5 co v 1 NIAN“lNSTITUTI0N°N0liniIiSNI^NVm0SHimSt°S3 I avy a n^LI BRAR I es^smithsonian^instituW = co Z \ — co — Hi co " § Q x^osv^-jV ^ XjVASV^>^ o ' - ^ ~ q 1IIAIS2S3 I avaan^LI BRAR I ES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIinillSNi^NVINOSHillMS^SHia' — " z i— /'dkwiOs \ NIAN INSTITUTION NOliniilSNI NVIN0SH1IIAIS S3!HV8an LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE . 5 ,y. ^ 5 ? c*' 2 W iiws saiavaa CO < S ^v^vaT o 1/5 */ I tiS(4kSX& _ > N^OjillS^ 2 CO 2 CO * 2 ^ V 3 LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUllSNI NVINOSHilWS S3 I Ei V aai =; co ^ ^ co — . , . co \ _ o N IAN INSTITUTION NOlinillSNI^NVINOSHillNS S3 I a VH 8 11 "*L I B R AR I ES^SMITHSONIAN^INSTITUTIO r* 2 r~ , 2 r- 2 ^ O /^jSTIT/TtX >.v o i/^S. ~ *oX O m TO * jz ^ X S-W p 5 m w rn N ^ 'VsQvas>c^/// m co E co — co _ ims saiavaan libraries Smithsonian institution NoiiniusNi nvinoshihais saiavaai CO 2 > CO z * co — S ^5^, < •» 2 < * s ■=*- WJ KJ J MIAN INSTITUTION NOIinillSNI_NVINOSHllWS S3iavaai3 LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE ( r> tfi — • rr\ — Q Njwy ~ N^JVASVV^ O Q ^ Q jins zsa i ava a n jlib rar i es smithsonian^institution NoiiniusNi “Winoshiiws ^S3 i avaa £ - j? d Z MIAN INSTITUTION NOliniilSNI NVIN0SH1IWS S3iavaail LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUT — * (/) (n ~7° ( n — ^ i 00 ■/'J ! CO* Z CO CO " *£: CO liiais saiavaan libraries Smithsonian institution NoiiniusNi nvinoshiiws saiavaa CO — p - ^ 2 ^ ^ , . CO UJ x 33 - m r; x^uixs^x m gOlinillSNI_NVINOSHllWS S3 I BVH3 I1~LI BRAR I ES SMITHSONIAN ~ INSTITUTION NOlinillS z co z v.. co z < y^vi^OvTx 2 *? ,OiJ\ . ■ ^ ZTa^VAT\ *c .IBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlDillSNI NVINOSH1IWS S 3 I d V d 9 11 _ L 1 B R A R 1 E CO -p CO . CO 2 LiJ fn ^ w z^E^Tx CO P/ Q3 < CO JOlinilJLSNI NVI N0SH11 IAIS S3I&V&8I1 LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfllllS r- ^ r- "Z. r* 2 m - ' vs?’ x m ™ rn co — co £ co IBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOliniUSNI NVIN0SH1IIAIS S3ldVd9ll LIBRARIE CO Z P CO Z - MOlinillSNI ~~ NVIN0SH1I IAIS°° S 3 I dVdail^LIBRARI ES^SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOlinillS — •» co — co = co ^ w ^ (^^k\ ^ ~ jl!t~ 'n u Z _J Z .IBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOliniUSNI NVIN0SH1IWS S3 I d Vd a ll_L I B R AR I 2 r- ^ z _ _ m r; m — co ± co _ NOliniUSNI NVINOSHIIWS S3ldVd9ll LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOlinillS z co Z w co Z ,v CO . S £ a^, .•> ST zTCiTvArx. *£ .jisix Z H . *•/ y:A * 2 .’X X . O 3 CO /jy,,§W CO Z ^|p> t > s ^ LI B RAR I ES^SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOliniUSNI NVINOSHIIIAIS^S 3 I d V d 3 I1_ L 1 B R A R co X co — . co NOliniUSNI NVIN0SH1IINS _S3 ldVdai1_LIBRARI ES_ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOlinillS § I jlk 2 c <$l{ AT- 3 rJ rt TRANSACTIONS of the Linnasan Society of New York Volume Three THE BIRDS OF DUTCHESS COUNTY NEW YORK From Records Compiled By Maunsell S. Crosby By LUDLOW GRISCOM With Three Plates Published by the Society, December, 1933 / NEW YORK: Press of Urner-Barry Company MCMXXXIII A ' ' Maunsfll Schifffflin Crosby V /U-' 3 L H- TRANSACTIONS of the Linntean Society of New York Volume Three THE BIRDS OF DUTCHESS COUNTY NEW YORK From Records Compiled By Maunsell S. Crosby By LUDLOW GRISCOM With Three Plates Published by the Society, December, 1933 NEW YORK: Press of Urner-Barry Company MCMXXXIII To Maunsell Schieffelin Crosby In Memoriam By his friends and admirers The members of the Linnajan Society of New York Copies of "The Birds of Dutchess County” may be obtained at the price of $2.00, by addressing the Secretary of the Linnaean Society of New York, in care of American Museum of Natural History, West 77th Street and Central Park West, New York City. Table of Contents PAGE Preface and acknowledgements - -- -- -- 7 PART I — Introduction* Chapter I M. S. Crosby and his Dutchess County records - - - - 9 Chapter II Sources and material - - - - - - - - - 15 Chapter III Description of the territory, climate and life-zones 20 Chapter IV Status of occurrence of species - -- -- --26 Chapter V The migration of land birds Spring ------------32 Fall ------------ 40 Chapter VI The migration of water-fowl -------- 41 Chapter VII The census counts The spring census trips - -- -- -- -52 Breeding census on Grasmere - -- -- --53 Chapter VIII Notable days afield - -- -- -- -- -56 PART II — Systematic List Chapter IX Detailed distributional list of species and subspecies 68 Chapter X Bibliography - -- -- -- -- -- 175 ♦Abstract presented before the Society, January. 1932. Because of his great intimacy with Maunsell S. Crosby, and because of his profound knowledge of Dutchess County ornithology, consequent upon their many days afield together, it is altogether fitting that Ludlow Griscom should have been the author of this work, and the Linnaean Society of New York con- siders itself exceedingly fortunate in having the op- portunity to publish the results of their collaboration. THE LINNEEAN SOCIETY OF NEW YORK By John H. Baker, President. 7 Preface and Acknowledgments Shortly after the publication in 1921 of his “Preliminary List of the Birds of Dutchess County” (in the Year Book of the Rhinebeck Bird Club for 1920), the late Maunsell S. Crosby proposed publication of a much more elaborate treatise on the avifauna of his home county, to follow years of carefully planned field work. The nature and scope of this work were frequent subjects of discussion between him and me. I was perhaps as cognizant of his ideas and wishes in this respect as anyone. However this may be, it transpired after his untimely death in the winter of 1931, that he had bequeathed to me his Dutchess County records, which were then sufficiently complete to warrant the preparation of a detailed report. Fortunately many •mutual friends in the Linnsean Society of New York were fully aware of the situation; perhaps Messrs. John H. Baker and William Vogt were the prime movers in suggesting that the Society publish “The Birds of Dutchess County” as a memorial volume to Mr. Crosby, and I was asked to prepare the report. Whatever merit it may prove to possess is largely due to the interest and invaluable assistance rendered by two gentlemen, who individually or jointly could have prepared the report them- selves. Mr. Allen Frost, a life long friend of Crosby’s, has been a resident of Poughkeepsie his entire life, and has had an unrivalled field experience there. Mr. John H. Baker has in recent years acquired a farm on Chestnut Ridge, near Millbrook, and is in the County throughout much of the year. These two friends relieved me of much tedious compilation by completing the migration tables for the last six years. I sent them the completed manuscript for revision. They took endless trouble, resulting in excellent suggestions, which their experience rendered of the most authoritative kind. More than a passing word of acknowledgment is also due Mr. William Vogt, Dr. Ernst Mayr and Mr. Charles Iv. Nichols for painstaking editorial revision, and to Mr. Charles A. Urner for his sympathetic handling of the details of printing and format. LUDLOW GRISCOM, Cambridge, Mass., Sept. 1, 1933. Part I. Chapter I M. S. Crosby and his Dutchess County Records 9 Maunsell Schieffelin Crosby (Feb. 14, 1887 — Feb. 12, 1931) was so intimately associated with the ornithology of Dutchess County, New York, that a brief sketch of his life