Chapter III: Part 3

December 20 (about). Bedford, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 1.
December 27. Sydney Mines, N. S. (Miss Dawe) 1.
January 1. Ohio, Yarmouth Co., N. S. (Mr. Cann) about 12.
January 1. Yarmouth, N. S. (Mr. H. B. Vickery) 1.
January 5 (about). Upper Musquodoboit, Halifax Co., N. S.
(Miss Leslie) “large flock.”
January 16. Glace Bay, N. S. (Mr. A. A. McDonald) 12.
“January.” Bridgetown, N. S. (Mr. H. F. Williams) “several.”
Daily January 20-February 6. Brookfield, Colchester Co., N. S.
(Mr. Frank Little) 2.
January 24. Dutch Village Road, Halifax, N. S. (Mr. A. E. Brooks) 1.
“Last of January.” Belmont, Colchester Co., N. S.
(Miss Ruth Lear) 4.
January 26. Sydney, N. S. (Rev. T. A. Rodger) 12.
January 26. Dartmouth, N. S. (Mr. J. E. Smallman) 12.
January 27 (about). Yarmouth, N. S.
(‘Yarmouth Herald’ of January 29) “several flocks.”
January 27. Dartmouth, N. S. (Sgt. R. Smallman) about 8.
January 27 or February 3. Pugwash, N. S. (Miss B. Fullerton) 1.
January 27. Point Pleasant Park, Halifax, N. S. (Sgt. A. Cossham) 1.
January 27. William St., Halifax, N. S. (Miss H. Paul) 1.
Daily, January 27-February 8. Truro, N. S. (Prof. L. A. DeWolfe) 2.
January 28 (about). Sydney, N. S. (Mr. Geo. McLeod) “several.”
January 28. Sydney, N. S. (Rev. T. A. Rodger) 20.
January 28. Amherst, N. S. (Miss D. Hurtley) 1.
January 31. Truro, N. S. (Miss E. Waller) 1.
Through January and first half of February. Truro, N. S.
(Miss L. Schurman) 3-4.
February 1 (about). Pugwash, N. S. (Mrs. McIvor) 2.
February 1 (about). Carleton, Yarmouth Co., N. S.
(Miss Mary Wyman) 1.
February 1. Yarmouth, N. S. (‘Yarmouth Telegram’ of February 1)
several (killed by owl).
February 1. Dartmouth, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 2.
February 2. Bedford, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 1.
February 3. Jubilee Road, Halifax, N. S. (Sgt. W. J. Alsop) 3.
February 3. Young Av., Halifax, N. S. (Sgt. H. P. Eisner) 1.
February 3. “Africville,” Halifax, N. S. (Sgt. A. G. Cossham) 1.
February 3. Ocean Terminals, Halifax, N. S.
(Mr. C. Churchill) 25-30.
February 3. Kempt Road, Halifax, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 1.
February 3. “The Common,” Halifax, N. S. (Sgt. J. A. Fraser) 1.
February 3. Dartmouth, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 1.
February 4. Dartmouth, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 1.
February 5 (about). Wolfville, N. S.
(reported by Prof. H. G. Perry) 12-18.
February 5. Gottingen St., Halifax, N. S.
(‘Evening Mail’ of February 14) 1.
February 6. Truro, N. S. (Prof. E. C. Allen) 2.
February 8. Loganville, Pictou Co., N. S. (Mr. Wm. McNeil) 4-5.
February 8. South End, Halifax, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 5.
February 9. Truro, N. S. (Prof. E. C. Allen) 1.
February 11. Truro, N. S. (Prof. E. C. Allen) 1.
February 12. Dartmouth, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 1.
February 13 (about). Glenwood, Yarmouth Co., N. S.,
(Mr. R. M. Sargent) about 12.
February 13 and for some time previously. Pictou, N. S.
(Mr. A. Scott Dawson) 30-40.
February 16. Amherst, N. S. (Mrs. H. T. Holmes) 2.
February 18. Dartmouth, N. S. (H. F. Lewis) 1.

“All winter,” previous to February 19. Wolfville, N. S.
(Mr. Gormley) “a few.”
February 21. Antigonish, N. S. (Mr. R. Archibald) 1.
February 24. Pictou, N. S. (reported by Mr. W. Archibald)
“several.”
February 25. ‘The Common,’ Halifax, N. S. (Mr. H. B. Vickery) 1.

It will be noted that the points from which Robins are reported are scattered throughout the province, from Sydney and Glace Bay in the east to Yarmouth in the west, and from Amherst, on the New Brunswick boundary, to places such as Halifax and Glenwood, on the south shore. The intervening parts of the province are fairly well represented in the observations, so that these may be held to indicate a condition general in Nova Scotia. I am persuaded that the fact that there are considerable areas, such as the three counties of Shelburne, Queens, and Lunenburg, from which no observations are recorded, is due to the absence of observers there, or to my failure to get into communication with any who may have been there, rather than to the absence of winter Robins from those regions. This belief is strengthened by the fact that, in every place in the province where trained observers were known to be situated, winter Robins were reported by them.

In the case of observations made in Halifax I have recorded the street or part of the city where the birds were seen, so as to show that the distribution in the Halifax area was general, and that it is improbable that the same few birds were being recorded repeatedly by different observers. This is particularly important in connection with the observations made on February 3, on which date many observers saw Robins in and near Halifax. No two of the observations recorded for that day are from the same part of the city. It should be borne in mind, also, when considering these records, that Dartmouth and Halifax are really parts of one area, for they are on opposite sides of Halifax Harbor, less than a mile apart.

With reference to the observations made in Halifax and Dartmouth, I wish to add that the number of indefinite observations received or learned of was very great. In the presence of a very considerable number of definite observations from that area, it was not thought best to make use of these indefinite ones, but a very fair idea of their nature and extent was gained through conversations, intentional and accidental, and through newspaper reports. After considering the matter carefully, I am of the opinion that a conservative estimate would place the number of adults who, during the winter of 1917-18, saw Robins in Dartmouth or Halifax at forty per cent of the resident adult population of all classes in the two communities. As scarcely any of these people were intentionally looking for Robins, this would indicate a degree of abundance extremely high for the time of year.

