to the bird-matter contained in its first twelve volumes has always
given much space to ornithological articles, which have become of late
years more valuable from a scientific standpoint than newspaper pieces
generally are, being authenticated by the signatures of the writers
instead of some silly pen-name, and being on the whole scarcely below or
not below the grade of the bird notes that one finds in periodicals of
professed technical character. No one who has had any experience in
hunting for what he wants through the scantily indexed pages of a weekly
issue can fail to appreciate the good office Mr. Bailey has rendered us
all; and every one upon whom the bibliographical blight has descended
knows what an immense amount of industry that curse entails. The author
has our hearty sympathy in the latter, and our best thanks for the
former. His work is more than a mere alphabetical list of names,
followed by reference figures; for it includes, as the title says, a
summary of each article indexed—often giving just the points wanted,
thus rendering it unnecessary to look up the reference. The Index also
includes authors’ names, and among these the authorship of many
pseudonyms and initial-signatures are for the first time properly
exposed. The summation of the bird-matters seems to be quite complete,
and is certainly extensive, in the cases of some common game birds
occupying several pages. We presume the work is not free from faults and
errors of all sorts, because nothing of the kind can be; but we have
found it more reliable than its mechanical execution would lead one to
expect. Considering how great a favor Mr. Bailey has conferred upon the
publishers, and how much good his Index will do the paper, by “setting
it up” in the estimation of working ornithologists higher even than it
was before, his work might have been better dressed.—E. C.
CHAMBERLAIN’S CATALOGUE OF THE BIRDS OF NEW BRUNSWICK.[82]—As many of
our readers are doubtless aware, Mr. Montague Chamberlain has been
engaged, for some time past, in investigating the bird fauna of New
Brunswick, and an interesting result of his labors is now before us in
the form of a catalogue of the birds of that Province. This paper, which
forms by far the most important one in the publication of which it is a
part, comprises some forty-three pages which are divided into two
sections; “Section A” being restricted to “species which occur in St.
John and King’s Counties”; while “Section B” embraces “species which
have not been observed in Saint John or King’s Counties but which occur
in other parts of the Province.”
The former division treats of a region to which the author has evidently
paid special attention, and the text, being mainly based on his personal
observations or investigations, includes many interesting and several
important notes and records. From these we gather that the rather marked
Alleghanian tinge which is known to pervade the bird-fauna of the entire
coast region of Maine, as far as Eastport and Calais, extends still
further eastward. Thus the Catbird, White-eyed Vireo, Towhee Bunting,
Cowbird, Meadow Lark, Baltimore Oriole, Carolina Dove, Least Bittern,
Florida Gallinule, and a few others scarcely less characteristic of the
more southern fauna, have been found within the area treated by the
present paper, but all are marked as rare, and the greater number as
merely accidental visitors. Many of the more important records have
already been published elsewhere.
The annotations in this section are often full and always interesting.
The author writes clearly and simply and his style is characterized by a
modest frankness that is very attractive. We fear, however, that some of
his views respecting the distribution of races are hardly orthodox. Thus
he thinks that “two races of Loon spend the summer in New Brunswick, and
breed here. They have plumage of similar colors and markings, but one is
smaller than the other, being some six inches less in length. The larger
bird is common on the lakes and rivers in all sections of the Province,
seldom seeking the salt water until the rivers freeze over, while the
smaller is rarely found away from the sea shore”; and again that a light
form of the Ruffed Grouse “resembling the descriptions given of
_umbelloides_” occurs with typical _umbellus_ and that it is “not
improbable that both the Brown and Gray varieties are represented here,
with numerous hybrids”; a condition of affairs which, if true, is
certainly deplorable.
“Section B” is almost wholly compiled, the authorities mainly drawn on
being Boardman, Herrick, and Dr. A. Leith Adams. Several of the records
left by the latter writer are, in the light of our present knowledge, of
very doubtful value.
Mr. Chamberlain’s work, so far as it has gone, has evidently been done
carefully and well, a fact which makes it the more to be regretted that
the publication of his report could not have been longer delayed, for in
many respects it lacks the completeness that is desirable in a paper of
its kind. Any adequate exploration of a region so extensive as that
embraced within the limits of New Brunswick cannot be accomplished in
one or two seasons only. It is rather the task of a lifetime. But we
must bear in mind that the present “Catalogue” is offered simply as a
“starting point,” to be “supplemented by additions and revisions as
opportunity for further investigation occurs”; and considered from this
standpoint it is in every way a highly creditable production. That its
author is qualified to carry out an undertaking which he has so
satisfactorily begun can be a matter admitting of no doubt, and we shall
look for many interesting developments in the field which he has
chosen.—W. B.