and ornitho- logical activities there is not out of place. The estate at Rhine- beck, “Grasmere”, was acquired by his parents about 1899, at which time Crosby was removed from Cutler School in New York City, and Clinton G. Abbott became his tutor at Rhinebeck and prepared him for boarding school at Morristown, New Jersey. He also taught him the birds around Grasmere, and thus started the main interest of his life, a fact of which Crosby was always gratefully recognisant. The first entry in any bird notebook of Crosby’s 1 find is for 1903. “Migrants recorded in 1903 during a stay at Rhinebeck caused by whooping cough.” We note a Phoebe on March 16, and the Waxwing on April 6, a most unusual season for this species. In September, 1904, Crosby entered Harvard Uni- versity, and there are only a few frag'mentary notes from Dutchess County during this period. He graduated in 1908, and spent the summer and early fall in Europe. The regular year’s record for Dutchess County begins with 1909, kept in a larger book separate from the daily bird lists. In that year he recorded 133 species in the vicinity of Rhinebeck, his only collaborators being Dr. and Mrs. J. F. Goodell. The Starling is entered for October 24, as a species “not known here before”. There is a second section entitled the “nesting season”, during which Crosby found 151 nests on Grasmere. Very brief notes on the fall migration ensue, but an article in the Rhinebeck Gazette (Oct. 23, 1909) predicts that 170-180 species should occur annually near Rhinebeck. 10 The next few years were uneventful. Each year Crosby learned a few new birds and had the advantage of field exper- ience elsewhere. Thus in the summer of 1910 he went to the Temagami Region of Ontario, and spent the late winter and spring of 1911 in Santa Barbara, California, where he saw a good deal of J. Hooper Bowles, and learned many new birds. By 1914 the County list was kept more carefully. Notes by Professor Freeman at Poujfhkeepsie appear for the first time. New species for the County are noted marginally and doubly underscored. Record arrival dates are underscored once and also noted in the margin. The year's list around Rhinebeck was 155 species. Professor Moulton and Edmund Platt of Poughkeepsie added the Prairie Horned Lark to the County list in 1915. Records by Allen Frost and George Gray first appear in 1916, the year's list rising to 171 species, and for the first time it is impossible to tell how many species Crosby found himself around Rhinebeck, but it is apparent from his daily notebook that he went as far afield as Millbrook and also visited Cruger’s Island. From 1915 on he was frequently in Albany on military duty, serving on Governor Whitman's staff and as a captain in the National Guard. In 1917 he promptly entered the army and did not return to Rhinebeck until the summer of 1919. During this period there are practically no Dutchess County' notes, but he was studying the water birds of Long Island with enthusiasm, got in touch with members of the Linnaean Society of New York, and laid the foundations of his more scientific studies. By 1920 everything was going full steam ahead. The Rhinebeck Bird Club was in full swing. Crosby was preparing his Preliminary List for publication and was constantly in the American Museum of Natural History, later becoming Dr. Dwight’s scientific assistant. It was in 1921 that I first had my attention drawn to the birds of the County by Crosby asking me to read the proof of his list and make suggestions, and my first visit to him was paid in the spring of 1921. 11 This year began the frequent bird-hunting parties that later became almost an institution. Crosby kept open house for ornithologists, and always hoped to bag one or more persons for every week-end during the spring and fall migrations. In this way nearly every active member of the Linnaean Society visited the County at least occasionally, and added to the num- ber of pairs of eyes that scoured the best country under genial and competent leadership. The ornithological compliment was returned, as Crosby joined Linnaean Society parties to Barnegat Bay, to Jones Beach and Montauk Point, Long Island, and re- turned to Rhinebeck better prepared than ever to catch some rare or casual water bird on the Hudson. The May census par- ties were the most popular, but the duck migration was sure to draw visitors in spring and fall after 1923. Crosby kept ever more elaborate records, and began assembling these and having them typewritten with the assistance of a young man, Henry W. Kiemle, Jr., of Salt Point, greatly interested in birds, and at that time earning money to go to Pratt Institute and study for an artistic career. Crosby’s Dutchess County records now before me consist of the following: 1. Daily Field Bird List— small notebook size, incomplete. 2. Diary — 1920-1931 — notable events and records of trip, route, weather, and party. 3. A series of annual County lists from 1920 on, each year arranged chronologically, with species added to the year’s list for each day. From 1924 on a note was preserved, of place and person making the addition, provided it was not Crosby alone. This list was in four sections. a. Winter list plus spring arrivals plus additional species recorded in summer and fall; 212 species in 1929, 206 in 1925, 200 in 1923, 1924, 1926, 1930. b. Spring departures. c. Fall arrivals. d. Fall departures. 4. A list in systematic order, giving arrival and departure dates every year from the earliest records through 1924 for each species. This list was 12 kindly filled out for me by Messrs. John H. Baker and Allen Frost through 1930. It gives no localities and no authorities. 5. A series of monthly lists. Thus all the species ever recorded in January, with all interesting records or extreme dates, are given with local- ity and authority. Often the only place where this latter information is available for records prior to 1924. Fortunately, these monthly lists were completed up to 1927 for all twelve, and through 1929 for January to May. I reproduce the figures for these monthly lists, as it is one graphic method of obtaining a seasonal curve of abundance. February 82 species August 165 species March Ill (( September 185 April 164 U October 180 May 207 (( November 127 T une 151 u December 110 Tuly 140 u January 90 6. a. Spring departure dates, summary for all years chronologically through 1916. b. Autumn arrival dates, ditto. c. Autumn departure dates, ditto. Of purely statistical interest. 7. a. Spring arrival record dates. b. Spring departure record dates. c. Autumn arrival record dates. d. Autumn departure record dates. Arranged chronologically by days of the month. These are important, as they give locality and authority. Where none is given, “Rhinebeck, Crosby” is to be understood. 8. Dutchess County. Earliest nesting dates of Lispenard Horton. 9. Earliest and latest nesting dates complete through 1930. 10. Summer residents restricted locally. (Very incomplete.) 11. The May census lists from 1925 on, the southern and northern parties combined without any differentiation. 12. Greatest daily lists for every day in the year. 13. List of the County observers, with addresses and the years, who sent migration blanks to the Biological Survey. 