Chapter VI: Part 6

=_Larus canus brachyrhynchus_ in Wyoming.=—A Wyoming specimen of _Larus canus brachyrhynchus_, a male in juvenal plumage, has for many years been in the collection of the Biological Survey, in the United States National Museum. It is No. 141395, U. S. Nat. Mus., and was taken on Lake Fork, a tributary of the Green River, at an altitude of 10,000 feet in the Wind River Mountains, Wyoming, on August 28, 1893, by Mr. Vernon Bailey. It has already been recorded incidentally (Cooke, Bull. U. S. Dept. Agric, No. 292, October 25, 1915, p. 47), but owing to its importance it seems worthy of special notice in a place more accessible to ornithologists generally. It represents the easternmost record of _Larus canus brachyrhynchus_, and the only really interior occurrence of the species in the United States. For the change of the name of this bird from _Larus brachyrhynchus_ to _Larus canus brachyrhynchus_ see ‘The Auk,’ XXXVI, No. 1, January, 1919, p. 83.—HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._

_Polysticta_ =Eyton versus= _Stelleria_ =Bonaparte=.—Mr. G. M. Mathews has recently (Austral Avian Record, III, No. 5, December 28, 1917, p. 123) advocated the use of the generic name _Stellaria_ Bonaparte for the species now known as _Polysticta stelleri_ (Pallas). The term _Stelleria_ is, of course, as he shows, not debarred from employment in zoölogy by the previous use of _Stellaria_ in botany; but he has apparently overlooked the fact that _Polysticta_ is _not_ preoccupied, since _Polysticte_ Smith (Illust. South Afr. Zoöl.), June [or later], 1836, does not invalidate _Polysticta_ Eyton (Catal. Brit. Birds), April, 1836, a fact to which Dr. C. W. Richmond long ago (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XVI, September 30, 1903, p. 128) called attention. It is evident, therefore, that the name of Steller’s Eider should remain _Polysticta stelleri_ (Pallas).—HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._

=Further Record of the European Widgeon at Madison, Wis.=—On April 14, 1918, in the wide-water at the head of Lake Waubesa, four miles south of Madison, I was able to identify unmistakably a typical specimen of the European Widgeon (_Mareca penelope_) that was in the company of seventeen Baldpates (_Mareca americana_). The bird was drawn so close by my 40-power telescope that it covered one-third of the field and allowed close study.

It may be of further interest to restate the substance of a note submitted by Mr. A. W. Schorger to the January, 1918 issue of ‘The Auk’ in regard to the recent appearance of the European Widgeon in the vicinity of Madison. On April 22, 1917, a specimen was discovered by Mr. Schorger on the Hammersley Marsh in company with about thirty Baldpates and a few other ducks. It remained at least four days and was seen by me at close range on three occasions; the last being on the 26th. On the 28th Mr. George H. Jenkins observed a specimen, perhaps the same, among a flock of Baldpates on the Yahara Marshes ten miles distant.—WARNER TAYLOR, _Madison, Wisconsin_.

=A Late Record for= _Rallus elegans_ =for Maine.=—November 22, 1909, Mr. A. G. Dorr, Bucksport, Me., collected and sent me in the flesh a fine male specimen of the King Rail. It measured as follows: length, 16.30; wing, 6.75; tail, 2.10; tarsus, 2.34 and bill, 2.40 inches. It was marked above with brownish-black and olive-brown feather edging; light throat and rufous-cinnamon, breast and flanks fuscous, distinctly barred with white. It was in good physical condition and apparently well able to join the majority of its species in the South had it so chosen.

Mr. Dorr considered this a rare bird for Maine, especially so in the fall. There are a number of fall and winter records for Massachusetts and Maine, but I consider the occurrence sufficiently unusual to be worth recording.—C. L. PHILLIPS, _Taunton, Mass._

=The Proper Generic Name of the Ruff.=—The generic name now used for the European Ruff is _Machetes_ Cuvier (Regne Animal, I, 1817, p. 490; type by monotypy, _Tringa pugnax_ Linnæus). This name has been preferred over _Pavoncella_ Leach (Syst. Cat. Indig. Mamm. and Birds Brit. Mus., 1816, p. 29), because the latter was supposed to be a nomen nudum. It was introduced by Leach, however, in combination with the specific term _pugnax_, which is, of course, readily identifiable and of undoubted application to the Ruff. The name is on exactly the same basis as _Spatula_ Boie (Isis, X, 1822, col. 564) and several other names proposed by him and by other authors at various times. All these names have hitherto been accepted without question as entirely warranted by both the International and A. O. U. Codes of Nomenclature; and there is no more reason for rejecting _Pavoncella_ than any of the other names.

The name _Pavoncella_, however, will not become the generic name of the Ruff, as Dr. C. W. Richmond has already shown (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., LIII, August 16, 1917, p. 581), and Mr. G. M. Mathews emphasized (Austral Avian Record, III, No. 5, Dec. 28, 1917, p. 117). There is an earlier name, _Philomachus_, proposed by an anonymous reviewer of Bechstein’s Ornithologische Taschenbuch (Allgem. Lit.-Zeitung, 1804, Vol. II, No. 168, June 8, 1804, col. 542), the type of which is, by monotypy, _Tringa pugnax_ Linnæus. This name is proposed in a perfectly legitimate way with a diagnosis and citation of species, and is, of course, not to be rejected because anonymous. The name of the Ruff will, therefore, become _Philomachus pugnax_ (Linnæus).—HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._

