never to be very abundant in this section of the State; but early in the
spring, when the birds first arrived from the south, I saw quite a large
number of them, and observed what was to me a new habit. They resorted
to the maple trees for the purpose of gathering the sap flowing from
wounds made by the ice in the bark of the smaller branches. The birds
would grasp a branch or twig with their claws, and partially swing
themselves under it and drink the sap where it hung in drops. For a week
or more these birds were so plentiful and so intent upon their
sap-gathering that one was almost certain to find a flock wherever there
was a group of maples. I took considerable pains to ascertain if this
habit was shared by any other bird, but did not observe a single
instance. In the Eastern States I have often seen squirrels drinking sap
from the branches in this way, but never before saw it done by a
bird.—F. E. L. BEAL, _Ames, Iowa_.
CAPTURE OF _Plectrophanes lapponicus_ IN CHESTER, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Mr.
Leverett M. Loomis writes me that on January 1, 1881, he shot a single
individual of this species from a small flock of Shore Larks, which were
feeding upon offal in a barnyard. There appears to be no previous record
of the occurrence of this species in South Carolina.—J. A. ALLEN,
_Cambridge, Mass._
OCCURRENCE OF _Coturniculus lecontei_ IN CHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH
CAROLINA.—Near the town of Chester, S. C., on the dividing ridge between
the Broad and Catawba Rivers, there is an “old field” of some two
hundred acres that has been lying out, until recently, for a number of
years. Here and there are patches of newly-sown grain, but the greater
portion is now in broom-sedge and weedy stubble and corn land. Near the
middle there is a small “wet-weather branch,” which empties into a large
creek a mile distant. November 11, 1881, in this locality, in the weedy
stubble, my first specimen of Le Conte’s Bunting was secured. Nov. 16, a
second was taken in the broom-sedge near the same spot. Nov. 17, a third
was shot, and several others were seen. Dec. 3, three more were
captured; two in the broom-sedge, and the remaining one in the swamp
grass bordering the “branch.” Dec. 10, my last visit to the field, six
additional specimens were taken, and as many more were seen. I am not
aware that the species has hitherto been reported as occurring so far
east as South Carolina—LEVERETT M. LOOMIS, _Chester, S. C._
THE SHARP-TAILED FINCH IN KANSAS.—Col. N. S. Goss, of Neosho Falls,
Kansas, wrote me under date of Oct. 17, 1881, that he had killed what he
thought was a male Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Finch. Two days later he shot
another, which he kindly sent me. The bird proved to be, as Mr. Goss
supposed, _Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni_. The birds were killed “at the
edge of a slough, on the low bottom lands of the Neosho River, about two
miles from Neosho Falls.” This discovery is of special interest as
indicating that the Sharp-tailed Finch, formerly supposed to be strictly
maritime in its distribution, may be found locally over a wide range in
the interior.—J. A. ALLEN, _Cambridge, Mass._
NOTE ON _Mitrephanes_, A NEW GENERIC NAME.—The name _Mitrephorus_ of
Sclater, P. Z. S., 1859, p. 44, is preoccupied in Coleoptera by
_Mitrephorus_, Schönh., 1837, emended _Mitrophorus_, Burm., 1844. It may
therefore be changed to _Mitrephanes_; type _Mitrephanes phæocercus_
(Scl.); including _Mitrephanes aurantiiventris_ (Lawr.), if not also
_Mitrephanes fulvifrons_ (Grd.), and its var. _pallescens_
(Coues).—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._
NESTING OF _Empidonax minimus_ AND _Helmintherus vermivorus_ IN
PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY.—Although instances of the breeding of the
Least Flycatcher within the limits of Pennsylvania and New Jersey have
been affirmed by Turnbull and one or two other authorities, a precise
record cannot perhaps be found that will prove it to breed as far south
as Philadelphia. Having found a nest and clutch of eggs belonging to
this species, June 1, 1881, and satisfactorily identified the parent
birds by shooting them, it is thought that this notice may prove of
interest as perhaps removing doubts as to the accuracy of Turnbull’s
statement. _E. minimus_ escaped the notice of the writer till the spring
of 1880, when two pairs were noticed in June in the suburbs of
Philadelphia, but any nests which may have existed escaped my
observation. The present year (1881) I first noticed them in Delaware
County, Pa., two pairs taking up their abode in an orchard surrounding
the house. Here the above mentioned nest was found, placed on a drooping
branch of an apple tree fifteen feet above the ground. The species was
seen and heard singing about six miles west of Camden, New Jersey, in
June, and again in July at the same place; is it not just therefore to
suppose this pair had a nest near the spot?
