_Archibuteo_ Brehm has for long been in use for the Rough-legged Hawks.
This name, proposed in 1828 by Brehm (Isis, XXI, No. 12, December,
1828, col. 1269), was based solely on the “Rauchfussbussard” and two
nomina nuda, _Archibuteo planiceps_ Brehm and _Archibuteo alticeps_
Brehm; hence _Falco lagopus_ Brünnich, to which from Brehm’s later
publications all these evidently must be referred, has been commonly
considered the type of _Archibuteo_. In the original description,
however, aside from the two pure nomina nuda, only the vernacular name
without citation of authority or anything else that would serve to
identify it, is given. The generic term _Archibuteo_ is, therefore,
certainly a nomen nudum at this place, as is clearly indicated by the
International Code of Nomenclature and current practice. The earliest
tenable citation for _Archibuteo_ is in 1831 (Brehm, Handb. Naturg.
Vog. Deutschlands, 1831, p. 38), when Brehm gives as the two included
species, _Archibuteo planiceps_ Brehm and _Archibuteo alticeps_ Brehm,
here fully described, both of which are synonyms of _Falco lagopus_
Brünnich. Meanwhile, however, two other names were introduced for
the group—_Triorchis_ Kaup (Skizz. Entw.-Gesch. Natürl. Syst. Eur.
Thierw., 1829, p. 84; type by monotypy, _Falco lagopus_ Brünnich);
and _Butaetes_ Lesson (Traité d’Ornith., May 8, 1830, p. 83; type,
by monotypy, _Falco lagopus_ Gmelin). The first of these becomes,
therefore, the tenable name for the Rough-legged Hawks, since it is not
preoccupied by _Triorches_ Leach (Syst. Cat. Indig. Mamm. and Birds
Brit. Mus., 1816, p. 10; type, by monotypy, _Pandion fluvialis_ Savigny
= _Falco haliaetus_ Linnæus), for the latter must be regarded as a
different word from a nomenclatural standpoint because of its different
classical ending. By reason of this the two forms of the Rough-legged
Hawk will stand as follows:
=Triorchis lagopus lagopus= (Brünnich).
=Triorchis lagopus sanctijohannis= (Gmelin).
HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._
=Harris’s Hawk= (_Parabuteo unicinctus harrisi_) =in Kansas=.—A fine
specimen of a female Harris’s Hawk was killed seven and one half miles
southwest of Lawrence, Kansas, December 25, 1918, by Fred Hastie and
is now in the skin collection of the University of Kansas Museum.
So far as I know this Hawk has not been reported before from the state.
—C. D. BUNKER, _Lawrence, Kansas_.
=The Proper Name for the Texas Barred Owl.=—Some time ago (‘The
Auk,’ XXV, No. 3, July, 1908, page 316) Mr. Outram Bangs renamed his
_Syrnium nebulosum helveolum_ (Proc. New Engl. Zool. Club, I, March 31,
1899, page 31) because, when transferred to the genus _Strix_, it was
supposedly preoccupied by _Strix helvola_ Lichtenstein (Verz. Samml.