14. Grand summary and abstract of all these Biological Survey records arranged systematically and chronologically without any differentiation. It is quite obvious from an examination of these records that the recorders were relatively inexperienced and inactive. I know, however, that Crosby greatly appreciated the kindness of the Survey in giving him access to these data. He spoke of it to me, and I find an entry about it in his diary 15. Bibliography of Dutchess County ornithology through 1925. 13 A perusal of these fifteen categories demonstrates the un- usual elaborateness with which records were kept, and also shows how essentially statistical was Crosby’s mind. When- ever an early arrival date was obtained, it required an entry in six different places and conceivably in two others as well! At first sight one might conclude that there were no possible records not kept, and yet this proves not to be correct. Crosby always regarded the County as a unit, and was remarkably self- less in his interest. The greatest daily lists are, for instance, quite worthless for comparative purposes. If Crosby and I went to Pine Plains from Rhinebeck and made a list of 49 species, he would call up Frost and Gray on the off chance that they had seen some species not found by us. If they had three such be- tween them, the day’s list became 52 species, and no note of the source or origin of these three additional species was pre- served, unless one of them happened to be a record. The May censuses were conducted in the same manner. Crosby’s interest was the combined total of the northern and southern parties, and in the great majority of these trips it is quite impossible to discover what species the two parties saw separately. Crosby himself was remarkably consistent here in his self-effacement. He cared nothing about his own personal list, made no effort to see any particular species, unless a great rarity, and kept no personal record, except when alone. From year to year his main interests were the year’s list, the size of the combined May census lists, the new record early arrival and late departure dates, and the discovery of new breeding localities for the local summer residents. Prior to 1922 he frequently destroyed his own field list after the records affecting the items above had been copied off in the proper places. He never kept the obser- vations of others unless they affected these same items. These comments are not intended as unfavorable criticism. Nobody ever lived who was interested in every possible detail of a faunal study. I have had some experience in compiling and examining the records of others, and never have I been privi- 14 leged to study such complete and elaborate data as Crosby left me. I have tried to do the best I could with them, with the kind advice and assistance of others. Crosby was one of my dearest friends. Need I add that I would give almost anything in the world if he were here to have written the “Birds of Dutchess County” himself, and that I am well aware that he could have done much better justice than I to his own field work and the data compiled and supplied by his many friends? 15 Chapter II Sources and Material Dutchess County is unfortunate in not having any early ornithological history. J. P. Giraud, the biographer of the birds of Long Island, lived at Poughkeepsie during a part of his later years, and bequeathed some of his collections to Vassar College. So did James Orton a generation later. Even Audubon men- tions Dutchess County once in “The Birds of America”. But none of the earlier colonial records applies to our area with abso- lute definiteness, and we shall never know in detail the early history of the Wild Turkey and Passenger Pigeon, or whether the Whooping Cranes and the White Pelican, migrating down the Hudson River, were ever actually shot in the County or no. The first person really to give us specific information was Edgar A. Mearns. While he himself lived on the west bank of the Hudson River at Highland Falls, he visited the east bank from Rhinebeck to Fishkill Landing (now Beacon), and his friend Peter de Nottbeck contributed records chiefly for game birds and waterfowl from the Hudson River islands. At least ninety per cent, of the data in Mearns’ excellent list (1878-1881) was from the vicinity of Highland Falls, but his “region” ex- plicitly included Dutchess, Putnam and Westchester Counties on the east bank and Ulster, Rockland and Orange Counties on the west bank. In most cases no attempt at a more precise re- striction of locality was made, but Mearns was distinctly ahead of his time in giving just this precise information in cases of unusual occurrences or records in any way notable or novel. The modern bird student in evaluating the “local lists” of a preceding generation, must remember that the extreme refine- ment and restriction of field current today was largely un- dreamed of then. An excellent illustration of this is Stearns’ list for Fishkill (1880). It is based on birds seen or collected 16 by the author during a ten months’ stay, supplemented by rec- ords obtained by friends and acquaintances in previous years. At first sight it appears like a local list ideally restricted to the field of our own inquiry, but an examination of the contents reveals the inclusion of the Canada Jay on the basis of a speci- men collected in the Adirondacks. We cannot help wondering whether other rarities in Stearns’ list were based on specimens actually shot in Dutchess County, or whether they came from some more or less adjacent area. Crosby and I agreed years ago to omit all such rarities in Stearns’ list, for which no voucher has been secured in subsequent 3rears. From 1881-1900 a period ensued, that yields us a little more information. Miss Mary Hyatt of Stanfordville recorded spring arrivals near her home from 1886 on, and published a few popular notes. Miss Caroline Furness noticed birds around Poughkeepsie, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, now Presi- dent of the United States, observed and collected birds on his estate at Hyde Park, chiefly in 1896. In 1894 Lispenard Horton began a long series of observations at Poughkeepsie, but he was interested primarily in finding the nests and eggs of the breeding birds. Crosby obtained all his records, and the data he accumulated in this special field have never been sur- passed, and were published by Crosby in his Preliminary List in 1921. The migration table of Dutchess County in Eaton’s Birds of New York was based on the records of Miss Hyatt and Mr. Horton. In many ways the most important work done during this period, however, was the collecting of Mr. Arthur Bloomfield at Hyde Park, which began in 1890 and terminated about 1913. Bloomfield was an Englishman and butler to Colonel Rogers, and his study of birds was the ruling interest of his life, to which he devoted all his spare time and a liberal share of his savings. His connection with a prominent and wealthy family gave him considerable field experience on Long Island, in South 17 Carolina and in Saskatchewan, where he collected diligently as opportunity offered, and secured other specimens whenever pos- sible from local taxidermists and hunters. These were all la- boriously stuffed and mounted, and the data were written on a label on the bottom of the stand. In addition to this he kept a field note book and diary, listing all specimens shot and items of interest observed. Mr. Bloomfield was, however, essentially a collector, not an observer. His technique was that of an ear- lier generation, which used the gun to obtain desirable speci- mens for their cabinets, and his work of reference consisted