22, _Cardinalis virginianus_ (the eggs shown in their remarkable
extremes of size and coloring); Pl. 23, fig. 1, _Vireo gilvus_ and fig.
2, _V. olivaceus_; Pl. 24, _Zenaidura carolinensis_; (in No. 9) Pl. 25,
fig. 1, _Trochilus colubris_, fig. 2, _Polioptila cærulea_ (and one is
interested to see that these nests are of identical orders of
architecture and ornamentation, however different in materials); Pl. 26,
_Spizella socialis_; Pl. 27, _Butorides virescens_.
The text continues as heretofore to consider the subjects under the
formal heads of—Locality—Position—Materials—Eggs—Differential
Points—Remarks; the latter head usually covering the most matter. We are
glad to see that the authors now fill, as a rule, their sheets of
letter-press—there is certainly enough to be said on the subject for
that! The pagination of the letter-press reaches p. 104 with the end of
No. 9.
It is never untimely to suggest that when works published in this manner
come to be bound, especially if the parts are made up in any other order
than sequence of publication, the original cover-titles should be
preserved; there being no intrinsic evidence, either in the text or on
the plates, of dates of publication or of contents of Parts; and it may
not be too early to suggest to the authors that explicit indication of
these points should be given with the permanent title, contents, etc.,
of the finished work.—E. C.
SHUFELDT’S “THE CLAW ON THE INDEX DIGIT OF THE CATHARTIDÆ.”[30]—We
regret being obliged to make unfavorable criticisms, but this paper
contains such important errors, both in regard to the structure of birds
and the literature of the subject, that some rectification seems
necessary. Dr. Shufeldt describes the claw at the end of the first
finger of _Catharista atrata_ as a new discovery, considering that claws
outside the Ostrich groups have not hitherto been described, and also
states that it is a point of distinction between the Old and New World
Vultures. Unfortunately Nitzsch[31] long ago described the claw on the
first finger of birds in the following words: “Die Analogie, welche die
Flügel der Vögel mit den Vorderfüssen der Säugthiere und Reptilien
haben, zeigt sich auch in den Spuren von Nägel- oder Klauenbildung,
welche an den Finger jener Glieder oftmals gefunden werden. Dieser
Bildung macht es zugleich wahrscheinlich, dass die Urform der Flügel in
der Fussform, oder doch in einer, dieser sehr ähnlichen, bestand; denn
die Nägel gehören den Füssen an, sie haben im Kreise der Flügelfunkzion
keine Bedeutung, und sind da wohl nur durch zweckloses Nachahmen und
Ueberbleiben der Fussform.” Farther on he describes the skeleton of the
hand as follows: “Die Hand der Vögel hat drei Finger, 1) den Daumen,
welcher (ohne das Nagelglied) aus einem Stücke, 2) den grossen Finger,
der (ohne das Nagelglied) aus zwei Stücken oder Gliedern, und 3) den
kleinen Finger, der stets nur aus einen Stücke besteht.” Since Nitzsch’s
memoir was written his observations have been extended, and mentioned by
many anatomists, as Meckel, in his Anatomy, by Blainville, by Selenka in
Bronn’s “Thiereichs,” by myself in this Bulletin for 1881, by Professor
Morse in the “Anniversary Memoirs” of the Boston Society of Natural
History. Accordingly the claw on the first finger is anything but an
unknown object. It is constantly demonstrating its existence to
practical ornithologists by pricking their fingers while measuring
bird’s wings. That the claw is absent in the Old World Vultures is also
an error if we may trust the high authority of Nitzsch, who wrote as
follows: “Unter den Raubvögeln einiges Geier, Adler, Falken; aber nicht
die Eulen—Am _Vultur percnopterus_ ist sie ziemlich stark, ungefähr
einen halb Zoll long zugespitzt und bräunlich vom Horne.” In fact, a
claw on the first finger is of very common occurrence, and is found,
according to the authorities given above, in the _Accipitres_,
_Herodiones_, _Palamedeæ_, _Anseres_, _Gallinæ_, _Fulicariæ_,
_Alectorides_, _Limicolæ_, _Gaviæ_, _Pygopodes_, _Crypturi_, and
_Struthiones_.
Here it may not be out of place to add that a claw has also been found
on the end of the second finger, by myself and Professor Morse, in
certain of the Winter Birds, and perhaps in some embryo Hawks: and that
as a rule the claws are much more conspicuous in young than in adult
birds.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.
