630 MlCllKiAN UIRI) LIFE. 



than that of the Sptjtted Sandpiper or Tip-iip, and, exce})t wlien singing, 

 the Water-thrushes seem to be always balancing or tilting. 



The Small-billed Water-thrush is by no means rare in any part of Mich- 

 igan during the migrations and very likely it may breed in the northern 

 parts of the state, but it is for the most part a migrant, and in spite of the 

 numerous reports of its nesting in the southern counties we know of but 

 one instance which has been verified by the capture and examination of 

 the bii'd. Mr. Edwin G. Mummery took a nest and five eggs, together 

 with the female parent, at Chestnut Ridge, Wayne county, Michigan, 

 May 14, 1898. The nest was close to and partly under the trunk of a 

 fallen tree. The eggs were heavily incubated (liull. Mich. Orn. Club, IV, 

 1903, 56). We have not personally examined the above specimen, but 

 have l)een informed that its identity is not open to question. The early 

 date would be about right for the Large-billed Water-thrush. The earlier 

 observers in the state almost universally confounded this species with 

 the Large-billed Water-thrush, which is the common form in southern 

 Michigan, and except where specimens have been taken and preserved it 

 is well nigh impossible now to say to which species any given observation 

 relates. Since 1890 these two biixls have been disci'iminated more care- 

 fully by most observers, but the attempt to recognize Grinnell's Water- 

 thrush, S. n. notabilis, has complicated the matter again. 



The Small-bill seems to arrive from the south much later than its near rel- 

 ative the Large-bill, the records from Spectacle Reef Light, Lake Huron, 

 being May 11, 1888, May 12, 1890, May 15, 17 and 19, 1891, and, on the 

 southward migration, August 22, 1889. Other unquestional)le records are: 

 One specimen taken at Agricultural College September 11, 1896, by T. L. 

 Hankinson, one taken May 13, 1875 in Kalamazoo county by James H. 

 Doming, and others by Dr. Gibbs on May 16 and 20, 1883, in Montcalm 

 county. Dr. Gibbs also took one May 12, 1885 in Van Buren county, 

 and the writer found several within the city limits of Lansing, August 19, 

 1897. We have examined also a skin in the Eddy Collection taken on 

 Heisterman's Island, Saginaw Bay, August 29, 1888. At Detroit, according 

 to Mr. Swales, it is not a common bird except on its first appearance in 

 the spring about the first week in May. It is seen again there in the fall 

 until late September and was found once, in 1889, as late as October 8. 



As already stated we have but one probable record of its nesting in 

 the state, but it may nest here frequently nevertheless. In Wisconsin 

 it is said to nest sparingly even in the southern counties and more com- 

 monly and regularly farther north. "We are almost exactly on the divid- 

 ing line between novehoracensis and notabilis, but the former is by far 

 the most abundant. They occur together in southeastern Wisconsin 

 (kiring the migrations. Mr. William Brewster has kindly examined our 

 specimens and finds very typical examples of both races." — (Kumlien and 

 Hollister, Birds of Wisconsin, p. 116). 



In nesting habits this bird is quite similar to the Large-billed Water- 

 thrush, building a bulky, but somewhat loosely constructed nest, which 

 is placed sometimes in the roots of an upturned tree, sometimes in the 

 bank of a brook or stream, and occasionally perhaps on the level ground 

 in a swamj), though in the latter case it is almost always partially roofed 

 over or protected above 1^}' fallen branches or other rubbish. The eggs 

 are four to six, creamy white, speckled with brown and lilac, and average 

 .75 by .57 inches. 



The sons; during the nesting season is described as clear, loud and ringing; 



