250 EMPIDONAX ACADICUS, ACADIAN FLYCATCHER. 



server, never recofjuized it from that State. The only record beyond 

 Massaclinsetts 1 have found, is Audubon's citation of " Nova Scotia." 

 This may be correct, but is more likely a mistake. The lact is, that if 

 there is any biographical circumstance distinguishing this species prom- 

 inently froin its allies, it is its restricted northern range. It does not 

 ordinarily proceed beyond the Middle States, where it breeds in abun- 

 dance, in this ditt'ering from trailUi, minimus aud flaviventris, which are 

 chietiy seen in the Middle States during the migration. At Wasiiing- 

 ton, I). C, the Acadian Flycatcher is, through the summer, very abun- 

 dant, almost as much so as the Pewee itself. It arrives from the South 

 the last week in Ai)ril, and remains through September. Dr. Prentiss 

 and I observed E.flaviventris there in July, leading to the belief that it 

 may breed in that vicinity ; but with this exception acadicus was the 

 only species of the genus we ever found between the periods of migra- 

 tion. It was the only species of the genus observed in summer in West 

 Virginia by Mr. Scott. 



The Mmcicaim acadica of Gmelin is not certainly determinable, but 

 has become current with later authors for this species, as accurately 

 indicated by Wilson under the name of querula. I notice a quotation 

 of a Muscieapa subviridis of Bartram, which, if belonging here, antedates 

 (luenda; if acadica be set aside as indefinite or inapplicable, is the 

 proper name to be applied. Most of the earlier descriptions of our Fly- 

 catchers, except Wilson's, apply with about equal propriety to several 

 diflereut ones, so that the identification is usually made, if at all, by 

 some collateral evidence. For instance, even Audubon's description of 

 '-'■acadica''' rather indicates minimus, with which he was not at the time 

 acquainted ; and the rest of his account, though apparently relating to 

 the true acadicus, requires some modification. Prof. Baird made a per- 

 fect discrimination of the species in 1858; and in the "Key" I endeav- 

 ored to set forth its peculiarities in such a pointed manner that there 

 need be no subsequent misapprehension respecting it. By an inadvert- 

 ence the M. acadica of Nuttall is quoted as synonymous. It is, as I 

 have said, the most strongly marked of all our species; and how little 

 acquainted with it New England writers were may be inferred from the 

 fact, that so late as 1871 we find Mr. Maynard saying (Pr. Bost. Soc.) 

 that he cannot see the difference between it and trailUi. {Cf. Am. Nat. 

 vii, 1873, 42). I should not be surprised, indeed, if it proved that even 

 Mr. Allen, whose reliability is justly rated so high, confounded it with 

 traiUii, and that, consequently, the bird remains to be detected in New 

 England. 



Tlie M''estern limit of this species is much restricted, barely reaching 

 the eastern border of the Missouri region. The only trans-Mississippian 

 quotation I have seen is Dr. Woodhouse's, giving the bird as common 

 in the Indian Territory. 



Setting Nuttall's account aside altogether, as unquestionably relating 

 entirely to minimus, we will notice Wilson's and Audubon's. The 

 former's description is unmistakable, and he says, nearly coirectly: "It 

 inhabits the deepest, thick-shaded solitary parts of the woods; sits gen- 

 erally on the lower branches; utters, every half u)innte or so, a sudden, 

 sharj) squeak, which is heard a considerable way through the woods; 

 and, a-s it flies from one tree to another, has a low, querulous note, some- 

 thing like the twitterings of chickens nestling under the wings of a hen. 

 It arrives from the South about the middle of JMay ; builds on the upper 

 side of a limb, in a low, swampy ])art of the woods, and lays five white 

 eggs." The italics here, which are mine, indicate that i)ortion of the 

 account which is erroneous. Audubon described the nesting as follows: 



