Part 6

Save in the last-named instances, however, there is no reason to doubt that the author’s commendable practise of “verifying my observations, as far as possible, by securing specimens and preserving skins” was conscientiously carried out, and his paper will be read with interest, not only as an exponent of the ornithology of a previously unworked section, but also as embodying a foreigner’s pleasantly told impressions of many of our familiar birds.—W. B.

LANGDON’S FIELD NOTES ON LOUISIANA BIRDS.[34]—These notes comprise “a record of ornithological observations and collections made by the writer during the month ending April 17th, 1881, at ‘Cinclaire’ plantation, situated in the parish of West Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on the right bank of the Mississippi, one hundred and twenty-seven miles by river above New Orleans.”

The locality is described as “flat and uninteresting.... The cultivated grounds are mainly comprised in a strip ranging from one to three miles in width, along the rivers and principal bayous, the remainder of the state being chiefly occupied by extensive forests and swamp lands.”

The author considers the list “of quite as much interest for what it does _not_ include, as for what it _does_,” and comments on the apparent absence of the Catbird, Long-billed Marsh Wren, Black-and-white Creeper, Yellow-rumped, White-browed, Black-throated Green, Yellow Red-poll, and Kentucky Warblers, Large-billed Water Thrush, Redstart, Song Sparrow, and Common Pewee; to which he might with equal propriety have added the Prothonotary and Blue-winged Yellow Warblers and the Acadian Flycatcher. But we cannot believe with him that the non-occurrence, on the present occasion, of most of these species has any special significance, either as affecting their general distribution in, or usual migration through, the region of which the paper treats. The country about “Cinclaire” may have been unsuited to the habits of some of them, while the early date of Dr. Langdon’s departure, taken in connection with the exceptional lateness of the season, will sufficiently explain his failure to detect a number of the migratory ones which have been found near the mouth of the Mississippi by Mr. Henshaw, and which are well known to extend over the Mississippi valley at large only a few hundred miles further to the northward.

Dr. Langdon’s thoroughness and energy as a field collector are, however, so well known through the medium of his valuable papers on Ohio birds, that we may rest assured that his work at “Cinclaire” was well done, and the paper will be welcomed as an acceptable contribution to our knowledge of a region which has been nearly a _terra incognita_ to ornithologists since the days of Audubon.—W. B.

KRIDER’S FIELD NOTES.[35]—In an unpretending little pamphlet of some eighty odd pages Mr. Krider has “endeavored to describe and give the history of only those species of birds of the United States” which he has “collected and mounted,” and whose nests have come under his personal observation. Had this plan been carried out with only ordinary forethought and intelligence it could scarcely have failed to result in a valuable contribution to our knowledge of North American birds, for Mr. Krider’s long experience as a field collector must have afforded unusual opportunities for original investigation and observation. But a casual glance through the pages of his work is enough to show that these opportunities have been sadly neglected. Important records are given without dates and often with only a vague or inferential assignment of locality, while improbable statements and palpable errors are of frequent occurrence. In short, it is only too evident that Mr. Krider’s “Notes” are the offspring of a fading memory rather than the carefully kept data of a systematic worker. Moreover, the author writes from a standpoint at least twenty-five years behind the times, and consequently ignores all the various developments affecting classification and the relationship of allied species and races. From all this chaff it is of course possible to separate some sound grain, but most of the really important records were published long ago by Turnbull, Cassin, and other writers. Of the literary execution of the present work we can say nothing favorable. It is to be regretted that the author could not have recognized his unfitness in this respect, and, as on a former occasion, have secured the services of a competent editor.—W. B.

LANGDON’S ZOÖLOGICAL MISCELLANY.[36]—In the last issue of its well-known “Journal,” the Cincinnati Society of Natural History publishes the first of a series of articles entitled “Zoölogical Miscellany,” the aim and scope of which are thus tersely defined by the editor, Dr. F. W. Langdon:—

“Under the above caption it is proposed to bring together from time to time such facts as may be deemed worthy of record, respecting the structure, the life history, or the geographical distribution of the various species of animals constituting the Ohio Valley Fauna.”

