Part 5

57. =Pipilo maculatus megalonyx= (_Bd._) _Coues._ SPURRED TOWHEE.—To this form I refer a large series of Pipilos, which is by far the most remarkable of the many curious series from this locality. The relation of some specimens to restricted _maculatus_ and the variety _arcticus_ is indicated in the extract from Mr. Ridgway’s letter, under _M. fasciata_. Other examples are links in the chain of evidence that is gradually accumulating against the specific distinctness of _Pipilo erythrophthalmus_. Indeed, I am not sure that they may not be considered as establishing the intergradation between that form and the _maculatus_ group. The extreme approach to the eastern bird is seen in a single specimen, in which the white spotting, partially concealed, appears upon the outer scapulars alone, and there only in very slight measure.

58. =Cardinalis virginianus= (_Briss._) _Bp._ CARDINAL.—Abundant resident. In a series of fifty specimens, two or three are typical, the remainder exhibiting to a greater or less degree the characters of both _virginianus_ as restricted and var. _igneus_. In one specimen the black band across the culmen is hardly perceptible, but in none does the red of the forehead reach completely to the bill.

59. =Calamospiza bicolor= (_Towns._) _Bp._ LARK BUNTING.—One specimen, in a scattering grove of post oaks, March 24.

60. =Molothrus ater= (_Bodd._) _Gray_. COWBIRD.—A few females shot out of flocks of the following variety, in March.

60 _b_. =Molothrus ater obscurus= (_Gm._) _Coues_. DWARF COWBIRD.—On Jan. 20 I shot the first females that I had observed, after which they soon became common. No males were detected until Feb. 25, but from that time both sexes were found in abundance.

61. =Agelæus phœniceus= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD.—Abundantly represented, during the winter, but by females only, so far as my observations went. The males are said by the villagers to occur rarely.

62. =Sturnella neglecta=, _Aud._ WESTERN FIELD LARK.—Abundant during my stay.

63. =Icterus spurius= (_Linn._) _Bp._ ORCHARD ORIOLE.—One individual seen in April.

64. =Scolecophagus cyanocephalus= (_Wagl._) _Cab._ BREWER’S BLACKBIRD.—Found throughout my stay; in great abundance up to the middle of March.

65. =Corvus corax carnivorus= (_Bartr._) _Ridg._ RAVEN.—Uncommon. Usually solitary, but on Jan. 28, I noticed a flock of a dozen.

66. =Corvus frugivorus=, _Bartr._ CROW.—Rare.

67. =Eremophila alpestris chrysolæma= (_Wagl._) _Coues_. MEXICAN HORNED LARK.—Abundant up to the first week of March, after which none were seen until March 27. From this time occasional individuals only were observed.

68. =Milvulus forficatus= (_Gm._) _Sw._ SCISSOR-TAIL.—Arrived March 24, and became at once common.

69. =Myiarchus crinitus= (_Linn._) _Cab._ GREAT-CRESTED FLYCATCHER.—One specimen taken March 30.

70. =Sayornis fuscus= (_Gm._) _Bd._ PEWEE.—Found rather uncommonly throughout my stay.

71. =Caprimulgus vociferus=, _Wils._ WHIP-POOR-WILL.—One specimen taken April 2.

72. =Picus scalaris=, _Wagl._ TEXAS WOODPECKER.—An abundant resident.

73. =Sphyrapicus varius= (_Linn._) _Bd._ YELLOW-BELLIED WOODPECKER.—Rare and irregular.

74. =Centurus carolinus= (_Linn._) _Bp._ RED-BELLIED WOODPECKER.—The rarest species of this family: but three seen.

75. =Centurus aurifrons=, _Wagl._ GOLDEN-FRONTED WOODPECKER.—Uncommon resident. Unlike Mr. Sennett,[24] I found it always very shy.

76. =Colaptes auratus hybridus= (_Bd._) _Ridg._ HYBRID FLICKER.—Uncommon and of irregular occurrence. This form does not appear to have been met with in Texas limits before. The present locality is at all events exceptionally southern.

