Skip to main content

Full text of "The Auk"

See other formats 


epee: 


VPP te crane 
Mra ut nes 
le te oe 

ree ores 


PR 


a 
Um veo d 


hs vat 
vt ane 
Pee y 

, 


vy 


‘ 
1 
v4 


dey 
svete VF aeW pg gy 


‘ 


va 


UDA tek ee 
eet 


444 


os hg 4 
Rell. 


et t 
ews eh 


Nona 
ee 7 
ta i 


1 Ny 
pene 
' ‘ 


Cra) 


Pie 
va 
' 


Bey 
HOw 
ALA 


bart 
Ua) Ad 


ye 
wy ve 
ePu 
ene 


ia 


we 
Ag, 


t 


hy? 


SD 

nein C 
PR eae 
a 


ot yee 
thom & 
Can 


(NAA 
We ow ge 
ie Ve De dee? | | 


ey 


< 
€ 


#5 
alee 


= Tet, 


hee 


ee 


* 7 
re « 
ee Bae 
Aelar 


Vee eR 
aya 


a5 


ete 
Sistst: 


epee in 
Hao aa 


be 
rte ate 


nih 


* 


Pm 8h ae By 


ite Wa se 
ween Ae > 


*) 
LAL 


tote tc 
Fesotenats? 


4 


e ta 


cree 
9) Ke ay 


Ke 


yh 
© 90%. 
fF, Sita 


abe 
Ps 
ay! 


=, 
Fe 
es 


= 
rhs 


er 
totes, 
3 


= 


2, 
-: 


fe 


Ceesies 


ace 
a 


i 
os 


Sety 


e. 


3: 


< 


eee 
wee 


pe 


< 
z 


= 


Sy, 


ue 


A 


ans Sel 


we 


eheixts 
, 


= 
a5 


erate 
Se Ba 
wer 


=e 
+ 

aie 
4 


eislele 
wette 
= 
iw. f. 
fois 
ce 
Toe. SSF, 


fetes ree, 
Preis 
STSeee 
= 


= 
Lee 


ote ee eS 
oe else 3 Sct 


; 


¥; 


ci 
2, 


~ 


~ voauw~ 
Ua iil fiat Pa ok OT yal erenen en. 

Ae _ » ag Rs ‘ : rr tn . i 

. Vow ~ vw - 
Tidy i] Aes Witt” Cheeereeeercaree fs 
4 w~ = 

& : ew sae ee eoee eset S ving i lomeaent Pe A! ih, » ad nse 

Ker ~ . : Suuwin Sf - 
gee WARS off A ae ehh SUIS pecerewven 
retell ete ta eta g SSS LOSS Tee a eaireh | 58 ve 

~N oe ‘ | (yw 

bY ee aad ¥ armeaee : 3 AOI Se Nod hhh beeen 
tt wv gv, , ; CLSywe CYNGG® Ld ‘wt ree Nw X ~ is int Nr oa 
Panter eden te sent uuess AN a ETE 

4 “~ ws yw VS ie ‘eere seth “pe4 ade REA 
~ ‘ UX ~~ , pads. aK. 108 owe Ww Nye ss ‘ 

we - 


oe Yo NY Ra Daies an i? 


wet ne = * we t } € . j ¥ m : yore - : 
See JAS \\ \ x et ei S et : ee qtiin~. i 
gece van reverent Ws ituwwe | , vv 


ne A teh q 
tT LEER Eee vv eee ye menos 
unease NUTT : seit! UTM et Lt 
FETE veeveusunn(ecere@al tli nVRlL aan hig NERTITON | 
4 4y we et vw .~) 2s 1 ~ shad, ‘) 
oVUvuTY ye nore. A | > Toty S AWweg yee a , . ‘ : j wy NYNwy) 
YY y wy vy three cynic ek Vay chee a UA 
VYURuwre: Warm A 44 by aH ih Mala Wow Wied A | i ay wild lbh ‘yg Nee fine Met at» 
TTT ED sh i te Herta yearn uo ; + eu: 
nd yw PRE ofl lati oa Lad a, AAGS om ea ie \ ‘ iene al 
Tae ws je ott wee Wie bidlhdet oF: dled 
oF Ane OM 04 : : ‘ 
[opin PL pe NS vith el | ba , MTT 
SND NTPs oe seeccaee eee WN ane Pn 
"Yummy ‘owt wv 
ie oY Vw) ‘ dyayyh : mtd Ld | | 
VeVi! - Y YM Cia en 7 bel | Nib ; 4 me bs a Vee wee i oT {Tf 
a ae \ y Ab | | : = Ls & J UUs" 
ese @ ‘ forse nies Bl ATT hehd el bolare Ven Ms von, a eT emt eet eT TAL 
a wall < Ete Ne me ae Se - sc " mf = Wu 1 : 3 p a | Ps sy BP § = X 
Me TTT T(t yw Vee yreory ets . veer ayetse “sf | 
cee wifow ad anyetyev vy Aad ee eer eet LL 
creveevfewetinyoututenltes 1 Tewecvedll iva : 


werent... 


evecGuel oo ... "VWeue. ae ete’ 


ee a, 4 


UN quuv von 


Wy - hahahah attend. oil 2 em 
Nerina aT 


See: UT || ail “gn 
Thea” TOO Perret et eee 


uw 


Ye OS 


vy Te wetervenrn yg AB at 
| ~ vow sEet. We, pra) aay hen * % ¢ 
i Ye whee” ~~ v- Syve tty we A OR, Le 
11 || abl ORROO wy iyge wrertern, 
at: % wwe l ay itt 
; - rs bs ge 4 dghim 
et NA egy voUEU TTS 
’ i 
: q Se, \ ¥ >a oe 
3s j ~ “ag | a ee 
. is . s wry, Wn vy “5 "Org v “OU Epy er tt a wey ~ iyi. “ys hy A 
“hh v inatey Vetyegeune: St a ws rear ycrewtent nscsch Vera ty, “4'wy 
>, ~ wel TN PT ee ae ae ns he wd ity. 


ASA a t Py, 
. i iam + <¥ " lee. Thad wae Pale wh ot ‘ \ 


3 
iid | Ry on 
ys Ne 
feu 
if Big ee 3 
s 
ver. i ‘ Sei. aay 4 Ls 3 
PEELE CATE TT Bye Ry unis vir iy ty] ta ett 
hi TS Soin mall sve iBeuee ? hel Ter Thr epattonyyy nth. 3 uv Wervive, RE || Se 
1) Pah pbk | | RITE saaeenreel ree Vw Ay me vue iy. 
"apis Tol hd Rett debdetotdobeed | avid , 
ee wv’ Ww aye. 
Abad bh Th WewrewtiTl. qt sil eee": eaevocrgit! vray. Vevey! Ne Phy hes, 
Arey’ gre erttte veer dev Th Ll bl ae { NON DLSENR ne 


Nag Re we we 


Low er TTT week eo L | bddh | ayeet ite Wy , Sie ae | fit, 


| 
i 
| 


. 


tl Oy 


*, 


>. 
¢ 


Py Dg aeX 66% ¢ 
. “@ : 


42% 
y Op SERIEs, CONTINUATION OF THE New SERIES, 
Vol. XL. BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB Vou: XOX iE: 


The Auk 


i Quarterlp Journal of Ornithology 


EDITOR 
WITMER STONE 


ey ft 
an ( MiLAN His Ti? >. 
D> , / 


PUBLISHED BY y at 4 
The American Ornithologists’ UbidA)’ | west” 


—_— 


ox hie? 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 
1915 


Entered as second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass. 


CONTENTS OF VOLUME XXXII. 


NUMBER I. 
PaaEs 
On THE TRAIL OF THE Ivory-BILL. By Frederic H. Kennard. 
(Plates I-III) . : : ; ; : : ; , 1 
List or THE Brrps or Lovistana. Part VI. By H. H. Kopman 15 


ANATOMICAL AND OTHER NOTES ON THE PASSENGER PIGEON (Kcto- 
pistes migratorius) LATELY LIVING IN THE CINCINNATI ZO6- 
LOGICAL GaRDENS. By Dr. R. W. Shufeldt. (Plates IV—VI) . 29 
Tren Hours at FeRNANDO Noronua. By Robert Cushman Murphy 41 
Notes ON AMERICAN AND OLD Worup ENGLISH SpaRRows. By 


John C. Phillips , , : 51 
A New Svusspecies or Screech OWL FROM CALIFORNIA. By J. 

Grinnell. : : , 59 
Earity REcoRDS or cHe Witp Turkey. III. By Albert Hazen 

Wright . , 61 
THE PRESENT STATUS oF THE “TRUMPETER Swan (Olor buccinator). 

By Henry K.Coale. (Plates VII-X). . ; é 82 
NoTEs ON A CAPTIVE VirGINIA Ratu. By Alvin R. Cahn : : 91 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Concealing Posture of Grebes, 95; The Double-crested Cormorant in the 
Chicago Area, 95; Note on the Feeding of the Mallard, 96; Piping 
Pover, at Cape May, N. J., 97; The Yellow-crowned Night Heron in 
Colorado. A Correction, 97; The American Bittern Nesting on Long 
Island, N. Y., 97; Cory’s Least Bittern in Illinois, 98; Willow Ptarmi- 
gan in Minnesota, 99; Audubon’s Caracara in New Mexico, 100; 
Actions of the Red-shouldered Hawk, 100; Richardson’s Owl in Illinois, 
101; An albinistic Bobolink, 101; Leconte’s Sparrow in Wisconsin, 101; 
The Evening Grosbeak at Portland, Maine, 102; Two Species of Cliff 
Swallow Nesting in Kerr County, Texas, 102; The Cape May Warbler 
in Eastern Massachusetts, 104; The Records of the Tennessee and 
Cape May Warblers in Southwestern Maine, 104; Cape May and 
Tennessee Warblers in Philadelphia, 106; San Lucas Verdin in Ari- 
zona, 106; Bluegray Gnatcatcher nesting in Wisconsin, 106; Robin’s 
Nests, 106; Two New Records for British Columbia, 107; Some 
Unusual Breeding Records from South Carolina, 108; Notes on Some 
Birds of the Maryland Alleghanies: An Anomaly in the Check-List, 
108; The Status of the Song Sparrow and the Chipping Sparrow as 
Early Birds, 110. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Cooke’s ‘Distribution and Migration of North American Rails,’ 113;~ 
Wetmore on the Growth of the Tail Feathers of the Giant Hornbill, 
118; Chapman on New Colombian Birds, 114; Shufeldt on the Young 
of Phalacrocorax atriceps georgianus, 114; ‘Alaskan Bird-Life,’ 114; 
Mrs. Bailey’s ‘Handbook of Birds of the Western United States,’ 
Fourth Edition, 115; MclIlhenny’s ‘The Wild Turkey and Its Hunting, 
115; Mathews’ ‘Birds of Australia,’ 116; Kuroda’s Recent Orni- 
thological Publications, 116; The Annual Report of the National 


iv Contents of Volume XXXII. 


Association of Audubon Societies, 117; Recent Literature on Bird 
Protection, 117; Studies in Egg Production in the Domestic Fowl, 118; 
Birds as Carriers of the Chestnut-Blight Fungus, 119; Reichenow’s 
‘Die Vogel,’ 119; Second Report on the Food of Birds in Scotland, 
121; Feilden on Birds of Trinidad and Tobago, 121; The Ornitho- 
logical Journals, 123; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 128; 
Publications Received, 131. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Obituary Notices, 133; Time of Incubation, 134; Changes in By-Laws of 
theyAg @: UE, 13 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Obituary: Theodore N. Gill, 139; The San Francisco Meeting of the 
A. O. U., 140; Importation of Rhea plumage, 142; Full Names of 
Authors in ‘The Auk,’ 143; Book Notice, 144; Exhibition of Water 
colors of Birds, 144. 


ae 
NUMBER II. . a 
Pace 
THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE FAMILY DENDROCOLAPTID®. By. Dr. 
Herman von Ihering. (Plates XI-XII) . 145 
THE OKALOACOOCHEE SLOUGH. ae Frederic H. Kennard. brates 
XIII-XV) : 154 
Cazot’s TyPEs OF Yucatan Birps. By Outram Bangs” ; 166 
Tue ATLANTIC RANGE OF LEACH’s PETREL (Oceanodroma leucorhoa 
(ViEILLoT)). By Robert Cushman Murphy . ae 170 
Some SuGGEsTIoNs ror Bretrrer Mrtruops or RECORDING AND 
StupyinGc Birp Sones. By Aretas A. Saunders. 173 
List oF THE Birps oF Lourtstana. Part VII. By H. H. Kopman 183 
PHAETHON CATESBYI BRANDT. By Gregory M. Mathews . : 195 
SIMULTANEOUS ACTION oF Birps: A Suacrstion. By Winsor M. 
Tyler, M.D. . 198 
Tur Orv New Encuanp Bos-wuirs. By John C. Phillips. (Plate - 
XVI) : : . 204 
Earty Recorps or THE Witp Turkey. IV. By Albert Hazen 
Wright . ; : : : ; , ‘ : ‘ a 407 


GENERAL NOTES. 


The Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) at Berwyn, Pa., 225; Mallards 
Wintering in Saskatchewan, 225; European Widgeon in Washington, 
225; Harlequin Duck in the Glacier National Park, Montana, 225; 
The Blue Goose (Chen cerulescens) in Rhode Island, 226; Occurrence 
of the Pectoral Sandpiper (Pisobia maculata) near Salem, N. J., 226; 
The Wimbrel, Ruff, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, and Eskimo Curlew 
on Long Island, N. Y., 226; The Diving Instinct in Shore-birds, 
227; The Little Black Rail on Long Island, N. Y., 227; Richardson’ s 
Owl and Other Owls in Franklin County, New York, 228; Lewis’s 
Woodpecker taken in Saskatchewan, 228; Prairie Horned Lark in 
Rhode Island in Summer, 229; Crows Nesting on the Ground, 229; 
The Bermuda Crow, 229; The Orange-crowned Warbler in Cam- 
bridge, Mass., in December, 230; A Winter Record for the Palm 


Contents of Volume XXXII. Vv 


Warbler on Long Island, N. Y., 230; The Blackburnian and Bay- 
breasted Warblers at Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., 230; The Cape May 
Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) as an Abundant Autumnal Migrant and 
as a Destructive Grape Juice Consumer at Berwyn, Pa., 231; Cape 
May Warbler Eating Grapes, 233; Addendum, 234; The Rock Wren 
at National, Iowa, 234; Corthylio— A Valid Genus for the Ruby- 
crowned Kinglet, 234; A Note on the Migration at Sea of Shore Birds 
and Swallows, 236; Rare Birds near Waynesburg, Pa., 236; Some New 
York City Notes, 237; Notes from Wisconsin, 237; Changes and Addi- 
tions to the ‘List of the Birds of Gallatin County, Montana, 238; 
What Bird Lovers Owe to the Late Professor King, 239; Morning 
Awakening Notes at Jefferson Highland, N. H., 240. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


“The Auk’ Index, 1901-1910, 242; The New B. O. U. List, 243; Hankin 
on Animal Flight, 245; Snethlage’s ‘Catalogue of the Birds of Ama- 
zonia,’ 247; Hornaday’s ‘Wild Life Conservation in Theory and Prac- 
tice, 248; Hartert’s ‘Die Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna,’ 248; 
Phillips on Experimental Studies of Hybridization among Ducks and 
Pheasants, 249; Allen on Pattern Development in Mammals and 
Birds, 249; Shufeldt on the Skeleton of the Ocellated Turkey, 250; 
Smith’s ‘Handbook of the Rocky Mountain Park Museum,’ 250; 
Mearns on New African Birds, 251; Von Ihering on Brazilian Birds, 
251; Allen’s ‘Birds in their Relation to Agriculture in New York 
State,’ 251; Simpson’s ‘Pheasant Farming,’ 252; Recent Biological 
Survey Publications, 252; Economic Ornithology in Recent Entomo- 
logical Publications, 253; Two Recent Papers on Bird Food by Col- 
linge, 254; First Report of the Brush Hill Bird Club, 255; Recent 
Reports on Game and Bird Protection, 255; The Ornithological 
Journals, 256; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 261; Pub- 
lications Received, 263. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 
A Bird Census of the United States, 267. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Louis di Zerega Mearns, 268; ‘The Auk’ Review of Ornithological Journals, 
269; The Delaware Valley Ornithological Club’s Quarter-century, 
269; Systematists and Experimental Biologists, 270; S. N. Rhoads’ 
Expedition to Guatemala, 271; The A. O. U. California Meeting, 271. 


NUMBER III. 


Pace 
Some Birps rrom SINAI AND PALESTINE. By John C. ibis 
(Plate XVII) . : Piles 
THE Fossin REMAINS OF A SPECIES OF HEsPrRornis ‘Founp IN 
Montana. By R. W. Shufeldt, M.D. (Plate XVIII) . = 11290 
SuMMER Birps or Forrester ISLAND, ALASKA. ae George Willett. 
(Plates XIX-XX) . , : sy Ey 


Notes on THE Rock Dove (Columba domestica). By Charles W. 
Townsend, M. D. : : ; ; ; : 0G 


vi Contents of Volume XXXII. 


Pace 
On THE NESTING OF CERTAIN Birps IN Texas. By George Finlay 
Simmons. (Plates XXI-XXII) : ; é : ; si aN 
Tue Brrp Lire or Trinipapd Istet. By Robert Cushman Murphy. 
(Plates X XITI-X XV) : ; ; F : . .d02 
Earty RrEcorDS OF THE WILD TURKEY. V. By Albert Hazen 
Wright . ; ; . : ; : “ 4 ‘ . 348 


GENERAL NOTES. 


The Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) in Jackson Park, Ill., 367; Another 
European Widgeon in Virginia, 367; Snow Geese and Swans in Massa- 
chusetts, 367; Wilson’s Snipe Wintering in Nova Scotia, 368; Spotted 
Sandpiper and Water, 368; Gray Sea Eagle off Nantucket, 368; 
Young Kingbird on a Cherry and Dragon-fly Diet, 368; The Bohemian 
Waxwing (Bombycilla garrula) at Ithaca, N. Y., 369; Prothonotary 
Warbler at South Vineland, N. J., 370; Brown Thrasher Wintering 
in Mass., 370; Birds Observed in Trinity Church Yard, New York 
City, 371; Type Locality of Lewis’s Woodpecker and Clarke’s Nut- 
cracker, 371. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Levick’s ‘Antarctic Penguins,’ 372; Miller on Ptilosis, with Special Refer- 
ence to the Feathering of the Wing, 373; Cory on New South American 
Birds, 374; Shufeldt on the Tree Ducks, 374; Shufeldt on Fossil 
Birds in the Marsh Collection, 375; White on an Expedition to the 
Interior of Australia, 376; Cassinia, 1914, p. 376; Publications on 
Bird Protection, 377; Bird Enemies of two Beetle Pests, 377; Dis- 
semination of the Chestnut-blight Fungus, 378; The Ornithological 
Journals, 378; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 383; Publi- 
cations Received, 384. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Obituary: Harry K. Pomeroy, 386; Lord Brabourne, 387; The Generic 
Problem, 387; Thirty-third Meeting of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union at San Francisco, California, May 17-20, 1915, 388. 


NUMBER IV. 
PaGE 
In Memoriam: THEroporE Nicwouas Ginn. By TJ. S. Palmer. 
(Plate X XVI.) 2 391 
Tue More NortHern Spectres or THE GENUS Scytalopus Gould. 
By Frank M.Chapman . : . 406 
THE Pium IsLtanp Nicut HERONS. ’ By S. Waldo Bailey : 424 


Birp MicRATION IN THE MACKENZIE VALLEY. By Wells W. Cooke 442 
List or WATER AND SHORE Brrps OF THE PuGET SounD REGION 


IN THE VICINITY OF SEATTLE. By Samuel F. Rathbun  . 2b 409 
Tue Birps’ Batu. By Heyward Scudder 465 
A Four-wINGEep Wiutp Duck. By Charles Eugene Fe ohnson. (Plates 

XXVII-XXIX.) ‘ 469 


Notes on Dicoromatic Herons AND Hawks. By Outram Bangs 481 

Fosstz REMAINS OF THE EXTINCT CORMORANT PHALACROCORAX 
MACROPUS FOUND IN Montana. By R. W. Shufeldt, M.D. 485 

THIRTY-THIRD StTaTeED MEETING OF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLO- 
cists’ Union. By John Hall Sage : : : : . 488 


Contents of Volume XXXII. vii 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsi) in Colorado.— A Correction, 494; 
The Puffin (Fratercula arctica arctica) on Lond Island, N. Y., 495; 
A Near View of an Iceland Gull, 495; The Arkansas Kingbird (T'yran- 
nus verticalis) in Eastern Minnesota, 495; Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) 
in New Hampshire, 496; Bachman’s Sparrow near Chicago, Illinois, 
496; Leconte’s Sparrow in Wisconsin, 497; Junco Breeding in Concord 
and Lexington, Mass., 497; The Indigo Bunting in Colorado, 498; 
Numerous Migrant Pine Warblers (Dendroica vigorsi) at Fort Lee, 
N.J., 498; Black-throated Blue Warbler in Colorado, 498; Cape May 
Warblers Destructive to Grapes on Long Island, 498; The Resident 
Chickadee of Southwestern Pennsylvania, 498; Winter Birds at Ware- 
ham, Mass., 499; Notes on Some Manitoban Birds, 500; Bird-Notes 
from Cambridge, Isanti County, Minnesota, 501. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Dall’s Biography of Baird, 505; Baynes’ ‘Wild Bird Guests,’ 507; Job on 
Wild Fowl Propagation, 509; Laing’s ‘Out with the Birds,’ 510; Cooke 
on Bird Migration, 510; Faxon on Relics of Peale’s Museum, 512; 
Mathew’s ‘Birds of Australia,’ 512; Recent Monographs by Ober- 
holser, 513; Nature and Science on the Pacific Coast, 5138; Murphy 
on the Penguins of South Georgia, 514; Chapman on New Birds from 
Central and South America, 515; Cory on New South American Birds, 
515; Burns on Periods of Incubation, 516; Henshaw on American 
Game Birds, 517; Taverner on The Double-crested Cormorant and 
its Relation to the Salmon Industry, 517; Shufeldt on the Osteology 
of the Limpkin and Stone Plover, 517; Recent Publications of the 
Biological Survey, 518; Da Costa on the Economic Value of the Birds 
of Sao Paulo, Brazil, 518; Third Report of Food of Birds in Scotland, 
519; Economic Ornithology in Recent Entomological Publications, 
520; The Ornithological Journals, 521; Ornithological Articles in 
Other Journals, 528; Publications Received, 531. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 
Method of Recording Bird Songs, 535. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Obituaries: Graf Hans von Berlepsch, 539; Dr. Otto Herman, 539; Egbert 
Bagg, 540; Ewen Somerled Cameron, 540; Prof. Frederick Ward 
Putnam, 541; Frank B. Armstrong, 541; Appointment of Dr. T. 5S. 
Roberts in the University of Minnesota, 541. 


PAGE 
INDEX. ; A P : d : : , : E . 543 
ERRATA . é 5 ‘ 2 ; : é : é : DOS 
Dates or IssuE : é ; E : i , ; 4 ous 
ConTENTS : : ; : : pape at ae ; : ; i 


OFFICERS AND MEMBERS . ; : : i ; : : ix 


viii 


Plate UR 


MT 
TEE 


IV-VI. 
VII-VIII. 
1iX—X: 
XI-XII. 
XIII. 
XIV. 


XV. 
XVI. 
XVII. 
XVIII. 
XIX. 
XX. 


Contents of Volume XXXII. 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 
. PLATES. 


Nests of Audubon’s Caracara and Florida Red-shouldered 
Hawk (two views). 

Florida Wild Turkeys in Deep Lake Grove (two views). 

Peter Hogan and the ‘Schooner’: Deep Lake, Florida. 
(two views). 

Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. 

Trumpeter Swan (Olor buccinator) (four views). 

Trachea and Sternum of the Trumpeter Swan. 

Skulls of Dendrocolaptide and Formicariide. 

Nests and Haunts of the Wood Ibis (two views). 

Florida Burrowing Owls and Nests of Ward’s Heron (two 
views). 

Bonnet Lake and Nest of Sandhill Crane (two views). 

Bob-white Skins. 

Butler’s Owl, Strix butleri (Hume). 

Remains of Hesperornis. 

Forrester Island, Alaska. 

Forked-tailed Petrel and Horned Puffin (two views). 


XXI-XXII. Views in Harris Co., Texas (four views). 


XXII. 
XXIV. 

XXV. 
XXVI. 


Map of Trinidad Island. 

Boobies, Noddy and Trinidad Petrel (four views). 
Skins of #strelata. 

Theodore Nicholas Gill. 


XXVII-XXIX. Anatomy of a Four-winged Duck (four views). 


we XXX. Remains of Phalacrocorax macropus 
“« XXXI. Otto Herman. 
Text-Cuts. 
PacE 
Outline Elevation of Fernando Noronha : ; : ; - 42 
Burrows of Florida Burrowing Owl ‘ 156 
Song Records of the Purple Finch, Red-winged ‘Gigckbind nae Tobit 178 
Three Songs of the Meadowlark . : : : ; LS 
Migration Routes to the Mackenzie Walley ; : : : - 443 
Breeding Range of the Rose-breasted Grosbeak : : . 446 
Migration of the Red-eyed Vireo . 448 


Migration Routes from the Pacific Coast to the iiekeuete Valley 453 
Migration Route of the Western Tanager : . ; . 456. 


OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES OF THE AMERICAN 
ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 1915. 


Expiration of Term. 


HIPSEMR ATIBM RT Ke VEStQeNts cc ac siete ita nie ehevere 6 aleve eves’ May, 1915. 
Nar es Vace=Erestdenisemiwin amar tiece LO 
STONE, WITMER...... 

SAG HA OFEND Ee WS COnCLOM cai actan a sta cin ei iactaie sities toler su eal O ys 
DwicuT, JONATHAN, JR:, Treasurer......<j....-c00ceees ae OT: 
ADDITIONAL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. 

UID ACNITHY  MERSUTITER VEEN iz yov cist h ctarle cess Aceestensie ctleme cake ohare at evenness May, 1915. 
JD Hopsrete 93s), \ fi 01 31 0 ee ee eee ACR een ne te SERMON 
(GRENINEIE ae OSHPH Mra pais desea) sue el aoe wk te ater eee eh ONae 
EU GUNS ees D EVER et ANeey re rorsyertieia ict c oi'sv oredr av aloretaho eon teO Oh eneeete tea com LOIS: 
ORG OOD AVVO ET peer ges AY oh epee race | enn ce Mahe OME 
RA GHIM OND © FAIRE DIS) WW ca. c:cl sci. 4, /eio dye sre he etseetehovehe ees Oise 
VOB R Tee OMASISE set ters, esstoubcnanohctelne heer oi alicl apse aw: Sento iiey: 
ANTOTOTOIN TS CUSUAMA SS AG ae ai ne lie aR 4A ae to Sn 
BATCHHUEDHH sCHARTHS Were cce svete els cietaeoe tsa c.cls.crslt a lelers 
ESREN WE RIES V VEU MANTA ete cts ahiiercsecse ste autos fips awe Siar alonaieielet: 
USP MPMGMNE RIAN IMO cori da tcank Shag sham whee, SNAG kG aimee ete ake 
Oroueivet, (CTS WCDI TT |S pal Bo eae AE cn RT eR Oe Ex-Presidents. 
LEFT OT ID VAR THDY ry G rae har he aM one RMN Caen Rge DOING. MRI eet Et 
IV [EYERESTAINIAN O, SHAPAGRID I Net ce opt halve sexe erercl cua, wea te aia eee alee aie 
INTHE ON TED WARD VV ics hes ayeig ate) clishoceienn clea tue ate choncre ie retavrenhe 
EVD GAWEAG Ye te IO BER DUR en oh co. etey is ater wild nick spores ave Sock aiclatleee eioiaroms 
EpiroriaL Starr oF ‘THE AUK.’ 
LONE Ey VV LMI SILULOT Se nterorats cuert aie wie «etc oimict ate ouctionnte, aba May, 1915. 
CoMMITTEES. 
Committee on Publications. 
FIsHER, ALBERT K. STONE, WITMER. 
Saas, JoHN H., Secretary. DwiGut, JONATHAN, JR. 
Committee of Arrangements for the Meeting of 1915. 
FisHer, ALBERT K., Chairman. MAILLIARD, JOSEPH. 
Saas, JoHN H., Secretary. GRINNELL, JOSEPH. 


FISHER, WALTER K. 


x Fellows. 


FELLOWS, MEMBERS, AND ASSOCIATES OF THE 
AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 
MARCH, 1915.1 


FELLOWS. 

Date of 

Election. 
Auten, Dr. J. A., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City........ Founder 
AnrnoNny; Al W., Ironside; Ore. :,: Pas sclaee se are sense 1-2 (1885) 18952 
Banos, Outram, Museum Comp. Zodlogy, Cambridge, Mass.. . (1884)1901 
Barrows, Prof. W. B., Box 1047, East Lansing, Mich............... 1883 
BaTCHELDER, CHARLES F., 7 Kirkland St., Cambridge, Mass... . . Founder 
Bzat, F. E. L., Biological Survey, Washington, D.C........... (1887)1901 
Brerse, C. Wiiu1AM, New York Zo@l. Park, New York City... . (1897)1912 
Bena Annauny GC) auntons (Wassiieecrr ernie sie ialenaen: (1889) 1909 
BIcKNELL, EvGENE P., Box 1698, New York City.............. Founder 
BisHop, Dr. Louts B., 356 Orange St., New Haven, Conn...... (1885)1901 
*BrewsTER, WILLIAM, 145 Brattle St., Cambridge, Mass........ Founder 
Brown, Natuan Cuirrorp, 218 Middle St., Portland, Me....... Founder 


CHApDBOURNE, Dr. ArTHuR P., 193 Beacon St., Boston, Mass.. . (1883)1889 
CHapMAN, Dr. Frank M., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City 


(1885)1888 
Cooke, Prof. Weis W., 1450 Fairmount St., Washington, D.C...... 1884 
*Cory, CHArLEs B., Field Museum Nat. Hist., Chicago, Ill....... Founder 
Deane, RuTuven, 112 W. Adams St., Chicago, Ill.................. 1883 
DutcHER, WitLi1AM, 939 Park Ave., Plainfield, N. J......... (1883) 1886- 


Dwicut, Dr. JonaTHan Jr., 134 W. 71st St., New York City. . (1883)1886 
Exxiot, Dr. Danret G., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City. . Founder 
~ Fisuer, Dr. ALBERT K., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.... Founder 
Fisuer, Prof. WALTER Kenrick, 1525 Waverley St., Palo Alto, Cal. 


(1899)1905 
ForsusH, Epwarp H., 9 Church St., Westboro, Mass....... (1887)1912 
Fuertss, Louis A., Cornell Heights, Ithaca, N. Y......... (1891)1912 
GRINNELL, Dr. GEORGE Birp, 238 E. 15th St., New York City........ 1883 
GrINNELL, JosePH, Mus. Vert. Zodél., Univ. Cal., Berkeley, Cal.(1894)1901 
HensHaw, Henry W., The Ontario, Washington, D.C.............. 1883 


1 Members of the Union, and subscribers to ‘The Auk’ are requested to promptly 
notify Dr. JonatHan Dwicut, Jr., Treasurer, 134 W. 71st St., New York City, 
of any change of address. 

2 Dates in parentheses indicate dates of joining the Union. 

* Life Fellow. 


Honorary Fellows. xi 


Jones, Lynps, Spear Laboratory, Oberlin, Ohio........... (1888) 1905 
Loomis, LEvERETT M., Cal. Acad. Sci., San Francisco, Cal... . . (1883)1892 
Lucas, Dr. Freperic A., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., N. Y. City... (1888)1892 
MaiLuiarpD, JosepH, 300 Front St., San Francisco, Cal....... (1895)1914 
McAtTEE, Watpo Lex, Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.. .(1903)1914 
McGrecor, RicHarp C., Bureau of Science, Manila, P. I... . .(1889)1907 
Mearns, Dr. Epa@ar A., U.S. A., U. 8. National Museum, Washing- 


Merriam, Dr. C. Hart, 1919 16th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. Founder 
Mitier, Watpron DeWirt, 309 E. 7th St., Plainfield, N. J..(1896)1914 
NEHRLING, H., Palm Cottage Experiment Gardens, Gotha, Fla....... 1883 
NeEtson, E. W., Biological Survey, Washington, D.C............... 1883 
OBERHOLSER, Harry C., Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. (1888)1902 
Oscoop, WILFRED H., Field Museum Nat. Hist., Chicago, IIl..(1893)1905 
PatmeEr, Dr. T.S., 1939 Biltmore St., N. W., Washington, D. C..(1888)1901 
Patmer, WiuuiaM, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. (1888) 1898 
Ricumonp, Dr. CuHartes W., U. 8. National Museum, Washington, 


LOO aie d eh Sale Aer eR eee So ee ee hs Ree ee es (1888) 1897 
RID GWAYMerol ROBERT. Olneya. LNs Asi. sues cea ce sia celaserec cra Founder 
Roserts, Dr. THomas§., 1603 4th Ave.,S., Minneapolis, Minn....... 1883 
ST SAGH EA OHNG He Me Ortland Conan va aciesias nities as ce cr eels oe 1883 
SAUNDERS, WILLIAM E., 240 Central Ave., London, Ontario.......... 1883 


SHUFELDT, Dr. Ropert W., 3356 18th St., N. W., Washington, D.C. Founder 
Stoner, Dr. Witmer, Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa... . (1885)1892 
Wipmanv, Orro, 5105 Von Versen Ave., St. Louis, Mo............... 1884 


RETIRED FELLOWS. 


BHuping livacAny stockton: Cally. cer ecco een erscie (1883)1911 
LAWRENCE, NEWBOLD T., Lawrence, N. Y................... (1883)1913 
SresNEGER, Dr. LEonHARD, U.S. Nat. Mus., Washington,D.C.(1883)1911 


HONORARY FELLOWS. 


BrRLEpscH, Graf Hans von, Schloss Berlepsch, Post Gertenbach, Wit- 


ZENDAUSET ae CrETIMANNY: sta ne yercrsorsrveie rere. os apie ch teri eae Rene (1883)1890 
DressER, Henry EExss, care of Dr. Tattersall, Owen’s College Mu- z 
Scum Vanchestere bmg anderwr ttyl ole oe sider anette 1883 


Dusots, Dr. ALPHONSE, Museum Natural History, Brussels. . . (1884)1911 
Frnscu, Prof. Dr. Orro, Leonhardplatz 5, Braunschweig, Germany... .1883 


* Life Fellow. 


xil Corresponding Fellows. 


GopMAN, FREDERICK DuCang, 45 Pont St., London, 8. W........... 1883 
Hartert, Ernst, Zodlogical Museum, Tring, England........ (1891)1902 
Harvie-Brown, Joun A., Dunipace, Larbert, Scotland....... (1883) 1902 
Hetimayr, Dr. Cart E., Neuhauserstrasse 51.11, Munich, Germany 
(1903)1911 


IgpRING, Dr. HERMANN VON, Museu Paulista, S40 Paulo, Brazil. (1902)1911 
Pycrart, WILLIAM PLANE, British Museum (Nat. Hist.) Cromwell 


Road; Londons; Wills. saaeee aed os wade ee non ee (1902)1911 
ReIcHENOW, Dr. Anton, K6nigl. Mus. fiir Naturkunde, Invaliden- 
Strasse, 43. Berlin. fs se oer oe ie ae (1884)1891 
Roruscuitp, Hon. LioneL Water, Zoological Museum, Tring, Eng- 
1212} ASE ROADIE eral ts ee seo hE ale aoe a ee A (1898)1913 
SaLvaportr, Count Tommaso, Royal Zoél. Museum, Turin, Italy... .. 1883 
ScHatow, Prof. Herman, Hohenzollerndamm 50, Berlin-Grunewald, 
Germdinly . fhe es ele Et ee Ee a ee (1884)1911 


CORRESPONDING FELLOWS. ° 


Arraro, ANASTASIO, San José, Costa Rican. 4222-4 ee socio 1888 
ALPHERAKY, SeRatus N., Imperial Acad. Sci., St. Petersburg, Russia. 1913 
ARRIGONI DEGLI Opp1, Count Errors, University of Padua, Padua, 


BAY. ccs casa. aust coed ee AN a ERT ete na Se 1900 
BonuHOTE, JOHN Lewis, Gade Spring Lodge, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, 

UDyYil ale Re Saeed Rete eM ate Reh te aA ROE Coe re ts 1911 
Bureau, Dr. Louts, Ecole de Médicine, Nantes, France............ 1884 
Butter, Lieut.-Col. E. A., Winsford Hall, Stokesby, Great Yarmouth, 

Raa erage Bs roc teey. ieee keer etc chat en Te Ve vor UMRAO Tce.) Stain ce ies 1884 
BittixormrR, Dr. JoHANNES, Zodélogical Garden, Rotterdam, Holland .1886 
Butur.in, Sercius A., Wesenberg, Esthonia, Russia............... 1907 


CAMPBELL, ARCHIBALD JAMES, Custom House, Melbourne, Australia. 1902 
CarrikER, M. A., Jr., Cincinnati Coffee Co., Santa Marta, Colombia 


(1907)1912 
(CHAMBERLAIN, Monracuk, Cambridge, Mass............ (Founder) 1901 
Cuuss, CHARLES, British Museum (Nat. Hist.) Cromwell Road, Lon- 
GODS Wee Beets lh eer ley) AER tae Ae gee 1911 
CLARKE, WILLIAM EAGLE, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh...... 1889 — 
DaLGLeIsH, JoHN J., Brankston Grange, Bogside Station, Alloa, 
Scotland. Lo, sas esis ea capt a elena ewok Se Perr 1883 
Dote, Sanrorp B., Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands................... 1883 
Ecut, ADOLPH BACHOFEN von, Nussdorf, near Vienna.............. 1883 
Evans, ARTHUR HUMBLE, 9 Harvey Road, Cambridge, England.... . 1899 
FEILDEN, Col. Henry Wemyss, Burwash, England................ 1884 
FERRARI-PEREZ, Prof. FERNANDO, Tacubaya, D. F., Mexico........ 1885 


FrekKE, Percy Evans, Southpoint, Limes Road, Folkstone, England . 1883 


Corresponding Fellows. xiii 


FURBRINGER, Prof. Max, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, 


(German yer tee ates ar en oe aa cbiay ete nthe ear St sande ore he 1891 
Gapow, Dr. Hans, University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, 

iri ATG ete y cecal iatotas eae & Si ae Sia) a anes ape date etes AE 1884 
GuIrannr Dr. Aj St:iGalle;; Switzerland: (2225.45). 200 nce cee 1884 
Gopwin-AustTeENn, Lieut.-Col. Henry HaversHam, Nore, Hascombe, 

Godalming, Samey.tmmland oes c eaicrrters cies ei eo eieheys ete eins 1884 
Goer tpi, Prof. Dr. Emin A., Zieglerstrasse 36, Bern, Switzerland...... 1903 
GRANDIDIER, ALFRED, 6 Rond-Point des Champs Elysées, Paris...... 1883 
GuRNEY, JoHN Henry, Keswick Hall, Norwich, England........... 1883 
Hartinc, JAMES EpmMunD, Edgewood, Weybridge, Surrey, England. .1883 
HeEnNnIcKE, Dr. Cart R., Gera, Reuss, Germany................... 1907 
EINGONG HIARR Ya Vir OKONSING JAPA a. vials ie te otek ies oe wera 1888 
Hupson, WiLu1AM HENry, Tower House, St. Luke’s Road, West- 

Wyte earls METI GONE H NM ai8h5 oP acerca et aetnl eu ad cy eh neh un ate 1895 
KRUKENBERG, Dr. E. F: W., Wiirzburg, Germany.:............... 1884 
Krier, Dr. THEOBALD J., University Museum, Athens, Greece... . 1884 
Lecce, Col. WiturAM V., Cullenswood House, St. Mary’s, Tasmania. .1891 
Le Sovir, Duptery, Zodlogical Gardens, Melbourne, Australia...... 1911 
MacFaruane, Roperick, Winnipeg, Manitoba................... 1886 


MaparAdsz, Dr. Jutius von, National Museum, Budapest, Hungary . 1884 
Maruews, Grecory M., Langley Mount, Watford, Herts, England. .1911 
Menzpier, Prof. Dr. Micuaru, Imperial Society of Naturalists, 


INTC OW RESUSSIEI a ama Ret a eta eilerci cdf etaca teats, (Ue Le SRED Whar tnth Ye Mane 1884 
Mutats, JoHN GuILLE, Compton’s Brow, Horsham, England...... 1911 
AINWAMUA Ves IV Bie aI Kt) RTO AND sana Ackis 5014 arouse cr hel ata teveieet Ole] cit uretessionauery 1886 
NicHouson, Francis, The Knoll, Windermere, Westmoreland, Eng- 

bitr GLU UTA AE MT tr An oe lool Keren ch! wre nWardl RMS uli ORI Gia Ue 1884 


Nort, ALFRED J., Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales. .1902 
OGILVIE-GRANT, WILLIAM Rosert, British Museum (Nat. Hist.), 


Cromwell Road sbondon, S:-Wisse sed oe ois oc ewe ie momo 1899 
RABIN, Ord. 0. Eelsingtiors, Bimlaned. 0... 40 6 15,.0eelad ead Nee deel: 1883 
Ramsey, E. P., Sydney, New South Wales.....................055 1884 
Ringhr, PReperic, Nagasaki, Japame:..s 702. sochest setts derek one 1888 
ScLaTER, WILLIAM LuTLEY, 10 Sloane Court, Chelsea, London, S. W. .1906 
SusHkINn, Dr. Peter, University, Kharkov, Russia................ 1903 
TuHEeEt, Dr. Hsatmar, University of Upsala, Upsala, Sweden........ 1884 
TscHUSI ZU SCHMIDHOFFEN, Victor, RITTER von, Villa Tannenhof, 

bei: Hallem, Salzburg; Austria: 22.5222... ates sede ees 1884 
Van Oort, Epwarp Daniet, Museum Nat. Hist., Leyden, Holland. .1913 _ 
WaterRHouSsE, F. H., 3 Hanover Square, London, W............... 1889 
Wineeg, Dr. Heruur, Univ. Zoédlogical Museum, Copenhagen, Den- 

LIT Kee te ee RET ae Rd SO NS ew ee Ee een ets ite And 1903 
WORCESTER rok. DwAN Cy, Mianilay POL, oc. c5 dc elas Ob ce law ore 1903 


ZELEDON, Don Joss C., San José, Costa Rica... 0.60 be ce eee es 1884 


xiv Members. 


MEMBERS. 

ALLEN, ArTHUR A., McGraw Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 

(1909)1914. 
ALLEN, Francis H., 4 Park St., Boston, Mass............... (1888) 1901 
AtuEN, Dr. Guover M., 234 Berkeley St., Boston, Mass...... (1896) 1904 
ANDERSON, Dr. Rupours M., 901 Virginia St., Sioux City, Ia... (1907)1914 
ATTWATER, H. P., 2120 Genesee St., Houston, Texas......... (1891)1901 
Baae, Easprrt, 406 Genesee St., Utica, N. Y................ (1883) 1914 


BaitEy, VERNON, 1834 Kalorama Ave., Washington, D. C....(1887)1901 
BattEy, Mrs. VERNON, 1834 Kalorama Ave., Washington, D.C. (1885)1901 


Bariy,, Winnran 1. Ardmore bas. eerste s of aoe (1886)1901 
Barsoour, Dr. THomas, Mus. Comp. Zoélogy, Cambridge, Mass. (1903)1914 
BartscH, Paut, Smithsonian Inst., Washington, D.C........ (1896) 1902 
Beretotp, Dr. W. H., 1159 Race St., Denver, Colo....:.... (1889)1914 
Bonn, Frank, 3127 Newark St., Cleveland Park, Washington, D. C. 
(1887)1901 
Bow Les, JoHN Hooprer, Tacoma, Wash.................... (1891)1910 
Bratsuin, Dr. Witi1aM C.,556 Washington Ave., Brooklyn, N.Y. (1894)1902 
Brooks, ALLAN, Okanagan Landing, B. C................... (1902) 1909 
Bryan, WitirAm Ananson, College of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaiian 
Holand ss 4. oh ae eine eee ee On eee (1898) 1901 
BURNS: (PRANK Ly, Berit bai. etn tone ere eee ae (1891)1901 
Butter, Amos W., 52 Downey Ave., Irvington, Indianapolis, Ind.(1885)1901 
Cammron; E.'S., Marsh, Montana.......0....52-e0h.cecss0n (1903)1910 
CHAMBERS, W. LEg, Eagle Rock, Cal.............0..0....- (1907)1913 


Cuark, Austin Hosart, 1726 18th St., N. W., Washington, D.C.(1899)1901 
Cxiark, Dr. Hupert Lyman, Museum of Comparative Zoélogy, Cam- 


bridge sMlassyt ecco ido uses 2 cA eS ee eens eae (1886) 1902 
Daacett, FRANK S8., 2833 Menlo Ave., Los Angeles, Cal... ... (1889) 1901 
Dawson, WILLIAM LEON, Santa Barbara, Cal............... (1895) 1905 
DraneE, WALTER, 29 Brewster St., Cambridge, Mass......... (1897)1901 
DEARBORN; Neb, Landen, “Mid. 5... saves ene core eae (1902) 1907 
Eaton, Eton Howarp, Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y....... (1895) 1907 
EvrerMANN, Prof. Barton W., 343 Sansome St., San Francisco, Cal. 

(1883)1901 


Fintey, WituiaMm L., 651 East Madison St., Portland, Ore. . . (1904)1907 
FLEMING, JAMES H., 267 Rusholme Road, Toronto, Ontario. . . (1893)1901 


Gavtt, Bensamin True, Glen Ellyn, Ill................... (1885)1903 
GotpMAN, Epwarp Atronso, Biological Survey, Washington, D. C. 
(1897) 1902 


HorrMann, Raupu, 11 W. Concord Ave., Kansas City, Mo.. . (1893)1901 
Ho.uister, Nep, U.S. Nat. Museum, Washington, D.C..... (1894)1910 ~ 
HowE Lu, ArtTHuR H., 2919 8. Dakota Ave., Washington, D. C. (1889)1902 
Jacoss, J. WARREN, 404 8. Washington St., Waynesburg, Pa. . (1889)1904 


Members. XV 


Jerrries, Witut1AmM Aucustus, 11 Pemberton Square, Boston, Mass. 


(1883) 1901 
Jos, Rev. Hersert K., 291 Main St., West Haven, Conn..... (1896)1901 
JorpDAN, Prof. Davip Starr, Stanford University, Cal....... (1885) 1901 
KeEnnarD, F. H., Dudley Road, Newton Centre, Mass....... (1892)1912 
Knowtton, F. H., U.S. Nat. Mus., Washington, D.C....... (1883)1902 
Mackay, GrorcE H., 304 Bay State Road, Boston, Mass... . (1890)1901 
Martu1arp, Joun W., 300 Front St., San Francisco, Cal...... (1895)1901 


Muuter, Mrs. OuivE THORNE, 5928 Hays Ave., Los Angeles, Cal.(1887)1901 
Moore, Rosert Tuomas, King’s Highway, Haddonfield, N. J.(1898)1914 


Morris, GEORGE SPENCER, Olney, Philadelphia, Pa.......... (1887)1903 
Morris, Ropert O., 82 Temple St., Springfield, Mass........ (1888) 1904 
Mourpocu, Joun, 16 High Rock Way, Allston, Mass......... (1883)1901 
Morpuy, Rosert C., Museum Brooklyn Institute, Eastern Parkway, 
PSLOOM UME MUAY: ta), 2 ed 5, alte eet ae ae eto Sold (1905)1914 


NicHo.s, Joun TREADWELL, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City(1901)1914 
Norton, ArtHur H., Museum Natural History, 22 Elm St., Port- 


MSUTACL RAINIER ones aise Ree otteatene apatcseuct ny netete tat tev os es (1890) 1902 
Pearson, T. GitBEeRT, 1974 Broadway, New York City...... (1891)1902 
PAMmiteS TV OHNAG.. \WVKenn ant: \WIASSi cs esis en o.c dates sie steels (1904)1912 


PREBLE, Epwarp A., 3027 Newark St., Washington, D. C....(1892)1901 
RaATHBUN, SAMUEL F., 217 14th Ave., N., Seattle, Wash..... (1893)1902 
RHoaADs, SAMUEL N., 81 Haddon Ave., Haddonfield, N. J..... (1885) 1901 
Riey, JoserH H., U.S. National Museum, Washington, D. C. (1897) 1905 
Rives, Dr. Witu1aM C., 1702 Rhode Island Ave., Washington, D. C. 


(1885)1901 
Rosinson, Col. Wart, U.S. A., West Point, N. Y............ (1897)1901 
SEToN, ERNEST THompson, Cos Cob, Conn................ (1883)1901 


*SHERMAN, Miss ALTHEA R., National via McGregor, Iowa. . (1907)1912 
STEPHENS, FRANK, 3746 Park Boulevard, San Diego, Cal..... (1883) 1901 
Strone, Dr. Reusen M., Univ. of Mississippi, University, Miss.(1889) 1903 
Swa.es, BrapsHaw Hauu, Mus. of Zool., Ann Arbor, Mich.(1902)1909 
Swartu, Harry S., Mus. Hist. Sci. & Art, Los Angeles, Cal.(1900)1909 
TAVERNER, Percy A., Victoria Memorial Museum, Ottawa, Canada 


(1902)1909 
THAYER, JOHN EtotT, Lancaster, Mass.................... (1898) 1905 
Topp, W. E. Ciypr, Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa...... (1890)1901 
TOWNSEND, CHARLES H., Aquarium, Battery Park, New York City 
(1883)1901 
TownsEnD, Dr. CHARLES WENDELL, 76 Marlborough St., Boston, — 
Rie eee Aree MUSE ogee ee Pere (1901)1905 


Trotrer, Dr. SPENCER, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa. . (1888)1901 
WaRREN, Epwarp Royat, 20 West Caramillo St., Colorado Springs, 
COLE ee ee ts Pee oe oj eee rte (1902)1910 


*Life Member. 


xvi Associates. 


Wayan, Anraor T’., Mit. Pleasant,'S:C:.2 ao) 2s) Uae (1905)1909 
Wetmore, ALEx., Biological Survey, Washington, D.C...... (1908)1912 
WiteTt, GeorGeE, 2123 Court St., Los Angeles, Cal......... (1912)1914 


Wotcort, Dr. Roprert H., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb. . (1901)1903 
Woop, Norman A., Museum Univ. of Mich., Ann Arbor, Mich... (1904)1912 


Wricut, Mrs. Maset Oscoop, Fairfield, Conn.............. (1895)1901 
ASSOCIATES. 

Aprorr: ‘CLINTON GILBERT, Plandome; Ni ¥o... 222% 5... «. 2 eee 1898 

Apams, BENJAMIN, 476 5th Ave., New York City.................. 1911 

Apams, WauuLaAcEg, U.S. Indian Service, Florence, Ariz............. 1901 

Apams, Dr. Z. B., 42 Cottage Farm Rd., Brookline, Mass.......... 1908 

AIKEN, Hon. Joun, Superior Court, Court House, Boston, Mass... .1905 


AKELEY, Caru E., American Museum Nat. Hist., New York City. ..1913 
ALEXANDER, Miss ANNIE M., 92 Sea, View Ave., Piedmont, Cal..... 1911 


ALLEN, Mary P., 206 Moon St., Hackettstown, N. J.............. 1913 
Agme SOHN North: Haston:) Wiassie nc ccm aeolian. eee ee 1913 
Anverson, Mrs. J. C., Great Barrington, Mass................... 1903 
ANDREWS, Roy C., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City......... 1906 
ANGELL, WALTER A., 33 Westminster St., Providence, R. I........ 1901 
Antuony, H. E., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City.......... 1911 
Antuony, Mrs. P. REEep, 113 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass... .1913 
ARCHBOLD, JOSEPH A., 107 Hodge Ave., Buffalo, N. Y............. 1903 
ARMSTRONG, Epwarp E., 207 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill....... 1904 
ARNOLD, Epwarp, Grand Trunk R’y., Montreal, Quebec.......... 1894 
ARNOLD, F. E., 284 Pleasant St., Hast Providence, R. I............ 1909 
ARNOLD, Dr. W. W., 504 N. Nevada Ave., Colorado Springs, Colo. . .1910 
Avis, Hpwarp, Box 56, Enfield, Conm. 2.306). ede. sek chew one 1908 
BARGOGE, DBA, Hates Park: Golo ici il oe cate hss choke se eee 1911 
Basson, Mrs. Carouine W., 182 Granite St., Pigeon Cove, Mass. . .1912 
Battery, Dr. B. H., 1417 1st Ave., Cedar Rapids, Ia............... 1913 
Bann Rrof.:G. (A. ‘Geneseo, N.Y... 3. eevee oc ee 1910 
BalLtEy, Haroip H., 310 50th St., Newport News, Va............. 1903 
BaILey, SAMUEL WaLpo, Box 212, Newburyport, Mass............ 1909 
Baker, FRANK C., Chicago Acad. Sciences, Chicago, Ill............ 1907 
Baker, JoHN H., 7 Holyoke Place, Cambridge, Mass............. 1911 
BaLpwIn, RoceErR N., 600-911 Locust St., St. Louis, Mo........... 1904 
Bass, Dr. BLENN R., 149 W. Main St., Circleville, Ohio........... 1907 
Barn, Mrs: Banner F'., Oakville, Conni. 5 -2e serene tee eee 1905 
Bau, Davin S., 622 W. 118 St., New York City.................. 1913 
Batu, Miss HELEN Aucusta, 43 Laurel St., Worcester, Mass....... 1893 
Batu, Jas. P., 5001 Frankford Ave., Philadelphia, Pa.............. 1911 


Banks, Miss Marrsa B., Westport, Conn...................245 1911 


Associates. xvii 


Barsour, Rev. Rosert, Y. M.C. A., Montclair, N.J............. 1902 
BaRNARD, Judge Jos, 1306 Rhode Island Ave., Washington, D. C. . .1886 
BAnnne eon ie WUAGOON,  laCOnn lorie ve ecys nee od cio es ofaisie« 1889 
Barrett, Cuas. H. M., Biological Survey, Washington, D.C....... 1912 
BarrReEtTT, HAROLD LAWRENCE, 704 Centre St., Jamaica Plain, Mass. . .1909 
Barry, Miss ANNA K., 5 Bowdoin Ave., Dorchester, Mass......... 1907 
BartLetr, Miss Mary F., 227 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass. .1912 
Bartietr, Wm. M., 410 Hotel Princeton, Allston, Mass........... 1913 
BartTRAM, EpwIn B., 131 Beech Tree Lane, Wayne, Pa............ 1913 
Barren, GEorGE, 93 Union St., Montclair, N. J..............--.-.. 1911 
Barren, GEORGE, JR., 381 Fourth Ave., New York City........... 1914 
BAywarp, Oscar, EH... Box 328, Clearwater, Blass. 220... 02.42. 1910 
BANS SLR NEST ote VIErIC En s0Ncblers eit anys Ween n, Je ftps 8) ele 1912 
BncK) ROLLO HOWARD: sal JOSGaneLD: QU Galen. oo. wacee cee 1894 
Banneerotsw. bpAericultural, College: GN Dice 2 aes ck. lier 1912 
BeNNtnrryneva GHo- Lowa City; Tas) cees Seo leh aeaslate scare 1913 
BENNETT, WILLIAM J., 1941 1st St. N. W., Washington, D.C....... 1901 
BERIER, DE LAGNEL, 171 Monte Vista Place, Ridgewood, N. J...... 1885 


Betts, NorMAN DE Wirt, Forest Products Lab., Madison, Wis..... 1908 
BicKnELL, Mrs. F. T., 319 S. Normandie Ave., Los Angeles, Cal... .1913 
Brppie, Miss Eminry Wix.iaAms, 2201 Sansom St., Philadelphia, Pa. .1898 


BIGELOW, ALBERT F’., 84 State St., Boston, Mass................. 1910 
Bicenow, Henry BRYANT Concord: Massa... cure fae lem creeds «os 1897 
BicgEeLtow, Dr. Lyman F., 80 Winter St., Norwood, Mass............ 1914 
BIGGLESTONE, Harry C., 3918 Fourth Ave., Sioux City, Ia......... 1913 
BLACKWELDER, Extot, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis........... 1895 
Buain, Merritt W., 1026 N. Coronado St., Los Angeles, Cal....... 1910 
Buake, Sipney F., 154 Walnut St., Stoughton, Mass.-............ 1910 
BLOoMFIELD, Mrs. C. C., 723 Main St., W., Jackson, Mich......... 1901 
BoarpMAN, Miss E. D., 416 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass........ 1906 
Bovine, Donaxpson, 4 Mills Place, Crawfordsville, Ind........... 1913 
Boacarpvus, Miss Cuaruorre, Elm St., Coxsackie, N. Y............ 1909 
Bocert, Witu1aM S., 1000 Garden St., Bellingham, Wash.......... 1904 
Bouies, Mrs. Franx, 6 Berkeley St., Cambridge, Mass............ 1912 
Bout, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, 1421 Prospect Ave., Kansas City, Mo. .1909 
BOND GEVARRY. hy oleaketietd® IMinrinictt te sree tele sues cuctacke ulenete enone 1908 
iBonmins- E.G: 1003'Corona St., Wenver Colo....5. 6000202 «2 1912 
BORLAND, Wa. G., 14 Wall St., New York: City.:...........5...-% 1911 
BorneMAN, Henry S., 1613 Dyre St., Frankford, Philadelphia, Pa... .1912 
Bosson, CAMPBELL, 722 Tremont Bldg., Boston, Mass.............. 1906 
PUAN MOS: fo. AARMMOUNE TINY, Vico a'r 0 2 a & Se wlel are dee soloie lo minnee ara 1914 
BOW DISH Or Meares o, Noi cres ieee tale cee slovele withe Meeueene ss areal 1891 
BO wings a AVirsos so. IOP METeStEAIN dak cy. si clteerscts aisle ooo el ele side eutenee 1902 
Bowpitcu, Haron, 60 Harvard Ave., Brookline, Mass............. 1900 
Bowonitcu, Jamgs H., 903 Tremont Bldg., Boston, Mass............. 1913 


Boynton, Cuas. T., 1005 South Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, Ill... . .1912 


XVill Associates. 


Bracken, Mrs. Henry M., 1010 Fourth St.,S.E., Minneapolis, Minn. 1897 
Braprorp, Mosss B. L., Concord Public Library, Concord, Mass... . .1889 


BRADLEE, THOMAS STEVENSON, Somerset Club, Boston, Mass........ 1902 
BRANDRETH, (COURTENAY, Ossining Never iia ss . « . 2c) a eee 1905 
BRANDRETH, FRANKLIN, Ossining, Neo Yous. 2.55. Ms os wet nous 1889 
Brewster, Epwarp Evrrett, 316 East C St., Iron Mountain, Mich.1893 
Brewster, Mrs. Wr1uu14M, 145 Brattle St., Cambridge, Mass......... 1912 
BripGE, EpMuND, 52 Wyman St., West Medford, Mass.............. 1910 
Bripegn, Mrs. Epmunp, 52 Wyman St., West Medford, Mass......... 1902 
Briges, S. Mmenparu, Manomet,-Mass........25......0..00000 eles 1913 
BRiIMipy, Hy A. Raleish NaC se ee eae): oe eee 1904 
BRISTOL, JOHN I. D., 1 Madison Ave., New York City............... 1907 
Britten, G.S., 302 University Bldg., Syracuse, N. Y................ 1913 
Brock, Dr. HENry HERBERT, 687 Congress St, Portland, Me........ 1894 
BROCKWAY; ARTHUR YW . Eladlyme Conte ee scree lee 1912 
Brooks, Rev. EarLE Amos, 419 N. River Ave., Weston, W. Va....... 1892 
Brooks, GorHaM, 373 Beacon St., Boston, Mass..................5- 1912 
Levee ronda] Dyas voun(eror IN bliorn,, INUEVISS Se Sah an Abana cobdosmeanane 1912 
Brooks, Miss Martua W., Petersham, Mass...................... 1913 
BROOKS) WINTHROP o.. Malton, IVUSSSs5 es eee 1907 
Brown, Miss Anniz H., 31 Maple St., Stoneham, Mass.............. 1909 
Brown, Epwarp J., U.S. Nat. Museum, Washington, D.C.......... 1891 
BROWN daoPA. 40 albot SteulLoywell VMisisste open eam ener ni tora 1912 
Brown, Mrs. Henry T., Lancaster, Mass..............-eeseeceees 1912 
Brown; Huperr H.; Beamsville) Ontarious:. oso s0een .4 esses aoe 1889 
Brown, Mrs. J., Jr., 71 Bay State Road, Boston, Mass............... 1913 
Brown, Puaiiir G., 85 Vaughan St., Portland, Me................... 1911 


Brown, STEWARDSON, 20 E. Penn St., Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. .1895 


Brown, Wo. JAMEs, 250 Oliver Ave., Westmount, Quebec........... 1908 
BRowninG, Wo. Hatu, 16 Cooper Square, New York City........... 1911 
BRUDN, HRANK, Oo) ELOspection., bristol @onmeasem es. sein <bean 1908” 
Bryant, Haroup Cuitp, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Cal.......... 1913 
BuRBANK, Cuas. O., 48 Glenwood Ave., Newton Centre, Mass........ 1912 
Buraess, JoHN Kinessury, Chestnut St., Dedham, Mass........... 1898 
Burweien, Txos. D., 825 N. Wigley Ave., Pittsburg, Pa............. 1913 
Burnett, WiturAM L., State Agric. College, Fort Collins, Colo....... 1895 
BuRNHAM, JOHN Birp, 233 Broadway, New York City.-............. 1912 
Burt, Henry P., 316. W. 93d Si., New York City:. ...0............ 1908 
BURTCH, :- VERDI, bran chport, New enc een ee een at pec ke ete 1903 
Buxsavum, Mrs. Ciara E., 4822 Grand Boulevard, Chicago, Ill....... 1895 
@xgor Lows, Brookline Wass 2 eee eee on oe oe. 1904 
Capuc, EuGEnE E., 563 Massachusetts Ave., Boston, Mass.......... 1910 
CALLENDER, JAMES PHILLIPS, 32 Broadway, New York City......... 1903 
Cauvert, J. Fuetcuer, 596 Princess Ave., London, Ont............. 1912 
CAMPBELL, CLARA D., 1253 Beacon St., Brookline, Mass............. 1913 


CARPENTER, Rev. CHARLES Knapp, 311 Park St., Elgin, [ll........... 1894 


Associates. xix 


CARPENTER, GEorGE I., 129 Dean St., Brooklyn, N. Y............... 1907 
CarRIGER, H. W., 5185 Trask St., Fruitvale Station, Oakland, Cal... .1913 
CARTHR I OHN ID aUATISGOWNE, bales > jacetincan Cer cGids sean d atacne dhe 1907 
Case, Cuirrorp M., 7 Holcomb St., Hartford, Conn................. 1892 
Casu, Harry A., 54 Spring St., Pawtucket, R.1T...................- 1898. 
CHAMBERLAIN, CHauncy W., 36 Lincoln St., Boston, Mass........... 1885 
Cxapin, Prof. ANcrz Ciara, 18 Morris Crescent, Yonkers, N. Y...... 1896 
CHAPIN, Jamas, 330 W. 95th St., New York City.................:. 1906 
CraAryrAn., Mrs Hee Ie sbinalewood sn Neadanne cee os tctaucw ss ce wicie ee 1908 
CHAPMAN, Roy, 2316 Pierce Ave., St. Anthony Park, St. Paul, Minn.. .1911 
CHASE, Sipnny, 244 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass................ 1904 
CHEESMAN, M.R., 55 W. 4th St., S., Salt Lake City, Utah........... 1911 
Curpman, Miss Grace E., Sandwich, Mass.....................06: 1912 
Curisty, Bayarp H., 403 Frederick Ave., Sewickley, Pa............. 1901 
Crank OUARWNGHUELT., Enlbees Mey. sts tices onic cls cole atdatels a sie bles 1913 
Cran Ae VVCAL MON dH AMM OMG, Mescis.2 cps soc cle c.8 eterclaimi aia) sidglene Blexseisles 1913 
CLARK, Jostan H., 238 Broadway, Paterson, N.J.................+- 1895 
CuARKE, Cuarues E., 11 Chetwynd Road, Tufts College, Mass....... 1907 
CuARKE, Miss Harrint E., 9 Chestnut St., Worcester, Mass......... 1896 
CrARKE ROWHNALAT) Lerlewoods IMOnscsstie es antic aed e «cf cusses 3 1906 
(CCUAR KE VIDE VW MG; ML CHatValN ced itei ic etatye tice subache.ass, oe) cln aati 1909 
CLEAVES, Howarp H., Public Museum, New Brighton, N. Y......... 1907 
CLEVELAND, Dr. CLEMENT, 925 Park Ave., New York City........... 1903 
CLEVELAND, Miss Linian, Woods Edge Road, West Medford, Mass.. .1906 
CoArHy ENR he hig bldama Parks Mle eer cete ca < suclsiayc.ceetsle ste etete 1883 
Coss, Miss ANNA E., 322 Broadway, Providence, R.I............... 1913 
Coss, Miss ANnim W., 301 Massachusetts Ave., Arlington, Mass...... 1909 
Coss, STANLEY, 340 Adams St., Milton, Mass.................... 1909 
Corrin, Mrs. P. B., 3282 Groveland Ave., Chicago, Ill............. 1905 
Cogarns, HERBERT L., 2929 Piedmont Ave., Berkeley, Cal........... 1913 
CoLpuRn, ALBERT E., 806 S. Broadway, Los Angeles, Cal............ 1891 
Co1z, Dr. Lron J., College of Agric., Univ. of Wis., Madison, Wis... ..1908 
COLVIN; WATPHR'S:) Osawatomile Mans. sieht. scree oie cick auelelertie ts 1896 
Commons, Mrs. F. W., 2437 Park Ave., Minneapolis, Minn........... 1902 
Conny, MnsiiGno. H.R. HD. Box 25, Windsor,Conn........0..4-.- 1906 
Cook, Miss Lit1an GILLETTE, Long Lea Farm, Amherst, Mass........ 1899 
Corn sLRANCISohe cm DumOCk bats Same Alkan t cateenie meee Clee 1892 
CopELAND, Dr. Ernest, 141 Wisconsin St., Milwaukee, Wis.......... 1897 
CoprLaAnpD, Manton, 88 Federal St., Brunswick, Me................ 1900 
Coummnp, spannmy, lafayette; Inds. 2.2.00 6. ares wt eae ov ie cies bis ode 1912— 
CRATE MCAT HACE Orono s Wiens, tik cate tivsdts dhe tk Ae eines tes en 1912 
CrRaAIGcMILE, Miss Estuer A., 24S. Grant St., Hinsdale, Ill........... 1910 
Cram, R. J., 26 Hancock Ave., W., Detroit, Mich................... 1893 
CRANDALT © Wie Ochird St.. Woodside. IN. Y..-.0.0.es52. een ae 1891 
CrAannmy VinssiCrARA 17. Dalton: Wiassss-. sues oo cites oe cietd teen 1904 


CRANE MES ANAS Walton: Wiass:,... ust is. acto deoeas ole 1904 


XxX Associates. 


CREHORE, FREDERIC M., 87 MilkSt., Boston, Mass................. 1913 
Cressy, Mrs. N.8., Avon Road, Unionville, Conn................. 1912 
CRITTENDEN, VIOLA H.., Shelburne Falls, Mass.....................- 1913 
Crocker, Mrs. Davin, Barnstable, Mass..............-----eeeeeee 1912 
Crocksr, Mrs. Emmons, 48 Mechanics St., Fitchburg, Mass......... 1912 
Orosey, Maunsets §., Rhinebeelk, N.Y... 0.05.0... 2..050eebee ne 1904 
Cover Detos H:, Wddingham, Pan. cco cs cc hoa eae ee 1913 
Cummines, Miss Emma G., 16 Kennard Road, Brookline, Mass....... 1903 
‘CurRIE, Rouua P., 632 Keefer Place N. W., Washington, D.C...... 1895 
Corkinr, 2. Heo) Mik St: Boston, Wisse: 0: a8 a0....+5- be eeeeee 1913 
CURRIER, EDMONDE SAMUEL, St. Johns, Ore..................002-- 1894 
CusHMAN, Miss Auic#, 919 Pine St., Philadelphia, Pa............... 1910 
‘Cutter, Mrs. ANNIE F., 117 Washington Ave., Chelsea, Mass........ 1908 
Dana, Miss Apa, 488 Centre St., Newton, Mass................... 1912 
Dang, Mrs. Ernest B., Chestnut Hill, Mass....................... 1912 
Davenport, Mrs. Evizasetu B., Lindenhurst, Brattleboro, Vt....... 1898 
Davipson, Mrs. Francis 8., 1302 W., 8. Grand Ave., Springfield, Ill..1912 
Davis, CHaruss H., 515 N. Michigan Ave., Saginaw, Mich.......... 1906 
Day, Cuestser Ssssions, 15 Chilton Road, West Roxbury, Mass... .1897 
Day, Miss E. S., 389 Bainbridge St., Brooklyn, N. Y.............. 1914 
Day, Franx Miss, Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, Pa.................. 1901 
Dean, R. H., 300 St: Vincent Ave., St. Louis; Mo:.............:.2 1913 
DEANE, DANIEL WHITMAN, Box 425, Fairhaven, Mass.........:... 1913 
DEANE, GEORGE CLEMENT, 80 Sparks St., Cambridge, Mass....... .1899 
DeLoacu, R. J. H., Georgia Experiment Station, Experiment, Ga. . .1910 
Densmore, Miss MABEL, 629 4th St., Red Wing, Minn............ 1910 
Dersy, RicHarp, 969 Park Ave., New York City................. 1898 
Dericxson, Mrs. Gso. P., 238 W. Franklin Ave., Minneapolis, Minn. .1910 
DeVine, J. L., 5319 Woodlawn Ave., Chicago, Ill................. 1903 
Dewey, Dr. Cuartes A., 78 Plymouth Ave., Rochester, N. Y...... 1900 
Dickerson, Miss Mary C., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City. . .1908 
Dickey, Donarp /R:, Box 701; Pasadena, Calo. 2. ...0.5...s cee ee 1907 
Pckuy, SamuEn.S., Waynesburg, Macias. soc eek «sce oh ob aoe wate 1905 
Ditie, FREDERICK M., 2927 W. 28th Ave., Denver, Colo.......... 1892 
Dimock, Geo. E., Jr., 907 N. Broad St., Elizabeth, N.J............ 1911 
Dionne, C. E., Laval University, Quebec, Canada................ 1893 
Drxon, FREDERICK J., 111 Elm Ave., Hackensack, N. J............ 1891 
Dopson, JosrePH H., Room 1201-19 S. La Salle St., Chicago, Ill... .1909 
Dorn, Prof. L., Concordia College, Fort Wayne, Ind.............. 1912 
Downuoowr, Miss Evizasetu, 2307 Talbott Ave., Indianapolis, Ind. .1913 
Draper, J. SUMNER, 16 State St., Boston, Mass.........../..... 1908 
Drummonp, Miss Mary, Spring Lane, Lake Forest, Ill............ 1904 
Dons, Mrs. Al-P..; 211 Ne Frontist., Harrisburg, “Pa... 2: cc: 1900 
Dunsar, W. Linrrep, U. M. C. Co., Bridgeport, Conn............ 1906 
DuRFEE, Owen, Box 125, Fall River, Mass... 055..........0..05 1887 


Duryea, Miss ANNIE B., 62 Washington St., Newark, N.J......... 1911 


Associates. XxI 


Dyxe, ArTHurR Curtis, 205 Summer St., Bridgewater, Mass....... 1902 
Earty, Cuas. H., 185 Fairmont Ave., Hyde Park, Mass........... 1912 
Eastman, Francis B., Plattsburg Barracks, N. Y................. 1909 
Eaton, Miss Mary S8., 8 Monument St., Concord, Mass........... 1909 
Eaton, Scorr Harrison, Malcolm Hotel, Lawrenceville, Ill....... 1912 
Epson, Joun M., Marietta Road, Bellingham, Wash.............. 1886 
EDWARDS. PHOEBE! P.;, Brooklme; Massy: 25.35. .)ec.s3 bons ee weirs 1912 
Epwarps, VINAL N., Box 54, Woods Hole, Mass.................. 1912 
EnInGER, Dr. CuypE E., 100 Rosedale Ave., West Chester, Pa...... 1904 
Bienn. Aveusr, 11830) St. limeoln, Neb... <2. cos neces we aes 1902 
Errric, Rev. C. W. Gustave, Concordia Teachers College, Oak 
Parla ere ence havnt aces Ee oe NS ed cote Larios Wickes 1913 
BnnBEGK “Dry iAny H INGw eElamente MO s ye cleis cle ra Sareleepars bel, sie ie euacs 1906 
EXKBLAW, WALTER ELMeER, care of G. Ekblaw, Rantoul, Ill......... 1911 
ELpripce, ARTHUR S., South Lincoln, Mass...................... 1912 
Exxior, Mrs. J. W., 124 Beacon St., Boston, Mass................ 1912 
Hrrow GHoRGcis 2 -NOKwallke: Conn siita.i cis) sacuichsie apaae bro) ital ci ates ces 1904 
EmMET, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLE, Stony Brook, N. Y............... 1909 
Emmet, Ropert T., New: Rochelle, N. Y...............8.......- 1904 
Emmons, Rurert A., 17 T St., N. E., Washington, D.C........... 1913 
Emory, Mrs. Mary Ditxk, 156 Foundry St., Morgantown, W. Va...1899 
ENDERS, JoHN O., 17 Highland St., Hartford, Conn............... 1904 
EA VAINS VV MCDA NS eaves t TOM Mao aite-cis eiaie cunicis ilies wus yaeaehcy eel eiliel ph avons 1897 
Paruny, Joun A.,52' Cedar St., Malden, Mass.........02........ 1904 
Fay, S. Prescott, 3 Brimmer St., Boston, Mass.................. 1907 
Freucer, ALvA Howarp, North Side High School, Denver, Colo..... 1898. 
Fru, Miss Emma Treco, 1534 N. Broad St., Philadelphia, Pa....... 1903 
RADON) Wiedives wOnen Linees MVlOn bits syaeahen aicugos ciate a yavoee ih Whuetors & Gis ous 1910 
Frercuson, Mrs. Mary Van E., 5 Panoramic Way, Berkeley, Cal. ..1912 
Ferry, Miss Mary B., 19 Morgan Ave., Norwalk, Conn........... 1912: 
Fietp, Epwarp B., 30 Gillette St., Hartford, Conn................ 1898. 
ED ry GhOn Wie sSMANOM sh Vass easetays aise): cucharays Kyeval sl Sesvaueielake a salts ts 1910: 
Finpuay, D. Doveuas, Carleton Place, Ontario, Canada......,..... 1914 
Fisuer, Miss EuizaBseta WILSON, 2222 Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa. . 1896: 
Fisuer, G. Ciypr, American Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City...... 1908 
FLANAGAN, JOHN H., 89 Power St., Providence, R. I............... 1898 
Hnmncumr., Mire) MARY H,, Proctonsville; Vitis 1.45 tr... eee ae 1898 
Fioyp, Witu1aM, 84 William St., New York City................. 1913 
OnKene OHING Een Os Biramlalina tes. oUt Olan Vicheerateteny aiels eferetes oie ie ets 1913 
Foots, Miss F. Huserra, 90 Locust Hill Ave., Yonkers, N. Y...... 1897 
RORBES: ATE ANDER, Milton), Miass.% dy. 4: cen e« nt cee es ee 1912—. 
Forpyce, Gro. L., 40 Lincoln Ave., Youngstown, Ohio............ 1901 
Fow eR, FREDERICK HALL, 221 Kingsley Ave., Palo Alto, Cal...... 1892 
Fow.er, Henry W., Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa........ 1898 
Fox, Dr. Witt1am H., 1826 Jefferson Place, Washington, D.C...... 1883. 


Francis, NATHANIEL A., 35 Davis Ave., Brookline, Mass.......... 1913. 


XXil Associates. 


FRAsSrE: DONALD, Johnstown; Ne.tX ce caeci siete tee cee eens 
FREEMAN, Miss Harriet E., 37 Union Park, Boston, Mass........ 
FrencuH, CHar.Les H., Canton, Mass........ Bide ele one A Se ee 
ERrenca, Mrs. ‘CaAs. B., Canton, Mass. 00. 55.-..-. ssaaneee ess 
Bummer, <. Ors, Needham, -Mass.c.7-o0eect. coe se ete 
Fuuter, Mrs. T. Otis, Needham, Mass............6......000... 
FuNKHOUSER, W. D., 415 N. Tioga St., Ithaca, N. Y............. 
GABRIELSON, Ira N., 206 N. Ist Ave., Marshalltown, Iowa........ 
GARDINER, CHARLES Barnes, 5 Minard Place, Norwalk, Ohio..... 
GerorcgE, Mrs. W. W., 1312 Market St., Parkersburg, W. Va....... 
GERTKEN, SEVERIN, Prof. St. Johns University, Collegeville, Minn... 
GrAnini Cras: /Al-sPoland a Nis sys 407 202 aan sana sear oe noe eres 
Gipson, Lanepon, 5 Union St., Schenectady, N. Y............... 
Gian, M. Frencu, Fort Bidwell, Cal.........5....5 0.000000 
GLADDING, Mrs. JoHN R.., 30 Stimson Ave., Providence, R. I....... 
Guirason, ALFRED D., Gleasondale, Mass......:...........6-..«: 
Gousan,, Lewis.S. -Autaugaville, Alas So tsracaceme vena actos oa 
GoopALz, Dr. JosepH LINCOLN, 258 Beacon St., Boston, Mass..... 
Goopricu, Juuiet T., 1210 Astor St., Chicago, Ill..............-. 
Gorpon, Harry E., 313 Laburnum Ave., Rochester, N. Y........ 


Grant, Wo. W., 489 Castle St., Geneva, N. Y................... 
Graves, Mrs. Cuaruss B., 4 Mercer St., New London, Conn...... 
Gray, Miss Euizasetu F., 870 High St., Dedham, Mass.......... 
Gray, Miss Isa E., 5 Chestnut St., Boston, Mass................ 
Green, Miss Mary Amory, Croton-on-Hudson, N. Y............ 
GREENOUGH, Henry Voss, 23 Monmouth Court, Brookline, Mass... . 
GREGORY, STEPHEN §&., Jr., 1349 Astor St., Chicago, Ill........... 
Griscom, LupLow, 21 Washington Sq., N., New York City....... 
GRONBERGER, 8S. M., Smithsonian Inst., Washington, D.C........ 
Gross, ALFRED O., 17 McKeen St., Brunswick, Me.............. 
GROSVENER, GILBERT H., National Geog. Soc., Washington, D. C.. 
Guitp, Henry R., 102 Beacon St., Boston, Mass...:............ 
GuTSELL, JAMES S., 301 College Ave., Ithaca, N. Y............... 
Haniny. AmpuN bl. - Monrovia indiana apiece cence emis cies 
Hagar, J. A., 79 Washington Park, Newtonville, Mass............ 
Hatt, F’Ranx H., Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, N. Y.... 
Hautert, Geo. H., Jr., Haverford College, Haverford, Pa........... 
HANKINSON, THos. LeRoy, Charleston, Ill........................ 
Harpon, Mrs. Henry W., 315 West 71st St., New York City....... 
Harper, FRANCIS, 555 First Ave., College Point, N. Y.............. 
Harrincton, Mrs. W. R., 11 Ave., and 47th St., New York City.... 


.1913 


Associates. XXill 


IELARRIS: EVARRY wCanisas OltyeyNVlOud a erie eae an a ties sce ciectieto sale < 1911 
Harvey, Miss Ruta Sawyer, 1203 Woodland Ave., Cincinnati, 
(OVENS petits See's Red Be RATE EEE A OO CRIES eae a One eee eens 1902 
HASKELL, Wu.S., Woolworth Building, New York City............. 1913 
Hatuaway, Harry S., Box 1466, Providence, R.I.................. 1897 
lalAgaoiaowanieny lela (Ohe disso llciyesil ely [oad Jape ses bee cue A ein eee eee Ie 1893 
EPA ARDY On oO wieANDN Gs sea ce Dalen ilar n wunecniae can oaecete 1885 
nr PART EUR Viillervelaces Nem cruis «che cletts tices ares ein < oleae 1888 
Hemenway, Mrs. Aueustus, Readville, Mass..................... 1912 
HENDERSON, Judge Junius, 627 Pine St., Boulder, Colo............. 1903 
HeEnprRIckson, W. F., 276 Hillside Ave., Jamaica, N. Y.............. 1885 
HENNEsSEY, FRANK, Winona Lake College, Winona Lake, Ind........ 1914 
Herrick, Francis H., Adelbert College, Cleveland, Ohio............ 1913 
HERRICK, HAROLD, 25 Liberty St., New York City................. 1905 
HBRRICK a Nir wWiBOLDUEAs ©edanhrsts Np aces ce store af cPac-sletee oe cere srl e 1913 
Hersey, F'. Seymour, 6 Maple Ave., Taunton, Mass................ 1911 
le boeionig,, Ibe: dice \ nigh iad Clo) (nes Brae eens oe, Uae a ey Pere eA NI et ie 1909 
TR UBISISy EV AWAG? Dire 2 oid Coy 90 eae et ge hae be oe ee ene aD 1909 
HicsBeez, Harry G., 13 Austin St., Hyde Park, Mass................. 1900 
HG GINS} ny CHAS. Uxbridge, Massie sas scccrs cies ote an wes 1912 
Hiu1, JAMES Haynes, Box 485, New London, Conn................. 1897 
Hit, Mrs. THomas R., 4629 Baltimore Ave., Philadelphia, Pa........ 1903 
HIncKLEy, Guo. Lyman, Redwood Library, Newport, R.I.......... 1912 
HIncKLEY, Henry H., 50 West Hill Ave., Melrose Highlands, Mass. .1912 
Hinge, Prof. JAMES STEWART, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio...... 1899 
EN VETS ean ee AMD UTINy da Gleeens Ste 5 cictaals stewie, cece brecse dt ave ae 1890 
Hircucock, FRANK H., Metropolitan Club, New York City......... 1891 
Hix GHorcule lOO Me 9ilst Ste News York City, sans. a. eee ac 1904 
Hopes, Prof. Ciuirron Fremont, State University, Eugene, Oregon. .1899 
Ho.pen, Mrs. Epwin B., 323 Riverside Drive, New York City....... 1903 
Howpen, Mrs. EMe ine R., 13 EH. 79th St., New York City........... 1902 
WOUGAND ELAROLMOM VA val Gales une Milli sates 4s) ar ays thst aes 1910 
Ho.uuanp, Dr. Wiuu1AM J., Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pa........ 1899 
Ho.uuisteR, WARREN D., McPhee Bldg., Denver, Colo.............. 1901 
Hotman, Rapa H., 33 Chestnut St., Stoneham, Mass............... 1907 
Hott, Ernest G., Biological Survey, Washington, D.C............. 1911 
Hott, Mrs. Nancy W.C., 138 Chauncey St., Cambridge, Mass........ 1908 
Honywitu, ALBERT W.., Jr., 522 Holmes St., Wilkinsburg, Pa........ 1907 
EIORSHATE WD RUCE Erm CetOnse Newer ek Scie a cob eieues aie ee cinta 1905 
Hortcuxiss, Miss Junia R., 502 W. 113 St., New York City.......... 1912 
HoweE, Dr. Recinatp HeseEr, Jr., Thoreau Museum, Concord, Mass..1895 
Hawn wee Amon? Ooviria Gals). 6012s ea el re dees cee 1909 
LEIGH DOI, IBOIN A Mtg lity 1k hy ID dies IBtovomno MAIN dns aan pa dooaadedess 1907 
Howes, Pau Griswotp, Maplewood Biol. Laborat., Stamford, Conn. .1913 
How.anp, R. H., 164 Wildwood Ave., Upper Montclair, N.J......... 1912 


Hoyt, Miss AnntzE S., 160 Lexington Ave., New York City........... 1909 


XXIV Associates. 


HovrWarmrAv ED Box 425, 5tamiord. Gonnesaa site ee eee 1907 
HupeArn, Dr Wocius ., Houghton, Michie 2n. 2. soe ee 1907 
HuBBARD, Mrs. Sara A., 177 Woodruff Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y......... 1891 
Hupson, Mrs. K. W., The Bellevue, Intervale, N. H............... 1911 
Hutu, Epwin D., 6024 Ellis Ave., Chicago, Ill...................... 1913 
Hunn, JoHn T. SHARPLESS, 1218 Prospect Ave., Plainfield, N. J...... 1895 
HurcHinson, Dr. W. F., Box 42, Portsmouth, Va.......<02......0.s- 1910 
INGALLS, CHARLES E., East Templeton, Mass.............0.....000.. 1885 
INGERSOLL, ALBERT M., 908 F St., San Diego, Cal.................. 1885 
IRVING. JOHN, Gleni\@ove;Nawe niece meek clan ee 1894 
Igmam C.D. 27 W. 67 St., New ¥ Onk WGiig, Soe sk os cloaca clans epee 1891 
Thanh LeU D Ey aimaisminliniayotoma ily Yous aon chon baunaaaerGaenes 1912 
JACKSON, Hart ey, H. T., Biological Survey, Washington, D.C...... 1910 
Jackson, THomas H., 304 N. Franklin St., West Chester, Pa......... 1888 
JamEs, Norman, N. W. James Lumber Co., Baltimore, Md......... 1913 
JARVES, Miss Ftora Amy, Box 151, Kingston Hill, R. I.............. 1913 
JENKINS, Miss Ipa G., 30 Dearborne St., Roxbury, Mass............. 1912 
Jenks Oras. W.. Bedford) Masssc.4 0.) oni ae Cee ee eee 1912 
JENNEY, CHARLES F., 100 Gordon Ave., Hyde Park, Mass........... 1905 
JENNINGS, RicHarp D., 129 Harrison St., East Orange, N.J.......... 1913 
TEeNSENE Ks. "Westwood, WWiasst ce \Sn eit ube) Mee te eee es 1912 
JEWEL, Linpsuy. i.;.Wiythevaille; (Vai ebsamc acu tains ionialenche en ere 1910 
JEWETT, STANLEY G., 582 Bidwell Ave., Portland, Oregon............ 1906 
Jouns, Erwin Wo., 19 West Market St., lowa City, lowa........... 1910 
JOHNSON, Cuas. E., 714 16 Ave., S. E., Minneapolis, Minn........... 1912 


JOHNSON, FRANK EpGar, 16 Amackassin Terrace, Yonkers, N. Y.....1888 
Jounson, Mrs. Grace Pettis, City Library Asso., Springfield, Mass..1908 


JOHNSON, JuLius M., 77 Herkimer St., Brooklyn, N. Y.............. 1913 
JOHNSON, WALTER ApAMs, 120 W. 32d St., New York City.......... 1889 
JOHNSON, WILBUR WALLACE, 144 Harrison St., East Orange, N. J... ..1914 
OHNSON; Winrran §.;; Damon. IN Yoo. dee ities wie a oa « boot eeneraataty 1893 
Jonss, F’. W., 563 Massachusetts Ave., Boston, Mass............... 1912 
JOMSy Drv omeEARD ©. malmonubhs, WMiagssase eons.) a a5 eee 1912 
JORDAN AGHA IB. lowell Wasi. 10a. nice tenets ome et ite ate eee 1888 
Jump, Mrs. Epwin R., 59 Boyd St., Newton, Mass.................. 1910 
JuSsniCE; mney.) Devony Pac...-5 5 eked ap oe one eee 1913 
KALMBACH, EpwIn R., Biological Survey, Washington, D.C......... 1910 
Kauays, JAMES Epwarp, 328 St. George St., London, Ontario........ 1899 
Keim, THomas Dantgt, Fellowship Farm, Stelton, N. J............. 1902 
Kano, RaAupE P., Silver Gity, IN Mie. S ten hi sa duct teas eaacteeies 1913 
Kent, Duane E., 47 West St., Rutland, Vt........ Pphausttep mays = vals uae: 1913 
Kent, Epwin C., 90 West St., New York City..................... 1907 
KERMODE, FRANCIS, Provincial Museum, Victoria, B.C.............. 1904 
1h aniseed ago l en OH ONSHe cree lige Amaya Dk mek CoS AGE ane olrae 1904 
FGM DER, NABHANTIMT «Le sVinlton: IMiassir. ne ceenscuier fete aidtelcita eae 1906 


*Life Associate. 


Associates, XXV 


Kran, WILFRED L., 755 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y............ 1913 
KiLcore, WILLIAM, Jr., 4304 Colfax Ave., S., Minneapolis, Minn... ..1906 
Kane, Le Roy, 20 EB; 84th St., New York City... .....225..6..088- 1901 
Kirxuam, Mrs. JAmMzEs W., 275 Maple St., Springfield, Mass.......... 1904 
*KIRKHAM, STANTON D., 152 Howell St., Canandaigua, N. Y......... 1910 
KarKwoop, Frank C., Monkton, Md...... Rie ore, PAP aI, tala g 1892 
KirrreDGE, JosepH Jr., U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Mont......... 1910 
Kuoseman, Miss Jessi£ E., 44 Bullard St., Dedham, Mass........... 1909 
KNAEBEL, ERNEST, 3707 Morrison St., Chevy Chase, D.C........... 1906 
Knapp, Mrs. Henry A., 301 Quincy Ave., Scranton, Pa............. 1907 
KNOLHOFF, FERDINAND WILLIAM, 40 E. 42d St., New York City...... 1890 
KRreEtTzMAN, Prof. P. E., 1230 St. Anthony Ave., St. Paul, Minn....... 1913 
Kusmr, Aammmony Ri.,, Bemardsville, Ni. J... 0.2 cece ec ee ees 1908 
Kusmr, Mrs. ANtHony R., Bernardsville, N. J.................0000- 1910 
Kuser, JoHN Drypen, Bernardsville, N. J... 0 oc. ccc ce ec een ee nee 1910 
ercHin: Drs Victors Green balee! Wiss .c- i si:. so clout -fotetel ease. asiee ae 1905 
La Dow, STANLEY V., 610 W. 116th St., New York City............ 1913 
Lacny, HowArp Grores, Kerrville, Texas............05...1.0 05605 1899 
Lams, Cuas. R., 159 Brattle St., Cambridge, Mass................. 1912 
LANCASHIRE, Mrs. JAMES Henry, Manchester, Mass............... 1909 
Lanc, HERBERT, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City............ 1907 
Latimer, Miss Carouine P., 19 Pierrepont St., Brooklyn, N. Y...... 1898 
LAURENT, Puiip, 31 E. Mt. Airy Ave., Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, Pa.. .1902 
Ava. ParGE Nn, eb mem eh, Cal od th hae hdl. SOF ak oA aglow sales 1907 
LAWRENCE, JOHN B., 126 E. 30th St., New York City............... 1907 
ae vaLnNiR ys His Wey arid: Catiyai eh eta aete te aise ssyeress dere cysasie cuetcphieks 1910 
Leman, J. Howarp, 48 Beacon St., Boston, Mass................... 1912 
Lemsen, NicHouas F., 34 Nassau St., New York City.............. 1912 
LENGERKE, JuUSTUS VON, 200 5th Ave., New York City.............. 1907 
Lewis, Dr. Freperic T., 76 Oxford St., Cambridge, Mass........... 1909 
Lewis, Harrison F., R. R. 2 Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.............. 1912 
Lewis, Mrs. Herman, 120 Grove St., Haverhill, Mass............... 1912 
Lewis, L. Atva, 608 Panama Bldg., Portland, Ore.................. 1913 
Ligon, StoKkury.,, Chloride, New Mexico... 0.2... 6.00.02 cee 1912 
Lincoin, FREDERICK CHARLES, Colo. Mus. Nat. Hist., Denver, Colo..1910 
Lines, Gro. H., 208 Piermont Ave., Nyack N. Y................... 1913 
LINTON, CLARENCE B., 125 West Ocean Ave., Long Beach, Cal....... 1908 
LINZEE, JOHN W.., 96 Charles St., Boston, Mass....................- 1912 
LirrLe, LuTHer 2d, 1625 W. Adams St., Los Angeles, Cal........... 1913 
LONGSTREET, RuBERT J., Stetson University, DeLand, Fla........... 1913 
ORD Mev WilEnEnAnTery. over: MLAS. ssn. hectlk ee Gta lane ieiietas 190k 
Lorine, Marton B., 914 High St., Dedham, Mass.................. 1913 
Low, ErHELBERT T., 30 Broad St., New York City................. 1907 
Luce, Mrs. Frances P., 140 Washington St., Boston, Mass.......... 1912 


*Life Associate. 


XXV1 Associates. 


Lum, EpywARp sb. (ChathamiiN. J: s.-.cnccs eee: ) Asc eee 1904 
Lutuer, Dr. CLarENcE H., 8 Mcllroy Bldg., Fayetteville, Ark....... 1910 
Mackxig, Dr. Wo. C., 54 Coolidge St., Brookline, Mass.............. 1908 
Mactay, Mark W., Jr., 830 Park Ave., New York City............ 1905 
Mappock, Miss EMELINE, Hamilton Court, Philadelphia, Pa........ 1897 
Manpison, Haroxp L., Park Museum, Providence, R.I.............. 1912 
Mauer, J. E., 351 Communipaw Ave., Jersey City, N.J............ 1902 
MATIN: HRANK: His, (uanesboro; Miagsssmeents sii revele neo cic ete enero 1913 
MaiTLanp, Ropert L., 141 Broadway, New York City............. 1889 
INDANIN SEDrAS > Walliam sto wink Ilse seer ger to tie 1912 
Marins JAMES ©) Port ChesteruN eset aeeee cee ee i eee 1913 
MaArsin. RICHARD IVE) Woodstock aViterria: sees ae eee are eee 1907 
Marrs, Mrs. Kina@smMILu, 9 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass...... 1903 
MarsHaun, Hnua M. O:, New Salem, Mass...:........-...-.eses05: 1912 
Martin, Miss Marta Ross, Box 365, New Brunswick, N.J.......... 1902 
MARX HiDWARD\ J. H:..20/sburke;Sb---Hastons base apace aoe ee 1907 
Mason, Vinton W., 12 Davenport St., Cambridge, Mass............ 1913 
Mattern, Epwin S., 1042 Walnut St., Allentown, Pa............... 1912 
Matrern, WALTER I., 1042 Walnut St., Allentown, Pa.............. 1912 
May, Miss ApEttina, 226 Ocean St., Lynn, Mass................. LOT? 
Maynapp, C. J., 447 Crafts St., West Newton, Mass................ 1912 
McCurntock, NorMAn, 504 Amberson Ave., Pittsburgh, Pa......... 1900 
MocConnmin. -ALARRY 5), Cadiz7 Om eared titnietoie etic rie 1904 
McCook, Puinie JAMES, 571 Park Ave., New York City............ 1895 
McHatrron, Dr. Henry, 335 College St., Macon, Ga............... 1898 
McItHenny, Epwarp Avery, Avery Island, La................... 1894 
McIntire, Mrs. Hprpert Bruce, 4 Garden St., Cambridge, Mass. . .1908 
Mcintyre, Mrs. J. W., 151 Franklin St., Newton, Mass............. 1913 
McLatn, Ropert Barrp, Market and 12th Sts., Wheeling, W. Va... .1893 
Meinan Hone Growl. olmsbuny, | COniass. 42h c ee oo neeeeieeieere 1913 
McManon, Watt F., 74 Eddy St., West Newton, Mass............. 1913 
NMcMarmAN, Virs? Gipmre, Gorham: (NeHbe oc pcos coer 1902 
Meap, Mrs. E.. M., 301 W. 91 St., New York City..........:...... 1904 
Means, Cuas. J., 29 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass................ 1912 
MeENGEL, G. Henry, 739 Madison Ave., Reading, Pa................ 1913 
NEGRRTAMC CHARLES. Weston: VEASS® 2.5.25sn cr meeani ete) ae 1908 
Merriam, Henry F., 30 Clinton Ave., Maplewood, N.J............. 1905 
Neri ARB Rie by. eam Gon: sassy oye torre erteeree te reeien teeees 1912 
MERRILL, D. E., State College, New Mexico...................2+0: 1913 
MRR EEARRY. ban torlViaine irs e sere seen eee ce tere eee 1883 
MmrSHON; Wi. B:,Sagmaw, Mackie sy.) 10% pene rceemeeee ae eee 1905 
Metca.Fr, WILLARD L., 16 Gramercy Park, New York City......... 1908 
Mercatr, Z. P., A & M. College, West Raleigh, N.C............... 1913 
Meyer, Lieut. G. Raupu, Ft. McKinley, Portland Harbor, Me....... 1913 ~ 
Misyacn Miss) Hieiornsm) lenox, iViass- 5 nce cinicres eit ene 1913 


Mutts, Prof. Witu1AM C., Ohio State Univ., Columbus, O............ 1900 


Associates. XXV1li 


Miner, Leo D., 1836 Vernon St., N. W. Washington, D.C........... 1913 
Miscuxe, Guo. M., 1122 49th St., Brooklyn, N. Y.................. 1913 
MircHe.L, CATHERINE ApAms, Riverside, Ill...................... 1911 
MircueE.., H. H., 2337 Smith St., Regina, Sask., Canada........... 1913 
MircHe.t, Dr. Watton I., 603 Beacon Bldg., Wichita, Kan......... 1893 
MoOORM CHAS Se Sane iezoh Call np nine ceca is siete mis 4 ue eters eel) 1913 
Moore, Miss ExizaBeta Putnam, 5300 Media St., Philadelphia, Pa. .1905 
IMIGORE HENRY: DS Ela dontield iN awe a .cickedetac ac fac se aeees sa 1911 
Moore, Wiu14M G., 257 W. Main St., Haddonfield, N. J........... 1910 
Mokrcom, G. FrEAN, Box 175, Huntington Beach, Cal............... 1886 
NORE Re. Le a VELNOM MUCKASh os csern cites ac tie etereiabemtiela etale. dss) sare ats 1911 
INIGR GANT EATER ER TSS ss) VV INCL 5 Wes Vidisertin state ce wetonia 2 custo sierw siave'o tet eck 1913 
Mor tey, G. GriswoLp, 2535 Etna St., Berkeley, Cal............... 1911 
Morsz,-Euiza A., 21 Elm St., Worcester, Mass...................- 1913 
MoESH EL ARH YaGTENTAN  ELUroOn ObiOs asec ale sees ysiayesisie eel ee 1912 
Mosuer, FRANKLIN H., 17 Highland Ave., Melrose Highlands, Mass. .1905 
Monro, J. A., Okanagan Landing, British Columbia, Canada....... 1913 
Mories, ©: J., Sellwood Y. M. C. A., Portland, Ore................ 1913 
Mourpuey, Dr. Eucene E., 444 Tellfair St., Augusta, Ga............ 1903 
Musecrave, Joun K., 3516 Shady Ave., Allegheny, Pa.............. 1909 
Myers, Mrs. Harriet W., 311 Ave. 66, Los Angeles, Cal............ 1906 
Myers, Miss Lucy F., Brookside, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.............. 1898 
NEnson + AumsrATnmN bethesda, Wide. sa deer ato o ce cke sis dete she aoe 1898 
Miohasieip Mig Del shy OU SUL ID, Sileisring IDiolividen WY Gian, Oo eos 66 oeibu oe 1912 
Newnan, Rev. SterHEN M., Howard University, Washington, D. C..1898 
Nims, Mrs. Luctrus, 5 Union St., Greenfield, Mass.................. 1913 
Nose, G. Kinestery, 13 Howland St., Cambridge, Mass........... 1913 
Notts, Rev. Feurx, St. Benedict’s College, Atchison, Kan........... 1903 
Norris, J. PARKER, Jr., 2122 Pine St., Philadelphia, Pa............. 1904 
INORRIS) ova. 72oNe LOtbiStenkichmonds Inds... 2.42.24 5 56 -- 1904 
Novy, FRANK ORIEL, 721 Forest Ave., Ann Arbor, Mich............ 1909 
NoweE.tu, JouN Row.anp, Box 979, Schenectady, N. Y............. 1897 
O’ConneELu, G. M., Cornell Heights, Ithaca, N. Y.................-- 1913 
OgpeEn, Dr. Henry VINING, 141 Wisconsin St., Milwaukee, Wis....... 1897 
OnustiiGs Mas pday phew reshOy Cals ume ee.) sk one wee oe he ae se ae 1913 
(Ofek lataene, Silliiets)oabovest MWe oo of on aeroa agemoeds vce mo bbn€ 1896 
*Oxiver, Dr. Henry Kemsie, 2 Newbury, St., Boston, Mass........ 1900 
Orpway, Miss Exizasets I., 20 Myrtle St., Winchester, Mass...... 1913 
Ossporn, ArTHuR A., 58 Washington St., Peabody, Mass........... 1912 
Orrin nik eo RHE SO eNG bine ote, YOtKs.Paji.2 ss. oe cesar 1914 
Ovuaron. Drs Prank, Patehoruc, NivY): 2.528.520 vel ose otal: 1969 
*OwEN, Miss JULIETTE AMELIA, 306 N. 9th St., St. Joseph, Mo..... 1897 
,Paine, Aucustus G., Jr., 200 5th Ave., New York City............ 1886 
Paxapin, ArtHuR, N. Y. State Museum, Albany, N. Y............ 1911 


*Life Associate. 


XXVill Associates. 


PartMER, 8. C., Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa.............. 1912 
PANGBURN, CLirrorRD H., Lawrence Park, Bronxville, N. Y........ 1907 
PaRKER, Hon. HERBERT, South Lancaster, Mass................. 1904 
Parsons, JOHN E., 30 E. 36th St., New York City................ 1912 
Pawn, Lucius’ H:., 19 Aurora’ St... Reehester No, 5.2.25. 445 00s 1908 
REABODY,, eV. bs Bo abluewapids)) Kank ase eee oe eee 1903 
Peavey, Rosert W., 791 Coney Island Ave., Brooklyn, N. Y...... 1903 
Peck, Morton E., 1458 Court St., Salem, Ore........../../....0- 1909 
PENARD, THOS. E., 16 Norfolk Rd., Arlington, Mass............... 1912 
PENFIELD, Miss ANNIE L., 155 Charles St., Boston, Mass........... 1912 
PENNINGTON, FRED ALBERT, 5529 Kenwood Ave., Chicago, Ill...... 1910 
Pepper, Dr. Wa., 1811 Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa............... 1911 
Pacis, Dr.: Gro. Be; Buslingion, Wiss cos 2265) sciaas «ga tee 1912 
Perry, Dr. Henry JosEPH, 636 Beacon St., Boston, Mass......... 1909 
Parmrs: ArsrrtS!, bake Walson,: Mince. .2\4-4-)40 2 orcs eee 1908 
Promrs;, JAmus: Line, Harvard: Mass. ..,.\./.. <<. 0. «sis danesiacre 1904 
PuHEtps, Frank M., 212 E. 4th St., Elyria, Ohio................... 1912 
Pamips, Mrs. J. W;, Box 36, Northfield; Mass. 2.2..5..22.6.5..6.5) 1899 
Pamnownr; Cas. A... Chatham Na i a5 os cece ee a eee 1913 
Puiuiep, Parr B., 220 Broadway, New York City............... 1907 
PHILLIPS, ALEXANDER H., 54 Hodge Road, Princeton, N. J......... 1891 
Puruuips, Cuas., 2506 Plymouth Ave., Minneapolis, Minn......... 1914 
PHILLIPS, CHas. LINcoLn, 5 West Weir St., Taunton, Mass........ 1912 
Prerpont, ANNA H., 59 Chestnut Ave., Waterbury, Conn.......... 1913. 
PincuHot, GirrorD, 1617 Rhode Island Ave., Washington, D.C..... 1910 
Bearers Mrs. DAN H: sBnelewoodseNe wanes osc cries eee 1913 
Por, Miss Marcaretra, 1204 N. Charles St., Baltimore, Md....... 1899 
Pomeroy, Harry KirKuanp, R. F. D. 4, Kalamazoo, Mich........ 1894 
Ponp, Miss ELEN J., 160 Lexington Ave., New York City......... 1909 
Popr, ALEXANDER, 1013 Beacon St., Brookline, Mass............. 1908 
Porn tiek -(Colmesmeill| exacting csane ain ole eink > Uo 1913 > 
Porter, Rev. E. C., 24 Randolph St., Arlington, Mass............. 1912 
RPormr- bourse: astamtords| Conn: 1s.) asc se ite t,he eye ae eee 1893 
Post, WM. 8., 347 Sth Ave., New York City oo. .02 $5.0 ad sole. ee ak 1911 
Porn: JUnTANT KO. Camden. Ni dice ck coe cee Doe 1912 
PRAEGER, WiuuiIAM E., 421 Douglas Ave., Kalamazoo, Mich....... 1892 
Prick, JoHN Henry, Crown W Ranch, Knowlton, Mont.......... 1906 
Price; Licon, ob. Dail, Box 44. Dunmore; Wi Wako as eee ee: 1913 
Primo, Roy Lzsz, 1113 W. Dayton St., Madison, Wis.............. 1912 
Proctor, Mrs. Henry H., 282 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass. .1912 
Pupag; Jaume GB, BF. Do 4 Plymouth: Mich bs ooo dates apna esi 1893 
Putnam, Prof. Frep. W., Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Mass...... 1912 
RamsDEN, Cuas. G., Box 146, Guantanamo, Cuba............... 1912 
RATHBORNE, R. C., 18 Congress St., Newark, N. J..............-.- 1911 
Rawson, Catvin Luter, R. F. D. 2, Putnam, Conn............. 1885 


RAYMOND, MrsaC. He Zila sdeSt. sbhimesd ale sellin ae) errors 2 Aen 1910 


Associates. XX1X 


Rea, Pavut M., Charleston Museum, Charleston, 8. C............. 1912 
Reacu, Dr. ArTHuUR LINCOLN, 39 Maple St., West Roxbury, Mass. .1896 
Rector, Witson Buainez, Belington, W. Va..............-++-++- 1913 
REDFIELD, Miss EvisaA WHITNEY, 29 Everett St., Cambridge, Mass. . 1897 
Rerep, Hues Daniet, 108 Brandon Place, Ithaca, N. Y............ 1900 
‘Reun, James A. G., 6033 B CatherineSt., Philadelphia, Pa.......... 1901 
RensHaw, Miss Mary H., 2005 St. Charles Ave., New Orleans, La. .1913 
Reyno.tps, Tueo. E. W., R. F. D. 2, Box 92, Kent, Wash........... 1912 
Ruoaps, Cuares J., National Reserve Bank, Philadelphia, Pa..... 1895 
Rice, James Henry, Jr., Summerville, 8. C.................0085. 1910 
Pea, Wittens .ammonewamte (ind 6 22. tes cee hot eS eck ere oe 1913 
Ricuarps, Miss Harriet E., 36 Longwood Ave., Brookline, Mass. .1900 
RicHaRDSON, WYMAN, 50 Claverly Hall, Cambridge, Mass......... 1912 
Riweovt, Miss A. Litir1an, 15 Farragut Rd., Swampscott, Mass... .1912 
Ripew av, .Joun 1, Chevy Chase; Mid. ol. eee 1890 
Ricketson, WauTon, 10 Anthony St., New Bedford, Mass......... 1913 
RIKER, CLARENCE B., 43 Scotland Rd., South Orange, N.J......... 1885 
erent mend Nts) ITN, NACI ers ha tee ein saw cis Gje'e Wary © ae ee 1912 
Riptey, Cuas., 173 Harvard St., Dorchester Center, Boston, Mass. . .1912 
Rivtey, Mrs. J. W., 67 Greenleaf St., Malden, Mass............... 1912 
Rossins, Miss AtmeDA B., Y. M. Library Association, Ware, Mass. .1910 
IORBINGH Ke, Hes MOMEGU IEE S o,iscc ccs oe eevee ln lates tele leilel one shor ele ek « 1914 
Roserts, James O., 821 Genesee St., Utica, N. Y................. 1912 
Roserts, WILLIAM Exy, 5513 Irving St., Philadelphia, Pa.......... 1902 
Rosertson, Howarp, 157 S. Wilton Drive, Los Angeles, Cal....... 1911 
Rosinson, ANTHONY W., 401 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa....... 1903 
Rocxwoop, Mrs. Gro. I., 340 May St., Worcester, Mass........... 1912 
Roe, Cuas. M., 3012 Bathgate St., Cincinnati, O................. 1906 
*Rocrrs, CHARLES H., Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., New York City..... 1904 
RoosEVELT, FRANKLIN DEeLano, Hyde Park, N. Y................ 1896 
Rorer, Kenyon, 509 N. 4th St., Steubenville, Ohio............... 1911 
Ross, GroreH H.,,.23 West St., Rutland, Vt................. cae 1904 
Ross, Dr. Lucretius H., 507 Main St., Bennington, Vt........... 1912 
Row .ey, Joun, 42 Plaza Drive, Berkeley, Cal.................... 1889 
FRAG Ge belle Grae PATIO WeIse IN GS Med oercterateratereoe eerste Pol ected teva Pas daWofie viola lo (obese 1913 
Pngucnirn: (Cemarca bye, DN Yo Se Ae sian We Gi osce ee nd sae e e's 1910 
Sacre, Henry M., Menands Road, Albany, N. Y.................. 1885 
Sanporn, Coun C., 224 East Park Ave., Highland Park, Ill........ 1911 
Saunprers, AreTas A., West Haven, Conn....................-.> 1907 
SavaGeE, Jamus, 1097 Ellicott Sq., Buffalo, N. Y.................. 1895 
Savacu, Waim Gums, Amity, Ark...) 0200.0 Gee be ea ae 1898 
Scuantz, OrPHEvS M., 5215 W. 24th St., Cicero, Ill............... 1907 
ScuEenck, Frepric, 52 Brattle St., Cambridge, Mass.............. 1912 
Scuorcer, A. W., Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis...... 1913 


*Life Associate. 


XXX Associates. 


Scort, Witi1aM G., Box 1954, Winnipeg, Man., Canada........... 1913 
SHannon, Wo. Purpy, 1170 Broadway, New York City........... 1908 
SHARPLES, ROBERT (P., West (Chester) Ba oe ea. tee Es ore 1907 
SHaw, Cuas. F., 676 Bedford St., North Abington, Mass........... 1912 
Suaw, Dr. J. HoLtBroox, 43 Court St., Plymouth, Mass........... 1912 
SHaw, Witui1aM T., 600 Linden Avé., Pullman, Wash............. 1908 
SHHARER, AMON hk. Mont Belyvieus hex: cme see 564. yee eere ae 1905. 
SHELDON, CHARLES, 8 W. 9th St., New York City.......:......... 1911 
SHELTON, ALFRED, Univ. of Ore., Eugene, Ore.................... 1911 
Suiras, GeorGeE, 3d, Stoneleigh Court, Washington, D.C.......... 1907 
SHOEMAKER, CLARENCE R., 3116 P St., Washington, D.C.......... 1910 
SHOEMAKER, Henry W., 26 W. 53d St., New York City............ 1912 
SHROSBREE, GEORGE, Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wis............ 1899 
Sruuiman, Harper, 126 E. 22d St., New York City............... 1902 
Simmons, Gzo. Finuay, 622 First National Bank, Houston, Texas. . .1910 
SEADE, Mars. DANtHT Chestnut hilly Macgsa. sess see ease eeee 1912 
SmituH, Austin Pau, 742 Pennsylvania Ave., San Antonio, Texas. ..1911 
SmirH, Byron L., 2140 Prairie Ave., Chicago, Ill................- 1906 
Sarre, Missi rumen Me eRome Ohios.- 4-24 eee eee eee 1910 
SmitH, Rev. Francis Curtis, 812 Columbia St., Utica, N. Y........ 1903 
SmitH, Prof. Frank, 913 West California Ave., Urbana, Ill......... 1909 
SmitH, Horace G., State Museum, State House, Denver, Colo..... 1888 
SmitH, Dr. Hucx M., 1209 M St. N. W., Washington, D.C........ 1886 
Situ, Louis Irvin, Jr., 3908 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa....... 1901 
SMITH, WitEUR F'., South Norwalk; Coun:<2., 0. .8...250.4.c5ne 1909 
Smytu, Prof. Exuison A., Jr., Polytechnic Inst., Blacksburg, Va... .1892 
Snyper, Witt Epwin, 309 De Clark St., Beaver Dam, Wis........ 1895 
SouTHER, ARTHUR L., 38 Pleasant St., Stoneham, Mass............ 1913 
Spears, Miss Eruet D., 115 East 69th St., New York City......... 1913 
SPEENBURGH, D. C., 200 W. 95th St., New York City.............. 1913 
SPELMAN, Henry M., 48 Brewster St., Cambridge, Mass........... 191%, <2 
Spooner, Miss M. T., 381 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass..... 1913 
SEANSEDIS. .154) Manty. Alberta, ©anadansnas)-— cen meee eee 1913 
STANTON, Prof: J:"Y.; 410 Main St., Lewiston, Me.....0,5-000. ee. 1883 
Stanwoop, Miss CorpELIA JoHNSON, Ellsworth, Me.............. 1909 
STEARNS, Gro. CuSHMAN, 494 Washington St., Dedham, Mass...... 1913 
Stepuens, T. C., Morningside College, Sioux City, lowa........... 1909 
STEVENS, FRANK E., 25 Hudson St., Somerville, Mass............. 1912 
STEVENS, Ore J. He box. 46, luincolne: Neb a sees eiane eerie ieee 1908 
Stites, Epear C., 345 Main St., West Haven, Conn............... 1907 
Sr. Joun, Epwarp Porter, 57 Farmington Ave., Hartford, Conn...1911 
STOCKBRIDGE, Caas. A, Fort, Wayne, Ind... sake bel eee ee 1911 
STODDARD, HERBERT LuEE, Field Museum Nat. Hist., Chicago, Ill. . .1912 
Strom, Ciuanener i), Branehporte Nb cy. -.c456 seoroe a Ase hb wes ve 1903 
STONE, HHL. He «la waencessNisgVs nce eee Spr tn cee Cen nena sect tts seep 1913 


Stone; WM. .D., Wayetteville, Anke: 5 sa Wo cee ee Sea oe + aes 1911 


Associates. XXX] 


Srover, ALLAN J., Kings Rd., R. F. D. 3, Corvallis, Ore............ 1912 
Srrater, Francis A., 50 Sumner Rd., Brookline, Mass............ 1912 
Srratton-Porter, Mrs. GENE, Box 855, Rome City, Ind.......... 1906 
SUMMIT Os Win TCHR MIBSEVELLys UNeidlas ts 2 acc falda ccs sta cities wicker: 1908 
STRODE eID RYAWi Os lmewistony Wangs acises cei Genesee canis tae 1911 
Sruart, Geo. H., 3rd, care of Girard Trust Co., Philadelphia, Pa... .1913 
SmURGIS| Soll ARRN Groton... Miassiu.jscce oct ec sicsacde sae eis 1910 
STURTEVANT, EDWARD, St. George’s School, Newport, R.I......... 1896 
Stymr, Mrs. KarHartine R., Concordville, Pa.................... 1903 
SuGpEN, ARTHUR W., 52 Highland St., Hartford, Conn............ 1913 
Summers, Joun N., 17 E. Highland Ave., Melrose Highlands, Mass. .1912 
Surrace, Harvey Apam, State Zodlogist, Harrisburg, Pa.......... 1897 
Swain, JoHN Merton, Box 633, Farmington, Me................. 1899 
Swenk, Myron H., 3028 Starr Street, Lincoln, Neb............... 1904 
ATH OmWe. LOUNOrmMan st. Wash Oranges Nii. ccciocic ese cic o> = 1914 
TayLor, ALEXANDER R., 1410 Washington St., Columbia, 8. C..... 1907 
MAYOR bw.) l6l9uGreenwot., Columbianiow@e.en6 s+. 0. se oe 1911 
Av ORs btONEnD He KWelouna»pritishe Columbians seas . as ss. os 1913 
TERRILL, LEwis Mcl., 53 Stanley Ave., St. Lambert, Quebec....... 1907 


Tuomas, Miss Eminy Hrnps, 2000 Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa..... 1901 


Tuompson, Cuas. S., 1712 S. Grand Ave., San Pedro, Cal......... 1909 
THORNE, SAMUEL, 19 Cedar St., New York City.................. 1908 
ALORS TON nny box. leletloral Park, Ne Vows a. skis cle ote 1912 
Gaawisie, Kia IO ID Ena Gate Gforchaky Gee hake oy oe Arte, SRL Peo error ai 1910 
TinKeER, ALMERIN D., 631 8S. 12th St., Ann Arbor, Mich............ 1907 
Toppan, Grorce L., care of Col. C. Pfaff, Framingham, Mass...... 1886 
TourTELLoTTsE, A. J., 114 East Main St., Westboro, Mass......... 1913 
Tower, Mrs. Kats Drnic, 9 Newbury St., Boston, Mass.......... 1908 
TOWNSEND, WILMOT, 334 80th St., Brooklyn, N. Y................ 1894 
Treaanza, A. O., 614 E. 6th St., Salt Lake City, Utah............ 1906 
heer IMaowsAs) Me Howardsyillen|@olones. as sectscle ole sleee she 1909 
Trotrer, WiLu1AM Henry, 36 N. Front St., Philadelphia, Pa...... 1899 
CRONE Uti ainival lem @ oniineg recess rnc ederts vera ctes ios 1907 
TupBuRY, WARREN C., 441 Consolidated Realty Bldg., Los Angeles, 

(CASS gee Ae ret Ree Eon ee endl raid, in Chel Behn rade ACRES aca Cae sehen 1903 
Turts, Le Roy Metvitiz, Thrushwood, Farmington, Me......... 1903 
hums) Miss MAry i, Atlantic St., Juynms Mass, :.s24..-.2405+- 1910 
Turtie, Dr. ALBERT H., 1069 Boylston St., Boston, Mass.......... 1908 
TurtLe, Henry Emerson, 253 Yale Station, New Haven, Conn... .1909 
TweEeEpy, Enear, 404 Main St., Danbury, Conn................. 1902 
Ty eR, JoHNn G., 1114 Belmont Ave., Fresno, Cal................. 19127 


Tyter, Dr. Winsor M., 522 Massachusetts Ave., Lexington, Mass. .1912 
UNDERWOOD, WILLIAM Lyman, Mass Inst. Technology, Boston, Mass. 1900 
UPHAM. AS We dist. Botolph st. Bostons Mass. ana. --n-205-- 2 1914 
VArENtine, Miss Anna Ji, Bellefonte, Pa.8..2.:5..20.......2.-- 1905 
Van CortTLanpt, Miss ANNE S., Croton-on-Hudson, N. Y.......... 1885 


XXXii Associates. 


Van Name, Wittarp Gisss, N. Y. State Museum, Albany, N. Y...1900 


Van Sant, Miss EvizaBetuH, 2960 Dewey Ave., Omaha, Neb....... 1896 
VANTASSELL, FF. L., 116 High St., Passaic, N. J... osccs6. 05 sen os 1907 
VetTTEeR, Dr. CHARLES, 2 West 88th St., New York City........... 1898 


VreTor, Dr. Epwarp W., 166 St. James Place, Brooklyn, N. Y..... 1911 
Vietor, Mrs. Epwarp W., 166 St. James Place, Brooklyn, N. Y.....1914 


VISHER, STEPHEN S., 5725 Drexel Ave., Chicago, Ill............... 1904 
VroomaN, Isaac H., Jr., 294 Hamilton St., Albany, N. Y.......... 1908 
WaDLEIGH, Wo. G., 219 State St., Boston, Mass.................. 1913 
WaApDSWORTH, CLARENCE S., 37 Washington Sit., Middletown, Conn. .1906 
Watcott, FREpERIC CoLuins, 14 Wall St., New York City......... 1913 
Waits, Mrs. J. Gruman, 19 Pearl St., Medford, Mass.............. 1912 
Wanns, EpwarpDH.; Hyde Parks INSY.9cc asa os ens cenomenne 1896 
Warknur, AtmxanprEr; Hemlotk, (Orel 2 o..ch.e ies. cs sac ees 1913 
WaLKER, Ernest P., Fisheries Service, Wrangell, Alaska.......... 1911 
Wanner, Geo. B., B. FD. 3,: Murray, Uta 222.208 b sion vl oa tek 1909 
Waker, Dr. R. L., 355 Main Ave., Carnegie, Pa...............-- 1888 
WaALLAcEk, Cuas. R., 69 Columbus Ave., Delaware, Ohio........... 1913 
WALLaAcek, JAMES S., 533 Front St., E., Toronto, Ontario........... 1907 
Wauter, Dr. HeRBERT E., 53 Arlington Ave., Providence, R. I..... 1901 
WALTERS, FRANK, 40 West Ave., Great Barrington, Mass......... 1902 
Warp, FRANK HAWLeEy, 18 Grove Place, Rochester, N. Y.......... 1908 
Warp, Henry L., 882 Hackett Ave., Milwaukee, Wis............. 1906 
Warp, Mrs. Martua E., 25 Arlington St., Lynn, Mass............ 1909 
WARNER, HDwARDb P., (Concord, Mass) ncaa isis vs oss wae oem 1910 
WaRNER, Goopwin, Concord Junction, Mass...............2..0- 1908 
Warner, Wiis) Be R.eh. Dr 2. Canteid (@hion.. .28 5... elena 1913 
Watson, Mrs. Atex M., 124 Hatton St., Portsmouth, Va.......... 1910 
Wienme, dA Palisades sParkes INi Din: qeic aacacks.cs ae sieeve erent 1907 
Weir, J. ALDEN, 471 Park Ave., New York City.................: 1899 
-WELLMAN, GorpDon B., 54 Beltran St., Malden, Mass............. 1908 


WENTWORTH, IRviNG H., 245 Belden Ave., San Antonio, Texas..... 1900 
Weston, Francis M., Jr., Bureau of Lighthouses, Washington, D. C.1913 


Wetmore, Mrs. Epmunp, 125 E. 57th St., New York City......... 1902 
WeryGaANbT, Dr. CorNnELIvus, Wissahickon Ave., Mt. Airy, Philadel- 
pia, SPR s. <\s ease. diet hsles Oe areca 1907 
WHaRrTon; Winniau. Pe Groton, ) Wags 5.4 Saiki ctae cee ieee 1907 
WHEELER, EpMuND JAcosB, 177 Pequot Ave., New London, Conn. . .1898 
WHErELDR; HaRvny, Bln St., Concord,’ Mass...) 2... Sec seniec. oe 1912 
WHEELOCK, Mrs. IRENE G., 1040 Hinman Ave., Evanston, Ill...... 1902 
Wuitcoms, Myron L., 40 Westland Terrace, Haverhill, Mass...... 1912 
Waite, Francis Breacu, St. Paul’s School, Concord, N. H......... 1891 
Waiter, GrorcE R., Dead Letter Office, Ottawa, Ontario.......... 1903 
Waits, Dr. James C., 259 Marlborough St., Boston, Mass......... 1913 © 
Waite, W. A., 158 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, N. Y............ 1902 


Wire: WitCr Chester sexi sae naan. «oc aakt tue hae ela aioe ee 1911 


Associates. XXX 


WIcKERSHAM, CorRNELIUS W., Cedarhurst, N. Y.................. 1902 
Wixzour, Appison P., 60 Gibson St., Canandaigua, N. Y........... 1895 
Witcox, T. FERDINAND, 162 W. 54th St., New York City.......... 1895 
Wi.Larp, BerTEtL G., 8 Everett St., Cambridge, Mass............. 1906 
Winrar, “RANK ©> Tombstone; Arizona. 22.0.5. 60. so osc cbc eee 1909 
Wituarp, Miss HELEN, 25 Regent Circle, Brookline, Mass......... 1913 
Wittcox, Prof. M. A., 63 Oakwood Road, Newtonville, Mass...... 1913 
Wiurams, Ropert 8., New York Botanical Gardens, Bronx Park, 
Nowa Onle@uhwerir nar vile Pote woes aceite ire ree cen asia wets 1888 
Witiiams, Ropert W., Jr., Tallahassee, Fla..................... 1900 
MARCMAMGON? Maas.) olutiton, Ind) i) eames els sate wa Sue ses Geen se 1900 
Wiuiston, Mrs. SAMUEL, 577 Belmont St., Belmont, Mass........ 1911 
WINDLE, FRANCIS, 253 Dean St., West Chester, Pa................ 1909 
Wine, DeWitt C., 5401 Dorchester Ave., Chicago, Ill............. 1913 
Winstow, ArtHur M., 3 Lyford St., Worcester, Mass............. 1912 
Woop, Mrs. Gero., 1313 Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa.............. 1910 
Winns J Cuamen 179 L7th-st;, Detroit. Mens tea )e svc ces cles eeu: 1902 
Woop, Netson R., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C..... 1895 
Wooprurr, FRANK M., 225 Wisconsin St., Chicago, Ill............ 1904 
Wooprvrr, Lewis B., 24 Broad St., New York City.............. 1886 
Worcester, Mrs. ALFRED, Bacon St., Waltham, Mass............ 1908 
Wricut, ALBERT H., 707 E. State St., Ithaca, N. Y............... 1906 
Wricut, Miss Harriet H., 1637 Gratiot Ave., Saginaw, W.S., Mich. 1907 
Wricut, Horace WInstow, 107 Pinckney. St., Boston, Mass...... 1902 
WRIGHT SOAMUHTY Conshohocken, (Panis acm. ease a crate ener 1895 
Wyman, Luter E., 4911 Bridlong Ave., Los Angeles, Cal......... 1907 
Youne, Joun P., 1510 5th Ave., Youngstown, Ohio............... 1911 
YounGc, WALLACE Park, 73 Soramen Ave., Toronto, Canada....... 1913 
Zappey, WALTER R., 25 Hammond St., Cambridge, Mass......... *,.1905 


ZIMMER, J. T., 42 Holdrege St., Lincoln, Neb..................... 1908 


XXXIV Deceased Members. 


‘DECEASED MEMBERS.* 


FELLOWS. 
IATDRIGH, (CHARMS). 2 27 2 Fi ae Ciateice Oe eee re eee March 8, 
IBATRD}, SPENCER: HULLERTON: ..o4.¢..4no 2 neces ss cee Aug. 19, 
BEnpDIRE, (CHARLESHEMIt..--)10s soe aie ote ore Feb. 4, 
Couns, HLTsOPE 805 3% ae Ae ade RA ac oe ae Dec. 25, 
Goss,, Nammanren Sireenmy 3 65451 igen conc ete one March 10, 
HOLDER; JOSEPH) BASSETT 02 con fence earn ee one nek Feb. 28, 
JNEVRIES; JOHN AMORY a5):. 2 Gece oo eis. iaaite Vets cleevne March 26, 
MicliwRatri;, THOMAS). Sse 22s onde se fests ee toe te Jan. 31, 
Mnprinn;. J Amps; CUSHING = seis cis cs 3 decd See ee one Oct. 27, 
PuRDIE, HENRY AUGUSTUS sie ecient eee oe March 29, 
SENNETT, GEORGE BURRITT.......5..2.0c00ccceceeees March 18, 
TRUMBULL GURDON. 31 hoe fo oe aed Joe one OE Dec. 28, 
WHEATON, JOHN MAYNARD .¢.....05-.0¢0o0 seb ecoes Hone Jan. 28, 
RETIRED FELLOWS. 
Gi, “LHmopore NICHOLAS:. -5o2..¢ Sacdesec.ec. 2 os 56 Sept. 25, 
Honorary FELLOWS. 
BLANFORD, WILLIAM THOMAS. =... 5.0 5c060 oc500 cep ee aee June 23, 
BARBOZA DU BocaGE, JOSE VICENTE. -.........000-0e 0005 July —, 
BURMEISTER, KARL HERMANN KONRAD..............--0- May 1, 
CABANTS (BAN? DOUISE. foc. ae bce cera moan ace Feb. 20, 
Gratin, TENBICH = 3)a7 A lencis om ole ciel WORE Oe ee Jan. 1, 
CiGhiOED a NRICOMMIMLYER 1.5 See eee ooo Dec. 16, 
GuNDLACH, JOHANN CHRISTOPH: .......25..+5 60.5 o5e March 14, 
GURNEY, JOHN ETENRY >). .5) «ot Jats ot et Ahem Ste ticeateen April 20, 
HARTLAUB, [KARL JOHANN] GUSTAV............--cee00-- Nov. 20, 
BUMS vADLAN VOGTAVEANS= Ass0e0 2.8 coe eee eee July 31, 
Fuxiny CE HOMAS ELNNRY: «2... 2% ee oie oe bo an aki meee June 29, 
KRAUS, PRRDENAND 3, Bale Rode 'h eee 3 eee Sept. 15, 
LAWRENCE: GEORGE NEWBOLD a5... 5 abe eee eee Jan. 17, 
Miyirn.ADOLEaBERNEARD s.1.< si 5 yor ilacke ee oe ee Feb. 5, 
MitrNnE-HDWARDS; AcPHONSER 4... asc sie etek: April 21, 
INE WON; TALERED Ss Sects ae ike cit ee ene te June 7, 


Date of Death 


1908 
1887 
1897 
1899 
1891 
1888 
1892 
1903 
1902 
1911 
1900 
1903 
1887 


1914 


1905 
1908 
1891 
1906 
1897 
1909 
1896 
1890 
1900 
1912 
1895 
1890 
1895 
1911 
1900 
1907 


* List revised by Dr. T. S. Palmer from data collected by the Index Committee. ~ 


? 


OusTALET, [JEAN Frépiric] EMILe.................... Oct. 23, 


Deceased” M. embers. XXXV 
YATERRTR a WATE EAN CTUORTEIN, tok wie cree cists c.2'S vets cists oleteld «ore July 3, 1890 
PEE ZUTNGE AUGUST EVONM eter ste om ei is ota be cuslss hele @cvehar ete Sept. 2, 1891 
eprea ORO OOS Eye Ne ee te tea etrs bivlo, s cierehe sai cheers esas June 1, 1898 
SAUNDERS 8 EL OWARDise pein oeteiteit oo} Packs cle tote eietd ao etre otels Oct. 20, 1907 
SGHITH GHEE RATAN NG Mr reece ici caciciatacaere ayer ste nec aa cs terete Jan. 17, 1884 
SCUATER MSHI EP GUM NA aids ae «Fs 6 tee srciacs epee ode mie ct June 27, 1913 
SUEBOMNMLIN NRVC Toe | Seen ae eee AE aiig eae a enmie Nov. 26, 1895 
SHARPE WV RICHARDIBOWDIUMR tes cicisicl. okiciciide.. cere a lets es Dec. 25, 1909 
TACZANOWSKI, LADISLAS [CASIMIROVICH].............-.-- Jan. 17, 1890 
HARTA CE SUATERED DEVUSSHIin s.acht ie cance hee sald teste ee Nov. 7, 19138 

CORRESPONDING FELLOWS. 

NmUMes | © ze Aa— PDOWRNARID NE crs alsvafe creche otcroieie Stree nis e.earcrere Feb. 1, 1900 
PAINTERS O New OHIN oe eeep stator cies ok) ckeaei si Ncveserat stats epederePeterel onarate Aug. 15, 1900 
IBALTDAMUS AUGUSTE ICART, HDUARD:., . 75.202 o/s dels s stae tate ole Oct. 30, 1893 
IB TAKISTON MEHOMAS) NV RIGHT! sci .0c1c) cosa cicetsiotolepate secleuts © oe Oct. 15, 1891 
IBEASTUSH DAuUtn EI MIN RICH] LUUDOLPHs)-)ye- ic) scisise ols qt Sept. 21, 1907 
Buasius, WILHELM AUGUST HBINRICH.................. May 31, 1912 
Bogpanow, Moprest NIKOLAEVICH................6-: March 16, 1888 
Binyanunrns 9 Vie Mean: [lela yelll haves gale e aigteeicid act ae ee CIS Onin May 21, 1905 
ESET HR ee VPA THRE eM ACW AREY: 5) ot ic, aieiie aaetcc ste ee hes erayee ca yak July 19, 1906 
MOOUME TOP OB RDS 5. Rican sete hoa, ard aetenver eee: svonoie waka aun Soche Jan. 27, 1913 
WOORER We AMEIST GrRATTA MG tt cats, ot arat stole oS ahaten si stayre ete a July 19, 1902 
CORD EH AUR OH e oh ee aS Se Sere totes, ol alterahs aioe snshenese cs Aug. 1, 1899 
PIB) ASViliD PANE CAIN Reape foal eng We st sat ast iether alist eather ene; cusrsuste eieie Nov. 10, 1900 
DG GH SAMIR END Mie ater Ra eMe,S o.ele Ts etl 2 AR ore iets eae Siatciree Jan. 7, 1910 
VATE O Man VTO MOREY terse ecet e ceeecia neti saath By aieie sic v alera sim ee March 19, 1906 
FEENAS Td UERU Sie VON ern tir aetaictensystrtnre ciciei es aie sists ale aleve Aug. 16, 1887 
IAG GEE LD WHA DE ete eee te teyh ete ae teHeeNoitels Dhoxe, fen ile widicin March 19, 1895 
AHRe GUSTAV. HDMER EVION: ce Liane eit ssa eackns Fo ove Jan. 9, 1911 
RAVAN OT TOM Gow teed eae hia seem teen ote ctetele ne aie Dec. 27, 1914 
LB IGiBR aE, TE UTTE so oat Ok SOM eave ieee ate ED ES £0 G8 ee eRe eee Feb. 21, 1902 
FOMEER Ss HUGEN: EERDINAND VION. i.0 7.12 fem ares s eee eo ee May 31, 1889 
1 RISTOADYST ON; a! WAEUUIDI ORG OSM) 6 GRRE, BEM BIEN Ete tee o cepacia aco aan Jan. 8, 1898 
PAAR D EDGAR WIEN OPOMMD) vir 9 scratch c.cnctsicl a cisis ae tegen ees iets alee Jan. 1, 1900 
HOSE WGEERORAEIIELIN ue EAU Un eestor ary Minh ayia a1 ace. oP Sal ga Va eae ee Dec. 5, 1905 
Litrorp, Lorp (THomAs LYTTLETON Powys).............. June 17, 1896 
WIARSCHAIE AUGUSE LH RESDRICH 4 o.00 5225 yi 3 Stat iors dae ere Oct. 11, 1887 
AVEATIM GREN AU AN DER S sSORUANI Sy .is.5/ ays tacts artes emchehe ae te April 12, 1897 
MiIpDENDORFF, ALEXANDER THEODOROVICH............... Jan. 28, 1894 
Mosstsovics von Mossvar, FELIx GeorG HERMANN Avaust. Aug. 27,1897 
ORES SME GHNE A WAEETAMIt re - grse sei. vate nerd ae Nov. 16, 1911 


1905 


XXXVi Deceased Members. 


Puiipr!, RuDOLF AMANDUS..A. haus ya a ee July 23, 
PRJEVALSKY, Nicotas MICHAELOVICH............:...... Nov. 1, 
PRENTISS, (DANTED WEBSTER, 6. cece .c sc cles eas cos eee Nov. 19, 
PEyr, GARRY JAMES STOVIN:...4.o..cc-ce e+ cee aces Feb. 17, 
RappE, GusTAV FERDINAND RICHARD VON............. March 15, 
SCHRENCK: daw OPOLD VON cotinine oo eee Jan. 20, 
Stiys-Lonecuamps, MicHeL EpMOND DE................ Dee. 11, 
SEVERTZOW, NicouaAS ALEKSYEVICH..................-%. Feb. 8, 
SHELLEY, GEORGE ERNEST............ BTA SUNY bar yh ee Nov. 29, 
SHPIVAT NON MELD NIB 55° 50s veer be cosets Fe Me ket oe Aug. 18, 
WRISTRAM, . JTONRY BAKER gy). 126 ete al eee March 8, 
WHARTON, HENRY) DHORNTON.. ous eee oak Sept. —, 
WoopHousE, SAMUEL WASHINGTON..............-.----: Oct. 23, 
rR Any (OTT y20 25 Se Sa Po ke Mavis eC AR ot ees Dec. 27, 
MEMBERS. 
BBO WIA ELDREBET e555). 630 oe bacecete sk ee atone ene Ae May 12, 
JHEAININEN yc) OFUNG actos ccc acc tes oe ete ce a June 20, 
TETAS DY « UV IVAIN Ware csr ier atie sls seis ick eS ce Tet Dec. 9, 
Jtpp, Svivesign (wren) 20 cic. octets cae oe eiciee ee Octir22) 
ETA OA NU STS, oa cts whe cial aac ci ueaine fo deter hae Nove lite 
PENNocK, CHARLES JOHN (disappeared)................ May 15, 
BAULEH, VW TLERAM GRANGE. 6,4 abe Pelee se attiosirns 6 July 8, 
SD GRARIO Ny, CREE MID NSERD 5) 555 5 She oc abel seed aed ae ey rcrsiana ith os Oct. 7, 
NIEMAN, Cre ARTF SOPETS 0) otc sie sc clothe oto oe ee hee adie Dec. 6, 
ASSOCIATES. 
AMS WC MARTE GE RANCIS S82... «arcts: occlude ie Mabe ee May 20, 
AMIHING (CHARENS SLOWER 4, <(<.. ave sins oon oe eee Oct. 15, 
ANTES ARANICUATI ANT hapa « ostectdoneainide ne hc ae Feb. 6, 
ARREKGIN'S py) ECARMION ZA TB ROM cc io ic a cicieiic sigh ate Be oat ero ne Ee May 19, 
A. WW AM CORHMAN. 02 oo cee ohh pace ee ee March 11, 
By ES Bi) os ok BA eind ook OS ee ee Re eee ; 
Toa: ger ELON TOR No 2ts2i4.h i dask wearer ee June 19, 
‘Gannow, Cars rer slid sain tia ber ae eee Nov. 6, 
Baur, GeorG [HERMANN Cart Lupwic]................- June 25, 
BECEHAM, ©HARLES WiICKLIFWS: | :...0.. 5c 66 naw dom ce ee June 8, 
ERRUE AAEM 8 3 Neto diac hee ee eee April 14, 
Bint whily, PRaneis Josep) .o0 Sel ow ae ae eee we June 28, 
Boarpman, GEORGE AUGUSTUS) 60% ocd bcc ecu oehewees «ok Jan dA: 
TBO TABS EE ROT 2g nt Oe og SR Ye Se ANN ta Jan. 10, 


1904 
1888 
1899 
1888 
1903 
1894 
1900 
1885 
1910 
1888 
1906 
1895 
1904 
1914 


1913. 
1904 
1910 
1905 
1913 
1913 
1907 
1912 
1910 


1893 
1893 
1907 
1885 
1894 
1905 
1913 
1902 
1898 
1888 
1897 
1901 ~ 
1901 
1894 


Deceased Members. XXXVil 


IBRACKORE eP OSTHREELODGES «1 micisrs sive e:-) ~ wie lo min lene et ewido loloiabe Jan. 5, 
BEANIE... WiiEEEANG HORBACKE «oof cc ace onde coin wieeats Sept. 9, 
IBRENSE WiGLUTAM IUAWRENGE: 245.262.5405 -s cee ecdere eden. Dec. 7, 
BRENEINGER: (GHORGE BIRANK «. js.05-0 45.000 ness celane scone = Dec. 3, 
EVR RRNVAIN OEVA RTM Birt aeayes-o\ crater Ae acres ei od ako ear erolel eis ehe, Mar. 21, 
PRO RAW A) MUGIBIES? WW HI TRING -1crohessncl sncisy <1 cre) eanisl=-itckorsiesm. o/a\levorote, ene Sept. 3, 
Mea Nr NORMAN CPW IORRD 5 01510 a7s< 12 jar< spare dancers "ahi ovnilalare 'wukote wht Jan. 16, 
LFRONGNET CRAIN CISC BUAIRTAUS) «5, <)st che ia one ota, eee eeeyecialclelle ohedats Jan. 9, 
BROWINSOM, wv \WCEUEAM aRPINGRY: «oars see old 4 lad oo cets)etebenetolaiai Sept. 6, 
UIE) VWWALEETA MESA DD WEL). t.c.e)coshscchers (ores) sie¥eleile) sie estes ele fe April 15, 
BURNEEE  EMONARDUEUMIER 4.002 sclc ss ane vse cade aes ss March 16, 
Burcu, |Prontas|\JERMERSONG. o 2260 4c aes. Os 0% 6 oe re Oct. 23, 
Bi MEAs RONEN EMERGING on 055 = nos ofobnsohehaumacyareiarindt Mid Dads Sansa eite June 10, 
Ae Aare AU RESY AES OTBIOIN 25.) 6 oc ors «)8 his) aah ala Uist @ uh O Sal ope we nLele bore Nov. 20, 
CAMP BME MLOBMR TV AIGMUM|. la co, on 4 dle ayeliea: os alls onal alm ov ays'e es April —, 
CAN TIED, pOSHPE BUCKINGHAM.) 1o:. sts): iet--e crore ice otsien eh « ate Feb. 18, 
GAREMTON A OMRUS saa wie an 5 Ah fete etethele sede lees oenateies Nov. 15, 
(Quai iee, dl Bind y idea tee tac poe AER REE ree ewe Mi ric sts ce ECR Feb. 3, 
Carter, IsapeL MonteirH Pappock (Mrs. CarTER)...... Sept. 15, 
CHADBOURNE, ETHEL RicHarpson (Mrs. ARTHUR PATTERSON 
CHAD BOURNE Rist iiss det dat, store kate dev daieieact ic eekA tome hG Oct. 4, 

( OHSAS TOFS yo Se roby ol DAoC ee eee te oa May 6, 
(GATES RO ELI NA TEVAIN TEND C akey een sp leznch sey vuap st sacsestara ey shakey sl Grstcy. wile Tanee lis: 
CGE TEE VANE WVanLEAINGIOIN 5.00) alovn's seve uece.o alls stele loveless ne April 26, 
Gane) WN TMA WANVI VVCATE DAG BY ae oyrel ech le teen opie leds a1 eveylclieve Oct. 17, 
Corumrr, (ConLEtTTE|| Atonzo McGup. 2... .5...5.0..... Aug. 22, 
Conant, Martrua WIxson (Mrs. THomas OaKes Conant). . Dec. 28, 
CWORMIEN GC HEIRIARMUGH Ede emcce me Susie ere Arete eae rec Rotel s seasevlene April 8, 
FID YASHSENGIN LT PAINA Lal ys toring tebe SES Ja ta aye sched bUeleva faves ik April 21, 
DD Arrcerin an WOKEUN SU AUTARING erate dite citys sues ecayalave:'ene |= ,c ae osekencverieks Feb. 21, 
Davis, Susan Loutse (Mrs. WALTER Rockwoop Davis)... .Feb. 13, 
DUS VAS VV AT RER fEROGK WOOD ng cha oie, nonce a ant slaciarn sreueve ree. cram April 3, 
DXGEH A OMMTON ||| I NENWEOMG se oerciek o tints ciel sichateieutveterctets a tev July 27, 
WonGE, JimuiAny MONTGOMERY 2.2.5 J icn eames seer rodent Nov. 23, 
HDs CEE eA ENVVTEES WTI SAG: cyStsacuase saucvcheremasershartastenehelekouskeliers Migthaterpehne Jan. 20, 
STAT RONEL A SACO Ts wl O WAR Ta Tiav'a) aot) ch ch ot chek climes avs fs crcyebenc ies vovente Feb. 11, 
IRVAIEEVAINT eRe IUEUAINTRGIENG 2) os =, c7ci era alt, tvs G4) ave cuent @ 3.6.0) ate te ei avotatctions April 24, 
FARWELL, Mrs. ELLEN SHELDON DRUMMOND...........-.-- Aug. 6, 
IETREESERIV2 | JCKERDNA ICA ER WWIENIUTG IS 2) ava Ss weiter cra vrais) Asi wry aad whol ab ere Setoelene Feb. 11, 
[BTES Ere VV AG, CED USISEGIATy 5) ob 2) oss cs oy a1) ovat cess cropsletertehets) ce sllers) ohare Oct. 6, 
HOWiER JOSHUA: LO UNSB UR « ./5\.44) 5 stajs-2:-cher ohcrn ie aiaten snevenauer oc July 11, 
BT orrErs 4 © eS IS ANTE ELONGY) 5: op oy-or oe) s> st opts sbevendudvel hl scar Peyote ole Mar. 16, 
GHsnmr pABRAHAM)PIPRBERT. 5 6.0)... 6.6 bs een ela eo clere oe wee April 30 
GOsshe BENSAIMEN, | EIRAINKDING 265.0. 222s 4aa owe Geleciddhes July 6, 
VAT nS PEON RY: el ASI ra heh. 4 s:c) din ses otehenar ave te ckete «Aakers Nov. 6, 


Tel Ariteyete el rolSie Toh TQY WN) of ch (01 OV Rte Pte oy PCr He ea Hee ei te eae an og 2 May 1, 


1888 
1905 
1907 
1897 
1901 
1900 
1909 
1914 
1904. 
1913 
1895 
1901 
1897 
1904 
1907 
1900 
1907 


1908 
1911 
1903 
1885 
1899 
1902 
1907 
1893 
1902 
1900 
1913 
1907 
1901 
1909 
1915 
1889 
1895 
1912 
1910 
1909 
1899 
1906 
1895 
1893 
1913 
1898 


XXXVIii Deceased Members. 


Eira, . Waa JEDRINRY < «sc7 tte chs etelte sae se Oe ee Oct. 14, 
Hospinys Pb REDERICK-EODGES=-s 2c oe eine eee ee Feb. 26, 
Ons SIDR SINGIBE So tacts onioete ee ae iiee ee ee May 10, 
HOQOPES JJOSTABI. nc. Sect eee cise Get ieee ae Jan. 16, 
HOWE ;ELORENCH AUREMDAD en ec eer oe ta eee July 9, 
ERO Wa LOUISH i: i: sieve eke Dem oe oe Gaeta Rae ee ene Sept. 13, 
HOWLAND; JOHN SNOWDEN? ...2. 0s 0% bro to n 0 del ewe Sept. 19, 
INGERSOLL, JOSHPH CARLETON: = occle ce ering ake eee Oct. 1, 
JENKS JOHN GV) HIPPEN POPDER soe dean ee ei ae te Sept. 26, 
JESURUN, MorTIMER (disappeared)..................-+-- Feb. 19, 
JOUNAPIBRRE LOUIS 22 econee oe ei eee one: March 22, 
Knnkek) WiilrAnyANTHONY. cities cise tiie oie ates einen Feb. 15, 
ISNIGHE Vinnie EH, OUENTONG pie oe feel ae Cee ero July 28, 
KN Ox: JOHN COWING SA see cee ep oe CU OrR ee eee eee June 10, 
Ker? "AUGUST yal fei etn tlace co ae eae ee Sena Feb. 15, 
FEUMELENS LUD WEG a Bae lack aie deta Gene CO eer eee Dec. 4, 
jsumimn, CapRe Loupwic“CanhopoR......... 428 ose ee ee ee Aug. 5, 
LAWRENCE, ROBHRT HORA. rece oe MTG eed se April 27, 
LE. sRSi ATi ANDERG:: 2 ceiiccetrstsciee Cee eee May 20, 
Levey, Winntam CHARLESWORTH..............-:2s0++5-- July 5, 
END EI, MOR AREME sx 5" 25 set oe Sere b's ooo ee Feb. 3, 
broya, ANDREW JAMES of eter once ror ele oon ene June 14, 
MABBETDS GIDHON: Aa\.o-s sk ce ck eceien ce ce on eee een Aug. 15, 
INCATDTANID An XANDERe +.cccles.c eee eee a ne aie Oct! 25: 
Manpin, CHarnms CHUuRCHIIA. $0.55. 6< Solder igs ss - Sept. 10, 
IVER ye SOT EV IR yaa etc aces eta root, ah eae ee ene ae eile Bee ore March 19, 
INMEARIS? Wat ARD MGORRAINE): susiiec.s saci anime fetes abvas Dec: 145 
INPARSDEN A EleNIRY: VWEARDEIN] Giri e nieletonieieis o cistensis oho eae Feb. 26, 
Wiel Dyyaoiny, LDYAinno1oy Crsqugsolsingh AAR ag bo SB OOO Gen nao eme ore Nov. 1. 
IVE CIGINTEAY Re UANEDS cas preceee, Sp rerters 2 1s, ye ae ar acy See ote Nov. 30, 
MinAD) CRORGEIOMITHS © c..vcet cnc oh hers Bo eonietoe tat ae ieee June 18, 
IM Inn fayns 18 Loitii ne IDV Gye Bae eee cn SOI ae ae easc ale cc Nov. 13, 
Morne) CraRnNCHyHBNRY. oc ecto ciate coe eee July 15, 
INTCHOLS VELOWARD) GARDNER «s+ 3c sate scibicinicgione fain onan June 238, 
INGEN eTirinince 2A peer ete Many cr oe tne ncn OW ey aia aria cegtae March 12, 
INGHTHROP: J OHN IS ATA ie 25 2h ho sighed aos hee eee June 26, 
PARK: VAURTENG BORD: # uncoites oot nee een Ee ee Sept. 22, 
PAULMIER® /KREDERICK: (CLARK. .0.... 6. shee oie pone March 4, 
IROMEROY VGRACHAV : Gaia cctmel sees nae uote ice a ene May 14, 
RAGS DATO GHORGE: MBNRY: 7. obGc cee ee Pee March 25, 
Ag En VP RANCIS!| WILLEAM 2: . . tk ot oss ech em tee June 12, 
Rinapye | GHOR GW PEMGNIRY sata ae ce mee Ou erecta ce RII March 20, 
REED: | CHESTERCALBERT=.0- 5. (oscar oe alee eee Dec. 16, 
RICHARDSON: J WINNIGSS aapctgecnt isl socirceicrace eine ree nee Rete June 24, 
Rosins, Jut1a Stockton (Mrs. Epwarp RosIns)......... July 2, 


Sawn, ISADEDEA TaowWrt és ote ts be toes oe Oot SRM April 20, 


1906 
1904 
1913 
1912 
1885 
1897 
1894 
1905 
1894 
1908 
1903 
1904 
1907 
1902 
1888 
1897 
1908 
1914 
1888 
1906 
1890 
1907 
1900 
1899 
1895 
1914 
1909 
1899 
1901 
1890 
1902 
1896 
1903 
1891 
1893 
1906 
1906 
1895 
1911 
1903 
1912 
1893 ° 
1906 
1906 


Deceased Members. 
SELOUS MEEROY: SHMREORN A osc cas ese os fs ole Reece ees April 7, 
Shainin, GUAM no SPI 8 Woy nok as awe ncicinid aioe co Bice uae ee Cee eet Feb. 22, 
SLEVUENG EE OMWAS HED WARD Sip rete auc coe etic © cate eieveveunse sieve Dec. 238, 
SS MADE ese GEIR WATE HIRT ee ite tors sec su eiae: che aeetcrae oiereierese/e bie « April 28, 
SS MMAMIT METAR OLD) SVVARIS TAMING hy tsee ate ray nth ocel acta a sco eae anei at tonne ott Mar. 12, 
MUR OMARWNGHesAIUBINRID «6 1.0-sba. ors osteo wcigjsye oi cree hore aes May 6, 
SmitH, Ruts Cook (Mrs. H. A. HAMMOND SMITH).......... Jan. 2, 
SNOW? WRANGCIS ELUNTEN GION: occ a cele icie clots dis eletess aha s. oh Sept. 20, 
NSOUDH WICK, JAMHS, IMIORTINMER. 5... cc nes cease aes oeete June 3, 
SPAUIDING. LE RMDERICK DENTAMUN) 10... sc6sis stesso occas: Oct. 22, 
STON VV ELAR DS EVARRISON: sien crete cieieietobisis oc: 8 ws Sieve ere March 15, 
SwWEIGER, HELEN Bronson (Mrs. Jacos L. SwEIGER).....March 24, 
MCA HOR APAMEEX (Op ID RIS@OLI- sere se nice hee Richa olaate ote. April 10, 
FEHOMPSON? ViTTniEn TT VAY TORGy..< 2 ./.:s:a- cores stats eve ere ctord ect ose ol Aug. 7, 
PUM ORN Mew DAUD IVUATR VEIN = 3 «dicts core gretara.cletattie n shales sceisiars March 16, 
AT RR MR ME GHNM! @ARTMTON 1. 4 «2-422 acc) sieteasete tears aie Sept. 6, 
Upxam, Mary Cornetia (Mrs. Wintt1AmM Henry UpHam)..Nov. 29, 
MEnNNORMEELMENR YI G BORGE iW cvndclia a 5.sts hie tera ee ea June 8, 
WVPACERERS EEE WEAR OUANIUEIY «1. 7 ays .ciche ac alos. tosis cloeetalel lureke state Dec. 27, 
WEEMS sO MART IG SATIN RR: 5c oieis.ss0ad oid elem avic slecie ere one Feb. 24, 
AVare AEDS AMTUIT WNEISS 2. scx es ob o's a see eee sie sees ol weles May 24, 
VATS ONS SUD NYO TRIWCAR Tia 9s, orolete cote cverspave o esc¥s cieaetai ae a Nov. 22, 
AUVETSn Va ree ay VNU ETAING WER GDOH 5 85 cscs. cizoa, ions arc apevoRtoue recat lahat oles Aug. 21, 
NU GLEREP ee NVCIINE ARIE OS 2 Sa! te ceo ale Ath a aie bia tice agian me ae od Aug. 9, 
WiOODRUBE, EIDWARD SEYMOUR. 5.4. oo 4 2ssle tle ccleslse Jan. 15, 
Worramn, CHARENS KIMBALI. 4). 260 Uo cece te de eo aes May 27, 


MOUNG iO URTION CRAY! i rayc\c-5 c enle cls seco gree ieleteterera ee ..Jduly 30, 


XXXIX 


1900 
1895 
1902 
1884 
1912 
1896 
1912 
1908 
1904 
1913 
1895 
1907 
1910 
1907 
1897 
1896 
1912 
1884 
1902 
1914 
1887 
1911 
19Pe 
1885 
1909 
1909 
1902 


et 
WGC <7 ee as 
he 8 Sait 


] .. Pe : eye 
“A/S ewe Are Oe Bia Gers a 
sore 7 r 
co we aGreat i & 
P48 £ kag: Milne es 


OE be be 
fd) ay 


we 


i) Wipe elena ag 

bah f A 
NMS E E the 
7 7a, 


ae < 
Se ta ey ae 


PAA tee ee oe eee ee Oe or 
Tat : 
eS Se: Ur ‘ 4 ve i 
ie AS ECL So eal oh me ier te re 
‘ * oh ’ hee 
PAV NR erect oe Pai Cee Saale cw tee 8 


Vineet ut) b PR are tae ek Or 


+ Ber Gale item 


Wivh es ee ee 


“SS Pos bey te wis we 


) 
Aa ly ' 


aed 1) sce k etm aguegts aw 


4 A « 5 1 
ec ae ee ae oe a 


<* 
. [dP ow 


Old . CONTINUATION OF THE ) New 


Series, Series, 
Vol, XL BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB Vol. XXXII 


‘The Auk 


AH Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 


Vol. XXXII JANUARY, 1915 


PUBLISHED BY 


The American Ornithologists’ Union 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 


Entered 4s second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass. 


CONTENTS 


On THE TRAIL OF THE Ivory-BILL. By Frederic H. Kennard. (Plates I-III) . 5ST 
List oF THE Birps or Louisiana. PartVI. By H.H.Kopman . : ‘ s 15 
_ ANATOMICAL AND OTHER NOTES ON THE PASSENGER PIGEON (Ectopistes migratorius) 
Latevy LivinG IN THE CINCINNATI ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS. By Dr. R. W. 
Shufeldt. (Plates IV—VI) * . j ] : 29 
Tren Hours at FernNanpo Noronua. By Robert Cushman Murphy . : : 41 
Nores oN AMERICAN AND OLD WORLD ENGLISH SPARROWS. By John C. Phillips . 51 
A New SuBsPECIES OF SCREECH OWL FROM CALIFORNIA. By J. Grinnell . F 59 
Earzty Recorps OF THE WiLpD TurRKEy. III. By Albert Hazen Wright . ‘ 61 
Tue PRESENT STATUS OF THE TRUMPETER SWAN (Olor buccinator). By Henry K. 
Coale. (Plates VII—-X) ; : ‘ ; 82 
Notes on A CaprivE VIRGINIA Ratt. By Alvin R. Cahn . ; 5 A : 91 


GENERAL Nores.— Concealing Posture of Grebes, 95; The Double-crested Cormorant 
in the Chicago Area, 95; Note on the Feeding of the Mallard, 96; Piping Plover at 
Cape May, N. J., 97; The Yellow-crowned Night Heron in Colorado. A Correction, 
97: The American Bittern Nesting on Long Island, N. Y., 97; Cory’s Least Bittern 
in Illinois, 98; Willow Ptarmigan in Minnesota, 99; Audubon’s Caracara in New 
Mexico, 100; Actions of the Red-tailed Hawk, 100; Richardson’s Owl in Illinois, 
101; An albinistic Bobolink, 101; Lecontes Sparrow in Wisconsin, 101; The Even- 
ing Grosbeak at Portland, Maine, 102; Two Species of Cliff Swallow Nesting in Kerr 
County, Texas, 102; The Cape May Warbler in Eastern Massachusetts, 104; The 
Records of the Tennessee and Cape May Warblers in Southwestern Maine, 104; 
Cape May and Tennessee Warblers in Philadelphia, 106; San Lucas Verdin in 
Arizona, 106; Bluegray Gnatcatcher nesting in Wisconsin, 106; Robin’s Nests, 106; 
Two New Records for British Columbia, 107; Some Unusual Breeding Records 
from South Carolina, 108; Notes on Some Birds of the Maryland Alleghanies; An 
Anomaly in the Check-List, 108; The Status of the Song Sparrow and the Chipping 
Sparrow as Early Birds, 110. 


RecENnT LITERATURE.— Cooke’s ‘ Distribution and Migration of North American Rails,’ 
113; Wetmore on the Growth of the Tail Feathers of the Giant Hornbill, 113; 
Chapman on New Colombian Birds, 114; Shufeldt on the Young of Phalacrocoraz 
atriceps georgianus, 114; ‘Alaskan Bird-Life,’ 114; Mrs. Bailey's ‘Handbook of Birds 
of the Western United States’ Fourth Edition, 115; MclIlhenny’s ‘The Wild Turkey 
and Its Hunting, 115; Mathews’ ‘Birds of Australia,’ 116; Kuroda’s Recent Orni- 
thological.Publications, 116; The Annual Report of the National Association of 
Audubon Societies, 117; Recent Literature on Bird Protection, 117; Studies in Egg 
Production in the Domestic Fowl, 118; Birds as Carriers of the Chestnut-Blight 
Fungus, 119; Reichenow’s ‘Die Vogel,’ 119; Second Report on the Food of Birds 
in Scotland, 121; Feilden on Birds of Trinidad and Tobago, 121; The Ornithological 
J aaa 123; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 128; Publications Received, 
131. 


CorRESPONDENCE— Obituary Notices, 133; Time of Incubation, 134; Changes in By- 
Laws of the A. O. U., 134. 


Nores anp News.— Obituary: Theodore N. Gill, 139; The San Francisco Meeting of 
the A. O. U., 140; Importation of Rhea plumage, 142; Full Names of Authors in 
‘The Auk,’ 143; Book Notice, 144; Exhibition of Water colors of Birds, 144. 


‘THE AUK,’ published quarterly as the Organ of the AMmeRIcaN ORNITHOLO- 
mate’ Union, is edited, beginning with the Volume for 1912, by Dr. Wirmer 

TONE. 

Trerms:— $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Fellows, and to Fellows, Members, and 
Associates of the A. O. U. not in arrears for dues. 

Subscriptions should be addressed to Dk. JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr., 
Business Manager, 134 Wiest 71st St., New York, N.Y. Foreign Subscrib- 
ers may obtain ‘THe AvuxK’ through R. H. PORTER, 9 Princes Street, 
CAVENDISH SQuaRzE, W., LONDON. 

Articles and communications intended for publication, and all books 
and publications for notice, should be sent to Dr. WITMER STONE, 
AcapremMy oF NATURAL ScrENCES, LOGAN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA. . 

Manuscripts for general articles should reach the editor at least six weeks 
before the date of the number for which they are intended, and manuscripts 
for ‘General Notes’ and ‘Recent Literature’ not later than the first of the month 
preceding the date of the number in which it is desired they shall appear. 


“|! 


ie ‘VUVOVUVD S.NOmAdaAYy do LSaN 


‘MMVET GHUAATNOHG-aay VAINOTY dO ISHN °% 


et 
S 


Bs 


> =" F 
bs ae i 
ts * = i. 


TUX XX SAO) e Ay, SE, 


‘| ALVId 


AP rEE ee US « 


A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF 


ORNITHOLOGY. 


Wobs So0xiT. JANUARY, 1915. Nowk 


ON THE TRAIL OF THE IVORY-BILL. 


BY FREDERIC H. KENNARD. 


Plates I-ITT. 


AFTER years of looking forward to a hunting trip in the Florida 
Big Cypress Swamp, my hopes seemed about to be realized when 
on the 14th of February, 1914, the teamster, Peter Hogan, started 
from Fort Myers with our outfit, in a wagon very much like an old- 
fashioned prairie schooner, hauled by two good looking yoke of 
oxen; while my guide, Tom Hand, and I were to follow the next 
day in an automobile; it being our intention to catch up before 
Peter reached the Big Cypress, and leaving the machine at its edge, 
go on with him. 

The wagon was a stout, broad tired affair, with top like a prairie 
schooner, and easily held our outfit. We used oxen because, though 
‘slow, they could with their spreading toes, pull a wagon through 
places where horses and mules would be sure to bog down. 

Tom and I started the next day soon after daylight, for Immo- 
kalee, about thirty-two miles southeast of Fort Myers, running 
through rather uninteresting open pine woods for almost the entire 
distance. We bogged down just south of Immokalee, had to cut 
several trees to use as levers, and finally after building a miniature 
corduroy road, managed to pry the machine out of the mud and 
caught up with Peter about eight miles further south, where we 
camped for the night. 

When leaving Fort Myers in the morning, we saw a few Florida 
Grackles fussing about the orange trees in front of the hotel. A 

1 


Jan. 


2 KENNARD, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. eee 


Mockingbird was warbling from a neighboring telegraph pole, 
Florida Bluejays were feeding among the palms, and a Loggerhead 
Shrike was singing somewhere in the grounds. Purple Martins 
were flying about the water tank at the rear of the hotel, and the 
omnipresent English Sparrow was yapping among the out-build- 
ings. In the bay back of the house was a bunch of about thirty 
very tame Lesser Scaup Ducks, close in by the sea wall, while just 
outside, a couple of big Brown Pelicans were wheeling about in the 
air, or flopping down into the water; and several gulls and some 
large terns were flying about. 

On our way through the pine woods we saw Turkey Buzzards, 
of course, and a few Florida Crows, Florida Jays, and Florida 
Bluejays, Flickers, Pileated, Red-cockaded and Red-bellied Wood- 
peckers. There were numerous warblers flitting about the tree 
tops, but in our hurry we only identified the Pine and Myrtle. 
There were a few sparrows also in the underbrush, which we 
had no time to identify. We saw Phcebes, Bluebirds, numerous 
Shrikes, Florida Red-wings, Mourning Doves, and several King- 
fishers flying about the sloughs or lakes that we passed in the open 
places. We saw several large herons, either Ward’s or Great Blue, 
a small flock of Little Blue Herons, about half of which were white, 
one Louisiana Heron, and in the distance, one large white heron, 
probably an Egret. There were numbers of Florida Meadowlarks, 
and after we had passed Immokalee we began to get into the 
country of the Sandhill Cranes. 

About sixteen miles out from Fort Myers we discovered the nest 
of an Audubon Caracara, placed about thirty-five feet up in the 
top of a pine, just beside the trail. The nest was a rather bulky 
affair built of sticks, coarse beneath and finer above, with a depres- 
sion in the top about four inches deep, lined with weeds, and con- 
taining one fresh egg. The birds did not seem to be particularly 
wild, and at first watched us curiously from a neighboring tree, 
and later flew off to the edge of an adjoining slough. 

Immokalee is a typical little Florida hamlet and consists of a 
church, several houses, one of which contained a postoffice, a so- 
called store, and several small orange groves. Its oldest inhabitant, 
Mr. W. H. Brown, an Englishman who has lived there for forty 
years trading with the Seminoles, boasted that the town was the 
highest in Lee County just twenty-one feet above the sea! 


Meares | KENNARD, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. 3 


The next morning, February 16th, we went on through the pine 
woods, about seven miles, to the “Rock Spring Crossing”’ at the 
edge of the Big Cypress, where we left our automobile in the woods, 
beneath an extemporized canvas tent. We bogged down twice, 
en route, and had to wait, both times, for the oxen to catch up and 
pull the machine out of the mud, a soft marley clay. 

The country had been very uninteresting, and comparatively 
birdless, only a few sparrows and a buzzard or two having been 
seen, and the tracks of a few turkeys. After caching the aute, 
and eating a hasty lunch, we took to the swamp, the main “strand’’ 
of the Big Cypress, and for four miles plodded, and waded, and 
cleared the trail of prostrate trees and overhanging boughs that 
threatened the schooner’s superstructure. 

On the margin of the swamp and its bordering jungle, we saw a 
Catbird, a Brown Thrasher, and a few Florida Yellow-throats, 
but after we got into the swamp itself we saw not a bird until 
we reached a small cabbage hammock about half a mile from the 
other side, which was fairly alive with them. Chickadees (I do 
not know whether they were Carolina or the Florida sub-species), 
Tufted Titmice, many unidentified warblers, Pileated and Red- 
bellied Woodpeckers were flying about, while in the waters of the 
swamp adjoining there waded numbers of Louisiana Herons, 
Green Herons, Egrets, Wood Ibis, Black-crowned Night Herons, 
and large herons, either Ward’s or Great Blues. 

On coming out of the swamp the trail led across a fine large 
hammock of open pine woods, interspersed with cabbage palms, 
live-oaks, and an undergrowth of saw-palmettos, dotted here and 
there with numerous depressions filed with cypress and jungle. 
Peter and I went ahead looking for a “burn” on which to camp, 
near water and pasturage, while Tom took my rifle, and soon 
brought in two turkeys which he had “ roosted ” in a cypress, near 
the edge of the swamp. 

In choosing a camp site in this country one should usually choose 
a “burn,” or place that has recently been burned over, as otherwise 
one may return to camp, only to find that it has vanished in smoke. 

The natives everywhere in this region; cowboys, alligator hunt- 
ers, and Indians alike, seem to travel with boxes of matches in their 
pockets, which they distribute impartially as they ride through 


4 KeEnnarD, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. eas 
the country, generally in order to make better pasturage for their 
cattle; but in this particular region where there are no cattle, in 
order to burn out the thickets and jungle, which would otherwise 
become impenetrable, and to supply food and convenient hunting 
grounds for deer and turkey which come out on the “burns”’ to 
feed on the fresh young growth. 

We stayed here until the 19th, wading the swamps, beating the 
brush, or exploring the neighboring savannahs; collecting a few 
birds here and there, and filling our larder with turkeys and veni- 
son, both fresh and smoked, but always keeping in mind the main 
object of the expedition, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Pileated 
Woodpeckers there were in plenty, and I would not even try to 
guess the number of miles we foolishly traveled after large wood- 
peckers and strange noises that we thought might perchance 
emanate from an Ivory-bill. . They were always Pileateds. 

In the swamps there were herons galore; Ward’s, Louisianas, 
Little Blues, Greens, and Black-crowned Night Herons, Wood 
Ibis or Flint-heads as they are locally called, bunches of White 
Ibis, numbers of American Bittern, and an occasional Egret. In 
the main swamp also were numerous, fresh tracks of otter, bear, 
several large alligators, to say nothing of flocks of little fellows. 
Along the edges the joyous Carolina Wren was almost always in 
evidence, while on the hammocks numbers of Florida Quail and 
Mourning Doves flew up almost from under our feet. Florida 
Barred Owls were everywhere, and as usual particularly loquacious, 
and Tom could talk their language better than anyone I ever heard. 
Turkey Buzzards were always soaring somewhere in sight, particu- 
larly when we had meat hung up; and a pair of Florida Sparrow 
Hawks had a nest in an old pine stub close beside the camp. There 
were warblers in the tree tops, particularly in the cabbage palms, 
where they, as well as almost every other bird in the vicinity, 
seemed to find food among the ripe fruit that hung there. Even 
the Pileated Woodpeckers fed freely on the berries. 

There were turkeys here, singly, in pairs and in flocks; some- 
times two or three of them would stampede right through camp 
while we were sitting there, perhaps skinning one of their relatives; 
while in the mornings and evenings we could always hear the old 
gobblers a-gobbling from their chosen perches. 


Vol. XXXIT) — Kennarp, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. 5 


I do not think that throughout the entire trip there was ever a 
morning in which we could not hear at least two or three gobblers, 
apparently vying with each other, and everybody else for that 
matter, as to which could make the most noise. If we had heard a 
gobbler in the distance and wanted to locate him, all we had to do 
was to let out a few unearthly hoots, like a very large Barred Owl, 
and he would invariably reply; and once I remember when Tom, 
at dusk, had-shot a small turkey from the top of a cypress tree, the 
old gobbler that was sitting unobserved on a nearby pine, let out a 
series of record breaking gobbles in an apparent effort to outdo 
the shotgun. 

Right here perhaps a brief description of our methods of hunting 
turkeys may be of interest to those unfamiliar with this much 
written up subject. Briefly, we either “called,” “roosted”’ or 
“still hunted” them. 

For “calling” or “ yelping” we got up in the morning before day- 
light, and after making our way to a comparatively open space near 
which we knew some gobbler roosted, we would hide in the brush or 
behind a tree, and then imitating the call of a hen, coax him down 
from his perch and up within gun shot. Usually the smaller hollow 
wing-bone of a turkey hen is used as a “ yelper” for this purpose; 
but Tom could conjure the most coaxing calls out of a piece of 
grass, a leaf or any thing. At this season of the year very little 
coaxing is really necessary, and the old gobblers would come in on 
the run at the slightest provocation. 

The hens usually roost in a tall cypress near the edge of the 
swamp, while the old gobblers, at this season seem exclusive, and 
prefer to roost alone; usually in some tall pine on the nearby 
hammock. Then when morning comes, after a few preliminary 
gobbles when the hens have flown down and begun to feed, the old 
gobbler comes down and is supposed to pay his respects to each of 
his consorts, or for that matter any other consort that happens to 
be near. 

When the birds are to be “roosted,” if it is a gobbler you Are 
after, it is comparatively easy to locate him by his gobbling. If 
there is any uncertainty as to his exact direction, gobble, or hoot like 
an owl, and unless he sees you he will invariably reply. Then 
work your way carefully in his general direction until you have him 


[san. 


6 Kennarp, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. 


located accurately, and then when it is sufficiently dark, creep up 
with infinite pains to some spot where you can shoot him in the 
head. It is hardly believable to one who has not tried to locate him 
how inconspicuous a very large old gobbler may be while sitting in 
perfectly plain sight, on the limb of a big old pine. My objection 
to this method of hunting is that when a large bird like a gobbler, 
weighing fifteen to eighteen pounds, falls seventy-five feet or so 
from the top of a tall tree he is likely to damage his plumage by 
striking the limbs and be ruined as a specimen. 

“Still hunting” hardly needs a description further than to say 
that one must know something of the habits of the birds and their 
daily haunts, and remember that a turkey’s eyes are extremely 
sharp, and that it can run like a deer. There was one enormous 
old gobbler that I particularly wanted to bring home to an unbe- 
lieving friend of mine, and I laid for him on several occasions. 
I knew almost exactly where to find him at a certain hour in 
the afternoon, and would approach this particular hammock as 
stealthily as possible, only to be rewarded each time by seeing 
him scooting across the prairie to a neighboring swamp. Once, 
and only once, I chased him. He never seemed really to hurry 
and disdained taking to his wings. Wenamed this particular place 
“the quarter mile run”; and yet I have on several occasions 
walked almost onto an old gobbler “a-droning”’ in the middle of 
the trail. 

The turkeys of this region are reputedly the smallest of the. 
Florida subspecies; the hens that we shot weighing from five and 
three quarters to eight and a half pounds, but old hens, I am told, 
frequently weigh as much as ten pounds or more and I know of one 
big one that weighed eleven pounds. The young gobblers that we 
shot weighed from eight and a half to ten pounds, and I am in- 
formed, frequently weigh as much as twelve, or even in extreme 
cases, fourteen pounds. The old gobblers that we collected on 
this trip, and we did not kill any very large ones, weighed from 
fifteen to eighteen pounds, but I know of Big Cypress gobblers 
that have been weighed by friends of mine whose evidence is un- 
questionable, that weighed twenty-two, twenty-three, and in one - 
extreme case, twenty-five pounds. 

On the afternoon of February 19 we broke camp for a hammock 


al 


“rap qqoyH 
‘HAOUL) AMV] daa] NI SAMMUAT, CI VaINOT,T 


G 


‘suayy 


‘IIXXX “TOA ‘ANY FHL 


“IT ALVIg 


Viel Seat KENNARD, On the Trail. of the Ivory-bill. < 


about four miles away, where there was an isolated grove of orange 
and grapefruit trees belonging to Mr. Frank Van Agnew of Kissim- 
mee, Florida, who had very kindly offered me all the hospitality 
possible. This grove really was the objective point of our expedi- 
tion, for it was here in 1908, that a friend of mine had seen Ivory- 
bills, and had presented me with the skin of a beautiful male as a 
proof that these rare birds were still to be found in southern Florida. 
On the trail, which led through a fairly dry and more or less 
open country, we saw several deer and numerous turkeys, several 
bunches of Quail, and one Great Crested Flycatcher, besides the 
usual number of warblers, woodpeckers, etc. 

Upon arriving at Van Agnew’s, we found, on the edge of the open 
pine woods, a very comfortable three room bungalow with an 
open hallway and piazza, built of cypress and set upon posts 
about six feet above the ground, which at certain seasons of the 
year is under water. A short distance away, across an open space 
and a piece of pretty wet cypress swamp, was the hammock, with 
about ten acres above flood level planted with a very healthy look- 
ing grove of trees. Somebody had been there ahead of us and 
abstracted the oranges. The grapefruit were however still there, 
the trees loaded with them; and they tasted very good to us after 
the villainous water that we had been forced to drink for the last 
few days. Distances are great in Florida and the natives do not 
think much of them. It has been customary to drag this fruit to 
market sixty miles by ox team. 

I had come on ahead of the rest of the party, and while waiting 
for them, put in my time exploring the grove. On my entrance a 
whole flock of turkeys rose just in front of me, lit in some live oaks 
at the edge of the swamp, and I was lucky enough to knock over 
two of them with my rifle. 

The ground, except for little circles, which had been cultivated 
immediately about the trees, was waist high with a luxuriant 
growth of weeds, which were reported to be full of rattlers. The 
surrounding swamp I knew to be full of moccasins, and the prospect 
was creepy. There were a few cabbage palms and live oaks 
scattered through the grove, and about the edge of the clearing 
was an almost impenetrable jungle of live oaks, underbrush, vines, 
ete., which gradually merged into the more open cypress swamp 


8 KENNARD, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. as 


beyond. Even here the going was not any too easy; the cypress 
trees were very tall and I had an attack of cold feet every time I 
thought of the job I had before me, if by any chance I should 
happen to be lucky enough to discover that needle in a haystack, 
an Ivory-bill’s nest, in the top of one of those trees. 

We camped here until March 1st, sleeping by preference on the 
piazza, and out of reach of the elements and things that crawl. 
Game was plenty, fine water in a cistern by the house, and the 
ever present grapefruit, with which to assuage our thirst. 

The only drawback was the sickness of one of Peter’s oxen, 
which came very near dying, poisoned apparently by something 
it had eaten; and the loss of which might, we were afraid, seriously 
handicap our expedition. It seems there is something that grows 
hereabouts, which if eaten by the cattle is apt to cause them to 
sicken and die, and which invariably seems to kill the calves. The 
cattle men have, on this account, not yet invaded this country. 

Pigs, too, find it unhealthy, as the bear and panther are apt to 
make away with them; and a “cracker”’ has little use for a region 
that is neither healthy for cattle nor pigs. 

The country is too difficult of access for the average sportsman, 
so that with the exception of a few Seminoles and an occasional 
alligator hunter or a few “crackers,” who are “hiding out,” the 
region is practically uninhabited, and one of the finest natural 
game preserves I have ever visited. 

Deer, turkey and quail abound. Signs of bear were all about us, 
and some of them big ones too; their tracks where they lumbered 
through the swamps and the marks where they had sharpened 
their claws on the cabbage palms, not infrequently helping them- 
selves to the very edible buds thereof. Peter, late one afternoon, 
found a nest where an old she bear had very recently had her cubs 
in some brakes on a cabbage hammock in the swamp, about half a 
mile from camp. 

On the 20th we hunted unsuccessfully all day for signs of Ivory- 
bills, but it was not until the afternoon of the 21st, while Peter and 
I were off hunting in another part of the swamp, that Tom, who was 
on the watch in the grove, was lucky enough to discover a female | 
Ivory-bill, which he followed for four or five hours. There was 
considerable excitement in camp that night, when we all turned up 
for supper. 


ae | KENNARD, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. 9 


The next day, immediately after breakfast, the bird again ap- 
peared in the grove and from 8.20 till 8.40 A. M. clung to the side 
of a cabbage palm about fifteen feet up, and only about fifty feet 
from where Tom and I were hiding. She simply clung there 
uttering her call note, often accompanied by an upward and for- 
ward movement of her head, and sometimes by a sudden slight 
movement of her wings. 

The note was entirely different from anything I had ever heard, 
and reminded me of one of those children’s toys that one squeezes, 
or better still a child’s tin trumpet, for the note had rather a metal- 
lic ring. It was uttered at intervals, averaging about one second 
apart, though sometimes longer; once, twice, thrice or more in 
succession. Later in the day when the bird was hitching up the 
side of a tree, I counted one hundred and seventy-four calls in four 


minutes. 
Audubon says that the note resembles “the false high note of a 
clarinet,” while Wilson describes it thus: ‘‘His common note, 


repeated every three or four seconds, very much resembles the tone 
of a trumpet or the high note of a clarinet, and can plainly be 
distinguished at a distance of half a mile, seeming to be immediately 
at hand; though perhaps more than a hundred yards off. This 
it utters while mounting along the trunk or digging into it.” A 
good description of the note, and its ventriloquial peculiarities. 

At 8.40 A. M. the bird flew north, down into the swamp. Tom 
followed her through the jungle, while I kept watch in the grove, 
either for her return or the possible advent of her mate. She fed 
in the swamp quietly until 9.20, when she again started calling, 
and kept it up until 9.50 A. M., when she flew off north, further 
into the swamp, where we lost her. At 11.05 A. M. the bird again 
appeared at the edge of the jungle, and kept up her calling until 
2 P. M., when we went back to camp for lunch. At 3. P. M. we 
returned, this time accompanied by Peter, and though the three 
of us spent the rest of the day beating about the swamp, we were 
unable to find any trace of the bird. ¢ 

From now on there was always one of us on the watch in the 
grove for the Ivory-bill; while the other two spent their time 
cruising the adjoining country. On February 23, at 5.50 A. M. 
Tom heard a bird call three times from the cypress swamp south- 


io 


10 Kennarp, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. Jan. 


east of the grove, and a few notes at a time for the next thirty 
minutes. He did not get sight of the bird, and from then until the 
morning of March 1st, neither of us saw or heard her again. The 
male, if there was one, was never seen, though they should have 
been breeding at this time. We waded through miles of swamp, 
crawled through miles of jungle, dodging snakes, and devoured by | 
red bugs, our necks stiff from searching the tree tops for possible 
nests. Pileateds were in abundance, and we found several of their 
nests, but no Ivory-bills. 

The grove itself and its immediate surroundings, were fairly alive 
with bird life; Mockingbirds, Redbirds, Catbirds, Florida Yellow- 
throats, Great Crested Flycatchers, and noisiest of them all some 
Vireos, none of which I collected, but which I suppose were the 
Key West Vireos. Turkey Buzzards were always soaring some- 
where overhead. Florida Red-shouldered Hawks were forever 
screaming, and even in broad daylight, the hooting of Florida 
Barred Owls could often be heard. Occasionally a beautiful Swal- 
low-tailed Kite could be seen overhead in swift and graceful flight; 
and that most characteristic of Florida woodpeckers, the Red-bel- 
lied, was always somewhere in hearing. Florida Grackles were 
wading about the mud in the swamp between the hammock and 
bungalow, and the croak of White Ibis could be heard deeper in the 
swamp. Brown-headed Nuthatches and chickadees were in the pine 
woods about the bungalow, while Tufted Titmice could often be heard 
in a willow thicket down by the edge of the swamp, and there were 
colonies of Boat-tailed Grackles in some of the many sloughs. 

On February 23 we saw our first Robins, a whole flock of them; 
and I shot a male Red-headed Woodpecker, which seems to be 
a rather uncommon bird in this vicinity. Of quail there were 
many bunches. 

On the morning of March 1, after we had become thcroughly 
disgusted and the sick ox seemed well enough to be led, we broke 
camp for a pine island five or six miles further south. Just before 
leaving Tom and I went over to the grove for a last look for the 
Ivory-bill and incidentally for a few grapefruit. We were picking 
the fruit, and had our bag almost full when we heard several very . 
loud woodpecker calls, closely resembling the “pump handle”’ 
note of the Flicker in the breeding season, and that lone widow. 


PLATE III. 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXII. 


PreTER HOGAN AND THE ‘SCHOONER.’ 


Ue 


Derr LAKE, FLORIDA. 


2. 


igi | Kennarp, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. 11 


“pecker bird” as Tom called her, flew out from the swamp and 
onto the side of a cabbage palm, only about sixty feet away from 
me. She joined her mate, if mate he be, in my collection. On 
dissection her ovaries showed no sign of the breeding season. 

We traveled about five miles across a very uninteresting country 
of scattered “pine islands,” “cypress heads,” “strands,” and broad 
savannahs, until we came to a rocky “ pine island,” where we found 
a poor camping site on a “burn,” near a depression in which we 
scraped a hole for some vile water. We camped here because it 
was centrally located in a country over which we wished to hunt. 

The next day Peter and I, leaving Tom at camp, tramped to 
Deep Lake about six miles, through more “pine islands” and 
“cypress strands,” across prairies which were still pretty wet and 
on which we saw a few Killdeer. At Deep Lake there is a 
hammock with a fine grove of several hundred acres owned by a 
company, to the superintendent of which Mr. Walter G. Langford 
of Fort Myers had very kindly given me letters, and in whose care 
also I had had my mail sent. 

Here, while walking through the grove to the superintendent’s 
bungalow, we saw several flocks of turkeys scurrying away across 
the aisles among the grapefruit trees, and counted over forty hens 
and one gobbler. These birds, which are here protected, become 
very tame and can be seen at almost any time from the piazza of 
the house running about and feeding among the trees of the grove, 
and the superintendent showed me one old cypress stub just back 
of the cook’s camp where a little earlier in the season about sev- 
enty-five turkeys roosted nightly. 

Deep Lake is a beautiful little sheet of water entirely surrounded 
by huge cypress draped with hanging moss. Several alligators 
were sunning themselves upon the surface. Snake-birds were 
flying rapidly overhead or perching with the Turkey Buzzards 
who sat indolently on some of the overhanging boughs, while 
numbers of Black Buzzards were soaring high above. Florida Gal- 
linules were running or swimming about the edge of the lake, 
several Swallow-tailed Kites were flying about the nearby grove, 
Pileated and Red-bellied Woodpeckers seemed everywhere, and 
Florida Crows and Fish Crows were calling froma neighboring stub. 

March 4th all hands were up early, preparing to start north for 


2 KENNARD, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. cpea 


Van Agnew’s, when to our disgust we discovered that the oxen 
were missing. This was not an at all uncommon event, and while 
the men were off hunting them up, Charlie, the Deep Lake colored 
hunter-cook, wandered into camp with a letter for me, and a yarn 
to the effect that the teamster at Deep Lake had yesterday seen 
three Ivory-bills, just south of the grove. While I put no faith in 
the story, for no one hereabouts seems to know that there are two. 
large species of woodpecker, I thought it best to change my plans, 
and as soon as the oxen were driven in, traveled south to Deep 
Lake, where we camped on a hammock just north of the grove. 
Here we stayed for a week, hunting the region as thoroughly as 
possible for signs of Ivory-bills, but without success. 

On the 7th, I went to Everglade, some fifteen miles south, over a 
new railroad they were constructing from Everglade to Deep Lake 
in order to be able to market the thousands of cases of fruit which 
had heretofore been allowed to rot on the ground. The railroad 
had already been constructed to within half a mile of the grove 
and Mr. John M. Roche, the principal owner, very kindly took me 
over the line on his “private car,” a small flat car with a settee 
tied ontoit. The rails were laid on ties of almost any kind of wood, 
laid flat upon the surface of the prairie, with long trestles over the 
numerous bog holes, and bridges over the creeks. As we traveled 
south from Deep Lake the cypress swamps rapidly dwindled both 
in number and in the size of trees, and gave place gradually to the 
mangroves, both black and red. The swamp immediately about 
Deep Lake seeming to mark the southerly boundary of the large 
cypress. 

The southern terminus of the railroad was on the north shore of 
Allen’s Creek, about three quarters of a mile above Everglade, 
where besides a few scattered houses, there is a postoffice, store 
and a little hotel, all run by Mr. G. W. Storter. 

On March 8th, as we had found no signs of Ivory-bills and as the 
sick ox seemed considerably better, we yoked up the cattle and as 
the water had dried up considerably, were able to make the entire 
twelve miles to Van Agnew’s in one day. Nothing of particu- 


lar interest happened on the road except that I slew a large mocca-. 


sin, the second largest I have ever seen. He was five feet six inches 
long, about three and one half inches in diameter, and contained a 


ee KeEennNarD, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. 13 
recently swallowed snake three feet long and about two inches in 
diameter, and another partially digested, eighteen inches long, and 
about one and a quarter inches in diameter. 

We stayed at Van Agnew’s until the 10th, replenishing our 
water and grapefruit supplies, hunting turkeys etc., and, of course, 
always on the outlook for a glimpse of an Ivory-bill. 

On March 10th we moved north to our first camping ground in 
the Big Cypress where we stayed for two days, hunting turkey 
hens of which we had hitherto secured but few good specimens. 
We had killed only gobblers at first thinking that we could get the 
hens at any time, but as the hens were now taking to the woods for 
their nesting season good specimens had not been so easy to secure. 

The next day, while Tom was again hunting hens, Peter and 

‘I explored the nearby strand of the big swamp in a last hunt for 
the elusive Ivory-bill but without success. Red-bellied Wood- 
peckers were breeding and in the woods only a little way from 
camp a Pileated Woodpecker was sitting on a nest, about seventy- 
five feet up in the top of a tall cypress. The nest was evidently 
very shallow, for the bird, a male, invariably sat with his head out 
of the window apparently examining the surroundings. One 
Florida Red-shouldered Hawk’s nest that we investigated, con- 
tained a day old chick and one pipped egg. 

On Friday the 13th of March, we broke camp, and after crossing 
the main strand of the swamp, in which the waters had now sub- 
sided considerably, said goodby to the Big Cypress and its many 
attractions. 

In my early youth I had had a geography in which was a picture, 
supposedly of the Big Cypress Swamp, with an Indian magni- 
ficently gotten up in war paint, feathers, etc., just stepping 
into a birch bark canoe from a wooded bank. That picture, which 
at the time made a great impression on me, might have been fairly 
accurate except for the fact that the Seminoles neither wear war 
paint nor feathers, do not build birch bark canoes, and there are 
no wooded banks in the Big Cypress. The few Indians that we 
saw were much better dressed than I. Their canoes are long, 
very graceful dugouts, made from cypress logs. 

The region known as the Big Cypress covers a large area, extend- 
ing in a generally northeasterly direction from near the gulf coast to 
a point a few miles southeast of Immokalee, and is very different 


14 Kennarp, On the Trail of the Ivory-bill. Bee 


from those saw-grass areas, known as Everglades, which cover the 
greater part of southern Florida, and with which it is often confused 
by northerners. The Big Cypress consists of a series of swamps, the 
“main strand”’ with outreaching arms or “strands”, and “cypress 
heads,” interspersed with broad savannahs and prairies, with occa- 
sional sawgrass sloughs. All of these are under water for several 
months in the year; and are dotted here and there with small 
areas, elevated a few feet above the reach of the ordinary floods, 
known as hammocks, which are covered with a growth of pine, 
cabbage palm, live oaks, saw palmetto, ete., and to which, in time 
of flood, the game of the region resorts. 

Our trip, so far as Ivory-bills were concerned, had been pretty 
discouraging. We had secured one specimen, to be sure, but had 
found no nest, and had learned but little of the bird. 

I do not know any better description of the bird’s habits than that 
given by Robert Ridgway in ‘The Osprey’ for November, 1898, 
in which he says, “ As a result of my three trips to southern Florida, 
I feel sure that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not only a rare, but 
very local bird in that part of the State, and that it only occurs in 
large cypress swamps or their immediate vicinity, its true home 
being within the cypress, and its feeding grounds the cabbage 
palmetto and live oak hammocks just outside.” 

“Although a far more powerful bird, the Ivory-billed looks no 
larger at a distance than the Pileated Woodpecker, but its color, 
its actions (particularly its manner of flight), and its notes are so 
totally different that once seen it need never be mistaken for that 
species, or vice versa. The Pileated Woodpecker is a noisy, active 
bird, always in evidence from its loud yelping or cackling notes 
or its restless movements. The Ivory-bill, on the other hand, is 
comparatively quiet and secluded, and its notes would not attract 
attention except from one keenly alert for new sounds, being nota- 
ble for their nasal tone and perfect monotony rather than any other. 
quality.” Mr. Ridgway goes on to say that the notes “resemble 
nothing else so much as the toot of a child’s penny trumpet, as 
described by Wilson, or a false high note on a clarionet as Audubon 
describes it, repeated three or more times (like pait, pait, pait), 
with absolute monotony; but instead of being audible for a distance 
of half a mile as Audubon states, I am sure that those heard by 
me would have been inaudible beyond half that distance.” 


bore 4 Kopman, Birds of Louisiana. Ls. 


LIST OF THE BIRDS OF LOUISIANA. PART VI. 
BY H. H. KOPMAN. 


THE following list is a continuation of a list of the birds of 
Louisiana published in ‘ The Auk’ by the present writer and Messrs. 
Andrew Allison and Geo. E. Beyer in 1906-08.!. The work of 
publishing this list was suspended with the appearance of the fifth 
instalment, which embraced the Pici. Owing to changes in the 
plans of the several authors of the original list, further co-operation 
became impractical. The present writer has for some time in- 
tended to complete the list, however, and has been prevented by 
other work from doing so earlier. He is glad to present now what 
he believes are the most important data on the species listed. The 
bulk of this material is obtained from his own notes and those of 
Mr. Andrew Allison, to whom, as well as to Prof. Beyer, credit is 
given in important specific instances demanding it. The migra- 
tion records from Ariel, Miss., and Lobdell, La., and most of those. 
from Bay St. Louis and Ellisville, Miss., were established by Mr.. 
Allison, who is now living in China. 


186. CHUCK-WILL’s-wipow (Antrostomus carolinensis). Common sum- 
mer visitor in the higher parts of the State, especially where there are pines. 
Very rare in the fertile alluvial section of the southeast, and apparently 
occurring only as a migrant. Personally I have recorded it there only two 
or three times in over twenty years of observing. In the sections where it 
is common it arrives about April 10, usually appearing simultaneously with 
the Nighthawk. Earliest arrival: Covington, La., Apr. 7, 1901. Calls. 
very little after the middle of July, and is little in evidence after Sept. 1. 
The latest date for departure is a Mississippi record made by Mr. Andrew 
Allison: Bay St. Louis, Sept. 25, 1899. 

187. WHIpP-POOR-WILL (Antrostomus vociferus vociferus). A transient 
only. Rare in the fertile alluvial sections. Fairly common in the higher- 
parts of the State. Usually commonest the latter part of September and 
early part of October. Data on its movements are limited, and comprised 
chiefly Mississippi records. Seen by Mr. Andrew Allison at Bay St. Louis, 
Miss., on Sept. 13, 1899, Oct. 21, 1902, and Apr. 1, 1902. Probably re- 
mains in the fall until the early part of November, or may winter rarely. 

188. NigHTHawk (Chordeiles virginianus virginianus). Common tran- 
sient visitor in most parts of the State. Its occurrence as a breeder in the 


11906, pp. 1-25, 275-282. 1907, pp. 314-321. 1908, pp. 173-180, 439-448. 


16 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. ns 


extreme southeastern portion is, however, limited and local. At New 
Orleans it is not often seen after the spring migration, and is not conspicu- 
ous again until at least the middle of August. During the summer of 
1909, however, being often in the commercial section of the city in the even- 
ings, I noticed Nighthawks on numerous occasions, sailing above the taller 
buildings, the flat roofs of which are usually covered with broken shell, 
and the probability of the bird using such places to nest occurred to me. 
The majority of such structures, ten and twelve story office buildings, have 
been erected in New Orleans within the last decade, and they would furnish 
more nearly the proper nesting sites for the Nighthawk than any other 
character of surface in the region about New Orleans. 

The Nighthawk arrives in southern Louisiana with remarkable regularity. 
Out of twenty or more dates of arrival, fully two thirds are April 10-12. 
The remainder are a day or so earlier or later. In the fall, there is a decided 
increase of transients after the middle of August. The most remarkable 
flight I have ever seen was observed near Convent, in St. James parish, 
about fifty miles above New Orleans on the Mississippi river, on Sept. 11, 
1894. The flight was heaviest for the half hour preceding sun-down. 
The birds kept close to the river and were flying downstream, which at 
that point was about southeast. The Nighthawk becomes rather incon- 
spicuous after the 20th of September. The last are usually seen in the last 
week of October, and the latest date of which I have a record is Nov. 3, 
1895, at Chef Menteur, La. 

189. Fiorina NicHtTHawk (Chordeiles virginianus chapmani). This 
interesting subspecies has been observed on the shell reefs in the Gulf in 
the neighborhood of the mouths of the Mississippi which furnish suitable 
nesting sites. It is also very common in the prairie sections of central 
southern and southwestern Louisiana. Great numbers may sometimes be 
seen sailing low or at moderate elevations throughout the day in perfectly 
clear weather. The same is true of its habits about the Gulf islands. 

190. Cumney Swirt (Chetura pelagica). A common summer visitor. 
On the whole, however, I do not believe it is as abundant as formerly, at 
least in the immediate vicinity of New Orleans, which is doubtless due 
largely to changes in the method of construction of flues. The average 
date of arrival is about March 18 at New Orleans, though several seasons 
I have failed to see any until about March 25, and once or twice I have 
noted none up to April 1. The swift usually becomes common the last 
week in March. Several seasons its appearance became general March 26. — 
The earliest movements of which I have a record occurred in 1897, the 
first appearing March 13, and the species becoming abundant March 19. 
The season was well advanced, but in 1911 which was ong of the earliest 
springs I have ever known, practically nothing was seen of the swift until 


1 {According to Mr. H. C. Oberholser’s ‘Monograph of the Genus Chordeiles * 
the Florida Nighthawk is the breeding bird everywhere in the lower Mississippi 
Valley north to southwestern Kentucky and extreme southern Illinois. It would 
seem therefore that all notes on summer resident birds in Louisiana must refer 
to this form and not to C. v. virginianus. Ep.] 


Meer omcwd Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 1 
late in the season. Asa matter of fact, an early spring in southern Louisi- 
ana, from the standpoint of temperature and progress of vegetation, seldom 
has a pronounced effect on the course of the migrations. 

The Chimney Swift is usually more in evidence after the latter part of 
June than in the late spring and early summer. Numbers are often seen 
sailing at a moderate height at this time, as though the more pressing 
duties of the nesting season had been concluded. The first week in July, 
1897, I noticed that during the daytime young swifts began to leave a 
chimney in which they had been reared. About August 15, the year preced- 
ing, I observed the same thing at the same location, and have concluded 
that a second brood is generally reared as soon as the first comes out. 
In the case of the young birds observed in August, of course, the first 
‘brood must have appeared somewhat earlier than in 1897, but I was not on 
the ground when the first brood might have been expected. In 1897, on 
the other hand, I did not observe that a second brood was reared where the 
first was noted. I think the observations of the two seasons, however, 
indicate very plainly that with the species as a whole, two broods are com- 
monly reared. 