almost wholly of an antiquated edition of Coues’ Key. Never- theless Mr. Bloomfield’s main interest was the birds near Hyde Park. He was perfectly informed as to the status of every species, and he was also fully aware of the normal period of migration of each one. Whenever, therefore, he encountered an exceptionally early or late individual, it was collected, if pos- sible, and preserved. In this way we know something of the phenomenally late spring of 1907 in Dutchess County, thanks to Bloomfield’s zeal. Crosby first heard of Bloomfield through Mr. Roosevelt. He and I went to visit him on November 4, 1923, and were received in a most courteous and hospitable manner. There was a special museum building at the bottom of the garden, which contained hundreds of mounted birds, some mammals and other objects of natural history. A brief tour of inspection made it evident that Mr. Bloomfield had specimens of the great majority of species known from Dutchess County, including at least ten for which Crosby had no records at all. He turned over all his records and data for examination, and gave permission to use any of value and novelty. Crosby and I went over these with the greatest care, and paid another visit on June 1, 1924, with a final list of questions. In two cases we suspected a possibility of confusion of data, where a highly unlikely record for the County was not supported by an entry in the field note book. But every bird in the Museum was correctly identified, includ- 18 ing even the subspecies of Horned Larks. I g'ladly pay a tribute here to Mr. Bloomfield’s work. A man of humble means and limited resources, he had none of the advantages in bird study we take for granted. Alone and unaided he worked things out for himself as best he could, devoid alike of companionship and instruction. Crosby and I were the first people he ever met who knew anything about birds or who were really interested in his work. I hope these lines of appreciation will be printed in time for him to read them. As already recorded in detail in Chapter I, Crosby himself began studying birds about 1900 under the guidance of his tutor and close friend, Clinton G. Abbott, now director of the San Diego Natural History Society. During this time and up to 1914 steady observations were made by Dr. J. F. Goodell at Rhinebeck. By 1914 Crosby was quite active, and had estab- lished contact with a group of men at or near Poughkeepsie, Messrs. Allen Frost and George Gray, and Professors C. W. Moulton (died 1924) and F. A. Saunders of Vassar College (1914-1919). Crosby was virtually absent from the County from 1917-1919, but returned with greatly increased knowledge and field experience, while the Poughkeepsie group had main- tained steady observation. From 1919 on Crosby acted as com- piler for all the data secured in the County from all possible sources, and no one could have received more cordial and un- stinted cooperation. In addition to this he imported a steadily increasing number of students from New York City and else- where, chiefly fellow members of the Linnaean Society, so that parties rather than individuals were constantly taking the field throughout the year. Of these, good fortune in the way of leisure and other circumstances made me the most frequent visitor. From 1920-1929 I saw 218 species in Dutchess County, with Crosby in every case, and in addition to week-ends spent several vacations or parts of vacations in the County during both the spring and fall migrations. From 1919 on Crosby and Frost steadily visited the eastern sections of the County as oc- 19 casion permitted, making special nesting surveys of all likely places on camping trips in June that lasted a week each from 1919-1924. No one now living has had a field experience in the County in any way comparable to that of Mr. Frost in length or variety. This is the modern era of sight records, and it is no exaggera- tion to say that ninety per cent, of the data for this treatise has been accumulated since 1920. It is based, however, on an ample substratum of specimens collected. Few are the species re- corded beyond, for which a County specimen does not exist, and still fewer are the exceptional occurrences not so validated. I collected quite a few specimens myself since 1920, and Crosby secured others, but the wholesale use of the gun is no longer required for detailed studies of the present kind. Certainly few local areas can boast of so active and competent a band of work- ers as Dutchess County in the last decade. 20 Chapter III Description oi the Territory, its Climate and Life Zones A few words concerning the territory covered will not be amiss. According to the United States Department of Agri- culture’s ‘‘Soil Survey of Dutchess County, New York,” issued March 30, 1909, it is bounded by the Hudson River on the west, by the State of Connecticut and less than a mile of the State of Massachusetts on the east, by Columbia County on the north and by Putnam County on the south. ‘‘It is included between the parallels of 42° 27' and 42° 5' north latitude, and meridian 74° west from Greenwich passes about a mile west of the most western point in the county. The county comprises 511,872 acres or approximately 800 square miles.” To quote the Survey further: “Dutchess County possesses an uneven or diversified surface. It has no very extensive level or undulating areas, but hills and ridges. . .are common. . .cut by a number of trough-like valleys ... The elevations ... range from sea-level on the Hudson River, which here has a tidal flow [not brackish, however], to a little over 2300 feet on the high- est mountain [Brace1 Mt.] in the extreme northeast corner of the County. . .The mountainous part of the County lies along the southern and eastern boundaries. The Fishkill Mountains, which are a part of the Hudson Highlands, begin at the ex- treme southwest corner of the County [and] continue along the southern boundary. . .North of Tenmile River. . .the mountain- ous topography follows the eastern side of the Dover Valley, continuing along- the Connecticut State line ... culminating- in Brace or Monument Mountain. . .and on into the State of Mas- sachusetts, where there are still higher points. “There are three main interior valleys ... [whose] trend is 1Much better known as Mt. Riga, the name used throughout this work. 21 from northeast to southwest. . .the Wappinger Valley, ... the valley of Fishkill Creek. . .and. . .the. . .valley occupied by Ten- mile River and its tributaries. The first two flow into the Hudson River, the last-named into the Housatonic. There are also several smaller creeks and a number of ponds, either arti- ficial or dammed by debris deposited by glaciers.” The region has been settled since 1682, and contains many flourishing towns and two cities, mostly near the Hudson. The visitor to Dutchess County will, however, be impressed with the essentially rural nature of most of this area. North of Poughkeepsie along the Hudson River in a belt 5-8 miles wide is a succession of large and fine estates, with much good hardwood timber and a little white pine and hemlock. The coves of the Hudson River are consequently largely protected, and some have developed fine cattail marshes, thanks to the jumping of the New York Central Railroad from point to point, and the resultant partial filling in of the enclosed area. The northern central third of the County is the least interesting ornithologically and the most denuded of