_Heteractitis_ =versus= _Heteroscelus_.—The generic name now in use for the Wandering Tattler is _Heteractitis_ Stejneger.[30] This term was proposed as a substitute for _Heteroscelus_ Baird,[31] because the latter was considered invalid on account of the prior _Heteroscelis_ Latreille, instituted in 1829 for a genus of Coleoptera. According to our present rules of nomenclature, however, _Heteroscelis_ does not preoccupy _Heteroscelus_, since the two words differ not merely in grammatical termination, but have different classical endings. Mr. G. M. Mathews a few years ago called attention[32] to the desirability of using _Heteroscelus_, but other authors seem generally to have overlooked the matter. In view of the facts in this case it will apparently now be necessary to reinstate Baird’s name _Heteroscelus_ as the generic designation of the Wandering Tattler. The two species of the genus will therefore stand as follows:

_Heteroscelus brevipes_ (Vieillot).
_Heteroscelus incanus_ (Gmelin).
HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._

=The Status of= _Charadrius rubricollis_ =Gmelin=.—A good service has been performed by Mr. G. M. Mathews in the identification of _Charadrius rubricollis_ Gmelin. Unfortunately, however, he neglects to employ this name for the species to which he has shown that it belongs (Birds of Australia, III, pt. 2, May 2, 1913, pp. 130-132). It was originally based by Gmelin (Syst. Nat., I, pt. 2, 1789, p. 687) on the “Red-necked Plover” of Latham, from Adventure Bay, Tasmania. As Mr. Mathews has proved, Latham’s description (Syn. Birds, III, pt. 1, p. 212, No. 19) was taken from the Ellis drawings in the British Museum, and is found to fit the species currently called _Charadrius cucullatus_ Vieillot, except for the statement that there is “on each side of the neck a large square chestnut spot, the size of a silver penny, almost meeting together at the back part,” and “a little mixture of white about the bastard wing,” which two characters evidently were taken by mistake from the drawing of _Steganopus tricolor_. This is, therefore, a case of two species confused under the same name; or of a species described with partly erroneous characters; or, in fact, of both, according to the point of view. If we consider only that the characters given have been taken from two species, the name _Charadrius rubricollis_ must be used for one of the species involved if the name can be identified, and that it can, Mr. Mathews has shown. Such adoption is sanctioned by both the International and A. O. U. Codes of Nomenclature, and by common usage as well. The name, therefore, should apply to the species to which the greater or most pertinent part of the description refers, which in this case is, of course, _Charadrius cucullatus_. If, however, we take the view that it is erroneously described, neither current usage nor the commonly accepted codes of nomenclature allow its rejection because of indefinite or even erroneous characters, if the description can be positively determined as pertaining to a certain species. Thus, in any case, we should call the species ordinarily known as _Charadrius cucullatus_ Vieillot by the name _Charadrius rubricollis_ Gmelin. Its two forms will, therefore, stand as _Charadrius rubricollis rubricollis_ Gmelin and _Charadrius rubricollis tregellasi_ Mathews.—HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._

=A Self-tamed Ruffed Grouse.=—The following is an account of a tame Ruffed Grouse: the first statement is by Miss Torrey. In the spring of 1914, probably in April, as I was driving back and forth to the village to High School, I first noticed a rustling in the leaves and bushes by the side of the road and watched until I found out that it was caused by a Partridge or Ruffed Grouse. After that I always let the horse walk past the spot, and the bird would walk under cover of the trees for about a hundred yards or more, but never would go any farther. I never tried to tame the bird, only keeping quiet as I liked to have it follow me. It seemed as if it was always watching for me night and morning.

My father first noticed the Partridge in May, when he was plowing, which was on the opposite side of the road, quite a distance from where the bird followed me. As my father is fond of all animals he quickly made a pet of this one and, if I remember rightly, fed it. The bird would follow him while he was plowing but never went with him to the barn.

I think this Partridge must have been left alone, as at that time there were no others about. I should say it was lonely and finding that I did not hurt it, it followed me, until it made friends with others. We never knew of anyone having a tame Partridge or being able to tame one before. The continuation of the account of this bird is by Miss Knight as follows: On returning to Deer Isle, Maine, my home town, to spend the summer of 1914, I heard the neighbors talking about a tame Partridge. They told me that Miss Torrey, as she drove through the woods during the latter part of the winter and early spring, had often seen a Partridge following the team.

My own experience with the bird began a few days later when we went into the woods after strawberries. As we walked along the road a Partridge followed us closely, possibly three or four rods away, in the edge of the wood. We crossed the road and went into the woods on the other side and I forgot all about the bird until suddenly he flew out from under my very feet. When I came home the Partridge walked down the wood road, flew across the highway road, and followed me fifteen or twenty rods on the side on which I had first seen him.

A few days after this, when father and I were driving to the village we saw the bird again following us for a few rods.

Accidentally we discovered that we could call him at any time we wished by going to the section of wood which he frequented, and whistling. After we had whistled a few minutes he always appeared, never on the wing but walking, coming from various directions but always on the same side of the road, although later if we crossed the road he crossed also. As the summer passed he became more and more friendly, often hopping up into our laps. As he strutted around us he frequently made a soft cooing sound in his throat. He never liked to be caught and held, but would allow himself to be petted. He would feed from our hands. He did not care for corn, but enjoyed berries, especially huckleberries. During the summer he shed out all his long tail feathers, as may be seen in some of the photographs, and we kept several of these feathers as souvenirs.

The bird seemed to have a fondness for the color blue, for he would hop up into the lap of anyone dressed in that color. One day I tested this several times as follows. I wore a blue skirt under a pink skirt. So long as the pink skirt was prominent he would not come into my lap. As soon as I folded that back he came up onto the blue skirt.

Throughout the summer we showed the bird to many of our friends. In the fall, father talked of taking him home; but I, thinking that he might be unhappy if confined, urged that he be left in his natural surroundings. Late in the fall some workmen who did not know the story of the tame Partridge were driving through the woods and the bird flew on the horse’s back and then down into the road. One of the workmen seized a tool from his kit and threw it, striking the bird and killing him.—RUTH M. TORREY AND MARTHA G. KNIGHT, _Deer Isle, Maine_.