The part before us includes sections on mammalogy, ornithology, herpetology, ichthyology, conchology, and entomology. In general terms, it may be said that all of these are well sustained, but in the present connection we have to do only with the one relating to birds. This contains a number of interesting notes, a large proportion of which are from the editor’s pen, although a few are signed by Mr. E. R. Quick, Mr. A. W. Butler, Dr. Howard E. Jones, and other more or less well-known names. Most of these notes relate chiefly to the local presence or distribution of certain birds within the Ohio Valley, but one or two possess a wider interest. Among the latter we notice an announcement by Dr. Langdon of the detection of the Oak-woods Sparrow (_Peucæa æstivalis illinoensis_, Ridgway) near Bardstown, Nelson County, Kentucky, “about one hundred miles southwest of Cincinnati.” The specimen was taken April 28, 1877, by Mr. C. W. Beckham, who referred it to Dr. Langdon for identification.

In addition to his numerous notes, the editor contributes a short but useful paper on the “Introduction of European Birds.” From this it appears that “during the years 1872, ’73 and ’74, about nine thousand dollars were expended in the purchase and importation of European birds, their average cost to import being about four dollars and fifty cents a pair. According to this estimate some four thousand individuals were introduced.” This great outlay was borne by the “Acclimation Society of Cincinnati” and we believe that most of the birds were turned out in the neighborhood of that city; but, according to Dr. Langdon, the experiment has practically proved a failure.

If the present instalment of “Zoölogical Miscellany” may be taken as a fair criterion of future issues, its favorable reception by naturalists is a matter of no uncertainty, and under Dr. Langdon’s able editing we look to see its popularity widely extended, even though its field be restricted to the Ohio Valley.—W. B.

HOFFMAN ON THE BIRDS OF NEVADA.[37]—In the present paper Dr. Hoffman has done good service to ornithology by tabulating the two hundred and fifty species and varieties of birds which he considers are entitled to a place in the avi-fauna of Nevada. The list is based partly upon the writer’s personal experience in the field during the season of 1871, but mainly upon the previously published reports of Mr. Ridgway, Mr. Henshaw and Dr. Yarrow, and Dr. J. G. Cooper. It hence partakes largely of the nature of a compilation, although the author’s original notes are by no means few or uninteresting.

The paper begins with a pertinent chapter entitled “Remarks on the distribution of vegetation in Nevada as affecting that of the avi-fauna” and closes with a bibliographical list of the chief publications relating to the region considered, and an excellent map of the state.

The list proper is freely annotated and the numerous and often extended quotations are always apt and interesting. The work, generally, has been so well done that we find few points open to adverse criticism. There is however an evident tendency on the author’s part to swell the number of species and varieties by the enrollment of many which have been taken or observed near the borders of the state but not as yet actually within its limits. We are aware that Dr. Hoffman has some high authority for adopting this course but we are none the less inclined to deprecate it, believing that it is time enough to catalogue a species when it has actually been found within the limits treated. In the present case, however, it must be admitted that there are good grounds for supposing that most of these extra-limitals will eventually turn up in Nevada.

Dr. Hoffman’s paper ranks easily among the higher class of publications to which it belongs and should find a place in the hands of every working ornithologist.—W. B.

=General Notes.=

THE TUFTED TITMOUSE ON STATEN ISLAND, N. Y.—I shot a specimen of this species (_Lophophanes bicolor_) on the 24th of August, 1881, in a thick wood, a few miles south of Port Richmond, a small town on the north shore of Staten Island, N. Y.—DANIEL E. MORAN, _Brooklyn, N.Y._