Säugeth. und Vögeln Kaffernlande, 1842, page 11). Since, however, both
_helveola_ and _helvola_ are classical Latin adjectives differing in
the possession of an additional syllable, they are to be regarded as
different words, and therefore by neither the International Code of
Nomenclature nor the A. O. U. Code would they conflict when employed
in the same genus. It thus becomes necessary to return to the earlier
name for the Texas Barred Owl, and it will consequently stand as _Strix
varia helveola_ (Bangs).—HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._
=Concerning a Note of the Long-eared Owl= (_Asio wilsonianus_).—I
was interested in the note of Mr. G. Clyde Fisher in the last number of
‘The Auk,’ with similar heading to the above. I can furnish information
which will help to verify the conclusions which Mr. Fisher reached as
to the source of the sound he heard. On August 9, 1914, while camped
near Red Eagle Lake, in the Glacier National Park, I heard a sound
of some night bird, which was very similar to the sound described by
Mr. Fisher, and for which I could give no better description than the
phrase he uses, I tried to investigate the source of the sound, and
soon found several owls, at least four being seen at once. It was
moonlight at the time. The country consisted of a mountain meadow,
dotted with clumps of fir trees, and the Owls were easily seen as they
flew from one clump to another at my approach. I followed, and soon got
a good view of one silhouetted against the sky, as it sat in the top of
a fir. The bird was evidently watching my approach, and its ear tufts
could be plainly seen. From their position, rising from the center of
the head, rather than the sides, as well as from the size of the bird,
I felt sure that it was a Long-eared Owl. I believe that the birds
were a family containing both adults and young, and that they had been
attracted by the light of our camp fire. This is the third time that I
have known these Owls to be attracted by the light of a camp fire in
the mountains of Montana.—ARETAS A. SAUNDERS, _Norwalk, Conn._
=The Short-eared Owl Breeding on Nantucket.=—In ‘The Auk’ for
January, 1919, Mr. Francis H. Allen, reporting the occurrence of the
Short-eared Owl (_Asio flammeus_) at Nantucket in August, 1918, speaks
of the somewhat doubtful status of this Owl as a breeding bird in
Massachusetts, and quotes the opinion of Mr. George H. Mackay that at
one time it doubtless bred quite regularly on Nantucket and more rarely
on Muskeget Island.
There is, I think, good reason to believe that this Owl has nested
on Nantucket in recent years not less regularly than in the past. In
the years 1908 to 1912 when, in the month of June, I explored the
island intent on its plants, but always with a side eye to birds,
the Short-eared Owl was frequently met with, this and the Marsh Hawk
appearing to be the only raptorial birds of the island at that season.
In 1912 it was more numerous than at any time before, or else chance
made it so appear, and between June 27 and July 14 not less than
twelve were observed. On June 10, 1908, a nest containing two eggs,
evidently fresh, was found in Trot’s swamp on the western side of the
island. The locality was a dryish open part of the swamp less than an
acre in extent hemmed about on all sides by thickets that were in many
places swampy and impassable. The nest, a slight structure of grasses
and other light material, was set in a cluster of hay-scented fern
(_Denntstædtia punctilobula_) whose delicate fronds rising around the
margin of the nest gave less protection than concealment and, indeed,
little concealment from above, for down within the encircling ferns the
eggs were in open view. At this spot the ground was slightly raised
above the level of the swamp, and the unrestrained growth of this
fern attested that here, even in a wet season, the soil must be free
from saturation. The sitting bird left the nest at my near approach,
when its mate almost immediately appeared, both birds ranging widely
about well in the air at no time coming very near and, at intervals,
almost pausing in their flight directly overhead. One or both birds
continually repeated a weak and expressionless guttural note—as memory
now recalls it. The eggs, measured at the nest and replaced, were 1.37
and 1.44 inches in length—small for the species according to published
measurements.
South of Nantucket the Short-eared Owl has not often been reported in
its breeding season. There are several records of its having nested
along the New Jersey coast, even as far south as the Cape May region,
but I do not know that it has ever been found breeding on Long Island.
There would seem to be little doubt, however, that it has recently
nested there at Long Beach. At that place, on May 25, 1917, I watched
a pair of these owls, evidently, from the disparity in their size, a
male and female, repeatedly attacking a single Crow. The birds were
flying about over a tract of dunes and thickets flanking a salt marsh
inaccessible to me across a broad creek. The Crow, perhaps to escape
the Owls, perhaps intent on depredation of their nest, several times
swept down to the ground about a certain spot, the Owls pursuing it or
awaiting its return into the air when attack and counter-attack were
renewed. The following year at the same place a pair were observed
on February 22, attacking a Marsh Hawk, one was seen on April 12, a
pair on May 17, and again a single one on August 9.—EUGENE P.
BICKNELL, _New York City_.