Mr. A. Scott Dawson, in his letter of February 13 concerning the large flock of Robins reported by him as remaining for some time near his residence at Pictou, says, “They spend the most of their time on the willows, and are picking at the bark; no doubt they are getting insects, etc., there. They also visit the haw bushes and the holly, as they eat both haws and berries.” Those seen by Mr. Wm. McNeil at Loganville on February 8 are said to have been seeking food on a manure pile. Mrs. H. T. Holmes reports that the two Robins seen by her at Amherst on February 16 “were busily picking among some hay in search of food.” Rev. T. A. Rodger states that those seen by him in Sydney were fed by his children with crumbs, and Mr. Frank Little, writing from Brookfield on March 25, says, “ ... this one [winter] between January 20 and February 6 we fed from our back door two Robins and a flock of nine Pine Grosbeaks. It was very cold here then and both came daily between those dates.” Several of the birds seen by me were in hawthorn trees, and were feeding on the fruit, which hung on the trees in considerable quantities. The two Robins seen by me at Dartmouth on February 1 were hunting along the upper edge of a low, sandy bank, where some plants of the upland cranberry remained uncovered by the snow. When I examined these plants, a few minutes later, I could find no fruit upon them. On February 12 I saw one Robin in a mountain ash tree, planted for ornamental purposes, but it flew from the tree at my approach. There was no fruit remaining on that tree.

In several instances it was reported that the Robins were as bright and as lively as in the springtime, but the birds seen by other observers were stated to be slow and stupid, as though weak or numb. Miss Dorothy Hurtley, in a letter dated February 20, says of a Robin seen in Amherst on January 28, “I thought I could catch it, as it was stupid with cold, but it evaded me by flying a little way ahead of me.” Nearly all the Robins which I saw appeared to be very loth to move, and when finally “flushed” their flight was slow, short, and uncertain. Besides the killing of some Robins at Yarmouth by an owl, two instances of Robins dying were reported. In a letter dated February 19, Mrs. H. T. Holmes says of Robins recently seen by her at Amherst, “One, while flying, seemed to falter and flutter to the ground. Hoping to revive it, it was brought in, but soon died, possibly starved.” Miss Bertha Fullerton, of Pugwash, states, in a letter dated February 26, “My sister is one of the teachers here, and one morning when she went to school there was a frozen Robin on her desk. Likely some of the boys had put it there.”

In order to present as clearly and briefly as possible the fluctuations in the number of Robins reported as observed at different times during the past winter, and to facilitate comparison with the local meteorological conditions at any part of that season, I have prepared three graphs, which are shown herewith. They cover the time from December 2, 1917, to March 16, 1918. The upper graph indicates, as closely as possible, the number of Robins reported to me as seen in Nova Scotia in each week of that period. The second graph shows the total number of inches of snowfall at Halifax for each week of the time considered, and the third graph presents the weekly averages of the daily minimum temperatures (Fahr.) at Halifax. To facilitate comparison, this last graph has been inverted, so that lower temperature is represented in the same way as is heavier snowfall or a greater abundance of Robins. For the data used in preparing the two lower graphs I am indebted to Mr. Fred P. Ronnan, official meteorological observer at Halifax.

From the first graph it is readily apparent that few Robins were noted in the province prior to the middle of January. After that time the number seen increased rapidly, reaching its maximum about February 1, and decreasing a little more gradually until about February 20, after which date few Robins were seen. On account of the scarcity of observers, before mentioned, this line does not show the total number of Robins which were present about the inhabited parts of Nova Scotia in any week, nor can its relation to such total numbers be readily determined. It does serve, however, as a moderately correct indicator of the relative abundance of the Robins about the inhabited parts of the province in one week as compared with another.

The graph indicating the weekly snowfall appears as a line of abrupt changes and sharp angles, showing that the variation in the snowfall from week to week was very marked. Somewhat contrary to expectation, no relation between this line and the Robin graph appears to be traceable. It is possible that, if the average depth of snow on the ground in each week could be depicted graphically, the line thus formed would show more direct relation to the weekly abundance of Robins, but, unfortunately, no data from which such a graph could be prepared are available.

The temperature graph appears to correspond very well with the slopes of the Robin graph, especially in the part of the winter prior to February 20. A period of low temperature in the week ending January 5 is found to correspond with a noticeable increase in the number of Robins reported, while higher temperature during the week ending January 12 accompanies a decrease in the number of Robins seen. From January 12 to February 2 increasingly lower average temperatures are contemporaneous with an increasing abundance of Robins observed, and the extremes of both graphs are reached in the same week. In the week ending February 9 both lines fall slightly lower, and in the next week there is a very considerable decline in both. From that time on the relationship appears less close, for a reason hereinafter stated. Such a close correspondence between the two lines as has been pointed out, however, seems most unlikely to be wholly fortuitous, and would appear to indicate that temperature is a greater factor than had been supposed in causing these birds to seek the neighborhood of man.

The question as to why these Robins were so commonly observed in Nova Scotia last winter is one which at present does not seem to be capable of definite answer, for too many of the possible contributory causes are unknown. Some efforts toward a solution of the problem are, however, here submitted.

In the first place, it would appear fair to presume that these Robins were not, as was popularly supposed, misguided arrivals from the south at an unusually early date. It seems probable that they had remained in Nova Scotia, or in regions still further north, from the time of the fall migration until the time when they were seen here. The fact that few were seen between December 1 and the middle of January is explainable by the supposition that during that time they were living in the deep woods, miles from any human being except an occasional Indian or a gang of lumbermen, and that they were then more widely scattered. In the woods at that time large quantities of juniper berries and mountain ash berries would be available for their food supply.

Whether more Robins than usual remained in Nova Scotia in this way last fall seems an open question. Mr. R. W. Tufts, of Wolfville, N. S., in a letter dated February 13, 1918, which was published in the Halifax “Morning Chronicle” of February 15, gives it as his opinion that there was no unusual number of Robins in the province last winter. He attributes the great number of Robins seen in the province at that season solely to the fact that the snowfall was heavier than usual, which, he says, covered the juniper bushes which supplied the Robins with most of their usual winter food, and so forced them to seek sustenance in the inhabited areas of the province, where they were more easily observed. In opposition to this theory it should be noted that the snowfall of last winter, though heavy, was not of a record-breaking character, while I am informed by Mr. Harry Piers, Curator of the Nova Scotia Provincial Museum, and a veteran Nova Scotian ornithologist, that the abundance of Robin observations during the winter of 1917-18 is, so far as is shown by his records or memory, absolutely without parallel. I have experienced some difficulty in obtaining records of snowfall for years other than the more recent ones, but the monthly snowfalls at Halifax for the winter of 1904-05, for instance, compare with those of the winter of 1917-18 as follows.