NESTING OF THE WHITE-BELLIED WREN (_Thryothorus bewicki leucogaster_).—This Wren is abundant in Northern Arizona, where I saw it and heard it singing most constantly, during the month of June, while traveling from Fort Whipple to view the Grand Cañon of the Colorado. The birds were particularly numerous in the vicinity of cañons and arroyos, and in the patches of red cedar and piñon pine that stretch away from mountain sides to the valley ground of the Colorado Plateau. At a water-hole about midway on my journey, it so happened that my tent was pitched beneath a cedar where, as I was soon satisfied by their vehement scolding, a pair of the Wrens were protesting against such intrusion upon their privacy. In a little while, however, finding themselves unmolested they quieted down, resumed their song at intervals, and were soon after busily engaged in bringing insects to their family. Having explored a deserted Woodpecker’s hole, only to find it empty, I at length saw one of the birds disappear in the hollow end of a blasted horizontal bough about eight feet from the ground. The entrance was too narrow to admit my arm, but by breaking away some of the rotten wood I at length got a glimpse of the nest, and could just put a finger over the edge of it far enough to feel the little birds. I should have despoiled the household had there been eggs; but as it was I refrained, and for a day or two was much interested in watching the happy, devoted pair, bubbling over with joyous music as they assiduously cared for their little family, now coming and going undisturbed by the group of men who shared the luxury of this fragrant cedar shade. This was June 7; returning a week afterward, the pretty spot was a “banquet hall deserted”; so that I did not hesitate to break into the bough and remove the nest. It contained two dead young ones, upon which a troop of ugly carrion-beetles were rioting and feasting. The nest was quite unlike what a House Wren’s would have been under the same circumstances, having none of the trash with which these queer birds would have surrounded it; it rested upon the horizontal floor of the cavity, upon a bed of wood-mould and cedar-berries, about a foot from the ragged entrance of the hollow. It was a neat structure, about 4 inches across outside, by half as much in internal diameter, cupped to a depth of an inch and a half. Outside was a wall of small cedar twigs interlaced, and next came a layer of finely frayed inner bark strips from the same tree; but the bulk of the nest consisted of matted rabbit-fur stuck full of feathers, among which those of the Carolina Dove were conspicuous. These latter birds are extremely abundant all over Arizona and in the dry season they are often at such straits for water as to congregate in immense flocks at the water-holes, few and far between, which alone render it possible to traverse some parts of the unblest Territory. On the morning of which I write, reveille was sounded by the clapping and whistling of a thousand eager wings, now venturing near, then frightened from the coveted water where men and animals were crowding. In other times, the Dove brought tidings of dry land; in Arizona now, where everything goes by contraries, river-sites are many, but the sight of a Dove is a surer sign of water.—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._

AN ERRONEOUS RECORD OF THE ORANGE-CROWNED WARBLER (_Helminthophaga celata_) IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.—In Vol. III, pp. 96, 97 of this Bulletin, Mr. John Murdoch recorded the capture of an Orange-crowned Warbler at the Isles of Shoals, New Hampshire, by the Messrs. Bangs of Boston. I have lately had an opportunity of examining this specimen and find it to be a Tennessee Warbler (_Helminthophaga peregrina_), in the ordinary autumnal plumage. It is but just to the Messrs. Bangs to state that they are not to be held responsible for this blunder, the bird having been submitted by them to an ornithologist of some standing, one in whose determination they placed perfect confidence. Nor can Mr. Murdoch (who I believe took all his facts at second hand) be blamed for accepting the same supposed good authority.—WILLIAM BREWSTER, _Cambridge, Mass._

ON THE GENERIC NAME _Helminthophaga_.—The change of a generic name, especially one long established, is in any case unfortunate, and in the present instance seems particularly so; yet the plain rules of zoölogical nomenclature leave no alternative. The generic name _Helminthophaga_, proposed in 1850 by Cabanis for a well-known group of American Warblers, was used in a sub-generic sense about forty-seven years previously, by Bechstein, who, in 1803 (Taschenbuch, p. 548), included under this name the Nightingale and Redbreast of Europe (_Luscinia philomela_ and _Erithacus rubecula_); in consequence of which (no other name having, apparently, been proposed for the group in question) it becomes necessary to rename the genus so long called _Helminthophaga_. In proposing a new name, which I am very reluctant to do, I have selected the term _Helminthophila_, on account of its similarity to the one so long in use. It is proper to state here that my attention was called to this point by Dr. L. Stejneger, the eminent Norwegian ornithologist.

