge of the timber between Hudson Bay and Great Bear Lake. But the eggs yet remain to be discovered.

FOOTNOTES:

[3] A Manual of the Ornithology of the United States and of Canada, by Thomas Nuttall. Second edition of the volume on Land Birds. Boston, 1840.

[4] Narrative of a Journey Across The Rocky Mountains, to the Columbia River and a Visit to the Sandwich Islands, Chili, &c. With a Scientific Appendix. By John K. Townsend. Philadelphia, 1839.

[5] An unbiased account of Audubon’s efforts to secure these specimens is given in Chapter XXXI, Vol. 2, of Dr. Herrick’s recent historical study ‘Audubon The Naturalist.’ Further light on the subject may be found in a letter from Audubon to Harris under date of Oct. 26. 1837, published in the Auk, Vol. XX, p. 370, by S. N. Rhoads. Audubon has left a full account of his activities at this time in the Introduction to Vol. 4 of the ‘Ornithological Biography.’

[6] Notes from a letter of Edward Harris, Auk, 1895, p. 227, Geo. Spencer Morris.

[7] Reis im Innern Nord-Amerika. 2 Vols. Coblentz, 1839-1841.

[8] Having access only to a reprint of this rare work in which the ornithological matter is largely deleted, I am indebted to Mr. Otto Widmann for this extract which he translated from the original publication.

[9] Travels in the Interior of America in the Years 1809, 1810, & 1811 &c. By J. Bradbury. Liverpool, 1817.

[10] Audubon and His Journals. By Maria R. Audubon. With Zoölogical and other Notes by Elliott Coues. 2 Vols. N. Y., 1900.

[11] The Migration of North American Sparrows. Compiled by Prof. W. W. Cooke, chiefly from data in the Biological Survey. Bird Lore, 1913, p. 301.

[12] The Status of the Harris’s Sparrow in Wisconsin and Neighboring States. By Alvin R. Cahn. Bull. Wis. Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. XIII, No. 2, pp. 102-108. Also in numerous lists and field notes published in ‘The Auk,’ ‘Wilson Bull.’ and the other bird journals.

[13] The Relation of Sparrows to Agriculture. By Sylvester A. Judd. Bull. Biol. Surv. No. 15, 1901.

[14] Bird Records from Great Slave Lake Region. By E. T. Seton. The Auk, 1908, p. 72.

[15] Biological Investigation of Hudson Bay Region. By E. A. Preble. N. A. Fauna No. 22. Washington, 1901.

NOTES ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE PALATE IN THE ICTERIDÆ.

BY ALEXANDER WETMORE.

The curious keel-like, angular projection found on the palate in the North American Grackles of the genus _Quiscalus_, recognized as one of the prominent characters distinguishing that group of Blackbirds, is a structure that can hardly fail to attract attention when the mouth is examined in freshly killed specimens, or in birds preserved in spirits. Recently, certain observations made in the field on these birds, which will be recounted later, recalled this structure to mind and the writer was led to make a somewhat detailed study of the palatal keel in the Grackles, and finally to examine the appearance of the palate in other members of the family _Icteridæ_. In these studies, carried on in the United States National Museum, there have been available suitable specimens representing all of the leading genera with the exception of _Clypeicterus_, _Ocyalus_, _Lampropsar_ and _Macragelæus_. In all, one hundred and thirteen species belonging to thirty-one genera have been examined.

_a_. Palatal keel (about natural size.)]

Study of skins of the genus _Quiscalus_ shows that the palatal keel is developed as a compressed projection from the roof of the mouth, slightly behind the center of the commissure (Fig. 1). Viewed from the side it is truncated in front, forming an angular projection that has a tendency to become toothed at the tip. Posteriorly it lowers to merge finally into the level of the palate. The anterior margin is sharp, and the posterior portion is thicker and stronger. The entire ridge is developed as a fold in the horny sheathing of the palate, and the surface of the premaxilla underneath is smooth and flat with no indication of a bony ridge to support the keel.

