Part 27

In the body of the Check List the names are printed in bold type, both English and Latin, and are numbered 1 to 888. Sub-generic names are entirely discarded, as is the sign of “var.” between specific and subspecific terms. The nomenclature of sub-species is therefore trinomial, without the slightest disguise. The technical name is followed by the name of the original describer of the bird, and by that of the authority for the particular combination adopted. The “concordance of previous lists,” mentioned in the title, is effected by referring by number to Baird’s List of 1858, Coues’s Check List of 1874, and Ridgway’s Catalogue of 1880, in the case of every species.

On each page the names are duplicated in smaller type, divided into syllables marked for quantity and accent, and their pronunciation therefore shown, according to the system of orthoepy advocated. The most important point secured, however, is the etymology or derivation of the scientific words. “On the whole,” say the authors of this part of the work, “it has not been our intention to go beyond a good fair definition of these Greek and Latin words, considering that all practical purposes are thus subserved.” The etymologies are really, however, traced far back in many cases. “Nothing of the sort has been done before, to the same extent at any rate, and it is confidently expected that the information here given will prove useful to many who, however familiar they may be with the appearance of the names on paper, have comparatively little notion of the derivation, signification, and application of the words, and who unwittingly speak them as they usually hear them pronounced, that is to say, with glaring impropriety. No one who adds a degree of classical proficiency to his scientific acquirements, be the latter never so extensive, can fail to handle the tools of thought with an ease and precision so greatly enhanced, that the merit of ornithological exactitude may be adorned with the charm of scholarly elegance” (p. 4).

The Check List proper is concluded with “a list of words defined,” alphabetically arranged, and therefore serving as an index to the work.

The volume finishes with a chronological list of Dr. Coues’s writings on ornithology.

Aside from modifications which affect the ornithological or scientific _status_ of the “Check List,” the changes in nomenclature are numerous and radical. Under our accepted, but in certain ways pernicious, system of ornithological nomenclature most of these were probably necessary; but we have little sympathy with the recent upheaval in this respect, nor do we believe that the names at present advocated will prove more stable than those which have preceded them. Stejneger has lately shown[119] that neither Coues nor Ridgway reached the foundations; and doubtless some one of an equally enquiring mind and with an imagination still better adapted to interpreting ancient descriptions of uncertain application, will yet come forward and work fresh havoc. The trouble with this kind of investigation is that sufficient regard is rarely paid to the rule that a description must be clearly defined, and that “definition properly implies a distinct exposition of essential characters.” We have not forgotten Mr. Allen’s eloquent protest against the adoption of certain Bartramian names, and there can be no doubt that his objections will apply equally well to the descriptions of many other early authors. Moreover, while we distinctly disclaim any personal application of such a thought, we cannot help believing that if _the practice of giving the authority for the arrangement of names_ were discontinued, there would be less of this meddling with nomenclature. At all events the evil is a terrible one, and it must be stopped, even if the whole code has to be thrown overboard and a new one instituted. So extreme a course, however, is probably unnecessary, for some simple statute of limitation can doubtless be devised which will answer all the required ends. Dr. Coues’s recent suggestion,[120] that fifty years of unchallenged usage shall fix a name forever, is an excellent one, but the time of probation might, with advantage, be reduced to twenty-five years. Such a provision, with one requiring all proposed changes to be referred to a tribunal composed of not less than three prominent ornithologists, who might meet for the purpose at intervals of say once in four years, would effectually prevent any further tampering with a system which should be sacred, but which has become a mere football.

