330 



riiK oOJA)(;;sr. 



Brayton includes it as a rare winter vis- 

 itor in Northern Indiana, and if he is 

 correct then this Owl may be found at 

 times in the southern part of our state. 

 As this species only nests at the far 

 north it will not be required to describe 

 the nest and eggs. 



Richardson's Owl, 'Sparrow Owl," 

 Nyctala tengmalnii richardsoni (Bonap). 

 Embraced Ijy Covert's Birds of the 

 Lower Peninsula 1878. He says it is a 

 rare winter visitor and mentions the 

 capture of two specimens. Again in his 

 list of Birds of Washtenaw county, 1881, 

 he s^ys: "A rare winter visitor, only 

 two specimens have been secured'" G. 

 A. Stockwell in Birds of Michigan, pub- 

 lished in Forest and Stream, reference 

 not now at hand, embraces this Owl as 

 a bird of the Upper Peninsula. J. A. 

 Allen,Esq says that this bird is probably 

 a winter visitor in our U. P. as it has 

 been taken in Ohio, Illinois and Wiscon- 

 sin. A rare straggler. 



Saw-whet Owl; Acadiax Owl, Ny- 

 etala acadica (Gmel). This is our small- 

 est Owl. Dr. H. Atkins took one at 

 Locke, Dec. 18, '82, which weighed less 

 than two ounces, Some observations 

 have been made in the state which lead 

 me to think that the collectors con- 

 funded this si)ecies with mejascops, and 

 particularly is this probable in the nest- 

 ing notes. Errors will creep into the 

 best of lists and where persons of auth- 

 ority^ make even more serious mistakes, 

 and wrongfully accredit a strictly Pac- 

 itic slope species to Michigan, it be- 

 comes a serious matter as well as ridicul- 

 ous in the extieme. One obsolete cata- 

 logue of winter birds embraced the Pig- 

 my Owl, Olnucidiuni gnoma, Wagl. as 

 a Michigan bird, and Professor J. B. 

 Steere of the State University at Ann 

 Arbor makes the same error, by inclu- 

 ding the Pigmjf as a state resident in his 

 Migration of Michigan Birds published 

 in 1880. I merely mention this to illus- 

 trate now seriously an authority can ef- 



fect the accuracy of the notes of the- 

 younger observors of the state. A great 

 man}^ collectors immediately called 

 their Acadian Owls, "Pigmys" and an 

 occasional question comes up regarding 

 this error, even at this late date. 



The Acadian Owl is so generally re- 

 ported that authorities will not be pres- 

 ented. From Sager's time in the thir- 

 ties to the present nearly' all observers 

 in both peninsulas have found it and I 

 am satisfied that it is a generally distri- 

 buted species but never common. 



It is reported to nest in Indiana. Cov- 

 ert reports one nest in Washtemaw 

 county, Michigan pn May 28, 1879, and 

 adds that it is a "very common winter 

 visitor." I do not think this apj^lica- 

 tion "very common" is suited to this 

 species anj'where in America and it is 

 to be doubted if any collector could bag 

 two specimens per day for a month in 

 any locality. Collectors of Kalamazoo 

 county, which lies one hundred miles 

 west- of Washtenaw have not secured 

 six specimens, all told, in twentj' j'ears. 



The nests have been taken in Oakland 

 county and the downy young captured 

 in Kent county. The globular, white 

 eggs, five to seven in number, are de- 

 posited on the chips at the bottom of an 

 excavation, generally an old Woodpeck- 

 ers habitation. 



I have heard the odd stridulous notes 

 which somewhat resemble the noise 

 produced by filing a saw and from 

 which this Owl gets one of its names. 



A Problem. 



It is a curious fact in studying 

 birds, that we often find two nearly i"e- 

 lated species replace each other in one 

 locality though they both have the 

 same range. 



I have seldom taken a walk without 

 seeing one or more Scarlet Tanagers, 

 yet I have seen but one specimen of the 

 Summer Tanager though I am told the 