timber. It is a roll- ing upland, with many sterile and rocky pastures, and is a re- gion avoided by nearly all migrants. The eastern third of the County is the most variegated. The hills rise ever higher eastward to the Connecticut line with rela- tively narrow limestone valleys, which still contain some g'ood second growth woods. On the hills hemlock is much commoner, but in the past lumbering has been extensive and complete. There was once a fine hemlock and spruce forest on the summit of Mt. Riga, which contained a rich Canadian flora (Hoysradt, 1870). This forest also existed on the summit of Stissing Mt. near Pine Plains, and assuredly also on other high hills south- ward, such as Schaghticoke and Bald Mts. near Dover. The Canadian Zone element in the bird-life must have been far more pronounced formerly. In addition there are numerous glacial ponds and lakes, but as is invariably the case with these morainal lakes, very few indeed are sufficiently shallow to pro- 22 duce marshes favorable for water birds. This area is surpris- ingly similar to the hill country of northwestern New Jersey, and its bird-life is similar. We have here the same large list of summer residents and the curious interpenetration of Canadian and Carolinian elements in the avifauna, due to a combination of ecological or habitat factors. Climatically Dutchess County is also similar to northwestern New Jersey. Compared to New York City the summers are hotter in the Hudson Valley, and severe thunderstorms are of frequent occurrence. The winters are much more severe. Two or three feet of snow on the level for weeks at a time is by.no means unsual, as are temperatures of -10°. In a normal year the Hudson River is frozen solid above the Highlands from late December to early March, exceptionally from early December to late March. Spring is consequently later, often two to three weeks behind New York City in March, at least a week behind by the middle of April, and not synchronous until the first week in May. By the last week in May the mean daily temperature in the Hudson Valley passes that of New York City. In fall the migration is a week ahead of New York City by the end of September, and is practically concluded for land birds by the first week in November. Two other features of the climate require mention, particu- larly in spring and fall. One is the disagreeable and, to the ornithologist very trying, prevalence of high northwesterly winds. Many a lovely April or May morning is ruined by the high wind, which springs up between 11 and 2 o’clock, and these winds will sometimes blow day and night for several days. The other factor worthy of note is the greater daily range in tem- perature, especially in spring and fall. It is surprising to the New Yorker to note how often a warm May day is followed by a cool or even a frosty nig'ht. The effect on the migration will be discussed beyond. This brief survey of the climatic features with their parallelism to those of northwestern New Jersey will in part explain the 23 inosculation of Life-Zones already alluded to. The relatively hot summer climate induces a certain percentage of Carolinian species to nest here at the extreme northern limits of their ranges. The hemlock clad ravines and higher hills satisfy the requirements of the lower Canadian Zone species. It follows that the great majority of the breeding birds of the County belong to the Transition Zone, or are so wide ranging as not to be zonal indicators at all. The Carolinian Zone species are listed below in two groups, the regular summer residents first, followed by casual visitors. For the sake of comparison, northern limits are given for the Atlantic seaboard. CAROLINIAN ZONE SPECIES a. Species of Regular Occurrence County Locality or Status Northern Limits for Atlantic Seaboard Turkey Vulture Mt. Beacon N. W. New Jersey and Kent, Conn. King Rail Three localities Near Boston, Mass. Barn Owl General Connecticut Valley in Mass. Fish Crow Hudson Valley only Rhode Island ; Wareham, Mass. White-eyed Vireo Decreasing Formerly to N. E. Mass.; now almost extirpated in that state. Worm-eating General Portland, Conn. Warbler Blue-winged Warbler General; increasing New London, Conn., casually in eastern Massachusetts. Cerulean W arbler 10 localities Central New York and Dela- ware. Louisiana Water-Thrush General Connecticut Valley, Mass., southern half. Y ellow- Decreasing Now casual in whole of Mass. breasted Chat Hooded Warbler Mt. Beacon Southern Connecticut, casually northward. Orchard Oriole Uncommon Rare and irregular north of southern Connecticut. 24 b. Of More or Less Casual Occurrence County Locality or Status Acadian Bred once ; a few spring Flycatcher migrants since Tufted Titmouse Casual; once Carolina Wren Casual visitor Mockingbird Casual; twice Kentucky Casual ; twice Warbler Northern Limits for Atlantic Seaboard Southern Connecticut formerly. Bergen County, N. J. Irregular north of Long Island and Bergen County, N. J. Nantucket, Mass. Putnam County, N. Y. Cardinal Bred once Staten Island, N. Y. Appar- ently now breeding on Long Island. CANADIAN ZONE SPECIES BREEDING IN THE COUNTY Brown Creeper Hermit Thrush Blue-headed Vireo Nashville Warbler Southern Limits at County Locality < Similar Altitudes One locality; regular Irregular in Connecticut and Sussex County, N. J. Two localities Sussex Co., N'. J. ; Long Island. Three localities Boston, Mass., and Warren County, N. J. Fairly common eastward Warren County, N. J., and hills of Connecticut. Black-throated Blue Warbler Fairly common eastward Warren County, N. J., and hills of Connecticut. Mourning Warbler Canada Warbler Casual; once Northern New England and central New York at similar altitudes. Fairly common eastward Bergen County, N. J., and hills of Connecticut. Junco Casual ; once Berkshire County, Mass. An inspection of these lists will show graphically how much more strongly the Carolinian Zone is represented in Dutchess County than the Canadian. The Hudson Valley is a better highway for the northward extension of the Carolinian Zone 25 than is the Connecticut Valley at Springfield, Massachusetts, or the coast line northeast to a similar latitude in Massachusetts. In the first comparison the much greater breadth of the Hudson V alley and the fact that it is at sea-level north to Albany is a possible explanation. In the latter case the cooler climate near relatively cool salt water is a possible explanation. As regards the Canadian Zone, topographic features are probably all im- portant. This Zone is much better represented in the hills of Litchfield County, Connecticut, and northwestern New Jersey, than in Dutchess County. In each of these areas, however, the hills are higher and more extensive, and there are well forested plateaus, which do not exist in Dutchess County. If Mt. Riga were still unspoiled and unlumbered, I am convinced that Dutchess County would have a far longer list of breeding species characteristic of the Canadian Zone. This view is still further confirmed by the discovery in the past four years of a stronger Canadian Zone element in Putnam County, ,N. Y., just south of Dutchess, where there are far wilder, less lumbered hills, with extensive stands of hemlock. 