14 



The Canadian Field-Naturalist 



[Vol. XXXIII. 



Comparing Shoal Lake birds with other material, 

 I have made use of the following adult male mater- 

 ial: 9 from Mass., southern Ont. and southern 

 Mich. ; 7 from Shoal Lake and two from Douglas, 

 Man.; and 7 from Sask., Alta., and Mack. The 

 measurements of these birds together with those sim- 

 ilarly derived from Mr. Oberholser's paper above 

 cited, tabulate as follows: 



Index Index Wing Wing 



shape, size, average. Min. & Max. 



9. Eastern Canada. 1.9 24.5.1 121.7 (116.0-128.0) 



7. Manitoba 1.96 264.1 124.4 (120.5-128.0) 



7. Sasic.. Alta., 



Mack 1.8 229.2 127.2 (111. .5-132. .5 ) 



10. plioeniceus 



(H.C.O.) 1.8 269.2 118.8 (114.0-122.0) 



12. arctolegus 



(H.C.O.) 1.88 304.8 125.4 (121.5-130.0) 



11. fortis (H.C.O. )_- 1.88 254.04 129.7 (125.0-134.0) 



In color, I find Shoal Lake females showing a 

 slightly greater amount of white below, most dis- 

 tinctly on the throat and upper breast, but the dis- 

 tinction is too slight and inconsistent for certain or 

 individual recognition. 



It will be seen that the difference in shape of the 

 bills of these various strains is very slight, and in 

 no case marked enough to warrant the title "Thick- 

 billed", in fact Oberholser's arctolegus and fortis 

 have more slender bills than phoeniceus, and the 

 Shoal Lake specimens considerably exceed all others 

 in this direction having minimum and maximum in- 

 dices of 1.72 and 2.22. 



It is also evident that whilst there is a slight in- 

 crease in size of both bill and wing of this species 

 westward over the prairie provinces, the difference 

 is not so marked in the new material as in Ober- 

 holser's measurements: also that individual variation 

 is almost as great as the racial distinction and is one 

 of averages, leaving the bulk of individual specimens 

 subspecifically unrecognizable by character. Such 

 distinctions do not in the view of the writer form 

 criteria sufficient for systematic separation and 

 nomenclature. Irrespective of such judgment on 

 the races concerned it is evident that these Shoal 

 Lake birds are just about intermediate between east- 

 ern and v/est plains birds though personally I do not 

 care to separate them from phoeniceus. 

 131. '%ESTERN MEADOW LARK, Sternella neglecia. 



Very common during all visits. The song of the 

 Western Meadow Lark is justly noted. It is one 

 of the most wonderful prairie sounds and its con- 

 stant repetition and infinite variety is characteristic 

 of the west. However, eastern ears may be par- 

 doned for a little disappointment on first hearing it. 

 If they expect to hear a glorified eastern Meadow 

 Lark song they certainly will be disappointed. While 

 it is a beautiful production it is not the song they 

 have been accustomed to associate with the coming 

 of spring. It has many charms of its own, but they 

 are not familiar; in fact hardly a note suggests the 



well remembered voice of the old eastern friend and 

 until its source is traced, even an experienced orn- 

 ithologist is apt to wonder as to the identity of the 

 singer. It will, I think, take several seasons' exper- 

 ience with this species to build up a new set of 

 associations and take it to the heart in place of the 

 well beloved eastern harbinger of spring. 



132. ^BALTIMORE ORIOLE, Icterus galbula. 



In 1917, arrived on May 23, common on June 

 2; not seen in the autumn. In 1918, arrived on 

 May 16, the bulk disappeared on July 23, and the 

 last one was seen on Aug. 6. 



133. ''^RUSTY BLACKBIRD, Euphagus carolinus. 

 Not recognized in spring, but one was noted on 



Sept. 21, 1917; not recorded by Young in 1918. 



134. ^brewer's blackbird, Euphagus cyanoce- 



phalus. 

 Very amundant and nesting in nearly every open 

 bluff. They follow the ploughman about his work 

 gleaning from the newly turned furrow, and as- 

 sociate commonly with the sheep perching upon 

 their backs and scrutinizing the fleece, probably for 

 ticks. On Sept. 25, 1917, three were taken from 

 a flock. Of these one female, seemingly an adult 

 by its completely granulated skull, had the iris red- 

 dish-brown just flecked with straw. All other 

 specimens taken had the usual straw-colored iris. 



135. ^BRONZE crackle, Quisculus quiscula. 



In 1917 there was a thriving colony of Bronzed 

 Crackles nesting in the willows just behind the 

 Ward house until persevering work with a shot gun 

 removed them, after which many more attractive 

 birds of less questionable character were able to 

 appropriate the premises. The Wards accuse them 

 of domg considerable damage by killing young 

 chicks. While I cannot substantiate this charge I 

 have little doubt as to its truth. None were seen in 

 the autumn of 1917, but Young noted the species 

 as late as Sept. 27, in 1918. 



136. ^'EVENING GROSBEAK, Hecperiphona vespcr- 



iina. 

 In 1917 we saw two to four individuals. May 

 20, 24 and 25, and secured several specimens. I 

 noted that the bills of these were as green as those 

 of summer birds from British Columbia and quite 

 different from the yellow mandibles of eastern mid- 

 winter specimens. The difference is probably sea- 

 sonal rather than subspecific. Unfortunately these 

 are amongst the birds that were lost. In 1918, 

 Young noted three and two Sept. 25 and 30. 



137. '^PURPLE FINCH, Carpodacus purpureus. 

 None noted during either spring. Two or three 



were seen on several days in a small growth of 

 hawthorn in September. In 1918, Young noted 

 small numbers from July 1 1 to Aug. 26, and a 

 single individual on Sept. 25. 



