Part 16

329, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 4. Length, 6.20; extent, 9.50; wing, 3.10; tail, 2.32; tarsus, .85; culmen, .64. “Iris brown; bill black above, brown below; legs light brown. Very fat. Stomach contained insects.”

40. =Geothlypis macgillivrayi= (_Aud._) _Baird_. MACGILLIVRAY’S WARBLER.—Two specimens collected at Tucson (♀ April 20, ♂ June 8). “I have not found it common in either Arizona or New Mexico.”

41. =Geothlypis trichas= (_Linn._) _Caban._ MARYLAND YELLOW-THROAT.—Mr. Stephens found this species “abundant along streams,” an experience at variance with that recorded by Mr. Henshaw, who met with it but twice while in Arizona.

The only specimen taken agrees closely with some examples from the Truckee River, Nevada, and differs from my eastern representatives, in having the upper parts yellowish-olive instead of olive-green; the crown-band much broader and creamy white in color; the wings and tail longer; the yellow beneath richer, and extending more over the abdomen. Mr. Ridgway has already called attention[69] to some of these differences which, as he now writes me, would be enough to warrant the varietal separation of the western bird, were it not that specimens from both sections of the country occasionally vary in such a manner as to invalidate any characters that could at present be proposed. With the acquisition of better series, however, it is probable that the representatives of two regions, as yet undefined, will be found to present sufficiently constant characteristics to deserve distinctive names.

219, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 5.40; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.16; tail, 2.40; culmen, .55. “Iris brown; bill black, bluish beneath; legs pale brown.”

42. =Icteria virens longicauda= (_Lawr._) _Coues_. LONG-TAILED CHAT.—This bird was observed only in the vicinity of Tucson. The first specimen was taken April 30, and it soon afterwards became abundant.

310, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 30. Length, 7.50; extent, 9.40; wing, 3.12; tail, 3.52. “Bill and legs black.”

318, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 3. Length, 7.70; extent, 9.60; wing, 3.05; tail, 3.61.

335, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 5. Length, 7.30; extent, 9.70; wing, 3.12; tail, 3.45.

521, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 11. Length, 7.10; extent, 9.40; wing, 3.15; tail, 3.36.

43. =Myiodioctes pusillus pileolatus= (_Pall._) _Ridgw._ PILEOLATED WARBLER.

Although Mr. Henshaw referred all his Arizona Black-capped Flycatchers to _pusillus_, mine are absolutely typical of _pileolatus_; in fact they are brighter than some specimens from Nicasio (California), the yellow below being richer, and the upper surface more yellowish, while the bill is equally

narrow and several shades lighter in color. Compared with eastern examples they of course present an even greater contrast. Dr. Coues was undoubtedly right in saying (Birds of the Colorado Valley, p. 327) that _pileolatus_ “is not confined to the Pacific coast region”; but I cannot agree with him in thinking it an inconstant form. On the contrary, I find its characters, as proposed by Mr. Ridgway, so well maintained that any one of my western birds can be separated at a glance when placed in a series of twenty-one specimens from the Atlantic States.

221, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 17. Length, 4.70; extent, 6.80; wing, 2.17; tail, 2.23; width of bill below nostrils, .12. “Iris brown; bill dark above, pale brown below. Common here in willows and underbrush along streams.”

257, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 21. Length, 4.90; extent, 7; wing 2.27; tail, 2.30; width of bill below nostrils, .12.

44. =Setophaga picta= _Swains._ PAINTED REDSTART.—During the past season this beautiful species was met with only among the Chiricahua and Santa Rita Mountains, but in 1876 Mr. Stephens found it in New Mexico, a Territory from which I believe it has not previously been reported. In the Chiricahua Mountains it was not uncommon after March 21, and many specimens were taken near Morse’s Mill, at an elevation of fully seven thousand feet. They occurred most numerously among pines, in a cañon where they had been previously observed in April, 1880. This experience, it will be observed, differs somewhat from that recorded by Mr. Henshaw, who says: “It appears not to inhabit the high mountains nor the extreme lowlands, but to occupy an intermediate position, and to find the rocky hills covered with a sparse growth of oak most congenial to its habits.”