=Early Occurrence of the Snowy Owl and the Pine Grosbeak in Monroe
County, New York.=—On November 3, 1918, while riding on a trolley
car toward the lake, my attention was called by the motorman, to a
large Snowy Owl (_Nyctea nyctea_) which was sitting on the top of a
wooden pole in a gravel bed and about 150 feet from the tracks.
He also informed me that the bird had been in the same place while on a
previous trip an hour and a half before. Later it was seen to fly into
a nearby vineyard. The locality was in the town of Irondequoit, a mile
and a half from Lake Ontario. On the same afternoon at 3.30 o’clock,
while walking along the border of the woods at Durand-Eastman Park,
near the lake, I observed three Pine Grosbeaks (_Pinicola enucleator
leucura_). There were two females and one male, they were feeding in
some bushes close to the roadway and were very tame, allowing me to
approach within ten feet of them, when they would fly into the nearby
bushes. This is the earliest record that I can find of their occurrence
in Monroe County.—LUCIUS H. PAUL, _Rochester, N. Y._
=The Deep Plantar Tendons in the Puff-birds, Jacamars and their
Allies.=—One of the most distinct and peculiar types of the
deep plantar tendons in birds is that known as the _antiopelmous_,
characterizing certain zygodactyl groups such as the Woodpeckers,
Toucans and their allies. In this arrangement of the simple _flexor
perforans digitorum_ runs to the third toe, while the trifurcate
_flexor longus hallucis_ supplies the first, second and fourth toes.
The two tendons are connected by a vinculum which runs from the _flexor
longus_ to the _flexor perforans_.
The nature of these tendons in the Puff-birds (Bucconidæ) and Jacamars
(Galbulidæ) is of special importance in determining the systematic
position of these families. Both are commonly given as antiopelmous,
perhaps on the sole authority of Garrod (cf. P. Z. S., 1875, p. 345;
also Sclater’s Monograph of the Jacamars and Puff-birds, p. XXVIII).
The following species were examined by Garrod: _Galbula rufoviridis_,
_G. albirostris_, and _Urogalba paradisea_ of the Galbulidæ, and
_Monasa flavirostris_, _Malacoptila fusca_ and _Bucco maculatus_ of the
Bucconidæ. Of allied groups the following were determined: _Ramphastos
ariel_ (Ramphastidæ), _Megalœma asiatica_ (Capitonidæ), _Gecinus
viridis_ and _Tiga javanensis_ (Picidæ).
Descriptions of the plantar tendons in other groups have so often
proven erroneous that the verification of all such statements is
desirable. This is my excuse for the present note which merely confirms
the observations of Garrod; however the species, with one exception,
and three of the genera are different and I am able to point out one or
two minor variations.
I have made careful dissections of specimens of _Monasa grandior_ and
_Malacoptila inornata_ (Bucconidæ), _Galbula melanogenia_ (Galbulidæ),
_Ramphastos ariel_ (Ramphastidæ), _Chloronerpes yucatanensis_,
_Dryobates villosus_ and _Campephilus malherbii_ (Picidæ). The
essential antiopelmous arrangement is the same in all, but several
variations occur that are worthy of note.
In _Chloronerpes_, _Megalaima_, _Ramphastos_, _Malacoptila_ and
probably _Monasa_, the distance between the first and second
bifurcations of the _flexor longus_ is much greater than in _Dryobates_
and _Galbula_; in _Campephilus_, on the other hand, the three slips
spring from practically the same point. The position of the vinculum is
somewhat variable. In _Ramphastos_, _Megalœma_ (Garrod), _Dryobates_,
and _Campephilus_ the vinculum leaves the flexor longus decidedly above
the primary bifurcation of the latter; in _Malacoptila_, _Galbula_ and
_Chloronerpes_ at the extreme lower end of the main tendon, just as it
divides, while in _Monasa_ (as recorded by Garrod also) it originates
from the upper ends of the two branches.
Stejneger states (on what authority I do not know) that the Honey
Guides (Indicatoridæ) are antiopelmous. There is every reason to
believe this statement correct and also to assume that the Wrynecks
(Jyngidæ) and Piculets (Picumnidæ) have the same arrangement.