From the examination of museum skins it appears that the palatal ridge begins to develop in juvenile birds a short time before they leave the nest, at a stage when the body is well covered with feathers, and the incoming tail feathers have attained a length of 20 to 25 millimeters. In such birds the keel appears as a very slightly raised ridge that forms a distinct line on the palate. The bill at this time has reached about three-fourths of the length attained when the bird is adult, so that the beginning of this ridge appears to be located far forward, though it occupies the same position in relation to the external nasal opening that the fully developed keel does in the adult. In the dried skins the ridge is somewhat indistinct, but it is possible that it may be more readily apparent in living or recently killed specimens.

In birds that are almost fully feathered and that are about ready to leave the nest the bill has become stronger, the raised palatal line is heavier, and has a rounded anterior end that forms a marked projection and then continues to merge with the palate in front. In older specimens, able to fly but with the rectrices only 95 to 105 mm. long, the palatal ridge was better marked, being broad and strong basally and more slender toward the point. In a few of the specimens of this stage examined the cutting angle seemed well developed, but in others it was less strongly indicated. In birds that were fully grown but still in juvenal plumage the ridge was well developed but not so prominent as in adults. In some the basal portion was broad and rounded, verging toward the formation of palate found in the genus _Megaquiscalus_. In others the anterior cutting angle was more prominent but the entire ridge had only attained from one-half to three-fourths of its full height.

No one apparently has raised the question of the possible function of this keel, developed as described above, so that it seems proper to record here certain field observations made by the writer that indicate the use of this structure. As might be expected it serves in securing and preparing certain parts of the food. In December 1917, near Stuttgart in eastern Arkansas, during a time when the ground was covered by a light fall of snow, flocks of Bronzed Grackles were found feeding among small groves of a pin oak (_Quercus pagodaefolia_). The ground under these trees was nearly bare and the birds were working about searching for the small acorns that had fallen and were partly concealed under leaves and low plant growth beneath the oaks. The Grackles were tame and with a pair of binoculars it was an easy matter to watch them at close range. The acorns were picked up, held in the bill and pressed firmly against the keel on the palate, then released, turned slightly by means of mandibles and tongue, and then again gripped strongly. In this way the acorn was rotated until a line had been impressed entirely around the shell. With a little further manipulation the shell dropped off in two halves and the kernel was swallowed entire without further preparation, though frequently it was gulped down only after some effort. After watching one feeding flock for some time I clapped my hands sharply to startle them and then examined the ground where they had been at work. Scattered among the leaves were many acorn shells, most of which had been cut in two in a line transverse to the longitudinal axis. Some had fairly smooth, clean-cut margins, while others were roughened and jagged. In searching through the leaves I picked up one acorn still intact that had been dropped by one of the birds, perhaps when the flock was frightened up, in which a line had been impressed entirely around the center. In this the impressions of the palatal keel were distinctly visible.

When attention was once attracted to this manner of feeding other incidents were noted in which the palatal keel was brought in play. On one occasion on the streets of Washington a Purple Grackle was observed attempting to split open a kernel of corn dropped from some passing dray. The bird held this grain in the slight notch near the center of the bill and pressed it against the angular keel. The grain proved refractory, as it snapped out several times, dropping 8 or 10 inches away, to be seized and again compressed. Watching until it had been dropped I frightened the bird and secured the kernel of corn. On one side four grooves impressed in the hard outer surface were visible showing where, and with what force, the sharp keel had been applied.

Apparently the palatal ridge develops with the gradual growth of the bill, and becomes fully functional shortly after the immature bird is left by its parents to its own resources in securing food. It seems to be fully grown in all by the middle of September. In many adult specimens the ridge shows signs of heavy wear from the nearly constant use to which it is put. In some the cutting angle was well rounded in front from constant abrasion, while in others the anterior margin had become irregular and broken. In one specimen the thin lower margin of the compressed keel was entirely worn away, leaving a low rounded projection in which the two sides of the fold by which the keel had been formed were clearly visible, with a line of separation between them. It was interesting to note that the palatal ridge was usually well worn in old adults, taken in late fall or early spring, belonging to the northern races (_Quiscalus q. quiscula_ and _Q. q. æneus_) while little or no wear was apparent in similar specimens of the southern form (_Q. q. aglæus_) from South Carolina and Florida. The data available from the examination of a small number of stomachs of this form from Florida show a preponderance of insects and fruits with very little mast or grain, a fact of interest, but one that is not fully substantiated as the material available is small.

