included in this genus two South American species of _Geothlypis_,
_G. æquinoctialis_ and _G. auricularis_. These two species and _G.
cucullata_ are intermediate between _Chamæthlypis_ and the typical
species of _Geothlypis_ in coloration and in the form of the bill and
have well developed rictal bristles as in _Chamæthlypis_. They do not,
however, approach the latter genus in the length of the tail, as do
certain Mexican species of _Geothlypis_, notably _G. nelsoni_.
While in Nicaragua in the spring of 1917 I had the opportunity of
hearing the song of the ‘Ground-chat’ on several occasions. It is a
highly musical warble resembling that of _Geothlypis semiflava bairdi_
but even superior; the songs of both these species much excel that of
_G. trichas_. The song of _Chamæthlypis_ possesses nothing whatever of
the eccentric qualities of the Yellow-breasted Chat’s vocal performance.
In conclusion, the evidence of size, coloration, external structure
and song, strongly indicate the near relationship of _Chamæthlypis_
with _Geothlypis_ and the more remote affinity of the former with
_Icteria_. The first two genera are, in fact, practically connected
by intermediate species.—W. DEW. MILLER, _American Museum of Natural
History, New York City_.
=Blue-winged Warbler Feeding a Young Field Sparrow.=—On June 16,
1918, I was passing through a brushy area near Norwalk, Conn., when
my attention was attracted by a Blue-winged Warbler (_Vermivora
pinus_) evidently much excited at my presence as though it had a nest
or young in the vicinity. It carried a green caterpillar about with
it, as though wishing to feed young, so I sat down to watch it. A
Field Sparrow (_Spizella pusilla_) soon appeared and also manifested
excitement at my presence. After some waiting the Blue-wing approached
a certain point in the bushes so frequently, that I got suspicious and
searched it, finding to my surprise a young Field Sparrow, evidently
just out of the nest and unable to fly. I waited some time longer,
hoping to find the young of the Blue-wing, and finally the latter got
over its fear, and approached the young Field Sparrow, and fed it the
caterpillar it had been carrying. The adult Field Sparrow remained
nearby but would not go to the young bird.
This incident seems rather surprising, but I believe it is explained
by supposing that the two species nested near each other; that the
young of the Blue-wing were destroyed by a natural enemy just as they
were about to leave the nest; and that the adult Blue-wing, finding
a young Field Sparrow of about the same age nearby, fed it, perhaps
not realizing that it was not its own offspring, and in any event,
satisfying its natural instinct to feed and care for young at that
time.—ARETAS A. SAUNDERS, _Norwalk, Conn._
=The Blue-winged Warbler near Boston.=—Walking in dry, scrubby woods
in the town of Brookline, Mass., May 19, 1918, Dr. Charles W. Townsend
and I found a Blue-winged Warbler (_Vermivora pinus_) singing the
typical song of the Golden-winged Warbler (_V. chrysoptera_). The
bird had the bright-yellow throat, breast, belly, and crown and the
black line through the eye, and we had no hesitation in pronouncing
it a Blue-winged Warbler. As this species is regarded as extremely
rare in Massachusetts (see note by Mr. Horace W. Wright, Auk, 1917,
pp. 482, 483), the bird was afterwards visited by other observers,
some of whom saw it to better advantage than we did and discovered
that its wing-bars were yellow, not white as in typical examples of
the species. Among these observers were Mr. Charles J. Maynard, Judge
Charles F. Jenney, Dr. John B. Brainerd, Mr. Barron Brainerd, and Mr.
Henry S. Shaw. Mr. Maynard, who visited the locality June 15 in company
with Judge Jenney and Mr. Shaw, wrote me under date of July 31, 1918:
“I saw the bird very distinctly a number of times and clearly saw
that it had decidedly yellow wing-bands, not as yellow as those of
the Golden-winged, yet decidedly yellow, and we heard no other song
than the one indistinguishable from that of the Golden-wing.... I was
interested in trying to find whether the bird was mated, but we did
not succeed in finding any mate.” None of the observers saw anything
of a mate, and none heard any other song from the bird than the
Golden-winged Warbler song. Illness in my family prevented my visiting
the locality again until July 10, when the bird was not to be found,
and the Golden-winged Warblers, two of which had been found there
before had also stopped singing.