KRUKENBERG ON THE COLORING MATTER OF FEATHERS. SECOND
PART.[83]—Turacoverdin, a green pigment which occurs in the green
feathers of the _Musophagidæ_ is first considered. This pigment is
soluble in alkalies, such as soda and the like, but is insoluble in
acids, chloroform, ether and the alcohols. Concentrated sulphuric acid
added to the pigment in solution turns it violet red. Turacoverdin in
solution emits a weak red fluorescent light, and when examined by the
spectroscope shows an absorption band near D. It contains a considerable
quantity of iron, but little copper or manganese, and probably, like
Turacin, lacks sulphur and nitrogen. A point of considerable interest is
its identity with a green pigment procured by Church by boiling a
solution of Turacin for a long time.
Zoörubin, a red-brown pigment occurring in _Cicinnurus regius_ is next
described. In solubility it much resembles the preceding, but has no
absorption band, though all of the spectrum beyond D is absorbed. When
treated with a very small quantity of copper-sulphate, Zoörubin
instantly becomes cherry-red, a characteristic reaction. This pigment
occurs in the brown female paradise bird though not in other brown
birds, as _Strix flammea_ and _Alcedo ispida_. As regards the colors of
_Eclectus polychlorus_, where green, blue, red, yellow and brown may all
be found, the author has brought out some very interesting points. The
blue and green are mechanical, or rather the blue is mechanical and the
green is the result of a yellow pigment overlying a brown one. The true
pigments of the feathers are brown, yellow, and red. If the feathers be
blackened on their under surfaces with lampblack or sepia, they become
blue. If the yellow feathers are treated in a similar way, they become
green. The yellow pigment is Zoöfulvin, the red probably Zoönerythrin.
Lastly the author describes the yellow pigment, Coriosulfurin, found in
the tarsus of the birds of prey. This substance is unlike any known to
occur in feathers. It has three absorption bands between F and G.—J. A.
J.
STEJNEGER’S NOMENCLATURAL INNOVATIONS.[84]—Proposing to use “the oldest
available name in every case,” the author shows that many of our current
names must give way if the “inflexible law of priority” is to be
observed. For ourselves, we believe that the surest way out of the
nomenclatural difficulties that beset us is to be found in some such
simple rule as this, and that to upset every name that can be upset
according to any recognized principle is really the shortest road to
that fixity of nomenclature for which we now all sigh like furnaces.
Still such a paper as this makes us wish, as so many others have done,
that some counteractive “statute of limitation” could come into
operation, by which a bird resting in undisturbed enjoyment of its name
for, say, a century or half a century, should not be liable to eviction
under the common law of priority. Human welfare and happiness on the
whole is the final cause of all law, and in the case of titles to real
estate it is we believe statutory that undisturbed possession for a
certain period shall exempt property-holders from litigation on account
of any adverse claim, however otherwise sound, which is not presented
within a certain number of years. This seems to be necessary for the
security of any title and to proceed upon the theory that if owners
don’t take the trouble to make good their title in due time they ought
to forfeit it. The logic of a bird’s right to its name and a possessor’s
right to any other property is the same in theory, and might properly be
carried into effect. Fifty years of unchallenged usage might do, and a
hundred certainly would suffice, to eliminate the factor of
“contemporaneous courtesy,” and the shades of a few departed greatnesses
might not be offended by being invited to yield a point now and then for
the benefit of the many whom natural selection has not yet eliminated
from the struggle for existence.
Stejneger’s points seem to be well taken in the main; and though we
have not yet had opportunity of verifying them, we presume the
restitutions and substitutions he proposes are available if not indeed
necessary under the priority statute. But has he in all cases taken up
names which rest upon diagnosis? Does indication of a type-species
make a generic name valid? Some other objections might also be raised.
