NUTHATCH.—This Nuthatch was common in the pine forests of the Chiricahua
Mountains, but the notes do not mention its occurrence elsewhere.
24. =Sitta pygmæa= _Vig._ PYGMY NUTHATCH.—Equally common with the
preceding species in the same locality.
25. =Certhia familiaris mexicana= (_Gloger_) _Ridgw._ MEXICAN
CREEPER.—Various writers have attributed the Mexican Creeper to our
fauna, either on purely inferential grounds, or from a misconception,
which at one time prevailed, regarding the relationship of the form
found in California; for up to the present time no undoubted specimens
of _mexicana_ have been taken within our boundaries. It accordingly
gives me much pleasure to announce the actual occurrence in Arizona of
this well-characterized race, of which the specimen mentioned below is
perfectly typical. It is the only Creeper which Mr. Stephens met with
during the past season, but in the previous year two others, which I
have not examined, but which he considers identical with this, were
taken in the same locality. All the Arizona specimens obtained by Mr.
Henshaw were referred to our eastern form.
66, ♀ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 18. Length, 4.80;
extent, 7.10; wing, 2.45; tail, 2.25; culmen, .50. “Iris dark brown.”
26. =Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus= (_Lafr._) _Gray_. CACTUS WREN.—I
notice little of special interest among the notes accompanying the eight
skins which Mr. Stephens collected. He found the bird abundant in all
suitable localities, and took several nests and sets of eggs. The
unsophisticated young were easily shot, but the adults, even when
breeding, were shy and hard to secure.
27. =Salpinctes obsoletus= (_Say_) _Caban._ ROCK WREN.—Mr. Stephens
makes no mention of finding this species in Arizona during the past
season, but he sends me a single specimen taken December 25, 1880, on
the San Pedro River.
28. =Thryomanes bewicki leucogaster= _Baird._ WHITE-BELLIED WREN.—The
collection includes five specimens of this form, which was apparently
met with only in the Chiricahua Mountains and about Tucson. In the
former locality it was common along the banks of streams where, however,
it kept so closely hidden among the weeds and brush that it was oftener
heard than seen. The examples before me are typical.
29. =Troglodytes aëdon= _Vieill._ HOUSE WREN.—The only House Wren taken
is absolutely indistinguishable from many of my Massachusetts specimens,
and I accordingly refer it here. Furthermore, I fail to find the
characters supposed to distinguish var. _parkmani_, in any of the
several California specimens included in my series. If the latter form
really possesses any _constant_ differential characters, I believe they
have yet to be defined.
169, ♀, near Tombstone, April 6. Length, 4.80; extent, 6.40; wing,
2.10. “Iris dark brown. Shot among low brush. Not common.”
30. =Anthus ludovicianus= (_Gm._) _Licht._ AMERICAN TITLARK.
271, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 6.50; extent, 10.60. “Bill
brown, paler at base below; legs brown.” Several seen in marshes along
the stream.
31. =Helminthophila luciæ= (_Coop._) _Ridgw._ LUCY’S WARBLER.—Although
this diminutive _Helminthophila_ has been known to ornithologists for
nearly twenty years, few specimens have found their way into the
cabinets of private collectors, and up to the present time the species
has remained a very rare one. On this account the acquisition of a good
series of skins was among the main objects of Mr. Stephens’ trip, and
the success which rewarded his labors is very gratifying.
The first specimen was shot April 15 at Cienega Station, where, during
the succeeding three days, six more were obtained. They frequented large
willows along the banks of a stream and, like Kinglets, spent much of
their time searching for food at the extremity of the branches. Although
active and restless, they were not at all shy. The only note heard here
was a sharp “_tseep_.” On April 18 Mr. Stephens reached Tucson, where
almost the first birds met with were Lucy’s Warblers. During the early
part of his stay they were more abundant among the mesquites than any
other species, and their “_tseeping_” could be heard on every side. They
were continually in motion, flying from tree to tree, and occasionally
visiting some low brush in the vicinity. By the 28th their numbers
became perceptibly diminished, but many remained to breed in the
surrounding country. The presence of the species at Camp Lowell is
attested by a single young specimen, barely large enough to fly, which
was taken there on June 1st, but which is unaccompanied by any special
remarks. An adult male from the Santa Rita Mountains, however, comes to
me with the following comments, under date of May 19:—“This is the only
one of the species which I have seen here. It was near the banks of a
stream below the mouth of a cañon, where there were a few mesquites
interspersed among the oaks. I watched it for some time. It lingered
among the mesquites, seeming to prefer them to the oaks, in which,
however, it occasionally alighted for a moment.”