_December January February March Total_.
Total snowfall 1904-05 26.3 45.9 37.4 11.6 121.2
(in inches) 1917-18 33.4 15.1 42.8 30.2 121.5

Although the totals for the two winters are practically alike, yet it will be observed that by February 1, 1918, after a snowfall of 48.5 inches in December, 1917, and January, 1918, Robins were observed as fairly common throughout Nova Scotia, whereas a snowfall of 72.2 inches in December, 1904, and January, 1905, appears to have caused no unusual observations of Robins in the province, nor is there record, so far as I can discover, of any larger number of these birds than usual being seen here at any time that winter. These facts would seem to tend to show either that in the winter of 1917-18 an unusual number of Robins did remain in this part of Canada, or that their appearance in the settled parts of the country was due to other causes than the heavy snowfall, or that both of these hypotheses are true.

It has been suggested to me by Prof. E. C. Allen, of Truro, N. S., that many of the Robins seen in Nova Scotia this winter may have spent the first part of the winter outside of this province, in the neighboring, wilder regions to the northward. In proposing this theory he says, “Granting that scattered Robins do remain [in winter] in regions north of Nova Scotia (a fact concerning which I have no evidence), would not the continued cold weather tend to drive them south, and, owing to the contour of the coast, might they not hesitate to cross the water south of us in winter, and therefore be more or less congested here?... It might be argued that Robins would not hesitate to cross the Atlantic strip of water south of us, as many thousands do cross in the fall. On the other hand, might it not be possible that in winter the migratory instinct might not be sufficiently strong to carry them straight out to sea over rough water?” There is need of data from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland concerning winter Robins to throw additional light on this interesting theory.

If the number of Robins which remained here last winter was greater than usual, the cause of this condition is wholly problematical. I have not had such opportunities as I desire for observing the abundance of juniper berries and mountain ash berries in the wilder parts of Nova Scotia last fall or this spring, but no unusual abundance or scarcity of Robin food has been revealed by such observations as I have been able to make. It may be that the migratory instinct failed last fall in a greater number of Robins than usual, and thus more of them were influenced to remain here, or it may be that subtle meteorological forces caused a change in the migration of some of these birds.

It has already been noted that low temperatures seem to have accompanied the appearance of the Robins. In what way the temperature may have caused the Robins to seek the inhabited districts I cannot say, unless it might be by temporarily congealing the surface of swampy and springy areas, which ordinarily remain open in winter weather, and from which the Robins may have obtained food when the rest of the country was covered with snow. Further investigation appears to be much needed here. While considering temperature, it is worthy of note that the past winter was exceptional for one other thing besides the unusual numbers of Robins seen—that is, for its long, unbroken periods of low temperature. A direct relation between these two phenomena may be suggested. In other parts of northern North America this low temperature seems to have caused an unusual scarcity of winter birds, but that was not the case here.

After February 25, although the weather remained severe, there appear to have been no observations of Robins in the province until the arrival of the first spring migrants, noted at Halifax on March 26. This may be due to the birds’ having finally left us for a more congenial climate, but I am strongly inclined to believe that it was caused by the destruction of practically all the Robins in the province, their last available supplies of food having been exhausted. This would account for the disagreement between the Robin graph and the temperature graph after February 20. Although only two dead Robins, other than those killed by an owl, were reported, yet scarcely more than this would be expected, since most of the birds would probably die in out-of-the-way places, and would soon be covered by snow or devoured by animals.

It is hoped that the facts and suggestions here presented may throw some light on the subject of winter Robins and perhaps help to point out some new lines of inquiry, so that before long additional observations and investigations may make the full truth of the matter clear. The observations of the winter of 1917-18 were unusual, but it is often by a study of the unusual that the usual is understood.

REMARKS ON BEEBE’S ‘TROPICAL WILD LIFE.’

BY THOMAS E. PENARD.

In a previous number of ‘The Auk’ (1918, XXXV, p. 91), Dr. Witmer Stone reviewed briefly this interesting volume published by the New York Zoölogical Society, presenting the first season’s work at the tropical research station, established in British Guiana under the direction of Mr. William Beebe. The results obtained by Mr. Beebe and his associates are of such interest and importance, and the work in general so deserving of the reviewer’s praise, that I feel rather reluctant in offering a few slight corrections. My observations are not intended as criticisms, and I would hardly have thought it worth while to express them, were it not for the fact that the very excellence and authoritative character of Mr. Beebe’s book might perhaps have the effect of creating a few misleading impressions in regard to some minor matters with which it deals.

In Chapter VIII Mr. Beebe gives a list of the birds of the Bartica District, in which, for the sake of completeness, he includes some species collected by Whitely at the same place, and listed by Salvin in ‘The Ibis’ for 1885 and 1886. Twenty-two species are starred to indicate that they are new to the Colony of British Guiana. Of this number, however, at least eighteen have been previously recorded from various localities in the Colony as follows:

=Columba plumbea plumbea= VIEILLOT.—Listed by Salvin (Ibis,
1886, p. 173) from Bartica Grove and Camacusa. Percival (Birds
of the Botanic Gardens, 1893, Argosy reprint, p. 6) says that
it is “unfrequent in Gardens, though a common species.” Dawson
(Hand-list of the Birds of British Guiana, 1916, p. 51) lists
it as a Colonial species. Some of these records may, however,
apply to _Œnœnas purpureotincta_ (Ridgway). The form inhabiting
British Guiana is _Œnœnas plumbea locutrix_ (Max.).