Worm-eating Warblers were noticed in full song in the vicinity of
Marple, Delaware County. Pa., as early as the last week in April, and
whilst on a collecting trip in May I procured three males and a female
in southern Chester County, and on dissecting the latter I was surprised
to find in her oviduct a partly shelled egg. On the 16th of June, 1881,
a ramble in the woods resulted in finding a brood of young of this
species scarcely able to fly; one of them is now in my collection and
another just missed the same claim to immortality. The old birds were
exceedingly solicitous but so wary that three shots failed to procure
either of them.
Near Camden, New Jersey, I procured a female Worm-eating Warbler in the
latter part of July, 1880; its actions and the time of year caused me to
infer it had young near by.—SAMUEL N. RHOADS, _Haddonfield, N. J._
CUCKOOS LAYING IN THE NESTS OF OTHER BIRDS.—As far as my knowledge
extends, there are only four instances known, in which the eggs of
_Coccygus americanus_ have been found in other bird’s nests, namely, the
two given by Nuttall, in nests of Catbird and one by Langdon in Robin’s,
and that mentioned by Ridgway in _Coccygus erythrophthalmus_. I was not
a little astonished to find last Saturday, June 4. 1881, an egg of the
Yellow-billed Cuckoo in a Catbird’s nest, and near by another one in the
nest of a Black-billed Cuckoo. The Catbird’s nest contained only one egg
of its rightful owner; another Catbird’s egg was found broken on the
ground. The Cuckoo’s egg was fresh, but the Catbird’s egg was incubated.
The nest of the Black-billed Cuckoo contained besides the parasitic egg,
which was fresh, two eggs, both incubated, but one much more than the
other, the embryo being fully developed. The parent bird (_Coccygus
erythrophthalmus_) was sitting, but left when the tree was ascended and
stationed itself on a near tree to watch our movements.
The circumstances attending the discovery of these two eggs make me
think that such cases of parasitic Cuckoo’s eggs might not be so very
exceptional and still evade the watchful eye of the collecting oölogist
or of the observing ornithologist. I went out to look for nests of
_Empidonax acadicus_. I took my nephew, a lad of fifteen, with me to
assist in taking down nests from trees. In passing a thicket by the
wayside, he looked in and immediately called out, “a big nest, blue
eggs.” Judging from the surroundings, I replied without taking the
trouble to look at the thing, “a Catbird’s nest; let it alone.” We
passed on and after a little while a Catbird crossed our way. He saw the
bird and I told him that this was the Catbird whose nest he had just
found. He wondered that a bird of this size lays such large eggs.
Inquiring how large the egg was, he showed the size with thumb and
index. I smiled and said it was not exactly that big, but he insisted,
and I concluded to walk back and look at the eggs, when the discovery
was made. Who cares to look into each of the dozen of Catbird’s nests we
find in the course of a season? We are satisfied to know that this is
the nest of the Robin, the Wood thrush, the Catbird; but we do not think
of taking the trouble to look every time at their eggs or young.
Still more likely to elude discovery would the strange egg be in the
other Cookoo’s nest. In this neighborhood at least are the Cuckoo’s
nests generally amidst such a terribly entangled mass of wild vine that
we do not care to go up for mere pleasure. I do not know how regular
egg-collectors go to work; other ornithologists may operate differently.