Among near relatives of _Quiscalus quiscula_ a slightly developed palatal ridge was encountered in _Megaquiscalus macrourus_, where the projection was broad and well rounded posteriorly, and narrow in front with the lower margin acute, forming a sharp keel. In some specimens seen this keel was slowly reduced until it merged smoothly with the palatal surface in front. In others the anterior margin was obtusely declivous. The obtuse anterior cutting angle projected below the margins of the tomia for nearly a millimeter in a few individuals, and in these occasional specimens the resemblance was striking to those bills of _Quiscalus_ in which the ridge was most poorly developed. Juvenile specimens of _Megaquiscalus m. macrourus_ from Fort Clark, Texas, that had been collected just after they had left the nest, had the palatal ridge already well indicated though only about one-half developed. In the slender-billed forms known as _Megaquiscalus tenuirostris_ and _M. nicaraguensis_ the palatal keel was much as in _M. major_ though slighter and less pronounced.

In Blackbirds belonging to the West Indian group known as _Holoquiscalus_ a raised line was also more or less developed. In general the growth was similar to that in _Megaquiscalus_ as the posterior portion was broad and rounded, while anteriorly the ridge was narrowed and the lower margin became acute. There is some variation in the size of this anterior portion; in a few the crest is obtusely declivous in front, approaching the condition found in _Quiscalus_, but never with the keel produced so that it projects below the plane subtended by the cutting edges of the tomia.

The discovery of a peculiar knoblike process on the palate of the mexican orioles belonging to the species _Icterus gularis_ was one of the really surprising discoveries made during a more or less cursory examination of the palate in various species and genera of _Icteridæ_ picked out at random, and it was the finding of this structure in an Oriole that led to a detailed examination of all of the material available. In _Icterus gularis_ the palatal ridge is from 1.2 to 1.5 millimeters high at its anterior end (Fig. 2). The entire structure is broad and somewhat flattened. The ventral surface is slightly rounded, the sides slightly sloping, the sides and lower surface joining at a sharp angle. In front the ridge is abruptly truncated at its ventral margin where there is sometimes a slight tooth or projection. Below this point the anterior surface slopes abruptly, and then passes over into the roof of the palate. The ridge is about two millimeters broad, and there is a slightly indicated raised line on the ventral surface for three-quarters of its length behind. From this description it may be seen that this blunt projection is entirely different from the sharply keeled ridge found in _Quiscalus_.

_b._ Palatal knob (about natural size.)]

Examination of other orioles shows that _Icterus gularis_ stands alone in respect to this development as there is nothing found in other species that approaches it save for a broad, low, rounded projection, slight but distinct, that is found on the palate in _Icterus xanthornus_. In _Icterus laudabilis_ and _I. prosthemelas_ there is a very slightly raised median ridge developed on the posterior part of the roof of the mouth. In twenty-eight other species belonging to this genus the palate exhibits no peculiarities worthy of mention. This structure in the bill in _Icterus gularis_ is constant in its presence, and serves as a trenchant character distinguishing it from other orioles, or in fact from any other members of the _Icteridæ_ that have been available for examination. The differences pointed out above, together with others of lesser importance, seem to be of generic value. It is therefore proposed to recognize for this species the genus name

_Andriopsar_ Cassin.[16]

_Type._—_Ps[arocolius] gularis_ Wagler, Isis, 1829, p. 754 (type locality, Tehuantepec, Oaxaca).

_Diagnosis._—Medium-sized _Icteridæ_ with short, heavy bill; a prominent knoblike projection on the posterior median portion of the palate, broad and somewhat flattened in general form, with abrupt sides, truncated in front, sometimes with a tooth or notch at the anterior ventral angle, about 2 millimeters broad and from 1.2 to 1.5 millimeters high in front; depth of culmen at base nearly equal to one-half length of culmen (varying from slightly more to slightly less); tarsus slightly longer than culmen from base; middle toe with claw equal to two-thirds, or slightly more, of length of tarsus.

One species in which three subspecies have been described is at present known to belong in this genus. These will stand as follows:

_Andriopsar gularis gularis_ (Wagler)
_Andriopsar gularis tamaulipensis_ (Ridgway)
_Andriopsar gularis yucatanensis_ (Berlepsch)

At present there is no information on the feeding habits of these orioles available but it seems certain that they will show some striking peculiarity in choice of food or in manner of securing and handling it when the life history of the species is better known.