=Ibycter americanus= (BODDAERT). Bonson (P. Z. S., 1851, p.
56) records it from Br. Guiana under the name of “Red-headed
Carracarra.” It is listed by Salvin (_l. c._, 1886, p. 77)
from Bartica Grove and Camacusa; by Quelch (Timehri, 1890,
p. 102 and p. 334) from Demerara Falls and Upper Berbice; by
Chubb (The Birds of British Guiana, 1916, i., p. 216, McConnell
coll.) from Kamakabra River, etc., giving range in Br. Guiana;
and by Dawson (_l. c._, p. 7).

=Urochroma batavica= (BODDAERT).—Lloyd (Timehri, 1895, p. 272,
sub nom. _Urochroma cingulata_) mentions it as formerly very
plentiful in the neighborhood of “Groete Creek,” and (_l.
c._, p. 278) gives local range as Essequibo River and N. W.
District; F. P. and A. P. Penard (De Vögels van Guyana, 1908,
i, p. 523) say these birds are not unfrequently seen in Surinam
and Demerara during the Dry Season; Chubb (_l. c._, p. 336, sub
nom. _Touit batavica_) records specimens from Supenaam River
and other localities, and gives range in Br. Guiana; and Dawson
(_l. c._, p. 20) lists it as the “Black-winged Parakeet.”

=Ceryle americana americana= (GMELIN).—Recorded by Salvin (_l.
c._, 1886, p. 60) from Bartica Grove and other localities; by
Sharpe (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1892, xvii, p. 139) from Demerara
River; by Chubb (_l. c._, p. 348) from Bonasika River, etc.,
giving range in Br. Guiana; and by Dawson (_l. c._, p. 16).

=Cypseloides fumigatus= STREUBEL.—F. P. and A. P. Penard (_l.
c._, 1910, ii, p. 95) state that there are specimens in the
Georgetown Museum, and Dawson (_l. c._, p. 34) lists it as a
Colonial species.

=Tapera nævia= (LINNÉ).—Schomburgk (Reis. 1848, iii., p. 713,
sub nom. _Diplopterus galeritus_) says that it is abundant in
coast regions. Quelch (Timehri, 1891, p. 95; Reprint, p. 27)
speaks of it as common in Georgetown; and Percival (_l. c._,
p. 9) states that its frequent plaintive note “Wife-sick”
is one of the most familiar garden sounds. It has also been
recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1886, p. 64) from Bartica Grove
and Roraima; by Shelley (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1891, xix, p.
423) from Georgetown; by Chubb (_l. c._, p. 443) from Ituribisi
River, etc., giving range in Br. Guiana; and by Dawson (_l.
c._, p. 23). The Br. Guiana form stands, _Tapera nævia nævia_
(Linné).

=Pteroglossus aracari aracari= (LINNÉ).—Schomburgk (_l. c._,
p. 720) states that the species is tolerably abundant in Br.
Guiana. It has been recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1886, p. 65)
from Bartica Grove; by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus. 1891, xix,
p. 138) from Demerara; by Chubb (_l. c._, p. 458, sub nom.
_Pteroglossus roraimæ_) from Roraima etc., giving range in Br.
Guiana; and by Dawson (_l. c._, p. 22). The form inhabiting Br.
Guiana is _P. a. atricollis_ (P. L. S. Müller)—see Bangs and
Penard (Bull. M. C. Z., 1918, p. 55).

=Chloronerpes rubiginosus= (SWAINSON).—Schomburgk (_l. c._,
p. 715) says he found it throughout Br. Guiana. It has been
recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1886, p. 59) from Bartica Grove,
Merumé Mountains, and Roraima; by Chubb (_l. c._, p. 483) from
Anarika River, etc., giving range in Br. Guiana; and by Dawson
(_l. c._, p. 24).

=Thamnophilus amazonicus= SCLATER.—Schomburgk (_l. c._, p. 687)
states that it inhabits the low bushes of the coast woods.
It has been recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1885, p. 423) from
Bartica Grove and Camacusa; by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus.,
1890, xv, p. 199) from Takutu River (Salvin-Godman coll.); by
Quelch (Animal Life in Br. Guiana, 1901, p. 182); and by Dawson
(_l. c._, p. 26), who stars the species, indicating that there
are no representatives in the Museum at Georgetown. All these
authors, except Sclater, refer to this species as _Thamnophilus
ruficollis_ [= _amazonicus_ ♀].

=Dysithamnus schistaceus= (D’ORBIGNY). F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 308) state that there are specimens in
the Museum at Georgetown. Dawson (_l. c._, p. 26) lists it as a
Colonial species.

=Automolus infuscatus= SCLATER.—Recorded by Salvin (_l. c._,
1885, p. 420, sub nom. _Automolus sclateri_), from Bartica
Grove, stating that the specimens are rather smaller than those
from the type locality, with faint indication of striation on
the throat; and by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus. 1890, xv, p.
95, sub nom. _Automolus sclateri_) from Camacusa and Bartica
Grove. _Automolus sclateri_ (Pelzeln) is a pure synonym of
_Automolus infuscatus_ Sclater, having been proposed by Pelzeln
(Orn. Bras., 1867, i. p. 41) on the assumption that the name
_Automolus infuscatus_ was preoccupied by _Anabates infuscatus_
Bonaparte, which, however, proves to be a _nomen nudum_ (_Cf._
Hellmayr, Nov. Zool., 1905, xii, p. 279). Mr. Beebe lists both
_infuscatus_ and _cervicalis_, apparently considering them two
distinct species, the former only being starred as new to the
Colony. Hellmayr (Nov. Zool., 1906, xiii, p. 335) says that
“the specimens of _Automolus sclateri_ from British Guiana in
the British Museum are absolutely identical with the type of
_P. cervicalis_,” and states that the type of _P. cervicalis_
is an immature bird. He lists the Guiana form, which differs
from true _infuscatus_, as _Automolus infuscatus cervicalis_
(Sclater), type locality “Camacusa and Bartica Grove.”

Apparently, then, records of _A. infuscatus_, _A. sclateri_,
and _A. cervicalis_, in Br. Guiana, apply to the same bird.

=Sclerurus rufigularis= PELZELN.—Hellmayr (Nov. Zool., 1906,
xiii, p. 364) mentions an immature bird from Takutu River, Br.
Guiana, and says (_l. c._, p. 365) that there is a specimen in
the British Museum collected by Whitely at Bartica Grove. He
also says that the Br. Guiana Museum has a ♂ from Ourumee.