Leaving out _H. lawrencei_ and _H. leucobronchialis_, which Mr. Brewster has pretty clearly proven to be hybrids of _H. pinus_ and _H. chrysoptera_, the known species of this genus are as follows:—

1. _Helminthophila bachmani_ (Aud.).

2. _Helminthophila chrysoptera_ (Linn.).

3. _Helminthophila pinus_ (Linn.).

4. _Helminthophila ruficapilla_ (Wils.).

5. _Helminthophila virginiæ_ (Baird).

6. _Helminthophila celata_ (Say).

7. _Helminthophila peregrina_ (Wils.).

8. _Helminthophila luciæ_ (Cooper).—ROBERT RIDGWAY, _Washington, D. C._

_Dendrœca palmarum_ AGAIN IN MASSACHUSETTS.—The first capture of _Dendrœca palmarum_ in Massachusetts was that of a single bird taken by Mr. Arthur Smith at Brookline, about the middle of October, 1878. (See note by Mr. Ruthven Deane, Bull. Nutt. Club, Vol. IV, page 60.) I have the pleasure of announcing the capture of two additional specimens. The first was taken at Cambridge, September 13, 1880, and was shot on an apple tree while in company with several other Warblers. The second was shot at Belmont, September 7, 1881, from the top of a yellow pine. The marked difference in the intensity of the yellow of the breast and under tail-coverts first attracted my attention to this bird. Never having met with _D. palmarum hypochrysea_ in the autumn, I thought both birds to be of this variety until quite recently, when my friend Mr. William Brewster identified them for me and found them to be genuine _D. palmarum_.—HENRY M. SPELMAN, _Cambridge, Mass._

_Ampelis cedrorum_ AS A SAP-SUCKER.—The Cedar, or Cherry-Bird seems never to be very abundant in this section of the State; but early in the spring, when the birds first arrived from the south, I saw quite a large number of them, and observed what was to me a new habit. They resorted to the maple trees for the purpose of gathering the sap flowing from wounds made by the ice in the bark of the smaller branches. The birds would grasp a branch or twig with their claws, and partially swing themselves under it and drink the sap where it hung in drops. For a week or more these birds were so plentiful and so intent upon their sap-gathering that one was almost certain to find a flock wherever there was a group of maples. I took considerable pains to ascertain if this habit was shared by any other bird, but did not observe a single instance. In the Eastern States I have often seen squirrels drinking sap from the branches in this way, but never before saw it done by a bird.—F. E. L. BEAL, _Ames, Iowa_.

CAPTURE OF _Plectrophanes lapponicus_ IN CHESTER, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Mr. Leverett M. Loomis writes me that on January 1, 1881, he shot a single individual of this species from a small flock of Shore Larks, which were feeding upon offal in a barnyard. There appears to be no previous record of the occurrence of this species in South Carolina.—J. A. ALLEN, _Cambridge, Mass._

OCCURRENCE OF _Coturniculus lecontei_ IN CHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.—Near the town of Chester, S. C., on the dividing ridge between the Broad and Catawba Rivers, there is an “old field” of some two hundred acres that has been lying out, until recently, for a number of years. Here and there are patches of newly-sown grain, but the greater portion is now in broom-sedge and weedy stubble and corn land. Near the middle there is a small “wet-weather branch,” which empties into a large creek a mile distant. November 11, 1881, in this locality, in the weedy stubble, my first specimen of Le Conte’s Bunting was secured. Nov. 16, a second was taken in the broom-sedge near the same spot. Nov. 17, a third was shot, and several others were seen. Dec. 3, three more were captured; two in the broom-sedge, and the remaining one in the swamp grass bordering the “branch.” Dec. 10, my last visit to the field, six additional specimens were taken, and as many more were seen. I am not aware that the species has hitherto been reported as occurring so far east as South Carolina—LEVERETT M. LOOMIS, _Chester, S. C._