My case may be no measure. I give it only to draw attention to the
matter, and I have made up my mind to despise no more Catbirds’s nests
in future.—O. WIDMAN, _St. Louis, Mo._
[Mr. Widman has overlooked a note which appeared in an early number of
this Bulletin (Vol. II, p. 110), where three instances of the laying of
our Cuckoos in other bird’s nests are given. Years ago when I used to
take many Cuckoo’s nests each season in the apple orchards about
Cambridge it was no uncommon thing to find an egg of the Black-billed
species in a clutch of the Yellow-bills, and on more than one occasion,
but less often, the situation would be reversed. An instance of the
latter kind came under my notice in 1878, when at Belmont, Mass., I
found a nest of the Black-billed Cuckoo which contained, besides two
eggs of the rightful proprietor, a single one of the Yellow-bill.
Speaking from memory, and without consulting my notes on the subject, I
should say that at least ten per cent of the Cuckoo’s nests that I have
found contained eggs of both species. But in no case have I ever seen
the eggs of either kind in the nests of other birds.—WILLIAM BREWSTER.]
_Melanerpes erythrocephalus_ ABOUT BOSTON.—Massachusetts, at least the
extreme eastern part, has shared in the flight of Red-headed Woodpeckers
that has been reported as visiting Southern Connecticut last fall.[38]
During the latter part of September, through October and into November,
the oak groves in the suburbs of Boston were tenanted by numbers of
these truly handsome birds. I should judge that about one third were in
full plumage, and their conspicuous dress attracting attention many were
shot. Twelve years ago the individual occurrence of this species among
us was thought worthy of record. Of late years, during the months above
named, it has become a more frequent though irregular visitor, but never
in such numbers as have recently shown themselves. In spring or summer
it is rarely seen, yet an instance of its nesting in Brookline is given
me by Mr. H. K. Job, who early in June, 1878, found five eggs in the
hole of an apple tree. According to Dr. C. Hart Merriam, this Woodpecker
is a common resident of Lewis County, N. Y.[39] May not our _visitors_
have come from that direction?—H. A. PURDIE, _Newton, Mass._
THE BARN OWL IN MAINE: A RETRACTION.—In the Bulletin for January, 1877,
p. 28, I added the Barn Owl (_Aluco flammeus americanus_) to the
catalogue of Maine birds, basing the record upon a specimen, which I had
examined, in the possession of a taxidermist then of Portland. I very
much regret to say that I now believe the account given me of this
bird’s capture within our state limits to have been false. Several other
statements in relation to ornithology have since been made me by the
same man, of a character so improbable and with such contradictory
details that they can only be regarded as wilfully and utterly untrue.
Their author has recently left the city under circumstances which dispel
any doubts which may previously have existed as to the reliability of
his word. I cannot longer be responsible for a statement emanating from
such a source, and wish to formally withdraw the name of the Barn Owl
from the list of birds known to occur in Maine.—NATHAN CLIFFORD BROWN,
_Portland, Maine_.
THE SNOWY OWL AT FORT WALLA WALLA, W. T.—On November 10, 1881, one of my
men shot here a female of this species (_Nyctea scandiaca_), which I
have made into a fine skin. I reported the capture of one on December 1,
1880 (see this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 128), and these two are the only
records known to me for the Pacific coast. The occurrence of this
species here seems to be much rarer than in the Eastern States.—CHARLES
BENDIRE, _Fort Walla Walla, W. T._
CAPTURE OF THE GOLDEN EAGLE IN CRAWFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.—A Golden
Eagle (_Aquila chrysaëtus canadensis_) was shot in Rookdale Township
this (Crawford) County on December 10, under the following
circumstances. A farmer, by the name of Hull, early one morning saw the
bird fly from a carcass in his field to the woods some distance off. He
conceived the idea that it would return to the carrion and at once made
a blind of the rails of a fence near by. The following morning he
repaired to the blind long before daylight with gun in hand, and,
although he was well concealed and waited patiently until nearly noon,
no bird put in an appearance. Nothing daunted, however, he repeated the
watching on the second morning, and about eight o’clock was rewarded by
the return of the bird, which he shot. The eagle was purchased by Mr.