The Chimney Swift is very common in southern Louisiana during the 
latter part of summer and in the early fall. It is usually common also 
in the early part of October, and in warm weather after the middle of the 
month, important flights are often seen. The normal date of departure 
is Oct. 25-28. The latest date of departure recorded is Nov. 4, 1896. 

191. Rupy-THROATED HumMINGBIRD (Archilochus colubris). Common- 
est as a transient, but in the State as a whole it is a fairly common breeder. 
I have heard of one or two instances of its being seen in winter. In the 
southern section of the State it is decidedly uncommon as a breeder. Per- 
sonally I have seen but two nests, one in a live oak in St. James parish, 
and the other in an elm in St. Mary parish. The latter was found early 
in July and contained one fresh egg. 

While the Hummingbird usually arrives at the latitude of New Orleans 
within a day or two of March 20, the movements occasionally show consider- 
able aberration. For instance, in 1897, the first was seen March 7, and on 
the same date in 1902 at New Iberia, La.; while in the latter year, the first 
was reported by Mr. Andrew Allison from Bay St. Louis, Miss., on Feb. 20. 
On the other hand, it is not observed some seasons until after the first of 
April. It usually becomes common, however, the last week in March. 
There are several decided transient movements later in the spring, and al- 
most invariably a decided influx for a few days between the 5th and 15th 
of May. These latter movements are always observed when the weather 
has become suddenly cooler. 

Hummingbirds usually show an increase the latter part of August or 
early part of September. The last is usually seen about the same time as 
the Nighthawk and Chimney Swift, that is, the last week of October, or 
first few days of November. 

The Hummingbird is often very conspicuous in September on the Gulf 


eee 


18 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. raat 


Coast of Mississippi about the growths of ‘‘wild sage” (Calamintha coc- 
cinea) in the pineries. 

192. ScissorR-TAILED FLycaTcHER (Muscivora forficata). The occur- 
rence of this species in Louisiana, with the possible exception of the extreme 
western portion of the State, is decidedly infrequent, not to say casual. 
I have never had the good fortune to observe it, and I know of no one who 
has observed it more than a few times. I have seen a specimen killed near 
New Orleans in the fall, and I think its occurrence is most apt to be noted 
at that season. It is doubtless present sometimes as a breeder in the 
western part of the State. 

193. Kinepirp (Tyrannus tyrannus). Common everywhere as a 
transient in Louisiana, especially in the fall, and common as a breeder in 
most parts of the State. Coastwise, it is commoner as a breeder in the 
prairie section of the central southern and southwestern portions of the 
State than in the wet, wooded alluvial region of the southeast. It is rare 
as a breeder at New Orleans; in fact, I have few records of its occurrence 
in the region immediately about the city in the breeding season. At 
various points within thirty miles to the east, south and west, however, 
I have found it fairly common in the breeding season on several occasions. 
It is regularly common as a breeder in extreme southern Louisiana, how- 
ever, west of the Atchafalaya river. 

The Kingbird usually arrives at New Orleans the last week in March, 
the earliest date of arrival being March 23, 1895 and 1904. While a few 
doubtless always arrive at this time, its appearance does not become general 
until April 4 or 5, which is the date when the first are usually seen on the 
Mississippi coast. 

The Kingbird is extremely abundant as a transient in southern Louisiana 
from about August 25 to Sept. 25. It is seldom seen after Oct. 1. I noted 
a straggler at Biloxi, Miss., however, on Oct. 23, 1905. 


In the piney sections of southeastern Louisiana and southern Mississippi, 
the Kingbird feeds extensively in the fall on the ripened seeds of the two 


common native magnolias (M. fetida and M. virginiana). Wherever it 
finds the former of these two species transplanted in the wet wooded allu- 
vial section of southeast Louisiana, it occurs in the greatest numbers. This 
is particularly true in the suburban sections of New Orleans, where M. 
fetida is a favorite shade tree, though not a native of the surrounding woods, 
or swamps, as commonly supposed. 

194. Arkansas Kinasirp (Tyrannus verticalis). A specimen of this 
species taken at Mandeville, La., in September, 1914, is in the Louisiana 
State Museum. The specimen was taken by the taxidermist of that insti- 
tution, Mr. George Schneider. 

195. Crestep FrycatcHer (Myiarchus crinitus). There is absolutely 


nothing exceptional with reference to the occurrence of the Crested Fly-_ 


catcher in Louisiana so far as I have been able to learn. It is not quite 
so common in the swampy section of the southeast as in other wooded 
portions of the State, but wherever there is any considerable growth of 


| Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 19 


trees, it may be counted upon as a regular breeder. The movements in 
spring are almost identical with those of the Kingbird. The earliest date 
of arrival I have recorded is March 25, 1900, at Covington, La. The first 
has frequently been seen on March 30. 

This species becomes very inconspicuous after the middle of August. 
It departs apparently at the same time as the Kingbird, about the last 
week in September. The latest recorded date of departure is Oct. 15, 1897, 
when it was observed by Messrs. Andrew and W. B. Allison at Ariel, Amite 
county, Miss. 

196. Puase (Sayornis phebe). A common winter visitor throughout 
the State. Arrives at the Gulf Coast, Oct. 5 or 6, the movement seldom 
varying a day from these dates. In 1897, however, I noted one at New 
Orleans Sept. 25. Departs from the same latitude about April 5 or 6, 
being as regular at this season as in the fall. 

197. Outve-stpep FrycatcHer (Nuttallornis borealis). Extremely 
rare. I have only three records of its occurrence in Louisiana. Mr. H. L. 
Ballowe took a specimen at Diamond, Plaquemines parish, Aug. 31, 1894. 
I noted one at Covington, La., Aug. 16, 1903. Mr. Andrew Allison noted 
one at New Orleans May 6, 1901. In addition, Mr. Allison has noted 
the species twice at Bay St. Louis, Miss.: On Mar. 31 and Aug. 29, 1902. 
It will thus be seen that there is a striking agreement in the records for 
the fall movement, and.that like some other species breeding well to the 
northward, to which attention will be called when they are reached, it 
moves south very early. 

198. Woop Pewee (Myiochanes virens). A common breeder through- 
out the state. Most abundant, however, as a fall transient, occurring in 
greatest numbers during the first half of October. A heavy wave during 
this period always includes large numbers of Wood Pewees. 

The normal date of arrival at Gulf coast latitude is about April 5, its 
appearance is usually general about April 10. Occasionally the first is noted 
before April 1. In 1904, I saw one at New Orleans on March 30; in 1897, 
Mr. W. B. Allison saw one at New Orleans on March 27 and in 1906 at Bay 
St. Louis, Miss., on March 25; in 1901 Mr. Andrews Allison saw one at 
Bay St. Louis on March 31. On the other hand, I failed to see any at New 
Iberia, La., in 1902 until April 25, and for two successive seasons none was 
noted until that date at Ellisville, Miss. 

Transient Pewees in fall are brought to Gulf coast latitude by a decided 
wave that usually reaches there the last week in August. The species is 
common throughout September, and especially so whenever there is a wave 
during that month. It is sometimes remarkably abundant during the first 
important wave in October, usually occurring from the 5th to the 10th. 
The general transient movement is over by Oct. 20. The latest date for 
departure at New Orleans is Nov. 2. 

[YELLOW-BELLIED FiycaTcHER (Hmpidonax flaviventris). While this 
species undoubtedly occurs as a rare transient in Louisiana, I have never 
seen it in the State, and do not know of any well authenticated record of 
its presence. ] 


20 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. Faas 


199. AcaprIaAN FiycatTcHER (Hmpidonax virescens). A common sum- 
mer visitor in swampy woods of every character. It is evenly distributed 
throughout the wet wooded lands of the fertile alluvial region, and occurs 
wherever there are river swamps and creek bottoms in other sections. It 
arrives at New Orleans about Aprill. The earliest arrival of which I have 
a record is March 30, 1904. It becomes common about April 8. It is seen 
occasionally through most of October. The latest date of departure is 
Oct. 27, 1900, at Convington. 

200. TrartL’s FirycatcHer (Empidonaz trailli trailli). 

201. AwLprER FrycatcHErR (Empidonaz trailli alnorum). The similarity 
of this and the preceding form and the apparently indiscriminate way in 
which they associate in the lower Mississippi valley make it difficult to 
distinguish between them in their occurrence and movements. Specimens 
taken on the Mississippi coast, however, appear to be chiefly if not entirely 
of the latter of the two forms. Whichever one occurs in the fertile alluvial 
region of southeast Louisiana, and I am inclined to think it is true trazlli, 
is rather rare. It has been noted at New Orleans May 2, and while I 
believe it has been observed on one or two other occasions, I fail to find any 
records of these observations. The Alder Flycatcher is rather a common 
fall transient on the Mississippi coast, where it arrives about Sept. 1. 
Earliest date of arrival: Aug. 27, 1896, Beauvoir, Miss. Latest date of 
departure: Oct. 18, 1901, Bay St. Louis, Miss. No records for spring 
migration. 

202. Least FuiycatcHer (Hmpidonax minimus). Not particularly 
common at any points in southern Louisiana and southern Mississippi where 
I have made observations, and decidedly rare in the fertile alluvial region 
of southeastern Louisiana. Arrives at Gulf coast latitude the early part 
of September. Earliest: Sept. 1, 1900, Bay St. Louis, Miss. The only 
dates on which I have recorded it in spring in Louisiana are April 6, 1895, 
at New Orleans, and March 30 and May 9, 1902, at New Iberia, La. | 

203. Pratrie Hornep Lark (Otocoris alpestris praticola). This is 
doubtless the form to which reference is had in a list of the birds of Louisi- 
ana by Prof. Geo. E. Beyer, who records the fact of a specimen having 
been taken and a number having been seen by Gustave Kohn along the 
shore of Lake Pontchartrain near Mandeville on Jan. 6, 1879. I do not 
know of any other record of the occurrence of this bird in Louisiana. 

204. Fioripa Buus Jay (Cyanocitta cristata florincola). Whether the 
typical Blue Jay occurs in Louisiana I do not know, but this is undoubtedly 
the only form present in the southern section of the State. It is not so 
common in the fertile alluvial region of the southeast as elsewhere, its 
distribution being somewhat irregular in that section. A rather peculiar 
feature of its occurrence in this region is the fluctuation of its numbers in 
the suburban districts of New Orleans. For several years together, it 
may be rather common there, and then disappears almost entirely for an 
equally extended period. Thus, while a resident in this region it is evi- 
dently rather nomadic. In the prairie section of central southern Louisi- 


ea | Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 21 
ana the Blue Jay is common wherever there are groves or patches of woods. 
In the town of New Iberia, I found it exceedingly numerous in the winter 
of 1901-02. 

205. AMERICAN Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos brachyrhynchos). A 
resident throughout the State but not quite as common coastwise as the 
Fish Crow, being confined in that portion of the State, as a rule, to well 
wooded or cultivated lands. Somewhat commoner coastwise in winter than 
at other seasons. 

206. Fisa Crow (Corvus ossifragus). Abundant coastwise, apparently 
not occurring very far inland. It is most abundant in wet, open grounds. 
Nesting appears to be somewhat later than that of the preceding species, 
beginning the latter part of March. 

207. Boxsouink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). Appears with considerable 
regularity in the coast section in fall, especially in the rice fields. Rather 
rare during most of the spring, but sometimes occurring plentifully for a 
few days late in the season. 

The earliest record for fall arrival is Aug. 22, 1894, at Diamond, Plaque- 
mines parish. It becomes common about Sept. 20. I have no data on the 
departure of fall transients. 

The earliest date of spring arrival is April 4, 1894, at Avery Island, and 
the latest date of departure is May 2, 1903, at Lobdell, West Baton Rouge 
parish. Small flocks of transients in song are not unusual about May 1. 
about cultivated lands in the southeastern part of the State. 

208. Cowsirp (Molothrus ater ater). Represented in the State by two 
distinct forms, typical M. ater, which in the southern section, at least, 
is only a winter bird, and a decidedly smaller bird, which I have found 
in summer in the southern portion of the State, especially to the north 
and west of New Orleans. This breeding bird is fairly common. The 
typical M. ater occurs rather irregularly in winter, sometimes in good sized 
flocks, from about the middle of November to the latter part of March. 
The form breeding in southern Louisiana is an inch or more smaller than 
typical M. ater. 

- 209. YELLOW-HEADED Buacksirp (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus). 
Except in the western portion of the State, where it is said to occur in winter, 
this species can hardly be considered as more than an accidental visitor. 

210. Rep-wiInGED BuacksirD (Agelaius pheniceus pheniceus). 

211. Fioripa Rep-wine (Agelaius pheniceus floridanus). The com- 
parative status of the typical form and the Florida Red-wing as breeders 
I am unable to define. I know nothing peculiar with reference to the 
occurrence of this species as a whole in Louisiana. It occurs by myriads 
in the marshes in summer, and is found in winter in greatest numbers 
in the swamps and woods, where it occurs in large flocks, often mixed 
with those of Cowbirds, Grackles and Rusty Blackbirds. Nesting is 
usually well under way by the latter part of April. 

[Mrapow Lark (Sturnella magna magna). May occur as a winter visitor 
in the more northern parts of the State]. 


22 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. ane 

212. SouTHERN MrapowrarK (Sturnella magna argutula). Common 
resident of the State, but rather irregularly distributed in the fertile region 
of the southeast. More or less common in that section in the neighborhood 
of cultivation, especially on the sugar plantations. Even among resident 
birds there are decided differences in size and coloring. In the Bayou 
Teche section I have taken some very small, dark-colored birds in summer. 
These are noticeably different from other specimens taken in winter in the 
southern part of the State, though I believe that the latter were of the same 
subspecies and represented a breeding form in some portion of the State if 
not in the localities where taken. 

213. OrcHARD ORIOLE ([cterus spurius). The most conspicuous sum- 
mer visitor in the fertile alluvial section of southeastern Louisiana. Occurs 
in the greatest profusion in practically all situations except the unbroken 
swamps, but is most abundant in the vicinity of habitation and cultivation. 
Is abundant along ditches, bayous, canals, etc., in the open marsh, and on 
grassy, bushy islands along the coast. Occurs also in greater or less abun- 
dance in all other portions of the State in the vicinity of cultivation, but 
seldom in the forests and swamps. 

Its abundance as a breeder in the southeastern portion of the State, how- 
ever, can scarcely be comprehended by those whose acquaintance with it is 
confined to its appearance in more northern localities. In one live oak in a 
plantation yard where there were many more trees of this kind I once 
counted nearly twenty nests of this species. 

The average date of arrival of the male at New Gaeta is March 25. 
The first female arrives usually about April 5, and the male becomes 
common at the same time. The females become common in a few days. 
The first male may be‘either a second-year or a mature bird, but in Soe 
case is almost invariably singing. 

Nesting is usually started shortly after April 20. The construction of the 
nest is rather deliberate. While nesting is usually well started by the first 
part of May, there are decided discrepancies in the time. The three fol- 
lowing cases noted in a single season will illustrate these discrepancies: 
Nest No. 1— May 9, nest discovered and apparently complete; May 18, 
contained 3 eggs; May 14, complement of 4 eggs complete; May 27, 
contained young, apparently two days old. Nest No. 2.—Discovered May 
22, contained no eggs. Nest No. 3— Discovered May 22, contained 
young about 5 days old. 

There is almost if not quite as much variation in the time of rearing the 
second brood. On July 8 I have found a nest with a complement of fresh 
eggs and the next day two nests with young. 

Orchard Orioles begin to flock in southern Louisiana and Mississippi in 
the latter half of July. The song is seldom heard after Aug. 1. In 1912, 
however, I heard one sing on Sept. 12. 

This species becomes inconspicuous at Gulf. coast latitude after ‘the 
middle of August, though little companies of them may be in evidence for a 
few days at a time at intervals until Sept. 10 or 15. Such transients usually 


ie | Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 23 
form part of slight waves including other species. The latest date of de- 
parture is Sept. 26, 1914, near Poydras, St. Bernard parish. The average 
date of departure is about Sept. 15. 

During 1912, 1913 and 1914 I made some notes on the time of the first 
singing of this species in the morning: 1912—April 25, first song at 4.40, 
morning clear; April 26, first song at 4.50, morning cloudy; June 14, first 
song at 4.20, morning clear; July 14, first song at 4.40, morning partly 
cloudy. 1913— April 27, first song at 4.50, morning clear; May 8, first 
song at 4.30, morning clear. 1914 — June 6, first song at 4.10, morning 
clear. 

214. Batrimore ORIOLE (/clerus galbula). A rather common summer 
visitor in the northern half of the State; breeds sparingly as far south as 
the latitude of Baton Rouge and Opelousas. Throughout the remaining 
portion of the State, it is known only as a rather rare and irregular spring 
transient, being practically unknown in fall. A pronounced bird wave 
about April 20 will usually be found to include this species. The following 
records of the appearance of this species in Louisiana and Mississippi in 
spring were made by the writer and Mr. Andrew Allison: 1899, April 1, 
Bay St. Louis, Miss.; April 13, 1902, New Iberia, La.; April 14, 1902, Bay 
St. Louis, Miss.; April 10, 1906, Ellisville, Miss.; April 17, 1907, Ellisville, 
Miss.; April 6, 1908, Jackson, Miss.; April 9, 1911, New Orleans, La. I 
have also four or five records of its occurrence between April 20 and April 25 
at New Orleans and other south Louisiana points. The only record I have 
for fall transients near the Gulf coast is the occurrence of several at Biloxi, 
Miss., on Sept. 4, 5, 1905. 

215. Rusty Buacksrrp (Huphagus carolinus). A common winter 
visitor, sometimes occurring in very large flocks, in fact I have seen flocks 
on the wing in the sugar country of southeast Louisiana in winter that 
stretched out for more than a mile. Frequents both the thick swamps and 
more or less open cultivated country, especially in spring. It becomes 
abundant in fall in southern Louisiana with the first heavy frosts the latter 
part of November or early part of December. The: earliest record for 
arrival is Covington, La., Nov. 17, 1899. The earliest Mississippi records 
are, Ariel, Amite Co., Nov. 9, 1897, and Ellisville, Jones Co., Nov. 9, 1906. 

The Rusty Blackbird remains common late in the spring, and at New 
Orleans I have seen fair-sized flocks about the borders of pastures until 
April or even May 1. The latest date for departure at New Orleans is 
May 10, 1899. 

216. Brewer’s Buacksrrp (Huphagus cyanocephalus). A rather rare 
winter visitor. I killed one from a flock of Rusty Blackbirds near Convent, 
St. James parish, on Dec. 23, 1893. / 

217. Fiorima GRACKLE (Quiscalus quiscula agleus). This is the only 
form of the common Crow Blackbird that occurs in the swampy coastal 
section of the State, so far as I have been able to learn. It is abundant 
and occurs in practically all situations except the open marsh. It is often 
found in great flocks in the wet woods in winter and early spring. It nests 


24 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. oe 


chiefly in the neighborhood of habitation, especially in groves of live oaks, 
and water oaks. Nesting begins early in April. The birds recorded by 
Dr. F. W. Langdon as Q. purpureus in the Journal of the Cincinnati 
Society of Natural History, Vol. IV, 1881, which were breeding at Baton 
Rouge were apparently referable to this form. 

218. BronzEp GRACKLE (Quiscalus quiscula eneus). Never occurs, as 
far as I have been able to determine, in the section where the Florida 
Grackle isfound. It is a fairly common breeder in the interior and north- 
ern portions of the State. I found it breeding commonly in Madison 
parish in 1896. Its numbers doubtless increase in winter. 

219. Boat-TaILED GRACKLE (Megaquiscalus major major). <A strictly 
coastal species in Louisiana as far as I have observed. I doubt whether it. 
ever occurs more than fifty miles inland. In summer it is confined to the 
marshes and very wet swamp lands. In the fall considerable numbers 
move on to the drained and cultivated lands. As with the Florida 
Grackle, nesting begins in the early part of April. Im Audubon Park, 
New Orleans, a curious relationship between the movements of these two 
species is noted at this time. The numbers of the Florida Grackles 
increase in the park, numerous individuals arriving from the swamps to 
nest in the oaks of the park, while the Boat-tailed Grackles, which are 
present in large numbers on the meadowy stretches of the park throughout 
the winter, move off to their nesting sites in the marshes south of the city. 

220. PurpLe Fincu (Carpodacus purpureus purpureus). Fairly com- 
mon winter visitor except in the southern portion of the State, where it 
has been found only in severe winters. Numbers were seen at several 
points in the suburbs of New Orleans and in the woods near the city after 
Jan. 1, 1895. The last were seen March 23. In 1897, the first arrived at 
Ariel Amite County, Miss.; on Nov. 13. In 1901, the first arrived at Bay 
St. Louis, Miss., on Dec. 4, and the species became common Dec. 16. 

221. AMERICAN GoLpFINcH (Astragalinus tristis tristis). Common. 
winter visitor in all sections of the State. Doubtless breeds sparingly 
in the northern counties, as it certainly does in corresponding latitude 
in Mississippi. Its movements southward in fall, however, are rather 
late. Some records of fall arrival follow: Ellisville, Miss., Nov. 6, 1906; 
Ariel, Miss., Nov. 10, 1897; Covington, La., Nov. 12, 1899; New Orleans, 
Nov. 19, 1898. In September, 1907, I noted Goldfinches about Jackson, 
Miss., and in August I had seen them very little further north. 

The latest date for spring departure at New Orleans is April 11, 1894 
and 1896. At Bay St. Louis, Miss., the latest date of departure is April 23, 
1902. 

222. Pine Siskin (Spinus pinus). A rather irregular and usually 
rather uncommon winter visitor, seldom reaching the fertile alluvial region 
of southeastern Louisiana. The earliest date of arrival of which I have any 
record is Nov. 29, 1908, at Woodville, Miss., and the latest date of depar- 
ture is April 19, 1902, at Bay St. Louis, Miss. 

223. VeEspER Sparrow (Poecetes gramineus gramineus). A common 


: 
| Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 25 


but seldom abundant winter visitor. Least common in the fertile alluvial 
region in the southeastern part of the State. In 1899, the first was seen at 
Covington, La., on Nov. 2, and that is about the average time of arrival at 
that latitude. The last was reported in 1902 at Lobdell, West Baton Rouge 
parish on March 20, 1903. 

224. SavannaH Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis savanna). Com- 
mon winter visitor, particularly abundant in cultivated lands in the south- 
eastern part of the State. Arrives at New Orleans usually during the first 
week in October, and becomes common by Oct. 15 or 20. A few may 
arrive sometimes shortly before Oct. 1, but I have no satisfactorily veri- 
fied records showing such to be the case. Remains common until the latter 
part of April. Records for last seen are: May 9, 1897, New Orleans; May 
12, 1903, Lobdell. 

225. GRASSHOPPER SPARROW (Ammodramus savannarum australis). 
Probably occurs throughout the State as a summer visitor in the vicinity 
of cultivation. All records I have regarding it, however, were made in the 
fertile alluvial region of the southeast. It was formerly common in 
summer in the meadowy portion of Audubon Park, New Orleans, but I have 
not seen it there for ten or twelve years. Twenty years ago I found 
it most abundant on a sugar plantation in St. James parish. Though 
said to winter in Louisiana, I have never seen it except in summer. 
Records of arrival are: April 3, 1898, New Orleans; April 4, 1897, New 
Orleans (became common); April 4, 1903, Lobdell; April 8, 1895, New 
Orleans. 

226. HEnstow’s Sparrow (Passerherbulus henslowi henslowi). Have- 
noted this species on two occasions at Covington, and think close search 
would prove it to be fairly common and regular in grassy pine woods in 
winter. The dates of observation at Covington are Nov. 2, 1899, and 
Jan. 23, 1905. Mr. Andrew Allison noted it at Ariel, Miss., Oct. 9, 1897, 
and at New Orleans, Nov. 30, 1899. 

227. LECONTE’s Sparrow (Passerherbulus lecontet). I have never seen 
this species, but Mr. Andrew Allison noted one at Lobdell on April 23, 1903. 
He also saw about eight at Ariel, Miss., on Nov. 15, and made subsequent 
observations of it there. 

228. NrEtson’s Sparrow (Passerherbulus nelsoni nelsoni). I found this 
species in great abundance on Marsh Island on May 16, 1907, and on 
May 19 observed it and took a specimen at Sabine Pass. These may all 
have been migrants, as I have not observed it later in the year at other 
points on the coast, but on that supposition, the lateness of the date is 
rather remarkable. 

229. LovuIsIANA SEASIDE SPARROW (Ammodramus maritimus fishert). 
An extremely abundant breeder in all tidewater marshes. I have seen 
scores at a time in the rushes and marsh grasses, perched just below the 
level of the grass tops, delivering in more or less regular concert their strange 
monotonous songs. The usual song sounds like ‘“‘te-dunk-chee-e-e-e.”’ 
Sometimes the trill alone is given. A nest found on Battledore Island,. 


, 


26 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. . [san 


July 23, 1908, contained four young a few days old. It was built of grass 
and the opening, on the side, was rather large. It was four feet from the 
ground in Avicennia nitida, a bush that is common along the coast. 

230. Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus grammacus). Occurs casu- 
ally and at various seasons in the eastern part of the State. It is doubtless 
a resident wherever found, and I think it is likely it will be found fairly 
common in the western part as well. Have noted it also on the coast 
of Mississippi. In Louisiana I have seen it in Madison, Caldwell, St. 
James, Plaquemines and St. Mary parishes. 

231. WHITE-CROWNED Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys leucophrys). 
A decidedly rare bird in most if not all parts of the State. Have noted it 
in the late autumn and late spring but never in midwinter. Noted several 
adult males in song at New Orleans on May 1 and 2, 1897, an immature 
bird at Covington, Nov. 25, 1899, and an immature bird at Biloxi, Miss., 
Nov. 10, 1905. ; 

232. WHITE-THROATED SpaRRow (Zonotrichia albicollis). A very 
abundant winter visitor, especially in the wooded alluvial portion of the 
southeast. The earliest fully verified record of arrival is Oct. 13, 1900, at 
Covington, and it was seen on the same date in 1897 at Ariel, Amite county, 
Miss. It becomes fairly common about the end of October, and very 
common in November with the first cold weather. It remains common 
until the early part of April, and the last is usually seen a few days after 
April 20. The latest date of departure is April 27, 1903, at New Orleans. 

233. Curprinc Sparrow (Spizella passerina passerina). This species 
is entirely absent from the fertile alluvial region of the southeastern part 
of the State, in the prairie section, and doubtless in all low wooded lands 
along the Mississippi river similar to those in the southeast. In the piner- 
ies and wooded uplands it is a common resident, increasing very much in 
numbers in winter, of course, especially in the pineries of the southern part 
of the State. It became common at Covington, Nov. 11, 1899, at. Ariel, 
Miss., Oct. 25, 1897, at Bay St. Louis, Miss., Oct. 31, 1901, and at Biloxi, 
Miss., Nov. 15, 1905. The bulk of winter visitors left Ellisville, Jones 
county, Miss., April 15, 1907. 

234. Firtp Sparrow (Spizella pusilla pusilla). Never very common 
in the lowland sections of the State; breeds as far south as West Baton 
Rouge parish, however. Does not breed on the coast of Mississippi. The 
first was seen at Biloxi, Miss., Oct. 6, 1905, and there was a marked influx 
of winter visitors at Gulfport, Miss., Oct. 22, 1910. 

235. SLATE-COLORED JuNco (Junco hyemalis hyemalis). Decidedly 
rare in the extreme southern part of the State. Fairly common in winter 
at Covington. In 1897, the first was seen at Ariel, Miss., on Nov. 12. In 
1907, the last was seen at Ellisville, Miss., on March 31. 

236. BacHMAN’s Sparrow (Peucea estivalis bachmani). A fairly com- 
mon resident in the pineries and in mixed upland growths of hardwood and 
pine, especially in small oak and pine thickets. Sings chiefly in the late 


winter, spring and early summer, being heard often in concert with the Pine 
Warbler. 


er eae Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 27 

237. Sone Sparrow (Melospiza melodia melodia). <A rare bird in the 
lowland section of the State. In fact, the only record of which I have any 
knowledge is that of a specimen taken near New Orleans in the early part 
of March by Mr. Andrew Allison. In the winter of 1905-06, I noticed the 
first at Biloxi, Miss., Oct. 24, and the last on March 12. 

[Lincoun’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolni lincolni). ‘This species, so far 
as I know, has never been observed in Louisiana. It has been taken in 
spring in north Mississippi, however, by Mr. Andrew Allison.] 

238. Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana). In suitable locations, 
this is probably the most abundant winter visitor to the southern section 
of the State except the Myrtle Warbler. It is remarkably abundant in 
fresh water marshes, the edges of swamps and all undrained, overgrown 
places. The earliest record of arrival at New Orleans is Oct. 3, 1894, and 
it was common there Oct. 9, 1903. The first is usually seen in southern 
Louisiana and southern Mississippi about Oct. 8. Like the White-throated 
Sparrow it remains common until the early part of April. The last is seen 
a little later, usually about May 1. The latest date of departure is May 3, 
1898, at New Orleans. 

239. Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca iliaca). Rare in the southern part 
of the State. Several were seen and a specimen taken by Mr. Andrew Alli- 
son in a briery pasture on the edge of a wood on well drained land near New 
Orleans on Feb. 22, 1897. This is the only record of its occurrence in the 
southern part of the State of which I know. It has been reported as rather 
common in north Louisiana in winter. 

240. Townee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus erythrophthalmus). Resident; 
fairly common in most sections of the State; in the fertile alluvial section 
of the southeast it is found chiefly about the plantations or in woods better 
drained than the average timbered lands. In the prairie section it is a 
common and rather conspicuous inhabitant of mixed growths of briers, 
canes, etc. Individuals show remarkable attachment to the comparatively 
few spots in the fertile alluvial region where they occur. An unusually 
well drained piece of woodland near New Orleans that I have visited re- 
peatedly in the past twenty years is practically the only spot in an area of 
15 or 18 square miles where I have always been practically certain of seeing 
this bird. 

241. Carpinat (Cardinalis cardinalis cardinalis). Rivalled only by 
the Mockingbird and Carolina Wren among the smaller birds of the State 
in absolutely uniform abundance in every section. 

242. ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK (Zamelodia ludoviciana). Occasion- 
ally common in migration, either spring or fall, for a day or two at a tyme. 
In southern Louisiana, it is most apt to be noted the latter part of April 
and early part of October. The latest date of its occurrence at New Orleans 
in spring is May 6, 1897. Have never noted it in early spring, and in fact 
have no record of its occurrence before April 21. The earliest date of its 
occurrence in fall at New Orleans is Oct. 6, 1894. One was seen at Ellis- 
ville, Miss., Oct. 19, 1897. 


28 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. Bes 


243. Buiur GrosBeak (Guiraca cerulea cerulea). Only transient in the 
southern part of the State, and never common in the fertile alluvial region 
and probably not common at any time in the prairie section. Just how far 
south it breeds in Louisiana I do not know, but it has been found breeding 
in central Mississippi. Has been found commonest in Louisiana about: 
cultivated lands in the piney regions of the southern portion of the 
State. The earliest record of arrival at New Orleans is April 8, 1898. 
The latest date of occurrence in spring is May 7, 1897. The earliest date 
of arrival in fall at New Orleans is Aug. 28, 1899, and this has been found 
to be about the average date of its arrival on the coast of Mississippi, 
where it is fairly common in fall. In 1905, the last was seen at Biloxi, 
Miss., Oct. 22. 

244. InpiGco BunTING (Passerina cyanea cyanea). Summer visitor, but 
not very common breeder in the southern part of the State; more com- 
mon, however, in the fertile alluvial section than in the piney regions, 
being found sparingly on the sugar plantations and about other cultivation. 
Extremely abundant as a transient in the fertile alluvial section in both 
spring and fall, and in the piney sections in fall. The earliest date of 
arrival at New Orleans is March 26, 1899, and the first usually comes about 
March 30. It becomes common about the end of the first week in April, 
and usually reaches the height of its abundance from April 15 to 20. In the 
fall, the first transient is usually seen at New Orleans about Sept. 22. It 
is usually most abundant the second week in October, but is variably plen- 
tiful from about Oct. 5 to Oct. 18 or 20. The last is usually seen at New 
Orleans a few days after Oct. 20. At Biloxi, Miss., I saw one Nov. 1, 1905. 
The following notes of its occurrence at Covington, La., were made in 
1899: ‘Greatest number came Oct. 6. Few of these were left Oct. 12. 
A second “‘wave’’ came Oct. 21. Last, Oct. 27.” 

245. PainTEeD Buntine (Passerina ciris). Summer visitor, commonest 
in the central southern and southwestern part of the State. In the prairie 
lands of St. Mary, Iberia, St. Martin and Lafayette parishes, it reaches its 
greatest abundance. It is decidedly common, however, throughout the 
cultivated lands of the fertile alluvial region of the southeast. The earliest 
record of arrival is March 23, 1894, Convent, La. It is seldom seen after the 
latter part. of September. One was noted, at New Orleans, however, Oct. 
26, 1895. Males in perfect plumage may be seen up to the time of the 
general departure of the species, and the late bird noted above was a male 
in full plumage. 

246. DicxcisseL (Spiza americana). When I began systematic ob- 
servation of the birds of the State in 1893, this was a common spring tran- 
sient at New Orleans, being noted in that year, and in the two years follow- 
ing. Subsequent to 1895, however, none was seen at New Orleans until 
1899 and then not again until 1912. In all the seasons in which it was seen 
at New Orleans, it was present in Audubon Park as a late April transient. 
In some of these seasons, it was seen also elsewhere. Found this species 
breeding on the edge of a pasture in St. Mary parish in 1895, and the same 


‘NOWDIG UDNASSV AHL dO XWOLVNY 


“Al SLV Id TIXXX “OA, 20y an 


oe | SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. 29 


year I saw a female, apparently near a nest, in Audubon Park the latter 
part of May. I have found it in summer also in Cameron parish, near the 
mouth of the Calcasieu river. The earliest date of arrival at New Orleans 
is April 18, 1895. I have no records of the fall movements. 


(To be concluded.) 


ANATOMICAL AND OTHER NOTES ON THE PASSENGER 
PIGEON (ECTOPISTES MIGRATORIUS) LATELY LIVING 
IN THE CINCINNATI ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS. 


BY DR. R. W. SHUFELDT. 
Plates IV-VI. 


On February twenty-first, 1914, Mr. S. A. Stephan, General 
Manager of The Cincinnati Zodlogical Company, of Cincinnati, 
Ohio, wrote me that “Our Passenger Pigeon has been promised to 
the Smithsonian Institution when it dies. This bird is a female 
and now about 29 years old, and the last one of a flock of eight 
that we got in 1878.” I have since learned that it was hatched in 
the Garden. 

The specimen of which Mr. Stephan speaks was, beyond all 
reasonable doubt, the last living representative of its race in the 
world,— the last, the very last, of the millions upon millions of 
those birds which were known to pass over certain sections of the 
United States during their migrations to and from their feeding 
and breeding grounds. Many of us, whose birthdays date back to 
the middle of the last century and before, and who resided in the 
districts where these vast unnumbered hosts of migrating “blue 
pigeons” darkened the heavens for days at a time, distinctly, re- 
member the cruel, unnecessary slaughtering of those birds, untold 
thousands of which were never used for any purpose whatever; 
millions of others of which were slain for their feathers alone, while 
it is now impossible to form any correct estimation of the number 


30 SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. pa 


supplied to the markets of the time, or of those allowed to remain 
where they fell to the guns and other weapons of destruction of 
the army of slaughterers responsible for their extinction. All this 
is now past history, and will not be further touched upon in this 
article more than to say, that Hctopistes migratorius is now extinct; 
and what is here set forth is but a brief account of my personal 
observations upon the last known example of the species. 

From Mr. Stephan, who wrote me on the 7th of September, 1914, 
I learn that “our female passenger pigeon died September Ist [1914] 
at 1 p. M. of old age, being about 29 years old.” It was almost 
immediately packed in ice and shipped to the National Museum at 
Washington, D. C., where it was received in fine condition on the 
fourth of that month. On the morning of its arrival, Dr. Charles 
-W. Richmond, Assistant Curator of the Division of Birds of the 
Museum, requested me, by telephone, to take part in making the 
record of the specimen. 

When first seen and examined by me, the bird was in the posses- 
sion of Mr. William Palmer of the National Museum, who had 
been delegated to skin it for Mr. Nelson R. Wood, of the Taxi- 
dermical Department, who, I was informed, was to have the honor 
of mounting it for permanent preservation in the Ornithological 
Exhibition Rooms of the museum. 

I found the bird to be an adult female in the moult, with a few 
pin feathers in sight, and some of the middle tail feathers, including 
the long, central ones, missing. The feathers of the abdomen, 
and especially about the vent, were soiled to some extent, otherwise 
the plumage of the bird was smooth and good. It had the appear- 
ance of a specimen in health, with healthy eyes, eye-lids, nostrils, 
and mouthparts. The feet were of a deep, flesh-colored pink, 
clean and healthy, while the claws presented no evidences indicative: 
of unusual age, though not a few of wear. Its weight was not 
taken. | 

At my suggestion, the bird was taken by Mr. Palmer to the 
photographic rooms of the museum, where, at about 11 A. M., it 
was thrice posed by me for photography. Three (8 X 10) success- 
ful negatives were at once made by the assistant photographer of 
the institution, giving the specimen on anterior, posterior and lateral 
views, with about one-fourth reduction. 


ai | SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. 31 


Shortly afterwards (1.15 p. m.), Mr. Palmer and I arrived with 
the specimen at my home (3356-18th Street, Washington, D. C.), 
and in one of my work rooms (on the third floor, back room) 
facilities were immediately given him to skin the specimen. Pre- 
vious to his commencing this operation, I made duplicate (5 X 8) 
negatives of the head of the bird with my vertical camera, and 
successfully developed them in the dark-room, next to where Mr. 
Palmer had started in to make the skin. 

Apart from the legs and wings, when Mr. Palmer had carried the 
skinning to the base of the mandibles, I made another exposure 
with the same camera, the subject being the body of the specimen, 
natural size, on left lateral view. A reproduction of this unusual 
photograph is shown in Plate I of this contribution, and is valuable 
on a number of accounts as exhibiting the size of the body; of the 
eye; position of the trachea; the great size of the pectoralis major 
muscle, ete. After this, the eyes and brain were consigned to 
alcohol; and while I was developing the aforesaid plate in the dark- 
room, Mr. Palmer completed the skinning of the specimen, having 
set the body aside for me for anatomical description. 

Immediately after this we partook of a “late lunch” in the 
dining-room below, and, at a little before 4 p. m., Mr. Palmer 
repaired to his home with the skin in his possession, while I went up 
to my laboratory on the third floor to make a preliminary survey 
of the body, prior to making any additional photographs that 
might be necessary for illustration. 

There was no fat present anywhere externally, where it occurs 
in birds to a greater or less extent, between the dermal tissues and 
the superficial muscles and other structures. I found, on the right 
side of the abdomen, a slit-like opening, one-half a centimeter in 
length, which led freely into the abdominal cavity, and from which 
blood was oozing. This opening I enlarged in order to withdraw 
the viscera for the purpose of making a photograph of them, 
previous to proceeding with the dissection of the organs within. 
This has been my practice for a great many years. 

Much to my surprise, I found a quantity of blood (not aed) 
in the abdominal cavity, and the right lobe of the liver and the 
intestine almost entirely broken up, as though it had been done 
with some instrument. As to the intestine, it was missing alto- 


ae 


32 SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. Fan: 


gether, while the right lobe of the liver was in scattered fragments. 
The firmer organs were apparently intact, but did not occupy their 
normal positions. This left but one course for me to adopt. I 
therefore evacuated the blood, washed out the abdominal cavity 
carefully, and consigned the entire body to a jar containing fresh, 
denatured alcohol, which I had purchased for the purpose. 

My hope was to have made a dissection, to be photographed 
similar to my colored plate of a female tame pigeon, which forms 
the frontispiece to the Key to North American Birds by Dr. Elliott 
Coues (Revised Edition, 1884), or to my dissection of the young of 
Phalacrocorax atriceps georgianus (Pl. 18, Fig. 6), where, in either 
case, all the viscera are displayed and duly lettered.! 

The colored pigeon plate I refer to should prove helpful to one 
not especially familiar with the organs and other structures in the 
Columbide while reading the anatomical part of the present paper. 
There is an interesting contribution to the anatomy of Ectopistes 
migratorius in Audubon’s “ Birds of America,”’ for which we have 
to thank the learned Scotch naturalist, William MacGillivray.” 

This description is devoted almost entirely to the organs and 
structures included in the digestive system and to the anatomy of 
certain parts of the air passages. Up to the present time there has 
been nothing — so far as I am aware — contributed to the myology 
of the Passenger Pigeon, or to certain other parts of its morphology, 
while recently I have given a brief, illustrated account of its skele- 
ton.’ 

Tue Bratn: As stated above, Mr. Palmer removed the brain as 
best he could, after skinning the head of the bird, and it was at 
once consigned to alcohol. 


1SHuFeELDT, R. W. ‘‘ Anatomical Notes on the young of Phalacrocoraz atri- 
ceps georgianus.”’ Science Bulletin, Vol. 2, No.4. The Museum of the Brooklyn 
Institute of Arts and Sciences, ‘‘A Report of the South Georgia Expedition.’’ 
Edited by Robert Cushman Murphy. (Nov. 5, 1914), pp. 95-101. Pls. 17, 18. 

2 AupuBON, JoHN JAMeEs. ‘‘The Birds of America from Drawings made in the 
United States and their Territories.’’ Vol. V, New York, 1839, pp. 34,35. Page 
35 is devoted to a drawing by MacGillivray giving —anterior view and somewhat 
enlarged — the digestive tract of an adult male specimen (preserved in spirits) of 
Ectopistes migratorius. 

3 SHureutptT, R.W. ‘‘Osteology of the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorjus). 
Tue Auk, Vol. XXXI, No. 3, July, 1914, pp. 358-362, Plate XXXIV. Ihavealso 
published other papers on the osteology of this bird in the Proc. Zo6l. Soc. of Lon- 
don, Journal of Morphology, American Naturalist, etc.; these are duly cited in 
“The Auk’ article. : 


S| SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. oo 

I find the cerebellum to be 8 millimeters long and 6 mm. wide at 
its middle part. It projects posteriorly considerably beyond the 
cerebral hemispheres, and exhibits, on its strongly convex posterior 
aspect, six transverse sulci, in which minute vessels ramify. The 
optic lobes—one upon either side —are large and of an ellipsoid 
form; they cover, in either case, the point of radiation of the sulci 
laterally, which point (the flocculus) is frequently well exposed in 
tame or domesticated pigeons. 

Having the usual form as seen in the Columbide generally, the 
cerebral hemispheres are in contact with each other mesially and 
with the optic lobes below. The cerebral vessels ramify super- 
ficially upon the surface of each, while between them, posteriorly, 
the small pineal gland is in view. Upon direct superior view, the 
cerebral hemispheres nearly shut out the optic lobes from sight. 

Anteriorly, the olfactory lobes are well developed and project 
beyond the hemispheres,— the first pair of cerebral nerves were 
divided close to them. Likewise, the second pair of optic nerves 
were divided close to the rather large optic tracts at the base of the 
brain-mass. 

Measuring across the widest part of the cerebral hemispheres, I 
find it to be a distance of 18 mm., while the length of the cerebral 
sulcus is 9 mm. 

Tue Eye: In my above cited paper on the osteology of the 
pigeon, I have already noted the characters of the sclerotic plates 
(p. 360), and I may add here that the average antero-posterior 
diameter of the eye is found to be 14 mm., its transverse diameter 
being about 9mm. ‘There appears to have been nothing peculiar 
in the external musculature of this organ, beyond what we find in 
the typical eye of ordinary existing birds,— the pigeons in particu- 
lar. Posteriorly, the optic nerve is not surrounded by an “osseous 
plate,” as it is in the Raven.' 

Internally, the pecten presents abthiie unusual, and the lens has 
a diameter of about 4.5 mm. 

My next procedure in this dissection required me to separate the 
immense pectoralis major muscle from its origin upon the sternum 
on the right side, and to deal with the pectoralis secundus and 


1 SHuFELDT, R. W. ‘‘Myology of the Raven,”’ p. 60, fig. 23. 


34 SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. fees 


pectoralis tertius muscles in a similar manner. Following this 
operation, I disarticulated the four right costal ribs at the costal 
border of the sternum, and also the right coracoid at its sternal 
extremity. This allowed, in part, a turning of the sternum to 
one side, and permitted a better view of the interior of the thoracic 
and abdominal cavities. 

There was no evidence whatever of the presence of the intestine 
in any part of its continuity save a piece about 8 mm. in length, 
where it emerged from the gizzard and the ragged margin surround- 
ing the abdominal boundary of the vent. All the portion referred 
to was not in the abdominal cavity. 

The entire right lobe of the rather large liver was in a disintegrated 
condition, showing its internal structure, and exposing the organs 
usually concealed by it to view. 

The heart was in its normal position, while the gizzard was 
rotated to the left side. I discovered no blood clots or parasites of 
any kind in the abdominal cavity. 

Without making very complete dissections, it was nevertheless 
evident that the three pectoral muscles and the superficial muscles 
of the back made origins and insertions similar to those in existing 
Columbide generally. 

Os furculum was next disarticulated at its right coracoidal ar- 
ticulation, and the usual muscles and ligaments in the vicinity 
divided at different points. This admitted of a far more extended 
view of the organs and structures within the thoracic and abdominal 
cavities. This view I at once made a five by eight negative of, 
the reproduction of a photograph of which is here seen in Plate V. 

Extremely simple in its network of nerves, the brachial plexus is 
primarily formed by the union of the last two cervical nerves and 
the first two dorsal ones. They soon unite as a single faciculus, 
from which, as usual, the branches are derived to supply the wing. 

Passing for the moment to the pelvic basin, I found the kidneys 
occupying their usual sites, and neither one appeared to present 
any atrophy or other evidences of disease; they are of equal size 
and each tri-lobed. 

On the other hand, a certain degree of atrophy characterizes the 
left ovary and its duct,— a condition we might naturally expect in a 
bird of this age, and one which had lived so long in confinement. 


ae cs SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. 30 


Beyond this atrophy, the organ is normal and presents nothing 
worthy of special note. The right ovary is quite rudimentary, so 
rudimentary, indeed, and associated as it is with the mutilation of 
the various organs of the abdominal cavity, referred to in a previous 
paragraph, that, in the absence of a microscopical examination, 
this ovary and oviduct might be mistaken for something else, 
though not likely, as I am familiar with its appearance in a great 
many species of birds, including the Pigeons. 

As I am unable to give any account of the intestine owing to the 
aforesaid absence, I will quote MacGillivray on the subject, his 
specimen having been an adult male in spirits. Omitting the 
reference letters to his figure, he says: “The intestine is 4 feet long, 
4 twelfths in width, at the narrowest part only 2 twelfths. The 
duodenum curves in the usual manner, at the distance of three 
-inches. The intestine forms six folds. The ccoeca are extremely 
diminutive, being only 13 twelfths in breadth; they are 2 inches 
distant from the extremity; the cloaca [is] oblong.” 

Neither the large Jungs nor any of the air-sacs I examined pre- 
sented anything peculiar, nor do they depart in any way from those 
structures as they occur in ordinary large wild pigeons generally. 
The lungs were very dark, and appear to have been congested at 
the time of death. 

Posterior to these, the spleen, the ovaries, the adrenals, and the 
pancreas were all either broken up, as described above, or entirely 
removed, which was the case with the pancreas, as it, in pigeons, 
occurs in a loop or fold of the duodenal division of the intestine. 

For the purpose of further anatomical description, I determined 
at this point to remove from the trunk various organs and struc- 
tures that could not well be described in situ. These included the 
respiratory apparatus, the heart and great vessels, the digestive tract, 
remains of the liver, etc. 

RESPIRATORY AND VOCAL OrGANs: As the 1839 octavo edition of 
Audubon’s Birds (Geo. R. Lockwood ed.) is accessible but to the 
few, I am taking the liberty of quoting here the essential para- 
graphs of MacGillivray (as cited above) on some of the remaining 
organs, in that the student may note the agreement or disagreement, 
as the case may be, with my own observations as set forth below. 
Be it remembered, however, that MacGillivray’s spirit specimen 
was a male bird, and the one here being described is a female. 


36 SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. Bas 


Among other observations left us in the account, he said: “The 
mouth is very narrow, being only 43 twelfths in breadth, but 
capable of being dilated to the width of 1 inch by means of a joint 
on each side of the lower mandible.” The “joint” he refers to is 
the quadrato-mandibular articulation, and, so far as I am aware, 
the arrangement is the same in all pigeons. He continues by saying 
that “There are two thin longitudinal ridges on the palate, of 
which the sides slope upwards. The posterior aperture of the nares 
is 4 inch long, margined with pupille. The tongue is 73 twelfths 
long, rather broad and sagittate at the base, with numerous small 
papille, but at the middle contracted to 14 twelfths, afterward 
horny, very narrow, induplicate, and ending in a rather sharp 
point.” + 

MacGillivray gave the shape of the tongue about as I find it in 
this specimen. It is distinctly longitudinally grooved upon its 
dorsal surface in the middle line, while it is convex from side to side 
ventrally. Posteriorly it is deeply and roundly concaved, the free 
margin of which is embellished with a fringe of minute and delicate 
papillae, which are white and about 32 in number. A row similar 
to these are found upon the posterior free margins of the upper 
larynx. The rima glottidis is of an elongate, cordate form, with the 
median apex behind. Its margins are thickened and raised. On 
its side, the horny part of the tongue measures 14 mm. and its 
middle longitudinal line 11 mm. Rima glottidis has a median 
longitudinal length of 5mm. The laryngeal and hyoidean muscles 
present nothing peculiar or noteworthy. Behind, the larynx has a 
transverse diameter of six mm., and each lateral part is rounded 
posteriorly, being fringed as above described. 

William MacGillivray, when he described the anatomy of Ecto- 
pistes migratorius for Audubon, was entirely correct when he 
recorded that “The trachea passes along the left side, as usual in 
birds having a large crop; its length is 23 inches; its breadth vary- 
ing from 2% twelfths to 13 twelfths; its rings 105, feeble; the last 
ring large, formed laterally of two rings, with an intervening mem- 
brane. Bronchi of about 15 half rings and narrow. The lateral 


1In my former article in ‘ The Auk’ cited above, I have already given a brief 
account of the bones of the hyoid arches, so it will be unnecessary to say anything 
further about them here. R. W.S. 


| SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. Sif 


muscles strong, as are the sterno-tracheal, which come off at a 
distance of 4 inch. There is a single pair of inferior laryngeal 
muscles going to the upper edge of the last tracheal ring.”’ (Joe. 
cit., p. 34.) To this I may add that a pessulus does not form a part 
of the lower larynx in this pigeon; apparently there is not even a 
rudiment of one. 

The superior division of the @sophagus, twenty-five millimeters 
in length, is a strong, muscular tube of uniform caliber, and capable 
of considerable extension. Externally, its fibers run longitudinally. 
At the distance above mentioned from the buccal extremity, it 
suddenly dilates into an enormous crop, which, when filled, has an 
ellipsoidal form, with the major axis transversely disposed. This 
axis measures about 54 millimeters, while the minor axis or longi- 
tudinal one is about one-fourth less. 

In a male bird, MacGillivray found the crop much larger, or 63 ~ 
by 77 millimeters. Below, the crop in the present specimen has 
nearly a uniform caliber for a distance of 27 millimeters. It is 
strong and muscular, with muscular plice longitudinally raised 
upon its extreme surface. Still further along, it gradually dilates, 
to become the proventriculus, which, terminally very considera- 
bly enlarged, enters the gizzard or stomach. This latter is placed 
obliquely in the abdominal cavity as shown in Plate V. 

MacGillivray found the gizzard in the male bird much larger 
than it is in the female here being described. He states that it 
was two inches and two-twelfths in breadth, and one inch and one- 
fourth in length. The gizzard at hand is but little more than half 
this size. It has the usual structure found in the Columbe, and I 
found its internal cavity to contain a dozen or more quartz pebbles 
of the size of coarse bird-shot. The musculus intermidias of this 
gizzard is strong and well developed; its form, from two views, is 
shown in the plates, as well as its internal structure on section. 

In a former paragraph I have already described the condition in 
which I found the right lobe of the liver, when I opened the abdominal 
cavity, and this leaves but the smaller left lobe for consideration. 
It has a transverse diameter of 21 millimeters, and an average 
longitudinal one of some 12 mm., not taking into consideration the 
three distal processes it presents: a small median one, and one 
upon either side of double its size. This distal margin is sharp, 


on 


38 SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. Jan. 


which, to a less degree, is the case with the rounded or convex 
anterior contoural boundary. On the dorsal aspect there is a deep 
concavity, which allows the liver to fit itself upon the supero- 
anterior surface of the gizzard. 

The right and left bile ducts were not in evidence, and the various 
divisions of the peritoneum could not be worked out entirely. 

Coming to the heart, I find it to have an extreme length of 23 
millimeters, and a transverse diameter, above the ventricals, of 14 
millimeters. I examined with great care all the vessels entering 
and leaving its several cavities and their main branches; they are 
identically the same as they occur in Columba lia, as described by 
the late T. Jeffrey Parker in his admirable text-book entitled “A 
Course of Instruction in Zoétomy (Vertebrata),” on page 241, 
Fig. 56. There is every reason to believe that the internal anatomy 
of the auricles and ventricles of this heart of the Passenger Pigeon 
agree, in all structural particulars, with the corresponding ones in 
any large wild pigeon, as for example C. fasciata. I therefore did 
not further dissect the heart, preferring to preserve it in its entirety, 
— perhaps somewhat influenced by sentimental reasons, as the 
heart of the last “ Blue Pigeon” that the world will ever see alive. 

With the final throb of that heart, still another bird became 
extinct for all time,— the last representative of countless millions 
and unnumbered generations of its kind practically exterminated 
through man’s agency. 

Were I to go as far as I could into this subject of the anatomy of 
the Passenger Pigeon, my collected observations would afford 
matter for several good-sized volumes. Even the mutilated mate- 
rial before me might furnish several chapters on the myology of 
this species; on the circulatory system; the nervous system; 
histology of the structures, and a great deal more besides. 

In any group of vertebrates, birds included, it is always an ad- 
vantage to have published the entire morphology of some particular 
species of a group, as for example a typical pigeon of the genus 
Columba. Then, with respect to the morphology of species be- 
longing to genera evidently closely related to Columba, it will but 
be necessary to make record of enough, with respect to their minute 
and gross anatomy, to establish the fact that our investigations 
have led us to a point where we can predict, with absolute cer- 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXII. PLATE V. 


ANATOMY OF THE PASSENGER PIGEON. 


| SHuFELpDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. 39 


tainty, what the balance of the morphology will be in any particular 
case. It is always well, however, to make a careful comparison of 
the skeleton in the case of all the genera of a family, and it requires 
a comparative vertebrate morphologist, with a very vast and varied 
fund of knowledge of his subject, to decide, in any instance, just 
what amount of data to obtain, in the case of any particular species 
to be anatomically investigated, when the entire morphology of a 
typical representative of a closely related genus is known. 

If what I have thus far attempted to present of the osteology of 
Ectopistes migratorius, and of the rest of the anatomy of that spe- 
cies,— and knowing what he already knows of the morphology of 
Columba livia and other pigeons,— will enable the ornithotomist 
to surmise, perhaps with more than comparative certainty, what 
the undescribed parts of the anatomy of Ectopistes migratorius 
would reveal upon investigation, I feel that my researches have 
accomplished all that I could hope for in this regard, with respect 
to our now extinct Passenger Pigeon, and that my labor has been 
well repaid. 


EXPLANATION OF PLATES. 


(All the figures in the Plates are by the author, and made, either by draw- 
ing or photographic reproduction, direct from the subjects they depict.) 


Reference Lettering. 


aa. internal dermal margin of the auricular aperture. 

am. angle of mandible. 

ic. complexus muscle (Figs. 2, 3.) 

cr. crop. (Figs. 3, 4 and 4.) 

ct. intestine cut away close to the external surface of the gizzard. 
de. depressor caude muscle. (Fig. 2.) 

e. eye. (Fig. 2.) 

el. internal view of eyelids. (Fig. 2.) j 
gp. gluteus primus muscle. (Fig. 2.) 

gz. gizzard. (Figs. 3, 4 and 5.) 

H. heart. (Figs. 3, 4 and 4.) 

hy. hyoid with muscles attached. (Figs. 2,3, 4 and 5.) 

ks. keel of sternum. (Fig. 3.) 


40 SHUFELDT, Anatomy of the Passenger Pigeon. poe 


Icp. longus colli posticus muscle. (Fig. 3.) 

ul. left lobe of liver. (Figs. 3, 4 and 5.) 

mi. mwousculus intermedius of the gizzard. (Figs. 3, 4and 5.) 
oc. oblique condyle of right humerus. (Fig. 2.) 

oc.’ oblique condyle of left humerus. (Fig. 2.) 

oe. esophagus. (Figs. 3, 4 and 5.) 

of. osfurculum. (Fig. 3.) 

P. pelvis. 

ph. pharynx or entrance to cesophagus. (Fig. 5.) 

Pm. pectoralis major muscle. (Figs. 2 and 3.) 

Pr. proventriculus. (Figs. 4 and 5.) 

pu. pubicbone of pelvis. (Figs. 2 and 3.) 

py. pygostyle. (Fig. 2.) 

r.c. right coracoid. (Fig. 3.) 

rg.  rima glottidis. (Figs. 3 and 5.) 

rm. rectus capitis posticus major muscle. (Fig. 2.) 

S lower larynx and bronchial tubes. (Fig. 5.) 

sk. skin of head and neck of the left side. (Fig. 2.) 

sk.p. parietal region of cranium. (Figs. 2 and 3.) 

T. tongue. (Figs. 3, 4 and 5.) 

tl. tracheo-lateralis muscle. (Fig. 7.) 

tm. teres et infraspinatus muscles. (Fig. 2.) 

tp. transversus peronei muscle. (Fig. 2.) 

tr. trachea. (Figs. 2, 4 and 5.) 

za. anterior xiphoidal process of sternum of right side. (Fig. 3.) 
xp. posterior xiphoidal process of sternum of right side. (Fig. 3.) 


Puate IV. 


Fig. 2. Skinned head, neck and trunk of Ectopistes migratorius; nat. 
size. The reversed skin attached to the base of the mandibles. Hwmert 
and femora still attached and partly covered with their muscles. Forearm; 
hand; the pelvic limbs below the knee, and the uropygial glands have all 
been removed. 


Puate V. 


Fic. 3. Neck and trunk of Ectopistes migratorius (same specimen). 
Skull and associated parts anterior to aural apertures have been cut away. 
Hyoidean apparatus, trachea and cesophagus drawn down considerably 
below normal position. Crop empty and wrinkled up. Os furculum dis- 
located at right shoulder, and right coracoid thrown out of its sternal articu- 
lation. Right pectoral muscles and other structures dissected away from 
sternum and drawn far to one side. Right side of sternum in full view. 
Thoracic and abdominal cavities opened up ventrally, and heart, left lobe 
of liver, gizzard, etc. exposed to view. 


PLATE VI. 


THE AukKe VOL. XOONIT. 


The 


ke S e a . 


eT rh 4 


ANATOMY OF THE PASSENGER PIGEON. 


of 


Poe Mourpuy, Birds of Fernando Noronha. 41 


Puate VI. 


Fic. 4. Tongue, hyoid, trachea, heart, liver and digestive organs removed 
from their cavities and photographed on anterior or ventral view. The 
crop (cr.) has been turned around to occupy the posterior aspect of the 
windpipe or trachea, in order that the latter may be seen for its entire 
length. The cardiac extremities of the great vessels at the base of the heart 
can easily be recognized. The left lobe of the liver (/l.) and the gizzard 
are in the normal relations to each other. 

Fic. 5. Same structures and organs as seen in Fig. 4. The tongue and 
pharynx are seen upon dorsal view; the crop and cesophagus are twisted 
about the trachea in order to show the reverse side of the first-mentioned 
organ. The lower part of the trachea (lower larynx) and bronchial tubes 
are seen. Heart and great vessels are shown upon posterior aspect. The 
left lobe of the liver is thrown forwards in order to give a complete view of 
the gizzard, which latter has been bisected and turned so as to show its 
dorsal surface. 

Fic. 6. Interior aspect of the anterior moiety of the gizzard exhibiting 
the muscular portion, with the central cavity filled with small pebbles. 

Fic. 7. Anterior view of the lower part of the trachea; the lower laryna, 
and the bronchial tubes. About twice natural size, and drawn by the author 
direct from the specimen, 


TEN HOURS AT FERNANDO NORONHA. 


A Day’s COLLECTING ON THE SouTH GEORGIA EXPEDITION OF 
THE BROOKLYN MUSEUM AND THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF 
NatTurRAL History. 


BY ROBERT CUSHMAN MURPHY. 


On October 15, 1912, the good whaling brig Daisy of New Bed- 
ford was running merrily across the trade wind just south of the 
equator. All day long, boobies and other passing sea birds told 
us that we were nearing land, and at nine in the evening we made 
out the twinkling, revolving light of an island lying under the bright 
quarter moon. We hauled aback our square sails and lay to for 
the night. 


42 Morpny, Birds of Fernando Noronha. oe 


The bold, overhanging “Pyramid” of Fernando Noronha, a 
black, phonolite mountain which is the most conspicuous land- 
mark in all the South Atlantic, loomed out about nine miles distant 


——— 


Wy MA IO 


in the following dawn. As we bore down toward the land in the 
hazy light, the long strip of rough hills, which had first seemed 
continuous, gradually broke up into the several islets of which the 
group is composed. ‘The sun, leaping above the equatorial horizon, 
revealed a green lowland, well clothed with shrubs and small trees, 
and a higher zone of bare, weathered peaks. The four tall, skeleton 
“wireless” towers were probably the only features which had been 
added to the landscape since Charles Darwin in the Beagle visited 
this Brazilian penal settlement fourscore years ago. 

Fernando Noronha lies in latitude 3° 50’ S., longitude 32° 25’ W., 
two hundred miles off the South American mainland from which 
it is divided by a channel 13,000 feet in depth. The rugged group 
is only about seven miles long, by one and a half in width. The 
component islets, portions of the crater rim of an ancient volcano, 
are of basaltic rocks, without sedimentary deposits, but with in- 
jected dykes of phonolite or “clinkstone,” the whole now almost 
worn away by the action of the denuding tropical rainfall and the 
battering seas, although the famous, columnar Pyramid still rises 
to a height of 1,089 feet. Most of the smaller islets are bare of 
vegetation except for a few grasses and sedges, some thickets of a 
low shrub (Phyllanthus), and several leguminous vines. Parts of 
the main island are covered by a variety of stunted trees and shrubs, 
including an endemic fig (Ficus noronhe) and a leguminous tree 
(Erythrina). There is a large percentage of widely distributed 
tropical weeds, and a remarkable number of plants having edible 
berries or seeds. Within the memory of man the leeward side of 
the land was heavily forested, but the larger trees have long since 


ret | Morpuy, Birds of Fernando Noronha. 43 
been felled in order that the exiled convicts, practically the only 
human beings to share the sea-beaten spot with countless nesting 
ocean birds, might not build rafts and escape to the shores of Brazil. 

When the Daisy had drawn within a couple of miles of the coast, 
whaleboats were lowered, and I went ashore along with a fishing 
party. On the way to the land we were surrounded by an enor- 
mous flock of Noddy Terns which stretched away to the far horizon 
until the birds appeared like tiny, swarming insects. Passing 
several conical inaccessible islets, on which Man-o’-war-birds were 
breeding, we entered a cove of grottoed rock ending in a crescent 
of sand. Behind the beach the fissured, yellow wall of a cliff, 
conforming with the semicircular outline of the cove, rose sheer to a 
height of four or five hundred feet, and clustering in thousands 
along its upper surface were graceful Noddies on their scaffold 
nests. Side by side on a twisted bough at the foot of the cliff sat 
two snow-white “Love Terns” (Gygis), antitheses of the black 
Noddies. 

The cool water of the cove lured us to a swim, and, as several of 
us plunged in, the blurred image of a green turtle glided away be- 
fore us, and a shoal of porpoises see-sawed leisurely across the 
inlet. One of the sailors fired his gun from the whale-boat at some- 
thing or other (which he did not hit), and the roar reverberated 
from face to face of the curving wall, while a horde of screaming 
birds poured down off the rocks, adding to the bewildering echoes. 

Other inhabitants than the birds were also disturbed by the 
report of the gun. When we turned toward the beach a tall, 
black, muscular fisherman, with a tattered seine over one shoulder, 
and wearing not a stitch of clothing, stood eyeing us curiously. 
Presently out of the shrubbery below the cliff came a fellow of 
lighter skin, clad in short canvas trousers and a blue tam-o’-shanter 
cap, with a crude wicker basket slung over his back. The pair 
might have passed for Robinson Crusoe and his man Friday on 
washday. The cap of the second native came off obsequiously 
when we landed, while both men extended a right hand of wéléome 
and ingenuously explained in Portuguese that they were murderers 
serving sentences on the isle. The quadroon had been there 
fourteen years, and his durance was to terminate at the close of 
eight months more when he would return to his native Pernambuco. 


44 Morpuy, Birds of Fernando Noronha. ees 


He directed us to a better beach around the westward promontory, 
where he said he would meet us. Accordingly we pushed off shore, 
while the poor islander, taking a pair of goatskin sandals from his 
basket, painfully toiled up a stony, winding path across the ridge, 
leaving his comrade to cast the net alone. 

After our whaleboat had rounded the point of rock there lay 
before us a charming bit of seashore. The broad beach of golden 
sand stretched in an even curve to another headland a mile beyond, 
and sloped gently into the sea which for a long distance from shore 
was wondrously transparent. The upper beach was a riot of vege- 
tation, among which the tropical morning-glory, [pomea pes- 
capre, and a slender-stalked cactus (Cereus) were conspicuous; 
and still beyond, a thicket of brush and trees, filled with fruit- 
eating doves (Zanaida), concealed the base of the precipice. The 
latter ran parallel to the water-line as far as the distant headland. 
Its lower face was covered with vines which clambered up the 
seams, and its crest was bordered with pink and orange-colored 
blossoms of small trees whose roots drooped over the edge. Sharp 
slabs of rock projected here and there, offering perfect nesting sites 
for the birds which appeared in hosts whichever way we turned. 
The chattering Noddies, of two species, were most abundant, but 
large-eyed Gygis terns, and satin-feathered Bo’sun Birds (Phaéthon), 
trailing their comet tails, were flying to and from the niches in the 
cliff; a flock of migrating plover pattered along the edge of the sea; 
and boobies and Man-o’-war-birds came wheeling in fearless 
from their feeding grounds off shore. 

For the sea birds it is always springtime at Fernando Noronha, 
The year is divided into rainy and dry periods, January to July, 
July to December, respectively, but there is no fixed breeding 
season, and eggs and young can be found in every month of the 
twelve. For this reason the isle is a great center and source of 
avian population; even such maritime species as the bo’sun birds, 
which spend most of their lives in the remotest parts of the ocean, 
can here be seen in their cliff-built homes from the year’s beginning 
to its end. 

Our volunteer guide had removed his carefully fostered sandals. 
on leaving the rough rock, and now awaited us on the beach. The 
Daisy’s cooper and I joined him, the rest of the boat party rowing 


Reo | Murpuy, Birds of Fernando Noronha. 45 


off to a reef to fish. The guide, who was informed of our mission, 
pointed out the nests of the various birds, and captured for us some of 
the small lizards which scurried over the sand and rock everywhere. 
He talked glibly in his Brazilian jargon, giving voluminous informa- 
tion concerning the severities inflicted upon the unfortunate exiles. 
We met a number of his equally unclad fellow prisoners, as well as 
several pitiful, rheumatic, illiterate boys, children of the convicts, 
who, like the adults, followed and assisted us for the sake of gath- 
ering our empty cartridge shells. Finally the Pernambucan took 
the cooper on a visit to some of the convicts’ casas, miserable huts, 
half-thatched with cocoanut leaves and destitute of furniture. The 
women, some of them whites of unmixed blood, were almost as 
sparsely clothed and as woe-begone as the men. 

During the absence of my companions I climbed a rough, nearly 
perpendicular footpath into the woods. Thorn-shrubs, trailing 
vines, and numerous berry-bearing plants among which the wild 
doves were feeding, made a fairly dense cover. The “Pinhao” 
or pink-flowered tree (Jatropha gossypifolia) which we had noted 
from the beach, was leafless although in full blossom, just as on the 
oceasion of Darwin’s visit in 1832. I ascended as far as possible 
up the bare, steep side of the Pyramid. Directly below me lay 
the long, picturesque beach, with the fleet-winged birds crossing 
and recrossing it. Not a trace of the work of human hands was in 
sight. Here was Prospero’s isle, cooled by a tireless trade-wind — 
a land where fruit trees and melons flourish without cultivation, a 
land which might become a second Bermuda, yet for a hundred 
years it has been given up to wretched criminals under the callous 
régime of the Brazilian penal system. 

When we joined our fishing party late in the afternoon we found 
the whaleboat well laden with various brightly-colored tropical 
fishes and several sharks. The latter had been a great nuisance 
to the fishermen all day, biting many of the smaller fishes from the 
hooks before they could be drawn to the surface, and nipping the 
larger ones clean in half. / 

As evening drew near we perceived the brig bearing down the 
coast toward us, and reluctantly we sailed off to join her, leaving 
the allurements and the misery of Fernando Noronha. At dusk 
we were running swiftly down the trade wind, the Pyramid behind 
us still showing faintly through a bluish haze. 


46 Morpny, Birds of Fernando Noronha. ae 


References. 


1. Webster, W. H. B. Voyage of the Chanticleer. London, 1834, Vol. 
II, pp. 326-339. 

2. Darwin, C.R. A Naturalist’s Voyage in H. M.S. Beagle. London, 
1860. ‘Fernando Noronha”’ in Chapt. I. 

3. Branner, J.C. Notes on the Fauna of the Islands of Fernando de 
Noronha. American Naturalist, XXII, 1888, pp. 861-871. 

4. Branner, J.C. The Geology of Fernando de Noronha. American 
Journal of Science, XX XVII, 1889, pp. 145-161. 

5. Ridley, H. N. A Visit to Fernando do Noronha. Zodélogist, XII, 
1888, pp. 41-49. 

6. Ridley, H. N., and others. Notes on the Zodlogy of Fernando Nor- 
onha. Journal of the Linnean Society, Zodlogy, XX, 1890, pp. 473-570. 

7. Ridley, H. N., and others. Notes on the Botany of Fernando 
Noronha. Journal of the Linnean Society, Botany, XX VII, 1891, pp. 1-86. 

8. Ihering, H. von. Die Insel Fernando de Noronha. Globus, Vol. 
LXII, 1891, pp. 1-6. 

9. Moseley, H. N. Notes by a Naturalist during Voyage of H. M.S. 
Challenger. London, 1892, pp. 66-73. 

10. Nicoll, M. J. Ornithological Journal of a Voyage around the 
World. Ibis, IV, 1904, pp. 37-39. 

11. Nicoll, M. J. Three Voyages of a Naturalist. London, 1908, pp. 
11-20. 


12. Scharff, R. F. Distribution and Origin of Life in America. 1912, 
pp. 384, 385. 


A LIST OF THE BIRDS OF FERNANDO NORONHA. 


1. Oceanites oceanicus (Kuhl). A few Wilson’s Petrels were 
seen from the whaleboat between our vessel and the shore. 

2. Phaéthon lepturus (Lacép. & Daudin). Phaéthon lepturus, 
Grant, Cat. B. XXVI, p. 453, Nicoll, Ibis, 1904, p. 39. 

The Bo’sun Birds were nesting in niches of the cliffs along the 
beach, and they could be frightened from their eggs only with 
difficulty. Three breeding females, of which two are typical 
lepturus, were collected. The third specimen represents a phase 
of the species hitherto apparently undescribed. In this specimen 
the white feathers are replaced entirely by a plumage of pale pink, 
or pinkish salmon, slightly orange on the back but less so than in 
P. fulvus of the Indian Ocean. The pattern of light and dark 


aie | Murpny, Birds of Fernando Noronha. 47 


coloration differs a little from that of the two white birds in that 
the black on the outermost primary extends to within 23 mm. 
(.9 in.) of the tip, and on the third from the outermost primary to 
within 8 mm. of the tip. It differs moreover in its smaller dimen- 
sions and in having the culmen horn-colored instead of yellow. 
Further collection may possibly show that this pink Phaéthon is 
worthy of taxonomic distinction. 


Measurements of skins. 


exp. 

culmen tarsus wing tail 

Q (white) 48 22 265 403 

@ (white) 46.5 23 264 416 

Q (pink) 44 21.5 251 451 
An unsexed specimen of P. 
fulvus in collection of Am. 

Mus. Nat. Hist. 49 23 283 530 


3. Phaéthon ethereus (Linn.). Phaéthon ethereus, Sharpe, 
Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zoél.) XX, 1890, p. 480. Grant, Cat. B. 
XXVI, p. 458. 

4. Sula leucogaster (Bodd.). Sula leucogastra, Sharpe, Journ. 
Linn. Soc. (Zodél.) XX, 1890, p. 480. Sula fusca, Ridley, Zodlogist, 
1888, p. 43. 

Boobies of this species were exceedingly abundant at the island. 
While we were passing to and from shore in the whaleboat, they 
flew about us closely, and three immature examples were collected. 

5. Fregata aquila (Linn.). Tachypetes aquila, Sharpe, Journ. 
Linn. Soc. (Zoél.) XX, 1890, p. 480. Mosely, Notes by a Naturalist 
on H. M. S. Challenger, p. 71. 

We found the Frigate Bird abundant. Numbers were seen upon 
their nests about the summits of the smaller islets. 

6. Charadrius dominicus (Miill.)? 

A flock of seven plover, believed to have been of this species, 
were seen repeatedly along the shore of the inlets. Unlike the 
native birds these plover were very shy, and I could neither collect 
one nor approach the flock closely. Fernando Noronha is doubt- 
less a regular station for migrating shore birds, and several of the- 
authors cited above refer to Limicole at the island. 


48 Murpny, Birds of Fernando Noronha. le 


7. Arenaria interpres (Linn.). Strepsilas interpres, Nicoll, 
Ibis, 1904, p. 39. 

8. Sterna fuliginosa (Gm.). Sterna fuliginosa, Nicoll, Ibis, 
1904, p. 39. 

9. Anous stolidus (Linn.). Anous stolidus, Saunders, Cat. B. 
XXV, p. 141. Nicoll, Ibis, 1904, p. 38. 

10. Micranous leucocapillus (Gould). Anous melanogenys, 
Sharpe, Journ. Linn. Soe. (Zo6l.) XX, 1890, p. 479. 

At the time of our visit Noddies of this species far outnumbered 
all other birds. Six breeding adults were collected. Several are 
in new, unworn plumage, and have the outermost remex only half 
grown or less. 


Measurements of 5 skins. 


exp. culmen tarsus wing tail 
ref 46 23 217 122 
rot 47 23 222 117 
ef 44 23 222 116 
rot 43 22 225 118 
fe) 44 23 218 iLils; 


11. Gygis crawfordi Nicoll. Gygis candida, Sharpe, Journ. 
Linn. Soe. (Zoél.) XX, 1890, p. 480. Saunders, Cat. B., XXV, 
p. 149. Gygis crawfordi, Nicoll, Bull. B. O. C., XVI, 1906, p. 102. 

Nicoll, Ibis, 1909, p. 669, states, “ Probably all examples of the 
White Tern from the Atlantic are referable to this species, as a 
glance at the map will show how completely it is isolated. A few 
pairs breed on Fernando Noronha Island, and it has been also 
recorded from St. Helena and Ascension as a breeding species.”’ 

About twenty examples of this tern were seen, mostly flying in 
pairs from shelf to shelf of the upper cliffs, or sitting side by side 
on the boughs of trees. Four breeding birds were collected, one 
of which was preserved as a skeleton. They agree in general with 
Nicoll’s description, which, however, is not very detailed: — “Simi- 
lar to G. candida, but may be easily distinguished by the following 
characters. Bill wholly black (not blue at the base, as in G. candida), 
more slender and narrower at the base; nostril situated much 
nearer the forehead; wing longer than in G. candida; tarsi and toes 
pale blue, webs white.” The species appears also to differ from 
G. alba (= candida) in having a heavier ring of black around the eye. 


et igia “al Morpuy, Birds of Fernando Noronha. 49 


Measurements of skins. 


exp. __ tip of bill 


culmen to nostril gonys tarsus wing tail 

roe 40 27 24.5 14 240 103 

Q 41 29 25 15 240 113 

ce) 41 29 25 14.5 241 115 
@ of G. alba 

from Japan. 37 26 21.5 14 220 102 


The length in inches of the entire culmen of the o from Fer- 
nando Noronha is only 1.8 as against “2.1” for the type specimen 
of Gygis crawfordi from Trinidad Islet. 

In one 2 of the Fernando Noronha birds the shafts of the pri- 
maries are white; the other two birds have the shafts marked with 
brownish pigment. 

It is interesting to note that this white-feathered bird has a 
heavily pigmented, coal-black skin, whereas the skin of the black 
tern, Micranous, is white in every part. The dermal melanin of 
Gygis doubtless bears the same relation to the absorption of ex- 
ternal heat, or the prevention of radiation of bodily heat, as the 
black plumage of Micranous. 

12. Zenaida auriculata (Temm.). Zenaida noronha, Gray, 
List B. Brit. Mus., 1856, Columbe, p. 47. Zenaida maculata, 
Sharpe, Proc. Linn. Soc. (Zoél.) XX, 1890, p. 479. Zenaida auri- 
culata, Salvadori, Cat. B., XXI, p.384. Peristera geoffroyi, Mosely, 
Notes by a Naturalist, p. 71. 

This species is the most abundant land bird at Fernando Nor- 
onha. According to Moseley the doves sometimes breed on the 
ledges with Boobies and Noddies, the nests being intermingled 
with those of the seabirds. 

Of three specimens collected a o and a 2 were breeding. 


Measurements of skins. 


exp. culmen tarsus wing tail 
fof Ife 25 134 73 
rot iG 24 135 80 
g 16.5 24.5 134 76 


These figures confirm the statements of Sharpe, |. c., and of 
Salvadori, Cat. B., X XI, p. 386, that the dimensions of Fernando 


[san: 


50 ‘ Morpuy, Birds of Fernando Noronha. 


Noronha specimens of Z. auriculata are somewhat less than those of 
birds from the South American continent. Probably the form is 
worthy of subspecific distinction, for according to the astronomer 
Halley ‘Turtle Doves”? were abundant at Fernando Noronha at 
the time of his visit in February 1699. 

My specimens show three stages of the moult, the sequence of 
which seems to be as follows: — The inner primaries and central 
rectrices are first moulted; after the replacement of these by new 
feathers the remaining quills are lost, primaries 10 and 9 being the 
last to drop out. The moult of the contour feathers follows that 
of the quills. 

The female dove in the collection is as brightly colored as a male 
in new plumage. 

13. Elainea ridleyana Sharpe. LElainea ridleyana, Sharpe, 
Proc. Zool. Soc., 1888, p. 107. 

This flycatcher and the following species of Vireosylva are 
endemic. 

14. Vireosylva gracilirostris (Sharpe). Vzreo gracilirostris 
Sharpe, Journ. Linn. Soc. (Zoél.) XX, 1890, p. 478. 

Many of these greenlets were seen in the fig trees and in the 
thickets near the beach. A co anda Q, both breeding birds, were 
collected. Both were in fresh plumage, some of the body feathers 
not having lost the sheaths, while the quill feathers show only the 
slightest signs of wear. The contour feathers of the back measure 
up to 35 mm. in length. 


Measurements of skins. 


exp. culmen tarsus wing tail 
of 16 20.5 64 50 
Q 15 21 66 55 


In addition to the fourteen species listed above, references are 
made in several of the works which I have cited to the following 
birds: — “small plover,” “bird resembling a Yellowshank,” 
“sandpiper,” “curlew,” and “a small species of Albatross.” 


eee | Puruurrs, Variation in English Sparrows. 51 


NOTES ON AMERICAN AND OLD WORLD ENGLISH 
SPARROWS. 


BY JOHN C. PHILLIPS. 


In the spring of 1911 I undertook to collect skins of Passer 
domesticus from various parts of the United States with the object 
of studying any possible geographical or climatic effects which the 
species in its new surroundings might have undergone. For this 
purpose I communicated with a number of collectors, both pro- 
fessional and amateur (about forty in all) throughout the country, 
but the answers and especially the number of skins received were 
by no means encouraging. Many of these men had already gone 
out of business; others could not kill sparrows in places where 
these birds were confined to city limits; and still others no doubt 
thought the pursuit of a few specimens of this inglorious and un- 
remunerative species scarcely worth while. 

At the present my collection is stationary, and in these notes I 
shall simply give the meagre results as far as they have progressed. 
It is as well to state that although the enquiry was started as a 
study in variation, it would be better with the data now at hand to 
eall it “A study of the stability of a species under wide-ranging 
climatic and geographical conditions.” 

In July, 1911, four hundred and forty-six enquiries were sent to 
postmasters in the western states in order to get an idea of the 
distribution of the English Sparrow since the map of Barrows, 
1889, and also the length of residence of the species in various west- 
ern districts. Three hundred and twenty-eight answers were 
received, and these will be mentioned later. 

It is necessary at first to outline the native distribution of P. 
domesticus and its subspecies, giving a brief diagnosis of these as 
they are described by the latest authority on the Passerine birds 
of Europe, Hartert’s ‘ Die Vogel der Palearktichen Fauna.’ Har- 
_ tert says that P. domesticus is found over all of Europe except Italy, 
where it is very rare (less so in Friaul and Udine). In Scandinavia 
beyond the Arctic Circle, all over the British Isles, but not on the 
Faroes, Madeira, Azores or Canaries. All over Russia and Siberia 


52 Puiuurps, Variation in English Sparrows. ches 


to Irkutsk; to Darien in East in cities and villages, (here only since 
permanent habitation) and not in territory of nomads. In South 
to Gibraltar, Spain and Portugal, to Tangiers, on Balkan Penin- 
sula, and on Balearic Isles. Also imported to New Zealand and 
Australia and North America. Male wing 76-82.5; rarely 83 
(E. Prussia). He says it was not easy to define the limits of P. d. 
indicus, an eastern race, on account of lack of material and the 
pronounced variation of domesticus, especially in the color of the 
back, lighter or darker, more or less mixed with white, and also in 
the size. He was not able to separate any races in Europe, but 
says more material may give other results. 

English, Irish, W. German and Dutch specimens he considers 
smaller, but there is no definite boundary line. The largest male 
is from Eastern Prussia. Specimens from S. E. Europe have 
brighter colors, but nothing constant. Caucasus specimens have 
grey ear coverts, very pure colors, and look like P. indicus, but 
cannot be separated as a race. Some specimens have fine black 
cross-bars on lower sides. Spanish spring birds are peculiar be- 
cause of light colors and chestnut brown on the lesser wing coverts 
and back. We thus see stability over a very large area, with 
tendency to certain variation. 

The following sub-species are recognized by Hartert: 

P. d. biblicus Subspec. nov.: size Wing 82-84; beak as large or 
larger, back light chestnut brown with no white; grey of rump and 
head covered in fall with a pale brown tint. Wings and tail not as 
dark. Ear coverts not white as indicus, but light grey with brown- 
ish tint. Six specimens. (In the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy 
I have seen five males from near Jerusalem, Selah Merril Collic; 
all of them fall below the measurements given by Hartert except 
one which equals his smallest — Wing 78-82-77-80-79.) | Distri- 
bution of this race: Syria, Palestine from Beersheba to Beirut. 

P. d. tingitanus Locke: Very much like P. domesticus but grey 
feathers of upper head in the male are black towards base; a fact 
only noticed in fresh feathers when they are raised up. In spring 
the worn head feathers look dotted with black; ear coverts not as 
grey, and lower parts somewhat lighter and cream colored. Rump 
somewhat lighter and wing a little longer. Females also somewhat 
lighter and less greyish. Distribution: Tunis and Algiers, Morocco. 


ae | Puiturps, Variation in English Sparrows. 53 
Occasionally specimens of pure domesticus with head characters 
of this race are found in Germany. 

P. d. ahasver Kleinschmidt: Just like domesticus, but a round 
spot in center of the top of the head is grey, surrounded by a circle 
of brownish red which protrudes a little over the forehead. Author 
has only one specimen, so form is not definitely fixed. Distribu- 
tion: Countries south of Atlas. 

P. d. arboreus Bonaparte: A small and lively colored species of 
domesticus. Top of head a rusty brownish grey in fall; in spring 
a lively reddish, chestnut brown, with very narrow black stripes. 
In fall we can see light rusty brown feather tips which are soon 
worn off. Rump and upper tail coverts always show more or less 
rusty red spots. Wing of the male, 72-74; female only distin- 
guished from domesticus by smaller dimensions. Distribution: 
Nile, Dongola and Berber, south to twelve degrees. Found near 
Khartoum commonly. 

P. d. chephreni Phillips: This race, recently separated by myself 
(Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 1913, p. 167), is like P. d. indicus but the 
cheeks and ear coverts are darker. Hartert noticed this difference 
but did not separate this bird. Its distribution is the northern 
Nile Valley. 

P. d. indicus Jardine & Selby: Noticeably smaller, Wing 74-78; 
light head areas pure white; upper ear coverts often of light grey 
tint and general colors lighter. Distribution: Cochin ‘China, 
Burma (in Terrasserim South to Moulmein), Ceylon, India, 
Turkestan, Transcaspia, Persia and So. Arabia. Transcaspian 
birds are sometimes intermediate to P. domesticus. 

P. d. Pyrrhonotus Blyth: A very small sparrow with a light grey 
center on the head, small black spot on throat and a chestnut 
brown lower back. Wing of male, 68-69. Distribution: Sindh 
(Narra). 

Nicoll and Bonhote described another race, P. d. niloticus from 
the desert east of Cairo, which is apparently somewhat like P. d. 
arboreus. / 

I am not familiar at first hand with these races except biblicus, 
indicus, arboreus and chephreni. Indicus is a very strongly marked 
subspecies and is recognized at a glance, and so is arboreus. Some 
of the other races are less well marked. 


Ges 


54 Puiuuips, Variation in English Sparrows. Jan. 


Turning now to the series of Passer domesticus obtained in 1911, 
and that already in the collection of the Museum of Comparative 
Zodlogy, it is well to give a list of the specimens, and to mention 
some of the individual variations. 

Littleton, Colo., May, 1911, ten specimens, four adult males. 
These four males show rather marked differences in color. Speci- 
men A is an extremely buffy bird with a large amount of rich 
chestnut on head and neck, and very little black on back. Speci- 
men B is very blackish on the back, with very little buff anywhere. 
Taken as a whole, this series shows more color variation than any 
other. 

Denver, Colo., winter, 1911-12, F. C. Lincoln, collector, 23 
specimens, 12 males. These specimens are more or less soot 
stained, but two are bright and clean. (This soot staining is easily 
recognized after it has once been seen.) 

Nampa, Idaho, eight skins, two adult males, May and June, 
1911. Nothing of note. 

Tacoma, Wash., pair, March, 1909. These birds are very dirty, 
like the London ones. 

Blue Rapids, Kans., P. B. Peabody, collector, May, 1911, nine 
skins, four adult males. 

Excelsior, Minn., Albert Lano, collector, eighteen skins, eight 
adult males, May, 1911. This series presents, I believe, a slight 
difference in color. The males are very rich red on the post- 
ocular and neck patch, while the backs are strongly streaked and 
dark in color. I rather hesitate to mention this, but believe it to 
be a real fact.. 

Mount Pleasant, S. C., A. T. Wayne, collector, May, 1911, 
three adult males. 

Warwick Co., Va., H. H. Bailey, collector, May, 1911, Feb., 
1912, eighteen skins, fifteen adult males. 

Brownsville, Tex., Armstrong, collector, 1889, one pair. The 
male shows pure white primaries and secondaries on both sides; 
also some white tail feathers. 

Mt. Carmel, Ill., one male, 1878. 

Washington, D. C., 1900, one pair. 

Sing Sing, N. Y., four skins, two males, 1874-1879. 

Princeton, N. J., five skins, three males, 1879. 


oe | Puiuurps, Variation in English Sparrows. 55 
Boston and vicinity, 1878 to recent date, twenty-four skins. 
Boston, 1878, Bangs, collection, two males, Nos. 4746 and 4744. 

Both of these specimens show much chestnut on throat and breast, 

in specimen 4746 practically replacing the black of that region. 

Germany, two males, one female. 

Roumania, eight males. 

Pommern, Prussia, one male, 1871. 

England, eighty-six skins, sixty-six males. Many taken near 
London are very black all over, undoubtedly due to soot. This 
series shows well the characteristic age differences. The older the 
bird, the greyer becomes the pileum, the whiter the cheeks and the 
lighter the abdomen. All the males in immature plumage have an 
olivaceous pileum, approaching the color of the female pileum. 

From the Museum of Vertebrate Zoélogy of the University of 
California, through the kindness of Mr. Joseph Grinnell, I have 
had the opportunity of examining the following large series: 

Tipton, Tulare Co., Calif., three males, April, 1911. Fine, clean 
skins. 

Berkeley, Calif., eight skins, seven males, 1909-10, except one 
dated 1892. This series is all soot-colored, especially male 11618 
(1892). 

Raymond, Madero Co., Calif., one male, April 1911. A very 
bright clean skin. 

Oakland, Alameda Co., Calif., two females, Oct., 1908. One a 
partial albino, nearly white on dorsum except for primaries and 
secondaries. 

Tower House, Shusta Co., Calif., two males, March, 1911. 

Honolulu, Oaha, June and March, 1910, sixteen males and ten 
females, collected by Miss Alexander. The plumage of this whole 
series has a very bright and clean look, due perhaps to a clean, 
showery climate. There appears to be, however, no essential 
differences either in measurements or color. 

As to the size of specimens from various localities, the table 
(p. 56) will show at a glance all I have been able to learn. i 

It will also be seen from the table that there is little choice in 
size either from single localities or grouped localities such as those 
found in the first part of the table. It is nevertheless apparent 
that sparrows from England are slightly smaller, a fact pointed out 


56 Paruuies, Variation in English Sparrows. (fea 


Males Females & juvenile 
No. No. 
speci- speci- 
Loc. Wing |Tarsus| Cul. mens || Wing |Tarsus} Cul. | mens 
England 75 194" | TI6 66 te 19 11-45 |) 420 
Roumania & | 76.3 | 18.8 | 12 11 
Germany 
New England | 77 nS Fs fe fa! Ec ag 7025 | 1926) ies 6. 
West America | 76.6 | 19.4 | 12.1 30 (Piea) | Qe Nall 3} 45 
South Atlantic | 77.1 | 19.8 | 11.8 18 75 19.4 | 12 5 
Littleton, Col. | 75.2 | 18.6 | 12 4 Woe3, | 194 12 6 
Nampa, Idaho! 77.5 | 20 13 2 76.1 | 19.8 | 10.9 6 
Blue Rapids, | 76 19.4 | 11.8 4 © 19.4 | 11.5 5 
Kansas 
Tacoma, Wash.| 76 19 TSS 1 74 20 12 t 
Brownsville, 73 yf sty || 1182 1 73 20 10 1 
Texas 
Marshall Co., 76 18 1275 1 
Kansas 
Mt. Pleasant, | 77.7 | 19 23 3 
Sac. 
Warwick Co., | 77 20 ile 14 75 19.4 | 12 5 
Va. 
Denver, Col. 78 19.5 | 11.9 12 US: 19 11.8 12 
Excelsior, 76.6 | 19.4 | 12.5 6 Maeve Oe | ae 13 
Minn. 


by Hartert and noted above. My series from Denver run large, 
while those from Littleton, Colo., are small. New England and 
South Atlantic birds are large, especially three males from Mt. 
Pleasant, S. C., but all these differences are too slight to be of much 
significance. No birds as large as Hartert’s maximum have been 
seen. 

The series lent by the Museum of Vertebrate Zodlogy was not 
measured individually. 

Townsend and Hardy in ‘The Auk’ for 1909, p. 78, give some 
measurements for English birds and for recent and early New 
England birds. They notice the smaller size of English birds. 
They also obtained larger measurements for the bills of recent New 


Meco | Puruurres, Variation in English Sparrows. o7 


England birds than for older ones, 13.18 as against 12.64. I think 
this result must be accidental, as I have found no specimens with 
bills as large as 138 mm. It is not necessary to say, perhaps, that 
observers should be careful in comparing their own measurements. 
with those of others, for meteods vary a great deal. 

It is not my intention to go into the dispersal of the sparrow in 
America. The map which I constructed from replies to my postal 
cards showed that the bird was present in all county seats through- 
out the entire west which replied to my query, except a few places 
in northern Idaho, northwestern and northeastern Oregon, north- 
western California, and some other scattered localities mostly in 
Nevada and Arizona. The literature teems with notices of the 
arrival of the English Sparrow at different places through the west, 
and a very fair map of its advance during the past twenty years 
could be constructed from this source. I find two notices which 
require special mention. In the ‘Ottawa Naturalist’ for May, 
1909, Criddle expresses the opinion that sparrows of eastern 
Canada migrate in part, and that these migrants breed later than 
the local birds. 

Wood (Wilson Bull., XXIII, p. 103) noted at Charity Isle, Lake 
Huron, Oct. 8, 1910, a flock of several hundred P. domesticus, and 
another flock seen a few days before. He states that the bird does 
not breed there. Is it possible that the new environment of the 
English Sparrow will bring about migratory tendencies? One 
would not be inclined to attach much importance to isolated flights 
of sparrows like the above, for they may be due to purely local 
conditions. 

P. domesticus was also introduced about 1885 at Ivigut, Green- 
land, but the colony was said to be diminishing (Auk, 1889, p. 297). 
It is present also in Bermuda, Cuba and at Nassau. Specimens 
from these places and also from the desert towns of southern Cali-- 
fornia would be most interesting for comparison, but I have not so 
far been able to obtain any. 

Bumpus has given us two papers on variation in the English 
Sparrow which should be mentioned, because the second of these, 
‘The Elimination of the Unfit as Illustrated by the Introduced 
Sparrow,’ (Biol. lectures, 1898) has been quoted as an instance of 
natural selection in active operation. Bumpus’ paper is of great 


08 Puituips, Variation in English Sparrows. oa 


interest to ornithologists. Briefly, he examined by careful meas- 
urements, 138 sparrows which were picked up during a severe 
storm in February, 1898. 72 of these birds revived while 64 
perished. Those birds which perished showed certain constant 
differences which held through the three following groups, adult 
male, young males, and females. These differences tend to show 
that the surviving birds are shorter, weigh less, have longer wing 
bones, longer legs, longer sternums and greater brain capacity. 
Some of these differences are very slight and some of the measure- 
ments are not the ones that ornithologists might pick out, e. g., 
alar extent and total length; but there seems to be no questioning 
the fact that the data point to a real difference in the two classes of 
birds. Even of greater interest are the figures brought forward in 
regard to extent of variation in these same birds. Those indi- 
viduals with any marked tendency towards maximum and mini- 
mum measurements nearly always fall into the “perished” class, 
and as a group the “survivors” are more uniform and conform 
more closely to the ideal species mean. 

J. A. Harris in the‘ American Naturalist’ for May, 1911, treated 
Bumpus’ figures from a biometrical standpoint and came to the 
conclusion that they had a real significance. J. A. Allen also 
reviewed this paper in “The Auk.’ 

In an earlier paper, (Biol. Lectures, 1898) Bumpus reported the 
study of 1736 sparrow eggs, one half English and the other half 
American. This large series showed that the American eggs had 
become shorter, more spherical, and much more variable in color 
and pattern, and the conclusion is reached that American birds 
have been subject to a slightly changed and perhaps less selective 
environment. 

It has been stated that albinism in the house sparrow is more 
common here than in the old world, but I do not find any compara- 
tive figures. 

We might expect that an imported species with a successful 
history like the sparrow would show an increase of variability in 
form and color. A well known example of this phenomenon is the 
land snail. Helix nemoralis which introduced from Europe pro- 
duced in a short time a large number of varieties unknown in its 
home. Another case is the snail, Littornia. littoria, which in its 


eel GRINNELL, A New Screech Owl. 59 
new environment (America) took on a greatly increased variability 
of size. 

All we can say in conclusion is that the English Sparrow has 
changed very little in outward appearance and gross measurements 
during his sojourn in America. A careful study of a large series in 
the flesh would probably give results of interest, and perhaps 
demonstrate an increased variability in American specimens. I 
should like to add that sparrow skins from the southwest, from 
Cuba, Bermuda or other isolated points will be most gratefully 
appreciated by the writer. 


A NEW SUBSPECIES OF SCREECH OWL 
FROM CALIFORNIA. 


BY J. GRINNELL. 


(Contribution from the Museum of Vertebrate cages of the University 
of California.) , 


MATERIAL representing the genus Otus has been very slow in 
accumulating from California. For some years local systematic 
workers have been of the opinion that two races exist in the region 
west of the desert divides, both being included in the literature 
under the name bendire:. ‘The present writer is at last fortunate 
in having access to a sufficient series of skins to enable him to arrive 
at conclusions; and he is convinced of the desirability of recogniz- 
ing the two races under separate names, though the series is at the 
same time inadequate for working out properly their respective 
geographic ranges. The material for study has been brought 
together from the Morcom, Swarth, Grinnell and Mailliard col- 
lections, and from the California Museum of Vertebrate Zodlogy. 
The latter institution has recently acquired some northern cpast 
Screech Owls of particular value in the present connection. 

_ The two forms here separated belong to the humid coast belt of 
California, and to the more arid southern and interior parts of the 
same state, respectively. Since Scops [= Otus] asio bendirei was 
described (Brewster, Bull. Nutt. Orn. Club, vir, January, 1882, p 


60 GRINNELL, A New Screech Owl. ae 


Jan. 


31) from Nicasio, Marin County, which is situated in the northern 
humid coast belt, it remains to name the southern race. 


Otus asio quercinus, new subspecies. 


Typr.— Male adult, no. 5678, coll. J.G.; Pasadena, Los Angeles County 
California; April 21, 1904; collected by J. Grinnell. 

DraGnosis.— Characters in general like Otus asio bendirei (see Brewster, 
1. c.); differs in paler coloration: Light drab or ashy rather than hazel 
tones prevail dorsally, while beneath the black markings are sharper in 
outline, with very little or none of the ferruginous marginings. The restric- 
tion or absence of ferruginous on the chest, around the facial rim, and on © 
the ear-tufts, is a good character. 

GEOGRAPHICAL DisTRIBUTION.— Records of Screech Owls are well dis- 
tributed over California west and north of the southeastern deserts, from 
the Mexican line nearly to the Oregon line. In absence of specimens from 
most of this area, however, it is impossible to fix the boundary lines accu- 
rately or to designate the strips of country where intergradation occurs. 
These can only be inferred, in a general way, from the behavior of better 
known groups of birds. The material at hand divides up as follows: Otus 
asio bendirei: Guerneville, Sonoma County, 1; Freestone, Sonoma County, 
1; Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, 1; San Geronimo, Marin County, 3; 
Nicasio, Marin County, 1; Oakland, Alameda County, 1; Walnut Creek, 
Contra Costa County, 4; Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, 2. Otus asio 
quercinus: west slope Walker Pass, Kern County, 2; Bodfish, Kern County, 
5; vicinity of Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, 2; vicinity of Los 
Angeles, 2; vicinity of Pasadena, 7; Mount Wilson, Los Angeles County, 1; 
Cuyamaca Mountains, San Diego County, 1. 

Remarks.— Birds from the coast belt north of San Francisco Bay 
are most typical of the race bendirei as here restricted. Specimens from 
Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, 
show more or less departure towards quercinus. ‘The palest examples of 
the latter form are from Walker Pass, Kern County; but there is still 
plenty of difference between these and Otus asio gilmani, of the Colorado 
River valley. The darkest winter examples of quercinus, from Los Angeles 
County,.are darker than Palo Alto skins; but this darkness consists in 
extension of black and not in a pervasion of warm browns as in Marin and 
Sonoma County bendirei. The latter undoubtedly approach closely to 
Otus asio brewsteri, recently described by Ridgway (Birds N. and Mid. 
Amer., v1, 1914, p. 700). I have a topotype of the latter, from Salem, 
Oregon. This specimen is larger than average bendirei and is decidedly 
more pervaded with ferruginous tints on the posterior lower surface. There 
is thus a series of intergrading forms along the Pacific coast, with Otus asio 
kennicottii at the extreme north, succeeded towards the south by brewsteri, 
bendirei and quercinus. Of these, so far as yet known, only the latter two 
occur within the state. The form gilmani is distinct, there being no evi- 
dence of intergradation between it and quercinus. 


ig Wricut, Harly Records of the Wild Turkey. 61 


EARLY RECORDS OF THE WILD TURKEY. III. 
BY ALBERT HAZEN WRIGHT. 


Tue following notes are classified according to political divisions 
and are arranged in chronological order. 


Canada. 


The Turkey was not a widely distributed bird in Canada and 
most of the Jesuit records are outside its confines. In their first 
note they speak of it in a mythical way. They recount how an 
Indian chief of the Tobacco Nation supposedly holds thunder in 
his hand. “This thunder is, by his account, a man like a Turkey- 
cock.” ! In another way, it enters the repertorie of the medicine 
men. One? “carried a Turkey’s wing, with which he fanned them 
gravely and at a distance, after having given them something to 
drink.” To his disciples or substitutes, “as a token —he left 
them each a Turkey’s wing, adding that henceforth their dreams 
would prove true.” About Lake Erie (1640),? “They have also 
multitudes of wild turkeys, which go in flocks through the fields 
and woods.”’ One hundred years later (1749) in this same region 
Bonnecamp says,‘ “It is at this lake that I saw for the first time the 
wild turkeys. They differ in no way from our domestic turkeys.”’ 

In the Niagara country, Hennepin, in 1698,° “saw great numbers 
of — Wild Turkey-Cocks.” Between Lakes Erie and Huron 
“Turkey Cocks — are there also very common.” And finally, in 
his “Continuation of the New Discovery (p. 130),” he writes 
“There are to be had — Turkies, which are of an extraordinary big- 
ness.” Following Hennepin, comes Baron LaHontan (1703) who 


1 Thwaites, R. G. The Jesuit Relations and Other Allied Documents. ¥610— 
1791. Vol. X, Le Jeune’s Relation, 1636, p. 195. 

2ibid., Vol. XIII (1637), p. 241, 243. 

3 ibid., Vol. X XI (1640-1641), p. 197. 

4ibid., Vol. LXIX (1710-1756), p. 161. 

5 Hennepin, L. A New Discovery of a Vast Country in America, etc. London, 
1698, pp. 40, 63. 


62 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. Re 
notes along the north coast of Lake Erie,! “the great numbers of 
Turkeys, that we were obliged to eat upon the Spot, for fear that 
the heat of the Season would spoil ’em.’’ ‘‘ Upon the brink of this 
Lake we frequently saw flocks of fifty or sixty Turkey’s, which 
run incredibly fast upon the Sands; And the Savages of our Com- 
pany kill’d great numbers of ’em, which they gave to us in exchange 
for the Fish that we catch’d” Finally, in his list of the birds for 
the South Countries of Canada, he includes the Turkey. In 1760, 
T. Jefferys writes that? “turkies .... are found (in Canada),— 
except in the neighbourhood of plantations, where they never 
come.” “The History of North America, London, 1776” credits 
(p. 235) Canada with “a great number of .... turkeys ....” In 
1807, Heriot finds “The birds of the southern parts of Canada are 
.... turkeys,....”% In 1820, Sansom gives among‘ “the feathered 
game, with which these woods and waters abound in their season, 

. wild geese,.... wild turkies.” Fifteen years later, Shireff 
states that® “The turkey is found only in the western district (of 
Canada) in limited numbers.” “The turkey is said to inhabit this. 
district (near the Detroit River) in considerable numbers, and the 
boy who conducted us out of Chatham plains told me he had come 
on a hen and her brood a short time before, but this bird was not 
seen by me.’’ In Canada, Godley says * “The only birds which 
remain all the winter —in the west (are) a few wild turkeys.” 
At Amherstburgh, Canada, “you have... . wild turkeys.” Finally, 
in 1851, Smith (1. c., Vol. II, p. 405) writes of this form as follows: 
“In addition to these, we have the Wild Turkey, which, however, 
is confined to the southwest of the Province;.... The Wild 
Turkey, although the stock from whence our English domestic 
Turkey sprang, is rather difficult to tame, even when taken young 
from the nest, or reared from the eggs, under the fostering care of 
the domestic hen; and unless closely watched, they are apt to 


1 LaHontan, Baron. New Voyages to North America. London 1703. Vol. I, 
pp. 99, 82, 83; Vol. II, p. 237. 

2 Jefferys, T. The Natural and Civil History of the French Dominions in North 
and South America. London, 1760. Part I, p. 39. 

3 Heriot, George. Travels through the Canadas, etc. London, 1807, p. 516. 


‘Sansom, Joseph. Travelin Lower Canada,.... London, 1820, p. 49. 2 
5 Shireff, P. A Tour of North America;.... Edinburgh. 1835, pp. 390, 214. 
® Godley, J. R. Letters from America, .... 2 vols., London, 1844. Vol. I,,. 


pp. 247, 248. 


| Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 63 


make their escape, and take to the woods in the following 
spring. The Turkey is naturally a very stupid bird.” 


New England. 


In New England, most of the records precede 1800. The first 
note of this region is incidental in its allusion to the turkey. In 
“The Relation of Captain Gosnold’s Voyage to the North part of 
Virginia” Gabriel Archer writes that on May 18, 1602,' “one of 
them (Indians) had his face painted over and head stuck with 
feathers in the manner of a turkey cock’s train.”” The first note of 
real interest is Champlain’s surmise of its occurrence in New Eng- 
land. In the voyage of 1604 we have the following: ? “The savages, 
along all these coasts where we have been, say that other birds, 
which are very large, come along when their corn is ripe. They 
imitated for us their cry, which resembles that of the turkey. 
They showed us their feathers in several places, with which they 
feather their arrows, and which they put on their heads for decora- 
tion; and also a kind of hair which they have under the throat like 
those we have in France, and they say that a red crest falls over 
upon the beak. According to their description, they are as large 
as a bustard, which is a kind of goose, having the neck longer and 
twice as large as with us. All these indications led us to conclude 
that they were turkeys. We should have been very glad to see 
some of these birds, as ‘well as their feathers, for the sake of greater 
certainty. Before seeing their feathers, and the little bunch of 
hair which they have under the throat, and hearing their cry 
imitated, I should have thought that they were certain birds like 
turkeys, which are found in some places in Peru, along the sea- 
shore, eating carrion and other dead things like crows. But these 
are not so large; nor do they have so long a bill, or a ery like that 
of real turkeys; nor are they good to eat like those which the 
Indians say come in flocks in summer, and at the beginning of 
winter go away to warmer countries, their natural dwelling-plade.”’ 

In “A Description of New England (1616)” John Smith notes 


1 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. Third Series. Vol. VIII, 1843, p. 75. 
2 The Prince Society, The Publications of. Vol. 12, 1878, Boston, pp. 88, 89. 


64 Wricxt, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. eee 


turkeys. In his “New England Trialls, 2nd edit. 1622” 1 he holds 
“no place hath more goose-berries and strawberries, nor better 
Timber of all sorts you have in England, doth cover the Land, that 
afford beasts of divers sorts and great flocks of Turkies,....” In 
his “A Brief Relation of the Discovery and Plantation of New 
England. London 1622” he says,’ “The country aboundeth with 
diversity of wild fowls as Turkeys,....’’ In his “History of the 
Plymouth Plantation”, Wm. Bradford, the second governor of the 
colony writes * “besides water fowle, ther was great store of wild 
Turkies of which they took many” in the fall of 1621. In “New 
Englands Plantation, London, 1630” Francis Higginson says 4 
“Here are likewise abundance of Turkies often killed in the Woods, 
farre greater then our English Turkies, and exceeding fat, sweet 
and fleshy, for here they have aboundance of feeding all the yeere 
long, as Strawberries, in Summer all places are full of them and all 
manner of Berries and Fruits.” 

In 1632, the well known “New English Canaan” by Thomas 
Morton appears.> “Turkies there are, which divers times in great 
flocks have sallied by our doores; and then a gunne (being com- 
monly in redinesse), salutes them with such a courtesie, as makes 
them take a turne in the Cooke roome. They daunce by the doore 
so well. Of these there hath bin killed that have weighed forty 
eight pounds a peece. They are by mainy degrees sweeter then 
the tame Turkies of England, feede them how you can. I had a 
Salvage who hath taken out his boy in a morning, and they have 
brought home their loades about noone. I have asked them what 
number they found in the woods, who have answered Neent 
Metawna, which is a thousand that day; the plenty of them is 
such in those parts. They are easily killed at rooste, because the 
one being killed, the other sit fast neverthelesse, and this is no bad 
commodity.” ‘They make likewise some Coates of the Feathers 
of Turkies, which they weave together with twine of their owne 
makinge, very pritily:” 


1 Force, Peter. Tracts Relating to America. Vol. II, Washington, 1838, pp. 
16, 14. 

2 Prince Soc. Publ. Vol. 18, 1890, p. 230 (orig. p. 26). 

3 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. Fourth Ser. Vol. III, 1856, p. 105. 

4¥Force, P. Vol. I (1836), p. 10. 

SHorce, P: Vol If; pp. 48; 22: 


Vol. XXXII) Waricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 65 


Two years later, 1634, William Wood publishes in London his 
“New Englands Prospect” in which appears this curious and 
interesting statement.! “The Turky is a very large Bird, of a 
blacke colour, yet white in flesh; much bigger than our English 
Turky. He hath the use of his long legs so ready, that he can runne 
as fast as a Dogge, and flye as well as a Goose: of these sometimes 
there will be forty, three score, and a hundred in a flocke, some- 
times more and sometimes lesse; their feeding is Acornes, Hawes, 
and Berries, some of them get a haunt to frequent our English 
corne; In winter when the Snow covers the ground they resort to 
the Seashore to look for Shrimps, and such smal Fishes at low tides. 
Such as love Turkie hunting, must follow it in winter after a new 
falne Snow, when hee may follow them by ther tracts; some have 
killed ten or a dozen in halfe a day; if they can be found towards 
an evening and watched where they peirch, if one come about ten 
or eleaven of the clocke he may shoote as often as he will, they will 
sit unless they be slenderly wounded. These Turkies remain all 
the yeare long, the price of a good Turkie cocke is foure shillings; 
and he is well worth it, for he may be in weight forty pound; a Hen 
two shillings.” In 1643, Roger Williams in his “Key into the 
Language of America”’ gives us two notes: The turkey is called? 
“neyhom.” “They (Indians) lay nets on shore, and catch many 
fowls upon the plains, and feeding under oaks upon acorns, as 
geese, turkies....’’ The other statement refers to “ Neyhommau- 
shunck: a coat or mantle, curiously made of the fairest feathers of 
their Neyhommauog, or turkies, which commonly their old men 
make, and is with them as velvet with us.”’ In “Good News from 
New England. London 1648” we find * “The Turkies. .. .and their 
young ones tracing passe.” In 1649, John Winthrop publishes his 
“History of New England from 1630 to 1649,” and on Oct. 31, 1632, 
he speaks of a party who* “came, that evening, to Wessaguscus, 
where they were bountifully entertained, as before with store of 
turkeys. ...7 


sc ee ee ae ee eS ee ee 

1 Prince Soc. Publ. Vol. I, 1865, p. 32. 

2Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. First Series. Vol. III. Reprint 1810, Boston, pp. 
219, 225. 

3 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls: 4th Series. Vol. I, p. 202. 

4 Winthrop, John. History of New England.... Edited by James Savage 
2 vols., Boston, 1825. Vol. I, p. 93. 


66 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. {Aur 


John Josslyn Gent, already well introduced to ornithologists, in 
1675 presents a strange account.! “The Turkie, which is in New 
England a very large Bird, they breed twice or thrice in a year, if 
you would perceive the young Chickens alive, you must give them 
no water, for if they come to have their fill of water they will drop 
away strangely, and you will never be able to rear any of them: 
they are excellent meat, especially a Turkie Capon beyond that, 
for which Eight shillings was given, their Eggs are very wholesome 
and restore decayed nature exceedingly. But the French say they 
breed the Leprosie; the Indesses make Coats of Turkie feathers 
woven for their Children.” Not long after, 1680, Wm. Hubbard 
in a “General History of New England” lists? “Turkies” among 
the birds of the region. In 1686, John Dutton in “Letters Written 
from New England, London 1705” speaks of the coat of turkey 
feathers.* “Within this Coat or Skin they creep very contentedly, 
by day or night in the House or in the Woods, and sleep soundly too, 
counting it a great happiness that every Man is content with his 
skin.” The following year, 1687, Richard Blome alludes to this 
garment as follows: * The New England Indians “weave curious 
Coats with Turkey feathers for their Children ete.” 

In the first part of the next century, we have little appertaining 
to the New England turkey. In 1720, Neal states that® “D. C. 
Mather (Phil. Transactions XXIX, p. 64) says, they have wild 
Turkies of 50 or 60 Pound Weight,....”’ In 1741, Oldmixon, holds® 
“there’s hardly greater Variety and Plenty of Fowl anywhere than 
in New England, as Turkies....’’ In travels made 1759 and 1760, 
Andrew Bernaby finds’ “The forests abound with plenty of game 
of various kinds; hares, turkies,....’’ and includes it in his cata- 
logue of birds as “ Wild Turkey Gallo Pavo Sylvestris.” In 1760, 
Paul Coffin “saw wild Turkey’s Feathers here and there’ near 


1 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. Third Series. III, 1833, p. 277 (orig. p. 99). 

2 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. Second Series. V, 1817, p. 25. 

3 Prince Soc. Publ. Vol. IV, 1867, pp. 224, 225. 

4Blome, Richard. The Present State of His Majesties Isles and Territories 
in America, etc. London, 1687, p. 235. 

5 Neal, Daniel. The History of New England. London, 1720, Vol. II, p. 572. 

6 Oldmixon, J. The British Empire in America. 2nd edit. London, 1741. 
Vol. I, p. 186. 

7 Bernaby, Rev. Andrew. Travels, etc. 3rd edit. London, 1798, pp. 13, 127. 


oe | Waicat, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 67 


New Haven.! Ten years later, 1770, Wynne claims * “ New Eng- 
land produces a great variety of fowls; suchas. ...turkies....”’ In 
1782, Rev. Samuel Peters (A General History of Connecticut, 1782, 
p. 255) gives turkeys among the feathered tribe in Connecticut. 
Belknap 1792, in N. H. says? “Wild Turkies were formerly very 
numerous. In winter they frequented the seashore, for the sake of 
picking small fishes and marine insects which the tide leaves on the 
flats.... They are now retired to the inland mountainous coun- 
try.” In 1819, Warden repeats the same for N. H. Williams, in 
his “History of Vermont”, just mentions (p. 120) the “Wild 
Turkey, Meleagris gallopavo.” Writing in 1807-1808, Edward A. 
Kendall, says the Turkey Mountains, (Connecticut) * “have their 
name from the flocks of wild turkeys by which they were formerly 
frequented, but of which none are at present seen.” In New 
England, Timothy Dwight records,’ “'Turkies” among “the Land 
Birds principally coveted at the tables of luxury. The Wild 
Turkey is very large, and very fine: much larger and much finer, 
than those which are tame. They are, however, greatly lessened 
in their numbers, and in the most populous parts of the country 
are not very often seen.’”’ Lastly, in 1842, Zadock Thompson 
writes of it as follows:*” The Wild Turkey. Meleagris gallo- 
pavo. The Wild Turkey, which was formerly common throughout 
our whole country, has everywhere diminished with the advance- 
ment of the settlements, and is now becoming exceedingly rare in 
all parts of New England, and indeed in all the eastern parts of the 
United States. A few of them, however, continue still to visit 
and breed upon the mountains in the southern part of the state. 
The Domestic Turkey sprung from this species, and was sent from 
Mexico to Spain in the 16th century. It was introduced into 
England in 1524, and into France and other parts of Europe about 
the same time.” 


1 Colls. Me. Hist. Soc. First Series. Vol. IV, p. 264. 

2 Wynne, J. H. A General History of the British Empire in America; etc. 
2 vols. London, 1770, vol. I, p. 41. 

3 Belknap, J.,1.c. Vol. III, p. 170. 

4 Kendall, Edward A. Travels through the Northern Parts of the United States 
in the Years 1807 and 1808. 3vols. N. Y.1809. Vol. I, p. 219. 

5 Dwight, Timothy. Travels; in New England and New York. 4 vols. 
New Haven, 1821-22. Vol. I, p. 55. 

6 Thompson, Zadock. History of Vermont, Natural Civil and Statistical. 
Burlington, 1842, p. 101. 


68 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. es 


New York. 


Most of the notes come in the seventeenth century in the “ Nar- 
ratives of New Netherlands.” They begin with John de Laet’s 
“The New World” in which (1625) he says that! “In winter 
superior turkey cocks are taken; they are very fat, and their flesh 
is of the best quality.” In 1628, a letter of Isaac de Rasieres to 
Samuel Blommaert recounts how ? “some (Indians have) a cover- 
ing made of turkey feathers which they understand how to knit 
together very oddly, with small strings.” In a “Narrative of a 
Journey into the Mohawk and Oneida Country, 1634-1635” the 
travellers * “went out to shoot turkeys with the chief, but could not 
get any. In the evening I bought a very fat one for two hands of 
seewan. The chief cooked it for us and the grease he mixed with 
our beans and maize.” In the Vocabulary of the Moquas, “Scha- 
warl wane” is “Turkeys.” In 1633-1648, David Pietersz De 
Vries finds the New Netherlands + “a beautiful place for hunting 
deer, wild turkeys, ....”’ Again he writes, “I returned home and 
on my way shot a wild turkey weighing over thirty pounds, and 
brought it along with me.” Of the Indians, he remarks that 
“They .... wear coats of turkey’s feathers, which they know how 
to plait together.”’ He discovers that “Land birds are also very 
numerous, such as wild turkeys, which weigh from thirty to thirty- 
six and forty pounds, and which fly wild, for they can fly one or two 
thousand paces, and then fall down, tired from flymg, when they 
are taken by the savages with their hands, who also shoot them 
with bows and arrows.” The same author when at Wyngaert’s 
Kill® “Went out daily, while here, to shoot. Shot many wild 
turkeys, weighing from thirty to thirty six pounds. Their great 
size and very fine flavour are surprising.” In the year 1639, 
“They also had this year, great numbers of Turkeys.” 

A “Journal of New Netherlands, 1647” gives ® “The birds which 


1N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. Vol. I, 1841, p. 311. 

2 Narratives of New Netherlands, N. Y. 1909, pp. 106, 115. 

3 ibid., pp. 141, 142, 158. 

4 ibid., pp. 209, 215, 217, 221. 

5N Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. New Series. Vol. III, 1857, pp. 28, 37, 90. 
6 Narratives of New Netherlands, N. Y. 1909, p. 270. 


ee | Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 69 


are natural to the country are turkeys like ours,....’’ The Indians 
“go almost naked except a lap . ... and on the shoulders a deer-skin 
or a mantle, a fathom square, of woven Turkey feathers ....”” In 
1644, Johannes Megalopensis in “A Short Sketch of the Mohawk 
Indians”’ says ! “There are also many turkies as large as in Holland 
but in some years less than in others. The year before (1641) I 
came here there were so many turkies and deer that came to the 
houses and hog pens to feed and were taken by the Indians with so 
little trouble. In “The Representation of New Netherland, 1650” 
by Adrian van der Donck we find ? “The other birds found in this 
country are turkies, the same as in the Netherlands, but they are 
wild, and are plentiest and best in winter.” and “others (Indians) 
have coats made of ... . turkey’s feathers.”” The same gentleman 
in “A Description of the New Netherlands, Amsterdam 1656” 
calls* “ The most important fowl of the country,.. . . the wild turkey. 
They resemble the tame turkeys of the Netherlands. Those birds 
are common in the woods all over the country, and are found in 
large flocks, from twenty to forty in a flock. They are large, heavy 
fat and fine, weighing from twenty to thirty pounds each, and I 
have heard of one that weighed thirty two pounds. When they 
are well cleaned and roasted on a spit, then they are excellent, and 
differ little in taste from the tame turkeys; but the epicures prefer 
the wild kind. They are best in the fall of the year, when the 
Indians will usually sell a turkey for ten stivers, and with the 
Christians the common price is a daelder each.” 

In the “ Voyages Of Peter Esprit Radisson” we find that when in 
the Iroquois country (1653) he kills* “stagges and a great many 
Tourquies.”” In 1670, Daniel Denton in “A Brief Description of 
New York” says® “Wild Fowl there is great store of as Turkies 
...., and writes that the settler “besides the pleasure in Hunting, 
. ... may furnish his house with excellent fat Venison, Turkies .. ..” 
Montanus in his “Description of New Netherlands 1671” finds ® 


H 
1N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. N.S. Vol. IV, 1857, p. 150. 
2 Narratives of New Netherlands. pp. 297, 301. 
PON DYo LE SuColls:, UN. S..5-1841, Vol) I. ps 172: 
4 Prince Soc. Publ. 1885, Vol. 16, p. 66. 
5 Bull. Hist. Soc. Pa. Vol. I, 1845-47, pp. 6,15. 
6 Doc. Hist. State New York. Vol. IV, 1851, pp. 118, 125. 


70 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. es 
“turkeys .... are, also easily obtained.” “this country particularly 


abounds in turkeys whose number excites no less admiration than 
their rich flavour and their large size; for they go together in flocks 
of thirty and forty; they weigh some thirty or more pounds; they 
are shot or are caught with a bait concealing the hook.” The last 
note in this century is by Jasper Dankers and Peter Sluyter. In 
the fall of 1679, they ! “had to go along the shore, finding some fine 
creeks well provided with wild turkeys.”’ Again they “were ... 
served with wild turkey, which was also fat and of a good flavour.” 

At the time of the French and Indian War we have two notes. 
In the “ Journal of Gen Rufus Putnam kept in Northern New York, 
.... 1757-1760” he states ? that “on our march in this river (near 
Dutch Hoosack) this day (Feb. 4, 1758) Capt. Learned killed two 
turkeys.”’ On the following day, they “killed another turkey .... 
which we spared for necessity. We encamped this night with sad 
hearts and the countenance of every man shewed he was perplexed 
in mind, in consideration that the turkey was the chief of the pro- 
vision that we had.” In Hugh Gibson’s Captivity among the 
Delaware Indians, July 1756-Apr. 1759, we find that his captors 
when near Painted Post*® “killed one turkey.” Twenty years 
later, 1779, two other captives, John and Robert Brice, report that 
in their journey to Canada the Indians killed plenty of turkeys 
from Unadilla River to Chemung and Genesee Rivers.* In the 
time of Tom Quick, the Indian Slayer, or in the latter part of the 
18th century, we find that ® “the wild turkey, from which Callicoon 
(N. Y.) derives its name had not yet fled, like the aborigine, to a 
more solitary and secure retreat.”” The Stockbridge Indian coun- 
try in 1804 is said to have® “Of the feathered kinds, turkies.” 
The same year, Robert Munro in his Description of the Genesee 
country gives the turkey among the great variety of birds for game 
in this fertile region.’ 


1 Journal of a Voyage to New York and a Tour in Several of the American Col- 
onies in 1679-80. Transl. by H.C. Murphy. Brooklyn, 1867, pp. 123, 145. 

2 Journal, etc. Edited by E C. Dawes. Albany, N. Y., 1886, p. 53. 

3 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. Third Series. Vol. VI, p. 147.’ 

4 Priest, Jos. Stories of the Revolution. Albany, 1838, p. 5. 

5 Tom Quick the Indian Slayer, .... Monticello, N. Y., 1851, p. 225. 

6 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. 1804. Vol. IX, p. 99. 

7 Doc. Hist. New York. Vol. II, 1849, p. 1174 (8vo edition). 


Ma | Waicut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. ra 


Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. 


The first note discovered comes in 1634, when Capt. Thomas 
Yong, in his “Voyage to Virginia and Delaware Bay and R.,” 
records! “an infinite number of... .turkeys,” in the latter region. 
Fourteen years later, 1648, in “A Description of the Province of 
New Albion”? Beauchamp Plantagenet describes? “The uplands 
(as) covered many moneths with berries, roots chestnuts, walnuts, 
Birch and Oak Mast to feed them, Hogges and Turkeys, 500 in a 
flock,....”’ He repeats the same in several places and finds that 
“Here the Soldier, and Gentlemen wanting employment,....with 
five hundred Turkeys in a flock got by nets, in stalling get five shil 
a day at least.” In 1680, Mahlon Stacy writing to his brother 
Revell says? “We have....of....fowls, plenty, as... .turkies.” 
Three years later, “A Letter from William Penn” holds that * 
“Of the fowl of the land, there is the turkey, (Forty and fifty 
pounds weight) which is very great.” The same year, a letter 
from Pennsylvania by Thomas Paskel mentions that ® “There are 
here very great quantities of birds.... Turkeys (Cocqs d’Inde) 
....(I have bought) for two or three pounds of shot apiece.” The 
following year, 1684, “A Collection of Various Pieces concerning 
Pennsylvania,” has it that® “The woods are supplied with a quantity 
of wild birds, as turkeys of an extraordinary size,....”” About the 
same time, Pastorius writes? “There is, besides a great abundance 
of wild geese,....turkeys,....” “When he first came into the 
country, an Indian promised for a certain price to bring him a wild 
turkey, but instead of that he brought him a snake, and wanted to 
persuade him that it was a real turkey.” Towards the close of 
this century, Gabriel Thomas mentions among the fowl of ® “Sus- 


1 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. Fourth Series, 1871. Vol. 1X, p. 130. 

2 Force, P. Vol. II, pp. 20, 27, 32, 34, 12. 

3 Raum, J.O. History of New Jersey. Phila., 1877, Vol. I, p. 109. 

4 Proud, Robert. The History of Pennsylvania, etc. Vol. I, 1797, p. 250! 

5’ Penn. Mag. Hist. and Biog. Vol. VI, p. 326. 

Sibid., p. 313. 

7 Memoirs Hist. Soc. Penn. Vol. IV, 1840, p. 91 (Part II); III, p. 117. 

8 Thomas, Gabriel. An Historical and Geographic Account of Pensilvania; 
and of West-New Jersey in America. London, 1698. New York, 1848, edit., pp. 
13, 22. 


(2 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. arg 


kahanah”’ “Turkies (Of Forty of Fifty Pound Weight),’’ and lists 
them “among the Land-Fowl.”’ 

Four years later in the next century, 1702, Holm finds! “of 
birds and fowls, there are... .turkeys,....” The same year, Rev. 
Andreas Sandel tells a funny story of a fox mistaking a hidden man 
for a turkey.? In a “Journey from Pennsylvania to Onondaga,” 
Conrad Weiser (1737) remarks * the presence of turkeys along the 
trip. Six years later, 1743, John Bartram on a similar journey on4 
“The 4th (July 1743), set out before day, and stopp’d at Marcus 
Hulin’s by Manatony; then crossed Skuykill, and rode along the 
west side over rich bottoms, after which we ascended the Flying 
Hill, (so called from the great number of Wild Turkeys that used 
to fly from them to the plains).”’ In 1748 (November), Kalm finds * 
“The wild Turkeys,. .. . were in flocks in the woods.” Ina “General 
State of Pennsylvania between the years 1760 and 1770” ® occurs 
this significant statement: “wild turkeys, among the winged tribe, 
were formerly very plentifull, but now scarce.” In 1765 we find 
that Samuel Smith’s “ Nova-Caesaria or New Jersey” holds that? 
“Of these birds there are great plenty: as the wild turkey,. ...” 
During the Sullivan expedition, Lieutenant Wm. Barton when at 
Tunkhannock, Pa., (July 3, 1779) finds® “This place very re- 
markable for deer... . turkeys, several of which were taken by the 
troops without firing a single gun, there being positive orders to the 
contrary: otherwise might have killed many more during our halt.” 
In 1788, John Ettwein in his “Remarks upon the Traditions ete. 
of the Indians of North America” says® “Of that hemp (wild 
hemp) they made Twine to knit the Feathers of Turkeys,. . . . into 
Blankets.” In “Indian Names of Rivers, Streams, etc.” by 
Maurice C. Jones, Kenzua Cr. Kenjua Cr. (Kentschuak) is said to 


1 Memoirs Hist. Soc. Penn. Vol. III, 1834, pp. 41, 117. 

2 Penn. Mag. Hist. and Biog. Vol. XXX, p. 290. 

3 Penn. Hist. Soc. Colls. Phila. 1853, Vol. I, p. 22. 

4 Observations Made by Mr. John Bartram, etc. London, 1754, p. 9. 

5 Kalm, Peter. Travels, etc. Transl. by J. R. Forster. Warrington, 1770, 
Vol. I, p. 290. 

6 Proud, R. ibid., Vol. II, p. 263. 

7Smith, Samuel. The History of the Colony of Nova-Caesaria or New Jersey. 
Burlington, N. J.,1765. 2nd. edit. 1877, p. 511. 

8 N. J. Hist. Soc. Proc. Vol. 2, p. 26. 

® Bull. Hist. Soc. Penn. Vol. I, 1845-1847, p. 32. 


ear mM Wricat, Harly Records of the Wild Turkey. To 


mean ! “They gobble (viz wild turkies) The gobbling reply which 
the turkey cock makes to the call of the hen. The place which 
bears the name must have been a favorite place of the turkies.”’ 
Of “Chiknicomika. Chikenecomike or Tschikenumik” it says 
“Place of turkies, where turkies are plenty.” In another place, 
it appears “Chickahominy Chikamawhomy (Eng. idiom) Turkey 
lick. Tschikenemahoni (German idiom) Turkey lick, or the lick at 
which the turkies are so plenty. I know several places bearing 
this name for the same reasons. These turkies go there to drink,” 
Of this form in Pennsylvania, William Bartram (I. c. pp. 286, 290) 
writes, “These breed and continue the year round in Pennsylvania.”’ 

In the nineteenth century, we have more notes for Pennsylvania 
than for N. Y. or N. E. and doubtless the species held its own longer 
in this state. Thaddeus Mason Harris in 1803, when he reaches 
Laurel Hill, notes that ? “ For more than fifty miles, to the west and 
north, the mountains were burning. This is done by hunters, who 
set fire to the dry leaves and decayed fallen timber in the vallies, 
in order to thin the undergrowth, that they may traverse the woods 
with more ease in the pursuit of game. But they defeat their own 
object: for the fires. ...destroy the turkies...., at this season on 
their nests, or just leading out their broods.” In 1804 (Dec. 20), 
Robert Sutcliffe? “came this day to Jersey town where I slept. 
In passing through the woods this afternoon I saw a flock of wild 
turkeys running along the ground.”’ In an “Account of Bucking- 
ham and Solebury, Penn. 1806,’’ Watson remarks * “ Deer, turkeys 
and other small game made a plenty supply of excellent provision 
in their season.” In 1810, F. Cuming (I. ¢. p. 37) finds that wild 
turkeys “abounds on these mountains” about Strasburg. In the 
same year, Christian Schultz publishes his “Travels.’”’ He says,° 
“T had never seen a wild turkey before I descended this river 
(Alleghany), where I had an opportunity of shooting a great many. 


1ibid., Vol. I, pp. 127, 140, 141. 

2 Harris, T. M. The Journal of a Tour into the Territory Northwest of the 
Alleghany Mountains. Made in the Spring of the Year 1803. Boston, 1805, pp. 
22, 23. 

3 Sutcliffe, R. Travels in Some Parts of North America, in the Years 1804, 
1805, and 1806. Phila., 1812, p. 170. 

4 Mem. Hist. Soc. Penn. Vol. I, 1826, p. 303. 

5 Schultz, Christian. Vol. I, p. 122. 


74 Wricut, Harly Records of the Wild Turkey. ca 


They are very plentiful in this quarter, and considered the largest 
known throughout the western country, many of them weighing 
from thirty to forty pounds, and sometimes so overburthened with 
fat that they fly with difficulty.” In 1818, Rev. John Hecke- 
welder’s “History, Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations” 
speaks of the turkey coats.1. “The feathers, generally those of 
turkey and goose, are so curiously arranged and interwoven to- 
gether with thread and twine, which they prepare from the rind 
or bark of the wild hemp or nettle, that ingenuity and skill cannot 
be denied them. 

Four years later, Wm. H. Blane (I. c. p. 88) when near Smithfield 
on the Youghiogheny River, writes “I observed that two hunters, 
who had just come in with some turkies they had killed, were each 
of them carrying one of the long heavy rifles peculiar to the Ameri- 
cans.” In 1832, Mrs. Trollope when at Brownsville, was? “re- 
galed luxuriously on wild turkey ....”’ The same year, Vigne 
presents his “Six Months in America.” When at Moshanan Creek 
he finds (Vol. I, pp. 88, 89) “The winged game of these forests are 
the wild turkey, which being pursued with avidity by the sports- 
man, is becoming more scarce every day: it is larger than the tame 
turkey and its plumage closely resembles that of the dark-coloured 
domesticated bird, but is rather more brilliant.”’ The third note 
to be presented in 1832 is the rather general account of Hinton.® 
“The native country of the wild turkey extends from the north- 
western territory of the United States to the Isthmus of Panama. 
In Canada, and the now densely-peopled parts of the United States, 
they were formerly very abundant; but like the Indian and the 
buffalo they have been compelled to yield to the destructive in- 
genuity of the white settlers, often wantonly exercised, and to 
seek refuge in the remotest parts of the interior. On hearing the 
slightest noise, they conceal themselves in the grass, or among 
shrubs, and thus frequently escape the hunter, or the sharp-eyed 
birds of prey: and the sportsman is unable to find them during the 


1 Memoirs Hist. Soc. Penn. Vol. XII, 1881, p. 203. 

? Trollope, Mrs. Domestic Manners of the Americans. 4 edit. London and 
N. Y., p. 162. 

3 Hinton, J. H. The History and Topography of the United States. London, 
1832, 2 vols. Vol. II, p. 177. 


* 


ea | Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 75 


day, unless he has a dog trained for the purpose. When only 
wounded, they quickly disappear, and, accelerating their motion 
by a sort of half flight, run with so much speed that the swiftest 
hunter cannot overtake them. The traveller driving the declivity 
of one of the Alleghanies, may sometimes see several of them before 
him, evincing no desire to get out of the road; but on alighting in 
the hopes of shooting them, he soon finds that all pursuit is vain.” 
Finally, in 1843, Maximilian, Prince of Wied, when at Borden- 
town, Penn., says ! “Fans, are, in fact, an article of luxury, and are 
purchased in the towns; they are made of the tail feathers of the 
wild turkey, the crane or the swan, |....” 


Virginia and Maryland. 


These furnish numerous records in the seventeenth century. 
Only one note precedes this period and this occurs in Thomas 
Heriot’s “A Briefe and True Relation of the New Found Land of 
Virginia, London, 1588.” He gives? “Of Foule. Turkie cockes 
and Turkie hennes.’’ The first note of the 17th century is that of 
Master George Percy in his “Observations gathered out of A 
Discourse of the Plantation of the Southern Colonie in Virginia by 
the English 1606” wherein he asserts * “ We found store of Turkie 
nests and many egges.” “A Gentleman of the Colony” (Gabriel 
Archer) in “ A relaytion of the Discovery”’ 4 “founde (1607 May 22) 
an Ilet, on which were many Turkeys” and later he again writes 
“we come to the Ilet mentyoned which I call Turley Ile.” -In 
1612, Captain John Smith in “A Map of Virginia With a Descrip- 
tion of the Countrey” remarks * “wilde Turkies as bigge as our 
tame,” and finds that the Indian arrows are “headed with .... 
the spurres of a Turkey ....” 

The interesting Wm. Strachey in 1610?-1612? gives us three 
notes. First of all he says,§ “ We have seene some (Indian women) 


1 Barly Western Travels. XXII, p. 68 (orig. Part I, p. 19.) 

2 Heriot, Thomas. etc. Reprint London, 1900, p. 41. / 

3 Arber, Edward. Capt. John Smith, etc. Works 1608-1631, Eng. Scholars 
Library. No. 16, p. lxvi. 

‘ibid., pp. xli, xlii. 

5ibid., pp. 60, 68, 70. 

6 Strachey, William. Historie of Travaile into Virginia. Hakluyt Soc. Lon- 
don. 1849, pp. 65, 72, 125. 


[Jan: 


76 Waricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 


use mantells made both of Turkey feathers and other fowle, so 
prettily wrought and woven with threads, that nothing could be - 
discerned but the feathers, which were exceeding warme and hand- 
some.” In another place, he writes “ Nor (do they) bring up tame 
poultry, albeit they have great stoore of turkies, nor keepe birdes, 
squirrels, nor tame partridges, .... In March and April they live 
much upon their weeres, and feed on fish, turkies ....”’ Finally 
comes a more general statement. “Turkeys there be great store, 
wild in the woods, like phesants in England, forty in a company, 
as big as our tame here, and it is an excellent fowle, and so passing 
good meat, as I maye well saie, it is the best of any kind of flesh 
which I have ever yet eaten there.” In “A True Declaration of 
the Estate of the Colonie in Virginia, .... London, 1610” we have 
the following: ! “The Turkeye of that Countrie are great, and fat, 
and exceeding in plentie.”’ In 1613, Alex. Whitaker says? “The 
woods be everywhere full of wilde Turkies, which abound, and will 
runne as swift as a Greyhound.” In 1614, Ralph Hamor, in the 
same country, finds* “There are fowle of divers sorts, .... wild 
Turkeyes much bigger then our English Cranes.”’ Four years. 
later, 1618, in “ Newes of Sr. Walter Rauleigh ....’ there appears 4 
“you shall not sleepe on the groun nor eat any new flesh till it be 
salted, two or three hours, which otherwise, will breed a most 
dangerous fluxe, so will the eating of .... Turkies.” A “Briefe 
Intelligence from Virginia by Letters, etc., 1624,” “ Virginias 
Verger 1625,” and “Some later Advertisements touching His. 
Majesties Care for Virginia 1624” — all three remark * the abun- 
dance of turkeys in Virginia. : 

In 1631, Henry Fleet, Early Indian Trader notes that ® “the 
woods (above Washington) do swarm with “turkeys. Three 
years later, Father Andrew White in “A Briefe Relation of the 
Voyage into Maryland” observes? “Their weapons are a bow and 


1Force, P. Vol. III, p. 13. 

2? Hakluyt Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes. By Samuel Purchas. Hak-- 
luyt Soc. Extra Series Glasgow 1905-1907. Vol. 19, p. 115. 

3 ibid., Vol. 19, p. 97. 

4¥Force, P. Vol. III, p. 17. 

5 Hakluyt Posthumus. Vol. 19, p. 209, Vol. 20, p. 134. 

6 Neill, Rev. E. D., Founders of Maryland. Albany, 1876, p. 27. 

7 Narratives of Early Maryland. 1633-1684. N. Y., 1910, pp. 34, 43, 44. 


oo | Waiaut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. ree 


a bundle of arrowes, an ell long, feathered with turkies feathers.” 
These Indians “daily catch .... turkies, ....” and “the poore 
soules are daily with us and bring us turkie, ....” In “An 
Account of the Colony of the Lord Baron of Baltimore, 1633” the 
author writes that! “There are also great quantities of wild tur- 
keys, which are twice as large as our tame and domestic ones ... .”’ 
About the same time, “A Relation of Maryland” records that ? 
“they (at Yoacomaco) went dayly to hunt with them for Deere 
and Turkies, whereff some gave them for Presents, and the 
meaner sort would sell to them for knives, beades and the like.” 
“Of Birds” it relates that “there is .... also wild Turkeys in 
great abundance whereof many weigh 50 pounds and upwards.” 
In this period, another relator holds that* “every day they are 
abroad after .... turkies and the like game: whereof there is a 
wonderful plenty.” In another instance, he recounts how the 
modest Indian women brought turkies to the homes of the settlers. 

About 15 years afterwards, in “ A Perfect Description of Virginia 
....’ there appears a note concerning * “ Wild Turkies, some weigh- 
ing sixtie pound weight.” In 1650, Edward Williams publishes 
the second edition of his “ Virginia”? wherein he mentions ° “in- 
finites of wilde Turkeyes, which have been known to weigh fifty- 
pound weight, ordinarily forty,” and in comparing Virginia with 
China, he exclaims, “ Let her shew us Turkies of 50 pound weight.” 
Six years later, 1656, “Leah and Rachel” appears. Hammond, 
its author, claims ° “wild Turkeys are frequent, and so large that 
I have seen some weigh neer threescore pounds.” Ten years 
later, George Alsop, in describing the “Character of the Province 
of Maryland” notes’ “especially the Turkey, whom I have seen 
in whole hundreds in flights in the Woods of Mary-Land, being an 
extraordinary fat Fowl, whose flesh is very pleasant and sweet.” 
Shortly after, 1669, Nathaniel Shrigley enumerates® “'Turkies” 


libid., p. 10. 

2 ibid., pp. 75, 80, 98. 

3 Shea’s Early Southern Tracts. No. I, pp. 16, 18. 
4¥Force, P. Vol. II, pp. 17, 3. 

5 Force, P. Vol. III, pp. 12, 21. 

6 Force, P. Vol. III, p. 18. 

7 Narratives of Early Maryland. pp. 347, 357. 

8 Force, P. Vol. III, p. 4. 


78 Wricat, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. eine 
among the “Fowle naturally to the Land.” In 1688, Mr. John 
Clayton the Botanist, communicates to the Royal Society the 
following: ! “Ther be wild Turkies extream large; they talk of 
Turkies that have been kill’d, that have weighed betwixt 50 and 
60 Pound weight; the largest that I ever saw, weigh’d someting 
better than 38 Pound; they have very long Legs, and will run 
prodigiously fast. I remember not that ever I saw any of them 
on the Wing, except it were once. Their Feathers are of a blackish 
shining Colour, that in the Sun shine like a Dove’s neck, very 
specious.”” The year previous, 1687, Richard Blome (1. c. p. 189) 
holds, “They have great plenty of Fowl: as wild Turkeys, which 
usually weigh six Stone, or forty eight pound;” Finally, in “The 
Social Life of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century,” P. A. Bruce 
(l. ec. pp. 212, 167) writes as follows: “As the area of cultivated 
ground grew wider, the number of partridges steadily increased in 
consequence of their being able to find a larger supply of food. 
On the other hand, the number of wild turkeys perhaps as steadily 
diminished within the same area, as the turkey is distinctly a forest 
bird, that is very shy of human habitations.” “The wild turkeys 
frequenting the woods were of remarkable weight and afforded a 
popular repast.”’ 

In the eighteenth century, the records number fourteen or 
fifteen. In 1705, Robert Beverley in his “History and Present 
State of Virginia. London” (book III, p. 60) writes that “They 
(Indian) fledged their Arrows with Turkey Feathers, which they 
fastened with Glue etc.,— they also headed them with the Spurs of 
the Wild Turkey-Cock.” In 1708, Eben Cook, in burlesque 
verse, remarks its presence in Maryland and adds a footnote that ” 
“Wild turkies are very good Meat, and prodigiously large in Mary- 
land.” In the “ History of the Dividing Line Betwixt Virginia and 
North Carolina” William Byrd (1728) mentions a dozen or more 
instances where wild turkeys help to supply the larder. On Sept. 
23, he says * “Our hunters brought us four wild turkeys, which at 


1¥Force, P. Vol. III, p. 30. ; 

2 Sheas Early Southern Tracts. No.II. The Sotweed Factor. London, 1708, 
pp. 19, 20. 

3 The Westover Manuscripts. Petersburg, Va., 1841, pp. 39, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 
52, 54, 64, 69, 76, 78, 80. 


Le eeaaal Wricut, Harly Records of the Wild Turkey. 79 
that season began to be fat and very delicious especially the hens. 
These birds seem to be of the bustard kind, and fly heavily. Some 
of them are exceedingly large, and weigh upwards of forty pounds; 
nay, some bold historians venture to say, upwards of fifty pounds. 
They run very fast, stretching forth their wings all the time, like 
the ostrich, by way of sails to quicken their speed. They roost 
commonly upon very high trees, standing near some river or creek, 
and are so stupified at the sight of fire, that if you make a blaze in 
the night near the place where they roost, you may fire upon them 
several times successively, before they will dare to fly away. Their 
spurs are so sharp and strong, that the Indians used formerly to 
point their arrows with them, though now they point them with a 
sharp white stone. In the spring the turkey-cocks begin to gobble, 
which is the language wherein they make love.”’ In another place, 
he mentions the attitude of Indians towards mixing meats in the 
same dish. “Our men killed a very fat buck and several turkeys. 
These two kinds of meat they boiled together, with the addition of 
a little rice or French barley, made excellent soup, and what hap- 
pens rarely in other good things, it never cloyed, no more than an 
engaging wife would do, by being a constant dish. Our Indian 
was very superstitious in this matter, and told us, with a face full 
of concern, that if we continued to boil venison and turkey together, 
we should for the future kill nothing, because the spirit that pre- 
sided over the woods would drive all the game out of our sight.” 
“The Indian likewise shot a wild turkey, but confessed he would 
not bring it us lest we should continue to provoke the guardian 
of the forest, by: cooking the beasts of the field and the birds of the 
air together in one vessel....” Of this same practice, “A Journey 
to the Land of Eden 1733” gives us the following: 1 “It was strange 
_ we met with no wild turkeys (Morris’ Creek near Banister River), 
this being the season in which great numbers of them used to be 
seen towards the mountains. They commonly perched on the 
high trees near the rivers and creeks. But this voyage, to our 
great misfortune, there were none to be found. So that we could 
not commit that abomination, in the sight of Indians, of mixing the 
flesh of deer and turkeys in our broth.” 


1 The Westover Manuscripts. p. 108. 


80 Wricut, Karly Records of the Wild Turkey. kes 


In a Letter written March 21, 1739, John Clayton of Gloucester 
Co., Va. writes! of “Virginia Game and Field Sports.” “Then 
for fowls (there are) wild Turkey’s very numerous” and in another 
place he contends that “the diversion of shooting Turkies is only 
to be had in the upper parts of the Countrey where the woods are 
of a very large extent, and but few settlements as yet tho’ they 
increase daily.” Two years later, Oldmixon (I. c. p. 445) remarks, 
“There’s great variety of wild Fowl, as Swans. ...Curlews....; 
and which is best of all of them, wild Turkies, much larger than our 
tame; they are in season all the Year. The Virginians have 
several ingenious Devices to take them; among others, a Trap, 
wherein 16 or 17 have been caught at a time.” 

In 1765, Rogers states that the colonists in Maryland,? “in their 
infant state....were greatly assisted by them (Indians) receiving 
....plentiful supplies of... .turkies.’”’ Of the period from 1763 to 
1783, Jos. Doddridge remarks that,’ “ The wild Turkeys which used 
to be so abundant as to supply no inconsiderable portion of provision 
for the first settlers, are now rarely seen.” In his “Travels in 
North America”? Chastellux notes? the wild turkey only in Vir- 
ginia. In “Notes of the State of Virginia” written in 1781, Thos. 
Jefferson merely lists (p. 99) “Meleagris Gallopavo. Gallapavo 
sylvestris. Wild Turkey” for the state. About this same period, 
J. F. D. Smyth records *® “a great abundance of game, such as. ... 
wild turkeys,” in Pitsylvania Co., Va. At Wart Mt., when he and 
a young backwoodsman returned, they “brought a fine wild turkey 
which he had shot: and he carried it along with us in order to dress 
for supper where we should halt at night.’”’ On Little River, 
“Here we killed another wild turkey and dressed it for supper as 
before; indeed they were so numerous that we could have easily 
subsisted a company of men upon them, and might kill almost 
any number we pleased.” Finally, in “A Topographical Descrip- 


1 The Virginia Magazine. Vol. VII, Oct. 1899. No. 2, pp. 173, 174. 

2 Rogers, Major Robert. A Concise Account of North America. London, 
1765, p. 88. 

3 Doddridge, Rev. Dr. Jos. Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars of the 
Western Parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania, from the year 1763 until the year 
1783 inclusive, etc. Wellsburg, Va., 1824, p. 69. 

4 Chastellux, Marquisde. Travels.... Translation N. Y., 1828, p. 251. . 

5 Smyth, J. F. D. A Tour in the United States of America. London, 1784, 
2 vols. Vol. I, pp. 289, 309, 311. 


ois an Waiacat, Harly Records of the Wild Turkey. 81 


tion of the County of Prince George in Virginia 1793” John Jones 
Spooner presents the last note of the century.1. “The woods afford 
wild turkies.” 

In the next century, John Woods remarks of Pews Town, Va. 
that? “ We were told. .. . turkeys. ... were plentiful in many places, 
but we had not seen any.” ‘Three years later, Blane, (I. c. pp. 84, 
86, 87, 88, 106) in a journey across the Alleghanies along the road 
from Hagerstown to Cumberland, remarks (1822-23) that “These 
mountains abound with such game as deer, wild turkies....” 
From Cumberland to Wheeling “ Wild Turkies. . . .are uncommonly 
plentiful in these mountains, owing to the rocky nature of the 
ground, which will in all probabilities prevent its being cultivated 
for centuries,” and in this region he holds that the presence of 
rattlesnakes deters hunters from hunting turkies. Finally, at 
Blue Lick he finds, “The neighbourhood, however, abounds in 
deer and wild turkeys, which afford excellent sport for a hunter.” 
In 1824, Candler, in “A Summary View of America,” (p. 79) 
remarks that “Turkies are very common.” He may be speaking 
of the domestic form. In discussing the “Physical Geography of 
Maryland” J. T. Ducatel says * “The eastern flank of South moun- 
tain (valley of Middletown)... .is the retreat of large gangs of wild 
turkey (Meleagris gallapavo)....” In 1842, J. S. Buckingham, in 
speaking of Virginia, says * “These potatoes and the turkeys, of 
which Virginia furnished also the first supply to Britain, have 
neither of them degenerated in this state, from their ancient and 
original stock.” In 1879, J. T. Scharf publishes his “History of 
Maryland” in which he asserts that ® “In the ‘backwoods,’ the 
wild turkeys and deer abounded in great numbers; deer and wild 
turkeys were still shot on the Patapsco at Ellicotts Mills as late as 
1773 and no man’s larder needed to be empty at any time.” 


1 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls. Vol. III, 1794, p. 86. 

2 Early Western Travels. X, p. 205 (orig. p. 48). 

3 Transactions Md. Acad. Sci. and Lit. Vol. I, Baltimore, 1837, p. 40. 

4Buckingham, J. S. The Slave States of America, London, 1842. ‘\ 2 vols. 
Vol. II, p. 286. 

5 Scharf, J.T. Vol. II, pp. 8, 4. 


an 


82 CoaLe, The Trumpeter Swan. Tan; 


THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE TRUMPETER SWAN 
(OLOR BUCCINATOR). 


BY HENRY K. COALE. 
Plates VII-X. 


AT the meeting of the American Ornithologists’ Union held in 
New York City, in the fall of 1913, a number of members were 
discussing the rarity of the Trumpeter Swan; the general opinion 
being that this magnificent bird was nearing extinction; and would 
soon disappear forever. 

During the ensuing winter, upon looking up the literature on the 
subject, I was surprised to find how little was known about this 
bird; many writers simply repeating Dr. Richardson’s remarks in 
his original description. I determined to gather together the 
published records of the bird and ascertain as nearly as possible 
how many specimens are extant. 

In the present paper I have brought together many facts from 
various sources, including information gleaned through correspond- 
ence with curators of museums, and private collectors. Of the 
eighty-five replies received in response to my inquiries, sixty-three 
from museums having 1,000 or more birds, reported “ No specimens 
of the Trumpeter Swan in our collection.” Of the remaining 
twenty-two replies, eight were from museums and five from col- 
lectors, who have specimens; while nine contained interesting in- 
formation about the species. 

It was not until 1831 that the discovery was made by Dr. John 
Richardson of the existence of a new species of swan in North 
America (Fauna Boreali Americana, by William Swainson and John 
Richardson, London, 1831). Up to that time the thousands of 
swan skins that were shipped, through the Hudson Bay Company, 
were thought to be all of one kind — Olor columbianus. In Dr. 
Richardson’s original description of Cygnus buccinator we find: 
“Special characters; white; head glossed above with chestnut; 
bill entirely black; without a tubercle; tail feathers 24; feet black. 
This is the most common swan in the interior of the fur countries. 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXII. PLATE VII. 


MALE TRUMPETER Swan (Olor buccinator)» 
Collection of the Chicago Academy of Sciences. 


See | Coatz, The Trumpeter Swan. 83 


It breeds as far south as latitude 61°; but principally within the 
Arctic Circle....”’ The type of the species is a mounted bird in 
the Hudson Bay Museum. It measures length 70 inches; tail 9.6 
inches, wing 26 in., bill above 4.11 in., nostril to tip 2.7 in., tip of 
bill to eye 6 in., mid. toe 6.9 in. 

Lawson observes (History of North Carolina, 1831.) “There 
are two sorts of swans in Carolina, the larger of which is called from 
its note the Trumpeter,” and Hearne adds, “I have heard them in 
serene evenings, after sunset, make a noise not very unlike a French 
horn, but entirely divested of every note that constitutes melody, 
and have often been sorry that it did not forbode its death.” 

At the annual meeting of the Boston Society of Natural History, 
May 17, 1843, Dr. Wyman “Exhibited the sternum of a male 
Trumpeter Swan. The keel of the breast bone contains a remark- 
able cavity extending its whole length designed to receive the 
trachea..... It only exists in the male.” 

Preble (North American Fauna No. 27) says: “McFarlane 
states that between 1853 and 1877 the Hudson Bay Company sold 
a total of 17,671 swan skins. The number sold annually ranged 
from 1312 in 1854 to 122 in 1881”, and Nuttall is quoted as saying 
that the Trumpeter Swan furnished the bulk of them.” 

Dr. Suckley remarks (Pacific R. R. Rep., Vol. XII, 1853-5): 
“T obtained a fine Trumpeter Swan on Pike’s Lake, Minnesota, in 
June 1853. They were quite common on the lakes in that vicinity 
in the Summer, breeding and raising their young.” 

Baird (Pacific R. R. Rep., Vol. IX, 1858) says that it ranges over 
“Western America from the Mississippi Valley to the Pacific”; and 
remarks “this large and powerful swan doubtless has special ana- 
tomical peculiarities of trachea to distinguish it from C. americanus, 
as the note is much more sonorous.” 

McFarlane (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XIV, 1861, 66) says: “Sev- 
eral nests were met with on the barren grounds on Islands in 
Franklin Bay; one containing six eggs was situated on the beach 
on a sloping knoll. It generally lays 4 to 6 eggs.” » 

At a meeting of Linnean Society of London, March 20, 1832 
(Proc. Linnaean Society, p. 2) William Yarrell called attention to 
the peculiar anatomy of this swan— “I am indebted to Dr. 
Richardson for an example of the sternum and trachea of a new 


84 Coats, The Trumpeter Swan. Rael 
species of wild swan, Cygnus buccinator.... The trachea is 


made up of narrow bony rings and small intervening membranous 
spaces as far as the first convolution within the breast bone, but the 
returning portion of the tube, forming a second convolution is com- 
posed of broader and stronger bony rings with broader intervals.” 

The course of the trachea may easily be traced by consulting 
Plate IX. 

After traversing the neck it enters the lower part of the cavity 
on the anterior face of the sternum at “A,” thence follows back- 
wards through the horizontal covered protuberance in the upper 
surface of the sternum, a distance of eight inches to near the poste- 
rior line “B.,” taking the curve of the cavity it comes forward six 
inches and rises into the vertical bony protuberance, “C.,’’ follow- 
ing its curve, thence downward, and emerges through the upper part 
of the opening in the sternum, dips below the bridge of the “wish 
bone” and curving backward between the shoulder blades, “D”’ 
(obscured in the picture) enters the breast, where at its junction 
with the bronchie “FE.” it is flattened vertically to an eighth of an 
inch in width. The total length of the structure shown is 13.5 in., 
length of trachea 59 in., length of keel of sternum 11 in., opening 
} in. wide, 2 in. high. ’ 

In Olor columbianus the cavity is in the anterior portion of the 
sternum only, the trachea making but one convolution, which is in 
the vertical (not horizontal, as some authors state) protuberance 
ce A. ? 

Plate X shows the anterior aspect of the sternum with the 
trachea entering the cavity below, and emerging above. I am 
indebted to Dr. C. W. Richmond for the loan of this sternum 
from the U. S. National Museum Collection. 

Stejneger, (Vol. V, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 1882) outlines a 
monograph of the Cygninae, and on p. 216 gives a table of measure- 
ments of ten specimens, with remarks; “The position of the nos- 
trils being set more backwards in the Trumpeter than in the 
Whistling Swan, is thus the only mark which is possible to express 
in a short diagnosus, and which I have found constant and easily 
perceptible.” 

Baird, Brewer and Ridgway (Vol. 1, Water Birds of N. America, 
1884), give an interesting description of the habits of the Trumpeter; 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXII. PLATE VIII. 


TRUMPETER SWAN (Olor buccinator). 


1. Head of mounted specimen in Chicago Academy (see Plate VII). 


2 and 3. Adult male, North Dakota. Collection of H. K. Coale, No. 
17779, showing outline of bill. 


f 
t 
4 
: 
4 


3 


9p RR ENS 


os i Coate, The Trumpeter Swan. 85 


among other notes, “ Mr. W. E. Rice found a nest at Oakland Valley, 
Towa, in the Spring of 1871 and took three of the young which were 
successfully raised. The eggs are of a uniform chalky white color, 
and are rough granulated on the surface. They measure 4.35 to 
4.65 in length, and 2.65 to 2.90 in width.” 

A number of notes have appeared in the ‘ Nuttall Bulletin’ and 
“The Auk’. 

J. J. Dalgleish (Bull. Nuttall Orn. Club, 1880, Vol. V) mentions 
the occurrence of Cygnus buccinator in Great Britain: “Five seen, 
four shot, Adelburg, Suffolk, Oct. 27, 1866, one of these specimens 
has been examined by J. H. Gurney.” 

H. Nehrling (Bull. N. O. C., Vol. VII, 1882) says, “ Every winter 
there are large numbers on Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, 
near the coast.” 

W. W. Cooke (Auk, Vol. I, 1884) gives the “Chippewa Indian 
name ‘ Wabisi’ (White bird).” 

A. W. Anthony (Auk, Vol. III, 1886) says that it is “Found in 
large numbers on the Columbia River.” 

B. W. Evermann (Auk, Vol. III, 1886) says for Ventura, Cal., 
“Winter Visitant with the preceding species (O. americanus) but 
more common.” 

Albert Lano (Auk, Vol. XIII, 1896) speaking of western Minne- 
sota says: “Some of the oldest sportsmen tell me that they have 
observed this swan quite regularly on Lac qui parle during the 
Spring and Fall migrations. A beautiful adult male now in my 
collection, shot near here (Madison, Minn.) April 9, 1893, weighed 
15 lbs. but it was not fat. It measured: length 51 in., extent 77 
in., wing 28 in., tail 7 in.” 

FE. A. Mecllhenny (Auk, Vol. XIV, 1897) says for Louisiana, 
“known as “Cygne,” a winter resident on the coast; more common 
than the preceding (0. columbianus).” 

J. H. Fleming, for Toronto, Ontario (Auk, Vol. XXIII, 1906), 
“There are no recent records, but Prof. Hincks described in 1864 
a new swan, “Cygnus passmor.”’ taken here, which was really a 
young Trumpeter and between 1863 and 1866 he was ablé to get 
six local birds to examine. There are two specimens in the collec- 
tion of Trinity University that were no doubt taken here.”’ (Proc. 
Linn. Soc. 1864.) 


86 CoaLe, The Trumpeter Swan. (ear 

Beyer, Allison and Kopman in their Birds of Louisiana (Auk, 
Vol. XXIV, 1907), “In the past this species has proved commoner 
than the preceding (C. americanus) especially about the mouth of 
the Mississippi.” 

J. Claire Wood (Auk, Vol. XXV, 1908) reports for Michigan, 
“One specimen in the City market in Nov. 1893, was taken near 
Wind Mill Point, Lake St. Clair, according to the statement of 
Thomas Swan.” 

In E. H. Eaton’s ‘Birds of New York’ (1909), he illustrates the 
bills of both swans, side and top view, showing the difference in 
shape, and position of the nostrils. He remarks, “I have been 
unable to find any New York specimen of this swan.” 

McCoun’s ‘Catalogue of Canadian Birds’ (1909) records: “A 
pair found breeding at Buffalo Lake, Alberta, Apr. 7, 1891, nest 
contained 5 eggs.” 

Audubon in his ‘ Birds of America,’ devotes seven pages to the 
Trumpeter Swan, giving a very complete and interesting history 
of its movements and habits, from personal observation of the birds 
on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and at New Orleans. He also 
illustrates the adult, and the young about two thirds grown, drawn 
from nature, showing it in slaty bluish plumage, head light brown, 
and legs yellowish brown. 

E. W. Nelson (Report of Nat. Hist. Survey made in Alaska 1887) 
says: “a specimen of this little known swan is noted by Dall as 
having been secured with its nest and eggs at Fort Yukon by Mr. 
Lockhart, thus rendering it an Alaskan species.” 

Elliott Coues (Birds of the North West) says: “Chiefly from the 
Mississippi Valley and northward to the Pacific, Hudson’s Bay, 
Canada, etc.” 

R. M. Anderson in ‘ Birds of Iowa’ (Proc. Davenport Academy 
of Sciences, 1907) says: “The only definite breeding record which 
I have been able to trace is from the veteran collector, J. W. Pres- 
ton, in a letter dated March 22, 1904 ....‘a pair of Trumpeter 
swans reared a brood of young in a slough near Little Twin Lakes, 
Hancock Co., in the season of 1883. This was positively Olor 
buccinator.’”’ 

W. C. Knight in his ‘Birds of Wyoming’ gives two or three 
records, the last being a bird taken by Mr. Van Dyke, at Lake De 
Smet in the Spring of 1897. 


ca Coatze, The Trumpeter Swan. 87 

One of the most interesting replies to my inquiries is from Mr. 
E. S. Cameron of Marsh, Montana (April 30, 1914). He writes: 
“Twenty years ago Trumpeter Swans were common in Montana, 
and used regularly to winter here, but are now on the verge of ex- 
tinction. It is generally stated by the Kootenai Indians that they 
bred in the Flathead Valley up to the first immigration of whites in 
1886; but the latest positive record of Trumpeters nesting is in 
1881. These swans nested at Lake Rodgers, 20 miles west of 
Kalispell, at Swan Lake, and on the east side of Flathead Lake, 
and on the lakes which drain Clearwater, a branch of the Big 
Blackfoot River. Anadult male Trumpeter was shot at the mouth 
of Flathead River, Nov. 16,1910. It weighed 31 pounds. Another 
similar bird was killed by an Indian on St. Mary’s Lake in the fall of 
1912. This was the largest Trumpeter ever killed in Montana, and 
would have approached, if it did not equal, Audubon’s record bird 
of 38 pounds in weight. A young female Trumpeter under two 
years old, weight 20 pounds full, was shot at Cut Bank, Teton Co., 
on Nov. 10, 1913.” 

Mr. C. W. Beebe records seventeen specimens as having been in 
the New York Zodlogical Park from 1899 to 1910, “three from 
Idaho, six from Salt Lake City, one from Lewiston, Maine (Nov. 
25, 1901, found exhausted) and seven without data. At present 
one survives.” 

Through the courtesy of Mr. Frank C. Baker of the Chicago 
Academy of Sciences I am able to give measurements of the fine 
mounted Trumpeter in the Academy Museum (Plate VII). It is 
an adult male and was shot on the Columbia River, three miles 
west of Portland, Oregon, April 8, 1881. The bird is pure white, 
except the forehead and crown which are washed with rusty color. 
It stands 44 inches high. The wing measures 26 inches, tail of 24 
feathers 9.5 in., tarsus 4.5 in., middle tcl. 7 in., eye to tip of bill 
5.25 in., nostril to tip of bill 2 in. 

A Whistling Swan in the same collection measured for compari- 
son, gives wing, 22 in., tail 9 in., eye to tip of bill 4.4 in., tarsus 
4 in., mid. tel. 6.5 ine., nostril to tip of bill 1.5 in. 

The Field Museum of Natural History, has three young Trumpe- 
ters from one to two and one half years old, presented by Judge 
R. M. Barnes, who had them alive. They are without data. 


[Jan. 


88 CoaLe, The Trumpeter Swan. 


The U.S. National Museum has seven skins and one mounted 
specimen. Those with data are: 
No. 5476 co. Yellowstone, Wyo., Aug. 22, 1856, F. V. Hayden. 
“ 19963 Ad. Fort Resolution, Can., May 24, 1860, R. Kennicott. 
“62367 Ad. co. Snake River, Ida., Sept. 23, 1873, Dr. C. H. 
Merriam. 
“* 70317 Ad. co. St. Clair Flats, Mich., Nev:20, 1875,. Wises 
Collins. 
No. 81290 Ad. o&. Lake Koshkonong, Wis., Apr. 20, 1880, Thure’ 
Kumlein. 

Another Wisconsin record is an adult male hanging as “dead 
game” in a local billiard hall in Chicago. It was shot in Waukesha 
Co. in February, 1904, by Dr. F. 5. Crocker. 

The only Mexican record, is a specimen in the Museum of Com- 
parative Zodlogy at Cambridge, which was shot by F. B. Armstrong 
at Matamoras, Tamaulipas, Mexico, January 21, 1909 (see Phillips, 
Auk, Vol. X. p. 72). No. 49836, 9. “There is also in the mu- 
seum an adult (mounted), from the Greene Smith collection, and a 
chick labeled O. buccinator, with no data” (Bangs—letter June, 
1914). 

In the Government Museum, Banff, Alta., Can., Dr. N. B. 
Sanson, states that there is “One specimen from Manitoba, 1887.” 

From the Public Museum of Milwaukee, Director Henry L. 
Ward, writes: “Our only specimen was received from the Wisconsin 
Natural History Society, with no data except “ Wisconsin.” 

Prof. R. M. Bagg, Lawrence College, Appleton, Wis., has kindly 
sent me photos of two mounted specimens in the museum, which 
have no data. 

Prof. Lynds Jones, Oberlin College, Ohio, writes: “There is a 
specimen in the collection received from J. C. Catlin, late of Ra- 
venna, Ohio, about which it is stated that it was collected there- 
abouts in the 80s.” 

Pp. A. Taverner, Government Survey Museum, Ottawa, Can., 
writes: “We have but one specimen in the Museum, a mounted 
bird, killed on the St. Clair Flats in 1884. 

Mr. J. H. Fleming of Toronto, writes, “I have one Trumpeter 
Swan, shot about 1878 on Lake St. Clair, on the Toronto side.” 

Dr. H. H. Brimley, Curator State Museum, Raleigh, N. Cm 


THE AUK, VoL. XXXII. PLATE IX. 


\ 
TRACHEA AND STERNUM OF MALE TRUMPETER SWAN (Olor buccinator). 
Shown in skin on Plate VIII. 


THE AUK, VoL. XXXII. PEATE X: 


\ 
ANTERIOR VIEW OF STERNUM OF TRUMPETER SWAN (Olor buccinator). 
U.S. National Museum Collection. ..... 


wea Coats, The Trumpeter Swan. 89 
reports: ‘So far as I know the Trumpeter Swan has never been 
taken in this state, though the Whistling Swan is quite plentiful 
on Carrituck Sound in winter. I saw hundreds if not thousands of 
them in January, 1914.” 

Prof. Wm. C. Mills, Curator Museum of the Archeological and 
Historical Society of Ohio, at Columbus, states: “ We have in our 
collection a great many bones of the Trumpeter Swan. It seems 
that this bird, although a very rare migrant at the present time, 
was here in great numbers in pre-historic time, and we find their 
bones in the villages of the old Indians, who always used the leg 
bones for making implements, while the wing bones were seldom 
used. J found specimens in the Baum, Bartner and Madisonville 
village sites.” 

Dr. Joseph Grinnell, states that he has “no knowledge of its 
occurrence in California in recent years: in fact I know of no speci- 
mens in any California collection.” 

Mr. F. C. Lincoln, Colorado Museum of Natural History at 
Denver, says: “It can only be considered a straggler in Colorado. 
The one mentioned by W. L. Sclater in his ‘Birds of Colorado’ 
as a representative of this form, is a Whistling Swan.” 

Dr. L. B. Bishop, New Haven, Conn., writes: “The only Trum- 
peter in my collection is an adult male, shot at upper Stillwater 
Lake, Mont., March 11, 1902, No. 25378 of my collection. It was 
bought for me by Mr. E. S. Cameron of the owner, Miss G. M. 
Duncan of Whitefish, Mont.”’ 

Dr. Leonard C. Sanford, New Haven, Conn., writes: “I have in 
my collection three Trumpeter Swans which I purchased as young 
birds from a dealer, who got them from Montana, but declined to 
give me the exact locality. They are positively identified by 
Chapman and Hornaday.” 

Mr. John E. Thayer, Lancaster, Mass., writes: “I bought a pair 
of live Trumpeter Swans three years ago, that were taken from the 
nest in Montana. The male died last autumn and I had him made 
into askin. I have a magnificent mounted specimen that a friend 
gave me, but he did not know where it came from. I think it is 
one of the rarest.” 

It was my good fortune to procure from Mr. Charles Dury, the 
veteran taxidermist of Cincinnati, a beautifully prepared skin of the 


90 Coaue, The Trumpeter Swan. ee 


Trumpeter, together with the sternum and trachea shown in plate. 
The bird was taken in North Dakota in Nov., 1891. Mr. Dury 
informs me that there is a mounted pair in the museum of the Cuvier 
Club, one of which, the male, was shot from a flock of three, on the 
Ohio River near Cincinnati in December, 1876. Mr. Dury writes 
“several were taken at St. Mary’s Reservoir in spring and fall, 
when I visited the place from the early ’70s to the late 80s. That 
body of water was the resort of water birds in vast swarms, includ- 
ing both species of swan. The Whistling Swan was always more 
abundant than the Trumpeter. They would alight in the open 
water and were very wary and difficult to shoot. The last time 
I visited the Reservoir the birds were in such diminished numbers 
that I never went back.” . 

Same bird shown in Plate VIII, note the parallel lines of bill — a 
distinguishing feature. (The rule shown in the cuts is 12 in. in 
length.) 

Allen D. Hole, Curator, Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 
writes: “We have in our Museum a mounted Trumpeter Swan 
without data. Tail of 22 feathers.” 

F. Smith, Curator, University of Illinois, Champaign, writes 
that they have “One specimen of the Trumpeter Swan obtained 
from W. N. Butler, Anna, IIl.,in 1880. No data.” 

Judge R. M. Barnes, Lacon, IIl., writes me: “There are at present 
ten known birds of this species in confinement, five of which are on 
my home place. I have been unable to breed any birds here.” 

A number of alleged Trumpeters which I traced proved to be 
Whistling Swans and many records also proved erroneous. 

Of the great multitudes of Trumpeter Swans which traversed 
the Central and Western portion of North America sixty years ago, 
there are sixteen specimens preserved in museums which have 
authentic data. These were collected between the years 1856 and 
1909. . 

There are besides the type, five other Canadian records, Toronto 
1863, Fort Resolution 1860, Lake St. Clair 1878, St. Clair Flats 
1884 and Manitoba 1887; and one from Wyoming 1856, Idaho 
1873, Michigan 1875, Wisconsin 1880, Ohio 1880, Oregon 1881, 
North Dakota 1891, Minnesota 1893, Montana 1902 and Mexico 
1909. 


ane | Caun, Food Habits of the Virginia Rail. 91 


NOTES ON A CAPTIVE VIRGINIA RAIL. 
BY ALVIN R. CAHN.! 


On the night of October 21, 1913, Madison, Wisconsin, received 
its first touch of winter weather in the shape of a premature snow- 
storm, accompanied by high northwest winds. A _ university 
student, walking down State street near the Capitol after dark, 
picked up on the street an exhausted bird, which he put into his 
coat pocket. The next morning he brought the bird — still in the 
coat pocket — to the ZoGélogical Laboratory for identification, and 
it proved to be a Virginia Rail (Rallus virginianus). The bird was 
undoubtedly migrating when overcome by the fury of the storm. 

Examination showed the rail to be in remarkably good condition 
and it was decided to try various feeding experiments on it. The 
bird was accordingly placed in a room in the vivarium, where it 
could hide beneath the ferns and have plenty of exercise, yet find 
no food except that which was given it. 

On the 22nd and 23rd the bird refused all food, and spent the 
days asleep amid the ferns, perched on one leg with its head buried 
under its wing. It showed no signs of fear, and slept undisturbed 
until actually touched, evidently regaining its lost strength. On 
the morning of October 24, a shallow dish of water containing ten 
good sized Amphipods (Dikerogammarus faciatus) was placed among 
the plants, and half an hour later the crustaceans had disappeared. 
From then on there was no question as to whether or not the rail 
would eat; the difficulty lay in obtaining an adequate supply for 
its insatiable appetite. From October 24 to November 1, inclusive, 
the bird was fed entirely on these Amphipods, together with cad- 
dice-worms (Platyphylax designatus) which had been removed 
from their cases. Thirty amphipods and fifteen caddice-worms 
were fed daily, and the rail was apparently in excellent condition, 
although its appetite was evidently not satisfied. 

On the morning of November 2, the bird was placed {n a glass 
show-case covered with wire, size 24 X 12 X 12 inches, having a 


1 Zodlogical Laboratory, University of Wisconsin. 


92 Caun, Food Habits of the Virginia Rail. eee 


sand floor covered with moss, in which a dish of water was sunk, 
and in one corner a clump of growing ferns was located to afford 
the bird shelter when desired. This cage was then placed on 
exhibition in the entrance hall of the Biology building, where 
hundreds of persons passed it daily. In this situation the rail grew 
remarkably tame, and was apparently far more contented when 
surrounded by noisy students than when left alone. The pres- 
ence of people was evidently associated with the idea of food, 
for which it was constantly on the look-out. So tame did the bird 
become that after two days it was allowed to fly out of the cage and 
feed from the hand. The rail was on exhibition under these condi- 
tions from 8 to 5:30 o’clock daily from November 2 to 9, inclusive, 
and it was during this period that a careful record was kept of its 
food, as shown in Table 1. 


TABLE 1. 

November: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
Caterpillar A | 1 1 
Stickleback 1 1 1 
Sunfish PEN rah Ves | May |e Pye hi. Pe 
Water-bug, Zaitha 2 a ab 3 tl amr fee nee 
Meal worm 20-11) 12>) 18 | 50) 30) | 25 2225 12 
Grasshopper 2b ee D2 at ee 4] 2 
Amphipods 45 |144| 85 | 95 | 95 | 80 | 85 | 38 | 60 
Crayfish 1 1 1 
Snake (DeKay) 1 ; 
Snake (Garter) 1 
Frog (Acris) 1 1 1 
Frog (R. pipiens) 1 
Hornet (V. maculata) 1 3 5 2 1 4) a2 
Bullhead 1 po aeip al 
Caddice-worm 22 | 15 6 | 32) 10 | 14) 12 
Snails 2 4| 3 5 
Water Scorpion 3 Zope 
Earthworm Gap oC Va Sr Otol 4 
House-fly Taetol aro Uf Less! 


What proved to be perhaps the most interesting part of the food 
habits was the descrimination shown in the manipulation of the 


S| Caun, Food Habits of the Virginia Rail. 93 


various kinds of foods. In the case of the larger aquatic animals — 
the sunfish, stickleback, bullhead, crayfish, Zaitha, and water- 
scorpion — the victims were immediately removed from the water _ 
and carried to the far end of the cage, where they were swallowed 
entire. Once caught, they were never dropped, but were dextrously 
juggled in the beak until the proper position for swallowing was 
obtained. The bird apparently realized the danger of allowing a 
captured fish to drop again into the water, and proceeded to elimi- 
nate the possibility of escape by taking the victim as far as possible 
from the water. It experienced no difficulty whatsoever in making 
away with the sunfish and stickleback, and the bullheads went 
down easily enough — with the exception of one which succeeded 
in extending its pectoral spines at the moment of passing down the 
narrow throat, and stuck fast. Strangulation might soon have 
followed had not the fish been removed, as the bird was utterly 
unable to dislodge it, although it made desperate efforts to shake 
it out. The fish was removed with forceps, whereupon the bird 
undaunted by its narrow escape, proceeded to make another, and . 
this time successful attack on the same fish! 

The crayfish, once caught, were pecked and shaken violently 
until practically all the legs had been dislodged, and the victim, 
thus rendered entirely helpless, was swallowed easily. After 
disposing of the body, the bird proceeded to search out the isolated 
legs, and sent them after the body. 

In the case of the smaller aquatic forms, the victims were swal- 
lowed on the spot. The caddice-worms and snails (Physa gyrina) 
were left untouched while in the case, the bird making no attempt 
to swallow them, contenting itself with merely poking at them 
whenever they moved. However, when the worms and snails 
were removed from the cases, they were eaten greedily. Amphi- 
pods were devoured as fast as they could be caught — which was 
faster than they could be fed the bird — and seemed to be one of 
the favorite foods. The rail showed remarkable skill in the capture 
of these little animals, and almost never missed its aim. \ 

On the other hand, all non-aquatic forms were promptly brought 
to the water and soused until soft and pliable enough to be swal- 
lowed with ease. The larve of the Isabella Tiger-moth (Pyr- 
rharctia isabella) which were large, well developed specimens, were 


94 Caun, Food Habits of the Virginia Rail. ae 
manipulated the longest of all the foods except the garter snake, 
the largest caterpillar being soused continuously for a period of 
twenty-one minutes. At the end of this time the caterpillar was 
greatly reduced in size, as the bristles had become softened and 
broken, and the body limp. The frogs were hammered into in- 
sensibility in the water, where there was less chance of escape for 
them than on land. It took but a very few — usually less than 
six — vigorous thrusts of the long bill to put the frog in so helpless 
a condition that its escape was impossible, yet much poking and 
shaking followed before it was finally devoured. 

The surprise, however, came when the bird was given a DeKay’s 
snake (Storeria dekayi) measuring seven and one half inches in 
length. It was hardly expected that the bird would attempt to 
eat it, yet not only was the attempt made, but it proved successful 
and apparently easy. The snake was attacked with vigorous 
thrusts of the bill, and in a very short time was entirely helpless, 
whereupon the Rail devoured it, beginning with the head. The 
whole performance occupied less than fifteen minutes — less time 
than was required for the caterpillar — and was witnessed by a 
large crowd of noisy students. 

The next day a second snake, this time the common Garter 
variety (Thamnophis sirtalis) was introduced. This individual 
measured just twelve inches when fully extended. The Rail at- 
tacked it at once, but had a great deal of trouble subduing it. After 
half an hour of intermittent attacks the first attempt was made to 
swallow the snake. The first few inches went down easily, but 
then quite suddenly the dazed victim managed to loop its body. 
Further progress being thus rendered impossible, the bird pro- 
ceeded to recall what it had already swallowed, and for a few min- 
utes stabbed violently at the snake with its beak. Satisfied by the 
passivity of the victim that all was now well, a second attempt was 
made, with the same results and sequel. Many unsuccessful trials 
followed in the next hour and a half, during which time the bird 
exhibited great concern over the constant twitching of the last inch 
of the snake’s tail, and it was not until two strenuous hours had 
elapsed that the reptile was finally swallowed. After gasping a 
few times and settling the enormous meal into as comfortable 
position as possible, the bird — now a most distorted individual — 


ag trey *] General Notes. 95 


settled down for a sleep. It may be said that the only time the 
rail seemed perfectly satisfied was during the hour following the 
consumption of these two snakes. After the hour, however, it was 
ready once more for food, though evidently not particularly 
hungry. 

Attempts were made to feed the rail on a less carnivorous diet, 
but all proffered rice and cracked corn was refused, even when the 
bird showed marked signs of hunger. Finely chopped liver was 
likewise ignored, and small pieces of bread were merely played with. 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Concealing Posture of Grebes.— The note under this heading in the 
last number of ‘ The Auk’ by Mr. Delos E. Culver recalls to my memory a 
similar and yet different experience with a Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus 
podiceps) on August 22,1911. Near Addison, Illinois, is a slough of about 
five acres area and around the edge a fringe of open water, which is two to 
four feet deep in spring, but becomes shallower as the season progresses, 
until, in very warm summer, there is sometimes no water left. In the 
center is a large area grown up with rushes, tall sedges and marsh grasses. 
On the above-named day I went into this slough, crossed the open water, 
which now had almost disappeared, then through the large grassy center 
space. When near the farther edge of this, I noticed a grebe, which was 
frantically trying to hide itself. Had I come from the shore near which it 
was, it would have had no difficulty in getting into the grassy wilderness 
in the center, but since I came from the other direction, it could not do so 
without being in my vision. When all attempts at diving proved unavail- 
ing, it nevertheless suddenly disappeared from view, although I was only 
fifteen feet from it. Trying to get to the bottom of this remarkable 
phenomenon, I looked closely and saw that it had swum as closely as possi- 
ble to a small tussock of grass and stretched its neck and upper part of the 
body over this. The color of its plumage matching well in general effect 
the brown and green of the grass, the bird became next to invisible. It 
remained in this position until I approached to within about\ten feet, 
when it splashed away and performed the same maneuver on another 
tussock.— C. W. G. Errric, River Forest, Ill. 


The Double-crested Cormorant in the Chicago Area.— November 
20, 1914, I saw a Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax dilophus dilo- 


96 General Notes. se 


phus) resting on ice at the edge of the water on one of the lagoons of 
Jackson Park, Chicago. It appeared during an unusually cold wave. 
Mr. F. M. Woodruff in his ‘ Birds of the Chicago Area’ published in 1907 
writes of this species as being a rather raré fall visitant in the area covered 
by that book, and no doubt since then it has become still more rare. At 
least, in nearly six years acquaintance with the birds of this region, this is 
the first cormorant that I have ever seen.— Epwin D. Hutu, Chicago, 
Illinois. 


Note on the Feeding of the Mallard.— That the Mallard (Anas 
platyrhynchos) does not dive for its food seems to be the general impression. 
Therefore an exception which I was fortunate enough to witness would 
seem worthy of record. January 28, 1914, on one of the lagoons of Jackson 
Park, Chicago, I saw an adult male Mallard in company with a female 
Lesser Scaup. When the birds were first seen about 4:30 P. M. the Scaup 
was diving repeatedly near the middle of the lagoon in deep water, while 
the Mallard was following her about, rushing up to her every time she 
appeared at the surface, but unable to rob her of any food. Nearly twenty 
minutes later the Mallard dove for the first time. A few more dives fol- 
lowed in fairly quick succession. Meanwhile the Scaup had been diving 
continuously. The diving of the Mallard in comparison with that of the 
Scaup was clumsy in the extreme, and accompanied with much flapping of 
wings and splashing of water. The actual time spent by the Mallard under 
water was very short, in fact, when it dove after the Scaup had disappeared 
it was still the first to rise. The diving would seem to be unsuccessful, 
for the bird quit shortly although the Scaup kept up its diving, and later 
about 5:00 P. M. when the birds swam off to another part of the lagoon 
and the Scaup again commenced diving the Mallard made no effort to do 
so. It is highly improbable that sufficient food, if indeed any at all, was 
secured in these short clumsy dives. At any rate the bird brought no food 
to the surface, and if any was obtained it was swallowed under water. 

I notice J. G. Millais! states that young Mallards when about three- 
quarters grown and before they are able to fly, encouraged by their mothers 
secure a considerable part of their food by diving. This author states 
further in his notes on the Mallard that surface-feeding ducks exceptionally 
dive for choice bits of food, but he does not name the species, although 
presumably the Mallard is included. 

From the few available observations, the most plausible theory, it seems. 
to me, in regard to the feeding of the Mallard is that the species has nearly 
changed in adult life from a diving to a surface-feeding duck, although 
diving is habitual in the young. Reversions to this juvena] behavior occur 
among adults under the pressure of a very strong stimulus, as an unusually 
choice morsel of food, or in imitation of a diving duck after that bird has 


The Natural History of British Surface-Feeding Ducks, 1902, p 3. 


vo. gis | General Notes. 97 


repeated its diving many times. It should be noted at this point that a 
solitary Mallard observed from January 3 to January 13, 1914, and possibly 
the same bird, was never seen to dive, but fed by immersing its head merely. 
The action of the mothers encouraging their young to dive, as noted by 
Millais, if they themselves dive, cannot be explained by any of the stimuli 
mentioned, and provided the Mallard is a surface-feeding duck, as is 
generally believed, the cause is entirely obscure. Many more observations 
throughout the bird’s life-history are badly needed.— Epwin D. Hutu, 
Chicago, Illinois. 


Piping Plover at Cape May, N. J.— On September 7, 1913, while 
studying the birds on the beach at Cape May, five Piping Plover (4gialitis 
meloda) were observed. The birds were first found directly in front of the 
resort on the beach and at all times staid by themselves in a close compact 
band. Being exceedingly tame they allowed me to approach very close, 
and then ran but a very short distance when they settled down to feeding 
again. Only at rare intervals when hard pressed did they take wing and 
then as before went but a very short distance. At the moment of observa- 
tion I did not fully realize what a rare bird the Piping Plover had become 
on the New Jersey coast. 

Again on September 18, 1914, Mr. J. K. Potter, who was with me on 
the Cape May beach, found an individual of this species in almost the 
identical spot that the five of the year before had been observed. 

This bird was alone and after a careful search no others were found. 
It was also very tame and allowed us to approach very close to it. There 
were at the time in the immediate vicinity, in fact all about us scattered 
flocks of Sanderling (Caladris lewcophea) and Semipalmated Plover 
(Hgialitis semipalmata) but the Piping Plover showed not the slightest 
tendency to associate with them, in fact kept as far away from them as 
it possibly could.— Dretos HE. Cutver, Addingham, Delaware Co., Penna. 


The Yellow-crowned Night Heron in Colorado. A Correction. 
— The writer regrets that he was in error in reporting (Auk, Oct. 1914, 
p. 535) the individual of this species taken at Byers as being “the 
second record for this State for this species and the first with full data as to 
location of occurrence and date of collection.’ ,He unintentionally over- 
looked an earlier record made by E. R. Warren, with full data (Condor, XT 
No. 1, p. 33 and Auk, April, 1910, p. 145), and now makes this correction 
and presents his apologies to Mr. Warren for this inexcusable oversight.— 
W. 4H. Beretoup, Denver, Colos 

\ 

The American Bittern Nesting on Long Island, N. Y.— Previously 
the American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) has been classed as a transient 
visitant on Long Island, since, heretofore, no definite record of its nesting 
there has been forthcoming. Though the breeding range of this species 
includes New York State, and though the area of Long Island has been 


98 General Notes. [3 a 


perhaps the most attentively examined by bird students and sportsmen, it 
has not heretofore been recorded as a nesting bird there. 

Giraud wrote seventy years ago (Birds of Long Island, N. Y., 1844) of 
this species on Long Island in his pleasing manner; of its habits and com- 
parative scarcity, but makes no mention of its nesting. George N. Law- 
rence in his ‘ Catalogue of Birds observed on New York, Long and Staten 
Islands, and the adjacent parts of New Jersey,’ merely lists the bird, without 
remark of any sort. Mr. Dutcher’s notes on the birds of Long Island in 
Chapman’s ‘ Handbook’ 1894, and subsequent editions mention no record 
of its breeding, but give its status as ‘‘ common transient visitant.”’ 

In my ‘ List of Birds of Long Island’ (Abstr. Proce. Linn. Soc. of N. Y., 
1907) I also gave its status as a common transient visitant, recording the 
limits of its occurrence, observed and collected to that time, in spring, 
April 16 (Sheepshead Bay) to May 5 (Montauk); autumn, August 4 
(Shinnecock) to December 11 (Rockaway). I may say that data since 
collected have extended the spring arrival nearly a week earlier, 7. e. to 
April 10 (1909, Seaford). 

The actual discovery of a nest, eggs and young of the American Bittern 
on Long Island has apparently been reserved till the present year. On 
Sunday, June 14, 1914, Mr. Robert W. Peavey, to whom students of Long 
Island birds are indebted in many instances for his indefatigable enthu- 
siasm, discovered a nest of this bittern on the part of the Great South Bay 
of Long Island, known as Jones’ Beach, or locally, as Seaford Beach. This 
is one of the least frequented parts of the ocean-side Long Island beaches. 
The nest contained two newly-hatched young birds and two eggs. It was 
placed on salt meadow hay and was built up several inches above the level 
of the ground. Mr. Peavey flushed the bird off the nest when he was 
within three feet of her. The locality was one mile east of the High Hill — 
Life Saving Station near the back or bay side of the beach, and within a 
newly-established game-preserve of about 5000 acres, which is guarded 
by a patrolman. : 

It may be said that he was the less surprised in that he had been informed 
of the unusual occurrence of one or more “‘ Look-ups,’’ as they are named 
in this part of Long Island, by Nelson Verity, one of the veteran gunners of 
this locality, and had himself seen an American Bittern on June 7 on 
Seaford Creek, almost within the limits of the village of the same name. 

It is safe I think to say that the bird as a breeding species is exceptional 
on the whole of Long Island, as well as in this restricted locality — Seaford 
region, since Mr. Peavey has spent a day each week for many summers, in 
this place, and his own observation as well as the testimony of the baymen 
of the region make its occurrence here in the nesting season altogether 
unprecedented.— WiLuiaM C. Bratsiin, Brooklyn, N.Y. 


Cory’s Least Bittern in Illinois.— On May 23, 1914, the writer was 
staying on the edge of a small swamp along the Fox River, about forty 
miles northwest of Chicago. While standing motionless to watch the 


perigis’ | General Notes. 99 


abundant water-fowl such as King, Virginia and Sora Rails, Coots, Florida 
Gallinules, and Least Bittern, which were either stepping out of the dark 
recesses of the clumps of cat-tail and other swamp vegetation to feed along 
the edge of the open places, or swimming in patches of open water further 
out, or at least giving vent to their various queer notes, in which they were 
ably seconded by multitudinous Redwings and Prairie Marsh Wrens 
(Telmatodytes p. iliacus), I was startled by a bird about the size of a Least 
Bittern flymg out of some Scirpus lacustris and heading toward a thicket 
of button-bush, willow, etc., at the edge of which it alighted and disappeared. 
The bird in coloration looked unlike anything I had ever seen. The shape, 
size and flight all fitted the Least Bittern, but it seemed to be all black or 
blackish with the exception of brown crescent on the wing next to the 
primaries. Thinking the light or my eyes were deceiving me, I put it 
down as a Least Bittern. Still having some doubts, I put out in a boat 
which was with some difficulty poled through the dense vegetation by a 
friend. When nearing the bushes above mentioned the dark bird got up 
and flew a distance back of the boat, again alighting in the rushes. My 
friend, anxious to have at least one shot for his hard work of pushing the 
boat, took my 44 caliber shot-gun, fired — and the bird stayed there. 
Poling on as quickly as possible, which was still slow enough, I was sur- 
prised and elated to find the bird to be an Jzxobrychus moxenus. On 
dissection it proved to be a female, the largest egg would have been ready 
for extrusion in a few days or a week; the stomach contained two sunfish, 
each about three inches long. The following is a description of the skin 
now in my collection. Length, from tip of bill to end of tail, 112 inches, 
to tip of longest toe, 14} inches, tarsus 1} inches, bill, 143 inches. Color, 
back, tail and broad line from crown along back of neck, where the ends of 
the feathers on sides of neck form it, greenish-brownish-black; wing coverts 
dark purplish-chestnut; primaries, dark slaty, with a trace of the flour-like 
bloom characteristic of the herons; cheeks, throat and neck chestnut, the 
fluffy tuft of feathers streaming over the bend of the wings, blackish; belly 
dark-purplish brown, quite different from the neck, in middle of abdomen 
some white feathers, forming an irregular white patch; sides gradually 
darkening into blackish; culmen of bill blackish shading to dark brownish 
horn color on sides and on lower mandible, different from the straw color 
in I. exilis; tarsi and feet also blackish to brown. From this it is apparent: 
that the coloring of neoxenus is quite different from that of evilis, only 
some of the dark brown on the back of the latter being identical with the 
same colored areas on the wing of the former, as well as the greenish-black 
on the crown.— C. W. G. Errric, River Forest, Ill. a 

Willow Ptarmigan in Minnesota.— A specimen of the Willow Ptar- 
migan (Lagopus lagopus lagopus) was shot on April 20, 1914, at Sandy 
Island Lake of the Woods, Minnesota. Sandy Island is located in Section 
21, Township 163, Range 36, of Warroad. This seems to be the first authen- 
tic record of the species in the state. The specimen is owned by Mr. 


100 General Notes. ; ee 


Steve Whitey of Crookston, Minn.— J. W. Franzen, Minnesota Academy 
of Sciences, Minneapolis, Minn. 


Audubon’s Caracara in New Mexico.— On May 4, 1914, Mr. Andrew 
Archer brought to my office a specimen of Audubon’s Caracara (Polyborus 
cheriway) that had been shot by Mr. Harold Church from a cottonwood 
tree standing in an alfalfa field near Mesquite, N. M., below Las Cruces in 
the Rio Grande Valley. This specimen was an immature male not yet in 
typical color. In the stomach were found the almost completely digested 
remains of a small bird and a small rodent, whose identification could not 
be determined. The skin is now in the collection of the New Mexico 
College of Agriculture, at State College, N. M. 

This constitutes the second established record of the occurrence of this 
species near here. Mr. E. W. Nelson, of the U. S. Biological Survey, 
kindly gave me the following note on its occurrence. ‘ There is but a 
single other record, so far as we know, of this bird’s occurrence in the State. 
This was one taken by Dr. Henry at Ft. Thorne in the winter of 1856 and 
sent to the U. S. National Museum.” — D. E. Merritu, State College, 


Sea 


Actions of the Red-tailed Hawk.— In ‘The Auk’ for 1913 (page 582) 
I described the very active defense of her nest offered by a Red-shouldered 
Hawk (Buted lineatus lineatus). It may be recalled that two sets of 
eggs, April 6, and April 29, 1913, were collected from this pair of birds. I 
was then especially anxious to observe the birds the next year, and early 
in April I visited the Sawyer woods for this purpose. The birds flew from 
trees on the east side of the woods from which direction I was approaching. 
They were very noisy but flew high and no nests which seemed to be re- 
cently occupied were seen. On April 23 I again visited the woods approach- 
ing from the east, near the southern edge. Both birds met me at the edge 
of the woods and flew about with noisy screaming at some elevation as, I 
walked westward. At the west side of the woods I turned and walked in a 
northeastly direction directly towards the beech tree in which the first set 
of eggs were taken in 1913. The female was in a tree top near this beech 
and when I was possibly 200 feet away she launched herself directly at me. 
I could hardly conceive she would attack me as I stood on the ground, but 
she came straight on and I had to drop to my knees to avoid her blow. 
She alighted west of me and I walked on toward the nest, watching her 
over my shoulder. I had hardly stepped forward when she again dashed 
to the attack with more fierceness possibly than before and I again was 
compelled to drop to my knees. She came to rest about 30 feet from me 
in a small maple where she rested in a threatening attitude for some time 
while I stood admiring her. Her plumage was perfect, her breast being 
almost red, and her attitude of fearless defiancy as she stood leaning toward 
me made a picture impossible to forget. She made no further attacks till 
I began climbing the tree when she struck at me viciously four times. 


ws 


re | General Notes. 101 


It is needless to say I kept. her in sight all the time, keeping the tree be- 
tween us as much as possible, and jerking my head out of the way to avoid 
her outreached claws. She made no attacks after the eggs were taken 
from the nest. The male left the woods or at least kept out of sight while 
the female was attacking me.. Later he returned and the pair soared 
screaming at a considerable height. The eggs were three in number, 
incubation just begun, and as stated, were laid in the same nest occupied 
in April 6, 1913. 