76 _b_. =Colaptes auratus mexicanus= (_Sw._) _Ridg._ RED-SHAFTED FLICKER.—One specimen, taken Jan. 2. Others doubtless occurred amongst the shy Flickers which escaped my gun.

77. =Ceryle alcyon= (_Linn._) _Boie_. BELTED KINGFISHER.—A pair seen on Feb. 18, one of which was shot by a friend on Feb. 21.

78. =Geococcyx calfornianus= (_Less._) _Bd._ CHAPARRAL COCK.—Though said by the inhabitants to be usually numerous, I found it rare during my stay.

79. =Tinnunculus sparverius= (_Linn._) _Vieill._ SPARROW HAWK.—Common winter visitant.

80. =Accipiter fuscus= (_Gm._) _Bp._ SHARP-SHINNED HAWK.—Common winter visitant.

81. =Cathartes aura= (_Linn._) _Illig._ TURKEY BUZZARD.—Common resident.

82. =Catharista atrata= (_Wils._) _Less._ BLACK VULTURE.—Common resident.

83. =Zenaidura carolinensis= (_Linn._) _Bp._ CAROLINA DOVE.—In great numbers throughout my stay.

84. =Meleagris gallopavo=, _Linn._ MEXICAN TURKEY.—The Boerne Hotel occasionally favored its guests with Wild Turkey obtained of ranchmen from the surrounding country, but I did not meet with the bird myself.

85. =Ortyx virginiana texana= (_Lawr._) _Coues_. TEXAS QUAIL.—Uncommon resident. Nearly all of my specimens lack the outer one or two joints of all the toes,—a result, perhaps, of excessive cold.

86. =Ardea herodias=, _Linn._ GREAT BLUE HERON.—Occasionally observed.

87. =Charadrius dominicus=, _Müll._ GOLDEN PLOVER.—Uncommon after March 9, which was the date of its arrival.

88. =Oxyechus vociferus= (_Linn._) _Reich._ KILLDEER.—Abundant resident.

89. =Podasocys montanus= (_Towns._) _Coues_. MOUNTAIN PLOVER.—Occurs uncommonly in the migrations. A flock of about twenty individuals encountered on Jan. 2; two specimens taken on March 15; and a flock of a dozen or more seen on March 17. They were very tame, but, from some peculiar constitutional trait, difficult to kill. This Plover was not procured in southern Texas by Mr. Sennett nor by Dr. Merrill. It was, however, met with by Mr. Dresser,[25] and two specimens obtained in the State by other collectors are catalogued in the ninth volume of Pacific Railroad Reports.

90. =Gallinago media wilsoni= (_Temm._) _Ridg._ WILSON’S SNIPE.—In the course of the winter I met with perhaps a dozen individuals, at one particular spot in the bed of the creek, where a little grass afforded partial cover. Specimens which I shot are exactly similar to eastern examples in plumage, but when freshly killed all agreed in having pale, flesh-colored legs and feet—those of the female being tinged with greenish-yellow. So far as my own experience goes, this is a peculiarity never seen in eastern Snipe, in which the legs and feet are olivaceous.

91. =Actodromas maculata= (_Vieill._) _Coues_. GRASS-BIRD.—One specimen, March 21.

92. =Actodromas bairdi=, _Coues_. BAIRD’S SANDPIPER.—One specimen, March 16. A Sandpiper seen on Feb. 18, and two small flocks seen in March were also probably of this species.

93. =Totanus melanoleucus= (_Gm._) _Vieill._ GREAT YELLOW-LEGS.—One seen, Jan. 1; three others observed in the last week of March.

94. =Rhyacophilus solitarius= (_Wils._) _Cass._ SOLITARY SANDPIPER.—One specimen, March 25.

95. =Bartramia longicauda= (_Bechst._) _Bp._ UPLAND PLOVER.—First seen on March 22, and but few noted subsequently.

