VOL. 1] Land Birds of the Pacific District. 277 
of Vigors’s wren ( Thryothorus bewickii spilurus ), which is of inter- 
est from the very odd situation in which it was placed and its struc- 
ture. About ten feet high in a slender willow, next to the trunk, 
was a bunch resembling a nest, and when I shook the tree, to my © 
surprise, out flew a wren. I found that the nest, as such it proved 
to be, contained seven white eggs, very lightly marked with count- 
less specks of brown. The nest was nicely concealed in a bunch of 
green leaves, and completely arched over with small, dry sticks. 
Further examination showed that it was built upon an old bird’s 
nest, three-fourths of the structure at least being the work of the 
wren. Itis large and quite compact, composed of fine shreds of 
bark with a lining of hair, feathers, willow catkins and a few bits of 
snake skin. 
The nest measures externally 41% inches in height by 5% inches 
diameter. Inside the depth is 134 by 2% inches. Except for the 
lining it has very little resemblance to a wren’s nest. The nest of 
this bird has been described as identical with the slight structure of 
the common house wren. My nest must be of its unusual size to 
correspond with its strange position. 
—_———- 
Land Birds of the Pacific District. In the absence of Mr. Bel- 
ding, the author of this work, it may not be out of place for me to. 
notice the criticism by C. A. K. in the last issue of Zoe, inasmuch 
as the entire MS. passed through my hands while preparing it for 
the printer, although my responsibility rested with the nomenclature 
rather than with accuracy of the text. The occurrence of Spzmus 
psaltria arizone and the omission of the record (Ridgway’s 
Manual) was doubtless an oversight as also the case with Polioptila — 
plumbea, (the record of this species at Yuma, is without the limits 
of the district) and Spizella pallida. The list published by Mr. 
Emerson (ZoE, I, 2, 44) was known to Mr. Belding, but some ame 
_ limit had to be placed upon the work, and it was decided not to in} 
corporate it. This, however, in justice to C. A. K., was not known — 
to him. One or two others species were without verification and _ 
hence excluded (See Appendix, 267, 268.) © ne ae 
It certainly would have been of advantage, especially to younger — 
students, if the name by which the species were originally recorded 
“hadbeen givens 8 Bo eas ane 
