5 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



the coutraiy, accepts tliem as genuine eggs of flavivcntris in bis recent 

 report (p. o-44), whatever may be tbeir resemblance to those of E. 

 minima ; and he so accepts them stilL* In fact, there is no more reason 

 Avhy we should reject the identification of these nests and eggs, than for 

 our refusing to credit the statements of Messrs. Osborne, Purdie, and 

 Ueaue. In either case the identification was complete, and the differ- 

 ences in the nest, if of any real moment, tell as much against the one as 

 the other. Mr. Boardman's and Mr. Downes's birds were submitted to 

 Prof. Baird, and have had his verification in addition. 



In June, 1850, I met with a nest which I then had no doubt belonged 

 to this species. It was in a low bush on Grand Menan, near the water. 

 My nephew H. E. Storer, then a lad of sixteen, was with me. Both 

 parents were seen, and the male was carefully observed through a good 

 glass; the female, when first seen, was on the nest; a male, apparentlj' 

 its mate, was near by. Unfortunately, in the attempt to secure one of 

 the parents, it was missed, and the birds became so wild that neither 

 could be secured. We were obliged to leave the island and to take the 

 nest without further identification, but we had no doubt as to the iden- 

 tity. The eggs were white, not cream-color, more oblong and hirger 

 than the average eggs of E. minima. 



A few weeks later, the same year, I received, among other nests and 

 eggs, collected near Halifax by Mr. Andrew Downes, two nests and two 

 sets of eggs, with the parent of each, of Jlavivenfris. The parents were 

 sent to Prof. Baird, and by him identified as E. flariventris. There 

 were no notes as to the position of these nests; they were mere collec- 

 tions of broken grasses, and it is not improbable they had been built in 

 hollow places. There was, at least, nothing to show to the contrary. 

 Their autjienticity there is no reason to question. The following sum- 

 mer a nest with three eggs and its parent were taken in Centre Harbor, 

 two of the eggs being spotted. The same summer Mr. Boardman pro- 

 cured the nest, four eggs, and the parent bird referred to above as now 

 in the Smithsonian collection. These eggs do not at all correspond, in 

 the color of their markings, to the descriptions gi\'en of the sets found 

 in 1S7S. 



Entire reliance cannot be placed upon mere differences in the con- 

 struction of nests to prove difference of species. However remarkable 

 this may bo, it is anything but conclusive. It will be seen that just 

 the same differences are noted in the descriptions of the nesting of 

 E. (liffwiUs. While two are noted as built in holes in banks, correspond- 

 ing with those of the recent examples of Jfaviventris, others were built 

 near the extremities of sycamore limbs ten feet from the ground. Mr. 

 J. A. Allen (B. K O. C. iii, p. 25) speaks of the E. acadicm building a 

 nuich ruder nest than E. minimus, and most probably the specimens 

 before him justified his conclusions ; but my experience would lead me 

 to reverse their relative positions. In fiict, both of these species vary 

 greatly in their architecture, the Acadian most of all, and no one, but 

 *But see these Proceedings for 1878, p. 425, footnote. — 11. R. 