=Unusual Contents of a Mourning Dove’s Nest.=—On May 5, 1917 while passing a clump of thorns, a Mourning Dove flushed from her nest therein, and was almost immediately followed by a young bird, nearly full grown and able to fly fairly well, which awkwardly alighted near by. As it was rainy and cold, and had been so for a week past, I would have passed on without further disturbing them had I not noticed that another young bird remained in the nest and seemed to be very wet and apparently dead with head hanging over the rim. I determined to remove it, as the other bird might wish to return.

The bush was very thorny and I had trouble in forcing my head and shoulders up through the tangle for the few feet necessary. I found that the bird was alive but very wet and weak as though the old bird had not been able to protect both young through such a long stretch of bad weather. My surprise came, however, when I discovered that the nest also contained three eggs, which, held to the light, seemed well along in incubation. They could not have been placed there by boys as the nest situation was such that had it been tampered with, broken twigs would have told the story, for I had to break and force a passage through to the base of the tree as well as to break one for my head as I climbed up a few feet. Returning on May 8 I found the nest deserted, the young bird dead and one of the eggs broken. I have heard before of sets of three of the Mourning Dove, but never heard of them being laid before the first brood had left the nest.

This clump of thorn was on a river flat, several acres of which is thickly grown up with several varieties of haws, wild crab, and wild apples and is used by Robins, Cowbirds, Grackles and Mourning Doves as a roost. Some 2000 Robins use this roost, the males and non-breeders even resorting to it nightly during the nesting season. During the migrations and after the Blackbirds flock it is also used by about 1000 Bronzed Grackles and several hundred Cowbirds. The Mourning Doves use it not only as a roost, but also as a nesting place. Their numbers, however, are comparatively small; probably not over 150 after the breeding season is over. About ten days after finding the nest described in this note, I made a survey of the thicket and found twenty-two occupied nests of the Mourning Dove,—and one of them contained three eggs.—E. A. DOOLITTLE, _Painesville, Ohio_.

=Mourning Dove wintering in Vermont.=—I have never known of a Mourning Dove wintering in this state, but on January 8, 1919, one was taken alive in Shaftsbury, Vt. It died the following day but was mounted and is now in the collection of Henry Bradford, Bennington, Vt.

Robins, Meadow Larks, and Sparrow Hawks are wintering in Bennington—a very unusual thing—due, I suppose, to the mildness of the winter and to the lack of snow.—LUCRETIUS H. ROSS, _Bennington, Vt._

=_Thrasaetos_ versus _Harpia_.=—The generic name currently used for the Harpy Eagle is _Thrasaetos_ Gray, because _Harpyia_ Vieillot is preoccupied by _Harpyia_ Illiger (Prod. Syst. Mamm. et Avium, 1811, pp. 118-119) for a mammal. Vieillot’s name, however, was first spelled _Harpia_ (Analyse Nouv. Ornith. Elém., 1816, p. 24; type by monotypy, _Vultur harpyja_ Linnæus), in which form, with one less syllable, it is according to the International Code of Nomenclature, not invalidated by _Harpyia_. Furthermore, the original spelling of the specific name of this species is _harpyja_ (_Vultur harpyja_ Linnæus, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, I, 1758, p. 86; Mexico); and the Harpy Eagle should, therefore, now stand as _Harpia harpyja_ (Linnæus).

It may be worth while also to call attention to the fact that Swainson in 1827 spelled this generic name _Harpya_ (Philos. Mag., new ser. I, No. V, May, 1827, p. 366); and that the generic name _Thrasaetos_, commonly attributed to G. R. Gray, is merely a manuscript name of Gray’s, originally published by Bonaparte (_Thrasaetos_ Bonaparte, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1837 (June 14, 1838), p. 108 [ex G. R. Gray MS.], type by monotypy, _Vultur harpyja_ Linnæus).—HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._

=The Status of the Generic Name= _Archibuteo_.—The generic name _Archibuteo_ Brehm has for long been in use for the Rough-legged Hawks. This name, proposed in 1828 by Brehm (Isis, XXI, No. 12, December, 1828, col. 1269), was based solely on the “Rauchfussbussard” and two nomina nuda, _Archibuteo planiceps_ Brehm and _Archibuteo alticeps_ Brehm; hence _Falco lagopus_ Brünnich, to which from Brehm’s later publications all these evidently must be referred, has been commonly considered the type of _Archibuteo_. In the original description, however, aside from the two pure nomina nuda, only the vernacular name without citation of authority or anything else that would serve to identify it, is given. The generic term _Archibuteo_ is, therefore, certainly a nomen nudum at this place, as is clearly indicated by the International Code of Nomenclature and current practice. The earliest tenable citation for _Archibuteo_ is in 1831 (Brehm, Handb. Naturg. Vog. Deutschlands, 1831, p. 38), when Brehm gives as the two included species, _Archibuteo planiceps_ Brehm and _Archibuteo alticeps_ Brehm, here fully described, both of which are synonyms of _Falco lagopus_ Brünnich. Meanwhile, however, two other names were introduced for the group—_Triorchis_ Kaup (Skizz. Entw.-Gesch. Natürl. Syst. Eur. Thierw., 1829, p. 84; type by monotypy, _Falco lagopus_ Brünnich); and _Butaetes_ Lesson (Traité d’Ornith., May 8, 1830, p. 83; type, by monotypy, _Falco lagopus_ Gmelin). The first of these becomes, therefore, the tenable name for the Rough-legged Hawks, since it is not preoccupied by _Triorches_ Leach (Syst. Cat. Indig. Mamm. and Birds Brit. Mus., 1816, p. 10; type, by monotypy, _Pandion fluvialis_ Savigny = _Falco haliaetus_ Linnæus), for the latter must be regarded as a different word from a nomenclatural standpoint because of its different classical ending. By reason of this the two forms of the Rough-legged Hawk will stand as follows:

=Triorchis lagopus lagopus= (Brünnich).
=Triorchis lagopus sanctijohannis= (Gmelin).
HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._

=Harris’s Hawk= (_Parabuteo unicinctus harrisi_) =in Kansas=.—A fine specimen of a female Harris’s Hawk was killed seven and one half miles southwest of Lawrence, Kansas, December 25, 1918, by Fred Hastie and is now in the skin collection of the University of Kansas Museum.

