Part 31
A letter just received from Mr. Stephens contains the following very satisfactory confirmation of the above evidence. “The identification of your nest of _S. picta_ is _positive_. I saw the parent plainly, and could easily have shot her. Indeed I should never have found the nest had not my attention been called to it by the birds flying from it as I brushed past almost within touching distance. When first found, the nest contained three eggs. I thought it best to leave them until next day to see if more might not be laid. * * * When I returned, however, the bird was not at home and as it was a long, rough walk to camp, I took the nest, their being no occasion to visit the spot again. * * * The locality was a wide part of a cañon between the two Santa Rita peaks, perhaps two miles from the top of the high ridge connecting them. Up this cañon passed an old Mexican road to the pine timber above. It had not been used for many years. In its course it cut through an occasional projecting bank, and in one of these places was the nest. It was under a small boulder in the side of a nearly perpendicular bank, which was but two or three feet high. The vicinity was heavily timbered with oak and sycamore. I regard the position as exceptional: still, it may be the rule.”
Footnote 71:
U. S. Geol. Surveys W. 100 Merid., 1879, pp. 291–293.
Footnote 72:
For an account of the nesting of this species at Grand Falls, see this Bulletin, Vol. VII, p. —.
Footnote 73:
For descriptions of the nesting of this species at Houlton and Fort Fairfield see this Bulletin, Vol. III, pp. 166–168, and Vol. IV, pp. 241, 242.
Footnote 74:
“Descriptions of two new Thrushes from the United States.” Proceedings U. S. National Museum, Vol. 374, pp. 374–9.
Footnote 75:
The highest peak of the Catskills,—4,205 feet altitude.
Footnote 76:
Both birds were carefully examined and the evidence on this point was positive and unequivocal. A Thrush’s nest containing spotted eggs discovered near the top of Slide Mountain may have been either that of this form or of _swainsoni_, but as positive identification was prevented, further allusion to it is, for the present, withheld.
Footnote 77:
Though averaging of greater length, in proportions this bird averages smaller than _swainsoni_, and some specimens are much smaller than any I have seen of the latter species. The wide difference from true _aliciæ_ here implied may be illustrated by the following extreme measurements given by the birds of my series:—
_aliciæ_, length, 8.00; extent, 13.12; wing, 4.35; tail, 3.40. _bicknelli_, „ 6.55; „ 10.56; „ 3.40; „ 2.60.
Footnote 78:
See “The Coues Check List of North American Birds,” p. 24.
Footnote 79:
Birds of North America, p. 12.
Footnote 80:
Field Notes on Louisiana Birds. By Dr. F. W. Langdon. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, July, 1881, pp. 145–155. A List of Birds from the Lower Mississippi Valley, Observed During the Summer of 1881, with Brief Notes. By O. P. Hay. Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club, Vol. VII, pp. 89–94.
Footnote 81:
“Forest and Stream” Bird Notes. An index and summary of all the ornithological matter contained in “Forest and Stream,” Vols. I-XII. Compiled by H. B. Bailey. New York: F. & S. Pub. Co., 39 Park Row. 1881. 8vo., paper, pp. iv, 195.
Footnote 82:
A Catalogue of the Birds of New Brunswick, with brief notes relating to their migrations, breeding, relative abundance, etc. By Montague Chamberlain. Bulletin of the Natural History Society of New Brunswick. No. 1, pp. 23–68. Published by the Society. Saint John, N. B., 1882.
Footnote 83:
Dr. C. Fr. Krukenberg. Die Farbstoffe der Federn. 2 Mittheilung, in Dessen Verg.—phys. Stud., 2 R., I. Abth., 1882, SS 151–171.
Footnote 84:
On some generic and specific appellations of North American Birds. By Leonhard Stejneger. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., June, 1882, pp. 28–43.
Footnote 85:
Ingersoll, Ernest. Birds’-Nesting: A Handbook of Instruction in Gathering and Preserving the Nests and Eggs of Birds for the Purposes of Study. Salem, 1882.
Footnote 86:
Vol. VII, pp. 23–25.
Footnote 87:
N. E. Bird Life, p. 104, foot note.
Footnote 88:
See Herrick, Birds of Grand Manan, p. 6.
Footnote 89:
See Rod and Gun, Vol. VI, p. 65.
Footnote 90:
See especially this Bulletin, Vol. VI, pp. 124–25.
Footnote 91:
See this Bulletin, Vol. IV, p. 108, and Vol. V, p. 63.
Footnote 92:
In citing this and the next form as races of _cinereus_, I follow Mr. Henshaw, with whose views respecting the affinity of the three birds I fully agree.
Footnote 93:
This Bulletin, Vol. VII, p. 26.
Footnote 94:
The question of the relationship which _M. cooperi_, _M. erythrocercus_, _M. mexicanus_ and _M. crinitus_ bear to one another, and that of the respective names which should be used for each, has been recently discussed at some length. (See Bull. U. S. Geolog. Surv., Vol. IV, pp. 32–33; _ibid._, Vol. V, No. 3, pp. 402–404; Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 1, p. 139; and _ibid._, Vol. 3, pp. 13–15.) While I cannot claim to have personally investigated the points at issue, I am at present inclined to follow Mr. Ridgway’s ruling, at least so far as _M. cooperi_ is concerned.
