Part 20

“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._

BUTEO BRACHYURUS—A CORRECTION.—An inaccuracy, comparatively so unimportant that I have hitherto neglected to call attention to it, will be found in the paper “On a Tropical American Hawk to be added to the North American Fauna” (this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 207). The Hawk in question was shot Feb. 22., 1881—not Feb. 1, as stated in the article referred to. I was at Palatka at the time, and saw the bird in the flesh the day it was shot. It was secured on the outskirts of the town, early in the morning, by a young taxidermist, Mr. Wm. Dickinson, since deceased. We could not determine the species, and he would not part with the specimen, a very fine one, but “set it up” for himself. A short time afterwards he presented it to Mr. G. A. Boardman.—J. DWIGHT, JR., _New York City_.

THE TURKEY BUZZARD IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.—A specimen of _Cathartes aura_ was shot this spring near Hampton Falls, N. H., by Mr. Frank Percell. The bird was killed April 6th or 7th. and received by Mr. C. I. Goodale on the 8th. When I examined it on the 10th it was still quite fresh.—CHARLES B. CORY, _Boston. Mass._

RAPACIOUS BIRDS IN CONFINEMENT.—In the winter of 1874 I spent several months with a friend who had a number of rapacious birds in confinement. There were a couple of Barred Owls, a Great Horned Owl, and a Rough-legged Hawk, living together upon excellent terms in one apartment; in another, half a dozen Mottled Owls; and in another a superb Bald Eagle. Most of these birds became quite tame after a short period of captivity, tolerating our presence in their quarters, taking food from our hands, and even submitting to caresses. One little _Scops_ developed especial docility. My friend, who was a taxidermist, used to place it upon a perch at his side and copy strigine attitudes from nature. The accommodating bird would sit content for half an hour at a time, and never objected to any sort of gentle handling. One of its brethren. however, was vicious and untameable. He nipped our fingers whenever occasion offered, snapped and spat if even approached, and finally sealed his own doom by decapitating his gentle associate.