June, 1893.} 



AND OOLOGIST. 



95 



Poor Datas. 



I have got just a few words I want to say 

 in relation to this important subject, and 

 this time it is not the young collector as 

 much as the older one that is at fault. My 

 experience has been that the men that ha\ e 

 had the most experience write the poorest 

 datas. 



I have during the last few seasons (and 

 probably a lot of my brother collectors can 

 sympathize with me) received datas from 

 quite a number of the different States, and I 

 tell you they are a curiosity in themselves. 

 Some of them would puzzle a lawyer to tell 

 what State the nest was found in, to say 

 nothing of getting any nearer to the bird's 

 place of abode. 



Now, gendemen, do not think because 

 voii are familiar with the names of your 

 different lakes, ponds, flats, different kinds 

 of trees, bushes, etc., that every other col- 

 lector in the wide world is also. 



Now here is one before me, written for a 

 set of American Coot. Yes, I guess they 

 were taken in California, I can make that 

 out, but that is as near as I can get to it. 

 Now California is quite a large State, and 

 sometimes it would be a great convenience 

 to know whether they were taken in the 

 northern or southern part. 



Here is another one written for a set of 

 White-rumped Shrike. There is no number 

 on it, no set mark, and when they come to 

 the most important part of the data (the 

 description of the nest), they write, as large 

 as life : " Nest in a shade tree accompanying 

 eggs." 



Now that collector forgets that we were 

 not with him when that set was taken. \\'e 

 do not know whether it was in a birch or a 

 pine tree, whether it was in the heart of a 

 great city or in some wild barren woods ; 

 whether it was six feet high or sixty, and it 

 would be hard to tell whether the nest or 

 the tree went with the set ; but as the tree 

 was not sent, I suppose it meant the nest. 



Now all of this trouble could be easily 

 avoided by a little care. Do not write a 

 data so that whoever receives it has got to 

 guess at the larger part of it. Take time. 

 Write them plainly. Give all the details in 

 regard to the nest that the data will allow, 

 and I feel satisfied that you will receive the 

 blessing of every collector that has any 

 dealings with you. 



Charles S. Butters. 



Haverhill, Mass. 



Large Eggs of the Field Sparrow. 



In reviewing some back volumes of the 

 " O. & O.," I noticed the article in November 

 number, 1888, "Remarkable eggs of the 

 Field Sparrow," by Mr. J. P. Norris, in which 

 he records an unusually large egg, measuring 

 •79X.55. It is one of a set of three, the 

 others being of normal size. 



I have in my collection a still larger set, 

 both in size and number, it being a set of 

 five collected by me June 9, 1884. All of 

 the eggs in this set are abnormally large, 

 measuring as follows : .81 x .55 ; .80 x .54 ; 

 . Sox. 53; .77X.51,; .7SX. 51. The nest 

 was built in a hazlenut bush, two feet from 

 the ground, in a bushy jsasture. 



To illustrate the great ^•ariation in size 

 and shape of the eggs of this species I will 

 give the measurements of a set of four col- 

 lected May 26, 1 89 1, the nest just raised 

 from off the ground in a bunch of goldenrod : 

 .62 X .52 ; .63 X .52 ; .64 X .50 : .67 x .52. 



This is one of our most common birds in 

 the breeding season, and displays as much 

 variation in the situation of the nest as in 

 their eggs. I ha\ e found them on the ground 

 under a small bush or bunch of weeds, barely 

 raised from the ground in a tussock of grass 

 or small bush ; also to the height of five feet 

 in a bush or brier. I remember one nest 

 built in a bush under a large tree in a heavy 

 piece of woodland, but they are generally 

 .situated in a scrubby, bushy field. 



G. L. IL 



Bethel, Conn. 