96. =Numenius longirostris=, _Wils._ SICKLE-BILLED CURLEW.—Two observed, Dec. 21.

97. =Numenius borealis= (_Forst._) _Lath._ ESQUIMAUX CURLEW.—Rather common migrant, first seen on March 9.

98. =Grus canadensis= (_Linn._) _Temm._ SANDHILL CRANE.—Solitary individuals occasionally noted.

99. =Anas obscura=, _Gm._ BLACK DUCK.—Small flocks rather unfrequently found in the creek.

100. =Chaulelasmus streperus= (_Linn._) GRAY GADWALL.—I did not detect this species until March 25, after which I found it uncommonly.

101. =Nettion carolinensis= (_Gm._) _Bd._ GREEN-WINGED TEAL.—Rare. First seen Feb. 6.

102. =Fulix collaris= (_Donov._) _Bd._ RING-BILLED BLACK-HEAD.—One of three shot, Feb. 27.

103. =Mergus merganser americanus= (_Cass._) _Ridg._ GOOSANDER.—Small flocks observed in January.

104. =Plotus anhinga=, _Linn._ SNAKE-BIRD.—A female shot by a friend, on March 24.

To the foregoing list of species actually taken or identified beyond question, are to be added six others which I was unable to fix decisively. These are a Hawk, believed to have been _Ictinia subcærulea_, seen in pursuit of a Buzzard, on March 4; a red-tailed _Buteo_ of which I saw a pair, Feb. 26; a shy, black _Buteo_, almost undoubtedly _Buteo abbreviatus_, frequently observed about the village; an Owl, apparently _Strix nebulosa_, several times scared up in an unusually dense grove of deciduous trees; a Hummer, noted a few times towards the close of my stay; and a beautiful _Larus_ which hovered over the stage as it forded the creek, on my return journey to San Antonio.

=Recent Literature.=

MEMORIAL VOLUME OF GARROD’S SCIENTIFIC PAPERS.[26] Garrod’s work is apparently not so well known in this country as it must eventually become, forming as it does a permanent way-mark in the progress of the science, and contributing indispensable material for the solving of the most vexed problem in ornithology—we mean a sound, rational classification of birds, based on morphological data according to the theory of genetic relationship, and as such one which any considerable number of ornithologists can agree to adopt and stand by. As is well understood, those of us who have no classification of our own to advance, fall back upon some convention as make-shift, practically waiving the points at issue. As far as taxonomy is concerned, the present attitude of ornithology is thoroughly iconoclastic; but, while we agree that much of what has been set up must be upset, few claim to know what ought to replace the broken images, and fewer still agree on that point. There is nevertheless a large amount of material at hand, the soundness and utility of which no one questions; and of late years Garrod has been both indefatigable and successful in setting bricks and mortar. Of the anatomical papers in the present volume, some 73 in number, more than half relate to birds, describing conditions of the osseous, muscular, respiratory, vascular, digestive and nervous systems which appear to promise most of value in taxonomy, and discussing in candid and scientific spirit, from a vantage-ground of long experience, the bearing of the anatomical points upon classification. Of the accuracy and high rate of reliability of these papers there can be no question; they are sufficiently lucid to shine with their own light, and there is a certain “finish” about them which is truly admirable. This is seen when the author is drawing the comparisons which his extensive knowledge enables him to adduce, and summing his conclusions. These are always clean-cut and luminous, so that we know exactly where to find Garrod, whether we like him and agree with him or not. It is scarcely possible that he has been exempt from the all but inevitable tendency of the mind’s eye to magnify the particular subjects there focussed for the time, and so get them more or less out of perspective of the whole range of vision; but he seems to have known and guarded against this most scrupulously, unless, perhaps the “ambiens” muscle proved too much for him. On the whole, we do not think that even the warm praise of the editor, his personal friend and admirer, is too much to say, and we quote with pleasure:

“Of his zoölogical papers indeed, the ornithological ones must probably, on account of their more novel character, and as affording entirely new data for the solution of the various problems connected with the classification of Birds, which he revolutionized, be considered of the greater importance. No future worker in that group can neglect the facts or ideas concerning it that we owe to Garrod, and they alone suffice to put his name in the very first rank of those who have ever studied these creatures, and to stamp his work on Birds as truly ‘Epochmachende.’ „

Garrod’s numerous papers, covering the period of 1871–79, are scattered through various periodicals; and it is a subject for congratulation that they have been collected in one convenient volume, under careful editorship. At a meeting of the Zoölogical Club to consider the wish of friends to possess some permanent memorial of Garrod, it was decided, with wisdom and good taste which none can impugn, “that the most appropriate and desirable one would be the publication, in a collected form, of all the papers published by Garrod in various scientific journals and periodicals, with a portrait and memoir of the author.” This decision has been ably carried into effect by Mr. Forbes, whose own contributions to the same subject already prove him to be one on whom the mantle may fittingly descend. We wish there were more work of this kind, even if not of the same highest quality, done by our own countrymen; but at present no one of them seems especially interested excepting Dr. Shufeldt, whose studies thus far possess much value and give still more promise. Noticing only two or three American names on the list of subscribers, we venture to hint that the work may be procured by others in the usual way.

We cannot of course go into any examination of these papers in an editorial notice like the present, or even adduce the leading results of the author. It must suffice to say that among them is an entirely new classification of birds, primarily based upon the ambiens. Among the more important papers we may mention those on the carotid arteries; on certain muscles of the leg (Garrod’s _pièce de resistance_); on the anatomy of Pigeons, of Parrots, and of Passerine Birds; and on the trachea in _Gallinæ_. All these are of general import, bearing on broad questions of taxonomy, as distinguished from minor papers, however valuable, in which special points are examined. The editor has done well to preserve the original pagination of the text and numeration of the illustrations for facility of citation, and the plates are said to be faithfully reproduced.—E.C.

SHUFELDT’S OSTEOLOGY OF THE NORTH AMERICAN TETRAONIDÆ.[27]—This osteological memoir is, so far as we know, the most complete of any on American birds of one group. In general the descriptions, with the aid of the numerous plates, can be easily understood. In treating of the skull Dr. Shufeldt adopts the old theory that it is nothing but the modified end of the back bone, and gives a diagramatic figure of the skull of _Centrocercus_ much like that given by Owen of the Ostrich. This view will of course be rejected by all who do not consider the membrane and cartilage bones of the skull to be from the same source. The use of “hyoid arch” when speaking of all the tongue bones is, we think, liable to lead many young students astray; we would suggest “hyobranchial arches,” or “hyoid arches.”

A point of considerable interest is a small ossicle which occurs at the inner side of the II metacarpal—III metacarpal of Dr. Shufeldt’s homologies of the hand—near its base. This bone is compared to the pisiform bone of the Mammalia by the author. Besides this, two proximal and two distal carpal bones are found, just as in the chick. Thus the chick and the young _Centrocercus_ have the same structure of the hand except the presence of a IV metacarpus in the first and a “pisiform” in the second. We notice that the “index” is described as being composed of only one phalanx; this we believe to be an oversight of the author; at all events most of the European Gallinæ have two phalanges, the last one bearing a claw. On reference to fig. 57 it will be seen that the distal end of the first phalanx in _Centrocercus_ is very large and looks as if there should be another joint. As regards the tarsus, Dr. Shufeldt has been able to demonstrate the existence of a fibulare, tibiale, and intermedium, which ultimately become anchylosed with the tibia. Dr. Shufeldt also states that as a whole the different parts of this skeleton in _Centrocercus_ are slow to anchylose, thus rendering the bird an extremely favorable one for the study of the separate elements of the skeleton.