PAPERS ON MINNESOTA BIRDS.[32]—Although the report containing these
papers was not generally circulated in 1881, a copy reached us in
December of that year. Dr. Hatch contributes a list of 281 species
briefly annotated—usually with only a line or two to each species
respecting the manner and character of its appearance in the State. In
explanation of its cursory style the author states that, as we regret to
learn, the original copy was destroyed by fire, “and it has been
impossible to give its re-writing the measure of carefulness which the
first manuscript received.” The most interesting entry is that of
_Querquedula cyanoptera_, which thus appears far from its recognized
range.
Mr. Roberts’ article treats much more fully of 52 species known to occur
in the State in winter, divided into the categories of “permanent
residents” (23), “winter visitants” (14), “half hardy” species (9), and
“accidental” ones (6), the information given conveying a good idea of
the bird-fauna at that season of the year. Doubtless owing to
circumstances for which neither author is responsible, each paper
bristles with typographical errors, few of which are corrected in the
accompanying erratum slip. We understand that a full list will accompany
the volumes as finally published.—E.C.
FREKE ON THE BIRDS OF AMELIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA.[33]—Our knowledge of the
birds of Eastern Virginia is so largely inferential that Mr. Freke has
done good service in publishing the results of six years’ observations
in Amelia County, at a point “about thirty miles south of Richmond.” His
list, which is freely annotated, includes 112 species. The Barn Swallow
is catalogued as a spring and fall migrant; the Tree Sparrow (_Spizella
montana_), as a rather uncommon winter visitor; the Field Sparrow, as
resident but most common in winter; the Chipping Sparrow as arriving
from the south late in March and as leaving during November; the Song
Sparrow as wintering but not breeding; the Blue Grosbeak as not uncommon
during the latter part of April and early in May, but, rather
unaccountably, as not being found in summer; the Ruffed Grouse as
plentiful in the mountains but not common in the low country, although a
few regularly nest there in thick pine woods.
The author has evidently fallen into some confusion regarding the
spotted-breasted Thrushes of the genus _Turdus_. Thus _T. “pallasi”_ is
characterized as a “resident species, apparently not migrating even in
the most partial manner.” In view of our very definite knowledge of the
Hermit’s distribution, such a statement by itself would be open to the
gravest suspicion, but when we add that Mr. Freke does not mention the
Wilson’s, Olive-backed, or Wood Thrushes as occurring at _any season_,
it is quite plain that the Hermit (_verus_) did duty as the winter bird,
the Olive-backed or Wilson’s Thrush filled the gap during the
migrations, and the Wood Thrush was the species that “builds its
clay-lined nest in the fork of some cedar or dogwood bush, at the height
of eight or ten feet from the ground, and there lays its blue eggs.” The
statement that _Dendræca coronata_ “is one of the commonest warblers in
the district, and spends [a] great part of the year there,” is not so
easily explained: but despite the still more explicit assurance that
“they come about the end of April, or the beginning of May, and remain
until very late in the autumn,” we cannot help thinking that some
mistake was made in the identification of the individuals seen in
summer.
Save in the last-named instances, however, there is no reason to doubt
that the author’s commendable practise of “verifying my observations, as
far as possible, by securing specimens and preserving skins” was
conscientiously carried out, and his paper will be read with interest,
not only as an exponent of the ornithology of a previously unworked
section, but also as embodying a foreigner’s pleasantly told impressions
of many of our familiar birds.—W. B.
LANGDON’S FIELD NOTES ON LOUISIANA BIRDS.[34]—These notes comprise “a
record of ornithological observations and collections made by the writer
during the month ending April 17th, 1881, at ‘Cinclaire’ plantation,
situated in the parish of West Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on the right bank
of the Mississippi, one hundred and twenty-seven miles by river above
New Orleans.”
The locality is described as “flat and uninteresting.... The cultivated
grounds are mainly comprised in a strip ranging from one to three miles
in width, along the rivers and principal bayous, the remainder of the
state being chiefly occupied by extensive forests and swamp lands.”