It may be added that I visited Mr. Sawyer, who owns the woods, ex- 
plaining to him that the hawk would now be more wary, but even yet 
might fall an easy prey to any gunner and asking him to do what he could 
to prevent her being killed. Though apparently not very appreciative of 
the traits I so much admired in the bird, and my reasons for the preserva- 
tion of her life, he promised to do what he could to prevent her being killed. 

Other nests visited in 1914 were occupied in every case by wary and 
cautious birds. The conditions which developed the audacious daring of 
the one exception without at the same time costing her her life are not 
easily understood.— E. B. Wixuramson, Bluffton, Ind. 


Richardson’s Owl in Illinois.— Records of the occurrence of Richard- 
son’s Owl (Cryptoglaux funerea richardson‘) in Illinois, are so few that the 
following hitherto unpublished note, unimpaired, I hope, by age, may be 
of interest. 

During the last week of January, 1887, in a period of great cold and deep 
snow, an owl of this species was caught by some school-boys in a farmer’s 
barn near Sycamore (50 mi. west of Chicago) and brought to me alive. 
Identification was easy but I did not then appreciate the rarity or value of 
the specimen; and small stuffed owls being in great demand just then as 
parlor ‘ what not ” decorations, I sold this to a neighbor for the munificent 
sum of $1.25, for that purpose— L. E. Wyman, Museum of History, 
Science and Art, Los Angeles, Calif. 


An albinistic Bobolink.— While walking over a piece of prairie, near 
Stickney, southwest of Chicago, Mr. Kohmann, the taxidermist, and the 
writer saw an extremely queer-looking Bobolink. It appeared to be all 
white, but on closer inspection showed some checkering of black. This 
impression was found to be true, when it was taken. The buff of the nape 
is also white; some feathers on the crown and cheeks, on the sides of the 
breast, on the back and in the wings are black, but not in symmetrical 
arrangement, thus on one wing the fourth primary is the first black one, 
whereas in the other the first primary is black, while the tail is aJl white 
with the exception of the outermost section on one side. Altogether, it is 
a unique specimen.— C. W. G. Errric, River Forest, Til. 


Leconte’s Sparrow in Wisconsin.— Kumlien and Hollister in ‘The 
Birds of Wisconsin’ state concerning this species: “It is also rather re- 
markable that the closest search has failed to produce a single specimen in 
spring.” On April 11, 1914, three were seen and one taken at Madison, 


102 General Notes. ker 


Wisc., April 13 one seen; and on April 15 two were taken. The above 
records would indicate that this species is a not uncommon spring migrant. 
— A. W. Scuorcer, Madison, Wisc. 


The Evening Grosbeak at Portland, Maine.— I found seven Even- 
ing Grosbeaks (Hesperiphona vespertina vespertina), representing both 
sexes, in the Western Cemetery, Portland, early in the afternoon of April 
16, 1914. It was a wintry day, and snow was falling at the time, with 
several inches of a fresh deposit on the ground. The birds were feeding on 
sumac fruit. They were easily approached but moved about with a pecu- 
liar abrupt activity, calling frequently and loudly. 

Though the Evening Grosbeak is no longer a stranger in Maine, its 
occurrences have not been so frequent that another is without interest; 
and the middle of April appears to be a rather late date for it.— NATHAN 
‘CuiFFoRD Brown, Portland, Maine. 


Two Species of Cliff Swallows Nesting in Kerr County, Texas.— 
The Mexican form of Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon fulva pallida), described 
by Nelson, was found nesting by my collector near Japonica in Kerr 
County, Texas, during the month of June, 1914. He collected a series of 
birds and eleven sets of eggs. There was rather a large colony nesting in 
acave. The entrance of this cave was like a mine shaft. The ceiling was 
covered with holes where the water had once eroded into the limestone 
rock. The Swallows nest in these holes, plastering a little mud like a 
balcony to hold the eggs in. A forty foot ladder was used to get up to 
them. The cave was poorly lighted and very damp. It was 50 feet from 
the floor of the cave to the ground, where the entrance was. The opening 
was about 8 ft. in diameter. About 10 feet down, the cave widened out 
into a spacious chamber. The only light was from the shaft-like entrance. 
To enter the birds pitched head first and diverged into the semi-dark cham- 
ber and began a detour of circles to check the impetus of their plunge. 

The eggs are marked all over with fine markings of light to dark brown 
with a few spots of lilac. 

I give the measurements of the eleven sets of eggs, in hundredths of an 
inch. 


Ll Bly bi Ok DOP OL. Gs LO OO 
BL < 555 TS OB, LL Danae OS oD 
83 X 55, 81 X 54, 73 X 54, 73 K 55, 78 X 54 
(6X56, "Ol & 54,084 5257, io bo 
80 < 53, 77 X< 54, 85 & 56, 78 X 55 
160004.) 80)Xeb5; 81 coisa bs: 
18 X 5G, 765K 57, FO KR DIE px DG 
76 X 56, 76 X 54, 79 X 57 

82 X 56, 81 X 53, 85 X 54, 83 X 54 
10. 77 X 57, 77 X 54, 83 X 56, 76 X 54 
11... 68 X< 54, 73% 55, 80 eas: 
Averages 43 eggs 77 K 55 


Sere re Seba 


te > ae i 


vere | General Notes. 103 


In this connection I wish to state that in recording the occurrence of 
this bird in Texas (Auk, 1914, p. 401) I entirely overlooked Dr. Louis B. 
Bishop’s previous record (Auk, 1910, p. 459). 

A Colony of the Lesser Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon lunifrons tachina) 
was found nesting not far from where Petrochelidon fulva pallida was 
breeding. Most of their nests were roofed over. They select a part of a 
perpendicular cliff that has a projection and plaster their nests up under 
this. On these rocky walls of the cafion there seem to be ridges, probably 
the high water mark in times of floods, where the rushing water has eaten 
into the face of the cliff, leaving a projecting shelf. This supplies a roof 
in rainy weather, which protects the nests. 

My collector says, ‘‘ The Lesser Cliff Swallows, I am pretty sure, carry 
the mud for building in their mouths, while the other one (Petrochelidon f. 
pallida) carry it in their feet. I judge this by the actions of the birds while 
alighting on a muddy spot and picking up the mud. The Lesser Cliff 
Swallows will dive into the mud with their tails up, just skimming the 
surface like a flock of ‘teal, feeding in a shallow pond. They look as if 
they were standing on their heads, while the other swallow alights on the 
mud with head erect balancing himself by quivering his wings, while he 
settles his feet into the mud, then rises and flies straight to his nesting 
place.” 

The Lesser Cliff Swallow uses very little lining for his nest, sometimes 
not over two or three feathers, while the Coahuila Cliff Swallow, as a rule, 
gathers quite a lot of grass-roots and feathers. 

The eggs of these Swallows vary in size as will be seen by the measure- 
ments, but the coloring is nearly alike, although the Lesser Cliff Swallow’s 
is more heavily marked, while the feature of the other is the fine spots all 
over the egg instead of large blotches. These markings in the case of the 
Lesser Cliff Swallow are brownish, while in pallida they are light brown to 
dark brown and purple. 


Measurements of fourteen sets in hundredths of an inch: 
ik, 0) xe Giese) Ox Gal lO << GPS bi, a) x a 
Ye WO >< oR, GO SARL TS) Gy 7 
By SE SCG Tas SS, (lS) il 7) S< 
AS DAB SOD OO Sa SONS Ot 
7st 6 BR TH Be EO) SB Wel OK 
(0 OEE SS EID 7G) OS 5155 
Us TU SO TR ORO. Ts SS Gs TALK EE 
Bs Gab Se Gul WOK Wat Wl SK GR Se x 
CO) OID S< Bye ASA < GB CIM SCV Gs) 
LOM aS) Oe OO COS) (Olean O li xe OO 
a6 S545 (OX ole itera Tie oe OS 
1 SOG 5s 84S O15 82 6185, (9) X51, O21 x OF 
1S) 799X654, 76 << 57, 84 << 565, 78: X58, 80! 56 
1A Ore ony 82) 0D) Goa, 1 00 

Average of 58 eggs. 80 X 54 JouHNn E. Tuayer, Lancaster, Mass. 


[san. 


104 General Notes. 


The Cape May Warbler in Eastern Massachusetts.— In view of the 
extreme rarity of the Cape May Warbler ( Dendroica tigrina) in eastern 
Massachusetts, their occurrence in unusual numbers during the past 
autumn in Lexington, Mass., seems worthy of note. 

Between Sept. 9 and 14, 1914, I met nine Cape Mays in four widely 
separated parts of the town,— three on the 9th, five on the 13th, and one 
onthe 14th. Three of the birds were about my house in the town centre,— 
two in a maple, and one in a mountain ash tree. Three other birds fre- 
quented a red cedar pasture where I watched them for an hour. They kept 
close together, generally in the same tree, and passed repeatedly over a 
beat which included two or three acres. We met another individual on 
the border of a piece of woodland, and another in an isolated dead oak tree. 

The birds showed a remarkable range of plumage; some, old males 
evidently, were almost as brilliantly marked with yellow and orange as in 
spring, others, birds of the year no doubt, were pale grey, streaked above 
and below with brown, and lacked all yellow except on the rump. The 
Cape Mays accompanied a heavy flight of migrants, composed chiefly of 
Bay-breasted and Magnolia Warblers. 

Mr. William Brewster kindly sends me a record of three more Cape May 
Warblers which he saw in the nearby town of Concord, Mass. His dates 
extend materially the limits of the flight. 

‘“* August 31, 2 in red cedar in berry pasture. Very tame. 

“September 12, 9 in oaks and larches. Very tame. 

“September 30, 2 spent several minutes in bush directly in front of our 
dining room window through which I viewed her at a distance of not over 
five feet. She was accompanied by three Black-polls.”’ 

Mr. Walter Faxon, who saw two of the Lexington birds, had previously 
met the Cape May Warbler but three times in this vicinity during twenty- 
eight years of constant observation. 

Mr. William Brewster (Birds of the Cambridge Region 1906, pp. 329, 
331) summarizing all the instances which his notes supply of the bird’s 
occurrence in the Cambridge Region, says,— “‘ It will be noticed. .. that 
during twenty-four — or two-thirds — of the total thirty-six years which 
the records cover, the beautiful bird was not noted at all, and that during 
eleven out of twelve years where it was observed only a single individual 
was seen each season. These facts appear to me to warrant the conclusion 
that the species is really one of the very rarest of the Warblers which visit 
us with any degree of regularity.”’ 

In his summary, which includes the records of many observers, he men- 
tions but a single occurrence in this region in autumn. 

From the evidence of Mr. Faxon’s and Mr. Brewster’s experience the 
flight of Cape May Warblers during the past autumn must be considered 
unprecedented.— Winsor M. Tytmr, M. D., Lexington, Mass. 


The Records of the Tennessee and Cape May Warblers in South- ‘ 
western Maine.— Up to the summer of 1914 the Tennessee Warbler 


ee | General Notes. 105 


( Vermivora peregrina) seems to have eluded the few observers who have 
looked for it in southwestern Maine. ‘There is a bare mention, in a migra- 
tion list published by the ‘ Journal of the Maine Ornithological Society,’ ! 
of its occurrence at Westbrook on May 30, 1902; and Mr. Arthur H. 
Norton is given as the authority for this. But Mr. Norton tells me that 
the record was made without his knowledge, through a typographical or 
editorial error, and that he has never seen the bird in the vicinity of Port- 
land. 

A Tennessee Warbler, apparently a male, came into my garden, with 
many other little migrants, on August 30, 1914, and, after giving for a long 
time only inconclusive evidence of his identity, flew to the lower branches 
of an old apple tree, amongst which I was standing, and displayed his 
specific characteristics at very close quarters. Constantly moving about, 
but unhurried and seemingly quite free from fear, he was several times 
within three feet of me on a level with my eyes, offering me in a good light 
a perfect opportunity for studying him, whilst he pecked at leaves and 
twigs, made futile little sallies a-wing in the attempt to snap up insects 
and voiced his feelings in subdued call-notes. His plumage was beauti- 
fully smooth, and he was very plainly recognizable. 

Late in the afternoon of September 6, 1914, a Tennessee Warbler ap- 
peared in the same old apple tree. The flutterings of a moth which he had 
caught absorbed his attention, and he permitted me to approach him as 
near as I chose. I scrutinized him carefully, until he was chased away by 
a Myrtle Warbler,— long enough to note that he was indistinguishable in 
appearance from my visitor of August 30; and he may, of course, have 
been the same bird. 

The writer obtained on Cape Elizabeth, August 21, 1876, the only speci- 
mens of the Cape May Warbler ( Dendroica tigrina) which have thus far 
been taken in the vicinity of Portland, and there has since been no an- 
nouncement to his knowledge, of other examples seen. Perhaps it is safe 
to assume that the species is a regular migrant; but for the present more 
data seem desirable in support of this hypothesis. 

The Cape May Warbler passed at least four times through some of the 
gardens at the West End of Portland during September, 1914, and on 
these occasions the birds were so tame and leisurely that close inspection 
of them was easy. On the 3rd I detected one in a troop of Warblers. On 
the 10th one remained about my house the greater part of the day, alone, 
several times visiting a piazza roof, in the gutter of which rain water was 
standing, and at times foraging on the open lawn. ‘Two came together on 
the 18th and with other Warblers, including the Parula, the Myrtle and 
the Black-throated Green, bathed long and fully in the spray of a sprinkler 
placed so as to play upon an apple tree about four feet high. They per- 
mitted themselves to be showered in the tree and also descended to a little 
pool under it where they splashed about vigorously. On the 21st I found 


TAViOlS, Vil Dy aie 


106 General Notes. [3 ae 


a solitary bird at the edge of a group of native spruce and hemlock saplings, 
near one corner of my garden. 

This garden is a recent inclosure, and most of the trees and shrubs in it 
are young. One is disposed to believe that otherwise it would sooner have 
harbored examples of both of the warblers which form the subject of the 
present note.— NATHAN Ciirrorp Brown, Portland, Maine. 


Cape May and Tennessee Warblers in Philadelphia.— In ‘Cassinia’ 
for 1913 (p. 36) I recorded these two species in a small yard 20 by 40 feet 
in the rear of my home in the thickly built up section of West Philadelphia. 
A Tennessee Warbler on September 12, an adult and two young Cape Mays 
on September 21, and two young on September 30. During the autumn of 
1914, they were still more frequently noted; a Tennessee on October 1, and 
two or three Cape“Mays on September 14, 24, 25, October 12 and 20. The 
yard contains rose bushes and a patch of native shrubbery as well as a 
small tree. The birds spent most of their time in the rose bushes picking 
off the aphides and allowed me to approach to within a few feet of them. 
Numerous records of the Cape Mays have been made at a number of near- 
by localities, but these, well within the city proper seem particularly in- 
teresting — WitTmMER Stone, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. 


San Lucas Verdin in Arizona.— In the October number of ‘ The 
Auk’ (Vol. XXXI, p. 543) is a record of the San Lucas Verdin (Auriparus 
flaviceps lamprocephalus) taken by Mr. H. Wright at Mecca, Cal., March 
19, 1911. 

Recently I received a typical specimen of this little known species 
(Mus. H. K. C., No. 18003) which was taken 20 years previously, and 
bearing the original label of the collector, Mr. F. T. Pember: “ collected 
at Gila Bend, Ariz., April 18, 1891, @ L. 4.80, Ex. 6.64, W. 2., T. 1.90 
inches.” 

Gila Bend is a small place in southwestern Arizona, elevation 1000 ft. 
It is about 90 miles north of the Mexican line and 100 miles east of the 
Colorado River. 

This bird is even smaller than the California specimen, and can instantly 
be recognized upon comparison with true Auwriparis flaviceps—— HENRY 
K. Coaur, Highland Park, Ill. 


Bluegray Gnatcatcher nesting in Wisconsin.— On May 31, 1914, 
In company with Mr. Normann DeWitt Betts, I found a pair of Gnat- 
catchers (Polioptila caerulea cerulea). nesting at Lake Waubesa, Wisc. 
This is probably close to the northern breeding limit for the interior of the 
state-— A. W. Scoorcer, Madison, Wisc. 


Robin’s Nests.— Last spring, when Robins were beginning to build 
nests, a farm laborer in Champaign Co., central Illinois, removed an old 
nest from the crotch of an apple tree, and place it upon the tongue of a 
binder in a shed, near the farm residence. Although a year old, weather- 


fae | General Notes. 107 


beaten, and stripped of its loose interior furnishing, the nest was essentially 
intact. Its walls of dark clay were strongly reinforced with tough grasses, 
and the foundation, bearing the impress of the two branches between which 
it had been held, was unusually generous in its proportions. During the 
winter the nest doubtless had contained snow and water, which, owing to 
the small soil particles of the clay, probably escaped almost altogether 
through evaporation, for the nest as it stood would hold water like a cup. 
I should estimate its weight at fully 18 ounces. In our orchard in Missouri 
I used to observe a number of robins’ nests in the spring that had success- 
fully weathered the winter, and it had often occurred to me that the birds 
would exhibit commendable economy if instead of building new nests they 
would remodel the old structures; but if this ever was done it escaped my 
notice. However, the nest that the farm employee placed upon the 
harvester tongue attracted a pair of robins, and I observed the female 
sitting init. She evidently was getting the feel of it, and deciding whether 
or not to accept it in preference to the labor required to construct a new 
one. Being interested in the matter I asked the proprietor of the farm to 
report to me a fortnight later what the pair had decided. He wrote that 
they had “ taken it’ for the season. I should like to know whether this 
is a common practice among robins, or any other species. Charles Dixon 
in his ‘ Birds’ Nests,’ first edition, published in 1902 by Grant Richards in 
London, says, on page 242: ‘... various species of swallows breed in the 
disused nest of the Oven-bird.... We might almost presume that these 
birds have relinquished the habit of forming a mud shell or outer nest 
when they discovered that these mud ‘ ovens’ saved them the trouble of 
making one for themselves.”’ Purple Martins will year after year occupy 
the same house or box. It is but one step further to an old nest in the 
case of robins.— DrWirrt C. Wine, Chicago, Ill. 


Two New Records for British Columbia.— Lark Buntina (Calamo- 
spiza melanocorys). On June 8, 1914, I collected a male Lark Bunting in 
a thicket of hawthorns on the shore of Okanagan Lake at Okanagan 
Landing. 

WHITE-THROATED Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). On October 6, 
1913, I collected a male White-throated Sparrow that was with a large 
flock of Nuttall’s and Golden-crowned Sparrows at Saanich, Vancouver 
Island. Both these birds are now in the provincial museum. 

Sirka Kineuer (Regulus calendula grinnelli). A female taken at 
Okanagan Landing, December 29, 1913, is the first record east of the 
Cascades. A series collected here in summer have been identified as 
calendula by Dr. Louis B. Bishop. There are no winter records for this 
form. 

Buack MeErtin (Falco columbarius suckleyi). On February, 1913, I 
collected a Pigeon Hawk at Okanagan Landing, identified as suckleyi by 
Mr. Allan Brooks. This form is a straggler east of the Cascades. 

YELLOW-HEADED Buiackpirp (Xanthocephalus xanothocephalus). Usu- 


108 General Notes. f pane 


ally a scarce summer resident, this bird was unusually plentiful this year 
(1914). On July 28, I saw a flock of about 60, nearly all were adult males. — 
J. A. Munro, Okanagan Landing, B. C. 


Some Unusual Breeding Records from South Carolina.— Woop 
Duck (Aix sponsa). In view of the alarming decrease in numbers of this 
species in recent years, the following record is of particular interest. On 
June 23, 1912, in the Otranto Swamp near Charleston, 8. C., I found a 
brood of seventeen well grown young. This, I believe, is an unusually 
large number, as all of the authorities which I have consulted on the subject 
give the full complement of eggs as ranging from eight to fifteen. In this 
case it is probable that even more than seventeen eggs were laid as it must 
be rare indeed for a full set of eggs to be hatched and the young brought 
to the age of two or three weeks without casualty of any kind. 

It has been suggested that two sets of eggs may have been laid in the 
same nest. 

Woopcock (Philohela minor). Although Woodcock are known to 
breed sparingly in the coast region of South Carolina, definite records of 
breeding are few. On February 22, 1913, a female was shot at Summer- 
ville, near Charleston, 8S. C., and was found to contain several eggs the 
largest of which would probably have been laid the next day. 

LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE (Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus). While the 
Loggerhead often begins nest building in February, it is seldom that eggs 
are laid before the end of March, and I have never before known a pair to 
be successful in incubating during the inclement weather that usually 
prevails in the early part of that month. However, on March 30, 1913, I 
saw a young Loggerhead which could not be distinguished from its parents 
in size, and could be recognized as a young bird only by its actions and 
because it was being fed regularly. We had ample opportunity to watch 
this performance for the parents were busy catching insects while the 
young bird followed them closely and by fluttering and squawking, in- 
sisted upon having his share. Allowing twelve days for incubation and at 
least as many for the then age of the youngster — both of which estimates 
are probably very low — the full set of eggs must have been complete by 
March 6, if not earlier— Francis M. Weston, JR., Charleston, S. C. 


Notes on Some Birds of the Maryland Alleghanies; An Anomaly 
in the Check-List.— After a lapse of twelve years, the writer was fortu- 
nate enough to be able to again spend a week in the highest part of the 
Maryland Alleghanies, namely at Accident in Garrett County. This is 
the westernmost county of Maryland and the hamlet in question is about 
ten to fifteen miles northeast of Deer Park and Mountain Lake Park, the 
well-known summer resorts on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. The 
natural features of this so-called glade region of the Alleghanies, its beauty 
and attractiveness to the naturalist and nature-lover, have been more 
fully described in Vol. XXI of ‘ The Auk,’ in the article headed: ‘ Birds 
of Western Maryland.’ Excepting the melancholy fact that saw-mill and 


Ns iis | | General Notes. 109 


narrow gauge had laid low some extensive stands of primeval spruce and 
hemlock, the country was little changed, the same fine air, the same dearth 
of mosquitoes, so welcome to the tired vacationist, the same mountains, 
which are here low and easy to get over, since the whole country is high. 
Thus George’s Hill is the second-highest point in Maryland, 3004 ft. above 
sea-level, yet it is only 500 to 800 ft. higher than the adjoining lower land. 
The mountains nearly all run in long parallel ridges from southwest to 
northeast, the usually low depressions between some of them, are the 
glades, formerly the home of innumerable flocks of Wild Turkeys and 
Ruffed Grouse, of deer, panthers, bears and catamounts. The best known 
of these long mountains near Accident are Negro and Meadow Mountains. 
On the former the writer spent many delightful though laborious hours or 
days on former and on the present visit. 

Knowing full well the psychological and other reasons against the relia- 
bility of testimony of this kind, I would say that the Magnolia Warbler 
( Dendroica magnolia) has somewhat increased in numbers as compared 
to twelve years ago. On July 7, Mr. F. Burkhard, a keen nature lover and 
observer of Accident, and the writer saw and heard about fifteen to twenty 
males; no doubt some males were not singing at this time of the year, it 
being an extremely warm day besides. They were found in the stands of 
primeval spruce and hemlock, which fortunately the lumbermen have so 
far not been able to secure, as well as on the crest of the mountain, where 
chestnut is the prevailing tree, interspersed with here and there a few 
spruce and hemlock. In the same kind of places the Black-throated Blue 
Warbler (D. c. cerulescens not cairnsi), and the Black-throated Green 
(D. virens) are found, both in about the same numbers as formerly; the 
former also descends into the rhododendron thickets of gullies lower 
down. The Carolina Junco (Junco h. carolinensis) is found in the open 
scraggy growth of chestnut along the flat and rocky crest of the mountain. 
Here the Pileated Woodpecker (Phleotomus p. abieticola), the Scarlet 
Tanager and the Crested Flycatcher hold forth in undiminished numbers, 
also the Red-tailed Hawk and the Turkey Buzzard, while from the sides 
comes the bell-like chorus of Veery (Hylocichla f. fuscescens) and Wood 
Thrushes. One or two of the Turkey Buzzards seemed to follow us about 
for hours over the mountain; they probably had their young near by, as 
there is no lack of large hollow logs and cracks and crevices in the rocks, 
here and there piled up in huge masses, as if by titans. Canadian and 
Chestnut-sided Warblers (Wilsonia canadensis and D. pensylvanica) are 
found in bushy places, grown up with second growth deciduous trees and 
shrubs, the former has a fondness for wet places in such areas, usually very 
thickly grown over. A surprise awaited us in a depression between Negro 
and Meadow Mountains, half way between Bittinger and Accident. There 
is some fine tall spruce and hemlock, so thick that no direct sunlight reaches 
the ground, which is covered with rhododendron, many northerly species 
of plants, and some upturned roots of spruce. I was just about to remark, 
“ Tf this were in Canada, we should now hear a Winter Wren,’’ — the moss- 


110 General Notes. : freee 


Jan. 


covered ground and the flattish upturned roots involuntarily produced 
this thought — when suddenly, clear and loud, rang out the beautiful 
notes of the Winter Wren. For a moment I was in doubt whether I was 
really in Maryland or in Quebec, but if nothing else, the luxuriant growth 
of rhododendron quickly dispelled any illusion. I had formerly never 
heard that song here, or if I did, I did not know it, and therefore did not 
put down this wren as a permanent resident for western Maryland, which 
it now turns out to be. The Bobolink, by the way, was also recorded for 
the first time for this vicinity, in a pasture near the village. 

Now, as to the anomaly in the A. O. U. Check-List regarding a species 
of bird of the tops of our eastern mountains. For obvious reasons I did 
not collect many birds on this last trip. But the few I took confirmed 
a suspicion I had in my mind since my residence in that part of the 
country. I took two male D. ce@rulescens. 1 expected to find some pro- 
nounced black on the back, to fit in with the description of D. c. cairnsi, 
which, according to the Check-List in the resident variety, geographical 
race or subspecies. They were adult males in high plumage, well colored. 
But they were not cairnsi, as is borne out by a comparison with skins from 
Canada and Illinois. That brings us into this dilemma: Either D. c. 
cairnst is not the prevailing form here, as stated in the Check-List, and D. c. 
cerulescens comes down to not only Pennsylvania, as stated there, but to 
Maryland; or we have cairnst and cerulescens together here, which militates 
against the underlying principle of geographic races and subspecies; or the 
difference between the two is slight and not constant. If the last ex- 
planation is correct, as I am inclined to believe, I should favor doing away 
with the race cairnsi entirely — C. W. G. Errric, River Forest, Ill. 


The Status of the Song Sparrow and the Chipping Sparrow as 
Early Birds.— Since writing my notes on the ‘ Morning Awakening’ 
printed in ‘ The Auk’ for April, 1913, I have been paying particular atten- 
tion to the awakening of the Song and Chipping Sparrows as evidenced by 
their earliest morning songs. ‘These later observations confirm my convic- 
tion that these two birds are much later risers than the Robin. In fact, I 
should now place the Song Sparrow 25 or 30 minutes after the Robin, 
instead of only 13 minutes as my earlier observations made it. This 
discrepancy I account for by the greater care exercised in these recent notes 
in eliminating from consideration all sporadic night songs and mae re 
only the songs that indicated a permanent morning awakening. 

The new records are of six mornings in 1913 and five in 1914, all at my 
house in West Roxbury, Mass. One Song Sparrow sang regularly both 
seasons very near the house, and often another could be heard not far away, 
while one or two Chipping Sparrows were always equally in evidence, and 
no Robin sang near enough to drown the songs of the sparrows. Strange 
to say, my notes include no records whatever of very early singing on the 
part of the Chipping Sparrow, which leads me to suspect that the nocturnal 
singing for which that species is well known may be chiefly confined, in 


et General Notes. 111 


some localities at least, to the earlier part of the night. (About 10 o’clock 
in the evening is, I think, a favorite time.) The Song Sparrow, however, 
does often indulge in song in the very early morning, before he gives evi- 
dence of having awakened for the day. The records of the eleven mornings 
are as follows: — 

May 14, 1913. Sunrise 4.24. Song Sparrow sang once at 3.24, then 
was silent till 3.58, when it began to sing continuously. Robin began at 
3.25. Chipping Sparrow sang at 3.40, then was silent till 3.47, when it 
began to sing continuously. (This preliminary song was an unusual 
occurrence in my experience.) 

May 31, 1913. Sunrise at 4.10. Robin singing when I awoke at 3.15. 
Song Sparrow sang at 3.20 and again at 3.27, and began frequent singing 
at 3.29. Chipping Sparrow began at 3.35. 

June 1, 1913. Sunrise at 4.10. Robin singing at 3.12, when I awoke. 
Song Sparrow sang at 3.19 and again at 3.22, and began frequent singing 
at 3.24. Chipping Sparrow began at 3.32. 

June 19, 1913. Sunrise at 4.07. I awoke at 2.45. Song Sparrow sang 
once at 2.47; another Song Sparrow sang once at 3.07; first bird sang again 
at 3.20, then at 3.29; second bird began a song-period at 3.48. Robin 
began at 2.50 (unusually early). Chipping Sparrow began at 3.29. 

July 12, 1913. Sunrise at 4.18. Robin singing at 3.15 (estimated), 
when I awoke. Song Sparrow sang once at 3.30. Chipping Sparrow 
began at 3.35. 

July 18, 1918. Sunrise at 4.23. Awoke at 3. Robin began at 3.42. 
Song Sparrow sang once at 3.52 and began continuous singing at 3.58. 
Chipping Sparrow began at 3.56. 

April 10, 1914. Sunrise at 5.12. Song Sparrow began at 4.38. Robin 
began calling at 4.42 and singing at 4.43. The Song Sparrow on this early 
spring day thus awoke 34 minutes and the Robin 30 minutes before sun- 
rise. As compared with late spring and early summer singing, the Robin 
was late rather than the Song Sparrow early. 

May 29, 1914. Sunrise at 4.11. Robin began at 3.17. Song Sparrow 
had sung once about 10 minutes earlier but did not sing again till after 3.45. 
Chipping Sparrow began at 3.33. 

June 10, 1914. Sunrise at 4.06. Cloudy and cold. Robin calling at 
3.23; began singing at 3.24. Chipping Sparrow began at 3.40. Song 
Sparrow’s beginning later and not noted. 

June 14, 1914. Sunrise at 4.06. Robin began at 3.12. Chipping 
Sparrow sang once at 3.20, again at 3.26, and began morning song at 3.28. 
Song Sparrow sang twice at 3.41; began in earnest at 3.46. 

June 17, 1914. Sunrise at 4.06. Out at 2.45 and listening carefully in 
all directions about my house for the earliest bird-notes. Nothing heard 
till 3.13, when Robin began. Chipping Sparrow sang once at 3.20; began 
in earnest at 3.23. Song Sparrow began at 3.40; another at 3.41. Just 
before 4.30 the two Song Sparrows were among the more conspicuous 
singers to be heard. Their failure to begin singing earlier than 3.40 was 
evidently not due to any marked waning of the song-impulse. 


112 General Notes. aa 


Averaging the eight definite records of the Song Sparrow’s complete 
awakening included in the foregoing notes, I make it 293 minutes (practi- 
cally an even half-hour) before sunrise. The average of nine records of the 
earliest song heard from this species is 45 minutes before sunrise. On eight 
mornings one or more Song Sparrow songs preceded at varying intervals 
the full awakening, and on three of these occasions the early songs pre- 
ceded the Robin, but the average of these earliest songs is about 9 minutes 
later than the Robin, while the average of what I regard as the actual 
awakening of the Song Sparrow is 15 minutes later still. The situation is 
complicated a little by the fact that my Robins and Chipping Sparrows 
seem to be later risers than the average of their respective species. The 
average of the six definite records I got here in these two years for the 
height of the season (excluding the April 10 record) is only 532 minutes 
before sunrise, nearly 10 minutes later than the average obtained from my 
former observations. My Chipping Sparrows, too, with an average of 36 
minutes before sunrise for ten mornings, are some 10 minutes later than my 
former average. On the other hand, I find that my Crows wake unusually 
early for this species, the average of eight records made in 1912, 1913, and 
1914 being 42 minutes before sunrise, while my previous average from 
various localities was 34 minutes before sunrise, precisely the same as Mr. 
H. W. Wright’s latest Jefferson, N. H., average (‘The Auk,’ XXX, 529, 
October, 1913). This may be because my post of observation is near a 
nesting-ground of Crows, but, taken in connection with the lateness of my 
Robins and Chipping Sparrows, it suggests that local or individual variation 
may account for all such differences. In the case of the Song Sparrow, 
however, my new notes, made with the matter of nocturnal singing defi- 
nitely in mind, show a much greater difference, and though local or indi- 
vidual variation may play some part in it, 1 am moderately certain that 
it is chiefly to be accounted for by the more careful exclusion of night songs. 

These observations strengthen my conviction that the Robin’s well- 
established reputation as an early bird cannot be successfully assailed by 
either of the two sparrows in question. As to the four other birds which 
Mr. Wright in his paper of October, 1913, ranks ahead of the Robin, it 
may be pertinent to call attention to the fact that three of them —— the 
Wood Pewee, Oven-bird, and White-throated Sparrow — are known to be 
addicted to this same habit of nocturnal singing. . Mr. Wright gives good 
evidence that, on some occasions at Jeast, the Wood Pewee deserves the 
high rank he gives it, but as to the Oven-bird and the White-throated 
Sparrow the evidence is not quite so clear. The flight-song of the Oven- 
bird, is, so far as my experience goes, peculiarly an afternoon and evening 
performance. I have heard it before noon, but only on rare occasions, 
and if I heard it in the very early morning I should instinctively regard it 
as left over from the evening before rather than belonging to the coming 
day. The White-throated Sparrow has been called the “ Nightingale of 
the North.” The last time I heard its morning awakening on its breeding- 
ground was on August 8, 1913, on Sunapee Mountain, N. H. It then sang 


ira ipl Recent Literature. 118 


several times during the night, but its actual awakening followed that of the 
Hermit Thrush, which began singing at 4.02. The times noted were 4.08, 
4.13, and 4.15, when frequent singing began. 

I hope that more notes on the morning awakening may be made in many 
localities. Only thus can we get the data for accurate generalizations. 
And due allowance for the night-singing habit must be made in all such 
observations.— Francis H. ALLEN, West Roxbury, Mass. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Cooke’s ‘Distribution and Migration of North American Rails.’! 
— In this important report Prof. Cooke presents a concise account of the 
geographic distribution and migration of the rails following the same plan 
adopted in his previous reports on the shore-birds, herons, etc. The 
bibliography of North American ornithology is becoming so enormous 
that it is practically impossible for the individual to compile with any degree 
of completeness such data as are here presented. The formation of such a 
card index as has been prepared by Prof. Cooke, from which reports like 
the present may be readily compiled, constitutes one of the most important 
pieces of work, from the standpoint of the ornithologist, that the U. 8S. 
Biological Survey has undertaken. 

Maps showing graphically the summer and winter distribution of each 
species add greatly to the value of the report. The summary shows that 
44 forms of rails and their allies occur north of Panama. Of these 21 are 
restricted to the West Indies and Middle America and two are stragglers 
from Europe leaving 21 forms occurring regularly in the United States. 

The wanton slaughter of Soras and Clapper Rails by so called sportsmen 
has sadly reduced the number of these birds and the killing of 3000 of the 
former species on a 500 acre marsh on the James River, Va., ina single day, 
or of 10,000 Clapper Rails at Atlantic City, N. J., in a day, are incidents 
only too well known to those who were familiar with the practices of a few 
years ago.— W. S. 


Wetmore on the Growth of the Tail Feathers of the Giant Horn- 
bill.2— In this bird, as is well known, the middle pair of rectrices greatly 
exceed the others in length. The fact that the examination of a consider- 
able series failed to show any in which more than one of the pail was fully 


1 Distribution and Migration of North American Rails and their Allies. By 
Wells W. Cooke. Bull. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, No. 128. Sept. 25, 1914. 

2 A Peculiarity in the Growth of the Tail Feathers of the Giant Hornbill (Rhino- 
plax vigil). Proc. U. 8S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 47, pp. 497-500. October 24, 1914. 


114 Recent Literature. [eae 
developed led Mr. Wetmore to a careful study of the available specimens 
which demonstrated beyond question that this is the normal condition 
in the species. One of these long feathers develops and is retained for 
more than a year, probably for two. The other one does not appear until 
the first has attained its full growth. Upon the molt of the first feather 
the other takes its place, so that there is always one long feather — the 
right and left alternately — while the other one is always very much shorte 
and only partly developed.— W. 8. 


Chapman on New Colombian Birds.!— In the present paper Dr. 
Chapman describes twenty-six additional new forms from the rich collec- 
tions obtained by the several expeditions sent out, under his direction, by the 
American Museum of Natural History. The problems of distribution 
presented by a study of these collections demand for their solution addi- 
tional material from Antioquia and eastern Panama and to secure this 
the Museum has sent out two additional collecting parties under Messrs. 
L. E. Miller and W. B. Richardson. 

Dr. Chapman is sparing no pains to make his study of the Colombian 
avifauna thorough in all its details and the further his work progresses the 
more anxiously do we await the final report upon the subject. 

The present contribution even though admittedly preliminary, is a 
welcome relief from the wretched descriptions of two or three lines with 
which our literature is becoming overburdened. Not only are the diag- 
noses here presented full and adequate, with appropriate discussion, but in 
many instances brief contrasted descriptions of all the known forms of a 
group are given with their respective geographic ranges.— W. 8. 


Shufeldt on the Young of Phalacrocorax atriceps georgianus.2— 
This paper consists of a detailed account of a young cormorant twenty-four 
hours out of the egg. While no generalizations are suggested the condi- 
tion of the various organs is minutely described as well as the progress of 
ossification in various parts of the skeleton, making a permanent record of 
facts that may be used in future comparative study.— W. S. 


‘ Alaskan Bird-Life.’*— Through the generosity of one of its members 
the National Association of Audubon Societies has been enabled to carry its 


1 Diagnoses of apparently new Colombian Birds. III. By Frank M. Chap-- 
man. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XX XIII, Art. XL, pp. 603-637. November 
21, 1914. 

2 Anatomical Notes on the Young of Phalacrocorax Atriceps Georgianus. By 
R. W. Shufeldt, M. D., extracted from a Report on the South Georgia Expedition. 
Sci. Bull. Mus. Brooklyn Inst. Arts and Sci., Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 41-102. November 
5, 1914. 

8’ Alaskan Bird-Life as Depicted by Many Writers. Edited by Ernest Ingersoll. 
Seven Plates in Colors and other Illustrations. Published by the National Asso- 
ciation of Audubon Societies. New York, 1914. 


Vol. in| Recent Literature. 115 


educational work into the far off settlements of Alaska. The medium is an 
attractive booklet, containing well prepared accounts of the bird-life of the 
various portions of the territory compiled from the publications of Dall, 
Nelson, Grinnell, Osgood, Bishop, Bent, and other explorers of the extreme 
northwest; the ‘ Arctic Coastal District’ being written by Mr. Nelson 
himself. The illustrations consist of half-tones, and colored plates from the 
series of ‘Educational Leaflets’ published by the Association, each being 
accompanied by its respective text. 

This little volume is to be freely distributed among the people of Alaska, 
in the effort “to cultivate a better appreciation of the value to mankind 
of our wild birds and animals.” 

The book is admirably adapted to its purpose and should go far toward 
preserving an interesting and valuable fauna.— W. 8. 


Mrs. Bailey’s ‘ Handbook of Birds of the Western United States.’ 
— Fourth Edition.!— The excellence of Mrs. Bailey’s well known ‘ Hand- 
book’ as well as the increased interest in ornithology through our western 
states are attested by the issue of a fourth revised edition of the work. 

_ While the main text is the same, important additional matter is contained 
in the ‘ Addenda.’ The changes made in the nomenclature of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union Check-List are summarized, and lists of species to be 
added and eliminated are given, as well as a complete list of the birds of the 
western United States with their ranges, as they appear in the third edition 
of the Check-List. There is also an additional list of ‘Books of Reference’ 
bringing the bibliography up to date. All of these improvements tend to 
make this authoritative work still more indispensable to the student of 
western bird life-— W. S. 


MclIlhenny’s ‘ The Wild Turkey and Its Hunting.’?— This work 
consists of two parts. Chapters III and IV treating respectively of ‘ The 
Turkey Prehistoric’ and ‘ The Turkey Historic’ are by Dr. R. W. Shufeldt; 
while the remainder, dealing with the hunting of this famous game bird and 
its actions in its native haunts, is compiled by Mr. Mcllhenny, largely 
from the manuscripts of the late Charles L. Jordan, a life long turkey- 
hunter and manager of the Morris game preserve at Hammond, La. In 
his introduction Mr. Mcllhenny says, “ After Mr. Jordan’s death.... 
I secured his notes, manuscript, and photographic plates of the wild turkey, 


1 Handbook of Birds | of the | Western United States. | Including | the Great 
Plains, Great Basin, Pacific Slope, and | Lower Rio Grande Valley. | By | Florence 
Merriam Bailey. | With thirty-three full-page plates by | Louis Agassiz Fuertes, 
and over six | hundred cuts in the text. | Fourth Edition, Revised. | Boston and 
New York. | Houghton, Mifflin Company. | Riverside Press, Cambridge. | 1914. 

12mo, pp. i-li+ 1-570. $3.50 net, postpaid $3.69. 

2 The Wild Turkey | and Its Hunting. | By | Edward A. MclIlhenny. | Illus- 
trated from photographs. | 12mo, pp. i—viii+1—245, 20 plates. Doubleday, Page 
& Co., Garden City, New York. $2.50 net. 


116 Recent Literature. [gue 
and with these, and my knowledge of the bird, I have attempted to compile 
a work I think he would have approved.... I have carried out the story 
of the wild turkey as if told by Mr. Jordan, as his full notes on the bird 
enable me to do this.” 

Mr. Jordan had long been contemplating the publication of a book on the 
turkey and Mr. Mcllhenny’s aim has been to carry out his intentions. In 
this he seems to have been eminently successful and the habits, habitats, 
and calls of the bird are fully described while methods of hunting and 
calling the turkey as well as of cooking it, are treated in a manner cal- 
culated to interest the sportsman. 

Dr. Shufeldt’s account of the fossil turkeys is largely reprinted from his 
recent paper in ‘The Auk,’ while in his historical account the several races 
and their ranges are differentiated, and the anatomy and the eggs of the 
species, the early historic records, and the relation of the wild and domestic 
forms are discussed. 

Much of the contents of the book appeared serially in ‘ Out Door World 
and Recreation.’ —W.S. ’ 


Mathews’ ‘ Birds of Australia.’ !— The fourth volume of Mr. Mathews’ 
work begins with the Anseriformes and the author presents a general review 
of the classification of these birds and the probable relationship and origin 
of the various Australian genera. His studies lead him to the recognition 
“that the hypothesis that the Australian Fauna considered as a whole 
reached the continent from the north has been rejected by nearly every 
recent worker in other branches”’ while he thinks “ that all the available 
evidence points to Antarctica as a stepping stone”’ between South Ameri- 
ca, New Zealand and Australia. This however, is not necessarily his 
final view as he promises further consideration of the question, later. 

The systematic treatment of the species follows the plan of the other 
volumes and both text and plates maintain their high standard. No new 
names appear in this installment.— W. S. ‘ 


Kuroda’s Recent Ornithological Publications.2— Mr. Nagamichi 
Kuroda has published a number of contributions to ornithology during the 
past few years. Most of these refer to the birds of Japan but two hand- 
somely printed brochures on the Anatide cover the species of the world. 


1The Birds of Australia. By Gregory M. Mathews. Vol. IV, Part I, With- 
erby & Co., 326 High Holborn, W.C. October 6,1914. pp. 1-80, pll. 200-209. 

2 Ducks of the World. By N. Kuroda. The Ornithological Society of Japan. 
1912. pp. 1-64+ 1-2, 6 plates. 

Geese and Swans of the World. By N. Kuroda. The Ornithological Society 
of Japan, 1913. pp. 1-118+ 1-2, 9 plates. 

A Hand List of the Birds of Haneda and Tsurumi near Yokohama. [By N. 
Kuroda]. August,1913. pp. 1-11. - 

Nests and Eggsof Japanese Birds. Including Formosa, Saghalin and Corea. 
By Nagamichi Kuroda. April10,1914. pp. 1-31. 


Vol. oi gl Recent Literature. 117 


These are illustrated by half-tone plates, some of them in colors. While 
the technical names are in Latin and some of the data in English, the main 
portion of the text is in Japanese which renders the publications difficult 
to consult. The general typography and make-up leave little to be 
desired.— W. 8S. 


The Annual Report of the National Association of Audubon So- 
cieties..— When one looks over the bulky report of the Association for the 
year 1914 and reads of receipts and expenditures totalling $90,000, and then 
harks back some eighteen years, when two State societies and some scattered 
individuals were struggling along, with scarcely any receipts but unlimited 
opportunities for expenditures, it seems hard to realize the tremendous 
breadth and power of the organization that has developed from the hard 
work of these few pioneers. 

We cannot do justice to the report in the short space of a review and 
recommend that all of our readers study it in detail. We shall merely call 
attention to some of the more salient features. Among publications dis- 
tributed during the year, are 2,358,000 educational leaflets, 2,078,000 col- 
ored bird pictures and 1,619,000, outline drawings for coloring. 

On the protected gull colonies of Maine it is estimated that there were 
in 1914, 59,420 adult Herring Gulls and in the Laughing Gull colonies in the 
south 118,400 individuals, besides other species in proportionate numbers. 

The Junior Audubon Societies have a total enrollment to date of 115,039 
members and subscriptions for the continuance of this work during the 
year have been made — $5000 by Mrs. Russell Sage for the south and 
$20,000 by an unnamed patron for work in the northern schools. 

A new department of ‘‘ Applied Ornithology,” has been started with Mr. 
Herbert K. Job in charge, with the object of instructing the public in practi- 
cal methods of attracting birds and in raising wild game birds. 

Trained field agents of the Association — Messrs. Arthur H. Norton, 
Winthrop Packard, Katharine H. Stuart, Eugene Swope, and William L. 
Finley present reports of great interest and the reports of secretaries of 
twenty-five State societies close this most encouraging record of bird pro- 
tection.— W. S. 


Recent Literature on Bird Protection.— Three publications of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture deserve notice in this connection. ‘ Bird 
Houses and How to Build Them’? by Ned Dearborn is a weleome pamphlet 
giving just the information that hundreds of people are asking for in 
connection with their efforts to attract birds to their grounds. The usual 
publication ‘Game Laws for 1914’* contains a convenient summary 
of game legislation throughout the United States and Canatla, revised 
to date. A third Government publication is the ‘ Report of the Gover- 


1Tenth Annual Report of the National Association of Audubon pt 
Inc. Bird-Lore, Nov.—Dec., 1914, pp. 481-565. 

2 Farmers’ Bulletin, No. 609, published September 11, 1914, 

3’ Farmers’ Bulletin, No. 628, published October 20, 1914. 


118 Recent Literature. brane 


nor of Alaska on the Alaskan Game Law,’ with an appendix giving all 
information relative to hunting and collecting in the territory. 

‘California Fish and Game,’ a new publication of the State Fish and 
Game Commission,! contains many timely articles including one by 
Joseph Grinnell on ‘ Bird Life as a Community Asset’ which is well worth 
careful perusal. The‘ Hingham Journal’ for October 2, 1914, states editori- 
ally that thanks to the efforts of Mr. Alexander Pope an extensive bird 
sanctuary has been established in Hingham, Mass. 

Mr. W.L. Finley’s ‘ Oregon Sportsman’ and the ‘ Bulletins’ of the District 
of Columbia and New Jersey Audubon Societies continue to keep the public 
interested in matters of bird and game preservation in their respective 
communities. 

‘Bird Notes and News,’ the ea quarterly, is full of information on 
the plume trade and bird protection abroad. The autumn number con- 
veys the unwelcome information of the failure of the plumage prohibition 
bill to come to a final vote in Parliament on account of the war. The passage 
of the bill was assured but the policy of delay so successfully carried out by 
its opponents, which under ordinary circumstances would have had no ulti- 
mate effect, has under the extraordinary conditions now prevailing, caused 
its adoption to be postponed until another session.— W. S. 


Studies in Egg Production in the Domestic Fowl.— The Staff of 
the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station have continued their investi- 
gations on this important problem and some of their recent publications 
‘ contain data of considerable interest to students of inheritance as well as 
to ornithologists and such odlogists as concern themselves with any- 
thing beyond the external shell of the egg. In a paper by Drs. 
Raymond Pearl and Frank M. Surface? it is ascertained that eggs are 
relatively more variable in length than in breadth and considerably more 
in shape than in either of the linear dimensions while in weight and volume 
they vary more than in any of the other characters. 

The whole process of egg laying is analyzed and many'‘interesting data 
are presented. 

A paper on somewhat similar lines by Maynie R. Curtis * discusses the 
variation among eggs of the same bird and in eggs laid in consecutive 
months, and the individuality of eggs of the same bird. 

Dr. Pearl also discusses ‘ Improving Egg Production by Breeding ’ 4 and 
‘ The Brooding Instinct in its Relation to Egg Production.’ *— W. S. 


1 Edited by H. C. Bryant, Museum Vert. Zool., Univ. of Cal., Berkeley, Cal. 

? Variation and Correlation in the Physical Characters of the Egg. U.S. Dept. 
of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, Bull. 110, pt. III. July 31, 1914. 

’ Factors Influencing the Size, Shape and Physical Constitution of the Egg of the 
Domestic Fowl. (Reprinted from Ann. Report, Maine Agr. Exper. Sta., 1914.) © 

‘ Reprinted from Ann. Report, Maine Agr. Exper. Sta., 1914. 

5 Reprinted from Journal Animal Behavior, July—Aug., 1914. 


ac | Recent Literature. 119 


Birds as Carriers of the Chestnut-Blight Fungus.'— Birds have 
been charged with distributing various plant diseases, but their relation 
to chestnut blight is the only case of this nature that has been scientifically 
investigated. The writers of the article here cited examined 36 birds be- 
longing to 9 different species which were collected among diseased chest- 
nuts in Pennsylvania. Using a most careful and thorough technique, 
they found that of the 36 birds tested 19 were “‘ carrying spores of the 
chestnut-blight fungus. The highest positive results were obtained from 
two Downy Woodpeckers, which were found to be carrying 757,074 and 
624,341 viable spores of Endothia parasitica. The next highest was a 
Brown Creeper with 254,019 spores.” (p. 412). The other birds upon which 
spores were found were the Golden-crowned Kinglet, Junco, White-breasted 
Nuthatch, and Sapsucker. Three species, the Black and White Creeper, 
Flicker, and Hairy Woodpecker gave negative results. It was found also 
that the birds carried spores of a Jarge number of fungi other than that 
producing chestnut-blight. 

The authors conclude that “birds in general are important carriers of 
fungous spores,”’ and that in particular “‘ birds which climb or creep over 
the bark of chestnut trees are important agents in carrying viable pycno- 
spores of the chestnut-blight fungus, especially after a period of consider- 
able rainfall.” 

‘‘ Birds are probably not very important agents in spreading the chest- 
nut blight locally, on account of the predominance of other and more 
important factors of dissemination, as, for example, the wind.” 

“The writers believe, however, that many of the so-called ‘ spot infec- 
tions ’ (local centers of infection isolated from the area of general infection) 
have had their origin from pyenospores carried by migratory birds. Some 
of the birds tested were not permanent residents of eastern Pennsylvania, 
but were shot during their migration northward. These, no doubt, carry 
spores great distances. Each time the bird climbs or creeps over the trunk 
- or limbs of a tree some of the spores may be brushed off and may lodge in 
crevices or on the rough bark. From this position they may be washed 
down into wounds by the rain and may thus cause infections.” (p. 421). 

The findings of this paper are based upon umimpeachable evidence and 
the conclusions must be accepted at face value. Nevertheless, the part 
birds play in the general spread of this disease is so small that it will never 
be seriously urged as a reason for diminishing bird protection.— W. L. M. 


Reichenow’s ‘‘ Die Vogel.’’? The second volume of this important 
work was distributed on October 24. It follows the plan of volume one, 


1 Heald, F. D., and Studhalter, R. A., Journ. Agr. Research, rd No. 6, Sept. 
1914, pp. 405-422, Pl. XX XVII, 2 figs. 

2 Die Vogel. Handbuch der Systematischen Ornithologie von Anton Reichenow 
Zwei Bande. Zweiter Band. Mit 273 text bildern gezeichnet von G. Krause. 
Verlag von Ferdinand Euhe. Stuttgart, 1914. Svo. pp. 1-628. Price, M. 
18.40. 


120 Recent Literature. [Sant 


citing nearly all of the important genera and a fairly representative list of 
species under each, although some of the most common North American 
species, such as the Downy Woodpecker, are omitted. The text illustra- 
tions are numerous, well chosen, and admirable both in execution and in 
reproduction. 

With the completed work before us Dr. Reichenow’s classification can 
be better understood than from the outline given in Vol. I. 

He divides the birds primarily into 1, Ratite; II, Natatores; III, 
Grallatores; IV, Cutinares; V, Fibulatores; and VI, Arboricole. The 
limits of the first three groups are easily understood. The others can be 
best appreciated in tabular form as follows: 


4. Reihe: Cutinares 
Ord. Deserticole (Turnicide, Thinocoride and Pteroclide) 
Crypturi (Tinamous) 
Rassores (Gallinaceous birds) 
Gyrantes (Doves) 
Raptores (Vultures, Hawks and Owls) 
5. Reihe: Fibulatores 
Ord. Psittaci (Parrots) 
Scansores (Woodpeckers, Toucans, ete., and also Trogons and 
Cuckoos) 
6. Reihe: Arboricolz 
Ord. Insessores (Hornbills, Kingfishers, Hoopoes, Rollers, Motmots, 
Bee-eaters, etc.) ; 
Strisores (Nightjars, Swifts and Hummingbirds) 
Clamatores (in the usual sense) 
Oscines (including the Lyre-bird and the true song-birds) 


Such a classification takes us back a good many years, to the time when 
characters of bill and feet were the basis of our systems. It was this 
fact and the ignoring of various generally recognized relationships that 
caused us to refer to the classification as conservative in reviewing Volume 
I. It was perhaps unfair, however, to make this remark without setting 
forth the underlying principles of Dr. Reichenow’s system which we pre- 
ferred not to discuss until the whole work was before us. 

Briefly his views, as we understand them, are, that in order to become 
acquainted with the great multitude of bird species it is necessary to arrange 
them in a system wherein each one finds its place through a successive sub- 
division of groups from orders down to species. Further that such a sys- 
tem for general, practical use had better be based upon more or less obvious 
external characters, than upon deep seated phylogenetic characters which 
are not recognizable without dissection and minute study. He does not 
beliitle the importance of the latter but does not regard them as practical 
for a ‘‘ logical system.’’ Indeed he states definitely that ‘‘System and . 
Genealogy have absolutely different ends in view and must advance side 
by side.” 


| Recent Literature. 12% 


While these premises make criticism of the “‘system”’ to a great extent 


impossible we nevertheless cannot agree with the principle. Such a 
stand is absolutely opposed to the modern views of classification, and we 
fail to see why we are better off in grouping together two species which 
are superficially alike when we know that they have sprung from very 
different stocks, and have converged through the action of similar 
necessities of life or environment. Even the popular student would, we 
think, prefer to know that a system reflected the actual phylogenetic rela- 
tionship of the groups, even though he were unable to see similarities in a 
cursory examination of the species. 

No linear arrangement such as is necessitated in a book can be truly 
accurate phylogenetically or “‘ systematically ’’ but we see no need for two 
arrangements and consider that the best “‘ system ”’ is a phylogenetic one. 

Apart from the nature of the “System” the uniting of a number of 
families into several composite groups it seems to us serves no purpose, 
especially when the larger groups are put in different primary divisions; as 
the ‘‘Scansores”’ and “ Insesores,” of Dr. Reichenow’s system. The 
reduction in the number of families is on the same line and we can see no 
advantage in uniting the Phytotomide and Cotingide; the Tyrannide, 
Pipride and Oxyrhynchide; or in the grand amalgamation of Timaliide, 
Wrens, Mockers, Thrushes and Old World Warblers under the family name 
of Sylviide ! 

More misleading still is the disposition of some of the genera. The 
removal of Vireosylva from the Vireonide to the Mniotiltide is certainly 
not due to any obvious external characters. And the appearance in the 
latter family of the genera Rhodinocichla, Phenicophilus, and Tachy- 
phonus is hardly less unfortunate, especially in the case of Rhodinocichla 
which Dr. Hubert Lyman Clarke has shown pretty conclusively to be 
Tanagrine in its affinities. (Auk, 1913, p. 11.) 

While, as said before, we can see no reason for a system such as Dr. 
Reichenow advocates, nevertheless if we adopt such a system, it would, 
it seems to us, have been more consistent to have carried it further and 
placed the swallows in the same group with the swifts, and to have recog- 
nized several other obvious cases of external resemblance. 

However, no matter what system is adopted ‘ Die Végel’ fills a long-felt 
want in presenting the more important genera and species in a concise 
manner under each family as well as furnishing in a convenient form a vast 
amount of valuable information. It will thus take its place among the 
standard works of reference on the birds of the world — a broad field truly, 
but one which Dr. Reichenow is eminently fitted to cover.— W. S. 


Second Report on the Food of Birds of Scotland.— In to12 Miss 
Laura Florence published analyses of the contents of 616 stomachs of 
Scottish birds. Nowa report ! has appeared upon the continuation of that 
work. It includes analyses of 13890 stomachs representing 81 species. 


1Trans. Highland and Agr. Soc. Scotland. Fifth Series, Vol. XXVI, 1914, 
pp. 1-74. 


123 Recent Literature. ae 


Some of the species most numerously represented are Starling, 107 stom- 
achs, Rook, 288, and Black-headed Gull, 137. The results are given in 
numerical form and the identification of items is in most cases very definite. 
Summaries for the various species note the number of stomachs contain- 
ing items of various economic groups. 

The preface explains why no percentage system is used in the following 
passage quoted from Mr. C. F. Archbald: “it would be unwise to attempt 
to show the proportion in which the components of their food are consumed 
because individuals of the same species vary much according to opportunity 
and their own particular fancy. For this reason it would require records 
extending over several years, and including observations on an enormous 
number of birds from different localities, to enable us to draw any definite 
conclusions as to the proportionate amount of good and harm with which 
each species should be credited.” 

This is the theoretical opinion of one who has not given percentage 
methods a thorough trial. Asa matter of fact even a moderate number of 
stomachs will give results as to proportions of principal items of food that 
will not materially be changed by doubling or trebling the number of 
stomachs. Moreover every economic investigation should aim at ulti- 
mate completeness, and it is just as well to do the earlier work in the style 
that must eventually be adopted for handling a large mass of data. 

Among the general conclusions are the following: the Starling and the 
Rook are too numerous; the Herring Gull is spending more time inland and 
feeds extensively on grain; it and the Common Gull (Larus canus) should 
be left unprotected until their numbers have greatly decreased; the Black- 
headed Gull is beneficial— W. L. M. 


Feilden on Birds of Trinidad and Tobago.!— This paper contains 
notes on 35 species; about 300 are known from these islands. Notes on the 
food of several species are included, though few of them are very definite. 
The most interesting annotation refers to the Oil-bird (Steatornis caripensis). 
It is as follows: ‘‘ The food consists of fruit and berries. It is the only 
fruit-eating night bird. It feeds on the wing, picking off the fruit as it 
passes the tree. The stones of the fruit are subsequently ejected from the 
mouth. A species of palm Thrinaz argentea growing in the Botanic gardens 
was visited nightly by these birds to the number of three or four as long as 
the tree remained in fruit. As the only known colonies of these birds are 
on the north coast of the island, it is probable that they made the long - 
journey nightly in order to secure food. The Guacharo. ...is of economic 
value, the young becoming very fat when about a fortnight old. They 
are then collected and the fat melted down into a colorless oil which is used 
for purposes of cooking and illumination” (pp. 31-32). With all the 
modern methods of producing light, it would seem the Oil-bird nee be 
excused from serving as a substitute — W. L. M. 


1 Feilden, G. St. Clair, Notes on some birds of Trinidad and Tobago. Bull. 
Dept. Agr. Trinidad and Tobago, Vol. xiii, Jan. 1914, pp. 25-33. 


Pods | Recent Literature. 123 


The Ornithological Journals. 


Bird-Lore.t Vol. XVI, No. 5. September—October, 1914. 

Some Observations on Bird Protection in Germany. By William P. 
Wharton.— A visit to the estate of Baron von Berlepsch, describing the 
use of nesting boxes, etc., and the pruning of shrubs so as to produce crotches 
suitable for nest building. 

An Island Home of the American Merganser. By Francis Harper. 

Impressions of the Voices of Tropical Birds. V. By Louis Agassiz 
Fuertes.— Toucans, Cuckoos, Trogons, Motmots, etc., described and 
figured. 

Migration of North American Sparrows includes Worthen’s and the Texas 
Sparrows and the Green-tailed Towhee. 

The ‘ Notes’ and Audubon. Department are particularly full and in- 
structive. The educational leaflet by H. K. Job describes the Pintail. 

Bird-Lore. Vol. XVI, No. 6. November-December, 1914. 

Bird Life in Southern Illinois. By Robert Ridgway.— The first of a 
series of three articles describing his properties and the methods that have 
been taken to increase wild bird life thereon. 

Impressions of the Voices of Tropical Birds. By Louis Agassiz Fuertes.— 
The concluding instalJment covering, the Parrots, Guans, Pigeons, etc. 

On the Trail of the Evening Grosbeak. By Arthur A. Allen. Studies 
of the birds at Ithaca, N. Y. February—May, 1914, with a series of 
remarkably successful photographs. 

The Juncos form the subject of the North American Sparrow installment 
and the educational leaflet treats of the Crow. 

The Annual Report of the National Audubon Society (noticed on p. 117) 
occupies nearly half of this bulky number. 

The Condor” Vol. XVI, No. 5. September—October, 1914. 

The Nesting of the Spotted Owl. By Donald R. Dickey.— Strix occi- 
dentalis occidentalis in Ventura, Cal. Excellent illustrations. 

Henry W. Marsden. By Louis B. Bishop— An appreciative obituary. 

Notes on a Colony of Tri-colored Redwings. By Joseph Mailliard. 

Bird Notes from the Sierra Madre Mountains, southern California. By 
H. A. Edwards. 

A Study of the Status of Certain Island Forms of the Genus Salpinctes. 
By H. S. Swarth.— The treatment of the A. O. U. Check-List endorsed 
in preference to that of Ridgway. S. guadeloupensis proximus from San 
Martin Island, L. Cal., is described as new (p. 215). 

\ 


1 Organ of the Audubon Societies. Edited by F. M. Chapman. Published by 
D. Appleton & Co., Harrisburg, Pa. (Bimonthly) $1 per year. 

2 Edited for the Cooper Ornithological.Club by Joseph Grinnell. Published 
at The Condor office, First Nat. Bank Building, Hollywood, Cal. (Bimonthly) 
$1.50 per year. ; 


124 Recent Literature. Fes 


A Survey of the Breeding Grounds of Ducks in California in 1914. By 
H. C. Bryant.—A valuable summary of careful field investigations under- 
taken in the interest of game conservation. The evidence shows conclu- 
sively that the breeding ducks of the State are decreasing owing to the 
reclamation of marsh lands and excessive shooting. 

A Method of Cleaning Skulls and Disarticulated Skeletons. By F. H. 
Holden.— A valuable taxidermical contribution. 

The Wilson Bulletin.' Vol. XXVI, No. 3. September, 1914. 

The Prothonotary Warbler at Lake Okoboji, lowa. By T. C. Stephens. 

Habits of the Old-Squaw (Harelda hyemalis) in Jackson Park, Chicago. 
By Edwin D. Hull. 

The Kentucky Warbler in Columbiana County [Ohio]. By H. W. 
Wersgerber. 

Spring Migration (1914) at Houston, Texas. By George Finlay Sim- 
mons. 

The Pine Siskin Breeding in Iowa. By W. J. Hayward and T. C. 
Stephens. 

The Odlogist.2, Vol. XXXII, No.9. September 15, 1914. 

Fall Migration of the Olive-backed Thrush, 1912. By Paul G. Hawes.— 
While Prof. W. W. Cooke has shown in his various papers that observations 
at one locality only, throw but little light upon the direction of migration as 
a whole, and that temperature has but little to do with the problem, never- 
theless Mr. Hawes will find that his theory corresponds with the migration 
route of the Olive-backed Thrush as worked out carefully by Prof. Cooke 
from abundant data some ten years ago (see Auk, 1905, p. 1). One may 
be pardoned for wondering how the birds mentioned by Mr. Hawes as 
flying 150-200 feet overhead without stopping could be positively identified 
specifically. 

The Odlogist. Vol. XXXII, No. 11. November 15, 1914. 

A List of Birds Observed in the Big Hole Basin, Montana. By E. R. 
Forrest. 

Blue-Bird.*? Vol. VII, No. 1. October, 1914. 

The White Ibis. By O. E. Baynard. Excellent illustrations. 

Blue-Bird. Vol. VII, No.2. November, 1914. 

Bird Friends in a City Back Yard. By L.8. Loveland, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

The Black Vulture. By O. E. Baynard.— In Florida. 

The Ibis.1 X-Series. Vol. II, No.4. October, 1914. 

On Herodias eulophotes Swinhoe. By Tom Iredale. 


1 Edited for the Wilson Ornithological Club by Lynds Jones, Oberlin, Ohio. 
(Quarterly) $1 per year. 

2 Edited and published by R. M. Barnes, Lacon, Ill. (Monthly) $1. per year. 

3 A Monthly devoted to Junior Audubon Classes and Nature Study Work 
Edited by Eugene Swope, 4 W. 7th St., Cincinnati, Ohio. 50 cts. per year. 

4 Edited for the British Ornithologists’ Union by W. L. Sclater. Published by. 
Wm. Wesley and Son, 28 Essex St., Strand, London, W. C. (Quarterly) £1. 12s. 
per year. 


an | Recent Literature. 125 


Some Remarks on the Subspecies of Crested Larks (Galerida cristata) 
found in Egypt. By M. J. Nicoll. 

With the Tropic-birds in Bermuda. By Karl Plath— Some excellent 
illustrations and a popular account of this much studied bird. 

The Spring Migration at Chinwangtao in North-east Chihli. By J. D. 
La Touche.— A continuation of the author’s studies of bird migration in 
Northern China published in Bull. B. O. C., X XIX, pp. 124-160. 

A Note on the Breeding of the White-rumped Swift (Micropus pacificus). 
By H. L. Cochrane. 

Notes on Birds observed in the South Pacific Ocean during a voyage from 
Sydney to Valparaiso. By C. F. Belcher. 

The Birds of Prince’s Island. By D. A. Bannerman.— This is the first 
of five papers covering collections made by the late Boyd Alexander during 
his last expedition to Africa. 

The Gannetry at ‘‘ The Stack,’’ Orkney Islands. By J. H. Gurney. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CC. Novem- 
ber 4, 1914. 

The following are described as new. By Hon. Walter Rothschild: 
Casuarius papuanus goodfellowt (p. 7), JobiIsland. By Messrs. Rothschild 
and Hartert: Accipiter (Astur) eudiabolus (p. 8), Babooni, British New 
Guinea. By Mr. Ogilvie-Grant from Utakwa River, Snow Mts., Dutch 
New Guinea; Oreopsittacus arfaki major (p.11); Neopsittacus muschen- 
brocki alpinus (12), and Psittacella modesta collaris (p. 18). Also by Mr. 
Grant; Alcyone richardsi bougainvillei (p. 13) and A. r. aolae (p. 13) from 
Bougainville and Guadaleanar, Solomon Isls. 

Dr. Hartert describes Egretta dimorpha (p. 14), Madagascar; and Nycti- 
corax cyanocephalus falklandicus (p. 15), Falkland Islands. 

Mr. E. C. Stuart Baker proposes Trichalopterum erythrolaema woodi 
(p. 17), Loi Sing, N. Shan Stales; Zxulus flavicollis baileyi (p. 17), Mishmi 
Hills; Ithagenes tibetanus (p. 18), Sela Range above Tavanz and T'ragopan 
blythi molesworthi (p. 18), Dengan La, Tibet. 

Mr. Claude Grant describes Pterocles quadricinctus lowei (p. 19), Renk, 
White Nile; Streptopelia senegalensis sokotrae (p. 19), Hadebu Plain, N. 
Sokotra and Poicephalus meyeri naevei (p. 19), Kahili Valley, Belgian Congo. 

Lord Brabourne and Mr. Chubb describe Buarremon matucanensis, 
(p. 20), Matucana, Peru; and Upucerthia juninensis (p. 20), Junin, Peru. 

British Birds.? Vol. VIII, No. 4. September 1, 1914. 

A Report on the Land Rail Inquiry. By H. G. Alexander. 

Riippell’s Warbler in Sussex. A New British Bird. By H. W. Ford- 
Lindsay. 

British Birds. Vol. VIII, No. 5. October 1, 1914. i 


1 Edited by D. A. Bannerman. Published by Witherby & Co., 326 High Hol- 
born, London, W. C. 6s. per year (nine monthly numbers). 

2 Edited by H. F. Witherby, 326 High Holborn, London, 8S. W. (Monthly), 
10s., 6d. per year. 


[Jan. 


126 Recent Literature. 

Increase and Decrease in Summer Residents. _By M. Vaughan. 

British Birds. Vol. VIII, No.6. November 2, 1914. 

Cormorants in Norfolk. By Miss E. L. Turner.— Illustrated. 

Avicultural Magazine.! Vol. V, No. 11. September, 1914. 

Notes from the Zoological Gardens [London]. By D. Seth-Smith. 

Glimpses of South American Ornithology. By Lord Brabourne.— Notes 
on the character of bird-life in various parts of the continent collected 
during a residence of six years. 

Avicultural Magazine. Vol. V, No.12. October, 1914. 

The Rufous-necked Laughing Thrush ( Dryonastes ruficollis). By D. 
Seth Smith.— With good color plate. 

Some Canadian Birds. By H. B. Rathborne.— This paper describes 
the writer’s bird observations on a trip through the United States and 
Canada. Despite the title nearly half of it treats of “‘ Fairview ” [= Fair- 
mount] Park, Philadelphia, where the author discovered “a spring in a dell 
surrounded by brambles”’ where he was able to observe the habits of Swain- 
son’s Warbler, a bird by the way unknown north of the cane brakes of our 
southern states! It is remarkable how some of our British visitors ignore 
the A. O. U. Check-List and a full century of American ornithological litera- 
ture when they come to write up their trips! 

Avicultural Magazine. Vol. VI, No.1. November, 1914. 

Bird Keeping in China. By Alex. Hampe. 

The Emu. Vol. XIV, Part 2, October, 1914. 

Rarer Birds of the Mallee. By F. E. Howe and T. H. Tregellas— With 
photographs of nests including one of the feather-decked nests of the Honey- 
eater (Glyciphila albifrons). 

Bird Life in the National Park, N.S. W. By E. B. Nicholls.— Account 
and photograph of a Cockatoo reputed to be 117 years old. 

The Emu of King Island. By L. Brazil (translation). 

The South Australian Ornithologist.* Vol. I, Part 4. October, 
1914. 

Life of Samuel White (continued). ByS. A. White. 

The Birds of Kallioota. By A. M. Morgan. 

Reappearance in South Australia of the Swift Lorikeet. By E. Ashby. 

A Long-Lost Bird. By 8. A. White — Rediscovery of Aphelocephala 
pectoralis. 

Description of Some Interesting Birds from the Northern Territory. 
By Edwin Ashby.— Karua leucomela mayi, and Dulciornis alisteri mayt, 
(p. 27), subspp. nov. from Union Bore, near Pine Creek, Northern Territory. 


\ 


1 Edited by Hubert D. Astley for the Avicultural Society. Published by 
West, Newman & Co., 54 Hatton Garden, London E. C. (Monthly) 15s. per 
year. 

2 Edited for the Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union by J. A. Leach and 
C. Barrett. Published by Walker May & Co., 25 Mackillop St., Melbourne.- 
(Quarterly). Witherby Co., European Agents. 

3 Edited for the South Australian Ornithological Association by F. R. Zietz and 
others. Published quarterly by W. K. Thomas & Co., Adelaide. 8s. per year. 


ep a ik | Recent Literature. 124 


It would save a great deal of future trouble if the author would designate 
a definite type specimen stating in whose collection it is to be found with 
date of capture, etc. The description of new forms, like some other things, 
if worth doing at all is worth doing well. 

Bird Notes.! September, 1914. 

A Sunbird Aviary. By W. T. Page. 

A Journey Across the Sierras of Southern California. By W.S. Baily.— 
The author continues to identify the birds he sees in his own remarkable 
way which has already been referred to in these columns and in ‘The 
Condor,’ XVI, No. 5. The present article is continued in the October 
number. In it we find Carpodacus purpureus breeding in the verandas of 
buildings in California, while a ‘“‘ Hermit Thrush” (Hylocichla ustulatus 
[sic]) and a remarkable Bank Swallow “ Cotyle erythrogaster”’ will prove 
valuable accessions to our western avifauna! 

Bird Notes. October, 1914. 

Parrot Finches. By W. T. Page — Color plates of the various species of 
Erythrura. 

Aviculture in the Days of Ancient Rome. By Dr. L. Lovell Keays. 

Sir William Ingram’s Birds of Paradise at Little Tobago. By Per O. 
Millsum.— Report of the progress of this interesting experiment in accli- 
matization. 

Wild Life. This beautifully illustrated monthly published at 55 Bank 
Bldg., Kingsway, London, presents some of the most exquisite pictures of 
wild life to be found anywhere. The series of photographs of Herons, 
Kingfishes, etc., in recent issues are of particular interest to ornithologists. 

The Austral Avian Record” Vol. II, No. 5. September 24, 1914. 

On the Genus name Mathewsia. By Tom Iredale.— Preoccupied by 
Matthewsia Sanley, 1868, and Mathewsena proposed as a substitute, type 
Ardea rubicunda Perry. 

Additions and Corrections to my List of the Birds of Australia. By G. M. 
Mathews. 

Geopelia shutridget Grant, shown to be a hybrid. By Tom Carter. 

New Genera. By G. M. Mathews.— Fourteen proposed mainly for 
Australian groups. Alphagygis is proposed in place of Gygis preoccupied by 
Gyges. 

Plumage Changes of Elseyornis melanops. By G. M. Mathews. 

Ornithologische Monatsschrift.? Vol. XXXIX, No.7. July, 1914. 
(In German). 

Sixth Annual Report of the Experimental and Model Station for Bird 
Protection. By Hans Freiherr von Berlepsch. . 


1 Edited for the Foreign Bird Society, by Wesley T. Page. Published lone die da ls 
Heustock, Ashbourne, England. (Monthly) 15s. per year. 

2 Edited by Gregory M. Mathews. Published (atintervals) by Witherby & Co., 
326 High Holborn, London, W.C. 1s. 6d. per part. 

3 Edited by Dr. Carl R. Hennicke for the German Society for Bird Protection. 
Published by Max Kretschmann, Creutz’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Magdeburg. 
(Monthly) 8 Marks per year. 


128 Recent Literature. ke 
Bird Protection in the Prussian Chamber of Deputies. 
Ornithologische Monatsberichte.! Vol. 22, No. 9. September, 
1914. (In German). 
The Thrush; a Composer among Birds. By C. Schmitt and H. Stadler. 
On Paradise Birds from Keiser Wilhelm’s Land. By H. Keysser. 


Ornithological Articles in Other Journals.’ 


Miller, L. H. Bird Remains from the Pleistocene of San Pedro, Cali- 
fornia. (Bull. Dept. Geol., Univ. of Cal. Publ., VIII, No. 4.) — Species 
apparently all recent, Gavia and Diomedia new to American paleontology. 

Martin, E. W. The Birds of the Latin Poets. (Leland Stanford Jr. 
Univ. Publ., series 13.) — Intended “ to present in their own words a toler- 
ably full picture of the Roman attitude toward bird-life as reflected in their 
greatest poets.” 

Oberholser, H.C. Four new Birds from Newfoundland. (Proc. Biol. 
Soc. Wash., X XVII.) — Dryobates pubescens microleucus (p. 43); Bubo 
virginianus neochorus (p. 46); Perisoreus canadensis sanfordi (p. 49) and 
Pinicola enucleator eschatosus (p. 51). 

Mearns, E. A. Diagnosis of a New Subspecies of Gambel’s Quail from 
Colorado. (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., XXVII, July 10, 1914.) — Lophortyx 
gambellii sanus (p. 113), Olathe, Colo. 

Riley, J. H. On the Remains of an Apparently Reptilian Character in 
the Cotingide. (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., X XVII, July 10, 1914.) — An ap- 

parently closed pore was found on the back of the tarsus of Carpodectes and 
eleven other genera of the Cotingide, considered to be possibly analogous 
to the femoral pores of reptiles. 

Riley, J. H. An Apparently new Sporophila from Ecuador. (Proc. 
Biol. Soc. Wash., XX VII, Oct. 31, 1914.) — Sporophila incerta (p. 218), 
Gualia, Ecuador. . 

Wetmore, Alex. A New Accipiter from Porto Rico with Notes on the 
Allied Forms from Cuba and San Domingo. (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 
XXVII, July 10, 1914.) — Accipiter striatus venator (p. 119), Cerro Gordo. 

Jackson, H.H.T. The Land Vertebrates of Ridgeway Bog, Wisconsin: 
their Ecological Succession and Source of Ingression. (Bull. Wisc. Nat. 


1 Edited by Dr. A. Reichenow. Published by R. Friedlander & Son, Berlin, 6. 
Karlstr 11. (Monthly) 6M. per year. 

2 Some of these journals are received in exchange, others are examined in the 
library of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Editor is under 
obligations to Mr. J. A. G. Rehn for a list of ornithological articles contained in the 
accessions to the library from week to week. 

The scarcity of articles from the continent of Europe, owing to the war, is 
noticeable. In this connection it may be mentioned that the records of the 
Philadelphia Academy library show a decrease of 1000 books and pamphlets re- 
ceived since August 1, 1914, as compared with the same period in 1913. 


ee | Recent Literature. 129 


Hist. Soc., XII, Nos. 1 and 2.)—A careful ecological paper covering birds 
along with other vertebrates. 

Alphonsus, Brother. Comparative Migration of our Birds in Autumn. 
(Amer. Midland Nat., ITI.) 

Saunders, W. E. The Problem of Bird Encouragement. (Ottawa ~ 
Naturalist, XXVIII, No. 7. October, 1914.) 

Cook, F.C. Migratory and Other Ornithological Notes from Lowestoft 
(The Zoologist, No. 879, September 15, 1914.) 

Aplin, O.V. Notes onthe Ornithology of Oxfordshire, 1913. (The Zool- 
ogist, No. 881, November 15, 1914.) 

Clarke, W. Eagle. The ‘ Blue Fulmar’’: its Plumage and Distribu- 
tion. (Scottish Naturalist, No. 34, October, 1914.) 

Rintoul, Leonora J. and Baxter, Evelyn B. Notes on some Passerine 
Birds found Migrating in Moult. (Scottish Naturalist, No. 35, November, 
1914.) — Much valuable information on the subject is presented. 

Rintoul, L. J. and Baxter, E. V. Birds Singing while in Migration. 
(Scottish Naturalist, No. 32, August, 1914.) 

Stresemann, E. A Contribution to our Knowledge of the Avifauna 
of Buru. Zoological Results of the second Freiburger Moluccan Expedi- 
tion. (Novitates Zoologice, XXI.)— Annotated list of 67 species, with 
much preliminary discussion. Accipiter torquatus buruensis (p. 381) subsp. 
nov. and Toxorhamphus (p. 394) gen. nov. type Cinnyris novaeguinee. 

Rothschild, W. and Hartert, E. The Birds of the Admiralty Islands, 
north of German New Guinea. (Novitates Zoologica XXI.) — The col- 
lection here reported upon is the second ever obtained from these islands, 
and the interior of Manus, the largest island, still remains to be explored. 
The list contains 46 species of which the following, all from Manus, are 
described as new: Phlegoenas beccarii admiralitatis (p. 287); Cacomantis 
blandus (p. 290); Tyto manusi (p. 291); Collocalia esculenta stresemanni 
(p. 293) and Pachycephala pectoralis goodsoni (p. 296). Incidentally the 
name Accipiter hiogaster rooki (p. 288), is proposed for the Rook Island form 
of this hawk. 

Gurney, J. H. Are Gannets Destructive Birds? (Irish Naturalist, 
XXIII, No. 10.) — The verdict is in the negative as it is not considered that 
the amount of fish they catch has any appreciable effect upon the supply 
for human consumption. The annual market catch of herring alone in 
Scotland amounts to about a billion and a half! 

Keywood, K. P. List of Birds Observed in the Neighborhood of Croy- 
don [England]. (Proc. & Trans. Croydon Nat. Hist. & Sci. Soc., Feb., 
1913—Jan., 1914.) 

Montague, P. D. A Report on the Fauna of the Monte Bello 
Islands. (Proc. Zool. Soc., London, 1914, pt. III.) — A list of 25 species 
of birds. 

Berlepsch, Hans Graf von. Report on the Collection of Bird Skins 
made by Dr. H. Merton on the Kei Islands. (Abhandl. Senckenb. Naturf. 
Gesell., XXXIV, hf. 4.) — List of 29 species of which the following from 


130 Recent Literature. eae 


Greater Kei Island are new. Halcyon chloris keiensis (p. 494); Porphyrio 
mertoni (p. 498) and Cinnyris zenobia marginata (p. 494). (In German.) 

Roth, E. Bird Protection on the German sea-coasts. (Zool. Beo- 
bachter LV, No. 7.) (In German.) 

Gerhardt, Ulrich. On the Morphology of the Penis in Birds. (Zool. 
Anzeiger, XLIV.) (In German.) 

Knauer, Fr. New Results of Bird-handling Experiments. (Zool. Beo- 
bachter LV, No. 7.) (In German.) 

Tschusi, Victor Ritter von. History of Ornithology in Stiermark. 
(Mitth. Naturw. Ver. fiir Stiermark XLVIIIJ.) (In German.) 

Salvadori, T. and Festa, E. The Zoological Expedition of Dr. E. Festa 
to the Island of Rodi: Birds. (Boll. Mus. Zool. Anat. Comp., Torino, 
XXVIII, No. 673.) (In Italian.) 

Someren, Dr. V. G. L. von. The African Brown-bellied Kingfisher, 
Halcyon semiceruleus. (Jour. E. African and Uganda Nat. Hist. Soc., 
IV, No. 8, Aug., 1914.) — With excellent plates. 

Dobbs, C. M. Notes on Crested Cranes at Kericho. (Jour. E. Afr. 
and Uganda, Nat. Hist. Soc., IV, No. 8, Aug. 1914.) 

Williams, R. B. Some Notes on Birds in Sarawak. (The Sarawak 
Museum Journal, II, pt. 1, No. 5.) 

North, Alfred J. The Birds of New South Wales. (Brit. Asso. Adv. 
Sci., 1914 Handbook of N. 8S. Wales.) — A brief popular résumé of the 
bird life. 

Haswell, W. A. Birds of Australia. (Federal Handbook of Australia, 
1914.) — Similar to the last. 

*Brabourne, Lord and Chubb, Charles. A Key to the Species of the 
Genus Crypturus with Descriptions of Some New Forms. (Ann. Mag. Nat. 
Hist., XIV, 1914.) — No less than nine new races are here described as well 
as Crypturellus (p. 322), a new genus with C. tataupa as type. 

Roberts, Austin. Notes on Birds in the Collection of the Transvaal 
Museum with Descriptions of several New Subspecies. (Ann. Transvaal 
Mus., IV, August 22, 1914.) — Lophoceros nasutus maraisi (p. 170), Rho- 
desia; Rhinopomastus cyanomelas intermedius (p. 171), Koedoes River, 
Zoutpansberg Dist.; Anthus daviesi (p. 172), Matatiele, EK. Griqualand; 
Anthoscopus caroli hellmayri (p. 174), Mapagone; Tarsiger stellatus chirin- 
densis (p. 175), Chirinda Forest, 8. E. Rhodesia; Centropus pymi (p. 175), 
Kaffraria; Chlorophoneus olivaceus taylori (p. 178), Indhlovudwalile, E. 
Transvaal. 

Laubmann, A. Scientific Results of the Expedition of Dr. Erich Zug- 
wayer in Balulschistan,.1911. The Birds. (Abhandl. Koéngl. Bayerischen 
Akad. der Wissenschaften Math.-physik. Klasse XX VI, 1914.)— A fully 
annotated list of 89 species with discussion of allied forms, distribution, ete. 

Huxley, Julian S. Courtship of the Crested Grebe. (Proc. Zool. Soc. 
London, No. XX XV, 1914.) This is a remarkably minute and painstaking 
study of behavior. The grebesin any of their activities are grotesque look- 
ing birds, and the curious stereotyped series of actions that constitute their 


| Recent Literature. Lh 


courtship must be extremely interesting to see. The prominent part that 
the elaborate ruff and ear tufts play, and the ways in which they may be 
displayed and contrasted are important to know. As our American grebes 
no doubt go through the same or similar performances this paper is one 
with which American ornithologists should familiarize themselves. 

Publications Received.— Bailey, Florence Merriam. Handbook of 
Birds of the Western United States. Fourth Edition, revised. Houghton 
Mifflin Co. 1914. Price $3.50 net. (Postpaid $3.69.) 

Bryant, Harold C. A Survey of the Breeding Grounds of Ducks in 
California in 1914. (The Condor, XVI, No. 5, Sept. 15, 1914.) 

Chapman, Frank M. Diagnoses of apparently new Colombian Birds. 
III. (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XX XIII, Art. XL, pp. 603-637, 
Nov. 21, 1914.) 

Cooke, Wells W. Distribution and Migration of North American 
Rails and their Allies. (Bull. U. S. Dept. Agriculture, No. 128, Sept. 25, 
1914.) 

Curtis, Maynie R. Factors Influencing the Size, Shape and Physical 
Constitution of the Egg of the Domestic Fowl. (Ann. Rept. Maine Agr. 
Exper. Sta. for 1914, pp. 105-136.) 

Dearborn, Ned. Bird Houses and How to Build Them. (U.S. Dept. 
of Agr., Farmers’ Bulletin 609. Sept. 11, 1914.) 

Gurney, J. H. (1) The Gannetry at ‘‘ The Stack,’ Orkney Islands. 
(The Ibis, Oct. 1914, pp. 631-634). (2) Are Gannets Destructive Birds? 
(Irish Naturalist, Oct. 1914.) 

Ingersoll, Ernest. Alaskan Bird Life as Depicted by Many Writers. 
Nat. Asso. Aud. Soe. New York, 1914. 

Kennard, Frederic H. A List of Trees, Shrubs, Vines, and Herbaceous 
Plants, Native to New England, Bearing Fruit or Seeds Attractive to 
Birds. (Bird-Lore, XIV, No. 4, July—Aug., 1912.) 

McIlhenny, Edward A. The Wild Turkey and its Hunting. Double- 
day, Page & Co. 1914. Price, $2.50 net. 

Mathews, Gregory M. The Birds of Australia. Vol. IV, Part 1. 
4°, pp. 1-80, pll. 200-209. London, Witherby & Co. Oct. 6, 1914. 

Palmer, T.S., Bancroft, W. F., and Earnshaw, Frank L. Game Laws 
for 1914. (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Farmers’ Bulletin 628, Oct. 20, 1914.) 

Pearl, Raymond. (1) Studies on the Physiology of Reproduction in the 
Domestic Fowl. VII, Data Regarding the Brooding Instinct inits Relation 
to Egg Production. (Jour. Anim. Behavior, IV, No. 4, pp. 266-288, 
July—Aug., 1914.) (2) Improving Egg Production by Breeding. (Ann. 
Rept. Maine Agr. Exper. Sta. for 1914, pp. 217-236. (8) The Measure- 
ment of Changes in the Rate of Fecundity of the Individual Fowl; (Science, 
XL, No. 1028, pp. 383-384, Sept. 11, 1914.) 

Pearl, Raymond and Surface, Frank M. A Biometrical Study of Egg 
Production in the Domestic Fowl. III. Variation and Correlation in the 
Physical Characters of the Egg. (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of 
Animal Industry, Bull. 110, pt. III, July 31, 1914.) 


132 Recent Literature. aa 


Reichenow, Anton. Die Végel. Handbuch der Systematischen Orni- 
thologie. Zwei Bande. IJ. Band. Stuttgart, 1914. Verlag von Ferdi- 
nand Euhe. 8vo, pp. 1-628. Price, M. 18.40. 

Shufeldt, R.W. (1) Anatomical Notes on the Young of Phalacrocorax 
Atriceps Georgianus. (Sci. Bull. Mus. Brooklyn Inst. Arts. and Sci., 
Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 95-102. Nov. 5,1914.) (2) Reder og Aeg af Nordameri- 
kanske Kohbrier (Trochili). (Dansk. Ornith. Forenings Tidsck. Copen- 
hagen, 1914.) (3) Tribute to Judge O.N. Denny (Oregon Sportsman, Sept. 
1914.) (4) American Bob-White and Quails, I-IV. (Outer’s Book, 
Oct.—Dec., 1914.) (5) Our Way of Doing It. (Photographic Times, 
Oct., 1914.) (6) Death of the Last of the Wild Pigeons. (Scientif. Amer. 
Suppl. No. 2024, Oct. 17, 1914.) (7) The Last of the Passenger Pigeons. 
(Recreation, Nov., 1914.) 

Strong, J. F.A. Report of the Governor of Alaska on the Alaska Game 
Law. [Circular U. 8. Dept. Agr.] 

Swarth, H.S. A Study of the Status of Certain Island Forms of the 
Genus Salpinctes. (The Condor, XVI, No. 5, Sept. 15, 1914.) 

Wetmore, Alex. A Peculiarity in the Growth ef the Tail-feathers of the 
Giant Hornbill (Rhinoplax vigil). (Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., Vol. 47, pp. 
497-500. Oct. 24, 1914.) 

Abstract Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Nos. 136 and 137, November 3 
and 17, 1914. 

American Museum Journal, The, XIV, No. 6-7, October-November, 
1914. 

Austral Avian Record, The, Vol. II, No. 5, September 24, 1914. 

Avicultural Magazine. (3) V, Nos. 11 and 12. VI, No. 1. October 
to December, 1914. 

Bird-Lore, XVI, No. 5 and 6, September—October, November—Decem- 
ber, 1914. 

Bird Notes and News, VI, No. 3, Autumn, 1914. 

Blue-Bird, VI, No. 12, VII, Nos. 1 and 2,September to November, 1914. 

British Birds, VIII, Nos. 4, 5 and 6, September to November, 1914. 

Bulletin Brit. Ornith. Club, No. CC, November 4, 1914. 

Bulletin Charleston Museum, X, Nos. 6 and 7, October and November, 
1914. 

Bulletin Royal Austral. Ornith. Union, No. 4, April 16, 1914. 

California Fish and Game, Vol. I, No. 1, October, 1914. 

Condor, The, XVI, No. 5, September—October, 1914. 

Current Items of Interest, No. 23, November 25, 1914. 

Emu, The, XIV, Part 2, October, 1914. 

Forest and Stream, LX XXIII, Nos. 13 to 24. 

Ibis, The, (10) II, No. 4, October, 1914. 

New Jersey Audubon Bulletin, No. 8, October 1, 1914. 

Odlogist, The, XXXI, Nos. 9, 10 and 11, September to November, 
1914. 

Oregon Sportsman, II, Nos. 9. 10, and 11, September to November, 
1914. 


Sao | Correspondence. 133 


Ornithologische Monatsschrift, 39, No. 7, July, 1914. 

Ottawa Naturalist, XXVIII, No. 7, October, 1914. 

Philippine Journal of Science, IX, Sec. D, Nos. 2 and 3, April and 
June, 1914. 

Proceedings, Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., LX VI, Part II, April-August, 1914. 

Records of the Australian Museum, X, Nos.8 and 9, August and October, 
1914 

Science, N.S., XL, Nos. 1029 to 1041. 

Scottish, Naturalist, The, Nos. 33, 34 and 35, September to November, 
1914. 

South Australian Ornithologist, The, I, Part 4, October, 1914. 

Wilson, Bulletin, The, XX VI, No. 3, September, 1914. 

Zoologist, The, (4) XVIII, Nos. 213, 214 and 215, September to No- 
vember, 1914. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Obituary Notices. 


Epitor oF ‘THE Aux’: 

The undersigned begs to call attention to the following facts disclosed 
by an examination of the last list of Deceased Members of the A. O. U. 

(1). That 3 Corresponding Fellows (Altum, Hoast and Philippi) and 1 
Member (Judd) have never had any obituary notices in ‘The Auk.’ 

(2). That nearly one half (55) of the deceased Associates have never had 
obituary notices. 

(3) That during the last two years eight Associates have died without 
mention except in the list of Deceased Members. These Associates are 
Beers, Butler, Mrs. Davis, Hales, Hill, Miss Howe, Marsden and Welles. 

(4). That every obituary notice should give at least the full name of 
the person and the date and place of birth and death. Fully 50 percent 
of the obituaries in ‘The Auk’ fail to mention one or more of these essen- 
tial facts. 

Respectfully, 
T. S. Patmer. 
1939 Biltmore St., N. W. 
Washington, D. C. | 
November 16, 1914. 


[While entirely in accord with Dr. Palmer’s suggestion, the editor begs 
to call attention to the fact that incomplete notices of deceased members 
are often sent in for publication only a short time before the number of 


134 Correspondence. bees 


‘The Auk’ goes to press. Promptness of publication is important and there 
is no time for the necessary correspondence to complete the records. In 
the case of Associates the editor seldom learns of deaths until the list of 
members for the next year is submitted for publication. 
The best plan that suggests itself for keeping an accurate record of de- 
‘ceased members, and ensuring proper obituary notices, would be to appoint 
some competent member of the Union, such as Dr. Palmer, as a permanent 
committee on History and Biography, a suggestion which is hereby respect- 
fully offered to the president and council. Eb.] 


Time of Incubation. 


Epitor or ‘THE AUK’: 

The writer is gathering data on the length of the incubation in various 
bird species. He would like to ask if any of the readers of ‘The Auk’ 
could help him in this quest. Knowledge of the exact time would be pre- 
ferred but an approximate might help. He has already collected a con- 
siderable mass of information on this subject, but wishes more, especially 
concerning the lower and lowest forms of bird life. Any expense in this 
matter would be gladly defrayed by the writer. 


Yours cordially, 
W. H. BrEreto.p. 
1159 Race St., Denver, Colo., 
November 26, 1914. 


Proposed Revision of the By-Laws of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union. 


Epiror or ‘Tue Aux’: 


I wish to address all working ornithologists and odlogists in the United 
States and Canada,— through the columns of ‘The Auk,’ ‘Condor,’ and 
‘Wilson Bulletin.’ For a number of years, there have been many of the 
working ornithologists and odlogists who have not been satisfied with the 
present by-laws of the American Ornithologists’ Union. This dissatis- 
faction has been shared alike by “Fellows,” “Members” and “ Associates”’ 
of the Union. We have seen in a mild form from time to time this dissatis- 
faction expressed in the columns of ‘The Auk,’ only to be side-tracked and 
dropped with but small notice and courtesy. 

I have just received the annual circular letter from the A. O. U., stating 
my dues for the ensuing year are now due, and asking for new members, etc., 
etc. Each year as I look over this communication I ask myself, “Shall I 
continue in the A. O. U., and what can I offer a new member as an induce- 
ment to have him join the ‘‘Union?”’ Carefully looking through the pages 
of the by-laws I can find no inducement to offer him, nor do I see any 


Veoearrs a Correspondence. 135 


inducement offered me to continue in the Association after this year, 
should the by-laws not be changed. I have no quarrel with any officer, or 
class of member of the A. O. U., my quarrel is with the by-laws. We all 
know that the A. O. U. was only a continuation of the “ Nuttall Club,’’ 
and when re-organized and incorporated in 1888, nearly all active members 
at that time could be, and were, embraced in the class of ‘‘Fellows”’ and 
“Members.”’ Active members since that time have increased, so much so 
that now many of the most active workers are jn the Associate class. The 
by-laws have remained the same, not keeping pace with the changed condi- 
tions. How many of the different class of members of the A. O. U. have 
ever seen a copy of the by-laws? The copy that I now have before me, I 
secured in March, 1914, through the courtesy of the Treasurer. In reply 
to my query as to who was entitled to a copy of the by-laws, the Secretary 
informed me on 10/28/1914, “‘That every member and associate of the 
A. O. U. is entitled to a copy of the by-laws, but it is net customary to 
send a copy unless requested to do so.” I believe if every new member 
could see the by-laws before joining, that he would think them so narrow, 
and the inducements offered therein so small, that he would refrain from 
joining the Union. I trust every class of members will at once send to the 
Secretary, and secure a copy of the by-laws, and see for themselves if the 
following assertions are correct or not. 

About eight per cent of the membership are “Members,”’ paying four 
dollars yearly dues. They have no vote or voice in the business matters 
of the Union. 

About ninety per cent are ‘Associate’? members, paying three dollars 
yearly dues. They have no vote or voice in the business affairs of the 
Union. 

The business meetings are of the ‘Star Chamber” kind, and are not open 
to the main supporters of the Association. - 

There is no given method for the advancement of members from one 
grade to that of a higher grade, nor is there any given standard for a member 
to measure up to; before he can be advanced to a higher grade. This is 
one of the weakest points in the by-laws. Judging from the membership 
list in the April, 1914 ‘Auk,’ we gather the following has nothing to do 
with one’s chances for advancement. 

Length of time as a member. 

Field work in any of the active lines. 

Attending annual meetings of the A. O. U. 

Published articles in ‘The Auk.’ 

Amassing a collection of scientific specimens, and a library on ornithol- 
ogy, either through purchase or by personal work. { 

What qualifications then must a person have, to attain a higher grade in 
the Union? Are the majority of the “Fellows” in a position to know just 
who is doing active work, or eligible to advancement? What member 
wishes to make out his own application for nomination to a higher class, 
and have it signed by three “Fellows” as required by Section 4, Article 4, 


136 Correspondence. Fe 
of the by-laws? What chance is there for a member to become a “ Fellow’’ 
except through dead men’s shoes, and who likes to wait for such advance- 
ment? <A “Fellow” can only be retired by his own desire, Article 1, Sec- 
tion 3. No one can blame any of the “Fellows” for desiring to remain in 
that class, even though some may take no active part in ornithology and 
its branches today. The present grades in the membership of the Union, 
are unsatisfactory and undemocratic. Acting in conjunction with other 
members of the A. O. U., I forwarded proposed changes in the A. O. U. 
by-laws, to the last meeting of the Union. I had the support and en- 
dorsement of two “Fellows,’”’ as required by Article 8. I have not been 
informed in an official way by any officer of the Union, what action, if any, 
was taken, nor have we seen any mention of the subject in the columns of 
the official organ, ‘The Auk.’ 

The A. O. U. was supposed to be an organization for the ‘‘ Advancement 
of its members in ornithological science.’”’ A large percentage have been 
taken into the Union merely for the payment of their $3.00 dues, and not 
with any idea of strengthening the Club scientifically. There are other 
societies where this class of members can do more good than in the A. O. U. 
Some of the most active workers today in the various ornithological 
branches are not, and will not, become members of the A. O. U. on account 
of the class distinction, and star chamber methods of conducting the busi- 
ness of the Union. Let us have the needed changes in the by-laws, and let 
all class of members express their views and desires through the columns 
of the several ornithological journals. Let us hear from the ‘ Fellows” 
in a broad-minded way, just how much they have the interests of the A.O. U. 
at heart. Above all, let us have a democratic organization, equal rights to 
all, special privileges to none. If, after a fair fight, we cannot get our de- 
sired changes, let those who are dissatisfied with the present by-laws and 
way of management, withdraw from the A. O. U., and give their support to 
some organization who will offer us the codperation of their organization. 


H. H. Batnry. 


Newport News, Virginia, 
November 25th, 1914. 


[As Mr. Bailey asks for comment upon his letter and as some of his state- 
ments are evidently the result of misinformation or misunderstanding we 
take this opportunity to state our views on the matter. 

As we understand him he presents three claims. Ist, That the A. O. U.— 
offers no inducement to new members. 2nd. That there is no definite 
standard for the advancement of members and that the results of the elec- 
tions to advanced classes of membership as presented in the current list 
of members are unsatisfactory. 3rd, That all classes should be abolished 
resulting in one grade of membership for all. 

Taking up these points seriatim: 

1st. The A. O. U. at its annual meetings offers opportunities for orni- 


Po | Correspondence. : 137 


thologists of all classes to meet together on perfect equality to participate 
in a three days scientific session and to enjoy the hospitality which is gen- 
erously offered by institutions and local members. It maintains a high 
class ornithological journal in which papers of merit by any Associate, 
Member or Fellow may be published and which presents a résumé of 
the progress of ornithology not only in America but throughout the world. 
And through its committees, publications and meetings it brings ornitholo- 
gists in all parts of the country in touch with one another and opens the way 
for the beginner or the isolated student to acquire, through correspondence 
with specialists and recognized authorities, the knowledge and advice 
that he would not otherwise be able to obtain. 

We cannot agree with Mr. Bailey that there is no inducement to join 
the A.O. U. We think on the contrary that the A. O. U. has been respon- 
sible for the wonderful development of ornithology in America and that 
every member who has made use of the opportunities which it offers to him 
has profited largely thereby. 

2nd. Election to any limited society or membership is bound to be 
unsatisfactory to some. There are always those who think that they or 
their friends have been unjustly rejected and that those who have been 
chosen did not merit the honor. Mr. Bailey’s list of those eligible for ad- 
vancement would no doubt differ widely from ours and neither of our lists 
would suit the views of a third member of the Union. This is inevitable 
and it should be obvious to all that a vote in this connection as well as for 
any elective office or position, is based on personal opinion, which varies 
so widely that in many societies, and the A. O. U. is no exception, it is 
sometimes impossible to get the necessary majority for any candidate so 
that a vacancy in advanced membership cannot, for the moment, be filled. 
If it were possible to establish a definite standard for the different elasses 
of membership no election would be necessary, but the establishment of a 
definite standard is quite impossible. The points to be considered in any 
candidate are his eminence in some branch of ornithological science and 
his service to ornithology, but the relative merits of several candidates 
can only be decided by a vote, and the majority vote of the Fellows called 
for in the By-Laws, seems a reasonable requirement for election. We 
cannot question, as does Mr. Bailey, the qualifications of the Fellows to 
make a choice, surely they are as well fitted as either the Members or 
Associates. 

We can hardly take Mr. Bailey seriously when he says that ‘‘ Length 
of time as a member”; ‘Field Work’; “Attendance at Meetings’’; 
“Published articles’; “‘The Amassing of a collection or library,’ had 
nothing to do with the advancement of the 40 ornithologists jwho have 
been elected Fellows since the A. O. U. was founded or the 75 who have 
been elected to Membership. Surely he does not mean what he says! 
At the same time it may be noted that a man might be a regular attendant 
at meetings, might gather together hundreds of specimens or books and 
might publish many papers of a certain quality, and yet not reach the 


138 Correspondence. : iy Suk 


Jan. 


stage of intellectual development, nor display the scientific knowledge, that 
would entitle him to advancement. 

3rd. As to abolishing the classes and having but one grade of member- 
ship much may be said. The establishment of an advanced class of 
Fellows, membership in which is based upon scientific eminence, is an 
almost universal custom in scientific societies and the value placed upon 
such distinction seems proof enough of its desirability. The enlargement 
of such a class immediately detracts from its significance. The ‘Fellows’ 
of the A. O. U. represent the fifty leading ornithologists of America; 
standards may become higher and higher but at any given time the Fel- 
lows may always be so characterized. 

The class of Members was established some years ago, to meet just such 
criticism as is contained in part in Mr. Bailey’s letter, and represents 
another grade of distinction, a stepping stone as it were to Fellowship. 
This class was not originally provided for and the By-Laws have therefore 
not remained stationary as Mr. Bailey states. 

The question of entrusting the business of the Union entirely to the Fel- 
lows is a matter quite apart from the establishment of ‘‘advanced classes,” 
and it is here and here only, we think, that Mr. Bailey’s views may find 
support. , ; 

This matter of enlarging the business body has as a matter of fact been 
under consideration by the A. O. U. Council for some time and has the gen- 
eral approval of the members. As the Union moreover is not a secret 
society, and has no desire or intention of concealing its actions, it may 
we think, be stated in this connection that there is every probability of the 
adoption at the next meeting of a suggested plan whereby the Members 
will be allowed to share with the Fellows the business management of the 
society, thus bringing about the desired result. 

The entrusting of the business affairs to a small body of members was 
never intended to create a “‘star chamber”’ as Mr. Bailey infers but to relieve 
the general membership of a burden and to permit of the entire open session 
each year being devoted to ornithological matters. 

Whatever changes may be made in the way of enlarging the business 
body of the Union we feel sure that the opening of business discussion to the 
entire membership would be strongly opposed by Associates and Mem- 
bers at large. The A. O. U. is not a political body and the details of its 
business are not of very serious moment to the membership. Those who 
attend meetings, come, in large part, from considerable distances; their 
time is limited and the desire to enjoy the scientific and social features of 
the gatherings, not to waste valuable time in prolonged discussions of minor 
matters which would inevitably result from open business meetings. The 
present plan of a preliminary business session before,a relatively small body 
leaves three whole days for the discussion of ornithology, for which the 
A. O. U. was organized. 

In regard to Mr. Bailey’s proposed changes in the By-Laws, his siabermear 
is a little misleading, and it is only fair to say that his communication was 
sent to the Editor of ‘The Auk’ for presentation at the last meeting of 


Vol. fea Notes and News. 139 


the Union. It was however mailed so late that it was not received until 
after the meeting had adjourned. Mr. Bailey was of course, so informed; 
but has received no “official”? report of action for the simple reason that 
his communication cannot be even presented to the Union for considera- 
tion, until the 1915 meeting. It is needless to say that any properly pre- 
pared proposal to amend the By-Laws, received prior to any meeting of the 
Union, will be given, as it always has been given, careful and courteous 
consideration. 

Mr. Bailey says of the Associates ‘‘a large percentage have been taken 
into the Union merely for the payment of their $3. dues and not with any 
idea of strengthening the Club scientifically.”” He would we think have a 
different conception of the Associate membership if he glanced at the early 
history of the Union. The society was of course started with but one grade 
and could readily have limited its membership strictly to ornithologists of 
high scientific attainments as has been done by many similar organizations, 
leaving the rank and file of the subscribers to its publications entirely out- 
side of the society. It was thought better however to take in these sub- 
scribers as “Associates” without any additional fee, and to open to them all 
the social and scientific privileges of membership. The Union has thus 
helped to develop many an ornithologist who would not otherwise have 
taken up the study seriously, and we have reason to think that the vast 
majority of Associates are in entire agreement with the plan. 

In conclusion we must take exception to Mr. Bailey’s statement that 
dissatisfaction with the A. O. U. By-Laws when expressed in ‘The Auk’ 
has been “sidetracked”’ and dropped with but small notice and courtesy. 
We think he made this statement without due consideration since the only 
expression of the kind that we have found (Auk, 1908, p. 494) was consid- 
ered and answered with the greatest courtesy by the Editors — WirmEeR 
STONE.|! 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Dr. THEoporE NicHoas GILL, a retired fellow of the American Orni- 
thologists’ Union, died in Washington, D. C., on September 25, 1914. 
Dr. Gill was born in New York City on March 21, 1837, and after complet- 
ing his education came to Washington in 1860 to fill a position in the 
Columbian (now George Washington) University, with which institution 
he was connected for fifty years as professor, successively, of physics, natural 
history, and zodlogy. He was also assistant librarian of the Congressional 
Library, 1867 to 1875, and one of the past presidents of the American Asso- 
ciation for the Advancement of Science. 

It was however, in connection with the Smithsonian Institution that Dr. 
Gill is best known and here he conducted the studies and investigations 
that made his name familiar in scientific circles throughout the world. 


140 Notes and News. a 

Ichthyology was his specialty and it was in that field that he won his 
greatest renown. His publications were by no means limited to the fishes 
however. His learning was broad, his knowledge of literature enormous, 
and he was in every sense a philosophical naturalist, one of the last of a 
group, the like of which, in these days of specialization, we shall probably 
not see again. 

Dr. Gill was elected a Fellow of the A. O. U. at the first meeting in 1883, 
and was a prominent figure at all the meetings held in Washington. He was 
a member of the Committee on revision of the A.O.U. Code of Nomenclature 
and was ever ready with helpful suggestions in matters of nomenclature 
and taxonomy with which the Union has had to deal. Most of his ornitho- 
logical publications dealt with matters of taxonomy in connection with the 
classification of the vertebrates in general, although during his editorship 
of ‘The Osprey’ (1899-1902) he wrote upon a great variety of topics. 

To how many of us does Dr. Gill’s name bring up memories of the old 
Smithsonian building, where he had a room, and in the library of which he 
could usually be found engaged in some literary research, but never too 
busy to discuss with his friends the problems with which they were strug- 
gling, or to turn to the young naturalist with helpful words of advice or 
reminiscences of the past. 

By all visitors to the scientific centers of the national capital Dr. Gill’s 
cheerful greeting and sympathetic interest will be sadly missed, and in still 
greater degree by his associates in Washington. 

A biographer will be appointed by the president of the A. O. U. to prepare 
an adequate sketch of Dr. Gill’s life and work which will later appear in 
‘The Auk.’ 


Tue following communication from the Chairman of the local Committee 
of Arrangements for the San Francisco Meeting of the A. O. U., May 18- 
20, 1915, will be read with interest by all members of the Union. This 
however will not make the meeting a success. A large number of the read- 
ers must make up their minds to be present at the meeting, to enjoy the 
pleasures and hospitality which Mr. Mailliard and his fellow members of 
the Cooper Club offer, and to make them feel that their efforts have not 
been in vain. Many members in the east can make the trip by arranging 
their plans now, and even though it puts them to some little inconvenience 
it is their duty to California and the A. O. U. to make such sacrifice and to 
help to make this the most notable meeting that the Union has ever held. 

Mr. Mailliard’s announcement follows: : 


Tue 1915 MEETING oF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 


On February 20th, 1915, the Panama-Pacific International Exposition 
will be formally opened. The stage is already set, and only the finishing 
touches remain to be applied. Already the wonderful color scheme is a” 
thing of beauty and a joy to the sight-seers who throng the grounds even 


sia Notes and News. 141 


before a single exhibit is in place. The great trouble in the countries across 
the Atlantic may lessen the exhibits and the number of visitors from thas 
part of the world, but this will be more than made up by the even more 
interesting exhibits of the Oriental nations and the great number of Ameri- 
cans who have at this late day determined to ‘“‘see America first!”’ 

Yet it is not the exposition that will be the greatest attraction to the 
ornithologist. There have been a number of expositions in the United 
States, and most of you have seen more or less of them. So it is an old 
story. But there will be opportunities to visit this State under conditions 
never before brought about, and which will not prevail again for many 
years to come. 

We have been called a hospitable people here in California. I do not 
know. Perhaps we are. We were brought up in the customs of a new 
country, where habitations were few and far between. If you reached a 
house at meal time, or at night, you tied your horse and entered to find a 
welcome. You were offered what there was, much or little as might be, 
and you accepted in the spirit in which it was offered. Perhaps we have 
not gotten over this. In 1915 we are going to be on our mettle to be hos- 
pitable, and we are going to give a welcome to our neighbors and friends 
that will linger in their memories as long as they may live — and may our 
friends live long! 

No, it is not the Exposition that we wish to call especially to your atten- 
tion, it is California. You may have seen many expositions but you have 
not seen many Californias. Most of you have not seen ours. From the 
summit of Tamalpais we want you to see the sun set in the great Pacific, 
and from this point of vantage to watch the lights of San Francisco glow 
and glimmer as the stars appear, and to see the same sun rise over the Sier- 
ras, if you have the energy to be up so early. 

We want you to see the Farallon Islands, only a couple of hours run from 
the Exposition grounds, with their wonderful seabird life, the thousands 
of California Murres on their nests, the Cormorants busy in their rookeries, 
Tufted Puffins peeping from their holes, not to mention Gulls, Cassin’s 
Auklets, Rock Wrens, etc. 

We want you to visit the Los Banos breeding grounds, so well represented 
in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where you 
can see many varieties of ducks, herons and shore birds building their nests 
and raising their young on the swamp lands and among the tules. We 
want to show you our Humid Coast Belt, with its characteristic forms of 
bird life, and only a few miles inland our desert and semi-desert areas where 
water brings about a revolution, and where Nature asserts her will, insist- 
ing upon desert forms predominating but a short distance fr6m where are 
to be found those darker forms which moisture with lower temperatures 
seem to create. 

We want you to see Lake Tahoe, with its wonderful scenery, surrounded 
by snowy peaks where breed the Gray-crowned Leucosticte and the Cali- 
fornia Pine Grosbeak, and for those of you who like it the magnificent 


142 Notes and News. eo 


Jan. 


fishing the lakes and streams of the Sierras afford. We want you to see 
the beauty and grandeur of our unrivalled Yosemite, and to walk with 
you beneath our great redwoods which were old when our forefathers 
landed on the eastern coast. 

We have more to show you than most of you imagine, and under condi- 
tions never before existing as far as rates of travel, good fellowship, a wish 
to welcome all the world and the desire to please our guests are concerned, 
to say nothing of the fact that there will be gathered here in various con- 
ventions of numerous bodies, many of the world’s greatest minds. Travel- 
ling rates will be low, hotel keepers have agreed not to raise their prices 
above the everyday mark, accommodations will be ample, good, and at 
rates to meet one’s purse, while the desire to make the Exposition a success, 
rather than to make large profits out of those who come, seems to prevail. 

The meeting will be held May 18th to 20th, this being chosen as being 
the best average date at which to see our bird life in the nesting season, 
which really commences in February and lasts until August! Let us all do 
our best to make this meeting a grand success, to form new friendships, 
and to make of it a pleasant memory that will never leave our hearts. 
Each who comes can do his or her share to make the A. O. U. meeting in 
California something to look back upen with pleasure, and to talk of around 
the fire on snowy winter nights. 

Come all who can, yet bear in mind, one and all, that while we have 
warm weather in the interior of California, San Francisco is a cool spot 
where light overcoats and wraps are always in order and may be needed at 
any moment! 

Details as to rates of travel, hotel expenses, interesting side trips, etc., 
will be furnished later. 


JOSEPH MAILLIARD, 
Chairman Committee on Arrangements. 
San Francisco, Cal. 


\ 


AFTER preparing the note in the last issue of ‘The Auk,’ on beneficial 
effect of the new tariff in stopping the importation of Rhea plumage and 
thereby putting an end to a trade that threatened the extinction of this 
splendid bird, we were astonished to learn that.by a decision of the 
Treasury Department, the Rhea was excepted from the operation of the 
law. The official notice states: ‘It appears from the best information 
obtainable by the department that the so-called Rhea is, in fact, an ostrich, 
and the feathers of such birds may, therefore, be admitted without requir- 
ing proof that the plumage was taken from domestic birds.’”’ With the 
wealth of technical knowledge so easily obtainable from the scientific de- 
partments of the government it is rather remarkable that the Treasury 
Department should have taken upon itself the settlement of such an im- 
portant ornithological question. : 

However open to criticism its action in this respect may be, its willingness 
to promptly admit an error is exceedingly praiseworthy, and we are grati- 


ee rane Notes and News. , 143 
fied to learn from a subsequent order that: ‘‘Further investigation by the 
department has shown that the rhea is not properly classed as an ostrich 


put is in fact a wild bird, the plumage of which should be prohibited im- 
portation.” 


Furt Names or AvuTHors IN ‘Tue Aux.’—In preparing the gen- 
eral Index of ‘The Auk’ published in 1907 the committee in charge of the 
work endeavored to give names of authors in full but the requisite in- 
formation proved impossible to obtain in many cases and consequently 
about 170 names appeared in more or less incomplete form. The com- 
mittee which is indexing the volumes from 1901 to 1910 inclusive, in fol- 
lowing the plan of the former Index, has made special efforts to secure this 
information and has succeeded in obtaining the full names of nearly all the 
authors mentioned in the recent volumes and has also secured about 130 
of those which were incomplete in the former Index. 

Some 46 names are still needed — about nine for the recent volumes 
and about 37 for the earlier ones — as shown by the following list. In 
order to facilitate the search for the desired data each author’s name is 
followed by the name of the State from which the note was written or that 
of the author’s last known address and a reference to the volume and page 
of ‘The Auk’ in which the article appeared. 


Allen, Charles N. "81, 145 Lane, Ambrose A. (Engl.) 97, 417 
Atkins, John W. (Mich.) "99, 272 Lee, Oswin A. J. (Engl.) "97, 106 
Banks, James W. (N. B.) *84, 95 Lewis, Lillian W. (N. Y.) 705, 314 
Batty, Joseph H. (Mass.) 06, 356 Livermore, John R. (R. I.) 94,177 
Berry, Mabel C. (N. H.) 96, 342 Mitchell, Robert H. (Tenn.) 94, 327 
Bulley, Reginald H. (Ohio) "86, 277 Moran, Daniel E. (N. Y.) S252 
Buri, Dr. Rudolph O. (Switz) 701, 286 Nowotny, Dr. (Austria) 98, 28 
Burton, William R. (Fla.) 704, 125 Palmer, E. DeL. (Calif.) 94, 78 
‘Collins, W. H. (Mich.) 80, 61 Park, J. T. (Tenn.) 93, 205 
Doan, William D. (Penn ) 790, 197 Pitcairn, William G. (Penn.) ’08, 232 
Downer, E. D. (N. Y.) 99, 355 Pollard, Evelyn H. (Engl.) 701, 207 
Emmet, R. T. (N. Y.) ’88, 108 Reagan, Albert B. (Utah) 708, 462 
Fowler, H. Gilbert (N. Y.) ct tot) Sargent, Harry B. (N. Y.) 93, 369 
PASO dels ONE ays) 784, 293 Schenckling-Prevot, C. (Ger.) ’95, 186 
Heat Wer 703, 94 Smith, G. S. (Mass.) 781, 56 
Gormley, M. H. (Wash.) 88, 424 Swallow, C. W. (Ore.) "91, 396 
Harris, George E. (N. Y.) 88, 320 Sweiger, Mrs. Jacob L. (Conn.) ’08, 105 
Howley, James P. (Nfd.) 784, 309 Taylor, W. Edgar (Neb.) 789, 332 
Ingraham, D. P. (Colo.) "97, 403 Walker, Mary L. (Scotl.) 90, 198 
Johnson, Lorenzo N. (IIl.) 89, 275 Welsh, Frank R. (Penn.) 84, 391 
Kermode, Philip M. C. (Engl.) ’83, 229 Whitlock, F. B. (Engl.) 97, 422 
Kinnison, George W. (Fla.) 99, 57 Wilson, Bertha L. (Minn.) 798, 100 


Koumly, Pirmine M. (Kans.) ’93, 367 Wilson, Dr. Thomas J. (N. Y.) ’78, 85 


As it is desirable to have the full names of all contributers td ‘The Auk,’ 
readers who can furnish any of the missing names or can suggest how they 
may be obtained are requested to notify the editor or to communicate with 
the undersigned. 


T. S. Parmer. 
1939 Biltmore St., Washington, D. C. 


144 Notes and News. eee 


Mr. Louis Agassiz Fuertes, at the request of the Council of the A. O. U., 
and with the advice of a committee appointed by the President, kindly 
prepared a new cover design for ‘The Auk’ which appeared for the first 
time on the number for January, 1913. As to the accuracy of drawings 
of extinct species the poet has written: 


“This we have for comfort sweet 
Should doctors disagree, 

Nobody lives who knew the beast, 
And there are no more to see. 

So if they do not like its looks, 
What can they do about it? 

Our guess is just as good as their’s 
So if they scoff, we’ll scout it!” 


Notwithstanding the logic of this statement, the Council at the last meet- 
ing appointed a new committee to confer with Mr. Fuertes in regard to 
preparing another design, which should follow more closely the general 
style of the original vignette. Mr. Fuertes has generously complied with 
the request and the result appears on the cover of the present number. 
Which drawing is the better portrait of the Great Auk as it appeared in life, 
we are, like the poet, unable to say; but the present one is both artistic, 
and accurate in detail, while it conforms more nearly to the conventional 
idea of the famous bird. 


A NEw edition of the Naturalists’ Directory has just been published by 
S. E. Cassino, Salem, Mass. This directory is invaluable to naturalists 
since it is the means of bringing together students and collectors in all parts 
of the world through correspondence. The directory contains an alpha- 
betical list of English speaking professional and amateur naturalists in all 
parts of the world, also a list of scientific societies and periodicals. The 
price of the Directory is $2.50 in Cloth Binding and $2.00 in Paper Binding; 
sent postpaid. As only a limited edition has been printed it is advisable 
for any one wishing a copy to order at once. 


THERE will be an exhibit of pictures of our common birds at the Ameri- 
can Museum of Natural History, New York City, January 15th to 29th 
inclusive followed by a sale exhibition at the Katz Gallery, 103 West 74th 
St. These pictures show the Robin, Blue Jay, Oriole, Wood Thrush and 
other birds we see about our homes and that we all know and have come 
tolove. The birds are pictured life size, singly and in family groups, some- 
times nesting or courting, often surrounded by apple bloom, golden rod, or 
wood lilies, flowers they might be found among, or the bright leaves of 
April or October, or the snow of winter. Seventy-five or more water 
colors large and small will be shown, all exhibited for the first time. The 
purpose of the pictures is to present the beauty of just our commonest: 
home and dooryard birds. 


PUBLICATIONS OF THE 


AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION 


FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWINC PRICES: 


The Auk. Complete set, Volumes I-XXIX, (1884-1912) in origi- 
nal covers, $99.00. Volumes I-VI are sold only with complete 
sets, other volumes, $3.00 each; 75 cents for single numbers. 


Index to The Auk (Vols. I-XVII, 1884-1900) and Bulletin of the 
Nuttall Ornithological Club (Vols. I-VIII, 1876-1883), 8vo, pp. 
vii + 426, 1908 Cloth, $3.75; paper, $3.25. 


Check-List of North American Birds. Third edition, revised, 
1910. Cloth, 8vo., pp. 426, and 2 maps. $2.50, net, postage 
25 cents. Second edition, revised, 1895. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 
372. $1.15. Original edition 1886. Out of print. 


Abridged Check-List of North American Birds. 1889. (Abridged 
and revised from the original edition). Paper, 8vo, pp. 71, printed 
on one side of the page. 25 cents. 


Pocket Check-List of North American Birds. (Abridged from 
the third edition). Flexible cover, 3} X 53 inches. 25 cents. 
10 copies for $2.00. 


Code of Nomenclature. Revised edition, 1908. Paper, 8vo, pp. 
Ixxxv. 50 cents. 
Original edition, 1892. Paper, 8vo, pp. iv-+ 72. 25 cents. 


We would be pleased to furnish The Auk, Index and Check-List 
to your library at 15% discount. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr. 


S4mWirer ist. Ste: New York, N.Y. 


American (raithalagists Unio 


Check-List of North American 
Birds 


Last Edition, 1910 


Cloth, 8vo, pp. 480 and two maps of North America, 
one a colored, faunal zone map, and one a locality map. 
The first authoritative and complete list of North 
American Birds published since the second edition of 


the Check-List in 1895. The ranges of species and ~ 


geographical races have been carefully revised and 
greatly extended, and the names conform to the latest 
rulings of the A.O.U. Committee on Nomenclature. 


The numbering of the species is the same as in the © 


second edition. Price, including postage, $2.75. 


POCKET EDITION 
A pocket Check-List (34 by 5% inches) of North 
American Birds with only the numbers and the scientific 
and popular names. Alternate pages blank for the 
insertion of notes. Flexible covers. Price, including 
postage, 25 cents; or 10 copies for $2.00. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr. 
134 W. 7Ist St. New York City 


CONTINUATION OF THE ' 
BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB i een 
< ol. 


| Series, 
1 Vol. XL 


‘The Auk 


H Quarterly Journal of Ornithology — 


Vol. XXXII APRIL, 1915 


PUBLISHED BY 


The American Ornithologists’ Union 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 


J Entered as second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass. 


CONTENTS 


5 : PAGE 
THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE Famity DeNnpROcOLAPTID&. By Dr. Herman von 
Ihering. (Plates XI—-XIT) 145 


Tue OKaLOACOOCHEE SLoucH. By Frederic H. Kennard. (Plates XIII-XV) . 154 
Casor’s Types oF Yucatan Birps. By Outram Bangs . : 5 3 : 166 
Tue ArLantic Rance or LEacw’s Parken (Oceanodroma leucorhoa (V1EILLOT)). 


By Robert Cushman Murphy : : : 3 : 2 - 170 
Some SuGGeEstTions FoR Berrer Metuops or REcORDING AND Stupy1ING Birp 

Sones. By Aretas A. Saunders : , ; : 5 : : : 173 
List or THE Birps oF Louisiana. Part VII. By H. H. Kopman . ‘ J 183 
PHAETHON CATESBYI BRanp?T. By Gregory M. Mathews . ; 5 3 F 195 
SIMULTANEOUS AcTION oF Birps: A SuaGcestion. By Winsor M. Tyler, M. D. 198 
Tue Otp New Encuianp Bos-wuHite. By John C. Phillips. (Plate XVI) . : 204 
Earzty Recorps oF THE Witp TurkKrEy. IV. By Albert Hazen Wright : F 207 


GENERAL Nores.— The Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) at Berwyn, Pa., 225; Mal- 
lards Wintering in Saskatchewan, 225; European Widgeon in Washington, 225; 
Harlequin Duck in the Glacier National Park, Montana, 225: The Blue Goose 
(Chen cerulescens) in Rhode Island, 226; Occurrence of the Pectoral Sandpiper 
(Pisobia maculata) near Salem, N. J., 226; The Wimbrel, Ruff, Buff-breasted Sand- 
piper, and Eskimo Curlew on Long Island, N. Y., 226; The Diving Instinct in Shore 
birds, 227; The Little Black Rail on Long Island, N. Y., 227; Richardson’s Owl 
and Other Owls in Franklin County, New York, 228; Lewis’s Woodpecker taken 
in Saskatchewan, 228; Prairie Horned Lark in Rhode Island in Summer, 229; 
Crows Nesting on the Ground, 229; The Bermuda Crow, 229; The Orange-crowned 
Warbler in Cambridge, Mass., in December, 230; A Winter Record for the Palm 
Warbler on Long Island, N. Y., 230; The Blackburnian and Bay-breasted Warblers 
at Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., 230: The Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) 
as an Abundant Autumnal Migrant and asa Destructive Grape Juice Consumer at 
Berwyn, Pa., 231; Cape May Warbler Eating Grapes, 233; Addendum, 234; The 
Rock Wren at National, lowa, 234; Corthylio— A Valid Genus for the Ruby- 
crowned Kinglet, 234; A Note on the Migration at Sea of Shore Birds and Swallows, 
236; Rare Birds near Waynesburg, Pa., 236; Some New York City Notes, 237; 
Notes from Wisconsin, 237; Changes and Additions to the ‘ List of the Birds of Galla- 
tin County,.Montana, 238; What Bird Lovers Owe to the Late Professor King, 239; 
Morning Awakening Notes at Jefferson Highland, N. H., 240. 


Recent LirerRature.— ‘The Auk’ Index, 1901-1910, 242; The New B. O. U. List, 243; 
Hankin on Animal Flight, 245; Snethlage’s ‘Catalogue of the Birds of Amazonia,’ 
247: Hornaday's ‘Wild Life Conservation in Theory and Practice,’ 248; Hartert’s 
‘Die Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna,’ 248; Phillips on Experimental Studies of 
Hybridization among Ducks and Pheasants, 249; Allen on Pattern Development 
in Mammals and Birds, 249: Shufeldt on the Skeleton of the Ocellated Turkey, 250; 
Smith’s ‘Handbook of the Rocky Mountains Park Museum, 250; Mearns on New 
African Birds, 251; Von Ihering on Brazilian Birds, 251; Allen’s ‘Birds in their 
Relation to Agriculture in New York State, 251; Simpson’s ‘Pheasant Farming,’ 
252: Recent Biological Survey Publications, 252; Economic Ornithology in Recent 
Entomological Publications, 253: Two Recent Papers on Bird Food by Collinge, 254; 
First Report of the Brush Hill Bird Club, 255; Recent Reports on Game and Bird 
Protection, 255; The Ornithological Journals, 256; Ornithological Articles in Other 
Journals, 261; Publications Received, 263. \ 


CorrESPONDENCE.— A Bird Census of the United States, 267. 


Nores aNp News.— Louis di Zerega Mearns, 268; ‘The Auk’ Review of Ornithological 
Journals, 269; The Delaware Valley Ornithological Club’s Quarter-century, 269; 
Systematists and Experimental Biologists, 270; S. N. Rhoads’ Expedition to Guate- 
mala, 271; The A. O. U. California Meeting, 271. 


‘THE AUK,’ published quarterly as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNITHOLO- 
aists’ Unron, is edited, beginning with the Volume for 1912, by Dr. WirmErR 
STONE. 

Terms; — $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Fellows, and to Fellows, Members, and 
Associates of the A. O. U. not in arrears for dues. s 

Subscriptions should be addressed to Dr. JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr., 
Business Manager, 134 West 71st St., New Yorx, N. Y. Foreign Subscrib- 
ers may obtain ‘Tue Auk’ through R. H. PORTER, 9 Princes Street, 
CAVENDISH SQUARE, W., LONDON. eG 

Articles and communications intended for publication, and all books 
and publications for notice, should be sent to Dr. WITMER STONE, 
AcapEMy oF NatTuRAL ScrenceEs, LoGAN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, Pa. _ 

Manuscripts for general articles should reach the editor at least six weeks 
before the date of the number for which they are intended, and manuscripts 
for ‘General Notes’ and ‘ Recent Literature’ not later than the first of the month 
preceding the date of the number in which it is desired they shall appear. 


THE Avi “Vor. XxX. Pratre i: 


{} iy 


Wh 


ij ih 
‘1 Mk 


SKULLS oF DENDROCOLAPTIDE. 


toe AU: 


A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF 


ORNITHOLOGY. 
VOG: 5X RIT. APRIL, 1915. No. 2. 


THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE FAMILY DENDRO- 
COLAPTID. 


BY DR. HERMAN V. IHERING. 
Puates XI-XII. 


In a paper just published in the ‘Revista do Museu Paulista,’ 
Vol. [X, 1914, I was able to show that the life histories of the birds 
composing the several subfamilies of Dendrocolaptide exhibit 
important differences well calculated to aid in the proper syste- 
matic arrangement of the various genera. More recently I have 
studied the craniological characters of the different genera and it is 
the purpose of the present paper to set forth the results of these 
studies. 

I have already shown that biological conditions in the family 
Tyrannide furnished excellent indications of the proper syste- 
matic arrangement of the genera, and lately I have been able to 
complete my former work especially with regard to the genera 
Onychorhynchus and Myiobius. My investigations inspire my 
admiration for the accuracy of the systematic arrangement pro- 
posed by R. Ridgway who on morphological characters has already 
divided the genus Myiobius exactly in the same manner as my 
observations on the nidification of the species demand. 

I am of the opinion that the family Dendrocolaptide of Sclater 
is also in need of further study and in this connection biological 


145 


146 von InERING, The Dendrocolaptide. [ Pee 


observations furnish valuable hints on the systematic arrangement 
of the genera. According to their manner of life these birds form 
three natural groups. Those allied to Furnarius are inhabitants 
of the open country and low lands. They construct their nests 
in the ground with subterranean burrows leading to them, some- 
times of considerable length. The custom of the Ovenbirds of 
constructing their nests in trees is evidently a secondary adapta- 
tion and the material employed in their construction — mud — 
indicates that their ancestors nested in the ground. 

The second group contains the genus Synallaxis and related 
forms. They live like many other small birds upon trees and 
bushes and construct big dome-shaped nests, either of grass, moss 
and other soft materials or of sticks. 

The birds of the last section comprising the Dendrocolaptinz 
and part of the Philydorine, live in the forest like the woodpeckers 
and nest in holes in trees. 

The eggs of all the members of the family are white or whitish 
green except in a few genera of Synallaxine in which they assume 
a uniform blue-green coloration. 

If we compare the above facts with the classification given by 
Sclater in the ‘Catalogue of Birds of the British Museum’ we find 
a general correspondence and are inclined to adopt his subfamilies 
with some modification. The removal of the genus Anumbius 
from the Synallaxine cannot be approved. The Philydorine with 
the exception of a few genera approach the Dendrocolaptine but 
are easily distinguished by morphological characters. 

Radically opposed to our views, however, is the cliethe im 
adopted by Ridgway in his admirable work ‘The Birds of North 
and Middle America,’ Vol. V, where the birds under consideration 
are distributed in two distinct families,— Furnariidz and Dendro- 
colaptide. The reason for distinguishing two families is stated to 
rest chiefly on differences in the structure of the skull. I have 
studied the skulls of a great number of genera and shall explain 
the results of my researches. 

In accordance with Garrod, Beddard and other authors, Ridgway 
places the genera with a holorhinal skull in the family Dendro- 
colaptidee, and those with a schizorhinal skull in the Furnariide. 
In the latter group the osseous nostril reaches the posterior end of 


et 


ome | von Inertine, The Dendrocolaptide. 147 


the premaxilla or passes above it, but does not extend to this point 
in the holorhinal skull. It must however be observed that the 
term schizorhinal cannot properly be applied to the members of 
the Furnariid because the posterior end of the nostril does not end 
in a gap but has always a rounded extremity. For this very reason 
Fiirbringer rejects the term schizorhinal in this connection, sub- 
stituting for it the new term pseudo-schizorhinal, and adds that 
both terms probably only refer to different modifications of the 
same anatomical condition. 

We shall see this opinion amply confirmed by my studies. 

The Synallaxinz are without exception schizorhinal as are also 
the Furnariine, although Geobates has the nasal foramen somewhat 
shortened, its posterior end being situated somewhat before that 
of the intermaxillary. 

Pronounced holorhiny is found only among the Dendrocolaptinz 
of which, however, some genera — Szttasomus, Dendrocincla and 
probably others — are typically schizorhinal. 

The Philydorine (Philydor, Xenicopsis, Xenops, etc.) form a 
transition group leading up to the Dendrocolaptine and the species 
are schizorhinal with the exception of Automolus and Anabazenops 
which have the nasal foramen shortened. 

When we seek to explain the phylogenetic developments here set 
forth, it is evident that the forms which present the greatest modi- 
fication are the Dendrocolaptinz, which are completely adapted 
for climbing after the manner of the Woodpeckers. The extraor- 
dinarily lengthened exterior rectrices and the protruding shaft 
points are peculiarities which characterize them as terminal mem- 
bers of a developmental series issuing from the Philydorine. 

We are able to distinguish among the Dendrocolaptine two 
groups of genera. One of these, beginning with the schizorhinal 
genera, Sittasomus and Dendrocincla leads by way of Dendroplez, 
to Dendrocolaptes and Xiphocolaptes the most powerful forms of 
the family with the heaviest beaks. The other group beginning 
with Picolaptes leads to forms with extremely long, curved beaks 
such as Nasica and Campylorhynchus. Xtphocolaptes as well as Dry- 
mornis, Nasica, etec., are extremely modified members of the family, 
of considerable size, and their peculiarities can be easily explained 
by comparison with the structure of the smaller, less specialized, 


forms. 


148 von Inerine, The Dendrocolaptide. Pei 


Corresponding with the two groups above indicated we find 
modifications in the structure of the skull. In both series the 
strongly modified forms have the frontal bone exceedingly large 
and the nasal foramen relatively small — the extreme reduction 
being reached in Campylorhynchus and allied genera. By this 
means the basal bridge between the nostril and frontal bone be- 
comes extraordinarily large and strong, an adaptation corre- 
sponding to the increased demand in these birds for strength and 
resistance at the base of the beak. While the precursors of Pico- 
laptes seem to be extinct the line of evolution originating from S7t- 
tasomus is nearly uninterrupted. The skull of Sittasomus differs 
but little from that of Automolus and to this the skull of Sclerurus, 
seems closely related. 

With regard to skull structure the Synallaxine may be con- 
sidered as a more or less uniform group in which the genera Thripo- 
phaga and Phacellodomus are somewhat differentiated by the 
strongly convex base of the beak, prolonged posteriorly in two 
divergent ridges, surrounding a deep pit. 

A peculiarity of the species of Synallaxis and Septornis is the 
large, deep median furrow of the frontal bone with a corresponding 
projecting ridge on the inner side of the skull. There is also a deep 
pit at the posterior end of the intermaxillary near the anterior end 
of the frontal. We meet with the same conformation in Lochmias 
nematura where the lateral parts of the frontal bone are extraordi- 
narily convex and separated by a deep median furrow. Cinclodes 
presents the same condition while Upucerthia differs somewhat. in 
the more projecting nasals which surround the posterior part of the 
intermaxillary. The skull of Upucerthia resembles that of Thripo- 
phaga and Phacellodomus while Lochmias agrees with Synallazis. 

Of the subfamilies of the Dendrocolaptidze proposed by Sclater 
the least natural one seems to be the Furnariine. 

There are in general no great differences between the skulls of 
Furnarius and Synallaxis. In the former, however, the frontal 
fontanelle, so well marked in Synallaxis is absent, while the frontal 
bone in Synallaxis and allied genera is much narrower than in 
Furnarius. Anumbius agrees in cranial characters with Synal- 
laxis; and Pseudoseisura with Phacellodomus. If, therefore, we 
place Lochmias in the Synallaxine on the basis of skull structure 


THE AUK, VoL. XXXII. PLATE a: 


4 


WSS. 


Wa 


SKULLS OF DENDROCOLAPTID AND FORMICARIID A. 


Pai | von Inertne, The Dendrocolaplide. 149 
we should be able to find other characters to support our action 
and these, I believe, exist. 

The true Furnariinz have the tail truncated while in the genera 
Lochmias, Upucerthia and other Cinclodine the exterior rectrices 
are successively shortened. If we consider that this latter condi- 
tion prevails in general throughout the Dendrocolaptidee we must 
realize that the tail structure in the true Furnariine is quite a 
remarkable peculiarity. 

The Furnariine have probably originated through localization 
in the vast prairies of the La Plata states and the adjacent parts 
of Brazil and Bolivia, while the origin of the Cinclodinz has been 
in Patagonia and the Andes. 

It is not easy to trace the lines of dispersal which have brought 
about the present distribution of the South American Dendro- 
colaptidze but some light is thrown upon the matter by the study of 
ornithological literature. Of special interest in this connection is 
the history of Furnarius, the Ovenbird, one of the characteristic 
species of the central Brazilian and Argentine fauna which seems 
to be still extending its range. When Natterer in the years 1818- 
1823 explored the state of Sao Paulo, he did not meet with it 
although at the present time it is common in the valley of the Para- 
hyba river and appeared some fifteen years ago at Campinas 
where it nests. 

We may also infer that the genus Cinclodes in eastern Brazil is a 
relatively recent immigrant, as also the few species of Pteroptochide, 
a family of Patagonian-Andean origin. 

Of several genera of the Dendrocolaptide the skull is unknown 
to me, such as Margarornis and Glyphorhynchus, so that I cannot 
form an opinion upon their relationships from cranial characters. 
It is not, however, my intention to propose here a new system of 
classification for the family, my aim being rather to furnish new 
facts based upon biological and anatomical observations which 
may eventually be of value in the construction of such a system. 

As in the Furnariine two lines of development have\been demon- 
strated we can presume that the Dendrocolaptine sprang from 
two different groups of the Philydorine. Probably the case is 
more or less the same with respect to the somewhat aberrant 
genera Sclerurus, Glyphorhynchus and Margarornis. 


150 von Inertne, The Dendrocolaptide. [ ee 


It follows therefore, as already suggested by Fiirbringer (p. 1419), 
that the supposed difference between pseudoschizorhinal and holo- 
rhinal skulls in the Dendrocolaptidse does not exist in fact, but 
that they are modifications of little importance which serve only 
in a limited degree in the characterization of genera, and not at all 
in the differentiation of families. 

Most families which are related to the Dendrocolaptide have 
the skull holorhinal. We find in them, however, similar modifica- 
tions to those existing in the Dendrocolaptide. For example in 
the Formicariidee some species of Myrmotherula and Drymophila 
show prolongation of the narrow posterior portion of the nasal 
foramen almost up to the intermaxillary and it is probable that 
further studies based upon richer material will demonstrate that 
among the Formicariide too there are species with pseudoschizo- 
rhinal as well as holorhinal skulls. Of greater importance however 
is the modification in the bony nostril of the Formicariide. In 
Batara cinerea (Plate XII, figs. 3-4) it is closed for nearly its entire 
length (14 mm.) by a thin vertical osseous membrane, the anterior 
portion of which is perforated by a nostril 4 mm. in diameter, while 
the posterior part contains a second nostril communicating with the 
buccal cavity. I have found the same structure in Thamnophilus 
and Conopophaga lineata, the aspect of the several skulls being 
quite different but the structure essentially the same, except for 
the fact that the membrane of the nasal cavity remains soft in 
some and becomes ossified in others. 

This style of skull structure in which instead of one large bony 
nostril we have two, a posterior and anterior one, I propose to call 
amphirhinal. 

In the Dendrocolaptide, therefore, while the type of structure is 
always the same and there are no essential anatomical differences, 
the dimensions and proportions of the different bones and foramina 
vary to a degree rarely found in one family. The enormous varia- 
tion in the form of the beak is seen in such genera as Xenops, 
Synnallaxis, Philydor and Campylorhamphus. In connection with 
the differences in form we find variation in the condition of the 
nostrils which are in some genera holorhinal, in others pseudo- 
schizorhinal. The base of the beak is also differentiated variously, 
sometimes provided with an intermaxillary frontal fontanelle, 
sometimes not; while between the two parietal bones in some 


oe | von Inerine, The Dendrocolaptide. 151 
genera a profound median sulcus is developed. The configuration 
of the skull depends in a great measure upon the breadth of the 
interorbital part of the frontal bone and the proportion of this 
to the greatest breadth of the skull (considered as 100) varies from 
16 to 50, the absolute measure being in Synallazxis spixi 2.4: 14.3 
mm. and in Campylorhamphus trochilirostris 8.8:17.2 mm. As 
already suggested by Fiirbringer the study of the variations in 
the nostrils of the Dendrocolaptide has shown that this is a 
character of secondary value. 

The importance which is given in ornithological literature to 
such terms as holorhinal and schizognathous represents an inherit- 
ance from the past century. When Huxley in 1867 published his 
classic treatise on the classification of birds it seemed as if the skull 
was to attain the same importance in the classification of birds as 
it had already reached in the mammalian system. 

Six years later Garrod gave to the structure of the nostrils the 
same importance in avian classification as Huxley had given to the 
palate structure. And now we ask what is the situation to-day? 

The results set forth in this paper with reference to the schizo- 
rhiny of the Dendrocolaptide confirm the opinion of Fiirbringer 
as stated above; who also (I. c. p. 1034) rejects Huxley’s groups 
based on palate structure. Beddard (I. c. p. 140) also points out 
that the maxillo-palatine classification is not really satisfactory 
from a systematic point of view and adds that it is rendered 
harmless by the fact that the groups are really not as hard and 
fast as might be supposed from text books in general. 

In this, however, I cannot agree with Beddard as generalizations 
of this sort, rejected by the most competent morphologists, often 
persist with tenacity in our systematic literature and in many 
instances hinder the zodlogist from following his own inclination. 
If in studying any family in the zodlogical system we take one 
anatomical character as a basis for the arrangement of the genera 
or species we construct a system which is entirely changed if we 
make use of some other character. Skull or pelvis,\sternum or 
syrinx, pterylosis or muscles —in nearly every case we obtain 
a different arrangement. j 

The result of the exclusive application of certain anatomical 
characters is seen in Garrod’s classification of the Psittaci, which 
has been accepted by Beddard, in which the South American 


[Apa 
April 


152 von IneRtnG, The Dendrocolaptide. 
Conurinz are distributed in three different subfamilies, the Arainz, 
Pyrrhurine and Platycercine! 

The same process of development of a certain organ is repeated 
many times independently in different subfamilies and genera and 
therefore can be applied only to a limited extent in classification. 

No single organ is of such importance that we can attribute to it 
absolute preference and it is never possible to determine & priori 
whether this or that character will be of most importance in syste- 
matic work. It happens sometimes that a relatively insignificant 
character will prove of great value, as for example the loss of a 
remex, which serves as a distinction between the large groups of 
quincubital and aquincubital birds. The quincubital condition is 
the archaic one and the loss of the fifth remex although represent- 
ing a higher phylogenetic degree, must be considered as a process 
of degeneration, for which it would be stupid to make natural 
selection responsible. 

What we learn from ornithological studies is that the wide range 
of variation which leads, or can lead to the origin of new groups, is 
on the definite lines of evolution which influence also the less im- 
portant characters but which do not raise any question of survival 
since both the primitive and modified types succeed equally well 
in the struggle for existence. 

In more than forty years of uninterrupted biological research I 
have been unable to discover any facts among free living animals 
which tend to prove the existence of natural selection, or even to 
elevate it to the rank of an indispensable or necessary factor in the 
origin of species. So long as we do not have at our disposal a 
complete series of morphological and paleontological observations, 
which would furnish a systematic arrangement of genera on the 
ground of actual phylogenetic experience, our classifications are 
more or less a question of our ability to accurately judge the im- 
portance of morphological characters for systematic use. Barriers 
erected by anatomists, however celebrated, during the past three 
decades should no longer be allowed to present difficulties in our 
ornithological work. 

From the preceding discussion I reach the following conclusions. 

1. The assumed difference between schizorhinal and holorhinal 
skulls does not exist in the Dendrocolaptide. The species in which 


rie | von InerRine, The Dendrocolaptide. 153 


the nasal foramen is prolonged posteriorly present only a modifica- 
tion of the common holorhinal type, and this condition should be 
named pseudoschizorhinal according to Fiirbringer. 

The variations in the palatine structure, moreover, are of no more 
importance than those of the nasal foramen. 

2. The family Dendrocolaptide is an entirely uniform and 
natural one and there are no sufficient reasons for its subdivision 
into two families. 

3. The morphological and biological characters to which I have 
alluded offer useful data for the systematic. disposition of the 
subfamilies and genera of the Dendrocolaptide. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


kl. Brpparp, Frank. The Structure and Classification of Birds. Lons 
don. 1898. . 

II. Firprmecer, Max. Untersuchungen zur Morphologie u. Systema- 
tik der Voegel. Amsterdam. 1888. 

III. Garrop, A.H. On the Value in the Classification of a Similarity 
in the Anterior Margin of the Nasal Bones of Certain Birds. 
Proc. Zool. Soc. London. 1873. pp. 33-38. 

IV. Riveway, Ropert. The Birds of North and Middle America. 
Part V. Washington; 1911 [p. 157, Furnariide, p. 224, Dendro- 
colaptide]. 


EXPLANATION OF PLATES. 


Puate XI. 


Fig.1. Sittasomus sylviellus (Temm.). X 2. 
Fig.2. Anabazenopsfuscus Vieill. X 2. 
Fie.3. Dendroplex picus (Gm.). X 2. 

Fie. 4. Synallaxis spizi Scl. Nat. size. 


Puate XII. 


Fie. 1. Synallaxis spixi Scl. Nat. size. 

Fig.2. Picolaptes falcinellus (Cab. & Heine). X 2. \ 
Fias. 3 & 4. Batara cinerea (Vieill.). Nat. size. 

N = nostril, A = anterior, P = posterior. 

F.F. = frontal fontanelle. 

1.0. = interorbital part of frontal bone. 


154 Kennarp, The Okaloacoochee Slough. [Auk 


THE OKALOACOOCHEE SLOUGH.! 
BY FREDERIC H. KENNARD. 
Plates XIII-XV. 


WE camped on the nights of March 18 and 14, 1914, about three 
miles north of the “main strand” of the Big Cypress, close beside 
the trail, in an open glade among the cypress heads; and both 
nights the wind blew so that I was glad to crawl into the lee of a 
neighboring tree. 

Here we hunted turkeys, obtaining some of both sexes, and 
collecting several Swallow-tailed Kites, whose nesting season was 
just beginning, and which I think are, with the exception of the 
Roseate Spoonbill, the most beautiful birds I have ever shot. 

On the 15th we traveled north, along the Immokalee trail for 
about eight miles, and then struck out across the prairie, skirting 
the edge of the cypress swamp and pine woods in a northeasterly 
direction for about seven miles, until we came to a little pine island 
near the edge of the Okaloacoochee Slough, where we camped for 
several days. 

During the trip I discovered a Swallow-tailed Kite building its nest 
in the top of a tall, slim pine, near the edge of some pine woods, 
and close by a cypress swamp. The nest was about sixty-five feet 
up, and instead of being built against the trunk of the tree, as is so 
often the case with raptores, was built at the end of an upreaching 
limb, and from the ground, looked like a rather flimsy structure of 
sticks, to which the old bird was now adding moss. In shooting 
this bird I broke his right wing at the pinion joint, and he continued 
to fly screaming above my head, with the pinion flapping, until I 
brought him down with another shot. Their powers of flight are 
certainly marvellous. 

En route we saw numbers of cattle, poor scrawny beasts, scat- 
tered about the prairie, most of them pretty wild, and every once in 


1cf. Auk, Jan., 1915, p. 1, for details of this expedition through southerh 
Florida. 


‘T 


‘AUAMOOY SIM] COOM AHL HLVANGA aWvMG 


G 


SIG] GOOM GHL FO SLSaN 


TWIXXX “OA “ANY FAL 


TX SLVTd 


ret al Kennarp, The Okaloacoochee Slough. 155 


a while a group of buzzards marked the spot where one had died. 
We heard but few Sandhill Cranes, until we neared the Okaloa- 
coochee, when we began to see them, often two or three at a time, 
and flushed one flock of five and then another of seven that flew off 
“hollering” at our approach. Here also we saw our first Florida 
Burrowing Owls, and discovered one of their burrows only a short 
distance from where we were to camp. 

The Okaloacoochee Slough, where we proposed spending the 
next couple of weeks, is a waterway extending from a few miles 
south of Fort Thompson, on the Caloosahatchee River, in a south- 
erly direction into the Big Cypress, and from thence to the Gulf. 
It is bordered by a series of prairies, sloughs, marshes and swamps; 
most of which are wet throughout the entire year; and seems to 
be a “fly-way” for all the water birds in that part of the State that 
do not go up the Gulf coast. 

Our first camp was near the southerly end of a large cypress 
swamp, through which the waters of the slough took their way. 
The prairie here is dotted with sloughs, the haunt of Sandhill 
Cranes, the Florida Black Duck, and of countless Herons and 
Ibises; and east of the swamp it stretches away to the horizon, 
where the sky line is broken only by an occasional pine island, and 
by an easterly strand of the Big Cypress, which from here can just 
be seen. 

Here we hunted Cranes and Black Ducks, and I spent much 
time on the prairie watching the Burrowing Owls. Peter told me 
they were not nearly so numerous as formerly, when colonies of 
twenty and twenty-five together were not uncommon; and this was 
the only location he knew of in Lee County in which these interest- 
ing birds still bred. 

They build their nests out in the sandy soil of the open prairie, 
on the higher places, from which the floods have receded, and which 
here had been burned over earlier in the season. We found num- 
bers of their little mounds scattered about, but hardly thick enough 
to be called a colony. * 

On approaching an inhabited burrow, if one or both of the 
owners were not already in sight, they very quickly appeared; and 
standing bolt upright on their little mound of sand at the mouth 
of the burrow, would courtesy gravely to me, until on my nearer 


156 Kennarp, The Okaloacoochee Slough. esi 


—— = 


ot ee Ws = “ ” 
ke /2— += —/2 ye ee 12, "->k<- Az oe Zeal 


tf Ati. UY athe ieee We Ypatet hace i! lbs (eer (eae p es (Aah onoead 


Ll yaY I Tig 
GW Wi VIMIIILI TE ty, 


Ls 
i} 


Ui 


TES NOES ph a ee eT Ss Ee 
5 ' 


eae a S17. ee 
\ ' ' a ' ( ‘ 
LOM, hs ead i I, oF J. We EDI Wedd te We tie Vi JI se 


CUI TELE EELS SS 
GD ZY hyp MY Uggs UY Yyy Vl I ae YY 
ES We » ; ; = i Z 7 ZG GY 


4 ype: Yes Yay 
TOT. YY YY YY LYTLE Yl 


Three Burrows of the Florida Burrowing Owl. Horizontal and vertical sections. 


ia | Kennarp, The Okaloacoochee Slough. 157 


approach, they would fly off onto the prairie, perhaps fifty or a 
hundred feet, where they would continue their courtesies, uttering 
at the same time their calls, Whit, whit-whit, a long and two short 
notes: or Whit-whit, who-who-who-who-whit, two short notes fol- 
lowed by a stutter, a little lower in tone but ending with a short 
sharp whit at the end; or Whit-whit, who-who-who-who-who, two 
short whits, followed by the stutter. Often instead of flying they 
would run over the prairie, reminding me of the Robins one sees 
on the lawn, which after standing upright and still, suddenly 
bend forward and run. 

I dug up a number of their burrows, but it was apparently too 
early to find eggs, though some of the nests appeared to be com- 
pleted. These burrows, several of which I measured carefully, 
seemed to run in any direction, east, west, north or south, just as 
the birds happen to choose, for a distance of from four and a half 
to eight feet, with the floor of the burrow usually averaging from 
ten to twelve inches below the surface of the prairie, though we 
found one that ran as deep as eighteen inches. 

The tunnels, which were usually from three to three and a half 
inches high and from four to five and half wide, ran down grade 
until about two feet from the entrance, and then nearly on a level, 
until just before the nest was reached, when there would be a 
slight rise in the grade, apparently to keep the nest a little above 
any water that might, in spite of the natural drainage of the soil, 
gather in the hole in time of storm. The nest chambers, which 
were oval, were about six inches high and from eight to nine inches 
in diameter, with a slight depression in the bottom; and those 
that were nearing completion were rather carefully lined with weeds 
and grasses, but in no case with cow dung (see article by 5. N. 
Rhoads in ‘The Auk’ for January, 1892). In several of the bur- 
rows we found a small tunnel about two and a half by three inches 
in diameter, extending for distances varying from eight or ten 
inches to nearly four feet and ending abruptly. What these tun- 
nels were built for, I am unable to explain, or how the bird managed 
to make them so small. Of one thing only am I certain, and that 
is that they were built before the nest was lined. 

The little piles of sand at the mouth of the burrows necessa- 
rily varied in size according to the amount of excavation. The 


158 Kennard, The Okaloacoochee Slough. Laat 


largest that we saw measured forty by forty-four inches across, 
and was only three inches in height. Some of them were very 
conspicuous, while others were partly overgrown with grasses, and 
we found one that was in the side of one of those “bull holes” 
which here dot the prairie —holes pawed in the earth by bellicose 
bulls. 

When the owls flew, they flew softly as all owls do, but rapidly 
when they so desired, and frequently with high undulations and 
succeeding dives. They never went a hundred yards from their 
nests, and we could not drive them away from the vicinity. As 
soon as we were through investigating their nests, the little birds 
at once flew back to them, and showed a distress to which I was 
only reconciled by the knowledge that they would doubtless soon 
begin to rehabilitate some old burrow, of which there were plenty 
in the vicinity. Once Tom and I discovered in the distance a 
burrow from which little jets of sand were issuing with great fre- 
quency and regularity, about three to the second, onto the mound 
in front. One of the birds was just inside the mouth of the burrow, 
apparently throwing the sand out backwards with his feet. 

The owls never seemed to sleep, day or night, at least I never 
caught them at it, and once I went out on the prairie on a pitch 
dark night at 3 A.M., in an effort to see if one particular pair was 
at home, and blocked up the mouth of the burrow, only to find 
them a few yards away, apparently as well able to take care of 
themselves in the dark as in the daytime. 

On the 18th we found a slough at one end of which was a little 
willow island, in which there were ten nests of Ward’s Heron; 
seven of them contained well grown young, and three had well 
incubated eggs. Numbers of Boat-tailed Grackles were building 
here, some of their nests two or three feet above the water among 
the vines that hung pendant from the willows, while others were 
fifteen feet high on the out-reaching branches of the willows them- 
selves. Most of the nests were in process of construction, though 
a few held an egg apiece, while one contained two eggs and another 
three. There was a flock of “Curlew” or White Ibises here, to- 
gether with Louisiana and Little Blue Herons, and a number u 
Yellow-crowned Night Herons. 

We were still in the turkey country and succeeded in picking up 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXII. PLATE XIV. 


1. Frormpa BuRROWING Ow Ls At Home. 


2. Nests oF Warp HERON. 


poate | Kennarp, The Okaloacoochee Slough. 159 


another fine specimen of the much wanted hen; and gobblers could 
be heard every morning among the neighboring pine islands. We 
saw several hawks flying low and hunting over the prairie, that 
Tom declared were Everglade Kites, but which I never got near 
enough to shoot, and was unable to identify. I did, however, see 
several Marsh Hawks. There were also Killdeer and a few Snipe 
in some of the marshes, and we saw one bunch of about a dozen 
Greater Yellow-legs. 

On March 20th when I had gone out early to see what the Bur- 
rowing Owls were up to, I took the following notes, which may be 
of interest as an account of the early morning bird life that imme- 
diately surrounded us. 

“3 a.M. Awoke to find the moon about an hour high, and two 
Horned Owls hooting in the pine woods to the southwest. Do 
they always hoot as the moon rises, or is it that that is the only 
time I ever happen to hear them?”’ 

“3.40 Black Ducks calling from slough to the eastward.” 

“4.20 As I was walking over the prairie the Sandhill Cranes 
began calling from all directions. Whether or not some of them 
were first aroused by me I am unable to say.” 

“4.35 A Chuck-will’s-widow made a few calls.” 

“4.40 A Whip-poor-will after two or three preliminary throat 
clearers, started in with seventy-six calls, as against one hundred 
and eighty-eight I heard one make successively yesterday A.M.” 

“4.45 J can hear two Horned Owls, one Barred Owl, which has 
been hooting at intervals ever since I awoke, two Whip-poor-wills 
and one Chuck-will’s-widow, all calling at once. The Horned 
Owls’ notes sound thus: Whoo, who-who-whoo, whoo whoo; or 
Whoo, who-who-whoo, who-who-whoo, whoo Oe a far deeper tone 
than those of the Barred Owl.” 

“4.50 Black Ducks again set up a squawking, Cranes are ‘ holler- 
ing’ all over the prairies, and it is beginning to get light in the east. 
A Barred Owl is hooting close by, another in the middle distance. 
and a third far off.” 

“4.55 Night Herons quawking, Florida Wellowaitaaais singing 
in the nearby clumps of saw palmettos, and two Chuck-will’s- 
widows and one Whip-poor-will are apparently trying to sing each 
other down.” 


160 Kennarp, The Okaloacoochee Slough. [ Aut 


“4.58 Boat-tails are beginning to call, and Jorees (Towhees) are 
everywhere in the palmettos about us.” 

“4.59 Black Ducks again squawking, Meadowlarks, Shrikes, 
Florida Yellow-throats everywhere, and Herons of some kind, 
either Louisiana or Little Blues calling from the swamp.” 

“5.03 A Turkey gobbling away off the southwest.” 

“5.04 Turkey gobbling frequently.” 

“5.05 More quawking of Herons, Barred Owls continue per- 
formance, but Horned Owls seem to have quit. The Okaloa- 
coochee with its low lying fog looks like a huge lake.” 

“5.06 Jorees and Florida Yellow-throats are calling continu- 
ously in every direction. I thought I heard a Song Sparrow in the 
distance, though it may have been a Savannah.” 

“5.08 That gobbler is trying for a record.” 

“5.09 A Cardinal is singing nearby. He may well have sung 
before, and escaped notice.” 

“5.16 Quail are beginning to call, the gobbler is calling again, 
and eS sa replying to another that has just started gobbling 
south of us.’ 

“5.17 Crows are cawing; a little late it seems to me.”’ 

“5.19 Red-bellied Woodpeckers and Florida Grackles are be- 
ginning to arrive in our grove.” 

“5.20 <A Flicker is calling in the distance, and a big gobbler is 
gobbling just a short piece up the trail.” 

“5.32 Pine Warblers, ane Blackbirds and Downy Wood- 
peckers in the pines about us.’ 

We succeeded in collecting four Florida Black Ducks while i 
this camp — three drakes and a duck. I forgot to measure the duck 
before skinning, but the three drakes when laid out on my operating 
table, each measured twenty-three inches in length, which is con- 
siderably longer than the measurements usually given for this 
species, and I was very much interested in finding that they all, 
both sexes, had bright coral red legs. The bills of the drakes were 
very highly colored, and looked to me like the bills of the freshly 
killed specimens of the northern species. Some, at least, of these 
birds were beginning to breed, for although we found no nests our- 
selves, I was later lucky enough to secure a beautiful set of eleven 
fresh eggs, taken by a friend of Tom’s on March 20, in a slough 
near Immokalee. 


as 


“THE AUK, VOL. XXXII. PLATE XV. 


A Bonnet LAKE ON THE OKALOACOOCHEE. 


NEST OF THE SAND HILL CRANE. 


Vee | Kennarp, The Okaloacoochee Slough. 161 


On the morning of March 20 our long search for an occupied 
Crane’s nest was rewarded by finding one that contained two well 
incubated eggs, in a slough away out in the prairie. The old bird, 
which we jumped directly from her nest, near the middle of the 
slough, flew off “hollering”’ and lit out on the prairie, from which 
point of vantage she could watch the proceedings. The nest was a 
huge affair about four feet by six in extent, and eight inches above 
the level of the surrounding water, with a depression about two 
inches deep, and was constructed principally of the dried stems of 
what looked to me like the pickerel weed with which most of these 
sloughs are filled. 

In the afternoon we broke camp and traveled northeast across 
the prairie, around the cypress swamp, at the southerly end of 
which we had been camping, to a place known as the Widow 
McLean’s Crossing, where a trail from Immokalee to the Semi- 
nole reservation crosses the Okaloacoochee. 

Here in a sort of ~lade surrounded on three sides by a wonderful 
cypress swamp, someone had years ago built a shack, long since in 
ruins, planted a small grove of grapefruit, oranges and guavas, 
and cultivated the ground about them. “Lightwood”’ for our 
fires, and pasturage, were both in plenty; and we were out of reach 
of the bothersome prairie winds. There was plenty of good water 
that actually ran through the stream just back of camp; and, 
wonder of wonders, a place where I could bathe. The air was 
redolent with the odor of orange blossoms, the place fairly alive 
with birds, a delightful change after our strenuous experience of the 
last few weeks. 

Late in the afternoon, while putting our camp to rights, the air 
was full of birds, thousands upon thousands of them flying over us, 
south to the adjoining cypress swamp. “Flint Heads” (Wood 
Ibis) in companies and the swift flying “Curlew” (White Ibis) in 
battalions and regiments, Louisiana and Little Blue Herons by 
the hundreds, with here and there a sprinkling of “Long Whites”’ 
(Egret), all in one continuous stream. Right in the mjddle of it we 
were startled by yells from Tom, and on rushing out into the open 
to see what the matter was, espied two “Pink Curlew”’ (Roseate 
Spoonbills) flying rapidly south with the other species. 

From all the signs we were led to believe that there must be a 


162 Kennarp, The Okaloacoochee Slough. [ pe 


large rookery in the cypress swamp just south of us. The next 
morning, after making skins of a couple of Limpkins that Tom had 
collected the night before, we started for the middle of the swamp, 
above which we could see a number of “Flint Heads” soaring and 
wheeling high up in the air, very much after the manner of the 
Black Buzzards. We crossed the slough and coming out onto the 
prairie, which here stretched away to the easterly horizon, skirted 
the swamp for a short distance until we came to a trail used by the 
Seminoles, who come here from all over southern Florida for the 
huge cypress trees from which they make their dugouts. 

En route we saw several Turkeys, and after a short walk came to 
the edge of one of the prettiest of Florida lakes, perhaps one hun- 
dred and fifty to two hundred yards long and from thirty to sixty 
yards wide, completely surrounded by a growth of wonderful 
moss-covered old cypress, that seemed fairly alive with birds. 
Anhingas, in larger numbers than I have ever seen assembled in so 
small a space, were flying rapidly about or craning their necks as 
they perched on overhanging boughs. There were Herons of 
various sorts about the edges of the lake, and numbers of wise 
looking old “Flint Heads” sitting solemnly among the tree tops. 
Wood Ducks were swimming among the buttressed trunks of the 
cypress trees at the border of the lake, and several huge alligators, 
as we came in sight, were seen to sink slowly beneath the surface 
of a pool at the southerly end. 

I had crawled out on a prostrate stump to take a photograph of 
the beautiful scene, when suddenly a wonderful “ Pink Curlew” 
came shooting out from one of the side aisles, across the lake in 
front of me. I must have been seized with something akin to buck 
fever, for I simple stood there open mouthed and staring, until at a 
yell from Tom about a dozen more flew out, and I managed to wake 
up sufficiently to secure three of them. Later we saw several 
more “ Pinks,” thirty or forty of them in all. 

Of the Spoonbills collected, one was an adult female with egg in 
the oviduct; while the other two were immature — a male, and a 
female with ovaries undeveloped. The irides of the immature 
specimens, instead of being bright carmine, like their elders, were, 
to quote my notes, “of a nondescript color at first glance blue, but 
on closer examination a sort of dark hazel.” 


wea | KennarbD, The Okaloacoochee Slough. 163 
On Sunday, March 22, we rested and put in most of our time 
making up skins. The day was overcast and inclined to be rainy, 
but not enough so to discourage the birds. Cardinals, Mocking- 
birds, Tufted Titmice and White-eyed Vireos were singing in the 
trees about us, the occasional scream of Florida Bluejays could be 
heard, and once in a while the rattle of a Kingfisher flying overhead. 
Pileated Woodpeckers and Barred Owls called frequently from the 
slough behind us, and occasionally the squeak of Wood Ducks 
could be heard in the stream, which fairly teemed with them. 

Right in front of my tent were several depressions in the dirt 
made by Turkeys when “dusting.” <A pair of Swallow-tailed Kites © 
frequented the nearby pine wood, and the “hollering” of Sandhill 
Cranes could be heard in the distance. Chipping Sparrows, 
Florida Meadowlarks, Great Crested Flycatchers, Florida Grackles, 
Florida Red-wings, Buzzards, Florida Red-shouldered Hawks, 
Florida Crows, and Fish Crows, were nearly always about camp, 
and Ruby-throated Hummingbirds were flitting among the grape- 
fruit blossoms overhead. I heard one Blue-headed Vireo. “ Flint 
Heads,” White Ibises, and Herons of various sorts were generally 
in sight, and every once in a while a yell from Tom proclaimed a 
“Pink” going by. 

Some few “Flint Heads ”’ were always on the move, flying back 
and forth from their rookery. The prairie was often dotted with 
them, seeking insects, I suppose; and on moonlight nights numbers 
of them could be seen feeding in the sloughs. About daylight they 
begin to come out of the swamp in numbers, flying over camp with 
loud rhythmic whistle of wings, mostly in a northerly direction; 
straggling along in small companies; perhaps a couple, three, five, 
seven, or nine at a time, and in one extreme case, twenty-two. In 
flight they remind me of Brown Pelicans, a few flaps of the wings 
and then a soar, but their company drill is not nearly so good as 
that of the Pelicans, who follow their leader with such remarkable 
regularity. 

Every once in a while in the early morning, or lata in the after- 
noon, one hears a great rushing sound like that of a closely approach- 
ing wind storm, and a huge flock of beautiful White Ibises goes 
rushing overhead. In flight they are much more rapid than the 
Wood Ibis, and seem to set their wings to soar only when swooping 
down to alight or when turning in their flight. . 


164 KeEnnarp, The Okaloacoochee Slough. Wee 


After breakfast on March 23, Tom and I again started for the 
“Flint Head” rookery, from which we had been diverted by the 
Spoonbills two days before. We struck south from the alligator 
lake through about the worst bit of swamp it has ever been my lot 
to traverse, wading up to our armpits in water covered with a 
of skim of “lettuce,” or climbing six or eight feet in the air over 
prostrate trees, balancing ourselves on logs, crawling through vines 
or almost impenetrable jungle, and always dodging moccasins, 
until we came to the rookery, perhaps a half a mile from the lake. 
The cypresses here were magnificent, huge trees four, five, six or 
seven feet in diameter above the buttresses, and in one case over 
nine; growing well apart so that most of them had spreading tops. 

Here in a strip from one hundred to two hundred yards wide 
and extending for a mile or so, was the rookery. Not all of the 
trees were occupied, but most of the good ones held from four or 
five to twenty nests apiece, clear out on the ends of upreaching 
branches. At the northerly end of the rookery the nests contained 
vociferous young. A little farther south most of them appeared 
to contain eggs, while at the southerly end the nests were still in 
process of construction. Apparently they had started to build at 
the northerly end first, and then as the newcomers took up their 
parental duties from day to day, extended the rookery south. 

Here hour after hour there was a constant stream of birds flying 
back and forth from a clump of willows at the border of the swamp, 
that was being rapidly denuded of twigs and sticks, which the big 
birds broke off with their powerful bills and carried to their nests. 
Tom watched them for some time and reported that when a bird 
flew up to a willow and lit, it would perhaps grasp several twigs at 
once with its feet, apparently in order to get a better hold, and 
then seizing a twig with its bill, would pull and jerk until it 
broke off, or, if unsuccessful, get hold of some other twig, break it 
off, and then fly away. 

Tom was also lucky enough to get a view at close range of » 
several “Flint Heads” feeding in an open place in the water be- 
neath some “pop ash” trees. He described them as walking 
solemnly back and forth in water about up to their knees, with 
tails erect; and when feeding dragging their bills beside them, 
upside down like a Flamingo, opening and shutting them rapidly 


| KKENNARD, The Okaloacoochee Slough. 165 
and apparently sifting the mud through them. When meeting, 
they would often throw their heads back, puffing out their feathers 
at the base of their necks, and, if quarrelsome, would snap their 
bills loudly at each other. In the rookery the continual clatter of 
snapping bills can be heard quite a distance. 

We found a number of Spoonbills which were apparently just 
beginning their nesting season, and saw several standing on what 
I supposed to be their nests at the top of tall cypresses, while 
another was engaged in fixing up the lining of its nest. 

Tom and I tried to make an approximate estimate of the number 
of birds in the rookery, but were unable to arrive at any satis- 
factory conclusion. The traveling was so difficult that we could 
not undertake to block off the swamp into small areas in which we 
could count the nests, and we had to content ourselves with guess- 
ing. Tom, after further explorations the next day, thought there 
were at least ten thousand nests of the “ Flint Heads,” while I felt 
sure there were more than five thousand. At any rate, there were 
a great many, and among them a few Spoonbills’ nests. 

The other birds, White Ibises, Herons, Anhingas, etc., appeared 
not to have begun breeding, and apparently the first two only used 
the swamp as a roost. There must have been several thousand 
White Ibises and perhaps a hundred Egrets that used the swamp, 
and countless Little Blue, Louisiana and Night Herons of both 
species. None of these had apparently begun to breed. The 
season appeared late, and Tom thought that when they did breed 
they would probably build their nests out among the sloughs and 
willow islands somewhere on the prairie. 

Just east of camp, only a few hundred yards up the slough, was 
a very lovely “bonnet” lake, a feeding ground for many of these 
birds, and at its outlet I collected several Wood Ducks of both 
sexes, adults in full breeding plumage. As Florida Wood Ducks 
are thought, by some of the gunners there, to be rather smaller than 
our northern species, I took pretty careful measurements and found 
them to be identical as to wings, tail, tarsus and biN. In length 
four birds measured seventeen and one half inches when stretched 
to their utmost immediately after killing, and one reached seven- 
teen and three quarters. 

On March 26 we broke camp, yoked up our oxen, and left this 


LOG: Banas, Cabot’s Yucatan Types. [ Apull 


pleasantest of camp sites for the Burnt Pens, ten miles away on the 
trail to Fort Myers. | 

On the way to the Burnt Pens we had a very interesting experi- 
ence with a pair of Sandhill Cranes, whose young we discovered 
“neeping” out on the prairie. Its peeps were to us absolutely 
indistinguishable from the calls of the numerous Jorees in the 
surrounding saw palmetto, and the solicitude of its parents was 
almost human. 

We spent the night at the Burnt Pens and the next day, March 
27, Tom and I left for Fort Myers in the automobile, leaving Peter 
to follow with the schooner. 

I am glad to report that Tom Hand returned later to the Okaloa- 
coochee as warden, under the auspices of the National Association 
of Audubon Societies. There are still a few “crackers”? who have 
not yet been educated against plume hunting, and as we had, while 
camping there, seen suspicious tracks in the swamp, Mr. T. Gilbert 
Pearson very gladly complied with the suggestion that someone 
be sent there to watch the rookery and its vicinity until the end of 
the breeding season. 


CABOT’S TYPES OF YUCATAN BIRDS. 
BY OUTRAM BANGS. \ 


Durtinc the early days of the Boston Society of Natural History, 
in the “fortys,” Dr. Samuel Cabot, Jr., was for a short period an 
active ornithologist. He collected birds vigorously himself and 
exchanged with many European naturalists and dealers. He also 
accompanied Stephens on his second expedition to Yucatan, and 
remained in that country from October, 1841, until June, 1842, 
visiting Cozumel Island at some time during that period. He 
made a collection of birds, which, judged by the rather informal 
list published in the appendix to ‘Incidents of Travel in Yucatan’ 
by John L. Stephens (Vol. II, p. 469), must have been fairly repre- 
sentative, and was certainly the first collection of any size to come 
out of the region. 


| Banas, Cabot’s Yucatan Types. 167 


Altogether Dr. Cabot amassed a collection of the birds of the 
world that at the time must have been a very fair working collec- 
tion. He followed the custom, unfortunately too prevelant among 
naturalists of his day, of keeping very insufficient data — or none 
at all — attached to his skins. Soon after his death in 1885 his 
birds were presented to the Boston Society of Natural History. 
At that time the collection had dwindled sadly from its former 
numbers, largely, I have been told, on account of the depredations 
of the cloths moth, and partly, I feel sure, from specimens having 
been mounted with no record of whence they came then put on 
exhibition, and finally lost sight of. 

Last year the collection was again transferred, this time to the 
Museum of Comparative Zodlogy, where I have carefully gone over 
it all. 

A charming little account of the bird work of Dr. Cabot and his 
two brothers can be found in Brewster’s ‘ Birds of the Cambridge 
Region,’ beginning on page 81. A still more intimate acquaint- 
ance with Dr. Cabot’s activities can be had from a large portfolio, 
preserved in the library of the Boston Society of Natural History 
and containing manuscripts of his various papers, many un- 
- published anatomical discussions often accompanied by fine original 
drawings, lists of exchanges and letters from most of the orni- 
thologists of his day, both European and American. 

Dr. Cabot during his short career as an ornithologist described 
no new birds except those collected by himself in Yucatan. The 
types of all except two of these I have found. 

Besides the types listed below there still exist specimens of the 
following species, that for one reason or another I am certain were 
collected by Cabot himself in Yucatan.— Agriocharis ocellata 
(Cuv.); Eupsychortyx nigrigularis (Gould); Columba leucocephala 
Linn.; C. flavirostris Wagl.; Melopelia asiatica trudeawi (Audu- 
bon); Colymbus dominicus brachypterus Chapman; Asarcia spinosa 
(Linn.); Ajaja ajaja (Linn.); Florida caerulea (Linn.); Dichroma- 
nassa rufa (Bodd.); Leucophoyx candidissima candidjssima (Gmal.) ; 
Polyborus cheriway (Jacq.); Buteo borealis calurus Cass.; Asturina 
plagiata Schl.; Rupornis magnirostris conspecta Peters; Urubitinga 
anthracina (Licht.); Herpetotheres cachinnans (Linn.); Glaucidiwm 
brasilianum ridgwayi Sharpe; Amizilis rutila rutila (Delattre); 


168 Banos, Cabot’s Yucatan Types. pans 


Chlorostilbon canivetii canivetii (Lesson); Thamnophilus doliatus 
yucatanensis Ridg.; Platypsaris aglaie yucatanensis Ridg.; Tityra 
semifasciata personata (Jard. & Selby); Mimus gilvus gracilis 
(Cabanis); Planesticus grayi tamaulipensis (Nelson); Cyclarhis 
flaviventris yucatanensis Ridg.; Dendroica bryanti bryanti (Ridg.); 
Guiraca cerulea cerulea (Linn.); Arremonops verticalis (Ridg.) and 
Icterus gularis yucatanensis Berlepsch. Some others I suspect 
were really collected by Dr. Cabot in Yucatan but there is now 
no way of proving the fact. 

Following is a list of the Yucatan birds described as new by 
Cabot with an account of such of the types as remain. 


Sterna sandvicensis acuflavida Cabot. Sterna acuflavida Cabot, 
Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., Vol. II, p. 257, 1847. Tancah, coast of Yucatan, 
April 25, 1842. 

One specimen only, mentioned. 

TypeE now, M. C. Z. no. 72571. 

Micrastur melanoleucus (Vieill.). Falco percontator Cabot, Boston 
Jour. of N. H., Vol. IV, p. 462, Jan. 1844. Edge of the great cenote at 
Chichen Itza, Yucatan. 

Two specimens, o' and @ adult. 

CotyPss now o' M.C. Z. 72572; 9 M.C. Z. 72573. § 

Eumomota superciliosa superciliosa (Sandbach). Momotus yuca- 
tanensis Cabot, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., Vol. I, p. 156, 1848. Boston Journal, 
of N. H., Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 466, Jan. 1844. ‘‘ Throughout Yucatan, 
particularly at Chichen Itza.” / 

The number of specimens preserved was not stated by Cabot. One 
example still exists. This Type is now M. C. Z. no. 72575. 

Centurus dubius dubius (Cabot). Picus dubius Cabot, Proc. Bost. 
Soc. N. H., Vol. I, p. 164, 1844. Boston Journal of N.H., Vol. V, p. 91, 
1845. Uxmal, Yucatan, Nov., 1841. 

One specimen an adult o. 

Type now, M. C. Z. no. 71785. 

Chloronerpes rubiginosus yucatanensis (Cabot). Picus yucatanen- 
sis Cabot, Proc: Bost. Soc. N. H., Vol. I, p. 164, 1844. Boston Journal of 
N.H., Vol. V, pt. I, p. 92, 1845. Road from Chemax to Yalahao, Yucatan, 
March, 1842. 

One specimen, <’. 

This cannot now be found. 

Dryobates scalaris parvus (Cabot). Picus parvus Cabot, Proc. Bost. 
Soc. N. H., Vol. I, p. 164, 1844. Boston Journal of N.H., Vol. V, p. 92, 
1845.1 Ticul, Yucatan, December, 1841. 


1 Original reference cited in error in Ridgway, ‘ Birds of North and Middle 
America.’ Part VI, p. 249, as Jour. Ac. Nat. Sci. Phila, V, 1845, 90. 


| Banos, Cabot’s Yucatan Types. 169 


One specimen, . 

This specimen also appears to be lost. 

Amizilis yucatanensis yucatanensis (Cabot). Trochilus yucatanen- 
sis Cabot, Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., Vol. II, p. 74, 1845. ‘‘' The most common 
hummingbird in Yucatan.”’ The “‘ specimens ”’ from which it was described 
were taken ‘‘ about the acacias which grew upon the tops of the ruined 
buildings.” 

One of the Typxs still exists; now no. 72512 M. C. Z. 

Thryomanes albinucha (Cabot). Troglodytes albinucha Cabot, Proc. 
Bost. Soc. N. H., Vol. II, p. 258, 1847. Near Yalahao, Yucatan, April 6, 
1842. 

One specimen, Type now M. C. Z. no. 72514. 

Psilorhinus mexicanus vociferus (Cabot). Corvus vociferus Cabot. 
Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., Vol. I, p. 155, 1843. Boston Journal of N. H., Vol. 
IV, p. 464, 1844. 

Casa del Gobernador; Yturbide and Izamal, Yucatan. 

Three specimens, o' o' @. 

One of these, I learn from Dr. Witmer Stone, is preserved in the collection 
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. It was presented by 
Prof. S. F. Baird who apparently obtained it from Dr. Cabot and is marked 
as the TyPE (No. 3096 A. N.S. Phila.). 

Icterus mesomelas mesomelas (Wagler). Oriolus musicus Cabot. 
Proc. Bost. Soc. N: H., Vol. 1, p. 155, 1848. Boston Journal of N.H., Vol. 
IV, p. 465, 1844. 

Ticul and Macoba, Yucatan. 

Three specimens, & | @. 

One of the rypss still exists; now M. C. Z. no. 72515. 

Piranga roseo-gularis roseo-gularis Cabot. Pyranga roseo-gularis 
Cabot. Proc. Bost. Soc. N. H., Vol. II, p. 187, 1846. Boston Journal of 
N. H., Vol. V, p. 416, 1846. On the road from Chemax to Yalahao, April 
5, 1842. 

One specimen <’, TypE now M. C. Z. no. 72518. 

Saltator atriceps raptor (Cabot). Pyrrhula raptor Cabot, Boston 
Journal of N. H., Vol. V, p. 90, pl. 12, 1844. ‘“‘ Very numerous throughout 
Yucatan.” 

Apparently but two specimens o and @. 

CotyrPEs now, o' M.C. Z. no. 72574; 9 M.C. Z. no. 72520. 

Under this name Cabot confused two species, describing and figuring 
as the male the Yucatan form of Saltator atriceps and as the female the 
Yucatan subspecies of Saltator grandis. 

In his Revision des Tanagriden, Berlin 1910, page 1114,“Von Berlepsch 
described as a new subspecies the Yucatan form of Saltator grandis, as 
Saltator grandis yucatanensis, and Peters (Auk, 1913, p. 380), set up Cabot’s 
namefor the Yucatan form of Saltator atriceps — Saltator atriceps raptor. 

Besides the Yucatan birds described by himself, Cabot collected in 
Cozumel Island, two specimens of a yellow honey creeper, that was after- 


aes 


170 Murpuy, Range of Leach’s Petrel. April 


wards named by Prof. Baird. One of these was mounted and put on exhi- 
bition in the Boston Society (it is now M. C. Z. no. 72580) and probably 
Baird did not have it. The other, still a skin, bears a label on which 
“type ”’ is marked, in, I think, Baird’s handwriting. 

Cereba caboti (Baird). Certhiola caboti Baird, Am. Nat., Vol. VII, p. 
612, Oct. 1873, Cozumel Isl. 1842. Typr now, M. C. Z. no. 72525. 

The only other type — so far as I have been able to ascertain — in the 
Cabot collection was, 

Tragopan caboti (Gould). Ceriornis caboti Gould, P. Z. 8S. 1857, p. 
161. Figured in Birds of Asia, VII, pl. 48. This specimen, is now M. C. Z. 
no. 73213. It was mounted and had been somewhat battered, during its 
many changes of abode, but has been remade into a very good skin by Mr. 
George Nelson. 


THE ATLANTIC RANGE OF LEACH’S PETREL (OCEANO- 
DROMA LEUCORHOA (VIEILLOT)). 


BY ROBERT CUSHMAN MURPHY. 


ACCORDING to the A. O. U. Check-List, 1910, the western Atlantic 
range of Leach’s Petrel extends from breeding grounds in southern 
Greenland south casually to Virginia. In the eastern Atlantic 
the species is known, either as a regular visitor or as a wanderer, 
at the Azores, Madeira (Nov.), Canary Islands (Nov.), Cape 
Verdes (Jan.), and the coasts of Sierra Leone and Liberia (Banner- 
man, Ibis, Vol. II, 1914, pp. 450, 451). Specimens have also been 
taken in January and March between the Equator and 5° N. 
latitude, in the longitude of the Cape Verdes, or in approximately 
the geographical center of the tropical Atlantic Ocean (Salvin, 
Cat. B. Brit. Mus., Vol. X XV, 1896, p. 350). 

During the cruise of the whaler Daisy, 1912-1913, I observed 
and collected O. leucorhoa over an area which extends farther to the 
west and south in the equatorial Atlantic than the previously 
known range of the species. 


ee | Morpuy, Range of Leach’s Petrel. ive 


RECORDS OF COLLECTION. 


September 9, 1912, 28° 36’ N., 31° 45’ W. (Latitude of the 
Canary Islands; west of the meridian of the westernmost Azores.) 
The calmest day I have ever seen, and excessively hot. The glare 
of the mirroring sea was blinding. The water was dotted with the 
tiny, translucent sails of sallee-men (Velella); pelagic insects 
(Halobates), so rarely visible, left long wakes in the flat, impres- 
sionable sea; and large areas of the substance which whalemen 
call “tallow drops” drifted slowly past the brig. Early in the 
forenoon small dark petrels were seen flying about erratically in 
the distance, and, lowering the dory, I collected the first example 
‘of Oceanodroma leucorhoa. I remained in the boat about an hour, 
“chumming” for the birds with grease, but none other came 
near. 

September 27, 10° 46’ N., 24° 38’ W. (South of Fogo, Cape 
Verde Islands.) Calm, with a heavy swell; overcast; northerly 
breeze toward evening. Among a flock of Oceanites oceanicus 
which fed about us on this day were eight Leach’s Petrels. The 
latter could be readily distinguished by their slightly larger size, 
longer wings, and notably different style of flight. Oceanodroma 
flies with rapid, “leaping” strokes, quite unlike the alternations 
of gliding and synchronous flutters which characterize the flight 
of Oceanites. An observer who has once had the good fortune of 
watching the two species together can thereafter distinguish them 
almost as far away as the birds can be seen. 

I lowered the dory and shot three of the Leach’s Petrels. 

On September 30, I saw another Oceanodroma, but could not 
lower. 

October 3, 6° 46’ N., 24° 35’ W. At nine o’clock in the evening 
the crew was engaged in boiling sperm whale blubber, the cresset 
over the try-works casting a red glare against the limp sails, when 
a dazzled petrel tumbled onto the deck. It fluttered about, 
bewildered, but managed to escape. Two others were caught 
during the night, however, and both proved to be OQ. leucorhoa. 
One of them I banded and freed. 

April 18, 1913, 3° 40’ S., 33° 35’ W. (Between Rocas Reef and 


172 Murpuy, Range of Leach’s Petrel. [ Api 


Fernando Noronha). Fair, with light easterly winds. We passed 
close enough to Rocas Reef so that the signal and buildings could 
be seen from the masthead. One Oceanodroma, among the Ocea- 
nites, flew about our stern for a few minutes. 

April 19, 3° 15’ S., 33° 40’ W. Flat calm all day and well into 
the night. I lowered the dory and collected a dozen petrels, three 
of which were Oceanodroma leucorhoa. One of these had lost a leg 
above the tarso-metatarsal joint, but it seemed to obtain its food 
as well as the others. The “springy” flight again struck me as 
quite distinctive. Unlike Wilson’s Petrel the Leach’s Petrels 
settled frequently into the water, holding the tips of their wings 
high while they swam. 

April 23, 1° 34’ S., 34° 18’ W. Calm; showers. One Oceano- 
droma seen. 

May 4, 13° 16’ N., 51° 34’ W. (Due east of Barbados, W. I.) 
Moderate trade winds. An Oceanodroma flew about us for a while 
during the morning. I was enabled to watch it very closely, and 
there can be no doubt whatever regarding the identification. The 
record is particularly interesting, partly because the locality is 
almost within the Lesser Antillean region, and also because the 
date is about the beginning of the normal breeding season for this 
species in the temperate North Atlantic. 


NOTES ON THE SKINS. 


All the specimens collected in the tropical Atlantic are indis- 
tinguishable from birds taken at Grand Manan and elsewhere near 
the North American breeding grounds. It is perhaps needless to 
say that I have avoided a possible confusion with O. castro. 

The sequence of the plumages is interesting. The specimen 
taken on September 9, an adult female, is moulting its worn and 
much faded feathers, a few new, gray scapularies and half-grown 
rectrices contrasting strongly with the dingy brown of the adjacent 
plumage. Two September 27 specimens have a completely new 
garb with the exception of the three outermost primaries which 
are frayed. The birds collected on April 19 have new quills, and 
contour plumage which is nowhere greatly worn. 


oe | SaunDERS Recording Bird Songs. 173 


CONCLUSIONS. 


Oceanodroma leucorhoa occurs regularly in the tropical Atlantic 
from September to April or May. It has been taken on and south 
of the Equator in March and April. The range of the species 
should be restated in part as follows: — Breeds from southern 
Greenland and the Faeroes south to Maine and the Hebrides; 
south in migration to the Equator and the vicinity of Cape San 
Roque, Brazil. 


SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR BETTER METHODS OF 
RECORDING AND STUDYING BIRD SONGS. 


BY ARETAS A. SAUNDERS. 


Up to the present time our methods of recording bird songs have 
been lacking in uniformity. We realize the fact that bird songs 
are a great help in field identification of species, when once learned. 
We admit that a knowledge of these songs is as much to be desired 
as a knowledge of plumage or migration, that it should occupy as 
prominent a place in the science of ornithology. But if we search 
through various writings for records of the song of a given species, 
we find a heterogeneous and uncertain mixture of data that do not 
give us any satisfactory impression of the song. Various methods 
have been used to describe and record bird songs, but so far, only 
one method, that of musical notation, has been possessed of any 
scientific accuracy. 

Musical notation, as a method of recording bird songs, has. been 
subject to a great deal of adverse criticism. It has been made 
primarily for the recording and rendering of human music and birds 
do not usually sing according to such standards. The musical 
scale gives no place for the recording of notes that are slightly 
sharp or flat. Its standards of time do not allow the record of a 
song that does not follow the rhythmic beat of its measures. Do 


[ Auk 
April 


174 SAUNDERS, Recording Bird Songs. 
birds sing in any given key? Do they recognize any fundamental 
- notes? Can one beat time to a bird’s song? In the majority of 
cases these questions must be answered in the negative. Only a 
few individuals of certain ‘species approach these standards of 
music. The great majority of birds sing in a free, non-mechanical, 
natural manner that cannot be recorded on the musical scale 
with the exactness that it deserves. If we have no better method 
we must resort to musical notation, but if we can find a better 
method, one which discards the mechanical rules of human music, 
without losing any of its scientific accuracy, we can take a long step 
in advance toward the true scientific study of bird song. 

Before discussing the possibilities of such a method, it is first 
essential to have a definite classification of the points concerning 
which we desire information to make our knowledge of a given song 
complete. These points appear to me to be five in number. They 
are pitch, duration, intensity, pronunciation and quality. Con- 
cerning quality I have no suggestions to offer farther than those 
already made by others. Sound qualities are baffling and difficult 
to describe with accuracy, and, until we can have a definite and 
practical classification of them, they will continue to be so. 

Our records of pitch, duration and intensity must be first com- 
parative, for the different notes or parts of a given song, and second 
absolute, for a comparison of the song with other songs of the same 
or another species. A pitch pipe, together with a good musical 
ear, are necessary to obtain the comparative and absolute pitch 
in the field. A stop watch is probably the best instrument with 
which to get records of duration. Comparative intensity can be 
recorded with reasonable accuracy by ear, but absolute intensity 
is more difficult to measure. The intensity of a song must neces- 
sarily vary with the weather conditions, the temperature, the 
pressure of the air, and above all the direction and velocity of the 
wind. We know, however, that the intensity of sound varies 
inversely as the square of the distance from its source, and this 
gives us something tangible to go by. If then, our bird will remain 
in one spot singing, on a day when there is no wind, while we find 
the farthest point at which the softest and loudest parts of its song 
are audible, we will have a definite measure of intensity. This 
process seems destined to try to the utmost the patience and 
perseverance of the future student of bird song. 


Vol. ae | 


1915 SaunpERs, Recording Bird Songs. 175 


DuRATION iN SECONDS 


Fig. 1. Song of the Vesper Sparrow. West Haven, Conn., April 23, 1914, 6 A. M. 


pal TO aCaO00R PARR ROMA 
) SMe See eee Pe sepee ae es PE e S P PSTT e 
Sears eee pee Pee ea 

ewe ft 


ME Pa REN S 
a JERS SPS Eas Aa EC Smaca Fa Oe et ls 
+h | ee Teen EERE ae 
D Ss 
Bee eae eee eee 
JOS eee ee eso eee eae ee 


Fig.2. Song ofthe Field Sparrow. West Haven, Conn., April 18, 1914,9 A.M. 


Fig.3. Song of the Song Sparrow. Gunhill Road, N. Y. City, April 3, 1914,9.15 A. M. 


176 SaunpDeERS, Recording Bird Songs. [ Ati 


The following method has occurred to me by which the pitch 
and duration of a song may be represented graphically, when once 
it is determined. This method is to represent the song by lines on 
ordinary coérdinate paper, plotting the pitch along the ordinate, 
that is in a vertical direction, and the duration along the abcissa 
in a horizontal direction. In order to see whether this method 
was practical, I tested it in the field during the spring of 1914, 
recording 104 different songs and call-notes, representing 18 
different species. The species included both birds with simple 
songs, such as the Junco and Phoebe, and others with more com- 
plicated songs such as the Song Sparrow (fig. 3) and Purple Finch 
(fig. 4). It also included some bird sounds not properly classed as 
songs, such as certain call-notes of the Flicker and the scream of 

- the Red-shouldered Hawk. 

Of course this method is not without its difficulties. It is 
usually impossible, even with the simplest songs, to record them 
after one hearing only, and with a long continued song, it is only 
possible to catch and record phrases here and there. Such diffi- 
culties, however, would be just as great, or even greater in using 
musical notation. I have tried several times to record bird songs 
by musical notation, and am certain that this graphic method is 
much simpler, and much more easily used and mastered than is the 
other. In the matter of pitch, one does not have to ascertain 
whether the bird is singing in three flats, five sharps or something 
else. If the bird flats a little, or uses an interval not strictly a 
fifth, seventh, or some other known to human music, this fact may 
be shown and need not be modified to fit the human standard. 
In the matter of time the same things are true. Notes need not 
be reduced to quarters and eighths when they really have no such 
definite relations to each other, but may be represented in their 
actual true duration. In short, the method, like the bird’s song 
itself, is natural, and does not follow any fixed rule of either pitch 
or time. 

The unit of measurement of pitch is of course the octave, but 
this is not divided into eight parts as on the musical scale, but into 
twelve parts, representing the twelve half-tones. Thus B and C, 
and E and F are shown in their true relations, half a tone apart, 
and not, as on the musical scale, spaced the same distance apart as 


a | SauNDERS, Recording Bird Songs. 177 
notes that are separated by a whole tone. The unit of time is not 
the measure, further modified by the addition of adagios, allegros 
or numbers signifying beats per minute, but is the second, a unit 
that is uniform and unchanging, and thoroughly understood both 
by musicians and by the uninitiated. The second may be further 
divided into fifths, the smallest unit that can be recorded by an 
ordinary stop watch. I have found that in practise it is still better 
to divide it into tenths, so that short, rapidly repeated notes may 
be easily represented, and lengths of songs may be expressed in 
decimals. 

In putting this method into practise, I have found a few modifica- 
tions from the definite rules necessary in order to record the char- 
acters of all songs clearly. A rest, or pause in a song would of 
course be represented by a break in the horizontal continuity of 
the lines representing it. Many bird songs, particularly those of 
the sparrows, contain series of short, rapidly repeated notes all on 
the same pitch, without a pause between them. If the method 
were rigidly adhered to, these would be represented by a continuous 
straight line, and the separate notes could not be distinguished. 
In order to avoid this I have written such songs with a slight break 
in the horizontal lines to keep the distinct notes separate, although 
there is really no pause in the song. When such notes become so 
rapid that the number cannot be counted, the note becomes a trill. 
I have represented trills by continuous, slightly wavy lines, the 
wave not representing any variation in pitch, but the pitch of the 
note being recorded by the central axis of the wavy line. These 
conditions are shown in the illustrations of songs of the Song and 
Field Sparrows. 