In the Santa Rita Mountains, where it was rather common in May, Mr. Stephens had the good fortune to find its previously unknown nest and eggs. The nest, which is now before me, is large, flat and shallow. It is composed of bark, coarse fibres from weed-stalks, and fine, bleached grasses, the latter, with a few hairs, forming a simple lining. The cup measures 2.10 inches in width by 1 inch in depth; while the external diameter of the whole structure is rather more than 5 inches, and its depth about 1.50. The eggs, which were three in number, measure respectively .64×.51; .64×.50; and .66×.49. They are clear, dead white, delicately spotted with light reddish-brown, the markings being sparsely distributed over the general surface of the egg, and handsomely wreathed about its larger end. Neither nest nor egg resembles that of _S. ruticilla_. But a greater surprise is the character of the nesting-site, which was “under a projecting stone, in a bank near a small stream.” This position is so unexpected that, from an unproved collector, I should hesitate to accept the accompanying evidence of identification, which is a simple statement that the parent was sitting, and was distinctly seen. But knowing as well as I do Mr. Stephens’ unusual accuracy and conscientiousness in such matters I cannot doubt the correctness of his determination, especially as the Painted Redstart is a bird of such striking colors and markings that it could not possibly be mistaken by one who is so familiar with its appearance in life.[70] After all the case is not more peculiar than that presented among _Helminthophilæ_ by Lucy’s warbler which, as has just been shown, departs from the normal nesting habits of the genus and builds in holes, behind loose bark and in all sorts of unexpected places. The nest above described was taken May 18, when the eggs were sufficiently advanced in incubation to show that the clutch was complete.

Mr. Henshaw comparing the sexes, says: “The adult plumage of the sexes differs little, though the coloration in the female is quite perceptibly duller throughout. The black is less lustrous; the wings are blackish brown instead of pure black; the white on the wing confined to the coverts, and only just visible on the edges of the secondaries.” These differences, however, are not always maintained for one of the two adult females before me is quite as bright as the average male, while the black is not less lustrous, and the white edging on the secondaries is even broader. The other is more like those examined by Mr. Henshaw, but seems to be peculiar in having the sides, with a broad collar across the nape, fine stone-gray.

45. =Vireo gilvus= (_Vieill._) _Bonap._ WARBLING VIREO.—Found among all the well-timbered mountains visited, but nowhere as a common bird.

Of the several characters which are said to distinguish var. _swainsoni_ from _gilvus_ proper, I can appreciate only the slightly different shape of the bill. The relative length of the wing-quills is an absolutely inconstant characteristic with birds from any of the localities represented in my series, while I do not find that western specimens—at least California and Arizona ones—are either paler or grayer than many we get in the Atlantic States. Indeed, nearly the darkest one in my whole suite comes from Arizona. In view of these facts I cannot regard _swainsoni_ as worthy of varietal recognition.

46. =Vireo solitarius cassini= (_Xantus_) _Ridgw._ CASSIN’S VIREO.—Common among the foot-hills of the mountains.

Mr. Henshaw has so satisfactorily defined[71] the characters which respectively distinguish the Cassin’s and Plumbeous Vireos from _solitarius_ proper, as well as from each other, that there is no room for any further remarks on what, previous to his examination, was a very tangled problem. The specimens mentioned below are all unmistakably referable to cassini, although one or two of them present slight approaches to _plumbeus_. It is a singular fact that Mr. Stephens did not meet with any typical examples of the latter race.

209, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. Length, 5.40; extent, 8.70. “Iris brown; bill dark horn-color above, lighter below; legs dark bluish.”

214, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.60; extent, 9.10; wing, 3; tail, 2.44.

236, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.70; wing, 2.89; tail, 2.41.

316, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 2. Length, 5.30; extent, 8.50; wing. 2.71; tail, 2.26.

346, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 5.30; extent, 9; wing, 2.76; tail, 2.23. “Very fat. Would not have laid for a long time.”

354, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 11. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.80; wing, 2.82; tail, 2.27. “Iris brown; bill nearly black, bluish at base below; legs lead-color.”