In conclusion I desire to give a brief summary of the condition of the palate in other _Icteridæ_ where comment is necessary. In _Euphagus carolinus_ and _E. cyanocephalus_ there is a slight elongate ridge of low elevation, rounded posteriorly more acute in front, and not projecting as far as the level of the tomia. This raised line is slightly more pronounced in _E. carolinus_ than in _E. cyanocephalus_ in spite of the fact that the latter has a heavier, stronger bill. The species known as _Ptiloxena atroviolacea_ has an elongate, narrow, slightly elevated ridge on the posterior portion of the palate, rounded behind and more or less acute in front, but with too low an elevation to be considered a highly specialized structure. Sumichrast’s Blackbird (_Dives dives_) has a palatal structure somewhat resembling that of the genus _Holoquiscalus_ save that the entire ridge is shorter.

With regard to others, _Tangavius æneus_ has a slight ridge, that becomes stronger behind, extending for two-thirds the length of the palate. A similar ridge in _Molothrus badius_ is less developed at its anterior end than in the preceding genus. In _Molothrus fringillarius_ (one specimen only examined) this ridge is still less in development. In _Molothrus ater_, the cutting edges of the tomia do not extend below the level of the palate, and there is a rounded swelling behind the center; in _Molothrus atronitens_ only a very slight ridge is present, and finally in _M. rufo-axillaris_ there is no peculiarity worthy of mention. _Nesopsar nigerrimus_ shows a well marked rounded ridge on the posterior part of the palate that merges into the anterior surface without becoming produced as an angle. _Xanthopsar imthurmi_ shows a slightly developed posterior ridge, while in _Agelaius phœniceus_ (including _gubernator_) there is a very faint swelling at the posterior end of the palate, that becomes much more pronounced in _A. tricolor_. _Agelaius thilius_ and _A. icterocephalus_ show a faintly raised median line, that in the latter species is broadened and rounded posteriorly. _Amblyrhamphus holosericeus_ has a long, low, keeled median ridge, and in the three species of _Sturnella_ there is an elongate keel, that is rounded behind and acute in front. In _Curæus aterrimus_ the palate is on a level with the edge of the tomia, and has a low rounded bulge on its posterior surface. _Trupialis militaris_ and _T. falklandicus_ have a slight rounded posterior ridge, that is absent in _T. bellicosa_ and _T. defillipi_, and finally in _Gymnomystax melanicterus_ there is a low, narrow, keeled ridge on the posterior part of the palate, that merges gradually into the surrounding level in front. None of the other species seen present any marked peculiarities.

FOOTNOTE:

[16] Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, Vol. XIX, 1867, p. 49.

THE CROW IN COLORADO.

BY W. H. BERGTOLD.

A study of the technical status, and distribution of the Crow in Colorado discloses, at once, an interesting, and a peculiar situation.[17]

The Crow was first recorded in Colorado, so far as I am able to learn, by Aiken (1), who reported it in this State in 1872 under the name _Corvus americanus_; thereafter several other writers mentioned the bird, as having been found in Colorado:—Ridgway in 1877 (2), Stephens in 1878 (3), and Drew in 1881 and 1885 (4), all using the same name employed by Aiken.

Ridgway (5) erected the subspecies _hesperis_ in 1887, at that time giving its range substantially as outlined today by the A. O. U. ‘Check-List’; the validity of this subspecies was not admitted by the A. O. U. Committee until July, 1908 (6). In his original description of the new subspecies (_hesperis_) Ridgway did not state how many skins he examined nor whence they came, but gave as the eastern limit of the new subspecies “east to the Rocky Mountains,” while in his later account (7) of _hesperis_, for which he utilized twenty-three skins for study purposes, he carefully qualifies the eastern limit by adding “from the Eastern portion of the arid region?” It is to be noted that he did not definitely mention Colorado as being included within the _hesperis_ area; in his coincidental review of the literature possibly related to the new subspecies, however, all citations of previous records of Colorado Crows are grouped under the literature of subspecies _hesperis_. This probably was done because he did not have time to sift out the records relating to the eastern slope from those of the western slope so as to place them under the literature relating to the individual subspecies. So far as Colorado is concerned in this question, Ridgway probably did not take this matter up in detail because there is not a single Crow skin in either the National Museum, or in the Biological Survey Collections, which came from Colorado.