The description of the osteology of _Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides_,[28] by the same author, is short, concise, and may be summed up in the statement that the skeleton of this bird is strictly Passerine.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF OHIO NESTS AND EGGS.[29]—We are glad to record the progress of this great work, of which we have had former occasions to speak so highly. The ninth fascicle is the last which has reached us, carrying the number of plates to twenty-seven, each with its sheet or so of letter-press. The high standard of the work is on the whole maintained, although, to our eye at least, the plates lack somewhat of the peculiar attractiveness that the earlier ones had for us. It may, however, be only the charm of novelty that we miss; and there is certainly no falling off in the conscientious endeavor to unite fidelity to nature with artistic excellence in depicting these beautiful objects. Should the project be carried to completion, the work will certainly become a standard of reference. It deserves to be better known and more widely circulated than it appears thus far to have become, and we trust that time will serve to make its merit fully appreciated.

The following are the plates of the two parts before us. (In No. 8) Pl. 22, _Cardinalis virginianus_ (the eggs shown in their remarkable extremes of size and coloring); Pl. 23, fig. 1, _Vireo gilvus_ and fig. 2, _V. olivaceus_; Pl. 24, _Zenaidura carolinensis_; (in No. 9) Pl. 25, fig. 1, _Trochilus colubris_, fig. 2, _Polioptila cærulea_ (and one is interested to see that these nests are of identical orders of architecture and ornamentation, however different in materials); Pl. 26, _Spizella socialis_; Pl. 27, _Butorides virescens_.

The text continues as heretofore to consider the subjects under the formal heads of—Locality—Position—Materials—Eggs—Differential Points—Remarks; the latter head usually covering the most matter. We are glad to see that the authors now fill, as a rule, their sheets of letter-press—there is certainly enough to be said on the subject for that! The pagination of the letter-press reaches p. 104 with the end of No. 9.

It is never untimely to suggest that when works published in this manner come to be bound, especially if the parts are made up in any other order than sequence of publication, the original cover-titles should be preserved; there being no intrinsic evidence, either in the text or on the plates, of dates of publication or of contents of Parts; and it may not be too early to suggest to the authors that explicit indication of these points should be given with the permanent title, contents, etc., of the finished work.—E. C.

SHUFELDT’S “THE CLAW ON THE INDEX DIGIT OF THE CATHARTIDÆ.”[30]—We regret being obliged to make unfavorable criticisms, but this paper contains such important errors, both in regard to the structure of birds and the literature of the subject, that some rectification seems necessary. Dr. Shufeldt describes the claw at the end of the first finger of _Catharista atrata_ as a new discovery, considering that claws outside the Ostrich groups have not hitherto been described, and also states that it is a point of distinction between the Old and New World Vultures. Unfortunately Nitzsch[31] long ago described the claw on the first finger of birds in the following words: “Die Analogie, welche die Flügel der Vögel mit den Vorderfüssen der Säugthiere und Reptilien haben, zeigt sich auch in den Spuren von Nägel- oder Klauenbildung, welche an den Finger jener Glieder oftmals gefunden werden. Dieser Bildung macht es zugleich wahrscheinlich, dass die Urform der Flügel in der Fussform, oder doch in einer, dieser sehr ähnlichen, bestand; denn die Nägel gehören den Füssen an, sie haben im Kreise der Flügelfunkzion keine Bedeutung, und sind da wohl nur durch zweckloses Nachahmen und Ueberbleiben der Fussform.” Farther on he describes the skeleton of the hand as follows: “Die Hand der Vögel hat drei Finger, 1) den Daumen, welcher (ohne das Nagelglied) aus einem Stücke, 2) den grossen Finger, der (ohne das Nagelglied) aus zwei Stücken oder Gliedern, und 3) den kleinen Finger, der stets nur aus einen Stücke besteht.” Since Nitzsch’s memoir was written his observations have been extended, and mentioned by many anatomists, as Meckel, in his Anatomy, by Blainville, by Selenka in Bronn’s “Thiereichs,” by myself in this Bulletin for 1881, by Professor Morse in the “Anniversary Memoirs” of the Boston Society of Natural History. Accordingly the claw on the first finger is anything but an unknown object. It is constantly demonstrating its existence to practical ornithologists by pricking their fingers while measuring bird’s wings. That the claw is absent in the Old World Vultures is also an error if we may trust the high authority of Nitzsch, who wrote as follows: “Unter den Raubvögeln einiges Geier, Adler, Falken; aber nicht die Eulen—Am _Vultur percnopterus_ ist sie ziemlich stark, ungefähr einen halb Zoll long zugespitzt und bräunlich vom Horne.” In fact, a claw on the first finger is of very common occurrence, and is found, according to the authorities given above, in the _Accipitres_, _Herodiones_, _Palamedeæ_, _Anseres_, _Gallinæ_, _Fulicariæ_, _Alectorides_, _Limicolæ_, _Gaviæ_, _Pygopodes_, _Crypturi_, and _Struthiones_.