47. =Vireo huttoni stephensi= _var. nov._ STEPHENS’ VIREO.

CH. SP.—♂ ♀ Similis _V. huttoni_ sed rostro robustiori, alis longioribus. Supra griseo-cinereus, infra fusco-albidus. Uropygio et marginibus caudæ sordide virenti-olivaceis. Alis albo bifasciatis; remigibus albo-marginatis. Loris et orbe circum-oculari (macula fusco-brunnea in palpebra superiori excepta), cinereo-albis.

Adult ♂ (No. 5,728, author’s collection—collector’s No. 41—Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona, March 14, 1881. F. Stephens). Bill stout; wings from .30 to .40 inches longer than tail. Above grayish-ash; the crown, vertex and sides of head and neck nearly pure; the back faintly tinged with olive; the rump and an edging on the tail feathers, dull olive-green. Wings with two nearly confluent bands on the coverts, and the outer edges of the inner secondaries, broadly white; outer quills edged more narrowly with the same color. Beneath brownish or smoky-white, with a mere wash of yellowish on the sides and crissum. Upper eyelid dusky brown; remainder of orbital region, with the lores, ashy-white in decided contrast with the nearly clear cinereous of the head generally. Lining of wings white.

_Dimensions._ Length, 5.20; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.25; culmen, .50.

_Habitat._ Arizona and New Mexico.

Four additional specimens offer no variations affecting any of the characters above detailed.

In its generally dull, grayish coloration, with little trace of olive or yellow shades, this Vireo is curiously like _V. pusillus_, but the under parts are obscured with brownish, while the differences in size and proportions are too evident to require detailed comparison. From the smaller, much brighter-colored _V. huttoni_, which is unmistakably its nearest United States relative, it may be distinguished by the following diagnoses.

_V. huttoni._—Wing, 2.28 to 2.37. Olive-green above and olivaceous-yellowish beneath. No clear white anywhere.

_V. huttoni stephensi._—Wing, 2.55 to 2.90. Grayish-ash above with no decided olive-green excepting on the rump and tail. Beneath brownish-white, untinged with yellowish excepting on the sides and crissum. Wing-bands pure white and nearly confluent.

It will be observed that the above differences are closely parallel to those which separate _Vireo belli_ and _V. pusillus_, while they are in no respect less important. Indeed were I disposed to emphasize certain peculiarities presented in the wing-formula of my type, it would not be difficult to make out an equally good case of specific distinctness, but unfortunately, the relative length of the wing-quills (including the spurious primaries) proves to be quite as variable in _V. huttoni_ and its Arizona race, _stephensi_, as I find it to be in _V. pusillus_ and _V. belli_, and, I might add, in all closely allied species which I have so far studied. In short, I am convinced that this feature, if ever of any diagnostic value, is so with only a small proportion of the birds to which it has been so freely and confidently applied.

In naming this Vireo after its discoverer, Mr. F. Stephens, I have paid but a deserved compliment to that gentleman’s zeal and energy as a field ornithologist. He notes the bird as “not uncommon in scrub oaks” among both the Chiricahua and Santa Rita Maintains. He also writes me that he has taken specimens in New Mexico, where, near Fort Bayard, a nest with four eggs was obtained in 1876. In both Territories it seems to be confined to the mountain ranges, where it undoubtedly breeds in all suitable localities.

41, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, Chiricahua Mountains, March 14. Length, 5.20; extent, 8.50; wing, 2.90; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .73; culmen, .50; depth of bill at nostrils, .15. “Iris brown.”

50, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 16. Length, 4.90; extent, 8; wing, 2.55; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .73; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.

118, ♂ ad., Morse’s Mill, March 28. Length, 5; extent, 7.90; wing, 2.68; tail, 2.30; tarsus, .70; culmen, .50; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.

140, ♂ ad., Chiricahua Mountains, March 31. Length, 5.10; extent, 8.40; wing, 2.65; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .73; culmen, .49; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.

353, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 11. Length, 5; extent, 8.10; wing, 2.74; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .70; culmen, .48; depth of bill at nostrils, .15.