Forms of the Blue-winged Warbler with yellow or yellowish wing-bars are
not very rare in collections, and Dr. Louis B. Bishop, who has a large
series of this species, makes particular mention of them in his paper
on ‘The Status of _Helminthophila leucobronchialis_ and _Helminthophila
lawrencei_’ in ‘The Auk,’ 1905, XXII, p. 21-24. In the light, however,
of Dr. Walter Faxon’s discovery of the hybrid nature of Brewster’s
Warbler it seems probable that these non-typical examples are really of
mixed ancestry and possess a modicum of _chrysoptera_ blood. This seems
the more likely in the case of our Brookline bird because it sang the
_chrysoptera_ song, as do most, if not all, of the _leucobronchialis_
found in this region. Mr. William Brewster permits me to cite him in
support of this theory, and Dr. Bishop writes me, “I think it quite
possible your bird had a ‘_lawrencei_’ as a more or less remote
ancestor, which means _chrysoptera_ of course farther back, added to
its predominant _pinus_ blood.”
Though our bird was found, as I have stated, in the town of Brookline,
the cities of Boston and Newton also corner near by and, as Judge
Jenney has pointed out to me, it doubtless had in its daily range not
only these three municipalities but also the three counties of Norfolk,
Suffolk, and Middlesex to which they severally belong.—FRANCIS H.
ALLEN, _West Roxbury, Mass._
=Nashville Warbler= (_Vermivora ruficapilla_) =in New York in
Winter=.—This is not merely a winter record for New York City but for
a backyard garden on Broadway. This bird was first seen by Mrs. Chubb
on December 16, 1918. It was feeding on aphids which were still very
abundant on some brussels sprouts in a very small garden patch.
Up to the present date, January 9, I have seen the bird frequently.
Apparently it visits the garden daily where the aphids still survive
the mild winter. The bird is in perfect flight and apparently normal
in every way. It was also identified today by Mr. W. DeW. Miller.—S.
HARMSTED CHUBB, _New York City_.
=Four Rare Birds in Sussex County, New Jersey.=—In the fall of 1918
the American Museum of Natural History received in the flesh a female
Northern Pileated Woodpecker (_Phlœotomus pileatus abieticola_) shot in
the Kittatinny Mountains, three miles southwest of Culver’s Gap, Sussex
Co., New Jersey, on Oct. 12, and an adult female Golden Eagle (_Aquila
chrysaëtos_) killed in the same locality on November 23.
On a visit to this region from October 19 to November 3, I was
gratified to find that the Pileated Woodpecker still exists in the
larger woodlands of Sussex County. Many characteristic examples of
their work, both old and fresh, were found and several birds were seen.
Through the kindness of Mr. Justus von Lengerke, I am able to record a
Raven (_Corvus corax europhilus_) also from the vicinity of Culver’s
Gap. This bird, which was accompanied by another individual of the same
species, was secured by this gentleman on September 21 and is now in
his possession.
Mr. von Lengerke tells me that the Goshawk (_Astur atricapillus
atricapillus_) is a regular winter visitor in northwestern New Jersey,
but usually rare. In the fall and winter of 1916-17 and again in
1917-18 there were, for the first time in his experience, large flights
of the Goshawk two years in succession. In the former season Mr. von
Lengerke, who makes special efforts to kill these destructive birds,
secured about nine Goshawks; in the latter he personally killed sixteen
(fifteen at Stag Lake, Sussex Co., and one about ten miles from this
locality), and knows of two more shot in the same county. In the
fall of 1918 he handled eight individuals, five of which were killed
by himself and his son.—W. DEW. MILLER, _American Museum of Natural
History, New York City_.
