472 MICPIIGAN BIRD LIFE. 



nesting season and during the late winter and spring, and even wlien not 

 nesting they frequently give snatches of this song. 



From an economic standpoint the species has little importance. Occa- 

 sionally it may slightly injure an ornamental evergreen by cutting the twigs 

 or destroying the terminal buds, but ordinarily this is of very slight moment. 

 That it eats numerous insects during the summer can hardly be doubted, 

 but we know very little of its summer food. It is possible that it may 

 occasionally attack grain crops, but no report of this kind has come to our 

 notice as yet. 



The eggs, usually four in numl)cr, arc described as pale bluish, spotted 

 with various shades of brown mixed with purplish gray, and averaging 

 .75 by .57 inches. 



TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION. 



Adult male: Brick red, usually dull but sometimes almost vermillion, always brightest 

 on rump and crown, dullest on belly and under tail-coverts, the latter often plain dusky; 

 wings dusky, without white markings; tail similar, the tip rather deeply emarginate; bill 

 and feet dark brown; iris light brown. 



Adult female: Mainly olive or olive-green, brightening to greenish yellow, or occasionally 

 to clear yellow, on the rump, the crown and breast then usually washed with the same 

 color; ear-coverts, chin, throat and belly usually dusky gray; wings and tail as in male. 

 Young at first reseml)le the female, but have the head and body, above and below, thickly 

 streaked with dusky. Males probably require more than one year to get the full plumage 

 of the adult, and specimens may be found in every conceivable stage between the yellow 

 and red. 



Length 5.50 to 6.25 inches; whig 3.20 to 3.60; tail 1.85 to 2.40. 



210. White-winged Crossbill. Loxia leucoptera (GnicL). (522) 



Synonyms: Crucirostra leucoptera, Brehm, 1827. — Curvirostra leucoptera, Wilson. 

 — Loxia leucoptera of most authors. 



Similar in general appearance to the Red Crossbill, but somewhat larger, 

 the red of the male rose-red or even crimson instead of brick-red, and the 

 wings in both sexes and at all ages with two conspicuous white wing-bars. 



The distribution of this species in Michigan is quite similar to that of 

 the Red Crossbill, but it seems to be decidedly less common than that 

 species. In general habits, flight, note, song, and food the two species 

 also are practically identical. Occasionally both forms are found in the 

 same flock, but this is unusual and it often happens that one species will be 

 fairly abundant for a month or more at a particular place while no 

 individuals of the other species can be found. 



, _ The nesting habits are even more obscure than those of the Red Crossbill, 

 and so far as we know there is but one record of nesting within our limits. 

 Mr. H. Nerhhng states that a nest was found in Delta county, Mich., on 

 April 21, 1891 (Butler, Birds of Indiana, 1897, p. 922). The statement 

 in Cook's Birds of Michigan (2d ed., p. 108), that Samuel Spicer of Genesee 

 county, found a nest of this species there September 28, 1888, is an error; 

 the species referred to was the Goldfinch. The account just given of the 

 nesting of the Red Crossbill at Wolfville, Nova Scotia, will serve equally 

 well for the present species, since ]\Ir. Tufts found nests of the White-winged 

 Crossbill at the same time and place, and in considerable numbers. First 

 nests were found in January, and nests with eggs were still to be found on 

 May 7. He states that the nests of both species were composed chiefly 