Most, if not all, of the writers who thereafter, directly or indirectly, touched on the Crow’s position in Colorado, made their diagnoses as to subspecies on regional grounds alone.

In the interval between Ridgway’s erection of subspecies _hesperis_, and its admittance to the A. O. U. ‘Check List’ (1887 to 1908) Morrison (8) and Drew (19) were, so far as I know, the only writers to record the Crow in Colorado, Morrison mentioning it first, as _Corvus frugivorus_ and the second time (9) as _Corvus americanus_, while Drew entered his record under the latter name.

Cooke’s ‘List of the Birds of Colorado’ was published in March 1897, and in it he grouped all of the previous Colorado Crow records, regardless of region, under the name _Corvus americanus_; notwithstanding that Ridgway had ten years previously separated the eastern and the western Crows, Cooke (22) logically disregarded this action, because he followed the A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ in assembling his ‘List of Colorado Birds.’ In all the various supplements which Cooke published to his list (the last being in ‘The Auk’ of October 1909) he did not change his early naming of the Colorado Crows, allowing them to stand as _Corvus americanus_ or its synonym. I am confident that he recognized the probability of there being two subspecies in the State, but wisely refrained from opening the question because of lack of material available for definite determination. Furthermore I am given to understand that there are no Crow skins in the collections of the State Agriculture College at Fort Collins, where Cooke was located when he compiled his ‘List,’ which fact would lend support to the idea that his omission to mention the possibility of both the Eastern and the Western Crows being found in Colorado was due to his unwillingness to pass judgment on a question without the support of definite material or data.

In his ‘The Present Status of the Colorado Check-List of Birds’ (10), Cooke again was silent as to the presence of subspecies _brachyrhynchos_ or of _hesperis_ or of both within the confines of Colorado, though at least three writers (11), (12), (13), had previously mentioned the Colorado Crow in their respective papers, as being _hesperis_; Cooke was too careful and experienced an ornithologist to have overlooked these records and I am sure his silence was judiciously intentional and premeditated.

It thus appears that between 1887 and 1912 the Crows of Colorado had been recorded by some observers, so far as subspecies were concerned, as _brachyrhynchos_, and by others as _hesperis_, but so far as I know and am able to learn, none suggested or recorded that these two subspecies coexisted in the State.

I am inclined to believe that Sclater’s (13) designating the Colorado Crow as _hesperis_ was made on purely geographical grounds, because the collection then at his command, (that at Colorado College, Colorado Springs) contains but one crow skin, a partial albino, which proves to be, under examination, subspecies _brachyrhynchos_. E. R. Warren allows me to state that he has no Crow skins in his collection, and that he made his subspecific diagnosis of _hesperis_, for the birds seen near Bulah, Colorado, on geographic grounds only. In later records Warren (14) wisely refrains from trying to decide as to the subspecies, when listing the Crows seen in Montrose County, and in northern Colorado, mentioning the birds merely as _Corvus brachyrhynchos_, and Henderson (18) did likewise in his Boulder County List.

I do not know on what grounds Hersey and Rockwell (11) made their statement that subspecies _hesperis_ was to be found on the eastern slope of the Rockies.

Since Cooke’s last word on our Colorado avifauna, two more writers have given the Crow as a species found within the State, each listing it as _hesperis_, and both records are for the Atlantic slope. I am permitted by F. C. Lincoln (15), the first of these two writers, to say that he did not take any Crows in Yuma County, and that he made his subspecific diagnosis on geographic grounds alone. It is now, unhappily, impossible to determine what led Betts (16), the second of these two writers, to conclude that the Boulder County Crow was _hesperis_. I do not know whether he collected specimens in Boulder County; but Junius Henderson informs me that Betts sent crow _eggs_ to the National Museum. But he probably did not send skins for, as has already been said, there is not a Crow skin in the National Museum collection, from Colorado. The internal evidence (18) points to the belief that Betts too, recorded the Boulder County Crow as _hesperis_, on geographic grounds alone.