With respect to genera we are sorry to notice that Dr. Coues has abandoned certain old-time principles and adopted many of the sub-divisions which he rejected in the edition of 1873. Chief among these are _Actodromas_, _Arquatella_, _Pelidna_, and _Ancylochilus_, in _Tringa_; _Symphemia_ and _Rhyacophilus_ in _Totanus_; _Herodias_, _Garzetta_, _Hydranassa_, _Dichromanassa_, _Florida_, and _Butorides_ in _Ardea_, and _Chroïcocephalus_ in _Larus_. _Turdus_, however, is retained for all the Thrushes of the sub-family _Turdinæ_, and _Vireo_, in its euphonious simplicity, stands for all the Vireos. While we would not be understood as condemning all the above changes, we consider the majority of them arbitrary, and hence uncalled for. The ever increasing tendency to institute new genera on differences of structure which in other classes of Vertebrates would be considered no more than well-marked specific characters, is one of the banes of modern ornithology. Our systematists seem to have lost sight of the uses for which genera were primarily intended. Of this school, however, Dr. Coues is perhaps among the more conservative members.

Having fulfilled our duty of critic by finding all possible fault with the “Coues Check List” we turn to the much pleasanter task of mentioning some of its many good qualities. Of its several departments the introductory chapters may be characterised as terse, practical, and to the point; the Check List proper as carefully and in the main wisely framed; the “dictionary” as an exhaustive treatise of high scholarly excellence and of unquestionable utility. Concerning the whole work we can say nothing stronger than that it is in every way worthy of its brilliant and distinguished author, who has evidently made it one of his most mature and carefully studied efforts. Its favorable reception can be a matter of no uncertainty, for it fills a field of usefulness peculiarly its own, and one which need in no way conflict with that so ably covered by Mr. Ridgway’s recent “Nomenclature.”[121]—W. B.

GENTRY’S NESTS AND EGGS OF BIRDS OF THE UNITED STATES.[122]—It is now several months since the appearance of the twenty-fifth part, the final number of this work, which was published by subscription. The text is written by Mr. Gentry himself, while the plates were executed by Mr. Edwin Sheppard, “subject to the suggestions and dictations of the author.” The title is misleading, for instead of treating of all the species found in the United States, it deals with but fifty—less than one-fifth the number known to occur within this area.

The typography and press work are good, but the plates fall far short of deserving the same praise. In the early numbers the nests and eggs were generally figured alone, but the author soon acceded to the popular demand and furnished colored representations of the birds on all plates commencing with the seventh part; with the final number appeared four extra plates, on which were shown the birds that were omitted in the first six parts.

In a general way it may be said of most of the plates that the perspective is very bad—if not absent altogether; that a large number of the nests look as if temporarily balanced, like so many saucers, upon the branches on which they rest, and from which they seem ready to tumble on the slightest jar; and that nearly all have the appearance of cheap chromo-lithographs, while none attain to the degree of excellence essential to first-class workmanship. In order to give the subscribers as much paint as possible for the money, the artist has endeavored to supply backgrounds to many of the plates. Some of these seem intended to represent distant mountains, but the greater number consist of dense, and sometimes shapeless masses of solid green. At other times we are treated to glimpses of the sky and ocean that rival, in depth and intensity of color, the rich ultramarine-blue of the head of the Nonpareil.

Turning now to the letter-press let us examine its claim to rank among the contributions to ornithological literature. A few brief quotations will suffice to show both the scope of the work and the author’s estimate of its value. In the preface he says: “Especial pains have been taken with the text. The aim of the author has been to present a short, plain, and detailed account of the habits of each species described....

“Throughout the work, considerable prominence has been given to those interesting and curious phases of bird life which are present during the breeding period, and which have been the principal study of the author for many years. Extraneous matter has been sedulously omitted, and nothing permitted to appear about which there could be serious doubts of accuracy.

“With these few preliminary remarks, we send this beautiful book out into the world, trusting that it may meet with a cordial reception everywhere.”

That the work does not contain anything approaching a complete “detailed account of the habits” of a single species is evident from the most cursory examination of the biographies. On the other hand, we are given an amount of detail and exact data, concerning some of the most inaccessible points connected with the breeding habits of birds, that excite, first, admiration (for the author’s extraordinary acuteness of observation); next, astonishment (at the possibility of attaining a knowledge of certain peculiarities mentioned); and finally, incredulity (regarding the reliability of the author’s statements).

