TfiO MICHIGAN BIRD LIFE. 



to find any record which cun be authenticated. It is possible that it 

 may occur in winter, but it seems very improbable that it is a summer 

 resident or even a regular winter visitor in any numbers. In general 

 habits it closely resembles its nearest relative. 



Fork-tailed Flycatcher. Muscivora tyrannus (Linn.). (442) 



Readily recognized ])y its general resemlilance to the common Kingbird, 

 but the tail remarkably long and deeply forked, the outer feathers often 

 9 or 10 inches in length. 



This can be regarded, only as an accidental visitor, if indeed it has actually 

 occurred at all in Michigan. At present its claim to a place in our fauna 

 rests on the fact that in June 1882, Dr. Morris Gibbs was shown a specimen 

 of this bird in the collection of A. B. Covert which was said to have been 

 taken at Lake Ridge, Lenawee county, Mich., in July 1879. We have 

 been unable to trace this specimen and are of the opinion that the species 

 has no right to a place in the Michigan list. 



Scissor-tailed Flycatcher. Muscivora forficata (Gind.). (443) 

 There seems to bo no record of this species for Michigan. 



Traill's Flycatcher. Empidonax trailli trailli (Aud.). (466) 



Not separable from the Alder Flycatcher, or even from the Acadian, 

 except by an expert. 



Distribution. — Western North America from the Mississippi Valley 

 south of latitude 42° to the Pacific, and from the Fur Countries south 

 into Mexico. 



It is not impossible that this species may occur during migration in 

 the half dozen southwestern counties of the state, but we do not know 

 of a record of its capture. It is so similar to the Alder Flycatcher, with 

 which it was confounded previous to 1895, that records of specimens 

 seen are entirely valueless. In general habits, nest and eggs, this species 

 seems to be identical with its sub-species alnorum. 



Fish Crow. Corvus ossifragus WiU. (490) 



Very similar in appearance to the common Crow, but averaging much 

 smaller, large specimens of the latter being nearly or quite twice as heavy 

 as small Fish Crows, but only an expert can separate large Fish Crows from 

 small specimens of the Common Crow. 



Distribution. — Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, from southern Connecticut 

 to Louisiana. Common in the lower Hudson Valle}^; casual in Mass- 

 achusetts. ' 



It is extremely impi'ol^ablc that the Fish Crow has any right to a place 

 in our Michigan list. No Michigan specimen exists in any museum so 

 far as can be learned, and apparently all the references but one are based 

 upon the statement of ''Archer" (G. A. Stockwell), who says "Frequently 

 seen in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes of Michigan" (Forest and 

 Stream, Vol. VIII, No. 19, p. 300). There is a specimen of genuine 

 ofisifragu.'i in the University Museum at Ann Arbor bearing the label "Fish 

 Crow. State (geological Survey, Michigan" iMit since similar labels were 