In addition to the above, Mr. Stephens’ notes supply some very important
information regarding the previously doubtful nesting habits of this
species. A female taken April 25, proved on dissection to be about to
lay, but no eggs were actually taken until May 8, when a full set of
five was found near Tucson. After that date many nests containing either
eggs or young were examined. Their sites were variable; the
characteristic place, like that of the specimen discovered by Captain
Bendire, was behind the loosened bark of a large tree, but use was
frequently made of old Woodpeckers’ nests, knot-holes, and in short all
sorts of crevices. A brood of nearly fledged young (one of which is
before me) was actually taken from the deserted domicile of a
Yellow-headed Titmouse, which had been appropriated by the new tenant
without any apparent repairs or alterations. Among _Helminthophilæ_ this
Wren-like mode of nidification is, I believe, peculiar to this species.
I have the Tucson nest just alluded to. It is composed outwardly of
twigs and weed-stalks; inwardly of hemp-fibres; while there is a scanty
lining of horse-hairs and feathers. Like most _hole_ nests it is rather
flat, and the rim is thin in places where the walls of the cavity
encroached on the space within. The eggs are white, handsomely wreathed
about the larger ends with reddish-brown and umber spots, a few of which
are also scattered over their general surfaces. They measure
respectively .58×.46; .58×.46; .62×.46; .60×.47. The notes accompanying
this set are as follows:—“Nest about six feet above the ground in a
crevice nearly covered by bark. The bottom of the hole contained an old
nest; over this were droppings of wood-rats, and the whole filled the
cavity nearly to its top. The tree (a mesquite) stood within twenty feet
of a frequented road. Female sitting. Eggs fresh; one had been broken
and crowded in behind the nest by the parent bird.” None of the other
sets found by Mr. Stephens contained more than three eggs and the
present clutch is probably an exceptionally large one.
_Juv., first plumage_ (♀ No. 471, Camp Lowell, June 1).—Wing-coverts
and inner secondaries broadly tipped and edged with pale
brownish-fulvous. Primaries and rectrices edged and tipped with hoary
white. Rump and upper tail-coverts yellowish-chestnut. No chestnut on
the crown. Otherwise colored like the adult.
Among a number of adults before me the range of individual variation
is very limited, and is chiefly confined to the females. While it is
true that some of the latter are indistinguishable from the brightest
males, the majority have the rump and crown-patches considerably
duller, the chestnut being either diluted in shade, or mixed with the
color of the back. In No. 206 the crown-patch is concealed, the
chestnut being restricted to the basal portion of the feathers.
225, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 18. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.70.
229, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.80.
231, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.40; extent, 7; wing, 2.35;
tail, 1.93.
232. ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.80; wing, 2.35;
tail, 1.95.
253, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.21;
tail, 1.87.
254, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.21;
tail, 1.95.
255, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.50; extent, 7.10; wing, 2.23;
tail, 1.93.
280, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 4.40; extent, 7; wing, 2.25;
tail, 1.95.
299, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 28. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.70.
326, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 4. Length, 4.30; extent, 7; wing, 2.20; tail,
1.93.
340, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 4.40; extent, 7; wing, 2.21; tail,
1.93.
410, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 19. Length, 4.10; extent, 6.90;
wing, 2.22; tail, 1.82.
516, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 10. Length, 4.30; extent, 7; wing, 2.12;
tail, 1.85.
524, ♂ juv., first plumage, Tucson, June 11. “Taken from nest, which
also contained a young _Molothrus ater obscurus_.”
197, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. Length, 4.10; extent, 6.40;
wing, 2.12; tail, 1.78. “Iris dark brown; bill black above, bluish
beneath; legs black.”
206, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.50;
wing, 2.17; tail, 1.80.
208, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 4.20; extent, 6.60;
wing, 2.09; tail, 1.82.
217, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70;
wing, 2.21; tail, 1.84.
218, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 4.10; extent, 6.60;
wing, 2.10; tail, 1.85.
228, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.10;
tail, 1.85.
230, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.07;
tail, 1.84.
256, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.20; extent, 6.60.
260, ♀ ad., Tucson. April 22. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.60; wing, 2.08;
tail, 1.85.
261, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 22. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.25;
tail, 1.92.
279, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 4.30; extent, 6.70; wing, 2.10;
tail, 1.82. “About to lay.”
433, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 25. Length, 4.50; extent, 6.50. “With nest and
three eggs; set completed.”
449, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 29. Length, 4.40; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.11;
tail, 1.77. “With nest and three eggs; set completed.”