=Xiphorhynchus guttatoides= (LAFRESNAYE).—The form
_guttatoides_ of Colombia, is a subspecies of _Xiphorhynchus
guttatus_ Lichtenstein, of which the race inhabiting Br.
Guiana is _X. g. sororius_ (Berlepsch and Hartert), type
locality Perico, Orinoco River. Berlepsch and Hartert (Nov.
Zool., 1902, ix, p. 63), who originally described this form as
_Dendrornis rostripallens sororia_, mention a specimen from
Quonja, Br. Guiana, coll. Whitely, agreeing with birds from
Perico. Schomburgk (_l. c._, p. 690, sub nom. _Dendrocolaptes
guttatus_) says he found it throughout Br. Guiana; Salvin
(_l. c._, 1885, p. 422), referring to it as _Dendrornis
guttatoides_, records a specimen from Bartica Grove; and Dawson
(_l. c._, p. 29) lists it under the same name. Quelch (Animal
Life in Br. Guiana, 1901, p. 177), speaking of _Dendrornis
pardalotus_ and _Dendrornis guttatoides_, says that one or both
of these species will invariably be found in collections made
in the forest districts.

=Elænia guianensis= BERLEPSCH.—The type locality of this
species is Camacusa, British Guiana. It has been recorded by
Salvin (_l. c._, 1885, p. 295) as _Elainea elegans_, from
Bartica Grove, Camacusa, etc.; by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus.,
1888, xiv, p. 150) as _Elainea gaimardi_, from Roraima; and by
Dawson (_l. c._, p. 13) as _Myiopagis gaimardi_. The Br. Guiana
form now stands, _Myiopagis gaimardii guianensis_ (Berlepsch).

=Empidochanes fuscatus cabanisi= LÉOTAUD.—Recorded by Salvin
(_l. c._, 1885, p. 297, sub nom. _Empidochanes olivus_) from
Bartica Grove; and by Sclater (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1888, xiv,
p. 224, sub nom. _Empidonax oliva_), who states that this is
the northern form of _E. bimaculatus_ (d’Orb. and Lafr.),
adding that he was doubtful whether it was really entitled to
the name _oliva_. The type locality of _cabanisi_ is Trinidad.
The form inhabiting Cayenne is _Empidochanes fuscatus fumosus_
Berlepsch, to which we suppose the Surinam bird also belongs.

=Riparia riparia= (LINNÉ).-Recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1885,
p. 206) as _Cotile riparia_, from Bartica Grove.

=Sporophila bouvronides= (LESSON).—Brabourne and Chubb (Birds
of South America, 1912, i, p. 367) refer _S. ocellata_ (Scl.
and Salv.) to this species, and give the type locality
Trinidad. References to _S. ocellata_ in Guiana probably apply
to the same bird which Mr. Beebe had in hand. Mr. Beebe also
lists _S. lineola_ (Linn.). Sharpe (Cat. Birds Br. Mus., 1888,
xii, p. 130) lists _S. ocellata_ from Carimang River, Br.
Guiana. Dawson (_l. c._, p. 48) mentions both _ocellata_ and
_lineola_.

=Thraupis palmarum palmarum= (WIED).—Schomburgk (_l. c._, p.
670, sub nom. _Tanagra olivascens_) states that it is abundant
at the coast. It has been recorded by Salvin (_l. c._, 1885, p.
210) from Bartica Grove and Roraima; by Quelch (Timehri, 1891,
p. 81; Reprint, p. 13) who says it is common in Georgetown,
mentioning the species again later (Animal Life in Br. Guiana,
1901, p. 113); by Price (Timehri, 1891, p. 63) who describes
the eggs; by Percival (_l. c._, p. 16) who states that it
is “not very often seen in the Gardens, though common among
the innumerable cocoanut palms in and about town,” where the
writer also has seen it; and by Dawson (_l. c._, p. 46; and
Timehri, 1911, p. 272). The type locality of _palmarum_ is
Bahia, and judging from material examined, I would say that
birds from Cayenne, Surinam, and Br. Guiana, differ distinctly
from true _palmarum_, and are more nearly allied to, if not
indistinguishable from, the Eastern Peruvian race, _Thraupis
palmarum melanoptera_ (Sclater).

=Saucerottia erythronota= (LESSON).—With reference to this
species also marked with a star, we do not find in Mr. Beebe’s
list _Agyrtrina fimbriata fimbriata_ (Gmelin), which is common
in Br. Guiana, and which has been recorded from Bartica by
Chubb (_l. c._, p. 395). This bird has sometimes been confused
with _Saucerottia erythronota_ (_Cf._ Salvin, Cat. Birds Br.
Mus., 1892, xvi, p. 187) and has been listed from Bartica by
Salvin (Ibis, 1885, p. 435) under the name _Agyrtrina tobaci_
of which _erythronota_, type locality Trinidad, is a subspecies.

A longer stay at Bartica, no doubt would have augmented Mr. Beebe’s list considerably. For instance, Mr. Chubb, in his work on the birds of British Guiana, records twenty-seven species in the McConnell Collection, which are not included in Mr. Beebe’s list.

In Chapter XIII we find an account of the author’s ornithological discoveries, pertaining mostly to nests and eggs, with excellent photographic illustrations. Some of these discoveries, however, are by no means entirely new, reliable information on nests and eggs having been published in regard to at least twelve of the seventeen species discussed. Attention is called to the following records:

=Chæmepelia talpacoti= (TEMMINCK AND KNIP).—Dalgleish (Proc.
Roy. Phys. Soc. Edinburgh, 1889, x, p. 86) describes two nests,
each containing two eggs, found Nov. 20, 1886, in Paraguay.
Nehrkorn (Kat. Eiersamm, 1899, p. 184) lists eggs from
Paraguay, 23 × 18 mm. Euler (Rev. Mus. Paulista, 1900, iv, p.
98) describes nests and eggs, 22.5 × 18 mm. Ihering (Rev. Mus.
Paulista, 1900, iv, p. 282) describes nest and eggs, and says
that he found a nest built upon the deserted nest of another
bird, containing two eggs, 22 × 17 mm. F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1908, i, p. 340) describe habits, nests, and eggs
under _C. rufipennis_, assuming _talpacoti_ and _rufipennis_
identical in Surinam, judging from specimens which had been
identified for them in England as _rufipennis_. Apparently
there is some confusion here, and the bird identified as
_rufipennis_ was probably the newly described _Chæmepelia
arthuri_ Bangs and Penard, (Bull. M. C. Z. 1917, p. 45).