THE SHARP-TAILED FINCH IN KANSAS.—Col. N. S. Goss, of Neosho Falls, Kansas, wrote me under date of Oct. 17, 1881, that he had killed what he thought was a male Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Finch. Two days later he shot another, which he kindly sent me. The bird proved to be, as Mr. Goss supposed, _Ammodramus caudacutus nelsoni_. The birds were killed “at the edge of a slough, on the low bottom lands of the Neosho River, about two miles from Neosho Falls.” This discovery is of special interest as indicating that the Sharp-tailed Finch, formerly supposed to be strictly maritime in its distribution, may be found locally over a wide range in the interior.—J. A. ALLEN, _Cambridge, Mass._

NOTE ON _Mitrephanes_, A NEW GENERIC NAME.—The name _Mitrephorus_ of Sclater, P. Z. S., 1859, p. 44, is preoccupied in Coleoptera by _Mitrephorus_, Schönh., 1837, emended _Mitrophorus_, Burm., 1844. It may therefore be changed to _Mitrephanes_; type _Mitrephanes phæocercus_ (Scl.); including _Mitrephanes aurantiiventris_ (Lawr.), if not also _Mitrephanes fulvifrons_ (Grd.), and its var. _pallescens_ (Coues).—ELLIOTT COUES, _Washington, D. C._

NESTING OF _Empidonax minimus_ AND _Helmintherus vermivorus_ IN PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY.—Although instances of the breeding of the Least Flycatcher within the limits of Pennsylvania and New Jersey have been affirmed by Turnbull and one or two other authorities, a precise record cannot perhaps be found that will prove it to breed as far south as Philadelphia. Having found a nest and clutch of eggs belonging to this species, June 1, 1881, and satisfactorily identified the parent birds by shooting them, it is thought that this notice may prove of interest as perhaps removing doubts as to the accuracy of Turnbull’s statement. _E. minimus_ escaped the notice of the writer till the spring of 1880, when two pairs were noticed in June in the suburbs of Philadelphia, but any nests which may have existed escaped my observation. The present year (1881) I first noticed them in Delaware County, Pa., two pairs taking up their abode in an orchard surrounding the house. Here the above mentioned nest was found, placed on a drooping branch of an apple tree fifteen feet above the ground. The species was seen and heard singing about six miles west of Camden, New Jersey, in June, and again in July at the same place; is it not just therefore to suppose this pair had a nest near the spot?

Worm-eating Warblers were noticed in full song in the vicinity of Marple, Delaware County. Pa., as early as the last week in April, and whilst on a collecting trip in May I procured three males and a female in southern Chester County, and on dissecting the latter I was surprised to find in her oviduct a partly shelled egg. On the 16th of June, 1881, a ramble in the woods resulted in finding a brood of young of this species scarcely able to fly; one of them is now in my collection and another just missed the same claim to immortality. The old birds were exceedingly solicitous but so wary that three shots failed to procure either of them.

Near Camden, New Jersey, I procured a female Worm-eating Warbler in the latter part of July, 1880; its actions and the time of year caused me to infer it had young near by.—SAMUEL N. RHOADS, _Haddonfield, N. J._

CUCKOOS LAYING IN THE NESTS OF OTHER BIRDS.—As far as my knowledge extends, there are only four instances known, in which the eggs of _Coccygus americanus_ have been found in other bird’s nests, namely, the two given by Nuttall, in nests of Catbird and one by Langdon in Robin’s, and that mentioned by Ridgway in _Coccygus erythrophthalmus_. I was not a little astonished to find last Saturday, June 4. 1881, an egg of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in a Catbird’s nest, and near by another one in the nest of a Black-billed Cuckoo. The Catbird’s nest contained only one egg of its rightful owner; another Catbird’s egg was found broken on the ground. The Cuckoo’s egg was fresh, but the Catbird’s egg was incubated. The nest of the Black-billed Cuckoo contained besides the parasitic egg, which was fresh, two eggs, both incubated, but one much more than the other, the embryo being fully developed. The parent bird (_Coccygus erythrophthalmus_) was sitting, but left when the tree was ascended and stationed itself on a near tree to watch our movements.