The illustrations will suffice to make more clear the graphic 
method of recording songs. I have used the letters C’, C’’, C’”, 
etc., to indicate middle C and the octaves above it. Where notes 
on different pitches are slurred together, I have represented this 
fact by connecting them by an almost vertical line. Such slurs 
are characteristic of the Meadowlark’s song (fig. 7) ’nd are also 
found in the introductory notes of the Field Sparrow record (fig. 2). 
One criticism of my method that has been made is that all 
notes are not connected by these vertical lines, to give the 
songs more continuity of appearance. This would make it diffi- 


178 SaunpveErs, Recording Bird Songs. 
DURATION IN SECONDS 


Fig. 4. Song of the Purple Finch. West Haven, Conn., April 28, 1914, 5.30 P. M. : 


2 | 
BERR RR ERARRAERMReREe 
pee 
c (ERRAND mel a |_| | ie 


: te CCC 

eS Pe ET ee eee ee 

| 

Fig. 5. Song of the Red-winged Blackbird. Gunhill Road, New York City, 
April 3, 1914, 8.30 A. M. 


Fig. 6. Song of the Robin. West Haven, Conn., April 17, 1914, 5.30 P. M. 


) 
i 


Na ere SauNDERS, Recording Bird Songs. 179 


cult to distinguish between notes that are slurred together by 
the bird and those that are clearly separate. This difficulty is 
at best a slight one. The disconnected appearance of the songs 
may seem great at first glance, but becomes insignificant as one 
becomes accustomed to the method. 

By this same method it is also possible to represent the variations 
in intensity of a bird song. This could be done by variation in the 
breadth or heaviness of the lines, making heavy lines for the loud 
notes, and light lines for the softer ones. I have not yet attempted 
to measure the intensity of bird songs in the field so have omitted 
this factor from the illustrations. 

The factor of pronunciation is one that presents some difficulties. 
To just what extent birds produce recognizable vowel or consonant 
sounds in their songs it is hard to say. It is probably true that a 
purely musical note has no real vowel sound and that the only 
difference in such notes is that of quality and not pronunciation. 
Consonant sounds, however, may be occasionally recognized in bird 
songs and call notes. The “k” sound in the call note of the crow, 
for instance, is universally recognized. In true songs I believe that 
the explosive consonants, such as “p,” “k,” “t”’ ete., arerare. The 
commonest consonant sounds are liquid ones, such as “1” and ‘‘r’”’, 
connecting different notes. In the songs I have studied and 
recorded, the liquid is the only consonant I have recognized. 
This sound is quite common in the songs of many species and is 
evidently an important distinguishing character. I have repre- 
sented the presence of this sound by a loop, at the beginning of the 
note introduced by it, as shown in the songs of the Robin (fig. 6) 
and Redwinged Blackbird (fig. 5). 

One of the first things that one notes after studying songs for a 
time in the field is that even the simplest and commonest songs 
are tremendously variable. This variation extends not only to 
different individuals, but also to different songs by the same in- 
dividual. The song of the Meadowlark is one that is quite simple 
and easy to record, and yet shows enough variation to make a very 
interesting study (fig. 7). I have recorded thirty different songs of 
the Meadowlark by the graphic method, and believe that with time 
and opportunity I could record three or four times as many. Seven 
of these songs were sung by the same bird during an hour’s time. 


oa Ned 


DURATION IN SECONDS 


‘ wale 
AaB 
“ Pf peb 
Be we 
o Si Rae ee 
5 Aa ate 
eae 3 
A Sosa. SeSRSSEae 
Pek Wel Ee Le 
G SCE 
mt EE 
: BERRARRERSRSAEs 
, Zagomaeeeeocc 


Fig. 7. Three Songs of the Meadowlark. No.1. West Haven, Conn., October 
18,1914,3P.M. No.2. Mt. Vernon, N. Y., April 7,1914,5 P.M. No.3. West 
Haven, Conn., April 21, 1914, 5.30 A. M. 


180 


Vol. cn coal 


1915 SaunpErs, Recording Bird Songs. 181 


The song of the Song Sparrow is even more variable. Not only 
does each individual have two or more totally different songs, but 
I have yet to find two individuals whose songs are at all alike. It 
seems probable that the number of variations of the Song Sparrow’s 
song is greater than the number of individual Song Sparrows. 

Since the variations in the song of a single species are so great, 
a question arises as to what are the factors in which these variations 
resemble each other. The songs of both the Meadowlark and the 
Song Sparrow, except in unusual instances, are easily recognized 
in the field. What characters then are specific? Quality un- 
doubtedly is one. But quality is not the only one, for songs of 
different species may often have the same quality and yet be easily 
distinguished. To determine the others it becomes necessary to 
record a large number of songs of the same species. By comparison 
of these the points of similarity may be determined, and the amount 
of variation to which the song is subject may be shown. 

I have not yet recorded enough songs of any one species to make 
a complete study of the song of that species, or to make any state- 
ments concerning it that are general in application. As an illustra- 
tion of how this may be done, however, I have figured out some 
results from twenty-seven records of the Song Sparrow’s song that 
are interesting though not conclusive. The longest duration of 
any of these songs is 3.2 seconds, the shortest 1.8 seconds. The 
average duration is 2.79 seconds. The highest note in any record 
is D’’” and the lowest D”, giving a range for the species of two 
octaves. The greatest range of any one song is twelve half-tones 
or exactly one octave. The least range is four half-tones. The 
average range is 8.7 half-tones. All but one of the songs contain 
one or more trilled notes, and this one contains a series of rapidly 
repeated notes on the same pitch, differing from a trill only in the 
fact that the single notes are distinct and slow enough to be counted. 
This arrangement of notes is also a common character and occurs 
in fourteen of the songs. Most of the songs begin in a more or 
less characteristic manner and two such types of beginning are 
recognizable. The first of these consists of three hotes on the same 
pitch varying from two to three tenths of a second in length. 
Twelve of the songs, including the one in the illustration show this 
type of beginning. The second consists of one or two long notes, 


182 SAUNDERS, Recording Bird Songs. [ oi 


followed by four to six rapidly repeated ones, all on the same pitch. 
Seven of the songs have this type of beginning. The remaining 
- eight songs are irregular and show no definite types. None of the 
songs show enough similarity in termination to draw any general 
conclusions. 

In this manner, from a large number of records of a single species, 
one should be able to draw fairly definite conclusions concerning 
the song even when it is extremely variable. Many other interest- 
ing facts concerning bird songs may be deduced by studying and 
recording them in the field. Thus two Field Sparrows, singing 
alternately and within hearing of each other, produced songs that 
were exactly alike in every respect, while two Song Sparrows 
singing under similar conditions had songs that were dissimilar 
except for the last three notes which were exactly alike. 

Field work in studying and recording bird songs is more or less 
difficult according to the qualities of the person attempting the 
work. A good musical ear is absolutely essential. Records made 
by a person not possessed of such an ear for music would be of no 
more value than descriptions of plumages made by one who is 
color blind. A knowledge of music is essential also, but it need 
not be great. In fact I believe that very little musical knowledge 
is necessary to use or understand the graphic method of recording 
songs. 

In the absence of a stop watch it is possible to use an ordinary 
watch provided it is a good one, though its use is more difficult. 
An ordinary, good watch ticks five times to the second, so that 
fifths of a second may be measured by listening to the ticks. In 
making records of songs in the field it is of value to record the date, 
locality and time of day with the record. These points may serve 
to show important facts concerning the variation of songs due to 
these factors. 

It is also possible to add the factor of quality to the record by 
writing a statement of this at the top of the record, as suggested 
by Mr. Robert T. Moore in his paper on musical notation at the 
A. O. U. meeting of 1913. Ihave not done this on my records as I 
feel that the statements would be too inexact to be of much value. 
All of the songs I have used in illustration are to my mind of a 
whistled quality, and I am of the opinion that the differences in 


- 


| Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 1838 


them are largely, if not wholly due to pitch, intensity or the 
presence of liquid consonants. 

Thus, all five of the factors, pitch, duration, intensity, pronuncia- 
tion and quality, may be recorded on a single sheet by this graphic 
method. The results, I believe, will be intelligible to musicians, 
and a little less “like Greek” to those whose knowledge of written 
music is slight. 


LIST OF THE BIRDS OF LOUISIANA. PART VIL. 
BY H. H. KOPMAN. 
(Concluded from p. 29.) 
247. WerEsTERN TANAGER (Piranga ludoviciana). The only known 
record of the occurrence of this bird in Louisiana is a specimen taken on 


March 19, 1898, by Mr. Andrew Allison in Jefferson parish, on the opposite 
bank of the Mississippi river from New Orleans. It was a parti-colored 


_ male, with yellow predominating. 


248. ScarLetT TaNAGcerR (Piranga erythromelas). This bird is seldom 
very common in Louisiana except for a few days at atime. It is most apt 
to occur at New Orleans about April 20 and in the early part of October. 
The earliest date of arrival at the latitude of New Orleans is April 8, 1900, 
at Bay St. Louis, Miss., and the latest date in spring is May 9, 1903, at 
Lobdell, La. Considerable waves are sometimes present the latter part of 
April, and about Oct. 10, 1896, I saw an unusual number in the suburbs of 
New Orleans. The latest date of departure is Oct. 20, 1897, at Ariel, Miss. 

249. Summer Tanacer (Piranga rubra rubra). Common summer visi- 
tor, especially in the higher sections of the State. In the swampy region 
in the southeastern part it shows a disposition to frequent particular 
neighborhoods, especially those which are better drained. The earliest 
date of arrival in the latitude of New Orleans is March 31, 1902, at Bay St. 
Louis, Miss. The latest date of departure is Oct. 27, 1899 and 1900, at 
Covington, La. It is sometimes remarkably abundant at New Orleans 
during waves in the latter part of April and early part of October. 

250. Purpie Martin (Progne subis subis). Common summer visitor, 
arriving usually about Feb. 15, becoming common about March 10, 
and disappearing more or less completely from the southern part of the 
State about Sept.15. A large southward flight is usually noted at the Gulf 


184 Koopman, Birds of Louisiana. [ Api 


coast about August 22. The earliest record of arrival at New Orleans 
is Feb. 7, 1897, and the latest recorded departure is Oct. 22, 1894. 

251. Curr Swatiow (Petrochelidon lunifrons lunifrons). A rather rare 
bird in the southern and eastern parts of the State at least. Has been 
noted in Plaquemines and St. James parishes, along the Mississippi river, 
in September. Noted also at Bay St. Louis, Miss., in September. 

252. Barn Swattow (Hirundo erythrogaster). Common transient. 
The earliest date of arrival in spring at New Orleans is March 20, 1894. 
Usually arrives about April 1, and is commonest the last week or ten days of 
April, and the first few days of May. Has been noted at New Orleans as 
late as May 25. Returns usually about August 1, but one was seen at Bay 
St. Louis, Miss., July 8, 1899. Is more or less common until the early part 
of October and sometimes later. Was noted at Gulfport, Miss., Nov. 6, 
1910, and a few may usually be seen until about Nov. 1. 

253. Tree Swatitow (Iridoprocne bicolor). Abundant as a transient; 
irregularly present and sometimes even common, near the coast, in winter; 
present through much of the summer, though not known to breed anywhere 
in the State. Usually becomes common in spring about March 20; re- 
mains more or less common until about the 10th or 15th of May. Has been 
noted in abundance near New Orleans the first week in July. Is most 
abundant in October, especially after the 10th or 15th, and remains very 
common until decidedly cold weather in November, about Nov. 15 or 20. 
Sometimes fairly common at intervals throughout open winters; other 
seasons rare or entirely absent. 

254. Bank Swattow (Riparia riparia). Apparently not very com- 
mon anywhere in the State except possibly in the most northern sections, 
where it may perhaps breed. Noted in the southern part of the State 
chiefly at the seasons when other swallows are commonest, from the latter 
part of March to the early part of May, and from August to the latter part 
of October. 

255. RouGH-wINGED SwaLLow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis). Common 
summer visitor, but apparently not breeding in the extreme southeastern 
part of the State. Arrives the latter part of March and departs about 
Nov. 1. 

256. Crpar Waxwinec (Bombycilla cedrorum). Common chiefly in the 
latter part of winter, and throughout the spring, even to the last of May or 
first days of June. It has been seen on several occasions at Bay St. Louis, 
Miss., however, in October; once on Oct. 13, 1898, when two were seen. 
At New Orleans, little is seen of it until about Feb. 1, when it arrives to 
feed on the fruit of hackberry and Japan privet, and the flowers of the elm, 
It later feeds on the blossoms of the pecan, and finally on the fruit of the 
mulberry. The latest date of departure at New Orleans is May 19, 1900; 
at Bay St. Louis, Miss., May 27, 1902, and at Pass Christian, Miss., June 2, 
1906. 

257. LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE (Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus). The true 
Loggerhead is a bird of the pineries and other dry locations in Louisiana, 


aT | Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 185 


none of this species being found during the breeding season in the fertile 
alluvial and prairie regions of the southern part of the State. About 
August 20, however, the Shrike appears at New Orleans, and is fairly com- 
mon thereafter in the lowland section until the middle or latter part of 
March. It seems probable, however, that a majority if not all of the birds 
seen in these localities are Migrant Shrikes (L. ludovicianus migrans). 

258. Rep-EYED Vireo (Vireosylva olivacea). Abundant summer visitor 
wherever there are deciduous trees, though seldom found in the cypress. 
Generally arrives at New Orleans about March 22, becoming common the 
last week in the month. Earliest dates of arrival March 18, 1894, and 
March 19, 1899. Transient movement in fall begins in August, and con- 
tinues to be heavy until Oct. 10 or 15. Last one is usually seen about 
Oct. 20. Feeds extensively in fall on the seeds of the Magnolias (M. 
fetida and M. virginiana). 

259. PHILADELPHIA VirREO (Vireosylva philadelphia). A rather rare 
transient; spring records lacking; numerous in August, 1893, in heavy 
growth of willow, hackberry, cottonwood, deciduous holly, and other 
low trees on the batture of the Mississippi river in St. James parish; the 
first noted August 2. Noted also in October: Oct. 10, 1896, at New 
Orleans; Oct. 17, 1897, at Ariel, Miss.; Oct. 15, 1901, at Bay St. Louis, 
Miss. 

260. WarsuiInGc Vireo (Vireosylva gilva gilva). Fairly common sum- 
mer visitor in the southern part of the State, occurring chiefly in shade trees 
in suburban sections of New Orleans, and in willows along the river and 
edges of pastures. Arrives the latter part of March; earliest arrival, 
March 27, 1897. Disappears early in the fall; sings occasionally as late 
as the early part of September. 

261. YELLOW-THROATED VIREO (Lanivireo flavifrons). Fairly common 
summer visitor except in the coastal section. Noted during the breeding 
season, however, in a suburban locality in New Orleans in 1912, 1913, and 
1914. Seldom nesting south of about latitude 31°. Arrives about March 
25. Latest date of departure, Oct. 21, 1897, at Ariel, Miss. 

262. BLUE-HEADED VIREO (Lanivireo solitarius solitarius). Fairly com- 
mon in midwinter in the fertile alluvial region of the southeast. Appears 
to arrive usually in October: Oct. 25, 1901, Bay St. Louis, Miss.; Oct. 
6, 1905, Biloxi, Miss.; but a single specimen was taken at Diamond, La., 
Aug. 4, 1893. Latest date of departure, March 24, 1904, New Orleans. 

263. WHITE-EYED VIREO (Vireo griseus griseus). An abundant summer 
visitor in all moist or swampy woodland; may be seen occasionally in the 
coastal section in winter, even singing on mild days in December and 
January. Becomes common from March 15 to 20, and remains so until 
about Nov. 1. \ 

264. BLACK-AND-WHITE WARBLER (Mniotilta varia). Common tran- 
sient, especially in the fall, and probably breeds sparingly in the northern 
part of the State. Usually arrives at the coast about March 20; earliest 
date of arrival, March 15, 1902, at Bay St. Louis, Miss. Remains until 


186 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. resi 


about May 1. Returns very early; recorded July 4, 1906, at Bay St. 
Louis, Miss.; commonest in August and September. Last at New Orleans, 
Oct. 25, 1914. 

265. ProrHonoTaRyY WARBLER (Protonotaria citrea). Common sum- 
mer visitor in river bottoms and swampy regions, especially about sloughs 
and along sluggish streams. Usually arrives by March 20; earliest arrival 
at New Orleans, March 15, 1894. Leaves about the end of September, 
The arrival in the immediate coast section, where it is most abundant, is 
decidedly earlier than in moist bottoms in the higher parts of the State, 
where the first are usually seen early in April. 

266. Swarnson’s WARBLER (Helinaia swainsoni). Occurs chiefly in 
wild cane brakes in low woods or along streams. Occurs rather commonly 
as a spring transient in one of the former of such locations near New Orleans. 
I found it surprisingly common not only in the cane brakes but throughout 
a considerable section of rich swampy woods in the same general locality 
on April 14, 1905. At least twenty-five or thirty were noted in covering 
a distance of probably ten miles. There was a good deal of water in the 
swamps at the time. Earliest arrival at New Orleans, March 30, 1905. 
Have never noted it in fall. May breed sparingly at New Orleans. 

267. WormM-EATING WaRBLER (Helmitheros vermivorus). A transient 
only in the more southern part of the State, seldom very common, and 
usually seen only for brief periods. Prefers deep, moist woods. The 
earliest in spring was noted at Bay St. Louis, Miss., April 5, 1902; the 
earliest arrival in fall near the coast is August 11, 1897, at Beauvoir, Miss. 
Latest date of departure in fall, Sept. 30, 1897, at Ariel, Miss. 

268. BAcHMAN’s WARBLER (Vermivora bachmani). In the more south- 
ern parts of Louisiana and Mississippi at least, this species is undoubtedly 
only a transient. Besides the previously published records of its capture 
on the northern shore of Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana by Mr. Charles 
Galbraith (Auk, Vols. 4 and 5), it has been noted by Mr. Andrew Allison 
in Mississippi on the following occasions: March 26, 1902, Bay St. Louis, 
Miss.; March 24, 1906, Ellisville, Miss.; July 4, 1906, Bay St. Louis, Miss. 

269. BLuUE-wWINGED WARBLER (Vermivora pinus). May breed in the 
northern part of the State; a rather rare transient in all localities where I 
have made observations. Earliest date of arrival in spring, March 18, 
1902, Bay St. Louis, Miss.: earliest arrival in fall, July 23, 1898, Bay St. 
Louis, Miss. 

270. GOLDEN-WINGED WARBLER (Vermivora chrysoptera). A rather 
rare transient. Appears to migrate rather late in spring and early in fall: 
August 12, 1897, Beauvoir, Miss. 

[NASHVILLE WARBLER (Vermivora rubricapilla rubricapilla). This spe- 
cies does not appear to have ever been recorded in the State, though it has 
been noted at Bay St. Louis, Miss., in September, and I am practically 
sure of having seen it at Beauvoir, Miss., at the same season.] 

271. ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER (Vermivora celata celata). A com- 
mon winter visitor in the alluvial region of the central southern and south- 


‘4 "Ors r . . . a Lay 
aad Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 187 


eastern portions of the State. Earliest date of arrival, Nov. 19, 1901, 
New Iberia, La., and latest date of departure, April 3, 1909, New Orleans, 
Usually commonest from about Dec. 15 to Feb.15. Often seen in live oaks. 

272. TENNESSEE WARBLER (Vermivora peregrina). An abundant 
transient in fall, especially in the alluvial section of the southeast, irregular 
in spring but sometimes common late in April or early in May: In fall, 
it usually arrives Sept. 22 or 23, and becomes very abundant in Octo- 
ber, especially in weedy fields and about the edges of the woods, often in 
company with the Indigo Bunting. Departs usually about Nov. 1; 
latest, Nov. 8, 1913. Earliest arrival in spring, March 12, 1900; latest 
departure in spring, May 9, 1903. 

973. NortTHEeRN ParuLaA WARBLER (Compsothlypis american ausnee). 
An abundant summer visitor, especially in the southeastern part of the 
State, though found practically everywhere in mixed forest growth on more 
or less moist ground. Arrives at New Orleans early in March (earliest 
Feb. 22, 1893) and is sometimes common by March 10 or 12, seldom 
later than March 15. Nests invariably in the Spanish moss (Tillandsia) 
in the southeastern part of the State. Nesting begins early in April. 
Prefers the live oak as a nesting tree. Feeds indiscriminately in deciduous 
trees, however, especially the pecan, elm, maple, locust, tupelo, ash and 
cypress. Remains common until at least Oct. 20; latest date of de- 
parture, Oct. 26, 1899, Covington, La. 

274. Cape May Warsier (Dendroica tigrina). A record of its occur- 
rence (New Orleans, April, 1890) noted by Prof. Beyer in his list of the 
Birds of Louisiana is the only one of which I have any knowledge. 

275. YELLOW WARBLER (Dendroica estiva estiva). Abundant transient, 
especially in the late summer and fall; breeds occasionally except in the 
extreme southernmost section of the State. Has been noted as a breeder 
at Baton Rouge by Mr. Andrew Allison and in Pointe Coupee parish by 
Mr. A. B. Blakemore. Usually arrives at the Gulf Coast the first week in 
April — earliest, March 30, 1904, and is commonest usually from about 
April 15 to April 25. Latest date in spring at New Orleans, May 4, 
1897. Reappears usually in the latitude of New Orleans about July 15 — 
earliest, Bay St. Louis, Miss., July 7, 1899; and becomes very common by 
the end of July. Remains common in August and throughout the greater 
part of September, though there are periods of increased abundance from 
time to time. Latest date of departure at New Orleans, Oct. 15, 1903. 

[BLACK-THROATED BLUE WARBLER (Dendroica cerulescens). Though 
reputed to occur in the State, I have never seen it, have no knowledge of 
any specimens being taken in Louisiana, and am unable to find any well 
authenticated record of its occurrence. I saw what I thought was an 
individual of this species at New Orleans March 26, 1897, but did not 
observe it satisfactorily and was by no means convinced of its identity.] 

276. Myrtite WARBLER (Dendroica coronata). Abundant winter visi- 
tor. Arrives in southern Louisiana about Oct. 15: Oct. 11, 1905, at 
Biloxi, Miss. Departs from the coast about April 22. Latest at New 


188 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. [ Api 


Orleans, April 27, 1897 and 1903. More or less continuously abundant 
throughout some winters, but almost rare in occasional seasons. <A de- 
cided transient movement is observable usually at the end of winter and in 
the early spring. In 1906, I noted increases at Biloxi, Miss., on the follow- 
ing dates: Jan. 6, 20, 29; Feb. 1; March 10, 19, 24. Specimens in 
very good plumage are seen as early as April 1, and singing usually begins 
at this time or a little earlier and continues until the time of departure. 
While the singing is not infrequent, it cannot be called general. 

277. Maanoitta WARBLER (Dendroica magnolia). Abundant fall 
transient; decidedly rare in spring in localities where I have made observa- 
tions. Larliest arrival in fall, Sept. 18, 1899, Bay St. Louis, Miss.; 
usually arrives about Sept. 20; common at Covington, La., Oct. 1, 1899. 
Latest date of departure, Oct. 28, 1899, Covington. Usually common 
until about Oct. 20. In spring this species is more apt to be seen in the 
latter part of the season: May 5, 1897, New Orleans; May 11, 1902, Bay 
St. Louis, Miss. 

278. CERULEAN WARBLER (Dendroica cerulea). May breed in the 
northern part of the State, but apparently only a transient in most locali- 
ties. Seldom common, though small companies may sometimes be seen 
for a period of a few days in the migrations. Commoner in the mixed 
upland woods than in the southeastern section. Migrates very early in 
fall: July 12, 1897, Beauvoir, Miss., where small flocks were seen on this 
and succeeding days in pine, oak, magnolia, beech and hickory woods. 
Latest date in fall, Sept. 30, 1897, Ariel, Miss. Arrives at Gulf coast 
latitude about April 10; earliest, April 8, 1898, New Orleans. 

279. CHESTNUT-SIDED WARBLER (Dendroica pensylvanica). In the 
southeastern part of the State, this is one of the rarer transients, especially 
in spring. Most apt to be seen in the latter part of the season (April 21, 
1905, New Orleans). Sometimes common for a few days in fall. Noted 
many near New Orleans on Oct. 10, 1896, during a remarkable wave of 
transients, principally warblers, tanagers, and vireos. The earliest date 
of arrival in fall is Sept. 12, 1899, Bay St. Louis, Miss., and the latest 
date in fall is Oct. 19, 1897, Ariel, Miss. 

280. Bay-BREASTED WARBLER (Dendroica castanea). Occasionally 
present for a day or so in fall, occurring singly or in small flocks. Earliest 
date of arrival, Sept. 23, 1896, Bay St. Louis, Miss. Latest date in 
fall, Oct. 18, 1897, Ariel, Miss. In spring it is rarer than in fall. Have 
noted it the first week in May at New Orleans, and at New Iberia: May 15, 
1902. 

281. Buack-poLL WarBLER (Dendroica striata). A decidedly rare 
transient, though occasionally occurring in considerable numbers for a day 
or soat atime. Mr. W. B. Allison noted a good many at Bay St. Louis, 
Miss., May 13, 1906. I noted one at New Orleans, Sept. 21, 1897. 

282. BLACKBURNIAN WARBLER (Dendroica fusca). While never very 
common, this is a species of rather more regular occurrence in fall than the 
several preceding. It is considerably rarer in spring. The earliest date of 


ee Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 189 


arrival is April 8, 1900, Bay St. Louis, Miss. A specimen was noted by Mr. 
Andrew Allison, and, in fact, taken, at Bay St. Louis, Miss. on August 11, 
1898. The next earliest record of arrival is Sept. 13, 1897, Ariel, 
Miss. The latest date of departure is Oct. 18, 1901, Bay St. Louis, 
Miss. As with most other warblers of this group, this species occurs more 
freely in mixed upland woods than in the fertile alluvial region of south- 
eastern Louisiana. 

283. SycaMoRE WARBLER (Dendroica dominica albilora). Fairly com- 
mon summer visitor, especially in brakes of tall cypress. Earliest arrival, 
Feb. 27, 1897, New Orleans. Usually arrives about March 10. Latest 
date of departure, Sept. 20, 1901, Bay St. Louis, Miss. Confined more 
or less closely to swampy woods in the breeding season. 

284. BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER (Dendroica virens). Fairly 
common in the lowlands during fall waves; common throughout much 
of the fall migration in pine and other upland growths. Rarer in all 
sections in spring. I took a specimen at Beauvoir, Miss., July 30, 1897, 
and I am sure of having seen it the latter part of July in Madison Parish! 
Excluding these abnormally early transients, the earliest date of arrival 
is Sept. 18, 1897, Ariel, Miss. It was common at New Orleans, Oct. 20, 
1896, and became common at Biloxi, Miss., Oct. 22, 1906. The last 
was seen at Covington, Oct. 28, 1899. In spring it occurs chiefly in 
the latter part of the season: April 14, 1902, Bay St. Louis, Miss., and May 
9, 1903, Lobdell, La. 

285. Pine WARBLER (Dendroica vigorsi). Abundant resident in pine 
forests; elsewhere a winter visitor only. Individuals wintering in regions 
of deciduous woodland do not appear in such localities until the early part 
of the winter as a rule, and they do not remain much after the middle of 
March, at least in the southern part of the State. In the pine woods, this 
warbler begins to sing with the first mild weather of January. 

286. PatM WARBLER (Dendroica palmarum). A fairly common winter 
visitor, sometimes rather abundant, in open places in the lowlands and in 
flat pineries. I have been unable to trace the relation between the move- 
ments of this species and the Yellow Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum 
hypochrysea), and have assumed all data to refer to the Palm Warbler. 
Arrives about the middle of October and becomes common about Nov. 1. 
Remains until the early part of April: April 11, 1896, New Orleans. 

[PRAIRIE WARBLER (Dendroica discolor). Though undoubtedly occur- 
ring in localities in the piney sections of the State similar to those frequented 
by it in southern Mississippi, this species has not been recorded by any 
observer in Louisiana so far as I know. While it does not appear to breed 
on the coast of Mississippi, it arrives there by the latter part of July, and is 
rather common in scrubby growths of pine and oak. Thave no data on its 
movements in southern Mississippi in spring, and no record of its departure 
in fall.] 

287. OVENBIRD (Seiurus aurocapillus). Fairly common transient for 
brief and occasional periods, found chiefly in mixed woodland undergrowth, 


190 Korman, Birds of Lowisiana. 


especially in moist localities. Earliest arrival, April 5, 1902, Bay St. Louis, 
Miss. Usually commonest about April 15. Latest date in spring, May 
9, 1903, Lobdell, La. Earliest arrival in fall, August 28, 1899, Bay St. 
Louis, Miss. Latest departure, October 19, 1897, Ariel, Miss. 

288. Water-THRusSH (Seiurus noveboracensis noveboracensis). In south- 
eastern Louisiana, except in the pine woods, this species greatly out- 
numbers the following, which, in fact, is rather rare in the fertile alluvial” 
section. In the pine woods the two species are about equally common in 
migration, the present species preferring the occasional sloughs and swampy 
strips among the pines, the Louisiana Water-Thrush frequenting sandy 
ravines and creek and small river banks, and on the Mississippi coast 
occurring even on the sandy shore. The Water-Thrush reaches Gulf coast 
latitude in fall the middle or latter part of August, remaining until Oct. 10 
or 15 — latest, Oct. 17, 1896, New Orleans. In spring it arrives early 
in April, but is more apt to be common late in the season. Latest date 
of departure, May 7, 1897, New Orleans. 

289. LovistanA Warer-TurusH (Seiurus motacilla). Those sections 
of the State where the streams flow over sharp sandy beds are the pre- 
eminent habitat of this species, both as breeder and transient. As a- 
breeder, it is found chiefly in the northern part of the State, but it reaches — 
the latitude of the coast very early, having been noted at Bay St. Louis, 
Miss., July 4, 1906, and always commonly after the middle or latter part 
of July. As previously explained, it is not very common in the southeast- — 
ern part of Louisiana; the earliest date of arrival in spring is March 19, 
1904, at New Orleans. Records of the departure in fall are lacking. 

290. Krenrucky WARBLER (Oporornis formosus). Common su 
visitor in undergrowth of flat, moist woods, such as the better 
swamps in the lowlands and the bottoms of the more elevated sec 
State. Arrives at Gulf coast latitude the last of March: earl* 

1905. Inconspicuous in fall; appears to leave about the e 

[ConnEcTICUT WARBLER (Oporornis agilis). Has ne 
for Louisiana. I noted either this species or the ‘ 
Biloxi, Miss., on August 27, 1906.] 

291. Mourninc WARBLER (Oporornis ph. 
found this bird in the State, but Mr. Andrew A. 
reasonably sure was a specimen of this species ear, 

New Orleans. I have noted either this species or the 
at Biloxi, Miss. (August 27, 1906). In any event, it is 
bird in all sections of both States. 

292. MaryLandD YELLOW-THROAT (Geothlypis trichas tric. 
mon winter visitor, all breeding birds being doubtless referable t. 
form. At the Gulf coast, there is always a decided influx of Yellow- 
about Sept. 1, but whether this form alone is represented in this n 
ment, I am unable to say. 

293. Fiorma YELLOw-THROAT (Geothlypis trichas ignota). An abun-— 
dant resident in all suitable locations. 


ee | Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 191 


294, YELLOW-BREASTED Cuat (Icteria virens virens). Abundant sum- 
mer visitor, at least in the lowlands, occurring in tangled growths in old 
fields, ete. More or less common in such situations throughout the State. 
Arrives about April 15. Earliest, April 11— Lobdell, 1903; New Orleans, 
1905. Usually becomes common April 20 or shortly after. Disappears 
more or less completely in the fall: Sept. 24, 1897, Ariel, Miss.: Sept. 26, 
1898, Bay St. Louis, Miss. Appears to avoid the fertile alluvial lands 
of southeastern Louisiana entirely in fall. 

295. Hooprp WARBLER (Wilsonia citrina). Common summer visitor 
in all swampy localities, especially the southeastern section, where, in fact, 
it is extremely abundant. Arrives usually March 12-15. Earliest, March 
8, 1896, and March 9, 1897. Becomes common about March 20. It 
should be observed, however, that these dates refer to the fertile alluvial 
section of the southeastern part of the State. In the river bottoms of the 
more elevated part of the State it is seldom seen before April. Remains 
at least until the latter part of October. Latest, Nov. 2, 1902, New 
Tberia, La. 

[Witson’s WARBLER (Wilsonia pusilla pusilla). Not yet recorded for 
Louisiana.| 

[CanapIAN WARBLER (Sylvania canadensis). Although noted in south- 
ern Mississippi — Amite county: Ariel; Hancock county: Bay St. Louis — 
this species has never been noted in Louisiana by any of the observers 
with whom I have compared records.] 

296. AmertcaN RepstTart (Setophaga ruticilla). Abundant fall tran- 
sient in all sections, less common in spring, especially in the southeastern 
part of the State, where, on the whole, it is decidedly rare at this season. 
Possibly breeds in the northern part of the State. Returns from the north 
very early: July 30, 1897, Beauvoir, Miss.; July 21, 1899, Bay St. Louis, 
Miss.; Becomes common early in August. Latest date of departure, 
Oct. 27, 1899, Covington, La. Earliest in spring, April 1, 1899, Bay St. 
Louis, Miss.; latest, May 15, 1902, New Iberia, La. 

297. Amprican Preit (Anthus rubescens). Common winter visitor in 
all suitable locations, especially abundant in the southeastern part of the 
State, occurring in great flocks on the plantations and other cleared land. 
Usually arrives shortly after Oct. 20; earliest, Oct. 19, Ellisville, Miss. 
Becomes common early in November. Remains common until April 15 
or 20, and the last has been seen May 2 in southern Louisiana on several 
occasions. 

298. Spraqun’s Preir (Anthus spraguei). Said to be rather common 
in winter in western Louisiana; rather uncommon and irregular in the 
southeastern part of the State. Earliest, Noy. 5, 1902, Lobdell; latest, 
April 19, 1902, New Orleans. 

299. Mocxineprrp (Mimus polyglottos polyglottos). Uniformly abun- 
dant resident throughout the State. 

300. Carsrrp (Dumetella carolinensis). Most abundant as a fall tran- 
sient. Reaches the southern part of the State about Sept. 10, and 


192 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. [ Anal 
becomes abundant shortly after Sept. 20. Disappears more or less com- 
pletely by the early part of November, though seen occasionally in 
winter near the coast. Transients appear near the coast the latter part of 
March, and continue present until about the middle of May. Breeds in 
the northern part of the State. 

301. Brown THRASHER (Toxostoma rufum). Rare as a breeder, fairly 
common in winter and common transient in the southern part of State. 
Common breeder in the central and northern parts. In migration in the 
southern part of the State, it occurs chiefly at the same time as the Catbird. 

302. CaroLtina WREN (Thryothorus ludovicianus ludovicianus). Abun- 
dant resident in all wooded or shrubby localities except those within reach 
of the tide. Sings throughout the year, and nests from March to July. 

308. Brwick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewicki bewicki). Chiefly a winter 
visitor, but may breed occasionally north of the extreme southern part of 
the State. Movements rather irregular; sometimes seen rather early in 
the fall. Commoner in upland localities than in the coastal section even 
in winter. Begins singing in the latter part of the winter or early in the 
spring. 

304. House WREN (T'roglodytes aédon aédon). Common winter visitor. 
Reaches the coast the last week in September (earliest, Sept. 21, 1899, 
Bay St. Louis, Miss.). Leaves the southern part of the State about April 
18; latest, April 23, 1898, New Orleans. Sings more or less freely for three 
weeks or more preceding its departure. 

305. WINTER WREN (Nannus hiemalis hiemalis). Winter visitor;. not 
very common at least in the southern part of the State. Earliest arrival in 
fall, Oct. 15, 1901, New Iberia. Departs in March. 

306. SHORT-BILLED MarsH WREN (Cistothorus stellaris). Winter visi- 
tor, not common. Arrives Oct. 10-15; earliest, Oct. 8, 1905, Biloxi, 
Miss. Remains late: April 19, 1902, Bay St. Louis, Miss.; May 12, 1903, 
Lobdell, La. Found usually in wet weedy places. 

307. Lone-BILLED Marsh Wren (T'elmatodytes palustris palustris) . 
Resident; abundant in the coast marshes, especially in summer. Usually 
found along the bayous and the more protected shores. 

308. Brown CREEPER (Certhia familiaris americana). Fairly common 
winter visitor, except in the coast section, where it is decidedly uncommon. 
The time of its arrival, however, is very regular, the first having been noted 
on three occasions in southern Louisiana on Oct. 14, and once on Oct. 
15. The only date of departure recorded is March 18, 1902, Bay St. 
Louis, Miss. 

309. WHITE-BREASTED NutuHatcH (Sitta carolinensis carolinensis). 
Resident in pineries and regions of mixed upland woods. Unknown in 
prairie and fertile alluvial regions. The Florida White-breasted Nuthatch 
is no doubt the regular breeding form in the more southern part of the State. 
Rather commoner in winter in most localities where it occurs. ‘ 

[RED-BREASTED NuTHATCH (Sitta canadensis). While there is no reccrd, 
so far as I know, of the occurrence of this species in Louisiana, it has been 


» 
. S 
= 


Raa | Korman, Birds of Louisiana. 193 


noted by Mr. Andrew Allison in Mississippi (Bay St. Louis, April 1, 1902), 
and no doubt it occurs occasionally in Louisiana.] 

310. BRowN-HEADED NuruHatcu (Sitta pusilla). Confined apparently 
to the pine flats and long-leafed pine hill regions, where it is an abundant 
resident. 

311. Turrep Tirmouse (Beolophus bicolor). Common resident in all 
wooded localities. 

312. CAROLINA CHICKADEE (Penthestes carolinensis carolinensis). 
Common resident throughout the State. Starts nesting early in March 
in the southern part of the State. 

313. GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET (Regulus satrapa satrapa). Common 
winter visitor, showing a decided preference for evergreen growths. In the 
fertile alluvial region of the southeastern part of the State it frequents 
live oaks almost exclusively. It arrives at Gulf coast latitude about Oct. 
15-20. Latest date of departure, April 5, 1906, Biloxi, Miss. 

314. Rupy-crowneD KinGuer (Regulus calendula calendula). Com- 
mon winter visitor in all mixed woods, as well as in groves and high shrub- 
bery. Earliest date of arrival, Oct. 6, 1897, Ariel, Miss. Becomes com- 
mon Oct. 20 or shortly after. Becomes very abundant with first cold 
weather in November. Usually departs about April 10. Latest date of 
departure, April 25, 1903, Lobdell. Sings rather freely for a few weeks 
before its departure. 

315. Buurn-Gray GNatTcaTcHER (Polioptila cerulea cerulea). Com- 
mon summer visitor in all more or less wooded localities. May be noted 
occasionally in winter near the Gulf coast and I saw one at Shreveport, 
La., Feb. 23, 1915. First migrant usually seen March 12-15. Usually 
common March 20-22. Disappears more or less completely by the mid- 
dle or latter part of August. 

316. Woop TurusH (Hylocichla mustelina). Common summer visitor, 
though breeding only sparingly in the immediate vicinity of the coast, 
being found in close, moist woods, but never in the heavy swamps. Com- 
monest as a fall transient, from about Sept. 15 to Oct. 15. Arrives the 
last week in March near the coast; earliest, March 25, 1900, Covington. 
Becomes common April 5-10. Latest date in fall, Oct. 19, 1897, Ariel, 
Miss. Prefers shady bottoms in the higher parts of the State. 

317. Verery (Hylocichla fuscescens fuscescens). Fairly common tran- 
sient, frequenting mixed woodland generally. Spring migration performed 
chiefly between April 15 and May 15. May be heard in night migration 
almost to the end of May; latest, May 25, 1911. On June 4, 1907, I saw 
one of this species on Last Island, and noted that it was ‘obviously off its. 
reckoning and showing signs of fear to the point of confused stupidity. It 
made short nervous flights among the ‘‘mangle’’ bushes (Avicennia nitida) 
and about the sand on the spit. Earliest date of arrival in fall, Sept. 7, 1900, 
Bay St. Louis, Miss.; latest date of departure, Oct. 24, 1914, New Orleans. 

318. GRAY-CHEEKED THRUSH (Hylocichla alicie alicie). Common 
transient at times in spring, especially in the latter part of the season; less 


194 Korman, Birds of Louisiana. [ Pa 


common in fall, occurring chiefly in the early part of October. Recorded 
somewhat doubtfully at New Orleans, March 27, 1897; earliest authentic 
arrival, April 14, 1902, Bay St. Louis, Miss. Latest, May 9, 1903, Lobdell. 
Noted in remarkable abundance at New Orleans the first week in May, 1897, 
occurring in situations of practically every character, but seen mostly in 
weedy fields. Earliest arrival in fall, Sept. 22, 1897, Ariel, Miss. 

319. OurvE-BACKED TurusH (Hylocichla ustulata swainsoni). Com- 
mon transient, especially in fall. Earliest arrival in spring, April 5, 1903, 
Covington; latest in spring, May 4, 1897, New Orleans. Waves of this 
species, with Gray-cheeked Thrushes and Veeries, are most apt to be 
present shortly before and after May 1. Earliest arrival in fall, Sept. 12, 
1897, Ariel, Miss. Usually becomes common about Sept. 22. Latest in 
fall, Oct. 31, 1900, Bay St. Louis, Miss. , 

320. Hermit TurusH (Hylocichla guttata pallasi). Common winter 
visitor. Earliest, Oct. 10, 1912, New Orleans; average arrival in southern 
Louisiana and Mississippi, Oct. 15. Latest date of departure, April 13, 
1895, New Orleans. Usually leaves first week in April. 

321. American Rosin (Planesticus migratorius migratorius). Num- 
bers vary decidedly from year to year, especially in the coastal section. 
Earliest arrival, Oct. 9, 1897, Ariel, Miss.; earliest at New Orleans, Oct. 
12, 1913. Average date of the first at the coast, Oct. 15. Usually 
becomes common with first cold weather in November. Few remain at 
coast latitude after March 15, and the last is usually seen the last week in 
March. Latest fully authenticated date of departure, April 4, 1906, 
Biloxi, Miss. ; : 

322. WHEATEAR (Sazicola enanthe). The capture of a specimen in 
the outskirts of New Orleans, Sept. 12, 1888, is recorded by Prof. Geo. 
E. Beyer, in a list of the birds of Louisiana published in the “ Proceed- 
ings of the Louisiana Society of Naturalists.” 

323. BuiuEBirD (Sialia sialis sialis). Common resident except in the 
fertile alluvial region of the southeastern section of the State, where it is 
commonest in winter!and where its occurrence in the breeding season is 
limited principally tolits presence in occasional colonies about the sugar 
plantations. 


Pee Maruews, Phaéthon catesbyi. 195 


PHAETHON CATESBYI BRANDT. 
BY GREGORY M. MATHEWS. 


INVESTIGATION of the forms of the family Phaéthontidee for the 
purpose of my ‘Birds of Australia’ compelled the determination 
of the above name with the result that I find it must displace 
Phaéthon americanus Ogilvie-Grant. This latter name is accepted 
in the Amer. Ornith. Union’s Check-List, 3d Ed., p. 59, 1910, so 
that I must give reasons for its rejection. 

When Ogilvie-Grant monographed the family in the ‘Catalogue 
of the Birds in the British Museum,’ Vol. X XVI, he was enabled, 
through a recent discovery of Mr. C. D. Sherborn, to follow strictly 
the law of priority and displace the well-known Phaéthon candidus, 
by the hitherto unheard of Phaéthon lepturus of Lacepéde and 
Daudin. He was also able to indicate that Phaéthon flavirostris 
Brandt had been misapplied to the American bird, which differed 
from the Mauritius species, of which Brandt’s name became a 
synonym. For the American species, he therefore proposed 
Phaéthon americanus and this name has been admitted for seventeen 
years. | 

This provides another of those strange anomalies which have 
been constantly noted by myself while engaged in the determina- 
tion of Australian birds. I refer to the acceptance of names 
utilised in the ‘Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum’ by 
American ornithologists when a very little investigation would 
have proved their inapplicability. In the ‘Catalogue of Birds of 
the British Museum,’ Vol. XXVI, p. 456, 1898, where Phaéthon 


americanus is catalogued the very first reference reads: 


“Tropick Bird, Catesb. Car. II App. pl. 14 (1743) (Bermuda; 
Porto Rico).” 


The following is the gist of the account there given: “Mr. 
Willughby’s description . . . .differs somewhat from ours, which was 
made from the living Bird. The legs in his, by long keeping, had 
lost their red colour, which all that I have seen, while living, have. 
This Bird is about the size of a Partridge, and has very long wings. 


196 Martuews, Phaéthon catesbyt. | Anil 


The bill is red, with an angle under the lower mandible like those 
of the Gull kind, of which it isa species. The eyes are encompassed 
with black, which ends in a point towards the back of the head. 
Three or four of the larger quill feathers, towards their ends, are 
black, tipt with white; all the rest of the Bird is white, except the 
back which is variegated with curved lines of black. The legs and 
feet are of a vermilion red. The toes are webbed. The tail con- 
sists of two long straight narrow feathers, almost of equal breadth 
from their quills to their points. These Birds are rarely seen but 
between the Tropicks, at the remotest distance from land... .yet 
one of their breeding-places is almost nine degrees from the north- 
ern Tropick, viz. at Bermudas, where from the high rocks that 
environ those Islands, I have shot them at the time of their breed- 
ing....they breed also in great numbers on some little Islands at 
the east end of Porto Rico.” 

For the time when this article was written, 1743, this is a most 
accurate and complete description of the Bermuda bird, and the 
figure given is a splendid one of the species known as the Yellow- 
billed Tropic-bird. 

As a synonym of Phaéthon ethereus, Ogilvie-Grant ranged: 


“ Phaéton catesbyi, Brandt, Mem. Acad. St. Petersb. (6) v, pt. I, 
p. 270 (1840) (Bermuda: Rico).”’ 


I trace this determination through Gray (Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, 
pt. III, p. 124, 1871) to Bonaparte (Consp. Gen. Av. II, p. 183, 
1857). Reference, however, to Brandt’s paper shows that he gave 
this name to the “Avis Tropicorum, Catesby, Nat. Hist. of Carol 
I., II. Ed. Edwards, p. 114, t. 14.” This is simply a reprint of the 
account given by Catesby as quoted above, with the same plate 
reproduced. 

If Catesby’s name be applicable to Phaéthon americanus Grant 
then Brandt’s name must be and it has 57 years’ priority. In 
Catesby’s description three debatable points may be noticed. 
First, the bill is given as red. This species is known as the Yellow- 
billed Tropic Bird and in the ‘Water Birds of North America,’ 
Vol. II, p. 186, 1884, the bill is described as deep chrome or wax 
yellow and a footnote reads: “Audubon describes the bill of the 
male as “orange-red,” and that of the female as yellow: but he 


ee. y | Matuews, Phaéthon catesbyi. 197 
seems to have had P. aéthereus in mind in the former case, though 
his description otherwise applies exclusively to P. flavirostris.”’ 

In ‘The Ibis,’ 1914, Karl Plath has written about the Bermuda 
Phaéthon and on p.554 observes: “I had noticed that the birds flying 
about seemed to have orange red bills rather than the yellow to 
which they owe their name, and this bird certainly had a red bill. 
I called the attention of my companion to it, and we agreed that it 
could be best described as bright orange-red, inclining to vermilion 
on the upper ridge.” 

This confirms the accuracy of Catesby’s observation with regard 
to the bill-colouration, but Karl Plath’s legs and feet colouration 
does not coincide with that given by Catesby. The other points 
are the omission of the black band along the wing and the scapular 
colouration while the back is said to be variegated with curved lines 
of black. The figure given shows these black lines to be practically 
coincident with the black scapulars while if the figured or described 
bird were slightly immature it might show black lines on the back. 
The description as a whole is quite inapplicable to P. aéthereus 
and seems quite good enough for acceptance. As far as I can trace 
only one species of Phaéthon breeds at Bermuda where Catesby 
procured specimens himself. I designate Bermuda as the type- 
locality of Phaéthon catesby: Brandt and recommend its usage for 
the American Tropic Bird, known as the Yellow-billed Tropic 
Bird. As this is a misnomer, why not replace it by “Catesby’s 
Tropic Bird” and thus honour the writer of one of the most in- 
teresting books on American natural history? 

I would remark that for the small Tropic Birds I use the generic 
name Leptophaéthon which I introduced in the ‘ Austral Avian 
Record,’ Vol. II, p. 56, 1913, with type Phaéthon lepturus Daudin. 
These have only twelve tail-feathers as against the fourteen of 
P. aéthereus or the sixteen of P. rubricauda. 'They are smaller, 
more delicately formed birds and the tail is of a different nature. 
The elongated central tail-feathers have comparatively wide webs, 
and the tail otherwise is strongly wedge-shaped, the two feathers 
adjacent to the central ones being twice as long. as the outside 
feathers. 

To be consistent with their general usage as regards genera 
American ornithologists must accept my genus Leptophaéthon. 


198 TyiER, Simultaneous Action. [ aut 


SIMULTANEOUS ACTION OF BIRDS: A SUGGESTION. 
BY WINSOR M. TYLER, M. D. 


THE House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) affords a good example 
of a habit common among Fringilline birds when gathered in flocks, 
the habit of all starting up as one bird from their feeding ground 
and returning almost immediately from perches near by, singly or a 
few birds at a time. On any day between November and March, 
in town centres where House Sparrows congregate, large numbers 
of these birds may be watched going through this interesting 
manoeuvre. 

At sunrise on the morning of December 29, 1912, more than a 
hundred Sparrows were feeding in the snow-covered street which 
passes through the centre of Lexington, Mass. Over the space of 
an acre or two, the birds were collected in half a dozen flocks at 
points in the street where food was plenty. Although busy filling 
their crops after a fifteen-hour fast, they remained on the ground 
scarcely a full minute at a time; without apparent reason, and 
with no warning note that I could detect, a flock whirred away into 
the elm branches overhead and within a few seconds the birds began 
gradually to re-assemble at the place they had just left. Other 
flocks did precisely the same thing. The instant departure of a 
large flock is impressive; there is no frightened start of one bird, the 
others trailing on behind; the birds rise with the suddenness of a 
rifle’s crack. 

The birds fly back and forth between the street and some near 
cover so frequently that they spend perhaps no more than two- 
thirds of the time in feeding. When they rise in a body it happens 
rarely that one or two birds do not leave with the others, but feed 
on, undisturbed by the precipitous flight of the majority. Indi- 
vidual action is occasionally shown also by a single bird, who flies 
off to join another flock. This flying off of one of their number has 
apparently no effect on the remainder. Individual action, although 
occurring in members of a flock of feeding Sparrows, is the excep- 
tion; as arule the flock moves as a unit. 

As one watches the Sparrows leave their feeding ground time 


Pais | TyLER, Simultaneous Action. 199 
after time, apparently without cause, but of their accord, one can- 
not help believing that some purpose, perhaps unknown to the birds 
themselves, underlies these interruptions. But more mysterious 
than the purpose of these sudden risings, is the means by which a 
large number of Sparrows decide, with the unanimity of a single 
bird, to fly up. 

One’s first thought is that the birds in a flock start in response to a 
note of warning given by one of their number. It is not necessary 
to suppose a leader; any bird perceiving danger, or fancying that 
he perceives it, might sound a warning which would arouse his 
companions to retreat. That a man, even although he stands 
very near a flock of birds, seldom, if ever, hears an alarm note,— 
or indeed any note at all,—is no proof of the absence of a signal. 
However, one feels a little skeptical when he considers the almost 
incredibly rapid response to a hypothetical signal inaudible to 
human ears. I believe also that the Sparrows themselves give 
more positive indication that in their concerted actions they do not, 
or need not, depend on signals. It is a common habit of the 
House Sparrow when gathered together, often in large companies, 
to chatter or scold. Each bird repeats for minutes at a time bis 
“chape” or “chillip” note, adding his voice to the din of the 
chorus. These choruses often end on the instant. No orchestra 
leader could more quickly silence the instruments under his control 
on one beat, yet, in the case of the Sparrow, it is unbelievable that 
an alarm note could be heard above the general uproar. 

There is another point which counts against the practicability of a 
signal. It is chiefly when large numbers of Sparrows are assembled 
in a flock that the sudden uprisings are conspicuous. One might 
almost say that the fnanimity was directly in proportion to the 
number of birds present. That this proportion would appear 
to hold is self evident,— for the larger the rising flock, the greater 
the impression on the eye; but a little observation will show that a 
small flock of Sparrows acts in a very different way. A small 
flock of House Sparrows will generally remain feeding in the street 
until they are frightened away, and then they will leave the feeding 
ground severally, a few birds at a time. Those nearest the ap- 
proaching danger, or the most timid, start first, to be followed suc- 
cessively by the remainder. Here are the very conditions under 


[ Auk 


200 Tyrer, Simultaneous Action. April 


which a signal could best be heard,— very few birds make up the 
flock and all could hear the signal, but instead of simultaneous 
action there is individual alarm. 

It is possible that fear may be communicated throughout a large 
flock by any one of their number starting up in alarm, but that this 
explanation is always, or even often, responsible for the uprisings 
is improbable on account of the regularity of the retreats to cover. 

The behavior of the individuals composing a flock of Sparrows, 
as opposed to their movements “en masse” is well seen if one slowly 
approaches a flock at rest in shrubbery. Now, the birds gradually 
withdraw; each bird as he feels himself in danger, retreats. He at 
first hops deeper into the bushes and later, perhaps, flies. One 
bolder than the others, may remain alone near the danger even after 
the others have flown. Under these circumstances the birds act 
just as one would expect any company of individuals to act at the 
approach of danger;— when threatened each individual seeks 
safety. It is true that in the movements as a body, each individual 
may be seeking safety, but here there is a difference; each bird in a 
large flock starts at the same instant and, until perched, acts ex- 
actly as his companions do. It is possible that sometimes the birds 
are really frightened away, but, in that case, they act as if they all 
perceived the danger and reacted to it as a unit. This instant re- 
sponse is clearly distinct from the straggling retreat from a passing 
carriage. 

I was interested to note, some time ago, the behavior of a large 
flock of birds collected in an open field with no cover near. Al- 
though the birds were not House Sparrows, they belonged to speciés 
in which the habit under consideration is well marked. The note 
indicates that the proximity of shelter, which might act as a stimu- 
lus to retreat, is not responsible for the interruptions while feeding. 
“Feb. 7, 1911. Twenty Goldfinches and more than twice as many 
Redpolls are feeding on the snow upon weed-seeds. This large 
flock of nearly a hundred birds is spread out over half an acre of 
meadow land where the weed stalks, sticking thickly through the 
snow, afford abundant food. In spite of the plentiful supply of 
food, the birds are restless and keep starting up and alighting at 
once near by, but there is not, as noted previously, a general move- 
ment of the flock in one direction; the flock as a whole is stationary. 


oe TyLeR, Simultaneous Action. 201 
Also, until I make the birds apprehensive by coming near them, 
there is no flying off to cover and back as I have noted in Juncos 
and Tree Sparrows. However, in this case there is no cover near.”’ 
These birds showed the same uneasiness, the same tendency to fly 
in numbers from their feeding ground as noted in the House Spar- 
row, but here, with no cover to retreat to, they merely started into 
the air and at once settled quietly among the weeds. 

When House Sparrows and certain other birds of similar feeding 
habits are assembled in flocks, they may act in two ways,— indi- 
vidually and asaunit. When they act individually, we understand 
their behavior well enough; they act much as we should under the 
same circumstances; they are quite human. But when we see a 
hundred birds acting as one, and watch them as, without warning, 
they start on the instant and whir away like leaves in a gust of wind, 
we must needs believe that some superhuman force is at work among 
them. Can it be that, for a time, each of the hundred little brains 
forms a part of a common mind which, ever watchful for danger, 
only recognises it in the abstract and periodically drives the flock 
to seek shelter? This hypothesis is consistent with the facts; it 
would explain otherwise meaningless interruptions of feeding as well 
as the instantaneous flights, without signal, of busily occupied birds. 

If such is the case,— if a subconsciousness of danger hangs over 
each large flock while feeding,— the birds are, or seem to be, un- 
influenced by it and unaware of it until, like an explosion, it throws 
them all into the air; as if the common mind governed a single body 
instead of a hundred. 

In addition to the sudden risings from their feeding grounds, birds 
often display unanimity of behavior on other occasions. The 
simultaneous action of birds in rapid motion is well illustrated by 
closely-packed companies of flying Sandpipers. Each bird, when 
the flock changes its direction, escapes collision with its neighbors 
by turning at the same moment, in its tracks, so to speak. If a 
flock of Sandpipers changed its direction as a train of cars rounds a 
curve (each car swinging to one side only when it reaches the curved 
portion of the track) simultaneous action in the‘birds would not 
be required; each bird in that case would follow the example of 
the bird immediately in front of him. Flocks of Sandpipers, how- 
ever, do not wheel in this way, or they do not always do so. Any 


[oat 
April 


202 TyterR, Simultaneous Action. 
one can satisfy himself on this point by watching a flock of Ereu- 
netes pusillus, for example, flymg past in bright sunlight. At first, 
if you are between the sun and the birds, their white underparts 
shine out as the light strikes under the raised wing; later, in the 
distance, the birds appear as a group of flickering bright spots,— 
_ until the flock turns. Then, in an instant, every bird disappears; 
each has turned away at the same moment and presents to the eye 
only the narrow edge of the wings and the smallest diameter of the 
body,— invisible in the distance. 

One advantage of maintaining a food-shelf is that the birds which 
visit it, after they have fed, often remain near and afford excellent 
opportunities for study at close range, while the birds are entirely 
at ease and wholly unconscious of being observed. At such times 
they sometimes display traits and habits which under other circum- 
stances, even after long acquaintance, they will not have shown. 
For example, in the winter, after a little band of Chickadees have 
satisfied their hunger at my food-shelf, they often spend half an 
hour or so in the shrubbery and arbor-vite trees eight or ten feet 
from the window. As a rule, they call cheerily to each other; 
sometimes, however, there comes a sudden hush,— every bird has 
become silent and perfectly motionless. For minute after minute, 
by the watch, the birds hold their quiet, and seemingly rigid, atti- 
tudes. I have timed them thus for eight minutes. It is difficult 
to find them as they sit as if frozen to the twigs; they are perched 
here and there, widely separated, some half-hidden in the evergreens, 
others exposed on bare branches. At last the stiff pose gradually 
gives way; one bird begins to move his head,— to look about a little 
from side to side. Every other bird is acting in the same way; 
now all are hitching slightly on their perches, some of them utter- 
ing their conversational notes in an undertone; now one or two 
give a rapid jingling call and hop from their perches; the spell is 
broken; the frozen statues are once again living, active, wide-awake 
Chickadees. 

The point of especial interest here is the identical behavior of the 
birds,— their prolonged immobility, their silence, their quick pas- 
sage from death-like stillness to activity. Although, to be sure, 
the transition occupies several seconds, the birds pass through. it 
simultaneously (as nearly as the eye can follow their movements) 


ease | TyLER, Simultaneous Action. 203 
and not one after another. Naturally the commencement of the 
stillness is rarely observed,—I can only say that it takes place 
quickly,— but the period of immobility and the liberation from it 
I have seen often. Not a bird moves until the spell is broken, 
and when the release comes, it comes at once to every bird. 

These Chickadees, very likely, are resting while they digest their 
recent meal, but that the necessity for rest should come to each 
bird at the same instant and persist for exactly the same time 
implies something more than chance; it suggests a relationship 
between the members of the flock, similar to that which, binding 
together a flock of Sparrows, enables them to start into the air in a 
body. The life of a bird is made up of cycles; in the great yearly 
cycle, which includes the breeding period and moult, preceded and 
followed by migration, birds over wide areas of country act (owing 
probably to physiological reasons) in fairly close unison. But how 
much closer must be the relationship between the members of a 
flock of birds in the daily cycle, during the winter months, when, 
with sexual jealousies dormant, they roam about amicably in search 
of food! Is it not possible that the need of food, the desirability of 
rest and the necessity for a safe night’s shelter is perceived by the 
flock as a whole; that, acting as a unit, the sum of the intelligence 
of all the members of a flock keeps the company together, provides 
it with food and maintains a continuous watch for danger? 

Psychologists recognize in the human race a subconscious power 
of thought-transference which, although proved beyond a doubt 
to exist, is rendered uncertain and made difficult to study because 
it is obscured and held in check by our “objective” mind,— our 

-every-day, reasoning, thinking mind. This psychical power, 
telepathy, is defined as “the conveyance of thought or feelings from 
mind to mind by other than ordinary channels of sense.”’ (Ency- 
clopedia Britannica, 11th Ed., Vol. X XVI, p. 546). 

When we realize that in animals the objective mind,— the bar- 
rier to telepathic action,— is, compared to our minds, slightly 
developed, is it not only possible, but even probable that birds 
possess greater telepathic power than man (to an extent inversely 
proportional, perhaps, to the development of their respective 
reasoning — objective — minds) and that this telepathic power is 
responsible for their concerted actions? 


204 Puitiies, New England Bob-white. Pees 


THE OLD NEW ENGLAND BOB-WHITE. 
BY JOHN C. PHILLIPS. 
Plate XVI. 


Ir has long been remarked both by ornithologists and sportsmen 
that the Bob-whites of New England and the north central states 
were somewhat larger than those of the Mid-Atlantic states. The 
name Colinus virginianus was given to the bird by Linnezeus, based 
entirely on Catesby’s material, so that the type locality may be 
fairly placed at South Carolina, probably near the Georgia line, 
for Catesby’s bird collecting was done on the Savanah River. 
Catesby’s plate represents a distinctly dark bird. 

The question of a northern form is however somewhat compli- 
cated by the zealous efforts of sportsmen in transplanting Bob- 
whites from more favored to less favored regions, a process which 
has resulted in the entire or partial replacement of the native stock 
over most of its northeastward extension. It is interesting to note 
here that the subject of quail transplants was not thoroughly aired 
in sportsman’s journals before the late seventies. By 1880 quail 
were advertised from various southern localities, Tennessee, 
Indian Territory, Texas, etc., at the extremely low figure of $2.00 a 
dozen. Between 1880 and 1885 there was great activity along this 
line and large transplants were effected in southern Vermont and 
in Massachusetts and probably over the whole of southern New 
England. Many references to this can be found in the files of 
‘Forest and Stream’ between 1876 and 1885. 

It appears however that the traffic in live quail existed a good 
while before this period for I have a record given to me by Mr. G. 
A. Peabody, of Danvers, for March, 1870, at which time 184 birds 
were let out in Essex Co., Mass. They were sent from Greens- 


boro, N. C., but whether actually trapped there is of course un- 


certain. Mr. Peabody himself kept a few quail in a pen in the 
sixties and liberated a few at Danvers, Mass. He is certain that 
other sportsmen were doing the same thing about this time and he 
says that the planting was done with the utmost secrecy, which 
may account for the late appearance of reports of these transplants 
in the journals of the time. It is a fact that on Cape Cod quail 
were planted very early, for Mr. Peabody informs me that Mr. 


‘ 


THE AUK, VoL. XXXII. RATE IX Vile 


Bos-wHiTE (Colinus virginianus). 
Row 1. Old New England Birds. 


Row 2. Birds from Southern States (two on left = C. v. floridanus). 
Row 3. Birds from Illinois, Indian Territory, etc. 


aie | Puruuires, New England Bob-white. 205 


Storey Fay brought many quail from his place near Savannah, Ga., 
and liberated them on the Cape (Falmouth?) in the late fifties. 
It is well known that at least some of the quail of Cape Cod are 
small and dark colored, and three male specimens taken at Ware- 
ham, Mass. (Bangs Coll. Nos. 4196, 1059, and 3347) between 1882 
and 1901 are very heavily barred on the flanks and breast, like 
birds from Georgia and So. Carolina. On the other hand two 
specimens from the same collection and locality, nos. 1060 and 
11492 are typical northern birds and these bear the dates 1882 and 
1904. On measuring these skins I find that the three dark males 
from Wareham have a wing average of only 110 mm., while the two 
normal females from the same place average 114.5 mm. In other 
words there is evidence that the native and imported birds may 
have existed side by side and kept their identity, for a time at least. 

In Mr. Brewster’s collection there are some fine specimens taken 
near Boston between 1871 and 1891. These show no trace of 
imported blood. The largest specimen has a wing of 120 mm., 
being far larger than any of the specimens in the collection of the 
Museum of Comparative Zodélogy, either from New England, the 
Atlantic States, or the Dakota-Missouri region. In measuring 
these skins I divided them into three regions: Ist, Old New Eng- 
land, 2nd, Virginia to So. Carolina, 3rd, the western area, including 
Indian Territory, So. Dakota, Kansas and Missouri, 4th, a series 
from the Thayer museum at Lancaster representing Maryland, 
Virginia, and localities near Washington, and lastly another lot 
from the same collection taken at Sing Sing, New York. 


of ) 

o_o OO oF 
| Tar- | | No. Tar- 
Cul. | sus | Wing | Tail | spec. | Cul.| sus |Wing| Tail 


= | 
Old New England) 15.8 31 (eset Sia Heo) 4630.6) 1130) 556 


j 
| 


Sing Sing, N. Y. | 15.6 | 31.6 | 109 55.4 5 


Md. & Va. 4G. )31.3,\ 004) 3/57 9 | 


aN | 
So. Atlantic 15.3 |30.1/109.8|/53.3| 6 |15 |29 | 109 | 52.7 
| | | | | 
| | | | } 
Western |15.7 | 30.7 | 110.4 57.3| 12 | 15.430 109 | 55.3 
| | | | 


ees | 
Mt.Pleasant, S.C.) 15.5 | 31 | 107.5 53 2 |15.5)|30 111 peeee 


206 Puiuures, New England Bob-white. . fee: 


Two o'o and two 9 9 from Mt. Pleasant, S. C., near the type 
locality are added. 

The old New England series is limited to birds collected near 
Boston in the seventies, mostly in Mr. Brewster’s collection, and 
I am assured that the localities Belmont, Concord, and Brookline, 
where this series was taken, were not affected by southern quail. 
The wing measurement is large in both male and female, but the 
other measurements do not show much size difference. Probably 
in the flesh the birds were larger and heavier. One of these speci- 
mens has a wing of 120 mm., which is maximum for all the quail 
examined for the combined localities. 

The South Atlantic series measures slightly less in both sexes 
than any other group, but the difference is surprisingly small. 
The Maryland and Virginia series are pretty well up to the New 
England standard and taken altogether the regions show far less 
difference than I had been led to expect. 

Now the matter of coloring is not so easily settled as the size 
question. The spring plumage of Bob-whites is much grayer than 
the fall plumage, especially on the lower back and rump. The 
typical and extreme Massachusetts birds have a very light buffy 
appearance, the top of the head has very little black and the mantle 
is apt to be plain colored. There is a marked tendency to a more 
delicate barring on the under parts, and to an absence of barring 
on the lower breast and abdomen. In females the barring is much 
less heavy. In typical specimens of New England birds the 
barring is by no means transverse as in Georgia and South Carolina 
specimens, but very distinctly V-shaped, the pattern drawing out 
more and more toa sharp point on the lower flanks. It must be 
noticed, however, that our series shows no constant color difference 
between North and South Atlantic birds till one reaches at least the 
vicinity of Charleston, where specimens show a distinctly heavier 
and more transverse barring over breast and abdomen. Also the 
backs, scapulars, and tertials are darker in southern birds as well 
as the whole top of the head. There is no way that I can see of 
telling western from New England birds, while the Sing Sing, N. Y., 
series is identical with the Maryland series. Variation is very con- 
siderable, especially in the width of the barring on the lower parts, 
and in the extent of the barring on the abdomen. There is one 


Vol. XXXII) Wrienr, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 207 


very darkly barred bird from Indian Territory and another from 
Vermilion, S. D. 

In the plate I have arranged male birds in the following order: 
top row, old New England birds, typical ones on left, darkest indi- 
vidual on right. Second row; from right to left, Va., N. C., 5. C. 
and Ga., with two typical Florida birds, Colinus v. floridanus at the 
left end. The lower row shows a series of western birds, with 
Illinois birds on the right and a darker Indian Territory bird on the 
left. The Georgia, Florida and Indian Territory specimens can 
always be told from those of New England, and the typical old 
New England bird can with fair certainty be separated from the 
southwestern bird, but not from that of Virginia. 

To sum up: if I were asked to characterize the probable appear- 
ance of the New England quail of fifty years ago, I should say — 
Size large, especially the wing; mantle with a tendency to a plainer 
appearance and not so heavily speckled. Lower parts less heavily 
barred, and barring more V-shaped; whole top of head and post- 
ocular streak more reddish and less black: entire bird more tawny 
and generally somewhat lighter in tone, especially on the lower 
back, rump and sides. 


EARLY RECORDS OF THE WILD TURKEY. IV. 


BY ALBERT HAZEN WRIGHT. 


(Continued from p. 81.) 


The Carolinas and Georgia. 


In the seventeenth century, we have seven or eight notes of 
interest. In 1663, a “Report of Commissioners sent from Bar- 
bodes to Explore the River Cape Fear”’ has it that ! “The woods 
(are) stored everywhere with great numbers of deer and turkeys — 
we never going on shore but we saw of each sort.” Several excerpts 
from “A Relation of A Discovery lately made on the Coast of 


1 Hawks, Francis L. History of North Carolina, 1663-1729, Vol. II, p. 31. 


208 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. [ Abell 


Florida,— London, 1664” by William Hilton pertain to this 
species. In Port Royal Land,! “the woods (abounds) with .... 
Turkeys,.....” Along Cape Fear River, “we proceeded down to a 
place... .which we called Turkie-Quarters, because we killed several 
Turkies thereabouts.” “In that time as our business called us up 
and down the River and Branches, we killed of wild fowl, four 
Swans,....ten Turkies,.....””. In “A Brief Description of the 
Province of Carolina, London, 1666” we find that? “The Woods 
are stored with Deer and Wild Turkeys, of a great magnitude, 
weighing many times above 501. apiece of more tast than in 
England, being in their proper climate.” 

In “Mr. Carteret’s Relation of their Planting at Ashley River 
1670” occurs * “ Here is alsoe wilde Turke which the Indian brought 
but is not soe pleasant to eate of as the tame, but very fleshy and 
farr bigger.’ In 1674, Henry Woodward’s “A Faithfull Relation 
of My Westoe Voiage” appears. While in Carolina, he supped 4 
“wth two fatt Turkeys to helpe wth parcht corne flower broth.” 
In another instance, “he carried along a fat Turkey for his better 
accommodation at night.’”’ In 1682, we have two notes: one by 
T. Ashe and the other by Samuel Wilson. The former finds the ® 
“Birds for Food, and pleasure of Game, are....: In winter huge 
flights of Wild Turkies, oftentimes weighing from twenty, thirty 
to forty pound.” The latter records, “Here are also in the woods, 
great plenty of Wild Turkeys,.....”’ The last note of the century 
is by Richard Blome (I. c., p. 156). “‘ Their woods and Fields (are) 
likewise stored with great plenty of wild Turkeys,....whose flesh 
is delicate Meat.” 

The first note of the next century occurs in the “Journal of John 
Barnwell.” When 15 miles above Bathtown, he interprets the 
turkey’s presence as sure evidence that the enemy did not expect. 
them.® 

Three years later (1714), the celebrated Lawson publishes his 
“History of Carolina.” On a “Thousand Miles Travel among 


iHorce; Py Viol. EV, pp: Ss; 10; 21 15: 

2 Carroll, B. R. Hist. Colls. of S.C. New York, 1836, Vol. II, p. 12. 
3 Narratives of Early Carolina, 1650-1708. New York, 1911, p. 119. 
4ibid., p. 131. 

5 Carroll, B. R. 1.c., Vol. II, pp. 73, 28. 

6 Va. Mag., Vol. V, No. 4, p. 401; Vol. VI, No. I, p. 44. 


Vol. XXXII) Wricur, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 209 


the Indians from South to North Carolina” he several times notes 
the turkey. Near Charlestown,! “when we approached nearer the 
place, we found it to be some Sewee Indians firing the cane swamps 
which drives out the game, then taking their particular stands, 
kill great quantities of both bear, deer, turkies.....”’ Near Santee 
River, “The Indians killed fifteen turkeys, this day, there coming 
out of the swamp, about sun rising, flocks of these fowl, contain- 
ing several hundred in a gang, who feed upon the acorns, it being 
most oak that grow in these woods. Early the next morning... . 
our guide killed more turkeys. Some of the turkeys which we eat 
whilst we staied there, I believe weighed no less than forty pounds. 
At night we killed a possum, being cloy’d with turkey... ..” 
Later, “our fat turkeys began to be loathsome to us.” “At night 
we lay by a swift current (Sapona), where we saw plenty of turkeys, 
but perched upon such lofty oaks that our guns would not kill 
them, though we shot very often, and our guns were very good. 
Some of our company shot several times at one turkey before he 
would fly away, the pieces being loaded with large goose shot.” 
Concerning these oaks he speaks at greater length under his ac- 
count of the wild pigeons. The note follows: “pigeons come down 
in quest of a small sort of acorns, which in those parts are plenti- 
fully found. They are the same we call turkey acorns, because 
the wild turkies feed very much thereon; and for the same reason 
those trees that bear them are called turkey oaks.” ? 

In “A Letter from South Carolina, ete. Written by a Swiss 
Gentleman to his Friend at Bern. 2nd edit. London, 1732” we find 
(p. 13) that “There are tame Fowls of all sorts, and great Variety 
of wild Fowl, as Turkeys,.....”. “An Extract of the Journal of 
Mr. Commissary Von Reck Who conducted the First Transport of 
Saltzburgers to Georgia: London 1734” says * “ Night overtaking 
us, we were obliged to take up our Quarters upon a little Hill, and a 
Fire with the Indians, who brought us a wild Turkey for our sup- 


’ 


per.” About Ebenezer, Savannah River, it holds that * “As to 


1 Lawson, John. The History of Carolina, London, ty714. Reprint Raleigh, 
N. C., 1860, pp. 25, 50, 51, 79, 92, 231-233. 

2Tn 1737, John Brickell in his ““ The Natural History of North Carolina... ..’’ 
(Dublin, 1737, pp. 181-183) practically repeats the substance of Lawson’s 
accounts. 

3 Force, P. Vol. IV, pp. 12, 13, 36. 


210 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. [ Apuil 


3) 


Game, here are....Wild Turkies,.....’”’ “A New and Accurate 
Account of the Provinces of South Carolina and Georgia, London, 
1733” states that ! “our people that live in the country plantations 
procure of them (Carolina Indians) the whole deer’s flesh; and they 
bring it many miles for the value of six pence sterling, and a wild 
turkey of forty pound weight for the value of two-pence.” “A 
Young Gentleman” in “A New Voyage to Georgia 2nd edit. Lon- 
don, 1737” says? “I met with... .plenty of wild turkeys,.....” 
“An Account Showing the Progress of the Colony of Georgia in 
America, London, 1741” finds? “in the winter season (Savannah 
River) there is a variety of wild fowl, especially turkeys, some of 
them weighing thirty pounds,.....’’ “An Impartial Inquiry into 
the State and Utility of the Province of Georgia, 1741” records 
that ® “Mr. Harris, who is an expert fowler, sometimes goes out with 
his gun, and seldom fails of bringing in either wild turkey... .or 
geese.....’’ “A Description of Georgia London 1741” states that * 
“There is great plenty of wild fowl, particularly turkies,.....” 

In 1761, we have “A Description of South Carolina London.” 
According to it,> “the sorts of wild fowl that frequent the inland 
parts of the Country, are Turkeys,.....” In 1763, G. Milligen 
writes “A Short Description of the Province of South Carolina: 
London, 1770.”’ It states that ® “In the woods and fields are plenty 
of wild turkeys, of a large size,..... ” “The History of North 
America London, 1776” claims (p. 225) Georgia affords “wild 
turkeys from 20 to 30 pounds weight.”’ Hewatt in 1779 merely 
mentions wild turkeys are in great numbers.’ In 1784, J. F. D. 
Smyth (1. ¢., Vol. I, p. 149) reports that in North Carolina” “ There 
are also. ...multitudes of....wild turkies.....’’ Following him, 
we have Wm. Bartram. When at Broad River, he remarks (I. c¢., 
p. 45). “We at length happily accomplished our live, bringing in 
plenty of venison and turkeys, we had a plentiful feast at supper.” 


1 Colls. Ga. Hist. Soc. Savannah, 1840, p. 55. 

2 ibid., Vol. II, Savannah, 1842, pp. 51, 58, 314. 

3ibid., Vol. I, p. 199. 

4¥Force, P. Vol. II, p. 4. 

6 Carroll, B. R. Vol. II, p. 250. 

6 ibid., Vol. II, p. 482. 

7 Hewatt, Alex. An Hist. Account of South Carolina and Georgia. London, 
W779, VOloi, Dp. So. 


Pa | Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 211 


John Davis,’ at the end of the century, tells how they used “to 
penetrate the woods in search of wild turkies”’ at Coosawhatchie. 

In the nineteenth century, we have few notes. Gurney, in 
speaking of North Carolina, notes that ? “The elegant forms of the 
wild turkeys on the full run, were sometimes seen gliding through 
the forest” and at Savannah he notices that “Among the birds, 
the wild turkey is common.” The following year, 1842, Bucking- 
ham finds * “Wild turkeys and wild ducks are in sufficient abun- 
dance to furnish game for food.”’ 


Florida. 


Several of the early 16th century notes pertain to Florida. In 
the next century, the historical literature of the turkey is scant. 
In “Virginia richly valued, By the description of the mainland 
of Florida, her next neighbour. ... London 1609” we find‘ “There 
be many wild Hennes as big as Turkies.....”’ “In a Relation of 
the Invasion and Conquest of Florida,.... London, 1686” we have 
“The Poultry are wild there, as big as Peacocks, and very plen- 
tiful.”’ 

In the eighteenth century, the roll of records is longer. The 
first author who mentions it is Wm. Stork who in 1766, writes 
that ® “In the woods are plenty of wild turkeys, which are better 
tasted, as well as larger, than our tame ones in England.”’ When 
in Florida, John Bartram 1766 records the wild turkey.6 In 1770, 
J. H. Wynne practically repeats Stork’s statement. “The History 
of North America London 1776” has it (p. 251) that “ With regard 
to the winged species, here are vast numbers of turkeys,.....”’ In 
1791 we have the extended notes of Wm. Bartram. Of St. Ille, 
south of Alatamaha 60 miles, he says’? “Turkeys... .are here to be 


1 Davis, John. Travels of Four and a Half in the United States of America; 
— London, 1803. N. Y., 1909 edition, p. 112. 

2Gurney, J.J. A Journey in North America..... Norwich, 1841, pp. 62,372. 

3 Buckingham, J. S. The Slave States of America. London, 1842. Vol. I, 
p. 156. ‘ 

‘Force, P. Vol. IV, p. 131. 

5 Stork, William. An Account of East Florida ..... London, 1766, p. 51. 

6 Bartram, John. <A Journal kept .... for the Floridas; Jan. 14, 1766, p. 18. 
In Stork, vide supra, 3rd edit., London, 1769. 

7 Bartram, Wm. Travels, pp. 18, 101, 109, 110, 179, 189, 199, 201, 235, 348, 455. 


212 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. ae 


seen; but birds are not numerous in desert forests; they draw near 
to the habitations of men, as I have constantly observed in all my 
travels.” Of an island in Lake George, San Juan River, he writes 
“There are no habitations at present on the island, but a great 
number of deer, turkeys,.... and turkeys are made extremely fat 
and delicious from their feeding on the sweet acorns of the Live 
Oak.” Along the San Juan River, “I, observing a flock of turkeys 
at some distance, on the other, (way) directed my steps towards 
them, and with great caution, got near them; when singling out a 
large cock, and being just on the point of firing, I observed that 
several young cocks were affrighted, and, in their language, warned 
the rest to be on their guard, against an enemy, whom I plainly 
perceived was industriously making his subtle approaches towards 
them, behind the fallen trunk of a tree, about twenty yards from 
me. This cunning fellow hunter was a large fat wild cat (lynx) he 
saw me, and at times seemed to watch my motions, as if determined 
to seize the delicious prey before me. Upon which I changed my 
object, and levelled my piece at him. At that instant, my com- 
panion, at a distance, also discharged his piece at the deer, the 
report of which alarmed the flock of turkeys and my fellow hunter, 
the cat, sprang over the log and trotted off.” At Halfway Pond 
(Cuscowilla) “flocks of turkeys (were) walking in the groves around 
us,.....” On Alachua savanna, he records “ flocks of turkeys” and 
near old Alachua town “on our rout near a long projected point of 
the coast, we observed a es flock of ue ee at our approach 
they hastened to the groves” and again “we frequently saw,. 
turkeys. ..., but they knew their safety here, keeping far enough Sart 
of our ir When 30 miles from St. Marks, he finds “the 
forests and native meadows (abound) with wild game, as... .tur- 
keys,.....” At Tanase he “avanced into strawberry plains to 
regale on the fragrant delicious fruit, welcomed by communities 
of the splendid meleagris. .. ..” 

In 1806, Priscilla W akeheld, (1. c., p. 92) when at St. Juans, F ia, 
writes of this species as follows: “Of a morning we have been awak- 
ened by the beams of the new-risen sun, and the cheerful crowing 
of the wild turkey-cocks, calling to each other from the tops of the 
highest trees. In the spring they begin at break of day, and crow 
till sunrise, saluting their fellows on the return of light.””. Twenty- 


iar a Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 213 


six years later, 1832 Timothy Flint (1. ¢., Vol. I, p. 210.) finds at 
Pensacola that “wild turkeys are constantly offerred for sale by 
the Indians.” Five years previous 1827, John Lee Williams 
records! “Wild Turkey-Meleagris americana plenty,” and in a 
subsequent work, 1837 he gives it more attention.2 “The Wild 
Turkey, meleagris Americana, stands at the head of the festive 
board, and is abundant in most of the new settlements.” 


Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana. 


In this region the record begins with the last voyage of La Salle 


to discover the Mississippi. ‘The plains lying on one side of it 
“he says® “are stored with. ...turkeys;.....”. At Maligne River, 
“our hunters killed... .turkeys.....”? Onthis same journey, when 


at Bay St. Louis he remarks,’ “ We had also an infinite Number of 
Beeves....Turkeys.....” At Le Boucon, they saw turkeys and of 
the country through which he passed he notices that “There are 
Abundance of Deer. ...and all Sorts of wild Fowl, and more espe- 
cially of Turkeys.” 

Du Pratz in the early part of the eighteenth century was travel- 
ing in Louisiana, and in several places in his account of his journey 
he mentions the turkey.6 “The French settlers raise in this prov- 
ince turkies of the same kind with those of France.”’ In another 
place he notes that “ Many of the women wear cloaks of the bark 
of the mulberry tree or of the feathers of swans, turkies or India 
ducks.” In one instance, he writes of the turkey at some length. 
“T shall now proceed to speak of the fowls which frequent the woods, 
and shall begin with the Wild-Turky, which is very common all over 
the colony. It is finer, larger, and better than that of France. 
The feathers of the turky are duskish grey, edged with a streak 
of gold colour, near half an inch broad. In the small feathers the 
gold-coloured streak is not above one tenth of an inch broad. 


1 Williams, John Lee. A View of West Florida, etc. Phila., 1827, p. 31. 

2 The Territory of Florida, etc. New York, 1837, p. 73. 

3 French, B. F. Hist. Colls. of La., Part I. New York, 1846, pp. 176, 136, 121. 

4Joutel, M. A Journal of the last Voyage Performed by M. de la Salle to the 
Gulph of Mexico. Translation London, 1714, pp. 62, 78, v, 82, 87. 

5 Du Pratz, M. LeP. 1l.c., pp. 283, 363, 276, 277, 161. 


Pens 


214 Wricut, Karly Records of the Wild Turkey. April 


The natives make fans of the tail, and of four tails joined together, 
the French make an umbrella. The women among the natives 
weave the feathers as our peruke-makers weave their hair, and 
fasten them to an old covering of bark, which they likewise line 
with them, so that it has down on both sides. Its flesh is more 
delicate — fatter and more juicy than that of ours. They go in 
flocks, and with a dog one may killa great many of them. I could 
never procure any of the turkey’s eggs, to try to hatch them, and 
discover whether they were as difficult to bring up in this country 
as in France, since the climate of both countries is almost the 
same. My slave told me, that in his nation they brought up the 
young turkies as easily as we do chickens.” 

Schultz (1. c., pp. 182, 184) in 1810 says “ Those (birds) which may 
be considered as local (New Orleans) are,.... wild turkey... .,” and 
1817 Samuel R. Brown practically repeats (pp. 146, 233) the same 
observation. Of Mississippi, he says that “The traveller here 
finds... .wild turkeys in frequent flocks.” In the Nation of the 
Creek Indians (Ouchee River) Adam Hodgson 1820 (Mar. 20) 
writes | “ He (Landlord) gave us a plain substantial fare, which. .. . 
(is) sometimes varied by the introduction of wild venison or wild 
turkies” killed by the Indians and furnished the landlord at little 
cost. About the same time, Thos. L. McKinney writes (I. c., p. 159) 
of the Chickasaw country as follows: “Nearly the whole of the 
country of Chickasaws, through which I had, so far, passed was 
poor. Wild turkeys plenty.” In his trip up the Alabama River 
between Montgomery and Mobile, Arfwedson notes that? “Im- 
mense quantities of wild ducks and wild turkeys were constantly 
disturbed by the paddles of the steamboat, but we often passed 
through flocks of them without causing the least fright.” In 
“Recollections of Pioneer Life in Mississippi’ by Miss Mary J. 
Welsh, we find that® “turkeys. ...were abundant” in 1833-1836. 
The last note to be entered in this list is by C.C. Jones. He speaks 
of the Choctaws who made‘ “turkey-feather blankets with the 


i Hodgson, Adam. Letters from North America, ..... 2vols. London, 1824, 
Volk f, pp: 118; 125. 

2 Arfwedson, C. D. The United States and Canada, in 1832, 1833, and 1834. 
2 vols. London, 1834, Vol. II, p. 41. 

? Miss. Hist. Soc. Publications. Vol. IV, p. 349. 

4Jones,C.C. Southern Indians. 1873, pp. 87, 77, 322. 


ae | Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 215 


long feathers of the neck and breast of that fowl. The inner end 
of the feather was twisted and made fast in a strong double thread 
of hemp or coarse twine made of the inner bark of the mulberry-tree. 
These threads were then worked together after the manner of a fine 
netting. The long and glittering feathers imparted to the outside 
of the blanket a pleasing appearance. Such fabrics were quite 
warm.” 


Kentucky and Tennessee. 


In this region we have several interesting notes. John Lederer 
comments on its! “Great variety of excellent Fowl, as wilde 
Turkeys,.....” _In early voyages up and down the Mississippi we 
find mention of thisform. Cavelier’s account of La Salle’s Voyage 
remarks ” “how the whole nation (of Indians) had greatly honoured 
them and held them for something more than men, on account of the 
power of their guns: that they wondered to see them kill. . . .several 
turkeys at a single shot.” St. Cosme remarks that they took 
several turkeys during his voyage (before 1700). In 1700, Gravier 
alludes to the turkey mantles. “Sometimes they (the men) too, 


as well as the women, have mantles of turkey feathers. .. . well 
woven and worked.” Of the early times in Kentucky (Boone’s 
day) Timothy Flint asserts that * “in the open woods,. . . .turkeys 


were as plenty as domestic fowls in the old settlements.”’ “In 
the sheltered glades, turkeys and large wild birds were so abundant, 
that a hunter could supply himself in an hour for the wants of a 
week. They would not be found like the lean and tough birds in 
the old settlements, that lingered around the clearings and stumps 
of the trees, in the topmost of whose branches the fear of man 
compelled them to rest, but young and fully fed.” “They were 
never out sight of buffaloes,....turkeys.’”’ Of the year 1779, Rev. 
Mr. Davidson of Mercer County, Ky., says* “A winter of un- 


1Talbot, Sir Wm. The Discoveries of John Lederer in three several Marches 
from Virginia to the West of Carolina ..... London, 1672, p. 25. 

2Shea, John G. Early Voyages Up and Down ths Mississippi, etc. Albany, 
1861, pp. 25, 57, 134. 

3 Flint, Timothy. Biographical Memoir of Daniel Boone. Cincinnati, 1833, 
Pp. 36, 39, 44, 58, 241, 263. 

4 Collins, Lewis. Historical Sketches of Kentucky,..... Cincinnati, 1847, p. 
456. 


216 Wricut, Harly Records of the Wild Turkey. [ Rees 


exampled severity ensued; and numbers of... .wild turkeys were 
found frozen to death.” 

During the early campaigns the turkeys often kept the wounded 
alive. In the autumn of 1779, Major Rodgers and Capt. Benham 
when near Harrodsburgh, Kentucky, so sustained themselves.' 
“Fortunately, wild turkeys were abundant in those woods, and his 
companion would walk around, and drive them towards Benham, 
who seldom failed to kill two or three of each flock. In this manner, 
they supported themselves for several weeks, until their wounds 
had healéd so as to enable them to travel.’’ In 1784 John Filson 
finds? “The land fowls are turkeys, which are very frequent,.. ...” 
The same year, 1784, J. F. D. Smyth (1. c., Vol. I, p. 337) speaks in 
hyperbole. “Wild turkeys, very large and fat, are almost beyond 
number, sometimes five thousand in a flock, of which a man may 
kill just as many as he pleases.” In 1787-1788, Mrs. Mary Dewee 
finds* “The variety of deer, . .. .turkeys,...., with which this coun- 
try abounds keeps us always on the lookout, and adds much to the 
beauty of the scenes around us.” In writing of Kentucky in 1794, 
Thomas Cooper says 4 “Of wild turkies, however, there are abun- 
dance, nearly as tame as those breed in the yard. From their being 
extremely poor in the summer, they remain unmolested; in the 
winter they grow very fat, and are reckoned delicious food:” 
The last note of the 18th century, comes the following year (1795) 
when Andre Michaux reports it in Tennessee. At Nashville, he 
says ® “Sunday 21st of June 1795 killed and skinned some birds. 
Birds: ....a few species of the Genus Picus: Wild Turkeys.” 
In Oct., 1795, he writes that on the “17th ascended the River 
(Cumberland) about ten Miles: there were numbers of Wild 
Turkeys on the banks; the Rowers and I killed five from the 
Canoe in passing, without landing.” Finally, on Dec. 31 of 
the same year, he states that “most of (them) went hunting 
Wild Turkeys,” along the Little River. 


1 McClung, John A. Sketches of Western Adventure: ..... Phila. 1832, p. 
171. 
2 Filson, J. The Discovery, Settlement and present State of Kentucke,.... 
Wilmington, 1784, p. 26. 
3 Penn. Mag. Hist. & Biog., Vol. XXVIII, p. 195. 
4Cooper, T. Some Information Respecting America, etc. London, 1794, p. 38. 
‘Early Western Travels, III, pp. 33, 63, 76, 82. 


Vol. XXXIT) Wwricur, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 217 


In 1806, Priscilla Wakefield (1. c., pp. 135, 146) in East Tennessee 
“Met several flocks of wild turkeys, forty or fifty in a company.” 
In Kentucky she records that “ Wild turkeys are numerous and in 
the uninhabited parts so tame as to be easily shot. In autumn 
and winter they feed upon acorns and chestnuts. They inhabit 
the sides of rivers, and perch upon the tops of the highest trees.”’ 
The same year, Thomas Ashe, reliable or otherwise, observes the 
turkey at “Kenhaway.” “Several flocks of wild turkeys crossed 
us from the mountains to the water side, we killed two fine young 
birds, and could have killed forty had we been disposed to enter 
on the commission of unnecessary carnage.” At Louisville, Ky., 
he writes! “J killed a few young turkeys, which were exquisite in 
taste and flavor.”” Near Knoxville, Tenn., Henry Ker finds” “The 
woods abound with plenty of game, such as....and turkies in 
abundance through the year.”’ In 1817, S. R. Brown (I. c., p. 110) 
holds ‘“ Wild turkies are still numerous in the unsettled parts” of 
Kentucky. In the summer of 1818, H. R. Schoolcraft observes 
that along the Ohio river? “The wild turkey, quail and squirrel 
are daily met on either shore, and we find no difficulty in killing 
as many as we have occasion for.” | 

In 1822-23, W. H. Blane reports (I. c., p. 260) “there (is) plenty 
of deer and wild turkeys in the woods”’ of Kentucky. About eight 
years later, Withers remarks that 4 “The body found in the salt- 
petre cave of Kentucky, was wrapped in blankets made of linen and 
interwoven with feathers of the wild turkey, tastefully arranged.” 
The next year, 1832, T. Vigne (I. c., Vol. II, pp. 45, 57, 58) finds 
“Wild turkeys....are found in the barrens,” near Glasgow, Ky. 
Of Mammoth Cave he writes that “In the neighbourhood of the 
cave, there are a great many wild turkeys, and a tolerable sprinkling 
of deer, but both were difficult of approach at that season of the 
year. I was exceedingly anxious for a shot at a wild turkey, but 


1 Ashe, Thomas. Travels in America Performed in 1806, etc. Tondon, 1808, 
DOs, 2o0- 

2Ker, Henry. Travels through the Western Interior of the United States. 
From the Year 1808 up to the year 1816. Elizabethtown, N. J., 1816, p. 311. 4 

’ Schoolcraft, H.R. A View of the Lead Mines,..... New York, 1819, "pp. 
252, 220. 

4 Withers, Alexander S. Chronicles of Border Warfare. Clarksburg, Va., 
1831, p. 37. 


218 Wricut, Harly Records of the Wild Turkey. Ane 


committed a great error in loading with ball only: and although 
I contrived to get three or four fair shots on the ground, and on the 
wing, yet I confess through eagerness to have missed them. Once 
I contrived to near a brood, but had the mortification, although 
close to them, to hear them rising one by one on the other side of a 
thicket; and when I did pull at the last bird, my gun which was 
loaded with shot, missed fire through the badness of the copper 
cap.”’ In the same year T. Flint’s “Mississippi Valley” appears. 
In Tennessee (I. c., p. 340) he credulously says, “A nest of eggs of 
the wild turkey were dug up in a state of petrifaction.” Finally 
in the “Sketches and Eccentricities of Colonel David Crockett 
N. Y. 1835,” p. 193, we find that he had a special fondness for 
shooting the turkey in this region. 


Ohio. 


In all the United States, no state had more turkeys than Ohio 
and her neighbors. Most of our records are restricted to the 18th 
century and the first part of the 19th century. In Morton’s “New 
English Canaan 1637” we find that about! “Lake Erocoise”’ 
“There are also more abundance of... .Turkies breed about the 
part of that lake, then in any place in all Country of New England.” 
Daniel Coxe in his “Carolina 2nd edit. London, 1726” (pp. 52, 79) 
finds “Great Companies of Turkies” all over the country. Ona 
journey to Ohio, Conrad Weiser on Sept. 19, 1748, notes ? this 
form. In 1750 Christopher Gist makes a journey from Old- 
town, Md., to the Ohio River. On Nov. 30, he with his men 4 
“killed twelve turkeys.” The following year, Feb. 17, 1751, 
he records that the country about Little and Big Miami Rivers, 
“Abounds with turkeys.” In the period from 1755-1759, Col. 
James Smith frequently encounters this form. At Ligoneer,* 
“we found they had plenty of Turkeys, ete.’’ Along Canesadoo- 


1 Force, P., Vol. II, p. 65. 

2 Colls. Hist. Soc. Penn., Vol. I, Phila., 1853, p. 33. 

3 Pownall, T. A Topographical Description of Such Parts of North America, 
...., London, 1776, Appendix, p. 8, 11. 

4 Smith, Col. James. An Account of the Remarkable Occurrences in the Life and 
Travels of Lexington, 1799. Reprint, Cincinnati, 1870, pp. 7, 27-31, 36, 75, 96. 


ae | Wricut, Harly Records of the Wild Turkey. 219 


harie River, “turkeys were plenty.”’ Between this last river and 
Cuyahoga they took a few small turkeys; at Cedar Point, Lake 
Erie, and at Sandusky they killed a number of Turkeys. 

Christian Frederick Post in his journal of a trip from Phila. to 
Ohio shows how the turkey enters the reply of an Ohio Indian: ! 
“Look now, my white brother, the white people think we have no 
brains in our heads; but that they are great and big, and that 
makes them war with us: we are a little handful to what you are; 
but remember, when you look for a wild turkey you cannot always 
find it, it is so little it hides itself under the bushes.”” The “Journal 
of Captain Thomas Morris,....Detroit;Sept. 25, 1764” records 
turkeys towards the Miami country. When he reaches Miami 
river he says 2 “ We were forced for want of water to stew a turkey 
in the fat of a raccoon; and I thought I had never eaten any thing 
so delicious, though salt was wanting; but perhaps it was hunger 
which made me think so.” In 1765, George Croghan makes a 
journey from Fort Pitt to Vincennes and Detroit. At the mouth 
of the Little Kanawha River,* “turkeys. ...are extremely plenty” 
(May 19) and “turkeys are very plenty on the banks of this 
(Scioto) River.” 

On June 5, 1773, Rev. David Jones* “Killed some turkeys”’ 
on the Scioto River, and recorded that “This country abounds with 
an abundance of turkeys, some of which are very large.....”— In 
1778, Thomas Hutchins finds that in the Ohio river region? “a 
great variety of game;....as well as....turkies....abounds in 
every part of this country.”’ In the region from the mouth of Great 
Kanawaha to Monogohela River turkies “abound” as also in the 
Lake Erie country. Of this same country at the same period, Dr. 
Knight writes that ® “In all parts of the country through which I 
came, the game was very plenty, that is to say, deer, turkies and 


1 Karly Western Travels, Vol. I, p. 215. 

2ibid., pp. 310, 311, 321. 

3 The Olden Time, Vol. I, 1846, Pittsburgh, pp. 405, 407. 

4Cist, Charles. Cincinnati Miscellany. Vol. I, 1845, D: 2655 \VOl.oL, pps kis 
232. 

5 Hutchins, Thomas. A Topographical Description of Virginia, Pennsylvania, 


Maryland, and North Carolina,..... London, 1778, pp. 4, 12. 
6 Narratives of the Perils and Sufferings of Dr. Knight and John Slover among 
the Indians during the Revolutionary War,..... 1st edit., 1782, Pittsburgh, 


3rd. edit., Cincinnati, 1867, p. 30. 


220 Wricut, Harly Records of the Wild Turkey. [ Pei 


pheasants.” In the Journal of General Butler (1785) we have at 
least sixteen references to the abundance of turkeys along the Ohio 
River. He records them at the mouths of the Muskingum, the Big 
Hockhocking, the Kanawaha, the Louisa, the Little Miami, and 
the Licking Rivers and Big Bone Creek. In the Kanawha terri- 
tory,! “we had great sport among the turkeys.....’’ Above Kan- 
awha, “here we having nothing to do but spring from our boats 
among flocks of turkeys, kill as we please, for sport or gust,..... I 
have just stepped from my boat and killed at one shot two fine 
turkeys, and our whole party feasts on fine venison, bear meat, 
turkeys. ...procured by themselves at pleasure.’’ Near Big Hock- 
hocking River, “our hunter... . killed... .many fine turkeys, which 
we distributed among the families and troops with us,” and finally 
he writes, “I cannot help here describing the amazing plenty and 
variety of this nights supper. We had fine roast buffalo beef, soup 
of buffalo beef and turkeys, fried turkeys, fried catfish fresh caught, 
roast ducks, good punch, madeira, claret, grog, toddy and the 
troops supplied in the most abundant manner.” 

In 1788, Col. James May reports in nine different instances the 
wild turkey in this same region. Around Hockhocking, his hunters 
in three days secures seven turkeys and seven deer.? “He might 
have killed any quantity but it is the season when they are not fat.” 
In another place, he says “Our luck has been. . . .to have good provi- 
sions. ...the best of bread, fine venison and turkeys.”’ The same 
year, George Henry Loskiel writes of this form as follows: 3 “ Wild 
Turkeys (Maleagris gallopavo) flock together in autumn in great 
numbers, but disperse in the woods towards spring. They are 
larger than the tame turkies, and commonly perch so high upon the 
trees, that they cannot be shot but with a ball. In winter their 
plumage is of a shining black but changes in summer to a light 
brown. with white spots upon the wings. Their eggs are much 


1 The Olden Time, Vol. II, pp. 441, 443, 444, 445, 447, 448, 452, 454, 462, 492, 
495, 496, 497, 505, 507. . 

2 Journal and Letters of Col. James May of Boston, Relative to Two Journeys 
to the Ohio Country in 1788 and 1789. Cincinnati, 1788, pp. 44, 49, 69, 72, 74, 78, 
83, 89, 91. 

8 Loskiel, G. H. History of the Mission of the United Brethren among the 
Indians in North America. In three parts. Translated by C. I. Latrobe. Lon- 
don, 1791. Part I, pp. 91, 48. 


a. | Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 221 


sought after, and relished by the Indians. There is a species of wild 
turkies, which are not eatable their flesh having a most disagree- 
able flavor.” In speaking of the dress of Indian men, he says 
“Formerly these coverings were made of turkey feathers, woven 
together with the thread of wild hemp, but these are now seldom 
seen.’ Two years later, 1790, Chas. Johnston finds that ! “ During 
the whole march (through Sciota country) we subsisted on bears 
meat,....turkeys....with which we were abundantly supplied, as 
the ground over which we passed afforded every species of game in 
profusion, diminishing however, as we approached their villages.” 
About this same time, George Imlay discovers that ? “The rapidity 
of the settlement has driven the wild turkey quite out of the middle 
countries; but they are found in large flocks in all our extensive 
woods.”’ On Aug. 18, 1793, Andre Michaux * “saw several flocks 
of wild Turkeys” beyond Wheeling. 

The “Struggles of Capt. Thomas Keith in America” (p. 16) has 
it that in 1794 along the Ohio River, “The wild turkies were calling 
to each other from the lofty branches of the oak.” In 1796, 
Brackenridge ascends the Ohio. In one case he remarks that 4 
“once, having encamped somewhat later than usual, in the neighbor- 
hood of a beautiful grove of sugar-trees, we found, after kindling our 
fires, that a large flock of turkeys had taken up their night’s lodgings 
over our heads: some ten or twelve of them were soon taken down for 
our supper and breakfast. But it was not often we were so fortu- 
nate.” In 1796 and 1797, Francis Baily when at Little Miami 
River,® “saw great quantities of wild turkeys; so that we had not any 
prospect of extreme want whilst we were here.” One other party 
notes it in this century. John Heckewelder with three companions 
in the summer of 1797 mentions the turkey in his narrative. They 
encounter it in a trip to Gnadenhuetten on the Muskingum, and say,® 


1A Narrative of Incidents Attending the Capture, Detention, and Ransom of 
Charles Johnston, .... 1790; .... New York, 1827, p. 46. 

2Imlay, George. A Topographical Description of the Western Territory of 
North America,..... 2nd edit., London, 1793, pp. 100, 243. 

3 arly Western Travels, III, p. 33. Ss 

‘Brackenridge, H. M. Recollections of Persons and Places in the West. 2nd 
edit. Phila., 1868, p. 30. 

5 Baily, Francis. Journal of a Tour in Unsettled Parts of North America in 
1796 and 1797. London, 1856, p. 209. 

6 Penn. Mag. Hist. and Biog., Vol. VI, pp. 138, 142, 144, 146. 


222 Wricut, EHarly Records of the Wild Turkey. [ pees 


“The programme for each day was arranged in the following man- 
ner: In the morning at daybreak we were awakened by the cackling 
of the turkeys... ..” 

Shortly after (1803) the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
Thaddeus Mason Harris (I. c., p. 51) says, “the vast number of tur- 
kies,....we saw upon the shore (Ohio River below Wheeling)... . 
afforded us constant amusement.” In 1806, T. Ashe (1. ¢. pp. 160, 
111, 118, 130, 134, 135, 144, 145) gives “Wild Turkey Meleagris 
Gallopavo” in his list of birds, records it at Wheeling and Marietta 
and writes of it at considerable length when at the latter place and 
near Zanesville. His account follows: “The wild turkey is excel- 
lent food, and has this remarkable property, that the fat is never 
offensive to the stomach. When Kentucky was first settled it 
abounded with turkeys to such a degree that the settlers said the 
light was often interrupted by them. Though this may be consid- 
ered a figure, still it is well known that they were extremely numer- 
ous, so much so that he was esteemed an indifferent sportsman who 
could not kill a dozen ina day. Even at this time they are sold in 
Lexington market for half a dollar a pair. They are, notwithstand- 
ing becoming very scarce, and, addicted as all classes of people in 
that state are to an intemperate predilection for destroying every 
living aboriginal creature, their total extinction must be near at 
hand. They yet abound in this Ohio State, and possibly will, for 
many years; till.it becomes more peopled.” “I cannot pretend 
that wild turkeys differ in any striking manner from the domestic 
ones I have everywhere seen, except the length of their wings; 
their superior plumage, their attitude and lively expression in walk- 
ing. The cock too has a beard composed of about one hundred 
hairs which hangs in a streamer from under the bick. The hair is 
thicker than a pig’s bristle, and the length accords with the age. 
In the young the beard is hardly perceptible, in the old it descends 
more than half a foot. I have killed a wild turkey cock which 
weighed thirty pounds and whose beard was ten inches long: the 
flesh was execrable, nearly as hard as iron, and as black as jet. 
The young on the contrary are white and tender, delicate meat, and 
of exquisite flavor. Wild turkeys are gregarious. The flocks from 
fifty to sixty. They are migratory. They winter to the southward 
and return in the spring to the deepest recesses of the woods, where 


Vol. XSI] Wricur, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 223 


they construct their nests with such care and concealment, that few 
instances ever occur of the eggs or young being found. Where 
eggs have been obtained and hatched under a domestic turkey, the 
young shew great disposition to thrive and remain about the house 
very contentedly till their first spring, when they rise, without 
indicating a previous talent for flying, into the air, take a few circles 
round the heads of their old friends and make for a wilderness 
whence they never more return.” “As evening approached, I was 
much pleased to come in view of a flock of wild turkeys. I wished 
to have an opportunity of observing their action — the one afforded 
me was of the best it possibly could be: they were travelling before 
me — therefore occasioned no loss of way. The flock consisted of 
about thirty-four, on the ground, searching for food: they were not 
considerably alarmed till I had approached them within sixty yards. 
They then moved on a kind of long hop and run, stopped, and as 
we gained on them proceeded in the same way. On a nearer ap- 
proach, they took short flights, rose above the trees, and lighted 
upon them at intermediate spaces of about thirty rods. At every 
rest I instructed Cuff to gobble in their manner. This act appeared 
to attract their attention and retard their flight; and, what was of 
more consequence, they made responses, which guided our pursuit 
when they were obstructed from view by the thick ombrage of the 
woods, and the fast approach of night. They finally went a more 
considerable distance; and as I judged, to a favorite place to roost. 
I still had the good fortune to keep in their track, and to come 
directly on the spot they had chosen for their rest. They rose up 
with much perturbation and noise, and again descended to rest. 
The whole gang occupied four trees, and still they rose, fell and 
acted with one accord. I resolved to fire on them. I had heard, 
that whenever wild turkeys settled to roost, there they remained in 
spite of all opposition. My motive in firing then was to ascertain 
the fact. On the first shot they all rose with great clamour about 
thirty yards above the summits of the trees, and as instaneously 
descended direct upon them. On firing again, similar cireum- 
stances occurred, and at a third discharge ne variation succeeded, 
nor did they betray the least disposition to depart effectually and 
remove their quarters. My first discharge was with a ball, which 
brought down a very fine bird, the two last merely powder — but I 


224 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. ion 


regard the fact to be ascertained as firmly as if I had killed the whole 
flock. This dull propensity in these animals must ultimately oper- 
ate to their destruction. There is no manner of doubt but had 
such a flock come within reach of a sportsman of the Virginia shore, 
he would have brought every one of them to the ground.” 

In 1812, James L. Barton when at Tymoctee Creek, finds that! 
“the wild turkeys began to gobble in the woods (at daylight), and 
they made nearly as much noise” as the wolves during the night. 
In the “ History of Athens Co., O.,” Chas. M. Walker (1. c., p. 486, 
479) asserts that in 1810 “turkeys were very plenty” and in 1820 
in the fall season the settlers killed “turkeys beyond count for the 
winter stock.”’ In his “Pedestrious Tour,..... Concord, N. H. 
1819,” Estwick Evans says that west of the Connecticut Reserve ? 
“Wild Turkeys too, are here numerous, and they sometimes weigh 
from 20 to 30 pounds.” Two years later, 1821, Schoolcraft when 
along the banks of Auglaize near Defiance, O., reports that ® 
“Tracks....of the meleagris gallipavo or turkey, were frequently 
noticed in our path; and these indigenous species of the American 
forest, are represented to be still abundant in this quarter.” . In 
1822, James Flint on the Ohio river recounts how he * “saw a man 
fire a shot at a flock of wild turkeys. These fowl were so far from 
being coy, that they flew only a little way, and alighted again on 
the trees.”” When 13 miles from Chillicothe, he says “A few.... 
turkeys remain..... It does not require a thick population to ex- 
terminate bears, deer and turkeys.”’ The same year, John Woods 
when at Troy, O.,° “passed fourteen or fifteen wild turkeys, in a 
field. As they only gently walked into the woods, I did not suspect 
they were wild ones; but mentioning them at the cabin, I was told 
there were no tame turkeys for some miles, but plenty of wild ones.” 
T. Vigne already quoted (I. c., p. 87, reports turkeys for Mansfield, 
O., in 1832 but asserts that “ However, I met with no turkey,.....” 


(To be concluded.) 


1 Barton, J. L. Early Reminiscences of Western New York and the Lake 
Region Country. Buffalo, 1848, p. 52. 

2 Early Western Travels, Vol. VIII, p. 195 (orig. p. 96). 

3 Schoolcraft, H. R. Travels in Central Portions of the Mississippi Valley. 
New York, 1825, p. 71. 

4Early Western Travels, Vol. IX, pp. 112 (orig. p. 88) 120, 121 (orig. p. 96). ~ 

5 ibid., Vol. X, pp. 249, 250 (orig. p. 122). 


Pa 


vi | General Notes. 225 


GENERAL NOTES. 


The Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) at Berwyn, Pa.—A female 
in winter plumage was taken on asmall pond in the vicinity of Berwyn, Pa., 
by local hunters, November 15, 1911, and presented to me. I believe this 
is the only record for Chester county.— FRANK L. Burns, Berwyn, Pa. 


Mallards Wintering in Saskatchewan.— A number of Mallards have 
stayed on Wascana Lake, near Regina, all this winter, living in a small 
space of open water, which is kept open by warm water flowing into the lake 
from the power house. In December there were 25; on February 7, there 
were only to be seen 10, and on February 14 only 4. Whether the decrease 
in numbers was owing to the cold weather or to ‘‘ poachers ”’ is not yet 
known. On January 27, it was 48° below zero, the severest cold spell of 
the winter, and lasted for about four days.— H. H. Mrrcuety, Regina, 
Sask. 


European Widgeon in Washington.— I have the pleasure of record- 
ing the capture of a European Widgeon (Mareca penelope), which I think 
is the first ever recorded from the state of Washington. It is a young male 
which has not reached the adult plumage, and was taken by Mr. L. W. 
Brehm, of Tacoma, Wash. Date of capture January 12,1915. The local- 
ity was the Nisqually Flats, Thurston County, Wash. Mr. Brehm in- 
forms me that there was‘a flight of several thousand Baldpates (Mareca 
americana), but that he saw no others resembling penelope-—J. H. BowLEs, 
Tacoma, Wash. 


Harlequin Duck in the Glacier National Park, Montana.— |. 
was much interested in the note of Mr. Warren on the Harlequin Duck 
( Histrionicus histrionicus) in the Glacier National Park (Auk, XX XI, 535). 
During the past summer, 1914, I spent two weeks in the Park and also 
observed this species. Five birds were seen on the Upper Two Medicine 
Lake, August 4 and 5. The evidence goes to show that this species is a 
regular though not common summer resident of the lakes and streams, not 
only in the Park itself, but also in other high mountains in this section of 
Montana. That the species breeds in the Glacier Park is shown by one 
of the earliest records. Dr. Elliott Coues saw several broods and secured 
an adult female and three young on Chief Mountain Lake, August 20-22, 
1874 (Birds of Montana and Dakota along the 49th parallel, p. 653). 
Chief Mountain Lake is now down on the maps as Waterton Lake. The 
greater part of it lies in the Park, but its northern end crosses the border 
into Canada. 

It is of interest to note that Dr. Coues also found a brood of Barrow’s 
Goldeneye (Clangula islandica) at this same time and place and secured 
young. ‘This species also probably still breeds in the vicinity, but it has 
not been recently recorded.— Argmtas A. SaunpERS, West Haven, Conn. 


226 General Notes. [April 


The Blue Goose (Chen caerulescens (Linn.)) in Rhode Island.— ‘The 
Boston Society of Natural History has recently acquired the skin of an 
adult female Blue Goose taken at Dyer’s Island, Rhode Island, by Mr. 
Sinclair Tucker, November 9, 1912. 

So far as I am able to ascertain this is the second record for Rhode 
Island, and the fourth for New England.— W. SpracueE Brooks, Milton, 
Mass. 


Occurrence of the Pectoral Sandpiper (Pisobia maculata) near 
Salem, N. J.— The absence of recent records of this species in the Dela- 
ware valley moves me to make known at this late date the capture of a 
male by Dr. H. B. Wharton, September 16, 1905, at Salem county, N. J. 
The specimen was preserved by me and is in my collection.— Frank L. 
Burns, Berwyn, Pa. 


The Whimbrel, Ruff, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, and Eskimo 
Curlew on Long Island, N. Y.— Through the courtesy of Mr. John H. 
Hendrickson of Jamaica, N. Y., I am able to record the occurrence on Long 
Island of these four Shorebirds. The specimens of the two European 
species were brought in the flesh to the American Museum and are now 
preserved in its mounted collection of local birds. 

The Whimbrel (Nwmenius pheopus), which proved on dissection to be 
a male, was shot by Mr. 8. M. Van Allen, of Jamaica, Long Island, at 
Gilgo Inlet, Great South Bay, south of Amityville, on Sept. 4, 1912. It 
was in the company of two Hudsonian Curlews. This appears to be the 
first record of the Whimbrel for the United States. According to the 
A. O. U. Check-List, it is of occasional occurrence in Greenland and has 
been taken once in Nova Scotia. - 

The Ruff (Machetes pugnax), an immature male judging by size and plum- 
age, was collected by Mr. Hendrickson near Freeport on September 26, 
1914. It was alone and was attracted to the decoys by imitations of the 
calls of Yellowlegs and Robin Snipe. There are numerous North American 
records for this species, including two previous Long Island captures. 

Mr. Hendrickson states that during the past half-dozen years he has 
collected three Buff-breasted Sandpipers (Tryngites subruficollis) near 
Freeport, and could have secured another one the past season. 

Regarding the Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) Mr. Hendrickson 
writes: ‘‘ When I was on the meadows two years ago last September I 
saw two birds which I believe were Esquimo Curlews. As we were aboard 
the boat getting it ready to leave, these birds flew within about twenty-five 
yards of us, and I had a good opportunity to observe them closely. They 
were not the Hudsonian Curlew, commonly called “ Jacks’’; they were 
much smaller and less wary than the latter. I know the Esquimo Curlew, 
having shot several specimens a number of years ago, and at the time I 
told my friend that was what I believed these birds were.”’— W. DEW. 
MILLER, American Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


| General Notes. 227 


The Diving Instinct in Shore-birds.— In looking over an old note- 
book I find the following information which seems of considerable interest. 
On August 4, 1912, while looking for early shore-birds at Toro Point, 
Panama, I knocked down an immature Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macu- 
laria). The beach at that point is a wide coral reef, bare at low tide, and 
with occasional openings or “‘ wells’ connected underneath with the sea. 
Some of these are of considerable size and the water in all is as clear as 
crystal to all depths — clear as only those who have seen such tropical 
“coral water ’’ can imagine. 

Upon my approach my crippled bird ran to one of these pools and went 
over the side, resting on the water surface. As I reached slowly down to 
take him, he surprised me by diving and swimming under water, using 
his wings only, to the opposite side of the pool. The action was so sudden 
and so surprising to me that I could not be sure of the manner of diving 
but it must have been a “‘ tip-up ”’ and a head first plumage almost straight 
down. 

I had however a perfect view of the bird as he “‘ flew ”’ the ten feet across 
the pool, through the beautifully clear water which showed white pebbles 
distinctly on a bottom perhaps twenty feet below. The bird crossed at a 
uniform depth of eighteen inches to two feet, which he held until he brought 
up against the opposite wall. The head and neck were extended but not 
at all stretched while the legs and feet trailed behind with flexed toes, like 
a heron in flight. The wings seemed to be opened to only perhaps half 
their full extent — the primaries pointing well backward like wings are 
trimmed as birds cut down from some height to alight. The wing-beats 
were slow and even but not labored, and progress was uniform and not at 
all hurried. 

Upon coming up against the opposite wall, the bird rose slowly to the 
surface, and again rested there as before. The entire performance seemed 
perfectly natural and unstrained. I tried to have him repeat but he would 
not, allowing me to lift him from the water without further resistance or 
effort to escape. Wings and legs were both intact, his wound being in the 
body, and his body feathers were astonishingly dry after his comparatively 
long under-water flight. 

From what period in his ancestry did he inherit this almost obsolete 
instinct?— L. L. Jewri, Wytheville, Va. 


The Little Black Rail on Long Island, N. Y.— On May 24, 1914, 
Messrs. J. M. Johnson, 8. V. La Dow and I were on Jones’ Beach, opposite 
Amityville, studying the shore-bird migration. We were walking through 
a grassy marsh, the others slightly ahead, when I saw a little bird running 
like a mouse behind a tussock some 10 feet-ahead of me. Thinking it 
might be a rail, I rushed forward immediately and was lucky enough to 
flush the bird, which flew up in front of me about 3 feet away. It fluttered 
forward feebly a short distance, then turned and flew directly past me, 
not more than 10 feet away and about 2 feet above the grass, landing in a 


pte: General Notes. [Apri 


dense reed-bed some 30 feet behind. It looked about as large as a Song 
Sparrow, slate grey all over with black wings and back spotted with small 
white specks. Theiriswasbrightred. Knowingit to bea Little Black Rail 
almost as soon as flushed, I shouted to my companions who immediately 
turned round and saw the bird while it flew past and back of me. They 
were able with glasses to make out all the color markings except the red 
eye. I had a pair of prism glasses, but was unable to use them as the 
bird was too near. The flight is much more feeble than that of any other 
rail with which I am familiar; the bird seemed barely able to sustain its 
weight in the air, while its legs dangled down helplessly behind. Unless 
seen at very close range this species would resemble, I think, a young 
Sora, though to anyone familiar with the latter species the great difference 
in size would be striking. Unfortunately I had no means of collecting it, 
and my last remark would seem to prejudice my case, were it not for the 
facts that (1) the Sora is a rare summer resident on Long Island, (2) its 
nest and eggs have never been found so early on Long Island as far as I 
know, and (3) in any ease, it would be impossible for a young Sora to be en 
the wing by May 24. Finally I have been familiar with the Sora in all 
plumages for several years. Eaton in his‘ Birds of New York’ records five 
specimens of the Black Rail actually taken in the State, three of them from 
Long Island. It has also been reported as seen at close range on five 
occasions from the interior of the State. Accordingly this would be the 
fourth Long Island record and the eleventh for the State-— LupLow Gris- 
com, New York City. 


Richardson’s Owl and Other Owls in Franklin County, New York. 
—A specimen of Richardson’s Owl (Cryptoglaux funerea richardsoni) in 
the flesh was recently received by the American Museum from Dr. Wm. N. 
MacArtney of Fort Covington, Franklin Co., N. Y. The bird was shot 
on November 14 in a cedar thicket near Fort Covington, in the township of 
that name, by Wm. N. MacArtney, Jr. 

Dr. MacArtney writes that he shot one of these Owls in the nearby 
township of Dundee, Province of Quebec, within a few rods of the State 
line in 1879 or 1880; and about 1885 one taken in the same town was 
brought to him, the latter specimen being now in his collection. All three 
birds were secured in late fall or early winter. 

Eaton, in his recently published ‘ Birds of New York,’ states that there 
appear to be but two definite records of Richardson’s Owl in the State, 
one from Oneida County, the other from Essex County. 

Dr. MacArtney states that during the winter the Snowy Owl is fre- 
quently observed, and occasionally the Hawk Owl, Barred Owl and Great 
Gray Owl. The Long-eared Owl is seen at times, while the Great Horned, 
Saw-whet and Screech Owls are common, the rufus phase of the last being 
rather rare— W. DEW. Miuier, American Museum of Natural History. 


Lewis’s Woodpecker taken in Saskatchewan.— A fine plumage adult 
male was taken at Herchel, September 24, 1914, and is now mounted in 


ges nal General Notes. 229 


the Provincial Museum at Regina. I do not know of any record of this 
species having previously occurred in this Province—— H. H. Mircuet, 
Regina, Sask. 


Prairie Horned Lark in Rhode Island in Summer.— While walking 
on the morning of June 25, 1914, down a road through some fields bordering 
Brightman’s Pond, near Watch Hill, R. I., two birds were noticed running 
rapidly ahead of me. Finally they stopped and dusted themselves in the 
sand, permitting me to approach within close range by careful stalking 
behind a fence. They proved to be Prairie Horned Larks in fine plumage, 
the throat and sides of the head being very white. In about five minutes 
they flew away over a stone fence, uttering the characteristic lark note, 
but a long search failed to reveal them again. Two days later the whole 
territory was thoroughly searched, but the birds could not be found, and 
my hopes of finding some evidence of breeding were frustrated. The Prairie 
Horned Lark has always been rare in Rhode Island, and I know of no other 
summer record.— LupLow Griscom, New York City. 


Crows Nesting on the Ground.— On a large Island at the head of 
Lost Mountain Lake, Saskatchewan, June 10, 1913, I found several 
Crows nesting on the ground. Some of the nests, which mostly contained 
young, were on the ground between wild rose bushes, others placed on 
clusters of rose and other low bushes, thus raised a few inches off the 
ground. I might add that within a radius of twelve feet of one of these 
Crow’s nests was a Mallard’s nest containing ten eggs and a Short-eared 
Owl’s with six young, of various sizes— H. H. Mircuen., Regina, Sask. 


The Bermuda Crow.— In ‘The Ibis,’ April, 1914, p. 189, J. N. 
Kennedy discusses the Bermuda Crow, alluding to the fact that Bradlee 
and I were somewhat in doubt as to what the species might really bes He 
rightly, I think, refers it to Corvus brachyrhynchos brachyrhynchos Brehm. 
Mr. Kennedy had before him one example from the British Museum collec- 
tion, taken by Capt. H. Edmund, in February, 1875, which must have been 
very soon after its introduction into the islands. This specimen he says 
has less violet lustre on the feathers of the back than usual and was 
possibly an immature bird. 

According to D. Webster Prentiss (Auk, 1896, p. 237), the Crow was 
introduced into the Bermudas from the United States, some twenty years 
before, increased rapidly and became a great nuisance, and in consequence 
was nearly exterminated. Since that time the crow has continued to 
exist, though in extremely small numbers in the Bermudas. 

We have in the Museum of Comparative Zodlogy one adult (sex not 
determine) specimen, No. 63727, taken for us by Prof. E. L. Mark, in the 
autumn of 1912. This differs in no way from autumn killed crows from the 
eastern United States. It affords the following measurements: — wing, 
319; tail feathers, 190; tarsus, 59; culmen, 47.5 mm. This specimen 
proves that the much discussed Bermuda Crow is Corvus brachyrhynchos 


230 General Notes. [april 


brachyrhynchos Brehm, apparently thus far unchanged in the new island - 
home into which it has been introduced by man.— Outram Banos, Mus. 
Comp. Zodél., Cambridge, Mass. 


The Orange-crowned Warbler in Cambridge, Mass., in December. 
— On Sunday, December 13, 1914, at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon, I 
noticed a small bird flitting to and fro in a vine which grows on my neighbor’s 
piazza railing about 30 yards from the room in which I was sitting. The 
actions of this bird at once attracted my attention. While they somewhat 
resembled a kinglet’s, they were not so quick and restless, and were those 
of a warbler. 

The bird was not shy and during the 10 minutes I observed it I got 
within 4 or 5 feet of it, and had ample opportunity to observe it carefully 
through field glasses. Its under parts were dull greenish yellow becoming 
a little darker on the breast, there was a whitish eye-ring and a very faint 
showing of dull greyish wing-bars. The head was about the same color 
as the back and tail, a greenish olive brown. It appeared to be feeding on 
seeds and berries that grow on the vines. 

The bird was unquestionably an Orange-crowned Warbler, and its 
occurrence in December seems worthy of notice. So far as I know, while 
there have been a number of November records (W. Brewster’s ‘ Birds of 
the Cambridge Region’) and one for Jan. 1, 1875 (Dr. C. W. Townsend’s 
‘Birds of Essex County ’) this is the first December record for Massachu- 
setts.— Hmnry M. Spetman, Jr., Cambridge, Mass. 


A Winter Record for the Palm Warbler on Long Island, N. Y.— 
In the plains country south of Hicksville, on Dec. 13, 1914, the writers 
saw an example of Dendroica palmarum palmarum (Gmelin), and were 
enabled to examine it carefully through field glasses at a distance of only 
a few paces. The bird was first flushed from a pile of brushwood over- 
grown with brambles. Thence it flew into a cultivated field and skulked 
among growing cabbage heads, but after being stalked by us for a few 
minutes it returned to the thicket where we positively identified it. 

Eaton’s ‘ Birds of New York’ (1914) quotes no winter record of the 
species in New York State, and Braislin’s Long Island ‘ List’ (1907) gives the 
latest autumn record of this subspecies as October 10 (and on this date I 
saw one at Forest Hills, L. I., 1914 — C. H. R.).— R. C. Murpny, Brooklyn 
Institute Museum, and C. H. Rogers, American Museum of Natural 
History, New York City. 


The Blackburnian and Bay-breasted Warblers at Martha’s Vine- 
yard, Mass.— These warblers are quite rare in eastern Massachusetts, 
therefore it may be well to record the following observations: 

Chapman notes in his ‘ Handbook of Birds of Eastern North America’: 
Blackburnian Warbler, ‘‘ Cambridge, T. V., uncommon.” Bay-breasted: 
“Cambridge, rather rare T. V.” 


en " General Notes. 231 


Howe and Allen in their ‘ Birds of Massachusetts’ say: Blackburnian 
Warbler: ‘‘Martha’s Vineyard: ‘ Transient. Rare.’”’ Bay-breasted: 
“‘ Martha’s Vineyard: ‘ Transient.’ ”’ 

When at my summer place at Oak Bluffs, M. V., which is located in an 
oak grove, I am usually alert for birds, it being a favorable place for ob- 
servation. About 10 A. M., May 21, 1905, a most delightful morning, I 
heard a warbler’s song with which I was unfamiliar. Upon investigating 
I discovered a pair of Blackburnian Warblers ( Dendroica fusca) in the 
lower branches of an oak, 15 feet from cottage. They were beautiful, 
graceful birds; flitting from branch to branch, catching insects, singing now 
and then; spreading their tails, showing their white webs and their black 
and white and orange parts showing to perfection. I had a near view of 
the handsome male and his slightly plainer mate, both being in their 
faultless nuptial dress. I had waited years for this sight and enjoyed it 
thoroughly. 

September 12, 1914, while exploring the pine barrens near East Chop, 
Martha’s Vineyard, where the Grasshopper Sparrow and the Heath Hen 
sometimes occur, I encountered a flock of probably 125 migrating sparrows 
and warblers. I examined several of the latter which proved to be Black- 
polls, and then a warbler attracted my attention which had an unusually 
deep yellowbreast. I at first thought it one of the comparatively highly 
colored, fall Pine Warblers. I quickly lost sight of this bird and searched 
for another, which I soon found, and by its chestnut flanks and white tail 
patches I recognized the Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea). 
There were surely two in the mixed flock and doubtless more.— CHARLES 
L. Puiuuies, J'aunton, Mass. 


The Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) as an Abundant 
Autumnal Migrant and as a Destructive Grape Juice Consumer 
at Berwyn, Pa.— For several years, previous to the crushing sleet of the 
past winter, a pie cherry tree crowned with the foliage of a fugitive Clinton 
grapevine overhung my shop platform; and a thirty foot pine bending 
under the weight of several Niagara grapevine runners, stood close to my 
bedroom window. These vines remained unpruned principally because 
the fruit served as a capital lure for many migrating birds in just the places 
most convenient for observation. 

From the cherry tree I secured an adult female Cape May Warbler on 
September 25, 1909, a notable capture at that time since it was my first 
fall record. 

From the same tree, on September 12, 1913, I took a specimen each of 
the Cape May and Tennessee Warblers, and on the 14th and 15th observed 
twenty and thirty adult and immature female Cape Mays on the pine tree. 
These birds were almost constantly on the move, darting after one another, 
only now and then pausing an instant to gather some minute insect from 
leaf or fruit, especially about the grape bunches; and six shots failed to 
drive the survivors from the tree. By the 19th, the number diminished to 


232 General Notes. [April 


about ten individuals, all extremely tame, and one was closely approached 
as it perched upon a bunch of Clinton grapes eating the pulp or juice, I was 
unable to tel] which. Again on the 20th, I saw an individual alight on a 
bunch of Niagara grapes, deliberately puncture the skin and eat greedily; 
this and several] other specimens were taken with dripping bills. 

No adult males had been noted from the first, the proportion of young 
increased as the days passed, and the individuals grew less active, more 
deliberate, reminding one of the Vireos; though it appears characteristic 
of this species to inhabit for a time one or two isolated trees in a yard. 

_ None were noticed on the 23d, but on the following day they were 
present in considerable numbers allowing an approach within four feet, 
and on the 27th again became common, though all appeared immature. 
By October 2, the six or more present were all immaturefemales. On this 
date I examined closely the fruit remaining on the two trees, and found 
about 50% showing triangular or ragged punctures, which the bees, espe- 
cially the yellow jackets, swarmed about and sucked freely. On the 4th, I 
secured apparently adult male showing some traces of orange cheek patches; 
the only one observed during the flight; and up to their final departure, on 
the 7th, there was a fair proportion of yellow-breasted adult females. 

Specimens secured earJy in this remarkable flight carried no fat, in fact 
were rather lean, but after some days of feeding became fat, inactive and 
even sluggish; an adult female shot in the act of eating from a grape, and 
brought to me for identification by a neighbor, was positively enveloped 
in fat, and the skin became so saturated with oil I had the greatest difficulty 
in saving it. I do not recall having handled a more oily specimen of this 
size. 

The Flicker (Colaptes auratus luteus), Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata 
cristata), Purple Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula quiscula), English Sparrow 
(Passer domesticus domesticus), White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia 
albicollis), Scarlet Tanager (Piranga erythromelas), Waxwing (Bombycilla 
cedrorum), Red-eyed Vireo (Vireosylva olivacea), Black and White Warbler 
(Mniotilta varia), Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica carulescens 
cerulescens), Magnolia Warbler (D. magnolia), Black-poll Warbler (D. 
striata), Ovenbird (Seiturus aurocapillus), Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), 
Catbird ( Dumetella carolinensis), Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), 
Hermit Thrush ( Hylocichla guttata pallasi) and Robin (Planesticus migra- 
torius migratorius), were present and eating grapes, whole or piecemeal, 
but they were generally easily frightened away and the damage they 
occasioned confined to the fruit on the trees. The Cape May Warbler, 
however, overflowed to wherever grapes were found, and did considerable 
damage to all unbagged bunches in the vicinity and also at Paoli, two 
miles west. 

I sent ten stomachs to Mr. W. L. McAtee of the Biological Survey and 
avail myself of his kind permission to publish his reply. ‘‘ Hymenoptera 
constituted on an average 57.5 per cent of the contents of the stomachs. 
A third perhaps of this material was parasitic Hymenoptera and their 


ee | General Notes. 233 
destruction counts against the bird. The others were ants and small bees 
and are of neutral importance except perhaps the ants which may be 
injurious. Diptera made up 16.7 per cent of the stomach contents and 
again a large proportion of them were parasitic species. Lepidoptera 
(small moths) constitute 16.7 per cent, beetles 7.8 per cent and the re- 
mainder was made up of Hemiptera, spiders and miscellaneous insects. 
Except for the spiders the food was entirely composed of insects, and a 
large proportion of useful species were taken and no dec.dedly injurious 
ones. I should say that these Cape May Warblers did very little to pay 
for the destruction of grapes.” 

In 1914, about half a dozen Cape May Warblers arrived on September 6. 
I watched an immature female at a distance of five feet, the bird not mind- 
ing me in the least; it ran out on a twig and reaching across to a bunch of 
Clinton grapes, punctured one and repeatedly ate from it, none as far as I 
have noticed have gone through the motions of drinking with raised beak; 
when it was satisfied, I examined the grape and found it intact as far as the 
pulp was concerned, but the juice was partly extracted. 

On the following day the number of individuals had doubled; further 
increased on the 11th, becoming common on the 12th, 13th and 14th, and 
by the last date the red and purple grape crop was ruined; some grapes 
had as many as three or four wedge-shaped punctures; while the white 
grapes had not been touched. However, on the 17th I found the Niagara 
grapes utterly destroyed. I counted forty-five grapes on a single bunch 
with from one to three punctures. It would seem that a fresh puncture 
occurred on every visit and the havoc made during the last three days. 
The species was very abundant until the 21st, and about ten or a dozen 
constantly present until Oct. 18; the last one was seen on the 20th. 

Single Tennessee Warblers (Vermivora peregrina), were taken on October 
3 and 8; and during the season, almost all the species enumerated for 1913, 
with the addition of the Parula Warbler (Compsothlypis americana usnee) 
and Bay-breasted Warbler ( Dendroica castanea); but all in greatly re- 
duced numbers owing to the abundance of wild fruit on which they fed 
undisturbed. 

I believe that grape juice was the principal food of the Cape May Warbler 
during its lengthy visit in this neighborhood. It was present in countless 
numbers at Berwyn and vicinity as far as a mile south of the village, appar- 
ently by far the most abundant species for a period; the complaints of the 
“little striped yellow bird’ were many, and so far as I am able to learn, 
all unbagged grapes were ruined; the loss must have been many tons 
worth several hyndred dollars.— Frank L. Burns, Berwyn, Penna. 


Cape May Warbler Eating Grapes.— On September 12, 1914, at 
West Grove, Chester Co., Pa., where I spent the summer and fall, I ob- 
served three Cape May Warblers ( Dendroica tigrina) feeding upon ripe 
grapes. I did not note how long this species remained with us, but I recall 
distinctly that for several days a few of them might be seen at almost any 


234 General Notes. [ Pen 


time in the tree over which the grapevine grew.— Isaac G. Roserts, West 
Chester, Pa. 


Addendum.— Referring to specimens of the Cape May Warbler 
( Dendroica tigrina), mentioned in lines 27 and 28, there should have been, 
on page 105 of this volume of ‘ The Auk,’ a footnote as follows: ? Proc. 
Portland Society Natural History, April, 1882.— N. C. B. 


The Rock Wren at National, Iowa.— A single individual of this 
species (Salpinctes obsoletus obsoletus) was observed on the morning of 
September 27, 1914, and was still here the next day. It was found ina 
wet ravine about the roots and thick sprouts of willow trees that grow about 
thirty feet from my bird blind. It had a favorite spot where in full view 
it would sit many minutes preening itself. While it was under observation 
a House Wren and English Sparrows were present with which it could be 
compared. Its head was not so slim as that of the House Wren, but seemed 
fuller or rounder, suggesting more the head of the Warbling Vireo, which 
was emphasized by its ashy color, while the very light breast rendered it 
conspicuous against the dark bark of the willows. It cocked its tail and 
scolded in true wren fashion. 

The bird could not be taken. It was watched on both days as long as 
I could spare the time, and the description of it, here given, was written 
down while the bird was present. Rump and tail a dull rufous, the color 
being brighter on the rump; head and nape ashy, with a brownish wash, 
there being a gradual blending of this ashy with rufous along the back 
until the brighter rufous of rump is reached; a tinge of rufous on the tertials, 
the rest of the wings dark gray with darker bars; tail, rump, and back 
barred; no bars nor stripes could be detected on nape, head or under parts 
except tail; no light or white stripe over the eye; throat and breast a 
grayish white, somewhat lighter than corresponding parts of the Passer 
domesticus. The most strikingly marked portion was the under part of the 
tail, buffy white in color with conspicuous lateral bars of dark brown or 
black. A subterminal band of black on the tail is mentioned, also figured, 
in books of Mrs. Bailey, and of Baird, Brewer and Ridgway, also in ‘The 
Birds of Washington.’ I failed to see this though it might have been possi- 
ble had I been on the lookout for it, as I was for the stripe over the eye. 
In the hand, traces of such a streak probably could have been found. The 
bird was studied from thirty to thirty-five feet away and I used both 8- 
power and 53-power Bausch and Lomb binoculars, the latter being better 
for near distances. 

Our place is six miles from the Mississippi River. This brings the 
occurrence of the species very near to the eastern limit of Iowa; and it 
makes the 148th species identified on our place with four or five more just 
beyond our borders.— ALTHEA R. SHERMAN, National, Iowa. 


Corthylio— A Valid Genus for the Ruby-crowned Kinglet.— 
The genus Regulus as currently recognized comprises some eighteen forms 


Pe ais aaa General Notes. 235 


representing several specific types. These fall into two groups, the larger 
of which, including the Gold-crests and Fire-crests is Holarctic in distribu- 
tion, the other containing the Ruby-crowned Kinglets only (a continental 
species of three races and a closely allied island species) being strictly 
Nearctic. 

As long ago as 1850 Cabanis referred Regulus calendula to his genus 
Phyllobasileus, which included small Willow-Wren-like forms now included 
in Reguloides. Three years later, however, concluding that calendula 
was more nearly related to true Regulus yet generically distinct he proposed 
for it the name of Corthylio. 

As is well known the type of Regulus (R. regulus) and its immediate 
allies differ from R. calendula (and from all other birds as well) in the 
presence of a single flat feather overlying each nostril. This represents the 
several much smaller and more bristly antrorse plumules of the Ruby-crown. 
The latter is further distinguished by Jonger tarsi, a larger and wider bill, 
absence of stripes on the head and uniform olive-green crown of the female. 

In spite of these differences, however, it has not seemed necessary to 
separate the Ruby-crown from Regulus, and Cabanis’s genus has been 
almost universally ignored. The discovery of an additional character 
now renders necessary, in my opinion, the recognition of Corthylio. 

While recently identifying some bird remains from the crop of a Sharp- 
shinned Hawk, I was struck by the peculiar form of the hind-toe of a foot 
which proved to be that of a Golden-crowned Kinglet. The pad forming 
the sole of the toe for its basal half is approximately obovate (broader 
terminally than basally), abruptly contracted distally, the sub-truncate 
end strongly contrasting with the narrow terminal half of the toe. This 
conspicuous pad is shorter than the rest of the toe beyond it (excluding 
the claw) and reticulated into about a dozen polygonal sections. No other 
birds examined (including Mniotiltide, Sylvide, Fringillide, Paride and 
Vireonidz) at all closely approach the species of true Regulus in these 
peculiar features, in which they seem to be as unique as in the supranasal 
plumule. 

In the ordinary song-bird foot the sub-basal pad of the hallux is tapering 
or gradually rounded terminally, where it is usually not very strongly 
defined, longer than the distal portion of the toe, its superficial divisions 
minute and very numerous. feguloides swperciliosus is normal in these 
respects, and Regulus calendula exhibits but a slight approach to true 
Regulus in the form of the pad, which is longer than the rest of the toe, 
the reticulations being larger than usual but smaller than in true Regulus. 

If the validity of Corthylio as a genus is conceded the names of the Ruby- 
crowned Kinglets will stand as below. The Guadalupe form is in my 
opinion (based on examination of an excellent series) specifically distinct. 
Neither in coloration (at least in fresh plumage), in the relation of bill and 
tarsal length to that of the wing, nor in the mutual proportions of the 
ninth and tenth primaries, is there any evidence of intergradation with the 
continental forms. ‘‘ Regulus cuwviert”’ is referable to true Regulus. 


236 General Notes. [April 


Corthylio calendula calendula (Linnzeus). 
“ vo cineraceus (Grinnell). 
grinnelli (Palmer). 
obscurus (Ridgway). 
W. DEW. Miter, Amer. Museum of Natural History, New York City. 


ce ce 


‘ec 


A Note on the Migration at Sea of Shore Birds and Swallows.— 
The following notes, made during the cruise of the whaler Daisy in 1912, 
throw a little light on the oceanic routes sometimes followed by migrating 
shore birds and swallows. It is quite probable that the recorded positions, 
which lie well to the eastward of Bermuda, are not in the normal tracks of 
the North American species mentioned. The month of August, 1912, was, 
however, prevailingly calm in the western temperate Atlantic, and the 
possibility of migrants having been blown out of their courses would seem 
to be limited to the effects of local storms. 

Ereunetes pusillus. On August 16, in lat. 31° 22’ N., long. 60° 14’ W. 
a sandpiper of this species flew around the vessel, not daring to alight. 
After circling for some minutes near the water it mounted higher and 
higher unti] it was flying about the topmast heads. When it had gone off 
the sailors told me that several of ‘‘ the same kind ”’ had been standing on 
the Daisy’s bowsprit (!) during the morning. 

Pisobia maculata (?) August 23, lat. 32° 20’ N., long. 50° 35’ W. Late 
in the afternoon a sandpiper was observed. It circled the brig for an hour, 
without coming very near, and settled into the water for several brief rests. 
Finally, I saw it perch upon our bowsprit, but it left almost immediately. 
I believe that the bird was a Pectoral Sandpiper, but am not quite positive. 

Hirundo erythrogaster. August 17, lat. 31°31’ N., long. 58° 40’W. Four 
Barn Swallows joined us at noon and perched in the rigging while they 
preened their feathers thoroughly. At seven in the evening half a dozen 
were sitting along the royal brace, with others flying pathetically around 
the brig, evidently puzzled, and doubtless hungry. Next morning, and 
throughout the day (Aug. 18), several were with us, one of which sat for its 
photograph within a yard of the camera. 

Hirundo rustica. European Barn Swallows twice came on board, the 
first time on September 15, thirty miles west of St, Antao, C. V.I., and again 
on September 29, in lat. 8° 16’ N., long. 24° 25’ W. The former bird was 
collected — Rosrert CusHmMan Murpnuy, Brooklyn, N. Y. 


Rare Birds near Waynesburg, Pa.— Waynesburg College recently 
secured for use in its bird course a small collection of mounted birds taken 
in this region some fifteen years since. Two specimens among them are 
particularly interesting in that they have rarely, if ever, been recorded from 
this section of the State. They are: Yellow-crowned Night Heron ( Nycta- 
nassa violacea) and Bald Eagle (Haligwetus leucocephalus leucocephalus). 
The former was collected on Ten Mile Creek and the latter on a farm near 
Waynesburg, Pa. In the latter part of April, 1907, I captured an injured 


eas. | General Notes. 237 


Florida Gallinule one mile west of this town; it is the only record for the 
region.— SAMUELS. Dickey, Waynesburg, Pa. 


Some New York City Notes.— | elow I record personal observations 
of some species either of unusual occurrence, or seen in unusual places in | 
New York City. 

REDHEAD (Marila americana).— Two were seen on the Jerome Park 
Reservoir in the Bronx on January 10, 1915. 

Canvasrack (Marila valisineria)—On January 10, 1915, I saw seven- 
teen Canvasbacks on the Jerome Park Reservoir. Seven were females. 
They allowed a close approach, and did not take wing but swam away. 

RED-HEADED WoopPECcKER (Melanerpes erythrocephalus)—I saw one 
of these birds in partly immature plumage near Riverdale on January 20, 
1915. 

WHITE-THROATED SPARROW (Zonotrichia albicollis)— A flock of eleven 
of these birds was present in City Hall Park on May 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1914. 
During the time that I observed them they remained for the most part 
under some low bushes at the southwest corner of the Park, and seemed 
quite oblivious to the noise of traffic in Broadway. On two occasions I 
heard one of them singing. 

ScarRLet TANAGER (Piranga erythromelas)— Two males in full plumage 
were present in City Hall Park on May 13 and 14, 1914. I saw them on 
the latter date. Their conspicuous color attracted large crowds and many 
diverting comments were overheard. The birds were mentioned in the 
“Evening Sun’ of May 14. 

OVENBIRD (Seiurus aurocapillus)— I saw three Ovenbirds in City Hall 
Park on May 13 and 14, 1914. On the latter date they were usually near 
the Scarlet Tanagers mentioned above. Although they walked about in 
the center of the grass plots they passed unnoticed by the many persons 
who were watching the bright colored Tanagers. 

VeeEry (Hylocichla fuscescens fuscescens)— On May 13, 1914, I saw two 
Veerys in City Hall Park in company with the White-throated Sparrows 
noted above. They also passed unnoticed. 

My experience in bird observation about New York City has been limited 
to two years, and the occurrence of migratory birds in City Hall Park may 
not be unusual. However it seemed rather startling to me to find the four 
last named species in the very heart of the down town section, where thou- 
sands of persons are constantly passing and there is an incessant rumble 
and roar of traffic. It may be of interest to note that the Tanagers were 
the only ones molested by the hordes of English Sparrows which infest the 
Park, and that even in their case I observed no serious attacks.— CLIFFORD 
H. Panaspurn, Lawrence Park, Bronxville, N.Y. 


Notes from Wisconsin.— Birrrrn (Botaurus lentiginosus) —On July 
4, 1914, near Stoughton a Bittern was observed swallowing a snake 
about twelve inches long. The bird seized it by the head and, after 


238 General Notes. [ Aouil 


considerable manceuvring during which the snake occasionally wrapped 
itself around the Bittern’s neck, succeeded in swallowing it. 

Kine Ratu (Rallus elegans).— A single bird was observed at close range 
on August 30, 1914, near Madison between Monona and Wanbesa Lakes. 
Records for the Madison region appear to be scarce. < 

SOLITARY SANDPIPER (Helodromas solitarius) — This species was exceed- 
ingly common along the Bois Brulé river in northwestern Wisconsin during 
the last week of August, 1913. The birds were usually in twos, were fully 
as common as Spotted Sandpipers, and were not at all timid. 

RuFFrepD Grouse (Bonasa umbellus wmbellus)— The crops of two grouse 
collected by Mr. A. W. Schorger in Ashland County, in November (1914) 
were full of the catkins of hazel (Corylus rostrata, apparently). The birds 
were taken early inthe morning. The crop of a grouse taken by the writer 
in Sawyer County in the first week of October (1914) was distended with 
small green catkins until 2} inches in diameter. The bird was taken at 
dusk. It is probable that this catkin was also from hazel bushes. Bendire 
does not mention hazel as a food of the Ruffed Grouse though it is listed in 
Barrow’s ‘ Birds of Michigan’. 

MournineG Dove (Zenaidura macroura carolinensis) —'Ten Doves were 
seen near Verona on Dec. 24, 1913, and one bird as late as Jan. 4, 1914, 
in the same locality. 

PILEATED WoopPECKER (Phlwotomus pileatus abieticola).— This species. 
was almost always in evidence during a canoe trip in the latter part of 
August, 1913, extending from the Lake Superior shore up the Bois Brulé 
and down the St. Croix River as far as Groutsburg, Wis. On a trip taken 
in the first part of October, 1914, down the Flambeau River from Lac du 
Flambeau to Ladysmith, only two Pileated Woodpeckers were seen. 
This species appears to retire so rapidly before settlement, that records 
showing present distribution may be of some value. 

RED-BILLED WoOoDPECKER (Centurus carolinus)— A single bird was seen 
on February 1, 1914, near Blue Mounds by Mr. Schorger and the writer. 

Carouina WREN (Thryothorus ludovicianus ludovicianus).— On Sept. 17, 
1914, the writer observed a bird of this species in a fringe of bushes on the 
shore of Lake Mendota, Madison. The bird was under observation for 
half an hour and sang frequently. It was noted again on Sept. 20 and 28. 
There are few records of this species in Wisconsin. NoRMAN DEW. 
Betts, Madison, Wis. 


Changes and Additions to the ‘List of the Birds of Gallatin 
County, Montana.’— The following changes, due to recent identifica- 
tions of specimens should be made in the list of Gallatin County birds 
published in ‘ The Auk,’ Vol. XXVIII, pp. 26-49. 

Astragalinus tristis tristis. Go.tprincH.— The specimen taken at 
Three Forks, February 12, 1910, should be A. t. pallidus, Western Gold- 
finch. Dr. L. B. Bishop informs me that this bird while resembling the 
eastern form in plumage, shows by the measurements of the bill that it 


eas | General Notes. 239 


belongs to the western race, as probably all of the Gallatin County birds 
of this species do. 

Pinicola enucleator alascensis. ALASKA PINE GROSsBEAK.— Two 
birds taken near Bozeman, December 21, 1908, have been sent to Mr. 
Robert Ridgway for better identification, and are considered by him to 
be the Rocky Mountain Pine Grosbeak, P. e. montana, and identical with 
the summer birds of the region. 

The following new species may be added to the list through the observa- 
tions of Mr. G. B. Thomas. 

Marila collaris. Rinc-NeckEp Ducx.— Mr. Thomas secured two 
birds of this species near Belgrade on October 10, 1912. They were male 
and female and were from a flock of eight or nine birds. This is the first 
record of this species from Montana of which I am aware. 

Anthus spraguei. Spracun’s Piprr.— Mr. Thomas has written me 
that he has seen this bird in Gallatin County, but I have been unable to 
get from him the date or exact locality of this oecurrence.—AreEras A. 
SaunDERS, West Haven, Conn. 


What Bird Lovers Owe the Late Professor King.— Not the man 
who determines how many birds eat a certain insect, nor what one bird 
eats, but the man who passes in review all the common birds of a given 
region in his study of the proportions of the food, is entitled to rank as 
pioneer in Economic Ornithology. On this basis it is proposed that the 
late Professor F. H. King, formerly chief of the U. S. Division of Soils, 
should be considered our first important Economic Ornithologist to use 
modern methods in the United States.! 

Many men had previously examined the food of a single species of bird 
in different parts of the country. Professor Samuel Aughey of Nebraska, 
from 1865 to 1877, studied the stomachs of Nebraska birds in relation to the 
number of locusts they consumed. However, not until the time of Pro- 
fessors S. A. Forbes of Illinois and F. H. King of Wisconsin, had anyone 
made a study of all the common bird species in order to record all the types 
of insects which birds ate. Dr. Forbes’ studies of birds’ stomachs were 
first published in 1876, according to a letter from him, dated October 15, 
1912. 

In an interview at the Cleveland meetings of the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, December 31, 1912, Professor Forbes ad- 
mitted that the work for this paper was all done in that or the preceding 
year, while Professor King began his paper in July, 1873, and continued it 
until October, 1877, the field work being done mostly in 1873-4. In 
1876-8, according to a letter from Prof. J. H. Comstock, 1912, Professor 
King worked in the Cornell laboratory, analyzing the contents of the birds’ 


1Cf. Review of Economic Ornithology in the United States by T. S. Palmer, 
Asst. Chief of the Biol. Survey, U. S. Dept. Agric. Yearbook for 1899. Here 
older authors are ranked as pioneers in the study of the food in birds’ stomachs. 


240 General Notes. [April 


stomachs previously collected, but did not publish, due to delays in the 
Geological Survey, until 1883, when T. C. Chamberlain’s ‘Geology of 
Wisconsin,’ Vol. 1, came off the press. 

It thus appears that King’s work began before that of Dr. Forbes, but 
was delayed in publication until some years after Dr. Forbes published his 
first and second researches. While Prof. Aughey had studied ninety differ- 
ent bird species representing 630 stomachs and Dr. Forbes some 40 species 
representing 460 stomachs (combining figures of all three papers of 1876, 
1880 and 1883), Professor King studied 83 species representing over 1800 
stomachs, 1600 of these being reported. 

The University of Wisconsin has been siow to recognize the great value 
of Professor King’s researches along this line and the noteworthy character 
of his work. We should take some steps to make generally available the 
statistical data of the paper as published in the ponderous volumes of the 
early 80’s. 

In view of these facts, a partial bibliography of Professor King’s writings 
concerning birds may be recorded here. 

1883. Economic Relations of our Birds.— Geol. of Wis., Vol. 1, pp. 441- 
610 (1886). Reproduced in Trans. Wis. Sta. Agric. Soc. for 1886, 
vol. XXIV, pp. 372-480. 

1884. ‘The Industrial Relations of Our Birds.— Trans. Wis. Sta. Agric. 
Soc. for 1882-3, vol. X XI, pp. 261-271. 

1892. The Migration and Usefulness of Our Birds.—'Arbor Day Circular, 
Wisconsin. 

1893. The Robin.— Arbor and Bird Day Annual, Wisconsin, pp. 32-4. 

1896. (Mar. 19) The Ruffed Grouse— Arbor Day Annual, May 1, 1896, 
Wisconsin, pp. 23-5. 

1897. (March 24) The Blue-eyed Yellow Warbler.— Arbor and Bird Day 
Annual, April 30, 1897, Wisconsin, pp. 8-10. 

1899. (March 13) The Migration and Usefulness of Our Birds.— Arbor 
and Bird Day Annual, May 12, 1899, pp. 34-7. (A reprint of 
1892 cire., out of print.) , 

1911. (Bird Migration at Hong Kong Island) Farmers of Forty Centuries. 
p. 62.— Pub. at Madison, Wis., by Mrs. F. H. King.— A. C. Bur- 

RILL, Madison, Wis. 


Morning Awakening Notes at Jefferson Highland, N. H.— Mr. 
Francis H.' Allen in his general note in ‘ The Auk,’ January, 1915, p. 110, 
again calls in question the genuineness of the early songs which precede the 
singing of the Robin as morning songs given in response to the break of day, 
still regarding them as songs of night. Others may share in some measure 
his incredulity. I desire, therefore, that my records obtained at Jefferson 
Highland, N. H., should remove this doubt, for they show conclusively 
season by season that there not only do Song Sparrows and Chipping 
Sparrows habitually sing several times before the Robin, but that Wood 
Pewee and Alder Flycatcher are always much earlier singers, and that 


ee Nsis cel General Notes. QA 


White-throated Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow, and Vesper Sparrow so 
generally sing a few songs before the Robin that it is quite impossible to 
regard all this earliest singing as other than the singing of the birds in 
response to the appearance of dawn, suffusing the eastern sky with beautiful 
soft light and announcing departing night and approaching day. The 
records indicate that the awakening of the earliest singing birds is gradual, 
but none the less a genuine awakening, although they give their songs only 
occasionally in this earliest singing and reserve more demonstrative singing 
until the light of day has increased. So regular are these earliest songs 
from the several species of earliest singers that the idea that they are songs 
of the night is quite untenable. Songs of the night are few, irregular, 
and adventitious, due to the caprice of the bird, occasionally heard, but 
not to be regularly looked for and with certainty heard. These earliest 
songs after the first light of dawn are unfailingly given and can be Jooked 
for with certainty of realization. 

In the hour preceding visible dawn, which in days of earliest sunrise at 
Jefferson is 2.30 o’clock or a little before, I have very, very few times heard 
any expression of song, yet I have often been awake at one o’clock and 
remained awake listening carefully until I have gone out at two o’clock or a 
few minutes thereafter. Whereas, as the time of 2.30 approaches, it is 
usual to hear the first songs from one, two, or three birds which are within 
range of hearing, and these songs are followed by repetitions from the same 
birds or from other birds at infrequent intervals for a time, until their 
awakening is more complete. So it has been my practice to be out shortly 
after 2 o’clock, when not before; in season for these first responses to the 
break of day, and experience has shown that the birds’ awakening begins 
with these songs, given when the dawn has already visibly brightened the 
eastern sky. 

The Ovenbird’s early flight song, which is heard quite unfailingly at 
dawn, is its twilight song, equally so in the morning as in the evening and 
late afternoon. It can be depended upon, at least in the woodlands of 
Jefferson Highland, and it must be borne in mind that my testimony on 
the whole subject of the morning awakening is the result of my experience 
in this mountain hamlet, where there is broad expanse of sky and complete 
silence reigns, when the day opens, broken only by the birds as they awake 
and sing.— Horace W. Wriacut, Boston, Mass. 


2A? Recent Literature. [ Ren 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


‘The Auk’ Index, 1901—1910.'— The first ‘ Auk’ Index was published 
in 1907, and covered the period 1876-1900, it including the ‘ Bulletin of the 
Nuttall Ornithological Club,’ virtually the first series of ‘The Auk,’ and 
the first seventeen volumes of ‘ The Auk,’ It set a high standard for index 
makers, and, as said by a reviewer (Auk, X XV, 1908, p. 100), ‘‘ We know 
of no index to scientific literature comparable with this in point of detail 
and utility.”” The new Index, covering the period 1901-1910, is prepared 
on essentially the same plan, and in typography and make-up the pages of 
the two works are nearly exact counterparts. The index matter covers a 
much smaller number of pages (250 instead of 426) than were required in 
the earlier volume, as it embraces only ten years instead of twenty-five, 
but the amount per year averages twice greater. The introductory matter, 
however, occupies 28 pages instead of 7. This includes an ‘ Introduction ’ 
of ten pages by the Chairman of the Index Committee, Dr. T. 8. Palmer, 
who is also the chief editor, giving an account of the plan of the work, the 
composition of the Committee, and acknowledgements of aid. This is 
followed by a ‘ Biographical Index,’ and a ‘Supplement to the Twenty-five 
Year Index,’ The latter relates to the names of authors mentioned in the 
general index, completing names that were not given fully in the first 
index, and adding the date of birth, and also of death of those not now 
living. Of 175 names previously more or less defective 140 have been 
completed, at great cost of labor in efforts to secure the missing infor- 
mation. 

The ‘ Biographical Index,’ by Dr. Palmer, is a new feature, and one of 
high interest and importance as a record of the date and place of birth, 
and also of death in case they are deceased, of some 275 ornithologists, 
among which, as the author states, ‘ will be found many of those most 
prominent in the annals of ornithology in America and Europe, especially 
during the last 40 years.” In addition to these items, an asterisk prefixed 
to a name indicates that a biographical notice of the person has appeared 
in ‘ The Auk,’ to which a reference is given. This list occupies 13 pages 
in double column, and we have no doubt will be consulted more frequently 
and valued more highly than any other part of the volume. The amount 
of correspondence and research involved in its compilation can be appre- 
ciated only by the few who have attempted similar work. 


1Ten Year Index | to| The Auk | Volumes XVIII-X XVII — 1901-1910 | Pre- 
pared by a Committee of the | American Ornithologists’ Union | Edited | by | 
T. S. Palmer and W. W. Cooke | [vignette] New York | Published by the Ameri- 
can Ornithologist’s Union | 1915 — 8vo, pp. xxviii+ 250. Price in paper covers, 
$2: bound in cloth, $3. Orders should be addressed to Jonathan Dwight, Jr., 
Treasurer, 134 West 71st St., New York, N. Y. 


ae | Recent Literature. 243 


It was voted to prepare the present index at the meeting of the A. O. U. 
held in Cambridge, in November, 1912. Dr. T. S. Palmer was appointed 
chairman with power to select the members of the Index Committee. 
“A few weeks later,” as stated in the introduction, ‘‘ a committee of 13 
members was organized, with Professor W. W. Cooke as secretary, and at a 
meeting on February 7, 1913, plans were perfected and the work distrib- 
uted.”” The aid of Dr. Dwight, Chairman of the original Index Committee, 
and of Dr. Richmond and Dr. Stone, editor of ‘ The Auk,’ was secured in 
correcting the proof. The Committee eventually comprised 22 members, 
divided into three subcommittees, to each of which were assigned special 
features of the work. To Professor Cooke, the secretary of the committee, 
fell the work of preparing the copy for the press. The manuscript was in 
the hands of the editor in April, 1914, but through delays in printing and 
proofreading the issue of the work was delayed till early in 1915. The 
Index Committee has thus made a good record for promptness and effi- 
ciency in its difficult task— J. A. A. 


The New B. O. U. List.'— After a lapse of thirty-two years we have a 
second edition of the official list of British birds. It is well conceived, 
well carried out in detail and well printed. Full headings to all higher 
groups are given as in the A. O. U. Check-List, which is an improvement 
over the recent ‘ Hand-List’ of Dr. Hartert and his associates. In the 
case of generic headings the reference and type are always given while the 
etymology and origin of all scientific names are explained. The synonymy 
under each species consists of references to the original place of publication, 
the first edition of the B. O. U. List, the ‘Catalogue of Birds of the British 
Museum ’, and Saunders’ ‘Manual’ 2nd edition; or in the case of recent 
additions to the first record of the bird in the British Isles. There is then a 
paragraph on ‘ Distribution in the British Islands’ and ‘ General Distribu- 
tion.’ The data on Migration are not so full as in the ‘ Hand-List’ nor 
are they given a separate paragraph. When subspecies are recognized the 
so called typical race is given binomially without the duplication of the 
specific name and the trinomials are printed in smaller type, following 
exactly the style of the original A. O. U. Check-List, a much less consistent 
plan than that of the last edition of this work or of the British ‘ Hand-List.’ 

In the introduction, beside the rules which governed the Committee’s 
labors there is a ‘Summary of British Birds according to their Status,’ in 
which there are listed 141 Residents, 47 Summer Visitors, 46 Winter Visitors, 
30 Birds of Passage, 61 Occasional] Visitors, 149 Rare Visitors and 1 Extinct 
Species; tota] 475, an increase of 99 over the first edition. There are three 
appendices; (1), a hypothetical list; (2), a list of ‘‘nomina conservanda”’; and 


1A List | of | British Birds | Compiled by a Committee | of the | British Orni- 
thologists’ Union | vignette | Second and Revised Edition | Published by the | 
British Ornithologists’ Union | and sold by | William Wesly & Son, 28 Essex Street, 
Strand, | London, W. C.| 1915. S8vo, pp. i-xxii + 1-430. Price, 7s. 6d. 


244 Recent Literature. [ Ap 


(3), a discussion of nomenclatural matters and types of the genera. Such 
is the plan of the work which, except in the one point mentioned above, 
seems admirable. 

It is of course the questions of classification and nomenclature that inter- 
est us most in a check-list. As to the former the Committee has adopted 
the system of ‘Sharpe’s ‘Hand-List of Birds’, reversing the order so as to 
begin with the Crows, which brings the work nearly in accord with the 
“Hand-List’ of Hartert et al. In matters of nomenclature: (1) the tenth edi- 
tion of Linnzeus has been accepted as a starting point instead of the twelfth; 
(2) tautonyms have been allowed; (3) trinomials have been adopted; (4) 
the fixation of a type for each genus according to the rules of the Inter- 
national Commission is recognized as a necessity. After having adopted 
such astounding changes from the antiquated policies that have heretofore 
governed the B. O. U., we feel like forgiving the Committee for the little 
list of thirteen nomina conservanda which the members refuse to relin- 
quish, and the emendations which they feel must be made in the spelling 
of afew names! The advanced stand that is taken by the new B. O. U. 
List is certainly creditable to all concerned and makes a great stride 
towards that ultimate goal of uniformity for which so many of us have 
been striving. 

Comparing the present work with the original 1883 edition we find 92 
changes in specific and 51 in generic names; and yet the ‘ Hand-List’ of 
Hartert et al, which seemed to some so impossible, contained only 111 speci- 
fic changes and 72 generic! 

Comparing the new list with the latter we find only 86 differences, nearly 
half of which are questions of the limits of genera or of the specific or sub- 
specific rank of certain forms. Thirty cases depend upon dates of publica- 
tion and the recognizability of early diagnoses or the acceptance of certain 
authors—as Vroeg and Oken; six hinge on whether names are sufficiently 
different in form to be recognized as distinct and then there are the thir- 
teen nomina conservanda. Practically all of these differences can readily 
be settled by convention, as there is really no longer any principle at stake. 

Comparing the new list with that of the A. O. U., we find less discrepancy 
in the matter of genera than was the case with the British ‘Hand-List’. 
Thirteen genera of the A. O. U. list rejected by Hartert and his associates 
are here recognized, but many others are not regarded as separable, as 
Nannus, Acanthopneuste, Planesticus, Archibuteo, Chaulelasmus, Nettion, 
Charitonetta, Olor, Actitis, Helodromas, Oxyechus, Pelidna, Erolia, Lobipes 
Ionornis and Herodias. Hierofalco on the other hand is recognized as 
distinct. 

The A. O. U. use of Hirundo is endorsed, but the use of Bombycilla for the 
Waxwings is avoided by an argument that really has no basis except on the 
ground of a nomen conservandum. Flammea is used for the Barn Owl, 
both Aluco and Tyto being preoccupied and so also with Polysticta for 
Steller’s Eider, which is supplanted by Heniconetta. ' 

The name rusticolus for the Gyrfalcon is rejected in place of gyrfalco and 


ee Recent Literature. 245 
the two races appearing under these names in the A. O. U. list are united, 
while two races of islandus are recognized from Greenland. 

The use of Colymbus for the Loons and Gnanthe for the Wheatear is 
correct as already stated in these columns and must be followed by the 
A. O. U. Committee. 

It is matter for general congratulation that three Committees, working 
independently, have been able to come to such close agreement on all mat- 
ters covered by the International Code of Nomenclature, and the differ- 
ences that still remain emphasize the fact that it is no longer questions of 
nomenclature but of taxonomy that cause diversity in names. 

The Committee of the B. O. U. deserve to be congratulated upon the 
excellent piece of work that they have accomplished and, with the exception 
of the unfortunate thirteen nomina conservanda, we can heartily reeommend 
the nomenclature of the new list to all who write on British birds.— W. 8. 


Hankin on Animal Flight.'— No ornithological problem has caused 
so much speculation, even from the earliest times, as the soaring bird; 
to quote Sir Guilford Molesworth, although “‘ many theories have been 
advanced ... . they have all been miserably insufficient’’; while even Lord 
Kelvin admits: “That which puzzled Solomon puzzles me also.’’ Practi- 
cally everyone who has written on the matter has had a theory and the 
literature of the subject as a whole may be said to consist of a maximum 
of explanation with a minimum of observation. It is therefore a gratifica- 
tion to find a work that is almost exclusively devoted to observation, such 
as Dr. Hankin has produced,— observations moreover of the most detailed 
and careful kind which constitute one of the most valuable contributions 
to the subject of flight which has ever appeared. 

The need of such a record of observation is recognized by the author who 
says by way of introduction: ‘ Those best qualified to form an opinion 
have as a rule had little or no opportunity of studying the facts at first 
hand. Such authorities have, in some cases, published accounts of soaring 
flight which have consisted entirely of explanation. Others have related 
a few facts with more or less tentative explanations. The present book 
will be found to contain the facts of the case with no explanation at all.” 

Dr. Hankin’s observations were carried on mainly at Agra, India, where 
the opportunities for the study of soaring flight — always best seen in the 
tropics — were excellent. His records show that there is a definite time 
each day when soaring becomes possible, which is earlier as the season 
advances. The presence of either wind or sunshine is an absolute necessity 


1 Animal Flight. | A Record of Observation>| By | E. H. Hankin, M. A., Se.D. | 
Late Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, | Honorary Fellow of Allahard 
University, | Chemical Examiner and Bacteriologist to | the Government of the 
United Provinces | and of the Central Provinces, India, Associlate Fellow of the 
Aeronautical Society of | Great Britain.| (First Edition) | London: | Iliffe & 
Sons Ltd., 20, Tudor Street, E. C. | [1913?] S8vo. pp. 1-405 + Index unpaged. 
Price, 12s. 6d. 


246 Recent Literature. [April 


for soaring, but it is an undisputable fact that soaring is possible when 
there exists, so far as it is possible to determine, a perfect calm. ¥ 

With the idea that the sun’s heat possibly caused ascending currents in 
the air Dr. Hankin made extended observations along this line, with the 
result that the time of appearance of ‘‘ heat eddies ”’ indicating upward 
air currents was found to coincide almost exactly with the time of the 
beginning of soaring. 

He found, on the other hand, however, that “‘ heat eddies ’’ not directly 
caused by the sun had no relation to the ‘“ soarability ” of the air and 
that when the solar energy that causes ‘‘ heat eddies ’”’ was held back by 
thin clouds, soaring continued, uninterrupted. 

Ordinary ascending air currents from ‘‘ heat eddies,’ therefore, seemed 
not to be the basis of soaring nor did they seem sufficiently powerful, and 
he concludes “‘ if soarability is due to ascending currents caused by the sun’s 
rays, these currents must resemble heat eddies in being widely and appar- 
ently uniformally distributed,” but ‘‘ they must differ in containing a great 
deal more energy and in being as yet undiscovered.” 

Mr. William Brewster’s observations on Gulls sailing into the teeth of 
the wind, near an advancing vessel were duplicated in Dr. Hankin’s ex- 
perience. He says the Gulls were observed in the usual ‘‘ soarable area ”’ 
on the leeward side of the stern and also ‘ gliding ahead of the ship in a 
head wind, keeping the same speed for minutes together. Sometimes they 
kept at a distance of only a few feet from the bridge and so under the best 
condition for observation and yet no trace of any movement of the wings 
could be observed.’”’ He adds “‘ were these cases of the soarable area being 
greatly extended or was the air uniformally soarable under the tropical 
sun?’’? Mr. Brewster’s observations go to disprove the latter suggestion 
as they were not in the tropics. 

The evidence that Dr. Hankin has gathered seems to indicate that 
‘‘ besides the effect of the air disturbance caused by the motion of the ship 
another factor of importance is the nature of the wind. ...some winds 
are soarable and other winds are not soarable. Apparently in both cases 
some unknown factor affecting soarability is involved.” 

Dr. Hankin’s observations are not limited to soaring birds but cover the 
whole field of flight as the following chapter headings will show: ‘ Prelimi- 
nary Description of Soaring Flight’; ‘Preliminary Account of the Condi- 
tions Necessary for Soaring Flight’; ‘Preliminary Account of Directive 
Movements in Gliding Flight’; ‘On Conditions Affecting Sun Soarability’ ; 
‘A Further Description of Steering Movements’; ‘Metacarpal Descent’; 
‘Arching’; ‘Functions of the Tail’; ‘Flapping Flight’; ‘Lateral Stability’ ; 
‘Position of Centre of Gravity’; “The Flight of Bats’; ‘The Flight of Flying 
Fishes’; ‘The Flight of Sea Gulls’; ‘Ascending Currents’; ‘Wind Soar- 
ability’; ‘Soaring in Stormy Winds’; ‘Colour Phenomena of Soaring 
Flight’; ‘Relative Efficiency of Different Wing Forms in Respect to Soar- 
ing Flight’; ‘On the Flight of Dragon-flies’; ‘Glossary’. 

In turning over the pages of Dr. Hankin’s volume one is astonished at 


ae | Recent Literature. 247 


the extent of his observations. No factor that could possibly affect flight 
seems to have been overlooked and data have been collected in regard to 
meteorology and along other side lines with as much care as in studying 
the actions of the birds. A clever method of plotting the track of a bird 
soaring high in air was devised by tracing the movements of the bird on 
the surface of a horizontal mirror, with copying ink, from which impres- 
sions could readily be transferred to paper. A series of dots, instead of a 
continuous line, each dot corresponding to the tick of a metronome, gave 
in addition, the speed of the bird when the altitude had been ascertained. 

The book is well worthy of the attention of every one interested in bird 
flight, whether or not he be inclined to supply the explanations which Dr. 
Hankin refrained from attempting, and unlike most treatises on flight it 
will be found entirely free from technical terms or mathematical formulz.— 
W. S. 


Snethlage’s ‘Catalogue of the Birds of Amazonia.’ — Dr. 
Snethlage’s contributions to the ornithology of the Amazon region are well 
known to students of neotropical birds and her knowledge of the entire 
avifauna as well as her familiarity with many parts of the country fit her 
admirably for the task which she has just brought to a conclusion. 

The catalogue consists of the technical and vernacular name of each > 
species with references, a statement of range, a list of the specimens in 
the Museu Geeldi, with localities, and a description of the male and female. 
Under each genus is a key to the species, and under orders and families, 
keys respectively to the families and genera. Plates of the heads and feet 
of representatives of the principal groups accompany the general key to the 
orders. The work is, as will be noticed, intended to serve two purposes — 
as a manual for resident bird students and as a work of reference for 
ornithologists in other parts of the world. 

The text is naturally in Portuguese, but this does not detract from its 
value to foreign ornithologists, since to them the descriptions are of the least 
importance, and the localities and ranges are easily made out. 

There are 1117 species included in the Catalogue which forms a most 
valuable contribution to South American ornithology. The recent 
activity in the study of South American birds has reached a stage where 
faunal works of this sort are badly needed to bring into systematic order 
the scattered work of numerous writers. 

Dr. Snethlage writes us that the work was published in Germany and the 
copies intended for the American correspondents of the Museum were 
held in Hamburg when the war broke out. She requests us to announce 
that these will be forwarded as soon as possible— W. 8. 


1 Catalogo das Aves Amazonicas contendo todas as especies descriptas e men- 
cionadas até 1913 pela Dr. Emilia Snethlage (com 6 estampas e 1 mappa). 
Boletim do Museu Goeldi (Museu Paraense) de Hist. Nat. e Ethnogr. Tomo 
viii, 1911/12. Para, Brazil. 1914. pp. 1-530. 


248 Recent Literature. [ Apt 


Hornaday’s ‘ Wild Life Conservation in Theory and Practice.’ ! 
— The lectures published under this. title in the attractive volume before 
us, were delivered before the Yale Forest School, through the efforts of 
Prof. James W. Toumey and their delivery and publication represent, 
in the language of the author, the ‘‘ Awakening of Yale University ” to the 
necessity of aiding by educational methods the preservation of the wild 
life of America. In his preface Dr. Hornaday says further, ‘‘ What is 
needed — and now demanded — of professors and teachers in all our uni- 
versities, colleges, normal schools and high schools is vigorous and per- 
sistent teaching of the ways and means that can successfully be employed 
in the wholesale manufacture of public sentiment in behalf of the rational 
and effective protection of wild life. Thus far the educators of this country 
as a class and a mass have not done a hundredth part of their duty toward 
the wild life of the United States and Alaska. Let him who doubts this 
very sweeping statement ask the next young university graduate that he 
meets how much he has learned in his university about the practical busi- 
ness of protecting wild life.’’ 

The five chapter headings are: ‘The Extinction and Preservation of 
Valuable Wild Life’; ‘ The Economic Value of Our Birds’; ‘ The Legitimate 
Use of Game Birds and Mammals’; ‘Animal Pests and Their Rational 
Treatment’; ‘The Duty and Power of the Citizen in Wild Life Protection’. 

Dr. Hornaday has gleaned his facts from reliable publications and from 
his wide personal experience and has assembled them in a convincing 
manner, so as to make clear the economic side of the question. On the 
matter of practical preservation of wild life he argues in his well known 
forceful manner, condemning without mercy the ‘“‘game hog”’ and all 
enemies of conservation, pointing out at the same time the duty of the 
government, the official and the citizen in furthering the work. 

Dr. Hornaday’s volume will serve admirably as a text book for furthering 
in other educational institutions the work that the Yale Forest School has 
inaugurated, or as a handy work of reference for the public in general. 
We can heartily recommend it as a valuable contribution to the cause with 
which Dr. Hornaday has for years been so closely identified — W. S. 


Hartert’s ‘Die Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna.’ ?— This install- 
ment covers the remainder of the Aquilide, including the Vultures and 


1 Wild Life Conservation | in Theory and Practice | Lectures delivered before 
the Forest | School of Yale University | 1914 | By | William T. Hornaday, Sc.D. | 
Author of ‘‘The American Natural History,’’ | ‘‘Our Vanishing Wild Life,”’ etc.; | 
Ex-President of the American Bison Society | with a Chapter on | Private Game 
Preserves | By Frederic C. Walcott | vignette | New Haven: Yale University Press | 
London: Humphrey Milford | Oxford University Press| MDCCCCXIV. 8vo. 
pp. 1-240. Price, $1.50 net. 

2 Die V6gel der palaarktischen Fauna. Systematische Uebersicht der in 
Europa Nord-Asien und der Mittelmeer-region vorkommenden Vogel. Von Dr. 
Ernst Hartert. Heft IX (Bd. II. 3) seite 1089-1216 mit. 31 Abbildungen. Ausge- 
geben im Oktober, 1914. Berlin. 


Vol. a Recent Literature. 249 


begins the Ciconiide. Only one new form appears, Meliérax canorus 
neumanni (p. 1165) Arbub, Mereau.— W. 8. 


Phillips on Experimental Studies of Hybridization among Ducks 
and Pheasants.'— The experiments here described were carried on during 
the past five years. The species involved were the Mallard, Pintail, 
Australian and East Indian Ducks; and the Ring-neck, Prince of Wales, 
Lady Amherst and Golden Pheasants, and the investigations deal mainly 
with the inheritance of male secondary sex characters. 

In domestic birds a number of clearly Mendelizing characters have been 
demonstrated and sex-linked characters have also been described in 
canaries, pigeons and domestic fowls. In his experiments with wild 
species, however, Dr. Phillips found ‘‘a very different state of things.” 
‘“‘ Characters often apparently clear-cut and antagonistic do not segregate 
clearly.”’ ‘‘ There is some evidence that in closely related geographical 
races there is a nearer approach to orthodox Mendelism, but this is never 
reached, even in back crosses, except occasionally in isolated characters 
or in the more undifferentiated plumages of the female sex.” 

Dr. Phillips comes to the conclusion that it is almost certain that the 
ordinary subspecies of the ornithologist is very far from being a unit varia- 
tion and that sex-linked inheritance is probably a feature of domestic races 
in birds. Indeed in species hybrids in almost every feather region the 
most minute detail of feather pattern and color show the influence of 
both parental races. 

Dr. Phillips’ paper is of great importance, showing what many students 
of systematic zodlogy have long felt, that it is not safe to assume that laws 
and principles of heredity demonstrated in domesticated strains of animals 
necessarily prevail in the case of wild species. 

Too few of those engaged in experimental breeding have a proper training 
in systematic zodlogy to appreciate the nature of wild species, and we, 
therefore, especially welcome publications from an investigator so well 
informed on both sides of the problem as is Dr. Phillips— W. 8. 


Allen on Pattern Development in Mammals and Birds.?— Dr. 
Allen has made a valuable contribution to the subject of coloration, a 
field by the way which opens up many possibilities for the ornithologist 
who may care to enter it. In the particular phase of the subject which he 
has been investigating — pattern development — he shows that pigmenta- 
tion develops from certain centers, each one covering a very definite area. 
Loss of strength in a center of pigmentation and consequent failure to cover 
the entire area, results in a white or unpigmented line or space between this 

MS 


1 Experimental Studies of Hybridization among Ducks and Pheasants. By 
John C. Phillips. Jour. of Experimental Zool., Vol. 18, no. 1, January, 1915, pp. 
69-112, ppl. 1-8. 

2 Pattern Development in Mammals and Birds. By Glover M. Allen. Amer- 
ican Naturalist, 1914, pp. 385-412, 467-484, 550-566. 


[ Auk 
April 


250 Recent Literature. 
and the next area, producing a pied or a reticulated pattern. Such patterns, 
due to areal reduction, have, in wild species, often become fixed and a perma- 
nent part of the normal pattern. The development of such patterns has 
probably been very gradual, and it may be seen in process of development 
today in certain species in which the extent of white areas is quite variable — 
as the white neck patches of the Cackling Goose. 

Dr. Allen also finds that the converse of this centripetal style of pigmenta- 
tion is present in many species resulting in black pigmentation at the 
extremities — tip of nose, ears, tail or toes— or along primary breaks 
between pigmented areas. Furthermore the patches are physiologically 
independent of one another and may be differently colored in different 
individuals. 

A careful study of Dr. Allen’s paper will give us an intelligent idea of the 
apparently anomalous coloration of many domestic animals and when 
we become familiar with the locations of the various pigment centers, we 
see at once an explanation of many of the distributions of color in wild 
species, and why we find a constant duplication of general pattern or of 
prominent color patches in widely separated species.— W. S. 


Shufeldt on the Skeleton of the Ocellated Turkey.1— Dr. Shufeldt 
here presents a detailed study of the skeleton of this interesting bird and 
compares it bone for bone with that of the more familiar turkey, Meleagris 
gallopavo. While he considers that the differences in the external characters 
of the two birds are sufficient to establish them in separate genera, he fails 
to find any notable difference in the skeletons, nothing indeed which would 
indicate more than specific differentiation — W. S. 


Smith’s ‘Handbook of the Rocky Mountain Park Museum’.?— 
This neatly printed little book is a guide to the Museum at Banff, Alberta. 
The ornithological portion contains the names of all species found within 
the limits of the park, with data for the specimens exhibited and special 
mention of those species which may be seen alive in the immediate vicinity 
of the museum. There is a full description of one species in each family, 
but it would seem that a general account of each family group would have 
been better in such a work. The species, so described, are elevated to 
undue importance in the popular mind over equally important species 
which are granted only nominal mention. We understand, however, that 
this is only a forerunner of a fuller edition and that these descriptions 
are devised for labels quite as much as for the users of the handbook. 
The framing of such a book so that descriptive labels may be printed off 
from the same type is an excellent idea.— W.S. 


1On the Skeleton of the Ocellated Turkey (Agriocharis ocellata) with notes on 
the osteology of other Meleagride. By R. W. Shufeldt. Aquila, Vol. XXI, 
1914, pp. 1-52, pll. I-X IV, (Nov. 15, 1914). (In Hungarian and English.) $ 

2 Handbook of the Rocky Mountains Park Museum. By Harlan I. Smith. 
8vo, pp. 1-126. Ottawa, 1914. 


ie 4 ; Recent Literature. 251 


Mearns on New African Birds.'— The birds here described were 
obtained on the Frick, Rainey and Smithsonian African Expeditions, 
except one secured by Dr. W. L. Abbott in 1888. They are as follows: 
Francolinus hildebrandti helleri (p. 381) Mt. Lololokui; Chalcopelia afra 
kilimensis (p. 383) Mt. Kilimanjaro; C. chalcospila intensa (p. 384), 
Hawash River, Abyssinia; C. c. media (p. 385), Gardulla, Abyssinia; 
Cinnyris venusta blicki (p. 386), Lake Stephanie; C. mediocris garguensis 
(p. 387), Mt. Gargues; C. reichenowi kikuyensis (p. 388), Escarpment Sta.; 
Chalcomitra senegalensis atra (p. 388), Thika River; Anthreptes collaris 
garguensis (p. 389), Mt. Gargues; LHstrilda atricapilla keniensis (p. 390), 
Aberdare Mts.; Halcyon senegalensis cinereicapillus (p. 391), Kisingo, 
Uganda; H. malimbicus prenticei (p. 392), Lake Victoria, Uganda; Melit- 
tophagus variegatus loringt (p. 393), Lake Albert, Uganda; Colius striatus 
jebelensis (p. 894), Gondokoro. 

These forms are very fully described often with remarks upon allied 
races.— W. §8. 


Von Ihering on Brazilian Birds.2— Prof. von Ihering has been in- 
vestigating the life histories, habits and structure of various groups of 
Brazilian birds in their bearing on the systematic arrangement of the 
genera. In a recent paper he takes up the cuckoos,! arranging them in six 
subfamilies, Phenicophaine, Coccyzine, Centropine, Crotophagine, Scy- 
thropine, and Cuculine. Incidentally he discusses the Brazilian birds 
which lay their eggs in the nests of other birds. 

In another paper* he writes of the ornithological collection of the Museu 
Paulista and contributes some new observations on the nests and eggs of 
Brazilian birds, considering some 48 species. There is a fine colored plate 
of Phylloscartes paulista and Guracava difficilis and two other plates of 
nests and eggs.— W. 8. 


Allen’s ‘Birds in their Relation to Agriculture in New York 
State.’ ‘— This little pamphlet is a veritable mine of information and its 
very conciseness will appeal to those who have not time to seek out their 
information from a number of more formidable publications, while it will 
undoubtedly carry home the principles of bird conservation to many who 
could not otherwise be reached. 


1 Descriptions of New African Birds of the Genera Francolinus, Chalcopelia, 
Cinnyris, Chalcomitra, Anthreptes, Estrilda, Halcyon, Melittophagus, and Colius. 
By Edgar A. Mearns. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 48, pp. 381-394. January 19, 
1915. 

2 Biologia e Classificacao das Cuculidas Brasileiras. Por Hermann von 
Ihering. Revista Mus. Paulista, 1X, pp. 3718410. July, 1914. (In Portuguese 
and German.) 

’ Novas Contribuicoes para a Ornithologia do Brazil. Por Hermann von 
Ihering. Revista Mus. Paulista, IX, pp. 411-488. August, 1914. (In Portu- 
guese and German.) 

4 Birds in their Relation to Agriculture in New York State. By A. A. Allen. 
‘The Cornell Reading-Courses, IV, No. 76, November 15, 1914, pp. 17-56. 


22 Recent Literature. [apr 


The half-tones from original photographs are excellent and varied. The 
common birds are considered under the convenient and rather novel head- 
ings of (1) ‘bird and mammal eaters’; (2) ‘fish, frog and crayfish eaters’, 
including ‘stalkers, plungers, divers’; (3) ‘insect eaters ’,— ‘strainers, 
probers, scratchers, borers, gleaners’ ; (4) ‘vegetable feeders’ ,—seed eaters, 
fruit eaters. A convincing colored plate by L. A. Fuertes depicts the 
Horned Owl, Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawks devouring respectively a 
chicken, pigeon and robin, while the Marsh Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk and 
Barred Owl are feasting on meadow mice and a rat, and the Sparrow Hawk 
on a grasshopper. Dr. Allen has produced a valuable addition to the 
literature of bird protection, which could be reprinted for use in a much 
wider field with advantage — W. S. 


Simpson’s ‘Pheasant Farming ’.\— This is a most attractive little 
brochure, illustrated by half-tones from photographs and drawings, and a 
colored plate by Bruce Horsfall. The chapter headings give a good idea 
of the contents: ‘Propagation of Game Birds’; ‘ Varieties of Pheasants’; 
“The Chinese Pheasant in Oregon’; ‘Equipment for a Pheasant Farm’; 
‘The Ideal Mother for Pheasants’; ‘Food for Young Pheasants’; ‘Enemies. 
of the Game Breeder’; ‘Advice to Beginners’. 

The demand for game and the absolute necessity of preventing the 
marketing of native species will make this industry of constantly increasing 
importance and this excellent little pamphlet will be in much demand.— 
W. S. 


Recent Biological Survey Publications.— The ornithological ac- 
tivities of the Survey as set forth in the annual report of the chief, Mr. 
Henry W. Henshaw,? covered the food of Wild Ducks; the relation of 
birds to the Boll and Alfalfa Weevils and to the Range Caterpillar; the 
economic status of the Starling; and the general protection and attracting 
of birds and enforcement of the migratory bird law. 

Mr. W. L. McAtee has prepared a timely report on ‘ How to attract 
Birds ’ * covering protection of grounds from cats, and the preparations of 
all sorts of feeding and shelter devices. There is also appended a valuable 
list of wild fruit and berry bearing trees and shrubs with their fruiting 
seasons. A report on the food of Robins and Bluebirds ‘ by Prof. Beal sets. 
forth in great detail the animal and vegetable food of these familiar birds 
as shown by the extended investigations of the Biological Survey. 


1 Pheasant Farming. By ’Gene M. Simpson. Bull. No. 2, Oregon Fish and 
Game Commission, 1914. 

2 Report of Chief of Bureau of Biological Survey. By H. W. Henshaw. Ad- 
vance Sheets from Annual Report of the Dept. of Agriculture for 1914 [Dec. 12, 
1914], pp. 1-12. 

3 How to Attract Birds in Northeastern United States. By W. L. McAtee. 
Farmers Bulletin U. 8S. Dept. Agr. No. 621, Dec. 14, 1914, pp. 1-15. ‘ 

4 Food of the Robins and Bluebirds of the United States. By F. E. L. Beal. 
Bull. U. S. Dept. Agr. No. 171, Feb. 5, 1915, pp. 1-31. 


fo | Recent Literature. 253 


In the case of the Robin the birds do no serious damage when their 
normal food supply is abundant, but in sections of New Jersey where the 
birds have been protected for years, they are constantly increasing, while 
the native berry bearing shrubs have been largely supplanted by domestic 
varieties. They are then very destructive to the berry crops and as Prof. 
Beal says: “‘ Under such circumstances there is no doubt that a law allow- 
ing the fruit grower to protect his crop when attacked by birds would be 
proper.” The Robin is similarly destructive to the olive plantations of 
California. 

The examination of the Bluebird’s food “‘ fully justifies the high esteem 
in which the bird is held. It does not prey upon any product of husbandry 
or in any way render itself injurious or annoying.” During the berry 
season of spring and early summer it feeds mainly upon insects, its fruit 
eating period being from late fall to early spring when waste fruit is avail- 
able. 

Prof. Cooke! describes the attempt to secure an estimate of the number 
of breeding birds in various sections of the country during 1914. The plan 
was the same as that outlined in the request for coéperation in a similar 
effort during 1915 which appears in ‘ Notes and News’ of the present 
issue of ‘The Auk.’ 

The 1914 census showed the Robin to be the most abundant species in 
the Northeastern States, with the English Sparrow second, followed by the 
Catbird, Brown Thrasher, House Wren, Kingbird and Bluebird. — W. 8. 


Economic Ornithology in Recent Entomological Publications.— 
The most emphatic acknowledgement of the economic value of birds in 
any recent entomological paper is that of Mr. J. A. Hyslop in a bulletin on 
“ Wireworms attacking cereal and forage crops,” ? who says, ‘‘ Probably 
the most important factor in keeping wireworms in check are the birds.” 
The significance of this statement is apparent from the authors estimate 
that wireworms are among the 5 worst pests of Indian corn, and among 
the 12 worst for wheat and oats. A list is given of 90 species of birds found 
by the Biological Survey to feed upon wireworms. 

In a report on “ The grasshopper problem and alfalfa culture,” * Pro- 
fessor F. M. Webster states that ‘‘ upward of 100 species of birds are known 
to feed to a greater or less extent upon grasshoppers, but probably the most 
useful in this direction are quails, prairie chickens, the sparrow hawk and 
Swainson hawk, the loggerhead shrike, all cuckoos, the cowbird, all black- 
birds, and meadowlarks, the catbird, and the red-headed woodpecker.”’ 

The results of some original investigations by Messrs. R. N. and T. Scott 
Wilson of the bird enemies of the three cornered alfalfa hopper (Sticto- 


1 Preliminary Census of Birds of the United States. By Wells W. Cooke. Bull. 
U.S. Dept. Agr. No. 187, Feb. 11, 1915, pp. 1-11. 

2 Bulletin 156, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Jan. 27, 1915, 34 pp. 

3 Farmers’ Bulletin 637, U. 8S. Department of Agriculture, Jan. 25, 1915, 10 pp. 


254 Recent Literature. [ Apel 


cephala festina) are presented by V. L. Wildermuth.! Thirty-one stomachs 
representing 8 species of Arizona birds were examined and specimens of 
the alfalfa hopper found in 10 stomachs. The species of birds eating this 
insect were the Killdeer, Black Phoebe, and Sonoran Red-winged Black- 
bird. Arecord for the Nighthawk is quoted from Biological Survey records. 

Bird enemies of midges, especially the giant midge (Chironomus plumo- 
sus) ave mentioned in various recent papers by A. C. Burrill.2. The species 
of birds mentioned are the Tree Swallow, Barn Swallow, Kingfisher, Sand- 
pipers, Red-winged Blackbird, English Sparrow, and Palm Warbler. 

In his ninth report * as state entomologist of Minnesota, Professor F. L. 
Washburn, includes an article on ‘‘ Useful Birds found in Minnesota.” 
Paragraphs containing brief descriptions of appearance and habits, and the 
more important economic information about 21 species of birds form the 
bulk of the report. Discussion is included also of bad birds, birds of 
doubtful utility, and protection of planted corn from crows and other 
animals.— W. L. M. 


Two Recent Papers on Bird Food by Collinge.— In “ Some Observa- 
tions on the food of nestling sparrows,” 4 Professor W. E. Collinge pre- 
sents a comparative study of the food of juvenile Passer domesticus taken 
in fruit-growing and in suburban districts. The report is based on exami- 
nations of more than 280 stomachs, and is a convincing demonstration of 
the powerful influence of availability in controlling the choice of food by 
birds. The illustration of this factor is the occurrence of kitchen refuse 
in 53 out of 87 stomachs of suburban sparrows, and in only one out of 200 
birds collected in fruit-growing regions. 

The results of the study, on the whole, are favorable to the sparrow. 
Professor Collinge “‘ is of the opinion that if this species were considerably 
reduced in numbers, the good that it would do would probably more than 
compensate for the harm, especially in fruit-growing districts.” 

The second paper in hand is a brief summary of the economic importance 
of British Wild Birds. The commoner species are classed in the follow- 
ing groups: 

1. Distinctly injurious — House-sparrow, Bullfinch, Sparrow-hawk, 
Wood-pigeon, and Stock-dove. 

2. Too plentiful, and consequently injurious — Missel Thrush, Black- 
bird, Greenfinch, Chaffinch, Starling, and Rook. 

3. Injurious, but not plentiful — Blackcap. 


1 Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. III, No. 4, Jan. 15, 1915, p. 360. 

2 By the Wayside, Vol. 13, No. 7, March, 1912, pp. 50-51; Vol. 14, No. 6, 
February, 1913, p. 44; Bulletin Wis. Nat. Hist. Soc., Vol. X, Nos. 3-4, April 18, 
1913, pp. 145-146; Vol. XI, Nos. 1-2, June, 1913, p. 66. 

8 Fifteenth Rep. State Entomologist of Minn., 1913-1914, pp. 1-19, Col. Pls. 
1-3. Also issued as Circular No. 32. 

4 Journ. British Board of Agriculture, Vol. X XI, No. 7, October, 1914. 

5 Nature. Jan. 7, 1915. 


coal Recent Literature. 255 


4. Neutral—Jay. 

5. Beneficial— Song Thrush, Fieldfare, White-throat, Great Tit, 
Blue Tit, Wren, Goldfinch, Linnet, Yellow Bunting, Minepic Jackdaw, 
Skylark, Barn Owl, Brown Owl, Kestrel, and Plover— W. L. M. 


‘First Report of the Brush Hill Bird Club.’ '— The reviewer had the 
pleasure, in March, 1914, of inspecting a most interesting exhibit of mate- 
rials for attracting birds. The well prepared report here cited puts into 
permanent form the valuable features of that exhibit. It discusses nesting 
boxes and their use, and tells where they can be obtained. Similar informa- 
tion is given for bird baths. 

A collection of the seeds and fruits available to birds at the time of the 
bird show was an important and effectively arranged exhibit. The kinds 
are listed in the present report, and their value commented upon. Ad- 
dresses are given of firms from whom various dried berries and grains can 
be purchased; also a list with publishers of the more important books, 
pamphlets and journals relating to birds. 

National and State game laws are reprinted, and the relations of the bird 
club work to schools are emphasized. The report includes also a list, by 
Mr. Ralph E. Forbes, of birds seen in and about Milton during the years 
1904 to 1914. 

The striking success of the exhibit, which was open for two months and 
had an attendance of from 40 to 94 persons daily, and the usefulness of 
the ‘First Report of the Brush Hill Bird Club’ must be reckoned, in large 
part, personal achievements of the genial and energetic general manager, 
Dr. Harris Kennedy.— W. L. M. 


Recent Reports on Game and Bird Protection.— The New Jersey 
Audubon Society presents a very creditable report ? for the year 1914 and 
in Bulletin No. 9 makes an appeal for greater support and additional 
members which should be met by the bird lovers of the State. There is ~ 
also an exquisite photograph of the Long-billed Marsh Wren and nest by 
Francis Harper illustrating an article on the second nesting, of the species 
by Mary P. Allen. 

Mr. W. L. Finley’s attractive ‘Oregon Sportsman’ * continues to keep 
alive interest in game and bird protection in his State while the recently 
established ‘ California Fish and Game’ edited by H. C. Bryant 4 does the 
same for the great commonwealth lying south of it. In the January 
number, Joseph Grinnell and the editor have an article on the Wood Duck 
in California.— W. S. 