We pass no judgment, _pendente lite_, but simply note the following
propositions advanced:—_Phænicurus_ Forst., 1817, for _Ruticilla_
Naum., 1822.—_Cinclus merula_ Schäff., 1789, for _C. aquaticus_
Bechst.—_Regulus cristatus_ V., 1807, for _R. satrapa_ Licht.,
1823.—_Chelidon_ Forst., 1817, for _Hirundo_ L. et auct. (_rustica_,
etc.).—_Hirundo_ L., 1758, for _Chelidon_ Boie, 1822.—_Clivicola_ sive
_Riparia_ Forst., 1817, for _Cotile_ Boie, 1822.—_Calcarius_ Bechst.,
1803, for the birds now commonly called _Centrophanes_, and
_Plectrophenax_, g. n., for _“Plectrophanes” nivalis_.—_Otocoris_ Bp.,
1839, for _Eremophila_, preocc. in botany, and by _Eremophilus_ in
ichthyology.—_Archibuteo norvegicus_ Gunnerus, 1767, for _A. lagopus_
Gm. (but there is _A. lagopus_ Brünn, 1764).—_Morinella_ M. & W.,
1810, for _Strepsilas_ Ill., 1811.—_Vanellus capella_ Schäff., 1789,
for _V. cristatus_ M. & W., 1803.—_Ægialitis alexandrinus_, L., 1758,
for _Æ. cantianus_ Lath., 1790.—_Gallinago cælestis_ Freuzel, 1801,
for _G. media_ Leach, 1816.—_Totanus nebularius_ Gunnerus, 1767, for
the Greenshank.—_Pavoncella_ Leach, 1816, for _Machetes_ Cuv.,
1817.—_Tadorna dameatica_ Hasselq., 1762, for _T. cornuta_ Gm.,
1788.—_Harelda hyemalis_ L., 1758, for _H. glacialis_ L.,
1766.—_Eniconetta_ Gray, 1840, for _Polysticta_ Eyt., 1836, preocc. by
_Polysticte_ Smith, 1835, and for “_Stellaria_”! Bp., 1838, preocc. in
botany.—_Gavia_ Boie, 1822, for _Pagophila_ Kaup, 1829, and the
species _G. alba_ (Gunn., 1767, for _P. eburnea_) Phipps,
1774.—(_Larus hyperboreus_ Gunnerus, 1767, for _L. glaucus_ Brünn,
1764.)—_Hydrochelidon nigra_ (L., 1758, p. 137) for _H. lariformis_
(Ibid., p. 153).—The short and long-tailed Jägers to be respectively
_Stercorarius parasiticus_ (L., 1758, p. 136), and _S. longicaudatus_
(V., 1819).—_Urinator_ Cuv., 1799, for _Colymbus_ auct., nec Briss.,
1760; _U. immer_ (Brünn, 1764, p. 38) instead of _U. torquatus_ (id.,
ibid., p. 41) and _U. lumme_ Brünn, 1764, for _C. septentrionalis_ L.,
1766.—E. C.
INGERSOLL’S BIRDS’-NESTING.[85]—This little book is intended for a guide
to the beginner, and as such it will no doubt be of service. The book
may be summarized as a readable account of the various modes of
collecting birds’ eggs and nests. There are, however, a few points which
we regard with suspicion, as the contrivances for descending cliffs;
such things in careless hands would become instruments of
self-destruction. A long account of the various paraphernalia for
blowing and marking eggs is given. To the novice such things may be
amusing, but are sure sources of disaster. A keen eye, accuracy of hand
and a mind to govern, not patent scissors and forceps, are the
requisites for blowing eggs.
The list of unknown nests, which does not claim to be free from faults
of omission, contains faults of admission, though these are not
numerous. Finally, we would heartily indorse all advice for absolute
identification of eggs and the avoidance of gummed labels.—J. A. J.
=General Notes.=
NOTE ON MIMUS POLYGLOTTUS.—In the summer of 1879 I found on the Platte
River, about a mile west of Fort Fetterman, Wyoming, in Lat. 42° 23′ 35″
N. and Long. 105° 21′ 4″ W., a pair of Mockingbirds (_Mimus
polyglottus_) breeding; the nest was placed in a low cottonwood, very
near the river bank. In the following year these birds, undoubtedly the
same pair, returned and reared a brood in identically the same place.
This time I secured the male bird; and the specimen is now in my private
collection.
In the “Birds of the Colorado Valley” Dr. Coues tells us, when referring
to the limits of _Mimus_, that “the northermost records generally quoted
fix the limit in Massachusetts; but Dr. Brewer speaks of a single
individual seen near Calais, Me., by Mr. George A. Boardman. Another
record from an extreme point, given by Dr. P. R. Hoy, is above quoted;
the extension of the bird to Wisconsin, as there indicated, has been
commonly overlooked. Other States in which the bird is known to have
occurred are New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, and
Kansas. The parallel of 40° N. has been named as its usual or normal
limit.”