Here it may not be out of place to add that a claw has also been found on the end of the second finger, by myself and Professor Morse, in certain of the Winter Birds, and perhaps in some embryo Hawks: and that as a rule the claws are much more conspicuous in young than in adult birds.—J. AMORY JEFFRIES.

PAPERS ON MINNESOTA BIRDS.[32]—Although the report containing these papers was not generally circulated in 1881, a copy reached us in December of that year. Dr. Hatch contributes a list of 281 species briefly annotated—usually with only a line or two to each species respecting the manner and character of its appearance in the State. In explanation of its cursory style the author states that, as we regret to learn, the original copy was destroyed by fire, “and it has been impossible to give its re-writing the measure of carefulness which the first manuscript received.” The most interesting entry is that of _Querquedula cyanoptera_, which thus appears far from its recognized range.

Mr. Roberts’ article treats much more fully of 52 species known to occur in the State in winter, divided into the categories of “permanent residents” (23), “winter visitants” (14), “half hardy” species (9), and “accidental” ones (6), the information given conveying a good idea of the bird-fauna at that season of the year. Doubtless owing to circumstances for which neither author is responsible, each paper bristles with typographical errors, few of which are corrected in the accompanying erratum slip. We understand that a full list will accompany the volumes as finally published.—E.C.

FREKE ON THE BIRDS OF AMELIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA.[33]—Our knowledge of the birds of Eastern Virginia is so largely inferential that Mr. Freke has done good service in publishing the results of six years’ observations in Amelia County, at a point “about thirty miles south of Richmond.” His list, which is freely annotated, includes 112 species. The Barn Swallow is catalogued as a spring and fall migrant; the Tree Sparrow (_Spizella montana_), as a rather uncommon winter visitor; the Field Sparrow, as resident but most common in winter; the Chipping Sparrow as arriving from the south late in March and as leaving during November; the Song Sparrow as wintering but not breeding; the Blue Grosbeak as not uncommon during the latter part of April and early in May, but, rather unaccountably, as not being found in summer; the Ruffed Grouse as plentiful in the mountains but not common in the low country, although a few regularly nest there in thick pine woods.

The author has evidently fallen into some confusion regarding the spotted-breasted Thrushes of the genus _Turdus_. Thus _T. “pallasi”_ is characterized as a “resident species, apparently not migrating even in the most partial manner.” In view of our very definite knowledge of the Hermit’s distribution, such a statement by itself would be open to the gravest suspicion, but when we add that Mr. Freke does not mention the Wilson’s, Olive-backed, or Wood Thrushes as occurring at _any season_, it is quite plain that the Hermit (_verus_) did duty as the winter bird, the Olive-backed or Wilson’s Thrush filled the gap during the migrations, and the Wood Thrush was the species that “builds its clay-lined nest in the fork of some cedar or dogwood bush, at the height of eight or ten feet from the ground, and there lays its blue eggs.” The statement that _Dendræca coronata_ “is one of the commonest warblers in the district, and spends [a] great part of the year there,” is not so easily explained: but despite the still more explicit assurance that “they come about the end of April, or the beginning of May, and remain until very late in the autumn,” we cannot help thinking that some mistake was made in the identification of the individuals seen in summer.