So far as I know this Hawk has not been reported before from the state. —C. D. BUNKER, _Lawrence, Kansas_.

=The Proper Name for the Texas Barred Owl.=—Some time ago (‘The Auk,’ XXV, No. 3, July, 1908, page 316) Mr. Outram Bangs renamed his _Syrnium nebulosum helveolum_ (Proc. New Engl. Zool. Club, I, March 31, 1899, page 31) because, when transferred to the genus _Strix_, it was supposedly preoccupied by _Strix helvola_ Lichtenstein (Verz. Samml. Säugeth. und Vögeln Kaffernlande, 1842, page 11). Since, however, both _helveola_ and _helvola_ are classical Latin adjectives differing in the possession of an additional syllable, they are to be regarded as different words, and therefore by neither the International Code of Nomenclature nor the A. O. U. Code would they conflict when employed in the same genus. It thus becomes necessary to return to the earlier name for the Texas Barred Owl, and it will consequently stand as _Strix varia helveola_ (Bangs).—HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._

=Concerning a Note of the Long-eared Owl= (_Asio wilsonianus_).—I was interested in the note of Mr. G. Clyde Fisher in the last number of ‘The Auk,’ with similar heading to the above. I can furnish information which will help to verify the conclusions which Mr. Fisher reached as to the source of the sound he heard. On August 9, 1914, while camped near Red Eagle Lake, in the Glacier National Park, I heard a sound of some night bird, which was very similar to the sound described by Mr. Fisher, and for which I could give no better description than the phrase he uses, I tried to investigate the source of the sound, and soon found several owls, at least four being seen at once. It was moonlight at the time. The country consisted of a mountain meadow, dotted with clumps of fir trees, and the Owls were easily seen as they flew from one clump to another at my approach. I followed, and soon got a good view of one silhouetted against the sky, as it sat in the top of a fir. The bird was evidently watching my approach, and its ear tufts could be plainly seen. From their position, rising from the center of the head, rather than the sides, as well as from the size of the bird, I felt sure that it was a Long-eared Owl. I believe that the birds were a family containing both adults and young, and that they had been attracted by the light of our camp fire. This is the third time that I have known these Owls to be attracted by the light of a camp fire in the mountains of Montana.—ARETAS A. SAUNDERS, _Norwalk, Conn._

=The Short-eared Owl Breeding on Nantucket.=—In ‘The Auk’ for January, 1919, Mr. Francis H. Allen, reporting the occurrence of the Short-eared Owl (_Asio flammeus_) at Nantucket in August, 1918, speaks of the somewhat doubtful status of this Owl as a breeding bird in Massachusetts, and quotes the opinion of Mr. George H. Mackay that at one time it doubtless bred quite regularly on Nantucket and more rarely on Muskeget Island.

There is, I think, good reason to believe that this Owl has nested on Nantucket in recent years not less regularly than in the past. In the years 1908 to 1912 when, in the month of June, I explored the island intent on its plants, but always with a side eye to birds, the Short-eared Owl was frequently met with, this and the Marsh Hawk appearing to be the only raptorial birds of the island at that season. In 1912 it was more numerous than at any time before, or else chance made it so appear, and between June 27 and July 14 not less than twelve were observed. On June 10, 1908, a nest containing two eggs, evidently fresh, was found in Trot’s swamp on the western side of the island. The locality was a dryish open part of the swamp less than an acre in extent hemmed about on all sides by thickets that were in many places swampy and impassable. The nest, a slight structure of grasses and other light material, was set in a cluster of hay-scented fern (_Denntstædtia punctilobula_) whose delicate fronds rising around the margin of the nest gave less protection than concealment and, indeed, little concealment from above, for down within the encircling ferns the eggs were in open view. At this spot the ground was slightly raised above the level of the swamp, and the unrestrained growth of this fern attested that here, even in a wet season, the soil must be free from saturation. The sitting bird left the nest at my near approach, when its mate almost immediately appeared, both birds ranging widely about well in the air at no time coming very near and, at intervals, almost pausing in their flight directly overhead. One or both birds continually repeated a weak and expressionless guttural note—as memory now recalls it. The eggs, measured at the nest and replaced, were 1.37 and 1.44 inches in length—small for the species according to published measurements.

South of Nantucket the Short-eared Owl has not often been reported in its breeding season. There are several records of its having nested along the New Jersey coast, even as far south as the Cape May region, but I do not know that it has ever been found breeding on Long Island. There would seem to be little doubt, however, that it has recently nested there at Long Beach. At that place, on May 25, 1917, I watched a pair of these owls, evidently, from the disparity in their size, a male and female, repeatedly attacking a single Crow. The birds were flying about over a tract of dunes and thickets flanking a salt marsh inaccessible to me across a broad creek. The Crow, perhaps to escape the Owls, perhaps intent on depredation of their nest, several times swept down to the ground about a certain spot, the Owls pursuing it or awaiting its return into the air when attack and counter-attack were renewed. The following year at the same place a pair were observed on February 22, attacking a Marsh Hawk, one was seen on April 12, a pair on May 17, and again a single one on August 9.—EUGENE P. BICKNELL, _New York City_.