=Notes from a Connecticut Pine Swamp.=—The pine swamp of which I write
is situated in the township of Ledyard, Connecticut, two miles east
of Gales Ferry and the Thames River, and about eight miles north of
Fisher’s Island sound. It runs north and south for about half a mile,
and is three hundred feet above sea level. In it grow tall white pines,
though many which formerly grew along the edges of the swamp have
been cut down. It is a wild place, containing the usual “Bottomless
Pit,” the old time farmers, with their longest poles, being unable
to find a bottom. Once upon a time, also, a wildcat inhabited it—so
sayeth tradition! The native Rhododendron (_R. maximum_) grows here in
profusion attaining a height of twenty-five, or more, feet, and is a
wonderful sight when in blossom in July. There is also much laurel and
many hardwood trees on the edge of the swamp. On July 5, 1918, walking
here among the Rhododendrons, listening to the songs of the Hooded
Warbler, I made a discovery. The Hooded Warbler is quite common in
this locality and sings freely. I heard the two songs on this day—one
of which seems to say “you’re it, you’re it, you’re it, you’re it
yourself” sung rapidly and varying in the number of “you’re its.” The
other song seems to say “Nobody can touch me-ë.” a rising inflection
on the end. They made me think of children playing tag. Suddenly a
strange distant song drew my attention and I hastened along listening
intently—then as I stood on a rock surrounded by Rhododendrons out
flew a beautiful Black-throated Blue Warbler, which alighted on a tree
and sang. It flew about from tree to tree quite near and sang over
and over again, and was answered by the same song from a more distant
bird. The song was much finer than the books lead one to suppose. About
six zees—the first three seeming to have a sort of double resonance
and the last longer drawn out and higher. Of course the birds were
nesting here, but although I visited the spot every few days and heard
and saw the bud near the same locality, I could never locate the
nest, in the wild tangle of growth. The last time that I heard the
song was on August 1. In Dr. Bishop’s ‘List of Connecticut Birds’ the
Black-throated Blue is given as nesting at Eastford in 1874 and 1881,
in Kent in 1905 and in Litchfield in 1905. Near this same place some
Broad-winged Hawks were nesting and every time I visited the spot one
of them would perch in a tall tree and whistle—a shrill penetrating
whistle, although at times they could do it quite softly. They seemed
to be unafraid and it was amusing to see one of them watching my dog as
he ran among the bushes; it would stretch its neck and twist its head
from side to side in a very funny way. For two years now the Solitary
Vireo has nested in this vicinity and delighted us with its song all
summer.
Still another rarity has been found nesting in this swamp, the Canada
Warbler. Dr. Graves found it there on June 25, 1884, and again thirteen
years later on July 17, 1897; at this later date he saw and heard a
number of them singing. Although looking for it here for the last ten
years I have yet to find it nesting.—FRANCES MINER GRAVES, _New London,
Conn._
=The Name “erythrogaster.”=—I have been interested in the discussion
about _erythrogaster_, _erythrogastra_, _erythrogastris_, etc. in
recent numbers of ‘The Auk.’ From analogy, both in the Greek and
Latin tongues, I make no question of this being an adjective. Thus
in Latin, from _longus_ and _manus_ comes the adjective _longimanus_
_-a_, _-um_, long-handed. In Greek form (using the Roman alphabet)
_leukos_ and _lithos_, _leukolithos_, _-on_. The older naturalists, as
many botanists still do, printed specific names that are nouns with an
initial capital, those that are adjectives with a lower-case initial.
Linnæus, for instance, who observed this distinction, wrote _Anas
erythropus_, _Hirundo fissipes_, _Fringilla erythrophthalma_, _Parus
atricapillus_, etc., showing that he rightly considered these specific
names to be adjectives.
From _erythros_ and _melas_ comes the adjective _erythromelas_,
fem. _erythromelaena_, neut. _erythromelan_, red and black. Now if
_Piranga_ is considered feminine, as it is (_Piranga rubra_), the
Scarlet Tanager’s name is _Piranga erythromelaena_. There is no
escape from this except for those who refuse to make an adjectival
specific name conform in gender to the generic name with which it is
associated.[33]—WALTER FAXON, _Lexington, Mass._
=Constant Difference in Relative Proportions of Parts as a Specific
Character.=—In the oft-recurring discussions of what constitutes
a species and the difference between subspecies and species,
one interesting kind of intergradation which might be termed
“pseudo-intergradation” had not been mentioned.
This is well illustrated by certain of the Guadalupe Island forms,
notably the Rock Wren (_Salpinctes_) which has at times been regarded
as a species and again as a subspecies even by the same authority.
The Guadalupe bird, together with its near ally of San Martin Island,
differs from its relatives of other islands and the mainland in
its longer bill, relatively shorter wing and darker coloration.