— —-~\ 


1 Milton, Mass., 1914, 123 pp., 6 pls., 1 map. 

2 Fourth Annual Report of the New Jersey Audubon Society. Oct. 6, 1914. 

3’ The Oregon Sportsman. Wm. L. Finley, Editor. December, 1914, Janu- 
ary, 1915. : 

4 California Fish and Game. H. C. Bryant, Editor, Jan., 1915. 


256 Recent Literature. [ Ann 


The Ornithological Journals.'! 


Bird-Lore. Vol. XVII, No. 1. January-February, 1915. 

Bird-life in Southern Illinois. II. By Robert Ridgway. 

The Story of a Red-tailed Hawk — Part 1. By Mrs. A. B. Morgan. 

How Winter Thins Their Ranks. By J. W. Lippincott. 

Migration Notes of N. A. Sparrows. By W. W. Cooke. Plumage notes 
by F.M.Chapman. Color Plate by L. A. Fuertes. This paper concludes 
the series. 

Bird-Lore’s Fifteenth Christmas Census, shows an increase in the num- 
ber of reports as well as their thoroughness. Some editorial correction 
would seem warranted in such a case as that of the Chickadees since the 
record of both species in South Carolina, where only the Carolina is known, 
will prove confusing. 

The Audubon department is full of interest while the Educational 
Leaflet treats of the Loon with a color plate by Brooks. 

The Condor. Vol. XVI, No.6. November—December, 1914. 

A Forty-five Year History of the Snowy Heron in Utah. By A., E. and 
A. O. Treganza. 

The effects of Irrigation on Bird Life in the Yakima Valley, Washington. 
By Clarence H. Kennedy.— An estimated increase of 60,000 birds. 

Breeding of the Bronzed Cowbird in Arizona. By M. F. Gilman. 

The Condor. Vol. XVII, No.1. January—February, 1915. 

With Rallus in the Texas Marsh. By G. F. Simmons. 

The Nesting of the Black Swift. By W. L. Dawson.— Corroborating 
the breeding of the species at Santa Cruz. ~ 

The Kern Redwing — Agelaius pheniceus aciculatus subsp. nov. (p. 13). 
Isabella, Kern Co., Cal. By Jos. Mailliard. 

The Status of the Arizona Spotted Owl. By H.S. Swarth. 

Birds Observed on Forrester Island, Alaska During the Summer of 1913. 
By Harold Heath. \ 

Birds of the Boston Mountains, Arkansas. By Austin P. Smith. 

The Wilson Bulletin. Vol. XX VI, No.4. December, 1914. 

Notes on a Northern Robin Roost. By A. R. Abel. 

The Birds of the Douglas Lake Region. By Jas. S. Compton. 

A Hermit Thrush Study. By Cordelia J. Stanwood. 

A Brief Study of the Nest Life of the Black-throated Green Warbler. 
By Cordelia J. Stanwood. 

The Determination of the Food of Nesting Birds. By A. R. Cahn. 

A Flight of Shore-birds near Youngstown, Ohio. By J. P. Young. 

Corrections of the A. O. U. Check-List in Regard to Birds of Ohio. By 
W. F. Henninger. 


1 The names of the editor and publisher of each journal will be found in the 
January number of ‘ The Auk.’ , 


Pie | Recent Literature. 257 


Nineteen Years of Bird Migration at Oberlin, Ohio. By Lynds Jones. 

Discouraging the English Sparrow. By T. H. Whitney. 

The Oodlogist. Vol. XXI, No. 12. December 15, 1914. 

A Great Flight of Grebes. By R. B. Simpson.— At Warren, Pa. 

Nine Unusual and Interesting Experiences. By G. A. Abbott.— Nest- 
ing of Marbled Godwit, ete. 

The Odlogist. Vol. XXII, No.1. January 15, 1915. 

Nesting of the Great Gray Owl in Central Alberta. By A. D. Henderson. 

Numerous papers on nesting of other Owls. 

Blue-Bird. Vol. VII, No.4. January, 1915. 

The Last Passenger Pigeon. By R. W. Shufeldt.— With a reproduction 
of a photograph of the head taken from the dead bird. 

The Brown Creeper at Home. By Cordelia J. Stanwood.— With ex- 
cellent photographs of nests and young and careful detailed study. 

Farming Birds in Iowa. By Florence L. Clark.— Farms made into 
bird refuges by agreement of owners to allow nothing but predatory animals 
to be killed thereon. 

The Ibis. X Series, Vol. III, No.1. January, 1915. 

On a Collection of Birds from British East Africa and Uganda, presented 
to the British Museum by Capt. G.S. Cozens. PartI. By Claude H. B. 
Grant.— The collection was made by Mr. Willoughby P. Lowe who ac- 
companied Capt. Cozens, and the trip extended from September 21, 1912, 
to March 7, 1913, covering country between Naivasha and the German 
border and then northwest to the White Nile. The various geographic 
races are discussed and compared under each species. 

A Recent Ornithological Discovery in Australia. By Gregory M. 
Mathews.— A geographic and historical discussion of tthe avifauna of 
northern Australia. 

The Crested Penguin in Australian Waters. By H. Stuart Dove. 

Report of the Birds collected by the late Mr. Boyd Alexander during 
his last Expedition to Africa — Part II. The Birds of St. Thomas’ Island. 
By David A. Bannerman.— Sixty-five species. ° 

Note on the Genus Ithagenes. By E. C. Stuart Baker.— Excellent 
colored plate of the heads. 

A Few Notes on Tetrao urogallus and its Allies. By Collingwood 
Ingram.— T’. wu. aquitanicus subsp. nov. (p. 132) from the Pyrenees. 

Notes on the Bird Life of Eastern Algeria. By Rev. F.C. R. Jourdain.— 
With Contributions by H. M. Walles and F. R. Ratcliff — 197 species 
listed. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CCI. Novem- 
ber 24, 1914. 

Messrs. Rothschild and Hartert (p. 24) ‘describe Ceyzx solitaria mulcata 
subsp. nov., New Hanover. 

Mr. D. A. Bannerman discusses the birds of the islands of the Gulf of 
Guinea. 

Mr. Claude Grant describes Scopus umbretta bannermani subsp. nov. 


258 Recent Literature. [ Apuil 


(p. 27), Mt. Leganisho, B. E. A., also Halycon leucocephala ogilviei subsp. 
nov. (p. 28), So. Angoniland, Nyasaland and H. senegalensis superflua, 
subsp. nov. (p. 28), Limpopo R., Transvaal: 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CCII. 

Messrs. Rothschild and Hartert describe Diceum geelvinkianum rosseli 
(p. 32), Rossel Island, Louisiade Group. 

Dr. Hartert describes Callisitta azurea expectata (p. 34), Pahang, Malay 
Peninsula, Mr. Ogilvie-Grant, Collocalia hirundinacea excelsa (p. 34), 
C. esculenta maxima (p. 35), and C. nitens (p. 35), all from the Utakwa River, 
Snow Mts. of New Guinea. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CCIII. 

Hon. Walter Rothschild discusses the nomenclature and relationship 
of the ‘“‘ Masked Gannets.’”’ He concludes that the name Sula dactylatra 
should be used instead of S. cyanops and recognizes five subspecies of 
which S. d. californica (p. 43) is described as new from San Benedicto 
Island, the form ranging along the Californian and Central American coasts. 

Mr. W. L. Sclater points out that the type of the genus Sula is Sula sula 
Brisson — S. leucogastra Bodd. He also contributes some short biographi- 
cal notices of Bonaparte, Gould, Strickland and Jardine. 

Mr. D. A. Bannerman describes Poliolais alexanderi (p. 53) from 
Cameroon and Zosterops stenocricota poensis (p. 54), Fernando, Po. 

Mr. Claude H. B. Grant proposes Centropus swperciliosus loande (p. 54) 
Dalla Tando, Angola; C. s. sokotre, (p. 55), Sokotra; and Melittophagus 
variegatus bangweoloensis (p. 55) Lake Bangweolo, N. E. Rhodesia. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. Vol. XXXIV. 

This volume of 344 pages consists of the Migration Report for the spring 
of 1913 and autumn of 1912. It follows the plan of the preceding reports 
and contains an enormous amount of detailed information. Reports were 
received from 327 observers. and light keepers. The Committee which 
tabulated the data recognize several distinct immigrations across the 
channel from France. In the case of the Cuckoo these occurred April 
14-16, April 19-24 and April 27—May 1. . 

British Birds. Vol. VIII, No.7. December 1, 1914. 

Feeding-habits of the Sparrow Hawk. By W. Farron. 

The ‘ British Birds’ Marking Scheme. Progress for 1914 and Some 
Results. By H. F. Witherby.— A most interesting report. 

British Birds. Vol. VIII, No.8. January 1, 1915. 

Notes on the Breeding-Habits of the Curlew Sandpiper. By Maud D. 
Haviland.— At the mouth of the Yenesei River. 

A Practical Study of Bird Ecology. By H. G. Alexander. 

British Birds. Vol. VIII, No.9. February 1, 1915. 

Notes on the Breeding-Habits of the Little Stint. By Maud D. Havi- 
land.— At Golchika, mouth of the Yenesei. 

Report on the Results of Ringing Black-Headed Gulls. By H. W. 
Robinson.— During the years 1909-1913, 11,769 of these Gulls were banded 
in the nest. Of these 414 have been recovered. 


‘ 


ss | Recent Literature. 259 


Avicultural Magazine. Vol. VI, No. 2. December, 1914. 

Cranes in Captivity. Edit. 

The Pigeon Hollandais. By Graham Renshaw.— Historical account 
of Alectroenas. 

Weavers. By W. Shore Baily.— Photograph of nests in his aviary. 

English Names for the Parrots. By Dr. E. Hopkinson.— A convenient 
compilation, continued in Nos. 3 and 4. 

Avicultural Magazine. Vol. VI, No.3. January, 1915. 

Birds of Paradise on Little Tobago. By O. Millsum.— The birds are 
still doing well. 

Avicultural Magazine. Vol. VI, No. 4. February, 1915. 

My Hummingbirds and How I Obtained Them. By A. Ezra.— Interest- 
ing account of exportation and successful keeping of several West Indian 
Species. 

Bird Notes. Vol. V, No. 11. November, 1914. 

A Journey Across the Sierras. By W. 8S. Baily (continued).— Mr. 
Baily’s amusing disregard of the published information on American birds 
is still in evidence. Of Pica nuttalli he tells us he has seen a good many 
in the Rocky Mts. in Utah and Wyoming! In the December numbert is a 
continuation in which we are informed of the presence of the ‘‘ White- 
eyed Grackle (QQuiscalus quiscalus ageleus)’’ in the Santa Clara Valley — 
surely a new species for California!! 

Bird Notes. Vol. VI, No. 1. January, 1915. 

Foreign Birds at the Show. By W. T. Page— A plate of interesting 
hybrid Weavers, Finches and Bulbuls. 

The Austral Avian Record. Vol. II, No.6. December 19, 1914. 

On the Species and Subspecies of the genus Fregata. By G. M. Mathews. 
— The bird of Ascension Island upon which the name Pelecanus aquilus of 
Linnzus is based proves to be quite distinct from the common widely 
distributed form which must be known as Fregata minor Gm. Hight sub- 
species of this bird are proposed and two of F. ariel, the form of the A. O. U. 
Check-List is true minor. 

The Austral Avian Record. Vol. II, No.7. January 28, 1915. 

Additions and Corrections to my List of the Birds of Australia. By 
G. M. Mathews.— Two new genera and 57 new subspecies or species 
are described. 

Notes on Some Australian Types. By G. M. Mathews. 

Diggles’ Ornithology of Australia and Other Works. By G. M. Mathews. 
— Seven species described in the ‘ Transactions of the Philosophical ° 
Society of Queensland ’ were from the Aru Islands, not from Australia. 

The Dates of Publication of Vieillot’s Galerie des Oiseaux. By G. M. 
Mathews. 

The South Australian Ornithologist. Vol. IJ, Part 1. January, 
1915. 

Notes on some of the Birds observed on Mount Dandenong, Victoria, 
October, 1914. By Edwin Ashby. 


260 Recent Literature. [ Apel 


Birds of the Cairns District, Queensland. No.1. By G. M. Mathews. 

A Sketch of the Life of Samuel White. ByS. A. White. 

Ornithologisches Jahrbuch.! XXV, Heft3-4. May—August, 1914, 
(October 27, 1914.) [In German.] 

Review of Bird Migration in Ascania Nova, Taurien Govt., Southern 
Russia. By H. Grote. 

On the Birds of the Irkutsk Govt. By H. Johansen.— Hypotriorchis 
subbuteo irkutensis (p. 83) subsp. nov. Dorfe Omoloi (Kreis Kirensk). 

Remarks and Criticisms on Publications on Certain Species of Birds of 
the Canaries. By R. von Thanner. 

Journal fiir Ornithologie.2 62, Heft 4. October, 1914. [In German.] 

The Phylogeny of the Thrushes. By J. Gengler (concluded). 

Contributions to the Ornithology of Prussian Schlesia. By C. Keyser 
(concluded). 

Birds of the Middle Kergisensteppe. By P. P. Suschkin (concluded). 

South Somaliland as a Zoogeographic Division. By O. Graf Zedlitz.— 
List of 98 species (continued in January number to 194 species). 

Journal fiir Ornithologie. 63, Heft 1. January, 1915. 

Some New Forms of Central African Birds in the Grauer Collection. 
By Moriz Sassi— Hyliota slatini (p. 112), Beni; Phyllastrephus lorenzt 
(p. 112), Moera; Geocichla princei graueri (p. 113), Moera; G. gurneyt 
oberlénderi (p. 115), Beni-Mawambi; G. g. tanganjicae (p. 116), Urwald; 
Cossypha bocagei albimentalis (p. 117), Urwald. 

On a Small Collection of Birds from Northern Mesopotamia. By O. 
Neumann. 

New Species. By A. Reichenow.— Oreopsittacus arfaki intermedius 
(p. 124), New Guinea; Centropus senegalensis tschadensis (p. 124), Tschad 
district, Central Africa; Aethomyias nigrifrons (p. 124), New Guinea; 
Micreca poliocephala (p. 124), New Guinea; Pachycephala hypoleuca 
p. 125), New Guinea; Melanorhectes umbrinus (p. 125), New Guinea; 
Ploceus melanolema (p. 125), Fernando Po.; Zosterops setschuana (p. 125), 
Ta-tsieng-lu-ting in Setschuan; Cleptornis palauensis (p. 125), Palau; 
Melirrhophetes rufocrissalis (p. 126), New Guinea; Melilestes chloreus 
(p. 126), New Guinea; Philemonopsis meyeri canescens (p. 126), New 
Guinea; Ptilotis simplex (p. 126), New Guinea; Xanthotis chlorolema 
(p. 127), New Guinea; X. melanolema (p. 127), New Guinea; Thelazo- 
menus n. gen. (p. 127), allied to Xanthotis, type T. pecilocercus (p. 127), 
New Guinea; Chalcomitra adamaue (p. 127), Adamaua; C. tanganjice 
(p. 128), Urwald; Phyllastrephus leucolema camerunensis (p. 128), Duma, 
‘Cameroons. Camaroptera caniceps (p. 128), Duma; Crateroscelis virgata 
(p. 128), New Guinea; C. albigula (p. 128), New Guinea; Pseudopitta n. 
gen. (p. 129) type Eupetes incertus Salvad; Crateropus jardinei hypobrun- 


1 Edited by Victor Ritter Tschusi zu Schmidhoffen, Hallein, Salzburg Austria. 
2 Edited for the German Ornithological Society by Dr. A. Reichenow. L. A. 
Kittler, Leipzig, Agent. 


pet, | Recent Literature. 261 


neus (p. 129), Amadi, Congo dist.; Bradornis pallidus tessmanni (p. 129), 
Carmot, E. Cameroon. 

On Pelecanus sharpet. By A. Reichenow. 

Ornithologische Monatsberichte. Vol. 22, No. 10-11. October— 
November, 1914. [In German.] 

Emberiza melanocephala Scop. and its division into two races.— EL. m. 
orientalis sp. n., (p. 159) Eastern Sarpa-steppe. 

Description of a New Weaver-bird from Abyssinia. By J. v. Madarasz. 
— Othyphantes edmundi (p. 161). 

Ornithologische Monatsberichte. Vol.22,No.12. December, 1914. 

Ornithological Observations on a Trip through Uhehe and Ubena 
[Africa]. By L. Schuster. 

Messager Ornithologique.! V, No.3. 1914. [In Russian.] 

Contributions to the Ornithology of the Tomsk Govt. By H. Johansen 
(continued from 1912, No. 4). 

The Species and Races of Remiza of Russian Turkestan. By N. A. 
Sarudny. 

Messager Ornithologique. V, No. 4. 1914. [In Russian.] 

An Ornithological Excursion in Eastern Transcaucasia. By W. W. 
Stantschinsky. 

A New Pheasant from Turkestan. By N. A. Sarudny.-— Phasianus 
mongolicus bergii subsp. nov. (p. 277). 

An Unnamed Saxicola. By N. A. Sarudny.— S. finschii neglecta subsp~ 
nov. (p. 279). 

On the Avifauna of Transcaucasia. By P. W. Nesterow (continued from 
1913, No. 3). 

On the Rosy Finch of Turkestan. By N. A. Sarudny. 

A Hybrid between Nyroca ferina and N.nyroca. By N. A. Sarudny. 

Messager Ornithologique. VI, No. 1. 1915. [In Russian.] 

Pages 5-8 contain a convenient list of the new names proposed in the 
‘Messager’, 1910-1914, consisting of 1 genus, 2 species and 55 subspecies. 

On the Avifauna of the Ussuri country. By G. J. Poljakow.— Perdix 
daurica suschkini subsp. nov. (p. 38); Bubo bubo ussuriensis subsp. nov. 
(p. 44). 

Contributions to the Ornithology of Turkestan. By N. A. Sarudny 
(continued from 1913, No. 4). 

Some Remarks on the Geographic Distribution of Cyanistes cyanus and 
on the Origin of C. pleskei Cab. By J. Domaniewski. 


1Edited by G. I. Poljakow, Gut. “‘ Sawino,’’ Oberalowka, Moscow Govt.. 
Russia. \ 


262 Recent Literature. [April 


Ornithological Articles in Other Journals.! 


Galloway, A. R. and Thomson, A. L. Notes on High Mortality 
among Young Common Terns in Certain Seasons. (Scottish Naturalist, 
December, 1914.) — On the Scottish coast. 

Clyve, Robert. Notes on Birds Observed at the Butt of Lewis [He- 
brides]. (Scottish Naturalist, February, 1915.) 

Taverner, P. A. Geological Survey Museum Work on Point Pelee, 
Ont. (Ottawa Naturalist, November, 1914.) — Largely ornithological. 

Allen, Arthur A. The Paramo of Santa Isabel. (Amer. Museum 
Jour., January, 1915.) ; 

The Roosevelt-Rondon Scientific Expedition. By L. E. Miller. 
(Amer. Museum Jour., February, 1915.) — This and the preceding give 
accounts of two of the American Museum’s recent expeditions. 

Clark, A. H. Distribution of the Onychophora. (Smithson. Mise. 
Coll. 65, No. 1, Jan. 4, 1915.) — Pages 6-8 discuss the question of primary 
and secondary colonization in migratory birds, the latter being exemplified 
in species which have spread from the tropics to summer in temperate 
regions, by individuals which revert and breed sporadically in the tropics. 

Yerkes, R. M. Color Vision in the Ring-Dove (Turtur risorius). 
(Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., I, No. 2, pp. 117-119.) 

Brother Alphonsus. Distribution of Our Birds in Spring and in Winter. 
(Amer. Midland Naturalist, January, 1915.) — Comparisons of ‘several 
seasons based on the number of times each species was recorded. As there 
are no data as to the amount of time or the number of days devoted to 
observation, the results are rather unsatisfactory. 

Bartsch, Paul. Birds Observed in the Florida Keys, April 20-30, 1914. 
(Year Book, No. 13, Carnegie Inst. of Washington, pp. 192-195.) —A 
brief diary of observations and a nominal list of 47 species. 

Wormald, Hugh. Courtship of Ducks and Notes on Hybrids with 
Illustrations. (Trans. Norfolk and Norwich Nat. Sci. Soc., IX, pt. V, 
pp. 693-701.) 

Anon. Wild Birds Protection in Norfolk, 1914. (do. pp. 765-769.) 

Riviere, B. B. Notes on the Autumn Migration on the Norfolk Coast. 
(do. pp. 770-773.) 

Gurney, J. H. The Irruption of Waxwings into Norfolk during the 
Winter of 1913-14. (do. pp. 773-775.) 

Long, S. H. and Riviere, B. B. Fauna and Flora of Norfolk. Adds 
tions to Part XI. Birds (Sixth List). (do. pp. 784-797.) 

Baker, E. C. Stuart. The Game Birds of India, Burma and Ceylon. 


1 Some of these journals are received in exchange, other are examined in the 
library of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Editor is under 
obligations to Mr. J. A. G. Rehn for a list of ornithological articles contained in the 
accessions to the library from week to week. 


Pa | Recent Literature. 263 
(Jour. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., November, 1914, pp. 183-196.) — Two 
beautiful colored plates of Sand Grouse. 

Stevens, H. Notes on the Birds of Upper Assam (do.)—A well 
annotated list containing in the present installment 243 species. The 
preservation of the original form of a word is carried to the extreme of 
refusing to change the termination of the specific name to agree with the 
gender of the genus! 

Harrington, H. H. Notes on the Indian Timeliides and their Allies 

(continued). (do. pp. 311-340.) — A careful discussion of the relationship 
of the genera and species, with descriptions and distribution. The follow- 
ing new forms are proposed: T'rochalopterum erythrocephalum woodi (p. 317) 
Burma; Pomatorhinus horsfieldi trancoreensis (p.,333), Peermall, 8. India; 
P. ruficollis bakeri (p. 336), Shillong. 
f? Baker, E. C. Stuart. On a Small Collection of Birds from the Meshmi 
Hills, N. E. Frontier of India. (Records of the Indian Museum, IX, pt. V, 
pp. 251-254.) — A list of ten species containing much information on 
Ithaginis cruentus kuseri. 

Wait, W. E. The Distribution of Birds in Ceylon and its Relation to 
recent Geological Changes in the Island. (Spolia Zeylanica, X, December, 
1914, pp. 1-32.) — An important paper consisting of detailed data on dis- 
tribution upon which generalizations are based. Of the two faunal divi- 
sions of Ceylon, the Northern tract which is allied to the Carnatic area of 
the Indian peninsula, contains absolutely identical species; but the relation 
of the Southern Hill tract to the Malabar Coast is more remote, consisting 
only in “‘ close correspondence of type.” 

Warren, EK. A Case of Hybridism among Cockatoos. (Annals Natal 
Mus. III, pp. 7-28, pl. III, September, 1914.) — A male Cacatua galerita 
mated with a female Licmetis nasica and two hybrids were reared. They 
showed an intimate mixture of characters and no simple Mendelian rela- 
tionship was exhibited. A considerable discussion of hybrids between 
wild species with relation to Mendelism follows. 

Benham, Professor. The Nomenclature of the Birds of New Zealand: 
being an Abstract of Mathew’s and Iredale’s Reference List. (Trans. & 
Proc., New Zealand Inst., XLVI, pp. 188-204.) 

Philpott, Alfred. Notes on the Birds of Southwestern Otago. (do. 
pp. 205-212.) 

Hill, H. The Moa-Legendary, Historical and Geological: Why and 
when the Moa disappeared. (do. pp. 330-351.) 

Magnan, M. A. On the Length of the Tail and the Acuteness of the 
Wing in Birds. (Bull. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat. Paris, 1913, No. 8, pp. 622- 
631.) [In French.] 

Raspail, Xavier. Ornithological Observations made on the Belgian 
Coast, 1877-78. [In French.] 

Tschusi zu Schmidhoffen, Viktor Ritter. Ornithological Gleanings 
from Austro-Hungary. (Zool. Beobachter, LV, Nos. 9-11, pp. 236-243, 
291-297, September and November, 1914.) [In German.] 


264 Recent Literature. Resi 


Wild Life. Dec., 1914, Jan., 1915, contains beautiful photographic 
reproductions of Willow Warblers, Coots, Spoonbills, Ravens, Pied Wagtail 
and of the Rhinoceros covered with “Rhino birds,” Buphagus erythro- 
rhyncha. 

Trouessart, E. The Influence of the War on the fauna of the Country 
and the Migration of Birds. (La Nature, Ann. 43, No. 2155, pp. 33-35.) 
{In French.] 

Tischler, F. Die Vogel der Provinz Ostpreussen. (W. Junk Berlin, 
1914, royal 8vo., pp. 1-331.) — Treats of 305 species and subspecies. 
Historical preface with plate of prominent ornithologists of the region. 
[In German.] 


Publications Received.— Allen, A. A. (1) Birds in their Relation to 
Agriculture in New York State. (The Cornell Reading-Course, Vol. IV, 
No. 76. Nov. 15,1914.) (2) The Paramo of Santa Isabel. (Amer. Mus. 
Jour., XV, Jan. 1915, pp. 3-8.) 

Allen, Glover M. Pattern Development in Mammals and Birds. 
(Amer. Nat., 1914, pp. 385-412, 467-484, 550-566.) 

Beal, F. E. L. (1) Some Common Birds Useful to the Farmer. (U.S. 
Dept. Agr., Farmers’ Bull. 630, Feb. 18, 1915.) (2) Food of the Robins 
and Bluebirds of the United States. (Bull. U.S. Dept. Agr., 171, Feb. 5, 
1915.) 

Brabourne, Lord, and Chubb, Charles. (1) A Key to the Species of 
the Genus Crypturus with Descriptions of some new Forms. (Ann. and 
Mag. Nat. Hist., Ser. 8, Vol. XIV, Oct., 1914, pp. 319-322.) (2) A Synopsis 
of the Genus Tinamus. (do. Vol. XII, Dec., 1913, pp. 577-579.) 

British Ornithologists’ Union Committee. A List of British Birds. 
Second and Revised Edition. London, 1915. Wm. Wesley & Son. 
Price 7s. 6d. 

Buckland, James. The Value of Birds to Man. (Smithson. Rept. 
for 1913, pp. 439-458.) 

Clark, Austin H. The Present Distribution of the Onychophora, a 
Group of Terrestrial Invertebrates. [Distribution of birds discussed.] 
(Smithson. Mise. Coilns., 65, No. 1. Jan. 4, 1915.) 

Cleaves, Howard H. What the American Bird Banding Association 
has Accomplished During 1912. (Smithson. Rept. for 1913, pp. 469-479.) 
(Reprinted from ‘ The Auk.’) 

Cooke, Wells W. Preliminary Census of Birds of the United States. 
(Bull. U. S. Dept. Agr., 187, Feb. 11, 1915.) 

Grinnell, Joseph. Barriers to Distribution as Regards Birds and 
Mammals. (Amer. Nat., XLVIII, April, 1914, pp. 248-254.) 

Hankin, E. H. Animal Flights: A Record of Observation. Iliffe & 
Sons, Ltd. London [1913?]. Price 12s 6d. net. 

Henshaw, Henry W. Report of the Chief of Bureau of Biological 
Survey. (Advance sheets from Ann. Repts., U.S. Dept. Agr., 1914.) 

Hornaday, William T. Wild Life Conservation in Theory and Practice. 
Yale Univ. Press., New Haven, Conn., 1914. Price $1.50. 


vhs oe | Recent Literature. 265 


Huxley, Julian §8. (1) The Courtship-Habits of the Great Crested 
Grebe (Podiceps cristatus): with an Addition to the Theory of Sexual 
Selection. (Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Sept., 1914, pp. 491-562.) (2) A 
“Disharmony ” in the Reproduction Habits of the Wild Duck (Anas 
boschas, L.) (Biol. Centralbl., XXXII, No. 10, Oct. 20, 1912.) 

Ihering, Hermann von. (1) Biologia e Classificacao das Cuculidas 
Brasileiras. (Revista Mus. Paulista, IX, July, 1914, pp. 371-410.) (2) 
Novas Contribuicoes para a Ornithologia do Brazil. (do. Aug., 1914, 
pp. 411-488.) 

McAtee, W. L. How to Attract Birds in Northeastern United States. 
(Farmers’ Bull., 621, U.S. Dept. Agr., Dec. 14, 1914.) 

Mailliard, Joseph. The Kern Redwing — Agelaius pheniceus acicula- 
tus. (The Condor, XVII, pp. 12-15, Jan., 1915.) 

Mearns, Edgar A. Descriptions of New African Birds of the Genera 
Francolinus, Chalcopelia, Cinnyris, Chalecomitra, Anthreptes, Estrilda, 
Halcyon, Melittophagus, and Colius. (Proc. U. 8. Nat. Mus., 48, pp. 
381-394, Jan. 19, 1915.) 

Murphy, Robert Cushman. A Report on the South Georgia Expedi- 
tion. (Science Bull., Mus. Brooklyn Inst., Vol. 2, No. 4, Nov. 5, 1914.) 

National Association of Audubon Societies, Inc. Tenth Annual Report. 
(Bird-Lore, 1914, pp. 481-565.) 

New Jersey Audubon Society. Fourth Annual Report. 

Phillips, John C. Experimental Studies of Hybridization Among 
Ducks and Pheasants. (Jour. Exper. Zool., Vol. 18, No. 1, Jan., 1915, 
pp. 69-112.) 

Sherman, Althea R. Experiments in Feeding Hummingbird Birds 
During Seven Summers. (Smithson. Rept. for 1913, pp. 459-468.) (Re- 
printed from the ‘ Wilson Bulletin,’ 1913.) 

Shufeldt, R. W. (1) On the Skeleton of the Ocellated Turkey (Agrio- 
charis ocellata) with notes on the osteology of other Meleagride. (Aquila, 
Vol. XXI, 1914, pp. 1-52.) (2) Review of the Wild Geese of North 
America, Part I. (Outers’ Book, Feb., 1915.) (3) New Light on the 
Great Toothed Divers of America. (Sci. Amer., Jan. 23, 1915.) 

Simpson, ’Gene M. Pheasant Farming. (Bull. 2, Oregon Fish and 
Game Com.) 

“Smith, Harlan I. Handbook of the Rocky Mountains Museum. 
Ottawa, 1914. 

Snethlage, Dr. Emilia. Catalogo das Aves Amazonicas contendo 
todas as especies descriptas e mencionadas até 1913. (Boletim do Mus. 
Geeldi, Vol. VIII, Para Brazil, 1914. 

Taverner, P. A. A New Species of Dendragapus (Dendragapus ob- 
scurus flemingi) from Southern Yukon Territory. (Mus. Bull. No. 7, Cana- 
dian Geol. Survey, Dec. 20, 1914.) (Reprinted from ‘ The Auk.’) 

Abstract Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Nos. 

American Museum Journal, The, XIV, No. 8, December, 1914; Nos. 
1 and 2, January and February, 1915. 


266 Recent Literature. ei 


Austral Avian Record, Vol. II, Nos. 6-7, December 19, 1914, and Jan- 
uary 28, 1915. 

Australian Museum, Records, Vol. X, No. 10, October 31, 1914. 
Report for year ending June 30, 1914. 

Avicultural Magazine, (3) VI, 2-4, December, 1914—February, 1915. 

Bird Lore, XVII, No. 1, January—February, 1915. 

Bird Notes and News, Vol. VI, No. 4, Winter, 1914. 

Blue-Bird, Vol. VII, Nos. 3-4, December, 1914—January, 1915. 

British Birds, VIII, Nos. 7-9, December, 1914—February, 1915. 

Bulletin British Ornith. Club, Nos. CCI-CCIII, November 24, Decem- 
ber 29, 1914; and January 27, 1915. Vol. XXXIV, December, 1914. 

Bulletin of the Charleston Museum, X, No. 8, December, 1914. XI, 
No. 1, January, 1915. 

California Fish and Game, I, No. 2, January, 1915. 

Condor, The, XVI, No. 6, November—December, 1914, Vol. XVII, 
No. 1, January—February, 1915. 

Forest and Stream, LX XXIII, Nos. 25-26. LXXXIV, Nos. 1 and 2. 

Ibis, The, (10) III, No. 1, January, 1915. 

Messager Ornithologique, 1914, No. 3, 4: 1915, No. 1. 

Michigan Game, Fish and Forestry Warden, Annual Report, 1913-1914. 

New Jersey Audubon Bulletin, No. 8, January, 1915. 

Odlogist, The, XXXII, Nos. 1, 2, January and February, 1915. 

Oregon Sportsman, The, II, No. 12, December, 1914. III, No. 1, Jan- 
uary, 1915. ; : 

Ornithologisches Jahrbuch, XXV, Heft 3-4, May—August, 1914. 

Ottawa Naturalist, The, XX VIII, Nos. 8-10, November, 1914-January, 
1915. 

Proceedings of the Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, LX VI, Pt. 3, Septem- 
ber—December, 1914. 

Proceedings Nat. Acad. Sci., I, Nos. 1 and 2, January and February, 
1915. 

Proceedings of the Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union, Vol. VI, Pt. 1 and 2, 
February, 1915. 

Revista do Museu Paulista, Vol. [X, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 

Science, N.S., XL, Nos. 1042-1053; XLI, Nos. 1044-1055. 

Scottish Naturalist, The, Nos. 36-38, December, 1914—February, 1915. 

South Australian Ornithologist, II, Part 1, January, 1915. 

Wilson Bulletin, The, XX VI, No. 4, December, 1914. 

Zoologist, The, (4) XVIII, No. 216, December, 1914. XIX, No. 217, 
January, 1915. 


Vol. in| 


1915 Correspondence. | 267 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


A Bird Census of the United States. 


Epiror or ‘Tue Aux’: 


Dear Sir: A preliminary census of the birds of the United States was 
undertaken by the Bureau of Biological Survey during the spring of 1914. 
The results were so encouraging that the work is to be repeated in the spring 
of 1915 on a larger scale, and will probably be repeated yearly hereafter in 
order to obtain permanent records showing the fluctuations in the bird 
population of the United States. Observers are particularly desired in 
the West and South and it is hoped that the readers of ‘The Auk’ will be 
able to render valuable assistance in the campaign for the coming 
season. Anyone familiar with the birds nesting in his neighborhood can 
help, more particularly as only about the equivalent of one day’s work is 
needed. 

The general plan is to select an area containing not less than 40 nor more 
than 80 acres that fairly represents the average conditions of the district 
with reference to the proportions of plowed land, meadowland, and woods, 
and go over this selected area early in the morning during the height of the 
nesting season and count the singing males, each male being considered to 
represent a nesting pair. In the latitude of Washington, D. C., the best 
time is the last week in May; in the South the counting should be done 
earlier; while in New England and the northern part of the Mississippi 
Valley about June 10 is the proper time. The morning count should be 
supplemented by visits on other days to make sure that all the birds previ- 
ously noted are actually nesting within the prescribed area and that no 
species has been overlooked. 

Readers of ‘The Auk’ and others who are willing to volunteer for this 
work are requested to send their names and addresses to the Biological 
Survey, Washington, D. C. Full directions for making the census and 
blank forms for the report will be forwarded in time to permit well con- 
sidered plans to be formulated before the time for actual field work. As the 
Bureau has no funds available for the purpose, it must depend on the 
services of voluntary observers. 

Very truly yours, 


U.S. Dept. Agr. E. W. NELson. 
Feb. 16, 1915. ele Chief, Biological Survey. 


[It is to be hoped that the readers of ‘The Auk’ will respond promptly 
to Mr. Nelson’s appeal. The Biological Survey has done so much for both ° 
birds and bird students throughout the country that this request for coéper- 
ation should meet with a hearty response.— Ep.]. 


268 Notes and News. . esi 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Louis pit ZerREGA Mearns, formerly an Associate of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, died of diphtheria at the Sydenham Hospital, 
Baltimore, Maryland, April 3, 1912. He was born at Fort Verde, in cen- 
tral Arizona, November 5, 1886. He was graduated from the Rensselaer 
Polytechnic Institute, at Troy, New York, in the class of 1909, with the 
degree of C. E. After graduating from the Institute he spent a year and a 
half at the Dudley Southern Observatory, at San Luis, Argentine Re- 
public, and after his return from South America, he was employed for some 
time in the observatory at Albany, New York. Shortly before his death 
he accepted a position with the Baltimore Sewerage Commission. 

Throughout his life he was deeply interested in nature studies and was 
especially devoted to biology. His observations were recorded with 
fidelity and clearness. In the field he was a delightful companion, an 
accurate and quick shot with shotgun or rifle, and a clever and successful 
mammal trapper. He began a collection of plants when four years old, 
and collected his first mammal at Fort Snelling, Minnesota, May 18, 1891, 
sending the latter to Dr. J. A. Allen, who acknowledged the little white- 
footed wood-mouse as coming from the youngest contributor to the mam- 
mal collection of the American Museum of Natural History. Mr. Mearns’s 
specimens were of excellent quality, carefully recorded, with detailed 
measurements. For many years his collection was stored in the United 
States National Museum, at Washington; but, about a year before his 
death, it was donated to the museum, to which it forms a valuable addition. 

Although much interested in the study of botany, the few published 
writings that he has left relate solely to mammals and birds. Following 
is a complete list of his biological publications: 

1. On the Occurrence of the genus Reithrodontomys in Virginia. The 
American Naturalist, vol. 31, February 1, 1897, p. 161. 

2. Notes from Newport. Notes on Rhode Island Ornithology, vol.\1, 
No. 3, July, 1900, pp. 13-15. 

3. Spring Arrival and Departure Notes, 1900. Notes on Rhode Island 
Ornithology, vol. I, No. 3, July, 1900, p. 18. 

4. Birds observed at Chepachet, R. I. Notes on Rhode Island Orni- 
thology, vol. I, No. 4, October, 1900, pp. 21, 22. 

5. Notes from Newport, R. I. Notes on Rhode Island Ornithology, 
vol. I, No. 4, October, 1900, p. 22. 

6. Arrival and Departure Notes, 1900. Notes on Rhode Island Orni- 
thology, vol. I, No. 4, October, 1900, p. 22. 

7. Arrival and Departure Notes, 1900. Notes on Rhode Island Orni- 
thology, vol. II, No. 1, January, 1901, p. 8. 

8. Birds Observed on Prudence Island, Narragansett Bay, Rhode 
Island. Notes on Rhode Island Ornithology, vol. II, No. 4, October, 
1901, pp. 18-19. 


‘Vol. ime | Notes and News. 269 


9. A List of the birds Observed on the Island of Rhode Island and the 
Adjacent Waters. Notes on Rhode Island Ornithology, vol. III, No. 2, 
April, 1902, pp. 6-12; vol. III, No. 3, July, 1902, pp. 18-14; vol. III, 
No. 4, October, 1902, pp. 17-238. 

10. The Louisiana Water-Thrush in Minnesota... The Auk, vol. XX, 
No. 3, July, 1903, pp. 307-308.— Epaar A. MBarns. 


THREE years ago ‘Recent Literature’ in ‘The Auk’ was extended to 
include a brief review of the ornithological magazines and ornithological 
articles in other periodical publications, beginning with January 1, 1912. 
Space usually allows only a quotation of the titles of the more important 
articles and a citation of the new forms proposed. Even this, however, 
enables the reader to consult all the publications bearing upon his special 
line of work, while the index to the volumes will contain references to prac- 
tically all the new species described by ornithologists, in every part of the 
world. 

The resources of the library of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 
Philadelphia render it possible to make this record nearly complete and it is 
interesting to check up the list of new forms recorded for 1912 in ‘The Auk’ 
with those catalogued in the ‘ International Catalogue of Scientific Litera- 
ture.’ The vast number of Australian genera, species and subspecies pro- 
posed by Mr. Gregory M. Mathews were not listed in ‘The Auk’ although 
all of his papers are noticed. One paper by Mr. Robert Ridgway contain- 
ing 14 new genera, published in the ‘ Proc. Biol. Soc. of Washington,’ was 
not sent to ‘The Auk’ and was overlooked, as it was presumed that all 
ornithological publications of this society had been received for review. 
‘Outside of this only nine new names were missed, two of which were in 
publications which did not reach either ‘The Auk’ or the Academy library. 
The benefit of having these new species, etc., listed, usually within three 
months of the time of publication, instead of waiting nearly two years 
for the appearance of the ‘ International Catalogue’ is, we trust, worth the 
labor of compilation. 


On the evening of January 7, 1915, the Delaware Valley Ornithological 
‘Club celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of its founding with am in- 
formal dinner at The Roosevelt, Philadelphia. Sixty-six members and 
eight guests were present; Stewardson Brown, president of the Club, 
presided, and Dr. Spencer Trotter acted as toastmaster. The speakers 
were, Dr. A. K. Fisher and John H. Sage, president and secretary of the 
A. O. U.; Charles F. Batchelder representing the Nuttall Ornithological 
‘Club of Cambridge; John T. Nichols, of the Linnzan Society of New York; 
Dr. T. S. Palmer of the U.S. Biological Survey, Washington, D.C., 
Prof. Robert T. Young of the University of North Dakota, a former active 
member of the Club; and several of the local members. 

The ‘D. V. O. C.’ represents a type of organization which does much to 
advance the interests of bird study. Organized in 1890 by seven young 


270 Notes and News. [ oat 


men interested in recording bird migration data, it has aimed to recruit its 
members so far as possible from those of high school and college age and to 
encourage the active participation of young men in all its work. Its field 
has been broad and discussion on any phase of ornithology is welcome, 
while the spirit of good fellowship which has always characterized its 
meetings has been carefully preserved. 

Twenty-five years make great changes in the development of the mem- 
bers of any organization, and gathered around the anniversary table on 
January 7 might be seen doctors and lawyers of eminence, college profes- 
sors, men high up in business corporations, and officers of banks and trust 
companies, mingled with the younger members who go to make up the bone 
and sinews of the Club today — all preserving their interest in bird study, 
ready to advance it in any way, and no doubt better for the existence of 
the, 7D: Ve, OFC? 


A REVIEW of Joseph Grinnell’s ‘Mammals and Birds of the Lower Colo- 
rado Valley,’ by Francis B. Sumner which appears in ‘Science’ for January 
8, 1915, should be read by all who are interested in zoégeography, both for 
the interesting discussion of some of the points raised in the paper, and as 
an illustration of how far apart the systematists and experimental biologists 
stand in their consideration of evolutionary problems. 

Prof. Sumner it should be said is much more lenient to the systematist 
than many of those who approach the subject from his point of view and 
who, as some one has put it, look upon systematic work as a disease, like 
the measles, from which everyone suffers at some time or other but, from 
which one is expected to recover rapidly. Nevertheless some of his state- 
ments will doubtless astonish readers of ‘The Auk’ who have been brought 
up on zoégeography. For instance he says: “It would seem a priori that 
in traveling along a uniform gradient from a region of higher to one of lower 
average temperature or vice-versa, one would continually pass into and 
out of the ranges of species which found their limits of physiological adapta- 
bility at different points along the line. One would scarcely expect to 
encounter critical points, where the fauna and flora as a whole, or at least 
the most characteristic members of it, were suddenly replaced by quite a 
different assemblage. Yet this is the essence of the ‘life-zone’ conception. 

“Tt would be foolhardy, indeed, for a zodlogist of limited field experi-: 
ence to criticize this conception. It is doubtless based upon extensive and 
accurate observations and represents real facts. But unfortunately they 
are, in a high degree, facts which, by their very nature, are scarcely com- 
municable to most biologists. Before the life-zone conception can be of 
much service to the average student of evolutionary problems it will have 
to be expressed in terms which he is able to comprehend without making 
extended explorations, under the personal escort of one of the initiated. 
Until then such expressions as ‘Upper Sonoran,’ ‘Transition’ and the like 
will be to him mere empty names, or at best, they will recall to his mind 
certain colored areas, on a map of North America, the boundaries of which. 
seem to have been chosen quite arbitrarily.’ 


NOL Sin “a Notes and News. a7 


The “average student of evolutionary problems” is not a very definite 
* term but it would seem that many systematists might be included in this 
category and were one of them to pick up a current work on Mendelism 
we think he might readily be pardoned if he made a similar plea for the 
‘personal escort of one of the initiated.” 

The fact of the matter is that the two classes of investigators know too 
little of the work of one another. The majority of our biological schools 
are so thoroughly under the influence of the experimental biologists that 
students are trained and graduated with little or no conception of zodgeog- 
raphy or of the true nature of systematic research. The museums, on 
the other hand, foster the development of systematic workers, who are not 
inclined to consider seriously experiments based upon artificial domestic 
strains of animals, the origin of which may be unknown, or to admit that 
results so obtained have much to do with the evolution of natural species, 
which usually do not give similar results when used for experiment. 

Careless work has been done on both sides but this does not discredit the 
vast amount of valuable contributions that each has made to the general 
problem of evolution. Systematic and zoégeographic research will not 
get to the bottom of the problem, unaided; neither will it be solved solely 
in terms of “zygotes” or ‘‘gametes.”’ 

Systematic nomenclature has also been a target for the experimental 
biologists, who are exasperated at the variety of names for the same species, 
or genus, and who fail to see the need of complicated rules of nomenclature. 
They are, however, threatened with precisely the same trouble and will have 
to take refuge in the same remedy. The terminology of Cytology, for 
example, is becoming so burdened with names, nearly or quite synonymous, 
that they are bewildering even to those fairly well “initiated.” 


Mr. Samuet N. Ruwoaps accompanied by Mr. Earl L. Poole, both of 
the Delaware Valley Ornithological Club, left. early in January for several 
months’ collecting in Guatemala. 


As we go to press we learn of the final arrangements for the A. O. U. 
Meeting in San Francisco, May 18-20, 1915, and once again urge all 
members, both on the Pacific coast and in the country to the eastward, to 
make every effort to be present. 

The eastern contingent will leave New York on May 6 reaching San 
Francisco on the evening of May 15. Two days, May 10-11, will be spent 
at the Grand Cajfion, and two days and a half at Los Angeles. 

From the San Francisco Committee of the A. O. U. and Cooper Club 
comes word that the sessions will be held at The Inside Inn, within the 
Exposition Grounds, with the annudl dinner on the evening of the 18th. 
Friday the 21st will be devoted to a trip to the Farallon Islands, on the 
U.S. Fisheries steamer ‘Albatross,’ and other trips will be arranged in 
accordance with the number of visitors and their inclinations. 


272 Notes and News. [Att 

From Los Angeles, Mr. J. E. Law, Chairman of the Entertainment 
Committee of the Southern Division of the Cooper Club, writes that” 
arrangements will be made to escort the eastern visitors to the Santa 
Barbara Islands, Mt. Lowe, or other points of interest during their stop 
in that city. 

The splendid program that is thus offered and the cordial hospitality 
of the California ornithologists should be sufficient inducement to cause 
every member in the east or middle west who can possibly arrange to do so, 
to join the A. O. U. party and communicate as soon as possible with Mr. 
John H. Sage, Portland, Conn. 


| 


Ae 
| a 


PUBLICATIONS OF THE 


AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION 


FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWINC PRICES: 


The Auk. Complete set, Volumes I-XXXI, (1884-1914) in origi- 
nal covers, $105.00. Volumes I-VI are sold only with complete 
sets, other volumes, $3.00 each; 75 cents for single numbers. 


Index to The Auk (Vols. I-XVII, 1884-1900) and Bulletin of the 
Nuttall Ornithological Club (Vols. I-VIII, 1876-1883), 8vo, pp. 
vii + 426, 1908. Cloth, $3.75; paper, $3.25. 


Index to The Auk (Vols. XVITI-XXVIJ, 1901-1910), Svo, pp. 
xvii + 250, 1915. Cloth, $3.00; paper, $2.00. 


Check-List of North American Birds. Third edition, revised. 
1910. Cloth, 8vo., pp. 426, and 2 maps. $2.50, net, postage 
25 cents. Second edition, revised, 1895. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 
372. $1.15. Original edition 1886. Out of print. 


Abridged Check-List of North American Birds. 1889. (Abridged 
and revised from the original edition). Paper, 8vo, pp. 71, printed 
on one side of the page. 25 cents. 


Pocket Check-List of North American Birds. (Abridged from 
the third edition). Flexible cover, 3} X 5% inches. 25 cents. 
10 copies for $2.00. 


Code of Nomenclature. Revised edition, 1908. Paper, 8vo, pp. 
Ixxxv. 50 cents. 
Original edition, 1892. Paper, 8vo, pp. iv-+ 72. 25 cents. 


We would be pleased to furnish The Auk, Index and Check-List 


. \ _ =a 
to your library at 15% discount. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr. 


eae. 7st .St., New York, N.Y. 


American Ornithologists nia 


Check-List of North American 
Birds 


Last Edition, 1910. 


Cloth, 8vo, pp. 480 and two maps of North America, 
one a colored, faunal zone map, and one a locality map. 

The first authoritative and complete list of North 
American Birds published since the second edition of 
the Check-List in 1895. The ranges of species and 
geographical races have been carefully revised and 
greatly extended, and the names conform to the latest 
rulings of the A.O. U. Committee on Nomenclature. 
The numbering of the species is the same as in the 
second edition. Price, including postage, $2.75. 


POCKET EDITION 


A pocket Check-List (32 by 5% inches) of North 
American Birds with only the numbers and the scientific 
and popular names. Alternate pages blank for the 
insertion of notes. Flexible covers. Price, including 
postage, 25 cents; or 10 copies for $2.00. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr. 
134 W. 7Ist St. New York City 


ss 


te yg <r 


i aoe ne ae a 
to it | “| 


“Old 


aH CONTINUATION OF THE Pies 
erles, erles, 
1 Vol. XL BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB Vol. XXXII 
H. Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 
Vol. XXXII JULY, 1915 No. 3 | 


PUBLISHED BY 


The American Ornithologists’ Union 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 


Entered as second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass. 


CONTENTS 
Some Birps FROM Sinai AND PatestTiIne. By John C. Phillips. (Plate XVII) 273 


Tue Fosstn Remains oF a SpEcIES OF HespERORNIS FouND IN Montana. By 
R. W. Shufeldt, M. D. -(Plate XVIII) . ; 3 ; : ; ‘ . 290 


Summer Birps oF ForREsTER Istanp, ALASKA. By George Willett. (Plates XIX— 
XX) < ; : : : : : : ; i : A ~~. 295 


Notes on THE Rock Dove (Columba domestica). By Charles W. Townsend, M.D. 306 


On THE NestTING oF CERTAIN Birnps IN Texas. By George Finlay Simmons. 


(Plates XXI-XXII)_. ; 2 I : f 4 5‘ ‘ : ee 
Tue Brrp Lire or Trrxiwap Ister. By Robert Cushman Murphy. (Plates 
XXIII-XXV) ; . 3 A - , , : 3 a - oy ar eee 


Earty Recorps oF THE WiLtp TurkKery. V. By Albert Hazen Wright ' - 348 


GENERAL Notes.— The Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) in Jackson Park, IIl., 367; 
Another European Widgeon in Virginia, 367; Snow Geese and Swans in Massachu- 
setts, 367; Wilson’s Snipe Wintering in Nova Scotia, 368; Spotted Sandpiper and 
Water, 368; Gray Sea Eagle off Nantucket, 368; Young Kingbird on a Cherry and 
Dragon-fly Diet, 368; The Bohemian Waxwing ( Bombyeilla garrula) at Ithaca, N. Y., 
369; Prothonotary Warbler at South Vineland, N. J., Brown Thrasher Winter- 
ing in Mass., 370; Birds Observed in Trinity Churee Vand. New York City, 371; 
Type Locality of Lewis’s Woodpecker and Clarke’s N utcracker, ris 


Recent Lirperature.— Levick’s ‘Antarctic Penguins,’ 372; Miller on Ptilosis, with 
Special Reference to the Feathering of the Wing, 373; Cory on New South American 
Birds, 374; Shufeldt on the Tree Ducks, 374; Shufeldt on Fossil Birds in the Marsh 
Collection, 375; White on an Expedition to the Interior of Australia, 376; Cassinia, 
1914, p. 376; Publications on Bird Protection, 377; Bird Enemies of two Beetle 
Pests, 377; Dissemination of the Chestnut-blight Fungus, 378; The Ornithological 
nt gutnals, 378; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 383; Publications Received, 


Norzs anp News— Obituary: Harry K. Pomeroy, 386; Lord Brabourne, 387; The 
Generic Problem, 387; Thirty-third Meeting of the American Ornithologists’ Union 
at San Francisco, California, May 17-20, 1915, 388. 


‘THE AUK,’ published quarterly as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNITHOLO- 
cists’ Unton, is edited, beginning with the Volume for 1912, by Dr. WirmER 
STONE. 

Terms: — $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Fellows, and to Fellows, Members, and 
Associates of the A. O. U. not in arrears for dues. 

Subscriptions should be addressed to Dr. JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr., 


Business Manager, 134 West 71st St., New York, N. Y. Foreign Subscrib- 


ers may obtain ‘THe AvK’ through 1a Wal ole PORTER, 9 Princes STREET, 
CAVENDISH SQUARE, W., LONDON. 

Articles and communications intended for publication, and all books 
and publications for notice, should be sent to Dr. WITMER STONE, 
AcapEmy OF NATURAL ScIENCES, LOGAN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 

Manuscripts for general articles should reach the editor at least six weeks 
before the date of the number for which they are intended, and manuscripts 
for ‘General Notes’ and ‘ Recent Literature’ not later than the first of the month 
preceding the date of the number in which it is desired they shall appear. 


PLATE XVII 


BUTLER’S OWL Strix butleri (Hume) : 


Pi ATS: 


A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF 


ORNITHOLOGY. 


GL. XXXII. JuLy, LOI. No. 3. 


SOME BIRDS FROM SINAI AND PALESTINE. 
BY JOHN C. PHILLIPS. 
Plate XVII. 


We left Suez on March 22, 1914, for a brief trip through the 
Sinai Peninsula, and then to Jerusalem, via Akaba and the east 
side of the Dead Sea. Mr. Mann was to pursue insects and 
reptiles and both of us put in our spare moments chasing birds and 
trapping mammals. As much of the route lay through a desert, 
our catch was small, except for the reptiles. Mammals, though in 
places numerous, were hard to trap and many specimens were 
stolen by jackals or eaten by ants before daylight, so that we often 
despaired of bringing back a representative lot. 

This journey takes one through several very different types of 
country. The bare desert around Suez, very similar to the deserts 
of Egypt; then the rugged Sinai plateau with peaks up to 8500 
feet in height; the low deserts around Akaba, with an Arabian 
and Dead Sea fauna; the bare-wind swept 5000 foot plateau east 
of the Dead Sea depression; and lastly the oleander and cane 
jungles of the Dead Sea and its affluents, with a sub-tropical fauna 
and flora, and an altitude as low as 1300 feet beneath the level of 
the sea. _ 

When you leave Suez behind, you enter upon the worst stage of 
the journey. The spring sun is scorching from nine o’clock till 
four, and the level stretches of gravel and limestone are hardly 


273 


274 Puruuirs, Birds of Sinai. [sae 
relieved by the sight of a single creature, barring lizards and scor- 
pions. At rare intervals an Egyptian Vulture sails overhead or a 
pair of Ravens follows the caravan for a time. At nightfall one 
or two White Wagtails gather around the tents and run about 
under the very feet of the camels. 

There are only two spots along this road where birds can really 
exist. One is the Wells of Moses, eight miles from Suez, and the 
other is Wady Gharandel, identified with the Elim of the Bible 
Exodus. At this latter place we arrived on the third day, camping 
at the upper end of the Wady where there was a well some six feet 
below the surface of the ground and a number of palms, sayal 
thorn trees and shrubs of various sorts. Here we got a few birds, 
a Great Grey Shrike, Wheatears in abundance, Ruppell’s and 
Bonelli’s Warblers, Chiff-Chaffs, Spanish Sparrows and the pale 
Cray-Martins. Besides these we saw that very characteristic 
plain gray warbler of the Sinai Peninsula, Cereomela asthenia, the 
Chat-Robin or Black-start. Here too we began to see the Sinai 
Desert Larks. 

Between Gharandel and Wady Feran, where you first find real 
water, there is almost nothing of interest to the ornithologist. For 
part of a day the road runs along the coast of the Red Sea under 
rough cliffs, but not a gull or a shore-bird enlivens the monotony 
of that shell strewn shore. You begin to see some of the handsome 
Black and White Chats along this part of the road. We took three 
species, the White-rumped, Pied and Hooded Chat. These are 
very striking birds, extremely shy and by no means easy to get. 
The White-rumped has a very low but sweet song. Wherever 
there is any vegetation at all one sees if he looks closely, an extraor- 
dinary little wren-like cock-tailed warbler, Scotocera iniquietus 
that is an adept at hiding. If I remember rightly, it has a peculiar 
little Chickadee-like note which I heard long before I ever managed 
to get the bird. When one gets into the ravines about Petra this 
little bird is more plentiful. Then another very characteristic 
warbler of the scattered sayal trees is the Lesser White-throat 
which returns to Palestine and breeds in great numbers. You can 
identify it a long way off by its monotonous “sip-sip-sip.” I think 
it is quite the commonest spring bird of Sinai. : 

On April 1, we arrived at the beautiful brook of Feran and 


Vol. aot | Puiturrs, Birds of Sinai. 275 


pitched camp at the mouth of the Wady Aleyat; to students of 
Bible history, one of the most interesting spots on the peninsula. 
Most of the ancient traditions center around this place, the ruins 
of an ancient church and a fine monastery crown the hill of El- 
Meharret, and the rocks are riddled with graves and cells of an- 
chorites. The serrated peak of Serbal rises just to the south, the 
most picturesque mountain on the peninsula, and still claiming 
distinction as the mountain of the Law Giving, in spite of the at- 
tempts of the Greek monks to transport all the bible traditions to 
the neighborhood of Gebel Katherina. 

The brook of Feran waters three miles of a rugged canyon filled 
with palms, nebk and tamarisk. The climate at this elevation is 
wonderful, and the bothersome flies and heat of the desert have 
been left behind. The Palestine Bulbul mingles his Robin-like 
song with the purring of the stream, and a fair number of other 
birds are to be found, especially at the head springs. In the thick 
palms a few shy Tristram’s Grackles evaded my gun. We took 


- both the Rock and the Blue Thrush, the latter supposed to be 


“the sparrow that sitteth alone upon the house-tops”’ of scripture. 
Then there were Redstarts, several Warblers, two species of Wag- 
tails, Tree Pipits and Spanish Sparrows. I even saw a Snipe. In 
the neighboring valleys the lively little Sand Partridge was abun- 
dant. Itis hard to dismiss the beautiful little See-see (Amnoperdia 
heyi) without a word of notice. He is the only fat thing in Sinai. 
He lives in flocks of fair size, and curiously enough, numbers are 
seen together even in the breeding season. One morning (April 9), 
I watched the mating antics of a pair of these birds. The female 
was squatting in the sand and the male constantly hopped over 
and ran around her. Every little while they would seize each other 
by the bills and wrestle about with much flapping of wings and their 
feathers flying. They kept this up for ten minutes and I had to 
leave them still at it. 

Best of all, at Feran however, was the capture of a Butler’s Owl 
(Strix butleri, see Plate XVII), our specimen making the third one 
known to science. The first ohe was sent to Hume from South 
Baluchistan, and the second came from Sinai. The background 
of the plate shows the vale of Feran and the rough outline of Mt. 
Serbal where the ibex and the leopard still wander. 


276 Puiturps, Birds of Sinai. [ae 


We only spent three days at Feran and then moved south to the 
convent of St. Catherine. On the way, passing up the rugged 
defile, Nekb-el-Hawa, or pass of the winds, we met our first Rose 
Finches. This rare rock-loving Carpodacus lives only on the highest 
and roughest parts of the country, keeping in little scattered troops. 
It is a very wild and restless bird and what it manages to live upon 
Ido not know. I saw it again only at Petra. Zedlitz (1912), says 
that the bird does not breed till its second year. From my speci- 
mens I should say that both sexes were rose-colored when adult, 
but others have described the females as plain colored, like the 
young males. 

In the garden of the convent of St. Catherine there were a few 
birds but nothing that we had not seen before. A side trip to Um 
Shomer, a high mountain in the south, took us over an absolutely 
birdless region with nothing but Desert Larks and Crag Martins 
at the rarest intervals. One morning at sunrise I found myself 
high up on a spur of Um-Shomer. I thought I never had seen such 
desolate grandeur. Westward about fifty miles of the Gulf of Suez 
was in sight, bathed in a light mist, while a long stretch of the Gulf 
of Akaba limited the east and northeast view, backed by the low. 
peaked mountains of Midian. The whole rugged south end of 
Sinai was spread out like a relief map, and not a sound came to my 
ears.— A single Eagle soared about the crags of Um-Shomer, 
perhaps looking for a young ibex, but he was all alone. Far out 
on the Gulf of Suez as the mist cleared I could see with my glass 
the big steamers plying to the ends of the world. . 

Some of the scarcity of birds in Sinai may have been due to lack 
of rain. Usually rain and snow fall every winter, but now for 
several years there has been practically a continual drought. The 
vegetation is much reduced and every sayal tree is cut back for 
camel food. 

From the convent to Akaba at the head of the long gulf of that 
name, we did not see many birds. For days we journeyed along 
the beach of the gulf meeting very rarely a Sandpiper, or one or two 
European Kingfishers. At intervals there were groups of palm 
trees with a few Warblers, Chats and Wheatears about them. 

At Akaba we had to wait eight days for our mules. A long palm 
grove and the remains of quite a large town with a Turkish fort 


x 


Romer | Puiuurrs, Birds of Sinai. 277 


stretches along the beach. The place is interesting to students of 
migration for it seems to be on the great highway from northeast 
Africa up the great Dead Sea depression to Palestine, and so over 
western Asia. We took a good many birds here, among them a 
Land Rail in a half dead condition, a Baillon’s Crake, one specimen 
of the rare Audouin’s Gull, here far east and south of its eastern 
limit, a stray Burgomaster Gull, also well south of its range, some 
Dunlins and Greenshank and a couple of Garganey Teal. One 
night we saw coming north up the gulf the most extraordinary 
flock of hawks I have ever heard of. We judged there were 1500 
to 1800 scattered out over a wide area. We shot four and they 
were of one species, the Levant Sparrow Hawk. Such a flock must 
have been migrating from Africa or perhaps south Arabia, but the 
species has only been taken once or twice in Egypt and never 
elsewhere in Africa. 

Among the palm trees hundreds of splendid European Bee- 
eaters with their tuneful chirping were constantly at work on a 
small sand beetle that was just then having its nuptial flight. 
We saw here for the first time the curious awkward Hopping 
Thrush, a pale thrasher-like bird that seems really ashamed of its 
power of flight. It is another of the characteristic Dead Sea 
species. 

There were a good many Fan-tailed Ravens here and many 
migrating Blue-headed Wagtails, besides other birds that need 
not be mentioned. The Fan-tailed Raven has a curious flight and 
sometimes tumbles like the Roller. Tristram describes its note as 
rich and musical. A careful two months’ collecting in the Akaba 
palms at the proper season would produce a very rich collection of 
migrants. 

Between Akaba and Petra our advance guard was robbed, and 
the Arabian soldier with it was shot and left for dead by the robbers. 
This was at the rise of the great plateau which bounds the eastern 


_ side of the desert of Arabah, always a bad region. 


Once on top of the cliffs you reach a cold and windy region and 
see the first traces of rude cultivation. We did no more collecting 
till we reached Petra, that famous old city of the Nabataeans. 

Petra is in the middle of one of the many canyons that lead down 
from the great Arabian plateau to the Dead Sea basin. There is 


278 Puiuuips, Birds of Sinai. eres 


running water and a good deal of vegetation — even juniper trees 
among the crags. ‘The place is justly famous as a goal for tourists 
and is destined to be much visited in the future. Here we found a 
great many migrants and saw for the first time the Palestine Sun- 
bird. This truly African bird pushes up through the Dead Sea 
basin and has been found in summer as far north as Beyrout. In 
the cliffs of Petra were colonies of that noisy and disagreeable Rock 
Sparrow, Petronia petronia, and occasionally a pair of ‘Tristram’s 
Grackles, whose song has been so greatly admired by nearly all 
travellers in southern Palestine. Here again we met a good number 
of rose finches, although they have never been recorded outside 
Sinai before. These Petra finches turn out to be so much smaller 
than the Sinai birds that I have ventured to give them a new name. 
At Petra, too, the tamarisk bushes were full of migrating gold- 
finches and black capped warblers, and from this time on, the gold- 
finch became the commonest bird. The blue-rock pigeons, which 
I have not mentioned before, were found here and there in Sinai, 
and at Petra and farther north there were many, but wary toa 
degree. I never could account for the wariness of all species of 
birds hereabouts, a fact commented upon by Zedlitz, (1912). 

We had such hard luck with our mouse traps at Petra that we 
had to pull them up. The jackals robbed the line as neatly as the 
wolverines of our northern wilds are said to do. 

From Petra our road lay along the edge of the great Moab 
plateau. The barley was nearly ripe and the fields were full of | 
Larks and Ortolans with here and there a Stork. These latter 
were astonishingly tame. 

At Wady Kerak we made a side-trip to the south end of the Dead 
Sea. The heat there was really very trying but we obtained a 
few birds, among them the rare little Moabitic Sparrow whose 
range is perhaps the smallest in the world, as it is only known from 
a few patches of jungle in this immediate region. He looks like a 
gaudy but miniature English Sparrow with a yellow spot on each 
side of his throat. _ 

Around the south end of the Dead Sea at this time (May 7) 
there were many birds. Arabs were just harvesting their grain, 
preparatory to leaving the Dead Sea for the better climate of the 
uplands. There were many Turtle-Doves, Blue-rocks, Hey’s 


| Puiutuips, Birds of Sinai. 279 
Partridges, Egyptian Quail, European Rollers, Great Grey Shrikes, 
Crested Larks, Wheatears, Goat-suckers, and three species of 
Swallows, the Common European, the Red-rumped, and the Dead 
Sea Crag-Martin. 

After we left Kerak we hurried on to Jerusalem, crossing many of 
the Dead Sea ravines, now filled with oleanders in full bloom. The 
olive groves of the various towns we passed through were well 
supplied with birds, and resounded with the songs of Goldfinches 
and Black-caps, while Greater Tits and many common warblers 
were present in large numbers. The only rarity we took was the 
Barred Warbler, which apparently has not before been taken in 
Palestine. 

We reached Jerusalem on May 15 and after this the only birds 
collected were taken by Mr. Mann from the Mt. Herman region 
west of Damascus. 

The total number of species in the collection is ninety. 


STRUTHIONID. 


Struthio camelus Linn. OstricH.— Ostrich eggs were common 
among the Arabs at Maan, on the Hadj Railroad. I was told that they 
came from the desert two days’ journey east and northeast of that town. 


Phasianide. 


Caccabis chukar synaica (Bp.). CHuKAR PartTrRIDGE— One <; 
Madeba, May 10. This specimen is the same as the Jerusalem series in the 
Selah Merrill Coll., Museum Comparative Zodlogy, and only a little different 
from a Kurdestan specimen. It is much paler than birds from northern 
India. The chukar is scarce in Sinai but plentiful along the crest of the 
Moab plateau. 

Ammoperdix heyi (Temm.). Hry’s Partringe; SErE-sre.— Four 
specimens; Wady Hamer, Sinai, April 9, Wady Kerak, Dead Sea, May 5. 

These two pairs, one from Sinai, the other from the Dead Sea, differ 
markedly; enough to suggest two forms. Comparison with the Selah 
Merrill series of over 30 in the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy, taken near 
Jerusalem, does not bear this out, for this series shows a great range of 
color. Some males are much darker all over than others; some females 
are barred all over the under parts, while some are nearly plain buff-colored. 
Nicoll (Ibis, 1909, p. 640) in discussing the African form A. h. cholmleyi 
O. Grant, refers to the presence or absence of white lores and forehead in 
Egyptian specimens. A. h. cholmleyi is supposed to lack the white lores 


280 Puiuures, Birds of Sinai. Rete 


and forehead, but Nicoll shows that this is not constant at least for Egypt. 
The type locality of A. h. cholmleyi, however, is near Suakin, Sudan (O. 
Grant, Hand-Book of Game Birds, Vol. II, p. 294), where it is conceivable 
that a form different from the Egyptian one may exist. At any rate the 
Jerusalem series shows no variation in the white lores and forehead. 

Coturnix coturnix coturnix (Linn.). Eayptian Quatt.— One 0; 
Moses Wells, Suez, March 23. Seen only at above place and around 
Dead Sea. 


Pteroclidide. 


Pterocles lichtensteini arabicus Neumann.—One .; Akaba, 
April 14. 

The type locality of the true lichtensteini is from Nubia (Temm. Coll., PL., 
Vol. V, pls. 25-26). This is based on Lichtenstein (Verz. Doubletten 1823, 
p. 65). Nubia as used there included Sennar and part of Abyssinia and 
was rather a vague term. 

In 1905 Erlanger (J. F. O., 1905, p. 92) separated a race, P. 1. hyperythrus, 
from southern Somaliland, at the same time limiting P. 1. lichtensteini to 
northern Abyssinia and northern Somaliland. 

Later on Neumann described two other forms, arabicus from southern 
Arabia and sukensis from East Africa (Ornith. Monatsbr., 1909, p. 152). 

My single specimen, taken from a flock of 10 or 12 birds on the Sinai side 
of the gulf near Akaba, extends somewhat the northwesterly range of the 
species. There are other specimens collected by Burton in “ Midian ” 
and at Jedda (Shelley Coll.). 

I have for comparison seven males from Hawash R.., northern Abyssinia, 
and six males from British East Africa, besides a number of females. 
These specimens are mostly from the U.S. Nat. Mus. collection. The 
first series is not far from the type locality of P. l. lichtensteini and the 
second series should represent P. 1. swkensis. 

The form arabicus which my own specimen represents is said to differ 
from true lichtensteini by a general lighter and brighter color. The upper 
tan-colored breast band of the same shade as the lower breast band, and 
not darker as in P. l. lichtensteini. 'The lower black band, separating 
breast from abdomen, much reduced or nearly absent, and the abdomen 
itself lighter. The golden bars on the upper side as wide or wider than the 
black bands, etc. In my specimen, however, not all of these characters are 
present, for the species is itself extremely variable. The lower black breast 
band is not reduced but the belly is lighter than any of the African speci- 
mens. The lower tan-colored breast band is very similar in color to the 
upper band, but in the type species, the two areas sometimes closely re- 
semble each other. The character of barring on the upper side is a very 
variable one and I should say of little value in separating arabicus from 
lichtensteini. The only constant character then, as far as my series goes, 
is the very light belly area of the Arabian race. 


Me i aad Purups, Birds of Sinai. 281 


P. l. sukensis would appear to be a very poorly marked southern race of 
the type species. I have seen no specimens from the locality of P. l. 
hyperythrus. 


CoLUMBID2. 


Columba livia schimperi Bp. Rock Picron.— This form, now 
confined to Sinai (Zedlitz, Jour. fiir. Ornith., 1912), and also C. I. pales- 
tine Zedlitz from Palestine, were probably both taken. None were pre- 
served, so I can throw no light upon the existence of these two forms, 
whose validity must still be open to question. 

Turtur turtur (Linn.). Tourtte Dove.— One <; Shobek, April 30. 
Met with in large numbers in the Dead Sea gorges. 


RALLID&. 


Crex crex (Linn.). Corn Crake.— Pair; Akaba, April 19; Shobek, 
Palestine, April 30. 

Porzana pusilla Pall. Bar~uon’s Crakn,— One 2; Akaba, April 20. 
According to Reichenow there may be a resident form of this species in 
Africa. 


LARID. 


Larus hyperboreus Gunnerus. Guaucus Guiu.— One <; Akaba, 
April 18. A far southern record for this gull. 

Larus audouini Payraudeau. Avupovuin’s Gutt.— One 92; Akaba, 
April 21. Wing 15.5 in.; bill 2.4; tarsus 2.25; tail 6.5. This rare gull 
is east and southeast of its known range in the Western Mediterranean. 
Its eastern limit is the Greek Islands but most, if not all, of the specimens 
have come from west of Italy. Tristram is quoted as having observed 
the bird at Malta and Dresser says it has been seen near Cairo. 


LIMICOLz. 
Pelidna alpina alpina (Linn.). Duniin.— One 1; Akaba, April 17. 
Tringa nebularia Gunner. GREENSHANK.— One 92; Akaba, April 20. 
ARDEIFORMES. 


Pyrrherodias purpurea (Linn.). PurpLe Heron.— One o&; Akaba, 
April 18. 
ANATIDE. 


Querquedula circia (Linn.). GarGanny Teau.— Two shot at Akaba, 
April 17. 


282 Puiuuips, Birds of Sinai. eves 


FALCONIDZ. 


Astur brevipes Severtzoff. Lrvanr Sparrow Hawx.— Four & 0; 
Akaba, April 20. A flock of 1200 to 1800 apparently all of this species seen 
migrating north on this date. This bird is very rare in Egypt and has not 
been taken in Africa (outside Egypt). This migration was perhaps from 
southern Arabia. The specimens were very fat but their stomachs were 
empty. 

Cerchneis tinnunculus (Linn.) Kestrer—One .; Tafeleh, 
southern Palestine, May 3. 


STRIGID#. 


Strix butleri Hume. Burier’sOw.. (Plate XVII).— One 7; Wady 
Feran, Sinai, March 31. Wing, 245 mm., tarsus, 48 mm., tail, 150 mm. 
This specimen, apparently an adult male, was brought into camp alive by 
an Arab. It constitutes the third known record of this extremely rare owl. 
In size it seems to be the same as both the other specimens. In color also 
it corresponds very closely with Hartert’s description (Vogel der Pal. 
Fauna, p. 1027) and this description is based on both the other specimens. 
From Hume’s original description of the type (Stray Feathers, VII, p. 316) 
my specimen apparently differs in having the first primary less plain 
colored and more like the others as to its barring. 

Hume’s bird came from Omara, on the Mekran coast of southern Balu- 
chistan in 1878; the skin was badly damaged. In 1879 Tristram (Stray 
Feathers, VIII, p. 417) discovered one other skin that had remained un- 
identified in his own collection for ten years. This one was from Mt. 
Sinai (exact locality not given). 

This owl must be a rock-living bird. The plate shows typical Feran 
scenery with Mt. Serbal in the background. 


HALCYONID#. ‘ 


Alcedo ispida pallida Brehm. KincrisHpr.— Two oc’; Akaba, 
April 15. Zedlitz (1912) in his work on Sinai, throws out this rather poorly 
marked form. The beak is usually thinner and more pointed than in the 
western birds. 


MEROPID&. 


Merops apiaster Linn. EvuropEaN B&rxE-BATER.— Three; Akaba, 
April 16. 


CAPRIMULGID. 


Caprimulgus europeus meridionalis Hartert. Nicut-sjar.— One 
o'; Wady Kerak, Palestine, May 5. : 


i A 
ede | Puiuurres, Birds of Sinai. 283 


MIcROPODID. 


Apus apus apus (Linn.). Swirr.— Three 9 2; Shobek, Palestine, 
April 30. These are the same size as examples from England. They 
might be referred to the marwetzi of Reichenow but that race is poorly 
marked and our material is insufficient. i 

Apus murinus murinus (Brehm). Pati Swirt.— One 2; Shobek, 
April 30. 


HIRUNDINIDZ. 


Chelidon rustica rustica Linn. Swattow. Five; Akaba, April 14; 
ain Hodra, Sinai, April 10; Wady Ain Heisha, Syria, May 31. 

Chelidon rustica transitiva Hartert. PaLtestiInsE SwaLLow.— One 
9; Nuheibeh, Sinai, April 13. 

Chelidon daurica rufula (Temm.). Rep-RuMpED SwaLLow.— One 
pair; Dead Sea, May 6; Madeba, May 10. 

Hirundo urbica urbica Linn. Hovuss Martin.— Five; Petra, South 
Palestine, April 28-29; Shtdéra, Syria, June 8. 

Riparia riparia riparia (Linn.). Sanp Martin.— Four; Moses 
Wells, Suez, March 23. 

Riparia obsoleta obsoleta (Cab.). Pate Crac-Martin.— Five; 
Gharandel, Sinai, March 25; Wady Feran, March 31; Petra, April 27; 
Wady Hisa, May 3. 


MUSCICAPIDS. 

Muscicapa striata neumanni Poche. Eastern Sporrep FLty- 
CATCHER.— Nine; Petra, April 28; Wady Hisa, May 4; several Syrian 
localities, May and June. 

BRACHYPODID. 

Picnonotus capensis xanthopygos (Hemp. & Erlich.). PALESTINE: 

Buipuu.— Pair; Wady Feran, March 31. 


TIMELIID. 


Crateropus squamiceps squamiceps (Cretzschm.). HopPina 
TurusH.— One 9; Akaba, April 21. 


TROGLODYTID. 
\ 


Nannus troglodytes pallidus Hume. Wren.— Two <<; Sheba, 
Syria, May 25. : 
These two specimens appear to belong to this form as nearly as can be 


284 Puituies, Birds of Sinai. [Fay 


told from Hartert’s description (Vog. d. Pal. Fauna, p. 781). Certainly 
they are not like N. t. cypriotes from Cyprus. They are not red-brown like 
the European examples and are pale and nearly unbanded on the lower 
sides. The wing is 46 and 48mm. The wren is very rare in Syria. 


TURDID2. 


Monticola saxatilis (Linn.). Rock THruso.— Two 1%; Wady 
Feran, March 31; Shobek, Palestine, May 1. 

Monticola solitarius solitarius (Linn.). Biur THrRusH.— Pair; 
Wady Feran, Sinai, March 31. 

Phenicurus phenicurus phenicurus (Linn.). RepstTart.— Six; 
Wady Feran, March 31; Monastery, Sinai, April 9; Akaba, April 21; 
Shobek, Palestine, April 30; Ain Gleidat, May 2. 

Luscinia luscinia (Linn.). NigHtTincate.— Three; Petra, April 28; 
El Katuma, Syria, May 20; Mimis, Syria, May 30. 

Cercomela melanura melanura Temm. PALESTINE BLACKSTART.— 
Seven; Wady Feran and Wady Saal, Sinai, March 29-31, April 7. 

Gnanthe cnanthe rostrata Hemp. & Ehrb. Wueatrear.— Ten; 
Gharandel, March 25; Wady Feran, March 31; El Hawa, April 3; Nu- 
huibeh, April 13; Akaba, April 20. The wing bands of these specimens 
are not very apparent, so that one of the characters of this race is lacking. 
The bills are 17 to 18 mm., a little short. This poorly marked form mi- 
grates to Egypt, Somaliland and German East Africa. It is a variable 
race as Tristram and Hartert have both pointed out. 

Gnanthe isabellina (Cretzschm.). IsSABELLINE WHEATEAR.— One 7; 
Shobek, Palestine, May 1. 

Gnanthe lugens lugens (Licht.). Pimp CHat.— One <; Shobek, 
May 1. 

Gnanthe leucopyga (Brehm). WuiITE-RuMPED CHat.— Three; Wady 
Feran, April 1; Wady Garbeh, April 2. 

Gnanthe monacha (Temm.). Hoopep CHat.— Two; Wady Feran, 
March 29; Nuheibeh, April 13. : 

Cnanthe melanoleuca finchii (Heugl.). Buack-THRoATED WHEAT- 
EAR.— Four; Ain Hodra, Sinai, April 10; Akaba, April 19; Tafileh, 
May 3; Shiba, Syria, May 25. 


SILVIID. 


Agrabates galoctotes galoctotes (Temm.). Rurous WaARBLER.— 
Two oo; Shobek, April 30; Rasheya, Syria, May 21. 

Locustella fluviatilis (Wolf). River Warpier.— One <, Tafileh, 
southern Palestine, May 3. This rather rare bird was taken by Tristram 
in northern Palestine. 

Acrocephalus strepera strepera (Vieill.). REED WaARBLER.— Two}; 


Me ral Puruuies, Birds of Sinai. 285 


Hibariyeh, Syria, May 28. One of the specimens is certainly a breeding 
bird. Tristram mentions the species but it has not definitely been recorded 
from Palestine. 

Hippolais languida (Hemp. & Ehr.). Upcuer’s WarsBier.— Three; 
Rasheya, Syria, May 21, June 1. 

Hippolais pallida pallida (Hemp. & Ehrb.). Onivacrous WARBLER. 
— Five; Akaba, April 16; Tafileh May 2; Wady Hisa, May 3; Litany 
River, Syria, June 4. 

Sylvia nisoria nisoria (Bechst.). BARRED WarRBLER.— One <0; 
Shobek, May 1. The wing is 84 mm., which is small, so that it does not 
belong to the rather doubtful eastern race, Merzbacheri. 

This rather local bird has not been recorded from Palestine before, but 
has been taken in Asia Minor, Persia, and central Asia. The winter 
quarters of the eastern breeding birds are unknown. 

Sylvia communis icterops Ménétr. Eastern WHITE-THROAT.— 
Two; Wady Gazella, Sinai, April 10. Saghbin, Syria, June 5. 

These are the same as the Selah Merrill series from Jerusalem; not so 
red-brown on the back as European birds. 

Sylvia ruppelli Temm. Rvupprr.y’s Warsier.— Nine; Gharandel, 
March 25; Moses Wells, March 23; Wady Feran, March 27-28; Wady 
Gharbeh, April 2. 

Sylvia hortensis crassirostris Cretzschm. ORPHEAN WARBLER.— 
Two; base of Mt. Hermon, Syria, June 2. 

Sylvia curruca curruca  (Linn.). Lesser WHITE-THROAT.— Six; 
Moses Wells, March 22-23; Wady Feran, March 27-31; Ammik, Syria, 
June 6. : 

Sylvia atricapilla atricapilla (Linn.). Buacxk-cap.— Eight; Akaba 
April 16-18; Petra, April 27-29; Tafileh, May 2; Rasheya, Syria, May 21. 

Phylloscopus sibilatrix sibilatrix (Bechst.). Woop-WrENn.— One 9; 
Tafileh, May 2. 

Phylloscopus bonelli orientalis (Brehm.). Bonmiii’s WARBLER.— 
Gharandel, March 25; Wady Feran, Sinai, March 27-30; Wady Saal, 
April 8. 

Phylloscopus collybita (Vieill.). Cairr CHarr.— Three; Wady 
Gharandel, March 25; Petra, April 27. The wing of the o is62, 9 2 56 
and 57. They are therefore rather too small for P. c. abietina (Nilss.), the 
eastern race. In color they resemble specimens from England and they 
are certainly no paler. I cannot make out the eastern race from my 
material. 


LANIID&. 


Lanius excubitor aucheri\Bp. Great Grey Su#rike.— Four; 
Wady Gharandel, March 25; Wady Feran, April 1; Wady Haman, Sinai, 
April 9. 

Lanius nubicus (Licht.). Maskep Sarike.— Two; Akaba, April 
16-20. 


286 Puiuuips, Birds of Sinai. [fas 


Lanius senator niloticus (Bp.). Eastern Woop-cuat SHRikE.— 
Five; Tafileh, Palestine, May 2 and 3; Ammik, Syria, June 6; Baneyas, 
Syria, May 28. 

Lanius collurio collurio Linn. Rep-BackeD SHRIKE.—One dg; 
Wady Hisa, May 4. 


PARID=. 


Parus major terresanctze Hart. PALEesTINE GREAT-TIT.— Two; 
Tafileh, Palestine, May 2-3. 


NECTARINID. 


Cinnyris osea Bp. PaLEsTINE SuN-BIRD.— One <; Petra, April 27. 
I found this a rare bird. 


MOorvraciLuip2. 


Motacilla alba alba Linn. Waite Wactart.— Three; Moses Wells, 
Suez, March 23; Wady Feran, April 1; Abu Sweira, Sinai, April 13. 

Budytes flava flava Linn. BLuE-HEADED WaectTaiLt.— Four; Wady 
Feran, Sinai, March 31; Akaba, April 19-21; Shobek, Palestine; April 30. 

Budytes melanocephala Licht. BLAcK-HEADED WaGTAIL.— One 0; 
Wady Feran; Sinai, March 29. 

Anthus trivialis (Linn.). Tren-Prprr.— Five; Wady Feran, Sinai, 
March 31; Wady El Ain, April 12; Nuheibeh, Sinai, April 13; Akaba, 
April 15. 

Anthus campestris campestris (Linn.). Tawny Prpir.— One; Ain 
Gleidat, Palestine, May 2. 


ALAUDID. 


Otocorys alpestris bicornis Brehm. Mr. Herman Hornep LARK.— 
Two oo’; Mt. Hermon, May 24. 

Melanocorypha calandra calandra (Linn.). Cananpra LARK.— 
Three; El Kerak, Palestine, May 7; Saghbin, Syria, June 5; Ammik, 
Syria, June 6. 

Melanocorypha bimaculata. Ménéts. Eastern CaLANDRA LARK.— 
Two; Ammik, Syria, June 6; Rasheya, Syria, June 2. 

Calandra brachydactyla brachydactyla Leisl. SHort-romp LAarK.— 
Two oo’; Ain Gleidat, Palestine, May 2; Madeba, Palestine, May 10. - 

Ammomanes deserti katherine Zedlitz. Sinat Dsesert LarK.— 
Three; Wady Feran, Sinai, March 29; Monastery, Sinai, April 3. 

Zedlitz has described this form from the high parts of Sinai and thinks 
it differs from the lark around the low deserts of Suez and Egypt, A. d. 
isabellina. He writes that it has a more lively voice and its wings make a 
whistling sound when it flies! It is said to be more grey and less red on 
the upper side than isabellina, and with a larger bill than fraterculus of 


Mel ee Puiuurrs, Birds of Sinai. 287 


Palestine. Its coloration is described as the same as that of fraterculus. 
All these forms are certainly poorly marked, but Sinai birds can at least 
be told from Palestine ones by their larger bills. It appears somewhat 
doubtful whether a mountain and a desert form can exist side by side in 
Sinai for there would be apt to be a seasonal movement up and down the 
mountains. 


FRINGILLID2. 


Chloris chloris chlorotica (Bp.). PALESTINE GREEN FincH. Eight; 
Mt. Hermon region, May 22—June 7. 

Carduelis carduelis carduelis (Linn.). Goutprincu.— Three; Petra, 
April 27; Ammik, Syria, June 6. 

Petronia petronia puteicola (Festa). PALESTINE Rock SPARROW.— 
Four; Petra, April 27-29; Rasheya, Syria, May 21. 

Carpospiza brachydactyla (Bp.). Dessert Rock Sparrow.— One o, 
Rasheya, Syria, May 21. 

Acanthis cannabina fringillirostris (Bp. and Schleg.). Eastern 
Linnet.— Seven; Mt. Hermon region, May 24-25. 

Passer domesticus indicus Jardin & Selby. EAsterN Hous Spar- 
Row.— One o; Tafeileh, Palestine, May 2. Wing 75 mm., cheeks pure 
white. This specimen is too small for biblicus of Palestine and Syria. It 
appears to be typical indicus. The head cap is very dark grey as in all old 
birds. 

The exact range of P. d. indicus is still in doubt. Hartert thought that 
southern Arabian specimens belonged to this form, which extends over 
India, Persia and China, but becomes intermediate to P. d. domesticus in 
the Transcaspian region. 

Lorenz and Hellmayr (Denkschrif akad. der Wissenschaften, 1907, p. 
106) describe a new subspecies of house sparrow from southern Arabia, 
east of Aden. From their description I cannot see that this is anything 
more than an early winter plumage of indicus. It certainly is very close 
to indicus and differs only in being “ brighter.’ 

Zedlitz, 1912, in his work on Sinai birds (Jour. fiir Ornith., 1912, p. 566), 
takes up this question. He quotes Le Roi as saying that Sinai sparrows 
do not conform to biblicus or indicus and still less to the niloticus of Nicoll & 
Bonhote. Zedlitz’s own single specimen from Sinai and five others col- 
lected by Koenig, were, he says, small and not like biblicus. 

He arranges the sparrows of Western Asia as follows: 

1. Simai and southern Palestine. Much smaller than biblicus o&. 
Wing, 80; 2, 74-79. Color whiter than niloticus, ear coverts grey. 

2. P. biblicus; confined to Syria and Palestine. Large. Wing, 82-84. 
Ear coverts light grey. . 

3. Asia Minor Sparrow. (Hight specimens.) Wing, 78-81. Ear 
coverts almost white, or extremity light grey. 

4. P. indicus; India & Persia, limits not known. Size small, like Sinai 


288 Puiturps, Birds of Sinai. [aa 


birds. Wing, 74-78. Ear coverts mostly pure white like the sparrow of 
Asia Minor. 

Larger series are necessary to clear up the disputed points. 

Passer hispaniolensis transcaspicus Tschusi. SpanisH SPARROW.— 
Six; Wady Gharandel, Sinai, March 26; Feran, March 31; Mt. Hermon 
region, Syria, May 22-25. 

Passer maobiticus maobiticus Tristr. Drap Sea Sparrow.— One 
(sex?); mouth of Wady Kerak, May 8. I think this specimen comes from 
a region a little north of the known range of this sparrow. Wady Safye 
is the nearest point south, where it has been taken. I saw only this one 
bird in the cane jungles at the edge of the sea; there may have been many 
more sparrows in this cane, however, as the jungle is almost impenetrable 
at this point. 

Serinus syriacus Bp. Syrian Canary. One o; Ammik, Syria, 
June 7. 

Carpodacus synoicus (Temm.). Srnart Rose Frncu.— Seven; Pass 
of Hawa, Sinai, April 3; Petra, April 27-29. 

This species does not appear to have been taken outside of the Sinai 
Peninsula before; but I found it common at Petra and secured five speci- 
mens there. These birds are smaller than Sinai specimens. Wing, 81 to. 
84 mm.; exposed culmen, 9 to 9.5; tarsus, 19; tail, 65-69. 

Temminck’s type was taken near ‘“‘ Mt. Sinai”? and was presumably 
drawn to scale (Temm. Pl. Col. 375). The wing on the plate measures 
87 mm. Hartert gives the wing of this species as 86-89. The wings of 
my Sinai adults are 85 mm. I therefore propose the name of 


Carpodacus synoicus petre, SUB. SPEC. NOV. 


for the northern birds, separated as they are from! Sinai, by the great low 
desert of the Arabah. 

Type, & No. 66024, Mus. Comp. Zoél., collected at Petra, southern 
Palestine, April 28, 1914, by J. C. Phillips. \ 

Characters. Like C. s. synoica (Temm.) but smaller, especially in the 
wing and bill. Wing, 84 mm. or under; bill shorter and narrower; exposed 
culmen, 9-9.5; tarsus, 19 mm. Rosy parts of the plumage slightly paler 
and more pinkish. 

I am somewhat in doubt about the plumage of the adult females in these 
two forms. It has always been given as plain brown, like the young males, 
but I carefully sexed one of my adult rosey specimens as a female. The 
proportion of rosy birds as I saw them in the wild was rather too large for 
the supposition that only old second year males attain this plumage. 

Emberiza hortulana. Orrotan Buntinc.—Four; Akaba, April 15- 
18; Ain Abu-Heran, April 23; Petra, April 29. 

Emberiza cesia Cretzschm. CretrzscHmMars Buntinc.— Three; Syria,. 
May 27-30. : 

Emberiza melanocephala Scop. BLack-HEADED BunTING.— Eleven). 
Mt. Hermon region, Syria, May 27, June 7. 


Cor eee Puiturs, Birds of Sinai. 289 


EULABETID. 


Amydrus tristramitristrami (Scl.). Tristram’s GRACKLE.— One 0’; 
Wady Kerak, Dead Sea, May 7. 


CorvID2. 


Covus affinis Riipp. Fan-Tartep Raven.— One ; Akaba, April 18. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE REGION. 


TristrAM, H. B. Fauna and Flora of Palestine. London, 1884. 

Wyatt, C. W. Notes on the Birds of the Peninsula of Sinai. Ibis, 1870, 
joy Ue 

Hart, C. Fauna and Flora of Sinai, Petra and Wady Arabah. London, 
1891. 

CarruTHERS, D. Ona collection of birds from the Dead Sea and North- 
west Arabia. Ibis, 1910, 475. 

Zepuitz, O. Grar. Von Suez zum Sankt Katherinen-Kloster. Jour. 
fir Ornith., 1912, p. 325. 


Auk 


290 SHUFELDT, Remains of Hesperornis. July 


THE FOSSIL REMAINS OF A SPECIES OF HESPERORNIS 
FOUND IN MONTANA. 


BY R. W. SHUFELDT, M.D. 
Plate XVIII. 


Earzy in November, 1914, Mr. Charles W. Gilmore, who has 
charge of the fossil birds and reptiles in the Division of Paleontology 
of the United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., sent 
me a fossil vertebra, which was collected when he was associated 
with Dr. T. W. Stanton on an expedition in Montana during the 
early autumn of 1914. This vertebra, when received by me, was 
labeled thus: 

“Coniornis altus Marsh, Lumbar vertebra, Dog Creek, 1 mi. 
above its mouth, Fergus County, Montana. Cretaceous Clagget 
formation (upper yellowish sandstone) September 26, 1914.” T. 
W. Stanton, C. W. Gilmore. All. No.” 

There being no proper material in the collections of the U. S. 
National Museum wherewith to compare this vertebra, I studied it 
as best I could through comparing the fossil bone with the figures 
given by Marsh in his Odontornithes. This comparison convinced 
me of the fact that the vertebra belonged to some medium-sized 
Hesperornis; further, that it more closely resembled the 23d 
vertebra of the spinal column of Hesperornis regalis than it did any 
other vertebra, and I was therefore led to believe that it was the 
corresponding vertebra of some species of Hesperornis, smaller 
than H. regalis, probably of a species heretofore undescribed. 

As I knew that Doctor Richard 8. Lull, of the Peabody Museum, 
was engaged upon a study of the Hesperornithide, at the time this 
bone came to me for study, I determined to refer it to him for an 
opinion. This I did with a letter dated at Washington, D. C., the 
10th of November, 1914. 

Doctor Lull very kindly made an exhaustive study of this fossil 
vertebra, and returned it to me with a letter of transmittal, dated 
November 20, 1914. At the close of his communication on the 
subject, he says: “I will lend you a cast of the 23d vertebra. of 


THE Auk. VOL. XXosie PLATE XVIII. 


REMAINS OF HESPERORNIS IN MONTANA. 


Meigs SHUFELDT, Remains of Hesperornis. 291 
H. regalis No. 1207, but as it is one of a set of casts we would like 
to have it returned when you are through with it.”’ 

Reproductions of my photographs of this cast, together with 
those of the vertebra here being considered, are exhibited on 
Plate XVIII. 

The following is Dr. Lull’s paper in full: 

“Tt is evidently the last dorsal vertebra, the 23d, hence was 
compared with the equivalent bone of three specimens of Hesper- 
ornis regalis, the mounted specimen, Cat. No. 1206, and Hesper- 
ornis Nos. 1477 and 1499. Also with the second mounted specimen, 
Lestornis crassipes, holotype, Cat. No. 1474. 

“The new bone has suffered from fracture and abrasion, by 
which certain of the fractured surfaces, e. g., stumps of the trans- 
verse processes, are smoothed over and rendered deceptive. 

“Tt is smaller than any of the four equivalent bones, though 
there is as much range among them as between the least of them 
and the new bone. 

“Tt differs from the other three but resembles No. 1477 in the 
manner in which the neural spine arises, in that the forward margin 
as preserved has a slight backward instead of a forward inclination. 
The new specimen differs from all four but resembles No. 1499 
most closely, in that the lateral walls of the centrum are not so 
deeply excavated. In No. 1499 this depression is slight, but more 
marked than in the new specimen, and its greatest depth lies 
further to the rear. There is a decided ridge leading from the 
postzygapophysis to the base of the transverse process in three of 
the vertebre. This is obsolete in the new bone and also in 1499. 

“The anterior articular face seems to be less deeply excavated 
in the new specimen than in any of the four at Yale. This differ- 
ence, however, may be more apparent than real, as the lateral 
limitations of this face are chipped and worn away. A very slight 
heemal spine is represented by a broken area in all five vertebre. 
Herein there is essential agreement. 

“Vertebra No. 1499, Hesperornis sp., comes the nearest to the 
new bone in size and general appearance, differing therefrom in 
being proportionately somewhat longer; this difference is, however, 
heightened by the broken character of the new specimen. A 
further distinction lies in the fact that, whereas in the new specimen 


~ 


292 SHUFELDT, Remains of Hesperornis. : Reve 
the prezygapophyses are buttressed by a sharp-edged ridge of bone 
extending from above the stump of the rib facets somewhat ob- 
liquely inward and upward, in 1499 there is in this place a distinct 
transverse crease instead of a vertical buttress. A rounded vertical 
forward margin in place of the sharp-edged buttress characterizes 
the other three Yale specimens, and the crease in 1499 may have, 
been accentuated if not caused by the slight vertical crushing to 
which the bone has been subjected. 

“Such distinctions as I can see are.certainly not generic, and so 
far as the actual bones go, specific contrasts are hard to find. The 
distinctions between Lestornis crassipes and Hesperornis regalis, 
for instance, lie in other bones than this vertebra, so that had I the 
23d vertebree alone for comparison, I could hardly distinguish them 
specifically — certainly not generically. I am sure the new bone 
is that of a species of Hesperornis, possibly new, though this belief 
is based mainly on geographic rather than on anatomical distinc- 
tion. 

“The bone No. 1499 is not specifically determined if it is not 
H. regalis.” 

With reference to the exact locality, where this vertebra was 
found, and other data, Mr. Charles W. Gilmore has given me the 
following valuable and interesting information. ‘‘The vertebra 
(Cat. No. 8199) was found by Dr. T. W. Stanton on Dog Creek, 
Montana, on the left hand side of the valley about one mile above 
its mouth. The bed from which the vertebra was collected is now 
assigned to the Claggett formation because it is marine, while the 
overlying Judith River deposits are freshwater with a few inter- 
ealated brackish-water beds. 

“The specimen is from the upper yellowish sandstone from a 
fossiliferous band containing numerous sharks’ teeth, vertebrae 
and teeth of other fishes. 

“The only other bird remains known from this area is the type 
of Coniornis altus, reported by Hatcher ! as coming from ‘near the 
base of the Judith River beds on Dog Creek.’ 

“Since the Coniornis type was collected some years prior to the 
differentiation of these exposures into successive and distinct 


1 Bull. No. 257, U. S. Geological Survey, 1905, p. 99. 


a | SHuFELDT, Remains of Hesperornis. 293 
) 

formations, it is quite probable that both specimens came from the 
same geological level.’ 

Professor Marsh was firmly convinced that the great toothed 
divers of the extinct genus Hesperornis were confined to the Creta- 
ceous Beds of Kansas. So tenacious was he of this opinion that, 
when the fossil remains of a big extinct diver came into his posses- 
sion, having been collected in Montana by Hatcher, he was very 
loath to consider it a species of Hesperornis, notwithstanding the 
fact that the fossil bones presented strong hesperornithine char- 
acters. He therefore created a new genus — Contornis — to 
contain it. 

Now the vertebra found by Doctor Stanton has been shown by 
Doctor Lull and myself to have undoubtedly belonged to a species 
of Hesperornis, and the specimen practically presents the same 
characters as the fossil vertebra of a Hesperornis in the Yale Uni- 
versity collection, No. 1499, though there are a few appreciable 
differences. 

Up to the present time, science has nothing to show by way of 
proof that the long bones, described by Marsh as belonging to a big 
extinct diver which he named Coniornis altus, belonged to the same 
species from an individual of which came the vertebra discovered 
by Doetor Stanton. 

Basing my opinion on the proportions existing between the 23d 
vertebra of Hesperornis regalis and the tibio-tarsus in that species — 
as compared with the proportions of the vertebra here being con- 
sidered and with the tibio-tarsus of the species Marsh described as 
Coniornis altus — 1 should say that the vertebra found by Doctor 
Stanton belonged to a somewhat smaller species of Hesperornis 
than did the long bones of Marsh’s Coniornis, which latter is also a 
Hesperornis as I have elsewhere pointed out. 

I herewith propose a provisional name for this apparently new 
species of Hesperornis, basing it upon the vertebra described in this 
paper. I suggest the name for it of Hesperornis montana. 

Possibly, in the future, more fossil material of the Hesperornithide 
may be found in the above named formation in Montana; and this 
material may go to show that all the forms here named and con- 
sidered belonged to the same species, they being distinguished only 
by such differences as may have been due to age and sex. On the 


Auk 


294 SHUFELDT, Remains of Hesperornis. July 


other hand — and what appears to me to be more likely — the 
discovery of additional material may conclusively prove that the 
several individuals here considered were distinct species, which now, 
at least, seems evident in the case of the one numbered 1499 in the 
Yale Museum. 


Puate XVIII. 


[All the figures in the Plate are reduced to about three-fourths the actual 
size of the specimens shown. R. W.S.] 


Fia. 3. Left lateral view of the cast of the 23d vertebra of Hesperornis 
regalis. Belongs to a set in the collection of Yale University Museum. 
Other views of this cast are given in Figs. 5, 7, 9 and 11. 

Fic. 4. Direct left lateral view of the vertebra of Hesperornis montana. 
Other views of this fossil bone are given in Figs. 6, 8, 10 and 12. 

Fia. 5. Direct anterior view of the cast of the 23d vertebra of Hesper- 
ornis regalis. Same specimen as Fig. 3 and others. 

Fic. 6. Direct anterior view of the 23d vertebra of Hesperornis mon- 
tana. Same as shown in Fig. 4 and others. 

Fic. 7. Direct posterior view of the cast of the 23d vertebra of Hesper- 
ornis regalis. Same specimen as Fig. 5 and others. 

Fig. 8. Direct posterior view of the 23d vertebra of Hesperornis 
montana. Same fossil as shown in Fig. 6 and others. 

Fia. 9. Direct dorsal view of the cast of the 23d vertebra of Hesper- 
ornis regalis. Same specimen as shown in Fig. 7 and others. 

Fig. 10. Direct dorsal view of the 23d vertebra of Hesperornis montana. 
Same fossil as shown in Fig. 8 and others. 

Fie. 11. Direct ventral view of the cast of the 23d vertebra of Hesper- 
ornis regalis. Same specimen as shown in Fig. 7 and others. 

Fic. 12. Direct ventral view of the 23d vertebra of Hesperornis mon- 
tana. Same fossil as shown in Fig. 8 and others. 


“aNV'IST TAULA 40 HdIS ISM AHL WOUA ANWIS]T YALSHUHO 


“XTX FLV Td’ TIX IGA aay: EAL 


Waly ee Wiuiett, Birds of Forrester Island. 295 


SUMMER BIRDS OF FORRESTER ISLAND, ALASKA. 
BY GEORGE WILLETT. 
Plates XIX-XX. 


Durine the period from May 23 to August 15, 1914, the writer 
was stationed on Forrester Island, Alaska, in the interests of the 
U.S. Biological Survey. What time could be spared from routine 
duties was occupied in study of the bird life in this most interesting 
section. The following account is taken from notes made at this 
time. 

Forrester Island is of volcanic origin, and is between four and 
five miles long by one and a half miles wide at the widest part. 
It is heavily timbered with spruce, hemlock and squaw pine from 
the water’s edge up to the top of the island, 1395 feet at the highest 
point. The island is situated in 54° 45/ north latitude, being about 
12 miles directly west of Dall Island and southwesterly from 
Prince of Wales Island, and only a short distance north of the 
Canadian boundary. There are several small islets lying a short 
distance off the main island, the most important of which are 
Petrel Island at the south end, and Cape Horn and Sea Lion Rocks, 
and Lowrie Island at the north end. Lowrie Island is low and well 
timbered, while Petrel Island is higher, more rocky and timbered 
only toward the top. 

These are all included in the Forrester Island Bird Reservation, 
as is also Wolf Rock, a bare rocky islet lying about ten miles north 
of the north end of Forrester. With the exception of this latter 
locality, all parts of the reservation were visited by the writer, 
most of them several times. Practically all the time that could be 
spared to ornithological investigation was devoted to the study of 
the water birds, consequently the notes on land birds must be 
considered very incomplete. There were more land birds in this 
locality than I have ever notéd in any other section of southeastern 
Alaska. As will be seen, however, the number of species is not 
great. 

The climate is about the same as that of adjacent sections, being 


296 WiuueTT, Birds of Forrester Island. jue 


exceedingly moist at all times, the rain fall probably closely ap- 
proaching 100 inches annually. During the past summer there 
were only occasionally days of good weather, the major part of the 
season being rainy or windy, frequently both. 

There was a camp of several hundred fishermen on the island. 
They were engaged in trolling for king salmon which were generally 
abundant. 

The following is an annotated list of birds observed. 


Gavia sp.?— Loons were noted at a distance several times during the 
summer, but I was never able to approach them closely enough to be posi- 
tive as to the species. The Pacific Loon (Gavia pacifica) was common in 
the channel west of Prince of Wales Island, May 22, evidently on the 
northward migration. 

Lunda cirrhata. Turrep Purrin.— The most abundant of the 
Alcide. Estimated numbers, 35,000 pairs. This species began to deposit 
the eggs about the second week in June. The principal colonies are on the 
west side of the main island, on Petrel Island and on Cape Horn Rocks. 

The fishermen detest these birds because of their penchant for stealing 
the herring that is used as bait in trolling for salmon. After the fisherman 
has placed a fresh herring on the hook and lets the line out to trolling dis- 
tance, the puffin will dive and neatly remove the bait from the hook. I 
have seen this done when the bird was forced to go down at least fifteen 
fathoms. Apparently a puffin will attach itself to a particular trolling 
boat and will follow it for hours. The fishermen attribute to the bird a 
surprising amount of cunning. One Norwegian assured me solemnly that 
the parrot would rise up on the crest of a wave and look into the boat in 
order to count the herring therein. Their eyesight is deficient at times, 
however, as they will sometimes dive after a spoon. Frequently the puffins 
will get all the herring the fisherman has and he will be obliged to cease 
fishing or have recourse to a spoon, which latter method is not nearly so 
successful as to results. As far as I was able to ascertain, this habit of 
stealing bait is confined to this species, the Horned Puffin apparently not 
having acquired it. 

Fratercula corniculata. Hornep Purrin.— Nowhere very abundant 
but fairly well distributed along the shores of the main island, also on Petrel 
Island and Cape Horn Rocks. Probably 1000 to 1200 pairs in all. Gen- 
erally nesting in small colonies of from five to twenty pairs each. No nests 
were seen in burrows, all those noted being in cavities in cliffs and in crevices 
in caves and under boulders, never more than a hundred feet (generally 
less than fifty feet) above the water. The nesting location is much more 
similar to that of the Pigeon Guillemot than to that of the Tufted Puffin. 
The nest is very frequently so far back in a cavity as to be impossible to 
approach closely. The nesting cavity is generally fairly well lined with 


a WiteTT, Birds of Forrester Island. 297 


grass, frequently supplemented with a few feathers. The eggs are deposited 
during the last ten days in June. The first young were noted July 22, but 
some were probably out several days earlier. A few of the eggs of this 
species are quite heavily spotted with brown but the majority are indis- 
tinguishable from those of the last. The feeding habits of the Horned 
Puffin are very similar to those of the Tufted Puffin but, as a rule, they 
seem to feed closer to shore, frequently being seen in small flocks inside the 
kelp patches. 

Cerorhinca monocerata. Ruinoceros AUKLET.— Estimated num- 
ber, about 20,000 pairs. The nesting colonies of this species seem to be 
confined to the eastern side of the main island. On all the slopes in this 
locality, where the ground is not too wet to burrow in, they are abundant 
from a few feet above the rocky beaches to four or five hundred feet on the 
hillsides among the timber. The burrows are generally from seven to 
nine feet in length, crooked, and often forked two or three times. The 
burrowing bird tears the earth loose with its bill and throws it backward 
with its feet. The shallow nest cavity is more or less sparsely lined with 
grasses and leaves, and additions are apparently made to the nest lining 
during the incubation period and even after the young is hatched. The 
egg laying begins the fourth week in May and probably continues far into 
June, as a bird was found incubating an egg as late as July 22. 

The incubating birds are relieved by their mates at about 11 Pp. M. and 
2 A.M., about three hours on the night shift and twenty-one on the day 
shift. It was, of course, impossible to ascertain whether or not the same 
bird continues to incubate during the day throughout the entire period, 
but in this country of long days and short nights, it seems improbable that 
such should be the case. The birds go considerable distances in search of 
food and evidently prefer the smooth water of the inside channels to the 
rougher water around Forrester Island. While they are rarely seen in the 
latter locality in the daytime, they are abundant in the channels between 
Prince of Wales Island and Dall and Suemez islands. They begin appear- 
ing in small flocks in the vicinity of Forrester Island about an hour before 
dusk and fly restlessly back and forth from then until dark. On one or two 
occasions while walking among the nesting colonies in the daytime, I was 
surprised to see an incubating bird leave the burrow and fly to sea. I do 
not consider this a regular occurrence, but believe rather that the bird 
heard my approach and was frightened into leaving the nest. 

The Indians’ favorite method of capturing these birds is to build a large 
fire in the nesting colony at the time of night when the birds are changing. 
They become bewildered by the light and are easily despatched with the 
aid of long spruce boughs. All auklets and murrelets are eaten by the 
Indians and are known to them as ‘“ little ducks.’ 

Ptychoramphus aleuticus. Cassin’s AUKLET.— The least common 
of the burrowing birds. Probably not more than 2000 pairs on the reserva- 
tion, although this number is a pure guess, as it is impossible to differentiate, 
from outward appearances, the burrows of this species from those of the 


298 Witett, Birds of Forrester Island. eves 


next. Among the total number of burrows excavated, however, the 
percentage of the Cassin’s Auklet was very small. They were found 
nesting on the east side of the main island and on Petrel Island. Eggs 
were noted occasionally from May 30 to June 9. On the latter date large 
young were common on Petrel Island, so the nesting season must have 
commenced in April. A bird incubating two eggs was found on this latter 
occasion. It seems probable that one of these was deposited by another 
bird. ~ 

Synthliboramphus antiquus. Ancient Murrevet.— Very abun- 
dant. Estimated number, 20,000 pairs. The principal nesting colonies 
of this bird are on the eastern slope of the main island where they mingle 
with the two species of auklets. They also nest in lesser numbers on Petrel 
Island among the petrel colonies. From observations it would seem that 
this murrelet seldom burrows in open ground but prefers locations among 
roots of trees and under logs and rocks. The nesting season evidently 
begins about May 1 and continues well into June, the most of the eggs, 
however, being deposited about May 10 to 15. 

The newly hatched young has a greyish band across the chest and the 
abdomen is also shaded with grey. In two or three days this disappears, 
leaving the under parts pure white. The young leave the nest when about 
four days old and follow the, parent bird to the water. This movement 
takes place generally between 11 P.M.and1a.M. At this time of night 
the calls of old and young murrelets may be heard in all directions. At 
the time of my arrival on the island, May 23, the young were already 
leaving the nests, and the latest noted was on the night of July 2. They 
were most plentiful June 1 to 10. The old bird precedes the young to the 
water, generally keeping from twenty to one hundred feet ahead of it. A 
continuous communication is maintained between the two, the frequent 
cheeps of the young being answered by the parent. By the aid of a lantern 
I was able to watch the progress of this movement. The chicks come 
tumbling down the hillsides, falling over rocks and logs and, directed by 
the adult, generally make their way to the bottom of the nearest ravine 
which they follow to the salt water. Arriving at the water’s edge, in 
response to the anxious calls of the parent who is already some distance out 
on the water, the chick plunges in and swims boldly out through the surf 
and joins its parent. Whether or not both young generally leave the nest 
on the same night, I am unable to state but I know that this is not always 
the case, as in one or two instances a solitary young was found in a nest, the 
evidence showing that two birds had been hatched and that one had already 
left. The young murrelets are easily attracted by light and they often 
wandered into the tents of the fishermen where, rendered helpless by the 
glare of the light, they were easily captured. 

The old bird with the young evidently proceeds immediately out to the 
open water as, even when hundreds took to the water at night, they could 
not be found anywhere in the vicinity of the island the next morning. 
During the entire summer not a single young murrelet was seen after it had 


ae | Wituiett, Birds of Forrester Island. 299 


taken to the water. Like the Rhinoceros Auklets, the old birds were occa- 
sionally seen near the shore but in very small numbers compared to the 
total number nesting on the island. Their principal feeding ground is, 
seemingly, well out to sea. 

Brachyramphus marmoratus. Marsitep Murrevter.— During 
the early part of the summer this species was not noted in the vicinity 
of the reservation and I am sure that it does not nest on the island. The 
first birds were seen July 25, when three adults were found feeding a little 
distance from shore. One bird taken at this time was an adult female 
which, according to the condition of the sexual organs, had nested some 
time previously. After this date the species was further noted on several 
occasions. 

It was plentiful in the channels around Prince of Wales and Dall islands 
throughout the summer and evidently nests in these localities. Mr. W. D. 
McLeod, of Howkan, informs me that during late May and the month of 
June he has observed Marbled Murrelets flying down from the mountains of 
Dall Island at dusk. 

Cepphus columba. Picreon GuriLttemMot.— Probably 300 pairs on 
the reservation. Generally distributed along rocky shores, the favorite 
feeding ground being around the kelp patches close in. This bird has a 
peculiar habit of sometimes carrying a small fish around in its bill for a 
considerable length of time before eating it. One bird noted carried the 
fish for a full two hours, the lower mandible being in the gill and the upper 
one on top of the fish’s head. ‘The nests of the sea pigeon were for the most 
part inaccessible, being far in the recesses of crevices in the roofs of caves. 
A nest containing one egg was found June 26. This egg was later de- 
stroyed by crows, which are very numerous around the sea bird colonies 
and prey especially on the eggs of the sea pigeon, cormorant and murre. 

Uria troille californica. Catirornia Murre.— Probably 20,000 
pairs nesting on the reservation. The principal rookeries are on the west 
side of Forrester Island, on Cape Horn Rocks and on Petrel Island. There 
seemed to beno nests at allon the easterly and more protected side of the 
island. These birds begin to deposit their eggs about July 20 and probably 
all the females had laid by August 5. Owing to the destruction of many 
of the eggs, however, fresh eggs may be found until late in August. This 
destruction of a considerable percentage of the eggs is due to two causes. 
First, the thieving crow who finds in the stupid murre an easy victim, and 
second in the clumsiness of the murres, themselves. Many of the eggs are 
laid on narrow ledges of cliffs and the clumsy birds when leaving or alighting 
on the nesting ledge frequently roll the egg over the side of the cliff. During 
several visits paid to the murre colonies, many eggs were seen thus destroyed. 
On one occasion an egg dropped Seventy or eighty feet and struck on the 
back of a murre on a ledge below. The first young murre was noted 
August 13. 

Stercorarius parasiticus. Parasitic JAEGER.— Migrant. Several 
birds seen near Lowrie Island August 3. 


300 Witett, Birds of Forrester Island. ue 


Rissa tridactyla pollicaris. Paciric Kirrrwake.— Common before 
June 10 and after August 10. Immature birds in the majority. 

Larus glaucescens. GLAUCOUS-WINGED GuLL.— Estimated numbers. 
Nesting birds, 3000 pairs; immatures, 10,000 (this does not count young 
raised this year). This species was nesting scatteringly along nearly the 
whole coast of the main island and there were substantial colonies on 
Petrel Island and adjoining rocks and on Cape Horn and Sea Lion rocks. 
They began laying the first week in June and by the middle of the month 
the nesting season was at its height. On August 13 large young were the 
rule, although a few nests containing eggs were noted on that date. The 
young birds depend a great deal on protective coloration for concealment. 
On the approach of an intruder they lie absolutely motionless among the 
rocks and, so perfectly do their colors blend into the gray of the rocks, 
very frequently escape detection. One youngster, yet unable to fly, fell 
from a cliff into the water below. Here he was joined by one of his parents 
who guided him to a sloping rock and assisted him to land. 

Larus argentatus. Herrine Guii.— Although this gull has not been 
previously reported from the reservation, it was found to be fairly common, 
especially around the rocks at the north end. The immature birds out- 
numbered the adults, however, at least ten to one. The only place the 
species was found nesting was on Cape Horn Rocks, where two nests, each 
containing two eggs, were noted on June 22, the birds being flushed and 
positively identified in both instances. A few days later these eggs had 
disappeared, probably having been taken by the natives. It was impossible 
to estimate the number of herring gulls breeding as their nests could not be 
differentiated with certainty from those of the last species. From the 
number of adults noted, the nesting birds probably number about twenty 
pairs. Immature birds estimated at 400. Total 440. 

Diomedea nigripes. BuLack-rooTep ALBATROsS.— One bird seen near 
Lowrie Island August 3. I was on a launch at the time and, heading 
directly toward the bird, succeeded in approaching within fifty feet before 
it took alarm and flew away, pursued for a short distance by two gulls. © 

Puffinus griseus. Soory SHEARWATER.— Seen occasionally through- 
out the summer, generally a half mile or more off shore but on one occasion 
between Forrester and Lowrie islands. 

Fulmarus glacialis glupischa. Paciric Futmar.— Frequently seen 
at a little distance from shore during late July and August. All birds 
noted were in dark plumage. 

Oceanodroma furcata. ForKED-TAILED PrETrrEL.— Probably 10,000 
pairs nesting on Petrel Island, seemingly the only place on the reservation 
where petrels nest. O. furcata is outnumbered by the next species at least 
five to one. Their nesting localities are practically identical, though 
furcata seems slightly more partial to the grass covered slopes than to the 
more open ground among the timber. O. furcata also nests considerably 
earlier than the next, eggs being found most plentifully June 5 to 15. 

The night of June 10 was spent on Petrel Island. From 10.30 Pp. M. 


A 


oA 


THE AUK. Vole Soe: PLATE OAs 


HoRNED PUFFIN ON NEST. 


arr eaaal Wittett, Birds of Forrester Island. 301 


until 2 a. M. the air swarmed with petrels of both species. There is a 
considerable difference in their notes while in the air, and the notes of the 
white-rumped bird were in a preponderance of about three to one. Many 
of this latter species were not in the air, however, but were in burrows and 
in crevices in the rocks in pairs, this being the height of their courting 
season. Their cooing love notes could be heard emanating from the ground 
during the entire night. 

Oceanodroma leucorhoa kedingi. Kampine’s Prrreyt.— The 
white-rumped petrel of Forrester Island is exactly the same as the bird 
that nests on St. Lazaria Island, Sitka Bay. In previous articles on the 
birds of that reservation (Bird-Lore, XIV, 1912, pp. 419-426: Condor, 
XVI, 1914, pp. 71-91), I referred this petrel to the form O. beali de- 
scribed by Emerson (Condor, VIII, 1906, p. 54). 

Through the kindness of the authorities of the United States National 
Museum, I secured for comparison with St. Lazaria and Forrester Island 
birds a series of nine adult specimens of O. leucorhoa leucorhoa from the 
north Atlantic, six specimens from the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea 
and four specimens from near Midway Island, Ter. Hawaii. Also through 
the courtesy of the Oregon State Game Commission, I obtained twelve 
breeding specimens of O. lewcorhoa kedingi from Three Arch Rocks, off the 
Oregon coast. The following conclusions were arrived at by a careful 
study of the above mentioned material in comparison with series from St. 
Lazaria Island and Forrester Island. 


Average measurements. Wing. Tail 


Nimewsmecunens; morth Atlantic: ....4522.02e665.. 6 «sean 6.24 38.45 
Six specimens, Aleutians & Bering Sea................ (5) 3.14 
i wenry specmens) Sitka Bay......0+ ccc ne ste e ee snes, 6:05 3.04 
Twenty specimens, Forrester Island................... 6.03 3.05 
Twelve specimens, Three Arch Rocks................. 5.98 3.01 


From the above measurements it will be seen that the southeastern 
Alaska birds are much nearer kedingi than leucorhoa. The birds from 
Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands are nearer lewcorhoa but with a tend- 
ency toward kedingi. There are exceptional specimens from both St. 
Lazaria and Forrester Islands that measure nearly as large as the average 
of leucorhoa. For these two latter reasons it would seem that kedingi must 
be regarded as only subspecifically distinct from leucorhoa; therefore I 
have used the trinomial. The measurement of the forking of the tail which 
has been extensively used by some writers is very variable. The two races 
O. beali from Sitka Bay, and O. beldingi from Netarts Bay, Oregon, de- 
scribed by Emerson (1. c., p. 54) seem to be founded on characters too 
minute to be worthy of recognition. The birds from Sitka and Forrester 
Island possibly average slightly lighter on the back and darker on the 
under parts than specimens from the Oregon coast but in several specimens 
at hand these differences cannot be detected. 


302 WiueT?, Birds of Forrester Island. aes 


I estimated the number of these birds nesting on Petrel Island at 50,000 
pairs. Their burrows were abundant both on the grassy hillsides and on 
top of the island among the timber. They began laying about June 20 
and the nesting season was at its height June 29. 

Phalacrocorax pelagicus pelagicus. PrLacic Cormorant.— About 
one hundred pairs of these birds nested on the reservation during the past 
season and there were probably as many more immature birds that did not 
nest. The principal nesting colony, consisting of about fifty pairs, was at 
the northeast end of the main island. Occasional nests were also noted 
at other points on the main island, on Petrel Island and on Cape Horn and 
Sea Lion Rocks. The birds were nest building during the entire month 
of June and the first eggs were noted June 26, on which date one nest con- 
tained three eggs, all other nests nearby being empty as yet. A week later 
nearly all the nests contained eggs. The first young were seen July 22. 

At least two thirds of the eggs and young of the cormorants were de- 
stroyed by the crows, which were always most abundant in localities where 
the cormorants were nesting. ° 

Nettion carolinense. GREEN-WINGED TEAL.— A bird of this species 
shot near camp August 13 and another seen the same day. . 

Histrionicus histrionicus. HarLtequin Duck.— Occasional through- 
out the summer. Pair of adults in breeding plumage seen at Lowrie 
Island June 14. A search for a nest was unsuccessful. 

Ardea herodias fannini. NorrHwest Coast Hrron.— One seen 
at north end of island July 28. Rather common on Dall and Prince of 
Wales Islands. 

Lobipes lobatus. NorTHERN PHALAROPE.— Abundant on the ocean 
during late July and August. 

Ereunetes mauri. WerEsTERN SANDPIPER.— Single bird seen at north 
end of island July 15. Common at south end of Dall Island during late 
August. 

Numenius hudsonicus. HupsonrAan CurtEw.— One seen at north- - 
east end August 13. \ 

Zigialitis semipalmata. SremipatmMaTeD PLover.— Single bird ap- 
peared on the beach near camp the morning of July 31 and remained most 
of the day. 

Hematopus bachmani. Brack OystercaTcHEeR.— About fifty pairs 
nesting on reservation. Nest containing three eggs noted June 29. Three 
young about two days old seen the same day. 


Summary of breeding water birds. 


Tanda; cirihata a aut beds eb Unttini mittee are eters reas aera 70,000 
Fratercula cormiculata. ‘Horned Putin: oo n-ne 2,200 
Cerorhinca monocerata. Rhinoceros Auklet................. 40,000 
Ptychorhamphus aleuticus. Cassin Auklet.................. 4.000 


Synthiliboramphus aleuticus. Ancient Murrelet............. 40,000 


Beane | Witiett, Birds of Forrester Island. 303 
Cepphus columba * Pigeon Guillemot? 2.2.00. 6.80.66. 550555 600 
Uria troille californica. California Murre................... 40,000 
Larus glaucescens. Glaucous-winged Gull................... 16,000 
(Manus; argentstus., Hemme Gulls. a) of o¥ o.oo. at cadet Sian 440 
Oceanodroma fureata. Forked-tailed Petrel................. 20,000 
Oceanodroma leucorhoa kedingi. Keding Petrel............. 100,000 
Phalacrocorax pelagicus pelagicus. Pelagic Cormorant........ 300 
Hematopus bachmani. Black Oystercatcher................ 100 

AO taltae a, pee. 333,640 


LAND Brirpbs. 


Halizetus leucocephalus alascanus. Norruern Batp Eaqgus.— 
Estimated numbers. Nesting birds, thirty pairs. Young in nests, sixty. 
Immatures of past two years, eighty. Total, 200. At the time of my 
arrival on the island, May 23, the young were already hatched. They 
had apparently not yet left the nests August 15. The eagles on Forrester 
Island seem to subsist nearly altogether on fish, though on a few occasions 
they were seen in pursuit of sea birds. 

Falco peregrinus anatum. Duck Hawx.— Half dozen pairs nesting. 
One nest examined June 13 contained two young about two weeks old. 
Most of the young were flying by July 20 and hunting for themselves by the 
25th. This hawk appears to feed entirely on other birds, puffins, auklets 
and murrelets being its chief prey. 

Cryptoglaux acadica. Saw-wH»pt Owxu.— An adult female was taken 
June 5 as she left a cavity in a dead spruce stub. On examining the cavity, 
apparently an old woodpecker’s nest and about eight feet from the ground, 
it was found to contain four eggs on the point of hatching. 

The species was common at the south end of Dall Island August 25-27. 

Bubo virginianus saturatus. Dusky Hornep Owx.— One of the 
fishermen reported seeing a horned owl in a thicket at the northeast end of 
the island July 10. On visiting this locality the following day the bird was 
not seen, but a feather was found that undoubtedly came from a bird of 
this species. 

Ceryle alcyon caurina. Western KinarisHer.— First noted August 
3, when a bird flew past camp. Single bird seen August 4 and again August 
8. Probably a straggler from Dall Island, where it is common. 

Dryobates villosus sitkensis. Sitka Harry Woopprcker.—I am 
rather puzzled as to the exact status of this bird on the island. It was 
rather common in the woods until the second week in June and after 
August 1. Between these dates it was very rarely seen or heard. It may 
have retired to more dense and out of the way sections to nest but no proof 
of this was obtained. Cavities, apparently old nesting sites of some 
woodpecker, were noted occasionally but no fresh ones were found. The 
bird was extremely wild and no specimens were obtained but from geo- 
graphical reasons it is probable that it is referable to the above form. 


304 WiteTT, Birds of Forrester Island. Sule 


Sphyrapicus varius ruber. Rep-preastep SapsuckER.— A single 
bird seen near camp May 26. For reasons pointed out by Swarth (Univ. 
Cal. Pub. Zool., 10, 1912, pp. 35-38) I have used the above name rather 
than S. ruber notkensis of the A. O. U. Check-List. 

Empidonax difficilis difficilis. Wrstern Fiycarcuer.— Rather 
common in the woods all over the reservation and undoubtedly breeding, 
though no nests were found. 

Corvus corax principalis. NortHerRN RaAveN.— Common in the 
timber on all parts of the reservation. I was unable to locate the nest of 
this bird but it undoubtedly breeds, probably in the dense timber. Fully 
fledged young appeared with their parents early in July. 

Although this bird in outward appearance is very similar to the more 
southern form, C. c. sinuatus, its notes, actions and, apparently, its nesting 
habits are so entirely different that it is difficult for me to regard the two 
forms as only subspecifically distinct. 

Corvus caurinus. NortTHWESTERN Crow.— Very plentiful, especially 
in the vicinity of the sea bird rookeries. Two or three nests examined were 
placed in spruce thickets near the beach. The young left the nests about 
the middle of July and joined their parents in their egg raids. 

This was the one bird on the reservation in which it seemed impossible 
to see a single redeeming quality. It is a pest and a robber of the worst 
type. Although possibly doing no more damage, bird for bird, than does 
the duck hawk, it is much more abundant. It also lacks the speed and 
fighting qualities of the latter which, however misplaced, one cannot help 
but admire. 

Loxia curvirostra minor. AMERICAN CrossBILu.— Occasionally 
seen in small flocks during the early summer, becoming more plentiful 
about July 20. Whether or not this species breeds on the reservation, I 
am unable to say. No nests were found and the birds seen were always in 
small companies, never in pairs. 

Spinus pinus. Pine Fincu.— Rare during the early summer, at which 
season it was noted only on Petrel and Lowrie islands. About July 9 it 
began to appear in the vicinity of the camp and after July 20 was abundant. 

Junco oreganus oreganus. OREGON JuNco.— During the early 
summer evidently confined to the scrub timber and open meadows on top 
of the island. First appeared in the vicinity of camp July 9 during stormy 
weather, at which time adults and full grown young appeared together. 
After this date it was common. 

Melospiza melodia rufina. Soory Sone Sparrow.— Common in 
grassy locations open to the sunshine, not occurring in the dense woods or 
more shady portions of the island. Most plentiful on Petrel Island but 
occurring in smaller numbers in favorable localities on the main island, 
Lowrie Island and Cape Horn Rocks. The nest is difficult to locate, 
being placed on the ground and carefully concealed among the grass. It is 
built entirely of grass, coarse outside and fine inside. One found June 13 
contained four newly hatched young, and another found July 22 contained 
an addled egg and three young just leaving the nest. 


Ree Wuett, Birds of Forrester Island. 305 


Passerella iliaca townsendi. TowNsEeNp’s Fox Sparrow.— Probably 
the most abundant land bird on the reservation, occurring in wooded bocali- 
ties everywhere. Seemingly at least two broods are raised in a season. 
The location of the nests noted varied greatly, some being ten or twelve 
feet up in trees, some in brush thickets and on fallen logs and others on the 
ground. A brood of young left a nest near camp May 24 and fresh eggs 
were found as late as June 22. 

Vermivora celata lutescens. LutTescent WarBLER.— Common in 
brush thickets and on grassy slopes in many different localities. Was 
evidently breeding during the month of June but no nests were found. In 
late July the adults appeared accompanied by the young and from that 
time on the species was very abundant in the young spruce timber. 

Nannus hiemalis pacificus. WersTERN WINTER WREN.— Common 
throughout the wooded sections. Full grown young appeared by June 18. 

Certhia familiaris occidentalis. CaLirorNIA CREEPER.— Rare. 
Seen occasionally in the woods throughout the summer. 

Penthestes rufescens rufescens. CHESTNUT-BACKED CHICKADEE.— 
Fairly common during the first part of the summer. Abundant after July 
10. 

Regulus satrapa olivaceus. WESTERN GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET.— 
Common. During early summer kept mostly to the treetops, but by the 
latter part of July was plentiful everywhere. 

Hylocichla ustulata ustulata. Russmr-sackrep THrusa.— Abun- 
dant in the timber in all parts of the reservation. From June 14 to July 2 
several nests containing eggs and young were found. The locations of 
these varied greatly, some being low down in salmon-berry thickets, some 
in roots of fallen trees and others in crevices in stumps. In nearly all cases 
. the nests were beautifully covered with green moss. Some young birds 
were flying by July 10 and shortly after that date they were plentiful. 

Ixoreus nevius nevius. Variep TarusH.— Much less common than 
the last species but fairly well distributed throughout the timber. Fully 
fledged young appeared the last week in June. 


306 Townsend, Noles on the Rock Dove. ees 


NOTES ON THE ROCK DOVE (COLUMBA DOMESTICA).* 
BY CHARLES W. TOWNSEND, M.D. 


Tue two familiar birds of city streets are the European House 
Sparrow, or English Sparrow as it is generally called, and the Rock 
Dove, commonly known as Pigeon. Both are equally fearless in 
the presence of man and all his works, and both are equally de- 
pendent on their own exertions for a living, although both are fed 
more or less irregularly by the passer-by, chiefly for the pleasure 
afforded by the sight of the crowding, eager birds. The English 
Sparrow is properly included in most bird lists as an introduced 
species. The Pigeon, however, is seldom mentioned, because here 
it is domesticated or was originally introduced in this state and has 
since become feral.2, In most cities both here and in Europe it has 
reverted in plumage and habits to the wild state of its ancestor, the 
Rock Dove, with the exception that instead of breeding in holes 
and fissures of rocky cliffs, it now breeds in similar situations on 
buildings in cities. In small towns and villages the Pigeons are 
generally owned and fed by individuals, and live in dovecotes. A 
study of the habits of the unconfined bird as seen in cities in this 
country, and a comparison of its habits with those of its feral 
progenitors seems worth while. I commend it to ornithologists 
living in cities who lament that they have no birds to study. 

That the various fancy races or domesticated forms of the — 
Pigeon, some 200 in all, are descended from one species, the Rock 
Dove, Columba domestica, is now well recognized, although it was 
formerly believed that the chief races were of separate lineage. 
This is not to be wondered at, when we consider the extraordinary 
diversity shown, not only in external plumage and form, but also 
in internal structure by those races, some of which, it is believed, 
date back to prehistoric times. One has but to glance at a pouter, 
a carrier, a barb, a fan-tail, a turbit, a tumbler or a trumpeter, 


1 Stejneger, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. X, 1887, p. 424, has shown that Linné’s C. 
livia is a nomen nudum and that C. domestica of Gmelin must be used. 

2 See, however, O. W. Knight, Birds of Maine, 1908, p. 208, and G. M. Ailen, 
Fauna of New England, List of Aves. Boston Soc. Nat. His., 1909, p. 226. 


Mp eet TownsEnD, Notes on the Rock Dove. 307 


for example, to realize the immense plasticity of the species and the 
changes wrought by artificial selection through the ages. Darwin 
showed that all these races, although breeding true, were fertile 
among themselves, and that the hybrids were fertile; that the young 
of the different races could hardly be distinguished apart within 
twelve hours of hatching; and lastly that diverse races and their 
hybrid offspring when bred together result in Rock Doves, typical 
in form and plumage. 

This same interbreeding has occurred in the flocks of Pigeons 

seen in our cities. Here the majority of the birds have the general 
grayish-blue color with iridescent necks and breasts, white rumps, 
white axillaries and lower wing coverts, two black wing-bars and 
black terminal or sub-terminal tail bands, typical of the Rock Dove. 
Albinism is not uncommon in these flocks but irregular plumage is 
rare, and unusual form is practically never seen. In a flock of 83 
Pigeons seen on Boston Common, one bird was a full albino, four. 
partial albinos, three were chocolate-colored and the rest nearly all 
in the regular plumage. A few of these were darker blue than usual 
with little or no white on the rumps, and a number more showed 
slight albinism in the wing feathers, seen only in flight. Ina group 
of 150 birds counted at another time, one was chocolate-colored, 
12 more or less albinistic and the rest nearly typical of the Rock 
Dove. 
I am inclined to think that the prevalence of albinism in these 
Pigeons may be partly accounted for by the fact that there are, 
with rare exceptions, no hawks in cities to pick off prominently 
marked birds, for it is reasonable to suppose that a bird, conspicu- 
ous through albinism, would afford a more shining mark to a hawk, 
and would therefore be more subject to capture. This supposition 
is borne out by an observation related to me by Mr. William Brews- 
ter. He brought to his place at Concord a flock of Pigeons, the 
majority of which were more or less albinistic or else were light 
chocolate in color, but about one fourth of the flock were in the 
ordinary plumage of the Rock Dove. The flock was from time to 
time harried by hawks who killed a number of the birds, and the 
interesting part is that at the end of some three years the albinistic 
and chocolate-colored birds were practically all weeded out and 
the typical blue birds alone remained. 


308 TownseEnp, Notes on the Rock Dove. ie 


The Rock Dove is common wherever caves or deep fissures exist 
on the rocky coasts of Scotland and Ireland, in the Shetlands, 
Orkneys, Hebrides and Faroes. In England, according to Howard 
Saunders,! it is “ very local in Devonshire, and only a few frequent 
the cliffs of Cornwall. It can be traced along the coast of Wales, 
and at one spot in Cumberland, as well as the Isle of Man, while 
on the eastern seaboard it is found at Flamborough Head and 
in Northumberland. Birds,—apparently wild,— sometimes fre- 
quent holes in cliffs inland as well as on the coast, but they are open 
to the suspicion of being partially domesticated individuals which 
have reverted to a wild state, or descendants of such.”’ In Scandi- 
navia the Rock Dove is rare and local and it is uncommon in the 
rest of Europe except in the mountains of Portugal, Spain and 
Italy. Darwin pointed out that as one goes south and east the 
rump changes in color from white to blue. Hudson ? says of the 
Rock Dove: “In its language, flight, and habits it is indistinguish- 
able from the bird familiar to every one in a domestic state.” 
Selby ® says that it “is never known under any circumstances to 
affect the forest or perch upon a tree.’’ Saunders ‘* says “It has a 
marked objection to settling on trees — a peculiarity which is still 
shared by its domesticated relatives.” In the British Isles it 
nests from April to September, and lays two sets of two eggs each. 

The courtship of the Rock Dove is the same in our city streets 
as on wild rocky coasts. It may be seen here nearly every pleasant 
day from January to December. The male coos long and fre- 
quently, and expresses himself in the syllables coo-roo-coo or cock- 
a war, the last syllable in either case much prolonged. He stretches 
his neck now up, now down and, with puffed out breast, displays to 
full advantage his brilliant iridescent feathers. His tail is spread 
and scrapes stiffly on the ground and his wings are drooped slightly. 
At times the amorous bird advances and retreats, pirouettes now 
this way now that, in order that the meek and apparently indiffer- 
ent female — actually slightly smaller but now very noticeably 
smaller — may be duly impressed. At times he makes little 


1 Manual of British Birds, 1889, p. 471. 

2 British Birds, 1902, p. 262. 

3 The Naturalist’s Library, Ornithology, 1835, vol. V, part III, p. 147. 
4loc. cit. 


Bes oie TownsEnp, Notes on the Rock Dove. 309 
jumps into the air, and occasionally flies a few feet. At times, 
when not actually courting, he caresses his mate by kissing or 
billing and at times feeds her with “pigeons-milk.’” Again the 
happy pair preen each others feathers and search for tormenting 
inhabitants in a manner suggestive of monkeys or certain savages. 

The fighting that goes on between rival males is an important 
part of the courtship, a fact that is generally overlooked in poetical 
accounts of the gentle, cooing dove. These cliff-dwellers on window 
ledges and projecting copings of high buildings may often be seen 
engaged in sparring with their wings. Sometimes only one, some- 
times both wings are used, and the birds strike with considerable 
force and swiftness and deliver the blows on each others heads and 
necks and sometimes push or ward with one wing and strike with 
the other. ‘The contest is often continued with but little advantage 
on either side for minutes at a time, but generally results in the 
weaker — not going to the wall — but being forced away from it 
off the ledge and having to use his weapons for flight. Sometimes 
the conquered one returns at once to the fray but often is obliged to 
content himself with a humbler station and the victor, undisturbed, 
struts and coos before his shy mate. The fighting is distinctly a 
cliff performance, with the object of pushing the rival off the ledge. 
Knight | says: “I have seen the fight protracted until one is killed 
or completely exhausted.’”’ On the outer edge of a Pigeon’s wing 
is a bare spot of thickened integument.? 

The nearest approach to rocky caves in cities are to be found in 
church towers, and these are favorite nesting sites. Open situa- 
tions on window ledges and various architectural projections on 
buildings are, however, freely used. The nest is often built in 
some of the busiest streets Just above the passing wagons, and I 
have seen one on an iron beam under a noisy elevated car station 
close to an are light. The nest is unattractive by reason of the 
liberal amount of dung with which it is daubed and of which in 
many cases it is chiefly composed. The walls of the building below 
and in the vicinity are also spattered. To avoid this disfigurement 
of buildings the ledges are sbmetimes built up or covered at such 


1 loc. cit. 
2vide Lucas. The Weapons and Wings of Birds, Report of U. S. Nat. 
Museum, 1893, p. 656. 


[uty 


310 TowNnsEND, Notes on the Rock Dove. 
steep angle that the birds are unable to alight, and “pigeon-proof”’ 
architecture is spoken of. Besides the dung, small sticks are used 
in the construction of the nest, and there is generally a scanty 
lining of feathers. The nests vary in size, but are sometimes built 
up from repeated use to a height of six or seven inches, and are 
about fourteen inches in outside diameter. 

The number of broods raised by these wild descendants of do- 
mesticated birds varies very much and is said to be four, but their 
eggs may be seen in almost every month of the year. The eggs are 
two in number and pure white in color, characteristic of the hole 
inhabiting birds. Incubation lasts about two weeks and both 
parents take part. The young are covered with loose grayish or 
yellow down and rapidly grow to full size and attain a plumage 
very similar to that of the adult. They lack the iridescent feathers 
and are slightly mottled. 

The feeding of the young with the so called “pigeon-milk” by 
both parents is an interesting phenomenon. The adult thrusts its 
bill deep down into the side of the bill of the squab, vibrates its 
wings and works its neck muscles in a pumping manner. The 
squab, when not actually engaged in the feeding process, waves 
its wings and calls in beseeching, whistling notes for more.” An 
examination of the gullet of the adult shows a large reticulated 
glandular crop from which a gelatinous fluid can be squeezed. ‘This 
secretion mixed with, and serving to digest the contents of the crop 
forms the pigeon-milk with which the young birds are fed. As the 
young grow, grain and other food partially digested is given. 

The cliff-inhabiting proclivities of our city Rock Doves is shown 
by their night-roosting habits. Besides church towers, which 
furnish the caves, the ledges on the buildings are thus occupied. 
Numerous ledges on the different facades of the Court House in 
Boston are favorite resorts, as are also the long ledges under the 
eaves of Arlington Street Church and the window ledges on a build- 
ing on Tremont Street opposite the Common. Whole rows of 
birds may be seen sleeping peacefully in these situations amid the 
glare of electric lights and the noise of traffic in the streets. These 
night roosts are favorite resting places in the day and are often 
more or less occupied in dark and stormy weather. 

The Rock Dove also shows evidence of its former life among 


bai Gee | TownsEnD, Notes on the Rock Dove. ole 


rocky cliffs by its inherited objection to alighting on trees, although 
an interesting change has come over it in Boston at least. Thirty- 
five years ago I noted, as an unusual event, that a Pigeon was 
occasionally to be seen on the large branch of an elm tree in Louis- 
burg Square. In my notes of March 30, 1906, I say: “Rarely 
alight in trees, but does so habitually in Louisburg Square, and 
occasionally a few on the Common.” In my notes of February 9, 
1907, I find the following: “'Twenty years ago it was a rare thing 
to see a Pigeon alight in a tree; now there are several places where 
they commonly alight, and I have seen a flock of 50 in a tree in the 
Public Gardens. There are two places in the Common where these 
birds are in the habit of alighting. Single birds or pairs are to be 
seen anywhere in trees.” Since then the habit has continued. 
The tree referred to in the Public Gardens is one with very large 
branches devoid of fine sprays —a Kentucky coffee tree — and I 
have lately counted as many as 100 Pigeons in this tree. Almost 
always trees with large branches are chosen but I have seen Pigeons 
on small branches or even on telegraph wires. This change in 
habit is of interest as an evidence of adaptiveness in a species. 
It would be interesting to know whether the same change is going 
on elsewhere in this country or in Europe. 

The flight of this bird is worth studying and has many points 
of interest. Jf one disturbs a single individual or a flock on the 
ground so that the birds suddenly take flight in alarm, a loud and 
sharp clapping noise is usually made, apparently by the striking 
together over the back of the upper surfaces of the wings. Wm. 
Macgillivray! says: “When startled, they rise suddenly, and by 
striking the ground with their wings produce a crackling noise.” 
The fact however, that the noise begins and continues after the 
birds have left the ground seems to disprove this observation. In 
this connection the following observation by Fielden? of another 
charadrioform bird, the Knot, is of interest. He says: “ Immedi- 
ately after arrival in June they began to mate, and at times I 
noticed two or more males following a single female; at this season 
they soar in the air like the Common Snipe, and when descending 


1 A History of British Birds, 1837, vol. I, p. 273. 
2 Fielden, H. W., List of Birds observed in Smith Sound in 1875-76, Ibis, 
1877, 4 series, vol. I, p. 407. 


lee TownsEenD, Notes on the Rock Dove. ary 


from a height beat their wings behind the back with a rapid motion 
which produces a loud whirring noise.” As Pigeons that are not 
suddenly disturbed rise from the ground silently, is it not possible 
that this loud clapping, made perhaps when the bird is frightened, 
may subserve a useful purpose in confusing a crouching animal 
stealing through the grass, and thus prevent its springing at its 
prey? Be this as it may, it is evident that, as in the case of the 
Knot, the clapping is at times a courtship action, for, with puffed 
out neck and breast, a male may fly with loud clapping to alight 
near a female. 

The facts that when well under way in the air Pigeons extend 
their feet behind under the tail, although they carry them in front 
for short flights, and that they extend the bastard wing as they 
glide towards a perch can both be verified by any one with ordinary 
vision. I have already discussed these points in other papers.! 
It is interesting to speculate that this extension of the bastard wing 
may point back to the time when the reptilian ancestors of birds 
grasped with their front extremities the perch to which they were 
gliding. 

The aérial evolutions of a flock of Pigeons are performed with 
as great precision as is seen in flocks of Shore Birds, Gulls, and Auks, 
— all relatives of Doves in the group of Charadiiformes. It would 
seem as if the birds possessed a common mind as each bird in a large 
flock suddenly turns with military accuracy first its back then its 
breast to the observer, while the flock sweeps on, now this way, 
now that, about a church tower. This sudden turning is accom- 
plished by a rotation of the body along an antero-posterior axis 
through the arc of a quarter to a half of a circle. The flock, flying 
by an observer with the nearer wings pointed downwards at an 
angle of 45 degrees below the horizon, suddenly changes so that the 
nearer wings point upward at an angle of 45 degrees with the hori- 
zon. With this change in position or “reverse” the color of the 
wings appears to change from greyish blue of the upper surface to 
silvery white of the lower surface. Dewar ? has studied these evo- 


1 The Position of Birds’ Feet in Flight, Auk, XXV, 1909, p. 109. 
Bird Genealogy, Auk, XXIX, 1912, p. 285. 
2 Dewar, J. M. The Evolutions of Waders. The Zoologist, 1912, 4 ser., 
vol. XVI, p. 161. : 


Nols aed TOWNSEND, Notes on the Rock Dove. 313 


lutions in shore birds and concludes that they are protective in 
character, originating in attempts to evade birds of prey and after- 
wards employed against man. He points out the resemblance to 
wave movement or sea-spray and believes it to be a case of pro- 
tective resemblance with the object, not of deceiving the hawk as 
to the reality of the birds, but of baffling pursuit,— all of which 
is interesting and suggestive. 

At any sudden noise, like the bursting of an automobile tire or 
an explosion of gasoline in a muffler, a flock of Pigeons will in an 
instant mount into the air, no matter how busy they may have 
been in feeding, and fly about for some minutes before they return. 
A flock of Pigeons roosting on the ledges of the buildings. on Tre- 
mont Street when startled by an explosion whir away but often re- 
turn towards the facade only to double back again. Dr. W. M. 
Tyler has suggested to me that these birds are acting from fear in 
the same way that their feral ancestors would act if pursued by 
an eagle or hawk. Edmund Selous! says of the wild birds: “In 
effecting their numerous escapes, the face of the rock stood them 
in good stead, and they deliberately made use of it, in my opinion, 
for, dashing in and out, they would cling to it or double against it 
in places where eagles, as larger birds, could not follow them so 
deftly, and had perforce to check their speed.” Of course the 
explanation may be, as Dr. Tyler also suggested, that the birds, 
about to return to their perches, are driven away again and again 
by the recurring fear. When so engaged in flight, if a second 
explosion occurs, the whole flock suddenly drops or darts down a 
few feet while still continuing its rapid course. One cannot help 
thinking of the similar actions of Shore Birds at the discharge of a 
gun. I have seen a flock of Black-bellied Plovers dart down in its 
flight when a gun was fired in another direction some distance off, 
and, no doubt, under similar circumstances a poor marksman has 
believed his shot had entered the flock and has wondered that no 
birds had fallen. The very loud automobile discharge near at hand 
would naturally startle any bird, but I have seen a flock of Pigeons 
act in a similar way when the‘explosion was so distant that it was 
but faintly heard. One could build up a fanciful theory to the 


1The Bird Watcher in the Shetlands, 1905, p. 158. 


314 TOWNSEND, Notes on the Rock Dove. [fut 


effect that this action of the Pigeons was inherited from ancestors 
who were pursued by gunners, but this would involve the inherit- 
ance of an acquired trait that had existed during the brief time only 
since gunpowder was used. On the other hand it is possible that 
the habit has been continued by example from adult to offspring 
since the feral days of this bird. I have observed a somewhat 
similar case where a caged canary, not easily disturbed by ordinary 
affairs of the household, showed great terror whenever a toy balloon 
floated about the room. This perhaps points back to the more 
deep seated instinct of fear of a hawk or other large bird hovering 
overhead. It may be mentioned here that the Pigeon has not yet 
learned to estimate accurately the speed of an automobile approach. 
It is able to take care of itself where horses are concerned, but not 
infrequently lingers too long in the street and is run over or hit by 
the automobile while it is attempting to fly away. In this respect 
it resembles the domestic fowl and other animals. 

In gliding either in a straight line or in curves and partial circles 
the wings are held as in most birds about on the same plane with 
the body, but at times one may see a pair of birds gliding through 
the air with the wings held up at an angle of forty-five degrees. 
This is an interesting sight and is apparently of the nature of a 
nuptial performance. 

In alighting in a field the Pigeon frequently first circles over the 
ground, or, if alighting suddenly, sometimes looks about for a 
moment before searching for food. This is suggestive of inherited 
caution from wild ancestry, for the Rock Dove in its native haunts 
is said to be very wild and suspicious. This caution is not seen 
when the bird alights in a crowded street. . 

The typical “dove-like” walk of this bird is familiar; he ad- 
vances with nodding head as if at each step his head lingered behind 
while the neck and body kept on. This is seen in a greater or lesser 
extent in various other birds that walk; it is noticeable in the 
Ipswich Sparrow. 

The sight of a flock of Pigeons sunning themselves on a roof is a 
familiar one; the birds also have a habit in intervals between feed- 
ing of collecting in compact flocks and squatting close together with 
the tarsi and often the breasts flat on the ground. A group acting 
thus, all headed towards the wind, suggests the similar habit of 
Gulls. 


ee | TownsEnp, Notes on the Rock Dove. 315 
I have referred in another paper! to ‘the duck-like actions of a 
fifteen day old Pigeon when put in a tub of water and its bearing 
on the relationships of this bird to Gulls and Auks. Saunders 2 
says “both wild and tame Pigeons have been seen to settle on the 
water like Gulls and drink while floating down stream.” Mr. Wm. 
A. Jeffries tells me that he once saw a Pigeon alight on the surface 
of the Frog Pond in Boston Common. I have seen a Pigeon 
hovering above Charles River in Cambridge dropping its feet till 
they touched the water, and picking up something with its bill. 
This was repeated five or six times. This last named action points 
to the progressive or adaptive character of the bird and not neces- 
sarily to its aquatic ancestry, for I have observed similar actions 
in picking up food from the water on the part of such dissimilar 
passerine birds as Bronzed Grackles, Cedar Birds and Swallows. 

The English Sparrow is the only bird with which the Pigeon is 
intimately and constantly associated. As arule no notice whatever 
is taken by the larger of the smaller bird or vice versa, and both feed 
amicably on the same ground. On rare occasions, however, I have 
seen an English Sparrow pursue a Pigeon. Once I saw a Pigeon 
closely pursue a Belted Kingfisher as it doubled back and forth 
three or four times over the Frog Pond on the Common.’ In 
Boston I have known Crows to inflict considerable damage on the 
eggs and squabs of Pigeons in the rookery of the tower of Trinity 
Church, and a Duck Hawk feasted daily on adults from his perch 
on a Commonwealth Avenue church steeple, until a sportsman 
shot him from his attic window. 

In drinking water the bill is held in the pool continuously for 
half a minute or more at a time, an action very unlike the sipping 
and holding the head up of gallinaceous birds with which Pigeons 
were formerly classed. Shore birds when feeding often hold the - 
bill immersed and probably drink at the same time. I have no 
notes on the drinking of Auks, but I believe that Gulls drink con- 
tinuously in a similar manner. 

In feeding on grain scattered in the street or in horse droppings 
Pigeons do not scratch. On ground planted with grass seed they 


1 Bird Genealogy, loc.. cit. 
2loc. cit. 
3 Birds of Essex County, 1905, p. 223. 


316 TownsENpD, Notes on the Rock Dove. [sae 


chop vigorously at the ground with their bills causing the earth to 
fly and making in some cases holes of considerable size. In a 
garden where numerous strings were stretched which kept away the 
crows, the Pigeons alighted without fear in the network and chopped 
holes in the ground to obtain the seeds. On weedy lawns and 
fields flocks of Pigeons often alight, spread out and systematically 
eat the weed seeds. Saunders! says of the wild birds that they 
make amends for their fondness for grain by eating weed seeds and 
the roots of the conch grass (Triticum repens). I have seen Pigeons 
walking along ploughed furrows picking up and eating earthworms 
and various larvee exposed. Dr. Glover M. Allen tells me that a few 
winters ago after a heavy snow fall he observed Pigeons clinging to 
the Japanese ivy vines on University Hall in Cambridge eating the 
ivy berries and Mr. Charles F. Batchelder reports seeing a Pigeon 
perched in a privet bush eating the berries. 

On Boston Common it is the custom of visitors to feed the 
Pigeons with bread crumbs and grain as is done at St. Marks in 
Venice and at various other cities. The birds flock about in great 
numbers and alight on the hands, shoulders and heads of the feed- 
ers. This familiarity does not necessarily point to the former 
domesticated state of this bird, for in the same place grey squirrels 
respond to feeding by nuts in a similar manner, and fearlessly 
clamber over their benefactor, and investigate his pockets to the 
astonishment of the rustic visitor, who is familiar with the same 
animal only at a long gun-shot range. This and the photographs 
shown us by such men as Harold Baynes point to the millennium 
for the bird lover when the gun shall have vanished and live birds 
be treated by everybody as real friends. 


lloc. cit. 


Ish AUS AVOIts P.O. 0-4) 01 PLATE XXI. 


ta 


Mixep Oak AND PINE WoopLAND ON BurraLo Bayou, WEST OF 
Houston, TEx, 


: eae | Simmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. O17 


ON THE NESTING OF CERTAIN BIRDS IN TEXAS. 
BY GEORGE FINLAY SIMMONS. 
Plates XXI-X XII. 


Tue following notes are from observations made by the writer 
in the southern portion of Harris County, Texas, during the breed- 
ing seasons of 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, and 1914. 

The area under consideration is in the southeastern part of the 
State, and lies wholly within the semitropic or Gulf strip of the 
Austroriparian zone. Thus we find a slight intermingling of birds 
of unquestionable tropical affinities with a preponderance of Lower 
Austral species. 

Houston, where nearly all of the observations were made, is 
about 50 miles northwest of Galveston, which lies on the Gulf of 
Mexico. Buffalo Bayou runs eastward through the city 28 miles to 
Galveston Bay; Bray’s Bayou skirts the city on the south and joins 
Buffalo to the east. Each of these streams is skirted on either side 
by heavy strips of timber, varying from a quarter to a half mile in 
width. This timber is mostly pine, with a general sprinkling of 
deciduous trees. Northeast and north of Buffalo Bayou the great 
southern pine woods begin, and here on these bayous we find the 
most southwesterly extension of such forests. 

The country between Buffalo and Bray’s Bayous and south of 
the latter is typical flat, open and almost level coastal prairie, with 
little vegetation and few farms or ranch houses. Sprinkled about 
this prairie are numerous grass-grown ponds and marshes. 

The majority of the records are from two sections; the first is a 
narrow strip of country extending west from the city, about a mile 
wide, and having Buffalo Bayou as its northern boundary; the 
second is an expanse of prairie within a mile’s radius of Pierce 
Junction, a small flag-station 63 miles south of Houston. The 
woodland records are from the first, while the prairie and marsh 
records are from the second. All distances are in miles from the 
flag-station at Pierce Junction and the county court house in 
Houston. 


318 Srumons, Nesting of Texan Birds. Rees 


Little time could be spared during the breeding season to search 
for nests and eggs; hence the notes are by no means as complete 
as might be desired. Excessive rains often made it impracticable 
to go afield during that period, for so level is the country that for 
weeks after a rain water stands in the woodlands and on the prairies. 
Though over 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, Houston’s altitude 
is but 53 feet. 

With few exceptions, the notes were all taken on short afternoon 
walks within a few miles of the city. But as there are few nesting 
records for the eastern half of Texas, an expanse of territory com- 
prising over one twenty-fifth of the United States, I feel that I am 
justified in publishing the more interesting of these notes in order 
to settle the question of the breeding of certain species in that 
region. 


Anas fulvigula maculosa. Motrriep Ducx.— On April 17, 1911, 
Captain Patrick Daly of the Houston Fire Department, while out hunting 
plover on the coastal prairie about a mile southeast of Pierce Junction, and 
driving about in a small wagon among a number of small prairie ponds, 
frequently mentioned in the following notes, flushed a female of this species 
from a nest containing eleven eggs. As is the case with all ponds in this 
section of prairie, the whole with the exception of a small spot near the 
center was thickly covered with tall grass, rushes, water plants of various 
sorts, and Tage with a few bushes or reeds, locally one as ‘ coffee 
bean’ or ‘senna.’ 

The nest itself was placed about eight inches up in thick marsh grass and 
rushes, over water four inches deep, and was neatly hidden by the tops of 
the grasses and rushes being drawn together over the nest. It was but 
two or three inches thick, a slightly concave saucer of dead, buffy rushes 
and marsh grass, supported by the thick grasses and by two small ‘ coffee 
bean’ reeds. The lining was of smaller sections and fragments of the 
rushes and marsh grass, and a small quantity of cotton; and the eleven eggs 
were well, though not thickly surrounded by down and soft feathers, 
evidently from the breast of the parent. 

From its resting place in the tall marsh grass in the neck of the prairie 
pond, Captain Daly transferred the nest and all the eggs to his wagon, and 
after covering them with a sack drove for three or four hours over the 
uneven ground. In the afternoon he drove back to the city, leaving the 
eggs at a farm house about four miles from the ponds. They were then 
placed under a setting hen and ten young hatched. 

Then came the problem of feeding them. At first they were placed 
in a pen where they could have both sunlight and shade, a pan of water 


A orale | Simmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. 319 


and a little sand, while for food a quantity of common corn chops was 
thrown to them. But it was soon found that they would not touch 
chops; so numbers of small, tender angle worms were taken, cut into 
sections about a quarter of an inch long and thrown into the water where 
the downy young ducks could reach them. These were eagerly devoured, 
as was boiled rice, but before this menu was arranged six of the young 
maculosa departed this life. Three of the remaining four lived to become 
- full-fledged adults, and are alive and healthy at the time of the writing of 
this note. 

Another, and probably the best method of feeding the remaining young 
was to place in their pen a stale soup bone which drew large numbers of 
flies. These the young eagerly caught and devoured, soon waxing fat and 
luxuriant. 

Ixobrychus exilis. Lxrasr Bitrprn.— Prior to the breeding season of 
1914 I had recorded but few specimens of this rare summer resident, and 
had never found a nest. 

On May 30, 1914, while splashing through the small, marshy prairie 
ponds about a mile southeast of Pierce Junction, and searching hopefully 
for nests of the Mottled Duck and Louisiana Clapper Rail, I saw one of 
these birds fly up from the reeds ahead of me. It was some time before I 
could locate the nest, for it was evident that the bird had gone some dis- 
tance through the rushes before taking wing. 

But when I did find it I was fully repaid for my search, for it contained 
five eggs. The nest was supported by several rushes, dead reeds and the 
broken stem of a small persimmon sapling growing in the pond. At this 
point the reeds and rushes were not so thick, and the nest and eggs could 
easily be seen at a distance of fifteen or twenty feet. The bottom of the 
nest just touched the water, which was there about eighteen inches deep. 

The nest itself was quite firmly built, with few loose ends projecting from 
the mass. It was built entirely of straight stems and twigs of a brushy 
reed which grows about the ponds, quite different from the flexible reeds 
and rushes used in the construction of the nests of the other water birds 
of the region. It measured about six and a half inches across the top and 
five inches high, being cone shaped and tapering towards the bottom. So 
flat was the top of the nest that it seemed the slightest jar would cause the 
eggs to roll off, for there were no rushes or grasses to guard the sides of the 
nest as in the case of the Rails and Gallinules. 

The five eggs were of a pale, bluish white color, much paler than other 
eggs of the Least Bittern I have examined. They were well incubated, 
and measured: 1.19 X 89; 1.18 X .90; 1.18 X .89; 1.17 X .90; and 1.15 X 
88. 

On the same day, but in another of the small ponds or sloughs, I found a 
second nest of this bird, which contained nothing but shells and fragments 
of shells to show that the young had already left the nest. It was built of 
the same rusty, inflexible twigs used in the first nest. 


[ Auk 
July 


320 Simmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. 

On June 6 I made another trip to the pond last mentioned, and discovered 
a third nest, similar to the first two, a nest that I had doubtless overlooked 
in my hurried search of the previous trip. This nest was wider but not so 
thick as the others, and was resting on several water plants of the lily 
family, almost flush with the water. It was well hidden by thick reeds and 
grasses, and had apparently already been used. 

Ionornis martinica. PurpPLe GaLLINuLE.— A fairly common sum- 
mer resident about the marshy ponds of the open coastal prairie, but I 
never found a nest until the season of 1914. f 

May 30, in the same pond with the nest and five eggs of the Least Bittern, 
I flushed one of these Gallinules from a nest containing five well incubated 
eggs. The nest itself was about eight inches in diameter, three and a 
quarter inches thick, and about ten inches above the water. It was 
placed in an isolated clump of rushes on the edge of the open water at the 
center of the pond, the water at that point being about thirty inches deep. 

The living tules or rushes of the clump composed about half of the nesting 
material, the stalks being broken and bent over and the nest resting on 
these. The nest was composed of buffy rushes, loosely woven into a slightly 
concave mass. 

The five eggs measured: 1.60 1.10; 1.53 & 1.08; 1.52 X 1.08; 1.50 X 
1.07; and 1.47 X 1.09. 

On this trip, as well as on the next (June 6), I carefully searched all of 
the ponds in the vicinity, and found several nests that had already been 
used, as well as numbers of platforms that were evidently ‘shams.’ In one 
pond in particular, I found at least ten of these platforms about ten feet 
apart; they were all formed by the tops of the saw grass and rushes being 
bent over or broken and interlaced. From the fact that each of these 
platforms was stained by the white excreta of the bird, I am led to believe 
that the birds use them as perches during the night so as to be safe from the 
depredations of the smaller mammals inhabiting the region. 

Gallinula galeata. FLoripa GALLINULE.— But once have I found a 
nest of this Gallinule. On May 28, 1910, while examining a number of 
nests of the Florida Red-wing in the tall reeds and grasses on the edge of a 
lagoon in the San Jacinto bottoms, adjacent to Galveston Bay, I observed 
a platform of grasses and reeds about six inches in height. There the 
water was about a foot deep, while the grasses and rushes grew nearly as 
high as one’s head. 

Seeing this platform set me to searching and I soon found several more, 
all empty. And then, as I was about to give up the search, I flushed the 
Gallinule from a clump of tall rushes and grasses. The nest was cunhingly 
concealed over but three inches of water, and built up ten inches above it; 
a slightly concave mass about nine and a half inches in diameter and four 
inches thick, and loosely composed of rushes, reeds and saw grass. It was 
entirely surrounded by reeds, with but one open side. Since that date 
have never returned to the locality. 

The six eggs in this nest measured: 1.77 X 1.27; 1.76 X 1.26; 1.75 X 
1.255. 1:73 XX 1:26; 1.72% 1.27; and 1.67 X< 1.28; 


age Summons, Nesting of Texan Birds. 321 


Numenius americanus. Lonc-BILLED CurLEw.— On June 1, 1910, 
in company with Messrs. H. G. Hill and E. G. Ainslie, I came on a marshy 
pond near Almeda station, thirteen miles south of Houston. Through the 
tall reeds and rushes we could see a number of birds on a short stretch of 
silt between the reeds and water on the far side of the pond, and decided 
to investigate. By crawling slowly through the tall grass and reeds we 
were able to approach within about twenty yards of the birds before they 
saw us. There were three adult Long-billed Curlew and seven smaller 
ones, almost fully fledged but barely able to fly. 

The actions of the adults were especially interesting. Often one would 
spring into the air for a few feet, circle the pond, and relight on the silt. 
At other times it would merely spring into the air for a few feet, flap its 
wings several times and then alight, raising its wings over its back as it did 
so, and then refolding them. 

Finally, as one of the adults flew up and circled the pond, it observed us 
as we lay at full length in the tall grass. At the sound of the hoarse, noisy 
alarm call the whole flock took wing and flew about a hundred yards, dis- 
appearing into the tall marsh grass. As I had expected, the flight of the 
smaller birds was exceedingly labored and heavy. After giving the alarm, 
the adult circled the pond again and followed the flock. 

The number of birds puzzled me greatly. It is not unlikely that this 
flock was composed of two families, the younger birds being doubtless 
reared somewhere in the near vicinity. 

Colinus virginianus virginianus. Boxs-wuHite.— During the five 
breeding seasons covered by this paper I found but two nests of this fairly 
common resident. 

The first, May 26, 1912, contained thirteen eggs, the nest being under 
the edge of a bale of hay in an old shed on the prairie not far from a ranch 
house about a mile southeast of Pierce Junction. Entrance on the north 
side of the bale, with the cavity of the nest slightly sunk in the ground; 
well lined with dead grasses. Nest quite difficult to locate and only found 
by flushing the bird. 

The second, July 20, 1912, contained ten heavily incubated eggs. The 
nest was skilfully concealed in a small tangled clump containing a black- 
berry vine, several weeds and several thick tussocks of prairie grass, in a 
weedy old pasture on the edge of the pine woods, about four and a half 
miles west of the city. The pasture was sprinkled with such small thickets 
as the one that contained the nest. The nest was but fifty feet from the 
edge of the timber, where the pine woods were encroaching on the prairie. 
The nesting cavity was well arched, sunk slightly in the ground, and faced 
the east. 

The following day, on xisiting the nest, I found all of the eggs broken 
and scattered about in front of the thicket, perhaps the work of the parent 
itself, or, what is more likely, the work of some four-footed enemy. 

The cavity was five and a half inches from side to side, and five inches 
from top to bottom; it was well lined with dry grasses. 


322 Simmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. Eevee 


The set containing thirteen eggs yielded the following: 1.25 X .95; 
1.25  .94; 1.25: 94; 1.25 94; 1.24 95; 1.24 *% 95: 1.24 56 195: 
1,22. X 983) V21, % 94; 1.20. K).94; 11.20: *%. 935. 0:19 % 2Ote L1G eae 

Tympanuchus americanus attwateri. ATTwaTER’s PRAIRIE 
CHICKEN.— Not uncommon as a resident in the wilder portions of the 
prairies, but I have never found a nest. On June 7, 1913, at Aldine, a 
station eleven miles north of Houston, two adults and twelve downy young 
were observed by the side of the railroad track. 

Meleagris gallopavo silvestris. Wui_tp TurKry.— I know of but one 
nest of this scarce resident for the region under consideration. On May 8, 
1912, a farmer by the name of Whicker found a nest by the side of a log 
in the bottom woods near Penn City, thirteen miles east of Houston. The 
seven eggs were placed under a domestic hen, and five puny young hatched. 
They lived but a few days. 

Zenaidura macroura marginella. WerstERN Mournina Dovs.— 
Common resident in all open country. As I have found dozens of nests, 
general descriptions would be best. 

The nests I have found on the ground, in low bushes and trees, and as 
high as sixty feet in tall pines. They are usually placed about six feet 
from the ground on the lower limbs of pine trees along the edges of the 
woods, in huisache trees on the prairies, in the post oak trees of the scat- 
tered motts in the open country, and in the shade and orchard trees around 
ranch houses. When they are placed in pine trees along the edges of pine 
woods, the nests are nearly always composed entirely of dead pine needles. 
When in trees on the prairies, the nests are shallow saucers of straws and 
dead grasses. 

With only one exception, each nest contained two eggs. On May 21, 
1911, a nest was found on the horizontal limb of a pear tree in a deserted 
pear orchard; it contained three eggs. One nest contained two eggs which 
were quite small, measuring: .98 X .54 and .97 X .50. The largest 
measured 1.17 X .89, and the average of a large series is 1.10 X .80. The 
nesting season extends from April 16 to July 20, though the majority of 
nests are found in latter April and early May. Only a few pairs rear 
second or third broods. 

Chemepelia passerina passerina. Grounp Dove.— My only 
record for the occurrence of this bird and my only breeding record are one 
and the same. On June 1, 1910, I flushed a bird from a nest containing 
two young nearly ready to leave the confines of their birthplace. The nest 
itself was hardly a nest at all, for it was only a slight hollow in the ground, 
amid the short grass and stubble on the edge of an orchard on the. prairie 
near Almeda, thirteen miles south of Houston, and lined with only a few 
tiny grasses and hairs. 

Buteo lineatus texanus. Texas ReEpD-sHOULDERED Hawk.— A 
common resident for so large a bird, but the nests are generally in such tall 
pines as to be practically inaccessible. Of the many nests I have found, 
and of the few I have been able to reach by climbing, I have found but one 
that was occupied. 


THE AUK, VOL. XOONTT: PLATE XXII. 


BETWEEN THE PRAIRIE AND THE TIMBERLAND, CoAsTaL REGION NEAR 
Houston, TEx. 


Open Pink Woops on Burrato Bayou. 


Leet are Simmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. 323 

On April 29, 1911, I found the nest when it contained two downy young 
only a day or two out of the shell. The nest was placed about thirty feet 
up in a small pine tree in the woods on Buffalo Bayou about eight miles: 
west of Houston. It was a well-constructed domicile, and had evidently 
been used for several seasons. It was a mass of sticks, dead leaves and 
Spanish moss twenty-four inches high, in a crotch formed by three branches: 
of the main trunk of the tree. It measured twenty-one inches across the: 
top; and the cavity, which was three inches deep, was neatly lined with 
quite a quantity of fresh, green and fragrant pine needles. 

Seven days later (May 6) the young were slightly larger, and the 
sheathed tips of the primaries were beginning to appear. And on May 14 
they faced me with snapping beaks and showed a strong desire to claw me. 
Both were gaining in strength and size day by day, though one of the birds 
appeared smaller and more timid than the other. The tips of the primaries 
had appeared. 

On May 27, the last day I was able to visit the nest, the young were 
nearly as large as the parents. With the exception of their heads they were’ 
apparently fully feathered. Their heads had a rather mottled appearance, 
caused by the feathers appearing amid the grayish down. Undoubtedly 
they would leave the nest in a day or two. 

On the various trips I made to the nest, I found beside the young the 
remains of their food: small snakes, frogs, and on one occasion the 
remains of a bird, a male Louisiana Cardinal (C. c. magnirostris). 

The other nests which I located were all in pines, from forty to eighty 
feet from the ground, generally in open pine woods with little underbrush. 

Halizetus leucocephalus leucocephalus. Batp Eacur.— Very 
rare resident, inhabiting the wilder country around Galveston Bay. I was 
shown a young bird which was taken from a nest in the bottom woods on 
Taylor’s Bayou not far from the bay, and later viewed the nest, a massive 
structure seventy feet from the ground in an immense pine. This nest was 
destroyed by a violent storm in the latter part of 1911. Another nest has 
been reported to me from the north side of the bay, but I have not had the 
time to visit the locality and investigate. 

Otus asio mccallii. Texas?! Screeca Owx.— April 5, 1913, in the 
woods on Buffalo Bayou about four and a half miles west of Houston, I 
found a nest in a natural hollow of an elm tree standing on the slope of the 
bayou; it contained four eggs, incubation far advanced. The entrance 
to the cavity was nine feet from the ground at a bend in the trunk of the 
tree; from the bend the cavity extended almost vertically down into the 
heart of the tree, about thirty inches deep and six inches in diameter; 
trunk of tree about ten inches in diameter. Only a few leaves and grasses, 
with a slight lining of feathets, were between the eggs and the bottom of the 
cavity. It was some time before I could force the female to leave the nest; 


1 Cf. Ridgway, Robert. The Birds of North and Middle America. Part VI, 
p. 694, footnote b. ; 


324 Simmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. Sule 


poking her with a stick had no effect other than to make her snap her 
mandibles, so I was forced to use a hook and pull her out by the neck. 

These four eggs measured: 1.32 X 1.16; 1.31 X 1.12; 1.80 x 1.19; 
and 1.30 X 1.17. 

Coccyzus americanus americanus. YELLOW-BILLED CucKoo.— 
May 17, 1914, I found my only nest of this fairly common summer resident. 
It was placed on the horizontal limb of a young pine on the edge of the 
Buffalo Bayou woods four miles west of the city, and contained three eggs. 
The nest was a slight platform about eleven feet up, through which I could 
see with ease; it was composed of small pine twigs, about an eighth of an 
inch in diameter and averaging six or eight inches long, and was much more 
concave than I had expected. This shallow saucer was neatly, though 
quite thinly lined with a few pine needles, a small quantity of Spanish moss 
and several tiny buds. 

A week later I visited the nest and found that some bird, presumably the 
rightful owner, had pecked a hole in one of the eggs and the nest was 
deserted. The three eggs measured: 1.22 X .93; 1.20 X .94; and 1.20 x 
92. 

Ceryle alcyon alcyon. BrutTep KinerisHerR.— On May 28, 1910, I 
made an investigation of the sand banks along the south side of the Houston 
ship channel (Buffalo Bayou) about six miles east of the city, bent on 
finding the burrow of this bird, for on several occasions I had observed 
individuals during the breeding season in that section. There the banks 
were almost vertical, from eight to ten feet high, and had a narrow shelf 
between their base and the water’s edge. 

Several old tunnels were located, but as they were nearly all covered 
with spider webs I passed them by. Finally, after walking and scrambling 
about a half mile along the base of these sand banks, I came to a likely 
looking hole about seven feet up and about a foot and a half from the turf 
of the solid ground above. Several old roots offered footholds, and I was 
soon peering into the cavity; with the aid of a mirror I ascertained that 
the tunnel did not curve, and that it contained eggs. I did not attempt to 
dig them out, but used a make-shift hoe (a piece of wire bent on the end of a 
stick) and by careful work dragged out the eggs, six in number, together 
with a small amount of rubbish on which they were laid. The parents did 
not appear until I had already secured the eggs. 

This set of six measured: 1.35 X 1.08; 1.385 X 1.02; 1.33 X 1.09; 
1.33 X 1.08; 1.82 X 1.09; and 1.30 X 1.07. 

Dryobates borealis. Rep-cockapED WoopPEcKER.— In a certain 
section of the pine woods on Buffalo Bayou, about eight miles west of 
Houston, I had occasionally noted Red-cockaded Woodpeckers, and was 
convinced they nested in that locality. But it was not until May 25, 1912, 
that I had an opportunity to thoroughly investigate the locality. 

I had spent several hours searching before I saw the bird, clinging to the 
side of a dead pine in a small clearing densely covered with thickets. -And 
by the side of the bird was a likely looking hole. On my approach the bird 


Utero Stmmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. 325 


left the tree, and during the time I was at the nest stayed a considerable 
distance away, now and thlen uttering its short, shrill note. 

I had some difficulty in reaching the base of the tree; but to climb the 
twenty-one feet to the cavity was the work of a moment. Removing the 
front, I found the eggs to be two in number, nest stained and well incubated, 
and laid on a small quantity of pithy pine chips. 

The two eggs measured: .91 X .69 and .87 X .69. 

Melanerpes erythrocephalus. Rrep-HEADED WoopPEcKER.— During 
the seasons covered by this paper I located several excavations of this 
Woodpecker, but the majority were in dead pines too large and unsteady 
to attempt to climb. It was not until May 27, 1912, that I located a 
cavity containing eggs. The birds had selected a dead pine on the edge 
of a patch of timber by the side of a railroad track on the southern edge of 
Houston, and thirty feet from the ground had chiseled a domicile. ,The 
pine was quite rotten and swayed dangerously, but the bird did not leave 
the nest until I was within four or five feet of the cavity. Three eggs, 
evidently fresh, formed the set. Two days later I returned with a com- 
panion, this time bent on chopping into the cavity, but found that the eggs 
had disappeared. 

Colaptes auratus auratus. Fiicker.— This Woodpecker is quite 
rare in Texas, and the only previous nesting record I can now recall is that 
of J. A. Singley from Lee County. 

During June of 1911 I was encamped at Sylvan Beach, on the shores of 
Galveston Bay, about twenty-eight miles east of Houston. On the 11th, 
while crossing the picnic grounds, I was extremely surprised to observe one 
of these birds. I followed it to where it lit on a sweet-gum tree near the 
pavilion, noting that there was a hole in the stub of a branch broken off 
close to the trunk, about twenty-five feet from the ground. 

The next day, June 12, I returned, climbed to the cavity, and removed 
a section from the front. The cavity was only ten inches deep, but was 
quite roomy, and contained seven slightly incubated eggs, nest stained and 
laid on a few chips from the rotten limb in which the nest was situated. 

The set yielded the following measurements: 1.20 X .88; 1.19 X .87; 
peis <;.86; 118 & .88; 15 & .86;, 1.14-x<..80; and 1.12 X .85. 

Chordeiles virginianus chapmani. Fiorima NightHAwK.— Though 
this species is a common summer resident on all the open prairies, and 
evidently breeds commonly, I have but once found its egg. On June 4, 
1913, about a hundred and fifty yards east of the flag-station at Pierce 
Junction, I flushed a Nighthawk from a single egg on a bare, hard-baked 
spot on the open prairie, several miles from the nearest timber. Return- 
ing a few days later I found that the egg had disappeared. 

Myiarchus crinitus. ©restep FiycatcHeErR.— A not uncommon 
summer resident in the vicinity of Houston. In May, 1911, a pair of these 
birds occupied the joint and elbow of a stove-pipe hanging loosely by wires 
against the side of a small house on the edge of the Buffalo Bayou woods 
about six miles west of Houston. On the 20th I took a stepladder and 


326 Stmmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. snes 


climbed up to investigate, causing the birds to desert the nest. Later the 
pipe was taken down and cleaned out, and the nest found to contain three 
eggs. The nest itself was a mass of rubbish of all sorts: cedar bark, twigs, 
grasses, feathers, pine needles, and dead leaves, and was lined with horse 
hair, feathers and cast off snake skin. 

I found another nest of the bird on June 6, 1914, which contained five 
eggs. An old lard bucket lying on its side in a tiny trough in a well shaded 
sheep-pen on Taylor’s ranch had been half filled with rubbish of various 
sorts: grasses, cedar bark, snake skin, straws, chicken and guinea feathers, 
etc., and the eggs had been laid in a hollow in the material near the back of 
the bucket. To me this nest was especially interesting from the fact that 
Taylor’s ranch is on the open prairie about a mile south of Pierce Junction, 
and at least four miles from the nearest timber. Quite a number of shade 
trees surround the house and sheep-pens, but I never would have expected 
this Flycatcher at such a place. 

The five eggs measured: .98 X .67; .94 X .67; .91 X .68; .90 X .67; 
and .89 X .68. 

Cyanocitta cristata florincola. FLoripa Biuure Jay.— Though this 
bird is a common resident, I have found but two nests, one of which was 
accidently destroyed before the eggs were laid. 

The other was discovered May 6, 1911, by watching the birds carry mud 
to be used in its construction. I did not climb to the nest until May 14, 
thinking the birds were still building the nest, and hence was surprised to 
find that it contained three eggs very heavily incubated. 

The nest was forty-eight feet from the ground, on a three-inch limb 
about six feet from the trunk of the pine tree in which it was situated, and 
was composed of twigs and a little Spanish moss, plastered together with 
wet clayey mud, and lined with rootlets. The birds were quite shy and 
quiet, in sharp contrast to their conduct at other times of the year. This 
nest was about a hundred yards north of the house where my first Crested 
Flycatcher’s nest was found. 

These three eggs measured: 1.07 X .81; 1.05 X .79; and 1.04 X .81. ' 

Sturnella magna argutula. SouTHERN MrapowLarK.— During the 
_ breeding season these birds are quite common on the prairies, but their 
nests are very difficult to discover and it was not oe the season of 1914 
that I was able to locate even one. 

It was on May 30, 1914, that my first nest was discovered. I was walk- 
ing slowly across the grassy prairies about a mile north of Pierce Junction, 
when the bird flushed from almost under my feet leaving its arched or 
domed nest and four heavily incubated eggs for my inspection. The nest 
was cunningly concealed in a small clump of grass on a slight knoll, and was 
thus several inches above the surrounding surface, which was under water 
from the recent heavy rains. The nest inside measured four inches from 
side to side, four inches from front to back, three and a half inches from 
top to bottom, and the entrance was four and a half inches across. The 
specks on the eggs were all grouped at the extremity of the larger end. 


ener cad Simmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. oot 


June 6, 1914, I was shown a nest in a small pasture back of Taylor’s 
ranch house, a mile south of Pierce Junction. It was exactly similar to 
the one above described, but faced the west where the first faced the north. 
It was in a small tussock of grass on the closely cropped surface, and con- 
tained three young fully fledged. 

On June 11, I flushed a female from another domed nest on the prairie, a 
half mile north of Pierce Junction. The nest was well concealed under a 
tussock of grass, slightly sunk in the ground, well lined with dry grasses, 
and contained four fresh eggs. 

Set No. 1 measured: 1.20 X .82; 1.10 X .80; 1.04 X .81; and 1.03 X 
.78; while the eggs from nest No. 3 yielded the following: 1.11 X .79; 
TAOS. 195) 09% 277; and 1:06) X ..76: 

Passerherbulus maritimus sennetti. Texas SEASIDE SPARROW.— 
Not an uncommon resident in the salt marshes near the bay, but I have 
only once recorded the’ bird in the vicinity of Houston. 

June 1, 1910, found Messrs. Howard G. Hill, E. G. Ainslie and myself 
walking southward from Houston across the open coastal prairie. A half 
mile north of Pierce Junction we stopped at a small marsh to check off a 
few of the more common species on our list, and in tramping through the 
rushes and tall grass I flushed one of these Sparrows from a nest on the 
moist ground in a clump of the thick grass. The nest was composed of 
coarse dry grasses, lined with finer, and contained three well fledged young. 
The nest was not a domed structure, but was more on the order of the nests 
of the Florida Red-wing (Agelaius pheniceus floridanus) which surrounded 
it, for some of the nesting material was entwined about the stalks of the 
grass. Inside, the nest measured two and a fourth inches in diameter by 
one and a half deep. Both parents were present, and though nervous were 
not at all shy, for they often approached within three or four feet of us, 
perching for a moment on one reed and then on another. 

Peucea estivalis bachmani. BacHMAN’s Sparrow.— On April 25, 
1914, Mr. George B. Ewing (my companion on some hundred-odd field 
trips) came to me with the information that he had that morning found a 
nest the like of which he had never seen. In company with a party of 
surveyors in the woods about nine miles east of Houston and two miles 
north of Buffalo Bayou, he was tracing a line through the timber when he 
discovered the nest with three eggs under a small brushy sage-bush in a 
clearing. 

We visited the locality, and though several of the birds were observed, 
the first nest was the only one found. The nest was not arched or roofed 
over, as I had read in the manuals, but more perfectly fitted the description 
of the nest of the Pine-woods Sparrow. It was perfectly round, with the 
rim everywhere of equal height, and was set down on the ground amongst 
the short grass and stubble. It was a well-constructed nest, composed 
entirely of dry grasses, and was lined with fine grass tops and a few long 
horse hairs. As it lost its shape on being carried back to the city in Ewing’s 
knapsack during the afternoon, I was not able to take its measurements. 


328 Simmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. Rees 


Although the day was misty and rainy the nest and eggs were quite dry 
in the shelter of the bush, so that an arched nest would not have helped 
matters to any considerable extent. 

After being emptied of their contents, the eggs lost their faint pinkish 
tinge and became a dead white; the shell was smooth of texture and had 
very little gloss. They measured: .78 X .61; .75 X .61; and .73 X .62. 

Cardinalis cardinalis cardinalis. Carpinaut.!— Common resident, 
but though I have found numerous nests in the thickets and moss-covered 
trees along the bayous after the nesting season is over, my occupied nests 
have been few. _ 

May 29, 1910, I found my first nest. It was placed in a blackberry 
thicket on a farm about four miles west of the city, and contained two eggs. 
April 29, 1911, nest No. 2 was found in the open woods on Buffalo Bayou 
about eight miles west of the city. It was placed on the horizontal limb 
of an oak sapling, twelve feet from the ground, and was composed of twigs, 
corn husks and gray Spanish moss; inside, it measured one and three- 
quarter inches deep and/three inches in diameter. It contained four 
slightly incubated eggs. 

Nest No. 3 was discovered in a patch of cut-over woods on the north . 
side of the bayou about nine miles west of the city; it was placed in a 
post-oak sapling five feet from the ground, and was composed of moss, 
plant fibre, corn husks, and pieces of newspaper. The lining was of smaller 
strips of corn husks and plant fibre. The three eggs which the nest con- 
tained were advanced in incubation. Date, May 6, 1911. 

Nest No. 4 was six feet from the ground in a small oak sapling in a 
clearing of the Buffalo Bayou woods about six miles west of Houston, and 
on April 20, 1912, contained three eggs. It was composed of Spanish moss, 
pieces of broom weed, and dead leaves, and was lined with dry grasses. 
Nest No. 5 turned up on May 11, 1912, and contained three eggs. It was 
in a pear orchard on the farm where nest No. 1 was found, and was placed 
six feet from the ground on the tip of alimb. It was composed of Spanish 
moss, and lined with firmly-woven strips of corn husks about a quarter of, 
an inch wide. 

Nest No. 6 was an unusually small, neat structure, and when found on 
July 21, 1912, contained four newly hatched young. It was in a small oak 
on the edge of the orchard where No. 5 was found, and I feel sure belonged 
to the same pair of birds. The nest was composed of the usual corn husks 
and grasses, but contained no moss; it was firmly woven, and placed in a 
fork twelve feet from the ground; inside, it measured two and a half inches 
across by one and three-quarter inches deep. 

Probably the most interesting nest of the lot was No. 7. I did not 
discover it until August 17 (1912), evidently some time after it had been 


1 These birds belong in all probability to the form which Bangs has described as 
C. c. magnirostris from Louisiana, cf. Proc. N. E. Zool. Club, IV, p. 5. March, 
1903. 


eral Summons, Nesting of Texan Birds. 329 
deserted. It was placed four feet up in a small peach tree in the orchard 
where the last two nests were found, and appeared to be an unusually high 
nest. It contained fragments of two Cardinal eggs and one egg of the 
Dwarf Cowbird. The nest was collected for the reason that the outer 
layer was composed of at least a half dozen cast-off snake skins, and on 
pulling it apart to determine the exact amount of that material used I was 
extremely surprised to find that it was a two-story structure. The lower 
floor contained two Dwarf Cowbird eggs imbedded in the nesting material. 

The last nest, No. 8, was found on April 21, 1914, in a small thicket on 
Taylor’s ranch, one mile south of Pierce Junction. It was placed two anda 
half feet up in a small Mexican mulberry, and contained three eggs, which 
were destroyed several days later by heavy rains. 

One of the deserted nests which I found was placed thirty feet from the 
ground in the open woods on Buffalo Bayou, in easy view. 

The eggs cannot with certainty be distinguished from those of the other 
subspecies of Cardinals, though some of the eggs are quite different. Set 
No. 1 measured: .90 X .72 and .88 X 71. Set No. 2 measured: .86 X .63; 
82 X .65; .82 X .65; and .77 X .61. Sets 3, 4 and 5 in their respective 
order, yielded the following: 1.13 X .72; 1.04 X .71; .98 X .73; .93 X 
e700 SATO (B01. 715,101 K 78; 99.0275; and..98 X .76. 

Guiraca cerulea cerulea. Biur Grospeax.— This bird is a very 
rare summer resident in the vicinity of Houston, and I have found but one 
nest. On May 17, 1913, it was found in a small marshy place of an orchard 
on an old farm about four and a half miles west of the city. The male and 
female were both present, but were not at all noisy and showed no alarm. 
The nest was three and a half feet up in a small bush in a damp thicket, 
and was composed of grasses, corn husks and a few withered leaves. It was 
lined with fine brown rootlets and a few horse hairs; on the outside it was 
four and three-quarter inches in diameter; inside, two and a half inches in 
diameter by two inches deep. 

The four eggs which the nest contained measured: .87 X .63; .86 X.63; 
185 < .625 and: ‘82 x .62. 

Passerina ciris. PainteEp Buntinc.— Rare summer resident; only 
one nest was found, and that on May 17, 1913, in a small bush in the 
thicket where I found the nest of the Blue Grosbeak, and not over fifty feet 
from that nest. The female flushed, and revealed four of its eggs and one 
egg of the Dwarf Cowbird. It was three and a half feet up in a small 
crotch, well hidden, and composed of weeds, grasses, strips of bark, leaves, 
and a few small twigs of grape-vine; the lining was of fine dry grasses. It 
was indeed a neat and compact little nest. 

The four Bunting eggs measured: .80 X .58; .79 X .56; .78 X .58; 
and .77 X .56; and the egg of the Dwarf Cowbird: .75 X .59. 

Spiza americana. DickcisseEL.— Common summer resident on the 
prairies, and though I have several times found fragments of their egg shells 
I have found but one nest. On May 21, 1911, in the small marsh a 
half mile north of Pierce Junction, it was discovered, almost on the ground 


330 Smumons, Nesting of Texan Birds. he 


in a small bush and well hidden. It was a compact structure, composed of 
grasses, weed stems, fragments of the dry marsh grass, and a few dead 
leaves, and was lined with finer dry grasses. 

The four eggs which it contained measured: .88 X .64; .84 X .66; 
.83 X .65; and .80 X .61. The first specimen is quite pointed at the 
smaller end, while the last three are quite equally rounded at either end. 

Piranga rubra rubra. Summer Tanacer.— Though a fairly common 
summer resident in the vicinity of Houston, particularly in deciduous 
woods, I have been able to locate but one of its nests. On July 6, 1912, 
I discovered the domicile of this bird, about twenty feet from the ground 
in an oak tree in a patch of oak woods on Buffalo Bayou about five and a 
half miles west of Houston. It was built in the smaller branches of the 
tree, near the extremity of the limb, and it was only by climbing above it 
that I was able to examine the contents, three young nearly ready to leave 
the nest. The nest itself appeared to be a very carelessly built structure, 
composed of a few grass stems, bark strips, pieces of dry leaves and weeds, 
and was lined with fine grass stems and a few catkins. Both parents were 
present, and very nervous; the female remained quiet while the male 
continually uttered its call of pit-tuck, tuck. 

Geothlypis trichas trichas. MaryLanp YELLOW-THROAT.— Only 
one nest of this fairly common summer resident was found. On June 1, 
1911, in a two-acre marsh a half mile north of Pierce Junction, I came on 
one of these birds which acted as if it had a nest nearby, so I lay down to 
watch. The bird, a male, was quite nervous, and it was some time before 
he would approach the nest; finally, after I had lost him for a moment, he 
appeared with an insect in his bill and flew to a tall clump of rushes about 
a hundred feet away. I was soon at the place, parting the stems, and it 
was but a moment until I located the nest. As I parted the rushes sur- 
rounding the nest, the three fully fledged young which it contained hopped 
from it and scattered in the surrounding grassy jungles, where I had some 
difficulty in catching them. The nest itself was wedged in between the 
stalks of the rushes about three inches above the slush of the marsh, and 
was composed of very coarse dry grasses and lined with the finer dry grass 
tops. Inside it measured one and forty-five hundredths inches in diameter 
and an inch and a half deep. 

Icteria virens virens. YELLOW-BREASTED CHatT.— Very rare, and I 
have found but one nest. On May 8, 1910, a nest containing four eggs was 
found in low underbrush by the orchard of the farm where the nests of the 
Blue Grosbeak and Painted Bunting were found, and not over thirty feet 
from either of those nests. It was three feet up in a small thicket in a 
damp spot, and was composed of dry grasses, strips of bark, a few weeds 
and leaves, laid in layers. It was lined with finer grasses and a few root- 
lets; inside, it measured two and a half inches across by two and a quarter 
inches deep. 

The four eggs measured: .92 X .69; .92 X .68; .91 X .70; and .87 X 
.67. 


a 


herrea Simmons, Nesting of Texan Birds. 301 


Beolophus bicolor. Turrep Titmouse.— On May 20, 1911, I 
located my first nest of this common resident. It was in an old Wood- 
pecker hole thirty feet up in a tottering pine stump in a clearing in the 
Buffalo Bayou woods about nine miles west of the city. I could not 
examine it, for it was impossible to make my climbers hold in the soft wood, 
but I felt sure it contained young as one of the parents carried an insect 
in its bill. 

On March 22, 1913, while wandering through the woodlands along the 
bayou about four and a half miles west of Houston, I found a cavity con- 
taining five eggs. The dead oak stood in open woods not a hundred yards 
from the line dividing the prairie and the timber lands. The nest was in a 
natural cavity, between the bark and wood of the stub of a five inch limb, 
about ten feet from the ground. It was a mass of rubbish of all sorts: 
pieces of dead elm leaves, horse hair, cast-off snake skin, small chips of the 
oak bark, cow hair, pieces of dead grass, small green lichens, weeds and 
plant fibres, and was back in the body of the tree eleven inches from the 
entrance. So closely did the bird sit that I was forced to pull her out by 
the tail. She was sitting with her head towards the heart of the tree, in a 
space scarcely large enough for her body. 

The five eggs measured: .73 X .56; .72 X .56; .72 X .55; .71 X .56; 
and .70 X .56. 

Hylocichla mustelina. Woop THrusH.— Very rare during the 
summer months in deciduous woods, and breeds. 

On April 29, 1911, I discovered a nest in easy view on a bare limb of a 
small oak sapling in open oak woodlands on Buffalo Bayou about six miles 
west of the city. It was twelve feet from the ground and set firmly on a 
horizontal fork three feet from the trunk, and was composed of grasses, 
weed stems, inner fibre of Spanish moss, and fine rootlets; it contained large 
quantities of mud, and was shaped into a very neat bowl, the bottom almost 
flat and the sides perpendicular. No mud showed outside, though the sides 
of the nest were very thin, but the inside was as smooth as a piece of pottery, 
none of the nesting material showing through the wall of mud. Into this 
neat bowl had been placed a lining of fine rootlets and grass stems. The 
nest measured two and three-quarter inches in depth externally, two 
inches deep inside, four and three-quarter inches in diameter externally, 
and three and a quarter inches in diameter inside. 

The nest contained one of the Wood Thrush’s blue eggs and one egg of 
the Dwarf Cowbird. On May 6, I returned and found both eggs in frag- 
ments on the ground beneath the nest. On both trips the birds were 
present; the nest was deserted with the destruction of the eggs. 


‘\ 


332 Murpuy, Birds of Trinidad Islet Retire 


THE BIRD LIFE OF TRINIDAD ISLET. 
BY ROBERT CUSHMAN MURPHY. 
Plates XXIII-XXV. 


East of the coast of Espirito Santo some seven hundred miles 
lies a fairy island. Alone in the tropical ocean, piled up in peaks 
as fantastic as tossing waves, and overhung with pennons of torn 
clouds which seem to flutter from the summits, Trinidad has 
exercised a strange charm upon the imaginations of all who have 
but seen its silhouette on the borderline of sky and sea. During 
four centuries it has been a landmark in the trade routes of the 
South Atlantic, often sought by sailing vessels as a check upon 
their nautical reckonings. Before the days of steamers it was a 
veritable signpost at a crossroads of the sea, yet few indeed are the 
travelers who have set foot upon its crumbling shore. Pirates in 
the old times, whalers, treasure-seeking adventurers, ill-fated 
colonists, in their turn have come to Trinidad and gone; the island 
seems unfalteringly to forbid the encroachment of permanent 
habitation. None who have felt its presence can speak or think of 
it unstirred; even the prosaic pages of the ‘South Atlantic Pilot’ 
become alluring at the account of Trinidad, and the Director of 
the British Antarctic Expedition of 1901, though he surveyed the 
islet with the critical eye of science, was deeply impressed by “the 
dream-like appearance of this remarkable cluster of volcanic peaks 
in the early tropical dawn.” 

Trinidad was discovered early in the sixteenth century by the 
Portuguese admiral, Tristan da Cunha; consequently it appears on 
most old maps of the western hemisphere. Captain Edmund 
Halley, afterwards Astronomer Royal to George the First of 
England, and of popular fame through his comet, visited the island 
in April, 1700, while conducting a voyage for the study of magnetic 
variation. Halley landed on April 15 in search of water, which he 
soon found. On the seventeenth he moored his vessel, the Para- 
more Pink, off the western end, with “the high steep Rock like a 
Ninepin E. S. E. Whilst the Longboat brought more water on 


- SerTW SHneN 


“ONVISI GWGINIML 


Gi “a 


SS 


ig 


yoo wav T 


fit 


} 
uN 


2) yurog Sem 


fPrmnsrpng 


2 utdeur N eUL 


oF 


4d BION 


TIXXX “TOA “ANY FHL 


TWIXX FLV Td 


Pai Mourpuy, Birds of Trinidad Islet. 333 
board,” he writes, “I-went ashore and put some Goats and Hogs 
on the Island for Breed, as also a pair of Guiney Hens I carried 
from St. Helena. And I took possession of the Island in his 
Majesty’s name, as knowing it to be granted by the King’s Letters 
Patents, leaving the Union Flag flying. 