In view of these facts, and what I have learned from other
ornithologists, it seems to me that this case is entitled to record, as
another interesting instance, extending the limits of this bird.—R. W.
SHUFELDT. _Washington, D. C._
THE NEST OF THE HOUSE WREN.—Some writer speaks of the well known habit
of the House Wren of filling up any cavity within which it builds its
nest with sticks and rubbish, as a “survival” of an old habit for which
there would seem to be no present use. I think I have seen this
statement in some of the writings of Dr. Elliott Coues, though I cannot
refer to the book or page. Possibly it may have been stated by some one
else. But it is a generally recognized fact that if a box holds half a
peck the little birds will fill it up full! It seems to me, however,
that while this may be really a “survival,” it is still a most useful
habit. When a hole or space is so filled the nest proper is generally
built on the side of the mass of rubbish opposite to the entrance and as
far as possible from it. Manifestly there is a clear purpose in
this—viz: that of protection from any enemy seeking an entrance. I have
observed many nests, in large cigar boxes, and in the majority find this
state of things to exist. The interior space will be filled with sticks,
leaving a little passage way over the top, through which the bird can
reach the nest on the back side of the rubbish. It seems to me that this
is clearly a defensive habit, necessary at this time. When they build a
nest in the skull of a horse or ox, it will be found that they follow
the same rule, and that it will be very difficult to get at the nests.
But their practices are sometimes varied. If a box is not too large, and
the hole is only large enough to admit of the passage of the birds, they
will often carry in only just enough material to build the nest, leaving
the space all open above. I have often known them to pursue this course
in building in a cigar box where a small hole had been made at the
middle of one of the sides. But if the box is a large one with a large
hole cut through the end near the top, as it is suspended on a tree or
the side of a building, then they will carry in “fully a peck of
rubbish,” and build the soft nest down on the side opposite the
entrance.—CHARLES ALDRICH, _Webster City, Iowa_.
REMARKABLE PLUMAGE OF THE ORCHARD ORIOLE.—There is in the collection
here a very curiously marked specimen of the Orchard Oriole (_Icterus
spurius_) from Columbia, Pa. It is evidently a male bird in the
transition stage of plumage from young to that of the adult. Young males
of this species usually exhibit “confused characters of both sexes,” but
in this case the male plumage is confined to the right side of the bird,
and the female plumage to the left side, the two colorations uniting on
median lines above and below. So distinctly is this peculiarity marked,
that a bilateral section of the bird would divide the phases about
equally. The left side, however, shows very slight traces of black and
chestnut, yet not so distinct as to lessen the general yellowish-olive
appearance of the female. There is more of the white on the coverts of
the left wing than usual.—CHARLES H. TOWNSEND, _Acad. Nat. Science,
Philadelphia, Pa._
THE NEST AND EGGS OF PERISOREUS CANADENSIS.—The nest upon which the
following description is based was found by Mr. P. S. Glasier on April
7th, 1881, twenty-three miles from Grand Falls, New Brunswick. It was
built in a small fir tree with few branches, about ten feet from the
ground. The tree was in “mixed land” beside a brook, on the south side
of a hill and near a lumber camp. From the men in the camp it was
learned that the bird built the nest about the middle of March, and had
been sitting for ten days. The parent bird was found on the nest, shot,
and forwarded to me, so that there can be no doubt of identity.
The nest is rather a large structure, between nine and ten inches in
diameter and five inches deep. The cavity is slightly oval, measuring
three and six-tenths by three and two-tenths, and is two inches deep.
The bottom is formed of large pieces of rotten wood, which must have
been torn from some neighboring stump, while the sides are supported by
a scraggy structure of long twigs. The walls are formed of strips of
bark and the subjacent rotten wood, apparently of cedars, cocoons, the
remains of wasp nests, lichens and the like. All this material is
closely packed together, but not woven, so that were it not for the
outer coat of twigs the whole would quickly fall apart. On one side,
snarled up among the twigs, is a long piece of white twine, which shows
that the neighboring camp was called upon to pay its tribute. The lining
is quite thick, and offers a decided contrast to the walls. Rootlets of
various kinds form the greater part, though grass and the remains of
wasp nests form the floor. A few feathers are scattered throughout the
structure and about as many more are to be found inside. By far the
greater part of these are from the Jays themselves, and they might be
regarded as of accidental occurrence were it not for a few from some
species of Grouse. As a whole the nest is a substantial structure,
admirably adapted to keep the eggs and nestlings warm.