26 Chapter IV Status of Occurrence of Species a. Permanent Residents — 27 (Omitting summer residents wintering casually, very rarely, or irregularly.) Black Duck Mute Swan Red-tailed Hawk Red-shouldered Hawk Bald Eagle Sparrow Hawk Ruffed Grouse Gray Partridge Bob-white Pheasant Barn Owl Long-eared Owl Barred Owl Screech Owl Great Horned Owl Northern Flicker Hairy Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Blue Jay Crow Brown Creeper Black-capped Chickadee White-breasted Nuthatch Starling House Sparrow Goldfinch Song- Sparrow Pied-billed Grebe Green Heron Black-crowned Bittern Least Bittern Wood Duck Turkey Vulture Sharp-shinned Hawk Cooper’s Hawk Broad-winged Hawk Marsh Hawk Osprey Duck Hawk King Rail Virginia Rail Sora Florida Gallinule Killdeer Woodcock Spotted Sandpiper Mourning Dove Yellow-billed Cuckoo b. Summer Residents — 101 Night Heron 27 b. Summer Residents (continued) Black-billed Cuckoo Whip-poor-will Nighthawk Chimney Swift Hummingbird Kingfisher Red-headed Woodpecker Kingbird Crested Flycatcher Phoebe Acadian Flycatcher1 Alder Flycatcher Least Flycatcher Wood Pewee Prairie Horned Lark Tree Swallow Bank Swallow Rough-winged Swallow Barn Swallow Cliff Swallow Purple Martin Fish Crow House Wren Long-billed Marsh Wren Short-billed Marsh Wren Catbird Brown Thrasher Wood Thrush Hermit Thrush Veery Bluebird Robin Cedar Waxwing White-eyed Vireo Yellow-throated Vireo Blue-headed Vireo Red-eyed Vireo Warbling Vireo Black and White Warbler Worm-eating Warbler Golden- winged Warbler Blue-winged Warbler Nashville Warbler Yellow Warbler Black-throated Blue Warbler Black-throated Green Warbler Cerulean Warbler Chestnut-sided Warbler Pine Warbler Prairie Warbler Ovenbird Louisiana Water-Thrush Mourning Warbler1 Northern Yellow-throat Yellow-breasted Chat Hooded Warbler Canada Warbler Redstart Bobolink Meadowlark Red-winged Blackbird Orchard Oriole Baltimore Oriole Purple Grackle Bronzed Grackle Cowbird Scarlet Tanager Cardinal1 1Once only. 28 b. Summer Residents (continued) Rose-breasted Grosbeak Indigo Bunting Towhee Savannah Sparrow Grasshopper Sparrow Henslow’s Sparrow Vesper Sparrow Junco1 Chipping Sparrow Field Sparrow Swamp Sparrow 3Once only. This list is complete, and includes every species definitely found nesting in the County. When we add the permanent residents, it will be seen that there are 128 breeding species, a most respectable number. There is a possibility that at least four other species will be found nesting in the future. The New York City region has only 143 species that have bred, and the entire State of Connecticut, 146. When we consider the much greater area possessed by these two regions and their extensive marine littoral, Dutchess County compares very favorably indeed. Many of the species on this list winter occasionally and the majority are most abundant on migration. c. Summer visitants — 4 American Egret Little Blue Heron Snowy Egret Laughing Gull d. Winter visitants — 20 (Some often rare and irregular, or as transients only in certain years.) Canvas-back American Merganser Goshawk Rough-legged Hawk Herring Gull Snowy Owl Saw-whet Owl Pileated Woodpecker Horned Lark Acadian Chickadee 29 d. Winter visitants — 20 (continued) Golden-crowned Kinglet Northern Shrike Evening Grosbeak Purple Finch Pine Grosbeak Redpoll Red Crossbill White-winged Crossbill Tree Sparrow Snow Bunting To this list should be added the permanent residents, and certain species listed among the summer residents, such as the Prairie Horned Lark, the Waxwing, and the Junco, to give an idea of the winter bird-life, excluding casual individuals of other species. e. Transients — 7 4 Loon Holboell’s Grebe1 Horned Grebe Double-crested Cormorant Great Blue Heron1 Canada Goose Mallard Red-legged Black Duck1 Gadwall Baldpate Pintail Green-winged Teal Blue-winged Teal Shoveller Redhead Ring-necked Duck Greater Scaup Lesser Scaup Golden-eye1 Bufflehead Old-squaw White-winged Scoter Ruddy Duck Hooded Merganser Red-breasted Merganser Pigeon Hawk Coot Semipalmated Plover Wilson’s Snipe1 Upland Plover Solitary Sandpiper Greater Yellow-legs Lesser Yellow-legs Pectoral Sandpiper Least Sandpiper Semipalmated Sandpiper Sanderling Ring-billed Gull Bonaparte’s Gull Common Tern ^Recorded in winter. 30 e. Transients Short-eared Owl1 Sapsucker1 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Olive-sided Flycatcher Red-breasted Nuthatch1 Winter Wren1 Olive-backed Thrush Gray-cheeked Thrush Bicknell’s Thrush Ruby-crowned Kinglet Pipit Migrant Shrike Philadelphia Vireo Tennessee Warbler Orange-crowned Warbler Parula Warbler Magnolia Warbler — 74 (continued) Cape May Warbler Myrtle Warbler1 Blackburnian Warbler Bay-breasted Warbler Blackpoll Warbler Palm Warbler Yellow Palm Warbler Northern Water-Thrush Connecticut Warbler Wilson’s Warbler Rusty Blackbird Pine Siskin1 White-crowned Sparrow White-throated Sparrow Fox Sparrow Lincoln’s Sparrow Lapland Longspur Many of the summer residents and winter visitants belong primarily in this group. f. Casual visitants — 26 (Including species out of their normal range, or whose habitat requirements do not exist in Dutchess County.) Red-throated Loon Whistling Swan European Widgeon American Scoter Surf Scoter White Gyrfalcon Golden Plover Black-bellied Plover Ruddy Turnstone Willet Knot White-rumped Sandpiper Baird’s Sandpiper Northern Phalarope Long-tailed Jaeger Caspian Tern Briinnich’s Murre Dovekie Arkansas Kingbird Tufted Titmouse * Recorded in winter. 31 f. Casual visitants — 26 (continued) Carolina Wren Prothonotary Warbler Mockingbird Kentucky Warbler Gnatcatcher Hoary Redpoll Statistical Summary Permanent residents Summer residents Summer visitants Winter visitants Transients Casual visitants Extinct Species (Passenger Pigeon) 27 101 4 20 74 26 1 Total 253 32 Chapter V The Migration of Land Birds Spring There is so much detailed and exact knowledge today of the migration of birds, that an account of the seasonal variation in Dutchess County would be largely repetitious unless it were contrasted and compared with that of the much better known territory of New York City to the south. The climatic differ- ences larg-ely account for the differences in the first half of the spring, but I shall attempt to demonstrate that other factors enter into the situation in May. The extreme variability in the beginning of spring is graph- ically shown in the accompanying table, compiled from Crosby’s diaries, and applying strictly to the Hudson V alley from Rhine- cliff northward. 1922 — First wave March 12. River opens the 17th. 1923 — First wave of land-birds, March 18. River partly open on the 26th; freezes solid with cold wave (down to 3°); partly open again on 29th ; ice gone April 4th. 192-4 — -Very backward season ; river practically open on the 28th and first wave of land-birds the same day. 1925 — First land-birds Feb. 22. River open and second wave of land-birds March 11. 1926 — March 5, 5° ! River open and migrants common March 25. 1927 — River open March 11. 1928 — Scattered land-birds March 5. March 11, 8°. River open on March 18, but plenty of snow left inland. No real wave of land-birds or ducks until March 24. 