This close agreement in the deep plantar tendons is, as remarked by
Dr. Stejneger, strong evidence of the mutual relationships of the
families possessing this unique arrangement. As this character is not
neutralized or overbalanced by any of equal or greater value we may
regard these families as forming a natural group, an order or suborder,
characterized essentially by their antiopelmous, zygodactyl feet.
In other zygodactyl birds, the Parrots and Cuckoos, the tendons are
of the wholly different desmopelmous type, and moreover the ambiens
muscle, absent in the antiopelmous group, is here present.—W. DEW.
MILLER, _American Museum of Natural History, New York City_.
=The Status of the Genus= _Hypocentor_ =Cabanis=.—The genus
_Hypocentor_ was originally instituted by Cabanis (Mus. Hein, I, 1851,
p. 131) for three species of Buntings, _Emberiza aureola_ Pallas,
_Emberiza fucata_ Pallas, and _Emberiza rustica_ Pallas. Its type was
soon afterward designated by Gray (Cat. Gen. and Subgen. Birds Brit.
Mus., 1855, p. 79) as _Emberiza aureola_ Pallas. Modern authors have
commonly synonymized it with _Emberiza_ Brisson, but an examination
of its type and comparison with typical species of _Emberiza_ shows
that it is well differentiated as a generic group. It differs from
_Emberiza_ Brisson (type, by tautonymy, _Emberiza citrinella_ Linnæus)
as follows; bill slenderer, more compressed, more sharply pointed, thus
less conical; basal two-thirds of culmen straight or even somewhat
concave, instead of convex; maxillar and mandibular tomia vertically
not so strongly concave, thus not giving the closed commissure the
somewhat open appearance that it has in typical species of _Emberiza_;
palatal surface of maxilla lacking the peculiar rounded protuberances
of _Emberiza_; mandible more rounded (less squarish) basally; gonys
very long, its length much more than the height of the bill at base
(instead of about equal to that dimension), and not strongly ascending,
the gonydeal angle therefore not so prominent; tertials and tail much
shorter.
The species to be included in this genus are at least the three
originally indicated by Cabanis, the last one of which is North
American by reason of its accidental occurrence on Kiska Island in the
Aleutian Islands, Alaska. These are:
_Hypocentor aureolus_ (Pallas).
_Hypocentor fucatus_ (Pallas).
_Hypocentor rusticus_ (Pallas).
HARRY C. OBERHOLSER, _Washington, D. C._
=A Correction Involving Some Juncos.=—An error that may be explained as
due to oversight, inadvertence, plain stupidity or all three combined,
crept into my paper on the Juncos (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. XXXVIII,
1918, p. 296) and Mr. Todd has called my attention to it. In placing
_insularis_ under _mearnsi_ as a race, I quite forgot that the former
name has many years priority. Therefore the Pink-sided Juncos should
stand as follows:—
_Junco insularis mearnsi_
_Junco insularis insularis_
_Junco insularis townsendi_
JONATHAN DWIGHT, M. D., _New York City_.
=An Additional Record of= _Ammodramus savannarum bimaculutus_ =in
Eastern Washington.=—Although the breeding range of the Western
Grasshopper Sparrow is stated by the Check List (A. O. U. Check-List of
North American Birds, 1910, p. 257) to embrace “Transition and Austral
zones from southeastern British Columbia, northwestern Montana, and
southern Minnesota south to southern California and southern Texas,” it
appears that only one actual record of occurrence in eastern Washington
has been published to date. Dr. Lee R. Dice took two adult males in
breeding plumage in a wheat field in the Touchet Valley, near Prescott,
Walla Walla County, on June 16, 1908 (Auk, Vol. XXVII, 1910, p. 217).
On May 29, 1918, a bird which I am practically certain was of this
species was encountered in a grassy swale not far from Pullman, Whitman
County. When first sighted it was perched on a grassy tussock near
the bottom of the swale. When flushed it flew to a grass clump some
distance up a gentle hill slope, disappearing from view in the usual
slinking fashion. Too much reliance cannot, of course, be placed on
this record, since the bird was not secured.