=Geotrygon [= Oreopelia] montana= (LINNÉ).—Eggs listed by
Nehrkorn (_l. c._, p. 186) from Rio Grande, Mexico, and Porto
Rico, brownish, 27 × 21 mm. F. P. and A. P. Penard (_l. c._,
1908, i, p. 347) say that the nest is very much like that of
_Leptoptila_, placed on low branches of trees and in bushes;
eggs, short-elliptical, brownish cream-color, 27 × 21.5 mm.;
breeds in the Dry Season. Site, nest, and eggs, have also been
described by Lawrence (Proc. U. S. N. M., 1879, i, p. 276), by
Wells (Ibid., 1887, p. 625), and by Scott (Auk, 1892, ix, p.
124, quoting Taylor).

=Porzana albicollis= (VIEILLOT).—Nehrkorn (_l. c._, p. 202)
describes eggs from Surinam, meas. 35 × 26 mm. Ihering (_l.
c._, p. 286) describes eggs received from Iguape, meas. 35-26
× 27-28; he says that the eggs described by Euler (_l. c._, p.
102) undoubtedly belong to another species. F. P. and A. P.
Penard (_l. c._, 1908, i, p. 206) describe habits, site, nest,
and eggs, meas. 35 × 27 mm.

=Creciscus viridis= (P. L. S. MÜLLER).—Nehrkorn (_l. c._, p.
203) describes eggs from “Guyana,” meas. 32 × 23 mm. F. P.
and A. P. Penard (_l. c._, 1908, i, p. 210) describe habits,
nest, and site fully; eggs two, rarely three, usually oval,
pure white, almost without gloss, meas. 32 × 26 mm.; they say
further that the eggs do not vary much, some having a few
black-brown spots at the large end; in the nests are often
found infertile and abnormal eggs.

=Caprimulgus [= Nyctipolus] nigrescens= CABANIS.—Nehrkorn (_l.
c._, p. 156) lists eggs from Amazonia, meas. 23.5 × 18.5 mm. F.
P. and A. P. Penard (_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 78) describe eggs,
one or two, barely glossy, elliptical, pale yellowish-rose,
distinctly spotted and blotched with chocolate-brown and
purple-gray, meas. 25 × 18.5 mm. The eggs described by
Schomburgk (_l. c._, p. 711) must have belonged to another
species.

=Empidonomus varius varius= (VIEILLOT).—Mr. Beebe (_l. c._, p.
225) states that “although the eggs of this species have been
collected no description of the nest has been given.” We would
call attention to description of a nest by Ihering (Rev. Mus.
Paulista, 1914, ix, p. 443 and p. 482); the nest was collected
by Garbe near Joazeiro, Bahia, in November, 1913.

=Pipra aureola aureola= (LINNÉ).—F. P. and A. P. Penard (_l.
c._, 1910, ii, p. 188) describe site and nest fully, giving
measurements; the eggs are described as two, dull brownish
gray, with numerous dark-brown spots, streaks, and dots, over
the entire surface, but usually, on one of the eggs of a
clutch, forming a wreath at the middle; meas. 21 × 15.5 mm.

=Cyanerpes cyaneus cyaneus= (LINNÉ).—F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 475) say that the nests and eggs, 20 ×
14 mm., do not differ much from those of _C. cærulea_, under
which name they give full descriptions of nests and eggs. The
eggs are described as two in number, oval, almost without
gloss, black or purplish black-brown. The nest is described as
made of little black roots, pear-shaped or shoe-shaped, with
entrance low down at the side, measuring 16 cm. high and 9 cm.
across, suspended like the nest of _Todirostrum_ from twigs
two to five feet from ground. J. A. Allen (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat.
Hist., 1891, iii, p. 348) under the name _Arbelorhina cyanea_
describes an egg collected by H. H. Smith, “taken with parents,
Oct. 13, 1882,” in Matto Grosso, Brazil, but judging from the
description, it must have belonged to some other species.

Under the general heading of “Seed eaters” Mr. Beebe (_l. c._,
p. 237), speaking of _Oryzoborus angolensis brevirostris_,
_Oryzoborus crassirostris_, and _Sporophila castaneiventris_,
says, “Familiarity breeds contempt. There could be no truer
saying than where these little finches were concerned. In spite
of diligent search through all the few reports and excerpts on
the subject, no description of the home or eggs of these birds
could be found, and yet, in April and May, their nests were
everywhere.” H. Lloyd Price, in his paper on “The Nests and
Eggs of some common Guiana Birds” (Timehri, 1891, p. 64), says
in a general way, “Various species of small finches or grass
birds (_Spermophila_, etc.), build tiny nests in the long grass
growing at the sides of the trenches; they are generally made
of dry grass, and occasionally of dry sticks. The eggs, two in
number, are of a grayish white spotted with either red, brown
or grey, and of various sizes.” Much more definite information
in regard to the breeding habits, nests, and eggs of the
seed-eaters will be found in the works of F. P. and A. P.
Penard, Ihering, Euler, and Nehrkorn. We would call attention
to the following accounts pertaining to the species mentioned
by Mr. Beebe:

=Oryzoborus angolensis brevirostris= BERLEPSCH.—Nehrkorn (_l.
c._, p. 105) describes eggs from Brazil. Ihering (Rev. Mus.
Paulista, 1900, iv, p. 213) describes nest and eggs. F. P. and
A. P. Penard (_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 388) says that the nest is
smaller than that of _O. crassirostris_; the eggs are fully
described. All these authors deal with this species under the
name _O. torridus_.