The author considers the list “of quite as much interest for what it
does _not_ include, as for what it _does_,” and comments on the apparent
absence of the Catbird, Long-billed Marsh Wren, Black-and-white Creeper,
Yellow-rumped, White-browed, Black-throated Green, Yellow Red-poll, and
Kentucky Warblers, Large-billed Water Thrush, Redstart, Song Sparrow,
and Common Pewee; to which he might with equal propriety have added the
Prothonotary and Blue-winged Yellow Warblers and the Acadian Flycatcher.
But we cannot believe with him that the non-occurrence, on the present
occasion, of most of these species has any special significance, either
as affecting their general distribution in, or usual migration through,
the region of which the paper treats. The country about “Cinclaire” may
have been unsuited to the habits of some of them, while the early date
of Dr. Langdon’s departure, taken in connection with the exceptional
lateness of the season, will sufficiently explain his failure to detect
a number of the migratory ones which have been found near the mouth of
the Mississippi by Mr. Henshaw, and which are well known to extend over
the Mississippi valley at large only a few hundred miles further to the
northward.
Dr. Langdon’s thoroughness and energy as a field collector are, however,
so well known through the medium of his valuable papers on Ohio birds,
that we may rest assured that his work at “Cinclaire” was well done, and
the paper will be welcomed as an acceptable contribution to our
knowledge of a region which has been nearly a _terra incognita_ to
ornithologists since the days of Audubon.—W. B.
KRIDER’S FIELD NOTES.[35]—In an unpretending little pamphlet of some
eighty odd pages Mr. Krider has “endeavored to describe and give the
history of only those species of birds of the United States” which he
has “collected and mounted,” and whose nests have come under his
personal observation. Had this plan been carried out with only ordinary
forethought and intelligence it could scarcely have failed to result in
a valuable contribution to our knowledge of North American birds, for
Mr. Krider’s long experience as a field collector must have afforded
unusual opportunities for original investigation and observation. But a
casual glance through the pages of his work is enough to show that these
opportunities have been sadly neglected. Important records are given
without dates and often with only a vague or inferential assignment of
locality, while improbable statements and palpable errors are of
frequent occurrence. In short, it is only too evident that Mr. Krider’s
“Notes” are the offspring of a fading memory rather than the carefully
kept data of a systematic worker. Moreover, the author writes from a
standpoint at least twenty-five years behind the times, and consequently
ignores all the various developments affecting classification and the
relationship of allied species and races. From all this chaff it is of
course possible to separate some sound grain, but most of the really
important records were published long ago by Turnbull, Cassin, and other
writers. Of the literary execution of the present work we can say
nothing favorable. It is to be regretted that the author could not have
recognized his unfitness in this respect, and, as on a former occasion,
have secured the services of a competent editor.—W. B.
LANGDON’S ZOÖLOGICAL MISCELLANY.[36]—In the last issue of its well-known
“Journal,” the Cincinnati Society of Natural History publishes the first
of a series of articles entitled “Zoölogical Miscellany,” the aim and
scope of which are thus tersely defined by the editor, Dr. F. W.
Langdon:—
“Under the above caption it is proposed to bring together from time to
time such facts as may be deemed worthy of record, respecting the
structure, the life history, or the geographical distribution of the
various species of animals constituting the Ohio Valley Fauna.”
The part before us includes sections on mammalogy, ornithology,
herpetology, ichthyology, conchology, and entomology. In general terms,
it may be said that all of these are well sustained, but in the present
connection we have to do only with the one relating to birds. This
contains a number of interesting notes, a large proportion of which are
from the editor’s pen, although a few are signed by Mr. E. R. Quick, Mr.
A. W. Butler, Dr. Howard E. Jones, and other more or less well-known
names. Most of these notes relate chiefly to the local presence or
distribution of certain birds within the Ohio Valley, but one or two
possess a wider interest. Among the latter we notice an announcement by
Dr. Langdon of the detection of the Oak-woods Sparrow (_Peucæa æstivalis
illinoensis_, Ridgway) near Bardstown, Nelson County, Kentucky, “about
one hundred miles southwest of Cincinnati.” The specimen was taken April
28, 1877, by Mr. C. W. Beckham, who referred it to Dr. Langdon for
identification.
In addition to his numerous notes, the editor contributes a short but
useful paper on the “Introduction of European Birds.” From this it
appears that “during the years 1872, ’73 and ’74, about nine thousand
dollars were expended in the purchase and importation of European birds,
their average cost to import being about four dollars and fifty cents a
pair. According to this estimate some four thousand individuals were
introduced.” This great outlay was borne by the “Acclimation Society of
Cincinnati” and we believe that most of the birds were turned out in the
neighborhood of that city; but, according to Dr. Langdon, the experiment
has practically proved a failure.