1929 — First land-birds March 12. River open the 15th. 1930 — First land-birds Feb. 23-March 2. River open the 7th. Lunch in Turkey Hollow 33 Certain comments on this table are in order. The “first wave of land birds” does not mean the first arrival of individuals; these are often ten days or more in advance of the species’ be- coming common. Messrs. Frost and Gray almost always re- corded some of these birds near Poughkeepsie before Crosby noted them at Rhinebeck. The water-bird migration on the Hudson permits of certain generalizations also. The Herring Gull, American Merganser and Black Duck precede the opening of the river by several days, as these birds can invariably be found flying north at Cruger’s Island or sitting on the ice, with the River still frozen solid. The fresh water ducks do not arrive until the coves are open, which may take place while the main river is still full of drifting ice. As a general rule the arrival of the Herring Gull and Black Duck is synchronous with that of the first land-birds, and that of the other fresh water ducks with the second wave of land-birds. But in seasons where there has been exception- ally heavy snow in February and early March, the river migra- tion will be ahead of the land birds, as in 1928. The month of April resembles March in being even more er- ratic and variable than around New York City. Snow is of frequent occurrence early in the month, and frosts can be ex- pected throughout. A summary for the years covered by the March table are as follows: 1922 — April 1, heavy snow. Exceptionally mild and pleasant weather from 1 Oth- 1 6th. Snow on the 20th, freezes hard 20th-24th. Balance of month cold and windy. The only pronounced wave on the 16th. 1923 — April 1,4°. AYarm April 7 and 8. Freezes hard the 15th- 17th. Arery hot on the 21st. Unusually warm to the end of the month. Many early scattered arrivals, but not a single wave the entire month ! 1924 — Ten inches of snow April 1 and 2. Warm 6th-14th, marked migration the 13th and 14th. Moderate tempera- tures prevailed to end of month, but continuous high northwest winds spoiled the migration. 34 1925 — Warm with marked migration on the 8th and 9th. Freezes 17th. Frost on 21st. April 23, temp. 86°. Marked wave on the 26th, with phenomenally early ar- rivals to the end of the month. 1926 — April 2, temp. 25°. Some migration on the 10th. Hard frost 13th. Some migration April 18th. Frost 18th and 19th. April 23, 77°. Marked wave on the 24th, 76 species recorded (Crosby and Frost), and the 25th (77 species), but the season very backward and remains so to close of month. 1927 — Cold and disagreeable with snow on the 5th. Frost al- most every night to the 17th. Very hot the 20th. Marked wave on the 22nd. April 25, temp. 19°. Cold to end of month and hardly any migration. 1928 — April 2, temp. 22°. April 4, temp. 89°. Wave on the 5th. April 9, frost. April 12, snow. April 15-22, frost nearly every night. April 28, blizzard and deep snow. No migration to speak of after the 5th. 1929 — Wave April 5. April 7, temp. 85°, another wave. Cold, frost or freezing, 10th-18th, snowing 14th-16th! Warm- ing up, with waves on 27th and 28th. 1930 — Migration on the 6th. Very moderate weather with no extremes through the 20th, with very slight migration. Freezes 23rd and 24th, and the month closed very back- ward. An inspection of this table shows how unsatisfactory a month April usually is, and how rare are the days when the weather is pleasant and birds are really common. It will also be profit- able to contrast this record for Dutchess County with the same years for New York. Fortunately the latter region has detailed summaries for 1926 and 1927 (Griscom) and 1928 and 1929 (Kuerzi). (See Abstracts Proc. Linn. Soc. N. Y., nos. 38-42). As a general proposition, a backward season in one place is also a backward season in the other. The difference consists chiefly in that cold spells in Dutchess County are more severe 35 and last longer than near New York, this difference sometimes being sufficient to destroy a wave or marked migration at the more northern locality. To avoid repetition it will be under- stood that migration follows on the heels of a warm spell. If therefore such a spell brings a wave near New York and there is none in Dutchess County, it will be apparent that the colder climate there destroyed it. New York 1926. April 1-20 — No wave. April 22 — A wave. April 30 — A wave. 1927. April 13 and 15 — Big waves. April 29 1928. April 3, 4 and 5 — Good flights. Nothing further. 1929. April 7 — Wave. April 141 April 21) April 26) April 28) Waves. Waves. Dutchess County April 10 — Migration of late March species. April 24 and 25- — The same wave. May 3 — The same wave. Nothing until April 22. Never materialized. April 5 — Wave. Nothing further. April 5 — ‘Wave for March species. April 7 — Wave, chiefly late March species. April 27 — The same wave. May 3 — The same wave. It will be obvious from this comparison how much poorer and less varied the bird-life of Dutchess County is in April than near New York. We shall see that the situation can be com- pletely reversed in May, and our comparative method can be advantageously continued. New York 1922. May 2— A flight. May 3 — A small flight. May 7- — Tig wave. May 10 — Big wave, the first Tennessee Warbler. May 14 — Red-eyed Vireo. Dutchess County May 4— Big wave, including Ten- nessee Warbler. May 8 and 9 — Good flights, includ- ing the Cape May Warbler and Red-eyed Vireo. May 11 — Wave. May 14 — Big wave. 36 New York 1922. May 22— Small flight. 1923. May 6 — Small flight. May 12 — Good flight. May 13 — Big wave, Tennes- see Warbler. May 17 — Good flight. May 18 — Cape May Warbler. May 25 — A wave. 1924. May 3 — Good flight. May 4 — Good flight. May 7 — Cape May Warbler. (Protracted cold spell) May 23 — Good flight. 1925. May 2 — Flight. May 4 — Small flight. Dutchess County May 19 — Good flight. Tennessee Warbler common. May 20 — Good flight. May 23 — Small flight. May 5— Good flight. May 6— Good flight. May 8 — Cerulean Warbler. May 10 — Tennessee Warbler. May 13 — Small flight, Cape May Warbler. May 19- — Good flight. May 20 — A wave; 24 species of Warblers, including Mourning, and several Tennessees. May 21-28 — No observation. May 30 — Small flight. May 3 — Good flight, Cape May Warbler. May 4 — Big wave. May 5 — Good flight Lincoln’s Sparrow. (Protracted cold spell.) May 18 — G o o d flight, Mourning Warbler. May 25 — Big wave. May 26 — Big wave. May 30 — Wave. May 9 — Good flight. Cape May and Cerulean Warblers. May 10 — Big wave, White-crowned. Sparrow, Orange-crowned and Tennessee Warbler. May 11 — Big wave, Cape (Cold spell.) May Warbler. May 15 — Tennessee Warbler. May 16 — Big wave. May 17 — Big wave, the same one. 37 New York 1925. May 20-21 — Good flights. May 25 and 26 — Big flights. 1929. “The normal waves decidedly less marked than usual . . . and on the majority of days observers reported relatively few species and fewer indi- viduals” (Kuerzi). May 10 — Wave. Dutchess County No observation. May 27 — Big wave. May 4 — Good flight. May 5 — Big wave. May 12 — Big wave. May 15— Good flight. May 17 — Big wave. May 19 — -Big wave. May 23 — Big wave. May 26 — Big wave. (For the rarer transients, the second best year ever recorded, and the best for general abundance of birds.) Two interesting conclusions result from a study of these tables. The first is, that granted a continuation of fair and warm weather, a wave in the New York City region reaches Dutchess County one or two days later, and the same general list of species arrives. If, however, the weather suddenly turns bad the day of a wave or the day after, this wave never ma- terializes in Dutchess County. The second and far more im- portant conclusion is that Dutchess County obviously receives flights and waves that have nothing whatever to do with any schedule around New York, and many of the rarer transient Warblers also arrive on dates that bear no relation to the New York City region. When we consider also their greater abun- dance in the