The difference in proportions is constant so far as known; only
exceptionally short-billed specimens agree in the length of this member
with the longest billed individuals of other forms, while only very
long-winged examples fail to differ from short-winged birds of the
related races. This, however, has been held to be intergradation and
on these grounds the Guadalupe bird, _S. guadeloupensis_, was degraded
to subspecific rank by Ridgway in 1904, even before the somewhat
intermediate race _S. g. proximus_ was discovered.
Individuals agreeing in the length of the bill, however, naturally
exhibit the maximum difference in the length of the wing, while those
agreeing in the wing can be distinguished by the length of the bill.
In other words the ratio of bill to wing length in the two species
_S. obsoletus_ and _S. guadeloupensis_ is constantly different and
furnishes a diagnostic character by which the species may always be
distinguished. In the former the wing is more than three and a half
times the length of the bill, in the latter less than three and a half.
In addition there is a well-marked difference in color.
It seems reasonable to consider such differentiation in proportions
when developed to the point where there is constant difference in ratio
as of specific value. Measurements appear to indicate that this point
has been reached in the Rock Wrens, and that the dark, long-billed
forms should therefore be regarded as specifically distinct from the
paler, shorter billed races. The same conclusion was arrived at by
Swarth in 1914 (Condor, XVI, p. 216).
The Guadalupe Junco (_Junco insularis_) easily fulfills the above
requirements of a species. Indeed as it averages 10 mm. less in
length of wing than its nearest relative _J. townsendi_, and its bill
is nearly 2 mm. longer, there is small likelihood even of ordinary
intergradation. There are also well-defined color characters.
In Dr. Dwight’s recent paper on the Juncos (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat.
Hist., XXXVIII, 1918, p. 269) he has reduced this Junco as well as
_Junco townsendi_ to subspecies, on the grounds that their characters
are _quantitative_ rather than _qualitative_. But _are_ their
peculiarities merely _quantitative_, and do not the differences
exhibited by these forms more nearly approach the characters commonly
regarded as of generic value than do the “_qualitative_” color
differences between the forms regarded by Dr. Dwight as species?—W.
DEW. MILLER, _American Museum of Natural History, New York City_.
=“Off” Flavors of Wildfowl.=—Following is an extract from a letter on
this subject by Dr. L. C. Jones of Falmouth, Mass., who has been quoted
in a previous article[34] on this subject. It will be noted that one of
Dr. Jones’ theories is much the same as that advanced by the writer in
the last sentence of his first communication on fishy flavor.[35]
“I would like to advance a new theory which I think may explain the
cause in many cases. I refer to the possibility of “fatigue toxins”
in the flesh of birds which have taken long flights and are thin or
emaciated and obviously out of condition. The same might hold in those
birds which have been shot previously but not wholly disabled. Many of
these have intestines agglutinated with peritonitis, local abscesses,
or suppurating wounds in the skin or muscles where shot has entered.
Unpleasant as it may be to think of this, practically all of these
birds reach the market and are undoubtedly eaten, chiefly of course by
those who do not dress their own game.
“The more you consider this explanation, the more points you will find
to support it. For instance, I have eaten many ducks in the beginning
of the season, Redheads, Bluebills and Black Ducks, birds which have
just arrived from the north and I think without question that most of
them have been comparatively unpalatable. Birds from the same flocks,
shot a fortnight or so later, even when the diet has consisted almost
entirely of eelgrass seed from the salt water bays and estuaries, have
been plump and delicious. May not fatigue with starvation, or rest with
repletion, be the great determining factors in the flavor of migrating
fowl? You may readily conceive that in certain instances of excessive
fatigue or when the abdominal organs were badly infected, the flesh of
such birds might be distinctly poisonous....” L. C. JONES, M. D.—W. L.
MCATEE, _U. S. Biological Survey, Washington, D. C._
FOOTNOTES:
[30] ‘The Auk,’ I, No. 3, July, 1884, p. 236.
[31] Rep. Expl. and Surv. R. R. Pac., IX, 1858, p. 734 (type by
monotypy, _Totanus brevipes_ Vieillot).
[32] Birds of Australia, III, part 3, 1913, p. 206.
[33] It is interesting in this connection to note that Ridgway (Bird
N. and Mid. Amer., II, p. 101) rejects _P. erythromelœna_ Salv. 1868
because of _P. erythromelas_ Vieill. 1819 but does not alter the
latter!—Ed.