If the present instalment of “Zoölogical Miscellany” may be taken as a
fair criterion of future issues, its favorable reception by naturalists
is a matter of no uncertainty, and under Dr. Langdon’s able editing we
look to see its popularity widely extended, even though its field be
restricted to the Ohio Valley.—W. B.
HOFFMAN ON THE BIRDS OF NEVADA.[37]—In the present paper Dr. Hoffman has
done good service to ornithology by tabulating the two hundred and fifty
species and varieties of birds which he considers are entitled to a
place in the avi-fauna of Nevada. The list is based partly upon the
writer’s personal experience in the field during the season of 1871, but
mainly upon the previously published reports of Mr. Ridgway, Mr. Henshaw
and Dr. Yarrow, and Dr. J. G. Cooper. It hence partakes largely of the
nature of a compilation, although the author’s original notes are by no
means few or uninteresting.
The paper begins with a pertinent chapter entitled “Remarks on the
distribution of vegetation in Nevada as affecting that of the avi-fauna”
and closes with a bibliographical list of the chief publications
relating to the region considered, and an excellent map of the state.
The list proper is freely annotated and the numerous and often extended
quotations are always apt and interesting. The work, generally, has been
so well done that we find few points open to adverse criticism. There is
however an evident tendency on the author’s part to swell the number of
species and varieties by the enrollment of many which have been taken or
observed near the borders of the state but not as yet actually within
its limits. We are aware that Dr. Hoffman has some high authority for
adopting this course but we are none the less inclined to deprecate it,
believing that it is time enough to catalogue a species when it has
actually been found within the limits treated. In the present case,
however, it must be admitted that there are good grounds for supposing
that most of these extra-limitals will eventually turn up in Nevada.
Dr. Hoffman’s paper ranks easily among the higher class of publications
to which it belongs and should find a place in the hands of every
working ornithologist.—W. B.
=General Notes.=
THE TUFTED TITMOUSE ON STATEN ISLAND, N. Y.—I shot a specimen of this
species (_Lophophanes bicolor_) on the 24th of August, 1881, in a thick
wood, a few miles south of Port Richmond, a small town on the north
shore of Staten Island, N. Y.—DANIEL E. MORAN, _Brooklyn, N.Y._
NESTING OF THE WHITE-BELLIED WREN (_Thryothorus bewicki
leucogaster_).—This Wren is abundant in Northern Arizona, where I saw it
and heard it singing most constantly, during the month of June, while
traveling from Fort Whipple to view the Grand Cañon of the Colorado. The
birds were particularly numerous in the vicinity of cañons and arroyos,
and in the patches of red cedar and piñon pine that stretch away from
mountain sides to the valley ground of the Colorado Plateau. At a
water-hole about midway on my journey, it so happened that my tent was
pitched beneath a cedar where, as I was soon satisfied by their vehement
scolding, a pair of the Wrens were protesting against such intrusion
upon their privacy. In a little while, however, finding themselves
unmolested they quieted down, resumed their song at intervals, and were
soon after busily engaged in bringing insects to their family. Having
explored a deserted Woodpecker’s hole, only to find it empty, I at
length saw one of the birds disappear in the hollow end of a blasted
horizontal bough about eight feet from the ground. The entrance was too
narrow to admit my arm, but by breaking away some of the rotten wood I
at length got a glimpse of the nest, and could just put a finger over
the edge of it far enough to feel the little birds. I should have
despoiled the household had there been eggs; but as it was I refrained,
and for a day or two was much interested in watching the happy, devoted
pair, bubbling over with joyous music as they assiduously cared for
their little family, now coming and going undisturbed by the group of
men who shared the luxury of this fragrant cedar shade. This was June 7;
returning a week afterward, the pretty spot was a “banquet hall
deserted”; so that I did not hesitate to break into the bough and remove
the nest. It contained two dead young ones, upon which a troop of ugly
carrion-beetles were rioting and feasting. The nest was quite unlike
what a House Wren’s would have been under the same circumstances, having
none of the trash with which these queer birds would have surrounded it;
it rested upon the horizontal floor of the cavity, upon a bed of
wood-mould and cedar-berries, about a foot from the ragged entrance of
the hollow. It was a neat structure, about 4 inches across outside, by
half as much in internal diameter, cupped to a depth of an inch and a
half. Outside was a wall of small cedar twigs interlaced, and next came
a layer of finely frayed inner bark strips from the same tree; but the
bulk of the nest consisted of matted rabbit-fur stuck full of feathers,
among which those of the Carolina Dove were conspicuous. These latter
birds are extremely abundant all over Arizona and in the dry season they
are often at such straits for water as to congregate in immense flocks
at the water-holes, few and far between, which alone render it possible
to traverse some parts of the unblest Territory. On the morning of which
I write, reveille was sounded by the clapping and whistling of a
thousand eager wings, now venturing near, then frightened from the
coveted water where men and animals were crowding. In other times, the
Dove brought tidings of dry land; in Arizona now, where everything goes
by contraries, river-sites are many, but the sight of a Dove is a surer
sign of water.—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._
AN ERRONEOUS RECORD OF THE ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER (_Helminthophaga
celata_) IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.—In Vol. III, pp. 96, 97 of this Bulletin, Mr.