Crows seen by Warren (17 and 20) in other parts of the State are given as subspecies _brachyrhynchos_, but again named on regional grounds only.

From the foregoing it appears that the Crows of Colorado were listed, principally as _Corvus americanus_ up to the acceptance of subspecies _hesperis_ in the A. O. U. ‘Check-List,’ and since then variously listed as _Corvus brachyrhynchos_, _Corvus brachyrhynchos brachyrhynchos_, or _Corvus brachyrhynchos hesperis_, but, to repeat, so far as I can learn, in no instance have any of the last two kinds of records been made on skin determinations. This statement is based on a study of the published records, and on a considerable relevant correspondence with my associates throughout the State; if I err the statement is open and subject to correction.

The western third of Colorado lies on the Pacific slope, and the eastern two-thirds on the Atlantic and on both of these slopes the Crow has been detected, and variously recorded as to subspecies. The A. O. U. ‘Check-List’ does not speak of _hesperis_ actually extending eastward to the Rocky Mountains, but Mr. Ridgway, in a recent communication said to me “I feel quite sure that any Crow found west of the Divide in Colorado would be _C. b. hesperis_. On the other hand, those found on the eastern side would almost certainly be _C. b. brachyrhynchos_.”

I am fortunate, not only in having material in my own collection, which substantiates Ridgway’s belief, but in also having had access, thanks to my obliging friends, to specimens and data which also show that his belief is essentially correct.

I have been able to study fourteen Crow skins from the eastern side of the Rockies in Colorado, six males and eight females; of the males three are typical _brachyrhynchos_, two are clearly _hesperis_, and the last is mainly _brachyrhynchos_, but with weaker bill and tarsus than is ordinarily found with that subspecies. It is of interest to note that this last specimen was taken in Weld County close to the locality whence came the two previously mentioned _hesperis_ skins. It is much more difficult to allocate the females of this group of skins; however four are more typically subspecies _brachyrhynchos_ than is another female in my collection which I collected many years ago in New York, and another female is also of this subspecies, but with a weak bill, while the remaining three are too near the dividing line to be definitely located as to subspecies, all showing characters of one or of the other of the two forms under study, in varying degrees of intensity.

I have been able to study but one Crow skin from the western slope in Colorado, to-wit, a skin in my collection, which was taken at Ignacio, Colorado, in October, 1917, by my friend and colleague, Dr. Walter L. Mattick; fortunately it is the skin of a male, and is typical _hesperis_.

We are now on firm ground; those skins from the eastern slope which are most likely to be characteristic of a given subspecies, to-wit, males, show that both _brachyrhynchos_ and _hesperis_ are to be found on that slope, and the Ignacio skin proves that _hesperis_ occurs on the western slope.

Hence one can say now that both _Corvus brachyrhynchos brachyrhynchos_ and _Corvus brachyrhynchos hesperis_ are to be included in future lists of Colorado birds.

The common Crow is normally a bird of moderately large and fairly dense timber, a growth found in Colorado only along the larger streams and in the mountains; if one plot the Crow stations of Colorado on a map, it at once becomes patent that most, if not all, of these stations are to be found along the courses and headwaters of the State’s larger streams. This fact seems to lend color and support to the idea that subspecies _brachyrhynchos_ probably penetrated Colorado from the east by following the larger streams towards the mountains, for it is along these rivers that one finds trees to the Crow’s liking, and too, Crows are increasingly more common as one travels eastward along these watercourses. It would seem reasonable to believe that along similar natural “crow” highways _hesperis_ would find its way eastward from the Pacific side into Colorado.

The smaller size, alone, of _hesperis_, often makes it distinguishable in the field, a fact which first came to my attention while in the “hills” on the Gila River in New Mexico, in 1906. During the same year I saw a considerable flock of Crows immediately south of Antonito, Colorado; I was then again impressed by the smaller size of these southern Colorado and New Mexico Crows. I now believe these Antonito Crows were subspecies _hesperis_; Antonito is on (or very close) to the Rio Grande River, which drains part of the Atlantic-Gulf of Mexico watershed, part of which watershed forms the western portion of Texas, an area included in the present known range of _hesperis_. It does not seem unreasonable to believe that _hesperis_ works its way from western Texas, up along the Rio Grande, finally reaching the vicinity of Antonito, and also the San Luis Valley. In support of this latter view I am permitted to say that Mrs. Jesse Stevenson of Monte Vista, Colorado, recently saw a Crow for the first time in twenty-five years in this valley, and was at once impressed with its small size as compared with those she formerly studied in the East.