[34] Auk, Vol. 36, No. 1, Jan., 1919, pp. 101-102.
[35] Auk, Vol. 35, No. 4, Oct., 1918, p. 476.
RECENT LITERATURE.
‘=The Game Birds of California.=’—One of the most notable of recent
American bird books is the handsome work on ‘The Game Birds of
California’[36] by Grinnell, Bryant and Storer issued by the University
of California, as one of its Semicentennial publications. The life
histories of game birds have never been so well studied and written
up as those of certain other species, because those who have had the
best opportunities have been more interested in killing the birds than
in studying them. We may search the columns of the sporting journals
and while we find an abundance of information on how to shoot game
birds, how they act in reference to the gunner, and what fine times the
gunner had when shooting them, there is a lamentable lack of careful
observation on the life and habits of the birds. State Game Commissions
are usually made up of hunters rather than of trained ornithologists
and consequently their activities are directed along the same lines
and their publications are mainly of the same nature though there are
notable exceptions. The supervision of the enforcement of the Migratory
Bird Law and the succeeding Treaty with Canada, by a committee of the
Biological Survey at Washington, has opened the eyes of the public to
the importance of entrusting this sort of work to trained experts and
the present volume is an example of a state game publication prepared
by just such experts. We have had some similar publications by state or
local authorities, notably Mr. E. H. Forbush’s admirable ‘History of
the Game Birds, Wild Fowl and Shore Birds of Massachusetts and Adjacent
States,’ issued by the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, but
they are few, and some State Boards unfortunately adopt an attitude of
hostility to the Biological Survey and to scientific research, which is
unfortunate and deplorable.
The attitude of the University of California, through its Museum of
Vertebrate Zoölogy, in turning to practical advantage the information
accumulated through the researches of its trained experts is most
commendable. We go to the universities for expert information on all
sorts of subjects and why not go to their zoölogical departments or to
the great museums for information on wild life and its preservation?
Dr. Grinnell and his associates have had the advantage of Mr. Forbush
inasmuch as they have been engaged in the personal study of game birds
along with their other field work for many years, and consequently have
accumulated a vast store of original information, while he was forced
to compile a large part of his data in a very short period of time.
Their report is therefore an advance over his and is undoubtedly the
best work on game birds that has yet appeared in America.
The preliminary chapters treat of the decrease of game, natural enemies
of game, gun clubs, introduction of non-native game, game propagation
and legislation. From these we learn that the serious decrease in game
birds, especially the waterfowl, in California, was first noticed about
1880, since which time it has increased at an alarming rate. In the
Fresno region in 1912 flocks of geese were still to be seen in certain
sections but ten to twenty years earlier the whole San Joaquin Valley
literally swarmed with wild geese during midwinter. “From the windows
of a moving train myriads of geese were to be observed, reaching as
far as the eye could see on either side of the railroad from Fresno to
Stockton—certainly a thousand fold more geese than can be seen today
along the same route.” The number of ducks sold in the markets of San
Francisco according to careful estimates has decreased from 350,000 in
1911-12 to 125,000 in 1915-16. These are but a couple of illustrations
from the many facts collected by the authors of this work. Their
conclusions are set forth as follows: “The causes of this decrease are
many and diverse but all are due in last analysis to the settlement of
the state by the white man. Some of these factors, such as excessive
hunting and sale of game, are subject to control; but others such as
reclamation of land, and overhead wires are inevitable.... The game
supply of the future must rely upon correct inductions based upon
careful study of the entire problem, and final adoption of those means
which it is found feasible to employ.”
What will be the eventual outcome of the game situation it is hard
to foretell. Certainly in our Eastern States the outlook is not
encouraging. With the constant decrease in wild land and the issuing
of innumerable hunters’ licenses, 295,000 in Pennsylvania last year,
the native-bred game will surely disappear—indeed even now Quail have
to be imported and many states restocked. When the same conditions
prevail in the states from which Quail are now obtainable the species
will be practically extinct. And so with the game that comes to us from
breeding grounds far to the north. When these grounds are all reclaimed
the supply will end and in future we shall be dependent upon game
propagated especially for liberation on the shooting grounds, as is the
case in England.
It is well worth while to have this matter placed before us in all its
seriousness as has been done in the present volume, so that the public
may realize with what sort of a problem they have to deal and see the
necessity of securing expert advice.