=Sporophila castaneiventris= CABANIS.—Nehrkorn (_l. c._, p.
105) describes eggs from Amazonia. F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 389) describe habits, nest, and eggs
fully. They add the following interesting remarks (translated):
“The examples vary very much in form and color as well as in
measurements. In many the markings form a distinct wreath about
the larger end, others being uniformly covered with gray-brown
or brown. Those with wreathed ends are usually of a more oval
shape than the evenly covered eggs, but both types are often
found together in the same nest. It is thought [by the natives]
that the more pointed egg hatches the male, and the browner egg
the female. Eggs of a more spherical shape are less common with
this species than with the next [_S. minuta_].”

=Oryzoborus crassirostris crassirostris= (GMELIN).—F. P. and A.
P. Penard (_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 387) describe habits, nest,
and eggs fully, with similar remarks in regard to variations in
shape and coloration of eggs, both types sometimes being found
in the same nest.

=Sporophila bouvronides= (LESSON). F. P. and A. P. Penard
(_l. c._, 1910, ii, p. 392, sub nom. _S. ocellata_) compare
nest to that of _S. minuta_, and eggs with those of _S.
castaneiventris_, but say that the eggs of this species average
a little longer and also a little grayer, with remarks in
regard to the two types of eggs.

In another chapter the author gives much interesting information regarding the habits of Tinamous. By an ingenious experiment he is led to the discovery that birds of the genus _Tinamus_ sleep at night in trees, while those of the genus _Crypturus_ always pass the night upon the ground. He accordingly correlates this difference in habits to the character of the back of the tarsus, which in _Tinamus_ is rough, and in _Crypturus_ quite smooth. He goes on to say (_l. c._, p. 255):

“These two distinctions have been recognized for many
years—_Tinamus_ for more than one hundred and thirty,
and _Crypturus_ for a hundred and six years, and during
all this time ornithologists have accepted this character
without thought or question.”

I may say that the roosting habits of Tinamous are well known to hunters in Surinam, and according to Mr. Beebe himself they were not unknown to his Akawai hunter, Nupee, in whose statements, however, Mr. Beebe seemed disposed to place less confidence than in his own experiment, notwithstanding the fact that in either case conclusive evidence could only be sought in actual observation in the field.

Nearly one hundred years ago Charles Waterton (Wanderings in South America, 1825, p. 286) called attention to these habits and suggested that the state of the tarsus might have some bearing upon them. These are his words:

“There is something remarkable in the great Tinamou, which
I suspect has hitherto escaped notice. It invariably
roosts in trees; but the feet are so very small in
proportion to the body of this bulky bird, that they can
be of no use to it in grasping the branch; and, moreover,
the hind toe is so short, that it does not touch the
ground when the bird is walking. The back part of the leg,
just below the knee, is quite flat, and somewhat concave.
On it are strong pointed scales, which are very rough, and
catch your finger as you move it along from the knee to
the toe. Now, by means of these scales, and the particular
flatness of that part of the leg, the bird is enabled to
sleep in safety upon the branch of a tree.”

In regard to the “small Tinamou,” Waterton (_Ibid._, p. 287) says, “The foot of this bird is very small in proportion, but the back part of the leg bears no resemblance to that of the larger Tinamou; hence one might conclude that it sleeps on the ground.”

Here then, we have at least one naturalist to whom “the casual, nominal affair between Hermann and Illiger versus _Tinamus_ and _Crypturus_” was not all.

But Waterton was not the only writer who has mentioned these things. Schomburgk, (_l. c._, p. 749) under the name _Trachypelmus subcristatus_ [= _Tinamus major_ (Gmel.)], speaks of the relation of the rough tarsus to the bird’s habit of roosting in trees, but under _Crypturus variegatus_ (Wagler) (_Ibid._, p. 748) says that he does not know whether that species also passes the night in trees. More recently F. P. and A. P. Penard, under the names _Tinamus subcristatus_ (_l. c._ 1908, i, p. 318) and _Crypturus variegatus_ (_Ibid._, p. 322) definitely state the bearing of the construction of the tarsi in these two genera upon the dissimilarity in roosting habits.

Mr. Beebe’s discoveries in regard to the homes of Toucans, also, are extremely interesting, although the state of affairs regarding our knowledge of the life history of Toucans was really not so scanty as conveyed by the few words of Levaillant which the author quotes. It may be of interest to call attention here to a Toucan egg said to be of _Ramphastos ariel_ Vigors, collected by Krone at Iguape, and recorded by Ihering (Rev. Mus. Paulista, 1900, iv, p. 262). It is described as oval, measuring 37 × 28 mm., white, with deep pits on the surface. Schomburgk, Burmeister, and others from time to time, have mentioned Toucan eggs, but beyond saying that the eggs were white, two in number, laid in holes in trees, they did not give much information.

In concluding I wish to emphasize that I appreciate fully Mr. Beebe’s good work at the research station in British Guiana, and my remarks should not be construed as having been made with the purpose of depreciating the excellent publication, of which I have discussed, after all, only some very unimportant details.

PROBLEMS SUGGESTED BY NESTS OF WARBLERS OF THE GENUS _DENDROICA_.

BY JOHN TREADWELL NICHOLS.

The genus _Dendroica_ with center of abundance in eastern North America, containing numerous closely related birds, inhabiting in a general way the same region and boldly contrasted the one from the other in plumage, constitutes a striking natural phenomenon calling for explanation.[18]

First what advantage to the race can there be in the evolution of so many species of similar habits? Probably though in the main not unlike, a careful comparative study of the species will show that sufficient difference of habit accompanies each to make it fit a slightly different niche in the environment. I mention a single phase, the construction of the nest. For my data on warbler nests I am indebted to Mr. P. B. Philipp of New York, who possesses a very complete personally collected series of these. In his collection we have together verified interesting points that he has learned, and also worked out other matters.

The nests of different species of _Dendroica_, even when found in the same country, are remarkably distinct and can usually be recognized at a glance. In Northumberland County, New Brunswick, a locality with which Mr. Philipp is particularly familiar, Cape May, Yellow, Black-throated Blue, Myrtle, Magnolia, Baybreasted, Blackpoll, Blackburnian, Black-throated Green, and Yellow Palm Warblers all breed, and he has found the nests of all but the Blackburnian placed in spruces at different heights. The nest of the Blackburnian has not been found here, but doubtless is placed high up in the spruces, as he has found it in such situations in Pennsylvania. The Yellow Palm Warbler usually nests on the ground in moss or dead ferns, but one nest was placed a few inches from the ground in a small spruce. Though a single nest of the Yellow Warbler was found in a spruce, that species may nest more commonly in the willows. Cape May, Myrtle, and Blackburnian Warblers nest high, the other species low.

