THE OOLOGIST 



87 



three by four inches, but was doubled 

 before the nest was torn down; the 

 top off a seed packet, bearing the 

 word "lettuce;" a triangular piece of 

 old wall paper about three Inches 

 across. There was also with the pa- 

 per a strip of cloth about six inches 

 long and an inch wide. 



Then came the foundation, consist- 

 ing of wood stems, a few rootlets, and 

 two pieces of coarse grass. There 

 were thirty-seven pieces of annual 

 vine and weed stems, the longest 

 piece about thirty inches in length, 

 and there were ten pieces over a foot 

 long. There were six large rootlets, 

 the longest about sixteen inches in 

 length and about the size of a No. 11 

 wire. The two bits of grass were 

 about five and six inches long, with 

 roots attached. 



The total ntimber of pieces of ma- 

 terial was three hundred and fifty-six. 

 Possibly a few pieces may have been 

 lost in taking the nest, and a few 

 might have been broken or lost in the 

 count, but the number is nearly cor- 

 rect. 



It is interesting to note that no 

 twigs were used in the constructioii 

 of this nest, in spite of the fact that 

 such authorities as Alexander Wilson, 

 J. M. Wheaton, Chester A. Reed and 

 A. W. Butler agree that dead twigs 

 are used by the Catbird. Also, grass is 

 mentioned as a material used by this 

 species by all of the above writers, 

 except Wheaton, but in this nest only 

 two pieces were used. 



In this nest there seemed to be five 

 separate layers. First, the foundation, 

 mainly of weed stems. Second, bits of 

 paper. Third, leaves. Fourth, grape- 

 vine bark and bits of corn fodder. 

 Fifth, the lining of rootlets. 



Doubtless nesting materials vary 

 greatly in different localities, and the 

 general statements of our ornitholog- 



ical writers on this point cannot al- 

 ways be taken as a basis for the 

 country at large. Therefore, if ob- 

 servers would more carefully study 

 nesting materials and record the re- 

 sults of their studies, obviously they 

 would be worth while contributions 

 to this interesting phase of bird study. 

 Ben J. Blincoe. 

 Dayton, Ohio, Dec. 3, 192!^. 



NOTES ON COLLECTING EGGS OF 

 THE GREAT HORNED OWL. 



In 1915, when I began the collection 

 of birds' eggs of Paulding County, 

 Ohio, it seemed to me that of all the 

 eggs I might take here, none would be 

 more desirable than the eggs of the 

 Great Honied Owl. Consequently dur- 

 ing the season of 1915 1 was continu- 

 ally on the lookout for nests of this 

 bird. 



About the middle of May, while 

 walking through a small woods, two 

 miles southwest of Payne, Ohio, 1 

 noticed a large dead red oak, the 

 trunk of which was literally white- 

 washed with bird droppings, and upon 

 looking up noticed in the fork a young 

 Horned Owl, not quite strong enough 

 to fly. Thinking that perhaps there 

 might also be an addled egg in the 

 fork, which was perhaps thirty-five 

 feet up, 1 decided to climb and find 

 out. After taking several rests (?) 

 along the way I reached (he fork, 

 nearly exhausted (I had no climbing 

 irons and the tree was large). 



As I reached for the young Owl 

 it attempted to fly, but dropped heavily 

 among the dead leaves at the base of 

 the tree. The fork was slightly dished 

 and appeared to have been used as a 

 nest. A single stick apparently had 

 lodged in such a manner that it would 

 iKivf prevented the young or eggs 

 from falling out. While still at th(^ 

 fork one of the parent birds flew by 

 within fifteen feet, with a pack of 