=Early Occurrence of the Snowy Owl and the Pine Grosbeak in Monroe County, New York.=—On November 3, 1918, while riding on a trolley car toward the lake, my attention was called by the motorman, to a large Snowy Owl (_Nyctea nyctea_) which was sitting on the top of a wooden pole in a gravel bed and about 150 feet from the tracks.

He also informed me that the bird had been in the same place while on a previous trip an hour and a half before. Later it was seen to fly into a nearby vineyard. The locality was in the town of Irondequoit, a mile and a half from Lake Ontario. On the same afternoon at 3.30 o’clock, while walking along the border of the woods at Durand-Eastman Park, near the lake, I observed three Pine Grosbeaks (_Pinicola enucleator leucura_). There were two females and one male, they were feeding in some bushes close to the roadway and were very tame, allowing me to approach within ten feet of them, when they would fly into the nearby bushes. This is the earliest record that I can find of their occurrence in Monroe County.—LUCIUS H. PAUL, _Rochester, N. Y._

=The Deep Plantar Tendons in the Puff-birds, Jacamars and their Allies.=—One of the most distinct and peculiar types of the deep plantar tendons in birds is that known as the _antiopelmous_, characterizing certain zygodactyl groups such as the Woodpeckers, Toucans and their allies. In this arrangement of the simple _flexor perforans digitorum_ runs to the third toe, while the trifurcate _flexor longus hallucis_ supplies the first, second and fourth toes. The two tendons are connected by a vinculum which runs from the _flexor longus_ to the _flexor perforans_.

The nature of these tendons in the Puff-birds (Bucconidæ) and Jacamars (Galbulidæ) is of special importance in determining the systematic position of these families. Both are commonly given as antiopelmous, perhaps on the sole authority of Garrod (cf. P. Z. S., 1875, p. 345; also Sclater’s Monograph of the Jacamars and Puff-birds, p. XXVIII). The following species were examined by Garrod: _Galbula rufoviridis_, _G. albirostris_, and _Urogalba paradisea_ of the Galbulidæ, and _Monasa flavirostris_, _Malacoptila fusca_ and _Bucco maculatus_ of the Bucconidæ. Of allied groups the following were determined: _Ramphastos ariel_ (Ramphastidæ), _Megalœma asiatica_ (Capitonidæ), _Gecinus viridis_ and _Tiga javanensis_ (Picidæ).

Descriptions of the plantar tendons in other groups have so often proven erroneous that the verification of all such statements is desirable. This is my excuse for the present note which merely confirms the observations of Garrod; however the species, with one exception, and three of the genera are different and I am able to point out one or two minor variations.

I have made careful dissections of specimens of _Monasa grandior_ and _Malacoptila inornata_ (Bucconidæ), _Galbula melanogenia_ (Galbulidæ), _Ramphastos ariel_ (Ramphastidæ), _Chloronerpes yucatanensis_, _Dryobates villosus_ and _Campephilus malherbii_ (Picidæ). The essential antiopelmous arrangement is the same in all, but several variations occur that are worthy of note.

In _Chloronerpes_, _Megalaima_, _Ramphastos_, _Malacoptila_ and probably _Monasa_, the distance between the first and second bifurcations of the _flexor longus_ is much greater than in _Dryobates_ and _Galbula_; in _Campephilus_, on the other hand, the three slips spring from practically the same point. The position of the vinculum is somewhat variable. In _Ramphastos_, _Megalœma_ (Garrod), _Dryobates_, and _Campephilus_ the vinculum leaves the flexor longus decidedly above the primary bifurcation of the latter; in _Malacoptila_, _Galbula_ and _Chloronerpes_ at the extreme lower end of the main tendon, just as it divides, while in _Monasa_ (as recorded by Garrod also) it originates from the upper ends of the two branches.

Stejneger states (on what authority I do not know) that the Honey Guides (Indicatoridæ) are antiopelmous. There is every reason to believe this statement correct and also to assume that the Wrynecks (Jyngidæ) and Piculets (Picumnidæ) have the same arrangement.

This close agreement in the deep plantar tendons is, as remarked by Dr. Stejneger, strong evidence of the mutual relationships of the families possessing this unique arrangement. As this character is not neutralized or overbalanced by any of equal or greater value we may regard these families as forming a natural group, an order or suborder, characterized essentially by their antiopelmous, zygodactyl feet. In other zygodactyl birds, the Parrots and Cuckoos, the tendons are of the wholly different desmopelmous type, and moreover the ambiens muscle, absent in the antiopelmous group, is here present.—W. DEW. MILLER, _American Museum of Natural History, New York City_.

=The Status of the Genus= _Hypocentor_ =Cabanis=.—The genus _Hypocentor_ was originally instituted by Cabanis (Mus. Hein, I, 1851, p. 131) for three species of Buntings, _Emberiza aureola_ Pallas, _Emberiza fucata_ Pallas, and _Emberiza rustica_ Pallas. Its type was soon afterward designated by Gray (Cat. Gen. and Subgen. Birds Brit. Mus., 1855, p. 79) as _Emberiza aureola_ Pallas. Modern authors have commonly synonymized it with _Emberiza_ Brisson, but an examination of its type and comparison with typical species of _Emberiza_ shows that it is well differentiated as a generic group. It differs from _Emberiza_ Brisson (type, by tautonymy, _Emberiza citrinella_ Linnæus) as follows; bill slenderer, more compressed, more sharply pointed, thus less conical; basal two-thirds of culmen straight or even somewhat concave, instead of convex; maxillar and mandibular tomia vertically not so strongly concave, thus not giving the closed commissure the somewhat open appearance that it has in typical species of _Emberiza_; palatal surface of maxilla lacking the peculiar rounded protuberances of _Emberiza_; mandible more rounded (less squarish) basally; gonys very long, its length much more than the height of the bill at base (instead of about equal to that dimension), and not strongly ascending, the gonydeal angle therefore not so prominent; tertials and tail much shorter.