“The Water of the Island being very fine and good I empty’d 
my Cisterns of their brackish St. Helena Water,’’ continues the 
astronomer’s account. “The Watering place we used was a little 
to the southward of the high Steep Rock, where the water run all the 
time we were there with a plentiful stream, but the Shoar being 
very rocky much endammaged our Cask.” 

Halley’s goats and hogs were destined to have an overwhelming 
effect upon Trinidad, a subject to which I shall return below. The 
astronomer’s claim to the island did not prevent a subsequent 
Portuguese attempt at colonization. In 1781 the English likewise 
tried to found a settlement, an enterprise terminated within three 
months, presumably by shortage of water. The ownership re- 
mained in doubt until 1895, when a dispute between Great Britain 
and Brazil regarding the possession of Trinidad as a possible coaling 
station, was decided by an international court in favor of Brazil, 
on the merits of original discovery by the Portuguese. 

Narratives of brief calls at Trinidad may be found among many 
worm-eaten volumes of old voyages. For information regarding 
pirates and buried gold Mr. Knight’s ‘Cruise of the Alerte’ should 
be consulted. The indomitable British sea-fighter and novelist, 
Captain Marryat, once crossed the island’s mysterious mountains, 
and afterwards incorporated his experiences in his first novel, 
‘Frank Mildmay.’ Whalers, which differ from merchantmen in 
that they are never in a hurry, still stop at Trinidad and lie off- 
shore while their crews lower boats and spend the day fishing in the 
prolific coast waters. Among other visitors have been naturalists 
of passing scientific expeditions, whenever they may have found 
the sea sufficiently quiet to permit landing. 

Trinidad lies in latitude 20° 30’ S., longitude 29° 22’ W., at the 
edge of the southeast ttade-winds. Its width is hardly more than 
a mile and a quarter, a distance great enough, however, to require 
at least one day’s laborious and perilous journeying over the 
single practicable mountain route. According to Prior, /. ¢., rock 


304 Morpuy, Birds of Trinidad Islet. [ie 


samples from Trinidad, “as well as many of the geological features 
of the island, such as the remarkable peaks of phonolite associated 
with basaltic lavas, suggest analogies between Trinidad and the 
Island of Fernando Noronha, off the coast of Brazil, a thousand 
miles to the north, so that it appears possible that the two islands 
owe their origin to a very similar, if not contemporaneous, volcanic 
outbreak.” Over all the island the brittle, standing rock has 
assumed grotesque forms through extreme weathering. In the 
words of Mr. Knight, Trinidad “is rotten throughout, its substance 
has been disintegrated by volcanic fires and by the action of water, 
so that it is everywhere tumbling to pieces.””. Tremendous physio- 
graphic changes are brought about by the collapsing of outworn 
mountain sides. One of these changes is vividly described by 
Knight in the ‘Cruise of the Alerte.’ The author, with a compan- 
ion, was vainly searching for a ravine through which he had de- 
scended to the northeastern coast of Trinidad nine years before. 
Eventually he found the way, which, however, was no longer a 
ravine. “The mountain on which we stood,” he writes, “had 
fallen away, leaving a precipitous step some fifty or sixty feet in 
height, and from this step there sloped down to a depth, I should 
say, of quite 1,500 feet a great landslip of broken rocks, the débris 
of the fallen mountain. This landslip appeared to have taken 
place not long since. It was composed of rocks of all sizes and 
shapes, almost coal black, piled one on the other at so steep an 
angle that it was extraordinary how the mass held together and 
did not topple over. It was indeed in places more like an artificial 
wall of rough stones on a gigantic scale than a landslip.”’ : 
Rainfall is rather plentiful at Trinidad, but the porous soil sucks 
up much of the water of the springs before it can flow to the sea, 
and recurring drought is one of the chief objections to human 
colonization. Another serious handicap is the island’s boisterous 
shore, for the waves render landing almost continuously impossible 
during the winter months of June, July, and August, as well as 
during a large proportion of the remainder of the year. Southwest 
winds raise the heaviest seas, but the effects of far away pamperos 
are frequently manifested by huge breakers even when the weather 
is locally serene. During northerly winds there is a good lee, and 
relatively quiet water, along the southwestern coast. The wind- 


Ce reameal Mourpuy, birds of Trinidad Islet. 300 


ward beach of Trinidad is perpetually strewn with wreckage, for 
many a fine square-rigger, since the days of treasure-ships and 
slave-traders, has been lost among the outlying reefs. During 
favorable weather vessels may obtain drinking water at two places, 
on opposite sides of the island — the Cascade, and the river by the 
old Portuguese settlement. Explicit directions for watering are 
given by Captain Amasa Delano. 

Probably the first naturalist to set foot upon Trinidad was the 
veteran botanist, Sir Joseph Hooker, in 1839, during the voyage 
of the Erebus and Terror. The vegetation, like most insular floras, 
comprises rather few species. Moreover, according to Hemsley, 
the flora is of recent origin as compared with that of St. Helena. 
Less than twenty species of vascular plants are known, of which 
several are ferns. The tree-fern, so conspicuous on the plateaus 
and higher slopes, is an endemic species, Cyathea Copelandi. The 
lower limit of its zone of growth was determined by the naturalists 
of the Discovery to be at an altitude of about eleven hundred feet. 
There are a few sparse grasses and sedges, a widespread, tropical, 
tangling bean (Canavalia), a sage, and several mosses and lichens 
including a tree-infesting Usnea. But the most striking element 
in the vegetation of Trinidad is its great groves of dead trees of the 
genus Cesalpinia. Records of the old mariners say that the island 
was once heavily forested, even to the pinnacles of the Sugarloaf 
Mountain and the Ninepin. All its trees, however, have long since 
been dead, the last mention of living forests harking back to the 
eighteenth century. Captain Marryat, whose picturesque and 
truthful account of Trinidad appeared in his first work of fiction 
in 1829, relates the following observations regarding a valley among 
the island’s hills: 

“Here a wonderful and most melancholy phenomenon arrested 
our attention. Thousands and thousands of trees covered the 
valley, each of them about thirty feet high; but every tree was 
dead, and extended its leafless boughs to another — a forest of 
desolation, as if nature had at some particular moment ceased to 
vegetate! There was no ‘underwood or grass. On the lowest of 
the dead boughs, the gannets, and other sea-birds, had built their 
nests in numbers uncountable. Their tameness, as Cowper says, 

. ‘was shocking to me.’ So unaccustomed did they seem to man 


336 Murpuy, Birds of Trinidad Islet. eves 


that the mothers, brooding over their young, only opened their 
beaks in a menacing attitude at us, as we passed by them. 

“How to account satisfactorily for the simultaneous destruction 
of this vast forest of trees was very difficult: there was no want of 
rich earth for nourishment of the roots. The most probable cause 
appeared to me, a sudden and continued eruption of sulphuric 
effluvia from the voleano; or else, by some unusually heavy gale of 
wind or hurricane, the trees had been drenched with salt water to 
their roots.” 

The wood of these gnarled trees is hard and imperishable, so 
that a similar condition obtains today, excepting that most of the 
trunks have fallen to earth. Jnight’s account is not unlike that of 
Captain Marryat; his conclusion also is the same: 

“The mountain slopes were thickly covered with dead wood — 
wood, too, that had evidently long since been dead; some of these 
leafless trunks were prostrate, some still stood up as they had 
grown.... When we afterwards discovered that over the whole 
of this extensive island, from the beach up to the summit of the 
highest mountain — at the bottom and on the slopes of every now 
barren ravine, on whose loose-rolling stones no vegetation could 
possibly take root — these dead trees were strewed as closely as it 
is possible for trees to grow; and when we further perceived that 
they all seemed to have died at one and the same time, as if plague- 
struck, and that no single live specimen, young or old, was to be 
found anywhere — our amazement was increased. 

“Looking at the rotten, broken-up condition of the rock, 
and the nature of the soil, where there is a soil — a loose powder, 
not consolidated like earth, but having the appearance of fallen 
voleanic ash — I could not help imagining that some great eruption 
had brought about all this desolation;....I think this theory a 
more probable one than that of a long drought, a not very likely 
contingency in this rather rainy region.” 

Admitting a general impoverishment of vegetation, Copeland 
has suggested a still more probable agency than recent volcanic 
action. He asks whether the goats, introduced by Halley in 1700, 
may not have destroyed the trees of Trinidad, as happened, ac- 
cording to Darwin, to the trees of St. Helena. It has been pointed 
out that such a theory would involve both a change of climate and 


ne | Murpny, Birds of Trinidad Islet. 300 


the extermination of the goats themselves, a theory in harmony 
with the facts, for water is undoubtedly scarcer at Trinidad than a 
hundred years ago, while the last record of the goats is that of Sir 
James Clark Ross, who saw one in 1839. A third of a century 
earlier, in 1803, Captain Delano saw “plenty of goats and hogs,” 
and “some cats” (the only record). 

Other mammals of the island are mice, possibly introduced. 
Excepting birds, the remaining vertebrates are sea turtles, which 
lay their eggs in the warm sand of the beaches, and sea snakes,} 
reported by Knight as inhabiting the tidal pools. Crabs (Gecar- 
cinus lagostomus) are by far the most abundant terrestrial animals, 
swarming over the whole island, their burrows everywhere under- 
mining the soil. These saffron-colored crustaceans made a pro- 
found impression upon the imagination of Mr. Knight, who soon 
found that he could not lie down to sleep without being attacked 
by hordes of the creatures, which, he writes, “might well be the 
restless spirits of the pirates themselves, for they are indeed more 
ugly and evil, and generally more diabolical-looking than the 
bloodiest pirate who ever lived.” At night the only resource, he 
states, was to rise and slaughter a large number of the crabs, when 
the others would devour “their dead brethren, making a merry 
crackling noise all round as they pulled the joints asunder and 
opened the shells.” The common tropical rock crab, Grapsus 
maculatus, is found along the coastline of the island. Other living 
creatures collected or mentioned by various visitors are earth- 
worms, flies, roaches, ants, earwigs, moths, dragon-flies, and five 
species of spiders. 

About sunset of April 7, 1913, I sighted Trinidad, forty miles to 
the northward, from the masthead of the whaler Daisy. Early 
next morning the gray pile lay right in our path, with the rocks of 
Martin Vas barely visible in the east. The order for lowering the 
boats was given; we left the Daisy in the offing, and pulled 
ahead, fired with enthusiasm, toward the white-lined coast. Three 
Man-o’-war Birds were winding in and out between the topgallant 
a EE LE Te Oe Bie ed Oe PG CO es 


1 Perhaps, however, Knight’s ‘‘sea snakes’’ are morays. Copeland, J. c., p. 276, 
records the capture, ‘‘in den Wassertiimpeln des Riffs,’’ of ‘‘einen seltsam gefleckten 
Aal, weiss und schwarz.’’ 'Thedescription fits the Atlanticspotted moray (Gymno- 
thorax). 


338 Murruy, Birds of Trinidad Islet. [Sule 


masts of the brig. An inquisitive Booby flew between two of the 
oarsmen in our whaleboat, and the Noddies (Anous) were scarcely 
less familiar. The White Terns (Gygis), and the several kinds of 
native petrels, were also very numerous, but they kept their dis- 
tance, through indifference rather than fear. During the row 
toward shore the thunder of surf rang louder and louder in our ears, 
the sound rebounding from many rocky walls. The air was per- 
fectly calm, but a southeasterly ground swell heaped up a tremen- 
dous surge of waters on the ironbound coast, which was formed 
either of the precipitous cliffs themselves, or of beaches about a yard 
wide completely strewn with sharp blocks of the mountain. The 
line of breaking water was, nevertheless, so narrow that at some 
places we could safely come within twenty feet of shore. 

We approached the island at the Ness (cf. map), a peninsula 
of somewhat columnar rock which suggests a bit of the Giants’ 
Causeway. From here we skirted the western end, ultimately 
rounding North Point, but nowhere finding a landing place. 
Whenever the whaleboat’s prow was pushed close to the rock in a 
sheltered angle, the whole craft rose and fell in such a dizzy and 
appalling manner that several of our seasoned whalemen became 
seasick. 

From the brig and the whaleboat I was able to enjoy a good view 
of the island’s skyline and general topography through its length of 
four or five miles. At the southeastern end is a ridge-roofed 
promontory of brick-red volcanic tufa, terminating in the cliff of 
South Point, which is pierced by an archway. Knight has aptly 
styled this headland “Noah’s Ark.’ According to the ‘South 
Atlantic Pilot,’ the surf sometimes breaks two hundred feet above 
its base. Overtowering Noah’s Ark is the Sugarloaf (1160 ft.), 
which greatly resembles the conical mount of the same name at 
Rio Janeiro. The rock is gray phonolite, so worn and grottoed by 
pluvial action that its texture is like the cut surface of a Swiss 
cheese. Under this mount, says tradition, “there was an im- 
mense treasure buried, consisting principally of gold and silver 
plate and ornaments, the plunder of Peruvian churches which 
certain pirates had concealed there in the year 1821.” Northwest 
of the Sugarloaf lies a green valley, with-several clumps of shrubs. 
The mate of the Daisy told me that there is a cluster of stone- 


ae Morpnay, Birds of Trinidad Islet. 009 


marked graves on the northern side of the valley. The highest 
point of Trinidad, 2020 feet on the Admiralty chart but 3000 
according to the ‘South Atlantic Pilot,’ is near the center of the 
island. The summits of the ridges are more than serrate, being a 
succession of needle-like pinnacles. At the western end of the 
island stands one of the most remarkable rock structures in the 
world, the Ninepin of Halley, known also as the Monument, and 
the Priest, a cylindrical tower of dark gray stone, doubtless a 
phonolitie dike, rising from the ocean to a height of nearly nine 
hundred feet. In common with all the bare steeps of this isle, the 
surface of the Ninepin is pitted and undercut into designs like 
arabesques. In outline and proportion the great column may be 
compared with the two distal phalanges of a man’s index finger. 
Leaning slightly less than the Tower of Pisa, planned on the grand- 
est scale of Nature’s architecture, its utterly inaccessible wall 
furnishes nesting chambers for tens of thousands of feathered 
sprites, which sit within their niches like saints about a cathedral 
spire. No sight had ever seemed so impressive as I gazed from the 


small boat straight upward to the Ninepin’s lofty summit, envel- 


oped in a cloud of midge-like birds. 

Since landing was out of the question, we began fishing with 
considerable success off the West Point, just outside the line of 
breaking sea. The bottom was very rocky, varying in depth from 
three to seven fathoms. Many of the captured bottom fishes were 
brilliantly colored. The largest species, excepting sharks, was a 
red-spotted garupa (Epinephalus?), in several instances over four 
feet long and weighing fifty or sixty pounds. Several kinds of 
trigger-fish (Balistide) proved abundant. Here, as at Fernando 
Noronha, we lost many of our prizes because of sharks, the lines 
often coming inboard with nothing but fishes’ heads on the hooks. 
Even one of our largest garupas was nipped in half. We succeeded 
in hooking and harpooning a number of cat sharks (Ginglymostoma), 
the ugly mouths of which harbored curious, extensible leeches. 
Larger sharks were about the brig all day, and a Booby which was 
shot and wounded so that it fell into the water, first had its legs 
bitten off, and was then devoured as one morsel. At the surface 
of the sea near shore were schools of needle-gars (Hemirhamphus). 
The mandible of this small fish is long, resembling the beak of a 


/ 


3 


340 Murpny, Birds of Trinidad Islet. [fas 


swordfish, but the upper jaw is very short. They have an espe- 


cially curious appearance when they open their mouths widely to ~ 


feed, the seemingly useless bill merely passing beneath a bit of 
food. Our sailors threw scraps of fat into the water alongside the 
whaleboat, and captured many of the needle-gars with their hands. 
Altogether we caught approximately two hundred fishes, repre- 
senting nine species, of which two have proved new to science. 
Seventeen species are known from Trinidad, but the whole number 
of native fishes is doubtless far greater, and the abundance of 
individuals almost beyond exaggeration. 

While we were fishing, a number of flat, triangular flies, Pseudol- 
fersia spinifera, a species which lives as a parasite among the 
feathers of the Man-o’-war Bird, flew into the boat. They scut- 
tled sidewise like crabs, adroitly dodging capture, and seemed bent 
on getting on the under side of whatever they alighted upon, 
whether a gunstock, one’s hand, or a thwart of the boat. These 
flies were the only insects we saw. 

Birds were about in countless hosts, filling the air and covering 
the rocks. The Noddies (Anous stolidus) were incredibly confi- 
dent and curious, hovering round our heads, even alighting upon 
them, and peering into our faces so closely that one had to look at 
them cross-eyed. It was the simplest matter to catch them in the 
hand as they fluttered among us. Four of them I banded with 
aluminum rings of the American Bird Banding Association — 
numbers 7941, 7943, 7945, 7947; may their wearers once again 
entrust themselves within the clutches of a naturalist! But the 
Noddies were not one whit more abundant than the exquisite Love 
Birds (Gygis). At Trinidad there are perhaps more of these terns 
than anywhere else in the world. They were flying mostly in 
pairs, and pairs also were sitting together in many rocky niches. 
Most delicate and wraith like of birds are these White Terns; 
when they fly against the glare transmitted from a bright sky, the 
dark line of their wing bones is projected like an x-ray shadow 
through the milk-white feathers. 

Boobies soared among the pinnacles a thousand feet above us. 
Man-o’-war Birds, flying overhead, seemed all head, wings, and 
tail. There are two species at Trinidad, and both were more 
interested in the brig offshore than in our tiny whaleboats. The 


cae | Murpnuy, Birds of Trinidad Islet. 341 
Man-o’war Birds are notorious pirates in their feeding habits, but 
I saw a troop of the smaller species (Fregata ariel) fishing for them- 
selves. Half a dozen of them hovered in a row over a school of 
small surface fish, and faced in a direction opposite to that in which 
the fish were moving. While the birds poised close over the water 
they beat their big wings slowly. Then at the right moment they 
struck downward, swinging their long bills like scimitars back 
under their bodies, the hooked tip seizing a fish from the rear. 
They seemed to catch three or four a minute, and yet made no 
commotion among the moving school of their victims. One 
Man-o’-war Bird was caught on a fishhook from the Daisy. 

Trinidad’s endemic petrels, of the genus distrelata, were as 
numberless as the Noddies. Arminjon’s Petrel, which was nidifi- 
cating or perhaps only resting, in water-worn cells of the rock, made 
up the bulk of these birds. They frequently quarreled with one 
another in air, chattering not unlike terns. They were perfectly 
fearless, but disinterested. Specimens shot had not long since 
bred, for the abdomens were bare. The black species, . trinitatis, 
seemed somewhat less common. During the forenoon I had shot 
one of the latter with the right barrel of my gun, in the vicinity of 
two small rocks near the Ninepin, when a very white petrel flew 
swiftly toward us from the sea. Intuitively, in that momentary 
glimpse, I recognized a bird with which I was not familiar. A 
fortunate, long shot, straight up from the shoulder, brought it 
hurtling to the water, and we reached it sooner than the sharks. 
It proved to be a species new to science, more beautiful than all its 
congeners, clad in a black-flecked cloak like ermine. I have named 
it Hstrelata chionophara, the Snowy-mantled Petrel. 

All the birds that we saw were, of course, sea birds — none others 
have been found at Trinidad. But through the whole day, while 
our little boat skirted the seething edge of ocean, I gazed longingly 
at the tree-ferns far above, and could not help thinking that there 
may have been unknown land birds there, among the spires of the 


fascinating, unattainable mountains. 
“ 


ie Ae mah Auk 
342 Murpuy, Birds of Trinidad Islet. [july 


Annotated [Inst of Birds. 


1. Numida (meleagris?) Linné. Nothing further has ever been 
heard of Halley’s ‘‘ Guiney Hens ”’ beyond the fact that he freed a pair on 
Trinidad in April, 1700. The same lack of history applies to a domestic 

_cock and two hens brought from England by Sir James Clark Ross in 1839, 
and placed ashore ‘‘ with a view to add somewhat to the stock of useful 
creatures.” 

2. Puffinus gravis (O’Reilly).? A large white-breasted shearwater, 
believed to have been of this species, was seen by Nicoll (Three Voyages, 
p. 61) within half a mile of shore at the islets of Martin Vas, twenty-six 
miles east of Trinidad, on January 5, 1906. 

Puffinus gravis occurs as a rover all over the tropical and south temperate 
Atlantic. It has been collected by the writer, during the month of March, 
due south of Trinidad in latitude 39° 8. It has been suggested that the 
species may breed on the island of Tristan da Cunha or one of its outliers. 

3-5. Aéstrelata arminjoniana Gigl. & Salvad. #strelata armin- 
joniana, Gigl. & Salvad., Ibis, 1869, p. 62. Giglioli, Distr. Fauna Vertebr. 
Oceano, 1870, p. 42. CG strelata mollis, Saunders, Proc. Zool. Soc., 1880, 
p. 164. Cstrelata arminjoniana, Salvin in Rowley’s Ornith. Misc., Vol. I, 
1876, pp. 234, 252, pl. 31. Salvin, Cat. B. XXV, p. 413. Lowe, Bull. 
B. O. C., XTX, p. 98. Wilson, Ibis, 1904, p. 213. Sharpe, Ibis, 1904, p. 
215. Nicoll, Bull. B. O. C., XVI, p. 102; Ibis, 1904, p. 41. Godman, 
Monogr. of Petrels, 1908, p. 229, pl. 65. C£strelata armingoniana, Nicoll, 
Ibis, 1906, p. 671. Cstrelata wilsoni, Sharpe, Ibis, 1904, p. 216. Nicoll, 
Ibis, 1906, p. 671; Bull. B. O.C., XVI, p.103. CM strelata alba, Brabourne 
& Chubb, Birds So. America, I, 1912, p. 31. 

Zistrelata trinitatis Gigl. & Salvad. M#strelata trinitatis, Gigl. & 
Salvad., Ibis, 1869, p. 65. Pterodroma trinitatis, Gigl. Distr. Fauna 
Vertebr. Oceano, 1870, p. 40. Césirelata trinitatis, Salvin in Rowley’s 
Ornith. Misc., I, 1876, p. 253, pl. 32; Cat. B. X XV, p. 413. Wilson, Ibis, 
1904, p. 213. Sharpe, Ibis, 1904, p. 215. Nicoll, Bull. B. O. C., XVI, p. 
103; Ibis, 1906, p. 671. Godman, Monogr. of Petrels, 1908, p. 232, pl. 66. 

#Estrelata chionophara Murphy. #strelata chionophara, Murphy, 
Auk, XXXI, 1914, p. 12, pl. 2. 

Nine specimens of petrels were collected at Trinidad, of which five are 
referable to the species arminjoniana, three to trinitatis, while the other 
has been made the type of a new species, chionophara. It is remarkable 
that no example of the gray-breasted phase of arminjoniana, the phase 
described by Dr. Sharpe as #strelata wilsoni, was either collected or 
observed during our day about the island. 

These three species of closely related, endemic petrels, are the only 
Tubinares known from Trinidad, since the record of strelata mollis 
(Saunders, P. Z. S., l. c.) was based upon an incorrect identification. 

Brabourne and Chubb, l. c., perhaps following a suggestion made in 
Rowley’s Ornithological Miscellany, have synonymized arminjoniana with 
4istrelata alba of Gmelin. In justification of this step the authors allege 


Ahsis ANuN<, Woh OO OUI PLATE XXIV. 


On Lerr; IMMATURE BooBIks,. PROBABLY Sula piscator. 
On Ricutr; uppER, Noppy (Anous stolidus); LowER, TRINIDAD PETREL 
(4istrelata arminjonian:). 


et | Mourpay, Birds of Trinidad Islet. 343 
‘Rio Plata ”’ to be the type locality given by Gmelin, Syst. Nat. I, 1789, 
p. 565. In this citation an error has evidently been made, for Gmelin, 
nowhere mentioning Rio Plata, simply follows Latham, Synopsis, III, 
1785, p. 400, where it is stated that the species ‘“ Inhabits Turtle and 
Christmas Islands.” Pending further light on the subject, 4. alba must 
therefore continue to stand as a doubtful synonym of 42. neglecta. 

We first saw Zstrelata arminjoniana on April 4, 1913, in latitude 25° S., 
longitude 30° 40’ W., nearly four degrees south of Trinidad. This species 
became increasingly common on the fifth, sixth, and seventh of the month, 
as we approached its headquarters. 4. trinitatis was seen only on April 8, 
in the immediate vicinity of the island, and neither bird was noted again, 
although I kept a sharp lookout for several days after we had proceeded 
on our northward journey. 

The validity of the species frinitatis has long been questioned, Salvin 
(Cat. B. Brit. Mus.) and others considering it merely a dark form of 
arminjoniana. It has lately been noticed by both Wilson and Nicoll that 
trinitatis breeds at a higher altitude on Trinidad than arminjoniana, and this 
fact, together with the apparently constant color differences of plumage 
and feet, is the present warrant for granting specific distinction to the two 
birds. The evolution of several well-differentiated representatives of one 
circumscribed section of a genus, whether they be true species or merely 
color phases, is an interesting and rather common phenomenon in the 
genus strelata (viz. jamaicensis and neglecta), and indeed among Tubinares 
in general. As regards the relationships of the petrels inhabiting the small 
oceanic island of Trinidad, it is not improbable that the parti-colored forms 
(arminjoniana, “ wilsoni,” chionophara) are of relatively recent origin, and 
that this small group of birds is still specifically unstable. Such a hypo- 
thesis can at least be made to fit the facts, although a final decision must be 
reserved until a large series of specimens, representing every stage of growth, 
can be studied. Assuming the uniformly colored trinitatis to be nearest the 
parental stem, I find that I can formulate the following progressive arrange- 
ment, partly on the basis of my own specimens, partly on published in- 
formation: 

a. Downy young of all the species, so far as known, dark gray. 

b. trinitatis, immature. Bill black; tarsi and feet black; plumage uni- 
formly blackish-brown; concealed portions of the feathers light gray with 
dark shafts. 

c. trinitatis, adult. The same, except that the concealed portions of the 
feathers are pure white, including the shafts. 

d. arminjoniana, immature (dark ‘ wilsoni’’ phase). Bill black; 
‘tarsi and basal half of the toes very dark brown ”’ (Nicoll), distal half of 
toes black; dorsal plumgge like that of trinitatis; breast dark gray. 

e. arminjoniana, older than the last but not fully mature — or possibly 
the mature bird in fresh plumage? (light ‘‘ wilsoni’’ phase). Bill black; 
tarsi, and basal half of web and two inner toes, flesh color; distal half of 
foot black; breast more or less dark, sometimes showing only on the ex- 


344 Mourrny, Birds of Trinidad Islet. [fae 


treme tips of the white feathers; a broad, mottled collar of gray crossing 
the throat and upper breast. 

f. arminjoniana, fully mature. Similar to the last, but with a pure 
white throat, breast, and belly, the only dark on the under surface being 
on the collar, lower flanks, and crissum. 

g. chionophara, adult. Billflesh color, with a dark unguis; tarsi and feet 
flesh color; entire under surface, excepting lower flanks and tips of under tail- 
coverts, white; back white with dark feather shafts and rhomboid speckles. 

In all my specimens of the three species, the dark plumage of the pileum, 
back, wings, and tail, is of exactly the same color, excepting that one exam- 
ple of arminjoniana is somewhat slaty on the back, owing to wear and 
disintegration of the feathers. 

Among the five specimens of arminjoniana and the three of trinitatis, there 
is considerable individual variation in the depth of the bill; chionophara 
has a more slender bill than either of the others, although it is equally long. 
Chionophara has relatively the shortest tarsus and the longest foot. 

Future study may yet demonstrate that arminjoniana and trinitatis are 
one species; possibly even chionophara may also be included, or may prove 
to be a freak. The last bird is of such striking distinction, however, that 
the only just course was to describe it and give it amame. Mr. Fuertes’ 
drawing (Auk, XXXI, Pl. I1) is a beautiful likeness. It also shows the 
bird in the correct resting position for an 4strelata, and the background is 
quite suggestive of its habitat. 

Measurements of the specimens are appended. The birds marked ‘‘breed- 
ing”’ had large brood-patches, and had evidently been incubating. - The 
testes of the males, however, were non-active and partly pigmented, as might 
be expected in the month of April of Tubinares which breed in the south- 
ern hemisphere. 

Measurements of Skins. 


Exposed Middle toe 
culmen | Tarsus | and claw | Wing) Tail 


4. arminjoniana 
R. C. M. 1974 (in alcohol) 


1975 o& ad. 31 38 49.5 277 | 114 
1977 o breeding 30 ov-0) |) 40 290 | 113 
1976 @ breeding 29 86. . | 48 279 | 111 
1978 2 breeding 29 ot “Ag 268 | 109 
Average of 4 30 Soy Mie aes 279 | 112- 
4E. trinitatis 
1979 9 30.5 | 35 48 276 | 111 
1980 9 31 Boe0 4) 0 273 | 104 
1981 28 34.5 45 272 | 108 
Average of 3 30 35 46 274 | 108 


48. chionophara : 
1982 9 ad (type) 30 33 51 285 | 115 


a 


THE AUK, VoL. XXXII. PLATE XXV. 


Lert To Ricut: ANSTRELATA CHIONOPHARA (1982), Al. ARMINJONIANA (1975) 
AND At. TRINITATIS (1979). 


ae | Morruy, Birds of Trinidad Islet. 345 


6. Sterna fuliginosa Gmelin. The Sooty Tern doubtless occurs at 
Trinidad, for Nicoll, ‘ Ibis,’ 1906, p. 673, records it as inhabiting the rocks 
of Martin Vas. 

7. Anous stolidus (Linné). Anous stolidus, Nicoll, Ibis, 1906, p. 670. 

In spite of the enormous numbers of Noddies noted by our party at 
Trinidad, there seems to be no earlier specific record than that of Nicoll, 
who found these birds abundant, and breeding, on the occasion of his 
landing in January, 1906. None was collected during the visit of the 
Venus in August, 1874, and Dr. Wilson, Naturalist of the Discovery, 
reports that on September 13, 1901, the ‘‘ small, black, Tern-like bird.... 
was by no means frequently seen and was not familiar or inquisitive; con- 
sequently no specimen was obtained.”’ (Ibis, 1904, p. 210.) 

From these data the conclusion, may be drawn that this conspicuous 
species is common on the rocks and over the shore waters of Trinidad only 
during the season of southern summer. It is not unlikely that a migration 
to and from distant islands, or continental coasts, occurs during the months 
between May and December. 

Unfortunately there is only one example of the Noddy among my Trini- 
dad specimens, an immature bird with worn contour feathers but new 
quills. Its measurements agree with those of specimens from Dry Tortu- 
gas, Florida. 

8. Micranous leucocapillus (Gould). One record from Martin Vas 
Rocks, January 5, 1906. (Nicoll, Ibis, 1906, p. 673). 

9. Gygis crawfordi Nicoll. Gygis candida, Saunders, Proc. Zool. Soc., 
1880, p. 163; Cat. B. XXV, p. 151. Wilson, Ibis, 1904, p. 210. Gygis 
alba, Sharpe, Ibis, 1904, p. 217. Gygis crawfordi, Nicoll, Bull. B. O. C., 
XVI, 1906, p. 102; Ibis, 1906, p.669. Murphy, Auk, 1915, p.48. “ Little 
snow-white tern,’ McCormick, ‘ Voyages,’ 1. c., p. 24. 

This recently recognized species is the Atlantic representative of the 
genus, breeding on Fernando Noronha, Ascension, Trinidad, and St. 
Helena, but far more numerously on Trinidad than anywhere else. All 
the naturalists who have visited Trinidad have mentioned it. Sitting 
birds, eggs, and gray downy young in various stages of growth, have been 
observed in April, August, September, and January. Therefore this tern 
breeds practically throughout the year, “‘ from sea-shore to the extreme 
summit of the island,’’ laying a single beautifully marked egg on the rock, 
or on a stump or branch of a dead tree. According to Nicoll, the young 
exhibit great tenacity in clinging to their precarious perches. 

10. Sula piscator (Linné). Sula piscator, Saunders, Proc. Zool. Soc., 
1880, p. 163. Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. B. X XVI, p. 434. Nicoll, Ibis, 1906, 
p. 672. Sula piscatrix, Sharpe, Ibis, 1904, p. 214. 

This Booby breeds apparently throughout the year. Excellent photo- 
graphs of the bird and its nesting site have been published by both Murray 
and Nicoll (see references), while Knight gives an account of the nesting 
colonies in the ravines on the island’s northeastern coast. Flying fish are 
known to make up part of the bird’s food. 


346 Morpay, Birds of Trinidad Islet. jue 


North of the Equator, on April 23, 1913, an immature Booby, probably 
of this same species, flew around the Daisy just after sunset and finally 
alighted on the prow of the stern whaleboat. It paid little attention to the 
helmsman, and was not disturbed even by the noise and riot of a rat-hunt 
on board. About dusk it worked its head down between the scapular 
feathers, its bill pointing straight down its spine, and slept soundly. The 
gentle motion of the ship did not disturb its balance; it swayed slightly, 
but rested firmly on both feet. At half past five next morning it was dis- 
turbed by a sailor entering the stern boat to get a bucket, and flew off. 

Two other Boobies, Sula cyanops and Sula leucogaster, have been taken 
at Ascension, Fernando Noronha, or elsewhere in the tropical Atlantic, 
but neither species has yet been recorded from Trinidad. 

11. Fregata minor nicolli Mathews. Fregata aquila, Saunders, 
Proc. Zool. Soc., 1880, p. 168. Ogilvie-Grant, Cat. B. XXVI, p. 447. 
Sharpe, Ibis, 1904, p. 215. Nicoll, Ibis, 1906, p. 673. Fregata minor 
nicolli, Mathews, Austral Avian Record, II, No. 6, 1914, p. 118. Roths- 
child, Novit. Zool. XXII, 1915, p. 145. 

The recent study by Mathews, together with prompt corrections and 
elaborations by Rothschild, have split up the Man-o’war Birds into five 
species, of which F’. minor is represented by five races ranging through the 
Indian and western Pacific Oceans, and northward in the Atlantic to 
Trinidad. Fregata aquila is now stated by Rothschild to be confined to the 
type locality of Ascension Island, while the Trinidad form, based on the 
study of a series (apparently about twelve specimens), has been mags 
by Mathews as a subspecies of F. minor. 

Man-o’-war Birds, of either this or the following species, are said to nest 
in large numbers on the crags near the North Point of Trinidad. They 
have been found incubating in August, but, according to Nicoll, were not 
breeding in January, 1906. 

12. Fregata ariel (Gould) subsp.? Fregata ariel, Sharpe, Ibis, 1904, 
p. 214. Nicoll, Ibis, 1906, p. 6738. ‘ Atlantic form’ of Fregata ariel, 
Mathews, Austral Avian Record, II, No. 6, 1914, p. 121. 

Two specimens of this small species have been brought to the British 
Museum from Trinidad — an immature example collected by the explorers 
of the Discovery, and an adult male obtained by Nicoll. 

All which I saw were immature birds. I have none in my collection, 
but a specimen caught on a fish hook was skinned by the captain of the 
Daisy, and is now, I believe, in the Milwaukee Museum. I find in my 
notebook the following incomplete description of this specimen, together 
with a mention of its small size: — Head and neck white; a chestnut stripe 
running from the mentum down the front of the neck to the upper breast, 
forming a solid spot on the throat; back, wings, breast, flanks, tail, upper 
and under tail coverts iridescent greenish-black, the feathers of the scapular 
and interscapular regions edged. and tipped with brown; a scale like row 
of brown feathers with darker shafts and whitish edges, extending along 
the wing from wrist to elbow; belly white; feet flesh color; bill horn color; 


igi | Mourpuy, Birds of Trinidad Islet. 347 


sex undetermined. The specimen was invested with a Mallophagan 
parasite (Lipeurus gracilicornis minor) taken also from Tropic-birds 
(Phaéthon lepturus) at Fernando Noronha. 


LITERATURE ON TRINIDAD ISLET. 


1. CoprLanp, R. Ein Besuch auf der Insel Trinidad im siidatlantischen 
Ocean. Abhandl. des naturwiss. Vereines zu Bremen, VII, 
1882, pp. 269-280, Taf. 19. 

2. Datrympte, A. A collection of Voyages chiefly in the Southern At- 
lantick Ocean. London, 1775. Halley’s second voyage, in the 
years 1699 & 1700, pp. 538-55. Map and vertical section of 
Trinidad, pl. H. 

3. Derutano, Amasa. A Narrative of Voyages and Travels in the northern 
and southern Hemispheres. Boston, 1817, pp. 424, 425. 

4, Hemsitey, W. B. South Trinidad. ‘Challenger’? Reports, Botany, 
I, Pt. 8, London, 1885, pp. 123-127. 

5. Kwyicut, E.F. The Cruise of the ‘‘Falcon.’”’ London, 1887, pp. 300- 
329. One illustration of Trinidad. 

6. Kwyicut, E. F. The Cruise of the “Alerte.”” London, 1907, 328 pp., 
map and 16 illustrations from drawings made at Trinidad. 

7. McCormick, R. Voyages of Discovery in the Arctic and Antarctic 
Seas. London, 1884, I, pp. 23-25. Woodcut of the Ninepin, p. 
23. 

8. Marryat, Freperick. Frank Mildmay or the Naval Officer. 1st ed., 
London, 1829, Chap. XIX, 9 pp. 

9. Murray, G. The Voyage southward of the “Discovery,” 2, From 
Madeira to the Cape. Geographical Journal, XIX, 1902, pp. 
423-435. Three photographs and one drawing of Trinidad. 

10. Nicuots, J. T., and Murpuy, R. C. Fishes from South Trinidad 
Islet. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XX XIII, 1914, pp. 261-266, 
figs. 1-3. 

11. Nicorz, M. J. Three Voyages of a Naturalist. London, 1908. 
South Trinidad, pp. 37-58. Nine photographs of scenery and 
bird life. 

12. Prior,G.T. Petrographical Notes on the Rock-Specimens collected 
in the little Island of Trinidad, 8. Atlantic. Mineralogical 
Magazine, London, XII, 1900, pp. 817-323. 

13. Ross, J.C. A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern 
and Antarctic Regions. London, 1847, I, pp. 22-24. Engraving 
of the Ninepin, headpiece of Chap. 1. 

14. Saunpers, H. On the Sea-birds obtained during the Voyage of 
Lord Lindsay’s Yacht “Venus” from Plymouth to Mauritius in 
1874. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, 1880, pp. 161-165. 


348 Wriaut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. [us 


15. Scuarrr, R. F. Distribution and Origin of Life in America, New 
York, 1912, pp. 385, 386. 

16. Scorr, R. F. The Voyage of the “Discovery.” I, London, 1905, 
pp. 94, 95. 

17. SHarprt, R. B. Report on the Birds obtained by the National 
Antarctic Expedition at the Island of South Trinidad. Ibis, 1904, 
pp. 214-217. : 

18. The South Atlantic Pilot, Pt. 1, 4th ed. (1893), p. 48. 

19. Witson, E. A. The Birds of the Island of South Trinidad. Ibis, 
1904, pp. 208-213. 


EARLY RECORDS OF THE WILD TURKEY. V. 


BY ALBERT HAZEN WRIGHT. 


(Concluded from p. 224.) 


Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. 


In this area the wild turkey held its own against two centuries of 
civilization’s advances. The first note comes in 1658-1660 when 
Peter Esprit Radisson (1. c. pp. 152, 212) finds in the country of the 
“Pontonatemicks”’ (Lake Superior region) “there are so many 
Tourkeys that the boys throw stones at them for their recreation.” 
Of this same region, he again says “many have Turkeys.” The — 
Jesuit Relations speak of the turkey in this region in several 
accounts. In 1661 and 1662 they assert that in the Mississippi 
valley ! “Turkeys and fowls fly in flocks as Starlings do in France.” 
In 1669-70, Marquette, when in the Illinois country, finds ? “There 
is fine hunting of....Turkeys,....” Along the Mississippi River, 
the Relations of 1672-74 say * “Turkeys strut about, on all sides,” 
and of Illinois River they hold that “Turkeys are found there in 
greater numbers than elsewhere.” On Marquette’s Voyage, 


1 The Jesuit Relations.... Vol. XLVII, p. 143. 
2ibid., Vol. LIV, p. 189. 
3ibid., Vol. LVIII, pp. 99, 107. 


Pr 


Vol. £XXIT) Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 349 


1673-77, we find that they, on the upper Mississippi reached ! 
“the parallel of 41 degrees 28 minutes,” “Turkeys had taken the 
place of game.” In the Illinois country, “There was more snow 
there then elsewhere as well as more tracks of animals and Turkeys”’ 
and they here find themselves “in a fine place for hunting cattle, 
deer and turkeys, which are excellent....’’ According to Allouez,? 
“they hunt....Turkey” in Illinois, and, for the same region, 
Binnetau in 1699 records, “Game is plentiful such as ducks.... 
Turkeys.” In 1698, Hennepin mentions Turkey-Cocks for the 
head of the Ilhnois River. When along the Mississippi, he says * 
“T observed they haye tame Poultry, as Hens, Turkey-Cocks, and 
Bustards, which are as tame as our Geese.”” “The country affords 
all sorts of Game as Turkey-Cocks....,” and “in our way we kill’d 
seven or eight Bustards or Wild Turkeys, which in these Countries 
encrease mightily.” In general, “There are to be had... . Turkies, 
which are of an extraordinary bigness.” 

In 1703, La Hontan holds 4 “The River of the Illinese is intitled 
to Riches, by vertue of the benign Climate, and of the great quanti- 
ties of....Turkeys that feed on its brinks.” In 1712, Marest 
records that along the Illinois River,® “Turkeys are likewise found 
here in abundance and they are as good as those of France.” In 
1750, a letter from Vivier finds in the Illinois country that ® “ Wild 
turkeys abound everywhere, in all seasons, except near the in- 
habited portions.” In the same year the mission at Detroit 
purchased turkeys from the natives at several different times.” 
Twenty-eight years later (1778) Hutchins records in Illinois that 8 
“ Savannahs or natural meadows, are both numerous and extensive; 
yielding excellent grass, and feeding great herds of Buffaloe,.... 
Turkies....” Lastly in 1791, J. Long, the Indian interpreter. 
gives the Chippeway name for Turkey as ® “ Weenecobbo.”” The 
following year (1792) John Heckewelder made a journey to the 


ibid. poEX, pple a7 Ss Vis 

2ibid., LX, p. 163: LXV, p. 73. 

3 Hennepin, L. l.c., pp. 93, 94, 123, 137, 149; continuation, p. 137. 
4La Hontan, 1. c., pp. 134, 112. 

5 The Jesuit Relations, Vol. LXVI, p. 225. 

6 ibid., Vol LXIX, pp. 148, 145, 257. 

7ibid., LXX, pp. 59, 63, 43. 

8 Hutchins, 1]. c., p. 44. 

9 Karly Western Travels, Vol. II, p. 263 (orig. p. 223). 


350 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. [ae 
Wabash.! “Wild turkeys and deer were seen in great numbers 
on the banks of the Ohio.’”’ Below Vincinnes on one October day 
they took five turkeys. Opposite Louisville at another time they 
shot four more and the same success was experienced at several 
other places. | 

At the beginning (1801) of the next century Matthew Carey says 
that in the Northwestern and Indiana Territories,” ‘'Turkies. .. . 
are in greater plenty here, than the tame poultry are in any part 
of the old settlements in America.”’ Not until 1816, do we discover 
the next pertinent note. David Thomas in the Wabash country 
at first writes that® ‘““We had been taught to expect that turkies 
were very numerous, but we have been disappointed, for certainly 
we have not seen half a dozen full grown in all the Western Coun- 
try.” Later, he holds that “at that (above) time it appears that 
these fowls were hatching or secreted with their young.” “Wald 
Turkies abound in this country.” The next year 1817, Samuel R. 
Brown records that * “ Wild turkies abound in the hilly districts” 
of Illinois. ‘‘ The woods (of Indiana) abound with deer, bears, 
wolves and wild turkies.”” ‘In travelling seven miles through the 
woods of Dearborn county I counted two bears, three deer and 
upwards of one hundred turkies; more than half of the latter 
however are young ones, just beginning to fly.” In Michigan he 
also notes this species. 

In the early days of Illinois, Morris Birkbeck ° tells us that when 
the stock of provisions failed, the wild turkey was one of the last 
resorts. Its pursuit also served the pioneer with plenty of strong 
exercise. The same author in his “ Letters” writes ® “ We are now 
feasting on wild turkeys. We have not sat down to dinner for the 
last month, I believe, without a fine roast turkey. They weigh 
about twelve pounds, and are sold five for a dollar. Some weigh 


1 Penn. Mag. Hist. and Biog., XII, pp. 166, 173, 176. 

2 Carey, Matthew. American Pocket Atlas. 2nd edit. Phila., 1801, p. 76. 

8’ Thomas, David. Travels through the Western Country in the Summer of 
1816.... Auburn, 1819, pp. 161, 162, 210. 

4 Brown, 8S. R. The Western Gazetteer; Auburn, N. Y., 1817, pp. 30, 48, 78, 
169. 

5’ Birkbeck, Morris. Notes on a Journey in America,.... 3rd edit., London, 
1818, pp. 123, 149. i 

6‘ Birkbeck, M. Letters from Illinois. Phila., 1818, p. 63. 


\ 


ae | Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. oo 


twenty-five pounds — I have heard of thirty. They are fat and 
tender: better I fancy, than Norfolk turkeys; but I must not be 
too ‘positive on this nice point.” In 1817, Fordham when in 
Illinois and Indiana, narrates how “ game is as plentiful as in other 
parts of the U. S. east of the Mississippi,” ! turkeys being among 
the forms he mentions. Two years later, 1819, Faeron finds ” 
turkeys in tolerable quantities in Illinois, and in Michigan Dana 
reports * them in plenty. Hulme in a “Journal of a Tour in the 
Western Countries September 30, 1818—August 8, 1819” remarks 
that* “On our way to Princeton (Ind.), we see large flocks of fine 
wild turkeys,.... Some of the inhabitants who prefer sport to 
work, live by shooting these turkeys....” In the same year, 
Richard Flower says that at Albion, Illinois, one can secure,’ “a 
fine turkey (for) a quarter of a dollar,” and, in another series, he 
notes ‘turkeys in plenty, having purchased four for a dollar the 
preceding week.”’ Along the Wabash River in 1819, John Woods 
tells how ® “they killed... .some turkeys: these they were obliged 
to eat without bread, but once they procured a few potatoes at a 
cabin.” In Illinois, he says, “The birds are turkeys,....”’ “Tur- 
keys are of a large size; we bought many during the winter for 
25 cents each. At that time they were in general, thin, but in 
the spring, they get very fat; we bought one in April that weighed 
more than 20lb. for 1s 83d.” In 1819, W. Faux reports turkeys 
from Vincennes and Princeton, Ind. At the latter place, he 
records ? “turkeys in sickening abundance.” Later, in his account, 
he says, “Colonel Boon and his party, being without bread for six 
months, used wild turkey to their meat as a substitute.” In one 
instance, he gives the prejudiced view of an Englishman who 
retorts “ You talk about your wild turkies and your game, but they 
are not there; game is more scarce than in England.” At Bain- 


1 Fordham, E. P. Personal Narrative,.... Edited by F. A. Ogg. Cleveland, 


O., 1906, pp. 119, 143. 
2 Fearon, H. B. Sketches of America.... 3rd edit., London, 1819, p. 257. 
$ Dana, E. GeographicaljSketches on the Western Country:.... Cincin- 


nati, 1819, p. 262. 
4 Early Western Travels, X, p. 49 (orig. p. 279). 
5 Ibid., X, p. 108 (orig. p. 30), 124 (orig. p. 13). 
6 ibid., X, pp. 263 (orig. p. 147), 291 (orig. p. 196). 
7ibid., XI, pp. 143 (orig. p. 136), 210 (217), 228 (238), 256 (272), 263 (282). 


ou Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. Fe 


bridge, O., on September 5, 1819, Adlard Welby, another English- 
man sees the wild Turkey,! “which seemed to resemble exactly 
our dark tame breed.”’ At the mouth of the Ohio, 1819, Nuttall 
finds 2 ‘The whole country here, on both sides of the Mississippi 
and the Ohio,....abounds with various kinds of game, but particu- 
larly deer and bear, turkeys...’’ The Expedition of Major 
Stephen H. Long on May 27, 1819, records * the turkey at Shawnee- 
town on the Ohio. Schoolcraft (I. ¢., 114) in 1821 on the Wabash 
River says, “The turkey. ...often appear, to enliven this part of 
the river (Mississineva River).”’ In another work he records that 
at Prairie di Chien 4 “the wild turkey,....are also common along 
this part of the Mississippi,....”? On his excursion of 1822-23, 
W. H. Blane (1. c., p. 239) at Carmi, Ind., “passed on a single day’s 
ride... .five gangs of wild turkeys.”’ In “Remarks made on a 
Tour to Prairie du Chien....in 1829” (p. 166) Caleb Atwater 
gives the Sioux name for Turkey, as “Zezeha, Zezecha tunka.” 
In 1832 Timothy Flint (1. c., p. 384) writes, “ Wild turkeys have 
been supposed by some, to abound as much on the waters of White 
River, as they do in the settled regions. Hundreds are sometimes 
driven from one cornfield.” The same year, Vigne (I. ¢., p. 61) 
finds “Wild turkeys are there very plentiful,’ in Indiana and 
Illinois. In the winter of 1832-33, Maximilian Prince of Wied 
says,° “‘ The most interesting of the birds in this part (New Harmony 
on Wabash) is the wild turkey, which was extremely numerous, and 
is still pretty common. A large cock was sold at Harmony for a 
quarter of a dollar. A young man in this neighborhood, who 
supplied the place with this delicate game, had often ten or fifteen 
hanging about his horse at the same time.”’ Later, he writes “my 
informant had killed....great numbers of wild turkeys.” “In 
our excursions we often visited some others of the numerous islands 
in the Wabash, being particularly attracted by the loud cries of the 


libid., p. 208 (orig. p. 62). 

2ibid., XIII, p. 72 (orig. p. 41). 

3 James, Edwin. Account of expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Moun- 
tains.... 2vols. Phila., 1823, Vol. I, p. 32. 

4 Schoolcraft, H. R. Travels in Central Portions of the Mississippi Valley. 
New York, 1825, p. 71. 

5 Barly Western Travels. Vol. XXII, Part I, p. 168 (77), 178 (81), 191(89), 
192(90). 


eee Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 353 


wild turkey; their voice is exactly similar to that of the European 
turkey. We could hear them scratching among the dry leaves on 
the ground, in search of food. If we surprised them, they were 
generally too far off for our fowling-pieces, loaded with small shot, 
for they ran away with extraordinary rapidity. Turkey Island 
seemed to be a favourite place of resort. At the upper end of the 
island drifted wood was frequently piled up to such a height, that 
it was difficult to clamber over it, and among this wood there were 
generally many otters. Here we often found wild turkeys,....; 
and it is really a fine sight to see a flock of these wild turkeys fly 
across the river,.... At Black River, Wabash country, “we 
were unsuccessful in our chase of the wild turkeys, of which we 
sometimes saw whole flocks fly across the Wabash.” 

In 1834, H. R. Schoolcraft in the “ Natural History of Michigan,”’ 
writes that,! “The gallipavo meleagris, or wild turkey, pursues its 
food in the vast ranges of the new counties of the peninsula, and is 
still found in the vicinity of this city. It does not extend its 
summer migrations to the extremity of the peninsula, and has never 
been seen north of it.” The following year, 1835, Chas. Fenno 
Hoffman writes,? “Here the numerous deer-runways, with the 
flocks of wild turkeys... .showed us that we were upon the favorite 
hunting-ground of the Pottawattamies.”’ The same year Patrick 
Shirreff (1. ¢c., p. 434) finds turkeys in endless numbers in Illinois. 
Four years later, 1838, Jas. Hall records that * “ Wild turkeys are 
still abundant. They are shy and difficult to shoot, but our 
hunters kill great numbers of them. In the spring they are found 
in pairs, but during the rest of the year in flocks consisting of the 
old pair and the last brood. Fine turkeys may be bought of the 


”) 


‘hunters for twelve and a half cents apiece.” In 1830-1840 turkeys 


were plentiful+ in Michigan. In this region,®? “A turkey was 
generally roasted by hanging it up before the fire by a string at- 
tached to a beam above. A dripping pan was placed under it and 


1 Schooleraft, H. R. Historical and Scientific Sketches of Michigan. Detroit, 
1834, p. 189. j 

2 Hoffman, Chas. Fenno. A Winter in the West by a New Yorker. N. Y., 
1835, 2 vols., Vol. I, p. 202. 

3 Hall, Jas. Notes on the Western States. Phila., 1838, p. 124. 

4 Mich. Pioneer and Historical Colls., Vol. 6, p. 475. 

5 ibid., Vol. XIV, p. 436, XIII, p. 548. 


304 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. [fas 


it was basted and turned till done. Though cooked by primitive 
means, a turkey roasted in this manner is equal in flavor to the 
best that improved methods can produce.” Finally, i Michigan 
we have this note. “Wild turkeys were often seen by the score 
by the early settlers, and some few have been seen till quite re- 
cently (1888). In the Wabash region in 1855 Beste, an English- 
man, says,! “ We met a peasant carrying a rifle over one shoulder, 
and in the other hand, a black wild turkey.” 


. 


Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota. 


Most of the printed records of the wild turkey in this region come 
after 1800. When at Lake Pepin, J. Carver in 1766-1768, finds 
in November,” “Great numbers of fowl frequent also this Lake and 
rivers adjacent,....and in the groves are found great plenty of 
turkeys and partridges.” In 1804, Captain Clarke traversed this 
region and on one occasion,’ “went out to hunt and killed a small 
turkey.”’ In another instance when the party was only 4 days’ 
trip west of St. Louis, the record says, “passed the mouth of Mine 
River; saw several turkeys on the shores.”’ In 1808-1816, Henry 
Ker (1. ¢., p. 40) and his party when on the Mississippi “were 
visited by a few of the Osark tribe of Indians, who came to us in 
canoes, bringing with them a few turkies;....”’ In 1806, Zebulon 
Montgomery Pike starts on a trip up the Missouri and Osage 
Rivers, and through Kansas to the Pawnee River on the Republican 
River. At Gasconade River, July 24, he* “killed....three tur-, 
keys.” Thereafter, they continue to kill turkeys throughout the 


trip. In one instance he pities some poor fellows to whom he gives . 


whiskey, “they having had only two turkeys for four days.” 
In 1809-1811, Bradbury says,°® “With....turkeys, the town of 


1 Beste, J. R. The Wabash; etc. 2 vols. London, 1855. Vol. 2, p. 50. ; 

2 Carver, J. Travels through the Interior Parts of North America, in the Years 
1766, 1767 and 1768. London, 1778, p. 55. 

8 Gass, Patrick. Journal of the Voyage and Travels of....Capt. Lewis and 
Capt. Clarke....During the Years 1804, 1805, 1806. 4 edit. Phila., 1812, pp. 
27, 262. 

4The Expeditions of Zebulon Montgomery Pike. New edit. Edited by 
Elliott Coues. N. Y., 1893, Vol. II, pp. 366, 368, 370, 373, 381, 394, 395, 399. 

5 Bradbury, John. Travels in the Interior of America in the Years 1809, 1810 
and 1811.... Liverpool, 1817, p. 261. 


i | Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 300 
St. Louis is frequently supplied by a tribe of the Shawnee nation of 
Indians, who live about seventy miles west of that place. They 
usually charge a quarter of a dollar for a turkey or a quarter of 
venison.” In 1811, H. M. Brackenridge when not far from Fort 
Osage up the Missouri writes,! “While Castor was out, he saw a 
white turkey, but was not so fortunate as to kill it. I am told that 
they have sometimes been seen of this color: but I suspect it is 
Rara avis in terris, nigroque simillima cygno.” He finds that, “In 
the settlements, and for a considerable distance up the Missouri, 
turkies stalk through the woods, in numerous flocks, but are rarely 
met with where the open country commences.” 

In 1812, Major Amos Stoddard holds that? “these forests 
(Upper Louisiana) also according to the best accounts, contain 
about a hundred and thirty species of birds. The most useful of 


them are several kind of duck. ...and turkey.” 
In 1816, John D. Hunter (1. c., pp. 170, 388, 425, 432) says, 
“Wild turkey, prairie hens, ete... ..are inhabitants of this country.” 


He tells how a band of Indians may often approach a hostile party 
by gobbling lke a turkey cock and their enemies be not aware of 
their intent or presence. In another instance, he states that when 
Indians choke, they thrust a turkey feather down the throat to 
induce vomiting. Finally, he describes at length, the ‘“ Soo-ke-He- 
Ah (or) young turkies’ feed.” “Turkey pea— There are two 
highly nutritive articles bearing this name, which grow in the 
western country in great abundance, but which are entirely differ- 
ent in character from the one now under consideration. One 
variety is however called by the graziers on the frontiers Pea vine, 
which from its great abundance and nutritive properties constitute 
a highly valuable grazing article. The other has a single stock, 
grows to the height of eight or ten inches, and bears a small pod. 
It is found in rich loose soils, appears amongst the first plants in the 
spring, and produces on the root small tubers of the size of a hazel- 
nut, on which the turkies feed.... But the substance now under 


notice grows to a foot or foot and a half in height, and adorns the 
f 


1 Brackenridge, H. M. Views of Louisiana together with a Journal of a Voyage 
up the Missouri Riverin 1811. Pittsburgh, 1814, pp. 216, 59. 

2 Stoddard, Major Amos. Sketches Historical and Descriptive of Louisiana. 
iBhila., 18025 p. 2eo Wl 


ue 


356 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. July 


borders of the prairies, where in July it almost uniformly bears a 
great profusion of beautiful blossoms, which are white, fringed with 
red on their margins. These are subsequently followed by a 
luxuriant crop of small peas, of which the wild turkies are extremely 
fond, from whence their name... .”’ 

Shortly after, 1818, H. R. Schoolcraft visits the Osarks. Around 
the Great and Little North Forks of the White River, he finds that ! 
“At the early hours in the morning, the wild turkeys appeared in 
large flocks, with their plumage glistening in the light.’”” When at 
Wall-cave valley, November 13, 1818, he says “As the evening 
approached, a flock of turkeys, coming in from the plain to the top 
of the cliff above the cavern, flew down on to the trees directly in 
front of us, sheltered as we were from their sight, and afforded a 
fine opportunity for the exercise of sportsmanship.” Throughout 
the trip, turkeys suffice for many a meal, and, in one case, School- 
craft relates the enjoyment of a “turkey-pie, with a crust of Indian 
meal.” The following year, 1819, the same author records that ? 
“The wild turkey is still common on the bottom lands, and during 
the heat of the day in the open post oak woods.” 

In 1818, Estwick Evans observes the bald eagle and the turkey 
in the réles of pursuer and prey.? “Whilst in the Missourr Terri- 
tory, and not far from the bank of the river, a bald eagle, perched 
upon a tall and blasted oak, attracted my attention.... Whilst 
I was admiring the strength of his form, and the majesty of his 
aspect, a wild turkey flew from a neighbouring tree and alighted 
on the ground. The eagle immediately pounced upon his prey; 
but ere he could effect his object the turkey was shot. I might too, 
have killed the eagle, but admiration and awe prevented me. I 
felt that he was the emblem and the inspiration of my country; 
and at that moment, I would not, for ten thousand worlds like ours, 
have cut a feather of his wing.” In 1820, Stephen Watts Kearny 
in “A Narrative Account of the Council Bluff, St. Peters Military 
Expedition” notes that they * “passed the Wakendaw River on 


1 Schoolcraft, H. R. Scenes and Adventures in the Semi Alpine Region of the 
Osark Mountains of Missouri and Arkansas. Phila., 1853, pp. 59, 66, 79, 80, 85, 
98, 99, 121. 

2 Schoolcraft, H. R. A View of the Lead Mines of Missouri. New York, 1819, 
pp. 36, 37. 

3 Karly Western Travels, VIII, p. 311 (orig. p. 205). 

4Mo. Hist. Soc. Colls., III, 1908, p. 52. 


tip wind 


Poa | Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. oor 


the West at which point we saw large flocks of Turkeys.”” About 
the same time, Stephen H. Long (I. c., pp. 96, 111, 373) finds that 
at Franklin on the Missouri, ‘‘ Most of the deer... ., as well as the 
turkies have fled from this part of the country, though but a few 
years since they were extremely abundant.” and that at Isle au 
Vache (100 miles above Osage) there were great numbers of turkies. 

In 1832, Timothy Flint (1. c., 305, 94) writes that in Missouri 
“Wild turkeys furnish admirable sport to the gunner” and of the 
Mississippi at the Falls of St. Anthony he says, “Its broad and 
placid current is often embarassed with islands, often containing 
from five hundred to a thousand acres, and abounding with wild 
turkeys....”’ The same author in a previous work (1826) finds 
that! “There is a great abundance and variety of wild fowl, and 
turkeys,....”’ at Jackson, Missouri. In 1832-33, Latrobe records 
that 2 “ Turkeys were plentiful in the woods” of Missouri. About 
this same time, Maximilian, Prince of Wied, states that * “wild 
turkeys were not often found” at St. Charles on the Missouri. 
Near Gasconade River, he says “our hunters fired unsuccessfully 
at a flock of wild turkeys.” At Osage on the Missouri, he writes, 
“Some of my people, attracted by the cries of the wild turkeys, 
were tempted to land, but returned without having met with any 
success. I happened to have taken no piece with me, which I 
much regretted for a wild turkey-cock came out of a bush about 
ten paces from me, and stood still, looking at me, while his splendid 
feathers shone in the sun,’ and at Boyer’s Creek near Council 
Bluffs, he notes “ We had a fruitless chase after some wild turkeys.” 
At Missouri City, he finds that “ Wild turkeys are still met with.” 
A year later (April 4, 1834), John K. Townsend at Big Spring, Mo., 
records that? “We then gave up the pursuit, and turned our 
attention to the turkies, which were rather numerous in the thicket. 
They were shy, as usual, and, when started from their lurking 
places, ran away like deer, and hid themselves in the underwood. 


1Flint,T. Recollections pf the Last Ten Years Passed in Occasional Residences 
and Journeyings in the Valley of the Mississippi. Boston, 1826, p. 248. 

2 Latrobe, C. J. The Rambler in North America. 1832-1833, 2 vols. New 
York, 1835, Vol. I, p. 100. 

3 Marly Western Travels, XXII, pp. 240 (orig. p. 113) 241 (114), 247 (117); 
XXIV, pp. 107 (465), 120 (472). 

4ibid., X XI, p. 129 (orig. p. 16). 


358 WricutT, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. [fay 


Occasionally, however, they would perch on the high limbs of the 
trees, and then we had some shots at them. In the course of an 
hour we killed four,...”’ In his Travels 1834-1836, C. A. Murray 
(Il. ¢., p. 73) notices this form at Keokuk. In 1837, A. Wetmore 
writes ! “The game of Missouri, the ranks of which are thinned as 
settlements advance, consists of..., turkeys ete.” In Saline 
County, he says “Turkeys and grouse here give animation to the 
prairie scenery and furnish the table with some of the choicest 
luxuries of life.’ Finally, in 1846, Wm. J. A. Bradford holds that 2 
“The wild turkey is found in great numbers on the wooded bottom 
lands” of the Upper Mississippi. 


Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado and the Northwest. 


If we do not consider Coronado of the 16th century, the record 
begins in 1724, when M. de Bourgmont made a trip from Fort 
Orleans to the Missouris, Canzas and Padoucas. On the 16th of 
October, 1724, he says? “Besides the larger game, these groves 
(at River of the Canzas) afforded also a retreat to flocks of turkeys.”’ 

About the beginning of the nineteenth century, Alexander Henry 
writes of one of Big Belly Indians * “who had a turkey-cock’s tail, 
great numbers of which they get from the Schians, and which serve 
them as fans.’’ On the return, the Lewis and Clarke expedition 
when passing down the Missouri River, records the turkey at the 
mouth of the Platte River.® ‘At two in the afternoon we stopped 
to hunt, and soon killed two deer and a turkey.” Shortly after, 
Pike takes a trip from a Pawnee Village through Kansas and 
Colorado to Pike’s Peak, October 1-November 30, 1806. At 
Lamar he says § “killed one turkey, the first we have seen since we 
left the Pawnees”; at Florence, “killed....six turkeys”; at 
Royal Gorge of the Arkansaw, “Heard 14 guns at camp... .found 


1 Wetmore, Alphonse. Gazetteer of the State of Missouri. St. Louis, 1837, 
pp. 29, 219. 

2 Bradford, Wm. J. A. Notes on the Northwest, etc. New York and London, 
1846, p. 19. : 

3 Du Pratz, M. Le Page, 1. c., p. 69. 

4Coues, Elliott. The Manuscript Journals of Alexander Henry and David 
Thompson, 1799-1814. 3 vols. N. Y., 1897, Vol. I, p. 355. 

5 Gass, Patrick. 1. c., p. 260. 

6 Pike, l. c., Vol. II, pp. 442, 462, 463, 464, 471, 474. 


— 


vor joel Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 359 


that cause of my alarm was their shooting turkeys, killed... .nine 
turkeys.” Later, at this latter place, he kills others, and, along 
the Arkansaw, he says he “Saw great quantities of turkeys... .” 
Five years later, 1811, on May 7, Brackenridge (1. ¢., p. 225) near 
the mouth of the Platte River, notes “On my return to the boat, 
killed some pigeons....and saw a flock of turkeys.” In 1819 or 
1820, Long (1. c., Vol. I, p. 419) when near the sources of the Grand 
River says ‘“‘ Nothing ‘is more difficult than to estimate by the eye, 
the distance of objects seen in these plains...., we discovered as 
we thought, several large animals feeding in the prairie, at the 
distance of half a mile. These we believed could be no other than 
bisons, and after a consultation respecting the best method of 
surprising them, two of our party dismounted and creeping with 
great care and caution, about one fourth of a mile through the high 
grass, arrived near the spot, and discovered an old turkey, with her 
brood of half grown young, the only animals now to be seen.” 
The year following, 1821, Jacob Fowler states that on October 8, 
near Arkansas River ! “Some of the Hands killed 10 turkeys.” A 
month later, November 3, 1821, at Hartland, Kearney Co., he 
notes that “On this island the Hunters killed Some turkeys and 
Seen Some more. the first We Have Sren above the little arken- 
saw.'...”’ Finally, on November 17, 1821, he remarks that at 
La Junta, “no buffelow or turkeys.” 

In 1833, Maximilian, Prince of Wied, gives us several notes for 
this region. When near the mouth of the Kansas, he says? “He 
(McKenzie) brought us several turkeys which had been lately shot.” 
At Cedar Island, 1075 miles from the mouth of the Missouri, he 
holds that “This may be considered the limit to which the wild 
turkey extends on the Missouri. It is true that this bird is now 
and then, found higher up, even on the Yellow Stone River; but 
these are exceptions, for beyond this place the woods are too open 
and exposed. The Indians on the Upper Missouri, readily barter 
for the tails of these fine birds to use them as fans and ornaments, 


1 The Journal of Jacob fowler, etc. 1821-22. Edited by Elliott Coues. N.Y., 
1898, pp. 16, 33, 48. 

2 Karly Western Travels, XXII, Part I, pp. 251 (Orig. p. 119) 296 (144); XXIII, 
Part II, pp. 102 (249), 103, 261 (339); XXIV, Part III, pp. 74 (446), 109 (465), 
226, 248, 275, 276, 285, 293, 295, 300. 


360 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. Rte 


and Mr. McKenzie, accordingly took a great supply with him.” 
Of this trade with the Black feet Indians, he says, “’The Company 
now sends to its trading posts, the tail of the wild turkeys, which 
are much in request” for fans. At Mandan, N. D., he asserts that 
“For an arrow wound he (Indian) fastened in his hair the wing 
feather of a wild turkey.” At old Fort Clarke, he discovers dogs 
gaily clothed with feathers. ‘In the middle of this mass of feath- 
ers, the outspread tail of a wild turkey....was fixed.” Near 
Weeping Water, Kansas, he frequently espies turkies. He states 
that ‘We set out early and passed Weeping-water River, landing 
several times to pursue the wild turkeys, whose note attracted us to 
their retreats. We often saw these proud birds in the lofty trees, 
perched up beyond the reach of small shot.” Finally, he gives the 
following Indian names for the wild turkey: 
Dacota (Sioux) — sisitscha-kanka (s soft; kan in the throat). 


Mandans mahnu (a rather full, almost as if with superior 
0). 
Minnitanis or _ sihs-kichtia (run together; ich with the point of 
Grosventres the tongue; ti and d separated). 
Omahas sihsikah. 
Oto we-ink-chontjeh (first e barely audible; ch 


guttural; 7 French). 
Saukis, Sakis, pandah (first a umlaut). 
Sacs 

Wasaji or Osage suhka. 

In 1833, September 25, Nathaniel Wyeth in his trip to Oregon, 
reports killing a turkey just west of Black Snake Hills and Rubi- 
deau Fort. In another place, he says he saw several turkeys.! 
A short time later, C. A. Murray (I. c., Vol. II, 45) records that at 
the mouth of the Kansas River “A lad (of the company) took a 
ramble with his fowling-piece, and saw some turkeys,....but he 
could not get near enough for a shot.” In 1837, Washington 
Irving writes that? “An Indian trader, well experienced in the 


1Young, F. G. The Correspondence and Journals of Captain Nathaniel J. 
Wyeth, 1831-36. In Sources of the History of Oregon, Vol. I, Parts 3-6, pp. 217, 
218. 

2Irving, Washington. The Rocky Mountains; etc. 2 vols., Phila., 1837, 
Vol. I, p. 38. 


P| Waicut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 361 


country, informs us that within ten years that he has passed in the 
far west, the bee has advanced westward above a hundred miles. 
It is said on the Missouri, that the wild turkey and the wild bee 
go up the river together: neither are found in the upper regions. 
‘It is but recently that the wild turkey has been killed on the Ne- 
braska, or Platte and his travelling competitor, the wild bee ap- 
peared there about the same time.’’ A few years later, Fremont 
on the Little Blue River (Neb.?) describes it as follows:! “The 
stream was about fifty feet wide and three or four feet deep, 
fringed with cottonwood and willow, with frequent groves of oak 
tenanted by flocks of turkeys.” 

In 1846-1847, the Emory Reconnoisance meets the wild turkey 
on several occasions. Of the Valley of Purgatory, the report has 
it that? “the hills are bare of vegetation, except a few stunted 
cedars; and the valley is said to be, occasionally, the resort of 
grizzly bear, turkeys....”’ In Lieutenant Abert’s Appendix of 
this report are several notes on this form. He gives it amongst 
the birds seen from Bent’s Fort to Santa Fe, and holds “our road 
leads through a region that abounds with the deer....and the 
turkey.’’ Along the Purgatory River, “dense thickets, composed 
of plum and the cherry interwoven with grape vines, formed 
impenetratable thickets, where....wild turkey, found a secure 
shelter.” Here “turkeys are very abundant,” and, “they told us 
that....they daily killed great numbers of....turkeys.” Also 
at Wakaroosa river, Kansas, he records that “Some of our hunters 
went out and killed several wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo.)”’ 
In 1848, J. Q. Thornton says the wild turkey is found east of the 
Nebraska River? In “The Overland stage,’’ Messrs. Root and 
Connelley assert that 4 “There was an abundance of wild game in 
the ‘60’s. In eastern Kansas large numbers of wild turkeys... . 
were seen. Along the Little Blue River there were also many wild 


1 Fremont, J.C. Rept. of Exploring Expedition to the Rocky Mts. in the year 
1842 and to Ore. and North California in the years 1843-1844. Washington, 
1845, p. 15. 

2Emory, W.H. Notes ofa Military Reconnoisance from Fort Leavenworth in 
Missouri to San Diego, in California, etc. New York, 1848, pp. 21, 405, 432, 437, 
439, 524, 390. 

3 Thornton, J.Q. Oregon and California in 1848. N. Y. 1855, Vol. I, p. 41. 

4 Root, F. A.,and Connelley, W.E. The Overland Stage to California. Topeka, 
Kansas, 1901, p. 87. 


[ Auk 


362 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. July 


turkeys.” Finally, in 1868, Zincke finds that* “As to feathered 
game; on lucky days you may get a wild turkey,” in the Rocky 
Mts. 


Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and the Southwest. 


In this, the last section to be considered, the turkey has always 
been a familiar form from Coronado’s day to the present. In 
1723, Bernard de la Harpe finds it in the land about the Red River 
and asserts that the country of the Arkansas and Tayas has an 
abundance of turkeys.” 

Some hundred years later, 1818, Schoolcraft remarks? the 
cheapness of wild turkeys at 25 cents in the White River country 
of Arkansaw Territory, and, in 1817, Brown (I. c., p. 174) tells how 
“50 miles from its mouth (Grand Saline or Newsewketonga) the 
prairie grass is’ encrusted with salt; the Indians collect it by 
scraping it off the prairie with a turkey’s wing, into a trencher.” 
The following year, 1819, Thos. Nuttall in “Travels into the 
Arkansas Territory” discusses the feather mantles of the Osage 
Indians.t “Nearly all those whom De Soto found inhabiting 
Florida and Louisiana, on either side of the Mississippi,.... 
dressed themselves in woven garments made of....; and in colder 
seasons of the year, they wore coverings of feathers, chiefly those 
of the turkey. The same dresses were still employed in the time 
of Du Pratz. These feather mantles were, within the recollection 
of the oldest men, once used by the Cherokees, as I learnt whilst 
among them. ‘There is, therefore, nothing extraordinary in the — 
discovery of these garments around the bodies which had been 
interred in the nitre caves of Kentucky. Presents of these ‘man- 
tels’ as they are called by Purchas, now superceded by European 
blankets, were perpetually offered De Soto, throughout the course 
of his expedition, and are still made use of by the natives of the 
north west coast.” 

In the southwestern country, the Long expedition 1819-1820, 
encounters the turkey frequently. In the Arkansas River system, 


1 Zincke,T.B. Last Winterin the United States. London, 1868, p. 250. 
2 French, B. F. 1. c., Part III, pp. 69, 74. 

3 Schoolcraft, H. R. A View of the Lead Mines,.... p. 251. 

‘Early Western Travels. XIII, pp. 258-259 (orig. pp. 193-194). 


poe | Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 363 


the hunters were regularly sent out for it and often returned with 
as many as seven. In the Red River region the ' “game grew so 
abundant, that we had it at any time in our power, to kill as many 
bison. ...and turkies, as we might wish.” “The grapes and plums 
so abundant in this portion of the country are eaten by turkies...., 
as we conclude from observing plumstones in the excrement of 
these animals.”’ In the Pawnee territory, they record this form 
and at the Falls of the Canadian River (near Great North Fork). 
“Turkies were very numerous.” On the Red Fork, they find “a 
seasonable supply of four turkeys.’’ Some years later, Timothy 
Flint tells how James O. Pattie of Kentucky ? “saw (in 1824) great 
numbers of....turkeys’’ in Socoro County, N. M. In the be- 
ginning of 1825, he reports fat turkies along the banks of San 
Francisco River and along its tributary, Bear Creek. 

In 1826, W. B. Dewees at San Antonio de Bexar, Texas, says * 
“On the first evening, we encamped about an hour before sundown, 
and my friend and myself strayed away from the camp for a short 
time and while absent, succeeding in killing a couple of very fine 
turkeys. ...we had driven them to take refuge in a tree, where we 
had shot them with our rifles.’ In 1832-33. Latrobe (I. c., Vol. 
I, pp. 142, 143, 160, 166) finds that “turkeys. ...were plentiful 
in the vicinity of the camp (Western Creek Agency at Saline near 
Verdigris River),....so that abundance reigned there.” At Bald 
Hill near Arkansas, he says “ We noticed the tracks of innumerable 
....turkeys,....” On the Red Fork, he notes an “abundance 
of turkeys.’’ On the North Fork of the Canadian River, he claims 
that they “killed in its neighborhood....twenty turkeys,....” 
Finally, his last note is of the Arkansas River which is “frequented 
by....turkeys.” “A Visit to Texas, etc. New York, 1834” 
records (pp.92, 209) that ‘““There are wild turkies and smaller birds.” 
“The turkies chiefly resort to the woods.” Its author on a trip 
from Brazona to San Felipe tells how they “had plenty of... . wild 
turkey,....” In 1836, Edward, in his list of birds, writes 4 


1 James, Edwin. 1.c., Wol. II, pp. 49, 59, 63, 118, 119, 127, 141, 155, 159, 217, 
225. 

2 Early Western Travels. XVIII, pp. 86 (52) 88 (54) 90 (55) 108 (71). 

3 Dewees, W. B. Letters from An Early Settler of Texas. Compiled by Cora 
Cardelle, Louisville, Ky., 1852, Letter IX. 

4Edward, David B. The History of Texas; etc. Cincinnati, 1836, p. 75. 


~ 


364 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. (ae 


‘Among the birds fit for food, are the wild turkey, (commonly 
found in the woods, and near the edges of the prairies)....”’ In 
1837-1838, Daubeny records at Little Rock, Ark., that he! “saw 
two wild turkies on Saturday, but at too great a distance to give 
us a chance of shooting either.’ On a trip from Little Rock to 
Hot Spring, April 11, he writes, “we accompanied our host in a 
chase after a wild turkey, which I had a great ambition to kill and 
stuff for our Museum at Oxford. The females were decoyed by 
imitating the gobble of the turkey-cock, in which the back settlers. 
are very expert, but on this occasion the strategem was tried 
unsuccessively; for though we saw several, and chased them 
through the wood, we never got within gunshot of any one. My 
man made several other attempts, but always in vain. 

In Josiah Gregg’s “Commerce of the Prairies’ we have under 
“Animals of the Prairies” the following:? “About the Cross 
Timbers and indeed on all the brushy creeks, especially to the 
southward, are quantities of wild turkeys which are frequently seen 
ranging in large flocks in the bordering prairies.”” Westward of 
Spring Valley near the Canadian, he says “every nook and glade 
swarmed with deer and wild turkeys,....” In another instance 
he states that “In some of the mountains (of New Mexico), wild 
turkey are very numerous.” In 1847 (January 14), Abert’s party 
of the Emory expedition (Emory, l. ¢., p. 505) “saw wild turkeys” 
at Valverde, New Mexico. In 1849, R. B. Marcy reports that on 
the Divide near the Canadian River,* “We have seen many ante- 
lopes and turkeys during the last few days.” Seventeen days 
later in June, he reports for the Canadian river region; “I killed a 
turkey this evening, which is the first we have seen for a week.” 

The following year the report of S. G. French appears and therein 
he notes that 4 “It might be well to remark that, in all the streams. 
between San Antonio and the San Pedro, fish are abundant, and 
that in their vicinity deer and turkeys are found.” About the 


1 Daubeny, Charles. Journal of A Tour through the United States and im 
Canada, Made During the Years 1837-38. Oxford, 1848, pp. 154, 157. 

2 Early Western Travels. XX (orig. Vol. II) pp. 282 (232), 115 (28), XIX (orig. 
Vol. I), pp. 328 (195), 325 (191). 

3 Marcy, R. B. 1. c., pp. 179, 183. 

4 French, 8S. G., Report of. From Reports of Reconnaissances of Routes from 
San Antonio to El Paso. 31st Congress, Ist Sess. Ex. Doc. No. 64, 1850, p. 52. 


an | Waicut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. 365 


same time, Washington Irving makes several notes of the turkeys 
in this southwest country. In the Osage country, he records it and 
also along the Arkansas River. At the Red Fork, he finds! “a 
number of turkeys.” Later, he says the party “came to a halt, 
in a beautiful grove of elms, on the site of an old Osage encamp- 
ment. Scarcely had we dismounted when a universal firing of 
rifles took place upon a large flock of turkeys, scattered about the 
grove, which proved to be a favorite roosting-place for these simple 
birds. They flew to the trees, and sat perched upon their branches, 
stretching out their long necks, and gazing in stupid astonishment, 
until eighteen of them were shot down.” In Deep Creek or Little 
North Fork, he writes, “The rich woody bottom in which we were 
encamped, abounded with wild turkeys, of which a considerable 
number were killed.” 

In his “ Expedition from Texas to Santa Fe,” George Wilham 
Kendall frequently encounters turkeys. At San Antonio, Texas, 
he reports 2 “ We put up two or three turkeys near the branch, but 
the underbrush was so thick it was impossible to get a shot at them.” 
Of the valley of the Brazos, he says that it “ teemed in every species 
of game....elk,...., wild turkeys,....’’ On the Red River, he 
speaks of them at length. ‘‘We continued our march until we 
reached the dry bed of a mountain stream, upon the banks of which 
we encamped for the night. A flock of wild turkeys had taken 
shelter under the banks, running off as we approached their roost. 
Although contrary to strict orders, nothing could restrain our men 
from banging and blazing away at the turkeys as they sped across 
the prairie — fifty rifles and muskets being discharged at them 
before they were out of sight. Two or three only were killed by 
the volley and running fire which ensued and they were but half 
grown, and so extremely poor that they did not furnish a meal for 
half a dozen men.” Of the same region, he again writes, “ By-and- 
by a brood of wild turkeys, which had been hunting for their 
supper at the base of the rocky steeps, flew over our heads, and 


sought their roost in a large cotton-wood which overhung the river. 
' 


1[—rving, Washington. The Crayon Miscellany. Revised edit. New York, 
1861, pp. 49, 68, 70, 108, 133, 134, 157, 191, 194. 
2 Kendall, George William. 2vols. N. Y., Vol. I, pp. 54, 102, 256, 260. 


366 Wricut, Early Records of the Wild Turkey. Feves 


The sharp crack of a rifle soon announced the doom of one of 
the flock,....” 

In 1860, Domenech tells us that in the western part of Texas. 
between the Rio Seco and Rio Blanco! “Partridge, quail, wild 
turkeys....have made of this spot their favorite sojourn.” Ten 
years later, 1870, William A. Bell reports that at Turkey Mountain 
(not far from Las Vegas) ® “the wild turkeys had all been either 
shot or driven away by the officers of Fort Union.” Lastly, H. M. 
Chittenden remarks that* “on the lower Missouri and in the 
south west the wild turkey abounded, and was extensively used for 
food” in the days of the early fur trade of the West. 

In this recital, the effort has been to interweave these early 
records without paraphrase. At times they are decidedly ungram- 
matical, some bordering on fiction, others bizarre in the extreme; 
yet they all ought to be added to the turkey literature and may 
supplement the material so frequently rehashed in recent years. 


1 Domenech, Abbe Em. Seven Years’ Residence in the Great Deserts of North 
America. 2 vols. London, 1860, Vol. I, p. 134. 

2 Bell, Wm. A. New Tracks in North America. 2nd edit. London, 1870, 
p. 122. 

3 Chittenden, H. M. The American Fur Trade of the Far West. 3 vols. 
N. Y., 1902, Vol. II, p. 835. 


ne 


ois | General Notes. 367 


GENERAL NOTES. 


The Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) in Jackson Park, Ill.— On 
February 21, 1915, where the waters of the Yacht Harbor join those of 
Lake Michigan in Jackson Park, a specimen of the Red-throated Loon 
in winter plumage was seen. The weather was rather cool, being from 
48° to 51° Fahrenheit. A light steady rain was falling with a moderate 
southeast wind. The bird had a badly hurt left leg and wing. These 
injuries prevented it from diving, for this would naturally be the first thing 
to which it would resort upon being frightened. As it could neither fly, 
dive, nor swim rapidly, we were at times within ten feet of it and directly 
above it. 

The Red-throated Loon is considered an unusually rare winter visitant 
here. ‘Birds of Chicago Area’ (Woodruff, 1907) gives the following 
notation regarding this species: ‘‘ The Red-throated Loon seemingly can be 
admitted to the bird fauna of the Chicago Area only as a rare winter 
visitant.’”’ As far as we have learned this is the only record for Jackson 
Park, although it is quite possible that others have been seen in previous 
- ogys.— L. L. Mackenziz, W. W. Lyon, Chicago, Jil. 


Another European Widgeon in Virginia.— On Christmas Day, 1914, 
Messrs. Chas. J. and Laurence Rumsey, of Ithaca, N. Y., were duck- 
hunting at Virginia Beach, Va. After the main flight of the morning was 
over, a single bird came to the decoys and was shot. ‘This bird proved to be 
a first-year male European Widgeon (Mareca penelope). It was in nearly 
complete winter plumage, though the back and flanks were still rather 
plentifully sprinkled with the dull feathers of the post-juvenal plumage, 
and the white wing-spot was only suggested by one white covert in each 
wing. The specimen was fortunately saved and presented to me, and is 
now in my collection. 

This note is submitted for record as it is interesting to know whether or 
not this European species is becoming increasingly abundant in America. 
Two others,— Princess Anne Co., Va., January 5, 1915, and Currituck Co., 
N.C., January 27, 1915, are recorded by Mr. H. H. Bailey in ‘ The Oologist ’ 
for March, 1915.— Louts Acassiz Furertss, Ithaca, N. Y. 


Snow Geese and Swans in Massachusetts.— On November 20, 1914, 
five Lesser Snow Geese (Chen h. hyperboreus) were shot at Robbin’s Pond, 
East Bridgewater. These birds, two adults and three young, were mounted 
by C. Emers onBrown. Three other Snow Geese are said to have been taken 
at Robbins Pond in 1912. 

On November 21, two swans were seen by the gunners at Oldham 
Pond, Pembroke. They circled around a number of times and then 
headed towards Silver Lake where they were also seen.— J. C. PHILurps,. 
Wenham, Mass. 


+ 


368 General Notes. [x ae 


Wilson’s Snipe Wintering in Nova Scotia.— Mr. R. W. Tufts of 
Wolfville, Kings County, Nova Scotia sent me a Wilson’s Snipe (Gallinago 
delicata) which he shot at Wolfville, February 17, 1915. He said this bird 
(which proved to be a male) was discovered in a sheltered spring swamp 
or bog, which never wholly freezes and where the grass shows green even 
in the severest winter weather. The bird was in fine condition, being 
well protected with fat— Jonn E. THayer, Lancaster, Mass. 


Spotted Sandpiper and Water.— In ‘ The Auk’ for April, 1915, p. 
227, Mr. L. L. Jewel speaks of a crippled Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macu- 
laria) diving and swimming under water. I have found this to be a regular 
habit in young of the species at Mastic, Long Island. I remember dis- 
tinetly the last one I banded at this place, a bird not yet able to fly, which, 
when pursued took to the water. I reached down and grabbed it below 
the surface where it was swimming with its wings. 

In this connection I would like to relate a boyhood experience which I 
do not remember ever to have published. While crossing a small bay at 
Far Rockaway, Long Island, a Spotted Sandpiper was observed flying ex- 
citedly about close to the surface. Its actions were inexplicable until 
suddenly a hawk swooped to it from out of the sky somewhere. The Sand- 
piper dropped upon the surface where it lay limp as though dead. After 
making one or two more unsuccessful swoops the hawk departed. When 
approached the Sandpiper first sat up like a little duck, then rose and flew 
ashore.— J. T. Nicuous, New York City. 


Gray Sea Eagle off Nantucket.— I should like to record what appears 
to be the “ farthest south”’ record for the Gray Sea Eagle ( Halieetus albi- 
cilla). This bird, which is in immature plumage, flew aboard the Dutch 
steamer ‘ Arundo,’ as she was passing Nantucket light ship, on November 
14, 1914. It was secured alive by the captain, and is now living in the 
New York Zodlogical Park.— Ler 8. CranDALL, Assistant Curator of 
Birds, N. Y. Zodél. Park. \ 


Young Kingbirds on a Cherry and Dragon-fly Diet.— I was watch- 
ing a pair of Kingbirds feeding their young in a nest built in a pine about 
fifteen feet from the ground. A telephone-wire passing nearby furnished 
a temporary resting place for the parent birds, and at the same time gave 
me an excellent opportunity of noting the various kinds of insects which 
were dropped into the gaping mouths of the young birds about ten or 
twelve days old. The exact species of insects could not be identified, but 
among various kinds of flies, moths and butterflies, to my amazement a 
large green dragon-fly with great head and eyes, measuring across the wings 
at least four inches, was jammed wings and all, into the mouth of one of 
the little ones. After a few moments, as if for dessert, a large red cherry 
fully one-half inch in diameter was rammed home in the same manner, and 


+ 


a | . General Notes. 369 


in another minute or two another cherry met a similar fate. I watched 
these birds with some curiosity, and saw them about four days later leaving 
the nest apparently all well, and none the worse for the strenuous ordeal.— 
Ws. L. Batty, Ardmore, Pa. 


The Bohemian Waxwing (Bombycilla garrula) at Ithaca, N. Y.— 
While walking over the campus of Cornell University at noon on November 
28, 1914, we observed a flock of about a dozen Cedar Waxwings in a group 
-of trees that included a berry-laden mountain ash (Pyruws americana). An 
hour later we had stopped to watch the birds again, and were discussing 
the points of difference between the notes of our two species of Waxwings. 
At that moment the characteristic notes of Bombycilla garrula most oppor- 
tunely caught our attention, and their author was presently distinguished 
among the rest of the Waxwings by means of its larger size and its white 
wing markings. In order that others might share in the pleasure of seeing 
such an unusual visitor, we summoned by ’phone Messrs. A. A. Allen, L. A. 
Fuertes, and A. H. Wright, and all were enabled to make observations on 
the bird under very favorable conditions. 

Its actions accorded with the proverbial gentleness and amicability of 
the Waxwings. It allowed a Cedar Waxwing to perch beside it and feed 
upon the same cluster of mountain-ash berries; and twice a berry seemed 
to be passed from one to the other. It was somewhat restless, and once 
it circled swiftly around a nearby house, swerving from side to side in an 
erratic course suggesting that of a Teal. 

The following prominent characters served to distinguish the Bohemian 
Waxwing from the other species in the field: its larger size; the white 
markings in the wing, conspicuous whether the bird is flying or at rest; 
the larger patch of black on its chin; its generally grayer coloration; and 
its chestnut-rufous under tail coverts. 

Furthermore, its notes are very diagnostic. Though similar in general 
form to the ‘beady notes’”’ of B. cedrorum, they are less shrill, are more 
leisurely uttered, and have a more noticeable rolling sound. They are also 
more distinct, there being a comparatively greater interval between each 
svllable in the series. The call has been represented by Seebohm as 
cir-ir-tr-ir-re (quoted in Sharpe’s ‘ Hand-book to the Birds of Great Britain,’ 
Vol. I, p. 177) and by Cameron as zir-r-r-r (‘ The Auk,’ Vol. XXV, 1908, 
p. 47), but neither rendering seems to express exactly the decidedly sibi- 
lant quality of each syllable. 

The bird was collected by Dr. Allen, and sketched in the flesh by Mr. 
Fuertes. It proved to be an adult male in full plumage. The skin has 
been placed in the collection of the Cornell University Museum. This is 
the first specimen recorded from the Cayuga Lake Basin. 

On the following morning another Bohemian Waxwing was reported in 
the same place by Mr. H. H. Knight.— LupLow Griscom AND FRANCIS 
Harper, Ithaca, N. Y. 


370 General Notes. [suly 


Prothonotary Warbler at South Vineland, N. J.— On June 19, 
1914, while studying birds in the Maurice River swamp, about two miles 
west of South Vineland, New Jersey,— a swamp with which I have been 
long familiar — I had the pleasure of observing a Prothonotary Warbler 
(Protonotaria citrea) under conditions which left no doubt as to the bird’s 
identity. For several seasons past I had observed a male Redstart (Seto- 
phaga ruticilla) during the month of June in a certain portion of the 
swamp and went there on this occasion to determine whether or not this 
species was breeding. On arriving at the spot I not only found the male 
Redstart but also the female and soon noticed the latter carry food to its 
young — a bird just able to fly — in a small water birch tree near by. The 
Redstarts kept up an incessant chirping and soon other birds in the neigh- 
borhood joined in with their notes of alarm, creating quite a disturbance. 
Presently a new note was heard, well back in the swamp, which I took for 
the alarm call of the Water-Thrush (Seiwrus n. noveboracensis) although I 
knew that it was hardly probable that such was the case, it being far too 
late for such an occurrence. I waited quietly; the bird continued chirping 
and drawing nearer, and I was soon able to see the bright yellow bird at 
a distance of about fifteen feet. I observed it for a number of minutes 
while it continued to hop about and utter its Water-Thrush like note of 
alarm. The bird appeared quite excited and I searched a number of likely 
looking stumps for a nest but without result, nor did I see more than one 
bird. After a short time the bird disappeared in the thick undergrowth. 
I was positive that I had seen a Prothonotary Warbler which I believe is a 
very rare bird in this locality, and on looking the matter up in Chapman’s 
‘Warblers of North America’ found that the alarm note of this species 
is very difficult to distinguish from that of the Water-Thrush and this fact 
I think cleared up any possible doubt as to the bird’s identity. The only 
other bird inhabiting this region that could possibly be mistaken for the 
Prothonotary is the female Hooded Warbler and although this bird has a 
very sharp note of alarm it does not in the least resemble that of the Water- 
Thrush. \ 

The swamp at the place mentioned extends for about a quarter of a mile 
on each side of the river. The vegetation of course is, like that of all south 
Jersey streams, very thick and difficult to explore. The warbler was 
observed in that portion quite close to the river which is covered most 
of the time with a few inches of water although during droughts it is com- 
paratively dry, with water in small pools only.— Junran K. Porter, 
Camden, N. J. 5 


Brown Thrasher Wintering in Mass.— There are one or two records 
of the Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) having been seen in Massa- 
chusetts late in the winter or during one month of the winter. On Janu- 
ary 3 I saw an individual, which I took to be a male, sitting in some low 
bushes beside the Boston and Albany R. R. tracks on the Brookline side 
of the Parkway near the Longwood station. He seemed to be in good 


eal General Notes. S71 


health and while secretive was fairly tame and up to the present writing 
(February 28) he has remained within a hundred yards of the place where 
I first found him. A pair of Thrashers nested here last summer and, I 
suppose, it is more than likely this bird was one of the pair. There has 
been cracked corn scattered near the thicket in which he makes his home 
and there is a large chunk of suet in a tree near by, but I have not seen him 
touch either, and have watched him scratching among the dry leaves and 
feeding on the ground. Several friends have seen and watched the Thrasher 
with me. The following are the dates on which I have seen him.: January 
3, 14, 17, 24, 31, February 7, 12, 21, 28.— Cuarues B. Fioyp, Brookline, 
Mass. 


Birds Observed in Trinity Churchyard, New York City.— While 
in New York on October 15, 1914, I attended the noon day peace services 
at old Trinity Church, after which I took a stroll about the churchyard, and 
noted the following birds contentedly feeding undisturbed by the noise 
and bustle of lower Broadway :— 

Junco.— Two Juncos observed in company of a small flock of English 
Sparrows feeding on the lawn. 

White-throated Sparrow.— One seen scratching among the dead leaves, 
under some shrubbery. 

Song Sparrow.— One observed feeding on the ground, under the shrub- 
bery. 

Hermit Thrush.— Three seen running about on the ground or perched 
on top of a tombstone. 

Brown Creeper.— One observed diligently scrambling up an old scarred 
and weather-beaten tombstone, peering into every crack and crevice for 
some tender morsel. 

Overshadowed by ‘‘ sky-scrapers ’’ and flanked by surface and elevated 
street cars, Trinity Churchyard is about the last place one would expect 
to find any birds other than English Sparrows.—Jos. E. Gouup, Norfolk, 
Va. 


Type Locality of Lewis’s Woodpecker and Clarke’s Nutcracker.— 
In looking through the ‘ Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedi- 
tion’ edited by Dr. R. G. Thwaites (1905), I find several mentions of 
Lewis’s Woodpecker and Clark’s Crow on the journey out to the Pacific. 
Then on the return trip under date of May 27, 1806, when encamped on 
the northeast side of the Kooskooske River west of the Bitter Root Mts. 
in Idaho, Lewis writes as follows: ‘‘ The Black Woodpecker which I have 
frequently mentioned and which is found in most parts of the Rocky 
Mountains as well as=the Western and S. W. mountains, I had never 
an opportunity of examining until a few days since when we killed and 
preserved several of them.’’ An excellent description follows. 

In the entry of the following day at the same place he writes ‘‘ Since 
my arrival here I have killed several birds of the corvus genus of a kind 


372 Recent Literature. [ pes 


found only in the rocky mountains and their neighborhood. I first met 
with this bird above the three forks of the Missouri and saw them on the 
heights of the Rocky Mountains but never before had an opportunity of 
examining them closely, the small corvus described at Fort Clatsop is a 
different species, [= Perisoreus] though until now I had taken it to be 
the same, this is much larger and has a loud squawling note something like 
the mewing of a cat.”” A good description follows. 

As Alexander Wilson described these birds from specimens brought 
home by the expedition it follows that the locality where the specimens 
were shot becomes the type locality not that at which the species were 
first seen, as given in the A. O. U. Check-List.— Wirmer Stone, Acad. 
Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


. Levick’s ‘Antarctic Penguins.’ !—Since the return of the various 
Antarctic expeditions of the last few years the general public, through 
lectures, motion pictures and publications, has come to have a better 
knowledge of the life history of Penguins, than most of the best informed 
ornithologists possessed a decade ago. The life history of these curious 
birds is well worthy of the attention it has received and cannot help but 
fascinate all who are interested in the study of wild life. Dr. G. Murray 
Levick who accompanied Capt. Scott on his ill-fated expedition. has pre- 
sented the story of the Penguins in a most attractive way in the little 
volume before us, based on his experiences with the Adelie Penguins 
(Pygoscelis adelie) at Cape Adare. The book is well written, well printed 
and illustrated by 74 admirable half-tones from photographs. : 

What corresponds to the ‘ spring’ migration of the Penguins began on 
October 13 when the first arrival from the north reached the breeding 
ground, and in the course of a week thousands upon thousands of the 
curious birds had landed and waddled across the ice and snow to the rookery 
many of them ascending a thousand feet to the highest part of Cape 
Adare. 

The Adelie Penguin builds a nest of pebbles upon which the two eggs are 
laid and incubated alternately by the parent birds. Until this time neither 
males or females leave the rookery and consequently get no food though 
the males eat snow from adjacent drifts. ‘The fasting period lasts 27 days 
or more, and afterwards there is a continuous stream of dirty incubating 


1 Antarctic Penguins. A Study of their Social Habits. By Dr. G. Murray 
Levick, R. N., Zoologist to the British Antarctic Expedition (1910-1913). New 
York: McBride, Nast & Company, 1914. S8vo, pp. 1-140, figs. 1-74. $1.50 net. 


iis | Recent Literature. 3/ea 


birds waddling down to the water, nearly half a mile distant, and fresh, 
clean birds coming back from their bathing and feeding to take their turns 
on the nests. When the young are hatched the parents have the double 
task of feeding themselves, and carrying back food enough for their rapidly 
growing chicks, and to quote Dr. Levick “‘ so distended were their stomachs. 
that they had to lean backward as they walked to counterbalance their 
bulging bellies.” The young of course are fed by regurgitation directly 
from the stomach of the parent. Dr. Levick presents most interesting 
accounts of the mating, fighting, stealing of building material and other 
activities of the rookery as well as the actions of the birds in the water,. 
their diving and leaping in and out onto the ice, and their play on the ice 
cliffs and floes. The birds showed no fear of man and one could walk 
through the rookery at pleasure. 

The student of animal behavior will find much interesting material in 
Dr. Levick’s book and many interesting statements are accompanied by 
most convincing photographs of the birds going through their performances. 
Probably no birds offer such opportunities for the study of nesting com- 
munities and of the peculiar habits that have arisen from the close associa- 
tion of such multitudes of individuals. 

An appendix describes the Skuas (Megalestris maccormickt), and their 
habits — those robbers of the rookeries who depend largely for food upon 
the eggs and young which an inadvertent parent Penguin may leave for a 
moment unguarded. There is also a short account of the Emperor Pen- 
guin (A ptenodytes forsterz). 

Altogether Dr. Levick’s book is unique, and will appeal to all ornithol- 
ogists,— whether their specialty be, habits, behavior, odlogy or photog- 
raphy — as well as to the public at large for whom these strange, erect, 
man-like little birds have a strange fascination.— W. S. 


Miller on Ptilosis, with Special Reference to the Feathering of the 
Wing.!— Mr. Miller is doing excellent work on the structure of birds with 
regard to their systematic relationship. We shall need much additional 
data before a satisfactory classification shall be drawn up and any facts on 
comparative structure are welcome. In the present paper he considers 
the ptilosis of the wing in various birds which have been received in the 
flesh from the New York Zodlogical Park. Many points of interest are 
brought out which contradict current statements, as for instance the pres- 
ence of an aftershaft in some parts of the plumage of the Osprey, the 
absence of which was considered a subfamily character, and the absence of 
the eleventh primary in the Pigeons, a group said by Gadow to possess 
eleven primaries. In commenting upon relationships Mr. Miller also calls 


1 Notes on Ptilosis with Special Reference to the Feathering of the Wing. By 
W. DewW. Miller. Buli. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXXIV, Art. VI, pp. 129-140. 
March 19, 1915. 


[ Auk 
July 


374 Recent Literature. 
attention to color combinations the importance of which as a character 
has been several times emphasized by the reviewer. 

In his remarks on the ptilosis of Podargus and the Trochilide we notice 
no reference to the papers of Dr. Hubert Lyman Clark in ‘ The Auk,’ 1901, 
p. 167 and 1906, p. 68. Mr. Miller will find some of his statements al- 
ready recorded there. While it is satisfactory to have previous work 
verified, reference should be given to it, and we think these two papers 
must have escaped Mr. Miller’s eye. 

In a footnote on p. 134 occur some comments on generic names of 
Parrots. Among other things Mr. Miller fails to see how the names pro- 
posed by Kuhl for “ sections ”’ of certain genera can be rejected as has been 
advocated by Mr. Gregory Mathews (Novitates Zool., XVIII, p. 11). 
We heartily agree with Mr. Miller that no distinction can be made between 
subgenera and ‘ sections ”’ and that these names must be recognized. In 
the case of Conurus, however, Mr. Miller apparently overlooked the fact 
that, as Mr: Mathews explains, Lesson fixed as the type of this genus a 
species of Palewornis, which action transfers the name Conurus to this old 
world group necessitating the adoption of Aratinga for the South American 


Conures.— W.S. 


Cory on New South American Birds.'!— Mr. Cory describes twenty- 
one new forms in the present paper, based on material obtained by the 
various Field Museum South American expeditions. They are as follows: 
Crypturus tatatipa peruviana (p. 293), Central Peru; Nothoprocta ambigua 
(p. 293), Otusco, Peru; Odontophorus plumbeicollis (p. 294), Ceara, Brazil; 
Columba rufina andersoni (p. 294), Boa Vista, N. Brazil; C. r. tobagensis 
(p. 295), Tobago; C. plumbea propinqua (p. 295), Moyobamba, Peru; 
C. subvinacea zullie (p. 295), Zulia, Venezuela; Aramides cajanea venezue- 
lensis (p. 296), Encontrados, Venezuela; A. c. peruviana (p. 296), Moyo- 
bamba, Peru; Cerchneis sparverius peruviana (p. 296), Chachapoyas, Peru; 
C. s. distincta (p. 297), Boa Vista, Brazil; C. s. margaritensis (p. 297), 
Margarita Island; C. s. ochracea (p. 298), Colon, Venezuela; Otus choliba 
margarite (p. 298), Margarita Island; Speotyto cunicularia arubensis 
(p. 299), Aruba Island; S. c. beckeri (p. 299), Bahia, Brazil; S. c. intermedia 
(p. 300), Pacasmayo, Peru; Podager nacunda minor (p. 300), Boa Vista, 
Brazil; Nyctidromus albicollis obscurus (p. 301), Yurimaguas, Peru; 
Caprimulgus hirundinaceus crissalis (p. 301), Bahia, Brazil; T'hrenetes 
longicauda (p. 301), Ceara, Brazil— W. 8. 


Shufeldt on the Tree Ducks.?— This paper consists of an extended 
description of the skeleton of Dendrocygna compared with those of certain 


1 Descriptions of New Birds from South America and Adjacent Islands. By 
Charles B. Cory. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ. 182, Ornith. Series, Vol. 1, No. 8. 
February 23, 1915, pp. 293-302. 

2 Contribution to the Study of the ‘‘Tree-Ducks”’ of the genus Dendrocygna. 
By R. W. Shufeldt. Zool. Jahrbiich. 1914, pp. 1-70, pll. 1-16. 


a 


Vol. ae | Recent Literature. 379 


ducks, geese and swans. The author’s conclusions are the same as those he 
reached on a previous occasion, being those held by “ the most eminent 
ornithologists and avian taxonomers of the Old World ’’ — that Dendro- 
cygna belongs with the ducks and not with the swans or geese with which 
the A. O. U. Check-List associates the genus. Dr. Shufeldt’s criticism of 
the classification of the latter work shows that he has not read the preface 
where the reasons for maintaining the original sequence of groups are given. 
A “ Check-List ’’ need not be a “‘ Phylogenetic System ”’ and the A. O. U. 
Committee clearly states that the sequence followed does not represent 
present day classification. No less than 14 double page half-tone plates of 
the osteology of Dendrocygna and allied genera are used in illustration of 
Dr. Shufeldt’s paper as well as two crude colored plates of tree ducks.— 
W.S. 


Shufeldt on Fossil Birds in the Marsh Collection.'— In this paper 
Dr. Shufeldt presents the results of his studies of the avian fossils in the 
Marsh collection in the Yale University Museum and certain of Marsh’s 
types of fossil birds in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 
Prof. Marsh left much material unidentified and from this Dr. Shufeldt 
has described a number of new forms. viz: Telmatornis rex (p. 27), 
New Jersey Cretaceous; Botauroides (gen. nov.) parvus (p. 33), Eoceornis 
(gen. nov.) ardetta (p. 39), Falco falconella (p. 40), and Grus marshi (p. 
41), all from the Eocene of Wyoming; Colymbus oligoceanus (p. 54), 
Larus pristinus (p. 54), Limicolavis pluvianella (p. 55), and Phalacrocorax 
marinavis (p. 56) from the Oligocene (?) of Oregon; P. mediterraneus 
(p. 58) and Phasianus americanus (p. 58) from the Oligocene of Colorado 
and Oregon respectively; P. mioceanus (p. 60), Nebraska Miocene, Sula 
atlantica (p. 62), New Jersey Miocene, Tympanuchus lulli (p. 69), Post- 
pliocene of New Jersey; Colinus eatoni (p. 70), Kansas, Gavia pusilla 
(p. 70), Wyoming (?), Phasianus alphilde (p. 71), Wyoming, the last 
three with no horizon recorded. A new genus Minerva (p. 43) is pro- 
posed for Aquila antiqua. 

Dr. Shufeldt has added materially to the list of North American fossil 
birds, but there are two nomenclatural points in his valuable paper that 
callfor comment. One is the naming “ provisionally ”’ a species Colymbus 
oligoceanus. After the numerous discussions of rules of nomenclature 
that have been going on of late years we thought that one point was pretty 
generally understood, i. e. that it was impossible to name a species pro- 
visionally. A name once published stands or falls on the original diagnosis 
no matter how poor or incomplete it may be. Another species is called by 
Dr. Shufeldt Phasianus americanus, but this name has been previously 
used by Audubon (Orn. Biog. V, p. 335, 1839). The name was proposed 
for a bird seen and described by J. K. Townsend; what it was it is diffi- 


1 Fossil Birds in the Marsh Collection of Yale University. By R. W. Shufeldt. 
Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts and Sciences, Vol. 19, pp. 1-110. February, 1915. 


376 Recent Literature. [ fue 


cult to say, but the name seems to have a status in nomenclature and 
hence renders Dr. Shufeldt’s name invalid. We would propose as. a sub- 
stitute Phasianus roberti nom. nov. after Dr. Robert W. Shufeldt. al 
W.S. 


White on an Expedition to the Interior of Australia.'— This paper 
treats of the scientific results of a trip, on camel back, of 1300 miles under- 
taken by Capt. and Mrs. White primarily for the purpose of adding to the 
knowledge of the avifauna of interior Australia. Their route lay north 
from Oodnadatta, the railroad terminus 700 miles north of Adelaide, and 
extended to the headwaters of the Finke and Todd Rivers. ‘“‘ A dry and 
awful country which, when the rain comes, blossoms like the rose, but in 
a short space of time (about eight weeks) once more subsides into its normal 
state of drought.” Capt. White adds “‘ The dreary aspect and the solitude 
of this vast country followed us like a nightmare as we travelled south.” 
Collections in various departments were made and are treated by specialists, 
the narrative and the account of the birds being by Capt. White. One 
hundred and eighteen species and subspecies are listed, six of which have 
been described as new by Mr. Gregory M. Mathews in the ‘ Austral Avian 
Record.’ The stomach contents of sixteen species are described by Mr. 
Arthur M. Lea.— W. S. 


Cassinia, 19142. The editor of the Delaware Valley Club’s publication, 
Mr. Robert Thomas Moore, has brought out another exceedingly interest- 
ing number, though its appearance is somewhat delayed.. While the policy 
of restricting the scope of ‘ Cassinia’ to the states bordering on the Delaware 
is wisely continued, the character of the articles demonstrates the unlimited 
possibilities of intensive study in a limited area. 

Dr. Spencer Trotter contributes to the series of biographical papers a 
discussion of ‘Old Philadelphia Bird Collectors and Taxidermists’ in which 
a disappearing type is considered from personal acquaintance with such ex- 
amples as Chris. Wood, John Krider, ete. John D. Carter shows the possi- 
bilities of close observation on Delaware River birds even though only a 
short time each day may be available for the purpose. George Spencer 
Morris gives a delightful account of the Tacony Valley where his home is 
located and about which are centered all his early ornithological associa- 
tions. 

Henry Oldys has a paper on ‘ Individual Variety of Bird Songs ’ suggested 
by a paper by Mr. Moore in last year’s issue of ‘ Cassinia ’ and Dr. Cornelius 
Weygandt writes of ‘Summer in the Poconos’ in his attractive style. 


1 Scientific Notes on an Expedition into the Interior of Australia carried out by 
Capt. 8S. A. White, M. B. O. U., from July to October, 1913. Trans. Royal Soc., 
So. Australa, XX XVIII, pp. 407-474, pll. XXI-XXXIX, 1914.. ! 

2 Cassinia: A Bird Annual. Proceedings of the Delaware Valley Ornithological 
Club. 1914. pp. 1-80, pll. I-V. March [= April, 1915.] Delaware Valley 
Ornith. Club, care Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia. Price 50 cts. 


MN amd Recent Literature. Ov 


The summary of the spring migration is fuller than usual owing to a 
material increase in the corps of observers, and there are the ‘ Abstract of 
Proceedings,’ ‘ Bibliography ’ and ‘ Club Notes.’ Under the last appears 
an account of the Twenty-fifth anniversary dinner of the Club on January 7, 
1915, at which 66 members and seven guests were present. The average 
attendance at the meetings during 1914 was approximately 24.— W. S. 


Publications on Bird Protection.— Mr. E. H. Forbush’s annual 
report ! as state ornithologist of Massachusetts is, as usual, full of interesting 
facts and valuable suggestions. Among other things he shows the effect 
of birds in checking the ravages of the army worm, the effect of the destruc- 
tion of ducks, herons and other aquatic birds on the abundance of mosquito 
larve and the prevalence of diseases transmitted by these insects. 
Ducks at least are known to devour mosquito larve in quantities. The 
European Starling and the havoc it causes in the orchards by pecking apples 
and pears and devouring cherries are also considered at length. 

The Alabama Bird Day Book for 1915? for which the Commissioner of 
Game and Fish, Mr. John H. Wallace, Jr., is responsible, is as usual ad- 
mirably fitted for its purpose, replete with short sketches and poems 
suitable for Bird Day celebrations and illustrated by some of the Mumford 
color plates of familiar species. Alabama stands well in the lead among the 
states of the Union in furthering the observance of Bird Day.— W.S. 


Bird Enemies of two Beetle Pests.— The huisache (Acacia farnesiana) 
a favorite shade tree in the southwest is damaged by a longicorn beetle 
(Oncideres putator). ‘It is believed that the Southern Downy Woodpecker 
(Dryobates pubescens) and probably also the Texas Woodpecker (Dryo- 
bates scalaris bairdi) attack the larve. While neither of these birds has 
been found with larve, they have been observed at work on branches that 
contained numerous larve of this insect and have left empty chambers 
behind.” # 

A click beetle, seriously injurious to corn, oats and cotton, is reported 
upon by entomologists of the South Carolina Agricultural Experiment 
Station. They report that in both 1912 and 1913 “ the elytra of this beetle 
were recognized in the excrement of a Nighthawk, presumably Chordeiles 
virginianus. These elytra were found to be very frequent in the excre- 
ment of this bird in a field of tasseling corn where thousands of these 


1 Seventh Annual Report of the State Ornithologist [of Massachusetts] for the 
Year 1914, Sixty-second Ann. Rept. State Board of Agr., pp. 1-31. January 13, 
1915. = 

2 Alabama Bird Day Book. Issued by Department of Game and Fish. John 
H. Wallace, Jr., Commissioner; Miss Sophia Watts, Secretary. [Montgomery, 
Ala.] 

3 High, M.M. The huisache girdler. Bull. 184, U. S. Dept. of Agric., April 8, 


1915, p. 8. 


Fe 
July 


378 Recent Literature. 
beetles had congregated.” ! Records of the Biological Survey show this 
beetle to be devoured by the following additional species of birds: Killdeer, 
Least Flycatcher, Starling, Orchard Oriole, English Sparrow, Gray-cheeked 
Thrush and Robin.— W. L. M. 


Dissemination of the Chestnut-blight Fungus.— In ‘The Auk’ for 
January, 1915,2 the writer reviewed a paper on birds as carriers of the 
chestnut-blight fungus.* It was then remarked that “ the part birds play 
in the general spread of the disease is so small that it will neverbe seriously 
urged as a reason for diminishing bird protection.” If further argument 
were needed to buttress this position, it is available in abundance in a 
paper by the same authors (plus one) on “‘ Air and wind dissemination of 
Ascospores of the Chestnut-blight Fungus.’ 4 

Two paragraphs of their conclusions are quoted: “ In and near badly 
diseased chestnut groves or forests the number of ascospores falling on each 
square foot of exposed surface following a period of rain, as indicated by 
exposure plates, is very large and is sufficient to offer abundant opportunity 
for new infections.” 

‘“ All of these experiments point to air and wind transport of the asco- 
spores of the chestnut-blight fungus as one of the very important methods 
of dissemination....It can now be said with absolute certainty that 
following each warm rain of any amount ascospores are carried away from 
diseased trees in large numbers. Since they have been obtained in large 
numbers at distances of 300 to 400 feet from the source of supply, the con- 
clusion of the authors that they may be carried much greater distances is 
justified. During dry periods wind dissemination of ascospores does not 
occur at all or sinks to a very insignificant minimum.” 

If the blight is freely distributed by so omnipresent an agency as the 
wind, the part that birds play in the dissemination must be reckoned as 
comparatively unimportant.— W. L. M. 


The Ornithological Journals.® 


Bird-Lore. XVII, No. 2. March-April, 1915. 
Bird-Life in Southern Illinois. III. Larchmound: A Naturalist’s 


Diary. By Robert Ridgway. 
A Mysterious Bird of the Marsh. By Verdi Burtch.— A study of the 


Bittern with excellent photographs. 


! Conradi, A. F. & Eagerton, H. C. The spotted click beetle (Monocrepidius 
vespertinus Fab.). Bull. 179, Dec. 1914, p. 7. 

2 Vol. XXXII, No. 1, p. 119. 

3 Journal Agr. Research, IT, No. 6, Sept., 1914, pp. 405-422. 

4 Journ. Agr. Research, IIT, No. 6, March, 1915, pp. 493-525. 

5 The name of the editor and publisher of each journal will be found in the 


January number of ‘The Auk.’ 


emis thbns 


ee; ioe | Recent Literature. 379 


Second Sectional Bird Census, 1914. Taken at Berwyn, Chester County, 
Pennsylvania. By F. L. Burns.— Compared with a similar census made in 
1899-1901 it shows little difference in the totals which are 62 species and 
1388 individuals for the earlier count, and 60 species and 1424 individuals 
for the 1914 census. 

The Story of a Red-tailed Hawk. In Two Parts. Part II. By Mrs. 
A. B. Morgan. 

Migration of N. A. Kinglets. By W. W. Cooke. . Plumage notes by 
F. M. Chapman, color plate by Fuertes. 

The Educational Leaflet treats of the Towhee and is by T. G. Pearson, 
with an excellent color plate by Fuertes. The Audubon Society Depart- 
ment also contains an admirably illustrated article by W. L. and Irene 
Finley on the Road-runner and ‘ Facts about Cats’ by E. H. Forbush. 

Mr. Francis Harper contributes a remarkable photograph of feeding 
* Meadowlarks to this number. 

The Condor. Vol. XVII, No. 2. March-April, 1915. 

Adaptability in the choice of Nesting Sites of Some Widely Spread Birds. 
By C. H. Kennedy.— Arkansas Kingbird nesting in open box on top of 
derrick, on a telephone pole and in an old Oriole’s nest. ; 

Nesting of the American Osprey at Eagle Lake, California. By M.S. 
Ray. 

Notes on the Murrelets and Petrels. By A. Van Rossem.— Differences 
between Brachyramphus hypoleucus and craveri and between Oceanodroma 
socorroensis and melania. 

Birds of a Berkley Hillside. By Amelia 8. Allen — With photographs 
of familiar Californian birds. 

A Forty Acre Bird Census at Sacaton, Arizona. By M. F. Gilman. 

Some Park County, Colorado, Bird Notes. By E. R. Warren. 

The Wilson Bulletin. Vol. XX VII, No.1. March, 1915. 

June Birds of Laramie, Wyoming. By W. F. Henninger.— 105 species 
noted. a 

Birds by the Wayside, in Europe, Asia and Africa. By Althea R. 
Sherman.— Interesting observations on the birds of India in January in 
this installment. 

Birds About a Country Home in Winter. By Alice Edgerton. 

Comparative Periods of Deposition and Incubation of Some North 
American Birds. By F. L. Burns.— A compilation from manuscript notes 
of the author and others as well as from other sources. 

The Odlogist. Vol. XXXII, No. 8. March 15, 1915. 

A Nest of the Florida Red-shouldered Hawk. By Finlay Simmons. 

The Rolling Call of the Pileated Woodpecker. By E. W. Vickers.— 
Interesting study of this bird. 

List of Birds of Eastern U.S. Found in Jamaica and in Colombia in 1913. 
By Paul G. Howes. 

Proceedings of the Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union. Vol. VI, 
Part 2. February 27, 1915. 


380 Recent Literature. jue 


The Eskimo Curlew and its Disappearance. By M. H. Swenk.— A 
timely résumé of records with a photograph of a specimen obtained at 
Charles, Merrick Co., Nebraska, April 20, 1911. 

The Odlogist. Vol. XXXII, No. 4. April 15, 1915. 

Pileated Woodpecker. By O. Reinecke.— Near Buffalo, N. Y. 

White-throated Swifts. By C. F. Schank.— Escondido, Cal. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CCIV. Febru- 
ary 27, 1915. 

Mr. Stuart Baker described (p. 61) Laiscopus collaris whymperi, from 
Garhwal, India. 

The meeting was mainly devoted to a discussion of ‘‘ Coloration as a 
Factor in Family and Generic Differentiation.” 

Dr. Percy R. Lowe presented the subject under six headings (1) ‘‘ The 
distinction which must be made between colour-pattern-and mere colora- 
tion’; (2) ‘“‘ The question of concealing coloration and vice versa, viz: 
brilliancy of coloration ”’; (3) ‘‘ The constancy and persistence of colour- 
pattern’”’; (4) ‘‘ The co-relation of colour-pattern with other generic 
characters’; (5) ‘‘ Colour-pattern as a phylogenetic or generic clue ’’; 
(6) “‘ The relation of colour-pattern to the question of ‘ genera-splitting ’ 
or ‘ genera-lumping’ ”’ (cf. Notes and News of this number of ‘ The Auk.’) 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CCV. March 
29, 1915. 

Dr. E. Hartert stated his opinion that @nanthe stapanza and @. aurita 
are dimorphic forms of the same species. 

Lantern slides were exhibited illustrating the faunal regions of Algeria, 
and the birds of the mouth of the Yenesei, N. Siberia. 

The following new forms were described. By J. D. LaTouche: Garrulus 
diaphorus (p. 98), N. E. Chihli, China. By C. H. B. Grant: Centropus 
grillit wahlbergi (p. 99), Umslango, Pt. Natal; Indicator minor alexandert 
(p. 99), Gambaga, Gold Coast; J. exilis leona (p. 100), Sierra Leone; J. e. 
ansorget (p. 160), Gunnal, Portuguese Guinea, Pogoniulus chrysoconus 
rhodesie (p. 100), Chambesi Valley, Rhodesia, Dendropicos fuscescens 
cosenst (p. 101), Senegal; D. lafresnayi loande (p. 101), Loanda Dist.; 
Thripias namaquus intermedius (p. 101), Ugogo, German E. Africa; 
Jynx ruficollis cosensi (p. 102), Umala River, Afr. 

British Birds. Vol. VIII, No. 10. March 1, 1915. 

Notes on Migration at Dungeness, Kent, Autumn 1914. By H. G. 
Alexander. 

Notes on the Habits of the Fulmar Petrel. By O. G. Pike.— With 
Admirable photographs. 

British Birds. Vol. VIII, No. 11. April 1, 1915. 

The Blakeney Point Ternery. By Wm. Rowan.— Well illustrated. 

Avicultural Magazine. Vol. VI, No. 5. March, 1915. 

The Kingfisher and Snipe in Captivity. By G. E. Rattigan. 

My Hummingbirds and How I Obtained them. Anon. 

Rare Birds in Continental Zoos. By G. Renshaw. 


ais | Recent Literature. 381 


Avicultural Magazine. Vol. VI, No.6. April, 1915. 

A Tame Raven. By R. Phillipps. 

Bird Notes and News. Vol. VI, No. 5. Spring, 1915. 

On Liberating Cage Birds. 

The Birds of Shetland and Orkney. 

Bird Notes. Vol. VI, No. 2. February, 1915. 

Nesting of the Lesser Grey-headed Guan (Ortalis vetula). By R. Suggitt. 

British Corvide. By F. Dawson Smith. (Cont’d in March.) 

A Journey Across the Sierras, 8. California. By W.S. Baily. (Also 
cont’d in March issue.) 

Bird Notes. Vol. VI, No.3. March, 1915. 

Birds of the Jhelum District. By H. Whistler. (Cont’d.) 

The Emu. Vol. XIV, Part 3. January, 1915. 

Royal A. O. U. Fourteenth Session. 

Problems of Nomenclature. By A. H. E. Mattingley— An admirable 
address by the president of the R. A. O. U. in which he presents a fair 
consideration of all sides of the question and advocates the use of trinomials 
and the observance of the International Code of Nomenclature. 

The Mallacoota Excursion. By A. H. Chisolm.— The annual field trip 
of the R. A. O. U., upon which it was possible to study such interesting 
birds as the Emu Wrens and Satin Bower Birds “‘ while the ringing voices 
of Lyre Birds floated up from the dense fern gullies with the first hint of 
dawn ”’! 

The Birds of Mallacoota. By Capt.S. A. White. A well annotated list. 

Australian Cuckoos. By H. L. White.— Lists of foster parents of the 
‘various species. 

Notes upon Astur cruentus ( Urospiza fasciata cruenta). By H. L. White. 

Descriptions of New Australian Birds’ Eggs. By H. L. White. 

The Young of Climacteris leucophea. By J. W. Mellor. 

Cuckoos and their Offspring. By S. A. Hanscombe. 

Cuckoos — Ejection of Foster Parents’ Chicks. By A. G. Campbell. 

North Queensland Birds. By D. Le Souéf. 

Cuckoos in Tasmania. By Miss J. A. Fletcher. 

Missing Birds. By A. J. Campbell. 

Notes on Kagus (Rhinochetus jubatus). By H. E. Finckh. 

Ornithologische Monatsberichte. (In German.) Vol. 23, No. 1. 
January, 1915. 

Further Additions to the Avifauna of Prussian Schlesia. By Paul 
Kollibay. 

Ornithologische Monatsberichte. Vol. 23, No.2. February, 1915. 

Remarks on Carduelis c. carduelis and C. c. major. By Dr. E. Hesse. 

Two New Speciesfrom Africa. By A. Reichenow. 

Falco pyrrhogaster (p. 25), Bosum, E. Cameroon; and Dendromus aurei- 
cuspis (p. 26), Ussagara, German E. Africa. 

Berajah 1914, pp. 15-22. 

Contains extensive discussion of the development of down feathers of 
Falco peregrinus. 


382 Recent Literature. fale 


Proceedings of the Bavarian Ornithological Society. XII, No. 2. 
(In German.) 

Two new forms from Caucasus. By A. Laubman.— Carpodacus ery- 
thrinus kubanensis (p. 93), Karaul Kisha; Emberiza cia prageri (p. 98), 
Psebai, both localities in N. W. Caucasus. 

Miscellanea Ornithologica. By C. E. Hellmayr.— Describes as lew 
Parus ater prageri (p. 119), Jagdhaus Kischa, N. W. Caucasus; Pipra 
aureola scarlatina (p. 122), Fazenda Cayod, Sao Paula, Brazil; Urosticte 
benjamini rostrata (p. 125), La Selva, W. Colombia. 

A Short Contribution to the Ornithology of Espirito Santo, S. E. Brazil. 
By C. E. Hellmayr.— Annotated list of 56 species. 

On a New Grosbeak from Venezuela. By C. E. Hellmayr and J. Graf 
von Seilern.— Pheuticus chrysopeplus laubmanni (160) Galipan, Venezuela. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. VI, Nos. 64-65. August-Sept., 
1914. (In French.) 

Specimens of Fregilupus varius. By A. Menegaux.— Photograph of 
four specimens in the Museum of Troyes. 

Song Bird Fauna in the Environs of Vendome (cont’d.). By W. E. 
Coursimault.— Runs through numbers 66-67 and 69. 

The Forcol [= Wryneck]. By A. Boutilleri— A monographic account 
(completed in No. 66-67). 

The Birds of New Caledonia. By A. Menegaux. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. VI, No. 66-67. October—Sep- 
tember, 1914. 

The Generic Names Mesites, Mesewnas and Mesitornis. By L. Brasil.— 
Mesites Geoff, 1838, antedates Mesites Schcenherr, 1838 (Coleoptera), and 
the substitute names were unnecessary. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. VI, No. 68. December, 1914. 

Note on the Food of the Grosbeak. By P. Paris. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. VI, No. 69. January, 1915. 

Ornithological Notes from French West Africa. Birds of Prey observe 
April 1913—May, 1914, on the Dakar Peninsula. By Dr. Millet-Horsin. . 

On Aepyornis. By R. Didier. 

On the Uropygial Gland in Birds. By Paul Paris. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologies. VI, No. 70. February, 1915. 

The War and the Birds. By J. L’Hermitte. 

Ornithological Notes from French West Africa. The Agni Legend of 
the Hornbill. By Dr. Millet-Horsin. 

Report on a Collection of Birds Brought from India. By A. Engel 
(to be continued).— Eighty species are listed in this installment. 

Revista Italiana d’Ornitologia. III, No. 3-4. July-December, 
1914. (In Italian.) 

On Phylloscopus tristis Blyth. By G. Vallon. 

On the Necessity of International Legislation to Prohibit the impart 
tion of Bird Plumage into Europe. By G. Whitaker. 

Anomalies in the Coloration of the Plumage of Birds. By G. A. Carlotto. 


Ee | Recent Literature. 383 


On the Oriental Forms of the Genus Guttera. By A. Ghigi— A careful 
monograph. 

Hierophasis dissimilis. A New Mutation Form of H. swinhoti Gould. By 
A. Ghigi.— Contains much interesting information on the pedigree of these 
pheasants bred in captivity through several generations. The advisability 
of naming such forms as this is however decidedly open to question. 


Ornithological Articles in Other Journals.! 


Kellogg, V. L. A Fourth Mallophagan Species from the Hoatzin. 
(Science, March 5, 1915.) — The nearest- allies of three of these parasites 
of the Hoatzin are found on shore birds and storks, while species congeneric 
with the fourth occur on pheasants. The data do not throw much light 
upon the relationship of the Hoatzin but suggest an affinity with water 
birds rather than with the gallinaceous group. 

Swarth, H. 8. Albinism in the English Sparrow (Science April 16, 
1915).— To the notes on albinism in the English Sparrow, a well known 
condition that seems to have been just discovered by certain contributors to 
‘Science,’ Mr. Swarth adds some really valuable data. He calls attention 
to the adaptation of Brewer’s Blackbird (Huphagus cyanocephalus) to 
altered conditions brought about by increased settlement in southern 
California, and to the prevalence of albinism in this species. The House 
Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis) however, which is still more ‘ do- 
mesticated ”’ does not exhibit such a tendency. 

Chamberlain, B.R. Marsh Hawk Breeding in South Carolina. (Bull. 
Charleston Mus., February, 1915.) 

Tyler, John G. Allies of the Farmer. (San Joaquin Light and Power 
Magazine, January, February arid March, 1915.) — A series of popular 
articles on the familiar birds of the San Joaquin Valley, Cal. 

Dale, Melville. August Bird Life at Pleasant Point, Ont. (Ottawa 
Naturalist, March, 1915.) 

Clyne, Robt. Notes on Birds Observed at the Butt of Lewis (cont’d.). 
(Scottish Naturalist, April, 1915.) : 

Maxwell, Herbert. Waterfowl and the American Pond Weed (Elodea 
canadensis). (do.) — Proves an attractive food plant. 

Dewar, J. M. The Sense of Direction. (Zodélogist, February 15, 1915.) 
— The two theories (1) knowledge of landmarks, (2) sensing position ‘in 
terms of bodily displacements in space experienced on the outward jour- 
ney ” are outlined. A number of observations are given which show that 
the latter is a more satisfactory hypothesis than the former. 

Blake, J. Notes on the Birds around Cardiff. (do.) 

Selous, E. Ornithological Observations in Iceland, June and July, 
1912. (do.) = 

Patten, C. J. Aquatic Warbler on Migration Obtained on Tuskar 


1 Some of these journals are received in exchange, others are examined in the 
library of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Editor is under 
obligations to Mr. J. A. G. Rehn for a list of ornithological articles contained in 
the accessions to the library from week to week. 


[July 


384 Recent Literature. 
Rock: With Special Reference to the Plumage Markings as Compared 
with those of the Sage Warbler. (do. March 15, 1915.) 

Patterson, H.H. Ornithological War-Notes from Great Yarmouth. (do.) 

Finley, W. L. The Bob-White in Oregon. (Oregon Sportsman, 
February, 1915.) 

Froggatt, W. W. Bird Notes (Australian Zoologist, Vol I, Part 2.)— 
Numerous notes on Australian species. 

Dabbene, R. A New Bird for Argentina.— Manacus manacus gut- 
turosus (Desm.). | (Bolet. Soc. Physis, Buenos Aires I, No. 7, December 31, 
1914.) 

Hirtz, Dr. M. Critical Remarks on Madarasz’s Birds of Hungary. 
(Glasnik hrvatskoga Prerodoslovnoga Denstia, XX VI, No. 4.) 

Keartland, G. A. On the Specific Name of the Blood-stained Cochatoo, 
Cacatua sanguinea Gould. (Victorian Nat., March, 1915.) —C. san- 
guinea and C. gymnopis considered to be identical. 

Kershaw, J. A. A Naturalist in Northern Queensland. (Victorian 
Nat., March, 1915.) 

Rothschild, W. and Hartert, E. The Birds of Dampier Island. 
(Novit. Zool., XXII, No. 1, February 12, 1915) and The Birds of Vulcan 
Island (do.) — These two islands lie off the northwestern coast of New 
Guinea; 49 species are listed from the former and 41 from the latter. 
Macropygia rufa krakari (p. 28), Dampier Isl.; Hypocharmosyna rubrigu- 
laris krakeri (p. 31), Dampier Isl.; Macropygia amboinensis meeki (p. 39), 
Vulcan Isl.; T'anysiptera hydrocharis vulcani (p. 42), Vulean Isl. and Mon- 
archa chalybeocephalus manumudari (p. 43), Vulcan Isl. are described as new. 

Rothschild, W. and Hartert, E. Notes on Papuan Birds (continued). 
(Novit. Zool., XXII, No. 1, February 12, 1915.) — Accipiter fasciatus 
polycryptus (p. 53). ‘Sogeri dist.’ N. Guinea; Colluricincla brunnea 
tachycrypta (p. 60), Milne Bay, N. Guinea, subsp. nov. 

Hartert, E. In Algeria, 1914. A Journey to the M’Zab Country and 
Over the Central High Plateaus. (Novit. Zool., XXII, No. 1, February 12, 
1915.) — An interesting account of a trip through this desert country and 
the rediscovery of several species — Garrulus minor Verr., Chersophilus 
duponti (Vaill), ete. 

Rothschild, W. On the Genus Fregata. (Novit. Zool., XXII, No. 1, 
February 12, 1915.) — While Mathews arrangement of the forms (Austral 
Ay. Rec., II, No. 6) is for the most part endorsed, the fact it pointed out 
that Fregata minor belongs to the bird of the East Indian Ocean, also that 
the large Galapagos bird is the same as that of the West Iidies and being 
distinct from F. minor, this form should be known as F’. magnificens Math. 


Publications Received.!— Cory, Charles B. Descriptions of New 
Birds from South America and Adjacent Islands. (Publ. 182, Field Mus. 
Nat. Hist., Ornith. Series, Vol. I, No. 8, pp. 293-302, February 23, 1915.) 


1Owing to the early compilation of Recent Literature for this number, only 
publications received prior to April 15 are included.— Ed. 


‘a ame Recent Literature. 389 


Forbush, E. H. Seventh Annual Report of the State Ornithologist of 
Mass. (Sixty-second Ann. Rept. State Board Agr., pp. 1-29, repaged 
January 13, 1915.) 

Grinnell, Joseph. Conserve the Collector. (Science, February 12, 
1915, repaged, pp. 1-4.) 

Grinnell, Joseph and Bryant, H. C. The Wood Duck in California. 
(Cal. Fish and Game, I, No. 2, repaged, January 30, 1915.) 

Levick, G. Murray. Antarctic Penguins. A Study of their Social 
Habits by Dr. G. Murray Levick R. N., Zoologist to the British Antarctic 
Expedition [1910-1913]. New York, McBride, Nast & Company, 1914. 
Small 8vo. pp. 1-140, figs. 1-74. Price, 1.50 net. 

Miller, W. DeW. Notes on Ptilosis, with Special Reference to the 
Feathering of the Wing. (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXXIV, Art. VI, 
pp. 129-140, March 19, 1915.) 

Shufeldt, R. W. (1) Fossil Birds in the Marsh Collection of Yale 
University. (Trans. Conn. Acad. Arts. and Sci., Vol. 9, pp. 1-110, Febru- 
ary, 1915.) (2) Contribution to the study of the ‘‘ Tree Ducks ”’ of the 
genus Dendrocygna. (Zodl. Jarbiich., pp. 1-70, with 16 plates. 1914.) 
(3) Review of the Wild Geese of North America, Part II. (Outer’s Book, 
March, 1915.) (4) Eggs of North American Water Birds (Introduction). 
(Blue Bird, March, 1915.) 

Stephens, Frank. Arid California and its Animal Life. (Cal. Fish 
and Game Com. Report, 1914, repaged, pp. 1-8.) 

Swarth, H. S. The Status of the Arizona Spotted Owl. (Condor, 
XVII, January 20, 1915, pp. 15-19.) ; 

Tyler, John G. Allies of the Farmer (San Joaquin Light and Power 
Magazine, III, Nos. 1-3, January-March, 1915.) 

Wallace, John H., Jr. Alabama Bird Day Book. 8vo. pp. 1-96, 
numerous plates. Dept. of Game and Fish, Montgomery, Ala. 

White, 8S. A. Scientific Notes on an Expedition into the Interior of 
Australia carried out by Capt. 8S. A. White, M. B. O. U., from July to 
October, 1913. (Trans. Royal Soc. South Australia, Vol. XX XVIII, 1914, 
pp. 407-474, pls. XXI-XXXIX.) 

Abstract Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Nos. 139-141. 

American Museum Journal, The, XV, No. 3, March, 1915. 

Australian Zoologist, The, Vol. I, Part 2, February 22, 1915. 

Avicultural Magazine, (3) VI, 5-6, March-April, 1915. 

Bird-Lore, XVII, No. 2, March-April, 1915. 

Bird Notes and News, VI, No. 5, Spring, 1915. 

British Birds, VIII, Nos. 10-11, March-April, 1915. 

Bulletin British Ornith. Club, Nos. CCIV-CCV, February 27 and 
March 29, 1915. ~ 

Bulletin of the Charleston Museum, XI, Nos. 2 and 3, February— 
March, 1915. 

Bulletin Univ. State of N. Y., No. 11, Bird Day circular, 1915. [Broad- 
side.] 


386 Notes and News. [sats 
Cassinia, Proceedings of the Delaware Valley Ornithological Club, 
No. XVIII, 1914, pp. 1-80, pls. I-V. (Issued March [= April 17], 1915.) 

Condor, The, XVII, No. 2, March-April, 1915. 

Emu, The, XIV, Part 3, January, 1915. 

Forest and Stream, LX XXIV, Nos. 3 and 4, March-April, 1915. 

Odlogist, The, XX XII, Nos. 3, 4, March and April, 1915. 

Oregon Sportsman, The, III, No. 2, February, 1915. 

Ottawa Naturalist, The, XXVIII, Nos. 11, 12, February and March, 
1915. 

Proceedings Cal. Acad. Sci., IV, Nos. 4-5; V, Nos. 1-2, March 14 and 
26, 1915. 

Proceedings National Acad. Sci., I, No. 3, March, 1915. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie, VI, Nos. 64-65, 66-67, 68. September, 
November and December, 1914; VII, Nos. 69, 70, January and February, 
1915. 

Revista Italiana di Ornitologia, III, No. 3-4, July-December, 1914. 

Science, N.S., XLI, Nos. 1056-1061. 

Scottish Naturalist, The, Nos. 39, 40, March and April, 1915. 

Verhandlungen der Ornith. Gesell. in Bayern. XII, Heft. 2, February 
8, 1915. : . 

Wilson Bulletin, The, XX VII, No. 1, March, 1915. 

Zoologist, The, XIX, Nos. 218 and 219, February and March, 1915. 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Harry KirKuAND PoMERoy, an associate member of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, died of Typhoid Fever in Kalamazoo, Mich., on J. an- 
uary 27, 1915. 

Mr. Pomeroy was born in Lockport, New York, April 3, 1865, and moved 
to Kalamazoo, Mich., in 1872. His favorite study was Ornithology and his 
collection of birds’ nests and eggs is one of the best in the State. 

The many friends who enjoyed the privilege of Mr. Pomeroy’s acquaint- 
ance will learn with deep regret of his untimely death. His kindly con- 
siderate nature and earnest helpfulness to his friends were among the many 
sterling characteristics that helped to endear him and make him beloved 
by them all. 

Mr. Pomeroy was an active member of the Cooper Ornithological Club 
and deeply interested in western ornithology and odlogy. His excellent 
collection is an enduring monument to his industrious habits and studies 
during the leisure hours snatched from a busy outdoor life-— E. ARNOLD. 


an a 


be oe ll 


eh Notes and News. O87 


We learn with great regret of the death of Lord Brabourne, who was 
killed in action on March 13, 1915, in the twenty-ninth year of his age. 
He had returned only recently from South America where he was collecting 
material for the work on ‘ The Birds of South America’ which he was 
writing in conjunction with Mr. Charles Chubb and of which only one part 
had appeared. Lord Brabourne was an officer of the Grenadier Guards. 


THE question of the limits of genera bids fair to be the most serious 
problem in zoélogical nomenclature. In the recent ‘ List of British Birds’ 
there are 171 species and 151 generic groups which are to be found also in 
the A. O. U. Check-List. The two committees working under the Inter- 
national Code have, after making allowance for several admitted errors or 
arbitrary violations of rules, arrived at the same names for all but four of 
the species, while the latest British list differs from that of Dr. Hartert and 
his associates in only 3 specific cases. When three independent committees 
approach so close to uniformity it would seem that the International Code 
had solved the problems of nomenclatural discrepancy. 

In the case of the 151 genera, however, we find 49 cases where the names 
employed are different. After making allowance as above we find that 
only 7 of this number are due to questions of nomenclature, i. e. to the still 
unsettled point as to how much difference in spelling constitutes a different 
word and to the recognition of certain works in systematic nomenclature. 

The other 42 cases are due to difference of opinion as to the limitation 
of genera. One committee, for instance, considers that the Mallard, 
Blue-winged and Green-winged Teal, each represents a distinct genus and 
consequently calls them Anas brachyrhynchos, Querquedula discors and 
Nettion carolinense. Another considers that they all belong to one genus 
and quotes them as, Anas brachyrhynchos, Anas discors and Anas 
carolinensis. The third regards the Teal as congeneric but considers that 
the Mallard represents a distinct genus and we have, Anas brachyrhynchos 
Querquedula discors and Querquedula carolinensis. It will be noticed that 
there is here just as much confusion and difference of opinion as could 
possibly be occasioned by the law of priority, the ‘first species’ rule of 
type fixation, or any of the other principles of nomenclature against which 
such protests have been directed; and yet this is due purely to a question 
of ornithology with which the rules of nomenclature and the ‘‘ name 
jugglers ” have nothing whatever to do. 

Now if the name of a bird is to be used as a medium to exploit personal 
opinions as to the phylogeny and relationship of species we had better 
devise some other means of tagging a species so that some one else will 
know what we are talking about. 

If on the other Rand the name of the bird is to constitute such a ‘ tag’ 
then we should by some international and arbitrary agreement decide 
these disputed cases so that we may have the same uniformity ornithologi- 
cally that we seem to have at last attained nomenclaturally. 

The great majority of ornithologists are pretty well agreed upon the great 


Auk 
388 Notes and News. ign 


majority of genera and there will not be so very many to be settled arbi- 
trarily, but such arbitrary action, if we are to have a permanent and uni- 
versal system of names, seems to be inevitable. Those who wish to make 
further subdivisions may still use the suppressed names as subgenera in 
any discussion or systematic monograph. 

Another phase of the same question is the increasing tendency to recog- 
nize finer and finer generic divisions, a matter which has been discussed by 
the writer (Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. XV, p.-313) and by the British Orni- 
thologists’ Club at a recent meeting (Bull. B. O. C., No. CCIV, p. 68 et seq.). 
In some groups we have already reached the stage where a large number 
of genera contain but a single species each. The generic name has thus 
become of exactly the same significance as the specific name and is super- 
fluous. The ultimate outcome of this sort of thing will be a nomenclature 
wherein each species will have a name but no clue whatever to its relation- 
ship will be found in this name. 

Linneus’ idea was that the 63 genera under which he arranged all the 
birds known to him, represented 63 types of bird structure and when the 
generic name was mentioned the general character of the bird was immedi- 
ately known, while the specific name indicated a form of that type of bird. 

Of course we cannot go back to Linnweus or anywhere near to him, but 
we must, if a name is to be maintained as a name, check the further sub- 
division of genera. Moreover why is the discovery of a slight structural 
difference of such paramount importance that we should overturn our 


names to advertise it? Is it not just as important to emphasize relation- — 


ship as divergence? Indeed we are suffering at the present time in syste- 
matic ornithology for the need of some way to indicate relationship. We 
shall soon be forced to erect a lot of subfamilies to indicate relationships 
formerly denoted by generic names which have now been degraded until 
they are perilously close to species. 

It should be born in mind that a genus is not a definite thing in the sense 
that aspeciesis; it is simply a group for convenience, sometimes it is sharply 
defined, more often it is not. This fact is well shown in the virtual agree- 
ment of the committees referred to above as to the number of species before 
them and their wide differences of opinion as to the number of genera. 

It is difficult to provide a means for bringing about the desired uniformity 
in the limits and number of generic groups, but the necessity for such action 
should be strongly emphasized and widely proclaimed. 


Tue thirty-third stated Meeting of the American Ornithologists’ Union 
was held in San Francisco, May 17-20, 1915. This was the first regular 
meeting of the Union to be held outside of the eastern cities of New York, 
Cambridge, Washington and Philadelphia and much credit is due to the 
energy and generous hospitality of the California members, which were 
responsible not only for the notable success of the meeting, but for its 
being held so far away from what might be called the ‘type locality’ of 
fhe ASO. U: 


EE 


pe | Notes and News. 389 


The eastern members who formed the regular A. O. U. excursion party 
comprised Messrs. John H. Sage, J. H. Fleming, and Samuel Wright; 
Drs. T. S. Palmer and Witmer Stone and Miss May T. Cooke. Mrs. 
Palmer, Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Stone and Miss Haskell were also in the party. 
At Chicago, Mr. W. H. Osgood entertained the party at dinner. A stop 
of two days was made at the Grand Cafion, Arizona, and a combined list 
of the birds observed in the forest around the rim of the Cafion and during 
the descent to the bottom, was made by the members which will appear in 
a subsequent number of ‘The Auk.’ 

At Los Angeles Dr. A. K. Fisher and Dr. and Mrs. J. Dwight, Jr., who 
had gone on ahead, joined the party, and a number of other eastern mem- 
bers and their families went direct to San Francisco by other routes: these 
included Dr. and Mrs. C. Hart Merriam, Mr. and Mrs. Otto Widmann, 
Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Murphy, John T. Nichols, T. Gilbert Pearson, 
Dr. W. J. Holland and Mr. and Mrs. Chas. A. Schoffner. 

The members who stopped over at Los Angeles were most cordially 
entertained by the southern division of the Cooper Ornithological Club. 
A reception was tendered them at the Museum of Science and Arts, where 
Messrs. Daggett and Swarth exhibited the collections, while Mr. and Mrs. 
J. Eugene Law personally conducted the trips to Catalina Island and Mt. 
Lowe. Messrs. A. B. Howell, W. Lee Chambers, A. E. Colburn, E. J. 
Brown, and others did all in their power to make the visit enjoyable. 

At San Francisco the business session was held at the California Academy 
of Sciences and, at various times during the stay of the eastern members, 
Dr. Evermann and Mr. Loomis acted as hosts to those who desired to 
consult the valuable collections of the Academy, especially the series of 
Tubinares. 

The Museum of Vertebrate Zoédlogy of the University of California was 
also a center of interest to the visitors, and Drs. Joseph Grinnell and H. C. 
Bryant, Messrs. Tracy Storer, W. P. Taylor and others devoted much 
time to explaining and displaying the wonderfully complete west coast 
collections which have been brought together at the Museum. 

The public sessions of the Union were held in halls within the grounds of 
the Panama Pacific International Exposition and were well attended. 
President Fisher, Vice-President Stone and Mr. Joseph Mailliard, Presi- 
dent of the northern division of the Cooper Ornithological Club, presided 
at the sessions. 

The motion pictures of Grebes, Gulls, Murres and Golden Eagles exhib- 
ited by Mr. W. L. Finley were the most notable feature of an interesting 
program. The annual dinner of the Union and the luncheons, one of 
which was held at.a Chinese restaurant, within the grounds, were enjoyable 
affairs and thanks to the efficient management of Mr. Joseph Mailliard 
and his committee of arrangements, the meeting will be remembered by 
those in attendance as one of the most successful in the history of the 
Union. 

Rainy weather prevented the trip to Mt. Tamalpais on the last day of 


390 Notes and News. [ car 


the meeting and extremely rough water on the next day necessitated the 
cancelling of the Farallon trip. Dr. Evermann, however, arranged to have 
the Albatross cruise around the bay and a large party of A. O. U. members. 
and friends enjoyed the trip, while others visited Mt. Tamalpais and the 
Muir woods. The eastern members then scattered to visit the Exposition 
and various parts of California, many of them being entertained by Dr. 
and Mrs. C. Hart Merriam at their summer home at Lagunitas. 

The regular detailed account of the meeting, which could not be prepared: 
in time for this issue, will appear in the October ‘Auk.’ 

At the business session the proposed changes in the By-Laws whereby 
Members will hereafter share with Fellows the business of the Union and 
the election of Officers, Members, and Associates, were finally adopted. 

The present officers were re-elected and Philadelphia was selected as the: 
place of meeting in 1916, the time being left to the local committee. It 
was the expressed wish of all the eastern members in attendance that a. 
large delegation from ‘the coast’ might be present on this occasion so that 
an opportunity might be provided for repaying, in part at least, the gener- 
ous hospitality of California and the Cooper Ornithological Club. 


PUBLICATIONS OF THE 


AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION 


FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES: 


The Auk. Complete set, Volumes I-XXXI, (1884-1914) in origi- 
nal covers, $105.00. Volumes I-VI are sold only with complete 
sets, other volumes, $3.00 each; 75 cents for single numbers. 


Index to The Auk (Vols. I-XVII, 1884-1900) and Bulletin of the 
Nuttall Ornithological Club (Vols. I-VIII, 1876-1883), 8vo, pp. 
vii + 426, 1908. Cloth, $3.75; paper, $3.25. 


Index to The Auk (Vols. XVIII-XXVII, 1901-1910), Svo, pp. 
xvii + 250, 1915. Cloth, $3.00; paper, $2.00. 


Check-List of North American Birds. Third edition, revised, 
1910. Cloth, 8vo., pp. 426, and 2 maps. $2.50, net, postage 
25 cents. Second edition, revised, 1895. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 
372. $1.15. Original edition 1886. Out of print. - 


Abridged Check-List of North American Birds. 1889. (Abridged 
and revised from the original edition). Paper, 8vo, pp. 71, printed 
on one side of the page. 25 cents. 


Pocket Check-List of North American Birds. (Abridged from 
the third edition). Flexible cover, 3} X 53 inches. 25 cents._ 
10 copies for $2.00. 


Code of Nomenclature. Revised edition, 1908. Paper, 8vo, pp. 
Ixxxv. 50 cents. 
Original edition, 1892 Paper, 8vo, pp. iv +72. 25 cents. 


We would be.pleased to furnish The Auk, Index and Check-List 
to your library at 15% discount. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr. 


134 W. 7Ist St., New York, N.Y. 


ae 


American Ornithologists Union 


Check-List of North American ; 


Birds 
Last Edition, 1910 


Cloth, 8vo, pp. 480 and two maps of North America, 
one a colored, faunal zone map, and one a locality map. 

The first authoritative and complete list of North 
American Birds published since the second edition of 
the Check-List in 1895. The ranges of species and 
geographical races have been carefully revised and 
greatly extended, and the names conform to the latest 
rulings of the A.O. U. Committee on Nomenclature. 
The numbering of the species is the same as in the 
second edition. Price, including postage, $2.75. 


POCKET EDITION 
A pocket Check-List (3 by 5% inches) of North 


American Birds with only the numbers and the scientific _ 


and popular names. Alternate pages blank for the 
insertion of notes. Flexible covers. Price, including 
postage, 25 cents; or 10 copies for $2.00. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr. 
134 W. 7Ist St. | New York City 


SSS == —— 
2 TR eae 
) < ir 


vl 


eRe hers hack, 


|| Series, 


CONTINUATION OF THE New 
| Vol. XL 


BULLETIN OF THE NUTTALL ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB Serna) 


The Auk 


AH Quarterly Journal of Ornithology 


Vol. XXXII OCTOBER, 1915 


PUBLISHED BY 


The American Ornithologists’ Union 


CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 


Entered as second-class mail matter in the Post Office at Boston, Mass, 


CONTENTS 


; ‘ P 
In Memoriam: THEODORE NicHoutas Gitu. By T. S. Palmer. (Plate XXVI) . 391 
Tur More NortHeERN SPECIES OF THE GENUS Scytalopus Goutp. By Frank M. 


Chapman 5 : < : : 3 5 3 7 406 
Tur Pium Istanp Nicut Herons. By S. Waldo Bailey. . ‘ : Z A 424 
Brirp MIGRATION IN THE MacKENZIE VALLEY. By Wells W. Cooke . g 5 442 
List or WATER AND SHORE BIRDS OF THE PuGET SOUND REGION IN THE VICINITY 

oF SEATTLE. By Samuel F. Rathbun . , : 5 F - - 459 
Tue Birps’ Batu. By Heyward Scudder . : : : 5 ; ‘ 465 
A Fovur-winGep Witp Ducxk.: By Charles Eugene Johnson (Plates XXVII- 

XXIX) : j ms : : i : : ; ; : : «469 
Nores on DicHromatic Herons AND Hawks. By Outram Bangs . < : 481 
Fossin REMAINS OF THE ExTINCT CORMORANT PHALACROCORAX MACROPUS FOUND 

In Montana. By R. W. Shufeldt, M. D. : 3 E ‘ z i g 485 
THIRTY-THIRD STATED MEETING OF THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNIon. By. 

John Hall Sage ; 2 zs ; J 3 : Gn Fas 488 


GENERAL Nortes.— Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsi) in Colorado.— A Correction, 494; 
. The Puffin (Fratercula arctica arctica) on Long Island, N. Y., 495; A Near View of an 
Iceland Gull, 495; The Arkansas Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) in Eastern Minne- 
sota, 495; Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in New Hampshire, 496; Bachman’s Sparrow 
near Chicago, Illinois, 496; Leconte’s Sparrow in Wisconsin, 497; Junco Breeding in 
Concord and Lexington, Mass., 497; The Indigo Bunting in Colorado, 498; Numer- 
ous Migrant Pine Warblers (Dendroica vigorsi) at Fort Lee, N. J., 498; Black- 
throated Blue Warbler in Colorado, 498; Cape May Warblers Destructive to Grapes 
on Long Island, 498; The Resident Chickadee of Southwestern Pennsylvania, 498; 
Winter Birds at Wareham, Mass., 499; Notes on Some Manitoban Birds, 500; 
Bird-Notes from Cambridge, Isanti County, Minnesota, 501. 


Recent LirerRATURE.— Dall’s Biography of Baird, 505; Baynes’ ‘ Wild Bird Guests,’ 507; 
Job on Wild Fowl Propagation, 509; Laing’s ‘Out_with the Birds.’ 510; Cooke on 
Bird Migration, 510; Faxon on Relics of Peale’s Museum, 512; Mathew’s ‘ Birds 
of Australia,’ 512; Recent Monographs by Oberholser, 513; Nature and Science on 
the Pacific Coast, 513: Murphy on The Penguins of South Georgia, 514; Chapman 
on New Birds from Central and South America. 515: Cory on New South American 
Birds, 515; Burns on Periods of Incubation. 516; Henshaw on American Game Bird,s 
517: Taverner on The Double-crested Cormorant and its Relation to the Salmon 
Industry. 517: Shufeldt on the Osteology of the Limpkin and Stone Plover, 517; 
Recent Publications of the Biological Survey, 518: DaCosta on the Economic Value 
of the Birds of Sao Paulo. Brazil. 518: Third Report of Food of Birds in Scotland, 
519: Economic Ornithology in Recent Entomological Publications, 520; The Orni- 
thalogical Journals, 521; Ornithological Articles in Other Journals, 528; Publica- 
tions Received, 431. 


CoRRESPONDENCE.— Methods of Recording Bird Songs, 538. 


Nores anp News.— Obituaries: Graf Hans von Berlepsch, 539; Dr. Otto Herman, 539; 
Egbert Bagg, 540; Ewen Somerled Cameron, 540; Prof. Frederick Ward Putnam, 
541; Frank B. Armstrong, 541; Appointment of Dr. T. S. Roberts in the University 
of Minnesota, 541 : 


INDEX . : ; - : : © - c : 4 onl? ho Nea 
ERRATA . pe - F ; ‘ as ’ : 2 5 . 3 L . bbs 
Dates OF IssuE. " 2 3 : . ; - A - 5 4 . 568 
CoNntTENTS 5 é Z si 4 5 é : . s - ‘ - e i 


‘THE AUK,’ published quarterly as the Organ of the AMERICAN ORNI- 
THOLOGISTS’ Unton, is edited, beginning with volume for 1912, by Dr. WirmeR 
STONE. 

Terms: — $3.00 a year, including postage, strictly in advance. Single num- 
bers, 75 cents. Free to Honorary Fellows, and to Fellows, Members, and Asso- 
ciates of the A. O. U. not in arrears for dues. 

Tue OFFICE OF PUBLICATION IS AT 30 BoytsTon St., CAMBRIDGE, BosToN, 
Mass. 

Subscriptions may also be addressed to Dr. JonatHan Dwiaut, Jr., Business 
Manager, 2 Hast, 34TH St., New York, N. Y. Foreign Subscribers may 
obtain ‘Tue AuK’ through WitHEerRBy & Co., 326, High Hoxsorn, LONDON, 
W. C. ; 

All articles and communications intended for publication and all books 
and publications for notice, may be sent to DR. WITMER STONE, 
ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES, LOGAN SQUARE, PHILADELPHIA, PA. 

Manuscripts for general articles should reach the editor at least six weeks 
before the date of the number for which they are intended, and manuscripts 
for ‘General Notes’ and ‘Recent Literature’ not later than the first of the month 
preceding the date of the number in which it is desired they shall appear. 


© so la 


Sty 


THES AUKe VOLE ox oe elle PLATE XXVI. 


Photograph by Harris ¢7 Ewing, Washington, D. C, 


fd 9 as a We 


A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF 


ORNITHOLOGY. 
VOL. XXXII. OcToBER, 1915. No. 4. 


IN MEMORIAM: THEODORE NICHOLAS GILL.! 


Born New York City Mar. 21, 1837; Dizp WasHINGTON 
DO) EPL co; 1 O14. 


BY T. S. PALMER. 
Plate XXVI. 


THEODORE NIcHOLAS GILL, ‘Master of Taxonomy’ — such was 
the characterization by Dr. David Starr Jordan of the man whom 
Prof. Spencer F. Baird called the most learned, and Prof. G. Brown 
Goode described as the most erudite and philosophic of American 
naturalists. His interest in various subjects was as great as his 
breadth of view and extended not only throughout the field of 
zoology but also into paleontology, philosophy, language, and other 
fields of human interest. Questions of Greek grammar, conchology, 
ichthyology, mammalogy, nomenclature, osteology, and the evo- 
lution and geographic distribution of organisms living or extinct 
all engaged his attention. He was equally at home in biography 
or biology, etymology or entomology, and among mollusks or 
mammals. 

Theodore N. Gill, son of James Darrell and Elizabeth Vosburgh 
Gill, was born in New York City, March 21, 1837, and was edu- 
cated in privatt schools and under private tutors. He took no 


1 Address delivered at the thirty-third Stated Meeting of the American Orni- 
thologists’ Union, San Francisco, Calif., May 18, 1915. 


391 


392 PALMER, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. lane 


regular college course and although he studied law was never ad- 
mitted to the bar. At an early age he became interested in natural 
history and especially in fishes which afterward formed the subject 
of his special studies. In the markets of New York which he fre- 
quently visited he was able to examine some of the rarer species 
which were brought in from time to time by commercial fishermen. 

At the age of 20 in the winter of 1857-58 he took his first extended 
field trip, visiting Barbados, Trinidad and other islands in the West 
Indies where he collected shells and other specimens for Mr. D. 
Jackson Stewart. The results of this trip were worked up chiefly 
in the library of Mr. J. Carson Brevoort and appeared in the Annals 
of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York and the Proceed- 
ings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. It was 
probably in the Brevoort library, then one of the best of its kind 
in this country, that he laid the foundations of that broad and 
intimate knowledge of books which in later years became such 
a distinguishing characteristic. His second collecting trip, and 
apparently the only other extended field trip he ever undertook, 
was made in the summer of 1859 to Newfoundland. 

About 1860, Gill came to Washington, D. C., and took up his 
residence in the national capital, which was henceforth to be his 
home and which for more than half a century was destined to be 
the scene of his literary and scientific activities. Here he found 
congenial surroundings and settled into a life which almost never 
took him into the field and seldom involved trips farther than New 
York or Boston,! but his interests were world wide and were not 
measured by his travels. Dum domi mansit orbem pervagabatur 
(while he remained at home he wandered throughout the world). 
It is interesting to note that Gill reached Washington just about 
the outbreak of the Civil war but the events of those stirring times 
seemed to have had little effect on his career. Here he met Pro- 
fessor Baird and others who were then prominent in scientific work. 
Baird was Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution and 
had but recently completed his great works on the mammals and 
birds of the Pacific Railroad Surveys. Coues was a student in 


1Tt is said that at one time he was offered an attractive position by Professor 
Agassiz at Cambridge, but decided not to leave Washington. 


ose | Pautmer, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. 393 
Columbian College and Ridgway, a boy not yet in his teens, was 
living at his home in IJIlinois and had not actively entered the field 
of ornithology. 

Gill became associated almost immediately with Columbian 
College, afterward Columbian University, and now George Wash- 
ington University, a connection which he maintained until his death. 
In 1860-61 he was adjunct professor of physics and natural history, 
in 1864-66 and 1873-84, lecturer on natural history, from 1884-1910 
professor of zodlogy, and during the last four years of his life pro- 
fessor emeritus. His classes were not large but he always main- 
tained his interest in the zodlogical department and especially in 
the graduate work. His services were appreciated by the Uni- 
versity which bestowed upon him at various times four honorary 
degrees: A.M. in 1865, M.D. in 1866, Ph.D. in 1870, and the highest 
doctorate, LL.D. in 1895. 

Whether Coues and Gill were officially associated in the early 
days is uncertain. Dr. D. G. Elliott records that about this time 
“when on a visit to Professor Baird in Washington, one evening, 
in company with my old friend Doctor Gill, I first met Elliott 
Coues,”’ ! indicating that Gill knew Coues and introduced Elliott to 
him. Coues was actively interested in birds at this time and had 
just published his “ Monograph of the Tringze of North America” 
which he later described as the “maiden effort of a very youthful 
author.” He was also busy with D. W. Prentiss in preparing ‘A 
List of the Birds of the District of Columbia’ which appeared in 
1862. Coues took his bachelor’s degree at Columbian College in 
1861, graduated in medicine and received his commission as Acting 
Assistant Surgeon in the Army in 1863, and in the following March 
‘was detailed as Assistant Surgeon to Fort Whipple, Arizona. He 
was absent from Washington at various military posts for some 
years, and it was not until the late seventies or early eighties that 
he and Gill became associated in the first of their joint zodlogical 
publications. 

Through the assistance of Professor Baird Gill received an ap- 
pointment in the library of the Smithsonian Institution. In 1865- 
66 he served as librarian and when the library of the Smithsonian 


1D. G. Elliott, Ia Memoriam Elliott Coues, Auk, XVIII, p. 5, 1901. 


394 PautmeER, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. baer 


was transferred to the Library of Congress he acted as assistant 
librarian in the Library of Congress from 1866-75. This decade 
devoted to constant work with scientific books was invaluable in 
enabling him to familiarize himself with the literature of zodlogy. 
With his wonderfully retentive memory he stowed away many a 
fact and many a title which in after years he had occasion to use 
in the preparation of his papers. Apparently he never forgot a 
book which he had once handled and long afterward he could assert 
with confidence that a certain volume was in the Library of Con- 
gress, although he might not have seen it for many years. 

At the first meeting of the American Ornithologists’ Union held 
in New York on September 26, 1883, Doctor Gill was elected an 
Active Member and remained in the list for thirty years. In 1913, 
only a year prior to his death, he was transferred to the recently 
established class of Retired Fellows, and his was the first name to 
be enrolled in the list of Deceased Retired Fellows. He seldom 
attended meetings of the Union outside of Washington, but he was 
present at most if not all of those held at the National Capital. 
He seriously considered attending the special meeting in San 
Francisco in 1903 but finally abandoned the plan, although he 
had long been desirous of visiting the west coast. He frequently 
took part in the discussion of the more general topics but appar- 
ently contributed only one formal paper— entitled ‘The Generic 
Names Pediocetes and Poocetes’.1 He held no offices during 
his long connection with the Union but rendered valuable aid to 
the Committee on nomenclature at various times. His name does 
not appear in the list of those who assisted in the preparation of 
the original Code and Check-List of 1886, but the obligation of the 
committee is attested in a special note published in Science.2, When 
the subject of the revision of the Code was considered at the meet- 
ing held in 1905, he was appointed one of the seven members to 
whom the task was delegated. 

Gill was a member of many other scientific societies and was a 
regular attendant at their meetings in Washington or in nearby 
cities. He was elected a member of the American Association for 


1 Auk, XVI, pp. 20-23, 1899. 
2 VII, p. 374, Apr. 23, 1886. 


eae | Paumer, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. 395 


the Advancement of Science at the 17th Meeting in Chicago in 
1868, and became a Fellow in 1874. In 1896 he was Vice-President 
of Section F on Zodlogy and upon the death of the President, his 
life long friend, Prof. E. D. Cope, on April 12, 1897, as senior Vice- 
President, he succeeded to the Presidency of the meeting held in 
Detroit in that year. In 1873 he was elected a member of the 
National Academy of Sciences and represented the Academy at 
the International Zodélogical Congress at Boston in 1898, and at 
the 450th aniversary of the founding of the University of Glasgow, 
at Glasgow, Scotland, in 1901. He was a member of the American 
Philosophical Society, the Biological Society of Washington, the 
Cosmos Club, one of the honorary vice-presidents of the Audubon 
Society of the District of Columbia, a foreign member of the Zoo- 
logical Society of London, and a member of more than 70 other 
scientific organizations. In 1894 he was made associate in zodlogy 
of the U. S. National Museum. He was one of the founders of 
the Cosmos Club in 1878, of the Biological Society in 1880, and 
of the District Audubon Society in 1897. He served as the first 
president of the Biological Society in 1881 and 1882, as chairman 
of the Committee on Publications in 1894-95, and frequently pre- 
sented papers and took part in the discussion of papers presented 
by others. It made little difference what subject was under con- 
sideration, Gill could almost always add something to the infor- 
mation imparted by the speaker. On one occasion when a paper 
on Cretaceous fishes was presented, Doctor Gill dissented radically 
from the views of the author of the paper and as a result the dis- 
cussion soon waxed warm. No one in the audience except the 
author and the critic had more than a superficial knowledge of the 
subject, but every one present followed with deepest interest as 
each participant in the debate sought to overwhelm the other with 
fresh arrays of facts and polysyllabic names of fossils which none 
save the speakers could understand. 

This is not the time or the place to attempt a review of Doctor 
Gill’s voluminous publications. The number of titles in his bibli- 
ography exceeds 500, most of them on the subject of fishes. His 
best known works consist of his Arrangements of Mollusks, Fishes, 
and Mammals, his volume on Fishes, and part of the volume on 
Mammals in the Standard or Riverside Natural History, the con- 


396 Patmer, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. a 
tributions to zodlogy in Johnson’s Universal Cyclopedia, and the 
Century and Standard Dictionaries. He published no great mono- 
graphs in the ordinary acceptation of the term and no comprehen- 
sive work on natural history, evolution, or geographic distribution, 
although few men were better qualified for such a task. He 
devoted most of his attention to essays, revisions of groups, short 
papers on special subjects, notices, and reviews. 

Birds received but a small part of his attention. His publica- 
tions on ornithology may be conveniently divided into three groups: 
(a) A series of annual reviews in the “Summaries of Scientific 
Progress,’ 1871-1885; (b) contributions to ‘Johnson’s Cyclopedia,’ 
miscellaneous essays on distribution and nomenclature; and 
(c) articles and notices in ‘The Osprey.’ These may be briefly 
considered in the order indicated. 

In 1871 Harper and Company undertook the publication of the 
‘Annual Record of Science and Industry,’ edited by Professor 
Baird, who had associated with him a number of well-known 
scientific men to take charge of special subjects. Abstracts and 
summaries of the more important articles of the year were pub- 
lished in Harper’s Weekly and Harper’s Monthly and later col- 
lected into an annual volume, prefaced by a general account of the 
progress of the year in each department. ‘Doctor Gill contributed 
the material on vertebrate zodlogy. Each volume contained a 
bibliography and brief necrology, thus forming a convenient but 
condensed account of the progress of the year. The series was 
discontinued in 1878, but Professor Baird who had become Secre- 
tary of the Smithsonian Institution in May of that year arranged 
for the publication of a Record of Scientific Progress in the Annual 
Reports of the Institution. The first installment covering the 
years 1879-80 appeared in the volume for 1880, thus continuing 
without interruption the ‘Annual Record’ formerly published by 
the Harpers. To this series, extending through the years 1879 to 
1885, Gill contributed the chapters on zoédlogy covering the whole 
field from Protozoa to Primates. Necessarily the sections devoted 
to birds were brief and usually condensed to less than half a dozen 
pages. Only the more important discoveries or publications could 
be noticed, but they were selected from the whole field of ornithol- 
ogy and included extinct as well as living birds and notices of articles 


ai | PatMER, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Giil. 397 
on cage birds, ostrich farming, anatomy, and physiology in addition 
to descriptions of new species and reviews of faunal works and 
museum catalogues. 

In the volumes for 1881 and 1882 he introduced a feature of 
special interest which might well be revived today, namely, a list 
of “Birds Added to the American Fauna,” including new species 
and extralimital species recorded for the first time within the limits 
of North America. Twelve species were included in the list for 
1881 (p. 487) and 21 species in that for 1882 (pp. 628-29). Such 
a list published in the January number of ‘The Auk’ would be a 
very convenient annual record of the new forms to be considered 
as additions to the Check-List. 

Gill’s comments on some of the articles while necessarily brief 
are characteristic. Thus in speaking of a paper on the classifi- 
cation of birds by Dr. P. L. Sclater which had recently appeared,! 
he says: “The tendency to give an exaggerated value to trivial 
characters still lingers. One-author, for example recognizes two 
sub-classes and 26 orders in this most homogeneous of types, and 
for the little morphologically diversified Passeres not less than 53 
families are provided!”? This statement suggests Gill’s earlier 
expression of his views, in what was apparently one of his first 
publications on birds, which appeared in the Introduction to Baird, 
Brewer, and Ridgway’s ‘ History of North American Birds.’ This 
contribution although signed with his initials is easily overlooked, 
and the circumstances attending its preparation do not seem to be 
generally known. Gill himself states * that one bright afternoon 
in August, 1873, while a guest of Professor Baird at Peake’s Island, 
near Portland, Me., having been requested to prepare the Intro- 
duction to the ‘Land Birds’ then nearing completion he dictated 
to Baird’s secretary the paragraphs which form pages xi-xiy of 
the ‘History.’ It was only natural that Baird should have invited 
Gill who had published two or three years before his remarkable 
Arrangements of the Families of Mammals and of Mollusks to 
undertake a similar task for the birds. Upon his return to Wash- 
ington, Gill epllected all the skeletons and skulls of birds available 


1 Ibis, IV, 1880, pp. 340-350; 399-411. 
2 Smithsonian Rept., 1880, p. 377. 
3 Osprey, III, p. 91, Feb. 1899. 


398 PauMER, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. ates 


in the hope of working out ‘anatomical characters that would co- 
ordinate with the external characters generally used to distingush 
families.’ In this effort he failed utterly and abandoned the under- 
taking, declining to complete the introduction in which his views 
on classification were so at variance with those of the authors. 
This introduction was finally completed by Doctor Coues. Thus 
began the first of several literary ventures in which Coues and Gill 
were associated and which finally resulted unhappily a few months 
before Coues’ death in the severe straining if not in the breaking 
of a friendship of nearly forty years standing. ~ 

For present purposes the contribution of 1873 is chiefly interest- 
ing because it contains Gill’s definition of birds and the brief state- 
ment of some of his views on Avian classification. This definition 
is remarkable from the fact that it describes a bird in a single sen- 
tence, but this sentence includes 312 words and fills the greater 
part of a page! As an example of word building about a single 
idea it is one of the most comprehensive in the annals of ornithol- 
ogy. The first few lines carrying the description through the 
brain will suffice to illustrate his ability in writing definitions: 

“ Birds are abranchiate vertebrates, with a brain filling the cranial 
cavity, the cerebral portion of which is moderately well developed, 
the corpora striata connected by a small anterior commissure (no 
corpus callosum developed), prosencephalic hemispheres large, 
the optic lobes lateral, the cerebral transversely multifissured,” ete. 

This definition recalls the anecdote mentioned by Doctor Lucas 4 
in connection with the publication of the Century Dictionary 
some years later. Coues was in charge of the preparation of the 
zoological terms and Gill associated with him prepared chiefly the 
definitions of mammals and fishes. When Gill submitted a defi- 
nition of the family of Giraffes Coues read it carefully and turning 
to Gill exclaimed, “That isn’t English, it is Choctaw.” “No,” 
said Gill, “it is an exact definition of the family Giraffide,” and 
as such it was duly incorporated in the Dictionary. ; 

Gill’s later ornithological papers appeared in ‘The Osprey’ during 
the four years that it was published under his supervision. Before 
considering these papers it may be interesting to mention some of 


1 Am. Mus. Journ., XV, p. 10, 1915. 


ne | PautmER, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. 399 
the circumstances connected with the history of this rather remark- 
able journal. Shortly after the death of Professor Cope in April, 
1897, the ‘ American Naturalist ’ which had been conducted by him 
in conjunction with Professor Kingsley, changed hands and begin- 
ning with the September number was placed under new editorial 
supervision. For some time Gill had been desirous of acquiring 
control of a scientific journal and it was afterwards a source of 
regret to him that he had not secured ‘The Naturalist’ when the 
opportunity was presented. 

A year or two previous a well illustrated magazine of popular 
ornithology called ‘The Osprey’ had been established by Walter 
A. Johnson at Galesburg, Illinois. Within six months Doctor 
Coues became associated with Johnson and for a while contributed 
a column to each number. Coues at this time was devoting con- 
siderable attention to ornithology in connection with the prepara- 
tion of the fifth edition of his ‘Key to North American Birds’ and 
“The Osprey’ evidently afforded a convenient medium for the publi- 
cation of short notes. At the close of 1897 the publication office 
of ‘The Osprey’ was transferred to New York, and Johnson, having 
engaged in other business, was anxious to be relieved of the editorial 
work. The magazine was therefore offered for sale. Under these 
circumstances it is not surprising that Gill, who was looking for a 
journal, and Coues, who was already interested in ‘The Osprey,’ 
should have become associated in the management of the magazine. 
Gill acquired ‘The Osprey’ in October, 1898, beginning his’ work 
with the first number of Volume III. The office of publication 
was transferred to Washington and under the joint editorship of 
Coues and Gill the magazine began a new chapter in its eventful 
career. It might have been expected that under such able manage- 
ment ‘The Osprey’ would have prospered, but the combination 
proved disastrous. Coues who contributed most of the editorials 
and supervised the makeup began to treat the magazine as a toy 
and evidently soon tired of the routine work. The editorials at 
first in humorous vein soon grew sarcastic and became so sharp 
that Gill, thorgughly disgusted, withdrew his name from the num- 
bers for April and May, 1899. In the June number appeared the 
statement that Coues had retired and Gill had assumed full control. 

With the beginning of Volume IV in October the announcement 


400 Pater, Jn Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. ies 


was made that ‘The Osprey’ would be edited by Gill in collabora- 
tion with Robert Ridgway, Leonhard Stejneger, F. A. Lucas, C. 
W. Richmond, Paul Bartsch, Wm. Palmer, H. C. Oberholser, and 
Witmer Stone. With such a galaxy of talent the future of the 
journal was very promising. Doctor Gill financed the venture, 
Doctor Bartsch attended to most of the routine work and the col- 
laborating editors contributed occasional articles and notes. But 
after two years this plan was abandoned, the form of the magazine 
was changed and a new series begun in January, 1902. Only a 
few numbers appeared and the journal was finally suspended in 
the following July. 

Among the more important of Gill’s contributions to ‘ The Osprey” 
were his plan for a new history of North American Birds,! his biog- 
raphies of Swainson,? Richardson,*? and Cassin,* his articles on 
Longevity in Birds,’ and on the Bower Birds of Australia and New 
Guinea. Many short biographical and critical notes were intro- 
duced under his editorship and the character of the journal was 
considerably changed. His plan for what he termed ‘generized’ 
biographies of birds was outlined in the number for February, 1899, 
p. 88, under the caption ‘A Great Work Proposed.’ After calling 
attention to three great works on North American Birds, viz. those 
of (1) Wilson, (2) Audubon, and (3) Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway, he 
remarks that Wilson and Audubon’s works observed no classifi- 
cation and were merely unconnected descriptions and biographies. 
of species without logical sequence, while Baird, Brewer and Ridg- 
way introduced system and generalization of the classificatory 
data but no generalization of the biographical information. More- 
over a quarter of a century had intervened since the publication 
of the Land Birds and much new data had been collected. His 
plan for the new work may well be described in his own words: 


1 Osprey, III, 88-94, Feb. 1899. 

2 William Swainson and His Times: Osprey, IV, pp. 104-108; 120-123; 135—- 
138; 154-156; 166-171; V, 8-10; (23-25; 29-30); 37-39; 58-59; 71-72; 136-— 
137; 152-155; 167-172, 176, Mar. 1900—Nov. 1901. 

3 Life and Ornithological Labors of Sir John Richardson, New Ser., I, 13—-17,. 
Jan., 1902. 

4 Biographica! Notice of John Cassin, New Ser., I, 50-53; 80-84. Mar., May,. 
1902. : 

5 Osprey, ITI, 157-160, June, 1899. 
6 Osprey, IV, pp. 67-71; Jan., 1900. 


a 


ei | Patmer, In Memorian: Theodore Nicholas Gill. 401 


“The time has come to commence another ornithology, to gather the 
harvest scattered in many fields, to bring it together in a new granary. 
A very decided improvement too, can be effected, it seems to me, in the 
treatment of the life histories of the beings to which we are devoted.... 
One of the features that would be most desirable in the new Avifauna would 
be a recapitulation of the habits common to all the species of a genus under 
the generic caption. In fact a summary of all the ecological features 
characteristic of the combined species, and an indication as to the range 
of difference or divergence.... The various biographies should be pre- 
pared on a regular plan and the data given in a uniform sequence for each 
species and a summary furnished for each genus. The deficiencies in our 
knowledge could then be perceived at once, and some one of the numerous 
observers might be incited to fill the void. ...” 


Naturally the first biography published was that of the species 
after which the journal was named, the Osprey. This was begun 
in September, 1900, a year and a half after the announcement and 
was continued in installments through nine numbers to September, 
1901, making in all a publication of about twenty pages.! 

As already indicated, Gill’s contributions to ornithology are not 
to be measured by his formal papers. Indeed his titles on birds. 
are so few and so widely scattered that they scarcely appear in 
ornithological bibliographies and are apt to be overlooked unless 
the search be extended to include somewhat obscure nooks and 
corners. Nevertheless his influence made itself felt in many quar- 
ters and his ideas and suggestions may be found in several standard 
works on ornithology, in the Code of Nomenclature, and in the 
zoological parts of the Century and Standard Dictionaries and 
Johnson’s Cyclopedia. His was an indirect rather than a direct 
influence, as gentle and persuasive as his personality, but none the 
less real and effective. His suggestions and criticisms, always. 
made in a kindly spirit for the assistance rather than the discom- 
fiture of the inquirer, bore rich fruit in the works of others. 

Gill’s views on the classification of birds were very positive and 
in some respects widely divergent from those of most American 
ornithologists, but he was interested chiefly in the relation of the 
higher groups and paid little attention to species and subspecies. 
Apparently he never described any new species of birds but in 


1Vol. V, pp. 11-12;. 25-28; 40-42; 60-61; 73-76; 92-93; 105-106; 124-125; 
141. 


402 PatmER, In Memoriam: Theodore N icholas Gill. es 


recognition of his eminent work in systematic zoédlogy two birds 
have been named in his honor by other ornithologists. These 
are: Gill’s Albatross, Diomedea gilliana, described by Dr. Coues! 
in 1866 (now regarded as probably the young of Diomedea melano- 
phrys), and an extinct species of quail, Paleotetrix gilli, described 
by Dr. Shufeldt ? in 1892, from the Pleistocene of Oregon. 

Reference has already been made to Gill’s futile attempt in 1873 
to discover structural characters of family and ordinal value. 
Briefly stated, he considered that all living birds should be combined 
in a single order for which he proposed the term Eurhipidura, or 
birds with a well developed fan-like tail. Among extinct birds 
he recognized two orders, Saurure, or birds with a reptile-like tail, 
represented by Archeopteryx, and Ichthyornithides represented 
by Ichthyornis and Apatornis. These views were first embodied 
in a paper on ‘The Number of Classes of Vertebrates and their 
Mutual Relations’ * presented to the National Academy of Sciences 
at the meeting of October 29, 1873, in the year in which he was 
elected to membership in the Academy. In contrast to these 
views it is interesting to note that Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway in 
1874 recognized no less than fourteen orders of Carinate birds and 
fifty-nine families of North American Birds. 

A quarter of a century later Gill restated his views more at 
length: + 


“The attribution to the so-called orders of birds of that rank is a sin 
against classification, as well as the truth, which should not be persisted 
in.... I would scarcely recognize any orders among living birds — cer- 
tainly not more than two.... For provisional purposes the orders of 
most ornithologists might be designated as suborders and the so-called 
suborders would have about the value of superfamilies. .. . 

“Most of the generally admitted families of birds outside of the Passer- 
ines appear to me to be well founded, but I cannot regard the Oscine so- 
called families as such.... To entitle the sections of Oscines generally 
called families as such, is to obscure and falsify our knowledge of structure 
and to give a distorted idea of the group... . 

“Objects should be called by their right names. If the groups in ques- 
tion are confessed to lack family characters, they should not be designated 


1Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., May 1866, p. 181. 

2 Journ. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Ser. 2., IX. p. 415, pl. xvit, fig. 34, 1892. 
3 Am. Journ. Sci. & Arts, 3d ser., VI, pp. 482-435, Dec. 1873. 

4 Osprey, III, pp. 90, 91, Feb. 1899. 


ie | Patmer, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. 403 


as families. Let a lesson be taken from other zoologists. There are fami- 
lies of insects —the Carabids and Scarabeids among beetles, and the 
Ichneumonids and Chalcidids among Hymenopters, for example — which 
contain nearly as many as or even more species than are known of birds, 
and yet there is no great difficulty in subordinating the constituent groups 
under a family designation.”’ 


Again reverting to this same subject in his address before the 
Seventh International Zoélogical Congress ! at the meeting in Bos- 
ton in 1907, he suggested the following solution of the difficulty: 


“One consummation devoutly to be wished for is a general acceptance of 
a standard for comparison and the use of terms with as nearly equal values 
as the circumstances admit of. There is a great difference in the use of 
taxonomic names for the different classes of the animal kingdom. The 
difference is especially great between usage for the birds and that for the 
fishes. For the former class, genera, families and orders, are based on 
characters of a very trivial kind.... The mammals are a class whose 
treatment has been mostly intermediate between that for the birds and that 
for the fishes. Its divisions, inferior as well as comprehensive, have been 
founded on anatomical characters to a greater extent than for any other 
class. Its students are numerous and qualified. Mammalogy might 
therefore well be accepted as a standard for taxonomy and the groups 
adopted for it be imitated as nearly as the different conditions will admit. 
The families of birds would then be much reduced in number and those of 
fishes increased.” 


These extracts have been quoted at length to indicate Gill’s own 
views and to show that his criticism of ornithological classification 
was not directed so much against the number of divisions as the 
exaggerated value assigned the various groups. His strongest 
contention was to standardize the higher groups of birds so as to 
make them more nearly equal in value with those of other verte- 
brates. In view of his careful consideration of this question ex- 
tending over a period of nearly forty years and his wide experience 
with other vertebrates, his conclusions are entitled to special weight 
however divergent they may seem to be from those now commonly 
accepted. 

Gill’s most important influence was undoubtedly the inspiration 
of his example in the direction of broader and more thorough techni- 
eal work. In bibliography careful and exhaustive research and 


1 Systematic Zodlogy. Its Progress and Purposes, sep., pp. 20-21. 


404 , Patmer, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. lage 


attention to the biographical or personal side of science; in nomen- 
clature, rigid adherence to the law of priority, the one letter rule 
(thereby preserving names otherwise considered preoccupied), the 
coining of new names on classical models, and the avoidance of 
hybrid names and other etymological monstrosities; in taxonomy, 
exactness in definition of terms, attention to the relationships 
of higher groups, and standardization of the divisions of birds to 
make them comparable in rank with those of other classes of verte- 
brates. The value of his suggestions regarding publication of an 
annual list of additions to the Check-List and ‘ generized ’ life histo- 
ries of birds should not be lost sight of. While his sample biography 
of the Osprey can hardly be considered altogether successful, even 
from the standpoint of the author, the idea of basing the life history 
of a species on the accounts of a number of observers to eliminate 
errors due to individuality and personal equation is certainly 
worthy of thorough trial before being rejected or forgotten. He 
was especially well qualified to estimate the value of the work of 
others in systematic zoélogy and his criticisms, while frank and by 
some considered severe, were always made in a kindly spirit. 

Gill was unmarried, possesed of ample means and thus able to 
devote his time and energies to whatever his fancy dictated. But, 
although he worked steadily and produced a large number of papers, 
he lacked the energy or concentration necessary for undertaking 
any great work. He was genial and social by nature, but his 
pleasures were comparatively few and simple. He had only a 
passive interest in outdoor sports and took little active exercise. 
He found his chief recreation as well as work in books, and he spent 
many hours every day in reading and writing. The morning hours 
and early afternoons were spent in the Smithsonian library looking 
over the new periodicals and keeping in touch with recent dis- 
coveries, the later part of the afternoons were devoted to the prep- 
aration of whatever papers he had in hand, and the evenings to 
reading. While truly a master of taxonomy, especially in the 
marshaling of zoélogical facts, he lacked a corresponding efficiency 
in handling his tools and the gradually increasing accumulation 
of books and papers sometimes almost forced him from his desk or 
from the room which he occupied as a study in the Smithsonian 
building. Even the master key of his own mind was impotent 


y ae | Pater, In Memoriam: Theodore Nicholas Gill. 405 


at times to locate a certain book or paper which he had laid aside 
a few weeks before. 

The last years of his life were quiet and uneventful. Three or 
four years before his death he suffered a severe paralytic stroke 
from which he never fully recovered. His cheerfulness and good 
spirits remained to the last but his strength gradually ebbed away 
until he found difficulty in getting about. In September, 1914, 
he moved out to the suburbs to spend the winter with his brother 
Herbert A. Gill, and a few days later was confined to his bed. 
On the morning of the 25th he was apparently as bright as usual, 
and after breakfast asked for the news of the day especially of 


the war which he followed carefully — but before noon he passed 


away suddenly. 

In the death of Doctor Gill the American Ornithologists’ Union 
has sustained a great loss, not merely in the absence of his genial 
personality and the kindly suggestions and criticisms on various 
knotty questions of nomenclature and bibliography, but chiefly in 
the lost opportunity which can never be regained of utilizing his 
broad knowledge and unsurpassed judgment in matters of taxon- 
omy. In that great and pressing problem which has been carefully 
avoided for three decades but which cannot be ignored much longer 
—the revision of the classification of North American birds — 
Gill’s intimate knowledge of other groups would have been invalu- 
able. His broad views would have acted as a balance wheel on 
the ideas of some of the specialists in speciation who in their enthu- 
siasm for minute differences are apt to throw the classification of 
birds out of gear in its relation to the taxonomy of other classes. 
No one in this country or generation was better able to appreciate 
the true value of the higher groups or to coordinate the families, 
suborders and orders of birds with the corresponding divisions of 
mammals, fishes or mollusks. Without some such standardization 
of groups we shall never attain a really satisfactory and permanent 
basis of classification. 


406 CuapMan, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. ers 


THE MORE NORTHERN SPECIES OF THE GENUS 
SCYTALOPUS GOULD! 


BY FRANK M. CHAPMAN ” 


The species of the genus Scytalopus are small, black, slaty or 
brownish wren-like birds of mouse-like habits. Most of them live 
in dense undergrowth or fallen tree-tops in the forests of the Sub- 
tropical and Temperate Zones of the Andes where haunt, habit, 
color and size make them exceedingly inconspicuous in life and all 
but invisible in death. 

At best they can be seen only when one is within a comparatively 
few yards of them, and the collector who is not properly equipped 
with a small gauge gun or auxiliary barrel blows into fragments 
more specimens than he secures. | 

Even after a successful shot in the luxuriant, dark, cloud forest 
of the Subtropical Zone it usually requires the most minute, pains- 
taking search, guided by mark of shot here and a stray feather there, 
to find the fallen bird; while in the more open Temperate Zone 
forests I have had a specimen slip from my hand to be hopelessly lost 
in the mass of fallen limbs and undergrowth which, in places, like 
mossgrown brush-heaps, accumulate beneath the trees. 

The native collector, armed with blow-gun, such as many of them 
in the Bogotaé region of Colombia still use, gets comparatively few 
specimens of birds as difficult to collect as Scytalopus. 

For these reasons, rather than because of the rarity of the birds 
themselves, most of the species of Scytalopus have been but poorly 
represented in our collections. In our work in Colombia and the 
adjoining countries we have therefore devoted especial attention 


1 This is the fifth paper based chiefly on collections made in Colombia from 1911 
to 1915 by expeditions from the American Museum. The four preceding papers 
were all published in the ‘Bulletin’ of the Museum as follows: (1) Diagnoses of 
Apparently New Colombian Birds, XX XI, 1912, pp. 139-166. (2) Diagnoses of 
Apparently New Colombian Birds, II, XX XIII, 1914, pp. 167-192. (3) Diag- 
noses of Apparently New Colombian Birds, III, XX XIII, 1914, pp. 603-637. 
(4) Descriptions of Proposed New Birds from Central and South America. XXXIV, 
1915, pp. 363-388. 

Published by permission of the American Museum of Natural History. 

2 Curator of Ornithology in the American Museum of Natural History. 


| CHAPMAN, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. 407 
to birds like Scytalopus, not only because of their rarity in col- 
lections, but because such birds, as a rule, show a greater tendency 
to respond to the influences of their environment than do less 
sedentary species. 

Of Scytalopus alone we have thus taken in Colombia eighty-two 
specimens, doubtless a greater number than heretofore has been 
known from that country. Of Scytalopus micropterus micropterus 
Scl., for example, the British Museum contained but four specimens 
when Sclater published his monograph of this genus. Prior to our 
work in Colombia the American Museum contained but one speci- 
men of this species, and at the present time the Museum of Compar- 
ative Zoélogy contains but two, making a total of seven specimens 
for three large Museums. 

In view of these facts one might well believe that Scytalopus 
micropterus Was a rare species, but without making a greater effort 
to secure this bird than any other of similar habits, we have never- 
theless obtained a series of twenty-four specimens. ‘This includes 
both juvenal and adult plumages and, for the first time, enables one 
to determine that the silvery-white crown-patch, which is so strik- 
ing a feature of some specimens, is purely individual and is not 
associated with either age or sex. 

I give these figures for what I believe to be their significance, as 
in a general way they indicate how much field-work we still have to 
do before our collections of South American birds approach any- 
thing like completeness, rather than for their restricted application 
to the case in point. 

Without attempting a revision of the entire genus, for which in- 
deed adequate material does not yet exist in Museums, I give below 
the results reached in preparing a report on our Colombian speci- 
mens for inclusion in a paper on the distribution of bird-life in that 
country now in course of preparation. 

In addition to the eighty-two Colombian specimens mentioned, 
W. B. Richardson has recently collected for us seven specimens in 
Ecuador, and Anthony and Ball, in April last, collected ten speci- 
mens of a most interesting new species in eastern Panama. 

Of high importance is a series of thirteen topotypical specimens 
of S. magellanicus (Gmel.) lately received by the Brewster-Sanford 
Collection from Beck, which in connection with a Chilean specimen 


408 Cuapman, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. laee 


of S. niger, sent by the same collector, permits me satisfactorily to 
determine our large series of the last-named species. 

An examination of Lafresnaye’s “Bogota” types was of course 
indispensable in this connection. These Mr. Bangs has kindly 
loaned me as well as the twenty-one other specimens of the genus 
contained in the Museum of Comparative Zodélogy. 

The results of my studies of all this material, in so far as they 
affect the status of the species found north of the equator, may be 
summarized as follows. 

Scytalopus senilis (Lafr.) = Myornis (gen. nov.) senilis (Lafr.). 

Scytalopus magellanicus Auct. nec Gmel. = Scytalopus niger 
Swains. 

Scytalopus analis Auct. nec Lafr. = Scytalopus micropterus mi- 
cropterus Scl. 

Scytalopus analis (Lafr.) = Triptorhinus paradoxus Kittl. 

Scytalopus latebricola Allen nec Bangs = Scytalopus sancte- 
marte Chapm. 

Scytalopus sylvestris Bangs nec Tacz. = Scytalopus sancte-marte 
Chapm. 

The following four species are described as new: 

Scytalopus panamensis (Subtropical Zone, Tacarcuna, E. Pan- 
ama). 

Scytalopus canus (Temperate Zone, Paramillo, West Andes, Col.). 

Scytalopus sancte-marte (Subtropical Zone, Santa Marta Mts., 
Col.). 

Scytalopus infasciatus (Temperate Zone, Eastern Andes, near 
Bogota). WEA 

Since the status of all but two ! of the species known from north 
of the equator is affected by this revision I have for the sake of com- 
pleteness added notes on them. 

In addition to the species herein treated the following species 
from south of the equator are currently recognized; but in view of 
our discoveries in Colombia, it seems probable that our knowledge 
of the forms of Scytalopus from south of that country is far from 
complete: - 

Scytalopus magellanicus (Gmel.). Falkland Islands, Cape Horn 
region and northward into Chile. 


18, griseicollis (Lafr.); S. argentifrons Ridgw. 


eine | Cuapman, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. 409 

Scytalopus magellanicus [ = niger?] grandis Cory. N. Peru, about 
thirty miles N. E. of Chachapoyas. 

Scytalopus unicolor Salv. Cajabamba, Peru. 

Scytalopus obscurus (King). Southern Chile. 

Scytalopus acutirostris (Tsch.). Peru. 

Scytalopus macropus Berl. & Stolz. Maraynioe, Cen. Peru. 

Scytalopus micropterus bolivianus (Allen). Southern Peru; Bo- 
livia. 

Scytalopus spelunce (Menetr.). Southeastern Brazil. 

Scytalopus indigoticus (Wied). Southeastern Brazil. 

Scytalopus superciliaris Cab. Sierra of Tucuman, western Argen- 
- tina. 

It will be seen that with the exception of Scytalopus indigoticus 
and S. spelunce, all the known species are confined to the Andes, 
or, south of Bolivia, to the country at their base. 

Such information as I can gather concerning these two species of 
eastern Brazil, leads me to believe that they inhabit the mountains 
at some altitude, possibly above the upper limits of the Tropical 
Zone. However this may be, it appears that of the species which 
are found in various parts of western South America, from Cape 
Horn to Costa Rica, not one inhabits the Tropical Zone. In Colom- 
bia this implies that Scytalopus is not found below an altitude of 
4,000 feet, and, as a matter of fact, only three of our specimens were 
taken below this level. 

From the lower limits of the Subtropical Zone we have found 
Scytalopus in Colombia as high as 12,700 feet and consequently in 
the Paramo or Alpine Zone. Each species has its center of abun- 
dance in a certain Zone but where local conditions cause the over- 
lapping or inosculation of zonal boundaries so do the ranges of their 
characteristic species overlap and inosculate. 

Thus, although S. m. micropterus is characteristic of the Subtropi- 
cal Zone, we have two specimens from an altitude of 10,000 feet in 
the Temperate Zone. On the other hand, S. niger is a Temperate 
Zone species but occurs also in the upper part of the Subtropi- 
cal Zone at aw altitude of from 8,000 to 8,500 feet. The Tem- 
perate Zone is indeed the center of abundance of the genus and, in 
Colombia, only S. m. micropterus and its representative S. sancte- 
marte range much below it. 