Roe Reisinger of our city and is now mounted. It is the first recorded
specimen, I believe, of this species taken in this county. The sex I
could not ascertain, as the entire contents of the bird’s body were
drawn by Mr. Hull before bringing it to town, but from the following
dimensions I should judge it to be a young female: Extent, 83 inches;
wing, 24.50 inches; tail, 15 inches. Tail about two-thirds white. The
black terminal zone was about four inches deep on outer quills and about
one and one-half inches deep on the centre ones. The general color of
the bird is brown, with wings almost deep black. The hood extends well
down on the nape and is of a light tawny brown, approaching the golden
hue probably as much as any of them do. The tarsus is well covered with
feathers to the toes. On the whole it is a very clean and perfect
specimen.—GEORGE B. SENNETT, _Meadville, Pa._
THE SWALLOW-TAILED KITE IN DAKOTA.—On November 14, 1881, when a short
distance west of Jamestown, Dakota Territory, I saw several
Swallow-tailed Kites (_Elanoïdes forficatus_) flying around apparently
in search of food. The day was clear and the Kites were much separated;
one even was seen alone skimming along an alkali lake, showing every
indication of searching for food. On November 17, farther to the west,
about midway between Jamestown and Bismark, near the line of the
Northern Pacific Railroad, I saw some fifty more of these beautiful
birds, but this time in a flock, and each movement being common with
them all it was a glorious sight. The weather had changed from that of
the 14th, and was now cloudy with a brisk wind from the northwest,
accompanied at times by a slight shower of rain, but this change they
seemed to enjoy. So easily did they ride the storm, so beautiful were
their evolutions, so much at home did they appear in mid-air, that when
they had passed out of sight I was pained, for in this northern latitude
such a sight is of very rare occurrence.—D. H. TALBOT, _Sioux City, Ia._
A REMARKABLE SPECIMEN OF THE PINNATED GROUSE (_Cupidonia cupido_).—While
overhauling some Grouse in the Boston markets a few years since I came
across a specimen which exhibits the following peculiarities of plumage:
Adult ♂ (No. 2691, author’s collection, Boston Markets, February 27,
1873—said to have come from Iowa). Ground-color above warm,
brownish-cinnamon. Shorter neck-tufts or pinnate coverts, bright
reddish-brown. Breast, reddish-chestnut, becoming almost clear chestnut
anteriorly. A band or collar of broad, stiff feathers extends
continuously around the neck in front and across the lower portion of
the jugulum about in a line with the neck-tufts. These feathers although
less stiff than the longest ones in the neck-tufts, are nevertheless
quite as much so as the shorter ones. They make a conspicuous ruff which
is mainly black mixed with a good deal of reddish-chestnut. The latter
color on the shorter and overlapping feathers occurs in the form of
narrow central stripes, which in some cases are nearly orange in tint;
on the longer ones as a more or less broad, lateral margining.
I offer the above description solely for the purpose of calling
attention to this remarkable specimen for I am entirely at a loss to
account for its peculiarities. Several who have seen it have suggested
that it may be a hybrid between the Prairie Hen and the Ruffed Grouse,
but this hypothesis seems hardly a probable one, inasmuch as none of the
combined characters which would be expected in such an offspring are
here presented. The ruff does indeed remotely suggest that of _Bonasa_,
but otherwise the bird shows all the well-marked structural characters
of _Cupidonia_. To simply say that it is abnormal will hardly satisfy
the numerous investigators of this pushing age of inquiry.—WILLIAM
BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._
WILSON’S PLOVER (_Ægialites wilsonius_) IN NEW ENGLAND.—Mr. W. A.