439, ♀ juv., first plumage, Tucson, May 26. Nearly feathered, but
unable to fly. “Taken from a deserted nest of _Auriparus flaviceps_.”
471, ♀ juv., first plumage, Camp Lowell, June 1. Length, 4.20; extent,
6.60; wing, 2.10; tail, 1.71. Fully feathered.
32. =Helminthophila celata lutescens= _Ridgw._ WESTERN ORANGE-CROWNED
WARBLER.—A few were seen late in April near Tucson.
Although not perfectly typical of _lutescens_, both of the
Orange-crowned Warblers obtained by Mr. Stephens are clearly referable
to that race. They are not quite as yellow beneath as Nicasio
(California) specimens, but they come within a shade of it, and are
brighter by many shades than any of the same sex among my eastern
examples; while in the vividness of the olive-green on the upper parts,
they fully equal any of the California females. The supposed difference
in the tail markings of these races does not hold in the series before
me, for a male from Nicasio has the edging on the inner webs of the
rectrices quite as broad and pure as that of any of the Florida ones.
The loss of this character, however, would be of little consequence, as
the two forms could be readily separated by the wide difference in their
general coloring. Mr. Henshaw considers his Arizona specimens true
_celata_, and _lutescens_ is now for the first time announced from that
Territory.
290, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 26. Length, 5; extent, 7.30; wing, 2.45; tail,
2.10. “Iris dark brown; bill black, lighter at base below; legs dark
brown. Not common.”
291, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 4.70; extent, 7.10; wing,
2.37; tail, 2.09. Same remarks.
(_To be continued._)
NOTES ON THE OS PROMINENS.[47]
BY FREDERIC A. LUCAS.
My attention was first directed to this bone by Dr. Shufeldt’s article
in this Bulletin for October, 1881, and subsequently by Mr. Jeffries’
paper in the number for January, 1882. With the view of ascertaining in
what birds the os prominens is present, and what is its use, I have
since examined quite an extensive series of birds. Lack of time has
prevented as extended an examination as could be wished for; and as
regards discovering any special use for this sesamoid, it must be
confessed that the results of the investigation are not wholly
satisfactory, being rather negative than positive in their character.
But such as they are, they are submitted, in the hope that they may
prove of service to some better skilled physiologist.
Through a lack of good material Dr. Shufeldt failed to discover the
existence of the os prominens in any of the Owls, but it would seem to
be specially characteristic of the _Bubonidæ_, since it is present in
one particular shape, and with a constant mode of articulation, in the
following species of that family: _Ketupa ceylonensis_, _K. javanensis_,
_Bubo ignavus_, _B. bengalensis_, _B. virginianus_, _Scops brasilianus_,
_S. asio_, _Nyctea scandiaca_, _Ninox albigulare_, _Asio otus_, _Syrnium
nebulosum_, and _S. uralense_. It is not present in _Strix flammea_ or
_S. perlata_, and should it prove to be present in other genera of the
_Bubonidæ_ than those noted above, it may serve as an additional, though
trivial, point of distinction between the families _Bubonidæ_ and
_Strigidæ_.
[Illustration:
Left wing of _Bubo virginianus_, from below (reduced one third).
_r_, radius; _u_, ulna; _c_, cuneiform; _s_, scapho-lunar; _os p_,
os prominens; _epa_, tendon of extensor patagii longus.
]
The accompanying cut, drawn from a fresh specimen of _B. virginianus_,
explains the form and position of the os prominens.
It will be noticed that it is situated on the anterior surface of the
distal end of the radius, and runs almost parallel with that bone,
instead of standing erect as in the _Falconidæ_. The radial portion of
the tensor patagii longus terminates in the os prominens, and is not
continued to the first metacarpal.
Apart from the Owls above noted, this bone has been found in _Otogyps
calvus_, _Heterospizias meridionalis_, _Buteo melanoleucus_, _B.
pennsylvanicus_, _B. lineatus_, _Circus gouldi_, _Asturina pucherani_,
and _Haliæetus albicilla_.
[Illustration:
A. Os prominens of _Otogyps calvus_, full size.
B. Os prominens of _Bubo virginianus_, seen from above to show
articulation with radius, full size.
]
It is absent in _Polyborus tharus_, _Milvago chimango_, and the
following peculiar forms which were examined to see if they would throw
any light upon the subject: _Nyctibius_, _Strigops_, _Nestor_,
_Megapodius_, _Ocydromus_, and _Atagen_. Neither was any trace of it to
be found in two specimens of _Pandion haliæetus_ from N. Africa and the
Duke of York group. Dr. Shufeldt’s theory that the os prominens is for
the purpose of extending the wing area struck me, as it did Mr.