As mentioned above, it is clear that _hesperis_ occurs on both sides of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Now one must ask if subspecies _brachyrhynchos_ occurs on the western slope as well as on the eastern slope.

I cannot even inferentially decide whether or not subspecies _brachyrhynchos_ reaches the west side of the Rockies in Colorado; there is but one reference to it in literature, known to me, as occurring on the western slope of Colorado, to-wit, that by Warren (20) who listed the Crows of Gunnison County as subspecies _brachyrhynchos_, doing it, however, as a matter of expediency only, as he took no specimens. If this subspecies does range to the west side of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, I believe it will be found in northwestern Colorado, coming in as a straggler from Wyoming. Records of the Crow from northwestern Colorado and southwestern Wyoming are lacking (21), or at least unknown to me.

One can hazard the guess that the Crows of southeastern Colorado are subspecies _brachyrhynchos_, but _hesperis_ may also be found in that area, coming in as an infiltration from Texas. I am convinced that _hesperis_ works its way up from the Lower Rio Grande Valley, along the eastern foothills, finally reaching, as we now know, as far north as Weld County.

It is highly desirable that a considerable series of Crow skins be collected from Colorado, embracing specimens especially from the western portions of the State, and also from the southern border, to the end that the exact distribution of subspecies _brachyrhynchos_ and _hesperis_ be definitely delimited for Colorado.

RÉSUMÉ.

I.—It can now be said categorically that the Crow occurs in Colorado in the guise of two subspecies, viz., _brachyrhynchos_ and _hesperis_, both being found on the eastern slope, and only the latter on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains.

II.—The above conclusion stands if my determinations of the skins I have studied be correct; if my determinations be incorrect they show that the criteria by which these two subspecies are differentiated, are too subtile and refined for an ordinary ornithologist like myself to grasp and apply, or that the described differences between these two subspecies break down with the Crows found in Weld County.

Measurements of _hesperis_ skins (8: millimeters).

Bill
┌───────┴───────┐
│ │
Locality Sex Wing Tail Length Depth Tarsus
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Weld Co. ♂ 303 172 49 18 57
" " ♂ 312 178 45 17 56
Ignacio ♂ 317 183 44 17 53
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

1. AIKEN: Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., XV, p. 193 et seq.
2. RIDGWAY: Field and Forest, June 1877, p. 208.
3. STEPHENS: Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club, iii (1878), p. 94.
4. DREW: Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club, vi (1881), p. 143,
and Auk, Jan., 1885, p. 16.
5. RIDGWAY: Man. N. A. Birds, 1887, p. 362.
6. AUK: July, 1908, p. 348.
7. RIDGWAY: Birds No. and Mid. America, vol. iii, p. 270 et seq.
8. MORRISON: Ornith. and Oölogist, July, 1888, p. 107.
9. MORRISON: Ornith. and Oölogist, xiv (1889), p. 147.
10. COOKE: Condor, July, 1912, p. 147.
11. HERSEY AND ROCKWELL: Condor, xi (July-Aug. 1909), p. 118.
12. WARREN: Condor, Jan. 1910, p. 34.
13. SCLATER: Birds of Colo., 1912.
14. WARREN: Condor, Jan. 1909, p. 15.
15. LINCOLN: Birds of Yuma Co.,
Proc. Colo. Mus. Nat. Hist., Dec. 1915, p. 9.
16. BETTS: Univ. Colo. Studies, X, No. 4, 1913, p. 203.
17. WARREN: Auk, Apr. 1910, p. 147.
18. HENDERSON: Annot. List Birds Boulder Co.,
Univ. Colo. Studies, Vol. vi. No. 3, p. 233.
19. DREW ET AL.: Ornith. and Oölogist, Oct., 1889, p. 147.
20. WARREN: Auk, July, 1916, p. 306.
21. KNIGHT: Birds of Wyoming,
Univ. Wyo., Bull. No. 55, 1902, p. 109.
22. COOKE: Birds of Colorado,
Colo. State Agric. Col. Bull. No. 37, March, 1897.
23. WARREN: Condor, May, 1912, p. 97.

