70 



Chicago, both in Illinois and Indiana. In the summer of 1878 they were 

 found at Columbus, O., and abundantly at Cleveland, where it was re- 

 ported to have bred. Dr. Wheaton refers to their having nested in In- 

 diana as a fact well known to him. Dr. H. A. Atkins is said to have taken 

 nests of this species near Locke, Michigan, in 1880. The spring of 1885 

 they were common at Michigan City, lad., and Mr. Byrkit thought they 

 might have nested. In the summer of 1885 they were reported to have 

 nested in Tippecanoe county, Ind. The same summer they are reported 

 to have nested at Bloomington, Ind. They were reported from Monroe 

 county, Ind., three different dates in July 188u. They were reported from 

 Putnam county, Ind., in the summers of 1891 and 1892. They remained 

 throughout a part of the summer of 1892 at Lafayette, Ind. They re- 

 mained even later at Old Orchard, Mo., in 1892. 



These notes but serve to bring more clearly to mind the peculiar, erra- 

 tic character of the bird, of which we have known, to some degree, before. 

 The notes would also seem to indicate that much of our lack of data is 

 due to the scarcity of observers in years past. A few years ago the col- 

 lection of data regarding almost any species of bird from Indiana, or al- 

 most any other state, would have been impossible. It is not improbable, 

 could we begin with the abundance of Crossbills at Cincinnati in 1868-9, 

 with a number of intelligent observers equal to that available now, we could 

 have a collection of observations covering its whole range between the 

 < >hio river and the lakes and perhaps including its movements for almost 

 every year. Those blank years do not necessarily signify that it was 

 wanting in the territory studied, but that for some one of a great many 

 reasons, it was not observed. The erratic distribution of the species ap- 

 plies as well to its summer range as to that in winter. It seems very prob- 

 able that the species breeds to some extent throughout the < )hio Valley 

 It is true that no specimens representing either the nest or eggs have 

 been, so far as I know, preserved. Yet the evidence presented indicates 

 that the breeding range of the species in the United States is not confined 

 to the coniferous forests of the mountain ranges. 



Loxia lencoptera, White-winged Ckosstull. This species is not met with 

 in the Ohio valley so often as the last mentioned form. Its range lies far- 

 ther to the northward. Its distribution within the Cnited kStates, both 

 in winter and summer, is much less extensive than is that of the Ameri- 

 can Crossbill. Audubon mentions its breeding in Pennsylvania in sum- 

 mer, but this is probably an exceptional case. Dr. .1. M. Wheaton gave 