To be more explicit: Not only does Mr. Gentry tell us the exact number of days consumed in building the nest, in depositing the eggs, in incubation, the period the young remain in the nest, and the length of time they are afterwards fed by the parents; but he goes further and states how much time is devoted to courting, gives the period of mating and the duration of the honeymoon, and tells us how many days are spent in the selection of a suitable and satisfactory site for the nest, not omitting, in some cases, to mention which sex governs in making the choice. A few citations, in the author’s own words, will suffice, to demonstrate his unparalleled perspicacity in these matters.

Speaking of the Wood Pewee he says: “The assumption of matrimonial relations, however, is not a matter that is entered into without more or less consideration.... The ceremony of mating being over—which business is ordinarily of short continuance, seldom lasting for a greater period than two days—the newly-wedded pair now set out to discover a suitable place for the building of a home. This is a matter of considerable moment, often requiring the performance of long and extended tours of observation and exploration. These reconnoissances generally last for a week,.... The site being mutually agreed upon, the happy pair proceed with all possible dispatch and diligence to construct a domicile: the male to collect and bring in the necessary materials; the female to fix them in their proper places.... Having finished their home, only a day or so intervenes when oviposition becomes the controlling instinct. The female now proceeds to deposit her complement of four eggs, which she does on consecutive days, at the rate of a single egg daily. This is followed, on the day succeeding the last deposit, by the trying duty of incubation. Upon the female devolves this arduous and irksome labor.”

Of the nesting of the Catbird he tells us that “ordinarily a week or ten days are spent in making a choice of locality.”

With the Orchard Oriole “Mating does not occur,” he says, till “more than two weeks after the advent of the sexes.... The sexes having come together in a wise and business-like way, with little or none of the bluster that is customary on such occasions, a conference ensues, which results in a temporary separation for mutual good; one bird going in one direction and the other in an entirely opposite course. The selection of a suitable spot for a home is the _vera causa_ of this divergence.... In five or six days from the time of the assumption of matrimonial relations the nest is started, and through the united efforts of both birds for the period of a week is brought to completion.”

Of the Hummingbird he writes, “The sexes, tired as it were, of the riotous and luxurious lives they have been leading, come together by mutual agreement, and enter into matrimonial relations. This being accomplished, they separate for a brief period, and each proceeds to scour the country for miles around in quest of a suitable tree in which to locate. When one is selected by either bird the other is summoned to the spot to talk over, in true bird language, the merits thereof. Should the parties differ as to the advantageousness of the site, no quarrelling or bickering is indulged in, but, in the most friendly manner, they separate and renew the search until one is found which gives satisfaction.”

In his biography of the Chewink occurs the following: “The females wholly entranced, yield to the persuasions of their would-be lords, and conjugal relations are entered into.... But the happy couple are not yet ready to begin nest-building. They must needs celebrate the occasion of their marriage. Accordingly they set out on a wedding trip, so to speak, visiting adjoining lots and thickets, and enjoying the delights and scenes around them. This continues for four or five days, when the lovers, thoroughly surfeited, return and quietly settle down to prosy life.”

Such statements as the foregoing cast a shadow of suspicion upon remarks that otherwise might be regarded as authentic, and attach to the work the stigma of untrustworthiness.

The account of the nocturnal habits of the Virginia Rail, although the wording is changed, savors strongly of the latter part of the 537th page of Coues’s “Birds of the Northwest.”

Enough has been said to show that instead of becoming an authority, worthy of place amongst the standard works on North American ornithology, Mr. Gentry’s book on nests and eggs must inevitably find its level alongside such unreliable and worthless productions as Jasper’s “Birds of North America” and similar trash. In other words, instead of a work of scientific value, we have a popular picture-book, well-adapted for the amusement of children.—C. H. M.