upper Hudson Valley, and the presence there of the Cerulean Warbler as a regular summer resident, I am con- vinced that Dutchess County receives an influx from the south- west or west as well as from the south. This view receives further indorsement in early spring. Crows and various black- birds are regularly seen every spring and fall migrating across the Hudson River in a southwest to northeast diagonal, which 38 affects the whole area from Rhinecliff to Cruger’s Island. This flight often occurs on the very same day that other crows and blackbirds are streaming straight north further inland. It is a marked phenomenon, which I have frequently seen myself, and which Crosby carefully checked every year. Reverting for a moment to the time it takes for a New York wave to reach Dutchess County, it is quite surprising how often the advance guard of many species are recorded south of Poug'h- keepsie ahead of Rhinebeck. It is also quite unexpected to note how seldom a wave applies both to the southern and northern halves of the County on the same day. These points have been brought out by the census trips of the past ten years, with two parties always working a southern and a northern route two or three week-ends each May. Examples follow. The species listed for the southern party were not recorded by the northern. Southern Party Northern Party 1925, May 10 — No flight; Black-billed Cuckoo, Tennessee and Magnolia Warblers Good flight 1926, May 9 — No flight; Wood Pewee, White-crowned Sparrow, Tanager, Red-eyed Vireo, Ceru- lean and Canadian Warblers No flight May 16 — Small flight; Alder Flycatcher and Black- poll Warbler No flight 1927, May 8 — No flight; Alder Flycatcher, Indigo Bunt- ing, Red-eyed Vireo; Blue-winged, Mag- nolia, Blackburnian Warblers, Chat No flight 1928, May 13 — Good flight; 13 arrivals not recorded by northern party No flight May 20 — No flight Good wave 1929, May 5 — No flight ; Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Orchard Oriole, Tanager, Chat, Magnolia and Wil- son’s Warblers Big wave May 12 — Big wave; Nighthawk, Pewee, Alder and Yellow-bellied Flycatchers, Tennessee and Cape May Warblers Big wave Northern Party Good flight Southern Party 1929, May 19 — Big wave 1930, May 11 — Good flight; Blackburnian and Canadian Warblers Good flight May 18 — -Good flight No flight A few words now as to the relative abundance of typical May transients. Crosby made careful warbler counts for 1914-1916, and 1920-1925 based on daily observation. He rarely attempted to do so for other species of birds, unless particularly interested, and his daily lists give no clue as to the number of individuals seen. I made careful counts around Rhinebeck in 1929, also daily. Such data as really reflect consistent observation and record are given below. The numbers given represent the total number of individuals seen during the season. These figures can profitably be contrasted with Mr. Urner’s statistical study of the same species near Elizabeth, New Jersey (cf. Abstract Proc. Linn. Soc. N. Y., nos. 39, 40, pp. 44-98). It will be ap- parent that 1916 was a marvelous year, 1929 a very good year, and 1924 remarkable for the numbers of the late transients, due to the three waves the last week in May. Another advantage in printing these numbers is the graphic illustration they af- ford of the fluctuation which takes place from year to year, a fluctuation which is undreamed of by the inexperienced ob- server, who does not appreciate how relative and variable is the term “common transient.” Further for the sake of comparison I add similar counts of my own in 1926, 1913 and 1914 for the New York City region, picking them deliberately as the best years I ever had there. They are consequently fairly^ comparable only with Rhinebeck’s best. We must remember, however, that we are comparing the three best years in twenty-two for New York with the three best years in ten only for Rhinebeck. Even so, the sum of Rhinebeck’s three best counts is way ahead of New York for most of the species, the Parula Warbler and Olive-backed Thrush being the outstanding exceptions. 40 Seasonal Counts of Warblers, Etc. Solitary Sandpiper — Yellow-bellied Flycatcher . . . . — Olive-sided Flycatcher . . Olive-backed Thrush .... Blue-headed Vireo Tennessee Warbler Nashville Warbler 32 Parula Warbler 70 Cape May Warbler 10 Magnolia Warbler Black-throated Blue Warbler. .44 Blackburnian Warbler 12 Bay-breasted Warbler 5 Northern Water-Thrush 20 Mourning Warbler Wilson’s Warbler 2 Canada Warbler 18 Lincoln’s Sparrow 'Exceptionally numerous. 2XJnusually scarce. to Dutchess County ?© O i—i 5 i- 2 r- U3 33 > 33 srg/ - yvAsw^y m v .V^y ~r \wy m x^yos^i^ m ff> ' ' — co 5 co BRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOlinillSNI NVINOSHIIIAIS S3iavaail ~ C/3 Z CO < V 2 < TITUTION MOIiniliSNI_NVINOSHimS S3IHVaail LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION w _ z C/3 O AV - o _ 2 ' 2 avaan libraries Smithsonian institution NoiiniusNi nvinoshiiws saiavaan z #“ z r* z m x ‘ m " x^uusez m co ± co £ — co _ TITUTION NOlinillSNI NVINOSHIIIAIS S3IHVa8ll LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION v, co 2 _ _ co 2: ..... CO 2 &NL, s .< y^so^X s 2 < ^Nv< CO x O > 5 5 ^ 2 CO Z CO * Z co*'' avaan libraries Smithsonian institution NoiiniusNi nvinoshiiiais saiavaan — Q2 co _ co £ co avaan libraries Smithsonian institution NoiiniusNi nvinoshiiiais saiavaan TITUTION NOlinillSNI NVINOSHIIIAIS S3iavaail LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION o z lavaan libraries Smithsonian institution NoiiniusNi nvinoshiiiais saiavaan in 2? CO - CO -c. RIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOlinillSNi NVINOSHIIWS S3IBVaan LIBRARIES SP — < o — co ^ w O xwv pi^ _ O LliSNI^NVINOSHlIIAIS^SB IBVEiail^LIBRARI ES^ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIIDIIISNI N’ r- > Z r- Z ^ Z ^ rn vw ^ xxAy'x rn x^ost^T'' tL rn co £ co £ co RIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOlinillSNi NVIN0SH1IINS S3IHVHai1 LIBRARIES SI 2 s XAEiloX < *sk s .jggfx s — _» x CO O 2 , > 2 '■• 5 " g x^vos^X > LI1SNI NVINOSHlIINS^Saiavaail^LIBRARIES^SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUllSNI _ N co — co _ — co ^r777>^ z l!pX co i'$k 1/5 i R I E S SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUllSNI NVIN0SH1IINS S3iaVHail LIBRARIES S 2 r Z r- . z !I ___ 2 2 ■ m 2 -v O m X^i2?P> ° m xcixov^ ^ x^ir^x m ’’•L xioju/^x m co " co \ £ co — 1I1SNI NVINOSHlilNS SBiaVHSII LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUllSNI Is Z CO Z co 2 v CO Z < Xo^ppx s ,. < ix ... 2 /TucvaTx < 2 < \R 5 ES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIlfUllSNI NVINOSHilSNS S3iaVH8n LIBRARIES S CO X CO — CO 5 CO ?Px w .co Xs^EEPX ^ xI^pPx w - V&-; 1x1 X^SSiAx co Xs^SS'A' ^ q v^ND^/ _ xgiiiisgX o v „ O UlSNI^NVINOSHimS^SS I HVH a h“'l! B RAR I ES^SMITHSONIAN^ INSTITUTION 2 NOIlfUllSNI “V \, Z r- Z [3 2 m ^ 2 Z^Trpx - X^ovoX 2 m XT^pX O X^^ CO 03 73 > 73 m '■ w ^ x^va^x m j-n 'A^vox^-''’ Ej X^^x m co * ~ co 2 co £ co ^ R I E S SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOlinillSNi NVINOSHIIINS S3IHVH8n LIBRARIES z * co z co z asa^ | . ^ ^ s | 1 | 5 x o x (iw^ o 5 ^ > - 5 x^vqsva^X >’ 5 § 2 (/) 2 (/) 2 CO ^ 1I1SNI _ NVIN0SH1IWS S3iavaan LIBRARIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOIiniliSN!_ co — co — co ^RIES SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION NOlinillSNi NVIN0SH1IWS SBIBVaail LIBRARIES Z r- z r- z *" 2 I I I O V I I