Stearns sends me a letter from Mr. Arthur S. Fiske, dated Gurnet, Conn.,
Aug. 22, 1877. “This morning I shot a bird of this species on the beach
at the south of the hotel. It was alone, though there were several
flocks of other Plovers near at hand. In note and actions it closely
resembled the Piping Plover, but was larger and lighter colored. Capt.
Hall called it the ‘Pale Ring-neck,’ and said he had seen it at the
Gurnet before.” The description given by Mr. Fiske (length 7.75 inches;
bill fully 1 inch, black, etc.) leaves no doubt that the bird was
Wilson’s Plover.—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._
CAPTURE OF BAIRD’S SANDPIPER ON LONG ISLAND.—On September 22, 1880, I
shot a specimen of _Tringa bairdi_ on Montauk, Long Island. The bird was
in a flock of “Peeps” (_Ereunetes pusillus_), feeding on the beach of
Great Pond, a brackish lake often in communication with the Sound. It so
closely resembled the “Peeps” that I only noticed it on account of its
larger size. The skin I preserved, though badly cut by the shot.—DANIEL
E. MORAN, _Brooklyn, N. Y._
[This is apparently the first known occurrence of this species on the
Atlantic Coast south of New England.—EDD.]
AN ADDITION TO THE MAINE FAUNA.—On October 8, 1881, I received from Mr.
Alpheus G. Rogers, of Portland, an immature specimen of _Rallus
elegans_, the King Rail, which he shot on Scarborough Marsh, on the
morning of that day. This species is new to the State of Maine, and has
occurred in New England only about half a dozen times.
Its previous New England record is as follows: (1) Stratford, Conn.,
breeding, Linsley, Am. Jour. Sci. and Arts, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, p. 267.
(2) Portland. Conn., one specimen: (3) Saybrook, Conn., one specimen,
Merriam, Rev. Birds Conn., p. 115. (4) Nahant, Mass., one specimen,
Purdie, this Bulletin, Vol. II. p. 22. (5) Sudbury Meadows, Mass., one
specimen, Purdie, this Bulletin, Vol. III, p. 146.—NATHAN CLIFFORD
BROWN, _Portland, Maine_.
CAPTURE OF _Larus leucopterus_ NEAR BOSTON.—In November last Mr. Charles
I. Goodale showed me an immature specimen of _Larus leucopterus_ in the
flesh, which he stated was shot near Boston. The bird is now in my
collection.—CHARLES B. CORY, _Boston, Mass._
THE GREAT BLACK-BACKED GULL (_Larus marinus_) FROM A NEW LOCALITY.—Mr.
Howard Saunders, in his excellent synopsis of the _Larinæ_ (P. Z. S.,
1878, pp. 155–212), p. 180, in defining the known range of this species,
says that there is “no record from the American side of the Pacific,”
but that he had “examined undoubted specimens from Japan,” this being
considered “a very great extension of its previously known range.”
During the present year the National Museum has received specimens of
this species, in alcohol, from Herald Island, in the Arctic Ocean,
northwest of Behring’s Straits, and from Port Clarence on the American
side of the Straits, the former collected by Captain C. M. Hooper, of
the U. S. Revenue Cutter “Corwin,” the latter by Dr. T. H. Bean, of the
National Museum.—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._
THE SNAKE-BIRD IN KANSAS.—Prof. F. H. Snow, of the University of Kansas,
writes as follows: “I have the pleasure of informing you of the capture
of a specimen of the Snake-bird, _Plotus anhinga_, in the Solomon Valley
in Western Kansas. It was taken in August of this year by C. W. Smith,
Esq., of Stockton, and the skin is now in my possession.”—ELLIOTT COUES,
_Washington, D. C._
CAPTURE OF THE SEA DOVE 150 MILES FROM THE SEA:—On November 8th, 1881, a
Sea Dove (_Alle nigricans_), was shot in the Hudson River, at
Lansingburg, by Alfred Benjamin of that village. The bird was mounted by
William Gibson of the same place, and is in his collection.—AUSTIN F.