Jeffries, as being untenable, from the fact that the increase of surface
thus obtained was too slight to be of any value.[48]
The first proposition of Mr. Jeffries’ summary is that the bone serves
to keep the friction of the extensor patagii longus from the carpus.
Were this the case it ought surely to be present in the Albatross and
Gull, birds which in a fresh breeze are continually flexing and
extending their wings according to the direction of their flight and the
varying force of the wind. But in both these birds the os prominens is
absent,[49] and moreover, as we see in the Owls, it may be so situated
as not to prevent the friction of the ulnar portion of the tendon.
Second, that it serves only to a limited extent to increase the power of
the extensor patagii longus to abduct the thumb, is shown by the fact
that in the majority of cases that tendon is inserted in the first
metacarpal. The exceptions to this, so far observed by me, are in
_Otogyps calvus_ and _Haliæetus albicilla_, where there is a strong
tendon running from the os prominens to the first phalanx of the thumb.
The third proposition has already been considered, and the fourth (that
it protects the carpus) must be rejected, both for the reason given by
Mr. Jeffries, and because as we see it in Owls it frequently does not
lie over the carpus at all. Only in _Otogyps calvus_ does the os
prominens seem to exist as a simple sesamoid, and in that bird it is
imbedded in the tendon of the extensor patagii longus, and glides over
the scapho-lunar. Were I to venture a suggestion it would be that by its
serving as a point of attachment for the tensor patagii longus, that
tendon is freed from all duties save that of “puckering up” the anterior
margin of the wing; but, as stated before, that theory is by no means
entirely satisfactory to me.
A LIST OF BIRDS FROM THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY, OBSERVED DURING THE
SUMMER OF 1881, WITH BRIEF NOTES.
BY O. P. HAY.
During the summer of 1881 the writer and two companions spent a little
more than a month in the South, especially in the State of Mississippi,
travelling and studying its zoölogy. Our primary object was to collect
fresh water fishes; and to this we devoted the greater part of our time
and efforts. Incidentally, however, we collected and made observations
on other animals. Hence this list of birds and the few notes concerning
them. I did not intend to publish this list until I had opportunity to
make additions to it; but the recent publication by Dr. F. W. Langdon of
his field notes on birds observed by him, early in the spring, at a
point a little farther south, has made it seem proper that I should
contribute my little toward making known the ornithology of this region.
Our observations and collections were made of course under difficulties,
and no attempt was made to secure nests and eggs, or, in any special
manner, notes on the breeding habits of birds. Still, on account of the
season when our trip was made, this list may be of some value as
indicating that the birds observed are summer residents. The number of
species recorded is not large, but I include only birds that I am
reasonably sure were seen. In nearly all cases the birds were shot, and
identified by means of descriptions. Others were seen, but as they were
not identified with certainty, they are not included in the list.
The birds noted as found at Memphis, Tenn., were really seen in Arkansas
just across the river from Memphis. Most of our other notes were
obtained at Vicksburg and Jackson, Miss.
The nomenclature adopted is that of Mr. Robert Ridgway, issued by the U.
S. National Museum, 1881.
1. =Hylocichla mustelina= (_Gmel._) _Baird_. WOOD THRUSH.—This species
was seen and specimens were shot at Memphis and at Vicksburg. Its song
was frequently heard; and it would appear to be quite common.
2. =Mimus polyglottus= (_Linn._) _Boie_. MOCKINGBIRD.—Very abundant at
all points visited. At the time we were at Vicksburg, July 1, the
young had not yet left the nest, as negro boys were offering them
captured in their nests for sale. In the “History of N. A. Birds” Dr.
Brewer has stated that the Mockingbird in the South nests early in
April, and that the young birds appear a month later. If this is the
case these birds must remain in the nest six weeks or two months. I
was informed that a law in Mississippi prohibits the keeping of these
birds in confinement.
3. =Galeoscoptes carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Caban._ CATBIRD.—This bird
was quite common at Memphis. I did not note it at any point farther
south.
4. =Harporhynchus rufus= (_Linn._) _Caban._ BROWN THRUSH.—A single
specimen seen at Jackson.
5. =Sialia sialis= (_Linn._) _Haldem._ BLUEBIRD.—Seen in considerable
numbers at Memphis, Vicksburg, and Jackson.