On June 13 I noted the song of a Grasshopper Sparrow in a grain
field near Six Mile Ranch, six miles south of Sprague, just over the
line in Adams County. The bird was pursued for some time before it
was finally taken. Its actions were as usually described, the bird
characteristically dropping behind a grass tussock, ledge of earth or
pile of brush, and then, with bill low, body in crouching position, and
tail drooping, sneaking off through the grassy vegetation, refusing to
flush until one was too close to shoot.
The bird is now No. 262090, U. S. National Museum, Biological Survey
Collection. It is a male in much worn plumage.
These experiences during the past field season indicate that the
Grasshopper Sparrow is probably more common in eastern Washington than
has previously been supposed.—WALTER P. TAYLOR, _Biological Survey,
Washington, D. C._
=The Dickcissel in New Hampshire.=—At Concord, New Hampshire, on
October 13, 1918 I shot a male Dickcissel (_Spiza americana_) in
immature plumage. It was alone at the moment, in birches at the edge of
woods that bordered extensive fields of corn and stubble, the autumnal
resort of sparrows of several kinds, which were then swarming there
among the weeds. The only records of the bird from north and east of
Massachusetts with which I am acquainted are as follows:
Maine, September 29, 1884. C. W. Townsend (Auk, 1885, p. 106).
Maine, October 10, 1888. A. H. Norton (Auk, 1893, p. 302).
Nova Scotia, September 13, 1902. J. Dwight, Jr. (Auk, 1903, p. 440).
FRANCIS BEACH WHITE, _Concord, N. H._
=Early Nesting of the Loggerhead Shrike= (_Lanius ludovicianus
ludovicianus_) =at Savannah, Ga.=—I am indebted to Mr. Gilbert R.
Rossignol, of Savannah, Ga., for the privilege of announcing the taking
by him on February 15, 1919, at Savannah, of a nest and five eggs
of the Loggerhead Shrike. Mr. Rossignol first discovered the birds
building the nest in a live oak tree, among a cluster of vertical
shoots, on January 16. The eggs were all fresh and the nest was
approximately twenty feet from the ground.
In the vicinity of Charleston, S. C., the earliest dates upon which I
have found eggs were on March 24, 1916, six eggs almost hatched, and
March 13, 1917, five fresh eggs, both nests being found in the same
live oak tree and doubtless belonging to the same pair of birds.—ARTHUR
T. WAYNE, _Mt. Pleasant, S. C._
=A Note on the Decrease of the Carolina Wren near Washington.=—The
winter of 1917-1918 in the vicinity of Washington, D. C., with its
prolonged cold and unusual fall of snow, was a severe one for many
birds, a fact that was manifested especially in the case of the
Carolina Wren (_Thryothorus l. ludovicianus_). Near Washington Carolina
Wrens increased steadily in numbers in the period extending from 1912
to 1917, and during the last two years of this time were common. Their
abundance at Plummer’s Island, Maryland, was noticeable, and birds were
seen or heard on practically every visit to that vicinity. Through
December, 1917, and January, 1918 they remained in their usual numbers.
February 1, during a visit made to Plummer’s Island immediately after
a heavy snowfall I found that the snow in the woods where it had not
been drifted was sixteen inches deep. Several Carolina Wrens were seen
on this day. One was observed climbing up the trunk of a red birch,
where the bird broke open the curling rolls of bark, in search for
food, making a rattling, rustling noise audible for some distance.
Another was clambering about the eaves of the cabin. Both of these
feeding habits were more or less unusual. This heavy snow covered the
ground for a considerable period after this and must have rendered food
difficult to find. Immediately after February 1 the Carolina Wrens in
the area under consideration disappeared, and the supposition was that
the greater part of them had perished. Only three of four pairs were
known to remain in the region between the end of the carline at Cabin
John’s Bridge and Plummer’s Island, while none were left on the island
property. The same decrease in number among these birds was observed
throughout the entire Washington region and when spring opened it was
found that there were only scattered pairs in a few areas.