The nest of the Black-throated Blue has a characteristically pale exterior, weed stems, pale bark, and rotten wood-chips being favorite materials for the bird to use in its construction. It is lined with black, hair-like, slightly crinkly substance, much used for that purpose by Warblers, the stem of a woodland ground-moss (the Cape May has been seen gathering this material). Occasionally horse-hair is substituted for it. In the Black-throated Green, spruce twigs and birch-bark whorls are characteristic of the exterior; hair and an occasional feather, of the interior. The Myrtle and Blackpoll both line the nest heavily with feathers; but the exterior is very different in the two,—in the Myrtle compact, of spruce twigs and fine dry grass, in the Blackpoll loose and bulky, rotten wood-chips, mosses, and a few twigs being used. The Magnolia lines its nest with horse-hair if it can get it, this material being present in Pennsylvania nests taken where it was obtainable, but will use other hair or “moss-stems.” One half or more of Mr. Phillipp’s nests are lined with horse-hair. The Magnolia’s nest is composed outside entirely or almost entirely of spruce twigs or grass and is a ragged looking nest. The Baybreast builds a ragged nest that looks like that of the Magnolia but is much larger; for lining it uses fine roots or “moss-stems.” The Cape May’s nest is thick-walled, rather flat, with fine sticks, a little grass and characteristic dried green moss on the outside, feathers and usually light colored hairs neatly molded down inside. A few “moss-stems” are used in construction, and outside, here and there are specks of very adhesive down. Mr. Phillipp has seen a Cape May gathering fur from a dead rabbit, and also apparently picking hair out of a brush-pile.

As regards other species, the Blackburnian builds a nest resembling the Magnolia’s but more compact and placed higher. The nest of the Yellow Warbler is smooth, very pale, of plant-down without, and fern-down within. The Yellow Palm Warbler’s nest, usually placed on the ground in moss at the foot of a small spruce, is bulky, fairly thick-walled, of grass lined with fine rootlets often combined with some porcupine and at times other hair, and with usually only a few feathers.

There is some variation in the typical location of the nests by species, and in general the nest is very inconspicuous in its location. The dried moss on the Cape May’s nest may be especially adapted to conceal it (from below) in the spruce tops from its enemy, the Red-Squirrel. The Baybreasts’ ragged nest, well out on a low limb, is almost transparent. The pale Black-throated Blue nest in New Brunswick spruces is placed close to the trunk where it is well concealed; nesting in the rhododendrons in Pennsylvania, the Black-throated Blue nest is well concealed by the glint of light on the rhododendron leaves.

The nest of a bird is one of the most notable products of its instinct. Obviously much precision is necessary in selecting the appropriate materials and fitting them together, for the attainment of a successful product. That to obtain the right materials is a problem to the individual bird is evidenced by the adoption of horse-hair by the Magnolia Warbler to supplant the very similar “moss-stems” which doubtless were its original material. The Chipping Sparrow must have substituted horse-hair for some pre-civilization material, and its habits are such that horse-hair is almost always obtainable by it and now almost the invariable nest-lining for the species. It is clear that to be successful the nest-building instinct of a given species must be pretty well fixed, that a bird must know what material it will use, also were all the _Dendroicas_ dependent on,—let us say, feathers, horse-hair, or rabbit fur, there would be less of it for each, and specific differentiation is thus an advantage to the Dendroicine population as a whole.

Secondly, what advantage to the species is there in their contrasted plumages—in the writer’s opinion the colors of each act as a uniform, facilitating the recognition by a bird of its own kind just as they facilitate its recognition by a bird student.[19]

A varicolored group of animals such as _Dendroica_, where many related species occupy the same locality,—other such groups come to the writer’s mind, notably among tropical reef fishes,—should be considered in formulating or accepting theories on species formation. In many cases isolation and reinvasion are doubtless the succeeding steps in speciation, a process clearly indicated by work recently done by Taylor on the mammals of California.[20] There is no inherent impossibility of the many _Dendroicas_ of eastern North America having been similarly evolved, but with them it would seem to have been a difficult and complicated process instead of a simple and easy one, as with sedentary mammals in a broken country, and may not the forms have arisen for biological advantage without these steps?

FOOTNOTES:

[18] Nichols, J. T., American Naturalist. September, 1916; pp. 565-574.

[19] Nichols, J. T., Auk. Jan. 1912; pp. 44-48.

[20] Taylor, Walter P. Univ. of Cal. pub. Zoölogy, Vol. 12, no. 15, March, 1916.

ON THE POPULAR NAMES OF BIRDS.

BY ERNEST THOMPSON SETON.

Everyone who has studied the subject knows the enormous projectile power of the exact right name when one wishes to secure popular acceptation of any idea. The amount of effort and ability, devoted by men in commerce to securing the right name is evidence of the experienced view in dealing with the problem. Thousands of dollars in prizes are offered for a good name to be given to some new article, picture, idea, hotel or town. Because these experts know that the happy name makes all the difference between failure and nation-wide acceptation.

We have precisely the same problem offered us in dealing with our birds. The scientific names must, of course, be left to the scientific experts, who, we must admit, take them very seriously; but the popular names have been treated in a most casual or contemptuous way, in many cases ignored altogether.

The attitude of the scientists recalls that of the pedantic classical scholars of the early Queen Anne period. They had imbibed such a contempt for the English language of the day that they set about seriously to rewrite the King James Bible “in dignified English.” The first phrase of the Prodigal Son, for example, in the authorized version is as follows: “A certain man had two sons and the younger of them said to his father,” etc. Such simple language, they said, “savored of the nursery and stank of the gutter,” so they rewrote it, in their “dignified English” as follows:—“In remote antiquity, antedating the meticulous epoch of precise chronology, there was an opulent and distinguished gentleman who resided in the agricultural district of the Orient, and was the progenitor of two adult descendants of the masculine gender. Having attained to majority and, presumably, the years of discretion, the junior scion addressed his immediate ancestral paternal relative and thus expressed the result of a prolonged, solitary and introspective cogitation.”