6. =Lophophanes bicolor= (_Linn._) _Bonap._ TUFTED TITMOUSE.—Specimens
of this species were obtained at Memphis and at Jackson. It may be
worth noting here that it occurs as far north as Indianapolis, and I
have seen it here during the present winter.
7. =Parus carolinensis= _Aud._ CAROLINA CHICKADEE.—Seen only at
Memphis.
8. =Thryothorus ludovicianus= (_Gm._) _Bonap._ CAROLINA WREN.—We
observed this active bird at Memphis and at Jackson, at both of which
places it appeared to be very abundant.
9. =Mniotilta varia= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ BLACK-AND-WHITE
CREEPER.—Observed at Memphis and Jackson. It will probably be found to
breed at both these points.
10. =Protonotaria citrea= (_Bodd._) _Baird_. PROTHONOTARY
WARBLER.—Specimens of this species were shot at Memphis, and others
were seen at Jackson.
11. =Parula americana= (_Linn._) _Bp._ BLUE YELLOW-BACKED
WARBLER.—This was found to be one of the most common of the smaller
birds at Memphis, Vicksburg, and Jackson. We were constantly shooting
them while hunting for other species. In the “History of N. A. Birds”
it is said to be nowhere abundant; but a day’s hunt in the Mississippi
lowlands would, I think, convince any ornithologist that this is an
error. I have no doubt whatever that it breeds all through the South,
although we found no nests. Audubon was probably correct in saying
that it breeds in Louisiana, however much he may have erred in regard
to the structure of the nest.
12. =Oporornis formosa= (_Wils._) _Baird_. KENTUCKY WARBLER.—This
sprightly little bird was observed, and specimens were handled, at
both Vicksburg and Jackson.
13. =Geothlypis trichas= (_Linn._) _Caban._ MARYLAND YELLOW-THROAT.—A
specimen was shot at Memphis; others were seen.
14. =Myiodioctes mitratus= (_Gmel._) _Aud._ HOODED WARBLER.—Specimens,
male and female, of this bird were obtained at Jackson. It appeared to
be moderately common.
15. =Setophaga ruticilla= (_Linn._) _Swains._ AMERICAN
REDSTART.—During our stay at Hopefind, Ark., opposite Memphis, a
number of specimens of the Redstart were seen. Afterwards, while at
Jackson, about July 10, a male and a female were killed. Their
presence so far south at this season, and in such numbers, would
indicate that they breed here. Up to this time I am not aware that it
is known to breed south of the Potomac River and Illinois. The finding
of the nest and eggs in Mississippi may be expected.
16. =Vireosylvia olivacea= (_Linn._) _Bonap._ RED-EYED VIREO.—Very
abundant at all the stations visited. Its clear, musical notes could
be heard everywhere in the deep forests. A specimen was shot at
Vicksburg, which had apparently just become fledged. Memphis,
Vicksburg, Jackson.
17. =Vireo noveboracensis= (_Gmel._) _Bonap._ WHITE-EYED
VIREO.—Specimens of this Vireo were obtained at Memphis and at
Jackson.
18. =Lanius ludovicianus= _Linn._ LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE.—A specimen of
Shrike was seen at Jackson; but, as it was not shot, I am unable to
say whether it belongs to this variety or to _excubitorides_.
19. =Progne subis= (_Linn._) _Baird_. PURPLE MARTIN.—Common about
Vicksburg.
20. =Hirundo erythrogastra= _Bodd._ BARN SWALLOW.—This species was
observed to be quite common about Jackson together with the next.
21. =Tachycineta bicolor= (_Vieill._) _Caban._ WHITE-BELLIED
SWALLOW.—Seen flying about the outskirts of Jackson.
22. =Cotile riparia= (_Linn._) _Boie_. BANK SWALLOW.—Seen at various
points along the Mississippi River near Memphis.
23. =Pyranga æstiva= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ SUMMER REDBIRD.—A male of
this species was shot at Memphis, another at Vicksburg, and a male and
a female at Jackson. It is apparently a very common bird.
24. =Spizella pusilla= (_Wils._) _Bonap._ FIELD SPARROW.—A single
specimen of this species was shot at Jackson. Its occurrence there at
that season was hardly to be expected. This individual may have been
left behind in its winter quarters by its migrating comrades; or it
may be that the species will be found to breed even as far south as
Jackson.
25. =Cardinalis virginianus= (_Briss._) _Bonap._ CARDINAL
GROSBEAK.—One of the most conspicuous birds at every point visited.
26. =Passerina cyanea= (_Linn._) _Gray._ INDIGO BUNTING.—The Indigo
Bird was observed at Memphis, and again at Jackson.