In a former note (published in ‘The Condor,’ 1913, pp. 120-121) I
have called attention to a similar occurrence in eastern Kansas,
where other species of birds in addition to Carolina Wrens were
concerned. These observations and others of a similar nature seem to
show that the Carolina Wren is a bird that may be considered resident
in the strictest sense of the word in regions where it is found. In
many so-called resident species, though the species as a whole is
represented at all seasons individuals are migratory and perform
regular journeys each year. With the Carolina Wren however, this does
not seem to be true, as adult individuals (in pairs) frequent certain
restricted areas throughout the year without reference to season. The
immature birds that have not yet become settled, wander somewhat during
spring and fall, and individuals may occur at this time in cities or
elsewhere outside of their normal haunts. These movements however,
are irregular, and seem at most to be restricted to short distances
when compared with the regular spring and fall movement found among
other birds of recognized migratory habits. It is by these restricted
movements that these Wrens extend their local range.
At Plummer’s Island one of these wanderers visited the island and
adjacent parts of the mainland on April 7 and worked restlessly about,
singing loudly. No others were observed during the spring and summer
months and the species did not occur again until December 8 when
one was observed skulking in a brush pile below the cabin. One bird
(presumably the same one) is still present on the island at present
writing (January 12, 1919).
The instances given here are indications of the conditions limiting
the range of the Carolina Wren, in one direction at least and show,
too, how readily a species apparently common may be reduced or even
exterminated in a given region in a very short period of time. In the
case of the Carolina Wren the heavy blanket of snow covering the food
supply would seem to be the direct cause of extermination rather than
prolonged cold, as here at Washington these birds were able to survive
a low temperature for a considerable period but were killed when deep
snow covered the greater part of their normal feeding ground. It is to
the comparatively few that are able to survive that we must look for
the perpetuation of the species. The increase in numbers however, seems
to be a slow process, as following their decrease in 1912, I found the
species still comparatively rare near Lawrence, Kansas, in 1914, 1916
and as late as November, 1918.—ALEXANDER WETMORE, _Biological Survey,
Washington, D. C._
=The Affinities of= _Chamæthlypis_.—As generic distinctions become more
and more refined the need of a supergeneric group intermediate between
the family or subfamily and the genus, corresponding approximately to
the former genus, becomes increasingly evident.
In his great work on the ‘Birds of North and Middle America’ Mr.
Ridgway has supplied this want in many families. In the Warblers
(Mniotiltidæ) the grouping does not appear to be so successful as in
most cases. Not only is the old genus _Geothlypis_ broken up into
three genera but these are distributed in as many supergeneric groups.
_Oporornis_ is banded with _Dendroica_ and its allies in the Dendroicæ,
while _Chamæthlypis_ is placed in the Icteriæ.
We cannot help feeling that this arrangement is artificial, and that
too much importance has been placed on the length of the wing-tip
(easily modified by habits and migration), and insufficient weight
given to coloration, nesting and even song.
Also, the distinctions are partially invalidated by exceptions. Thus
the sections including _Geothlypis_ and _Chamæthlypis_ are separated
by differences in the length of the tail and form of the bill; but
_Geothlypis nelsoni_ agrees with _Chamæthlypis_ in having the tail
longer than the wing. Again the Geothlypeæ are separated from the
Dendroiceæ by having the rictal bristles obsolete and the wing-tip
shorter, but in _Geothlypis æquinoctialis_ and _G. cucullata_, at
least, the rictal bristles are well-developed.
The particular point of criticism is in regard to the affinities of
_Chamæthlypis_ which is distinguished from _Geothlypis_ by its stouter
bill, with strongly curved culmen, and its longer, graduated tail.
Mr. Ridgway expresses the opinion that while “this genus is very much
like _Geothlypis_ as to its general appearance” it is “quite distinct
structurally, in which respect it comes much nearer to _Icteria_.” I
have carefully tabulated the structural differences between these three
genera, and the result to my mind unquestionably indicates a nearer
relationship of _Chamæthlypis_ with _Geothlypis_.