The eggs were three in number, and are of about the same size and form
as those of the Blue Jay. Their ground-color is a light green of much
the same color as the Field Sparrow’s egg. Two of the eggs are thickly
covered with fine spots of lavender and light brown, the spots being
most abundant at the large end. The third has less lavender and more
brown, while the spots are of considerable size and evenly
distributed.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES, _Boston, Mass._
NOTES ON THE PLUMAGE OF NEPHŒCETES NIGER BOREALIS.—An examination of ten
birds of this species, taken at Howardsville, Colorado, in 1880 and
1881, leads me to believe that four years are necessary for them to
acquire their complete plumage. A young male of the year, taken Sept.
17, was marked as follows. General color dull black, every feather
tipped with white, scarcely appreciable on upper back and throat,
broader on upper tail-coverts and rump. Crissum almost pure white. In
birds of the second year the general plumage has a brownish cast;
feathers of back tipped with brown, the head whitish, belly feathers yet
broadly tipped with white. The third year the color is black, with a
very faint edging of white on under tail-coverts. In the fourth year
pure black, forehead hoary, neck with a brownish wash. Feathers
bordering the black loral crescent whitish.
Tail in young of first year, rounded; in second year, slightly rounded;
in third year slightly emarginate, feathers becoming more acute. In
adult, forked, outer feathers three-eighths of an inch longer than
inner.
I do not know when they come—some time late in June—but they remain
until long after the Violet-green Swallows leave. They always hunt in
flocks, range far above 13,000 feet and breed up to at least 11,000
feet. Those I have shot have had their crops filled with _Ephemeridæ_,
and it is only when a cloud of insects is discovered low down that the
birds come within gunshot range. Often one will sweep down almost to the
earth and, swinging on in the same ellipse, soar far up entirely out of
sight.
Measurements from dried skins of eight specimens give an average length
of six and seven-sixteenths inches, with extremes of seven and one-half
inches—an adult male, and five and seven-eighths inches—a young female;
and an average wing of six and five-sevenths inches, with extremes of
six and seven-eighths and six and three-eighths inches.—FRANK M. DREW,
_Bunker Hill, Ill._
PLUMAGE OF THE YOUNG OF ECLECTUS POLYCHLORUS.—Dr. A. B. Meyer in the P.
Z. S. for 1877, p. 801, says in an article on _Eclectus polychlorus_:
“Formerly I discussed the question whether the young bird in both sexes
is plain green or not; but I now believe that it is red in both sexes,
_i.e._ bears the dress which the female keeps during its whole life.”
This conclusion would seem to be incorrect, since among a series of
these birds in the possession of Prof. H. A. Ward, there is one bird so
young as not to be fully fledged, but which is nevertheless of the same
bright green color as the adult males. This substantiates the statement
of the Rev. George Brown that the young birds have the same colored
plumage as the adults.—F. A. LUCAS, _Rochester, N. Y._
[This is a large Parrot found in the Malacca and Papuan Islands. The
occurrence of “young red-and-blue birds” has already been recorded (see
Ibis for 1878).—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.]
AN OWL’S EGG LAID IN CONFINEMENT.—The history of my Acadian Owl, given
in a late number of this Bulletin,[86] has an interesting sequel. On
February 4, 1882, the bird (then but nine months old) astonished its
friends—and perhaps itself as well—by laying an egg in the bottom of its
cage. This, when first brought to me, was of normal size and shape, but
soft and leathery to the touch, like the egg of a turtle. One side was
fractured; and soon afterward the shell around the edges of the hole
began to curl inward until, in a short time, the whole egg became
shrivelled and distorted. Finally, in the course of a day or two, the
shell crumbled and scaled off in small fragments leaving only the
half-dried yelk and albumen.
Of course more eggs were looked for, and in anticipation, the floor of
the cage was lined with saw-dust and a hollow stump even supplied to
serve as a nesting-place. But despite these attentions the bird
obstinately refused to gratify our hopes. For several days after the
removal of her egg she was restless and irritable, continually flying
from perch to perch, and fiercely attacking any one who ventured to
approach her. Indeed, it was two or three weeks before she recovered her
wonted gentleness.
I cannot now recall an instance of the breeding of Owls in confinement,
but the present occurrence would apparently indicate that it might be
accomplished with Saw-whets, which, as captives, seem to be more
animated and cheerful than most of the members of their sedate
family.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._