Footnote 95:
This Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 252.
Footnote 96:
This Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 252.
Footnote 97:
See this Bulletin, Vol. I. pp. 14–17 and 75–76, and Vol. V, pp. 20–25.
Footnote 98:
Proceedings U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. I, p. 142.
Footnote 99:
This Bulletin, Vol. VI, pp. 69–72.
Footnote 100:
See Bull. U. S. Geol. Surv., Vol. V, Art. 5.
Footnote 101:
Of _Grallatores_, _Lamellirostres_, etc., I can give only a very incomplete list, as I have never had favorable opportunity to observe these birds.
Footnote 102:
Typical; the occurrence of both forms seems at first thought anomalous, but _migratorius_ may be a migrant from Alaska, where it is the representative bird.
Footnote 103:
_Var. nov._ See page 228 of this number.
Footnote 104:
Nearly typical, but showing slight approaches to var. _oregonus_.
Footnote 105:
Typical, and not approaching var. _caurinus_ of the coast region.
Footnote 106:
Typical.
Footnote 107:
One specimen, with a complete red nuchal band.
Footnote 108:
See my late paper on this Owl (this Bulletin, Vol. VII, pp. 27–33). Six examples in the present collection offer no new points affecting the position there taken.
Footnote 109:
Slightly aberrant; see remarks under _B. saturatus_ (p. 230).
Footnote 110:
See remarks under _A. atricapillus_ (pp. 231, 232).
Footnote 111:
As Mr. Ridgway has lately pointed out, Cassin’s _pacificus_ was clearly based on specimens of _subarcticus_, a very distinct race first recognized by Hoy in 1852. Hence the name _pacificus_ must give place to _saturatus_, proposed by Mr. Ridgway for “a northern littoral form, of very dark colors.”
Footnote 112:
The supposed adult, described by Mr. Ridgway in the “History of North American Birds” (Vol. III, p. 148), proves to be an immature bird in its second year. The real adult, however, was figured in the second edition of this work.
Footnote 113:
“Darker (brownish-black) markings prevailing in extent over the lighter (nearly clear white) ones. Stripes beneath broad, brownish-black; those on the flanks cordate and transverse.”
Footnote 114:
The type of the adult _striatulus_ has turned out to be merely a light-colored, faintly marked example of _atricapillus_.
Footnote 115:
See this Bulletin, Vol. VII, pp. 120, 121.
Footnote 116:
See this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 246.
Footnote 117:
The Coues Check List of North American Birds. Second Edition, Revised to Date, and entirely Rewritten, under Direction of the Author, with a Dictionary of the Etymology, Orthography, and Orthoëpy of the Scientific Names, the Concordance of previous Lists, and a Catalogue of his Ornithological Publications. [Monogram.] Boston. Estes and Lauriat. 1882. 1 vol. imp. 8vo. pp. 165.
Footnote 118:
The 10 species retired are: _Ægiothus fuscescens_; _Centronyx ochrocephalus_; _Sphyropicus williamsoni_; _Lampornis mango_; _Agyrtria linnæi_; _Momotus cœruleiceps_; _Ibis thalassina_; _Ardea wuerdemanni_; _Sterna “longipennis”_ (_S. pikii_ Lawr.); _Podiceps cristatus_. The list of added species (too long to print here) is given on pp. 6–8 and 10 of the Check List.
Footnote 119:
Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., June, 1882, pp. 28–43.
Footnote 120:
This Bulletin, Vol. VII, pp. 178, 179.
Footnote 121:
While it is unfortunate that there should be two check lists of North American birds, Dr. Coues’s right to publish his views in this form was undeniably established when his first list was issued and accepted. Moreover, we see no reason why others should be debarred from the same privilege, and we fancy that a third list, representing a different and more conservative school of thought, especially in the matter of nomenclature, would have a large following. As regards a choice of names, in the comparatively few cases where the present authorities differ we should weigh well before accepting either. Many persons, doubtless, have neither the time nor the inclination to do this, and such, necessarily, must be guided by individual preferences in favor of one or the other author. In all cases of publication, however, a simple statement of the authority followed will be sufficient to prevent any confusion or misunderstanding.
Footnote 122:
Illustrations of Nests and Eggs of Birds of the United States, with Text, by Thos. G. Gentry. Philadelphia: J. A. Wagenseller, Publisher, No. 23 North Sixth Street. Copyright by J. A. Wagenseller, 1881. [4to, parts 1–25, pp. 1–300. 54 col. chromo-lithographs, and chromo-portrait frontispiece of the author. Price, $25.00. 1880–82.]
Footnote 123:
“Monograph of the Alcidæ,” Proc. Phila. Acad., Vol. XX, 1868, p. 77.
Footnote 124:
See F. C. Browne, Forest and Stream, Vol. XVIII, June 15, 1882, p. 386.
Footnote 125:
Vol. VII, p. 185.
Footnote 126:
This Bulletin, Vol. VII, p. 185.
Footnote 127:
“A Naturalist in the Magdalen Islands,” p. 42.
Footnote 128:
See this Bulletin, Vol. VI, p. 225, and Vol. VII, p. 128.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling. 2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 3. Re-indexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter. 4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. 5. Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=.