410 CuHapmMaNn, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. lace 


At what latitude, south of the equator, this zone reaches sea-level 
and brings with it other forms which, like Scytalopus, have evidently 
extended their range northward as far as the South Temperate Zone 
itself, is one of the points an American Museum Expedition under 
the charge of Mr. Leo E. Miller is now trying to determine. 

We know, however, that at least from central Chile southward 
to Cape Horn, Scytalopus lives at sea-level; and doubtless not far 
north of 30° S. latitude, it begins to ascend the mountains with the 
zone to which it is so largely restricted. 

Since we cannot well believe that so ancient a type as Scytalopus 
can have its center of dispersal in the Temperate Zone of mountains 
so geologically recent as the Andes, we conclude that Scytalopus 
originated at sea-level and, consequently, south of 30° S. latitude. 

The presence of species of this genus in southeastern Brazil, which 
are apparently separated by a wide area from the species found 
nearest to them in western South America, is a problem, which in 
the present stage of our knowledge, I confess I am not prepared to 
attack. 

I append now my notes on the species studied, after first removing 
from Scytalopus the species heretofore known as Scytalopus senilis 
(Lafr.) for which I propose the genus 


Myornis gen. nov. 


Char. gen.— Resembling Scytalopus Gould (type S. magellanicus (Gm.)), 
but mesorhinium laterally compressed and elevated into a thin blade-like 
ridge which is highest above the posterior margin of the nasal operculum 
whence it descends toward both the tip and the base of the bill; tail longer, 
instead of decidedly shorter than wing; wing more rounded, the fourth to 
eighth, instead of third to seventh primaries (from without) subequal, the 
second about as long as the inner secondary instead of as long as the 
eighth primary. 

Type.— Scytalopus senilis (Lafr.) = Merul [axis] senilis Lafr. Rev. Zool. 
1840, p. 103 (“‘Bogotaé’’); type examined. 

Range.— Temperate and Alpine Zones of the Andes of Ecuador and the 
Central and Eastern Andes of Colombia. 


Remarks. — The species heretofore known as Scytalopus senilis 
(Lafr.) is obviously not congeneric with Scytalopus magellanicus 
(Gmel.), the type of the genus Scytalopus Gould, or with any other 
species of the genus known to me. Its laterally compressed and 


eS | CuHapMan, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. 411 


elevated, angular mesorhinium is shown in a slight degree by S. syl- 
vestris and more pronouncedly by S. latebricola, but its rounded 
wings in connection with its lengthened tail is a feature not possessed 
by any species of Scytalopus and it is this combination of characters of 
bill, wings, and tail which appears to warrant its generic distinction. 

Lafresnaye’s description (1. c.) of this species as “fronte et aliquot 
alz tectricibus albis”’ is explained by the fact that this type, loaned 
me by Mr. Bangs, is albinistic, the forehead, loral region, three 
greater coverts in one wing and two in the other, being white. The 
culmen is less elevated basally and less laterally compressed than 
in a specimen from El Pifion, but this is doubtless an indication 
of immaturity. 

Specimens examined. — Ecuador; Mt. Pichincha, 1; Colombia; 
“Bogota,” (type of Merulaaxis senilis Lafr.) 1; El Pion, 1; Lagun- 
eta, 2: 

Scytalopus niger (Swains.). 


Platyurus niger Swains. Anim. in Menag. 1838, p. 323 (Chile). 

Scytalopus magellanicus Auct. (Peru, Ecuador and Colombia records 
only). = 

Pea! Western South America from Chile, north, chiefly through the 
Temperate Zone, to Colombia. 

Remarks. — In Colombia this is the most common species of the 
genus. It is found in all three ranges of the Andes where it is re- 
stricted in the main, to the Temperate Zone. Local conditions 
bring it down occasionally to the zone below. There is some vari- 
ation in size and intensity of color in our series but it appears to be 
individual, and on the whole our specimens agree with one from 
Valparaiso, Chile. The juvenal plumage is more or less washed 
with rusty, paler below, and is never as distinctly barred as in S. 
cinereicollis and S. micropterus, the bars when present being com- 
paratively obsolete. There is no indication of bars in the tail or of 
white in the crown. 

This widely distributed species has been generally confused with 
Scytalopus magellan icus (Gmel.) which, as shown by thirteen speci- 
mens recently secured by Beck in the Cape Horn region for the 
Brewster-Sanford collection, is a wholly different species,! which 
has the forehead gray, the rest of the upperparts washed with cin- 


1 Cf. Menegaux and Hellmayr (Bull. Mus. d’Hist. Nat. 1905, p. 379) who have 
already reached a similar conclusion. 


412 Cuapman, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. ; aun 


namon-brown, the back with subterminal black bars. The wings, 
except in very worn plumage, are externally edged with a lighter 
brown than the back, and at least the inner feathers are barred. 
The rectrices are more or less barred in all but two of these thirteen 
specimens. ‘The underparts are grayish, of about the same shade 
as in Myornis senilis and the flanks, ventral region, and under tail- 
coverts are barred with black and ochraceous-buff or ochraceous- 
tawny.' The feet in life are marked as “brown,” “brownish”’ or 
“yellowish” and in dried skins resemble those of S. griseicollis in 
similar condition. 

All these specimens appear to be adult, but four lack the slight 
trace of silvery white in the crown, while the remaining nine show 
this mark in varying degrees. Possibly, as in S. micropterus, this 
character is individual. 

Instead, therefore, of being a representative of the black, uni- 
formly colored bird to which the name magellanicus has by most 
authors hitherto been misapplied, it is evident that this southern 
form is more closely related to S. sylvestris. 

Specimens examined. — Chile: Valparaiso, 1. Ecuador: Zaruma, 
2; Gualea, 1; Mt. Pichincha, 3. Colombia: Andes, W. of Popayan 
(alt. 10,340 ft.), 8; Cerro Munchique, 9; Cocal, 3; Almaguer, 4; 
Valle de las Pappas, 3; Laguneta, 3; Santa Isabel, 2; Sta. Elena, 1 
Fusagasugaé, 1; El Roble, 2; El Pifion, 2. 


Scytalopus canus sp. nov. 


Char. sp.— With a general resemblance to S. niger (Swains.) ? but adult 
grayer throughout, the underparts paler than the upperparts, the center 
of the abdomen grayer than surrounding parts; tail shorter, the feathers 
narrower and softer, their barbs, apically, more or less separated; bill 
shorter, feet and tarsi more slender; apparently closely resembling, and 
perhaps representing, S. wnicolor Salv. of Peru, but much smaller, the 
female of the same color as the male. 

The juvenal plumage is evidently conspicuously barred above and below 
with cinnamon-buff and therefore resembles that of S. griseicollis rather 
than that of S. niger. 

Type.— No. 133361, Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. o ad. Paramillo (alt. 12,500 
ft.), W. Andes, Antioquia, Col. Jan. 26, 1915; Miller & Boyle. 

Range.— Known only from the type-locality. 


1 The color terms used in this paper will be found figured in Ridgway’s ‘Color 
Standards and Nomenclature.’ Washington. 1912. 
2 = §. magellanicus auct. plur. nec. Gmel., excl. more southern roreraicee 


ST agie el CuHapMan, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. 413 


Description of Adult Male.— Upperparts, wings, and tail clear, dark 
neutral gray without trace of white on the head or of brownish wash on 
the back; underparts slightly paler, deep neutral gray the under wing- 
coverts and center of the abdomen with a trace of whitish; feet (skin) 
blackish or brownish black; maxilla black, mandible brownish black. 

Adult Female— Resembles the male. 

Juvenal.— A male taken at the type-locality Jan. 26, 1915, has nearly 
acquired the plumage of the adult but still possesses in the crown, nape, 
seapulars, throat, abdomen, flanks, wing-coverts, tertials and tail, feathers 
which are barred with cinnamon-buff and black. 

Remarks. — Miller and Boyle secured an excellent series of ten 
specimens of this species in that elevated region near the northern 
end of the Western Andes known as the Paramillo. In general 
coloration it resembles Myornis senilis with which, however, it has 
no close relation. Although approaching in size and superficially 
resembling Scytalopus niger (Swains.), the more loosely constructed 
remiges and differences in the color of the young indicate that it is 
not a representative of that species. 

I have seen no specimens of the Peruvian S. wnicolor, but from 
Salvin’s description of it (Nov. Zodl. II, 1895, p. 15) I conclude that 
canus resembles it in color but is smaller. Possibly canus is a repre- 
sentative race of unicolor, though as yet no form of either has been 
recorded from between northern Peru and northern Colombia. If 
this assumption of relationships be true the case is paralleled both 
in characters and distribution by that of Diglossa brunnewentris in 
which true brunneiventris is known only from Peru, while a smaller 
race is known only from Colombia. Indeed we have found it only 
on the Paramillo with Scytalopus canus. 

Measurements of S. wnicolor and S. canus are given below. Sal- 
vin’s description of the female of wnzcolor is probably based on an 
immature bird. The “S. magellanicus’’ to which he refers is doubt- 
less Scytalopus niger (Swains.). 


° Bill from 
Sex Wing Tail Tarsus rictus 
Scytalopus unicolor } rs 59.6 40.6 BAI) 1552 
a canus rot 50 35 23 13 
‘: y of 55 35 23 13 
i * 2 52 35 22 13.5 
a Q 52 34 23 13 


Specimens examined.— Colombia: Paramillo, W. Andes, 10. 


1 Hx. Salvin. 


414 CHAPMAN, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. es 


Scytalopus griseicollis (Lafr.) 


Merul [axis] grisei-collis Lafr., Rev. Zo6l., 1840, p. 103 (Bogota); type 
examined. 

Merul [axis] squamiger Lafr., Rev. Zodél., 1840, p. 103 (Bogota); Juv.; 
type examined. 

Range.— Temperate Zone of the Eastern Andes of Colombia (and north- 
eastward to the Sierra of Merida, Venezuela?). 


Remarks. — Found by us only in the Temperate Zone of the 
Eastern Andes near Bogoté. Examination of the type of Lafres- 
naye’s Merulaxis squamiger shows it to be based on the juvenal 
plumage of this species. Mr. Bangs sends me, in addition to the 
types of griseicollis and squamiger a Lafresnaye specimen (No. 4854) 
labelled “Scytalopus erythropterus Lafr.’’ I cannot find that this 
name was published. The bird is a not fully adult specimen of 
Scytalopus griseicollis. : 

The whitish abdomen, unbarred tawny flanks and rump, and 
brownish tail, distinguish the adult of this species. The juvenal 
plumage is conspicuously and evenly barred both below and above. 

Specimens examined. — Colombia: ‘ Bogota’ (including the type), 
7; El Roble (8,000 ft.), 1; El Pifion, 2; Chipaque, 1; Tocaimito 
(above Bogota, 10,500 ft.), 3. 


Scytalopus infasciatus sp. nov. 


Char. sp.— In general color resembling Scytalopus micropterus microp- 
terus Sel. (= S. analis Auct. nec Lafr.) but somewhat paler, the tail brown- 
ish, the rump and flanks tawny, unbarred as in S. griseicollis Lafr., bill 
black as in micropterus. 

Type.— No. 132328, American Museum of Natural History. Paramo 
de Beltran (alt. 9750 ft.) near Bogota, Colombia, Mch. 31, 1915, Hermano 
Apolinar Maria. 

Range.— Known only from the Andes near Bogota at altitudes of 8,000 
and 9,750 ft. 

Description of Type.— Upperparts dark neutral gray, the crown ante- 
riorly, in some lights, rather more silvery but with no indication of a 
white patch, forehead and orbital region more dusky, back very slightly 
tinged with olive-brown, rump and upper tail-coverts tawny or ochra- 
ceous-tawny, unbarred; tail dark Prout’s brown; wings fuscous, externally 
Prout’s brown; underparts slightly paler than the back, abdomen without 


eae CuapMANn, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. 415 


trace of white; flanks and under tail-coverts bright ochraceous-tawny or 
ochraceous-orange, unbarred; feet brownish; bill black; the mandible, 
except on its rami, as dark as the maxilla; wing, 58; tail, 39; tarsus, 24; 
culmen, 11.5. 


Remarks. — This species, which further illustrates the apparent 
exhaustlessness of the Bogotd region as well as of the genus Scytal- 
opus, is based on a specimen presented to the American Museum 
by Hermano Apolinar Maria, the eminently efficient Director of the 
Instituto de la Salle in Bogota. 

Comparison with our large series of all the other known Colom- 
bian forms of Scytalopus leaves no doubt in my mind of its specific 
distinctness. 

In the species possessing barred flanks in the adult this character 
is very constant. For example, not one of a series of twenty-five 
specimens of S. micropterus, including juvenal, immature, and adult 
plumages is without conspicuous bars in this region. On the other 
hand, not one of four adult specimens of S. griseicollis has the flanks 
barred. The absence of bars on flanks and rump, upper and under 
tail-coverts is therefore significant. Of the Colombian species 
which have these parts tawny, S. griseicollis has heretofore been the 
only one known without bars. Although S. infasciatus agrees with 
griseicollis in this important respect, the specific distinctness of the 
two birds is indicated by their differences in color, griscicollis being 
much paler with a whitish abdomen, and by the fact that both are 
found in the Temperate Zone of the same range. 

Scytalopus infasciatus however, evidently ranges downward to 
the upper parts of the Subtropical Zone since a specimen from El 
Roble (altitude 8,000 ft.) above Fusugasuga, is apparently to be 
referred to this species. It differs from the type in having some 
indication of bars in the flanks, a fact which I take to indicate im- 
maturity. Not dissimilar markings are shown by immature speci- 
mens of S. griseicollis, a species to which infasciatus is so nearly 
related that it is probable that in juvenal plumage infasciatus, as 
well as griseicollis, is barred. This El Roble specimen has a close 
superficial resemblance to S. micropterus, but its much more slender 
bill, agreeing ih size with that of griseicollis, distinguishes it. 

Specimens examined. — Colombia: Paramo de Beltran, 1; El 


Roble, 1. 


416 Cuapman, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. laue 


Scytalopus sylvestris Tacz. 


Scytalopus sylvestris Tacz. P. Z. S., 1874, p. 138 (Pallaypampa, cen. Peru). 

Range.— Peru northward to the Temperate and Alpine Zones of the 
‘Central (and Eastern?) Andes of Colombia and northeastward to the Sierra 
of Merida, Venezuela. 

Remarks. — I refer to this species, of which I have seen no authen- 
tic specimens, an adult female, from the Paramo of Santa Isabel, in 
the Central Andes. It has the forehead grayish, the rest of the 
upperparts somewhat light mummy-brown, the feathers of the back 
narrowly margined with black; the tail is somewhat browner than 
the back; the underparts are deep neutral gray; the flanks, ventral 
region, and under tail-coverts barred with black and ochraceous- 
tawny. A young male from the same locality is passing from juv- 
enal into adult plumage. It resembles the adult but has more 
barred feathers in wings and on the nape, and the three remaining 
tail-feathers of the juvenal plumage are distinctly barred with 
black and ochraceous-tawny. 

To this species I also refer four specimens taken in the Temperate 
Zone of the Andes of Merida, Venezuela. They have the flanks 
paler, abdomen whiter, tail and upperparts blacker, but these dif- 
ferences are at best racial and probably only individual. 

A Venezuelan specimen in molt has enough of the postjuvenal 
plumage remaining to show that it is distinctly barred with ochra- 
ceous-tawny above as well as below. 

Possibly our birds may not be true Scytalopus sylvestris but they 
agree too closely with Taczanowski’s description of that species to 
warrant separation from it without comparison with Peruvian 
specimens. 

Although this species more nearly resembles S. magellanicus 
(Gmel.) than does any of the other species here considered, it is not 
clear whether it is a representative of that species. 

Specimens examined. — Colombia: Parama of Santa Isabel, 2; 
Venezuela; Paramo de Conejos, Sierra of Merida, 4. 


Scytalopus latebricola Bangs. 


Scytalopus latebricola Bangs, Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XIII, 1899, p. -101 
(Paramo da Chiruqua, Col.). 
Range.— Colombia; Alpine Zone of the Santa Marta Mts. 


YE 


po | CHAPMAN, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. 417 

This a strongly marked species of the Alpine Zone of the Santa 
Marta group known only from the specimens collected by W. W. 
Brown for E. A. and O. Bangs. Thanks to Mr. Outram Bangs I 
have examined six of these, including the type. In general color 
this species resembles S. griseicollis (Lafr.) but it is darker below 
and the rump, flanks, upper and under tail-coverts are barred 
with black, though less distinctly than in any other of the northern 
species having bars on these parts. 

The feet are heavier even than in S. micropterus, and the bill is 
more laterally compressed, deeper at the base with the culmen more 
ridged and elevated than in any other species of the genus known 
to me. The bill thus approaches in form that of Myornis senilis 
but the tail is short as in Scytalopus. 

Possibly S. latebricola represents the species to which I have ap- 
plied the name of S. sylvestris Tacz; but it is much larger than that 
species and, aside from the differences in the shape of the bill (sy/- 
vestris having a bill like that of griseicollis), sylvestris appears always 
to have the back dark olive-brown, whereas in the adult of S. late- 
bricola it is deep mouse-gray. 

Specimens examined. — Colombia: Paramo de Chiruqua, 4; Par- 
amo de Macotama, 2. 


Scytalopus micropterus micropterus Scl. 


Scytalopus micropterus Scl., P. Z. 8., 1858, p. 69 (Napo, Ecuador). 

Scytalopus analis Auct. (not of Lafr.= Triptorhinus paradoxus Kittl.; 
type examined). 

Range.— Subtropical Zone in Ecuador and Colombia. 

Not uncommon in the denser low growth of the heavy forests of 
the Subtropical Zone of all three ranges and occasionally extending 
upward to the lower border of the Temperate Zone and rarely down- 
ward to the Tropical Zone. All our twenty-four specimens have 
the flanks, lower abdomen, rump and upper tail-coverts barred with 
rusty and black. The white crown-patch appears to be a purely in- 
dividual character not dependent upon age, sex, season or locality. 
It is well developed in some immature specimens and wanting in 
others, is present or absent in both sexes, and in specimens from the 
same locality. Nine specimens possess it to a greater or less degree, 
fifteen are without it. 


418 CuapMANn, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. lage 


On examination of Lafresnaye’s type of “ Mer [ulaaxis] analis”’ 
(Rev. Zodl., 1840, p. 104) loaned me by Mr. Bangs, I find it to be 
an adult specimen of Triptorhinus paradoxus Kittl., a fact confirm- 
ing Lafresnaye’s belief (J. c.) that his specimen came from “ Para- 
guay ou du Chili.” Kittlitz’s name has nine years priority and 
Lafresnaye’s consequently becomes a pure synonym of it. 

The bird hitherto known as Scytalopus analis (Lafr.) will appar- 
ently therefore become Scytalopus micropterus Scl., as above. I 
have seen no Napo specimens but our collection contains a Bogota 
skin labelled by Sclater “ Agathopus micropterus.”’ The generic 
name he subsequently abandoned. 

Scytalopus micropterus bolivianus (Allen), of which I have the 
type and a specimen from Inca Mine, differs from Colombian 
specimens only in being smaller, the tail, especially, being se 
Measurements are appended: 


Ex. 
Locality Sex Wing Tail Tarsus Cul 
S.m. bolivianus (Type) Rfeyes, Bol. Tele cies 33 22 13 
é Inca Mine, Peru o& 51 33 23 12 
S.m. micropterus Buena Vista, Col. o 57 44 25 13.5 
4 El Eden tote aie 45 24. ~ Vaso 
‘2 Salento DP ee, ae 44 25 13.5 
“ Miraflores Be ee 42 24 13.5 


Specimens examined. — Colombia: Alto Bonito, 2; Las Lomitas, 
1; San Antonio, 1; Pavas, 1; Andes W. of Popayan (10,340 ft.), 1; 
Ricaurte, 1; Miraflores, 2; Salento, 3; Laguneta, 1; El Eden, 2; 
La Palma, 3; La Candela, 2; Andalucia (3,000 ft.), 1; Bogota, 2; 
Buena Vista, 1. 


Scytalopus sancte-marte sp. nov. 


Scytalopus sylvestris Bangs (nec Tacz.) Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. XIII, 1899, 
p. 101, (San. Francisco, Santa Marta). 

Scytalopus latebricola Allen (nec Bangs) Bull. A. M. N. H., XIII, 1900, 
p. 162, (Valparaiso, Santa Marta). 

Char. sp.— Most nearly related to Scytalopus m. micropterus Scl., the 
center of the crown, in some specimens, with a silvery white spot; but 
size much smaller, general color grayer, the tail brownish. 

Type.— No. 72893. American Museum of Natural History. <7 ad. 


oa | CuHapMaNn, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. 419 


Valparaiso (alt. 4,500—5,500 ft.) Santa Marta Mts., Col., June 9, 1899, G. H. 
Hull. 

Range.— Subtropical Zone, Santa Marta Mts., Colombia; Andes of 
Merida, Venezuela. 

Description of Type.— Upperparts deep, neutral gray; forehead and 
orbital region black; crown with a silvery white patch slightly mixed with 
gray; rump cinnamon-brown, the feathers terminally barred with black 
and ochraceous-tawny; upper tail-coverts similar in color but less distinctly 
barred; tail Prout’s brown, more fuscous toward the shaft; wings much 
like the back, more or less margined externally with the color’of the tail; 
underparts paler than the back, neutral gray, the abdominal region cen- 
trally whitish; the flanks and undér tail-coverts barred with black and 
bright cinnamon-brown or ochraceous-tawny; feet (skin) brownish; bill 
black, gonys brownish. Wing, 51; tail, 33; tarsus, 20; culmen, 13 mm. 
(A second male is without a tail, but, in other respects, including the white 
crown-patch, agrees with the type.) 

Jwenal Plumage.— With a general resemblance in pattern to the same 
plumage of S. micropterus, but everywhere paler; upperparts Prout’s brown; 
crown slightly darker; the feathers very narrowly margined with black; 
loral and ante-orbital region ochraceous-buff; rump not sharply barred with 
black and ochraceous-tawny; tail, lacking; wings externally much like the 
back, the coverts terminally barred with black and ochraceous-tawny; un- 
derparts rather uniformly barred with ochraceous-buff and black; the bars 
on the flanks deeper, more transverse, less lunular. (Described from No. 
97940 American Museum of Natural History, Valparaiso, Col., taken from 
the nest, June 30, 1899.) 

Postjuvenal. Plumage.— Similar to that of the adult but upperparts 
between Prout’s brown and mummy-brown. 


Remarks. — In the light of our large series of this group it appears 
that the three Santa Marta specimens of Scytalopus referred by 
Dr. Allen (J. c.) to S. latebricola Bangs, and the one immature speci- 
men provisionally identified by Bangs, as S. sylvestris Tacz. are 
representatives of S. micropterus micropterus Scl. 

The presence in both our adult specimens of the white crown- 
patch, which is often, but not always, found in S. micropterus, and 
so far as I am aware, in no other species of the genus, betrays the 
relationships of sancte-marte with the species. Furthermore, the 
juvenal plumage of sancte-marte resembles in pattern that of mi- 
cropterus. It % important to note that both species inhabit the 
Subtropical Zone. 

Scytalopus latebricolor, on the other hand occupies the Alpine 
Zone, and is a much larger bird than sancte-marte (wing, 63 mm.) 


420 CuapMan, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. Fae 


with heavier feet and bill, the latter being much vertically com- 
pressed with the culmen sharply ridged and basally elevated, while 
in sancte-marte as in micropterus, the bill is more subulate. The 
fact that in immature plumage both the species just named have 
the upperparts brown, doubtless misled Mr. Bangs in referring his 
immature specimen of sancte-marte to S. sylvestris. 

In the specimens which I identify as sylvestris the upperparts are 
brown in the adult and are of a distinctly different shade, olive- 
brown rather than mummy-brown or Prout’s brown as in sancte- 
marte or micropterus. An adult from the Subtropical Zone near 
Merida, Venezuela appears to be conspecific with this form. 

Specimens examined.— Colombia: Valparaiso, 3; San Francisco, 
1; Venezuela; Andes near Merida, (alt. 6,500 ft.), 1. 


Scytalopus panamensis sp. nov. 


Char. sp.— Most nearly related to Scytalopus argentifrons Ridgw., but. 
forehead black like the crown; supra-ocular stripe whiter, broader, more 
pronounced; underparts, particularly throat, paler gray; size larger, bill 
longer and heavier. 

Type. No. 135591, American Museum of Natural History, @ ad. 
Tacarcuna (3,600 ft.), eastern Panama, March 6, 1915; H. E. Anthony 
and D.S. Ball. 

Range.— Subtropical Zone of the Santa Espiritu Mts., eastern Panama. 

Description of Male.— Entire crown and foreback slate-black, becoming 
dark mummy-brown on the lower back and brighter, more rusty on the 
rump and upper tail-coverts, which are barred with black; a broad, sharply 
defined silvery-white line passes over the eye from above the front of the 
orbit to the nape and is separated from the auriculars by a slaty-black post- 
ocular stripe; auriculars somewhat grayer; lores dusky; orbital ring black- 
ish; tail blackish with a slight tinge of brown; wings slaty-black with a 
slight trace of mummy-brown in the outer margins of quills and coverts. 
increasing in amount internally; throat and rest of underparts centrally, 
pale neutral gray; the sides darker; the flanks, ventral region and under 
tail-coverts distinetly barred with black and bright tawny or ochraceous- 
tawny; feet (skin) brownish black; bill black. 

Female.— Similar to the male, the superciliary stripe less bright and 
not so pronounced; the upperparts washed with mummy-brown. 


Remarks. — This is one of the most interesting species secured 
by our recent expedition to the mountains of eastern Panama. Ten 
specimens, six males and four females, all apparently adult, were 


Mie at CuapmMan, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. 421 


taken on Mt. Tacarcuna at altitudes from approximately 3,600 to 
4,600 ft. 

In the Subtropical Zone of the mountains of western Panama. 
and Costa Rica, Scytalopus panamensis is obviously represented 
by the nearly related S. argentifrons and the discovery of this new 
form, makes less inexplicable the occurrence of a species of this 
genus in a region so far removed from the nearest point at which 
other species were known to occur. The bearing of this discovery 
on the faunal affinity of the Subtropical Zones of Costa Rica and 
western Panama with those of eastern Panama and Colombia is. 
obvious but the subject is too wide to be discussed in this con-- 
nection. 

Specimens examined.— Mt. Tacarcuna, eastern Panama, 10. 


Scytalopus argentifrons Ridgw. 


Scytalopus argentifrons Ridgw., Pr. U.S. N. M. xiv., 1891, p. 475 (Volcan: 
de Range-Irazfi, Costa Rica). 


This, the most northern species of the genus, is clearly a repre- 
sentative form of S. panamensis from which it is now specifically 
distinct. It is confined chiefly to the Subtropical Zone in Costa 
Rica and western Panama, ranging in the first-named country, 
according to Carriker, from 4,000 ft. to timber line, and in western 
Panama Bangs records it from 5,000 to 7,000 ft. 

Specimens from Boquete and Mt. Chiriqui, when compared with 
those from Irazu show, in their larger bill and somewhat less 
silvery forehead, a slight but unmistakable approach toward 
panamensis. This variation is obvious enough in comparison of 
specimens but it is too slight to be defined by words or in figures. 

The female of argentifrons apparently lacks the silvery front and 
superciliaries which distinguish the male and thus closely resembles 
the female of S. micropterus, a fact which indicates its descent 
from that species. The female of panamensis on the other hand, 
possesses (thoygh in a somewhat less conspicuous form) the white 
superciliaries of the male, and thus bears less resemblance to the 
female of micropterus than does the female of argentifrons, though: 
geographically nearer to it. 


422 Cuapman, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. leur 


Specimens examined.— Costa Rica: Irazu, 6; Panama: Boquete, 
4; Mt. Chiriqui, 2. 


Kkry TO ADULTS OF THE SPECIES OF Scytalopus FouND NORTH OF THE 


EQUATOR. 
1. Plumage uniform. 
a. Blackish, not perceptibly paler below than above........... S. niger. 
b. Grayish, perceptibly paler below than above.............. S. canus. 


2. Plumage not uniform. 
A. Flanks tawny, barred. 
a. A silvery or white superciliary. 
a.! Superciliary and forehead silvery........... S. argentifrons, &. 
a2 Superciliary white, forehead blackish like the crown. 
S. panamensis. 
b. Without a superciliary. 
b. Back gray. 
b.2 Size small, wing under 55 mm.............. S. sancte-marte. 
c.2 Size larger; wing over 58 mm. 
ce.’ Underparts dark slaty, flanks sharply and distinctly barred; 
bill not deeper than wide at base...... S. m. micropterus. 
c.4 Underparts mouse-gray, flanks not sharply and distinctly 
barred; bill much deeper than wide at base. .S. latebricola. 
c.1 Back brown. 


ce. Forehead neutral gray, tail olive-brownish....... S. sylvestris. 
d.2 Forehead and tail blackish. 
dY aVinewyerou amiss. 6) vost aoe ee S. micropterus, @. 
Geta Wan under oom cus oe are eie ele S.argentifrons, 2. 
B. Flanks tawny, unbarred. 
a. Paler, underparts light neutral gray.............. S. griseicollis. 
b. Darker, underparts deep neutral gray............ S. infasciatus. 


SYNOPSIS OF THE CHARACTERS OF THE JUVENAL PLUMAGE IN CERTAIN 
SPECIES. 


A. Upperparts as well as underparts barred with ochraceous-tawny. 

S. griseicollis, S. sylvestris, S. canus. 

B. Upperparts dark mummy-brown narrowly margined, more rarely 

inconspicuously barred, with black; underparts widely margined with 
ochraceous-tawny or cinnamon-buff. 

S. micropterus, S. sancte-marte, S. argentifrons. 

C. Plumage practically unbarred, or bars inconspicuous and restricted 

largely to flanks and upper-tail coverts, the underparts broadly mar- 

ined “with ‘cmnamen-bull..). 2 00 oh oes ss = oe seis aoe ae S. niger. 


a 


| eal CuHapmMan, The Genus Scytalopus Gould. 425 
Measurements. 
Name Locality S Wing Tail Tarsus Culmen 


ol 32 21 12 
51.5 33 21 12 
52 dl 20 12 


S. magellanicus Cape Horn region 
a3 as 


ce ce 


% . Ole Dee oloue 1 
S. niger Valparaiso, Chile 52.0) e402 58 620 13 
a Santa Isabel, Col. 55 42 23 13 
i El Roble di Rie, Ste, 2a ana | 
cH Sta. Elena 53 39 21 2A G 
El Roble ee 55 39 PB yath) Aw Ls: 
SS. canus Paramillo, Col. « 55 35 23 12 
. Hh = 50 35 23 12 
se fs - 52 a0 22 12 
mf “ 2 52 34 23 a es) 
S. griseicollis El Pifon, “ 58 43.5 24 1155 
rt ‘Bogota’ 56 39 23 12 
S. infasciatus Paramo de Beltran, Col. 58 39 24 iil 
oe El Roble, SS 57 41 23 LA 
S. sylvestris Santa Isabel, i 41 Dil 10.5 
i above Merida, Venézuela 54 38 23 12 


“ec ia 


or 


52 39 23 12. 
63 42.5 26.5 15 
63 42 26 15 
57 44 25 13. 


S. latebricola  Paramo de Chiruqua, Col. 
“ is “ce 


S.m.micropterus Buena Vista, 


or Or 


Salento. a 62 44 25 Se 
2 San Antonio, s Dil 42 23 1) 
La Candela cs 59 45 21 13 


51 33 23 13 
54 35 22.5 13 
55.5 44 23 14 
53 41 23.5 14 
57 41 22 13 
54 ov 22 13 
53 44 22 12 
53 43 22 13 
51 41 20 13 


S. sancte-marte Valparaiso, 
ys! Merida, Venezuela 


S. panamensis Tacarcuna, Panama 
“ce cc cc 


“ce ce ‘cc 


“ce ce a3 
S. argentifrons Irazu, Costa Rica 

. Chiriqui, Panama 
Boquete, nf 


WH AAW OA AWYPAWWAAWNHAAIDMDYYAWWDMAAWDMOHAAAIWDWOQAAs 
or 
ww 


73 


424 Batwtey, Plum Island Night Herons. leer 


THE PLUM ISLAND NIGHT HERONS. 
BY S. WALDO BAILEY. 


For a region which on casual or hasty observation appears to 
be barren and dreary, devoid of many of those features which go 
to make the attractive and picturesque in nature, I have found on 
intimate acquaintance, Plum Island lying off the northeast coast 
of Massachusetts, to be a most interesting and fruitful locality for 
study and research. 

Separated from the mainland by a broad stretch of level marsh 
and several tidal creeks, on the north, the latter widening into a 
broad sound farther south, the island extends from the mouth of 
the Merrimac River on the north some nine miles southward to 
Ipswich River not far from the northerly base of Cape Ann, but 
averages scarcely half a mile in width. 

Geologically it is a series of wave washed, wind blown sand dunes, 
overlaying by no great depth submerged drumlins, the inundation of 
these being due to the slow subsidence of the coast line since the 
glacial epoch. The dunes on the landward side are bordered by an 
irregular narrow strip of marsh, cut by numerous small intersecting 
ditches and sinuous tidal creeks. Bordering the mainland, broad 
stretches of marsh come down to meet these creeks. Nearly the 
whole of the marshy area is covered completely by every monthly 
high run of tides. 

Thoreau writing of the region over sixty-five years ago described 
it as a place of “dreary bluffs of sand and valleys plowed by the 
wind, where you might expect to discover the bones of a caravan. ... 
probably Massachusetts does not furnish a more grand and dreary 
walk. On the sea side there are only a distant sail and a few coots 
to break the grand monotony. A solitary stake stuck up or a 
sharper sandhill than usual is remarkable as a landmark for miles; 
while for music you hear only the ceaseless sound of the surf and 
the dreary peep of the beach birds.” 

Conditions have changed but little since Thoreau’s time. A 
small summer colony at the northern end of the Island connected 
with Newburyport by trolley, and a hotel and a few summer cot- 


rise ol BatLtey, Plum Island Night Herons. 425 


tages at the southern extremity or “ Bluffs” add life and activity 
to these portions during a few months of the year, and a federal 
lighthouse and two life saving stations maintain a watchful eye 
seaward. But between these points of activity lie long stretches 
of bleak dunes and rolling ridges over which the winds of winter 
sweep with relentless fury blowing the looser particles of sand much 
in the manner of snow, cutting into, and altering somewhat the 
contour of the hillocks from year to year. And in midsummer the 
sun beats down with a torrid intenseness. 

Occasionally among the wind swept hollows between the dunes 
one finds a rudely chipped implement or arrow head of flint (much 
polished and worn by the action of the sand) a silent reminder of 
the former wild inhabitants of the land. And like a hundred and 
one other places along the Atlantic coast, this place has its tradi- 
tional buried treasure, left years ago by Capt. Kidd, and now only 
awaiting the search and industry of some keen prospector to bring 
it to light. 

But bleak and desolate as the locality would seem, and at certain 
seasons is certainly, the land is not wholly barren. In many 
favored parts, sheltered from the force of the winds and shifting 
sands, nature attempts to cover the nakedness of the soil with a 
mantle of vegetation. The botanist may find much here of interest 
in his particular line of study, and a survey of the entire region 
would reward the student with a list of species quite respectable 
innumbers. On the tops and leeward sides of the dunes one finds 
the coarse beach grass, Ammophila arenaria, growing abundantly, 
its plumy heads nodding before every breeze, and its long slender 
recurving leaves describing dainty ares in the sand around their 
base. 

And growing along in company with it but in lesser quantities is 
the beach pea, Lathyrus maritimus, the long deep roots of both these 
species acting beneficially as sand binders. Such coastwise species 
as the yellow-eyed grass, Xyris flexuosa, and the beach heather, 
Hudsonia tomentosa, find a congenial soil here, the last named, form- 
ing in places on the levels between the higher dunes, a pale green 
carpet to cover the brown of the sand, and in its season of bloom, 
further adds to the colored tapestry with a rich display of deep 
yellow. And so I might continue, and enumerate a long list of 


426 BaiLtey, Plum Island Night Herons. lee 


herbaceous plants and come at length to the low shrubs like sweet 
fern, Myrica asplenifolia, and bayberry, Myrica carolinensis, both 
of which grow plentifully here. And too, the beach plum Prunus 
maritima, from which the Island receives its name, once growing 
here abundantly now nearly extirpated by the ravages of the brown- 
tail moth, Ewproctis chrysorrhea: and, varying from a low shrub, 
to a tree of from 15 to 25 feet in height, is the black cherry, Prunus 
serotina, growing abundantly in many places all along the Island. 

On the landward or marsh side of the Island a variety of grasses 
may be found, many acres of which are harvested each year and fed 
to the stock on the adjacent inland farms. The low seaside ger- 
ardia, Gerardia maritima, and heathery marsh rosemary, Limoniwm 
carolinianum, and the less abundant, but showy Canadian burnet, 
Sanguisobra canadensis, all these and many more may be found 
scattered over the broad expanse of the marshes, both of the Island 
and mainland. f 

One is surprised too, at the number and considerable size of the 
trees that grow in certain of the deep bowl-like hollows between 
the dunes. There are a fair number of such species as poplar, 
Populus tremuloides; black oak, Quercus velutina; elm, Ulmus 
americana; tupelo, Nyssa sylvatica; red maple, Acer rubrum, 
and shad, Amelanchier canadensis, many of these in especially 
favored places attaining a height of 35 feet or over. Toward the 
southern end of the Island are a few thickets of grey birch, Betula 
populifolia,and scraggy wind distorted cedars, Juniperus virginiana. 
Not infrequently, in among the growths of trees the explorer en- 
counters nearly impenetrable tangles of wild grape, Vitis labrusca; 
Virginia creeper, Psedera quinquefolia; cat brier, Smilax rotundi- 
folia; and climbing bittersweet, Celastrus scandeus. And poison 
ivy, Rhus toxicodendron, grows profusely over a wide area. 

-To the bird lover and the sportsman the Island and its adjacent 
marshes hold out several alluring invitations. It has been said, 
and with probable truth, that in years past, no place of equal extent 
on the Massachusetts coast has been a favorite resort for more 
wild fowl and shore birds. And up to the present time, consider- 


ing the increasing persecution of these birds, fair flights of some of 


the species still continue, though in recent years owing probably 
to incessant murderous attacks made upon them, there has béen, 


a 


eae | Battey, Plum Island Night Herons. 427 


apparently, a deflection in their line of flight, many flocks passing 
by altogether, well off shore. 

For twenty-five or thirty years past (if the information given 
me by longshoremen and gunners long familiar with the region, 
is correct) up to 1909, a colony of Black-crowned Night Herons 
(Nycticorax nycticorax nevius) have nested on the Island. This 
colony I believe is one that about thirty years ago nested in a 
hemlock swamp not far back from the Merrimac River in the town 
of Amesbury. With the cutting off of the trees in this swamp and 
its surroundings the birds were driven from their favorite and 
probably long used breeding place here and resorted to the more 
secluded site the Island afforded. My acquaintance with these 
birds in this latter place began in 1904 when of a day’s gunning on 
the marshes I wandered back among the dunes and by chance 
came upon the rookery. For the next five years my knowledge 
of them was gained by several visits made at irregular intervals, to 
the region, and for a description of these, I will, with a few correc- 
tions and omissions of unimportant details, quote briefly from my 
notes of those dates. 

August 12, 1904 — To the Plum Island marshes, gunning. The 
weather cloudy, threatening rain: wind, moderate northeasterly. . . 
The most interesting happening of the day occurred when after 
tiring of gunning and tramping over the marshes, with indifferent 
success, I wandered back among the sand dunes toward the sea- 
shore near “Long Point” and in a deep, brushy, bowl-like depres- 
sion between high dunes discovered a nesting colony of Black- 
crowned Night Herons. Asa conservative estimate of the birds here, 
young and old, I placed the number at upward of 700. As there 
was more or less of activity and commotion among them and a 
continual passage of birds to and from the shore and at less regular 
intervals from the marshes, it was rather difficult to form an 
estimate. The number of nests served as a more reliable basis 
to judge upon. A somewhat hasty count of these resulted in 157, 
that I believed from appearances were, or had recently been, in use. 
Granting tht there were two adults for each nest, and an average 
of three young (I believe the average would be higher than this), 
the total would not be far above the figure named. 

I found a few young birds still in the nests but by far the larger 


‘ 


428 Baitey, Plum Island Night Herons. (aor 


portion of them were able to fly. It is probable that the birds still 
in the nests were of a second brood, or their parents had been inter- 
rupted in their first attempts at nesting. 

Guttural squawks and a ghoulish, uncanny, rasping din greeted 
me as I stood on the rim of the hollow and looked across the lively 
scene, voices that the ornithologist Wilson aptly likened to the 
noise made by several hundred Indians trying to choke each other! 
Descending into the brushy thickets, I found the place not a clean 
one to travel about in. Decidedly filthy in the vicinity of the 
nests, the trees and much of the foliage white with chalkings, and 
the ground beneath covered with refuse, the stench of which was 
keenly sensible to the olfactory nerves. 

The nests were very loosely constructed, of coarse dead sticks, 
without any attempt at lining, apparently only thrown together 
and looking as if a good breeze would blow them out of the trees 
altogether. Some of the larger trees contained over a dozen nests 
each, these varying in situation from 6 to 25 feet above the ground, 
the ramshackle affairs built in almost every available crotch, often 
seemingly regardless, of the close proximity of a similar dwelling. 

In moving about amid the tangle that composed the undergrowth 
of the place I was continually scaring up more birds for by no means 
had they all taken flight upon my first appearance, though the 
multitude that left at that time would seem to have emptied it. 
Sometimes, a dozen or twenty birds, chiefly adults, would take 
flight at once from a thicker covert, and after much flapping 
about and noisy, hoarse squawking become silent but sail steadily 
to and fro high over head, the younger birds taking refuge in the 
thickets of several nearby hollows among the dunes. 

Some few of the young birds still on the nests, upon being dis- 
turbed at my approach or attempted investigation, would crawl 
out and climb clumsily about on the adjacent limbs, gawky, awk- 
ward, and scarce able to keep the balance requisite for maintain- 
ing their hold on the slender branches. Emerging on the farther 
side from any point of entrance, of the circular hollow, the whole 
area being only about two acres in extent, I caught glimpses of 
small groups of birds, the young and unsteady of wing, that had 
resorted to nearby cover. These callow birds were perched on 
the plum bushes or moving slowly about on the sand and doubtless 


Cae | Battey, Plum Island Night Herons. 429 


wondering what all the uproar was about. Their grayish brown 
coats contrasted rather markedly with the green of the foliage but 
against the duller tone of the sand, harmonized to a degree almost 
perfect until their presence was revealed by motion. 

On the whole the hour spent here was a novel and interesting 
experience and I congratulated myself for chancing upon it, believ- 
ing that an occasional visit to the place in the future, would offer 
an opportunity for varying my studies, previously confined, to 
the smaller land birds found near home. 

My next visit to the locality was made the following spring, 
May 21, 1905, and recorded in my note-book somewhat as follows: — 

“By trolley and afoot to Plum Island, down as far as ‘Long 
Point,’ to visit the heron rookery there. The day a fine mild, clear 
one with light northwesterly wind. Was accompanied on this 
trip by F. D. B. The object of our visit today was to secure a 
few sets of eggs for our collections and make a few observations 
on nesting habits in general. As we topped the steep sand hills 
and looked down on and across the wooded basin which the herons 
had chosen for a nesting place, one could not, even though he be 
of a reserved or nonchalant disposition, fail to be impressed with 
the lively scene there presented to view. Several hundred birds 
rose at our appearance on the rim of the hollow and with much flap- 
ping and wheeling about, voiced their resentment at our disturb- 
ance of their domestic peace, with discordant, raucous, guttural] 
squawking, which was increased to a tumultuous din when we 
descended into the lower ground to the precincts of their nests. 
Through rank tangles of beach plum, black cherry, grape vine, 
catbrier and poison ivy, we pushed our way to the more open ground 
under some of the larger trees, in which many of the nests were 
to be found. The tangles were made much more disagreeable of 
penetration by chalkings and the stench of refuse underfoot, these 
further adding to the natural protection afforded by briers and the 
closely interlacing branches. 

In trees of shad, poplar, maple and elm, the majority of the nests 
seemed to bé placed, with fewer numbers in oak and tupelo. Posi- 
tions varying in height, ranging from six to twenty-five or even 
thirty feet from the ground, available crotches, chiefly governing 
the choice of position. A few, probably a dozen, I noted, were 


ASO”) BaiLey, Plum Island Night Herons. Fase 


placed within a few feet only from the ground, several nearly or 
quite on it, but most of these were in such tangled thickets none 
but a weasel or winged enemy could gain access to them. The 
climbing of these trees was not a task for one considerate of clean 
clothes or sensitive nostrils for they were well white-washed, which 
served as a deterrent to any but the most enthusiastic. A few of 
the nests contained at this early date, downy young ten days 
or a fortnight old and the thin piping whistle-like voices of these 
helped to increase the uproar going on overhead among the adults. 
Many of the nests we visited contained sets of eggs well advanced 
in incubation. In fact the most of those that we saw were more or 
less advanced and it was only after considerable searching and 
difficulty that we were able to obtain a few comparatively fresh 
sets. As we visited several groups of trees, each containing numer- 
ous nests we had an opportunity to make note not only of the differ- 
ent stages of incubation but the various number of eggs making up 
aset. In three instances I saw nests containing only two eggs and 
these apparently were full sets in these cases for they were well 
along toward the time of hatching. In not a few other nests, 
three seemed to be the complement. But by far the greater number 
contained four and a few even five, the last named figure the high- 
est I saw in any of them. The difference of time represented be- 
tween fresh sets and the young birds of several days of age would 
go to show that there was considerable variation among the differ- 
ent pairs regarding the date of commencing household duties. A 
few pairs must take them up soon after their arrival in mid April; 
others in a more leisurely fashion as indicated by the fresher sets. 

I took for my collection a few fresh sets of four and five, of the 
Night Herons, and a set of four of the Little Green Heron, 
Butorides virescens virescens, a nest of which I was fortunate in 
finding in a thicket of low bushes near the center of the hollow. 

A few crows hovered around the margin of the woodland, and 
in several places I saw punctured, empty and broken egg shells 
which appeared not to have been broken ‘after the usual manner 
of hatching, and from these evidences I suspected the cause of the 
crows neighborliness. Though in justice to the crow I would add, 
that it seemed not improbable that some eggs might be rolled out 
of the shallow nests, occasionally by the herons themselves in set- 


a ae a Battey, Plum Island Night Herons. 431 


tling on or on leaving the nests. Crow Blackbirds were in the 
vicinity in small numbers. Among the low growing beach plums 
and black cherry I found a few nests of these birds, containing sets 
of three and four eggs. Whether these birds take any part in nest 
robbing here in this locality I am from my limited observations in 
the region, not prepared to say, but my opinion, based on expe- 
rience with them farther inland, leads me to think that they will 
do so on occasion. Numerous empty gun shells seen in the im- 
mediate vicinity of the rookery, and now and then the skeleton or 
dried remains of a heron on the ground or lodged among the 
branches, betokened a less excusable enemy. Some “sportsman”’ 
(so called, but spare the mark!) who thought it clever to keep in 
“good practise” by using these sluggish birds as a target. 

The more strenuous labors of our visit being over, we secreted 
ourselves for a time in one of the thicker tangles and from there 
watched the colony settle down to a state of comparative tranquil- 
lity again. The birds came readily enough back to their home trees, 
after our disturbance and the deserted nests soon contained their 
brooding birds again and the business of life in the rookery went on 
as usual. I was interested in noting in the cases of some of the 
nests we had just robbed, that the females settled broodily upon 
them again as though nothing had happened to their nursery 
treasures. So much for the power of instinct and habit perhaps! 

There was more or less of activity at all times in the vicinity of 
the rookery; birds flying to and from their salvaging or feeding 
ground along the shore, or from the quest of food out on the marshes. 
The arriving birds settled with flapping of wings and awkward 
bobbings to preserve their balance, among the trees in proximity 
to their nests. The arrival or departure of a bird seemed to be 
the signal for additional squawking and outcry on the part of his 
fellows. There was seldom or never a full minute of quiet. The 
hungry young were already beginning to pipe their wants in weak 
falsetto or as in the case of the older chicks with a persistent and 
stronger “tek-tek-tek.’’ Whether all the guttural and variously 
pitched squafvking of their elders were uttered in response to the 
insistent demands of the youngsters, would be difficult for anyone 
unacquainted with heron language to determine, but certain it was 
there was no lack of clamor and raucous din, always augmented by 


432 Barttey, Plum Island Night Herons. oe 


the arrival or departure of birds or by any change of position among 
those about the rookery. 

Two or three birds were still engaged in nestbuilding, or rather 
the repairing of last year’s nests. I saw one male heron come flying 
in from a neighboring thicket of trees with a fair sized dead stick 
in his beak, and this coarse building material he proceeded to work 
into the rude platform of similar timber. In another instance, 
close by our place of concealment I saw the skeleton of a young 
heron, victim of some disaster of the previous year, worked in as 
constructive material for the nest. Rather a gruesome reminder, 
close at hand, for the birds of the present season were they gifted 
with the powers of thought or reflection. 

Our leave-taking and the two mile walk along the border of the 
marshes, back to the trolley line was considerably hastened by the 
vigorous assaults of swarms of bloodthirsty mosquitoes, who dis- 
regarded all but savage standards of warfare in their attacks. 
But altogether this visit to the rookery was a pleasant and instruc- 
tive one, resulting in our gaining a fuller knowledge of the habits 
of these interesting birds.” 

In the season of 1906 I visited the rookery but once, and then 
late in August when the business of housekeeping for that season 
was pretty well over and the place chiefly used now as a kind of 
rendezvous or roosting place for such of the birds as had not scat- 
tered and wandered along the coast or inland in small family flocks 
or individually. From the time the young became steady of wing, 
up to the time of departure for the South, in late October or early 
November, according to the mildness or severity of the season, the 
birds are something of wanderers, drifting from one swamp or 
secluded river border to another, or along the marshes and tidal 
creeks of the coasts. At this season I have frequently found them 
along the borders of several of the larger sluggish streams and brooks 
inland, and about the shores of the smaller reedy ponds and water- 
ing holes. At dusk and during the early evening their uncanny 
“quawks”’ may be heard coming eerily from the gloom overhead, 
as they change from one tarrying place to another. 

On June 9, 1907, I made a trip to Plum Island and attempted 
at this time to secure photographs of the herons at the “Long 
Point” rookery. For a camera I had a 4 X 5 Poco, with the usual 


oa | Battey, Plum Island Night Herons. 433 


¢ bs 


trade lens known as a “rapid rectilinear,” a three speed shutter, 
and a few single plate holders together with other necessary acces- 
sories, such as tripod, thread auxiliary lenses, etc. Of the half 
dozen or more exposures made on this trip there were but one or 
two that proved successful, my failure due to a certain extent, to 
my inexperience in using a camera and also I might add, that in 
the light of the knowledge gained in recent years, of a camera 
and its management, due to inadequate equipment for the work in 
hand, a better lens and more rapid shutter being necessary for the 
making of good photos in this particular line of work. 

The weather on this occasion was typical of the best in June, 
the morning a clear and bright one, with a light northwest wind 
blowing and a few low lying white-capped clouds in the west, 
prophetic of possible showers later in the day. In making the two 
mile tramp down the shore from the trolley line I found the beach 
much changed by the storms of the previous winter. Much of 
the sand along the upper end of the Island was cut away and the 
beach narrowed, the portions thus removed being deposited in 
shoals and bars farther down along the shore, in the region of “ High 
Sandy Beach” and from this point along toward the southern ex- 
tremity of the Island. ? 

Barren though these low lying sandhills may be at some seasons 
and seem to some people, yet they possess a charm and beauty 
peculiarly their own, and never seemed to me more picturesque 
and delightful than on this morning. The rolling wind swept dunes 
with their green caps of waving beach grass and low plum; the 
violet, porphyry particled sand blown into delicate curving lines 
along their slopes, blending harmoniously with the paler bronze of 
the sand mass; with now and then glimpses to be caught between 
the dunes of the fresh and vivid greens of the level marshes, and 
distant purple inland hills; and on the water side, the deep blues 
and changing greens of the sparkling, restless sea with the duller 
purple of the distant Cape Ann; the crystalline, actinic blue of 
the sky; all these burnished and blended, mellowed and permeated 
by the bright Sunlight of a perfect June day. 

“Breathes there a man with soul so dead....’’ whose esthetic 
senses would not respond, and quicken with appreciation at this 
enchantment wrought by Nature’s alchemists? 


9 


434 Battey, Plum Island Night Herons. pens 


Distance along the level beach is deceitful and a walk of any 
given length, or with the goal or landmark ahead in sight, is seem- 
ingly much longer because of the level unbroken character of the 
surroundings and the difficulty of walking, the coarse yielding sand 
affording but insecure footing for the pedestrian. Close to the 
water’s edge one finds the firmest though not always the safest 
going, if dry feet are a consideration. 

Each wave of the ebbing tide leaves its autograph on the sand, 
a record of “heights attained.” The beach is strewn with the 
shipwrecked homes of thousands of the order Mollusca and the 
varied flotsam of the winter storms. 

Nearing the neighborhood of the rookery I found the beach 
scored with the tracks of many herons. And about a half mile 
ahead I descried apparently a patch of sand darker than usual 
and through the glass learned that it was a company of nearly 200 
birds, feeding along the shore, close to the water’s edge. Here the 
herons as well as many species of shore birds, have a spacious 
feeding ground, the former during the entire season with us, the 
latter for the brief space they tarry in this latitude; with food cast 
up in abundance daily, the offal of the sea. A closer view of this 
flock I thought would be decidedly interesting and a close range 
shot at them with the camera, would give a picture of interest and 
value. But long before I could get within range, even before I 
was within 300 yards, they all took wing and went nearly a mile 
farther down the beach. Yet my desire for a picture of them in 
such surroundings was keen, so I put into practise the best tactics 
in the fine art of stalking, taking to the leeward of the dunes and 
being careful to keep well concealed behind them. But a little 
later on making a reconnoissance over the tops of these opposite 
to where I suppose the flock to be, I was rewarded with no better” 
view of them than I had before for they had again flown, this time 
too far down the beach for me to follow. Some bird passing over- 
head had probably given warning to his fellows of the approach of 
an enemy. 

Returning up the beach, for in my chase I had gone considerably 
past the rookery, I found the moist sand, much traced, crossed and 
recrossed, with the imprints of many herons’ feet, forming a 
mosaic of triangular figures, but one without definite plan or de- 


eee | Battey, Plum Island Night Herons. 435 
sign in arrangement. Soon entering the sand hills again I came at 
length to the immediate vicinity of the rookery, well screened and 
hidden from the casual passerby in its secluded hollow. A few 
birds are to be seen sailing too and from the shore or from their 
quest out on the acres of marshland. But for these few voyagers 
one might never suspect the close proximity of such a colony. 

Before exposing myself to view, I prepared my camera, with the 
vain hope of securing a picture of the birds as they would take 
flight when I appeared on the rim of the basin. Several hundreds 
of them arose with much tumult of flapping and squawking when 
I first gained the top of the slope and came fairly into view. Sucha 
lively scene of wild life and activity as they present at such a time, 
would be well worthy the attempt of a professional photographer 
to portray, but my attempts in this instance were unsatisfactory, 
for reasons previously noted. 

By this date the serious business of housekeeping engaged the 
time and attention of nearly all the herons. Only in one or two 
instances did I note birds carrying nest building materials and 
only a few comparatively fresh sets of eggs. By far the greater 
number of nests contained eggs well advanced in incubation and 
not a few already contained young birds, of varying days of age. 
Climbing one of the first good sized trees that I came to, a red 
maple containing four or five nests, I found in one of these 
a couple of yellow eyed, frightened young, just arriving at the 
“pin feather” age, their primaries and longer tail feathers just 
beginning to be prominent. I endeavored to obtain the portraits 
of these two interesting fledglings, but later the dark room again 
pronounced failure, not however because of the bad behavior of 
my subjects for they were as quiet and accommodating as heron 
manners would permit. 

The tardiness of the season was illustrated in the vegetable world 
by the condition of the shad trees here, many of them being just 
in bloom, nearly or quite a month later than their usual time on 
normal seasons inland. The backward season, however, apparently 
made little difference in the heron world for conditions here on this 
date were similar to those on a like date during a normal season. 

In the midst of my investigations today, being intent on the many 
interesting things going on around me, a smart shower came up, 


436 Bartey, Plum Island Night Herons. leon 


unnoticed until the first large drops called it unpleasantly to my 
attention, then too late for me to seek a secure cover, so taking 
refuge in the thickest tangle at hand, I enjoyed, in a rather melan- 
choly manner, in this damp shelter, the lunch I had brought along 
and at the same time served most unwillingly as a free lunch to 
swarms of hungry mosquitoes. Lunch well over and the rain still 
continuing without sign of immediate slackening, I decided on 
a hasty retreat back to the car line arriving there in due season in a 
somewhat moistened condition; but not wholly disappointed with 
my visit and the things accomplished, and resolved to come again 
later in the season. 

Accordingly, a week later, June 16, I again visited the Island and 
rookery with the intention of making further observations to 
supplement the unfinished work of the previous visit. The weather 
on this date was clear and uncomfortably warm, with a gentle 
southwesterly wind blowing. Arrived on the beach about 9 a.m. 
and found the tide on the ebb and the ocean exceedingly calm. Far 
down the beach in the direction I was going I saw again a good sized 
flock of the herons feeding on the refuse along shore, but these 
kept well ahead of me, making short flights from time to time as I 
approached them. Numbers, with them, seem to beget wariness 
and fear, for always when feeding in company in this manner, I 
have found them to be extremely shy, whereas, when singly, or in 
the case of only a few, one can frequently work up quite close to 
them without alarming them. 

So calm was the water and quiet the air on this morning that 
arrived at a point, off abreast of the rookery, I could plainly hear 
the voices of the birds, young and old, in their haunts a quarter of a 
mile away. I found the usual activity prevailing in the vicinity 
of the nests. ‘This was increased to a noisy clamor of alarm when 
I entered the brushy growth surrounding them. Today as on 
several previous occasions I secreted myself in some of the thick 
undergrowth, that afforded a good outlook over many of the nearby 
nests. In getting into this position I noted very few eggs in any 
of the nests, most of them at this advanced date being hatched. 
I saw one nest containing five eggs and secured a fair photograph 
of it but only in three or four others did I see eggs. 

From my vantage point in the dense thicket I watched the do- 


Pca | Baitey, Plum Island Night Herons. 437 


mestic affairs of the birds for over two hours and recorded several 
curious and entertaining things concerning their habits. I learned 
that Madam Heron is a careful and solicitous mother although the 
coarsely made and ill kept nest might indicate otherwise. She 
is very loath to leave her eggs or newly hatched chicks, long ex- 
posed to the hot sun or open to a possible discovery by some pass- 
ing enemy. Birds that had been frightened from their nests when 
I entered their precincts came readily back to them after a period 
of from five to eight minutes, after I had hidden myself. These 
flying low, with sluggish flapping of wings, over the trees would 
awkwardly alight near their nests and after a greater or lesser 
interval of staring vacantly about, the slang word “rubbering” 
aptly describing this performance, they would, more clumsily still, 
climb down to their nests and settle on the eggs; or in the case of 
very young birds perch on the nest in a crouching attitude and 
spread their wings slightly, standing thus to shelter the callow chicks 
from the intense heat. 

How a returning bird could distinguish its own nest from count- 
less others like it amid the surrounding confusion and tangle is one 
of the curious facts belonging to the realm of instinct, and probably 
beyond our human ken. 

Those nests containing young of a few days of age only, were 
visited often by the parents at intervals of from fifteen to thirty 
minutes during the time I kept watch of them near my place of 
concealment. Their method of feeding, by regurgitation was an 
interesting procedure to witness, although a little revolting perhaps 
to persons of a sensitive nature, used to more genteel manners, 
but withal quite satisfactory to the baby birds who know no other 
than a la l’Heronaise. Up to what age this manner of feeding is 
continued I could not learn. Many of the young that I judged to 
be well over three weeks old were still fed in this way. A later 
visit to the rookery might help to determine this question. 

The piping of the young birds was incessant, the volume and force 
of individual voices varying according to the age of the complain- 
ant. The very young birds uttered a peculiar weak shrill whistle- 
like note not so very unlike the plaintive peeping of domestic 
chicks, while the older birds voiced their wants with an emphatic 
“tet tet tet” or “yick-yick-yick.”” So impressed on my memory are 


438 Battey, Plum Island Night Herons. es 


the varied voices and clamor of the birds here, and the sounds of 
the surrounding region, that I can even now after several years, 
call them all distinctly to mind, from the plaintive piping of the 
hungry young to the answering or alarmed raucous squawks of the 
mature birds, and the low, droning undertone of the surf on the 
shore or the swish and flutter of the leaves over my hiding place 
as the hot wind drew through the hollow. And I have but to hear 
the uncanny “quawk”’ of a night heron passing over of a summer 
evening, to bring at once to my mind the pleasant hours spent in 
the haunts of the birds here on the Island. 

To-day, while sitting here in my brushy covert under some low 
and stunted trees, watching the comings and goings of the birds, 
a deer came daintily and noiselessly along through the undergrowths 
and caught sight of me almost at the moment that I discovered him. 
One inquiring glance of a moment served to satisfy him of the nature 
of the danger he was encountering and away he went in precipitate 
haste with white flag flying, doubtless greatly surprised to find 
his haunts inhabited by other tenants than the feathered ones he 
was familiar with. 

Seven other species of birds beside the Green and the Black- 
crowned Night Herons, I have found or am certain breed here 
on Plum Island in the immediate vicinity of the rookery. At 
least three pairs of Crows nested in the larger trees in the rookery 
proper and probably more in the several neighboring wooded hol- 
lows. Crow and Red-winged Blackbirds were fairly numerous. I 
counted eleven nests of the former in the low undergrowth of the 
basin and found two of the Redwings in the rose bushes and grass 
in a little open space near the center and lowest part of the hollow. 

Kingbirds while not in close proximity to the heronry were 
common out in the more open bushy country near at hand. Cat 
birds and Brown Thrashers nested in the thickest tangles and from 
the many Maryland Yellowthroats seen and heard, I concluded 
there must have been nearly a dozen pairs nesting in the nearby 
lowland cover. One of the characteristic bird voices of the Island, 
wherever you go, back a little way from the shore and deeper 
rumble of the surf, is that of the Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus 
sandwichensis savanna). His song though weak and insect-like 
has a carrying quality and reaches one’s ear when the small minstrel 


i | Battey, Plum Island Night Herons. 439 


is several hundred yards away, and often impossible to locate. 
From the numbers of these dusky and elusive sprites that I have 
seen and heard all along the Island and borders of the marshes 
through the breeding season, I should judge that there must be 
many nesting pairs of them there. 

The Song Sparrow is commonly seen throughout all the warmer 
months as is also the Vesper Sparrow. Without doubt both 
these species breed here. Probably a careful survey of the entire 
region would add several more nesting species to the list. During 
the month of April, September and October, thousands of sparrows 
tarry for a time on the Island, finding there an abundance of favor- 
ite food, and shelter to their liking. With the possible exception 
of the rank growths of wild rice, Zizania aquatica, found along the 
flats of the Merrimac River, I know of no place, locally, where the 
bird student may find a greater number of these birds during the 
seasons of migration. 

My next visit to the rookery was not made until the spring of 
1908 when on May 10 I spent a few hours in the locality, finding 
at this time an apparent increase in the number of herons present 
and nesting. And this increase despite a considerable amount of 
harrying and wanton disturbances made during the year previous, 
by thoughtless and unsportsmanlike persons. Rumors of these 
annoyances had reached my ear from time to time and their 
truth was attested to, even at this late date, by unmistakable 
evidences, such as empty gun shells and shrivelled carcasses or 
skeletons of last season’s birds in the undergrowth or caught 
in the thicker trees, and by dismantled nests and faded pieces 
of egg shells protruding here and there in the sand. 

At the time of this visit many of the nests already contained full 
sets of eggs and one I saw with young birds two or three days old, 
showing that family duties must have commenced at an early date 
this spring. Several pairs of Green Herons, (Butorides virescens 
virescens) were nesting here also, their nests placed on or near the 
ground among the rank growth of bushes and grass in the lowest 
portion of thé hollow. 

A cold rain storm on this occasion cut my visit short and it was 
not until four weeks later, June 7, that I was again able to get there. 


440 Baitey, Plum Island Night Herons. ieee 


Nesting activities among the birds were at their height by this time, 
the all important and laborious duties attending the rearing of 
broods, demanding continual care and attention on the part of the 
parents. The incessant calls of the ever hungry young, together 
with the responsive voices of their elders served to make the imme- 
diate neighborhood a noisy if not melodious place and this in addi- 
tion to the constant coming and going of the birds to and from 
their fishing grounds lent an air of business and activity more fully 
apparent than on any of my previous visits. 

I climbed a slender maple to nests containing four and five 
young respectively. These thinly clad little fellows did not 
take kindly to my advances toward a closer acquaintance, but 
resented any familiarity, with resort to a thoroughly disgusting 
performance, that of vomiting onto the edge of the nest, their 
partially digested food of fish and mussels, this was a defensive 
measure no doubt or a warning to me to keep my distance, and 
had my sense of smell been at all over sensitive, | probably would 
have heeded it. 

At another nest that I visited, where the young were older and 
more fully developed a different means of defence was employed. 
The largest fellow of the four in the nest, drew himself grandilo- 
quently up to the proud height of some ten inches and awkwardly 
spreading his wings, and balancing on rather unsteady legs, made 
several rapid and quite forceful thrusts with his beak, uttering with 
each thrust and elongation of his neck a husky squawk, quite worthy 
of the best attempt of his elders. Such an energetic attempt on 
the part of so youthful and unstable a bird was extremely amusing 
to me, an onlooker, but a sufficiently serious matter to the per- 
former whose eyes kindled with a savage anger and fear each time 
I moved, near him. ; 

For one equipped with a small hand camera, carrying a good 
lens and rapid shutter, opportunities for photographs, showing char- 
acteristic phases of nest life of these birds, would have been many 
and varied. As circumstances were, most of the nests being in 
the deeper shade or the young birds in constant motion, work with 
ordinary equipment was out of the question. 

Could I have realized that this was the last season that the birds 
would be nesting here I doubtless would have visited the place 


a 


ee | BatLey, Plum Island Night Herons. 44] 
several times again this season, but considering them a permanent 
fixture of the region or at least pretty certainly to be depended upon 
to be present each year, I neglected to follow them up closely, 
and so lost an opportunity for securing further interesting data 
concerning them, for on visiting the locality the following year, 
May 23, 1909, I found the rookery completely deserted. The 
reason for this condition was not plainly apparent, and left the 
question therefore rather to conjecture than to any satisfactory 
solution. It was true that the herons during the past two seasons 
had been much persecuted here and that during the winter of 1908- 
09 a few of the larger trees had been cut in the wooded hollow in 
which they had made their homes and more of the trees of the shad 
and cherry species had succumbed to the attacks of the pestiferous 
brown tail moths, but notwithstanding these disturbing factors, 
much good cover was left unharmed, and the herons are remarkably 
tenacious and persistent in regard to nesting in a favorite locality 
in the face of annoying circumstances. On the whole it seemed to 
me that there must have been more pernicious contributory causes 
to drive them from this place, used probably for over twenty- 
five years. 

I have visited the Island each year since that time and searched 
the brushy cover, pretty thoroughly, well down toward the north- 
ern Ipswich boundary, and although I have seen a few scattered 
herons along the creeks and ponds of the marshes, which would 
seem to indicate nesting somewhere in the locality, I have failed 
to find further proof of a nesting colony. 

Early in the present year I was informed by one familiar with the 
waterways about the southern extremity of the Island, that the 
herons had been nesting for a few seasons of late, in numbers, on a 
small wooded islet in that vicinity. Subsequent inquiries and some 
little searching on my own part have failed to locate the colony, 
though the frequency with which one still sees the herons flying 
about or feeding along the marshes would indicate the presence of 


a rookery not far distant. 
/ 


442 Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. ann 


BIRD MIGRATION IN THE MACKENZIE VALLEY. 
BY WELLS W. COOKE. 


Tue Mackenzie Valley in northern Canada presents a broad sur-. 
face with a gentle slope rising only eight hundred feet in the fifteen 
hundred miles from the mouth of the Mackenzie to the head of 
steamboat navigation on the Athabaska at Fort McMurray. The 
height of land between it and the valley of the Saskatchewan to 
the south is but slightly over two thousand feet in elevation and 
presents an almost uniform flat surface with not even a ridge of 
hills to mark the change of slope from the north to the south. 

The migratory birds of the Mackenzie Valley have the choice of 
three principal routes as they return from their winter homes. 
They can come from the south, through Alberta, western Saskat- 
chewan, western Montana and Utah, where Great Salt Lake, the 
winter home of thousands of birds, lies directly south of Great Slave 
Lake. A second route passes up the Pacific coast of the United 
States to Washington and thence up the valley of the Columbia to 
the headwaters of the Athabaska or up the valley of the Fraser to 
the watershed of the Peace River. The third route is up the Miss- 
issippi River to southern or central Minnesota; thence to the valley 
of the Red River of the North and up the Assiniboine and Saskat- 
chewan Rivers to the sources of the Athabaska in Alberta, or across 
Saskatchewan at right angles to the v alley s of these rivers directly 
to Lake Athabaska. i 

The first of these routescies across a wilderness of mountains 
with many divides 8,000 to_10,000 feet high, and in the southern 
half of the United States through a district largely a desert. It 
would therefore seem probable that comparatively few species 
would employ this route and indeed not a single species is known 
certainly to migrate from Arizona or Utah to the Mackenzie Valley, 
and from a study of the data it seems that hardly half a dozen 
species can possibly travel this route. 

There is a modification of this route which ought apparently to 
form a convenient and fairly direct course from Mexico or Texas 
to the Mackenzie Valley. This is along the foothills of the Rocky 


leer 


444 Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. Oct, 


Mountains through Colorado, Wyoming and Central Montana to 
Western Saskatchewan, over an almost uniform plain 5,000—6,000 
feet in altitude. Probably some species do follow this route, but 
no positive proof of this has been found, and it is known that several 
species for which this would seem to be the most desirable path, 
actually go many hundred miles out of their way to travel a route 
farther east. The birds that come into the Rocky Mountains are 
for the most part birds that are to breed there or to go north only 
into the southern parts of Canada; very few go even as far north 
as northern Alberta. Hence in considering the probable routes 
of migration to the Mackenzie Valley we can ignore the usual north 
and south direction and consider that the bird comes either from 
the southeast or the southwest. 

The second route from California to the Mackenzie is the shortest 
of the three. No deserts or high mountains intervene and the whole 
country seems well adapted to support a wealth of bird life. If this 
route was largely used, then the birds of the Mackenzie Valley 
would be most closely related to the species of the western United 
States. Since the contrary is the fact, very few migratory western 
birds occurring in the Mackenzie Valley, it follows that only a few 
species can use this second route. 

The third route is the longest and seems quite roundabout to ene 
who is in the habit of thinking of migration as always a north and 
south movement. In the spring most migratory birds enter the 
United States along the north shore of the Gulf of Mexico between 
Florida and Texas. Of these the larger part enter in a still smaller 
path, six hundred miles wide, the middle of which is the mouth of 
the Mississippi River. At the border of the United Statics, the 
course of migration divides: part of the birds travel northeast to 
New England, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and to Labrador’s inhos- 
pitable shores; a second part migrate straight north to the Great 
Lakes and Hudson Bay; the third part move at first north nearly 
to the northern boundary of the United States and then turn north- 
west to the valley of the Mackenzie and even to Alaska. This last 
described route is the principal highway for the migratory birds of 
the Mackenzie Valley and is the most natural and notable migration 
route on the whole globe. Stretching for more than three thousand 
miles from the mouth of the Mississippi to the mouth of the Macken- 


eerie Cooks, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. 445 
zie, not a mountain chain or even a ridge of hills interferes with the 
uniform movements of the birds. The highest elevation is less 
than two thousand feet, and so gradual are the slopes that, with a 
few short portages the whole distance can be traversed in a canoe. 
The whole region is well watered and well timbered, affording ideal 
conditions for the support of the multitudes of birds which swarm 
along this route as they do nowhere else on the North American 
Continent. 

If the mouth of the Mackenzie River was due north of Louisiana 
and in the middle of the continent, bird migration by this route 
would be a uniform progression from south to north in the spring 
and the reverse in the fall. On the contrary the valley of the 
Mackenzie lies nearly two thousand miles nearer to the Pacific 
than to the Atlantic Ocean, and the warm Japan current produces 
conditions that interfere with the uniformity of migration and bring 
about variations, probably not equalled anywhere else in the world, 
both in the direction and the speed of migration. 

That this diagonal northwest and southeast route is traversed 
by birds from the Mississippi Valley is shown positively in the case 
of thirty-three species, for these breed in the Mackenzie Valley and 
pass in migration across the United States and yet occur in the 
United States as far west only as the eastern edge of the plains. 
Hence it is certain that these thirty-three species have a northward 
migration in the Mississippi Valley from eastern Kansas to western 
_ Minnesota and thence a northwestward route to Lake Athabaska. 

This is shown on the accompanying map of the distribution of 
the Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Zamelodia ludoviciana). 

It is evident that the westernmost breeding birds, those that 
summer in the Mackenzie Valley must have reached their breeding 
grounds from the southeast by way of the Mississippi Valley. 

The cause of the choice of this route is easily found in the con- 
ditions of moisture and woodland. All these species are either 
lovers of damp forests or of moist meadows and marshy lakes. 
Their favorite surroundings extend in the United States not farther 
west than eastern Kansas and western Minnesota. On arriving 
at Manitoba, the dry plains that have been a barrier on their left 
for the last thousand miles, become better watered and interspersed 
with groves and soon these groves unite to form almost continuous 


{ 


iA 
KY, 


pra cereeete nee 
i 


| 
— Sah 


\ 


: ak 
) 
: 


i 
{ 
i} 


i 
NNN foe eee 
: 


! eer tome 
* 


ZZ Breeding range 


ae a Western border of regular 
range in migration 


in 


Fig. 2. Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Zamelodia ludovici 


an 


446 


pee | Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. 447 
well-watered forest —a genuine birds’ paradise. Attracted by 
the early season and abundant food supply, the birds turn north- 
westward and settle for the summer in the valley of the Mackenzie. 

The thirty-three species that traverse this route are Sterna 
hirundo, Micropalama himantopus, Limosa hemastica, Numenius 
borealis, Buteo b. borealis, Sphyrapicus v. varius, Chordetles v. virgini- 
anus, Sayornis phoebe, Empidonax flaviventris, Empidonax traillr 
alnorum, Otocoris alpestris hoyti, Cyanocitta c. cristata, Euphagus 
carolinus, Carpodacus p. purpureus, Calcarius |. lapponicus, Passer- 
herbulus n. nelsoni, Zonotrichia albicollis, Spzella m. monticola, 
Melospiza m. melodia, Melospiza georgiana, Passerella 7. dliaca, 
Zamelodia ludoviciana, Vireosylva philadelphica, Lanivireo s. soli- 
tarius, Dendroica tigrina, Dendroica magnolia, Dendroica castanea, 
Dendroica virens, Dendroica p. palmarum, Seiurus aurocapillus, 
Wilsonia p. pusilla, Hylocichla a. alicia, and Hylocichla guttata 
pallasi. 

A modification of this route from the southeast in a still more 
pronounced form is followed by the White-winged Scoter (Oidemia 
deglandi), which winters off the coast from Massachusetts to New 
Jersey and in its spring migration follows the valley of the Connecti- 
cut, crosses to the Hudson, thence to the Great Lakes and north- 
westward to its summer home in the Mackenzie Valley. It is 
probable that this same general route is followed by many thousands 
of the ducks of other species which winter so abundantly along the 
coast from Chesapeake Bay to Florida, but it is also true that a 
comparatively small part of these traverse this route as far as Great 
Slave Lake, since the larger part stop for the summer in the “ ducks’ 
paradise”’ of Manitoba and the Saskatchewan. 

Still another route, practically east and west instead of north and 
south is followed by the three species of Jaeger, which winter on the 
Atlantic, appear in Hudson Bay with the earliest open water and 
then cross nearly due west to the breeding grounds about Great 
Slave Lake, and to the northward. 

There are eighteen species that also probably use the main route 
from the southeast but the proof of this use is not so simple, because 
these species not only occur in the central Mississippi Valley, but 
also range regularly across the plains to the foothills of the Rocky 
Mountains. These eighteen species are: Grus americana, Pisobia 


448 Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. tae 


fuscicollis, Ereunetes pusillus, Bartramia longicauda, Falco s. spar- 
verius, Colaptes auratus luteus, Tyrannus tyrannus, Empidonax 
miminus, Agelaius pheniceus fortis, Quiscalus quiscula cneus, 
Vireosylva olivacea, Mniotilta varia, Vermivora c. celata, Vermivora 
peregrina, Dendroica striata, Setophaga ruticila, Hylocichla ustulata 
swainsoni, and Planesticus m. migratortus. 


Isochronal migration lines) 
~s ; i 


Fig. 3. Red-eyed Vireo (Vireosylva olivacea). 


They present some of the most interesting problems in the study 
of bird migration. In the case of the Red-eyed Vireo, the species 
breeds along the whole northern tier of states west to Washington, 


— 


= 


Pee | Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. 449 


and occurs in migration in Colorado and Wyoming, but the indi- 
viduals that appear first in Alberta are not birds that have passed 
through Colorado, Wyoming and Montana, because the dates of 
migration, as indicated on the map, show that migration is early 
and rapid in the middle Mississippi Valley and late and slow along 
the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. The earliest arrivals in 
southeastern Saskatchewan appear on the average May 17, but 
they do not come from directly south, since in eastern Colorado, 
600 miles to the southward the birds do not appear on the average 
until May 22. The first advance to Athabasca Lake by May 28, 
which is just the date at whizh they appear on the average in north- 
ern Montana and northern Idaho. Therefore it is evident that 
the birds of the Mackenzie Valley at Lake Athabaska have not 
come by way of the Rocky Mountains, but by the route near the 
Mississippi River. 

The same general method of proof can be applied to the migra- 
tions of the other seventeen species in this group. The proof is 
particularly clear and convincing in the case of the Robin, Flicker, 
Bronzed Grackle, Redstart and the Black-poll, Tennessee and 
Black-and-White Warblers. 

Eighty-two other species of migratory birds breed in the Macken- 
zie Valley and during the winter or in migration occur across the 
United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But even with 
these species it can be shown that most of them probably reach the 
Mackenzie Valley from the middle part of the Mississippi Valley. 
These eighty-two may be divided into fifty-eight species of wide 
ranging water birds, nine species of hawks and owls, and fifteen 
species of smaller land birds. 

The fifty-eight species of water birds that are found at Lake Atha- 
baska and which also range from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans 
present a problem with regard to their route of migration that with 
the records at hand cannot be certainly solved. The Canada Goose 
is one of the abundant water birds of the Mackenzie Valley and 
may be taken as representative of the above mentioned group. The 
great bulk of the Mackenzie Valley Canada Geese must come from 
the Mississippi Valley, where the species is abundant, for Branla 
canadensis is rather rare on the Pacific coast, its place there and in 
Alaska being taken largely by the other three forms, hutchinsz, 
occidentalis and minima. 


450 Cook®, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. (Gen 


But the fact that the Mississippi Valley birds pass to thé Macken- 
zie Valley cannot be proved by dates of migration as is shown by 
the following records. The Canada Goose begins its migration near 
the Mississippi river in February. About the twentieth of that 
month may be considered the date of its normal arrival in south- 
eastern Iowa. Passing slowly north it appears one month later in 
southeastern Minnesota at the end of the first week in April. Mi- 
gration in southeastern Nebraska commences at about the same 
time as in southeastern Iowa, but the birds move north a trifle 
faster and cross to Saskatchewan about the first of April. Further 
west the Canada Goose winters not far south of the United States 
boundary and crosses into southern Alberta the last of March. On 
the Pacific coast the species winters in British Columbia. When, 
therefore, it is known that the Canada Goose arrives at Lake Atha- 
baska April 20, no certain conclusion can be drawn from this data 
as to whether these earliest birds come from Manitoba, Alberta, or 
British Columbia. The last furnishes its most northern winter 
home and hence would require the least rapid migration in spring 
to reach Lake Athabaska by the given date. The journey by way 
of Manitoba or eastern Saskatchewan is a longer distance and the 
later start requires a higher speed of migration. Hence if no other 
information was available, the migration dates alone would lead 
one to suppose that the earliest birds at Lake Athabaska came from 
the southwest. But as stated at the outset, the relative numbers 
of the birds east and west of the Rocky Mountains, make it certain 
that most the birds of Lake Athabaska really do come from the 
Mississippi Valley. Since this is true of the geese, it may be 
assumed to be true also of the Mallard and Pintail Ducks which 
travel in company with the geese and have the same range from 
the Atlantic to the Pacific. 

The same method of reasoning may be applied to the larger part 
of the fifty-eight species of wide-ranging waterfowl that occur regu- 
larly at Lake Athabaska. Most of them are abundant in migration 
across the moist plains from Kansas to Saskatchewan, but are com- 
paratively rare in the whole mountainous region of western United 
States where favorable localities either for breeding or for feeding 
during migration are few and of small area. Hence it must be true 
in general that the untold thousands of water birds that frequent 


dae | Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. 451 
the lakes and marshes of the Mackenzie Valley, come from the 
moister portions of the Mississippi Valley. 

With regard to the nine species of migratory hawks and owls of 
wide range that visit Lake Athabaska nothing can be judged at 
present either from distribution or migration as to the route or 
routes they employ. Fifteen species of the smaller migratory land 
birds have the same range and in some cases, the dates of migration 
afford a hint of the route traveled. Thus in the case of the Crow, 
the dates of migration show clearly that the earliest individuals to 
reach southwestern Manitoba come not from South Dakota as 
would be expected, but from the timbered regions of Minnesota. 
The date of arrival at latitude fifty degrees in southwestern Mani- 
toba is March 27, as determined by fourteen years’ observations 
from four neighboring towns. March 27 is a fair average date for 
the arrival of the Crow in east central South Dakota, three hundred 
and fifty miles to the southward; while the average date of arrival 
in southern North Dakota is a week later thanin Manitoba. Con- 
tinuing in the same general northwestern course it is probable that 
the Crows appearing April 2, 1893, at Osler, Saskatchewan came 
from Manitoba rather than from Montana; since this date would 
be considered an early date of arrival in southeastern Montana. 
In this manner the dates of migration show that the earliest Crows 
in the Mackenzie Valley come from the wooded districts of the 
Mississippi Valley. 

The Myrtle Warbler presents a quite similar set of dates. This 
species ranges from the Mississippi Valley throughout the Rocky 
Mountains and to the Pacific, becoming much rarer west of the 
mountains. In its spring migration, it reaches southern Manitoba 
April 23, at about the same time as its first appearance in central 
Nebraska and northern Colorado, showing conclusively that the 
Manitoba birds come from the southeast. It is equally sure that 
the arrival at Osler, Sask. latitude fifty degrees May 4, 1893, came 
from the southeast, for this is the usual time of arrival in central 
Montana latitude forty-seven degrees. Farther north a new possi- 
bility presents itself, since the May 16 birds of Lake Athabaska 
might, as far as the date is concerned, have come from British 
Columbia in the southern portion of which Province they arrive 
the middle of April. To determine this latter point use can be 


452 Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. fae 


made of the general principle of parallel lines of migration. Since 
it is true that the birds of western Minnesota pass northwestward 
to Saskatchewan, it is probable that the birds of Montana also- 
proceed in a northwestern direction and traverse Alberta, in which 
case it is altogether unlikely that the birds of the same species would 
be migrating northeast from British Columbia to Athabaska across 
the route of the eastern birds and at right angles to it. A more 
reasonable assumption is that the birds of British Columbia migrate 
also northwestward and proceed to Alaska, where the dates of 
arrival, May 5 at Fort Reliance on the middle Yukon and May 18 
at the mouth of that river, show that the birds must* have come 
from British Columbia. 

The migration records now available are insufficient to determine 
whether the remaining thirteen species of small migratory wide- 
ranging land birds come to the Mackenzie Valley from the south- 
east, or southwest. 

There remain twenty-three species of migratory birds which 
breed in the Mackenzie Valley, but which in migration are confined 
to the Western United States, ranging not farther east than the 
eastern edge of the plains. These may be divided into three groups. 
The first group comprises nine species that in winter are confined 
to the Pacific coast; the second group, three species that range east 
to the Rocky Mountains, and the third, sixteen species that occur 
east to the plains. 

The species of the first group, whose routes are best known, are 
the Pacific Eider (Somateria v-nigra), Black Brant (Branta nigri- 
cans), Short-billed Gull (Larus brachyrhynchus), Ross’s Goose 
(Chen rossi), and the Northern Varied Thrush (Ixoreus nevius 
meruloides). The accompanying chart shows the principal migra- 
tion route followed by each of these species. They all cross the 
Rocky Mountains, but in widely separated latitudes. The Ross’s 
Goose crosses the lofty ranges of the main chain of the Rocky Moun- 
tains from northeastern California to northwestern Montana and 
thence north across the Mackenzie Valley to its breeding grounds 
on the Arctic islands. 

The Northern Varied Thrush winters mainly in the interior of 
California and in western Nevada. Its main migration route crosses 
thence through northern Idaho and northwestern Montana and 


Mieration Routes oF 
Chen rossi 
2——-—lxoreus naevius meruloides 
Larus brachyrhynchus 
4----— Branta nigricans 
5 *xxxx Somateria v-nigra 


Fig. 4. Migration Routes from the Pacific Coast to the Mackenzie Valley. 
453 


hae 


454 Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. Oct. 


along the mountains of eastern British Columbia to the valley of 
the Liard and reaches the Mackenzie a few miles below Fort Simp- 
son. 

The relation of the breeding and wintering areas of the Short- 
billed Gull makes it probable that the main migration route follows 
up the Fraser River and down the Peace River to the breeding 
grounds on Great Slave Lake and northward. 

The Black Brant is a common breeder at the mouth of the Mac- 
kenzie and along the coast to the eastward. It does not reach 
Mackenzie from the south, indeed it is not known inland in that 
Province, but in spring migration it passes up the Pacific coast to 
the mouth of the Yukon, up this river to its junction with the Por- 
cupine, and up this stream and across the low divide to the mouth 
of the Mackenzie. It seems probable that the Pacific Loon (Gavia 
pacifica) and the Sabine Gull (Xema sabinz) follow this same route, 
but the proof is not as yet conclusive. 

The Pacific Eider (Somaterta V-nigra) does not occur inland in 
either Alaska or Mackenzie. It winters around the Aleutian 
Islands and is a common breeder on the coast east of the mouth of 
the Mackenzie. Hence it follows that the line of migration must 
pass through Bering Strait and go round the northern coast of 
Alaska. It seems certain that the King Eiders (Somateria specta- 
bilis) and the Glaucous Gulls (Larus hyperboreus) breeding on the 
Mackenzie coast arrive by the same route rather than from the 
Atlantic side. Indeed it can be said there is nothing to indicate 
that any birds migrate regularly from the Labrador coast north- 
westerly to the coast of western Mackenzie. ‘ 

A migration route as yet unsolved is that of the Yellow-billed Loon 
(Gavia adamsi). It appears at Great Slave Lake as soon as any 
part of the lake is open. It is not known at any time of the year, 
either east, south, or west of Great Slave Lake, and at the time it 
appears there, no open water exists anywhere between that Lake 
and the Arctic Ocean, and the species is not yet recorded from any- 
where inland in Alaska. In fact the records as they stand at 
present are explainable only on the theory of a single flight from the 
open Polar Sea to the summer home on Great Slave Lake, and 
such a flight is scarcely believable. 

The three western species occurring in the Mackenzie Valley 


ete ial Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. 455 


that range from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific are Spizella 
passerina arizone, Vireosylva gilva swainsont, and Piranga ludovici- 
ana. ‘The migration route of this last species is especially interest- 
ing. It breeds over the whole of western United States from the 
eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific. Hence if 
one saw the map of the breeding range and noted that the line of 
the easternmost limit was almost north and south and extended 
without a break from Mexico to Canada, he would take it for 
granted that the breeding birds of Alberta reached their summer 
home by a migration route along the eastern slope of the Rocky 
Mountains. Such reasoning is correct with almost all species, but 
an examination of the large amount of migration data available 
shows that the Western Tanager is an exception to the rule. The 
bird winters in Guatemala and when it starts north in the spring 
the individuals along the Pacific coast move north faster than 
those that choose to migrate along the eastern slope of the Rocky 
Mountains as shown by the isochronal lines on the accompanying 
map. By May 10, the earliest migrants have reached northern 
Washington along the Pacific coast, while in the Rocky Mountains 
they are just entering southern Colorado. During the next ten 
days the eastern birds loiter across Colorado to southeastern 
Wyoming, while on the same date, May 20, the first birds appear 
in central Alberta, a thousand miles farther north. It is evident 
that these latter birds could not have come by way of Colorado, 
but must have come from Washington and British Columbia, 
though this latter assumption requires that they cross the main 
chain of the Rocky Mountains at a time in the spring when even 
the lowest passes are still covered with snow. It is true that warm 
weather has already come by this date in the southern Mackenzie 
Valley, but it is one of the strangest problems in bird migration 
as to how the Western Tanagers know that on the other side of 
those snow clad ranges summer is waiting for them. 

The migration dates of the Western Chipping Sparrow show that 
the breeding birds of Alberta follow the same general route as out- 
lined above fot the Western Tanager, while the data so far available 
concerning the migration of the Western Warbling Vireo throw no 
light as to the route employed. 

The fifteen western species breeding in the Mackenzie Valley and 


NWA 
rae 


APRIL30; 
APRIL 20 


Fig. 5. Migration Route of the Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana). 
456 


ot Geren Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. 457 


ranging to the eastern edge of the plains in the United States are: 
Larus californicus, Branta canadensis hutchinsi, Grus canadensis, 
Macrorhamphus griseus scolopaceus, Sayornis. sayus, Xanthocephalus 
xanthocephalus, Calcarius lapponicus alascensis, Calcarius pictus, 
Powcetes gramineus confinis, Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus, 
Passerherbulus lecontei, Zonotrichia leucophrys gambeli, Spizella 
monticola echracea, Spizella pallida, and Seiurus noveboracensis 
notabilis. 

Larus californicus winters abundantly on the coast of British 
Columbia and breeds commonly from Great Slave Lake northward, 
showing that its route of migration is northeast across British 
Columbia. 

Branta canadensis hutchinsi is known to migrate in immense 
flocks from the plains of the Mississippi to those of the Mackenzie 
on its way to its northwestern breeding grounds. The same is true 
of Macrorhamphus scolopaceus, the line of whose northwestern mi- 
gration is known to extend from Florida to Great Slave Lake; the 
same route is undoubtedly followed by Grus canadensis. 

The earliest individuals of Sayornis sayus reach southern British 
Columbia about two weeks earlier than the first arrive in southern 
Colorado. The Alberta dates agree with those of Montana rather 
than those of British Columbia and Washington, while the dates 
on the lower Mackenzie and the Yukon can be satisfactorily ex- 
plained only on the supposition that these birds have come from 
British Columbia. Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus is so rare at 
Athabaska Lake and northward, that it can be considered as hardly 
more than a straggler in the Mackenzie Valley. The date of arrival 
in eastern Saskatchewan however is so much earlier than in eastern 
Montana, as to indicate that the birds of Saskatchewan come from 
the southeast. The migration records of Zonotrichia leucophrys 
gambelt are so much earlier in British Columbia and Alaska than 
in corresponding latitudes to the eastward as to make it practically 
certain that the Alaska birds have come by way of the interior 
warm valleys of British Columbia. Hence it is equally probable 
that the individuals which swarm in Nebraska, Kansas, and south- 
ward during migration and winter are the birds that pass north 
through Manitoba and Saskatchewan to breed in the Mackenzie 
Valley. 


[oce: 


458 Cooke, Bird Migration in the Mackenzie Valley. 
The migration route of Calcarius pictus is evident since the great 
majority of the individuals are confined during migration and winter 
to a narrow belt of plains country extending from Texas northward 
to the Saskatchewan and thence northwestward along the Macken- 
zie to the summer home on the Barren Grounds of the Arctic. The 
same route is followed more or less closely by Passerherbulus 
lecontei, Spizella pallida, and Calcarius lapponicus alascensis. 

One of the strangest migration routes to the Mackenzie Valley is 
that of the Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus v. varius). The 
mouth of the Nahanni River a hundred miles northwest of Fort 
Simpson forms the normal limit of the species’ range in that direc- 
tion; this is in longitude 124° W. The Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers 
breeding here come by way of Minnesota at least as far east as 
longitude 96° W. The range of this species extends thence south 
through western Missouri on the meridian of 94° and then south- 
west through the whole eastern half of Texas to at least longitude 
103° W. in southwestern Mexico. Thus the migration route forms 
a bow, the southern half extending through nine degrees of longitude 
in a portion of the globe where this is equal to six hundred miles, 
and the northern half through thirty degrees of longitude, equi- 
valent in those high latitudes to nine hundred miles. 

The above routes account for the different groups of species 
breeding in the Mackenzie Valley as follows: 

Eastern species ranging in the central United States only 


to the edge of the Plains. 33 
Eastern species ranging regularly or occasionally to the 

Rocky Mountains in the central United States. 19 
Species that in migration or during the winter occur across 

the whole United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific. 82 
Western species confined almost entirely to the Pacific 

coast. 9 
Western species, ranging only occasionally east of the 

Rocky Mountains in the central United States. 3 
Western species, ranging to the eastern edge of the Plains 

in the central United States. 15 
Total migratory species breeding in the Mackenzie Valley, 

and wintering to the southward. 161 


In addition to these, the list of the birds of the Mackenzie 


ee 


ve aie RatuBun, Wates Birds of the Puget Sound. 459 
Valley includes several groups of species that do not come 
under any of the above headings. 
Non-migratory species and those which occur during the 
winter. 37 
Species that barely reach the Mackenzie Valley from the 
south, being found on the Athabaska and not ranging north 
to Lake Athabaska. 41 
Species not included under the previous headings, being 
for the most part stragglers or species that are most common 
on the Arctic islands. 29 
Total species known to occur in the Mackenzie Valley 268 
The distinctly eastern character of the avifauna of the Mackenzie 
Valley is shown by the fact that of the one hundred and sixty-one 
regular breeding migrants, only eighteen are known with certainty to 
reach the Valley from the west or southwest, while it is known with 
equal certainty that seventy-one reach it from the southeast or east; 
and of the remaining seventy-two species, mostly water-birds, 
probably four-fifths come from the central Mississippi Valley. 


LIST OF WATER AND SHORE BIRDS OF THE PUGET 
SOUND REGION IN THE VICINITY OF SEATTLE. 


BY SAMUEL F. RATHBUN. 


THIs region is a much favored resort of many of the species of 
water birds whose habitat is the Pacific coast and this undoubtedly 
is accounted for by the fact that within its boundaries are em- 
braced the essential desiderata necessary to attract them, viz. 
protection from the elements, an abundance of food and a most 
equable temperature throughout the year. 

Its geographical location is likewise fortuitous being nearly in 
the direct line of migration of the countless numbers of birds 
whose summer home is the North Pacific and of these, thousands 
use this region as a winter resort, finding here every requirement 


460 RatuBun, Water Birds of the Puget Sound. lace 


necessary for an existence; this fact being strongly impressed upon 
the observer by the abundance of bird life that will be seen more 
particularly during the period of the winter months, at which season 
the number of individual birds exceed that, that may be noted dur- 
ing the balance of the year. 

Relative to the equable climatic conditions that prevail it is 
quite appropriate to quote from “U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Weather Bureau Summary of the Climatological data for the United 
States” “Section 19, Western Washington,” which information 
has been courteously given me by Mr. G. N. Salisbury, Section 
Director at Seattle. 

“The mean temperature of the Puget Sound country ranges from 
38 degrees in mid-winter to 62 degrees in mid-summer, while the 
range near the coast is considerably less, being from 40 degrees in 
winter to 60 degrees in summer. The average daily march of 
temperature in the Puget Sound region is from 35 degrees to 45 
degrees in mid-winter and from 55 degrees to 75 degrees in mid- 
summer. The average daily range is noticeably small in winter, 
showing the equability of temperature,” “ Frequently in winter the 
difference between the day and night temperatures is only 5 degrees 
or less.”’ 

It would thus appear that in so far as the mean temperature of 
the region during winter is concerned, it must prove attractive to 
many species at that season and when to this is added the other 
requirements necessary to sustain life, one reason of the region 
being so favored by the aquatic species is quite obvious. 

There may be an additional reason for this abundant bird life 
during the winter, as it is quite possible that during the autumnal 
migration, the probable route followed by a majority of the mi- 
grants is along the east side of Vancouver Island to a point of 
intersection with the Straits of Juan de Fuca at the Straits eastern 
terminus, at which intersectional point a certain amount of “bank- 
ing” or accumulation of individuals occurs, although no doubt a 
proportion continue to migrate towards the Pacific Ocean to the 
westward, or follow the Sound southward. But that this accumu- 
lation does occur is quite probable for at and within a fairly defined 
radius of the intersectional point named, will be found during the 
winter months the greater abundance of bird life, not necessarily 


ae | RatHBun, Water Birds of the Puget Sound. 461 


of species but of individuals; this being noted by the writer on 
various trips to the section named and appearing particularly to 
apply to species belonging to the Alcidz, Phalacrocoracide, to some 
extent the Anatide, but not in any great degree to the Laride, 
as the representatives of this latter Family, that use this region as a 
winter resort, seemingly are well distributed. 

The following List is intended as supplemental to the original: 
“Tist of Land Birds of Seattle” published in ‘The Auk’ (Vol. XTX, 
No. 2, April, 1902) and an Addendum to which appeared in ‘The 
Auk’ (Vol. XXVIII, No. 4, October, 1911). 


1. A&chmophorus occidentalis. WESTERN GREBE.— Common 
spring and fall migrant and observed during the winter months. 

2. Colymbus holbeelli. Hotsa@miu’s Grese.— Spring and fall 
migrant. Sometimes noted during the winter. 

3. Colymbus nigricollis californicus. Earep Grespe.— Noted as a 
migrant and during the winter. 

4. Podilymbus podiceps. Prep-BILLED GREBE.— Common summer 
resident and breeds. 

5. Gaviaimmer. Loon.— Resident and breeds but not so commonly 
as formerly in this immediate locality. More abundant during the winter. 

6. Gavia pacifica. Pacrric Loon.— Noted as a fall migrant. 

7. Gavia stellata. Rep-rHroaTep Loon.— To some extent a winter 
resident. 

8. Lunda cirrhata. Turrep Purrin.— Apparently rare in this 
immediate locality but not uncommon on the lower sound where it breeds 
to some extent. 

9. Synthliboramphus antiquus. ANcIENT MurRELET.— Rare. A 
specimen taken August 9, 1913 by D. E. Brown of Seattle. 

10. Brachyramphus marmoratus. Marsitep Murrever.— From 
November until April a common resident becoming rarer as the season 
progresses, but is observed intermittently during the balance of the year. 
D. E. Brown has taken a number of birds in full breeding plumage, one of 
which collected May 23, 1914 contained an egg an inch in diameter. It 
would thus appear that this locality may be within the southern portion 
of the breeding range of the species. 

11. Cepphus columba. Piceon GuILLEMoT.— Common resident 
and breeds. 

12. Uria troille californica. Ca.irornica Murre.— Winter resi- 
dent. / 

13. Stercorarius parasiticus. Parasitic JAnEGER.— Noted on sev- 
eral occasions in September and October flying about the bay in front of 
the city. 

14. Rissa tridactyla pollicaris. Paciric Kirrrwake.— Have seen 


462 Ratusun, Water Birds of the Puget Sound. ah 


this species a number of times during the winter with other Gulls about 
the tide flats near the city. 

15. Larus glaucescens. GLaucous-wIncED GuLL.— Common from 
October to latter part of April, but breeds sparingly on some of the islands 
in the lower sound. 

16. Larus occidentalis. Western GuLtt.— Common winter resident. 

17. Larus californicus. Catirornta GuLu.— Spring and fall mi- 
grant. On occasions observed during the winter. 

18. Larus brachyrynchus. SHortT-BILLED GuLL.— Common from 
November until April. 

19. Larus heermanni. Hrrrmann’s Guiu.— Not uncommon as a 
summer visitant. 

20. Larus philadelphia. Bonaparte’s Guiu.— Spring and fall 
migrant. 

21. Sterna paradisea. Arctic Tern.— A rather regular fall migrant. 
Have observed it a number of times flying about the sound in front of the 
city. 

22. Phalacrocorax auritus cincinatus. WHITE-cRESTED CoRMo- 
RANT.— Not an uncommon winter resident. 

23. Phalacrocorax penicillatus. Branpt’s Cormorant.— Com- 
mon winter resident. 

24. Pelecanus erythrorhynchos. Wuite PrLican.—A rare mi- 
grant. 

25. Mergus americanus. Mrrcanser.— A common species from 
October until April and regularly breeds along the mountain streams 
flowing from the Cascade Mountains to the sound. 

26. Mergus serrator. ReED-BREASTED MERGANSER.— Common mi- 
grant and often observed in winter. 

27. Lophodytes cucullatus. HooprEp MrrGanseR.— Rather com- 
mon during the migrations and have observed it during the winter. 

28. Anas platyrhynchos. Maruarp.— A common resident but most 
abundant from October until May. Breeds. 

29. Chaulelasmus streperus. Gapwa.u.— Rare migrant. 

30. Mareca penelope. Europran Wipcron.— Can be regarded 
only as accidental. An adult male was brought me in February, 1912, 
for identification, that a few days previously had been shot on the lower 
sound, 

31. Mareca americana. Batppate.— Observed from October until 
early May, but is a common winter resident. 

32. Nettion carolinense. GREEN-wINGED TEAL.— Common from 
October until May. Undoubtedly breeds sparingly as it has been noted 
during the summer. 

33. Querqueduladiscors. BLuEn-wincEepD TEAL.— Rare. 

34. Spatula clypeata. SHovetter.— A rather common species 
from October until April and breeds sparingly. Found nesting at Lake 
Washington, May 15, 1893. 


Ponies | Rarusun, Water Birds of the Puget Sound. 463 


35. Dafila acuta. PrvtarL.— From late fall until April one of our 
most abundant ducks. 

36. Aix sponsa. Woop Ducx.— Formerly a not uncommon summer 
resident in this immediate locality, but now seldom noted. 

37. Marila americana. RepHEap.— Occurs as a rare migrant. 

38. Marila valisineria. Canvas-sack.— Common from November 
until April but most abundant during winter. 

39. Marila marila. Scaup Ducx.— Same as the preceding, M. 
valisineria, with which it is often found associated. 

40. Marila affinis. Lesser Scaup Ducx.— More or less common 
during the winter months. 

41. Marila collaris. Rinc-Neckep Ducx.— Regard this species as 
uncommon, as have noted it but a few times and during the winter months. 

42. Clangulaclangula americana. GoLpDEN-EYE.— Not uncommon 
as a winter resident. 

43. Charitonetta albeola. Burrite-HEAD.— Common winter resi- 
dent, departing in April. 

44. Harelda hyemalis. Ox.p-Sqguaw.— Observed from November 
until April but most common during the winter months. 

45. Histrionicus histrionicus. Hartequin Ducx.— A rather rare 
species during the winter and have noted it until May. 

46. Oidemia americana. Scorer.— A regular but rather uncom- 
mon winter resident. 

47. Oidemia deglandi. Wuite-wincep ScoTer.— Common from 
November until May. 

48. Oidemia perspicillata. Surr Scorser.— Common winter resi- 
dent. 

49. Erismatura jamaicensis. Ruppy Ducx.— Formerly rather 
common during the migrations but of late years has not been so often noted. 

50. Chen hypoboreus hypoboreus. Snow Goosr.— On two occa- 
sions have seen on the sound near Seattle small flocks of what we regarded 
as this species. But on the lower sound flocks of white geese are quite 
regularly observed during the migrations. 

51. Anser albifrons gambeli. Wuirr-rrontep Goosre.— Not un- 
common as a spring and fall migrant. 

52. Branta canadensis occidentalis. Wuirs-cHEEKED GoosE.— 
More or less a regular migrant. 

53. Branta canadensis minima. Cackitineg Goose.— A rare mi- 
grant. 

54. Branta nigricans. Biack Brant.— From observations the 
most common of the Anserine. A regular spring and fall migrant and 
common winter resident but seemingly restricted during this period to 
certain localities on the sound, doubtless on account of its food supply. 
A very easy bird to decoy. Generally arrives about the first of December 
and last seen during April. 

55. Olor columbianus. Wuisttinc Swan.— A _ regular but not 
common migrant. 


464 RatuBun, Water Birds of the Puget Sound. b eee 


56. Ardea herodias fannini. NortHwesterN Coast Hiron.— 
A common resident and breeds. 

57. Grus canadensis. Lirrte Brown Crane.— Although a quite 
regular migrant, apparently not very common. ~ 

58. Rallus virginianus. Vrirernta Rart.— Common summer resi- 
dent and breeds. 

59. Porzana carolina. Sora.— A not uncommon summer resident 
and breeds. 

60. Fulica americana. Coot.— Abundant resident. Breeds. 
Seemingly restricted to the fresh water. 

61. Lobipes lobatus. Norruern PHALAROPE.— A rare spring but 
regular fall migrant. 

62. Gallinago delicata. Witson’s Snipe.— Abundant spring and 
fall migrant. Not uncommon during the winter. 

63. Macrorhamphus griseus scolopaceus. LOoNG-BILLED Do- 
WITCHER.— Observed as a not uncommon fall migrant. 

64. Tringa canutus. Knor.— A rare spring and fall migrant. Mr. 
D. E. Brown has several spring records. 

65. Pisobia maculata. PrcroraL SANDPIPER.— Rare and noted as a 
fall migrant only. 

66. Pisobia minutilla. Least SanppippER.—— Common migrant, 
more particularly during the early fall. 

67. Pelidna alpina sakhalina. Rep-packEeD SANDPIPER.— Not an 
uncommon spring and fall migrant and sometimes observed in winter. 

68. Ereunetes mauri. WesTeRN SanpprperR.— A rather common 
fall migrant. 

69. Calidris leucophea. SanpERLING.— A rare spring but common 
fall migrant and probably winters to a limited extent. Observed March 26, 
1910; January 11, 1911; and on December 11, 1913, flocks numbering 
several hundred birds were noted at Smith’s Island, located near the en- 
trance to Puget Sound. On December 18, following we observed a flock 
of about sixty at this same point and on the nineteenth and twentieth at 
Dungeness, about seventeen miles southwest, flocks aggregating nearly a 
thousand birds were watched busily feeding, they allowing an approach 
to within twenty feet. Among the Sanderling were a few Red-backed 
Sandpipers. 

70. Totanus melanoleucus. GREATER YELLOW-LEGS.— Regular 
spring and fall migrant. 

71. Totanus flavipes. YrELLow-LEGs.— Not uncommon as a spring 
migrant. 

72. Helodromas solitarius cinnamomeus. WeEsTERN SOLITARY 
SANDPIPER.— Very rare. Specimen taken May 6, 1914, by D. E. Brown. 

73. Catoptrophorus semipalmatus inornatus. WersTeRN WIL- 
LET.— One record. September 6, 1913, by D. E. Brown. 

74. Actitis macularia. Spotrep Sanpprrer.— Rather common 
summer resident and breeds. 


ie | Scupper, The Birds’ Bath. 465 


75. Numenius hudsonicus. Hupsonran CurteEw.— Regular spring 
migrant. 

76. Squatarola squatarola. BLack-BELLIED PLoveR.— Regular 
spring and fall migrant but more common during the latter period. 

77. Oxyechus vociferus. KiLLpEER.— Resident and breeds but most 
common from March to December. 

78. Aigialitis semipalmata. SmmMIPpALMATED PLover.— Not an 
uncommon spring and fall migrant. 

79. égialitis nivosa. Snowy Piover.— A rare migrant. Recorded 
May 6, 1914 by D. E. Brown. 

80. Arenaria interpres morinella. Ruppy TurNstonr.— Rare 
migrant. Taken May 6, 1914 by D. E. Brown. 

81. Arenaria melanocephala. Buiack TurNstonnE.— A rare mi- 
grant and possibly rare winter resident. Have an adult male taken Feb- 
ruary 22, 1914, collected by myself. 

82. Hematopus bachmani. Buack OystTeR-caATcHER.— Formerly 
not uncommon on the lower sound as a summer resident but of late years 
has become rare. 


THE BIRDS’ BATH. 
BY HEYWARD SCUDDER. 


A very little brook winds through a swamp. On the north and 
east, swamp maples, high and of thick foliage, make a dense shade; 
on the south and west, low alders, and open spaces filled with Joe- 
pye-weed and golden-rod let in the sun, and offer perches on which 
to dry and dress feathers. At intervals the brook widens into 
shallow pools. 

In the course of the day — most abundantly between eleven 
and three — all the land birds, except the crows and owls, come to 
bathe in these pools. 

A Prairie Warbler flies down on one side of a pool, hesitates at 
the brink like one fearing the chill of the water, then dashes in and 
begins splashing. On the other side a Black and White Warbler 
starts his bath. Then along comes a Robin, hops into the pool 
and through it till he comes to water deep enough to suit him, saying 
loudly, “'Tut-tut! Tut-tut!” as if in scorn of the warblers, which 


466 ScuppEr, The Birds’ Bath. lao 


fly off instantly. After the Robin has gone, is an interval; then 
more small birds begin bathing, till the harsh ery of a Blue Jay near 
at hand, drives them into the bushes. There are no hawks here, 
except in migration. But a Blue Jay’s presence seems to cause 
the same sort of fear among the small birds that a hawk’s does in 
other places. Only Robins and Starlings hold their own without 
fear. 

Is this bathing the explanation of the disappearance of birds 
in the middle of the day during the nesting season and all through 
the hot weather? Anyone who has been at a seashore resort knows 
how long it may take to get to the beach and into the water, take 
a bath, dress and then get home again, especially when one always 
has to be on the look-out to avoid certain objectionable persons, 
and when one is most particular about dressing and having one’s 
clothes perfectly put on. In the case of the birds there is no way 
of telling how long it takes them to come and go, and to make sure 
that there is no enemy around. The numbers of certain kinds of 
birds can be explained in a satisfactory way only on the theory 
that most of them come from considerable distances. For the 
presence of ten or a dozen Prairie Warblers every hour would show 
a greater abundance of these birds near the swamp than is indicated 
by a study of the birds within a radius of a mile, though, of course, 
an accurate census of a bird population is really impossible. The 
other explanation for the abundance of birds is that the same bird 
may bathe repeatedly during the day. This is undoubtedly true 
in some cases, and possibly the rule during hot weather. But 
within a length of time as short as one or two hours, it requires a. 
number of absences either from the search for food, or from the 
nest, which seems too great to be probable. 

Certain pools are frequented for bathing, because of favorable 
conditions of water supply, depth of water, places for drying and 
preening feathers, and freedom from enemies. Within a half mile, 
one set of pools will abound with birds, while all the rest have only 
a few visitors or none at all. Yet it is often impossible to see any 
reason for the choice which has been made. 

We all know the way in which a bird usually takes a bath, ruffling 
out its feathers, half opening its wings, then dipping its head in and 
out of the water, splashing with its wings and tail, and shaking its 
body vigorously. 


Ee | Scuppver, The Birds’ Bath. 467 


But there are four variations of the way of bathing, seen chiefly 
in the nesting season. Why a bird should choose one way rather 
than another is a mystery for which I have never been able to fur- 
nish any explanation, even by the wildest use of imagination. The 
factors which have been considered are the temperature, the wind, 
the amount of sun or cloud or rain, the time of day, the sex of the 
bird when it can be known from plumage, the appearance of the 
bird (for a Chipping Sparrow certainly looks as if it were more care- 
ful of its feathers and general appearance than a Phoebe is), and 
the size and kind of bird. What is left? I think that the question 
ean be solved only by one who is able to live with a bird, and keep 
up with it when it leaves its nest — which sounds very difficult. 

Now as to these different ways of bathing. In the typical form 
there is only the length of time to consider. This has ranged in 
my observation from two seconds to one hundred seconds. 

The next most common form is a series of short baths in the typi- 
cal way, each lasting from two to fifty seconds, with an average of 
about five seconds. Then the bird flies to a perch on which it 
stays a short time, sometimes with just a little shake, sometimes 
with elaborate preening of feathers. Then it takes another bath 
and flies back to the perch for drying. In this way the bath is 
repeated sometimes six or seven times. In these cases the birds 
were entirely free from fear and from disturbance, an important 
consideration. For if a bird is driven out of the water by another 
bird, it will often fly up, perch, and come back again when the other 
is through. It may be driven away several times, yet always return 
until satisfied, as if some particular length or completeness of 
bathing was necessary. 

Then comes a variation in which the bird takes a number of 
short dips, but does not shake much while in the water, though the 
wings are partly opened. 

The fourth variation consists in a very vigorous shaking on a 
perch in the air before taking a bath, which may be any of the three 
preceding kinds. But I have never seen this shaking followed by 
the fifth kind of bath. 

This fifth variation consists in keeping the wings tight shut or 
nearly tight shut, while in the water. The bird may splash about 
vigorously, or take a quiet bath. 


468 ScupprEr, The Birds’ Bath. ne 


Now I have seen these five kinds of baths taken by so many 
birds, that I am sure of their importance in bird life. Certain 
other variations occur occasionally. Thus, a Woodcock, after 
taking a typical bath, stood in the water while dressing its feathers. 
When all was done, and the feathers lying smooth, it stretched its 
wings out fully, then flapped them very quickly for about three 
seconds, raising them so high that they nearly met above its back. 
After that, it walked off quietly. 

These observations were made chiefly in the southeastern part 
of the state of New York. The birds most often seen were Blue 
Jays, Flickers and Downy Woodpeckers, Wood-Thrushes, Robins, 
Starlings, Catbirds, Scarlet Tanagers, Orioles, Bluebirds, Cowbirds, 
Red-winged Blackbirds, Brown Thrashers, and various kinds of 
vireos, flycatchers, sparrows, and warblers. 

Most of the observations were made between the middle of May 
and the middle of July, with the beginning of May and the end of 
October as limits for all but casual observation. This brings up. 
two recollections of the indifference of birds to temperature; a 
Semipalmated Plover in the late fall, after sunset, bathing for more 
than half a minute in a half frozen pool on a beach; and a herring 
gull at noon of a day in which the thermometer never was above 
ten degrees, stepping off a cake of ice in a harbor and bathing for 
nearly half a minute. 

But in hot weather, is this bathing the reason for the mid-day 
absence of birds from their usual places? Who can say? 


“LSINUACGIXV.L ‘UATANVUG “SVHY) “da LINOOTAT "Gy LH “HSaTA AHL NT ‘TT ‘SW 
“IVGL GHONIM-HOOL AO SHAVYDOLOH 


‘HWAXX SLVTd TWIXXX “TOA “ANY FHL 


Neeiee JoHNSOoN, A Four-winged Wild Duck. 469 


A FOUR-WINGED WILD-DUCK. 
BY CHARLES EUGENE JOHNSON.! 
Plates XXVII-X XIX. 


On November 18 last, the Zoélogical Museum of the University 
of Minnesota received through Mr. James Ford Bell of this city, 
a wild duck possessing a pair of supernumerary wings. The speci- 
men had been shot by Mr. J. H. Stadon, of Minneapolis, a few miles 
west of Wyoming, Minnesota. While in Mr. Bell’s possession, 
the specimen was examined also by the veteran ornithologist Dr. 
Thomas S. Roberts. The anomaly was considered sufficiently un- 
usual and interesting to merit detailed study and publication. 

Supernumerary parts in connection with the appendages of the 
body occur not infrequently among both vertebrates and inverte- 
brates. Among vertebrates they appear in a variety of forms, such 
as supernumerary fingers and toes, tails, horns, mamme, earlike 
appendages, ete. There appear also the more complex anomalies 
known as “double hands,” and “double feet; and more rarely 
there is found an extra pair of limbs nearly entire in themselves, 
attached in the vicinity of a normal pair, with more or less abnormal 
condition of the girdle, but in a body in other respects normal. The 
relative frequency of such abnormalities apparently varies in dif- 
ferent groups of vertebrates. Bateson (’94) in his extensive work, 
calls attention to the many cases of polydactylism for instance, 
known in the horse, pig, and cat, and the complete absence of any 
records for the ass and very few for the sheep and dog. For the 
human species there is a rather extensive record of such cases. In 
birds, according to the same author, the total number of cases 
recorded is comparatively small. While in the domestic fowl 
polydactylism is common, in other groups it is rare; in pigeons, 
ducks and geese it does not seem to be known. 

In the literature accessible, I have found no record of any avian 
abnormality similar to the case to be here described. Broom (’97) 


1 From the Laboratory of Comparative Anatomy of Vertebrates, Department 
of Animal Biology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 


470 Jounson, A Four-winged Wild Duck. [aoe 


records a “four-winged chick” but his specimen is of an entirely 
different character, possessing not only four wings but also four legs, 
and two tails. The spine is bifid, beginning at the base of the neck, 
and each spinal column has a corresponding pair of wings, a pair of 
legs and a tail. Diard (97) reports a four-footed duck six months 
old. In this case there is a supernumerary pair of feet separate 
and distinct as far as the ankle joint, where each has its own artic- 
ulation with a bifid enlargement at the end of a shaft of bone which 
apparently corresponds to fused tibio-tarsal elements of the two 
appendages. There is no distinct femoral segment differentiated, 
the feet being suspended from the previously mentioned shaft which 
articulates with the pelvis on the left dorsal side, at the junction 
of the synsacrum and caudal vertebre. The feet themselves are 
abnormal. The left is larger and possesses three toes fully webbed; 
the smaller right foot has only two well formed webbed toes and 
an inner rudimentary digit. The fourth, posterior toe is lacking 
in each. The feet are furthermore somewhat deformed and 
atrophied and incapable of movement. 

Tornier (01) describes among other abnormalities three hens 
and two ducks, each with a pair of supernumerary legs appended 
to an abnormal pelvis. In addition to the accessory limbs, each 
of these specimens had two supernumerary ceca and the rectal 
segment of the gut was forked, presenting two cloacal chambers 
and anal openings. 

The subject of the present paper is an adult female Green-winged 
Teal (Nettion carolinense). Ina letter describing the circumstances 
in which the specimen was obtained, Mr. Stadon says: : 

“Tt may be of interest to know that the bird had no difficulty in 
flying but was peculiar from the fact that it flew out from some thick 
grass bordering a small creek back in the woods, whereas this species 
of duck, in my experience, more often stays along the protected 
shore of a lake when resting. Furthermore, I had not seen another 
Green-wing in that locality for at least two weeks before this one 
was killed. Pretty sure the rest of the species had migrated.” 

External features. The left wing of the normal or primary pair 
had been shot off at the elbow, otherwise the two sides are essen- 
tially alike in external appearance. When the primary wings are 
raised the supernumerary wings appear as a miniature set springing 


‘LOGdSV WANNI WOU ‘ACIS LHDIN AHL JO SHAMUN GNV SATIOSOW dO NOILOUSSICG “€ “SIA 


‘Jul | IQ N 
JO 
YouBslg [BIpey 


Jul | aq N 


>»: 


P yna) sdonqW 
! 


‘Aodq ad * 
~Q . Suoy ad Jl 
] PRI Jou 4X9 TN “ 
‘Sip Jord ‘Xo[J W 
AvAq [0 dea xo WW 


THAXX FLV Id 


jut | tq N 
(7nd) JO 


oe W =Yyouraq eu) 


.\ 


ref 7 & N 
J yr dies xolt NY 


‘1IXXX “TOA “ANY FHL 


ies JoHnson, A Fowr-winged Wild Duck. 471 
from the under side of the former at the region of the elbow, pre- 
senting corresponding surfaces and with divisions of forearm and 
hand clearly indicated. The feathery covering shows no modifi- 
cations representing flight feathers but consists of under wing- 
coverts which belong primarily to the feather tracts of the normal 
pair. The broadly white-tipped posterior series of under wing- 
coverts of the primary wing continues onto the posterior margin 
of the supernumerary appendage while the rest of the latter is 
covered with the smaller, darker feathers of the anterior series. 

The accessory wing of each side feels rigid at the elbow and has 
no movement independent of the primary wing. It is partly flexed 
at the point corresponding to the carpal region and here it can be 
felt that a slight movement is possible, but apparently complete 
flexion or extension can not take place. When the primary wings 
are folded in place against the body the tips of the smaller set pro- 
ject beyond their margins ventrally as a pair of inconspicuous 
feather tufts. The mght projects a trifle further, and the integu- 
ment covering its tip is scarred. The accessory wings may possibly 
during life have interfered somewhat with the folding of the larger 
pair though in the dead bird this is not apparent. 

Skeleton. It is evident that in an abnormality like the present 
case any attempt to speak of homologies must result more or less 
unsatisfactorily. This applies to the bony parts as well as to the 
muscles, and while in the following account the supernumerary 
parts may be referred to in terms of normal structures it is not in- 
tended to convey the impression that homologies in any strict 
sense exist. 

No abnormal features were found in the shoulder girdle. On 
the two sides the bony elements of the accessory wings are essen- 
tially alike from the elbow joint distally but the upperarm portions 
present markedly different conditions. 

On the left side (Fig. 5) the distal end of the humerus of the pri- 
mary wing is shattered. The remaining part of the bone is of 
normal shape. On the inner aspect of this bone, at the junction 
of the shaft with the head is a slender process of bone 7 mm. 
in length, extending roughly parallel with the shaft of the humerus. 
At its distal end the process passes into a slender, cylindrical, tendi- 
nous ligament 15 mm. in length, which continues toward the 


472 Jounson, A Four-winged Wild Duck. ae 


elbow joint, and somewhat beyond the proximal half of the humerus, 
passes over into another bony process, similar to the first men- 
tioned but longer, measuring about 18 mm. in total length. This 
process terminates in an enlarged headlike end, which, in life, was 
anchylosed on its lateral side to the median epicondylar region of 
the humerus of the primary wing by a rather narrow, low ridge of 
bone. The ligament, near its proximal end has a loop which evi- 
dently has resulted from tension exerted by the nerves to the biceps 
muscle, which lie in this loop. The median nerve passes distally 
between the ligament and the shaft of the humerus. The parts 
described, it will thus be seen, represent the imperfectly developed 
humerus of the left secondary or accessory wing. 

On the right side, the humerus of the primary wing is somewhat 
stouter than that on the left. At about the middle of the shaft 
(Fig. 3) on its inner aspect, there becomes evident a rather narrow, 
rounded ridge of bone which further distally differentiates into a 
slender cylindrical shaft, terminating in an enlarged end similar to 
that of the left side, and anchylosed to the median epicondylar 
region of the primary humerus. This represents the humerus of 
the right accessory wing. At only one place does this shaft become 
entirely free from the primary humerus; here a narrow foramen is 
formed, about 6 mm. in length, transmitting a branch of the 
Nervus brachialis longus inferior. 

The forearm skeleton is represented by a single bone. The 
general shape and articular relations are those of a radius rather 
than an ulna. It is set at an angle of about thirty-three and a 
third degrees with the corresponding humeral element, with the 4 
distal end of which it is firmly anchylosed. The bone measures 
43 mm. in length, as compared with 50 mm. of the radius of the 
primary wing, and is approximately of the same diameter as the 
latter. The corresponding bone of the right side is practically 
identical in size and shape but is anchylosed at right angles to the 
upperarm segment. The exact relations of the left forearm bone. 
to the primary humerus have been destroyed by the shot wound, 
but its lateral surface shows that an anchylosis has existed similar 
to that of the right side. The principal difference is that the left 
forearm bone forms a sharper angle with the two humeri. On the 
right side where the elbow articulations are intact, the accessory 


Niger same Jounson, A Fowr-winged Wild Duck. 473 
forearm forms an angle of about forty degrees with the plane of 
motion of the primary forearm upon the upperarm, and evidently 
could offer no hindrance to the movements of the large wing in 
flight. 

Distally, the forearm bone articulates with two small bony ele- 
ments which from their position would seem to represent respec- 
tively the radial (Rad. carp.) and ulnar (UI. carp.) carpal bones of 
the normal wing. 

The carpal region of the right side possesses no separate radial 
element, but such a bone is possibly represented by a knob-like 
process on the metacarpal element, which forms the articulation 
with the radius. 

The metacarpal skeleton consists of a single elongate, cylindric 
bone, somewhat enlarged at its proximal end. It is approximately 
two-thirds the length of the forearm bone. Articulating with the 
metacarpal bone and terminating the series is a single relatively 
short phalanx. 

On the right side (Fig. 3) there is likewise but a single phalangeal 
element; it is slightly longer than the left and bent medially at 
right angles to the metacarpal element with which it is immovably 
anchylosed. 

It will be seen in the figures that a different degree of flexion exists 
at the two carpal joints. While the joint surfaces here permit of 
motion, it is clear from the restrictions of the fascia about these 
joints, as well as from the inadequate muscle supply later described, 
that movement must necessarily have been very limited. 

Muscles and nerves. Like the skeleton, the muscles of the two 
accessory wings present similar conditions from the elbow distally, 
but in the upperarm the left side alone possesses muscles and these 
are only two in number and of rudimentary character. Distad of 
the carpal region there are no muscles, but a tendon from one of 
the forearm muscles finds its insertion beyond this region. 

The rudimentary muscles of the left upperarm are innervated 
by branches from the nerves to the biceps muscle of the primary 
wing. The nerve connections to the accessory forearm muscles 
of this side could not be positively made out on account of previous 
mutilation. The muscles of the corresponding right forearm 
receive their innervation from the Nervus brachialis longus inferior 


474 Jounson, A Four-winged Wild Duck. Ges 


(Fig. 3, N. br. 1. inf.). A single nerve enters the fleshy part of the 
forearm at its base, on the under side, and distributes to the various 
muscles. This nerve is formed by the union of two branches from 
the N. brachialis longus inferior, one of which accompanies the 
radial branch of the last named through the slit-like passage formed 
. between the upperarm bones. No branch from the Nervus radialis 
was found to pass to the muscles of the supernumerary wing. 

The ulnar branch of the N. brachialis longus inferior, instead of 
crossing the hollow of the elbow as in normal conditions, reaches 
its destination by passing around over the convex surface of the 
anchylosed elbow joint of the accessory wing. 

With regard to symmetry, the arrangement of the muscles and 
nerves seems to indicate that the primary and accessory wings on 
each side are not related to each other as right and left, that is, as 
halves of the undivided wing; but that the smaller wing represents 
an imperfect copy of the larger. 

On the left side two slender but well defined muscles are connected 
with the upperarm bone of the supernumerary wing. Both arise 
as offshoots from the biceps muscle of the primary wing; one from 
the posterior edge of the tendon of origin of the short head, near’ 
its attachment to the head of the humerus; the other from the 
ventral surface of the belly of the muscle at its proximal end. The 
fleshy part of the latter of these two muscles extends distally beyond 
the former, reaching nearly to the elbow jomt. Here both insert 
by closely associated tendon slips, in the angle between the distal, 
bony process of the accessory humeral element and the correspond- 
ing forearm bone. ; 

On the anterior face of the forearm bone lies a relatively large, 
dorso-ventrally flattened muscle (Fig. 4, 1) which arises by two 
short heads; one from the area of anchylosis between the forearm 
and the corresponding upperarm bones, on the outer anterior surface; 
the other from the anterior surface of the last named bone, adjacent 
to the anchylosis. The innervating branch from the N. brachialis 
longus inferior enters between the two heads. The muscle inserts 
for the greater part of its length on the forearm bone, extending 
distally as far as the last quarter of the shaft. In position, form 
and insertion, and in a general way in its origin, this muscle corre- 
sponds to the M. pronator brevis of normal wings. 


“NOILOUSSIG ONTIYUNG NAMOUR ATLNACIDOV 
SYM SOQUANNAH AYVINAWIGNY GH], “AGIS LAHT AHL dO ONIM AUYOSSHOOV AHL AO NOLAAGMS GNV SOUANWOH AUVNIYG “G ‘Sly 
“LOGdSVY YUALNO WOUd ‘DNIM AUOSSHOOV DLHDIU wo S@TOSOPT ‘- “OI 


Tad 


“XIXX ALWTd ‘IIXXX “TOA “ANY FHL 


oe | JoHNSON, A Fouwr-winged Wild Duck. 475 


To the outer side of this muscle is a spindle-shaped muscle 
(Fig. 4, 2) originating by a relatively long, narrow and flattened 
tendon from the outer, posterior surface of the anchylosis and pass- 
ing distally, obliquely across the anterior surface of the forearm 
bone, to become inserted also by a relatively long, slender tendon 
on the anterior, inner surface of the proximal end of the metacarpal 
bone. The relations of this muscle closely approach those of the 
M. extensor metacarpi radialis longior of the normal wing, but 
the two well defined heads of the latter are here lacking. This 
muscle would have a pronating action upon the metacarpus in 
addition to the extending function. It is to be noted that the inner- 
vation of this muscle is by a branch from the N. brachialis longus 
inferior, while the M. extensor metacarpi radialis longior in the 
normal wing is supplied by the Nervus radialis. 

On the under or medial surface of the anchylosed area there arises, 
partly by fleshy fibers and partly by a flattened tendon, a muscle 
mass which further distally is differentiated into two muscles, each 
with along, slender tendon. One of these components (Figs. 3 and 4, 
3) is proximal, and its tendon which is much the longer, passes to 
the under side of the wrist where it is held in place by a fibrous 
sheath, and thence courses along the under surface of the metacarpal 
bone to become inserted at the base of the phalanx. The other, 
more distal muscle becomes inserted into the fibrous capsule of the 
wrist joint, on its under side and anteriorly, where its tendon is 
held in place by the tendon of muscle 2. The first of these 
muscles has an insertion .corresponding rather closely to the M. 
flexor profundus digitorum, the second to the M. flexor carpi ulnaris 
brevior of normal wings. 

On the ulnar side of the under surface of the forearm is a super- 
ficial, broad, thickened, tendinous sheath (Figs. 3 and 4, T. s.). This 
sheath encloses the elbow joint of the supernumerary wing prox1- 
mally, and about the middle of the forearm it separates into two 
bands which diverge, one passing to the outer side of the carpal 
joint where it inserts, and the other, a narrower band, passing to its 
insertion on the inner side of the joint. This tendinous sheath 
encloses a comparatively stout muscle, 5, which is exposed in its 
distal half by the division of the sheath. The muscle originates on 
the inner epicondylar region of the rudimentary upperarm bone by 


476 JoHNsoNn, A Four-winged Wild Duck. es 


a thickened fibro-cartilaginous ligament (Fig. 3, Fl.) about 6 mm. 
in length by 2 mm. in width, which strongly suggests the humero- 
ulnar pulley of the normal wing. The lhgament is followed by a 
flattened tendon of origin and this, at about the second third of the 
forearm, passes into the muscular portion which has its insertion 
direct upon the entire posterior border of the ulnar bone of the car- 
pus. Some fibers of the muscle arise from the inner surface of the 
enveloping tendinous sheath. This muscle occupies a position 
corresponding to that of the M. flexor carpi ulnaris of the normal 
wing. 

Viewing the muscles of the abnormal wing as a whole, one may — 
fancy the arrangemént as an attempt to dispose of the muscles 
formed, in a manner as closely approaching the normal plan as the 
skeletal conditions of the case and the muscle material available 
would permit. 

The question of causes. With regard to the causes underlying 
the formation of supernumerary digits or limbs in nature, it may be 
said that our knowledge is very meager. That supernumerary 
structures of this kind may be artificially induced in some of the 
lower vertebrates, often with constant and predictable results, has 
long been established. And that such parts occur in nature from 
causes analogous to those of the experimental laboratory is doubt- 
less true; but it is also undoubtedly true that a great many cases 
occur which are entirely independent of such external causes. 

As Barfurth (95) has pointed out, a number of investigators 
have held the theory — and he calls this the atavistic theory — that 
polydactylism represents a “ throw-back”’ (Riickschlag) to an older 
primitive type of limb which possessed more than five digits. This, 
because it had been observed that the accessory digit occurred 
especially in connection with either the first or the last digit of the 
normal series, and a like supernumerary digit was often known to 
occur in the same individual on both hand and foot, and was inherit- 
able. Bardeleben, Wiedersheim and others, for instance, assumed 
that the primitive mammalian limb was not pentadactyl but hep- 
tadactyl. Still others pointed further back to the rays of an ances- 
tral fin type. 

It would indeed seem that if, in an animal where the normal digi- 
tal condition for its particular group represents a reduction in 


| JOHNSON, A Four-winged Wild Duck. ia 
number from the pentadactyl type of its class, the full number of 
five digits should abnormally occur, these accessory digits might 
in reality represent a reversion to the ancestral type; as for example, 
when a fifth finger occurs in some urodelous amphibians which 
normally possess four fingers. 

A second view is that of double embryonic anlagen. Here the 
normal anlage has become divided either through some extrinsic 
perhaps mechanical agency, or through an intrinsic peculiarity of 
the germ-plasm. 

According to a third view, the supernumerary digits or limbs are 
simply malformations or pathological growths that belong in the 
category of duplicate formations (Doppelbildungen) which first 
arise as germinal variations, and are inheritable. 

In the efforts of the various authors holding the views just men- 
tioned, Barfurth finds a more or less evident tendency to assign all 
cases of supernumerary digits etc. toa common cause. He, himself, 
believes that they result from a variety of causes. 

Among external influences the amnion is considered by some 
authors as the cause of accessory appendages. Tornier (’97) con- 
siders it an established fact that amniotic folds or bands are respon- 
sible for some cases of supernumerary digits or limbs in mammals; 
that this is true not only where such parts occur on one side of the 
body, but also where they appear on both sides, similar and simul- 
taneous. He cites the case of a pig’s foot in the Zoological Institute 
of the University of Leipzig, in which he declares one may follow 
out in detail the history of the processes by which the end result 
was produced. According to his view an amniotic band or fold 
may press against the pelvis or a shoulder blade of the enibryo in 
such a way that a portion becomes pinched off; or a swelling or 
protuberance arises in which a process of regeneration sets in, pro- 
ducing a structure that in greater or less degree is a duplicate of the 
part from which it sprang; or a growing limb bud may be split by 
the penetration into it of such folds or bands. Tornier based his 
conclusions upon a study of both birds and mammals. 

Opposed to this view in regard to the influence of the amnion 
stand the observations of Kaufmann-Wolf (’08). In an extensive 
study on the domestic fowl in adult and in embryo, this investi- 
gator found no evidence that the embryonic mémbranes, amnion 


478 Jounson, A Four-winged Wild Duck. loee 


or allantois, play any part in the formation of polydactylism, and 
believes that these membranes cannot be adduced as causative 
factors in the production of such anomalies. Painstaking search 
in embryonic stages showing incipient polydactylism — one series 
in particular having the embryonic membranes faultlessly preserved 
— failed to suggest the possibility of amniotic influence. Further- 
more the early appearance of the anlage of the supernumerary 
digits, at a time when the foot-plate possesses no indentations what- 
ever, speaks against such external agency and justifies the view 
that if in any other amniote, in much later stages, amniotic bands 
or folds are found in the clefts between supernumerary digits, they 
have invaded the depressions secondarily. Kaukmann-Wolf holds 
the view that polydactylism is due to internal influences which 
in our present state of knowledge cannot in detail be satisfactorily 
analyzed. 

In certain amphibians which possess notably marked capacity 
for regeneration, such as Siredon and Triton, Barfurth, and Tornier 
(97) produced with regularity supernumerary limbs by means of 
more or less complex amputations and other forms of injury, the 
accessory parts being here produced by regeneration at the wound 
surfaces. From the results of his experiments Tornier concluded 
that embryonically initiated extra digits or limbs in Anamnia are 
due to influences analogous to those produced by the embryonic 
membranes of Amniota; that is, to some stress producing a warp- 
ing, twisting or splitting of the developing part, thereby inducing 
regenerative processes or complete division. In both vertebrate 
groups Tornier thus believes that the underlying causes are of 
external nature. 

From the opposing views here briefly outlined it will be seen that 
the problem of causes is far from a satisfactory solution. 

In regard to the case recorded in this paper it would seem that 
the embryonic membranes must be excluded as causative factors. 
The fact that the radial branch of the N. brachialis longus inferior 
lies between the primary and accessory upper arm bones, indicates 
that the latter of these bones is not the result of a splitting off from 
an originally normal embryonic humerus by the ingrowth of an 
amniotic band, or other mechanical agency, for in that case we 


should expect to find the nerve which precedes the skeletal parts in © 


a _— © 2S 


| Jounson, A Four-winged Wild Duck. 479 


development, mesiad of the accessory element; and there is no 
reason to believe that the distal and proximal parts of the super- 
numerary wing are not the result of the same cause. Furthermore, 
it seems improbable that complications in the embryonic membranes 
should arise on the two sides simultaneously, of such nature as to 
produce substantially identical results. Taking this anomaly as 
a whole, the extent to which the entire wing is involved, the imper- 
fect separation of the accessory upper arm bone, the absence of 
other impressions and disturbances in adjacent soft parts which one 
might expect as a result of such agencies, there seems to me no basis 
for believing that embryonic membranes have here been implicated 
directly or indirectly. What other extrinsic agencies acting merely 
on the skeletal anlage of the wing alone, or upon the wing-bud as a 
whole, might have produced the conditions found, are difficult 
toimagine. The more probable view for this case, it appears to me, 
is that it resulted from some inherent abnormality of the anlage of 
the extremity, of germinal origin. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Banta, A. M., and Gortner, R. A. 
1915. Accessory appendages and other abnormalities produced in 
amphibian larve through the action of centrifugal force. 
Journ. of Exper. Zool., vol. 18. 
BaRFurRTH, D. 
1895. Die experimentelle Regeneration uebershiissiger Gliedmassen- 
theile (Polydactylie) bei den Amphibien. Arch. fiir Entw.- 
Mech., Bd. 1. 
Bateson, Wm. 
1894. Materials for the Study of Variation. Macmillan & Co., 
New York. 
Bonnet, M. 
1777. Mémoire sur la reproduction des membres de la Salamandre 
aquatique. Paris. Mémoire X. 
1779. Observation sur la physique, etc. par Rozier. Mémoire XIII. 
Broom, Rost. 
1897. On the anatomy of a four-winged chick. Trans. Nat. Hist. 
Soc., Glasgow, N.S. vol. 4, pt. 3- 
DIARD, 
1897. Canard a quatre pattes (monstre pygoméle). Bull. Soc. Hist. 
nat., Autun. No. 10, pt. 2. 
Dwicut, THOMAS. 
1893. Fusion of hands. Anat. Anz. 


A480 Jounson, A Four-winged Wild Duck. face 


FACKENHEIM, J. 
1888. Ueber einen Fall von _ hereditirer Polydactylie. Jenais. 
Zeitschr. fur Naturw., Bd. 22. 
‘Gapow, H. 
1891. Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen. VI. 4. 
GEGENBAUR, C. 
1880. Kritische Bemerkungen ueber Polydactylie als Atavismus. 
Morph. Jahrb., Bd. 6. 
GRONBERG, G. 
1894. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der polydactylen Hiithnerrassen. Anat. 
Anz. 
KK a&sTNeER, 8. 
1899. Neuer Beitrag zur Casuistik der Doppelbildungen bei Hiihner- 
embryonen. Arch. f. Anat. u. Entwick., Anat. Abth. 
1898. Doppelbildungen bei Wirbelthieren. Ein Beitrag zur Casuis- 
tik. Arch. f. Anat. u. Entwick., Anat. Abth. 
KKAUFMANN-Wo tr, Marin. 
1908. Embryologische und anatomische Beitrige zur Hyperdactylie 
(Houdanhuhn). Morph. Jahrb., Bd. 38. 
Kirxuam, W. B. and Haaearp, H. W. 
1915. A comparative study of the shoulder region of the normal 
and of a wingless fowl. Anat. Rec., vol. 9, No. 2. 
LEIGHTON, V. J. 
1894. The development of the wing in Sterna wilsonii. Amer, Nat., 
vol. 28. 
SUiae nay Nha ate 
1908. The development of the chick. Henry Holt & Co., New York. 
Matt, F. P. ; 
1908. A study of the causes underlying the origin of human monsters. 
Journ. of Morph., vol. 9. 
Paterson, A. M. 
1888. On the fate of the muscle-plate and the development of the 
spinal nerves and limb plexuses in birds and mammals. 
Quart. Journ. Mier. Sci., vol. 28. 
SSHUFELDT, R. W. 
1890. The myology of the raven. Macmillan & Co., New York. 
‘ToRNIER, G. 
1897. Ueber experimentell erzeugte dreischwinzige Eidechsen und 
Doppelgliedmassen von Molchen. Zool. Anz., Bd. 20. 
Ueber Operationsmethoden welche sicher Hyperdactylie 
erzeugen mit Bemerkungen iiber Hyperdactylie und Hyper- 
pedie. Zool. Anz., Bd. 20. 
1898. Ein Fall von Polymelie beim Frosch mit Nachweis der Ent- 
stehungsursachen. Zool. Anz., Bd. 21. 
1901. Neues iiber das natiirliche Entstehen und experimentelle 
Erzeugen iiberzihliger und Zwillungsbildungen. Zool. Anz., 
Bd. 24. 


eee Banes, Dichromatic Herons and Hawks. 481 


NOTES ON DICHROMATIC HERONS AND HAWKS. 
BY OUTRAM BANGS. 


In the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 
Vol. XXV, pp. 53-58, Oberholser gives a detailed account of the 
-so-called Butorides brunescens (Lembeye) of Cuba and the Isle of 
Pines and emphatically states his belief that it is a true species 
quite distinct from the Cuban form of Butorides virescens with 
which it sporadically occurs in the two islands just mentioned. 
He admits that in size and proportion it exactly agrees with the 
ordinary Green Heron of Cuba. 

Theoretically I have always held the opposite opinion. There 
is nothing about Butorides brunescens that suggests specific dis- 
‘tinction to me, everything seeming to point rather to this peculiar 
‘form being nothing more or less than an erythristic phase of plum- 
age of Butorides virescens. 

Up to now, extreme examples of the Weenie phase of plum- 
-age have been recorded only from Cuba and the Isle of Pines, 
although as stated by Thayer and myself, and by Oberholser, 
many specimens from the Pearl Islands, Bay of Panama, show a 
very decided approach to it, some being nearly as extreme as Cuban 
skins. Ina series of twenty-two specimens from the Pearl Islands, 
just one half show more or less of this erythristic tendency. 
_ The other half of the series (eleven skins) is made up of birds in 
absolutely normal plumage — quite indistinguishable so far as 
color and markings are concerned from typical examples of Buto- 
rides virescens. 

Peters, Auk, Vol. XXX, p. 370, described at some length a young- 
ish green heron, M. C. Z. no. 60699, taken by himself at Camp 
Mengel, Quintana Roo, Mexico, February 7, 1912, that shows 
decided erythrism and that closely approaches the brunescens type 
of coloration. 

Lately while cataloguing that part of the Howe-Shattuck col- 
lection of birds which was transferred from the Boston Society of 
Natural History to the Museum of Comparative Zodlogy, in a long 
series of Green Herons from Florida, I found one adult female in 


482 Banes, Dichromatic Herons and Hawks. as 


extreme brunescens plumage. This skin, now M. C. Z. no. 72982, 
was taken March 22, 1902, at Madeira Hummock, Florida, and was 
in beautiful, fresh spring plumage. Its neck is a little darker than 
in specimens in normal plumage, is unicolor lacking all traces of 
either whitish or dusky markings even on the throat and chin; 
the belly is dark and reddish and but slightly contrasted against 
the color of the neck; the wing-edge has no whitish on it whatever; 
the wing coverts are all very narrowly edged with dark rusty 
brown, with no creamy or whitish anywhere. It affords the fol- 


lowing measurements — wing, 166 mm.; tail feathers, 53; tarsus, 
51; exposed culmen, 62. : 

Unfortunately the measurements taken from this example are 
not positive proof that it was bred in Florida. The chance how- 
ever, of its having wandered from Cuba to where it was killed 
seems rather remote, and I regard it as pretty certainly an instance 
of erythrism of the continental Green Heron — Butorides virescens 
virescens (Linn.). In his Revision of the subspecies of the Green 
Heron (Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 42, pp. 529-577) Oberholser 
gives in his list of measurements, the length of wing in females of 
B. virescens virescens, as ranging from 160 to 185. In females of 
his B. virescens cubanus from 155 to 174. The Cuban form does, 
of course, average smaller in all measurements than B. virescens 
virescens, but single individuals cannot be separated, if their meas- 
urements happen to fall — as in the case of the specimen I have just 
described — between the extremes. 

Cory’s Least Bittern, Ixobrychus neoxenus (Cory), is a similar 
case of nothing more or less than erythrism of the common Least 
Bittern, Ixobrychus exilis (Gml.) as I have wholly satisfied myself 
by an examination of specimens, which vary among themselves 
as to the degree of erythrism shown. It crops out, here and there, 
anywhere, within the range of the species, and has no distinct 
range of its own. 

Another dichromatism common among herons, and now thor- 
oughly well understood, is the very striking one, of a pure white 
—albinistic — phase, and a normally colored,— usually bluish 
and reddish — phase shown by the same species. The three 
species showing this extraordinary tendency, and now admitted by | 
nearly all systematic ornithologists to be dichromatic, are the Red- 


err aage | Banas, Dichromatic Herons and Hawks. 483 


dish Egret of America, Dichromanassa rufescens (Gml.) whose white 
phase has been named D. pealei (Bp.). In some places, especially 
in some of the Bahamas, this species presents a mixed plumage, 
partly white and partly blue, called by Maynard Ardea rufa mutata. 
The Reef Heron, Demigretta sacra (Gml.) of the coasts and islands 
of the Indian and Pacific Oceans; and the Little Blue Heron, 
Florida cerulea (Linn.). In this latter species the white dress is 
usually a sign of immaturity, and is changed, for a blue one as the 
bird becomes fully adult. But this is not always the case. I have 
myself seen birds breeding in the white plumage, and fancy that 
such individuals retain the white dress throughout life. 

Albinism, melanism and erythrism are of course but manifes- 
tations of an abnormal condition of pigmentation, and as such are 
directly inherited. Thus, miscolored forms of this kind may appear 
to have geographic limitations, similar to those of real subspecies. 

All these facts being perfectly well known, and all other Herons 
showing dichromatism having been finally treated as such by orni- 
thologists, it seems to me extraordinary that the Great White Heron 
of Florida should still be dealt with as though it were a species. 

There is an accumulation of evidence now, both printed and on 
the labels of museum specimens, to show that Ardea occidentalis 
Aud. and Ardea herodias wardi Ridg. breed together freely. We 
also have an intermediate form in Ardea wiirdemanni Baird, that 
is very variable, sometimes shading toward the blue phase, some- 
times toward the white phase. All three are of exactly the same 
size and proportions, and show no specific characters except color, 
which I consider has no real significance in such a case. 

In Cuba and the Isle of Pines a Great White Heron also occurs, 
associated with birds in normal plumage,— Ardea repens Bangs and 
Zappey. This form can be separated from the Great White Heron 
of Florida by its lesser dimensions. In size and proportions it 
exactly agrees with the Great Blue Heron of the West Indies, the 
white phase of which I unhesitatingly pronounce it to be. 

I should therefore propose to change the standing of some of the 
American Herons as follows — 

Ixobrythus neoxenus (Cory) must become a synonym of 


IxoBRYCHUS EXILIS (Gml.). 


484 Banas, Dichromatic Herons and Hawks. ane 


Ardea herodias wardi Ridg. and Ardea wiirdemanni Baird both 
become synonyms of 


ARDEA HERODIAS OCCIDENTALIS Aud. 
The West Indies Great Blue Heron, becomes 
ARDEA HERODIAS REPENS Bangs & Zappey, 


with Ardea herodias adoxa Oberholser as a synonym, and the 
Cuban Green Heron, if really distinct from Butorides virescens- 
maculatus (Bodd.), of Martinique, which I doubt, becomes, 


BUTORIDES VIRESCENS BRUNESCENS (Lemb.) 


with Butorides virescens cubanus Oberholser a synonym. 

The Hawks, now admitted by, I think, all bird anatomists to be 
close relations of the Herons, show an array of color variation due 
to melanism, erythrism and even albinism, such as no other group 
of birds presents. The melanistic forms are so common, have 
been so much discussed and are so well known that I shall pass 
them by entirely here. 

The most sharply marked instance of dichromatism, that I know 
in the Hawks, that is due to erythrism, is in the Cuban Sparrow 
Hawk, Falco sparverius sparveroides Vig. In Cuba and the Isle 
of Pines, the normally colored pale birds and the reddish brown,. 
erythristic examples, are about equally common, occur everywhere 
together, and breed, mated indiscriminately. 

An instance of albinism in the Hawks, which on account of the 
tendency of the causes of this disease to be inherited, gives the bird. 
a semblance of geographical limitations like those of a subspecies, - 
is the famous white Goshawk of Kamchatka and parts of east 
Siberia, Accipiter | gentilis albidus (Menzb.). This bird has recently 
been discussed at length by Hartert, (Die Végel der paliarktischen, 
Fauna, Vol. II, p. 1149), who points out that normally colored birds. 
do occur with it, as well as all intermediate stages, and who considers. 
it only an albinistic phase of Accipiter g. schvedowi (Menzb.). 

I have no doubt myself that the White Goshawk of Australia, 
Accipiter nove-hollandie (Gmel.), is an albinistic phase of Accipiter 
cinereus (Vieill.) with which it occurs in the same regions. 


1 Astur, of course, if one wants to recognize that genus. 


THE AUK, VoL. XXXII: PLATE XXX. 


Fossiz Remains or Extinct Cormorant, Phalacrocorax macropus, 
FROM MontTaANa. 


be ima SHUFELDT, Extinct Cormorant found in Montana. 485 


FOSSIL REMAINS OF THE EXTINCT CORMORANT 
PHALACROCORAX MACROPUS FOUND IN MONTANA. 


BY R. W. SHUFELDT, M.D. 
Plate: A 3. 


CHARLES H. STERNBERG was the first one to discover the fossil 
bones of a large extinct cormorant in the Pliocene formation of 
Oregon. These bones belonged to a number, or rather represented 
a number of individuals of different ages and probably both sexes. 
Subsequently, Cope described this extinct cormorant and named 
it Graculus macropus.' 

Several years afterwards, under the name Phalacrocorax macro- 
pus, I reéxamined the thirty-four parts of fossil bones of the 
collection made by Sternberg, and compared them with the corre- 
sponding ones in several species of existing cormorants found in 
the avifauna of the United States. A table of measurements was 
also made and presented.? Including the two metacarpi that 
originally belonged in the Condon collection, there were four more 
or less imperfect specimens of that bone of the skeleton represented, 
while none of these fragments were figured on the plates. 

Thus our knowledge of this cormorant stood up to the ninth of 
July, 1913, when the American Museum of Natural History of 
New York City issued its ‘ Bulletin’ containing my “ Review of the 
Fossil Fauna of the Desert Region of Oregon, with a Description 
of Additional Material Collected there.” (Vol. XXXII, Art. vi, 
pp. 123-178. Pls. ix—xliu, figs. 1-578.) In this work I refer to 
what was formerly set forth in the Philadelphia Academy memoir, 
and the remark is made that “The present reéxamination of the 
material tends to confirm this latter opinion; and, as the fossil 
bones of P. macropus have never been illustrated, I have devoted 
four plates and many figures to them in the present paper.” 


1 Cope, E. D.; Bull. U. S. Geol. and Geogr. Surv. of Terr., Vol. IV, No. 2 (1878). 


_ pp. 386, 387. 


2 Shufeldt, R. W. ‘‘A Study of the Fossil Avifauna of the Equus Beds of the 
Oregon. Desert.’ Jour. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., Vol. IX, Pls. xv—xvii, Phila., Oct... 
1892; pp. 389-425. 


eee 


486 SHUFELDT, Extinct Cormorant found in Montana. Oct. 


With respect to the present article, the bones which interest us 
here are to be found on Plate xxi of the aforesaid ‘ Bulletin’ (figs. 
262-264), and they represent different fragmental parts of three car- 
pometacarpi of an adult Phalacrocorax macropus. Figs. 262 and 
263 are of left-side bones, the first beg rather more than the proxi- 
mal moiety; fig. 264 is of the distal portion of a carpometacar- 
pus from the right side. The latter does not especially interest 
us in the present connection, while figs. 262 and 263 distinctly 
do, as I shall show further on in this paper. 

Up to include the early part of the year 1915, no fossil remains 
of Phalacrocorax macropus had been discovered outside the State 
of Oregon, and if they had, such a discovery was not known to 
science. Early in February of that year, Mr. Charles W. Gilmore, 
of the Division of Vertebrate Paleontology of the United States 
National Museum, referred some fossil bone material to me for 
examination, reference, and publication. This material consisted 
of one large and two smaller pieces. (Figs. 1 and 2, Plate XXX.) 
The largest fragment and the one next in size to it had been repaired 
by sealing them together with plaster-of-paris,—an excellent 
piece of work done by one of Mr. Gilmore’s assistants at the mu- 
seum. <A few fossil and imperfect bones were firmly fixed in the 
matrix of the latter piece, the principal one apparently being the 
rib of some teleostean fish; these bones do not concern us here. 
On the twelfth of February, 1915, I photographed the two other 
fragments, natural size, and in such a way as to show the fossil 
bones the fragments contained. (See Plate XXX.) It will be ob- 
served that the smaller fragment presented in it a vertebra and 
a rib of some adult teleostean fish of the period, which may or may 
not be known to science, and only interest us here from the fact 
that they occur in connection with the fossil bird bones found in 
the largest fragment (Fig. 2). These, with the other specimens, 
were collected by Mr. C. M. Bauer on the twenty-fifth of October, 
1914, while employed by the United States Geological Survey in 
southeastern Montana. Mr. Bauer was in charge of this collecting 
party at the time in question, and in noting this specimen he entered 
the following remarks in his record (p. B 62): “Fish Bones. Local- 
ity T. 53 R. 60 E. North Side Cottonwood Creek: Base of Arikaree. 
Oct. 25, 714.” Mr. Gilmore has catalogued this specimen at the 


ae | SHUFELDT, Extinct Cormorant found in Montana. 487 
National Museum under number 3251, and informs me that it is 
from the Lower Miocene formation. 

Passing now to an examination of the large fragment shown in 
Fig. 2 of the Plate, I must first deplore the fact that whoever col- 
lected this specimen apparently labored under the impression that 
all the fossil bones in the matrix were those of some fish, and not 
sufficiently perfect to be of any use to the paleontologist. He 
therefore, very evidently, did not bring in all that he could have 
brought, and probably would have, had he known or appreciated 
their real value. 

All the specimens of fossil bones in this largest fragment are those 
of some large bird or other. They consist of a rib, the proximal 
part of a left carpometacarpus; a large phalanx from a bird’s foot; 
also a small, pedal joint, and other pieces too fragmentary to iden- 
tify. These fossil bones I believe all belonged to the same adult 
individual, with the possible exception of a rib, which may be a 
fish’s rib, though I am much more inclined to believe it to be a 
costal rib of the same individual. 

The carpometacarpus has its direct anconal aspect exposed, the 
shaft being hollow and crushed inwards for its upper portion. This 
bone is the key to the species which the specimens represent. Be- 
fore making any comparisons, I pronounced that the bird repre- 
sented was a specimen of Phalacrocorax macropus; and as a matter 
of fact, and as subsequently proven, this upper portion of a carpo- 
metacarpus agrees exactly, in the matters of measurement, propor- 
tions, characters, and form with the corresponding fragment of a 
carpometacarpus of Phalacrocorax macropus mentioned in a former 
paragraph of this paper. (Fig. 262, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 
July 9, 1913.) 

It is the largest bone in the matrix shown in Fig. 2 of the Plate 
of the present paper. The one next in size is evidently the long, 
proximal joint of the hallux (of one or the other of the feet) of this 
cormorant. Its dorsal aspect is exposed, and its distal end is 
opposite the proximal end of the carpometacarpus in the fragment. 
It agrees wifh this bone of the foot in average existing cormorants, 
apart from being considerably larger. There is no other bone in 
the skeleton of any cormorant (Phalacrocorax) with which it can 
be confused; and this is the first instance of this particular bone in 


488 Saag, Thirty-third Stated Meeting of the A.O. U. [aes 


the skeleton of a Phalacrocorax macropus having come into the 
possession of science. 

Finding this bird in Montana will prove, up to date, that it 
probably was an abundant species during Pleistocene time and 
earlier, ranging over a considerable portion of the northwestern 
section of Middle North America, or at least that portion of this 
continent now so named. 

No little interest also attaches to the fact of finding these remains 
associated with the fossil bones of a highly specialized teleostean 
fish, if fish it be, which lived during the same era that this extinct 
cormorant described by Cope did. 


THIRTY-THIRD STATED MEETING OF THE AMERICAN 
ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION. 


BY JOHN HALL SAGE. 


Tue Thirty-third Stated Meeting of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union convened in San Francisco, Cal., Monday evening, May 17, 
1915. The business meeting was held at the California Academy 
of Sciences, and the public sessions, commencing Tuesday, May 18, 
and lasting three days, were held in the Auditoriums of the Young 
Women’s Christian Association and of the Eiler Musical Company, | 
within the Exposition Grounds. 

BusInEss SEsston. The meeting was called to order by the 
President, Dr. Albert K. Fisher. Eleven Fellows were present. 
The Secretary’s report gave the membership of the Union at the 
opening of the present Stated Meeting as 1156, constituted as fol- 
lows: Fellows, 50; Retired Fellows, 3; Honorary Fellows, 13; 
Corresponding Fellows, 56; Members, 79; Associates, 955. 

Since the last meeting (April, 1914) the Union lost fifty-four mem- 
bers, nine by death, eighteen by resignation, and twenty-seven for 
non-payment of dues. The deceased were: 


ne | Saag, Thirty-third Stated Meeting of the A.O. U. 489 

Dr. Theodore Nicholas Gill,! a Retired Fellow, who died in Wash- 
ington, D. C., September 25, 1914, in his 78th year; Graf Hans 
von Berlepsch, an Honorary Fellow, who died February, 27, 1915; 
Otto Herman, of Budapest, Hungary, a Corresponding Fellow, who 
died December 27, 1914; and the following Associates: Mrs. Clara 
E. Buxbaum, who died in Chicago, Illinois, March 23, 1914; 
William Bardwell Burke, who died at Rochester, New York, April 
15, 1914; William Charlesworth Levy, who died at Alton Bay, 
N. H., July 5, 1914, aged 26 years; William Foreacre Brantley, of 
Blackshear, Ga., who died September 9, 1914; Prof. Lewis Lindsay 
Dyche, of Pratt, Kansas, who died January 20, 1915, at the age 
of 58 years, and Harry Kirkland Pomeroy,” who died in Kalamazoo, 
Mich., January 27, 1915, in the 50th year of his age. 

The report of the Treasurer showed the finances of the Union to 
be in a satisfactory condition. 

All the officers were re-elected, as follows: Albert K. Fisher, 
President; Henry W. Henshaw and Witmer Stone, Vice-Presidents; 
John H. Sage, Secretary; Jonathan Dwight, Jr., Treasurer; Ruth- 
ven Deane, William Dutcher, Joseph Grinnell, Frederic A. Lucas, 
Wilfred H. Osgood, Chas. W. Richmond, and Thos. S. Roberts, 
members of the Council. 

Dr. Emilia Snethlage, of the Museu Goeldi, Para, Brazil, was 
elected a Corresponding Fellow; Edwin R. Kalmbach, and the 
Hon. George Shiras, 3d, of Washington, D. C., were elected to the 
class of Members, and the following sixty-eight persons were elected 
Associates: 


E. M. Anderson, Provincial Museum, Victoria, B. C. 
Miss Mary Adeline Ayres, Medford, Mass. 
Merle Taft Barker, Taunton, Mass. 
C. Stanley Benson, North Abington, Mass. 
Ralph Benton, Los Angeles, Cal. 
Wolfrid Rudyerd Boulton, Jr., Beaver, Pa. 
W.C. Bradbury, Denver, Colo. 
Herbert William Brandt, Cleveland, Ohio. 
Maurice Graham Brooks, French Creek, W. Va. 
j 


1 For an obituary notice, see Auk, XX XII, pp. 139-140; also Memorial Address 
in the present number. 
2 For an obituary notice, see Auk, XX XII, p. 386. 


490 Saag, Thirty-third Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. betes 


Ronald K. Brown, New York City, N. Y. 
Mrs. Florence Buckwalter, Union, Miss. 
Clarence H. Bush, DeKalb, Ills. 

Charles Edgar Conklin, Roslyn, N. Y. 

Hugh Conn, Cochrane, Ont. 

Frederick W. Cook, Seattle, Wash. 

Miss May Thacher Cooke, Washington, D. C. 
Chas. P. Curtis, Boston, Mass. 

Lewis Dexter, Manchester, N. H. 

Erie B. Dunlop, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 
Russell Errett, Terrace Park, Ohio. 

Erik Fries, Montclair, N. J. 

Charles Gleason, Brookline, Mass. 

Ralph Mather Harrington, Cambridge, Mass. 
Arthur Thacher Hinckley, Niagara Falls, N. Y. 
Wharton Huber, Gwynedd Valley, Pa. 

Miss Dorothy C. Hunt, New York City. 

Mrs. Edwin H. Husher, Los Angeles, Cal. 
Roland Fountain Hussey, Ann Arbor, Mich. 
H. H. Kopman, New Orleans, La. 

John Edward Harry Kelso, M. D., Edgewood, B. C. 
Leslie W. Lake, Hamburg, N. Y. 

John L. Lawrence, Lawrence, N. Y. 

Mrs. William M. Levey, Brookline, Mass. 
Edward G. Lund, Boston, Mass. 

Thomas L. McConnell, McKeesport, Pa. 
Miss Gertrude McDowell, Atlanta, Ga. 

James Latimer McLane, Jr., Garrison P. O., Md. 
Edward Sidney Marks, Arlington, N. J. 

Jesse C. A. Meeker, Danbury, Conn. 

Samuel W. Mellott, Chevy Chase, Md. 

Miss Bertha Stuart Miller, Palisade, N. J. 
William Henry Mousley, Hatley, Quebec. 
Alva Morrison, Braintree, Mass. 

Prof. William H. Munson, Winona, Minn. 

Dr. I. D. Nokes, Los Angeles, Cal. 

Neill Pennell Overman, East Orange, N. J. 
Lloyd Peabody, St. Paul, Minn. 

Arthur Wellesley Perkins, Farmington, Maine. 
G. Planton Middleton, Philadelphia, Pa. 
James C. Quiggle, Washington, D.C. 

Harvey Darell Radetsky, Denver, Col. 

Mrs. A. A. Saunders, New York City. 
Edmund Joseph Sawyer, Watertown, N. Y. 
Chas. F. Schermerhorn, Des Moines, Iowa. 
Chas. P. Shoffner, Philadelphia, Pa. 


aa | Sac, Thirty-third Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. 491 


O. P. Silliman, Castroville, Cal. 

Napier Smith, Montreal, Canada. 
Theodore L. Squire, Battle Creek, Mich. 
F. A. Stuart, Marshall, Mich. 

Mrs. Phillip B. Stewart, Colorado Springs, Colo. 
Phillip B. Stewart, Colorado Springs, Colo. 
Francis Thomas Sujak, Chicago, III. 

Henry H. Townshend, New Haven, Conn. 
Dix Teachenor, Lawrence, Kansas. 

Roy A. Ward, Washington, D. C. 

Belle Williams, Columbia, 8. C. 

Lem Williams, Shonkin, Montana. 

Miss Clara Lucretia Willis, Waban, Mass. 


Drs. Palmer, Stone, and Richmond, Prof. Cooke, and Ruthven 
Deane, were appointed ‘Committee on Biography and _ Bibliog- 
raphy.’ 

The amendments to the By-Laws, proposed at the last Stated 
Meeting of the Union, were unanimously adopted. Members will 
hereafter share with Fellows the business of the Union and the elec- 
tion of Officers, Members and Associates. 

Pusuic Sessions. First Day. The meeting was called to order 
by the President, Dr. Fisher. 

The papers of the morning were as follows: 

“Notes on the Life-History of Penguins, with Special Reference 
to the Origin of Certain Instincts,’ by Robert Cushman Murphy. 
Illustrated by lantern slides. 

‘Oregon Bird Life in Motion Pictures,’ by William L. Finley. 

The following papers were presented at the afternoon session 
which was held at the Auditorium of the Eiler Musical Company, 
in the Palace of Liberal Arts. 

‘Philadelphia to the Coast in Early Days, and the Development 
of Western Ornithology prior to 1850,’ by Dr. Witmer Stone. 

‘In Memoriam — Theodore Nicholas Gill,’ by Dr. T. S. Palmer. 

‘The Migration of Albatrosses and Petrels,’ by Leveritt Mills 
Loomis. Remarks followed by Dr. Palmer, Messrs. Murphy and 
Nichols, and the author. 

‘A Late Nesting Record for the California Woodpecker,’ by 
Mrs. Harriet Williams Myers. 

‘The Average Age of the Herring Gull,’ by John Treadwell 
Nichols. 


492 Saan, Thirty-third Stated Meeting of the A.O. U. lax 


In the evening the members of the Cooper Ornithological Club 
and the A. O. U., with their friends, met at dinner at the Clift Hotel 
— fifty persons being present. 

Second Day. The meeting was called to order by Vice-President 
Stone. 

The papers of the morning session were: 

‘Some Breeding Birds of the Grand Canyon,’ by Dr. T.S. Palmer. 

‘Immature Plumages,’ by Dr. Jonathan Dwight, Jr. Remarks 
followed by Mr. Loomis, the author, and the Chair. 

‘The Shore Birds of California,’ by William Leon Dawson. IIlus- 
trated by lantern slides. 

The noon-day luncheon was served at the Chop Suey Restaurant 
in the Food Products Building, within the Exposition Grounds. 

At the afternoon session Joseph Mailliard, President of the 
Cooper Ornithological Club, occupied the Chair. The following 
papers were presented: 

‘Exhibition of the Salisbury Wild Life Motion Pictures,’ by Dr. 
Harold C. Bryant. 

‘Farallon Island Bird Life, in Motion Picture,’ by P. J. Fair. 

‘Niche of the California Thrasher,’ by Dr. Joseph Grinnell. Re- 
marks followed by Dr. Palmer, Mrs. Myers, Mr. Dawson, and the 
author. 

Third Day. The meeting was called to order by President Fisher. 

The papers of the session were: 

‘The Genus Problem in Present Day Nomenclature,’ by Dr. 
Witmer Stone. 

‘The Work of the National Association of Audubon Societies,’ . 
by T. Gilbert Pearson. 

‘Two Characteristic California Waders: The Black-necked Stilt 
and the Snowy Plover,’ by Tracy I. Storer. Illustrated by lantern 
slides. Remarks followed by Messrs. Murphy, Dawson, and Joseph 
Mailliard. 

‘Food Habits of the Road-runner, Geococcyx californicus,’ by Dr. 
Harold C. Bryant. Illustrated by lantern slides. 

In the absence of the authors the following papers were read by 
title: 

‘The Pacific Coast Races of Thryomanes bewicki,’ by Harry C. 
Swarth. : 


Moe | Saae, Thirty-third Stated Meeting of the A. O. U. 493 


‘History of the Bohemian Waxwing in Northern British Colum- 
bia,’ by Ernest M. Anderson. 

Resolutions were adopted thanking the Young Women’s Chris- 
tian Association and the Eiler Musical Company for the use of their 
auditoriums for a place of meeting, and for other courtesies extended; 
to Mr. J. Eugene Law and other members of the Southern Division 
of the Cooper Ornithological Club for generous hospitality and 
courtesies extended to the eastern members of the Union and their 
friends, during their stay in Los Angeles; to the Local Committee 
of the A. O. U., and the members of the Northern Division of the 
Cooper Ornithological Club for generous hospitality and many 
courtesies extended to the Union during its Thirty-third Stated 
Meeting; and to the United States Bureau of Fisheries for the use 
of the steamer “ Albatross”’ for a trip about San Francisco Bay and 
around the Golden Gate. 

The Stated Meeting just closed was the first regular meeting 
ever held on the Pacific Coast, and it will be remembered by those 
in attendance as one of the most successful in the history of the 
Union. 

On Friday, May 21, after adjournment of the Union, some 
seventy-five members of the California Academy of Sciences, the 
Cooper Ornithological Club, and the A. O. U., enjoyed a trip about 
San Francisco Bay and around the Golden Gate on the U. S. Fish 
Commission Steamer “Albatross.” Dr. Barton W. Evermann, 
Director of the California Academy of Sciences, acted as host. The 
same day other members of the Union visited Mt. Tamalpais and 
the Muir woods. 

Later in the month many of the eastern members were entertained 
by Dr. and Mrs. C. Hart Merriam at their attractive summer home 
in Lagunitas. 

The next meeting of the Union will be held in Philadelphia in 
1916, the date to be determined by the local committee. 


JoHN H. SaGe, 
i Secretary. 


494 General Notes. [Set 


GENERAL NOTES. 


Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsi) in Colorado.— A Correction.— 
In writing the life history of the Yellow-billed Loon, I have been puzzled 
to know what to do with the supposed Colorado record of this species. 
I have always suspected that the record was based on an erroneous identi- 
fication, as Colorado is so far away from the known range or migration 
route of this species. 

The specimen on which it was based was taken by Mr. William G. 
Smith, near Loveland, Colorado, on May 25, 1885. A letter from Mr. 
Smith to Major Bendire, giving the details of its capture, is now in my hands 
and states that the bird was sold to Mr. Manly Hardy of Brewer, Maine, 
now deceased. 

Knowing that the Hardy collection had been recently purchased for the 
Rhode Island Audubon Society and was now in the Park Museum in Provi- 
dence, I wrote to my friend, Mr. Harry 8. Hathaway, of that city, for his 
opinion, as to the identity of the specimen. He very kindly investigated 
the matter and sent me his report, together with a letter on the subject 
from Mrs. Fanny Hardy Eckstorm, which strengthened my doubts and 
practically convinced me that the record was based on an error. For 
my own personal satisfaction, I went to Providence and examined the 
specimen with Mr. Hathaway. It is not a Yellow-billed Loon, but a very 
curious specimen of the Common Loon and I am not surprised that Mr. 
Hardy, and others who have seen it, have been puzzled. Its entire plum- 
age is decidedly worn and faded to a dull brownish shade. It is a young 
male in the immature plumage of the first year. Its bill is certainly yellow, 
the yellowest, or lightest colored, bill I have ever seen in any young loon, 
which probably led to its identification as Gavia adamsi; but the size and 
shape of the bill agree with Gavia immer and not with G. adamsi. The 
culmen measures about 3.20 in. and the depth of the bill at the base is 
about .90 in. Ridgway’s ‘ Manual’ gives, for G. adamsi, culmen 3.50 to 
3.65 in. and depth, 1.00 to 1.20 in.; and for G. immer, culmen 2.75 to 3.50 in. 
and depth .90 to 1.05in. The bird in question is small even for Gavia immer 
notwithstanding the fact that it is a male, and it has a particularly slender 
bill, even for that species, instead of the large, heavy bill, with the straight 
culmen so characteristic of Gavia adamsi. It is only fair to Mr. Hardy to 
say that he was in doubt about the bird and that the record never ought to — 
have stood without verification. I cannot understand why some one, who 
was competent to identify the bird, did not examine the specimen before 
the record was published, which would have prevented the frequent repeti- 
tion of an error, which can never be wholly rectified. Such errors are far 
too common and I hope that this one will be corrected in the next edition 
of our Check-List.— A. C. Bent, Taunton, Mass. 


Waa | General Notes. 495 


The Puffin (Fratercula arctica arctica) on Long Island, N. Y.— 
On April 30, 1915, a specimen of this species was found on the beach near 
Montauk Point and was sent to me for identification. The body of the 
bird was very much decayed and it may have perished several weeks before 
it was found. This appears to be the third record for Long Island.— J. A. 
WeseEr, Box 327, Palisades Park, N.J. 


A Near View of an Iceland Gull.— As notes on the Iceland Gull (La- 
rus leucopterus) in life are rather scarce, the following observations on its 
appearance and actions may be worth recording. I found a bird of this 
species January 2, 1915, at the fish pier, South Boston. It was alter- 
nately swimming about and resting in the slip on the west side of the 
pier, and I watched it for some time with my bird-glass (of three diameters), 
part of the time within ten or fifteen yards, I should think. It was in the 
rare pure-white plumage (at least nothing but pure white could be seen 
on the most careful study under these favorable conditions) and the bill 
appeared to be entirely black, or blackish. It was clearly smaller than 
the Herring Gulls with which it was associated, and the bill, as always 
with this species, was noticeably shorter in proportion, giving a somewhat 
dove-like appearance to the head. It also carried its head higher and the 
tail, or rather the rear part of the body, cocked at more of an angle. The 
wings extended farther beyond the tail than was the case with the Herring 
Gulls. It was livelier and more ‘‘aristocratic”’ and graceful in bearing than 
these, and made pretty little dabs with its bill at morsels of food in the water. 
It appeared to be on terms of equality with the Herring Gulls and was always 
near them or among them. It had two or three little tiffs with them over 
food, but these were no more frequent than the quarrels among the Herring 
Gulls themselves. This bird was afterwards seen at the same place by Dr. 
Charles W. Townsend, and this or a similar pure-white Iceland Gull was 
observed at close range off Rockport, Mass., April 19, 1915, by Mr. Charles 
R. Lamb, who permits me to report the occurrence.— FRANCIS H. ALLEN, 
West Roxbury, Mass. 


The Arkansas Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) in Eastern Minnesota. 
— While out on a bird-hunting trip with my class in ornithology on May 12, 
1915, we saw an Arkansas Kingbird on the boulevard of Minnehaha Creek 
not far from Lake Harriet. There could be no doubt as to the identifica- 
tion, since he was in plain sight and the lemon-colored underparts were 
described by all the members of the class. This is the second time within 
a year that I have seen an Arkansas Kingbird in the neighborhood of the 
Twin Cities, Since the‘ A. O. U. Check-List ’’ names western Minnesota as 
the eastern boundary of the range of this species, while Hatch in his ‘ Birds 
of Minnesota’ does not mention the bird at all, I thought the record might 
be of interest— Pror. Paut E. Kretrzmann, Pu.D., Concordia College, 
St. Paul, Minn. 


496 General Notes. lene 


Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in New Hampshire.— Four Starlings were 
seen at Hanover, N. H., on April 17, 1915. As this is the first time these 
birds have been seen here, I thought the record might prove of interest.—- 
E. Gorpon Bewu, Hanover, N. H. 


Bachman’s Sparrow near Chicago, Illinois— The scene of this 
discovery is not Chicago proper, but the suburb of River Forest. Near 
my home in this fine suburb is an eighty acre tract of land, which I call 
““ Waller’s Park,’ for although a piece of real estate held for speculation, it 
is in reality a beautiful park, as it has been surrounded by the owner with 
an eight foot fence and for over twenty-five years planted up with many 
kinds of trees and bushes, so that, besides having in the course of these 
years become a park, it is also an ideal bird preserve or sanctuary, unin- 
tentional as this phase of the project may have been on the part of the 
owner. On May 9 I went into this idyllic spot, which, however, had up to 
this time not been resorted to by flights of migrants as much as would be 
expected, owing to the unseasonably cool or cold weather. The tempera- 
ture for May recorded by the Chicago weather station was two degrees 
lower than that for April, if I am not mistaken, the coldest May since the 
establishment of the office. After seeing several Palm Warblers, Ruby- 
crowned Kinglets, Field Sparrows, Baltimore Orioles and the here inevitable 
Cowbirds, my attention was suddenly arrested by an unusual song. On 
going to that part of the grove from which it came, I noticed ten to fifteen 
reddish sparrows, which were busily feeding on the ground among the 
grass and then, as though they could not keep their exhilaration for them- 
selves or that it could not be given vent to on the ground, some would 
mount to the lowest branches of the adjacent trees and pour out a ringing 
song. The song resembled that of the Chewink at its best and also that 
of the Field Sparrow, being, however, louder than the latter and sweeter 
than the former. Approaching to within fifteen feet of several of the 
singers, I saw that they were Bachman’s Sparrows (Peuceea estivalis bach- _ 
mant), a species with which I had become familiar during a stay in southern 
Illinois. It was hard to believe, but looking them over again and again, 
with and without the glass, one could, also by elimination, arrive at no 
other conclusion, which was corroborated by the skins in my collection 
when I came home. That flock stayed there, in the same spot, for several 
days, for I saw them again on May 12. Knowing that this species is one of 
those which are gradually extending their breeding range northward, I. 
still thought that these birds would not remain to breed, for the gap between 
here and the nearest locality to the south from which they are reported as 
breeders, would be too great. I thought they had in their migratory ardor 
been carried along by other sparrows until they found themselves farther 
north than they wished to go, and would retrace their flight fifty or more 
miles southward. However, on May 23, I noticed one again which behaved 
very much as though it were at home. On June 29 and 30, I heard twe 


be Soran General Notes. 497 


singing lustily in the open grove opposite my home, which is two blocks 
east of the park described above. Wishing to clinch the record I, on 
July 1, took one, which proved to be a male, whose enlarged testes made it 
certain that it had been or was breeding. Therefore Bachman’s Sparrow 
must be looked upon as an, at least occasional, breeder in the Chicago area. 
— G. Errrie, Oak Park, Ill. 


Leconte’s Sparrow in Wisconsin.— Under this title in the January 
number of ‘The Auk,’ Mr. Schorger notes the occurrence of Leconte’s 
Sparrow (Passerherbulus lecontei) at Madison in April of last year. In 
Wisconsin the species is undoubtedly an unusual one, at least on the spring 
migration, but, despite the fact that Kumlien and Hollister failed to get 
it in spring, there are several records from various points in the state 
since the publication of ‘The Birds of Wisconsin.’ Attention is called 
to a note by Mr. I. N. Mitchell (Bulletin of the Wisconsin Natural His- 
tory Society, vol. VIII, No. 3, July, 1910), which covers these, and consists 
of three spring records. Mr. Schorger says: ‘‘On April 11, 1914, three were 
taken and one seen at Madison.” Curiously enough, the writer took a 
full plumaged male at Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, on the same date!— A. R. 
Caun, Univ. of Wis., Madison, Wis. 


Junco Breeding in Concord and Lexington, Mass.—Jwnco hye- 
malis hyemalis has been generally considered a bird characteristic of the 
Canadian fauna. Its ordinary distribution in Massachusetts during the 
breeding season embraces the lofty hill country of the western part of the 
State, and a narrow elevated strip of land running south from Mt. Monad- 
nock, N. H., into Worcester Co., Mass., and forming the water-shed which 
divides the tributaries of the Connecticut from those of the Nashua River. 
In this strip are included the rounded mountain domes known as Watatick 
(1847 ft.) and Wachusett (2016 ft.). I recall but three instances of Junco 
breeding in the eastern part of the Atlantic slope of Massachusetts, viz.: 
in Middlesex Fells (Eustis, Auk, xxii. 103, Jan. 1906), Wellfleet, Barnstable 
Co. (Remick, Auk, XXIV, 102, Jan. 1907), and Wellesley, Norfolk Co. 
(A. P. Morse, Pocket List of the Birds of Eastern Massachusetts, p. 64, 
1912). 

In the latter part of May, 1915, Mr. C. A. Robbins called my attention 
to a pair of Juncos established on the edge of Sleepy Hollow Cemetery 
in Concord, and on the 6th of the following June Dr. W. M. Tyler and I 
watched both of the parent birds as they were busily employed in carrying 
food to their young, concealed in the branches of some tall white pines. 

On the 20th of the same month Dr. Tyler and I found another pair feed- 
ing fledged young near the old Paint Mine in Lexington, about six miles 
from the Concord locality. This family of birds was seen by us at the same 
place on several occasions up to the 18th of July— Water Faxon, 
Lexington, Mass. 


498 General Notes. [oct 


The Indigo Bunting in Colorado.— A male of this species (Passerina 
cyanea) was seen by the writer at Brighton, Colo., on August 15, 1915.— 
W. H. Beretoip, Denver, Colo. 


Numerous Migrant Pine Warblers (Dendroica vigorsi) at Fort Lee, 
N. J.— In the southern part of this locality the coniferous growth was 
cut away many years ago and it is therefore not suited to the requirements 
of the Pine Warbler. Ten years or more of migration notes by the writer 
in this locality show only one or two migrant warblers of this species during 
a spring flight. The number observed this spring is therefore noteworthy, 
viz: — 

April 19, 1915 —1 @; April 20, 1915 — 150’, 59; April 21, 1915 — 
49,49; April 24,1915—1o°; May6,1915—1 9. Total 21 0,10 9. 
—J.A.Weser, Box 327, Palisades Park, N.J. 


Black-throated Blue Warbler in Colorado.— The writer has to 
record the presence of a male of this species ( Dendroica caerulescens ceru- 
lescens) in Cheesman Park, Denver, Colo., where it was seen during the 
whole of June 13 and 14, 1915. It is such an extremely rare visitor to this 
State that the writer slipped into his home (only a few yards away) and 
took a skin of this species with him while he again watched the living bird 
as it flitted about in the evergreens. The writer is extremely sceptical 
about the correctness of many sight identifications, especially of these 
rare warblers when reported from Colorado, and hence he took the pre- 
caution to study the living bird and a skin simultaneously; it was deemed 
all the more necessary to take this precaution as the writer has not seen 
the living bird or heard its song in nearly twenty-five years— W. H. 
Bereroup, Denver, Colo. 


Cape May Warblers Destructive to Grapes on Long Island.— With 
much interest I read of the actions of the Cape May Warbler (Dendroica 
tigrina in recent numbers of ‘The Auk.’ These warblers were especially > 
abundant here last fall and there were twenty or more on our place from 
September 20 to October 10. They might be found at all hours of the day 
in the grape arbor, where they were observed to puncture the grape skins 
with their bills and drain out the juice.— James W. Lang, Jr., St. James, 
1 Ee ie 


The Resident Chickadee of Southwestern Pennsylvania.— Atten- 
tion should be called to a mistake during past years in regard to the 
resident Chickadee of that region of southwestern Pennsylvania that lies 
south of central Washington County and east of the first mountain ridge 
of Fayette County. 

During the writer’s earlier ornithological investigations he was led to 
believe that the Black-capped Chickadee (Penthestes a. atricapillus) regu- 


einie General Notes. 499 


larly inhabited this region. This belief was due the identifications of a 
local odlogist, who sent out sets of eggs, taken here, labelled as Penthestes 
a. atricapillus. 

The truth is that the species found with us is the Carolina Chickadee 
(Penthestes c. carolinensis). In order to prove this statement the writer 
has made a careful study of specimens from various parts of the region 
and has yet to find one Penthestes a. atricapillus. Breeding birds were 
examined as follows: A nest found May 1, 1915, was built in a cavity made 
by the birds in the top of a decayed fence post. This post stood in a creek 
valley and was at the side of a lane which wound about the base of a steep 
wooded hillside. The female bird was captured on the nest and proved 
to be Penthestes c. carolinensis. 

A second nest, discovered May 8, was built in a cavity at the top of a 
fence post which stood on the border of a field and at a public roadside. 
The female was lifted from six slightly incubated eggs and carefully ex- 
amined; she was a typical specimen of Penthestes c. carolinensis. Locality: 
One mile north of the West Virginia line. 

A third nest, found on May 9, was situated in a top of a fence post. 
This stood on the border of a village. The birds were seen to change places 
on the nest and one was captured and examined. It proved to be Pen- 
thestes c. carolinensis. Locality: Blacksville, West Virginia, a small town 
lying on the Mason and Dixon Line. 

Breeding birds were examined in the region of Washington, central 
Washington County, and also found to be Penthestes c. carolinensis. 

In order to further establish proof as to the species found here I have 
asked two West Virginia ornithologists to inform me as to the species found 
in their respective regions. Rev. Earl A. Brooks of Weston, West Vir- 
ginia, who has studied the bird life of many parts of his state, says that 
Penthestes c. carolinensis, is the species inhabiting the hill country of north- 
ern West Virginia. He informs me that only in the higher mountain 
regions has he found Penthestes a. atricapillus. 

Mr. George M. Sutton, ornithologist at Bethany College, in the Pan- 
handle of northern West Virginia informs me that the species found there, 
since his arrival a year ago, is Penthestes c. carolinensis. He adds that only 
once has he noted the Black-cap: in the late fall of 1914. 

Mr. W. E. Clyde Todd in charge of the birds at the Carnegie Museum, 
Pittsburg, Pa., tells me that there is a specimen of P. c. carolinensis 
in the museum collection which was taken near Washington, Pa. He 
says that he is not surprised to learn that the Carolina Chickadee dwells 
in this region.— SamMuEL 8. Dickey, Waynesburg College, Waynesburg, 
Penn. 


Winter Birds at Wareham, Mass.— It may be of interest to record 
at Wareham, Massachusetts, during the past winter, the following species: 

VESPER SPARROW, Powcetes gramineus gramineus, two. ° 

CHIPPING SPARROW, Spizella passerina passerina, three. 


500 General Notes. es 


Frevp Sparrow, Spizella pusilla pusilla, rather common. 

CarpirpD, Dumetella carolinensis, one. 

Brown THRASHER, Toxostoma rufum, one. 

All were present throughout the entire period, with the possible, though 
hardly probable, exception of the Vespers, which were not found until 
February 26, 1915.— C. A. Rossrns, Onset, Mass. 


Notes on some Manitoban Birds.— Taking E. T. Seton’s list of 
Manitoban birds in the ‘ Handbook of the British Association,’ Winnipeg, 
1909, as a basis, the following observations appear to be worthy of record. 

Sterna caspia. Caspian TrerN.— On June 22, 1914, I found about 
120 pairs of Caspian Terns nesting on a small shoal in a remote part of 
Lake Winnipeg. Laying had commenced shortly before for there were 
many single eggs and the full clutches which were tested were fresh or 
nearly so. The only other species nesting on the shoal was a single pair 
of Herring Gulls, they had evidently taken toll of the Terns eggs. Later 
in the summer photographs of the birds nesting were obtained from a 
blind, they proved to be very shy, no doubt the absence of bushes from the 
shoal and consequent conspicuousness of the birds, partially at all events, 
account for this. Both sexes incubate. Seton gives no record of this 
species. 

Phalacrocorax auritus auritus. DovuBiLe-cresTeD CorMoRANT.— In 
Chapman’s ‘Birds of Eastern North America,’ the number of eggs laid by 
this Cormorant is given as 2-4. On Lake Winnipeg I found many fives 
and sixes and also several sevens, the frequency of these occurrences made 
it certain that they were true clutches and not the product of more than 
one bird. 

Marila marila. Greater Scaup Ducx.— As there appears to be no 
definite record of this species nesting in Manitoba, I may state that it 
was undoubtedly the most plentiful breeding duck, mid-way up the west 
side of Lake Winnipeg. Full clutches were not found till the middle of 
June. ‘ 
Lobipes lobatus. Nortruern PHAaLArope.— Noted on the Dauphin 
River near Lake St. Martin on August 16, 1914, and also on a shoal in Lake 
Winnipeg, September 4, 1914. 

Tryngites subruficollis. Burr-BREASTED SANDPIPER.— Two secured 
on west shore of Lake Winnipeg, September 5, 1914. 

Squatarola squatarola. BLack-BELLIED PLovER.— Seton has no 
autumn records. Several birds of this species were frequenting the mouth 
of the Mossy River, Winnipegosis, at the beginning of October, 1914. 

fEgialitis meloda. Piping PLtover.— A nest of this species found on 
June 18, 1914, on the shore of Lake Winnipeg contained four eggs. Young 
of this species were subsequently seen at other points on the same lake. 

Perisoreus canadensis canadensis. Canapa Jay.— A curious super- 
stition that I found prevalent among the Indians in various parts of 


eel General Notes. 501 


Manitoba was that if they happened to find a nest of this species contain- 
ing eggs or young, either they themselves or a near relative would soon 
die. Nothing would induce the Indians to search for nests of this species. 

Passerherbulus nelsoni nelsoni. Nrtson’s SparRow.— This species 
was found about midway up the west shore of Lake Winnipeg on July 11, 
1914. No doubt it was breeding there. 

Penthestes hudsonicus hudsonicus. HupsoniaAn CuHIcKADEE.— As 
there is only one record of this species for the Province, that of Macoun 
for Porcupine Mountains, it may be well to state that I noted it at two 
places on the west shore of Lake Winnipeg on July 17 (an immature bird) 
and on September 6. I also noted it at Lake St. Martin on October 26, 
1914.— Eric B. Duntop, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 


Bird-Notes from Cambridge, Isanti County, Minnesota.— Isanti 
county is situated in the southern part of east-central Minnesota, and is at 
one point only eight miles distant from the St. Croix River — in this vicinity 
the boundary between Minnesota and Wisconsin. Its northern boundary 
is about thirty miles south and slightly southeast of Mille Lacs Lake, 
which is midway between the northern and southern extremities of Minne- 
sota. The size of the county is small compared with the others in this 
state, its area being only 456 square miles. In shape it is practically a 
square from which two townships placed north and south of each other 
have been cut out from the northeast corner. The adjoining counties are: 
Kanabec on the north, Mille Lacs and Sherburne on the west, Anoka on 
the south, and Chisago on the east. 

The greater part of the county is drained by the Rum River and its 
tributary streams which are all small brooks and brooklets issuing from 
nearby lakes. Rum River rises in Mille Lacs Lake, flows southward 
through Mille Lacs, Sherburne, Isanti and Anoka Counties and unites 
with the Mississippi at Anoka. Entering Isanti County about five miles 
south of the middle of the western boundary, it flows northeastward about 
fifteen miles, turns abruptly southward and leaves the county about eight 
miles east of the southwest corner. Cambridge is situated five miles south 
of the vertex of the angle formed and is near the river. The course of 
the river is winding as may be shown by the fact that (according to the 
State Drainage Commission) there are fifty-two miles of river in this county. 
Its fall is very slight, only eleven inches per mile, the altitude of the river 
surface ranging from 891 to 939 feet. The river valley is bordered by side 
hills ranging as high as sixty feet above the level of the river. These some- 
times rise directly from the water’s edge in the form of bluffs but usually are 
farther in the background, giving space for ample meadows in which grace- 
ful bayous o¢ “ ox-bows” delight the eye. However, the southeastern 
projecting corner of the county and the extreme northeast and northwest 
corners are drained by small tributaries of the St. Croix. There are 
numerous lakes of varying size usually small, Green Lake, the largest one, 


502 General Notes. [Set 


having only a square mile or more of surface. The precipitation at Cam- 
bridge is between twenty-nine and thirty inches. 

Cambridge lies about five miles north of midway between the 45th 
and 46th parallels of latitude. The surrounding country is gently rolling 
and as a whole is of a sandy character. The black heavy loam which we 
find in the southern parts of the state is here totally absent and conse- 
quently such lovers of a fertile soil as the bloodroot and bellwort are here 
not nearly ascommon. In many places we find extensive black oak barrens 
where only black and bur oaks will grow to represent the trees but where the 
Pasque Flower, the pioneer of early spring startles us with its beauty 
when we pass through its haunts. The aspens, oaks, birches and red 
maples form the bulk of the more fertile upland wooded areas, while soft 
maples, white ashes and elms clothe the river bottomlands. Logging has 
ceased to be a large industry although a few sawmills are still running to 
accommodate those farmers who haul in their sled loads of logs to be sawed 
into lumber. 

Cambridge seems to lie on the very southern edge of the Canadian 
life area of this state. Here we find large tracts of Tamarack bogs covered 
with a thick layer of peat-moss where the Reindeer-lichen, Labrador Tea, 
Leather-leaf, Rosemary, Pitcher-plant and Sundews grow in profusion. 
White Spruces grow abundantly in some places, intermingling with the 
Tamaracks and from whose dead limbs hangs the long waving Usnea and 
other lichens in which the Northern Parula Warbler may occasionally be 
found nesting. The mossy mounds and old hoary stumps are covered with 
mats of the Twin-flower and creeping Snowberry, and several species of 
Cypripedium grow as well. These swamps are the paradise of Orchids 
and Heaths. A grove of Balsam Firs grows in the northwest corner of the 
county at Maple Ridge, and extensive patches of White Pine are found 
throughout the northern half. In the larger patches the drowsy, buzzing 
song of the Black-throated Green Warbler can be heard all through the heat 
of midsummer. Jack Pines grow fairly commonly in some places but are 
usually under twenty-five feet in height. The leaves of the Clintonia 
cover the ground around the borders of the bogs. In hot sandy soil around 
some lake shores and in the pines we find the ground matted with Bearberry 
one of the few plants to be found growing in these situations. Wolves 
are still quite common in the Tamarack bogs and rarely the bear is met with. 
The Great Plains fauna is represented by the Jack Rabbit and Brewer’s 
Blackbird. 

So far as I know, very little if any study had ever been made of the avi- — 
fauna of this county before I began my observations here in 1913. These 
were all made within a radius of seven miles of Cambridge. The following 
list is intended to give some of the observations which may be most inter- 
esting to other Minnesota bird students. With these explanatory para- 
graphs they are submitted as follows: 

1. Cryptoglaux funerea richardsoni. RicHarpson’s Owt.— I have. 
two records in 1914 for this boreal bird. One was a female shot and brought 


iagic | General Notes. 503 


to me on January 31 and the skin of which I have. The other was observed 
March 1 and was remarkably tame. In wooded bottomland by the river. 

2. Picoides arcticus. Arctic THREE-TOED WooppEcKEeR.— No- 
vember 1—February 28. Common in winter in tamarack bogs but they can 
also be found in any kind of woods. Their presence is usually betrayed by 
a sharp ‘‘kip”’ which they utter at irregular intervals. Tamaracks are 
their favorite trees and often they will peck off the dead scaly bark the whole 
length of a tree to get at the borers underneath. The fact that I have no 
summer records and that they are so common in winter shows that they 
migrate somewhat south of their breeding range, in winter, through the 
tamarack belt. 

3. Euphagus cyanocephalus. Brewer’s BLAcKBrRD.— Since colo- 
nies of this species have been found near Minneapolis it was no great surprise 
to me to find another colony in a meadow just east of the station at Grandy 
five miles north of here on June 30, 1915. It consisted of at least five pairs 
and during my brief visit there two fledglings were seen able to make ex- 
tensive flights. 

4. Zonotrichia albicollis. Wuirs-rHroateD SPpaArRRow.— Summer 
resident, April 18-November 9. Common in summer in tamarack and 
spruce woods. All day long their clear whistle can be heard if we are near 
their haunts. One nest with five almost fresh eggs on June 4, 1915. Their 
breeding range does not probably reach much further south than Cambridge. 

5. Spizella pusilla pusilla. Firtp Sparrow.— In hot sandy places 
covered with black and bur oaks, this bird was found to be not at all un- 
common, although very local. Often two or three can be heard answering 
each other. A nest with three young and a Cowbird was found on June 16, 
1914. 

6. Melospiza melodia melodia. Sone Sparrow.— My notes con- 
tain two wintering records for this bird. On December 8, 1913, I was 
surprised to hear the characteristic call-note of this bird in a weedy fence- 
row entering the south side of a tamarack forest and a little search revealed 
the bird. It was seen again in the same place on several occasions up to 
January 8 which was the last time it was observed. Again, this winter 
(1914-1915), one was seen on an average every other day between Novem- 
ber 17 and January 12, after which period I did not see it again. It seemed 
to make its headquarters every night in the willows bordering an “‘ oxbow ” 
a quarter of a mile north of Cambridge. From this place it made frequent 
trips to feed on the weed seeds on a neighboring hillside and field. I scat- 
tered food for it regularly in several places. On December 4 I was sur- 
prised to find two birds instead of one, but with ‘that exception only one 
was seen. Still another bird was observed on the east side of a tamarack 
bog two miles horth of this village on December 19, 1914. 