The species to be included in this genus are at least the three originally indicated by Cabanis, the last one of which is North American by reason of its accidental occurrence on Kiska Island in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. These are:

_Hypocentor aureolus_ (Pallas).
_Hypocentor fucatus_ (Pallas).
_Hypocentor rusticus_ (Pallas).
HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._

=A Correction Involving Some Juncos.=—An error that may be explained as due to oversight, inadvertence, plain stupidity or all three combined, crept into my paper on the Juncos (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. XXXVIII, 1918, p. 296) and Mr. Todd has called my attention to it. In placing _insularis_ under _mearnsi_ as a race, I quite forgot that the former name has many years priority. Therefore the Pink-sided Juncos should stand as follows:—

_Junco insularis mearnsi_
_Junco insularis insularis_
_Junco insularis townsendi_
JONATHAN DWIGHT, M. D., _New York City_.

=An Additional Record of= _Ammodramus savannarum bimaculutus_ =in Eastern Washington.=—Although the breeding range of the Western Grasshopper Sparrow is stated by the Check List (A. O. U. Check-List of North American Birds, 1910, p. 257) to embrace “Transition and Austral zones from southeastern British Columbia, northwestern Montana, and southern Minnesota south to southern California and southern Texas,” it appears that only one actual record of occurrence in eastern Washington has been published to date. Dr. Lee R. Dice took two adult males in breeding plumage in a wheat field in the Touchet Valley, near Prescott, Walla Walla County, on June 16, 1908 (Auk, Vol. XXVII, 1910, p. 217).

On May 29, 1918, a bird which I am practically certain was of this species was encountered in a grassy swale not far from Pullman, Whitman County. When first sighted it was perched on a grassy tussock near the bottom of the swale. When flushed it flew to a grass clump some distance up a gentle hill slope, disappearing from view in the usual slinking fashion. Too much reliance cannot, of course, be placed on this record, since the bird was not secured.

On June 13 I noted the song of a Grasshopper Sparrow in a grain field near Six Mile Ranch, six miles south of Sprague, just over the line in Adams County. The bird was pursued for some time before it was finally taken. Its actions were as usually described, the bird characteristically dropping behind a grass tussock, ledge of earth or pile of brush, and then, with bill low, body in crouching position, and tail drooping, sneaking off through the grassy vegetation, refusing to flush until one was too close to shoot.

The bird is now No. 262090, U. S. National Museum, Biological Survey Collection. It is a male in much worn plumage.

These experiences during the past field season indicate that the Grasshopper Sparrow is probably more common in eastern Washington than has previously been supposed.—WALTER P. TAYLOR, _Biological Survey, Washington, D. C._

=The Dickcissel in New Hampshire.=—At Concord, New Hampshire, on October 13, 1918 I shot a male Dickcissel (_Spiza americana_) in immature plumage. It was alone at the moment, in birches at the edge of woods that bordered extensive fields of corn and stubble, the autumnal resort of sparrows of several kinds, which were then swarming there among the weeds. The only records of the bird from north and east of Massachusetts with which I am acquainted are as follows:

Maine, September 29, 1884. C. W. Townsend (Auk, 1885, p. 106).
Maine, October 10, 1888. A. H. Norton (Auk, 1893, p. 302).
Nova Scotia, September 13, 1902. J. Dwight, Jr. (Auk, 1903, p. 440).
FRANCIS BEACH WHITE, _Concord, N. H._

=Early Nesting of the Loggerhead Shrike= (_Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus_) =at Savannah, Ga.=—I am indebted to Mr. Gilbert R. Rossignol, of Savannah, Ga., for the privilege of announcing the taking by him on February 15, 1919, at Savannah, of a nest and five eggs of the Loggerhead Shrike. Mr. Rossignol first discovered the birds building the nest in a live oak tree, among a cluster of vertical shoots, on January 16. The eggs were all fresh and the nest was approximately twenty feet from the ground.

In the vicinity of Charleston, S. C., the earliest dates upon which I have found eggs were on March 24, 1916, six eggs almost hatched, and March 13, 1917, five fresh eggs, both nests being found in the same live oak tree and doubtless belonging to the same pair of birds.—ARTHUR T. WAYNE, _Mt. Pleasant, S. C._

=A Note on the Decrease of the Carolina Wren near Washington.=—The winter of 1917-1918 in the vicinity of Washington, D. C., with its prolonged cold and unusual fall of snow, was a severe one for many birds, a fact that was manifested especially in the case of the Carolina Wren (_Thryothorus l. ludovicianus_). Near Washington Carolina Wrens increased steadily in numbers in the period extending from 1912 to 1917, and during the last two years of this time were common. Their abundance at Plummer’s Island, Maryland, was noticeable, and birds were seen or heard on practically every visit to that vicinity. Through December, 1917, and January, 1918 they remained in their usual numbers. February 1, during a visit made to Plummer’s Island immediately after a heavy snowfall I found that the snow in the woods where it had not been drifted was sixteen inches deep. Several Carolina Wrens were seen on this day. One was observed climbing up the trunk of a red birch, where the bird broke open the curling rolls of bark, in search for food, making a rattling, rustling noise audible for some distance. Another was clambering about the eaves of the cabin. Both of these feeding habits were more or less unusual. This heavy snow covered the ground for a considerable period after this and must have rendered food difficult to find. Immediately after February 1 the Carolina Wrens in the area under consideration disappeared, and the supposition was that the greater part of them had perished. Only three of four pairs were known to remain in the region between the end of the carline at Cabin John’s Bridge and Plummer’s Island, while none were left on the island property. The same decrease in number among these birds was observed throughout the entire Washington region and when spring opened it was found that there were only scattered pairs in a few areas.