FOOTNOTE:

[17] My thanks are due to the following friends who made it possible for me to study crow skins from parts of the State not covered by my own collection; L. A. Adams, A. H. Felger, J. D. Figgins, F. C. Lincoln, E. R. Warren, Witmer Stone, and to my various friends for permitting me to quote them in the body of this paper.

WINTER ROBINS IN NOVA SCOTIA.

BY HARRISON F. LEWIS.

Nearly every winter a few stray Robins are observed in Nova Scotia, and occasionally a small flock has been noted as present at that season, although my personal observations here during the six winters immediately previous to that of 1917-18 do not include a half dozen individuals of this species. During the winter of 1917-18, however, Robins were reported in such large numbers and over so great an area as to constitute an occurrence quite unique in the recorded ornithology of the province.

One Robin was seen by me about December 20, 1917, but unfortunately, the exact date of the observation was not recorded. In the last week of January several reports of Robins seen near Halifax were noted, and in the first two or three days of February numerous additional reports were received and I saw a few birds of this species myself. It quickly became evident that Robins were being observed near Halifax, at least, in numbers very extraordinary for the season.

As soon as it was realized that the occurrence was of an unusual character, steps were taken to secure a record of it. It is much to be regretted that, owing to the fact of the casual appearance of Robins here in ordinary winters, this realization was not reached a few days sooner, for, in that case, attempts to obtain records from others would, no doubt, have been more successful, and my own observations would in all probability have been more extensive. It so happened that, during the time when the Robins were most abundant in this immediate vicinity, military duties, always exacting, became unusually strenuous, and for a while little thought or effort could be given by me to the birds. Nevertheless, as many observations as possible were made, and the observations of those with whom I came in contact were recorded. At the same time, I endeavored to obtain information from other parts of the province, and to that end sent numerous inquiries to those whom I knew to be interested in birds or who were likely to be interested.

Here I was greatly hindered by the present condition of the observation and study of birds in Nova Scotia. I was forced to realize that there are less than a dozen active bird students in the province, and, although there are doubtless many more than that who would note with spontaneous interest the occurrence of Robins here in midwinter, there is no organization by which I could learn of the identity of such individuals when personally unknown to me, or through which I could get into communication with them. I was forced to depend very largely upon blind guess, while following up every clue which I found, and the resulting observations, though fairly numerous, are no doubt but a small part of what might have been obtained had there been, for instance, even one trained and active observer in each county. This fact should be kept in mind when considering the records obtained as evidence of the degree of abundance of the robins.

To all who contributed observations or information concerning the Robins I wish to express my thanks. I am also under obligation to the Amherst ‘News-Sentinel,’ the Truro ‘Daily News,’ and the Glace Bay ‘Gazette’ for publishing, on the initiative of their respective editors, requests that information concerning winter Robins be sent to me. These requests were the means of providing me with no inconsiderable amount of valuable data.

It may be argued that observations learned of in this way are untrustworthy and therefore valueless, for, of necessity, I am not personally acquainted with many of those who so kindly furnished me with information, and I cannot definitely vouch for the skill in bird observation of each and every one of them. It was considered, however, that, in a case of this kind, such observations might be accepted, at least as evidence tending to show a certain general condition, for nearly every intelligent adult is able to identify a Robin. Certainly, no species here is capable of more accurate popular identification, for even the well-known Crow is confused with the common Northern Raven by all but a few.

The observations obtained are summarized in the following list, which shows, in each case, the date of the observation, the locality in which it was made, the name of the observer or source of information, and the exact or approximate number of birds seen. Care has been taken to indicate any indefiniteness, so that no data are recorded as definite which were not so reported to me or observed by me. Every endeavor has been made to have the observations here recorded as definite as possible, but a number of somewhat indefinite observations are included because they are important, either geographically or temporally, in a report of this nature. With the exception of those observations where names of newspapers are quoted, and of one observation reported by Prof. H. G. Perry and one reported by Mr. W. Archibald, the name of the actual observer accompanies each observation.