=General Notes.=

DENDRŒCA PALMARUM AT SING SING, NEW YORK.—On April 29, 1882, while collecting at this place, I killed a specimen of the true _D. palmarum_. The bird is unusually yellow beneath, but Mr. Robert Ridgway, who kindly compared it, says: “We have several specimens from Wisconsin and Illinois which will match it.” It was busily engaged, when captured, in catching winged insects in a low swampy thicket.—A. K. FISHER, M. D., _Sing Sing, N. Y._

NEST AND EGGS OF SETOPHAGA PICTA—A CORRECTION.—Mr. W. E. Bryant has kindly called my attention to the fact that he described two nests and sets of eggs of the Painted Redstart in Vol. VI of this Bulletin (pp. 176, 177). The clutch found by Mr. Stephens and mentioned by me in the last number of the Bulletin (Vol. VII, July 1882, pp. 140, 141) is, therefore, the third, instead of the first authentic one known. I take this opportunity for correcting the mistake, and at the same time tender my apology to Mr. Bryant for the inadvertent oversight of his note.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._

THE SUMMER TANAGER (_Pyranga æstiva_) IN NEW BRUNSWICK.—While staying at Grand Manan, N. B., in June, last year, I saw in the possession of Mr. J. F. C. Moses a Summer Tanager which had been taken there a few weeks before. It was shot at North Head, Grand Manan, about the 12th on 14th of May, 1881, by a boy who brought it in the flesh to Mr. Moses, by whom it was mounted. The bird—which was undoubtedly a male, though dissection had been neglected—was in full plumage, and showed no signs of previous captivity. Indeed in that thinly settled region the capture of an escaped cage bird would be an unlikely event. The specimen is now in the collection of Mr. George A. Boardman.

This adds another case to the list of southern birds that have occasionally found their way to the neighborhood of the Bay of Fundy. The causes of their coming still remain hidden, and more light is needed before the facts can be satisfactorily explained.—CHARLES F. BATCHELDER, _Cambridge, Mass._

THE EVENING GROSBEAK IN NEW YORK.—Mr. Charles F. Earle writes me from Syracuse, N. Y., July 11th, as follows: “On the 8th of the present month I saw a male Evening Grosbeak (_Hesperophona vespertina_) near Marcellus Station, Onondaga County, N. Y. Being engaged in fly-fishing at the time, I was unable to secure the bird; but there is no question of the identification, as I had a good view of it at reasonably close quarters.”—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D.C._

THE BLACK-THROATED BUNTING IN FLORIDA.—Neither Professor Allen in his “Winter Birds of East Florida,” nor Mr. Maynard in his work on the birds of Eastern North America, includes the Black-throated Bunting (_Spiza americana_) as an inhabitant of Florida; hence the following note of its capture there may be worth recording. While walking along the fence row of an old field near Fernandina on April 22d, 1881, looking for Shrikes and Ground Doves, I heard the familiar note of this well-dressed Bunting in a small tree near the fence. He was immediately secured, but although I afterwards searched diligently for others, none were found.—C. W. BECKHAM, _Bardstown, Ky._

DISTRIBUTION OF THE FISH CROW (_Corvus ossifragus_.)—During a recent trip to Charlottesville, Albemarle Co., Virginia, I was much surprised to find the Fish Crow exceedingly common—quite as numerous, in fact, as the Common Crow (_C. frugivorus_). The locality in question is entirely surrounded by mountains—Monticello and Ragged Mountains to the east and south, the Blue Ridge only about twelve miles to the westward—and is distant at least sixty miles from the nearest tide water.—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._

THE SWALLOW-TAILED KITE (_Elanoïdes forficatus_) TAKEN IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN.—Two fine specimens, male and female, of the Swallow-tailed Kite, were taken near this place, June 19, 1882, by Mr. Charles Chittenden. When first discovered by him they were foraging about his dove house, and causing a great commotion among the inmates.

The female was shot and instantly killed, while her mate, who was only slightly wounded, was secured alive. The latter is now in the possession of Dr. N. Paquette of Petersburg. They were properly identified by comparison with a nicely mounted specimen in my collection, which came from Georgia. As far as I am aware this is the first recorded capture of this species within the State. Dr. Morris Gibbs in his List of the Birds of Michigan, 1879, admits it on the authority of Hon. D. D. Hughes of Grand Rapids, but cites no recorded example having been taken.—JEROME TROMBLEY, _Petersburg, Munroe County, Michigan_.