In a former note (published in ‘The Condor,’ 1913, pp. 120-121) I have called attention to a similar occurrence in eastern Kansas, where other species of birds in addition to Carolina Wrens were concerned. These observations and others of a similar nature seem to show that the Carolina Wren is a bird that may be considered resident in the strictest sense of the word in regions where it is found. In many so-called resident species, though the species as a whole is represented at all seasons individuals are migratory and perform regular journeys each year. With the Carolina Wren however, this does not seem to be true, as adult individuals (in pairs) frequent certain restricted areas throughout the year without reference to season. The immature birds that have not yet become settled, wander somewhat during spring and fall, and individuals may occur at this time in cities or elsewhere outside of their normal haunts. These movements however, are irregular, and seem at most to be restricted to short distances when compared with the regular spring and fall movement found among other birds of recognized migratory habits. It is by these restricted movements that these Wrens extend their local range.

At Plummer’s Island one of these wanderers visited the island and adjacent parts of the mainland on April 7 and worked restlessly about, singing loudly. No others were observed during the spring and summer months and the species did not occur again until December 8 when one was observed skulking in a brush pile below the cabin. One bird (presumably the same one) is still present on the island at present writing (January 12, 1919).

The instances given here are indications of the conditions limiting the range of the Carolina Wren, in one direction at least and show, too, how readily a species apparently common may be reduced or even exterminated in a given region in a very short period of time. In the case of the Carolina Wren the heavy blanket of snow covering the food supply would seem to be the direct cause of extermination rather than prolonged cold, as here at Washington these birds were able to survive a low temperature for a considerable period but were killed when deep snow covered the greater part of their normal feeding ground. It is to the comparatively few that are able to survive that we must look for the perpetuation of the species. The increase in numbers however, seems to be a slow process, as following their decrease in 1912, I found the species still comparatively rare near Lawrence, Kansas, in 1914, 1916 and as late as November, 1918.—ALEXANDER WETMORE, _Biological Survey, Washington, D. C._

=The Affinities of= _Chamæthlypis_.—As generic distinctions become more and more refined the need of a supergeneric group intermediate between the family or subfamily and the genus, corresponding approximately to the former genus, becomes increasingly evident.

In his great work on the ‘Birds of North and Middle America’ Mr. Ridgway has supplied this want in many families. In the Warblers (Mniotiltidæ) the grouping does not appear to be so successful as in most cases. Not only is the old genus _Geothlypis_ broken up into three genera but these are distributed in as many supergeneric groups. _Oporornis_ is banded with _Dendroica_ and its allies in the Dendroicæ, while _Chamæthlypis_ is placed in the Icteriæ.

We cannot help feeling that this arrangement is artificial, and that too much importance has been placed on the length of the wing-tip (easily modified by habits and migration), and insufficient weight given to coloration, nesting and even song.

Also, the distinctions are partially invalidated by exceptions. Thus the sections including _Geothlypis_ and _Chamæthlypis_ are separated by differences in the length of the tail and form of the bill; but _Geothlypis nelsoni_ agrees with _Chamæthlypis_ in having the tail longer than the wing. Again the Geothlypeæ are separated from the Dendroiceæ by having the rictal bristles obsolete and the wing-tip shorter, but in _Geothlypis æquinoctialis_ and _G. cucullata_, at least, the rictal bristles are well-developed.

The particular point of criticism is in regard to the affinities of _Chamæthlypis_ which is distinguished from _Geothlypis_ by its stouter bill, with strongly curved culmen, and its longer, graduated tail.

Mr. Ridgway expresses the opinion that while “this genus is very much like _Geothlypis_ as to its general appearance” it is “quite distinct structurally, in which respect it comes much nearer to _Icteria_.” I have carefully tabulated the structural differences between these three genera, and the result to my mind unquestionably indicates a nearer relationship of _Chamæthlypis_ with _Geothlypis_.

Sharpe (Hand-List of Birds) while recognizing _Chamæthlypis_, included in this genus two South American species of _Geothlypis_, _G. æquinoctialis_ and _G. auricularis_. These two species and _G. cucullata_ are intermediate between _Chamæthlypis_ and the typical species of _Geothlypis_ in coloration and in the form of the bill and have well developed rictal bristles as in _Chamæthlypis_. They do not, however, approach the latter genus in the length of the tail, as do certain Mexican species of _Geothlypis_, notably _G. nelsoni_.

While in Nicaragua in the spring of 1917 I had the opportunity of hearing the song of the ‘Ground-chat’ on several occasions. It is a highly musical warble resembling that of _Geothlypis semiflava bairdi_ but even superior; the songs of both these species much excel that of _G. trichas_. The song of _Chamæthlypis_ possesses nothing whatever of the eccentric qualities of the Yellow-breasted Chat’s vocal performance.

In conclusion, the evidence of size, coloration, external structure and song, strongly indicate the near relationship of _Chamæthlypis_ with _Geothlypis_ and the more remote affinity of the former with _Icteria_. The first two genera are, in fact, practically connected by intermediate species.—W. DEW. MILLER, _American Museum of Natural History, New York City_.

=Blue-winged Warbler Feeding a Young Field Sparrow.=—On June 16, 1918, I was passing through a brushy area near Norwalk, Conn., when my attention was attracted by a Blue-winged Warbler (_Vermivora pinus_) evidently much excited at my presence as though it had a nest or young in the vicinity. It carried a green caterpillar about with it, as though wishing to feed young, so I sat down to watch it. A Field Sparrow (_Spizella pusilla_) soon appeared and also manifested excitement at my presence. After some waiting the Blue-wing approached a certain point in the bushes so frequently, that I got suspicious and searched it, finding to my surprise a young Field Sparrow, evidently just out of the nest and unable to fly. I waited some time longer, hoping to find the young of the Blue-wing, and finally the latter got over its fear, and approached the young Field Sparrow, and fed it the caterpillar it had been carrying. The adult Field Sparrow remained nearby but would not go to the young bird.