Seven California specimens of _V. huttoni_ measure as follows:—

1443, ♂, Nicasio. Wing, 2.35; tail, 2.20; tarsus, .75; culmen, .50; depth of bill, .11.

1445, ♂, Nicasio. Wing, 2.31; tail, 2.15; tarsus, .76; culmen, .51; depth of bill, .11.

1444, ♀, Nicasio. Wing, 2.35; tail, 2.25; tarsus, .76: culmen, .49; depth of bill, .10.

1446, ♀, Nicasio. Wing, 2.32; tail, 2.28; tarsus, .74; culmen, .50; depth of bill, .14.

6800, ♂, Berkeley Co. Wing, 2.37; tail, 2.30; tarsus, .75; culmen, .46; depth of bill, .11.

6801, ♀, Berkeley Co. Wing, 2.28; tail, 2.15; tarsus, .75; culmen, .51; depth of bill, .11.

6339, ♀, Riverside. Wing, 2.34; tail, 2.14; tarsus, .75; culmen, .52; depth of bill, .14.

48. =Vireo pusillus= _Coues_. LEAST VIREO.—An abundant summer species frequenting willows along streams and, near Tucson, thickets of mesquites. “It is active, restless and very noisy.”

Numerous nests were taken. The only one sent me is a shallower, but nevertheless rather more elaborate structure, than that of _V. belli_ to which, however, it bears a strong resemblance. It is mainly composed of fibrous shreds, apparently obtained from the stalks of some herbaceous plant. The lining is of delicate, bleached grasses, which are very neatly arranged. The eggs are white with a cluster of small black spots about the larger ends. The clutch comprised three, a number which was not exceeded in any of the other nests. The notes relating to this set are as follows: “Tucson, June 11. Nest pensile between the forks of a small mesquite branch, about five feet from the ground, in a thicket of weeds and brush. Incubation commenced. Female shot. This species seems to abandon a nest if it is found before any eggs are laid.”

205, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. Length, 5; extent, 7.10; wing, 2.21; tail, 2.25. “Iris dark brown; bill dark above, light below; legs dark.”

235, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 5.10; extent, 7.30; wing, 2.23; tail, 2.25.

262, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 22. Length, 6; extent, 7.10; wing, 2.28; tail, 2.34.

275, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 25. Length, 5; extent, 7; wing, 2.21; tail, 2.25.

276, ♀ ad., same locality and date. Length, 4.90; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.18; tail, 2.25.

282, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5; extent. 7.10; wing, 2.30; tail, 2.30.

461, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, May 31. Length, 5; extent, 6.90; wing, 2.21; tail, 2.25. “Laying.”

499, ♀ ad., Tucson, June 7. Length, 5; extent, 6.90. Skin lost.

589, ♀ ad., Camp Lowell, June 24. Length, 4.80; extent, 6.80; wing, 2.21; tail, 2.25.

49. =Vireo vicinior= _Coues_. GRAY VIREO.—The only individuals met with were a male and female—apparently a mated pair—which were taken at Tucson, on April 26. “They were in low brush and were very shy.”

286, ♀ ad., Tucson, April 26. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.20; wing, 2.63; tail, 2.67; tarsus, .80.

287, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 5.60; extent, 8.30; wing, 2.58; tail, 2.70; tarsus, .80. “Iris dark brown; bill plumbeous, darkest above; legs light plumbeous.”

50. =Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides= (_Sw._) _Coues_. WHITE-RUMPED SHRIKE.—“Common and generally distributed.”

It is unfortunate that so much prominence has been given to the white rump of _excubitorides_ as a distinguishing character, for I have yet to see a good series of Shrikes from any Western locality, excepting, possibly, Arizona, which did not afford a considerable percentage of dark-rumped birds; and conversely, it is by no means difficult to find light-rumped specimens in the East. The same instability also affects most of the other characters which have been assigned to _excubitorides_, as is sufficiently shown by the various conflicting rulings of the authorities regarding the precise definition and limits of distribution of this troublesome race. The only differential points which seem to me to hold good with any number of specimens, are the lighter, purer ash of the upper parts as compared with those of _ludovicianus_, and the smaller and very much weaker bill. But if these alone are to be depended upon, it becomes necessary to limit the distribution of _ludovicianus_ proper to the Gulf States, Georgia and the Carolinas, if not strictly to Florida, and to refer all representatives from the United States at large, east of California, to _excubitorides_: and this course, I believe, will ultimately have to be adopted. The proper position of the dark California form which is so curiously like _ludovicianus_ remains to be satisfactorily determined.