7. Protonotaria citrea. ProTHoNoTARY WARBLER.— Six miles 
west of Cambridge and about one mile above Findell Bridge, the river 
has at some time changed its course, leaving now only a small stream of 
water to flow through its former channel which is called ‘‘ Lost River” 


al 


504 General Notes. [See 


and follows a winding path parallel to the new one for a distance of about a 
mile. At the point where they reunite, the river flows out into large sloughs, 
losing all semblance of its usual appearance, and affording a favorite feeding 
ground for herons. In the tall elm trees between “ Lost River ’’ and the 
main channel there is a heronry of at least twenty pairs of Great Blue 
Herons. This place resembles in all respects though on a smaller scale, 
the river bottoms of the Mississippi in southeastern Minnesota where the 
Prothonotary Warbler occurs so abundantly. Even a slight rise in the 
river will drench it with a foot of water in many places and at all times there 
is a network of muddy streams to be forded by the intruder. Here we find 
old decayed stumps, logs and fallen trees which often give natural bridges 
across the streams. In sucha place it was small wonder that the Prothono- 
tary was found breeding, and its clear ringing song associated with that of 
many Redstarts, was a familiar sound there. I found at least five pairs 
though there may have been more and also located a nest on June 17, 
1915, with three eggs. The most northern point at which they had been 
found hitherto was four miles below Hastings on the Mississippi: about 
sixty miles further south.!. Therefore the birds here form an isolated colony. 

8. Vermivora chrysoptera. GoLDEN-WINGED WARBLER.— A fairly 
common summer resident, May 11—September 25. Isanti County seems 
to lie near the northern limit of their range. They frequent hot, open 
second growth where hazelnuts grow in abundance. 

9. Vermivora celata celata. ORANGE-CROWNED WaARBLER.— The 
breeding range of this species is supposed to reach only as far south as 
Manitoba. I was greatly surprised, therefore, to find one singing in: the 
willows and alders bordering the sloughs at the mouth of “ Lost River ” 
on June 11, 1915. It was very confiding so that I could approach quite 
close to it while it was singing and could plainly see the obscure streaks 
on the breast; as it was preening its plumage the brownish bases to the 
feathers on the crown could even be seen. I am thoroughly familiar with 
the Nashville, Orange-crowned and Tennessee Warblers and their songs 


so I have no doubt that it was the Orange-crown although the specimen _ 


was not collected. It seems probable that it was breeding there, though 
of that I am not certain. 

10. Dendroica vigorsi. Prine WarsBLerR.— Very common in the 
pines in the northern parts of the county. Often only two or three large 
pines near farmhouses will shelter a pair of them. 

11. Oporornis agilis. Connecticur WARBLER.— Summer resident, 


May 18-? This interesting species was found to be common in summer | 


in the tamarack and spruce bogs where its loud, liquid song was a dominant 
sound in the morning and evening hours. In the middle of the day they 
are much less in evidence since they are then preoccupied in walking about 
in the damp moss and undergrowth searching for insects. They display 


1 Roberts, T. S. Auk, Vol. XVI, No. 3, July 1899, pp. 236-246. 


ety | Recent Literature. 505 
very little shyness but instead a great deal of curiosity, and if the observer 
is still they will come very close to him and sing. On June 26, 1915, Dr. 
T. 8. Roberts and I saw a female with her bill full of food in the spruce 
swamp north of Cambridge. 

12. Oporornis philadelphia. Mournina WarBLEeR.— A few may be 
seen and heard singing here in summer in the second growth of rich woods. 
This species like the last is very tame while singing and chooses some dead 
limb in full view from which to deliver its loud song. May to September. 

13. Certhia familiaris americana. Brown Creeper.— Permanent 
resident. A few winter in the tamarack and spruce woods where they are 
protected from cold winds. In the heavily wooded bottomlands by “‘ Lost 
River ”’ I saw a pair on June 11, 1915. The scaly bark which was peeling 
off the old soft maples gave suitable nesting sites and the birds’ anxious 
call-notes indicated that they had a nest near by. 

14. Regulus satrapa satrapa. GoLDEN-cROWNED KincGLer.— Last 
winter (1914-1915), this bird was found to be quite common throughout 
the cold months in the pine and spruce woods, where its penetrating “‘ ti-ti”’ 
betrayed its presence for some distance through the clear, frosty air. It was 
supposed to be very rare and sporadic in southern Minnesota in winter. 

15. Hylocichla guttata pallasi. Hermit THrusu.— In the extensive 
pine woods bordering tamarack swamps northeast of Grandy, at least 
three Hermit Thrushes were heard singing this summer (1915) whenever 
I visited that locality. This is the most southern summer record thus far 
for Minnesota.— LawRENcE L. Lérstrém, Cambridge, Minn. 


RECENT LITERATURE. 


Dall’s Biography of Baird.'— Twenty-seven years have elapsed since 
the death of Prof. Baird, and while numerous tributes to his scientific 
attainments and achievements have been published, no biography at all 
commensurate with his position in the development of science in America, 
has hitherto appeared. This was undoubtedly due to the fact, well known 
to Prof. Baird’s friends, that his daughter Miss Lucy Hunter Baird was 
engaged upon such a work with the aid of Prof. G. Browne Goode, assistant 
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution during her father’s incumbency 
as secretary. Prof. Goode’s death and the recurrent illness and ultimate 
EE EE et YES oe | ar Ere a Eee 

1 Spencer | Fullerton Baird |A Biography | Including Selections from his 
Correspondence | with Audubon, Agassiz, Dana, and others | By | William Healey. 


Dall, A.M., D.Sc. | with nineteen illustrations | [vignette] | Philadelphia & Lon- 
don | J. B. Lippincott Company | 1915. S8vo. pp. i-xvi+ 1-462. 43.50 net. 


506 Recent Literature. Gun 


death of Miss Baird hindered the progress of the work, but a provision of 
Miss Baird’s will arranged for its completion and publication and her execu- 
tor has displayed admirable judgment in selecting for the task Dr. Wm. H. 
Dall, long time associate and friend of Prof. Baird and who, to use his own 
expression, was personally familiar with most of the occurrences of the last 
twenty years of Prof. Baird’s life. 

Miss Baird’s contribution to the biography is considerable; consisting 
of her personal recollections of various incidents and periods in her father’s 
life, together with matter obtained from other members of the family or 
friends covering earlier events in his career. The biographer had also the 
neatly bound volumes of correspondence which Prof. Baird had carefully 
preserved and which comprised letters from almost every prominent 
American scientific man of the period, as well as of many distinguished in 
other fields of learning. Baird’s own letters to his brother William and to 
several other correspondents were also available as well as his journal. 

From such rich material it was possible to construct a virtual autobiog- 
raphy with contemporaneous discussion of the interests and activities 
of the subject, and this Dr. Dall has done, welding together his materials 
in a masterly way, interpolating the original letters with excellent judgment 
and producing not only a splendid exploitation of the life of the naturalist, 
but a volume of absorbing interest to the reader, whether he be scientist 
or layman. We feel sure moreover that the one who would appreciate 
the labors of the author, more perhaps than can any one else, would have 
been the devoted daughter of the great naturalist to whom the volume is 
inscribed. 

Prof. Baird’s position in American scientific circles was unique. No 
other naturalist was probably acquainted with such a large number of 
scientific men or held in more universal esteem. His personal qualities 
were such as endeared him to all with whom he came in contact, and the 
generous cordiality and affection of his correspondents is reflected in many 
of the published letters. His influence upon American scientific develop- 
ment was of the utmost importance. From his early youth the idea of 
amassing specimens was ever foremost in his mind, first as a private collec- 
tion, then as a great government museum, and as we turn the pages of the 
biography his selection as Assistant Secretary and then as Secretary of the 
Smithsonian Institution appears simply a matter of course, so perfectly was 
the man fitted for the position. In training his scholars in the College at 
Carlisle, where he was a professor, in methods of collecting specimens, and 
later in furnishing more elaborate instructions and outfits to the young 
naturalists who came to the Smithsonian, to army officers and to the staff 
of the Government surveys, he started a sort of endless chain which reached 
far into the future producing collectors and collections increasingly skilled 
and valuable as years went on. 

Through the entire volume one is impressed with the tireless energy of 
the man, collecting and studying birds, fishes, mammals, reptiles, fossils, ° 
minerals and plants; preparing specimens for exchange, keeping up an 


sa ie Recent Literature. 507 


extensive correspondence and encouraging others to collect for him besides 
mastering language after language even to Danish and Italian, and reading 
all the scientific works upon which he could lay his hands. 

The community of interest between Spencer F. Baird and his elder 
brother William, as shown in their correspondence, at once attracts the 
sympathy of the reader, and the generosity of the older brother when he 
found himself able to extend financial assistance to the younger to aid his 
advance in a field which he himself had been forced to abandon, is very 
touching. 

The correspondence with Audubon is extremely interesting, forming, 
as it were, the connecting link between the leading figure of one epoch of 
American Ornithology and that of the next. Also the numerous exchanges 
of letters with John Cassin especially those of Christmas, 1853, wherein 
they reckoned the number of years that they had been friends and the high 
value that they placed upon this friendship! Later amid increasing cares 
we trace Baird’s career at Washington, his establishment of the Inter- 
national Scientific Exchange, the development of the Museum and the 
fatherly interest in the many young naturalists who made the Smithsonian 
the centre of their activities and organized the Megatherium Club. 

Finally the development of the Fish Commission and its numerous 
activities. But it is useless to try to present a synopsis of such a life; one 
must read it in its entirety, and suffice it to say that every ornithologist — 
indeed every scientific man — should read this biography. It is instructive 
in its mass of historical details, inspiring in the example that it sets and 
the possibilities that it opens up, and fascinating as a piece of literature. 
The illustrations are good and well selected, and the book is in every way 
a credit to both author and publisher.— W.S8. 


Baynes’ ‘Wild Bird Guests.’ !— When interest in the preservation of 
wild birds first developed in this country, our efforts were almost entirely 
directed to stopping their killing, and to keep all disturbing agencies 
away from their haunts. Of late years however this work has advanced 
along quite different lines and it has been shown that it is possible not only 
to make the birds’ haunts more suitable for their needs but also to attract 
birds to places where they were almost or quite unknown before. - In the 
fore front of this movement Mr. Ernest Harold Baynes has been the most 
conspicuous figure, and in the volume before us he tells of his methods and 
results, placing before a larger audience the facts that are familiar to the 
many who have heard his lectures or have been associated with him in 
‘bird club’ work. 


1 Wild Bird Guests. Howto Entertain Them. With Chapters on the Destruc- 
tion of Birds, their Economic and Aésthetic Values, Suggestions for Dealing with 
their Enemies, and on the Organization and Management of Bird Clubs. By 
Ernest Harold Baynes. With 50 photogravure illustrations from photographs. 
New York. E. P. Dutton & Company, 1915. S8vo. pp. i-xviii+ 1-326. $2 
net. 


508 Recent Literature. Oct, 


Mr. Baynes’ book is more than this however. It passes in review the 
whole subject of bird destruction — by man, by natural enemies and by 
disease,— presenting the subject in an entertaining way, not as a list of dry 
statistics, and quoting his facts from a wide range of reliable authorities. 
He admirably differentiates the ‘‘true”’ and ‘“‘so-called”’ sportsman. The 
former “‘is fond of the woods and fields and streams and lakes and who 
when game and fish are plentiful likes to get a little for himself or a friend, 
but who, when game shows signs of decreasing, does his best in every way 
to protect it and insure its increase.’ The latter “shoots all the birds the 
law permits him to, even when he knows the law is unfair to the birds. If 
there is no law to stop him he kills all the birds he can, and resorts to the 
use of automatic and pump guns, because it is not ‘sport’ but birds that 
he is trying to get.” , 

Economic, esthetic and moral reasons for protecting the birds are next 
reviewed, and finally in the last six chapters the author launches forth in 
his own particular field, that of attracting the birds, upon which topic he is 
easily our leading authority. The chapter headings give a good idea of the 
method of treatment; ‘Entertainment in Winter,’ ‘Hospitality the Year 
Round,’ ‘Bird Lovers as Landlords,’ ‘Bird Baths,’ ‘Problems Confronting 
Beginners,’ and ‘Bird Clubs.’ Under these headings we learn of the best 
foods for wild birds in winter time and methods of distributing them during 
time of heavy snow. Feeding boxes and winter shelters are also exhaus- 
tively considered. Then come lists of trees, shrubs and vines attractive . 
to birds, and plans for nesting boxes, drinking basins and baths of all kinds. 
Mr. Baynes advocates shooting of English Sparrows and Red Squirrels 
but adds: ‘it is not for children. It is hard work — unpleasant work — 
and should be done by real men who know the bird from all others.”” He 
says further, ‘‘I know one man, who with a twenty-two calibre rifle, has 
for years kept his home farm of a hundred acres, clear of red squirrels, 
house cats and European Sparrows.” ‘The task of ridding a given place of 
bird enemies becomes increasingly easy. In one case ‘‘200 squirrels were 
shot the first year, perhaps 50 the second and now the shooting of half a . 
dozen a year is all that is necessary.’?’ The cat problem Mr. Baynes 
recognizes as a most serious one. He says “no sensible person would 
advocate the extermination of cats, but I do believe that a serious effort 
should be made to get rid of unnecessary ones’’....and people should 
“take care of such cats as they consider worth keeping....It is un- 
neighborly to kill one’s neighbor’s cat, but just as unneighborly to permit 
a cat to kill one’s neighbor’s birds.”’ , 

Mr. Baynes’ wonderful success with bird clubs at Meridan, N. H., and 
elsewhere in New England is well known and here he offers helpful sugges- 
tions for others who would follow his method. 

Mr. Baynes gives the scientific ornithologist full credit for his large 
share in the work of bird preservation, an acknowledgment too often 
ignored in these days of ‘‘conservationists.’’ He argues that the sicentific- 
collector should be allowed to go about his work unhampered by petty 


Vol. ice Recent Literature. 509 


restrictions and says that the complaint against the scientific man “is 


usually the ery of some conservationist who wishes he were scientific but 
is not.” He adds “one of the strongest arguments in favor of preserving 
birds, is that they have great economic value; the facts which support 
this argument have been ascertained, not by the men who shout them 
from the housetops but by quiet, modest ornithologists who sit in their 
laboratories and whose names are seldom seen in the newspapers. Other 
men ‘on the firing line,’ do wonderfully effective work but.sometimes they 
do not seem to realize that this work is made possible, not so much by the 
noise of their own big guns, as by the ammunition supplied to them by 
the scientific men who work without making any noise at all.” 

All in all this book of Mr. Baynes’ is just what hundreds of people are 
looking for, in every part of the country, to help them in establishing closer 
relations with their wild bird neighbors. The illustrations are very at- 
tractive and the text well gotten up.— W. 8. 


Job on Wild Fowl Propagation.!— Like Mr. Baynes, Mr. Job has 
developed a branch of wild bird preservation which is peculiarly his own — 
that of the propagation of wild species. The need of Quail and Ruffed 
Grouse for stocking purposes has long been recognized and for some years 
past their artificial propagation has been successfully carried on in various 
places. In the case of wild ducks however the possibilities are only just 
beginning to be appreciated and undoubtedly their is a great future for the 
development of this work. In the two bulletins before us Mr. Job describes 
his experience and that of others, presenting in detail such information on 
the various phases of the problem as prospective breeders will require. 
Speaking of the breeding of ducks he says ‘‘It is coming to be a source not 
only of pleasure but of great practical good, to breed wild water-fowl by 
such methods as I have described. Every state should propagate and 
liberate wild ducks of such species as it is found are likely to breed in its 
domain, since it is proved that young wild ducks are strongly inclined 
to breed near where they were reared.’”?’ The Wood Duck which a decade 
ago was called a ‘‘vanishing game-bird”’ is now being reared by thousands 
and the species is being reestablished and made abundant. Many owners 
of large estates, we are told, are already interesting themselves in propa- 
gating wild ducks on native swamp lands, and in this way it seems quite 
possible to offset the reduction in the numbers of many species, caused 
by the draining and cultivation of their former nesting grounds in the 
Dakotas, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, etc. Mr. Job’s timely ‘bulletins’ 
will meet the needs of a constantly increasing number of wild-fowl breeders. 
—W.S. 


1 Biopaeaion of Upland Game-Birds. By Herbert K. Job. Bulletin No. 2, 
Nat. Asso. Audubon Soc., 1974 Broadway, N. Y. City, April, 1915. Price 25 cents. 
(pp. 33-72). 

Propagation of Wild Water-Fowl. By Herbert K. Job. Bulletin No. 3. Nat. 
Asso. Audubon Soc., 1974 Broadway, N. Y. City, May, 1915. Price 25 cents. 
(pp. 73-104). 


510 Recent Literature. ee 


Laing’s ‘Out with the Birds.’!— Mr. Laing seems not only to know 
his birds but to know how to tell us about them, and as we turn the pages 
of his book we share with him the enthusiasm of the nature lover and the 
excitement of the bird photographer. The unique feature of ‘Out with the 
Birds’ is that it treats of a region not generally touched upon by nature 
writers — Manitoba, and naturally the birds that occupy the attention 
of the bird student are not those which usually figure in our outdoor 
bird books. When spring awakens, it is not to the accompaniment of 
Bluebird warble, but the honking of Geese on the prairie and the “tinkling, 
fairy melody” of the Lapland Longspur chorus on the eve of departure 
for farther north. The morning awakening begins with the booming of 
the Sharp-tailed Grouse, the lisping song of the Prairie Horned Lark, 
high in the air, and the clamor of the ducks in the marshes. 

The mating antics of the Grouse are fully described and we learn of the 
habits of various ducks, happily free from the usual accompaniment of 
shotgun and hunters’ anecdotes. We learn too of the life of the White- 
rumped Shrike, Franklin’s Gull, Black Tern and Snow Goose. Mr. Laing’s 
syllabie representations of the songs of certain familiar species are original 
and quite as effective as the more familiar ones. For example the Towhee’s 
song as he hears it is ‘Sweet, bird sin-n-n-ng”’ and the White-throated 
Sparrow far away from the New England home of “‘ Old Sam Peabody” 
says ‘“‘Oh, dear Canada! Canada! Canada!” 

The illustrations, while they do not average up to the best that our bird 
photographers of today produce are attractive and add much to the inter- 
est of the book. One serious defect is the lack of an index which makes it 
difficult for the bird student to pick out from the text the information on 
any given species.— W. 8. 


Cooke on Bird Migration .2— This little pamphlet is, so far as its object 
and scope are concerned, a new edition of a similar one published some 
twelve years? ago, but it is much fuller and replete with additional informa- 


tion. It covers the subject quite fully under the headings Causes of Migra- 


tion, Relation of Migration to Weather, Day and Night Migrants, Distance 
of Migration, Routes of Migration, Direct and Circuitous Migration 
Routes, Eccentric Migration Routes, Wide and Narrow Migration Routes, 
Slow and Rapid Migration, How Birds find their Way, Migration and 
Molting Casualties during Migration, Are Birds exhausted by Long Flight? 
Evolution of Migration Routes, Normal and Abnormal Migration, Relative 


1Out With the Birds. By Hamilton M. Laing. Illustrated with Photographs. 
New York. Outing Publishing Company, MCMXIIT. 8vo. pp. 1-249. $1.50, 
postage 12 cts. extra. 

2 Bird Migration. By Wells W. Cooke. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Bulletin 
No. 185. April 17, 1915. pp. 1-47. 


3 Some New Facts about the Migration of Birds. Yearbook U. S. Dept. Agr. 


for 1903. 


er ee Recent Literature. Smt 
Position during Migration, Relation between Migration and Temperature, 
Variations in Speed of Migration, The Unknown. The pamphlet is clearly 
written and places the subject before the public in such a way as to make 
fascinating reading while it will undoubtedly interest a large number of 
people in the study and recording of bird migration and so ultimately 
serve to increase the data bearing on the subject. To the scientific man 
this up to date treatment of one of the most interesting phenomena of 
bird life will also prove of great interest, but he will look in vain for any 
reference to other papers on the subject by the author or anyone else, 
where he can follow up the matter and compare the various opinions 
and theories that have been advanced. Such references may not be 
required in Farmer’s Bulletins or similar publications of the Department 
of Agriculture, but in one of this sort, which appeals to scientists as well as 
laymen, it seems that the universal custom in scientific publications should 
have been adhered to and the value of the pamphlet thereby measurably 
increased. 

While not for a moment questioning the accuracy of Prof. Cooke’s 
results in his studies of bird migration it seems pertinent in this connection 
to call attention to an unfortunate tendency in most publications on this 
subject in America, 7. e. that of publishing ultimate results or theories 
without presenting the detailed data upon which they are based. It may 
be claimed that European publications on the subject represent a maximum 
of detailed data and a minimum of conclusions, and this may be true, but 
even so it is decidedly more in accord with the methods employed in other 
lines of scientific work. 

In describing a new species or working out the geographic range of a 
group of subspecies, pages are often devoted to the citation of detailed 
data, where the results of the study is summed up in a few words. The 
same method could be employed with advantage in works on bird migra- 
tion, but too often we do not even know upon whose observations results 
are based, or how many records or observers contributed to them. Further- 
more migration tables or comparisons are not definite facts but are. 
averages and computations often involving the rejection of some of the 
material, and the personal equation enters into this work to such an 
extent that it seems absolutely essential that the most important details 
involved in obtaining results should be presented. For instance, to take 
an example from Prof. Cooke’s paper, the isochronal migration line of 
April 20 for the Black and White Warbler passes through Philadelphia, 
yet in ‘ Cassinia,’ 1912, p. 9, Prof. Cooke gives April 17 as the average 
time of first arrival for Philadelphia while in ‘Bird Lore,’ 1905, p. 203, 
April 27 is given (Germantown = Philadelphia). So also in ‘Bird Lore,’ | 
1905, p. 205, we find May 14 given as the average date of arrival 
of the Blatk-poll Warbler for Englewood, N. J., but the isochronal line 
for May 15 runs far north of this locality. Evidently these lines are not 
based upon all the data at hand, some have been accepted and others 
rejected, on good grounds no doubt, but the student who would judge of 


[Sce: 


D412 Recent Literature. + 
this matter is blocked at once by the absence of data or explanation. 
When we realize that nearly all computations as to the speed and direction 
of migration depend upon the accuracy of these isochronal lines it is obvious 
that other students of bird migration will naturally demand the same 
presentation of detailed data that is customary in other fields of scientific 
research.— W. S. 


Faxon on ‘Relics of Peale’s Museum.’!— Dr. Faxon has done a 
commendable piece of work in publishing an annotated catalogue of 
the types of Wilson, Bonaparte and Ord formerly in the Philadelphia 
(= Peale’s) Museum and now in the Museum of Comparative Zodlogy at 
Cambridge. The history of the collection which precedes the catalogue is 
very interesting reading, and when we consider the vicissitudes through 
which it passed we are inclined to marvel that any of the specimens were 
fortunate enough to survive! 

We entirely agree with Dr. Faxon that the known history of the speci- 
mens and the careful comparisons that he has made with figures and de- 
scriptions clearly establish them as the types, even though the original 
labels were lost. 

Fifty-three of these ancient types are now safely preserved and cata- 
logued in the Museum of Comparative Zoélogy and together with the type 
of the Cape May Warbler in Vassar College, and those of the Mississippi 
Kite and Broad-winged Hawk in the Philadelphia Academy, they prob- 
ably comprise all that are extant of the originals upon which the descrip- 
tions of Wilson, Ord and Bonaparte in the ‘American Ornithology’ and its 
continuation were based.— W. 8. 


Mathews’ ‘Birds of Australia’ .2— Mr. Mathews’ great work continues 
to appear regularly and maintains its high standard of excellence. The 
publishers announce that with the completion of Vol. IV, the subscription 
list will be absolutely closed. No more than 260 copies will be issued and 
“should not all of these be taken up the surplus will be destroyed.”’ 

The two parts now before us complete the Anseriformes and Pelecani- 
formes. The discussion of nomenclature is very full and the classification 
and generic subdivisions of the latter group are gone into in great detail. 
Many pages are devoted to replies to criticisms as to the treatment of certain 
groups and recognition of certain subspecies and genera, while the ‘British 
Museum Catalogue,’ ‘B. O. U. List’ and ‘A. O. U. Check-List’ as well as 
several individual authors come in for some sharp criticism. In all cases - 
of nomenclatural discussion however, Mr. Mathews seems very fair, abiding 
rigidly by the International Code, without any quibbling over individual 
cases. 


1 Relics of Peale’s Museum. By Walter Faxon. Bull. Mus. Comp. ZoG6l. 
LIX, No. 3. pp. 119-148. July, 1915. ; 

2 The Birds of Australia. Vol. IV, Part 2, February 17, 1915. Part 3, June 
23, 1915. 


. bE Recent Literature. blo 


The question of recognition of genera and subspecies is of course a matter 
of personal opinion, though he brings out some important and original 
facts in treating of the Gannets and Frigate Bird. 

In consideration of the general accuracy of minute details we might call 
attention to the apparent omission of a synonym under Mesocarbo ater ater. 
We are informed in the last paragraph that the bird figured is the type of 
M. a. territori but this name occurs nowhere else in the article. So also 
with Hypoleucus varius whytei under H. v. perthi. 

We note as new forms only the following Phalacrocorax carbo indicus 
(p. 171) India; Scwophaethon rubricauda rothschildi (p. 303) Laysan, Niihau; 
S. r. brevirostris (p. 803) Bonin Isls. Most of the new names required in 
the treatment of the Pelecaniformes have been previously published in 
the ‘Austral Avian Record’.— W. S. 


Recent Monographs by Oberholser.!— Mr. Oberholser has recently 
published the results of three careful systematic studies of the American 
Spotted Owl; the Ruddy Kingfisher; and Long-tailed Goatsucker of the 
far East. 

He finds that the four recognized races of the Spotted Owl resolve them- 
selves into two valid forms. Strix o. occidentalis of the Pacific Coast 
region of which S. 0. cawrina is a synonym and S. o. lucida ranging from 
Colorado and western Texas to northern Mexico, of which S. 0. hwachuce 
isa synonym. The presence of a dark and light phase of plumage in this 
species is responsible in part for the description of so many supposed races. 

Of the Kingfisher Hntomothera coromanda nine races are recognized of 
which five are new. LE. c. mizorhina (p. 645) N. Andaman Isl.; E. c. 
neophora (p. 646), Tapanuli Bay, Sumatra; F. c. pagana (p. 648), N. 
Pagi Isl., Sumatra; HF. c. ochrothorectis (p. 652), Masbate Isl., Philippines, 
and H. c. bangsi (p. 654) Ishigaki Isl., Riu Kiu Isls. 

The goatsucker, Caprimulgus macrurus, is also divisible into nine races, 
C. m. mesophanis (p. 590), Ambrina Isl. and C. m. anamesus (p. 593), 
Singapore Isl., being new. These papers straighten out three difficult 
groups of birds very satisfactorily.— W. 8. 


Nature and Science onthe Pacific Coast.?— This little volume is 


1 Critical Notes on the Subspecies of the Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis (Xan- 
tus). By Harry C. Oberholser. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 49, pp. 251-257. July 
26, 1915. 

A Review of the Subspecies of the Ruddy Kingfisher, Entomothera coromanda 
(Linneus). By Harry C. Oberholser. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 4&8, pp. 639-657. 
May 18, 1915. 

A Synopsig of the Races of the Long-tailed Goatsucker, Caprimulgus macrurus 
Horsfield. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., 48, pp. 587-599. May 3, 1915. 

2 Nature and Science on the Pacific Coast. A Guide-book for Scientific Travelers 
in the West. Edited under the Auspices of the Pacific Coast Committee of the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Illustrated with Nine- 
teen text figures, twenty-nine half-tone plates and fourteen maps. Pau! Elder 
and Company, Publishers. San Francisco. 12 mo., pp. 1-294. 


5014 Recent Literature. loon 


admirably adapted to its purpose — that of furnishing in concise form 
such information as the numerous visitors to the coast during the Panama 
Pacific Exposition, who are interested in nature, will be likely to desire. 
The work will however have a permanent value to the numerous tourists 
who are constantly visiting California, and as a general work of reference. 

The several chapters are written by specialists on the subjects of which 
they treat and are accompanied by illustrations and by a brief bibliography 
from which books treating the matter in further detail may be selected. 

Dr. Joseph Grinnell not only edits the volume for the Committee but. 
also treats of ‘The Vertebrate Fauna of the Pacifie Coast’ exclusive of 
the fishes, and in a few pages gives one a good idea of the diversity of 
forms represented, and their distribution in the several life zones and 
faunal areas. There are thirty other chapters on various topics, zoédlogi- 
cal, botanical, geological, mineralogical, ete. Dr. Grinnell’s contribution 
has also been issued as a separate.— W. S. 


Murphy on ‘ The Penguins of South Georgia.’ !1— Several papers: 
dealing with the results of Mr. Murphy’s expedition to South Georgia. 
have appeared in ‘The Auk’ and elsewhere and a number of scientifie 
societies have been made familiar with the avifauna of the island through 
his lectures and admirable lantern slides. In the present paper the photo- . 
graphs from which many of the lantern slides were made appear as half- 
tone plates, while the text places on permanent record his observations on 
the life history of the penguins which constitute the main population of 
South Georgia. 

The two species which are still plentiful are the “Johnny’’ Penguin 
(Pygoscelis papua) and the King Penguin (Aptenodytes patachonica), and 
only one other was observed by Mr. Murphy, the Ringed Penguin (Pygo- 
scelis antarctica) and of it only three individuals. Later information 
however showed also the presence of the Macaroni Penguin (Hudyptes 
chrysolophus) . 

Mr. Murphy presents a very interesting account of the habits, molt, » 
coloration, etc., of the two species which he was able to study and compares. 
his experience with that of others. 

The ‘‘ Johnny’ Penguin he states “has not in any degree the fearless and 
courageous disposition of its Antarctic congener Pygoscelis adelie,” and he 
shows further that it lacks the jumping and diving ability of that: species. 
This he attributes to the fact that it has ‘‘a Subantarctic range and breeds 
on no land which has an ice-shelved coast.” So that the need for such ~ 
phenomenal jumping power disappears. 

Mr. Murphy emphasizes the current misstatements regarding penguins. 
Taking for example such a work as the ‘Cambridge Natural History” 


1The Penguins of South Georgia. By Robert Cushman Murphy. Science 
Bull. Mus. Brooklyn Inst. Arts. and Sci., Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 103-133. August- 
Pee US jay 


vol a al Recent Literature. 515 
we find it stated that (1) the flippers have highly compressed bones with 
no power of flexure; (2) the tongue is rudimentary; (3) they lay two 
coarse flavored eggs (4) the young are hatched blind; (5) the parent feeds 
the young by inserting its bill into that of the nestling. All of these state- 
ments Mr. Murphy found to be erroneous: the tongue is in most if not all 
species well developed; the eggs are from one to three in different species; 
the eyes of the young are open at hatching and the young inserts its bill 
into that of the parent when feeding not vice versa. 

Mr. Murphy has made an important contribution to our knowledge of 
the Spheniscidze which may take its place along with Levick’s ‘Antarctic 
Penguins’ and other recent publications on the subject. His photographs 
are excellent but the printing of some of the half tones has been very 
poorly done— W.S. 


Chapman on New Birds from Central and South America.! — 
Dr. Chapman in continuing his studies of the extensive Colombian collec- 
tions obtained by himself and his collectors, finds additional new forms 
both in Colombia and in neighboring countries, which he proceeds to name 
in the present paper. Odontophorus guianensis panamensis (p. 363) is 
described from Panama and the relationship of the other subspecies dis- 
cussed. The races of Leptotila rufaxilla are considered, of which two are 
described as new, L. r. hellmayri (p. 368), Trinidad; and L. r. pallidipectus 
(p. 869) Buena Vista, Colombia. A partial revision of the South American 
Sparrow Hawks results in the recognition of seven races of which Cerchnets 
Sparverius cauce (p. 375) Cauca Valley, Colombia, and C. s. fernandensis 
(p. 379) Island of Juan Fernandez, off Chile; are new. 

The following additional new forms are proposed: Asio flammeus 
bogotensis (p. 370), Bogota; Rhynchortyx cinctus australis (p. 365), Barba- 
coas, Col.; Colwmba subvinacea peninsularis (p. 366), Cristobal Colon, 
Ven.; Chemepelia rufipennis cauce (p. 367), Cauca Valley; Pyrrhura 
melanura pacifica (p. 382), Buenavista Narifo, Col.; Psittacula conspicillata 
cauce (p. 383), Cauca Valley, Curucujus massena australis (p. 384), Barba- 
coas, Col.; Andigena nigrirostris occidentalis (p. 385), San Antonio above 
Cali, Col.; Chloronerpes rubiginosus buenaviste (p. 386), Buena Vista, Col.; 
Atlapetes gutturalis brunnescens (p. 387), Boquete, Chiriqui.— W. 8. 


Cory on New South American Birds.? — Mr. Cory’s continued study 
of the South American collections received at the Field Museum results 
in the description of the following new forms: Threnetes lewcurus rufigastra 


1 Descriptions of Proposed New Birds from Central and South America. By 
Frank M. Chapman. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXXIV, pp. 363-388. 
May 27, 1915. 

2 Notes on South American Birds, with Descriptions of New Subspecies. By 
Charles B. Cory. Field Museum of Natural History Publication 183. Orni- 
thological Series, I, No. 9, pp. 303-335. August 7, 1915. 


516 Recent Literature. lan 


(p. 303), Moyobamba, Peru; Leucippus fallax richmondi (p. 303), Margarita. — 
Isl.; Piaya cayana ceare (p. 304) Ceara, Brazil; P. melanogaster ochracea 
(p. 304) Yurimaguas, Peru; Chrysoptilus punctigula zulie (p. 305), Zulia, 
W. Peru; Veniliornis tenionotus ceare (p. 306), Ceara, Brazil; Scapaneus 
melanoleucus ceare (p. 306), Ceara, Brazil; and S. pallens peruviana (p. 
307), Molinopampa, Peru. Following these is a ‘Key to the South Ameri- 
can Species and Subspecies Belonging to the Genus Piaya.’ This does not 
seem to be a very happy treatment of the subject, in-as-much-as the state- 
ments of several authors are ignored without explanation and several 
subspecies are omitted without any mention whatever. Thus P. c. 
cabanisi Allen is ignored although Hellmayr states that it is a valid race 
(Nov. Zool. XVII, No. 3, p. 401) while we find no reference to P. c. boliviana 
Stone. We moreover look in vain for remarks ‘‘antea’’ referred to at. 
bottom of p. 310. Mr. Cory’s paper concludes with a ‘Revision of the 
Sparrow Hawks of South America and Adjacent Islands,’ which includes. 
diagnoses of three new forms, Cerchneis sparveria andina (p. 323), Quito, 
Ecuador; C. s. intermedia (p. 325), Villavicencio, Colombia; and C. s. 
perplexa (p. 327), Lower Essequibo River, British Guiana, making fourteen 
in all which are recognized by the author.— W. 8. 

Burns on Periods of Incubation.!— Mr. Burns has done a good work 
in compiling a list setting forth the time of incubation for some 225 species. 
and races of North American birds. Comparatively few careful studies 
of this subject have been made, most odlogists being more anxious to secure 
the egg shells intact than to ascertain how many days will elapse before 
the young break out of them. The figures given are therefore often esti- 
mates or guesses rather then the result of actual observation, and some- 
thing authoritative has been a great desideratum. The only weak point 
in Mr. Burns’ paper is that he does not quote his authority for the individual 
figures, and the list of authors and correspondents from whose statements. 
the list is compiled, must necessarily represent a considerable range of 
accuracy. Even if the figures for which he could personally vouch were 
so marked it would have added a large measure of strength to his paper, 
as his care and accuracy are well known. The use of the query as denoting 
‘possible inaccuracy”’ is not clear, as we note in the case of the Sparrow 
Hawk the period of incubation is given as ‘‘29-30(?) days’’ whereas in 
‘The Auk’ for July, 1913, Miss Althea R. Sherman, in a most careful study 
of this species, ascertained the period from deposition to hatching in four 
eggs of this species to be from earliest to latest 35, 31, 30 and 29 days. - 
respectively. At all events Mr. Burns’s list is an excellent foundation upon 
which to build. Let there be more energy devoted to this phase of the 
subject and less to the amassing of egg shells, and let observers check up: 
their results with Mr. Burns’ list —W.S. 


1 Comparative Periods of Deposition and Incubation of Some North American . 
Birds. By Frank L. Burns. Wilson Bulletin, No. 90. March, 1915. pp. 275— 
286. 


Vol. ae | Recent Literature. 517 


Henshaw on American Game Birds.! — This paper follows exactly the 
plan of two earlier publications on ‘Common Birds of Town and Country’ 
which appeared previously in the ‘ National Geographic Magazine,’ the 
one having been originally issued as a bulletin of the U. 8. Department 
of Agriculture. There are 72 colored illustrations from original paintings 
by Louis Agassiz Fuertes. Of these 16 represent gallinaceous birds, 28 
geese and ducks, 17 waders, 3 pigeons and doves and 8 cranes and rails, 
but as several species often appear together the total number treated is. 
nearly 100. The text presents the range of each species and a brief account 
of its habits. Only those familiar with the cost of producing the high 
grade of colored illustrations here presented will appreciate the expense to 
which the ‘ National Geographic Magazine’ has gone in producing this 
series of portraits of North American birds; while the educational value 
of the undertaking, in bringing this mass of ornithological information to 
thousands of homes that would not otherwise obtain it, is impossible to 
estimate.— W. S. 


Taverner on The Double-crested Cormorant and Its Relation to 
the Salmon Industry.2? — In this pamphlet Mr. Taverner presents the 
results of an investigation of the food of the Cormorants at Percé Village 
and Gaspe basin, Quebec, undertaken during the summer of 1914. In- 
cidentally much interesting information on the nesting of the birds is. 
presented, while the food habits are treated at considerable length. It 
was found that, during the period of observation at least, the Cormorants 
feed on other species of fish and do not molest the Salmon, while evidence 
collected inclined the writer to regard them as entirely blameless of this 
charge. They do however inconvenience the fisherman, when herring 
are scarce, by stealing the few which they catch for bait. The fishing 
clubs of the vicinity we learn offer bounties of 25 cents per head for Cor- 
morants, Shelldrakes, Kingfishers and Divers and #2. for a Kingfisher’s 
nest with the female bird! Mr. Taverner’s paper is an interesting and 
valuable contribution.— W. 8. 


Shufeldt on the Osteology of the Limpkin and Stone Plover.’ — 
In two detailed and fully illustrated papers Dr. Shufeldt describes the: 
skeletons of these two birds and compares them with those of related 
groups. The Limpkin he regards as affiliated more closely with the Rails 


1American Game Birds. By Henry W. Henshaw. National Geographic 
Magazine XXVIII. No. 2. August, 1915. pp. 105-158. 

2The Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) and its Relation to 
the Salmon Industries on the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By P. A. Taverner. Canada 
Dept. of Mines. Museum Bulletin, No. 13. April 30,1915. pp. 1-24 

3 On the Comparative Osteology of the Limpkin (Aramus vociferus) and its. 
Place in the System. By R. W. Shufeldt. Anatomical Record, Vol. 9, No. 8. 
August, 1915. pp. 591-606. 

On the Comparative Osteology of Orthorhamphus magnirostris (the Long- 
billed Stone Plover). By Dr. R. W. Shufeldt. Emu, XV, Parti, July 1, 1915. 
pp. 1-25. 


518 Recent Literature. [Set 


than with the Cranes, although it represents a family distinct from the 
Rallide. This conclusion illustrates how difficult it is to arrive at any 
generally acceptable classification of birds, so great do the opinions of in- 
dividuals differ. Dr. P. Chalmers Mitchell in a recent investigation of this 
same problem on the basis of osteology comes to a diametrically opposite 
opinion! (Abst. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, May 25, 1915). The Stone 
Plover Dr. Shufeldt finds to be probably not closely allied to the 
Bustards as has sometimes been claimed. On the other hand it shows 
clearly the relationship between the Limicole and the Longipennis, and 
“so far as osteology goes, beautifully bridges across one of the gaps, for we 
find both pluvialine and larine characters intimately blended all through 
the skeleton.’””? Dr. Mitchell’s views upon this point would be interesting 
for comparison.— W. S. 


Recent Publications of the Biological Survey.— Prof. Cooke! in a 
report on the shorebirds points out their value as game and the importance’ 
of preserving them from extinction. The Wilson’s Snipe, Woodcock, 
Upland Plover and Eskimo Curlew are the species especially considered 
and their former abundance and rapid decrease in numbers are reviewed 
and the causes pointed out. As an illustration of the unchecked slaughter 
of these birds in the southern States the record of a gunner in Louisiana is 
cited, who in 20 years from 1867 to 1887 killed 69,087 Wilson’s Snipe! 

Mr. Alex. Wetmore? has been making a field study of the mortality of 
ducks, shorebirds, herons, ete., in the neighborhood of Great Salt Lake 
where large numbers of these birds have died under apparently similar 
conditions to those which attended like mortality at Tulare and Owens 
Lakes, California. 

The cause of the trouble has not been positively determined but seems in 
all probability to be alkaline poisoning from the water. The increase in 
irrigation it is suggested has taken up vast quantities of alkali from the 
soil and in dry seasons the water naturally becomes heavily charged with 
it. Investigations by experts fail to show that bacteria, nematodes or poison 
from smelting works have had serious effect upon the birds. 

Another valuable paper recently issued is a new edition of Mr. McAtee’s 
‘Important Wild-Duck Foods,’* which is in great demand among breeders 
of wild fowl— W. S. 

Da Costa on the Economic Value of the Birds of Sao Paulo, Brazil.‘ 


1QOur Shorebirds and their Future. By Wells W. Cooke. Yearbook U. S. 
Department of Agriculture for 1914, pp. 275-294. 

2Mortality Among Waterfowl around Great Salt Lake, Utah. (Preliminary 
Report.) By Alex Wetmore.. Bull. 217 U. S. Department of Agriculture. May 
26, 1915. 

3 Eleven Important Wild-Duck Foods. By W. L. McAtee. Bull. 205 U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, May 20, 1915. 


4 Os Pequenos Amigos da Agricultura. Por. J. Wilson Da Costa. Published ~ 


with the aid of the Secretary of Agriculture of Sao Paulo, 1914, pp. 1-118, illus- 
trated. 


ee Recent Literature. } 519 


As a pioneer publication on economic ornithology for-Brazil, this brochure 
is worthy of attention by those interested in the value of birds in their 
relation to agriculture. Chapters are devoted to the dangers attendant 
on extensive deforestation, the function of certain useful birds and animals, 
the breeding of wild forms in captivity, birds that are useful, animals 
friendly to agriculture, the usefulness of hummingbirds and bees, predacious 
insects, and the economic services of domesticated birds. 

Grave dangers are foreseen in the extensive destruction of forests in many 
areas, not only to the native fauna but to climatic conditions in general. 
After a few notes on the value of certain mammals the author takes up the 
question of the birds useful to agriculture, sketching briefly the services 
of the various orders and families and giving an account of a few common 
species in each group. Attracting birds about fields and houses is recom- 
mended by the placing of pans of water and boxes containing grain and 
seeds. 

The Black Vulture is said to do harm in carrying germs of various epi- 
zootics, on the authority of Dr. H. von Ihering. The other two vultures 
found (Cathartes aura and C. urubitinga) are apparently not included in 
this statement. They have been seen destroying snakes. More than sixty 
species of woodpeckers are found in Brazil. The author remarks that they 
constitute a ‘‘ commiss4o sanitaria phitophathologica ”’ for the forest trees. 
Attention is drawn to the destruction of injurious ants by Colaptes campes- 
tris. The Anis are said to destroy many cattle ticks (a belief not yet sub- 
stantiated in stomach examinations in the Biological Survey). They 
feed on other insects and lizards as well. The Guira Cuckoo (known 
locally as Almo de gato) also lives on insects. The illustrations are in the 
main from photographs of mounted birds. The drawing (p. 35) labelled 
Ani is apparently some species of Molothrus. 

In an appendix (pp. 106-118) is a short account of the wild pigeons of 
Brazil. It includes a discussion of their habits, nidification, food and range. 

Though we may hesitate in endorsing fully some of the statements made 
in regard to the food of certain species, the author is to be commended for 
his efforts in behalf of the birds native to his country. Our knowledge of 
economic conditions in regard to Tropical American species is slight and 
it is hoped that the present contribution is the forerunner of more detailed 
investigations — A. W. 

Third Report on Food of Birds in Scotland.— The report upon in- 
vestigations of the food of birds in Scotland in 1913-1914, by Miss Laura 
Florence, has been published. It catalogs the stomach contents of 891 
birds, the total number now examined being 2897. As usual the report 
is made up 9f detailed analyses of individual stomachs, with brief summa- 
ries for each species. No general conclusions are drawn. Miss Florence 
is now at Stanford University preparing herself for a career in Economic 


1 Trans. Highland and Agr. Soc. Scotland. Fifth series, Vol. 27, 1915, pp. 1-53. 


520 Recent Literature. [det 


Entomology. It will be an occasion for congratulation to have an experi- 
enced bird student added to the ranks of entomologists.— W. L. M. 


Economic Ornithology in Recent Entomological Publications.— 
Katydids are said to have caused the loss of as much as a fourth of the crop 
in certain orange groves of California in 1914. The entomologists who 
describe the depredations — Messrs. J. R. Horton and C. E. Pemberton — 
state that ‘ birds undoubtedly play an important part in reducing the 
number of adults each year.’?! ‘‘ In 1911,” they also say ‘‘a small chip- 
ping sparrow was noted in some abundance among trees of various Katydid- 
infested orchards, and was apparently very busily capturing Katydids. 
Birds are undoubtedly the most important enemies of the Katydid in this 
section ” (p. 11). 

On the other side of the ledger must be set down the activities of bird 
enemies of Calosoma sycophanta a predacious beetle, introduced into New 
England on account of its value as a destroyer of the gipsy-moth. Messrs. 
A. F. Burgess and C. W. Collins in their report on this beetle say: ‘ It is 
undoubtedly true that this species is eaten to some extent by birds, and the 
hairy woodpecker has been charged with destroying it on several occasions. 
The crow has been observed to feed on the beetles and also to carry them to 
their nests which were occupied by young birds.” 2 

The authors, however, report a satisfactory increase and spread of the 
beetle. 

The widespread outbreak of the army-worm, in 1914, called forth the 
publication of a number of bulletins, most of which acknowledge the value 
of birds as enemies of this pest. We quote from two of these reports. 
Dr. W. E. Britton, State Entomologist of Connecticut, states that ‘ Of 
the birds occurring in Connecticut, the most important destroyers of the 
army-worm are the blackbirds, starlings, robins, thrushes, bobolinks, cat- 
birds, and barn swallows. Even the much despised English sparrow has 
been observed to feed upon them.” ® 

With relation to an invasion of army-worms in Canada, Mr. Arthur 
Gibson says:‘ ‘‘ The wild birds are an important aid in outbreaks of noctuid — 
caterpillars, and in 1914 large numbers of army-worms were devoured by 
them. Blackbirds were frequently noticed feeding upon the caterpillars 
in Ontario, and also in New Brunswick, as were also crows. During a local 
outbreak of the army-worm near Treesbank, Man., in 1913, Mr. Norman 
Criddle, Field Officer of the Branch, observed, in August, thousands of 
crows feeding upon the larvae. They were also seen to dig out and eat 
the pupae. A large flock of probably three thousand birds visited the 
infested locality every day from the time Mr. Criddle first noticed the 
worms until at least two weeks after the larvae had pupated. In western 


1 Bull. 256, U. S. Dept. Agr., July 27, 1915, p. 13. 

2 Bull. 251, U. S. Dept. Agr., July 27, 1915, p. 18. 

3 Ann. Rep. Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta. for 1914, Part III, p. 166, 1915. 

4 Bull. 9, Ent. Branch, Dept. Agr.. Dominion of Canada, 1915, pp. 16-17. 


Neate | Recent Literature. 521 


Ontario, the English sparrow was reported to have fed freely upon the 
worms during the past season, and in Nova Scotia the writer saw the Vesper 
Sparrow devouring the caterpillars. Other wild birds which previously 
have been seen to feed upon the army-worm are the Bobolink, Robin, 
Meadow-lark, Bluebird, Kingbird, Blue-jay, Flicker, Cat-bird, Phoebe, 
Cowbird, Baltimore Oriole, Chipping sparrow, Chickadee, and Quail. 
The Sharp-tailed Grouse, common in Manitoba, feeds on smooth cater- 
pillars, and doubtless would devour the army-worm. The same statement 
undoubtedly holds good for other birds than the above mentioned, which 
find their food in the open. The value of protecting our native insectivor- 
ous birds will thus be readily seen, and farmers, gardeners, etc., should do 
all they possibly can to protect them from being shot and their nests from 
being robbed.” — W. L. M. 


The Ornithological Journals.! 


Bird-Lore. XVII, No.3. May—June, 1915. 

Bird Photography for Women. By Miss E. L. Turner.— With numerous 
photographs of British birds. 

Bird-Life in Southern Illinois. IV. Changes Which Have Taken Place 
in Half a Century. By Robert Ridgway.— An admirable discussion of 
decrease in birds in general and of this region in particular. 

Migration of North American Birds. By W. W. Cooke.— Brown 
Creeper and Gnatcatchers. Plumage notes by F. M. Chapman, colored 
plate by Fuertes. 

Bird-Friends in Arizona. By W. L. and Irene Finley Contains a 
splendid series of photographs of desert birds followed by a similar article 
in the July-August issue. 

Bird-Lore. XVII, No. 4. July-August, 1915. 

The Making of Birdcraft Sanctuary. By Mabel Osgood Wright. 

Louis Agassiz Fuertes.— Painter of Bird Portraits. By F. M. Chapman 
(from the American Museum Journal). 

Our Tree Swallows. By M. Louise Brown. 

How the Sapsucker rears its Young. By C. W. Loveland. 

The Kingbird — Educational Leaflet by T. G. Pearson, with colored plate 
by Horsfall. 

The Condor. XVII, No.3. May-June, 1915. 

A Summer at Flathead Lake, Montana. By Aretas A. Saunders. 

An Apparent Hybrid between Species of the Genera Spatula and Quer- 
quedula. By H.S.Swarth.— A male shot at Del Rey, Cal., Dec. 13, 1914. 

An Annofated List of the Birds of Kootenai County, Idaho. By H. J. 
Rust.— 149 species listed. 


1The name of the editor and publisher of each journal will be found in the 
January number of ‘The Auk.’ 


522 Recent Literature. [oct 


The Condor. XVII, No.4. July—August, 1915. 

Nesting of the Bohemian Waxwing in Northern British Columbia. By 
Ernest M. Anderson. 

Notes on Some Birds of Spring Canyon, Colorado. By W. L. Burnett. 

Woodpeckers of the Arizona Lowlands. By M. French Gilman.— A 
particularly interesting and well illustrated paper. 

Further Notes from the San Bernardino Mountains. By A. van Rossem 
and W. M. Pierce.— Notes on 34 species. 

The Wilson Bulletin. XXVII, No.2. June, 1915. 

Notes on the Red-winged Blackbird. By Iva N. Gabrielson. 

Notes from the Laurentian Hills [Quebec]. By L. Mel. Terrill.—- Nest- 
ing of Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, Golden-crowned Kinglet and Black- 
burnian Warbler. 

Corrections and Additions to the Preliminary List of the Birds of Essex 
County, N. J. By L. S. Kohler. 

A List of the Birds of Clay County, South Dakota. By 8S. 8. Visher. 

The Odlogist. XXXII, No.5. May 15, 1915. 

The Nesting of the Western Goshawk. By E. R. Forrest. 

The Oodlogist. XXXII, No.6. June 15, 1915. 

Farralone Rail. By E. E. Sechrist— Nesting near San Diego, Cal. 

The Elusive Kentucky Warbler. By A. J. Kirn.— Nesting in Okla- 
homa. j 

The Odlogist. XXXII, No. 7. July 15, 1915. 

The Northern Raven [breeding in Pennsylvania]. By S. 8. Dickey. 

As a supplement to this issue is published ‘‘ A Bibliography of Scarce or 
Out of Print North American Amateur and Trade Periodicals Devoted 
More or Less to Ornithology.”” By Frank L. Burns. This is a valuable 
compilation of 147 titles, and is more than a mere bibliography of the 
journals since the more important articles in many of them are cited. 

The list is of course not exhaustive, although probably all the journals 
of any value are included. It would however have added to its value if 
the author had stated whether the journals mentioned were only such as | 
he had personally handled and verified, or all of which he was able to secure 
information. Mention might be made here of a similar catalogue published 
by Wm. J. Fox, assistant librarian of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 
Philadelphia, in the Bulletin of Bibliography, April, 1908. 

The Odlogist. XXXII, No.8. August 15, 1915. 

Nesting of the Yellow Rail in North Dakota. By F. Maltby. 

Nesting of the Greater Yellowlegs in Manitoba. By F.S. Norman. 

A Systematic Study of the Diving Process of Hrismatura jamaicensis. 
By A. Cookman. 

Proceedings of the Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union. Vol. VI, 
Part 3. July 10, 1915.— Contains reports of the sixteenth Annual Meet- 
ing and on Bird Migration at Lincoln, Neb., spring, 1913. 

The Ibis. X Series. Vol. III, No. 2. peat 1915. 

Notes on the Ornithology of the Matopo District, Southern hedasme 


a | Recent Literature. 523 
By L. Beresford Mouritz.— An annotated list of 237 species, completed 
in the July number. 

Notes on the Ornithology of Cyprus. By F. R.S. Baxendale.— Thirty- 
eight species considered. 

Report on the Birds collected by the late Mr. Boyd Alexander during 
his last Expedition to Africa. Part III. The Bird of Annobon Island. 
By D. A. Bannerman.— 17 species. 

On a Collection of Birds from British East Africa and Uganda, presented 
to the British Museum by Capt. G. B. Cosens.— Part II. Accipitri- 
morphes — Cypseli. By C. H. B. Grant. With Field Notes by the Col- 
lector W. P. Lowe.— This installment brings the list of species up to 170. 
Under a number of species all of the subspecies are considered and many 
questions of synonymy worked out. Jrrisor erythrorhynchus rwwenzore 
(p. 286) from Ruwenzori is described as new. In the July number the 
groups Coli-Pici are considered and the list carried to 212. The same 
careful study of allied races marks this part also. 

The ‘“‘ Mauritius Hen” of Peter Mundy. By W. L. Sclater — Inter- 
esting comments on the references to the Dodo and “ Mauritius Hen ” 
(Aphanapteryx brekii) an extinct Rail, in the recently published ‘ Travels ’ 
of Peter Mundy 

Coloration as a Factor on Family and Generic Differences. By Percy 
R. Lowe.— This is the full text of Mr. Lowe’s address before the British 
Ornithologists’ Club already noticed. 

Mixed Bird-parties. By C. F. M. Swynnerton.— An interesting descrip- 
tion of such assemblages in various parts of the world, which are explained 
on the basis of systematic codperative hunting. 

A Note on Loxia pytyopsittacus Bork. By C. B. Ticehurst.— Plea for 
its recognition as a valid form. 

The New B. O. U. List of British Birds. By Dr. E. Hartert.— A valu- 
able review by the principal author of the British ‘ Hand-list ’ which empha- 
sizes the opinion expressed in these columns that differences in bird names 
today are dependent mainly on questions of ornithology rather than of 
nomenclature. Several corrections to the ‘List’ are also given in the 
Correspondence columns. 

The Ibis. X-Series. Vol. III, No.3. July, 1915. 

Notes on Bird-Migration at the Mouth of the Yenesei River, Siberia, 
as observed in the autumn of 1914. By Maud D. Haviland.— An impor- 
tant paper, among other statements the author says “any acceleration or 
delay in the annual shrinkage of the Polar ice-cap must react to the extent 
of 200 or 300 miles perhaps in the restriction or extension of the summer 
range of a species.” 

The Birds of Cameroon Mountain. By David A. Bannerman.— This 
is Part IV of the reports on the late Mr. Boyd Alexander’s collections. 
Sixty-five species are listed. A list of species known to have been obtained 
about the base of the mountain is added. 

Notes on Some Waders. By Ernst Hartert and Annie C. Jackson.— 


524 Recent Literature. [det 


A critical consideration of several species of Charadrius. C. alexandrinus 
seebohmi (p. 529) Aripo, northern Ceylon, is described as new and the type 
of ‘‘Agialitis homeyeri”’ is shown to be made up of portions of two species. 

On Some Petrels from the North-east Pacific Ocean. By G. M. Mathews 
and ‘l’om Iredale.— As the authors state this is practically a ‘ remonograph- 
ing’ of certain genera in the course of which Bannermania (p. 578) is 
proposed as a new genus for Oceanodroma hornbyi, the type of which still 
remains unique; also Cymochorea owstoni (p. 581), Yokohama Bay, Japan; 
Puffinus bannermani (p. 594), Bonin Isl.; Neonectris griseus pescadoresi 
(p. 602), Pescadores Isl.; N. g. missus (p. 603), Kuril Isl.; Bulweria 
bulweri pacifica, (p. 607), Bonin Isl.; Calonectris (p. 592) for Puffinus 
leucomelas; Microzalias, (p. 597), for P. nativitatis. 

Studies on the Charadriiformes.— I On the Systematic Position of the 
Ruff (Machetes pugnax) and the Semipalmated Sandpiper (Hrewneles 
pusillus), together with a Review of some Osteological characters which 
differentiate the Eroliine (Dunlin group) from the Tringine (Redshank 
group). By P. R. Lowe.— Both of these birds in osteological characters 
are unquestionably members of the Froliine whereas they have been 
universally regarded as Tringine in their affinities. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CCVI. April 
28, 1915. 

Mr. D. A. Bannerman describes Dryoscopus angolensis cameroonensis 
(p. 105) Cameroon Mountain; Dr. Van Someren proposes A palis nigriceps 
collaris (p. 107) from Uganda. 

Mr. C. F. M. Swynnerton discusses the coloration of eggs and the 
mouths of nestlings, and suggests that to a certain extent these may be 
due to protective mimicry. Certain eggs are found to be distasteful to 
‘ ego-enemies ’ and others similarly colored may be cases of mimicry. The 
coloration of the mouths of certain nestlings was considered as the possible 
result of warning coloration. Mr. Stuart Baker opposed these theories. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No. CCVII. May 
28, 1915. 

Dr. van Someren (p. 116) described the following new birds from Uganda, 
Cuculus mabire, Scoptelus pallidiceps, Bleda exima ugande. 

Dr. P. R. Lowe described a downy young of Chionis minor and stated 
that the osteology of the bird showed distinct affinity to the Skuas. 

Mr. D. A. Bannerman presented a revision of the Puffinus kuhii group 
describing as new P. k. fortunatus (p. 120) from the Canary Islands. He 
recognizes five races, reducing the American P. borealis to a race of kuhli. 

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club. No.CCVIII. July 7, 
1915. . 

Dr. van Someren described the following new birds from Uganda; 
Turdus ugande (p. 125), Turdinus albipectus minutus (p. 126); Macro- 
sphenus flavicans ugande (p. 126); Chlorocichla gracilirostris chagwensis 
(p. 127); Andropadus ugandw (p. 126); Chlorocichla indicator chlorosaturata _ 
(p. 127). The meeting was mainly devoted to a discussion on “ The Effect, 
of Environment on the Evolution of Species.” 


Vol. | } Recent Literature. 029 


British Birds. VIII, No. 12. May 1, 1915. 

The B. O. U. List of British Birds.— An interesting and instructive re- 
view by the authors of the ‘ Hand List.’ 

British Birds. Vol. 1X, No.1. June 1, 1915. 

Additions and Corrections to the ‘ Hand-List of British Birds.’ By the 
Authors.— This corresponds to an ‘A. O. U. Supplement’ but is commend- 
ably fuller in discussion of details of nomenclature, etc. 

Notes on the Breeding Habits of the Gray Phalarope [Phalaropus fuli- 
carius]. By Maud D. Haviland.— With photographs taken at the mouth 
of the Yenesei. 

British Birds. IX, No.2. July 1, 1915. 

Notes on the Moults and Sequence of Plumages in Some British Ducks. 
By Annie C. Jackson.— This is an exceedingly valuable contribution to a 
mooted problem and it is gratifying to find that after the examination of a 
large lot of material the author comes to the conclusion that “‘ in the ducks, 
‘colour change’ plays no part and, that the different plumages are simply 
and naturally acquired by a moult only.” 

The central tail feathers of the Mallard which Mr. Millais in his ‘ British 
Diving Ducks’ cites as evidence of color change are found to be molted 
twice a year instead of once as he supposed, which disposes of any necessity 
for color change. 

Mr. T. Iredale and Dr. Hartert discuss certain questions of nomenclature. 
Two of these affect the “ A.O. U. Check-List’ and demand our consideration, 
t.e., Hirundo vs. Chelidon, and Colymbus vs. Podiceps. We consider that Mr. 
Iredale and the ‘ B. O. U. List’ are correct in both instances. The type of 
Hirundo is rustica and that of Colymbus is arcticus both fixed by Gray. Dr. 
Hartert’s plea that ‘‘ Gray’s action in this case should be rejected, because 
he was in ignorance ’’ of the work of others, is the same old argument for 
exceptions to the rule. If we do not ‘ construe” rules “ rigidly,’’ why 
have rules at all? 

British Birds. IX, No.3. August 2, 1915. 

Notes on a Long-eared Owl Nesting on the Ground in Norfolk. By 
J. H. Gurney and Miss E. L. Turner.— With photographs from life. 

Aviculture Magazine. VI, No.7. May, 1915. 

Patagonian Plovers and Trumpeter Birds. By Mrs. Gregory. 

Spring Bird-notes from Various Scottish Islands. By The Duchess of 
Bedford (concluded in No. 8). 

Jottings on Common Indian Birds. By Aubyn Trevor-Battye (con- 
cluded in No. 8). 

Avicultural Magazine. VI, No.8. June, 1915. 

The Bird Market of Caracas. By Albert Pain. 

Avicultural Magazine. VI, No.9. July, 1915. 

The Mikado Pheasant (with colored plate). By Mrs. Johnstone. 

Cuckoo’s Habits in the Breeding Season. By H. D. Astley. 

Avicultural Magazine. VI, No. 10. August, 1915. 

Birds in Flanders. By Dr. B. E. Potter. 


526 Recent Literature. [oct 


Bird Notes from the Fjords. By R. Staples-Browne. 

The Emu. XV, Part 1. July, 1915. 

On the Comparative Osteology of Orthorhamphus magnirostris (the 
Long-billed Stone-Plover). By R. W. Shufeldt. 

New Records for South-Western Australia. By W. B. Alexander. 

Rookeries of the White-breasted Cormorant (Phalacrocorax gouldi). 
By A. W. Swindells. 

Lewin’s “ Birds of New South Wales.”” By G. M. Mathews. 

Descriptions of Nests and Eggs New to Science. By H. L. White. 

Descriptions of Nests and Eggs of Monarcha canescens and Neochmia 
gebracton albiventer. By W. Macgillivray. 

Observations around Anglesea, Victoria. By H. A. Purnell. 

The Emu. XIV, Part 4. April, 1915. 

An Expedition to the Musgrave and Everard Ranges. By Capt. 
S. A. White.— A region previously unexplored and found to be exceedingly 
dry owing to an almost continuous drought of nine years, 94 species listed. 

Notes on the Genus Pyenoptilus. By F. E. Howe.— With excellent 
photographs of the nest and bird. 

Birds of Wangaratta District, Australia. By Miss Gladys M. Cheney.— 
Annotated list of 204 species. 

Further Notes on the Emu Wren (Stipiturus malachurus). By Miss J. A. 
Fletcher. 

Nine half-tone plates of Australian Cuckoos’ eggs with the sets in which 
they were found, illustrate an article which appeared in the January num- 
ber and incidentally show what striking differences are often exhibited in 
the color of the egg of the Cuckoo and the birds upon which it is parasitic. 

The South Australian Ornithologist. Vol. II, Part 2. April, 1915. 

Birds of the Cairns District, Queensland. No. 2. By G. M. Mathews. 

Birds Observed at Stonyfell,S. A. By R. Crompton. 

Another New Bird for Australia. By 8. A. White. — Acanthiza mariane 
(p. 45) N. W. Australia. 

A Sketch of the Life of Samuel White — Ornithologist. By 5S. A. White 
(concluded in Part 3). 

The South Australian Ornithologist. II, Part 3. July, 1915. 

Birds of the Cairns District, Queensland, No. 3. By G. M. Mathews. 

Grebes as Feather-eaters. By F. R. Zeitz. 

The Austral Avian Record III, No.1. June 30, 1915. 

On Columba pallida Latham. By G. M. Mathews — with a reproduc- 
tion of the original plate in colors. 

On the Ornithology of the Dictionaire des Sciences Naturelles (Levrault). 
By G. M. Mathews and T. Iredale.— The authors do not claim that their 
list is absolutely complete and we are able to call attention to one oversight. 
A new genus Aethia (Vol. I, Suppl., p. 71) based upon Alca cristatella. 

Raperia godmane. A New Bird from Lord Howe Island. Now Extinct. 
By G. M. Mathews. Genus and species new (p. 21). 

Two new subspecies. By G. M. Mathews. 


aie | Recent Literature. 527 


Ixobrychus minutus victoria (p. 24) Geelong, Vic.; Ethelornis magnirostris 
whitlocki (p. 24) Port Hedland, Mid-west Australia. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. VII, No.71. March 7, 1915. 

On Hybridization in the genus Paradisea. By A. Menegaux — suggested 
as a possible explanation of certain ‘‘ intermediate ’’ species. 

Birds and the Cholera. By X. Raspail. 

Study of a Collection of Birds from India. By A. Engel (continued in 
April and May). 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. VII, No.73. May 7, 1915. 

Song Birds of the Environs of Vendome. By E. Coursimault — con- 
tinued in June number. 

Revue Francaise d’Ornithologie. VII, No.74. June7, 1915. 

List of Birds Observed in Marocco, 1884-1914. By Hans R. Vaucher — 
continued in July number. 

Observations on the Birds of the Dunes of Newport, Belgium. By 
Count de Tristan. 

Messager Ornithologique. VI, No. 2. 1915. 

Birds of Ussuri-land. By 8. A. Buturlin— Contains the following new 
form, Perisoreus infaustus maritimus (p. 104) Samargi River. 

Remarks on the Avifauna of the Province of Kouban. By E. 8. Ptou- 
chenko. 

Erythropus vespertinus transripheus nom. emend. (p. 126). By S. A. 
Buturlin.— In place of EL. v. obscurus v. Tschusi (p. 128). 

Uragus sibiricus ussuriensis subsp. nov. (p. 128). By S. A. Buturlin. 
Lake Khanka. 

Pinicola enucleator sakhalinensis subsp. nov. (p. 129). ByS. A. Buturlin. 
Chakvo, Saghalien. 

Nucifraga caryocatactes altaicus subsp. nov. (p. 131). ByS. A. Buturlin. 
Altaiskaia, Altai. 

Strix uralensis yenesseensis subsp. nov. (p. 133). By 8. A. Buturlin. 
From Krassnoyarsk. 

_ A New Wryneck.— Jynx torquilla harterti subsp. nov. (p. 185). By 
G.I. Poljakov.— From S. W. Altai. 

A New Waxwing — Bombycilla garrulus centralasiz subsp. nov. (p. 137). 
By G. 1. Poljakov — Zaissan district. 

Pinicola enucleator altaicus subsp. nov. (p. 139). By G.1. Poljakov and 
8. A. Buturlin. Finn Lake, Marka Kul, 8S. W. Altai. 

Contribution to the Geographic Distribution of the Genus Sitta. By 
J. B. Domaniewski. — A new form, Sitta europea sztolemani (p. 142) is: 
described. 

The Name of the Siberian Herring Gull. By S. A. Buturlin— Larus 
taimyrensis taimyrensis Buturl. for the eastern race and L. t. antelius: 
(Iredale) for the western. 

On the White-winged Magpie (Pica pica bactriana Bp.) as a distinct: 
subspecies. 

Ornithologisches Jahrbuch. XXV, 5-6, September—December, 1914. 


528 Recent Literature. ae 


Contribution to the Ornithology of Syrmien. By E. Rossler. 

On the Avifauna of the Upper Otzthaler Alps in Tyrol. By C. E. Hell- 
mayr. 

Migration of Mormon arcticus in the Mediterranean Region. By A. v. 
Jordans. 

Ornithological Observations in the Vicinity of Jerichow. By U. Bahr- 
mann. 

Journal fiir Ornithologie. Vol. 63, Heft 2. April, 1915. 

Bernard Hantzsch’s Ornithological Collections from Baffinland. By 
Eric Hesse.— 38 species listed and discussed at length. The relationships 
of the Snow and Blue Geese are considered. 

Wing Feather Characteristics in the Birds of North West Germany. 
By H. Reichling. 

Remarks on the Eggs of Birds of Paradise. By H. Schalow. 

Ornithologische Monatsberichte. May, 1915. 

New Birds from the Eastern Frontier of Cameroon. By O. Neumann. — 
Francolinus bicalcaratus adamaue (p. 72), Garna Adamaua; Paleornis 
krameri centralis (p. 73) Gondokoro, Caprimulgus houyi (p. 73) Bodanga; 
Crateropus reinwardti houyi (p. 74) Gore, N. E. Cameroon. 

Ornithologische Monatsberichte. June, 1915. 

New African Species. By A. Reichenow. Buccanodon leucogrammi- 
cum (p. 90), Sanyi, German E. Afr.; Barbatula leucolema urungensis (p. 
91), Urungu, s. end of Tanganika; Malaconotus olivaceus pallidirostris (p. 
91), Patugese Guinea; Campephaga quiscalina miinzneri (p. 91) Mahenge, 
German E. Africa; Dicrurus mtinzneri (p. 91) Sanyi, German E. Africa; 
Cinnyris hofmanni (p. 91), Magogoni, German E. Africa; Chlorophoneus 
miinznert (p. 91), Sanyi. 


Ornithological Articles in Other Journals.! 


Anderson, R. M. Canadian Arctic Expedition, 1913-14 and Prelimi- 
nary List of Birds Collected (Summary Report Geol. Survey, Canada, 1914). 
— 52 species. 

McGregor, R. C. Description of a New Species of Prionochilus from 
the Highlands of Luzon (Philippine Jour. of Sci. IX, 6. Nov. 1914).— 
P. anthonyi, Polis Mt., Luzon (p. 531) with colored plate. 

Cole, L. J. and Kirkpatrick, W. F. Sex Ratios in Pigeons, together 
with Observations on the Laying, Incubation and Hatching of the Eggs. 
(Bull. 162, Agr. Exper. Sta., R. I. State College.) 

Taverner, P. A. Suggestions for Ornithological Work in Canada. 
(Ottawa Naturalist, April and May, 1915.) 


1 Some of these journals are received in exchange, others are examined in the 
library of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. The Editor is under 
obligations to Mr. J. A. G. Rehn for a list of ornithological articles contained in~ 
the accessions to the library from week to week. 


ee | Recent Literature. 529 

Clarke, W. Eagle. On the Occurrence of the Eastern Short-toed Lark, 
at Fair Isle: An Addition to the British Avifauna. (Scottish Naturalist, 
May, 1915).— Calandrella brachydactyla longipennis. 

Clarke, W. Eagle. Notes on the Migratory Birds Observed at Fair 
Isle in 1914. (do.) 

Robertson, J. and Mackeith, T. T. The Birds of Renfrewshire. 
(Scottish Naturalist, June and August, 1915.) 

Baxter, Evelyn V. and Rintoul, L. J. Report on Scottish Ornithology 
in 1914. Including Migration. (Scottish Naturalist, July, 1915.)— An 
extended and interesting report covering nearly 100 pages. 

Tulloch, John S. Nesting of the Gannet in Shetland: An Extension of 
its Breeding Range. (Scottish Naturalist, August, 1915.) 

Haviland, Maud D. Notes on the Courtship of the Lapwing. (The 
Zoologist, June 15, 1915.) 

Haviland, Maud D. Notes on the Breeding Habits of the Willow- 
Grouse (Lagopus lagopus) at the Mouth of the Yenesei River, Siberia. 
(The Zoologist, July 15, 1915.) 

Gurney, J. H. Ornithological Report from Norfolk (1914). 

Osgood, W. H., Preble, E. A., and Parker, G.H The Fur Seals and 
Other Life of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, in 1914. (Bull. U. 8. Bureau 
of Fisheries, XXXIV, June 19, 1915.)— Birds briefly treated, pp. 121-125. 

Chapman, Frank M. Louis Agassiz Fuertes — Painter of Bird Por- 
traits. (American Museum Journal, May, 1915.)— With beautiful re- 
productions of some of his work. 

Murphy, R.C. The Penguins of South Georgia. (do.)— The subject 
is treated more fully in a paper reviewed on p. 514 antea. 

Baynes, E.H. Bird Baths and Drinking Pools. (do., April, 1915.)— 
From his book reviewed p. 507 antea. 

Bangs, O. Three new subspecies of Birds from Eastern Mexico and 
Yucatan. (Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., XX XVII, May 27, 1915, pp. 125-126.) 
— Tityra semifasciata deses (p. 125), Chichen Itza; Turdus migratorius 
phillipsi (p. 125), Las Viegas, Vera Cruz; Cyanocompsa parellina beneplacita 
(p. 126), Santa Leonor, Tamaulipas. 

Fleming, J.H. A New Turnagra from Stephens’ Island, N. Z. (do., 
May 27, pp. 121—124.)— Turnagra capensis minor (p. 121). 

Ridgway, Robert. Description of Some New Forms of American 
Cuckoos, Parrots and Pigeons. (do., May 27, pp. 105-108.)— Coccyzus 
minor palloris (p. 105), Pigres, Costa Rica; C.m. rileyi (p. 105), Barbuda; 
Morococcyx erythropygus mexicanus (p. 105), Juchitan, Oaxaca, Mex.; 
Ara militaris mexicana (p. 106), Manzanello, Mex.; Conuwrus holochlorus 
strenuus (p. 106), Omete, Nicaragua; Grammopsittaca lineola maculata 
(p. 106), E. Peru?; Amazona vittata gracilipes (p. 106), Culebra Isl., W. L., 
Notioenas for Columba maculosa (p. 106), Chloroenas inornata exsul (p. 106); 
Porto Rico; Zenaidura macroura tresmarie (p. 107), Marie, Madre Isl.; 
Z. ruficauda robinsoni (p. 107), Honda, Colombia; Melopelia asiatica 
mearnst (p. 107), Nogales, Arizona; Leptotila verreauxi nuttingi (p. 107), 
Ometepe, Nicaragua. 


530 Recent Literature. lace 


Lincoln, F.C. Description of a New Bob white from Colorado. (do. 


May 27, pp. 103-104) — Colinus virginianus taylori (p. 103), Laird, Yuma. 


Co. Colo. 
Ridgway, R. A New Pigeon from Chiriqui, Panama. (do., June 29, 
1915, pp. 139-140.)— Oenenas chiriquensis (p. 139). 


Cahn, A.R. The Status of Harris’s Sparrow in Wisconsin and Neigh-- 


boring States. (Bull. Wisc. Nat. Hist. Soc., XIII, No. 2, pp. 102-108.) 


Lowe, John N. The Birds of Green Lake County, Wisconsin. (do... 


pp. 62-87.) — 209 species listed. 
Pride, A. Notes on the Habits of the Rhea. (Proc. Royal Phys. Soc. 
Edinburgh, XIX, pp. 200-202.) 


Scharff, R. F. On the Irish Names of Birds. (Irish Naturalist,. 


May, 1915.) 


Patten, C.J. Eider Ducks at Inishtrahull with Remarks on the Status. 


of this Bird in Ireland. (do.) 

Grevé, C. Early Bird Migration in East Sea, Province of Russland. 
(Zool. Beobachter, LVI, No. 3.) 

Salvadori, T. Campephaga analis Verr. and Des Murs. (Boll. Mus. 
Zool. Anat. Comp., XXIX, Dec., 1914.) 


Visher, 8. 8S. Notes on the Significance of the Biota and of Biogeog- 


raphy. (Bull. Amer. Geogr. Soc., XLVII, No. 7.) 

Lloyd-Jones, Orren. Studies on Inheritance in Pigeons. II. A Mi- 
croscopical and Chemical Study of the Feather Pigments. (Jour. Exper. 
Zool., XVIII, pp. 453-500). 

Hartert, E. Notes on Falcons. (Novit. Zool., XXII, pp. 167-185.) 


All Gyrfalcons are regarded as subspecies of F. rusticolus, F. r. rusticolus: 


inhabits northern Europe; islandus Iceland, candicans Arctic America 
and Greenland, obsoletus Labrador and urulensis, Siberia. There is much 
individual variation in color. 

Hartert, E. A Small Collection of Birds from Hausaland, Northern 
Nigeria. (do., pp. 244-266.) 144 species listed. 


Kirkman, F. B. Dates of Publication of the Sections of the “‘ British _ 


Bird Book” (do., p. 386). 

Wild Life. Beautiful illustrations and life histories, mostly of British 
Birds. In April number, Stone Curlew and Buff-backed Heron; May, 
Blackcock and Cormorant; June, Wood Lark, and Shoveller; July, 
Kestrel, Hobbie and Ringed Plover. 


Ogawa M. Notes on Mr. Alan Owston’s Collection of Birds from the: 


Islands lying between Kiushu and Formosa. (Annotations Zoologicse 
Japonensis, V, Part IV, pp. 175-232, pll. IX—XI, Tokyo Zool. Soc., 
July, 1905.)— Geocichla major (p. 178), Amami-Oshima; Merula celenops 
yakushimensis (p. 180) Yakushima; Zosterops japonica insularis (p. 186), 
Tanegashima and Yakushima; Corvus macrorhynchus osai (p. 196), Loochoo,. 
Isls., Picus owstoni (p. 203), Amami-Oshima; and Nannocnus izime (p. 215), 


Yagachi, Okinawashima and Ishigaki, are described as new. The whole. 


list totals 124 species and there is a table showing the fauna of each island 


on —_- 


Peis | Recent Literature. 531 


or island group. Mr. Ogawa is unfortunate in not designating type speci- 
mens and definite type localities for his new species, an oversight which 
may cause confusion in the future. 

Van Name, W.G. Bird Collecting and Ornithology. (Science, June 
4, 1915.) —A reply to J. Grinnell’s ‘ Conserve the Collector.’ 

Sumner, F. B. Some Reasons for Saving the Genus. (Science, June 
18, 1915.) — This and the following are directly in line with an editorial 
note in the July issue of ‘ The Auk.’ 

Van Name, W.G. Losing the Advantages of the Binomial System of 
Nomenclature. (Science, August 6, 1915.) 

Oregon Sportsman. April to June. Contains excellent colored plates 
of western game birds by Brooks and Horsfall with descriptive text by 
W. L. Finley. 

Forbush, E. H. ‘The Starling. (Circular 45, Mass. State Board of 
' Agriculture.) — An historical and economic account of the species. 

Brooks, Earle A. Forty Common Birds of West Virginia. (Arbor and 
Bird Day Manual, Dept. Free Schools, Charleston, W. Va., March 26, 
1915.) 


Publications Received.— Baker, Dr. Frank. The National Zoologi- 
eal Park and Its Inhabitants. (Smithsonian Report for 1914, pp. 445-478, 
pll. 1-41.) 

Baynes, Ernest Harold. Wild Bird Guests. E. P. Dutton & Co., 
New York, 8vo, 1915, pp. 326. $2.00 net. 

Brooks, Earl A. Forty Common Birds of West Virginia. (Arbor and 
Bird Day Manual. Department of Schools, Charleston, W. Va., March 
26, 1915.) 

Burns, Frank L. Comparative Periods of Deposition and Incubation 
of Some North American Birds. (Wilson Bull. No. 90, pp. 277-286, 
March, 1915.) 

Chapman, Frank M. Descriptions of Proposed New Birds from Cen- 
tral and South America. (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. XXXIV, 
Art. XI, pp. 368-388. May 27, 1915.) 

Cole, Leon J. and Kirkpatrick, W.F. Sex Ratios in Pigeons, together 
with Observations on the Laying, Incubation and Hatching of the Eggs. 
(Bull. 162, Agr. Exper. Sta. R. I. State Coll., April, 1915.) 

Cooke, Wells W. (1)' Bird Migration. (Bull. 185, U. S. Dept. Agr., 
April 17, 1915.) (2) Our Shore birds and their Future. (Yearbook 
U.S. Dept. Agr., 1914, pp. 275-294.) 

Cory, Charles B. Notes on South American Birds, with Descriptions 
of New Subspecies. (Publ. 183, Field Mus. Nat. Hist, Ornith. Series, I, 
No. 9, pp..303-335, Aug. 7, 1915.) 

Dall, Wm. H. Spencer Fullerton Baird, a Biography. 8vo, pp. i-xvi + 
1-462, 19 illustrations. 1915. $3.50 net. 

Edmanson. Bird Homes Catalogue. E. E. Edmanson & Co., 124 
So. Norton St., Chicago, Il. 


532 E Recent Literature. au 


Faxon, Walter. Relics of Peale’s Museum. (Bull. Mus. Comp. 
Zoo6l., LIX, No. 3, pp. 119-148, July, 1915.) 

Forbush, E. H. (1) The Starling. (Circular No. 45, Mass. State 
Board of Agr., May, 1915.) (2) Bird Houses and Nesting Boxes. (do. 
Circular, No. 47. April, 1915.) 

Fraser, W. B. Biennial Report of the State Game and Fish Commis- 
sioner of the State of Colorado. 1913-1914. 

Grinnell, Joseph. (1) Nature and Science on the Pacific Coast. Paul 
Elder & Co., San Francisco, 12mo., pp. 1-302. (2) Vertebrate Fauna of 
the Pacific Coast. (Separate from the preceding.) 

Gurney, J. H. Ornithological Report from Norfolk (1914). (The 
Zoologist, April, 1915, repaged 1-26.) 

Harper, Francis. A Sojourn in the Primeval Okefinokee. (Brooklyn 
Mus. Quarterly, II, No. 4, April, 1915, pp. 226-244.) 

Henshaw, H. W. American Game Birds. (Nat. Geogr. Magazine, 
XXVIII, No. 2, August, 1915, pp. 105-158.) 

Ingersoll, Ernest. The Audubon Movement. (Circular No. 1, Nat. 
Asso. Audubon Societies.) 

Job, Herbert K. (1) Propagation of Upland Game-Birds. (Bull. 2, 
Nat. Asso. Aud. Soe., April, 1915. Price, 25 cts.) (2) Propagation of Wild 
Water-Fowl. (Bull. 3, do., May, 1915. Price, 25 cts.) 

Laign, Hamilton M. Out withthe Birds. Outing Publishing Co., New 
York. 1913, 8vo, pp. 1-249. $1.50. 

Lowe, Percy R. Coloration as a Factor in amily and Generic Differen- 
tiation. (Ibis, April, 1915, pp. 320-346.) 

Mathews, Gregory M. The Birds of Australia. Vol. IV, Part 2, 
February 17, 1915, and 3, June 23, 1915. London, Witherby & Co. 

McAtee, W. L. Eleven Important Wild Duck Foods. (Bull. 205, 
U.S. Dept. Agr., May 20, 1915.) 

McGregor, Richard C. Description of a New Species of Prionochilus. 
from the Highlands of Luzon. (Philippine Jour. of Sci., IX, No. 6, Sec. D, 
Noy., 1914, pp. 531-533.) : 

Murphy, Robert C. The Penguins of South Georgia. (Sci. Bull. 
Mus. Brooklyn Inst., Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 103-133, pll. 19-43, Aug. 2, 1915.) 

Oberholser, Harry C. (1) A Synopsis of the Races of the Long-tailed 
Goatsucker, Caprimulgus macrurus Horsfield. (Proc. U.S. N. M., Vol. 48, 
pp. 587-599, May 3, 1915.) (2) A Review of the Subspecies of the Ruddy 
Kingfisher, Entomothera coromanda (Linnzus). (do., pp. 639-657, May 
18, 1915.) (3) Critical Notes on the Subspecies of the Spotted Owl, Strix 
occidentalis (Xantus). (do., Vol. 49, pp. 251-257, July 26, 1915.) 

Osgood, Wilfred H., Preble, E. A., and Parker, Geo. H. The Fur Seals 
and Other Life of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, in 1914. Bull. U.S. Bureau 
of Fisheries, XXXIV, Document No. 820. June 19, 1915, pp. 1-172, 
pll. 1-18, maps 1-24. Price 50 cts. 


Palmer, T.S. Directory of Officials and Organizations Concerned with - 


the Protection of Birds and Game, 1915. (Circular U. S. Biol. Survey, 
Aug. 11, 1915.) 


gee Recent Literature. Doe 

Schalow, Herman. Bemerkungen iiber die Eier der Paradiesvégel. 
(Jour. f. Ornith., April, 1915, pp. 268-295.) 

Shufeldt, R.W. (1) On the Comparative Osteology of Orthorhamphus 
magnirostris (the Long-billed Stone Plover). (Emu, XV, Part 1, July, 
1915, pp. 1-25.) (2) On the Comparative Osteology of the Limpkin 
(Aramus vociferus) and its Place in the System. (Anatomical Record, 
Vol. 9, No. 8, Aug., 1915, pp. 591-606.) (8) Science, Ornithology and the 
War. (Wilson Bull., XXVII, No. 2, June, 1915, pp. 344-347.) (4) Eggs 
of North American Water Birds, Parts 1 and2. (Blue-bird, May and 
August, VII, Nos. 8 and 11.) (5) Making Friends with a Young Barred 
Owl. (Our Dumb Animals. Vol. 48, No. 4, Sept., 1915.) 

Stanwood, C. J. The Hermit Thrush. (Outdoor World and Recrea- 
tion, May, 1915.) 

Strong, R. M. On the Habits and Behavior of the Herring Gull, 
Larus argentatus Pont. (Smithsonian Report for 1914, pp. 479-509.) — 
[Reprinted from ‘The Auk.’ Somewhat abridged but with additional 
matter!] 

Swarth, H. 8. An Apparent Hybrid Between Species of the Genera 
Spatula and Querquedula. (Condor, XVII, pp. 115-118, May, 1915.) 

Taverner, P. A. (1) Suggestions for Ornithologica) Work in Canada. 
(Ottawa Nat., XXIX, April and May, 1915.) (2) The Double-crested 
Cormorant (Phalacrocorax Auritus) and its Relation to the Salmon Indus- 
tries on the Gulf of St. Lawrence. (Mus. Bull. No. 13, Geol. Survey, 
Canada, Dept. Mines, Biol. Series No. 5, April 30, 1915). (3) Zoology 
(Summary Report Geol. Survey Canada, 1914.) 

Watson, J. B. and Lashley, K. S. Homing and Related Activities 
of Birds. (Vol. VII, Papers from Dept. Marine Biology, Carnegie Inst. 
of Wash. Publ. 211). 

Warren, B.H. Birds and Their Enemies. Some Unusual! Nesting Sites 
of Barn Swallows. (Everhart Mus. Scranton Pennsylvania, Nat. Hist., 
Leaflet No. 7, Aug. 20, 1915.) 

Wetmore, Alex. Mortality among Waterfowl around Great Salt Lake, 
Utah. (Bull. 217, U.S. Dept. Agr., May 26, 1915.) 

Abstract Proc. Zool. Soc. London, No. 142. 

American Museum Journal, The, XV, Nos. 4 and 5, April and May, 
1915. 

Austral Avian Record, The, III, No. 1, June 30, 1915. 

Avicultural Magazine, (3) VI, Nos. 7 to 10, May to August, 1915. 

Bird-Lore, XVII, Nos. 3 and 4, May-June, July-August, 1915. 

Bird Notes and News, VI, No. 6, summer, 1915. 

British Birds, VIII, No. 12, IX, Nos. 1 to 3, May to August, 1915. 

Bulletin. British Ornith. Club, Nos. CCVI to CCVIII, April 28, May 26 
and July 7, 1915. 

Bulletin of the Charleston Museum, XI, Nos. 4 and 5, April and May, 
1915. 

California Fish and Game, I, Nos. 3 and 4, April and July, 1915. 


534 Recent Literature. love 


Condor, The, XVII, Nos. 3 and 4, May—June, July-August, 1915. 

Current Items of Interest, Nos. 24 and 25, January 16, and May 17, 
1915. 

Emu, The XIV, Part 4, XV, Part 1, April and July, 1915. 

Fins, Feathers and Fur, Bull. Minn. Game and Fish. Com. No. 2, June, 
1915. 

Forest and Stream, LXXXV, Nos. 5 to8, May to August, 1915. 

Ibis, The, (10) III, Nos. 2 and 3, April and July, 1915. 

Messager Ornithologique, VI, No. 2. 

Odlogist, The, XXXII, Nos. 5 to 8, May to August, 1915. 

Oregon Sportsman, III, Nos. 3 to 7, March to July, 1915. 

Ornithologisches Jahrbuch, XXV, No. 5-6, Sept.—Dec., 1914. (April 
20, 1915.) 

Ottawa Naturalist, The, X XIX, Nos. 1, 2 and 3-4, April, May and 
June-July, 1915. 

Philippine Journal of Science, [X, Nos. 4 to 6, X, No. 1, August, Sep- 
tember and November, 1914, January, 1915. 

Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., LX VII, Nos. 1 and 2, Jan.—March, 
and April—August, 1915. 

Proceedings Nebraska Ornith. Union, VI, Part 3, July 10, 1915. 

Revue Frangaise d’Ornithologie, VII, Nos. 71 to 75, March to July, 1915. 

Royal Soc. for Protection of Birds, 24th Ann. Report, for 1914. 

Science, N.8., XLI, Nos. 1062-1069, XLII, Nos. 1070-1080. 

Scottish Naturalist, The, Nos. 41 to 44, May to August, 1915. 

South Australian Ornithologist, II, Parts 2 and 3, April and July, 1915. 

Wilson Bulletin, The, X XVII, No. 2, June, 1915. 

Zoodlogist, The, XIX, Nos. 220-223, April to July, 1915. 


YO isan | Correspondence. 535 


CORRESPONDENCE. 
Methods of Recording Bird Songs. 


Epiror or ‘THe AvK,’ 

Dear Sir: — With great interest I read the ‘‘Suggestions for Better 
Methods of Recording and Studying Bird Songs,” which appeared in the 
April issue of “The Auk.’ All methods of notation used in bird-work are 
open to some criticism and suggested improvements should be welcomed. 
This is particularly true in the study of bird-song, which has not enjoyed 
the scientific analysis from students, it should have had. 

The title, given to the paper by Mr. Aretas A. Saunders, would indicate 
an entirely new method of notation. A perusal of the subject matter proves 
such is not the ease. What he suggests is a modification of the old method 
of musical notation. An enlarged form of musical staif is used and notes are 
pitched within the limits of one octave. The chief difference consists in 
the representation of the notes by horizontal lines instead of by the musical 
dot at the top of a vertical line and the abandonment of the indication of 
rhythm for the sake of ascertaining a song’s duration. Now a method of 
notation should be as comprehensive, accurate and simple as the subject 
under study will allow. Is Mr. Saunders’ improved method more compre- 
hensive, more accurate or more simple than the old. It must be one of 
these three to justify its employment in place of the older method. 

In order to answer this, let us follow Mr. Saunders’ order. He enumerates 
five characters of bird music, about which we desire knowledge: ‘pitch, 
duration, intensity, pronunciation and quality.”’ Now this enumeration 
is peculiar to Mr. Saunders. The usual enumeration, followed by students 
of music, is ‘‘pitch, time, intensity, and quality” and these four factors 
are said to cover all that we can learn about any kind of music. ‘‘Time”’ 
is a much more comprehensive term than ‘‘duration”’ and covers not only 
the relatively unimportant factor of ‘duration,’ but also “‘metre” and the 
extremely important factor of ‘‘rhythm.”’ The omission of time and with it 
rhythm is a serious one and at the outset renders doubtful any improvement 
by this method. 

But avoiding for a moment a discussion of rhythm, I shall take up in order 
the five points he has selected. To begin with the third and fifth characters, 
‘he admits quality and intensity cannot be recorded accurately by his 
method. Of the fourth, pronunciation, he says: — “It is probably true 
that a purely musical note has no real vowel sound and that the only 
difference in such notes is that of quality and not! pronunciation.” Of 
consonant sounds he has recognised only one, the “liquid L”’ and he 
represents this by a loop in his record, which at once blurs the pitch of that 
particular note. Such a blurring of the important factor of pitch can be 
avoided in the old method by recording these rare consonantal suggestions 
with graphic symbols above the staff. But the truth is that, if pronunci- 


1Italics are not in the original paper. 


536 Correspondence. [det 


ation does appear occasionally in bird songs, it is of very slight importance 
and should be classed as a minor factor under the heading ot “ quality ’’, 
which covers also the much more important factor of ‘‘over-tones’’ or 
the so-called ‘‘harmonies”’ of a tone. These do exist in many bird tones 
and are the cause of the difference between the simple, clear-whistled tone 
of the Piping Plover and the complex rich tone of the Wood Thrush. 

There remain but two of Mr. Saunders’ “‘points’’ to consider, pitch and 
duration. “Pitch” is truly a very important factor and, with the possible 
exception of time, the most important of all, for from pitch we gain some 
idea of the bird’s intuitive knowledge of the fundamental relations of one 
tone to another. It should be represented with exactitude, if that is possible. 
Now there are of course in some songs notes which seem patently dis- 
cordant with the rest of the song. And in regard to these Mr. Saunders 
would bave his readers believe that his method of notation is an improve- 
ment, because it records them. But does it? MHelmholtz’s study of sound 
proves that in order to represent a discordant note out of harmony even 
in the natural scale, it would be necessary to have a staff, composed of 
at least 528 horizontal lines for the one octave between Middle C and the 
next C above it, instead of the 12 of this new system, for there are at least 
that many possible tones within the compass of that octave. And for the 
octave, which is used to confine the song of the Vesper Sparrow, there 
would have to be at least 4224 different lines to record one song! Such a 
system I imagine would be too cumbersome even for Mr. Saunders. The 
fact is that our author has not tried to represent flatted and sharped notes 
with accuracy, but merely to indicate that they are flat or sharp. This is 
of no advantage to another song-student, for unless the flatted note is 
indicated precisely, it is impossible to be sure it was not an harmonically 
true note in the more complex natural scale, which the birds probably use. 
Every student of music knows that the modern scale of twelve notes and 
its method of notation is a condensation of the natural scale for the sake 
of simplicity and convenience. On the other hand the proposed system 
is more cumbersome without insuring one whit more of accuracy. It is 
a more cumbersome one, because it requires 12 lines instead of 5 to record » 
a simple song and, for a song of great range such as the Hermit Thrush’s, 
would require 36 lines, whereas the whole of that master song, ascending 
and descending over the confines of three octaves, can be neatly recorded 
by the old method on a staff of 5 lines! This new method is not so accurate 
for the recording of pitch, because short horizontal lines are employed 
against a horizontal staff instead of the vertical line crowned with a clear 
round dot. Indeed it is very difficult to determine from Mr. Saunders’ 
printed records, when he is attempting to record a note on the pitch and 
when a trifle off of it. 

It is at once apparent that the horizontal line is used for ‘‘pitch”’ in order 
that the vertical may be reserved for ‘‘duration.”’ Indeed our whole system 
of notation, the evolution of centuries, has been changed in order to record 
this one thing, which has always been ranked by musicians as of very slight 
importance, e. g. the duration of a song in seconds. The length of a song 


oie | | Correspondence. 537 


is of about as much value as the length of the white on the outer primary 
of a Junco. What we want to know about color is its arrangement or the 
relative proportion of the various colors on a bird, resulting in color pattern. 
What we want to know about duration is the relative duration of the indi- 
vidual notes of a song and this would result in some idea of the song’s 
rhythm. Now the existence of rhythm is denied by Mr. Saunders, al- 
though oddly enough, it is shown to exist even by his own records. But 
of this later! The curious thing about it is that duration has always 
been indicated by the old system‘and can be quickly ascertained from 
any complete record. For instance in Mr. Matthews’ record of the 
Vesper Sparrow’s song in his ‘ Field Book of Wild Birds and Their 
Music,’ the metronome time is given as one quarter note equals 120, 
which means that 120 of the quarter notes in that song, if it possessed that 
many, would occupy the time of one minute. From this one graphic 
symbol it is easy to calculate the duration of that song as exactly 53 seconds. 
If it were at all important to give this factor prominence, it would be much 
simpler to place the symbol ‘““D 53 8” at the end of the musical staff than 
to cover the staff with a great number of useless vertical lines. 

But far the most defective part of Mr. Saunders’ system is its omission 
ofrhythm. Even the non-musical bird student has recognised its existence, 
whether consciously or not. This is evident in such syllabic renditions 
of songs as ‘‘Téacher, teacher, teicher, teacher,” which indicates quite 
clearly the observer perceived the fact that the first note of each couplet 
in that particular Ovenbird’s song received a periodically reiterated accent 
and this is rhythm. It is also indicated in the rendering of the White- 
throat’s song as “Old Sim Péahody, Péabody, Péabody.’”’ Both of these 
birds have a splendid sense of rhythm, quite as good, if not better than the 
average musical performer of the human race. ‘This is even more true of 
the Whip-poor-will, whose sense of rhythm is so perfect that his constant 
reiteration of the accented ‘‘Whip”’ can be timed by a metronome exactly. 
Indeed his rhythm is too perfect to satisfy the human desire for variation, 
which humans obtain by means of the “ritard”’ and the ‘‘acceleration”’ 
and this song, therefore, becomes mechanical and monotonous. That the 
greater bird songsters are not so monotonous only proves their greater 
sense for real rhythmical effects, which can seldom be beautiful, when 
rigidly bound to a mechanical time. It is often true that one cannot 
check up the greater songsters’ rhythm with a stop-watch, such as Mr. 
Saunders uses, but neither could one do the same with the best human 
singers, for they frequently ritard and accelerate their time to avoid this 
very mechanical rhythm, which he seems to believe so essential to music. 

That rhythm does exist in bird songs is curiously proved by Mr. Saunders’ 
own records. In three of his nine, the rhythm is absolutely perfect, indeed 
mechanical and in the other six it probably existed, although obscured 
by his method of notation, which among other factors does not record 
the “accent ’’. For instance in his record of the Robin’s song there is a peri- 
odical alternation of sets of notes and pauses. Each set of notes consumes 


538 Correspondence. Oct. 


exactly the same amount of time, four tenths of a second, and each pause 
consumes two tenths of a second or exactly half the amount, credited 
to each set of notes. If we separate each set of notes and its adjoin- 
ing pause into a measure we would have five equal measures and if we 
give each set of notes and its pause their proportionate amount of beats, 
we would give two beats to each set of notes and one to each pause. The 
whole song would then consist of five measures in perfect 3 time and to 
know this, e. g. that a wild bird uses naturally a measure of time, employed 
by humans for many centuries, is a great deal more interesting and im- 

_ portant than to learn the detached fact, that the whole song consumed 
two and ;‘5 seconds by a stop watch. It must be admitted there are a 
few songs, which do not follow any given time through to the end, but Mr. 
Saunders is wrong, when he says that the old method ‘“‘does not allow the 
record”’ of such songs. The irregular rhythm of the Thrasher’s song is 
perfectly represented by the old method in Mr. Matthews’ book and could 
not be represented so well by this new method. 

By this discussion I believe I have proved that of Mr. Saunders’ five 
chosen characters of song, two, quality and intensity, have not been recorded 
at all by his method; two, pronunciation and duration are unimportant 
and can and have been recorded by the old method; and the last, pitch, 
is not recorded so accurately. Finally a sixth factor of the utmost 
importance, rhythm, is entirely abandoned. The suggested method is 
therefore not so comprehensive as the old and, incidentally I have shown, 
it is not so simple nor so accurate. 

Near the close of this paper Mr. Saunders remarks apropos of the quali- 
ties necessary for the student for the recording of bird songs that “a 
knowledge of music is essential also, but it need not be great.” In my 
opinion the student should have at least an accurate knowledge of Har- 
mony, but at any rate he should certainly know the meaning of ordinary 
musical terms. A common error of this kind is to confuse the meaning 
of the word ‘‘trill” with that of a “ repeated note.’’ As such a mistake 
renders many records inaccurate, it is necessary to point out that a “trill” 
is not a series of notes on the same pitch. repeated so rapidly that their 
number cannot be counted, but is a rapid and regular alternation of two 
notes of entirely different pitch. 

In conclusion I would like to state that the old system of notation is just 
as much a ‘‘graphic method”’ as Mr. Saunders’ or any other. More than 
any other graphic system it is a splendid system of symbols, which has been 
evolved and improved by ages of use and is now better known to the 
public than any system of notation, used in the other departments of bird- 
work. It has its limitations and will probably be improved along the line 
of recording more accurately the natural scale, but such improvements as 
Mr. Saunders suggests are in the nature of a retrograde movement toward 
something less comprehensive and less simple. 

Rosert THomas Moore. 


————— so 


wi 4.7 ora hee 
Laer te Ss a 
. Ke ee. a 


" ; 
is meet 


alee a” 

ane | 

Rita 
pod ~ 


‘ a 
er we 


THE AUK, VOL. XXXII. PLATE XXXI, 


Dr. Orro HERMAN. 


vrei | Notes and News. 539 


NOTES AND NEWS. 


Grar Hans von Beruerscu, an Honorary Fellow of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, died on February 27, 1915, in the sixty-fourth year 
of his age. He was one of the original Corresponding Members of the 
A. O. U. and was elected to Honorary Fellowship in 1890. He was one 
of the leading authorities on the birds of South America and had published 
many papers on the subject. Of late years he made a special study of 
attracting wild birds and had devised various styles of bird nesting boxes 
as well as methods of pruning trees and shrubs to encourage nest building 
inthem. His estates in Germany where his ideas were put to practical tests 
were veritable bird sanctuaries. His loss will be widely felt in ornithologi- 
cal circles both among the museum systematists and the great host who 
are interested in the preservation of wild bird life. 


Dr. Orro HERMAN, a Corresponding Fellow of the American Ornitholo- 
gists’ Union, died in Budapest, Hungary, on December 27, 1914, in the 
eightieth year of his age. He was born in Breznébainya, June 27, 1835. 
His parents came from Zips, his father, Karl Herman, being a lying in 
surgeon in moderate circumstances. The surroundings of his home were 
extremely favorable to the development of the young, growing naturalist 
and all nature soon strongly impressed him. His father was a classmate of 
Johann Salamon Petényi, at that time the leader in Hungarian ornithology, 
and encouraged his son in all his juvenile expeditions, during which period 
young Herman made a collection of birds, preparing all the skins himself. 

There being little money in natural science, his father became much 
concerned as to what to do with him as the time approached for his self- 
support, and finally sent him to the Polytechnic school in Vienna where he 
graduated and took a position as a factory draughtsman. Uncongenial 
as the life was he determined to win, and displayed the iron will, quick 
perception and faith in himself which were ever characteristic of him. 
Misfortunes, however, overtook him; first his father’s death, then the dis- 
covery that he had been out of his country without permission, for which the 
government compelled him to serve twelve years in the army. Think of a 
nature like his being subjected to the iron ruling of military discipline! 

It was but another instance of the square peg in the round hole, or, as a 
distinguished American ornithologist once put it: “To make a square peg 
fit in a round hole is impossible. One of two things must happen. Either 
the peg wears round, and sinks into the hole at last, or, if it stays square, 
works loose, and is gone. Nothing but friction in either case.” 4 

After the war between Poland and Russia in 1863, when Herman had 
volunteered as a soldier in the army of the former, he made application for the 
vacant position of taxidermist in the Museum of Siebenbiirgen. Having 


1 The Medical Record, Septemker 29, 1883, p. 343. 


540 Notes and News. [Sets 


secured this position he was rapidly carried up the ladder of fame. With 
marked energy he helped to build up the zodlogical collections of the 
museum; wrote his first paper on ornithology, and diligently studied every 
phase of nature as it was brought to his attention. Later he became deeply 
interested in politics and was a member of the Hungarian Parliament, where 
he was instrumental in having laws passed which greatly advanced scien- 
tific research in Hungary. In 1877, he founded the official organ of the 
Hungarian Museum of Natural History and was its editor for ten years. 
The second International Ornithological Congress at Budapest was almost 
entirely under his management and its notable success was due to his 
powers of organization and capacity for work. The establishment of the 
Royal Hungarian Central Bureau for Ornithology was another conception 
of Herman’s which was realized largely through his enterprise and ‘ Aquila’, 
its official organ, was brought into existence and conducted by him through 
twenty large volumes. 

His extensive investigations on bird migration are well known through- 
out the world. 

While it is through his numerous ornithological works that he is probably 
best known, he made many valuable and often extensive contributions to 
entomology, ethnography, politics, political economy, folk-lore and Hun- 
garian historical sketches. Among these may be mentioned a notable 
classic in three volumes on the spiders of Hungary and works on the 
Hungarian fisher-folk and Hungarian fisheries. Otto Herman was a man 
of great breadth of mind, enormous energy and an untiring worker. 
In his death not only did Hungary lose one of its most illustrious sci- 
entists, but the world lost a man who, through his own efforts, powerfully 
advanced the cause of science and human civilization, and who stood for 
all that was noble and great in his every undertaking.1— R. W. SHUFELDT. 


EcsBert Baaec, a Member of the American Ornithologists’ Union, died 
July 11, 1915, at his home in Utica, N. Y. He was one of the original 
Associates of the Union, elected in 1883, and betame a Member in 1914. 
Mr. Bagg was born in Utica, August 10, 1850, son of Egbert Bagg and 
Cornelia Hunt, and was educated in the Utica public schools; Hobart 
College and Cornell University. He was a successful business man and 
interested in the civic affairs of his native city, serving as school commis- 
sioner for some years. He was an active member of the Oneida Historical 
Society and other literary organizations. Among his ornithological publica- 
tions were ‘The Birds of Oneida County, N. Y.,’ 1894, and numerous notes 
on rare or interesting species which came under his observation. 


EWEN SoMERLED CAMERON, a Member of the American Ornithologists’ 
Union, and a frequent contributor to ‘The Auk’ died at the Southern 


1In preparing this sketch I have employed data drawn from my numerous 
letters from Dr. Herman, and also the obituary notices by Lambrecht (Ornith. 
Monatsb. XL, pp. 138-142) and Stefan (Aquila X XI, 1914), for translating which 
I am indebted to my wife. The portrait is reproduced from another notice by 
Lambrecht (Barlangkutatas, 1915, III., Heft. 1). 


| Notes and News. 541 


California Sanitarium, Lamanda Park, Pasadena, California, on May 25, 
1915. His death was caused by an abcesson the brain, the result of two 
accidents when horses fell with him. He had been dangerously ill for four 
months. Mr. Cameron was born December 19, 1854, and was the son of 
Allan Gordon’ Cameron of Barealdene Ledaig, Argyllshire, Scotland; but 
for many years he has resided at Marsh, Dawson Co., Montana. 

All of his spare time was devoted to ornithology which had been his 
favorite study from boyhood. He published ‘The Birds of Custer and 
Dawson Counties, Montana,’ in ‘The Auk,’ for 1907 and 1908, and a 
number of admirable detailed studies of characteristic species of that 
region, which were enhanced by the photographic illustrations contributed 
by his wife, who had a keen sympathetic interest in his ornithological 
work. Mr. Cameron also contributed to ‘The Ibis,’ ‘Country Life’ and 
“The Field.’ He was elected a Member of the British Ornithologists’ 
Union in 1889, an Associate of the A. O. U. in 1903, and a Member in 1910, 
and a Fellow of the Zoological Society of London in 1888. 


Pror. FrepERIcK Warp PutNaM, an Associate of the American Orni- 
thologists’ Union, died on August 14, 1915, in the seventy-seventh year of 
his age. Prof. Putnam was famous as an archeologist and ethnologist, 
being professor of American archeology and ethnology at Harvard Uni- 
versity, Curator of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology 
and author of many papers upon Archeological subjects. His interests 
extended beyond the field of his specialty and in early life he was active 
in several branches of zodlogy. In 1876-8 he was in charge of the 
Agassiz collection of fishes at the Museum of Comparative Zodlogy, 
and was one of the founders and editors of the ‘American Naturalist.’ 
His principal contribution to ornithology was a ‘Catalogue of the Birds of 
Essex Co., Mass.,’ published in 1856, which is virtually a list of the birds 
of the State. Prof. Putnam was born in Salem, Mass., April 16, 1839. 


Frank B. Armstrona, of Brownsville, Texas, well known throughout 
this country and Europe as a collector and taxidermist, died at his home, 
on August 20, 1915, in the fifty-third year of his age. He was a native of 
St. John, N. B., of English parentage and was born on May 10, 1863. He 
was raised and educated in Medford, Mass., whither his parents had 
moved, and after graduating from the public schools he studied taxidermy 
in Boston under C. J. Maynard. About 1885, he travelled to Laredo, 
Texas, and collected extensively in that vicinity and in Mexico until 1890, 
when he moved to Brownsville. He was a skillful taxidermist and made 
excellent bird skins, and specimens bearing his name are to be found in 
all the large collections in America. 


Dr. THomas 8. Roserrts had been appointed Associate Curator of the 
Zodlogieal Museum and Professor of Ornithology in the University of 
Minnesota and expects shortly to devote his entire time to this work. 
His address will be Room 209, Millard Hall, University of Minnesota, 
Minneapolis, Minn. 


id 
¥ 


a 


: te — 
ite cn thier 


Pah 
¢ a ie 
Pte a 


INDEX TO VOLUME XXXII. 


[New generi¢, specific, and subspecific names are printed in heavy-face type.] 


ACANTHIS cannabina fringillirostris, 
287. 
Acanthiza marian, 526. 
Accipiter cinereus, 484. 
eudiabolus, 125. 
fasciatus polyeryptus, 384. 
gentilis albidus, 484. 
g. schvedowi, 484. 
hiogaster rooki, 129. 
nove hollandiz, 484. 
striatus venator, 128. 
torquatus buruensis, 120. 
Acrocephalus strepera strepera, 284. 
Actitis macularia, 227, 368, 464. 
JEchmophorus occidentalis, 461. 
Agialitis homeyeri, 524. 
meloda, 97, 500. 
nivosa, 465. 
semipalmata, 97, 302, 465. 
AMstrelata arminjoniana, 342. 
chionophora, 342. 
trinitatis, 342. 
alba, 342. 
mollis, 342. 
wilsoni, 342. 
AKthia, 526. 
/&thomyias nigrifrons, 260. 
Agathopis micropterus, 418. 
Agelaius phoeniceus aciculatus, 256. 
phoeniceus floridanus, 21. 
p. fortis, 448. 
p. phoeniceus, 21. 
Agriocharis ocellata, 167, 250. 
Agrobates galoctotes galoctotes, 
284. 
Aix sponsa, 108, 463. 
Ajaja ajaja, 167. 
Alabama, birds of, 213-215. 


Alaska, birds of, 114, 295-305. 

Albatross, Black-footed, 300. 

Alcedo ispida pallida, 282. 

Aleyone richardsi bougainvillei, 125. 
aol, 125. 

Alectroenas, 259. 

Allen, Arthur A., review of his 
‘Birds in their Relation to Agri- 
culture in New York State,’ 251. 

Allen, Francis H., the status of the 
Song Sparrow and the Chipping 
Sparrow as early birds, 110; a 
near view of an Iceland Gull, 495. 

Alphagygis, 127. 

Amazona vittata gracilipes, 529. 

American Ornithologists’ Union, 
proposed revision of the By- 
Laws, 134; San Francisco meet- 
ing of the, 140, 271, 388; thirty- 
third stated meeting of the, 488— 
493. 

Amiizilis rutila rutila, 167. 

yucatanensis yucatanensis, 169. 

Ammodramus savannarum austra- 

lis, 25. 

Ammomanes deserti katherine, 286. 

Ammoperdix heyi, 279. 

Amydrus tristrami tristrami, 289. 

Anas fulvigula maculosa, 318. 

platyrhynchos, 96, 462. 

Andigina nigrirostris occidentalis, 

515. 

Andropadus ugande, 524. 

Anhinga, 165. 

Anous stolidus, 48, 345. 

melanogenys, 48. 
Anser albifrons gambeli, 463. 
Anthoscopus caroli hellm yri, 130. 


544 


Anthreptes collaris garguensis, 251. 
Anthus campestris campestris, 286. 

daviesi, 130. 

rubescens, 191. 

spraguei, 191, 239. 

trivialis, 286. 

Antrostomus carolinensis, 15. 

vociferus vociferus, 15. 

Anumbius, 146, 148. 
Apalis nigriceps collaris, 524. 
Aphanapteryx broeku, 523. 
Aptenodytes forsteri, 373. 

patachonica, 514. 

Apus apus apus, 283. 

murinus murinus, 283. 
Aquila antiqua, 375. 

Ara militaris mexicana, 529. 

Araine, 152. 

Aramides cajanea 
374. 

c. peruviana, 374. 
Aramus vociferus, 517. 
Archilochus colubris, 17. 
Ardea herodias adoxa, 484. 

h. fannini, 302, 464. 

h. occidentalis, 484. 

h. repens, 484. 

h. wardi, 483. 

repens, 483. 

rufa mutata, 483. 

occidentalis, 483. 

wiurdemanni, 483. 
Arenaria interpres, 48. 

morinella, 465. 

melanocephala, 465. 
Arkansas, birds of, 362. 
Armstrong, F. B., obituary of, 

541. 
Arremonops verticalis, 168. 
Asarcia spinosa, 167. 
Asio flammeus bogotensis, 515. 
Astragalinus tristis tristis, 24, 238. 
Astur brevipes, 282. 
Asturina plagiata, 167. 
Atlapetes gutturalis brunnescens, 
DID: 


venezuelensis, 


_ Index. 


[oct: 


‘Auk’ review of ornithological liter- 
ature, 269; vignette, 144. 

‘Auk,’ Index, full names of authors 
in, 143; review of, 242. 

Auklet, Cassin’s, 297. 

Rhinoceros, 297. 
Auriparus flaviceps lamprocepha- 
lus, 106. 

‘Austral Avian Record,’ review, of 
127, 259, 526. 

Australia, birds of, 376, 512. 

Avicultural magazine, review of, 
126, 259, 380, 525. 


Bzo.oruts bicolor, 193, 331. 

Bagg, Egbert, obituary of, 540. 

Bailey, Florence M., review of her 
‘Handbook of Birds of the West- 
ern United States, Fourth Edi- 
tion,’ 115. 

Bailey, H. H., proposed revision of 

_the By-Laws of the American 
Ornithologists’ Union, 134. 

Bailey, S. Waldo, the Plum Island 
Night Herons, 424-441. 

Baily, Wm. L., young Kingbirds on 
a cherry and dragonfly diet, 368. 

Baird, Spencer F., notice of biog- 
raphy of, 505. 

Baldpate, 225, 462. 

Bangs, Outram, Cabot’s types of 
Yucatan birds, 166-170; the 
Bermuda Crow, 229; notes on 
dichromatic herons and hawks, 
481-484. 

Bannermania, 524. 

Barbatula leucolema urungensis, 

528. 

Bartramia longicauda, 448. 

Batara, 150. 

Bavarian Ornithological Society, 
notice of ‘Proceedings,’ 382. 

Baynes, Ernest Harold, review of 
his ‘Wild Bird Guests. How to 
Entertain Them,’ 507. 

Beal, F. E. L., review of his ‘Food 


Vol. mee | 
1915 


of the Robins and Bluebirds of 
the United States,’ 252. 
Bee-eater, European, 282. 
Bell, E. Gordon, Starlings (Stwrnus 
vulgaris) in New Hampshire, 496. 
Bent, A. C., Yellow-billed Loon 
(Gavia adamsi) in Colorado: a 
correction, 494. 
“Berajah,’ review of, 381. 
Bergtold, W. H., the Yellow- 
crowned Night Heron in Colo- 
rado, a correction, 97; time of 
incubation, 134; the Indigo 
Bunting in Colorado, 498; Black- 
throated Blue Warbler in Colo- 
rado, 498. 
Berlepsch, Graf Hans von, obituary 
of, 539. 
Bermuda, birds of, 229. 
Betts, Norman deW., notes from 
Wisconsin, 237. 
“Bird-Lore,’ review of, 123, 256, 
Vitor oP ls 
_ “Bird Notes,’ review of, 127, 259, 
381. 
“Bird Notes and News’, notice of, 
118, 381. 
Bird protection, notice of publica- 
tions on, 377. 
Bittern, 237. 
American, 497. 
Cory’s Least, 98, 482. 
Least, 319, 482. 
Blackbird, Brewer’s, 23, 503. 
Red-winged, 21, 160, 163, 178, 
438. 
Rusty, 23. 
Yellow-headed, 21, 107. 
Black-cap, 285. 
Blackstart, Palestine, 284. 
Bleda exima ugande, 524. 
Bluebird,2, 194. 
“Blue-Bird,’ review of, 124, 257. 
Blue Jay, Florida, 163. 
Bobolink, 21, 101. 
Bob-white, 321. 


Index. 


Bombyecilla cedrorum, 184, 232. 

garrula, 369. 

g. centralasie, 527. 

Bonasa umbellus umbellus, 238. 

Bo’sun Bird, 46. 

Botauroides parvus, 375. 

Botaurus lentiginosus, 97, 237. 

Bowles, J. H., European Widgeon 
in Washington, 225. 

Brachyramphus, 379. 

marmoratus, 299, 463. 
Bradornis pallidus tessmanni, 261. 
Braislin, Wm. C., the American 

Bittern on Long Island, N. Y., 97. 

Brant, Black, 463. 

Branta canadensis canadensis, 448, 

c. hutchinsi, 449, 457. 

c. minima, 449, 463. 

ec. occidentalis, 449, 459. 

nigricans, 452, 463. 

Brazil, birds of, 41-50, 332-348, 518. 

‘British Birds,’ review of, 125, 258, 

380, 525. 

British Columbia, birds of, 107. 

British Onyithologists’ Club, review 
of ‘Bulletin,’ 125, 257, 380. 

B. O. U. List, review of, 243. 

Brooks, W. Sprague, the Blue 
Goose (Chen cerulescens (Linn.)) 
in Rhode Island, 226. 

Brown, Nathan Clifford, the Even- 
ing Grosbeak at Portland, Maine, 
102; the records of the Tennessee 
and Cape May Warblers in 
southern Maine, 104; addendum, 
2a45 

Brush Hill Bird Club, notice of 
first report of, 255. 

Buarremon matucanensis, 125. 

Bubo bubo ussuriensis, 26. 

virginianus neochorus, 128. 

v. saturatus, 303. 

Vv. virginianus, 228. 
Buccanodon leucogrammicum, 528. 
Budytes flava flava, 286. 

melanocephala, 286. 


546 


Buffle-head, 458. 

Bulbul, Palestine, 283. 

Bulweria bulweri pacifica, 524. 

Bunting, Black-headed, 288. 

Cretzschmar’s, 288. 
Indigo, 28, 498. 
Lark, 107. 

Ortolan, 288. 
Painted, 28, 329. 

Burns, Frank L., the Red-throated 
Loon (Gavia stellata) at Berwyn, 
Pa., 225; occurrence of the 
Pectoral Sandpiper (Pisobia mac- 
ulata) near Salem, N. J., 226; 
the Cape May Warbler (Dendroica 
tigrina) as an abundant au- 
tumnal migrant and as a de- 
structive grape juice consumer 
at Berwyn, Pa., 231; review of 
his ‘Comparative Periods of 
Deposition and Incubation of 
Some North American Birds,’ 516. 

Burrill, A. C., what bird lovers owe 
to the late Professor King, 239. 

Buteo borealis borealis, 447. 

b. ecalurus, 167. 

lineatus lineatus, 100. 

]. texanus, 322. 
Butorides brunnescens, 481. 

virescens, 481. 

v. cubanus, 482, 484. 

v. brunnescens, 482, 484 

v. virescens, 481. 

Buzzard, Black, 11. 

Turkey, 2, 4, 10, 11. 


Cacatua galerita, 263. 
gymnopis, 384. 

Caccabis chukar synaica, 279. 

Cacomantis blandus, 129. 

Cahn, A. R., Notes on a captive 
Virginia Rail, 91-95; LeConte’s 
Sparrow in Wisconsin, 497. 

Calamospiza melanocorys, 107. 

Calandra brachydactyla_ brachy- 

dactyla, 286. 


Index. 


[oct: 


Calcarius lapponicus alascensis, 457, 
458. 
1. lapponicus, 447. 
pictus, 457, 458. 
Calidris leucophzea, 97, 464. 
California, birds of, 59. 
‘California Fish and Game,’ notice 
O25: 
Callisitta azurea expectata, 258. 
Calonectris, 524. 
Camaroptera caniceps, 260. 
Cameron, E. 8., obituary of, 540. 
Campephaga quiscalina miinzneri, 
528. 
Campylorhynchus, 147, 148, 150. 
trochilirostris, 151. 
Canada, birds of, 61, 442-459. 
Canary, Syrian, 288. A 
Canvas-back, 237, 463. 
Caprimulgus europzeus meridionalis, 
282. 
hirundinaceus crissalis, 374. 
houyi, 528. 
macrurus, 513. 
m. mesophanis, 513. 
m. anamesus, 513. 
Caracara, Audubon’s, 2, 100. 
Cardinal, 27, 328. 
Florida, 160, 163. 
Cardinalis cardinalis cardinalis, 27, 
328. 
c. magnirostris, 328. 
Carduelis carduelis carduelis, 287. 
c. major, 381. 
Carpodacus erythrinus kubanensis, 
382. 
mexicanus frontalis, 383. 
purpureus purpureus, 24, 447. 
synoicus, 288. 
Ss. petra, 288. 
Carpodectes, 128. 
Carpospiza brachydactyla, 287. 
‘Cassinia 1914,’ review of, 376. 
Casuarius papuanus goodfellowi, 
be 
Catbird, 3, 10, 500. 


Vol. | 
1915 


Catoptrophorus semipalmatus in- 
ornatus, 464. 
Centropus pymi, 130. 
senegalensis tschadensis, 260. 
superciliosus loands, 258. 
s. sokotre, 258. 
erilli wahlbergi, 380. 
Centurus carolinus, 238. 
dubius dubius, 168. 
Cepphus columba, 299, 461. 
Cerchneis sparveria andina, 516. 
s. cauce, 515. 
s. distincta, 374. 
s. fernandensis, 515. 
s. intermedia, 516. 
s. margaritensis, 374. 
s. ochracea, 374. 
s. perplexa, 516. 
Ss. peruviana, 374. 
tinnunculus, 282. 
Cercomela  melanura 
284. 

Ceriornis caboti, 170. 

Cerorhinea monocerata, 297. 

Certhia familiaris americana, 192, 

505. 
Certhiola caboti, 170. 
Ceryle alcyon aleyon, 324. 
a. caurina, 303. 
Ceyx solitaria muleata, 257. 
Chemepelia passerina passerina, 
322. 
rufipennis cauce, 515. 
Chetura pelagica, 16. 
Chalcomitra senegalensis atra, 251. 
adamanz, 260. 
tanganjice, 260. 
Chaleopelia afra kilimensis, 251. 
chalcopsila intensa, 251. 
c. media, 251. 

Chapman, F. M., the more northern 
species of the genus Scytalopus 
Gould, 406-423; review of his 
‘Diagnosis of Apparently New 
Colombian Birds. III,’ 114; re- 
view of his ‘Descriptions of 


melanura, 


Index. 


547 


Proposed New Birds from Cen- 
tral and South America, 515. 
Charadrius alexandrinus seebohmi, 

524. 
dominicus, 47. 
Charitonetta albeola, 463. 
Chat, Hooded, 284. 
Pied, 284. 
White-rumped, 284. 
Yellow-breasted, 191, 330. 
Chaulelasmus streperus, 462. 
Chelidon, 524. 
rustica rustica, 283. 
r. transitiva, 283. 
daurica rufula, 283. 
Chen cerulescens, 226. 
hyperboreus hyperboreus, 367, 
463. 
rossi, 449. 
Chersophilus duponti, 384. 
Chestnut blight, birds as carriers of, 
378. 
Chickadee, 3, 202-203. 
Carolina, 193, 498. 
Chestnut-backed, 305. 
Hudsonian, 501. 
Chicken, Atwater’s Prairie, 322. 
Chiff Chaff, 285. 
Chionis minor, 524. 
Chloris chloris chlorotica, 287. 
Chlorocichla_ gracilirostris chag- 
wensis, 524. 
indicator chlorosaturata, 524. 
Chlorcenas inornata exsul, 529. 
Chloronerpes rubiginosus buena- 
vist, 515. 
r. yucatanicus, 168. 
Chlorophoneus miinzneri, 528. 
olivaceus taylori, 130. 


Chlorostilbon canivetii canivetii, 
167. 

Chondestes grammacus grammacus. 
26. 


*Chordeiles virginianus chapmani., 


IG, B25 
v. virginianus, 15, 447. 


548 


Chrysoptilus punctigula zuliz, 516. 
Chuck-will’s-widow, 15, 159. 
Cinclodes, 148, 149. 

Cinnyris hofmanni, 528. 
mediocris garguensis, 251. 
noveguines, 129. 

- osea, 286. 
reichenowi kikuyensis, 251. 
venusta blicki, 251. 
zenobia marginata, 130. 

Cistothorus stellaris, 192. 

Clangula clangula americana, 463. 
islandica, 225. 

Cleptornis palauensis, 260. 

Coale, H. K., the present status of 
the Trumpeter Swan (Olor bucci- 
nator), 82-90; San Lucas Verdin 
in Arizona, 106. 

Coccyzus americanus americanus, 

324. 
minor palloris, 529. 
m. rileyi, 529. 

Ceereba caboti, 170. 

Colaptes auratus auratus, 325. 
a. luteus, 232, 448. 

Colinus eatoni, 375. 
virginianus floridanus, 207. 
v. virginianus, 204-207, 321. 
v. taylori, 530. 

Colius striatus jebelensis, 251. 

Collinge, W. E., review of his 
‘Some Observations on the Food 
of Nestling Sparrows,’ and his 
‘Economic Importance of British 
Wild Birds,’ 254. 

Collocalia esculenta maxima, 258. 
stresemanni, 129. 
hirundinacea excelsa, 
nitens, 258. 

Colluricincla brunnea tachycrypta, 

384. 

Colombia, birds of, 114. 

Colorado, birds of, 97, 358, 494, 498. 

Columba domestica, 306-316. 
flavirostris, 167. 
leucocephala, 167. 


258. 


Index. eeea 


Columba livia schimperi, 281. 
plumbea propinqua, 374. 
rufina andersoni, 374. 

r. tobagensis, 374. 
subvinacea peninsularis, 515. 
s. zullie, 374. 

Colymbus, 525. 
dominicus brachypterus, 167. 
holbcelli, 461. 
nigricollis californicus, 461. 
oligoceanus, 375. — 

Compsothlypis americana usnez, 

187. 

‘Condor,’ review of, 128, 256, 379,. 

521. 

Coniornis altus, 292. 

Connecticut, birds of, 63. 

Conopophaga, 150. 

Conurine, 152. 

Conurus holochlorus strenuus, 529. 

Cooke, Wells W., bird migration in. 

the Mackenzie Valley, 442-459; 
review of his ‘Distribution and 
Migration of North American: 
Rails,’ 113; review of his ‘Pre- 
liminary Census of Birds of the 
United States,’ 253; review of 
his ‘Bird Migration,’ 510; review 
of his ‘Our Shore Birds and their 
Future,’ 518. 

Coot, 464. 

Cormorant, Brandt’s 462. 
Double-crested, 95, 500. 
Pelagic, 302. 

White-crested, 462. 

Corthylio, 234, 235. 

calendula calendula, 236. 

c. cinerascens, 236. 

ce. grinnelli, 236. 
c. obscurus, 236. 

Corvus affinis, 289. 

brachyrhynchos 
chos, 21, 229. 
caurinus, 304. 
corax principalis, 304. 
macrorhynchus osai, 530. 


brachyrhyn - 


Vol. ae | 
1915 


Corvus ossifragus, 21. 
vociferus, 169. 

Cory, Charles B., review of his 
‘Notes on South American Birds, 
with Descriptions of New Spe- 
cies,’ 515; review of his ‘ Descrip- 
tions of New Birds from South 
America and Adjacent Islands,’ 
374. 

Cossypha bocagei albimentalis, 260. 

Coturnix coturnix coturnix, 280. 

Cowbird, 21. 

Crag-Martin, Pale, 283. 

Crake, Baillon’s, 281. 

Corn, 281. 

Crandall, Lee 8., Gray Sea Eagle off 
Nantucket, 368. 

Crane, Little Brown, 464. 

Sandhill, 2, 155, 159, 163, 166. 

Crateropus jardinei hypobrunneus, 

261. 
reinwardti houyi, 528. 
squamiceps squamiceps, 283. 
Crateroscelis virgata, 260. 
albigula, 160. 

Creeper, Brown, 192, 371, 505. 

Crex crex, 281. 

Crossbill, American, 304. 

Crow, 229, 438, 451. 

American, 21. 
Bermuda, 229. 
Fish, 11, 21, 163. 
Florida, 2, 11, 163. 
Northwestern, 304. 
Cryptoglaux acadica, 303. 
funerea richardsoni, 101, 228, 
502. 
Crypturellus, 130. 
Crypturus tataupa, 130. 
peruviana, 374. 

Cuckoo, Yellow-billed, 324. 

Cuculus_mabire, 524. 

Culver, D. E., Piping Plover at 
Cape May, N. J., 97. 

Curlew, Eskimo, 226. 

Hudsonian, 302, 465. 


Index. 


549 


Curlew, Long-billed, 321. 

Curtis, M. R., notice of his ‘Factors 
Influencing the Size, Shape and 
Physical Constitution of the Egg: 
of the Domestic Fowl,’ 118. 

Curucujus massena australis, 515. 

Cyanistes cyanus, 261. 

pleskei, 261. 
Cyanocitta cristata cristata, 232. 
447. 
c. florincola, 20, 326. 
Cyanocompsa parellina beneplacita, 
529. 
Cyclarhis flaviventris yucatanensis, 
168. 
Cygnus passmori, 85. 
Cynochorea owstoni, 524. 


Da Costa, notice of his ‘Economic 
Value of the Birds of Brazil,’ 518. 

Dafila acuta, 463. 

Dall, William H., review of his 
‘Spencer Fullerton Baird. A 
Biography,’ 505. 

Dearborn, N., notice of his ‘Bird 
Houses and How to Build Them,’ 
illyé, 

Delaware, birds of, 71. 

Delaware Valley Ornithological 
Club, twenty-fifth anniversary’ 
“meeting, 269. 

Demiegretta sacra, 483. 

Dendrocincla, 147. 

Dendrocolaptide, 145-153. 

Dendrocygna, 374. 

Dendroica xstiva estiva, 187. 

bryanti bryanti, 168. 

ceerulescens czrulescens, 
110, 187, 282, 498. 

ec. cairnsi, 109, 110. 

castanea, 188, 230, 447. 

cerulea, 188. 

coronata, 187. 

discolor, 189. 

dominica albilora, 189. 

fusea, 188, 230. 


109, 


950 


Dendroica magnolia, 109, 188, 232, 
447, 

palmarum hypochrysea, 189. 

p. palmarum, 189, 230, 447. 

pensylvanica, 109, 188. 

striata, 188, 232, 448. _ 

tigrina, 104, 105, 196, 187, 231, 

233, 234, 447, 498. 

vigorsi, 498, 504. 

virens, 109, 189, 447. 
Dendromus aureicuspis, 381. 
Dendropicos fuscescens cosensi, 380. 

lafresnayi loande, 380. 
Dendroplex, 147. 

Dichromanassa peali, 483. 

rufescens, 483. 

rufa, 167. 

Dichromatism, 481-484. 

Dickcissel, 28, 329. 

Dickey, Samuel S., rare birds near 
Waynesburg, Pa., 236; the resi- 
dent Chickadee of southwestern 
Pennsylvania, 498. 

Dicrurus miinzneri, 528. 

Diomedea nigripes, 300. 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus, 21. 

Dove, Ground, 322. 

Mourning, 2, 4, 238. 

Rock, 306-316. 

Turtle, 281. 

Western Mourning, 322. 
Dowitcher, Long-billed, 464. 
Drymophila, 150. 
Dryoscopus angolensis 

nensis, 524. 

Duck, Florida Black, 155, 159, 160. 

Harlequin, 225, 302, 463. 

Lesser Scaup, 2, 463. 

Mottled, 318. 

Ring-necked, 239, 463. 

Ruddy, 463. 

Scaup, 463, 500. 

Wood, 102, 162-163, 165, 463. 
Dulciornis alisteri mayi, 126. 
Dumetella carolinensis, 191, 232, 

500. 


cameroo- 


Index. 


[oct: 


Dunlin, 281. 
Dunlop, Eric B., notes on some 
Manitoban birds, 500. 
Drymornis, 147. 
Dryobates borealis, 324. 
pubescens microleucus, 128. 
scalaris parvus, 168. 
villosus sitkensis, 303. 
Dryoscopus angolensis, cameroon- 
ensis, 524. 


Hace, Bald, 236. 
Gray Sea, 368. 
Northern Bald, 303. 

Economic Ornithology in recent 
Entomological publications, re- 
view of, 253, 520. 

Ectopistes migratorius, 29-41. 

Egret, 3, 4, 161. 

Reddish, 483. 
Egretta dimorpha, 125. 
Eider, King, 454. 

Pacific, 452, 454. 

Eifrig, C. W. G., concealing posture 
in Grebes, 95;. Cory’s Least 
Bittern in Illinois, 98; an al- 
binistic Bobolink, 101; notes on 
some’ birds of the Maryland 
Alleghanies; an anomaly in the 
Check-List, 108; Bachman’s 
Sparrow near Chicago, Illinois, 
496. 

Elainea ridleyana, 50. 

Emberiza cesia, 288. 

cia prageri, 382. 
hortulana, 288. 
melanocephala, 288. 

m. orientalis, 261. 
Empidonax difficilis difficilis, 304. 

flaviventris, 447. 

minimus, 20, 448. 

trailli alnorum, 20, 447. 

t. trailli, 20. 

virescens, 20. 

‘Emu,’ review of, 126, 381. 

Entomothera coromanda, 513. 


Vol. el 
1915 


Entomothera ec. bangsi, 513. 
c. mizorhina, 513. 
c. neophora, 513. 
c. ochrothorectis, 513. 
c. pagana, 513. 
Eoceornis ardetta, 375. 
Ereunetes mauri, 302, 464. 
pusillus, 202, 236, 448, 524. 
Erismatura jamaicensis, 463. 
Erythropus vespertinus trans- 
riphzeus, 527. 
Estrilda atricapilla keniensis, 251. 
Ethelornis magnirostris whitlocki, 
527. 
Eudyptes chrysolophus, 514. 
Eumomota s. superciliosa, 168. 
Euphagus carolinus, 23, 447, 503. 
cyanocephalus, 23, 383. 
Enpsychortyx nigrigularis, 167. 


Fatco columbarius suckleyi, 107. 
faleonella, 375. 
percontator, 168. 
peregrinus, 381. 
p. anatum, 303. 
pyrrhogaster, 381. 
sparverius sparverius, 445. 
Ss. sparveroides, 480. 

Faxon, Walter, Junco breeding in 
Concord and Lexington, Mass., 
497; review of his ‘Relics of 
Peale’s Museum,’ 512. 

Feilden, G. St. C., review of his 
“Notes on some Birds of Trinidad 
and Tobago,’ 122. 

Fernando Noronha, birds of, 41, 50. 

Finch, Palestine Green, 287. 

Purple, 24, 178. 
Sinai Rosy, 288. 

Flicker, 2, 10, 160, 232, 325, 449. 

Florence, Laura, review of her re- 
port on the food of birds in 
Scotland, 121, 519. 

Florida, birds of, 1-14, 154-166, 
211-213. 

Florida czerulea, 167, 479. 


Index. 


501 


Floyd, Charles B., Brown Thrasher 
wintering in Mass., 370. 

Flycatcher, Acadian, 20. 

Alder, 20, 240. 

Crested, 10, 18, 163, 325. 
Eastern Spotted, 283. 
Least, 20. 

Olive-sided, 19. 
Scissor-tailed, 18. 
Traill’s, 20. 
Yellow-bellied, 19. 
Western, 304. 

Forbush, E. H., notice of his 
‘Seventh Annual Report of the 
State Ornithologist of Massa- 
chusetts,’ 377. 

Formicariide, 150. 

Francolinus bicalearatus adamauz, 

528. 
hildebrandti helleri, 251. 

Franzen, J. W., Willow Ptarmigan 
in Minnesota, 99. 

Fratercula arctica arctica, 495. 

corniculata, 296. 

Fregata, 384. 

aquila, 47. 

ariel, 259. 

ariel subsp.?, 345. 
minor, 259. 
minor nicolli, 345. 

Fregilupus varius, 382. 

Frigate-bird, 47. 

Fuertes, Louis Agassiz, another 
European Widgeon in Virginia, 
367. 

Fulica americana, 464. 

Fulmar, Pacific, 300. 

Fulmarus glacialis ghipischa, 300. 

Furnarius, 148. 


GADWALL, 462. 

Galerida cristata, 125. 

Gallinago delicata, 368, 464. 

Gallinula galeata, 320. 

Gallinule, Florida, 11, 320. 
Purple, 320. 


502 


Garrulus diaphorus, 380. 
minor, 384. 
Gavia adamsi, 454, 494. 
immer, 461. 
pacifica, 296, 454, 461. 
pusilla, 375. 
stellata, 225, 367, 461. 
Generic limits, 387. 
Geobates, 147. 
Geocichla princei graueri, 260. 
gurneyi oberliinderi, 260. 
g. tanganjice, 260. 
major, 530. 
Geopelia shutridgei, 127. 
Georgia, birds of, 207-210. 
Geothlypis trichas ignota, 190. 
t. trichas, 190, 330. 
Gill, Theodore Nicholas, obituary 


of, 189; in memoriam, 391- 
405. 
Glaucidium brasilianum ridgwayi, 
167. 


Glyphorhynchus, 149. 
Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray, 106, 193. 
Golden-eye, 463. 
Barrow’s, 225. 
Goldfinch, 24, 238, 287. 
Goose, Blue, 226. 
Cackling, 463. 
Canada, 449, 450. 
Hutchin’s, 452. 
Ross’s, 452. 
Snow, 367, 463. 
White-cheeked, 463. 
White-fronted, 463. 

Goshawk, White, 484. 

Gould, Jos. E., birds observed in 
Trinity churchyard, N. Y. City, 
371. 

Grackle, Boat-tailed, 10, 24, 158. 

Bronzed, 24. 

Florida, 1, 10, 23, 160, 163. 
Purple, 232. 

Tristram’s, 289. 

Grammopsittaca lineola maculata, 

529. 


Index. 


[oet: 


Great-tit, Palestine, 286. 

Grebe, Eared, 461. 
Holbeell’s, 461. 
Pied-billed, 461. 
Western, 461. 

Greenshank, 281. 

Grinnell, J., a new subspecies of 
Screech Owl from California, 59- 
60; review of ‘Nature and Science 
on the Pacific Coast,’ edited by, 
b1/3. 

Griscom, Ludlow, the Little Black 
Rail on Long Island, N. Y., 227; 
Prairie Horned Lark in Rhode 
Island in summer, 229. 

Griscom, Ludlow and _ Harper, 
Francis, the Bohemian Waxwing 
(Bombycilla garrula) at Ithaca, 
Nowe; 009: 

Grosbeak, Alaska Pine, 239. 

Blue, 28, 329. 
Evening, 102. 
Rose-breasted, 27, 445. 
Grouse, Ruffed, 238. 
Grus americana, 447. 
canadensis, 457, 464. 
marshi, 375. 
Guillemot, Pigeon, 299, 461. 
Guiraca cerulea cexrulea, 28, 168, 
329. 

Gull, Audouin’s, 281. 
Bonapartes, 462. 
California, 462. 

Glaucous, 281, 454. 
Glaucous-winged, 300, 462. 
Heermann’s, 462. 

Herring, 300. 

Iceland, 495. 

Sabine’s, 454. 

Short-billed, 452, 462. 
Western, 462. 

Guracava difficilis, 251. 

Guttera, 383. 

Gygis crawfordi, 48, 345. 

candida, 48. 
alba, 48. 


Vol. aie 
1915 


Hamatopus bachmani, 302, 465. 

Halcyon chloris keiensis, 130. 
leucocephala ogilviei, 258. 
malimbicus prenticei, 251. 
senegalensis cinereicapillus, 

Deois 

Halizetus albicilla, 368. 
leucocephalus alascanus, 303. 
1. leucocephalus, 236, 323. 

Hankin, E. H., review of his ‘ Ani- 
mal Flight,’ 245. 

Harelda hyemalis, 463. 

Harper, Francis, see Griscom, Lud- 

low. 

Hartert, Ernst, review of his ‘Die 
Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna,’ 
248. 

Hawk, Black Pigeon, 167. 

Cuban Sparrow, 480. 

Duck, 303. 

Florida Red-shouldered, 10, 13. 
Florida Sparrow, 4. 

Levant Sparrow, 282. 

Marsh, 159. 

Red-shouldered, 100, 163. 
Red-tailed, 445. 

Texas Red-shouldered, 322. 

Heald, F. D. and Studhalter, R. A., 
review of their ‘Birds as Carriers 
of the Chestnut-Blight Fungus,’ 
119. 

Helinaia swainsoni, 186. 

Helmitheros vermivorus, 186. 

Helodromas solitarius, 238. 

s. cinnamomeus, 464. 

Henshaw, H. W., review of his 
‘Report of Chief of Bureau of Bio- 
logical Survey,’ 252; review of 
his ‘American Game Birds,’ 517. 

Herman, Otto, obituary of, 539. 

Herodias eulophotes, 124. 

Heron, Black-crowned Night, 3, 4, 

165, 424-441. 
Great Blue, 2, 3. 
Great White, 483. 
Green, 4, 430, 481. 


Index. 


553 


Heron, Little Blue, 2,4, 158, 165, 483. 
Louisiana, 3, 4, 165. 
Northwestern Coast, 302, 464. 
Purple, 281. 

Reef, 483. 
Ward’s, 2, 3, 4, 158. 
Yellow-crowned Night, 97, 158, 
236. 
Herpetotheres cachinnans, 167. 
Hesperiphona vespertina vesper- 
tina, 102. 

Hesperornis montana, 293. 
regalis, 290. 

Hierophasis dissimilis, 383. 

Hippolais languida, 285. 
pallida pallida, 285. 

Hirundo, 525. 
erythrogastra, 184, 236. 
rustica, 236. 
urbica urbica, 283. 

Histrionicus histrionicus, 225, 302, 

463. 

Hornaday, William T., review of his 
‘Wild Life Conservation in 
Theory and Practice,’ 248. 

Hornbill, Giant, 113. 

Hull, E. D., the Double-crested 
Cormorant in the Chicago area, 
95; note on the feeding of the 
Mallard, 96. 

Hummingbird, Ruby-throated, 17. 

Hyliota slatini, 260. 

Hylocichla alicie alicia, 193, 447. 
fuscescens fuscescens, 109, 193, 

DBM 
guttata pallasi, 104, 232, 447, 
505. 
mustelina, 193, 331. 
ustulata swainsoni, 194, 448. 
u. ustulata, 305. 
Hypocharmosyna rubrigularis kra- 
keri, 384. 
Hypoleucus varius perthi, 513. 
v. whitei, 513. 
Hypotriorchis subbuteo irkutensis, 
260. 


504 


‘Tas,’ review of the, 124, 257, 522. 
Ibis, White, 4, 10, 158, 161, 163, 
165. 
Wood, 3, 4, 161. 

Icteria virens virens, 191, 330. 

Icterus galbula, 23. 
gularis yucatanensis, 168. 

m. mesomelas, 169. 
spurius, 22. 

Ihering, Herman von, the classifica- 
tion of the family Dendrocolap- 
tide, 145-153. 

Illinois, birds of, 95, 98, 101, 348, 
367, 496. 

Incubation, time of, 134. 

Indiana, birds of, 348. 

Indicator minor alexanderi, 380. 

exilis leona, 380. 
e. ansorgel, 380. 

Ingersoll, E., review of ‘Alaskan 
Bird-Life,’ edited by, 114. 

Ionornis martinicus, 320. 

lowa, birds of, 234, 354. 

Tridoproene bicolor, 184. 

Irrisor erythrohynchus ruwenzore, 

523. 

Ithaginis cruentus kuseri, 263. 
tibetanus, 125. 

Ixobrychus exilis, 319, 482, 483. 
minutus victoria, 527. 
neoxenus, 99, 482, 483. 

Ixoreus neevius neevius, 305. 

n. meruloides, 452. 

Ixulus flavicollis baileyi, 125. 


JAEGER, Parasitic, 299, 461. 
Jay, Blue, 232, 466. 
Canada, 500. 
Florida, 2, 20, 326. 
Florida Blue, 2. 

Jewel, L. L., the diving instinct in 
Shorebirds, 227. 

Job, Herbert K., review of his 
‘Propagation of Upland Game 
Birds,’ 509; review of his ‘Prop- 
agation of Wild Water-fowl,’ 509. 


Index. 


[oet: 


Johnson, Charles Eugene, a four- 
winged wild-duck, 469-480. 
‘Journal fiir Ornithologie,’ review 

of, 260, 528. 
Junco, 201. 
hyemalis carolinensis, 109. 
h. hyemalis, 26, 497. 
h. oreganus, 304. 
oreganus, 304. 
Junco, Carolina, 109. 
Oregon, 304. 
Slate-colored, 26, 371, 497. 
Jynx ruficollis cosensi, 380. 
torquilla harterti, 527. 


Kawsas, birds of, 358. 
Karua leucomela mayi, 126. 
Kennard, F. H., on the trail of the 
Ivory-bill, 1-14; the Okaloa- 
coochee Slough, 154-166. 
Kentucky, birds of, 215-218. 
Kestrel, 282. 
Julldeer, 11, 465. 
King, F. H., 239. 
Kingbird, 18, 368. ~ 
Arkansas, 18, 495. 
Kingfisher, 282. 

Belted, 2, 163, 324. 
Northwestern Belted, 303. 
Kinglet, Golden-crowned, 305, 505. 

Ruby-crowned, 193. 
Sitka, 107. 
Western Golden-crowned, 305. 
Kite, Everglade, 159. 
Swallow-tailed, 10, 11, 154, 163. 
Kittiwake, Pacific, 300, 461. 
Knot, 464. 
Kopman, H. H., list of the birds of 
Louisiana, 15-29, 183-194. 
Kretzmann, Paul E., the Arkansas 
Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) in 
eastern Minnesota, 495. 
Kuroda, N., notice of his recent 
ornithological publications, 116. 


Lacopus lagopus lagopus, 99. 


Vol. ism 
1915 


Laing, Hamilton M., review of his 
‘Out with the Birds,’ 510. 

Laiscopus collaris whymperi, 379. 

Lane, James W., Cape May Warb- 
lers destructive to grapes on 
Long Island, 498. 

Lanius collurio collurio, 286. 
excubitor aucheri, 285. 
ludovicianus ludovicianus, 108, 

184. 
1. migrans, 185. 
nubicus, 285. 
serrator niloticus, 286. 

Lanivireo flavifrons, 185. 
solitarius solitarius, 185, 447. 

Lark, Calandra, 286. 

Eastern Calandra, 286. 
Hoyt’s Horned, 447. 
Mt. Herman Horned, 286. 
Prairie Horned, 20. 
Short-toed, 286. 

Sinai Desert, 286. 

Larus argentatus, 300. 
audouini, 281. 
brachyrhynchus, 452, 462. 
ealifornicus, 462. 
glaucescens, 300, 462. 
heermanni, 462. 
hyperboreus, 281, 450. 
leucopterus, 495. 
occidentalis, 462. 
philadelphia, 462. 
pristinus, 375. 
taimyrensis, 527. 

t. antelius, 527. 

Leptophaéton, 197. 

Leptotila rufaxilla hellmayri, 515. 
r. pallidipectus, 515. 
verreauxi nuttingi, 529. 

Lestornis crassipes, 291. 

Leucippus fallax richmondi, 516. 

Leucophoyx ec. candidissima, 167. 

Levick, G. Murray, review of his 

“Antarctic Penguins,’ 372. _ 

Licmetis nasica, 263. 

Limicolavis pluvianella, 375. 


Index. 


595, 


Limpkin, 517. 
Limosa hzemastica, 445. 
Linnet, Eastern, 287. 
Lobipes lobatus, 302, 464, 500. 
Lochmias, 148, 149. 
Locustella fluviatilis, 284. 
Lofstr6m Lawrence L., bird notes 
from Cambridge, Isanti County, 
Minn., 501. 
Loon, 461. 
Pacific, 296, 454, 461. 
Red-throated, 225, 367, 461. 
Yellow-billed, 454, 494. 
Lophoceros nasutus maraisi, 130. 
Lophodytes cucullatus, 462. 
Lophortyx gambellii sanus, 128. 
Louisiana, birds of, 15-29, 213-215. 
Loxia curvirostra minor, 304. 
pytyopsittacus, 523. 
Luscinia luscinia, 284. 
Lunda cirrhata, 296, 461. 


McAteer, W. L., review of his 
“How to Attract Birds in North- 
eastern United States,’ 252; notice 
of his ‘Eleven Important Wild 
Duck Foods,’ 518. 

Mellhenny, E. A., review of his 
‘The Wild Turkey and Its 
Hunting,’ 115. 

Machetes pugnax, 226, 524. 

Mackenzie, L. L., the Red-throated 
Loon (Gavia stellata) in Jackson 
Parla leo 

Macrorhamphus _ griseus 

ceus, 457, 464. 

Macropygia amboinensis meeki, 384. 

rufa krakeri, 384. 
Macrosphenus flavicans 
524. 
Maine, birds of, 102, 104, 234. 
Malaconotus olivaceus pallidirostris, 
528. 

Mallard, 96, 225, 449, 462. 

Manitoba, birds of, 500, 510. 

Mareca americana, 225, 462. 


scolopa- 


ugande, 


506 


Mareca penelope, 225, 367, 462. 
Margarornis, 149. 
Marila americana, 237, 462. 
affinis, 462. 
collaris, 239, 462. 
marila, 462, 500. 
valisineria, 237, 462. 
Martin, Purple, 2, 183. 
Sand, 283. 
Maryland, birds of, 73, 108. 
Massachusetts, birds of, 63, 104, 
230, 367, 368, 370, 495, 497, 499. 
Mathews, Gregory M., Phaéthon 
catesbyi Brandt, 195-197;  re- 
view of his, ‘The Birds of Aus- 
tralia,’ 116, 512. 
Mathewsena, 127. 
Meadowlark, 21, 180. 
Southern, 2, 22, 160, 163, 326. 
Mearns, E. A., reviews of his papers 
on new African birds, 251. 
Mearns, Louis di Zarega, obituary, 
268. 
Megalestris maccormicki, 3738. 
Megaquiscalus major major, 24. 
Melanerpes erythrocephalus, 237, 
324. 
Melanocorypha calandra calandra, 
286. 
bimaculata, 286. 
Melanorhectes umbrinus, 260. 
Meleagris gallopavo silvestris, 207- 
224, 322. 
Melilestes chloreus, 260. 
Melirrhophetes rufocrissalis, 260. 
Melittophagus variegatus bang- 
weoloensis, 258. 
v. loringi, 251. 
Melopelia asiatica mearnsi, 529. 
a. trudeaui, 167. 
Melospiza georgiana, 27, 447. 
lincolni lincolni, 27. 
melodia melodia, 27. 
m. rufina, 304. 
Merganser, 462. 
Hooded, 462. 


Index. 


Merganser, Red-breasted, 462. 
Mergus americanus, 462. 
serrator, 462. 

Merops apiaster, 282. 

Merrill, D. E., Audubon’s Caracara 
in New Mexico, 100. 

Merula celenops yakushimensis, 

530. 
Merulaxis griseicollis, 414. 
squamiger, 414. 

Mesites, 382. 

Mesitornis, 382. 

Mesocarbo ater ater, 513. 

a. territori, 513. 

Mescenas, 382. 

‘Messager Ornithologique,’ review 
of, 261, 527. 

Michigan, birds of, 348. 

Micranous leucocapillus, 48, 345. 

Micrastus melanoleucus, 168. 

Micrceca poliocephala, 260. 

Micropalama himantopus, 447. 

Microzalias, 524. 

Migration, 442-459, 510. 

Miller, W. DeW., the Whimbrel, 
Ruff, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, 
and Eskimo Curlew on Long 
Island, N. Y., 226; Richardson’s 
Owl and other owls in Franklin 
County, New York, 228; Cor- 
thylio—a valid genus for the 
Ruby-crowned Kinglet, 234; re- 
view of his ‘Notes on Ptilosis with 
Special Reference to the Feather- 
ing of the Wing,’ 373. 

Mimus gilvus gracilis, 168. 

polyglottos polyglottos, 191. 

Minerva, 375. 

Minnesota, birds of, 99, 354, 495, 501. 

Mississippi, birds of, 213-215. 

Missouri, birds of, 354. 

Mitchell, H. H., Mallards wintering 
in Saskatchewan, 225; Lewis’s 
Woodpecker taken in Saskatche- 
wan, 228; Crows nesting on the 
ground, 229. 


Vol. rice 
1915 


Mniotilta varia, 185, 232, 448. 
Mockingbird, 2, 10, 163, 191. 
Molothrus ater ater, 21. 
Momotus yucatanensis, 168. 
Monarcha chalybeocephalus manu- 
mudari, 384. 
Montana, birds of, 225, 238. 
Monticola saxatilis, 284. 
solitarius solitarius, 284. 
Moore, Robert T., methods of 
recording bird songs, 535. 
Morococeyx erythropygius mexi- 
cana, 529. 
Motacilla alba alba, 286. 
Munro, J. A., two new records for 
British Columbia, 107. 
Murphy, Robert Cushman, ten 
hours at Fernando Noronha, 


41-50; .the Atlantic range of 
Leach’s Petrel (Oceanodroma’ 
leucorhoa (Vieillot)), 170-173; 


a note on the migration at sea of 
shore birds and swallows, 236; 
the bird life of Trinidad Islet, 
332-348; review of his ‘The 
Penguins of South Georgia,’ 514. 
Murphy, R. C., and Rogers, C. H., 
a winter record for the Palm 
Warbler on Long Island, N. Y., 
230. 
Murre, California, 299, 461. 
Murrelet, Ancient, 298, 461. 
Marbled, 299, 461. ~ 
Muscicapa striata neumanni, 283. 
Muscivora forficata, 18. 
Myiarchus crinitus, 18, 325. 
Myiobius, 145. 
Myiochanes virens, 19. 
Myornis, 408, 410. 
senilis, 410. 
Myrmotherula, 150. 


NANNOCNUS ijime, 530. 

Nannus hiemalis hiemalis, 192. 
h. pacificus, 305. 
troglodytes pallidus, 283. 


Index. 


5bE 
Nantucket, birds of, 368. 
Nasica, 147. 
National Association of Audubon 
Societies, review of ‘Annual 


Report for 1914,’ 117. 
Nebraska, birds of, 358. 
Nebraska, Ornithologists’ Union, 
notice of ‘Proceedings,’ 379, 522. 
Nelson, E. W., a bird census of the 
United States, 267. 
Neonectris griseus missus, 524. 
g. pescadoresi, 524. 


Neopsittacus muschenbrocki  al- 
pinus, 125. 

Nettion carolinense, 302, 458, 462, 
469-480. 


New Hampshire, birds of, 240, 496. 

New Jersey, birds of, 71, 97, 226, 
370, 498. 

New Jersey Audubon Society, no- 
tice of ‘Annual Report for 1914,’ 
255. 

New Mexico, birds of, 100. 

New York, birds of, 68, 97, 226, 
227, 228, 230, 237, 369, 371, 495. 

Nichols, J. T., Spotted Sandpiper 
and water, 368. 

Nighthawk, 15. 

Florida, 16, 325. 

Nightingale, 284. 

Night-jar, 282. 

Noddy, 48, 345. 

North Carolina, birds of, 207-213. 

Nothoprocta ambigua, 374. 

Noticenas, 529. 

Nova Scotia, birds of, 368. 

Nucifraga caryocatactes altaicus, 

B21. 
columbiana, 371. 
Numenius americanus, 302, 460. 
borealis, 226, 447. 
hudsonicus, 302, 465. 
phezopus, 226. 

Numida meleagris (?), 342. 

Nutcracker, Clarke’s, 371. 

Nuthatch, Brown-headed, 10, 193. 


558 eee} [Au 


Nuthatch, Red-breasted, 192. 
White-breasted, 192. 
Nuttallornis borealis, 19. 
Nycticorax cyanocephalus falk- 
landicus, 125. 
nycticorax neevius, 424, 441. 
Nyctidromus albicollis obscurus, 
374. 
Nyctinassa violacea, 236. 
Nyroca ferina, 261. 
nyroca, 261. 


OBERHOLSER, H. C., review of his 
‘A Synopsis of the Races of the 
Long-tailed Goatsucker, Capri- 
mulgus macrourus,’ 513; review 
of his ‘A Review of the Subspe- 
cies of the Ruddy Kingfisher, 
Entomothera coromanda (Lin- 
nus), 513; review of his 
‘Critical Notes on the Subspecies 
of the Spotted Owl, Strix occi- 
dentalis (Xantus), 5138. 

Obituary Notices, 133, 268, 539. 

Oceanites oceanicus, 46. 

Oceanodroma, 379. 

beali, 301. 

beldingi, 301. 

fureata, 300. 

hornbyi, 524. 

leucorhoa, 170-173. 

1. kaedingi, 301. 
Odontophorus guianensis panamen- 

BISspolos 

plumbeicollis, 374. 
(nanthe isabellina, 284. 

leucopyga, 284. 

lugens lugens, 284. 

melanoleuca finchii, 284. 

cenanthe rostrata, 284. 

monacha, 284. 

stapanza, 380. 

(Encenas chiriquensis, 530. 

Ohio, birds of, 218-224. 

Oidemia americana, 463. 

deglandi, 447, 463. 


Oidemia perspicillata, 463. 

Oklahoma, birds of, 362. 

Olor buccinator, 82-90. 
columbianus, 82, 84, 85, 463. 
americanus, 85, 86. 

‘Oologist’ review of the, 124, 257, 

379, 522. 

Onychorhynchus, 145. 

Oporornis agilis, 190, 504. 
formosus, 190. 
philadelphia, 190, 505. 

‘Oregon Sportsman,’ notice of, 255. 

Oreopsittacus arfaki intermedius, 

260. 
a. major, 125. 
Oriole, Baltimore, 23. 
Orchard, 22. 
Oriolus musicus, 169. 
‘Ornithologische Monatsschrift,’ 
notice of, 127. 
‘Ornithologische Monatsberichte,’ 
notice of, 128, 261, 381, 528. 
‘Ornithologisches Jahrbuch,’ no- 
tice of, 260-527. 

Orthorhamphus magnirostris, 517. 

Ostrich, 279. : 

Otocoris alpestris bicornis, 286. 
a. hoyti, 447. 

a. praticola, 20. 
Othyphantes edmundi, 261. 
Otus asio bendirei, 60. 

a. gilmani, 60. 

a. kennicotti, 60. 

a. mcecalli, 323. 

a. quercinus, 60. 

choliba margarite, 374. 
Ovenbird, 189, 232, 237, 241. 
Owl, Barred, 163, 228. 

Butler’s, 282. 

Dusky Horned, 303. 

Florida Barred, 4, 10. 

Florida Burrowing, 155. 

Hawk, 228. 

Great Horned, 159, 228. 

Long-eared, 228. 

Richardson’s, 101, 228, 502. 


———— 


Vol. wo | 
1915 


Owl, Saw-whet, 303. 

Texas Screech, 323. 
Oxyechus vociferus, 465. 
Oyster-catcher, Black, 302, 460. 


PAcHYCEPHALA hypoleuca, 260. 
pectoralis goodsoni, 129. 

Palzornis krameri centralis, 528. 

Palestine, birds of, 273. 

Palmer, T. 8., on obituary notices, 
133; in memoriam Theodore 
Nicholas Gill, 391-405. 

Pangburn, Clifford H., some New 
York City notes, 237. 

Partridge, Chukar, 279. 

Hey’s, 279. 
Parus ater prageri, 382. 
major terre-sancte, 286. 
Passer domesticus, 51-59, 198. 
d. biblicus, 52, 287. 
d. arboreus, 53. 
d. ahasver, 53. 
d. chephreni, 53. 

d. indicus, 53, 287. 

d. pyrrhonotus, 53. 

d. tingitanus, 52. 

d. niloticus, 53, 287. 

hispaneolensis __transcaspicus, 

288. 
maobiticus maobiticus, 288. 
Passerculus sandwichensis alaudi- 
nus, 457. 
S. savanna, 25, 439. 

Passerella iliaca iliaca, 27, 447. 

i. townsendi, 305. 
Passerherbulus henslowihenslowi,25. 
lecontei, 25, 457, 458, 497. 

maritimus fisheri, 25. 

m. sennetti, 327. 

nelsoni nelsoni, 25, 447, 501. 
Passerina ciris, 28, 329. 

cyanea, 28, 498. 

Peal’s Museum, 512. 

Pearl, Raymond, notice of his ‘Im- 
proving Egg Production by 
Breeding,’ and ‘The Brooding 


Index. 


509 


Instinct in its Relation to Egg 
Production,’ 118. 

Pearl, Raymond and Surface, F. M. 
notice of their ‘Variation and 
Correlation in the Physical Char- 
acters of the Egg,’ 118. 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos, 462. 

Pelican Brown, 2. 

White, 462. 
Pelidna alpina alpina, 281. 
Penguin, Adelie, 372. 
Emperor, 373. 

Pennsylvania, birds of, 106, 225, 
231, 236, 498. 

Penthestes carolinensis carolinensis, 

193, 498. 
hudsonicus hudsonicus, 501. 
rufescens rufescens, 305. 
Perdix daurica suschkini, 261. 
Perisoreus canadensis canadensis,. 
500. 
ce. sanfordi, 128. 
infaustus maritimus, 527. 
Peristera geoffroyi, 49. 
Petrel, Fork-tailed, 300. 
Kaeding’s, 301. 
Leach’s, 170-173. 
Wilson’s, 46. 
Petrochelidon fulva pallida, 102. 
lunifrons lunifrons, 184. 
]. tachina, 102. 
Petronia petronia puteicola, 287. 
Peucea stivalis bachmani, 26,. 
327, 496. 

Pewee, Wood, 19, 240. 

Phacellodomus, 148. 

Phaethon aéthereus, 47, 197. 

americanus, 195. 

candidus, 195. 

catesbyi, 195-197. 

flavirostris, 195. 

fulvus, 47. 

lepturus, 46, 195. 

rubricauda, 197. 

Phalacrocorax auritus auritus, 95, 

500, 517. 


560 


Phalacrocorax a. cincinatus, 462. 
carbo indicus, 513. 
d. ditophus, 95. 
macropus, 481, 485-488. 
marinavis, 375. 
mediterraneus, 375. 
pelagicus pelagicus, 302. 
penicillatus, 462. 
Phalarope, Northern, 302, 464, 500. 
Phasianus alfhilde, 375. 
americanus, 375. 
mioceanus, 375. 
mongolicus bergii, 261. 


roberti, 376. 
Pheuticus chrysopeplus laubmanni, 
382. 
Philemonopsis meyeri canescens, 
260. 


Phillips, Charles L., the Black- 
burnian and Bay-breasted War- 
blers at Martha’s Vineyard, 
Mass., 230. 

Phillips, John C., notes on American 
and Old World English Spar- 
rows, 51-59; the old New Eng- 
land Bobwhite, 204-207; Snow 
Geese and Swans in Massa- 
chusetts, 367; some birds from 
Sinai and Palestine, 273-289; 
review of his ‘Experimental 
Studies of Hybridization among 
Ducks and Pheasants,’ 249. 

Philohela minor, 108. 

Philydor, 147, 150. 

Phlegcenas beccarii admiralitiatis, 

129. 
Phloeotomus pileatus abieticola, 109, 
238. 
Pheebe, 2, 19, 463. 
Phoenicurus phoenicurus 
curus, 284. 
Phyllastrephus leucoleama 
runensis, 260. 
lorenzi, 260. 
Phyllobasileus, 235. 
Phylloseartes paulista, 251. 


pheeni- 


came- 


Index. 


[oct: 


Phylloscopus bonelli orientalis, 285. 
sibilatrix sibilatrix, 285. 
collybita, 285. 

Piaya, 516. 
cayana ceare, 516. 
melanogaster ochracea, 516. 

Pica pica bactriana, 527. 

Picnonotus capensis xanthopygos, 

283. 

Picoides arcticus, 503. 

Picolaptes, 147, 148. 

Picus dubius, 168. 
owstoni, 530. 
parvus, 168. 

Pigeon, Rock, 281. 

Pinicola enucleator alascensis, 239. 
e. altaicus, 527. 

e. sakhalinensis, 527. 
eschatosus, 128. 
Pintail, 449, 463. 
Pipilo erythrophthalmus ery- 
throphthalmus, 27. 

Pipit, 191. 

Sprague’s, 191, 239. 
Tawny, 286. 
Tree, 286. 

Pipra aureola scarlatina, 382. 

Piranga erythromelas, 183, 232, 237. 
ludoviciana, 183, 455. 
rubra rubra, 183, 330. 
roseogularis, 169. 

Pisobia fuscicollis, 447. 
maculata, 226, 236, 464. 
minutilla, 464. 

Planesticus grayi tamaulipensis, 168 
migratorius migratorius, 194, 

232, 448. 

Platycercine, 152. 

Platypsaris aglaiz yucatanensis, 
168. 

Platyurus niger, 411. 

Ploceus melanolema, 260. 

Plover, Black-bellied, 465, 500. 
Piping, 97, 500. 
Semipalmated, 97, 302, 465. 
Snowy, 465. 


Vol. aoe 
1915 


Plover, Stone, 518. 

Podager nacunda minor, 374. 

Podilymbus podiceps, 95, 461. 

Pocecetes gramineus confinis, 457, 

499. 
g. gramineus, 24. 
Pogoniulus chrysoconus rhodesie, 
380. 

Poicephalus meyeri nevei, 125. 

Poliolais alexanderi, 258. 

Polioptila czerulea czerulea, 106, 193. 

Polyborus cheriway, 100) 167. 

Pomatorhinus horsfieldi trancoreen- 

sis, 263. 
ruficollis bakeri, 263. 

Pomeroy, Harry Kirkland, obituary, 
386. 

Porphyrio mertoni, 130. 

Porzana carolina, 464. 

pusilla, 281. 

Potter, Julian K., Prothonotary 
Warbler at South Vineland, N. J., 
370. 

Prionochilus anthonyi, 

Progne subis subis, 183. 

Protonotaria citrea, 186, 370, 503. 

Pseudopitta, 260. 

Pseudoseisura, 148. 

Psilorhinus mexicanus 

169. 

Psittacella modesta collaris, 125. 

Psittaci, 151. 

Psittacula conspicillata cauce, 515. 

Ptarmigan, Willow, 99. 

Pterocles lichtensteini arabicus, 280. 

quadricinctus lowei, 125. 

Ptilotis simplex, 260. 

Ptychoramphus aleuticus, 297. 

Publications Received, 131, 264, 
384, 531. 

Puffin, 495. 

Horned, 296. 
Tufted, 296, 461. 
Puffinus bannisteri, 524. 
gravis (?), 342. 
griseus, 300. 


vociferus, 


Index. 


561 


Puffinus kuhli borealis, 524. 
fortunatus, 524. 
leucomelas, 524. 
nativitatis, 524. 

Putnam, F. W., obituary, 541. 

Pygoscelis adeliz, 372. 
antaretica, 514. 
papua, 514. 

Pyrrherodias purpurea, 281. 

Pyrrhura melanura pacifica, 515. 

Pyrrhurine, 152. 


QuaiL, Egyptian, 280. 
Florida, 4, 10. 
Querquedula circia, 281. 
discors, 462. 
Quiscalus quiscula sneus, 24, 448. 
q. agleus, 23. 
q. quiscula, 232. 


Rai, Clapper, 113. 
King, 238. 
Virginia, 91-95, 464. 

Rallus elegans, 238. 

virginianus, 91-95, 464. 

Raperia godmane, 526. 

Rathbun, Samuel F., list of water 
and shore birds of the Puget 
Sound region in the vicinity of 
Seattle, 459-465. 

Raven, Fan-tailed, 289. 

Northern, 304. 

Redbird, 10. 

Redhead, 237, 463. 

Redpoll, 200. 

Redstart, 191, 232, 284, 449. 

Redwing, Florida, 2, 21. 

Reguloides, 235. 

Regulus calendula calendula, 193, 

233. 
c. grinnelli, 107. 
cuvieri, 235. 
satrapa satrapa, 193, 505. 
s. olivaceus, 305. 

Reichenow, A., review of his ‘Die 

Vogel,’ 119. 


062 Index. , face 


‘Revista Italiana Ornitologia,’ re- 
view of, 382. 
‘Revue Frangais_ d’Ornithologie,’ 
review of, 382, 525. 
Rhea plumage, 142. 
Rhinoplax vigil, 113. 
Rhinopomastus cyanomelas inter- 
medius, 130. 
Rhoads, Samuel N., notice of his 
expedition of Guatemala, 271. 
Rhode Island, birds of, 226, 229. 
Rhynchortyx cinctus australis, 515. 
Riparia riparia, 184, 283. 
obsoleta obsoleta, 283. 
Rissa tridactyla pollicaris, 300, 461. 
Roberts, Isaac G., Cape May 
Warbler eating grapes, 233. 
Roberts, T.8., appointment of, 541. 
Robin, 10, 106, 178, 194, 232, 240, 
449, 466. 
Robins, C. A., winter birds at 
Wareham, Mass., 499. 
Rogers, C. H., see Murphy, R. C. 
Ruff, 226. 
Rupornis magnirostris conspecta, 
167. 


Saag, John Hall, thirty-third stated 
meeting of the American Orni- 
thologists’ Union, 488-493. 

Salpinctes guadeloupensis proximus, 

123. 

obsoletus obsoletus, 234. 
Saltator atriceps raptor, 169. 

grandis, 169. 

g. yucatanensis, 169. 
Sanderling, 97, 464. 
Sandpiper, Buff-breasted, 226, 500. 

Least, 464. 

Pectoral, 226, 464. 

Red-backed, 464. 

Semipalmated, 236, 445. 

Solitary, 238. 

Spotted, 227, 368, 464. 

Stilt, 445. 

Western, 302, 464. 


Sandpiper, Western Solitary, 464. 

Sandpipers, 201. 

Sapsucker, Red-breasted, 304. 
Yellow-bellied, 458. 
Red-breasted, 304. 

Saskatchewan, birds of, 225, 228. 

Saunders, Aretas A., some sugges- 

tions for better methods of re- 
cording and studying bird songs, 
173-183; Harlequin Duck in the 
Glacier National Park, Montana. 
225; changes and additions to: 
the ‘List of the Birds of Gallatin 
County, Montana,’ 238. 

Saxicola finschii neglecta, 261. 
cenanthe, 194. 

Sayornis phoebe, 19, 447. 


sayus, 457. 

Sceophethon rubricauda, roths- 
childi, 513. 

Scapaneus melanoleucus  ceare,. 
516. 


pallens peruviana, 516. 

Schorger, A. W., Leconte’s Sparrow 

in Wisconsin, 101; Bluegray 
Gnatcatcher nesting in Wiscon- 
sin, 106. 

Sclerurus, 148. 

Scoptelus pallidiceps, 524. 

Scopus umbretta bannermani, 257. 

Scoter, 458. 

Surf, 463. 
White-winged, 447, 463. 
Scotland, birds of, 519. 
Scudder, Heyward, the bird’s bath, 
465-468. 

Scytalopus acutirostris, 409. 
analis, 406-423, 408. 
argentifrons, 408, 421. 
bolivianus, 409. 
canus, 408, 412. 
erythropterus, 414. 
grandis, 409. 
griseicollis, 408, 412, 414. 
indigoticus, 409. 
infasciatus, 408, 414. 


i». 


a 


Vol. ame 
1915 


Scytalopus latebricola, 408, 416. 
macropus, 409. 
magellanicus, 407-411. 
micropterus micropterus, 407, 
417. 
m. sancta-marte, 408, 418. 
niger, 408, 411. 
obscurus, 409. 
panamensis, 408, 420. 
sylvestris, 408, 416. 
senilis, 408. 
s. spelunce, 409. 
superciliaris, 409. 
unicolor, 409. 
See-see, 279. 
Seiurus aurocapillus, 189, 232, 237, 
447. 
motacilla, 190. 
noveboracensis noveboracensis, 
190. 
n. notabilis, 457. 

Septornis, 148. 

Serinus syriacus, 288. 

Setophaga ruticilla, 191, 2382, 448. 

Shearwater, Sooty, 300. 

Sherman, Althea R., the Rock Wren 
at National, Lowa, 234. 

Shrike, Eastern: Wood-chat, 286. 

Great Gray, 285. 
Loggerhead, 2, 108, 184. 
Masked, 285. 

Migrant, 185. 
Red-backed, 286. 

Shoveller, 462. 

Shufeldt, R. W., anatomical and 
other notes on the Passenger 
Pigeon (Kctopistes migratorius) 
lately living in the Cincinnati 
Zodlogical Gardens, 29-41; the 
fossil remains of a species of 
Hesperornis found in Montana, 
290-294; fossil remains of the 
extinct cormorant Phalacrocorax 
macropus found in Montana, 
485-489; notice of Otto Herman, 
539; review of his ‘Anatomi- 


Index. 563 


cal Notes on the Young of Phala- 
coreorax atriceps georgianus,’ 114; 
review of his ‘On the Skeleton of 
the Ocellated Turkey (A grioch- 
aris ocellata) with notes on the 
osteology of other Meleagride,’ 
250; review of his ‘Contributions 
to the Study of the “‘ Tree Ducks” 
of the genus Dendrocygna,’ 374; 
review of his Fossil Birds in the 
Marsh Collection of Yale Uni- 
versity,’ 375; notice of his ‘On 
the Osteology of Orthorham- 
phus magnirostris, 517; notice 
of his ‘On the comparative Os- 
teology of the Limpkin (Ara- 
mus vociferus) and its place in the 
System,’ 517. 

Sialia sialis sialis, 194. 

Simmons, George Finlay, on the 
nesting of certain birds in Texas, 
Bli—onle 

Simpson, ’Gene M., review of his 
‘Pheasant Farming,’ 252. 

Sinai, birds of, 273. 

Siskin, Pine, 24, 304. 

Sitta canadensis, 192. 

carolinensis carolinensis, 192. 
europzea sztolemani, 527. 
pusilla, 193. 

Sittasomus, 147, 148. 

Skua, 373. 

Snake-bird, 11. 

Snethlage, Emilia, review of her | 
‘Catalogue of the Birds of Ama- 
zonia,’ 247. 

Snipe, Wilson’s, 368, 459. 

Somateria spectabilis, 450. 

v-nigra, 452. 

Song, Bird, 173-183, 535. 

Sora, 113, 464. 

South America, birds of, 374. 

‘South Australian Ornithologist,’ 
126, 259, 526. 

South Carolina, birds of, 108, 207- 
210. 


064 Index. Gen 


Sparrow, Bachman’s, 26, 327, 496, 

Chipping, 26, 110, 163, 240, 
467, 499. 

Dead Sea, 288. 

Desert Rock, 287. 

Eastern House, 287. 

English, 2, 51-59. 

Field, 26, 175, 500, 503. 

lope) Parle 

Grasshopper, 25. 

Henslow’s, 25. 

House, 198. 

Lark, 26. 

Leconte’s, 497. 

Lincoln’s, 27. 

Louisiana Seaside, 327. 

Nelson’s, 25, 501. 

Palestine Rock, 287. 

Savannah, 25, 241, 439. 

Song, 27, 110, 175, 240, 371, 
503. 

Sooty Song, 304. 

Spanish, 288. 

Swamp, 27. 

Texas Seaside, 327. 

Townsend’s Fox, 305. 

Vesper,, 24, 175, 241, 434, 499. 

Western Chipping, 455. 

White-crowned, 26. 

White-throated, 26, 107, 232, 
Dan OUoE 

Spatula clypeata, 462. . 

Spelman, Henry M., Jr., the 
Orange-crowned Warbler in Cam- 
bridge, Mass., in December, 230. 

Speotyto cunicularia arubensis, 374. 

c. beckeri, 374. 
c. intermedia, 374. 

Sphyrapicus varius varius, 447, 458. 

v. ruber, 304. 

Spinus pinus 24, 304. 

Spiza americana, 28, 329. 

Spizella monticola monticola, 447. 

m. ochracea, 457. 
pallida, 457, 458. 
passerina arizone, 455. 


Spizella p. passerina, 26, 499. 
pusilla pusilla, 500, 503. 
Spoonbill, Roseata, 161, 162, 163. 
165. 
Sporophila incerta, 128. 
Squatarola squatarola, 465. 
Starling, 466, 496, 500. 
Stelgidopteryx serripennis, 184. 
Stercorarius parasiticus, 299, 461. 
Sterna acuflavida, 168. 
caspia, 500. 
fuliginosa, 48, 345. 
hirundo, 447. 
paradisea, 462. 
sandvicensis acuflavida, 168. 
Stone, Witmer, Cape May and Ten- 
nessee Warblers in Philadelphia, 
106; proposed revision of the By 
Laws of the American Ornithol- 
ogists’ Union, 136; type locality 
of Lewis’s _ Woodpecker and 
Clarke’s Nutcracker, 371. 
Strepsilas interpres, 48. 
Streptopelia senegalensis sokotre, 
125. 
Strix butleri, 282. 
occidentalis, 513. 
o. eaurina, 513. 
o. huachuce, 513. 
o. lucida, 513. 
uralensis yenesseensis, 527. 
Struthio camelus, 279. 
Sturnella magna argutula 22, 326. 
m. magna, 21. 
Sturnus vulgaris, 496. 
Sula atlantica, 375. 
dactylatra, 258. 
d. californica, 258. 
eyanops, 258. 
leucogaster, 47. 
fusea, 47. 
piscator, 345. 
Sun-bird, Palestine, 286. 
Swallow, 283. 
Bank, 184. 
Barn, 184, 236. 


OEE ———— -  ———- 


== 


—S ee | 


Vol. ae 
1915 


Swallow, Cliff, 184. 
European, 236. 
Lesser Cliff, 102. 
Palestine, 283. 
Red-rumped, 283. 
Rough-winged, 184. 
Tree, 184. 

Swan, Trumpeter, 82-90. 
Whistling, 463. 

Swift, 283. 

Pallid, 283. 
Chimney, 16. 

Sylvia atricapilla atricapilla, 285. 
curruca curruca, 285. 
communis icterops, 285. 
hortensis crassirostris, 285. 
nisoria nisoria, 285. 
ruppelli, 285. 

Synallaxis, 146, 148, 150. 
spixi, 151. 

Synthliboramphus antiquus, 

461. 


298, 


TACHYPETES aquila, 47. 
Tanager, Scarlet, 183, 232, 237. 
Summer, 183, 330. 
Western, 183, 455. 
Tanysiptera hydrocharis vuleani, 
384. 
Tarsiger stellatus chirundensis, 130. 
Taverner, P. A., review of his ‘The 
Double-crested Cormorant (Pha- 
lacrocorax auritus) and its Rela- 
tion to the Salmon Industries on 
the Gulf of St. Lawrence,’ 517. 
Teal, Blue-winged, 462. 
Green-winged, 302, 462, 469- 
480. 
Garganey, 281. 
Telmatodytes palustris iliacus, 99. 
p. palustris, 192. 
Telmatornis rex, 375. 
Tennessee, birds of, 215-218. 
Tern, Arctic, 462. 
Caspian, 500. 
Love, 43. 


Indez. 


565 
Tern, Sooty, 345. 
White, 48. 
Tetrao urogallus aquitanicus, 257. 
Texas, birds of, 102, 317-331, 
362. 


Thamnophilus, 150. 
doliatus yucatanensis, 168. 
Thayer, J. E., two species of Cliff 
Swallow nesting in Kerr County, 
Texas, 102; Wilson’s Snipe win- 
tering in Nova Scotia, 368. 
Thelazomenus, 260. 


peecilocercus, 260. 
Thrasher, Brown, 3, 192, 232, 370, 
500. 


Threnetes leucurus rufigastra, 515. 
longicauda, 374. 
Thripias namaquus 
380. 
Thripophaga, 148. 
Thrush, Blue, 284. 
Gray-cheeked, 193. 
Hermit, 194, 232, 371, 505. 
Hopping, 283. 
Northern Varied, 452. 
Olive-backed, 194. 
Rock, 284. 
Russet-backed, 305. 
Varied, 305. 
Veery, 109, 193, 237. 
Wood, 193, 331. 
Thryomanes albinucha, 169. 
bewicki bewicki, 192. 
Thryothorus ludovicianus ludovici- 
anus, 192, 238. 
Titmouse, Tufted, 3, 10, 163, 193, 
Bole 
Tityra semifasciata deses, 529. 
s. personata, 168. 
Totanus flavipes, 464. 
melanoleucus, 464. 

Towhee, 27. 

Townsend, Charles W., notes on the 
Rock Dove (Columba domestica), 
306-316. 

Toxorhamphus, 129. 


intermedius, 


566 
Toxostoma rufum, 192, 232, 370, 
500. 
Tragopan blythi molesworthi, 125. 
caboti, 170. 


Triptorhinus paradoxus, 408. 
Trichalopterum erythrolema woodi, 
125. 
Tringa canutus, 464. 
nebularia, 281. 
Trinidad Islet, birds of, 332-348. 
Trochalopterum erythrocephalum 
woodi, 263. 
Trochilus yucatanensis, 169. 
Troglodytes aédon aédon, 192. 
albinucha, 169. 
Tryngites subruficollis 226, 500. 
Turdus migratorius phillipsi, 529. 
ugandee, 524. 
Turkey, Florida, 4-6, 160. 
Wild, 61-81, 115, 207-224, 322, 
348-366. 
Turnagra capensis minor, 529. 
‘Turnstone, Black, 465. 


Ruddy, 465. 
Turtur turtur, 281. 
Tyler, W. M., the Cape May 


Warbler in eastern Massachu- 
setts, 104; simultaneous action 
of birds; a suggestion, 198-203. 
Tympanuchus americanus atwateri, 
BPP 
luli, 375. 
Tyrannus tyrannus, 18, 448. 
verticalis, 18, 495. 
Tyto manusi, 129. 


Urucmrruia, 148, 149. 
juninensis, 125. 

Uragus sibiricus ussuriensis, 527. 

Uria troile californica, 299, 461. 

Urosticte benjamini rostrata, 382. 

Urubituiga anthracina, 167. 


VENILIORNIS tzenionotus ceare, 516. 
Verdin, San Lucas, 106. 


Index. 


lane 
Oct. 
Vermivora bachmani, 186. 
chrysoptera, 186, 504. 
celata celata, 230, 448, 504. 
c. lutescens, 305. 
peregrina, 105, 187, 448. 
pinus, 186. 
Vireo, Blue-headed, 163, 185. 
Key West, 10. 
Philadelphia, 185. 
Red-eyed, 185, 232, 448. 
Warbling, 185. 
Western Warbling, 455. 
White-eyed, 163, 185. 
Yellow-throated, 185. 
Vireo griseus griseus, 185. 
Vireosylva gilva gilva, 185. 
olivacea, 185, 232, 448. 
philadelphica, 185, 447. 
g. swainsoni, 455. 
gracilirostris, 50. 
Virginia, birds of, 75, 367. 


WaatTaliL, Black-headed, 286. 
Blue-headed, 286. 
White, 286. f 
Wallace, John H. Jr., notice of his 
‘Alabama Bird Day Book,’ 377. 
Warbler, Bachman’s, 186. 
Barred, 285. 
Bay-breasted, 188, 230. 
Black and white, 183, 232, 449, 
465. 
Blackpoll, 188, 232, 449. 
Black-throated Blue, 109, 187, 
232, 498. 
Black-throated Green, 109, 189. 
Blackburnian, 188, 230. 
Blue-winged, 186. 
Bonelli’s, 285. 
Canadian, 109, 191. 
Cape May, 104, 105, 106, 187, 
231, 233, 234, 498. 
Cerulean, 188. 
Chestnut-sided, 188. 
Connecticut, 190, 504. 
Golden-winged, 186, 504. 


Vol. XXXII 
1915 


Warbler, Hooded, 191. 

Kentucky, 190. 

Lutescent, 305. 

Magnolia, 109, 188, 232. 

Mourning, 190, 505. 

Myrtle, 2, 187, 448. 

Northern Parula, 187. 

Olivaceus, 285. 

Orange-crowned, 504. 

Orphean, 285. 

Palm, 189, 230. 

Pine, 2, 160, 189, 498, 504. 

Prairie, 189, 465. 

Prothonotary, 186, 370, 503. 

Reed, 284. 

River, 284. 

Rufous, 284. 

Ruppells, 285. 

Swainson’s, 186. 

Sycamore, 189. 

‘Tennessee, 104, 106, 187, 449. 

+ Upscher’s, 285. 

Wilson’s, 191. 

Worm-eating, 186. 

Yellow, 187. 

Yellow Palm, 186. 
Washington, birds of, 225, 459-465. 
Water-Thrush, 190. 

Louisiana, 190. 

Waxwing, Bohemian, 369. 

Cedar, 184, 232. 

Weber, J. A., the Puffin (Fratercula 
arctica arctica) on Long Island, 
N. Y., 495; numerous migrant 
Pine Warblers at Fort Lee, N. J., 
498. 

Weston, Francis M., Jr., some un- 
usual breeding records from South 
Carolina, 108. 

Wetmore, Alexander, review of his 
‘A Peculiarity in the Growth of 
the Tail Feathers of the Giant 
Hornbill (Rhinoplax vigil), 113; 
notice of his ‘Mortality among 
Waterfowl around Great Salt 
Lake, Utah,’ 518. 


Index. 


Or 
fon) 
~J 


. 


Wheatear, 194, 284. 
Isabelline, 284. 
Black-throated, 284. 

Whimbrel, 226. 

Whip-poor-will, 15, 159. 

White, S. A., review of his ‘Scien- 

tific Notes on an Expedition into 
the Interior of Australia,’ 376. 

White-throat, Eastern, 285. 
Lesser, 285. 

Widgeon, European, 225, 367, 462. 

Willet, Western, 464. 

Willett, George, summer birds of 

Forrester Island, Alaska, 295-305. 
Williamson, E. B., actions of the 
Red-shouldered Hawk, 100. 
‘Wilson Bulletin,’ review of, 124, 

PAR a Says byPA. 

Wilsonia canadensis, 109, 191. 
citringa, 191. 
pusilla pusilla, 191, 447. 

Wing, DeWitt C., Robins’ nests, 

106. 
Wisconsin, birds of, 101, 106, 237, 
348, 497. 
Woodcock, 108, 464. 
Woodpecker, Arctic 
5038. 

Woodpecker, Downy, 160. 
Ivory-billed, 1-14. 
Lewis’s,-229, 371. 

Northern Pileated, 109, 238. 

Pileated, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 18, 14, 
163. 

Red-bellied, 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 
160, 238. 

Red-cockaded, 2, 324. 

Red-headed, 10, 237, 324. 

Wren, 283. 

Bewick’s, 192. 

Carolina, 4, 192, 238. 

House, 192. 

Long-billed Marsh, 192. 

Prairie Marsh, 99. 

Rock, 234. 

Short-billed Marsh, 234. 


Three-toed, 


568 


Wren, Western Winter, 305. 
Winter, 109, 192. 

Wright, Albert Hazen, early records 
of the Wild Turkey, 61-81, 207- 
224, 348-366. 

Wright, Horace W., morning awak- 
ening notes at Jefferson Highland. 
N. H., 240. 

Wyman, L. E., Richardson’s Ow 
in Illinois, 101. 


XANTHOCEPHALUS xanthocephalus, 
21, 107, 457. 

Xanthotis chlorolama, 260. 

melanoleema, 260. 

Xema sabini, 454. 

Xenicopsis, 147. 

Xenops, 147, 150. 

Xiphocolaptes, 147. 


YELLOW-LEGS, 464. 
Greater, 464, 


Index. 


nee 

Oct. 

Yellow-throat, Florida, 
310. 

Maryland, 190, 330. 


159, 190; 


ZAMELODIA ludoviciana, 27, 445, 
447, 
Zenaida auriculata, 49. 
noronha, 49. 
maculata, 49. 
Zenaidura macroura carolinensis, 
238. 
m. marginella, 322. 
m. tresmariz, 529. 
ruficauda robinsoni, 529. 
Zonotrichia albicollis, 26, 107, 232, 
237, 241, 447-502. 
leucophrys gambeli, 457. 
1. leucophrys, 26. 
Zosterops japonica insularis, 530. 
setschuana, 260. 
stenocricota 
poensis, 258. 


ERRATA. 


Page 95, line 36, for dilophus read auritus. 


“ 100, “ 
“ 185, “ 
“ awe. “ 


19, for Red-tailed read Red-shouldered. 
15, for philadelphia read philadelphica. 
29, for alphildae read alfhildae. 


DATES OF ISSUE. 


Vol. XXXI, No. 4— September 30, 1914. 
“ XXXII, No. 1— January 1, 1915. 
“ XXXII, No. 2— April 1, 1915. 
“ XXXII, No. 3— June 29, 1915. 


PUBLICATIONS OF THE 


AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION 


FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWINC PRICES: 


The Auk. Complete set, Volumes I-XXXI, (1884-1914) in origi- 
nal covers, $105.00. Volumes I-VI are sold only with complete 
sets, other volumes, $3.00 each; 75 cents for single numbers. 


Index to The Auk (Vols. I-XVII, 1884-1900) and Bulletin of the 
Nuttall Ornithological Club (Vols. I-VIII, 1876-1883), 8vo, pp. 
vil + 426, 1908.. Cloth, $3.75; paper, $3.25. 


Index to The Auk (Vols. XVIIIJ-XXVII, 1901-1910), 8vo, pp. 
xviii + 250, 1915. Cloth, $3.00; paper, $2.00. 


Check-List of North American Birds. Third edition, revised, 
1910. Cloth, 8vo., pp. 426, and 2 maps. $2.50, net, postage 
25 cents. Second edition, revised, 1895. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 
372. $1.15. Original edition 1886. Out of print. 


Abridged Check-List of North American Birds. 1889. (Abridged 
and revised from the original edition). Paper, 8vo, pp. 71, printed 
on one side of the page. 25 cents. 


Pocket Check-List of North American Birds. (Abridged from 
the third edition). Flexible cover, 3} X 53 inches. 25 cents. 
10 copies for $2.00. 


Code of Nomenclature. Revised edition, 1908. Paper, 8vo, pp. 
lIxxxv. 50 cents. 
Original edition, 1892. Paper, 8vo, pp. iv + 72. 25 cents. 


We would be pleased to furnish The Auk, Index and Check-List 
f to your library at 15% discount. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr. 


P40 With list "Stes New York, N.Y 


Amertean Urnithologists nia 


Check-List of North American 
Birds 


Last Edition, 1910 


Cloth, 8vo, pp. 480 and two maps of North America, 
one a colored, faunal zone map, and one a locality map. 
The first authoritative and complete list of North 


- American Birds published since the second edition of 


the Check-List in 1895. The ranges of species and 
geographical races have been carefully revised and 
greatly extended, and the names conform to the latest 
rulings of the A.O. U. Committee on Nomenclature. 
The numbering of the species is the same as in the 
second edition. Price, including postage, $2.75. 


POCKET EDITION 


A pocket Check-List (32 by 5% inches) of North 
American Birds with only the numbers and the scientific 
and popular names. Alternate pages blank for the 
insertion of notes. Flexible covers. Price, including 
postage, 25 cents; or 10 copies for $2.00. 


Address JONATHAN DWIGHT, Jr. 
134 W. 7Ist St. New York City 


Tay 


, 


UY Aa at 


ool TT ater ‘ NNO ll denns natn VY poche 
li) CTR entry 
eat paalin oa” 


am. anaes 
AP Saas ‘ aaiay BAA A, AAR, paprnranran a abla 
nae AupAasiiaere porte Ayannat! Pere pIR PAARL Ra hiabig 
etn gop AMAGAR BAA Ag, yrwan E Os A i PUY Wate pas? 5 F sae “en 
pals “s gi~nnsal aan, guikaae near 
e ~~? na a 4, Apa, aa ‘om Aaa" 7 ~ i Pa Pa 
AAA ARIA) ry a.) ae : 9 Seeeereameaas. 4 @ 
Baga Arn: ya , Tey |. A = 9h he a eRe a aoe! 
jaa AYN. menbae AAAS Bill Death lama lity tar AAA saa: ‘Aa wy nRIREANA, | Se ial 
bia | Welter BGa.ta, 7. MUAY | 4 2 ARMA | aaa a0 - deal 
& Wid Tt, = 4 NP iz fs “Sa 
ala! | Pe “ss AAR Rapa, Riai a Aarnan nas an nana wan al SALRn wR Ted Po ee 
* + As , » R —N ee 
nse P | Pam ene YS SAA A riGARAAAA® a seein | ool | Vi 
‘seuen can ad if i ‘ ft 2 __ aa ; ‘ ‘ By ad = 
SUN le aang ee Seer {tL 
~UaAAm an. Nap" >> May ‘ Saad ey ia patna dA Pen, af Pe: k . ELT] | ew Bh hy 
a THT Ne PAT ; <= oaNa ~mankbhiig = A. 
AAA AR oa am es areas re fuller Mata; A Ass ““hial 
SLT 8 26 @ERane, saRea. ae  AASAAIR 2 anak, 
& » aA 9 he -* in Nm ont Be 
age / Ka 4m, ~ om , & eet te aay MH 4 ap —™ & fe ans. ‘es 1] % = 
» a } Sot oe ee ae ~~, a wt 
| ; LLAABA SRA CaS \Gaseacade 


‘ASSL! amnanenAn, PAA at 
aaa ~~ dO ne allie t : . 


a ey» & ver Sid Ra RAR a 
, AMARA "7 PT a en 


ve a rae 
bay 
Pana nana at ‘on 4 soar 
TRihend Ty ave SAA am Baad oFA KD ma 2p2a8 
- Ae B® exe * 
<i 


e sinnescratl Tn Aontinasree 
a , >> Coes) We Tal Ant g 


“tee” | Py YY 

= hei, Mine : hha , : | 
a“ mai 
phat saan, ARAAnt an Aan oa Adee ina. eae 


Le pai 
y& . ‘ 
» saOanhhoee AAkm Wedel | | 
ainahee Pere Rina a lal S ~*~ Are 
py MR =e "* Ds ert t “Ps raga 8.4 a : ARAL 
aa ] alt 
th} y HOT taal t= eb WR eres _ 
Sorted olf PT Lal R aa TS Pare r 
| 7 Miapthy fob t fe feobet fot 
aA lal iia tt 
ry Matty y 1) ry cas RAR: | . 
BARR. aAG iia teeoenhh a. AAlp 
iagaagaser 0 QAA, ERE =. plaaas 
LY RS & ry | Rpe- “gis Ls 
: e ay F " A aN - col A wae ~aa- ~ 
fs of oll it yar Me e mn Negas* ar saa AA ar » awe ss 4A» r ahRANn a 
h EN a S A  S Z f Z eo sme Leal 54 5-UN PA 
eer Te | yu “anwnannne im Be mw J | | » ws YN ate -~meeRhr 
ae Bagh aaanUihuKa Yee bh ( AUP Prmciaheo Ty ay | Wag 
- * - 
‘AND 1 Wey | “Aas 044 Bane, Denes ee Nees AABALner ay 
a monnyyttiy. | : Ps eee Litt naaAnees pinpaa ak TT manos) 
Da BA ag gS 28 if py we pitAnsn- ae enrages AY, py ; 
a Sasa vets . } 


f 
aph TTT | 
panned : PALS | Tes yi LETTE Ps 


) STALL ETRS 
TP EE >» a NANS Vand oy AA SRA R AAR DAA, 
mae i : ; j 108 
bo NUP anBRaanere A, 0, eeeureees c ees & VY \ an. 
: ltt nad ” Reb bt ate Dba pg sh. a ~ 4 Win 
Matron eater. Nn anes Pans Wanprhssae pale ee ‘ 
am . é 
Syne ttq==" lf Vie | Paha \ et ETL ELLA Beeeeays 
Vel *