This incident seems rather surprising, but I believe it is explained by supposing that the two species nested near each other; that the young of the Blue-wing were destroyed by a natural enemy just as they were about to leave the nest; and that the adult Blue-wing, finding a young Field Sparrow of about the same age nearby, fed it, perhaps not realizing that it was not its own offspring, and in any event, satisfying its natural instinct to feed and care for young at that time.—ARETAS A. SAUNDERS, _Norwalk, Conn._

=The Blue-winged Warbler near Boston.=—Walking in dry, scrubby woods in the town of Brookline, Mass., May 19, 1918, Dr. Charles W. Townsend and I found a Blue-winged Warbler (_Vermivora pinus_) singing the typical song of the Golden-winged Warbler (_V. chrysoptera_). The bird had the bright-yellow throat, breast, belly, and crown and the black line through the eye, and we had no hesitation in pronouncing it a Blue-winged Warbler. As this species is regarded as extremely rare in Massachusetts (see note by Mr. Horace W. Wright, Auk, 1917, pp. 482, 483), the bird was afterwards visited by other observers, some of whom saw it to better advantage than we did and discovered that its wing-bars were yellow, not white as in typical examples of the species. Among these observers were Mr. Charles J. Maynard, Judge Charles F. Jenney, Dr. John B. Brainerd, Mr. Barron Brainerd, and Mr. Henry S. Shaw. Mr. Maynard, who visited the locality June 15 in company with Judge Jenney and Mr. Shaw, wrote me under date of July 31, 1918: “I saw the bird very distinctly a number of times and clearly saw that it had decidedly yellow wing-bands, not as yellow as those of the Golden-winged, yet decidedly yellow, and we heard no other song than the one indistinguishable from that of the Golden-wing.... I was interested in trying to find whether the bird was mated, but we did not succeed in finding any mate.” None of the observers saw anything of a mate, and none heard any other song from the bird than the Golden-winged Warbler song. Illness in my family prevented my visiting the locality again until July 10, when the bird was not to be found, and the Golden-winged Warblers, two of which had been found there before had also stopped singing.

Forms of the Blue-winged Warbler with yellow or yellowish wing-bars are not very rare in collections, and Dr. Louis B. Bishop, who has a large series of this species, makes particular mention of them in his paper on ‘The Status of _Helminthophila leucobronchialis_ and _Helminthophila lawrencei_’ in ‘The Auk,’ 1905, XXII, p. 21-24. In the light, however, of Dr. Walter Faxon’s discovery of the hybrid nature of Brewster’s Warbler it seems probable that these non-typical examples are really of mixed ancestry and possess a modicum of _chrysoptera_ blood. This seems the more likely in the case of our Brookline bird because it sang the _chrysoptera_ song, as do most, if not all, of the _leucobronchialis_ found in this region. Mr. William Brewster permits me to cite him in support of this theory, and Dr. Bishop writes me, “I think it quite possible your bird had a ‘_lawrencei_’ as a more or less remote ancestor, which means _chrysoptera_ of course farther back, added to its predominant _pinus_ blood.”

Though our bird was found, as I have stated, in the town of Brookline, the cities of Boston and Newton also corner near by and, as Judge Jenney has pointed out to me, it doubtless had in its daily range not only these three municipalities but also the three counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Middlesex to which they severally belong.—FRANCIS H. ALLEN, _West Roxbury, Mass._

=Nashville Warbler= (_Vermivora ruficapilla_) =in New York in Winter=.—This is not merely a winter record for New York City but for a backyard garden on Broadway. This bird was first seen by Mrs. Chubb on December 16, 1918. It was feeding on aphids which were still very abundant on some brussels sprouts in a very small garden patch.

Up to the present date, January 9, I have seen the bird frequently. Apparently it visits the garden daily where the aphids still survive the mild winter. The bird is in perfect flight and apparently normal in every way. It was also identified today by Mr. W. DeW. Miller.—S. HARMSTED CHUBB, _New York City_.

=Four Rare Birds in Sussex County, New Jersey.=—In the fall of 1918 the American Museum of Natural History received in the flesh a female Northern Pileated Woodpecker (_Phlœotomus pileatus abieticola_) shot in the Kittatinny Mountains, three miles southwest of Culver’s Gap, Sussex Co., New Jersey, on Oct. 12, and an adult female Golden Eagle (_Aquila chrysaëtos_) killed in the same locality on November 23.

On a visit to this region from October 19 to November 3, I was gratified to find that the Pileated Woodpecker still exists in the larger woodlands of Sussex County. Many characteristic examples of their work, both old and fresh, were found and several birds were seen.

Through the kindness of Mr. Justus von Lengerke, I am able to record a Raven (_Corvus corax europhilus_) also from the vicinity of Culver’s Gap. This bird, which was accompanied by another individual of the same species, was secured by this gentleman on September 21 and is now in his possession.

Mr. von Lengerke tells me that the Goshawk (_Astur atricapillus atricapillus_) is a regular winter visitor in northwestern New Jersey, but usually rare. In the fall and winter of 1916-17 and again in 1917-18 there were, for the first time in his experience, large flights of the Goshawk two years in succession. In the former season Mr. von Lengerke, who makes special efforts to kill these destructive birds, secured about nine Goshawks; in the latter he personally killed sixteen (fifteen at Stag Lake, Sussex Co., and one about ten miles from this locality), and knows of two more shot in the same county. In the fall of 1918 he handled eight individuals, five of which were killed by himself and his son.—W. DEW. MILLER, _American Museum of Natural History, New York City_.