PARK, _Troy, N. Y._
ADDITIONS TO THE CATALOGUE OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS.—The following list
includes all the species that have been added to the North American
fauna since the publication of the “Nomenclature of North American
Birds.” The numbers given these additional species indicate their
position in the list; and I would suggest that any author publishing a
species new to our fauna do the same, so that collectors and others may
know its number.
440.* =Buteo fuliginosus= _Scl._ LITTLE BLACK HAWK.
440.** =Buteo brachyurus= _Vieill._ SHORT-TAILED HAWK; WHITE-FRONTED
HAWK.
708.* =Puffinus borealis= _Cory_. NORTHERN SHEARWATER.
717.* =Œstrelata gularis= (_Peale_) _Brewster_. PEALE’S PETREL.—ROBERT
RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._
NOTES ON SOME BIRDS OF THE BELT MOUNTAINS, MONTANA TERRITORY.—The
following observations were made in the southern range of the Belt
Mountains, latitude about 46° 30′, some miles to the west and south of
the head-waters of the Musselshell, from which the land, intersected by
frequent smaller streams, gradually rises to the foot of the low
mountains, which are mostly forest-clad and of some 6,000 feet
elevation. The streams have little or no timber save in the mountains or
among the foot-hills where scattering firs appear; but willows grow in
dense thickets along the bank, striving apparently by numbers to make up
for any lack in size.
The notes extend from June 22 to July 3, 1880, three days excepted, when
the writer was absent. All the birds were found within an area of a
square mile, perhaps less, but the locality was unusually favorable,
including several patches of burnt timber, a large open tract stretching
up the mountain side to almost the summit, and two streams flowing in
rather open cañons with clumps of willows on either bank.
Several interesting birds which were sought for unsuccessfully at this
time I have since found in the Belt Range, viz. _Cinclus mexicanus_,
_Cyanocitta stelleri_ (_macrolopha?_) and _Tetrao canadensis franklini_.
Skins of most of the species mentioned were preserved.
1. =Turdus migratorius propinquus.=—Common. A bird nesting June 25.
2. =Turdus fuscescens.=—Found only in the cañons. Common.
3. =Sialia arctica.=—Nesting in deserted Woodpecker’s holes.
4. =Regulus calendula.=—Everywhere among the firs.
5. =Parus montanus.=—Common. It never whistles more than two successive
notes, at least I have never heard it.
6. =Sitta carolinensis aculeata.=—One pair found breeding in the
knot-hole of a large fir. Young hatched on or shortly before the 25
June.
7. =Neocorys spraguei.=—A pair breeding on a high, grass-covered knoll
just outside the timber. The male was often observed flying high
overhead, constantly shifting his position, but keeping at about the
same elevation while uttering his song—a rather monotonous carol, unless
one is sufficiently near to hear the wonderful resonance of the blended
notes.
8. =Dendrœca auduboni.=—Common.
9. =Pyranga ludoviciana.=—Rather common. A female observed nest-building
June 26, the male meantime singing in a neighboring treetop. July 3 the
nest was apparently completed but without eggs. It was built in a fir
some thirty feet from the ground and about midway on a small horizontal
limb where several twigs projected out on either side.
10. =Cotyle riparia.=—Swallows apparently of this species were seen
flying high overhead. Their homes were found lower down on the streams.
11. =Vireo gilvus swainsoni.=—A common bird in the cañons.
12. =Carpodacus purpureus.=—Two individuals observed.
13. =Chrysomitris pinus.=—A flock of these restless little creatures
appeared almost daily, uttering their querulous notes.