51. =Ampelis cedrorum= (_Vieill._) _Baird_. CEDAR WAXWING.—Met with but once, at Galeyville, where on January 12, 1881, several were shot from a small flock. Mr. Henshaw took a single specimen near Camp Apache, in September, 1873.

52. =Progne subis= (_Linn._) _Baird_. PURPLE MARTIN.—“Common.”

438, ♂ ad., Tucson, May 26. Length, 7.6; extent, 15.7; wing, 5.45. “Iris dark brown; bill black; legs blackish.”

53. =Petrochelidon lunifrons= (_Say_) _Lawr._ CLIFF SWALLOW.—At Yuma. “They were breeding abundantly along a bluff above the town.”

54. =Tachycineta bicolor= (_Vieill._) _Caban._ WHITE-BELLIED SWALLOW.—“Common in the migrations.”

195, ♂ ad., Cienega Station, April 15. “Iris dark brown; bill black; legs brown.”

55. =Tachycineta thalassina= (_Swains._) _Caban._ VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW. “Common.”

212, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. “Iris dark brown; bill and legs black.”

56. =Stelgidopteryx serripennis= (_Aud._) _Baird_. ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW.—Common. Breeds.

211, ♀ ad., Cienega Station, April 16. “Iris and legs dark brown.”

57. =Pyranga ludoviciana= (_Wils._) _Bp._ LOUISIANA TANAGER.—Santa Rita Mountains. “They frequent oaks, and are not very common.”

408, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 18. Length, 7.30; extent, 7.60; wing, 3.80; tail, 3.17. “Iris dark brown; bill blackish horn-color above, greenish-yellow below.”

58. =Pyranga hepatica= _Swains._ LIVER-COLORED TANAGER.—This Tanager was not uncommon in the Santa Rita Mountains, where the first specimen was taken on May 12. “They range from the foot-hills, through the oaks to the lower pines on the mountains.”

359, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 12. Length, 7.80; extent, 12.10; wing, 3.75. “Bill black above, bluish horn-color below; legs lead-color; iris brown.”

377, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 14. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.70; wing, 4.20.

380, ♀ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 14. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.40; wing, 4.07. “This bird would have laid in about ten days.”

386, ♂ ad., Santa Rita Mountains, May 15. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.80; wing, 4.10.

59. =Pyranga æstiva cooperi= _Ridgw._ COOPER’S TANAGER.—Mr. Stephens found this bird rather common at a point about five miles south of Tucson, where it frequented the cottonwoods along a small river. He also informs me that in May, 1875, he took several specimens on the Rio Grande River, between Albuquerque and Mesilla, and some others on the Gila, in New Mexico, during May and June.

227, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 19. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.40; wing, 3.83; tail, 3.50. “Iris brown; bill pale horn-color; legs pale brown. Skin very tender. The first seen this season.”

268, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 23. Length, 8.20; extent, 12.40.

297, ♂ ad., Tucson, April 27. Length, 7.90; extent, 12.20; wing, 4; tail, 3.60.

515, ♂ ad., Tucson, June 10. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.85; tail, 3.60.

522, ♂ im. Tucson, June 11. Length, 8; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.78; tail, 3.46. In mixed yellow and red plumage.

526, ♂ ad., same locality and date. Length, 8.10; extent, 12.50; wing, 3.89; tail, 3.45.

579, ♂ ad., Camp Lowell, June 23. Length, 8; extent, 11.60; wing, 3.99; tail, 3.58.

339, ♀ ad., Tucson, May 7. Length, 7.90; extent, 12.20; wing, 3.75; tail, 3.39.