GARZETTA CANDIDISSIMA AT NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS.—Visiting the above-named island, Aug. 12, 1882, I saw in the shop of Mr. H. S. Sweet, a mounted specimen of the Little White or Snowy Egret, which he said was shot near the southwest shore, at Hummock pond, last March, by one of the men of the Life-saving Station. A straggler to New England, the species has occurred far less frequently than its larger relative the White Heron (_Herodias egretta_), and this capture in early spring is remarkable.—H. A. PURDIE, _Newton, Mass._

THE SNOW GOOSE (_Chen Hyperboreus_) AT SING SING, NEW YORK.—On the morning of April 9th, 1882, a large flock of two or three hundred Snow Geese visited this place. They alighted several times at the mouth of the Croton, where it empties into the Hudson, but being disturbed by the gunners, who were anxious for a shot at them, they at last flew farther up the river. I examined them by the aid of a powerful field-glass, at a distance of a few hundred yards, and being on elevated ground I could look down upon the flock and easily distinguish the black wing-tips of the adults as they flew. A few days previous I saw a single individual flying, who seemed to be taking the lay of the country. I was informed that the flock again passed down the river on the night of the 10th.—A. K. FISHER, M. D., _Sing Sing, N. Y._

NOTE ON THE LONG-TAILED DUCK.—On February 5, 1881, one of my friends procured a male specimen of the Long-tailed Duck (_Harelda glacialis_), at Latrobe, Westmoreland Co., Pennsylvania. The bird was shot on the only unfrozen spot noticed on the creek at the time—it was during the coldest “snap” of the season—and was in a very emaciated condition. The occurrence of this species so far inland (west of and near the mountains) is noteworthy. It was altogether unknown to the gunners thereabouts, and was brought to me for identification.—CHAS. H. TOWNSEND, _Acad. Nat. Sciences, Philadelphia_.

LOMVIA ARRA BRÜNNICHI AND L. TROILE IN NEW ENGLAND.—Mr. Merrill’s note on these birds in the July number of this Bulletin (p. 191) was a timely correction of a long established error, for the common Murre found in winter off the New England coast is, as he has stated, _Lomvia arra brünnichi_, and not _L. troile_. At different times during the past ten years I have examined specimens from various points along the shores of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, and all of the numerous birds that have come under my notice have proved to be Brünnich’s Guillemots. Indeed the example of _L. troile_ mentioned by Mr. Merrill is the only New England one of which I have any knowledge. Dr. Coues says that the young of _L. troile_ in their first winter plumage “are colored precisely like the adults, but may be always distinguished by their much shorter and slenderer bills which are in great part light colored (yellowish).”[123] If the latter peculiarity be constant it will afford a ready mark of distinction between young of the two species, for the bill in young _brünnichi_, so far as I have seen, is invariably black.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._

RARE WARBLERS IN MASSACHUSETTS.—In the wonderful flight or bird wave, especially of the _Mniotiltidae_, that took place with us May 21 and 22 last, and for some species continued during a few succeeding days, three Mourning Warblers, all males, were shot near Fresh pond, Cambridge. These, in the flesh, were kindly shown me by Mr. C. J. Maynard.

At Framingham,[124] on the above-named dates, Mr. Browne and myself identified twenty species of Warblers—among them specimens of the Cape May, Tennessee, and Bay-breasted; of the last two several were obtained in Eastern Massachusetts. Among New England Warblers, collectors here consider _Geothlypis philadelphia_ to be the rarest, and _Dendrœca tigrina_ next in scarcity. _Helminthophila peregrina_ and _Dendrœca castanea_ follow, though in the fall migrations this latter species occurs in moderate numbers with more or less regularity.—H. A. PURDIE, _Newton, Mass._

THE UNUSUAL “WAVE” OF BIRDS DURING THE SPRING MIGRATION OF 1882.—A note by Dr. Coues in the July Bulletin[125] describes the remarkable “tidal wave” of our smaller birds that occurred at Washington, D.C., during the spring migration this year, and it may be worth while to throw a little light upon its further course.