John Murdoch recorded the capture of an Orange-crowned Warbler at the
Isles of Shoals, New Hampshire, by the Messrs. Bangs of Boston. I have
lately had an opportunity of examining this specimen and find it to be a
Tennessee Warbler (_Helminthophaga peregrina_), in the ordinary autumnal
plumage. It is but just to the Messrs. Bangs to state that they are not
to be held responsible for this blunder, the bird having been submitted
by them to an ornithologist of some standing, one in whose determination
they placed perfect confidence. Nor can Mr. Murdoch (who I believe took
all his facts at second hand) be blamed for accepting the same supposed
good authority.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
ON THE GENERIC NAME _Helminthophaga_.—The change of a generic name,
especially one long established, is in any case unfortunate, and in the
present instance seems particularly so; yet the plain rules of
zoölogical nomenclature leave no alternative. The generic name
_Helminthophaga_, proposed in 1850 by Cabanis for a well-known group of
American Warblers, was used in a sub-generic sense about forty-seven
years previously, by Bechstein, who, in 1803 (Taschenbuch, p. 548),
included under this name the Nightingale and Redbreast of Europe
(_Luscinia philomela_ and _Erithacus rubecula_); in consequence of which
(no other name having, apparently, been proposed for the group in
question) it becomes necessary to rename the genus so long called
_Helminthophaga_. In proposing a new name, which I am very reluctant to
do, I have selected the term _Helminthophila_, on account of its
similarity to the one so long in use. It is proper to state here that my
attention was called to this point by Dr. L. Stejneger, the eminent
Norwegian ornithologist.
Leaving out _H. lawrencei_ and _H. leucobronchialis_, which Mr. Brewster
has pretty clearly proven to be hybrids of _H. pinus_ and _H.
chrysoptera_, the known species of this genus are as follows:—
1. _Helminthophila bachmani_ (Aud.).
2. _Helminthophila chrysoptera_ (Linn.).
3. _Helminthophila pinus_ (Linn.).
4. _Helminthophila ruficapilla_ (Wils.).
5. _Helminthophila virginiæ_ (Baird).
6. _Helminthophila celata_ (Say).
7. _Helminthophila peregrina_ (Wils.).
8. _Helminthophila luciæ_ (Cooper).—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._
_Dendrœca palmarum_ AGAIN IN MASSACHUSETTS.—The first capture of
_Dendrœca palmarum_ in Massachusetts was that of a single bird taken by
Mr. Arthur Smith at Brookline, about the middle of October, 1878. (See
note by Mr. Ruthven Deane, Bull. Nutt. Club, Vol. IV, page 60.) I have
the pleasure of announcing the capture of two additional specimens. The
first was taken at Cambridge, September 13, 1880, and was shot on an
apple tree while in company with several other Warblers. The second was
shot at Belmont, September 7, 1881, from the top of a yellow pine. The
marked difference in the intensity of the yellow of the breast and under
tail-coverts first attracted my attention to this bird. Never having met
with _D. palmarum hypochrysea_ in the autumn, I thought both birds to be
of this variety until quite recently, when my friend Mr. William
Brewster identified them for me and found them to be genuine _D.
palmarum_.—HENRY M. SPELMAN, _Cambridge, Mass._