NOTES ON THE SUMMER BIRDS OF THE UPPER ST. JOHN.

BY CHARLES F. BATCHELDER.

(_Concluded from page 111._)

41. =Carpodacus purpureus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ PURPLE FINCH.—Common.

42. =Astraga1inus tristis= (_Linn._) _Cab._ GOLDFINCH.—Common. Though somewhat beyond the limits of my subject, I quote the following from Mr. McLeod’s notes: “This winter [1876–77] they have been abundant, although the season is very severe. I have seen them at this time of year but once before.” The Goldfinch has been supposed not to winter north of Massachusetts.

43. =Chrysomitris pinus= (_Wils._) _Bp._ PINE FINCH.—Seen in May at Grand Falls. Mr. H. A. Purdie tells me that he observed it at Houlton in June, 1878.

44. =Passerculus sandwichensis savanna= (_Wils._) _Ridgw._ SAVANNA SPARROW.—Common in the pastures at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was common. It was found in grassy fields, especially along the roadsides.

45. =Poœcetes gramineus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ GRASS FINCH.—Common at Fort Fairfield. Some seen in the open fields at Grand Falls.

46. =Melospiza fasciata= (_Gm._) _Scott._ SONG SPARROW.—Abundant at Grand Falls. It was common at Fort Fairfield.

47. =Melospiza palustris= (_Wils._) _Bd._ SWAMP SPARROW.—“Not common” at Houlton. Not found at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.

48. =Junco hyemalis= (_Linn._) _Scl._ BLACK SNOWBIRD; “BLUEBIRD.”—Very common at Fort Fairfield. At Grand Falls it was very abundant everywhere.

49. =Spizella socialis= (_Wils._) _Bp._ CHIPPING SPARROW.—This bird was quite abundant at Grand Falls. The nests found were not the loose structures they are in Massachusetts, but were well lined with hair. It was rather common at Fort Fairfield.

50. =Zonotrichia albicollis= (_Gm._) _Bp._ WHITE-THROATED SPARROW.—Very abundant at Grand Falls wherever there was dead wood on the ground. At Fort Fairfield also it was very abundant; this bird and _Junco hyemalis_ were the commonest species. The nests were apt to be in a clearing near the edge of woods, and frequently were in damp places. They were often under a fallen branch, or at the foot of a sapling, and were but slightly concealed.

The White-crowned Sparrow is probably only a migrant through this section. With regard to its abundance, however, I quote the following from Mr. McLeod’s notes: “These Sparrows make their first appearance from May 10th to 18th. Some seasons they are very abundant, scores of them at a time feeding in my garden. By June 1 they have disappeared. In the autumn I have seen but one flock of them.”

51. =Zamelodia ludoviciana= (_Linn._) _Coues_. ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAK.—Common in low hard woods at Grand Falls. Rather common at Fort Fairfield, apparently more so than in eastern Massachusetts. Rather common at Houlton.

52. =Dolichonyx oryzivorus= (_Linn._) _Swains._ BOBOLINK.—Apparently not rare at Fort Fairfield. Found in grassy fields and meadows near the river. Not observed at Grand Falls. At Houlton “arrives by the 25th of May, common by June 15.” July 2, on our return from Fort Fairfield, Mr. Dwight and I saw them at several places along the St. John River above Fredericton.

53. =Agelæus phœniceus= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD.—“Quite common at Eel River, ten miles from Houlton” (R. R. McL.). It does not occur at Fort Fairfield or Grand Falls.

54. =Quiscalus purpureus æneus= _Ridgw._ CROW BLACKBIRD.—Common at Fort Fairfield, in the town, along the river, and about a small pond back in the woods. At Grand Falls it was not uncommon about the town. “Very common” at Houlton.

55. =Corvus corax= _Linn._ RAVEN.—Rare at Grand Falls. Not met with at Fort Fairfield. “Very rare” at Houlton.

56. =Corvus americanus= _Aud._ CROW.—Common.

57. =Cyanocitta cristata= (_Linn._) _Strickl._ BLUE JAY.—Common at Grand Falls. At Fort Fairfield it was rather common, but shy and seldom seen.